The Less Conservative Side Of Eastern Orthodoxy

In many of the recent discussions here, Orthodox has made undocumented assertions about what is and isn't Tradition in Eastern Orthodoxy. If some belief that he disagrees with was popular at some point in church history, he'll tell us that such popularity doesn't prove that the belief in question should be accepted. He tells us that even something like a majority or 90% could be wrong. But if something he agrees with became popular at some point in church history, he'll claim that such popularity proves that we must accept such a widespread belief as Divinely guided.

In a recent discussion, he claimed that the popularity of ending the gospel of Mark at 16:8 in the earliest manuscripts is to be rejected. He suggested that a "prolific copier" might have gotten a bad copy of Mark, one that didn't include the right ending, and thereby distorted the early manuscript record by placing a lot of errant copies into circulation. But when the longer ending to Mark that Orthodox prefers is popular in the later manuscript record, he tells us that we must therefore accept that longer ending.

If Orthodox is correct in his assertion that his longer ending of Mark (as distinguished from other longer endings that circulated in ancient times) is Eastern Orthodox Tradition, then we would expect other Eastern Orthodox to be aware of that fact. That would especially be true of Eastern Orthodox scholars. And Orthodox has repeatedly told us that Eastern Orthodox don't have the sort of disunity we see among Protestants. Orthodox hasn't just criticized organizational disunity among Protestants (the fact that they belong to different churches or denominations). Rather, he's also criticized their differences in belief as unacceptable. Supposedly, then, there are no such disagreements among Eastern Orthodox.

In past discussions, Orthodox has even said that we can know the position of the Eastern Orthodox faith on an issue by asking any individual Eastern Orthodox about it. When I suggested to him that some Eastern Orthodox might be misrepresenting the Eastern Orthodox faith, he dismissed that objection as unreasonable and claimed that I should believe whatever he tells me about Eastern Orthodoxy, since he's Eastern Orthodox. He also told me, repeatedly, that it would be sufficient for me to consult a single Eastern Orthodox priest to get answers to any questions I have about what Eastern Orthodox believe.

In the recent discussion about Mark 16 linked above, I appealed to the work of Bruce Metzger, one of the foremost New Testament textual scholars of modern times. Orthodox tried to undermine my citations of Metzger by posting some quotes contained in a Reader's Digest Bible that Metzger was associated with. He apparently got the quotes from a King James Only web site. (See here.) According to Orthodox, it's unacceptable for Metzger to be associated with a Bible that even mentions the fact that a majority of modern scholars question the traditional authorship attribution of a Biblical book, for example. Even if Metzger doesn't support that scholarly opinion, he's to be faulted for even being associated with a Bible that mentions the existence of such scholarly opinion. As I explained to Orthodox, I don't accept all of the claims made in the quotes he provided from the Reader's Digest Bible, but I can disagree with Metzger or the people who worked with him on that Bible on some issues without accepting all of Orthodox's conclusions. But if Orthodox wants to hold Metzger and Protestants in general to the standard that he's suggested, then let's apply that same standard to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Since we keep getting undocumented assertions from Orthodox regarding what Eastern Orthodox believe, I thought it would be useful to quote the comments of some Eastern Orthodox scholars regarding issues like the ending of Mark's gospel and Biblical authorship. The examples below are representative of a much larger number of examples that could be cited.

In a work composed by some of the leading Eastern Orthodox scholars of our day, the Eastern Orthodox New Testament scholar Veselin Kesich wrote:

"The Gospel of Mark ends with the women fleeing from the tomb. They are in awe. There is no specific list of Christ's post-resurrection appearances in this gospel. The so-called 'longer ending' of Mark (16:9-20) is most probably a later composition, and our important ancient codices, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, do not contain it." (in John Meyendorff, ed., The Primacy Of Peter [Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992], p. 37)

The Eastern Orthodox New Testament scholar and priest John Breck:

"St. Mark's Gospel seems originally to have ended with 16:8." (Longing For God [Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2006], p. 48)

The Eastern Orthodox scholar and priest Paul Nadim Tarazi writes the following about the structure of the gospel of Mark. Notice where he ends:

"The literary structure of Mark can best be discerned precisely by paying attention to the way Paul and the issues facing his Gentile churches show through in the story of Jesus. The story is built around a framework that begins with a preamble (1:1-15) followed by three cycles of calling/invitation (1:16-3:12; 3:13-6:6a; 6:6b-8:21) and three cycles of teaching (8:27-9:29; 9:30-10:31; 10:32-45). Then there is a pivotal pericope [38] where Timothy's leadership as Paul's successor is introduced (10:46-52), and that is followed by two long sections, one offering the gospel for the last time to the Jerusalemite Christian leadership (chs.11-13) and one recounting their refusal of it (chs.14-15). Finally there is a short text indicating the door is still open for Peter and his following (16:1-8) to accept Paul's gospel." (source here)

Regarding the pericope involving the woman caught in adultery in John's gospel, a passage that Orthodox has also claimed we must accept, Tarazi writes:

"This pericope does not seem to have been part of the original text of John; it is omitted from many of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts." (The New Testament: Introduction, Volume 3: Johannine Writings [Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2004], p. 181)

Below are some comments on other subjects from various Eastern Orthodox scholars. Some of these comments are on subjects I've discussed with Orthodox in the past.

"evidence that there was a single bishop leading the Roman church is lacking for that period [the first century]; indeed what evidence there is suggests a rather different picture. When Clement wrote to the Corinthian Church, he wrote not as bishop in the later sense but as one of the presbyters of the Roman Church entrusted with the task of writing on behalf of the whole Church to the erring Church of Corinth; similarly, Ignatius, writing perhaps a decade later to the Roman Church, does not seem to envisage a 'bishop of Rome', despite his enthusiasm for monepiscopacy." (Andrew Louth, ed., Eusebius, The History Of The Church From Christ To Constantine [New York, New York: Penguin Classics, 1989], pp. xxii-xxiii)

"Whether there were bishops, in the later sense of the word, as heads of local churches, is a question for which we have no evidence in the third period. But the role that James played at Jerusalem, after Peter had gone, was surely very comparable to the role bishops were to play later on: a lifelong and continuous place as leader of a local church, with a group of presbyters in support. James may not have been called a bishop, but he was in fact the first monarchical bishop of a local church." (Nicholas Koulomzine, in John Meyendorff, ed., The Primacy Of Peter [Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992], p. 28)

"This pattern, with the threefold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons, was already established in some places by the end of the first century." (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church [New York, New York: Penguin Books, 1997], p. 13)

"Nevertheless, it might be pointed out, there was only one bishop of Constantinople. However, even this idea of 'one city—one bishop' is not the only way the Church has existed over the centuries. Despite the rosy and romantic picture given by early Christian historians such as Eusebius, of the apostles appointing single bishops in each geographical area (thereby enshrining a vision of Church history articulated in terms of the succession of bishops), historical reality is more complicated. Already the Apostle Paul, writing to the Roman Christians, indicates the existence of over half-a-dozen different Christian groups or house-churches, each with its own leader (see Romans 16), and this before any apostle had visited Rome. Several decades later, St. Ignatius of Antioch also knew of no single 'bishop' of Rome, although he was the earliest and most forceful advocate of monoepiscopacy (the claim that the Christian community in each place must gather around a single bishop). Likewise St. Justin in the mid-second century. And when St. Irenaeus described the succession of the presbyters or bishops (he uses the term interchangeably) of the Christian community in Rome, it was the succession of but one of the communities, albeit the one that gradually assumed leadership over the others. All this is to say, there was no single bishop of Rome until the end of the second century, or perhaps even as late as the third decade of the third century. Instead, there were a number of churches, each led by its own bishop/presbyter." (John Behr, here)

"To make literal inerrancy a necessary component of the gift of inspiration is, after all, foreign to the New Testament message itself. The gospels bear witness to the Truth and to the power of God, not to their own freedom from error. They are free from falsehood or deception, but not from natural human errors. The evangelist Mark, for example, maintains that Abiathar was high priest during the reign of David (Mk 2:23-28), but according to I Sam 21:1-6, Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was high priest. This 'error' had no effect on the meaning of the passage. The concept of inerrancy conflicts with the incarnational approach to the Bible, and with the New Testament concept of the synergetic activity of the Holy Spirit. The charisma of inspiration does not imply a new revelation which transports its recipient into a sphere entirely different from his own. The concept of inerrancy reveals more about our desire for absolute certainty than it does about the inspiration of a biblical book." (Veselin Kesich, The Gospel Image Of Christ [Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992], p. 69)

"The most likely conclusion is that Daniel was written at a relatively late date, not just accepted into the canon late....Typically an apocalypse's author attempts to make it sound as though it was written in a previous age, forecasting as if they were future events things actually happening in the present for the book's author." (Paul Nadim Tarazi, The Old Testament: Introduction, Volume 2: Prophetic Traditions [Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1991], p. 207, n. 3 on p. 208)

"the books of Daniel and Baruch may have been composed as late as the second century B.C....From the standpoint of the Orthodox Church, 'the entire Bible is inspired by God,' and this means that it 'contains no formal errors or inner contradictions concerning the relationship between God and the world.' The overall message of the Bible, that mankind has fallen under satanic bondage and that God has graciously acted in and through Christ to save us from that bondage, is infallibly true. According to the Orthodox doctrine of infallibility, the Church as a whole is the guardian of 'the eternal spiritual and doctrinal message of God' and is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. The Bible, therefore, as a testimony and proclamation of the Church concerning God's revealed plan of salvation, is without error in its central theological themes and affirmations. It is not necessary, however, for the Orthodox Christian to insist upon the literal truth of every statement contained in Holy Scripture. Many Orthodox scholars believe that the Bible may contain 'incidental inaccuracies of a non-essential character.'...But these kinds of historical and scientific inaccuracies do not undermine the coherence and validity of the essential theological message of Holy Scripture. The Orthodox Church, in affirming the divine inspiration and infallibility of the Holy Bible, does not exclude the possibility that the Bible might contain some minor errors of fact, but she insists upon the absolute truth of scripture's overall message of salvation." (George Cronk, The Message Of The Bible [Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1982], pp. 18, 21-22)

"As Fr. Georges Florovsky commented (in his article 'The Boundaries of the Church'), St. Cyprian was right to affirm that salvation resides only within the Church, but 'he defined this in too hastily and too narrowly.' The designation of such people as 'schismatics' clearly indicates that this situation is not considered normal, and that their reunion with the bishop is desired; but that St. Basil can affirm that they are 'of the Church' is an important reminder that the Church is broader than those united with the bishop, and includes all those baptized in the right faith (even if schismatic)." (John Behr, here)

Real, genuine, bona fide torture

The liberal establishment, along with a few RINOs, constantly slanders our brave men in uniform with accusations of "torture." Lest we forget, here's the real deal. And, not surprisingly, it's our enemies who do it. Begin here:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html

Cattle Show

There have been some running debates in the Christian blogosphere over the current crop of possible, prospective, or actual GOP candidates for president, so I might as well add my 2¢, adjusted for inflation.

1.Rudy Giuliani

Rudy’s strength is also his weakness. The upside is that he has the blunt, gregarious, non-nonsense, in-your-face demeanor of the stereotypical NY Italian-American.

He has the right temperament to be a wartime president. An alpha-dog in a kennel of omega dogs.

The downside is that he also exemplifies NY values. And it isn’t limited to his abortion advocacy. He’s a militant, impenitent social liberal across the board:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/did-dobson-betray-prolife-cause.html

His social liberalism also undercuts his strong points. He’s generally tough on crime, but his policies on gun control disarm law-abiding citizens, which leaves them defenseless in the face of criminals who, by definition, flout gun-control laws.

Likewise, he’s generally strong on counterterrorism, but his lax immigration policies may have contributed to 9/11:

http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/siegel200506220755.asp

And even now he supports amnesty.

A major problem with Rudy is that he might be too successful. One can easily see him redefining the GOP so that it ceases to be a vehicle for the religious right to sway public policy.

2.Mitt Romney

In my opinion, Romney would make an outstanding president—class president, that is. He’s out of central casting for Harvard class president.

There are two basic problems with Romney:

i) He’s Mormon.

We can debate whether or not this should be a deal breaker, but for evangelical voters, this should at least be a consideration. Electing him would instantly mainstream a religious cult. If Romney were a Moonie rather than a Mormon, I wonder if Richard Land would be coaching him on how to palm himself off as a Christian.

ii) He’s not a credible conservative.

To judge by his gubernatorial performance, Romney has a track-record which Barney Frank or Ted Kennedy would envy:

http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/

3.John McCain

McCain’s basic problem is that he has no guiding ideology.

Mark Levin, among others, has documented his many contra-conservative positions on amnesty, taxation, global warming, the right to bear arms, censorship of political speech, and civil rights for terrorists:

http://search.nationalreview.com/?q=mccain&s=MTQ%3D&sdate=&edate=

He’s also a very superstitious man.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/2000-02/19/067r-021900-idx.html

Despite his bellicose rhetoric, he would be weak on counterterrorism:

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200601231438.asp

He also has a very checkered record on abortion:

http://www.peopleforlife.org/mccainthreatensprolife.html

As well as gun-control:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjIwYjQyOGQ4OWNhN2I0Nzc1MTE4NmVmZWRmMGJjMWE=

McCain has the advantage of being a soldier at a time when only a small percentage of the populace has served in the armed forces.

This means that many voters feel intimidated, self-conscious, or guilty in the presence of a soldier. Who are we, pampered civilians, to criticize a war hero?

But if the electorate consisted of the WWII generation, he’d be a dime a dozen. A midget among the Pattons and MacArthurs.

4.Ron Paul

At one level, there’s no point discussing Ron Paul since he’ll never been the nominee.

In contrast to McCain, Ron Paul has all the strengths and weaknesses of a bona fide ideologue. His positions are only as good or bad as his libertarian outlook.

I’ve been over to his website:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

There’s much that I agree with. He strikes me as a thoughtful, principled, intelligent man. I appreciate the fact that he doesn’t talk down to his audience.

His supporters respect his candor, although there’s a sense in which he can afford to be candid. With a safe Congressional seat, and no prospect of either becoming the nominee or his Veep, Ron Paul has nothing to lose.

His main weakness is on the crucial question of counterterrorism, where he’s a graduate of the Noam Chomsky school of foreign policy. Jonah Goldberg wrote a fine little article exposing some of the fatal flaws in his outlook:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDVlM2M0ODVhNzIxNzk5ODRhNjY4YWE0MDY4ZmJjMGU=

Another problem is that, for all his limited gov’t rhetoric, the only branch he wants to limit is the executive. He’s a big fan of judicial oversight. But who oversees the judiciary? A runaway court system has done more damage to our country than any other institution.

5. Tom Tancredo

I like Tancredo on immigration. Unfortunately, he comes across as a one-trick pony.

6.Fred Thompson

He’s touted as the conservative alternative to the three frontrunners or top tier candidates.

But his philosophy on social issues seems to be very sketchy. So I haven’t formed a considered opinion of Thompson.

As a towering character actor, he commands an imposing stage presence, but at the moment he appears to be playing the role of Hamlet. Will he or won’t he?

7. Mike Huckabee

Huckabee is one of the two candidates I could easily vote for. A solid social conservative and a fine public speaker.

8. Newt Gingrich

Gingrich is the other candidate I could easily vote for. He’s morally flawed, as we all know. But he’s a solid conservative ideologue with a long paper trail and track-record.

He says what he means and means what he says. He’s extreme bright and highly articulate. He knows gov’t inside and out. Given a choice, I’m less concerned with what he is than what he does.

One can also get into a legitimate debate over the lesser of two evils. Wouldn’t Hillary or Obama, or Edwards or Gore be worse than any of the three frontrunners?

My immediate point is not to answer that question, but to clarify the respective evils. We already know what is wrong with the donkeys. But there has been a concerted effort on the part of the three GOP frontrunners and their supporters to whitewash their records and make them out to be more center-right (or even far right) than they really are. Let's not mistake a RINO with an elephant.

9. Duncan Hunter

I like his stated views and military experience. He also has two sons in the military. But the question is whether he can break out of the pack.

Making Biblical Decisions

A four-disk DVD series by Dr. John Frame.

A Critique of Chinese Religious Options

A Critique of Chinese Religious Options by John Warwick Montgomery

A Sad State of Affairs

Ah, June is soon upon us, and with it the annual Southern Baptist Convention. I've been watching the SBC for the past year. It's been interesting, to say the least. The convention year began with discussions over Resolution 5. The usual suspects continued to be shrill, to say the least, in accosting the Calvinists in the SBC, and, of course private prayer language has reared its head. Meanwhile the IMB has made its baptism policy a "guideline" now, as well as the ppl policy, so there is some small concession to be had...I think. I still stand by my words about Landmarkism in the SBC in regard to the policy.

I've also been quiet the past few months. For one thing, I've had major problems with my left hip, and I simply can't sit for too long or if I do, I have to get up and walk around. I've also taken the time to refamiliarize myself with practical Christianity after learning that several old friends have died or gotten in a bad way of late, and I've not kept up with them. I've also enjoyed reading some rather large tomes that required my attention, so I've cleared several books off my list. Then there's my surgery recovery from the earliest part of the year. I'll have one more in July to close the portion of my scalp that is nothing more than a skin graft, after having my right ear removed for skin cancer back in December. I've also been working on a small project for Tom Ascol. I've also decided not to answer emails for these reasons, so if you've emailed me and haven't heard back, don't take it personally. I'll start paying off those debts in June and July. Brother Tom, I've not forgotten you. I've just been carefully researching. (He knows what I'm on about).

But, tonight I've read some disturbing articles on the SBC blogs. I am distressed for my SBC brethren over these issues.

See:

Richard Land and Romney Part One
Richard Land and Romney Part Two
Paige Patterson and the the SWBTS chapel
Wade Burleson, Ben Cole, and others and Jimmy Carter one and two.


Allow me to comment on some of this...

On Jimmy Carter and my brethren:

If they are “history” it is not a testament to the faithfulness of those in the SBC. It is just as wrong if we play guilt by association to comport with Roman Catholics (Justice Sundays) and modalists (T.D. Jakes and Jack Graham and others in TX for prayer functions) or Mormons (Land advising Romney) or consistently aligning the Convention with the Republican Party. It would be a testament to the double standard and guilt by association. That would testify the illogic and irrationality of the Convention, so that strikes me as an instance of God, perhaps using something to bring some much needed judgment on the SBC. Personally, I wouldn’t be seen with President Carter in public this way, though I’d certainly sit and chat with him in Plains, GA if the opportunity arose, but I also wouldn’t be seen with Romney, et.al. or any Republican, for that matter. Were I Ben or Wade, if this was mentioned in my presence, I’d bring up Jakes, Romney and others and very pointedly ask what’s the difference. Why can Jack Graham and Ed Young Jr. comport with a modalist who, if he’s consistent, also denies Sola Fide, in PRAYER AND WORSHIP, and why can Mohler and others share the podium with the Catholic League - a group who must deny the gospel of Sola Fide, not to mention Sola Gratia, and why can Mitt Romney be advised by Richard Land and they not associate with Jimmy Carter…and Ben and Wade are also registered Republicans to boot? If folks think badly about Ben and Wade and what they have had to say because of this, then they need to take a long look at the other activity that gets a regular pass.

And I think you might be surprised at how many folks in unexpected places don’t think as badly of Carter as those in the visible and vocal SBC leadership think. Remember, the SBC in convention is the messengers, and there are more out there who couldn’t care less or who feel as I do or who even are (gasp, still registered Democrats) than many think. My best friend for many years was a dyed in the wool Democrat from Horseshoe, NC until the day he died back in the 90’s, and he was as conservative in his theology as any of the SBC’s leaders.

I’m not talking about the bloggers not calling out Graham and others. I advised some folks behind the scenes about the Jakes episode (which I would add, with Graham, is an ongoing issue, since Graham has done it before) when they told me they were going to cry foul, so I know the bloggers are “on it.” I’m talking about the SBC’s own leadership not doing it. Where were Johnny Hunt and others? Where was Paige Patterson? My point is that a great many who would judge Ben and Wade negatively are curiously silent over these other issues on a regular, ongoing basis. Steve Camp and the Stilley’s have been very faithful and for that I am thankful.

The SBC middle needs to speak up, and I personally am far more concerned about the attitude that would overlook antitrinitarianism and the denial of Sola Fide which, for me, are absolute non-negotiables, over and above even my Calvinism even, for some while others would be looked upon as suspect. It makes it look like Truth (capital T) is of secondary importance, eg. the gospel we can overlook, but not political affiliations? Yikes! That bothers me. In the old days, that’d earn a pastor/elder a public rebuke from the Association. The church might be told to repent in a formal letter. Not anymore, it seems.

Regarding Land and Romney:

A. Are we really that surprised? I mean think about it. Jack Graham and others will openly participate in religious functions with T.D. Jakes, who is certainly a modalist and as a Oneness Pentecostal/Apostolic denies Sola Fide. So, if the Trinity (which was the heresy qua heresy that would earn you an anathema from everybody from the AnteNicene era, after the West/East Schism, through the Middle Ages, and from both Protestants and Catholics/Orthodox from the Reformation forward up until the 20th century), isn't of that status anymore and our leaders can comport with Jakes-but you'd better not be seen with a liberal Democrat or worse a CBF leader (shock, horror)-, and Land and others will further share the podium on Justice Sundays with Roman Catholics who don't even agree to the same gospel, as if that doesn't matter...well, let's just say this all smacks of lots of weird logic and a willingness to compromise when it suits them. I mean what message does this send to the people in the pews? Apparently, we'll call Mormons, modalist, and Catholics heretics and objects of evangelism, but we'll gloss over their errors for the sake of political expediency? This isn't to say we shouldn't at least work together for common cause, but we need to be clear about the limits of that work and we need to be sure we're not putting the gospel in a secondary position. The Romanist is welcome to lobby the legislature with the Baptist, but he needs to know we won't do so at the expense of the gospel or, worse, in place of it.

You know, this is what I call "Resolution 5" logic. We'll boycott the demmin likker because it makes us more holy, and we'll pout like babies whenever the CBF rears its head, but we'll gloss over, you know fundamental Christian doctrine (Trinity, Sola Fide) when it suits our political purposes? This smacks of emphasizing externals for the sake of expediency, as if we can retake America for Christ by politics but the gospel is of secondary importance. Tom Ascol is right, the SBC is losing the gospel. I guess we shouldn't be too surprised when less than 40 percent of our members show up to church on Sunday...

And by the way, why are folks upset with Marty, Ben, Wade, and CB for being seen with President Carter while Land, Graham, and others are getting free passes?

B. Seems to me that Romney's candidacy is a perfect time for Land and Mohler and others to be promoting apologetics. Doesn't SBTS have a degree program in that arena? I mean James White is teaching at Golden Gate extension, and I know what he's putting up on his blog about Mormonism must be showing up in his classes at some point, right? Kudos to Dr. White. Why can't the rest of our seminaries do the same? Why can't Richard Land? Let's talk about Mormonism. The press regularly makes it sound like Mormonism is just another Christianity, and apparently some SBC leaders don't mind, or at least not too much.

And I'll just say this, this wouldn't be happening if Dr. Land didn't feel the need to get into the business of wedding the Convention to the Republican Party on a regular basis. This is why the BFM expressly forbids the use of the state for the church's ends. If Dr. Land was a neutral as he says he is, then he'd speak to the issues and leave it at that. So, it's not just his helping Romney in particular that bothers me, it's his tendency to dance around the BFM and the Baptist principle of religious liberty. He should not be advising ANY candidate for ANY office.

C. Speaking of which, Land was on Glenn Beck, a Mormon himself, discussing this very issue. Nary a word was said about Mormonism itself. John MacArthur probably would have talked about doctrine and put Beck on the spot as well as Romney.

D. Which brings me to other evangelicals that Beck has had on his Headline News program at night, who sit there and act like Mormons are Christians. Heavens, Anne Graham Lotz was there with, I think , a Roman Catholic too! Ummm, polytheism v. monotheism? Which of these is like Christianity and which isn't? Sola Fide vs. Justification by merit and faith? Go figure. They were all talking like we're all, Beck included, in this together, all one happy family.

E. And will Land, for that matter, not have choice words to say about liberation theology if Obama is nominated? If he's consistent, he'll keep his mouth shut, but I've heard him say some things about Democrats in the past that make me think that he'll have things to say about Obama's religous affiliation. I seem to recall he had some choice words to say at Providence Baptist in Raleigh a few years ago when Clinton was president.

F. Which brings me to another point, if Obama is nominated for President or VP, then we have a prime opportunity to talk to folks about Liberation Theology, which is his church's theology of choice.
It's time we exhorted our African-American brethren to wake up to what's been passing for Christianity in their midst for far too long. But, then, we're full circle. If so few will call out Jakes for his false doctrine, should we really expect them to do any better with respect to Liberation Theology in their midst?

The American Church including the SBC is in a sad state, and this election cycle and the reticence of folks to speak out about Mormonism and Liberation Theology and debate it apologetically is a testimony to how far we've fallen from our roots.

That said, this is America. I'm not saying that Romney shouldn't be president because he's a Mormon. I am saying that if he does so on the canard that Mormons are just fellow Christians like the rest of us, then that's deception that makes Bill Clinton look like Honest Abe. Sure, a Mormon can be president, for there is no religious test to the office per the Constitution, but let's be honest about Mormonism and what it is and is not.

On Dr. Patterson and the chapel...well, that speaks for itself.

Truly, we need to revisit Tom Ascol's resolution on integrity in church membership. It may be the only thing that can save the SBC...if it is taken seriously. Is anybody listening?

A Calvinist case against a Lutheran's case for Catholicism

Robert Koons has posted “A Lutheran's Case for Roman Catholicism.”

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/case_for_catholicism.pdf

And this is making the rounds of the Internet.

So who is Robert Koons? And why should we care? He’s a Christian philosopher and one-time Lutheran who has converted to Roman Catholicism. So his case for Roman Catholicism is important inasmuch as we would expect a philosopher to make a tightly reasoned case for his transition from one religious tradition to another.

Let’s see what he has to say:

“I’ve always thought that the doctrine of justification is the crux of the Lutheran/Catholic controversy. If the Roman church has been in error on this point, to the extent of condemning the true understanding of the basis of our righteousness before God, then the Reformation was fully justified. Conversely, if Rome has not been in error, if her position can be charitably interpreted as a faithful exposition of the gospel and her condemnations (at Trent) as the rejection of genuine errors, then the Reformation, which destroyed the visible unity of the Church and broke ancient bonds of fellowship, could not be justified. All other issues are secondary: sola scriptura, the role of the papacy, purgatory, the
veneration and invocation of the saints, and so on.”

i) From what I can tell, this does, indeed, reflect Lutheran priorities. By contrast, although sola fide is equally essential to Calvinism, it is not equally central to Calvinism.

For Calvinism, the main soteriological conflict with Rome is not over sola fide, but sola gratia. Sola fide is just one aspect of sola gratia. Rome denies sola fide because Rome is committed to synergism.

From a Reformed standpoint, therefore, it’s deeply misleading to suggest that if you can just get sola fide out of the way, then all the other differences amount to a mopping up operation.

ii) It’s also odd to have him treat the debate over sola Scriptura as a secondary issue. For one of the questions at issue is whether the Catholic doctrine of justification is unscriptural. If Scripture is the rule of faith, as the source and standard of doctrine, then the exegetical foundation of any given doctrine is hardly a secondary issue.

“One of the most fundamental questions is this: should the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church be interpreted charitably or uncharitably? This is not merely a rhetorical question. There is a serious case to be made for subjecting the teachings of any church to as uncharitable a construction as possible. It is the responsibility of the Church to proclaim the Gospel with unmistakable clarity. If a church’s teaching can reasonably be interpreted in a way that brings them into conflict with the Gospel, then that is a grave fault.”

I don’t think we should either adopt charitable or uncharitable interpretation in every case. That’s too aprioristic in dealing with a concrete phenomenon. Rather, we need to approach this on a case-by-case basis, depending on what else we know about a religious institution. For example, given what we know about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, there is every reason to interpret their claims uncharitably.

“There are two reasons why the Lutheran position must bear the burden of proof: the Lutheran doctrine was novel, and it precipitated a fragmentation of the Church’s unity.”

This begs the question, and it fails to draw an elementary distinction. “Novel” in relation to what? Novel in relation to Scripture or church history?

Even if sola fide were novel in relation to historical theology, that doesn’t mean it's novel in relation to biblical theology. Even if it’s novel in relation to Augustine or Chysostom, that doesn’t mean it’s novel in relation to St. Paul. Putting this another way, Tridentine theology might not be novel to Aquinas, but still be novel to St. Paul or St. John.

“One might claim that the Reformation did not destroy the visible unity of the Church by arguing that the Scriptures teach that the true Church is always constituted by a divinely preserved ‘remnant’. Thus, the Reformation simply freed the true Church from its captivity to a much larger but inauthentic “church”. However, all of the relevant Scriptural references (including Romans 9) refer to the remnant as a part of the people established by the old covenant.”

This is off-base on several counts:

i) Some OT references are prophetic of the new covenant community.

ii) The remnant motif carries over into the NT.

iii) Rom 9-11 is prospective as well as retrospective.

Cf. “Remnant,” ISBE 4:130-34.

“Jesus’ prayers for the Church and His instruction about the Comforter in the Gospel of John reinforce the importance of this new factor. The Holy Spirit will teach “you” (plural) all things and (John 14:26) lead ‘you’ (plural) into all the truth. (John 16:13) If the Church is collectively taught by the Holy Spirit and guided by the Holy Spirit into all the truth, we should not expect orthodoxy to be confined to a tiny remnant.”

Notice how he pole-vaults from the plural to the church. That’s a non-sequitur. In context, the plural is used because Jesus is addressing the Twelve, who were assembled in the Upper Room. And even Judas was implicitly exempted from the promise.

This happens when people read the Bible without attempting to visualize the original setting. Who was Jesus talking to?

“The Gospel of John gives us good reason to expect the Church to be both thoroughly orthodox and visibly united. The members of the Church are commanded to ‘love one another’ (John 15), which presupposes a kind of visible unity (in particular, in the form of Eucharistic unity, i.e., fellowship in what the early Church called the “agape” meal).

i) Notice how he pole-vaults from Jn 15 to Eucharistic unity.

ii) Are Catholics more loving than other Christians?

“Jesus prays that the Father would sanctify ‘them’ (plural) in the truth of His Word (John 17:19), and He prays that all who believe in Him should be made ‘one’ and ‘perfected in unity’ -- visibly one, so that the world might believe in Christ (17:21-23). It is only through the apostolic succession, centered in the successor of Peter in Rome, that the Church has been able to maintain both doctrinal discipline and global eucharistic unity.”

i) Look at the way he rips these verses out of context. In context, they have reference, not to the visible church as a whole, but to the elect or chosen people of God—to those whom the Father has “given” to Jesus, before the foundation of the world.

ii) Do all baptized Catholics and communicant members of the Catholic church believe in Jesus? Or is there a certain percentage of merely nominal believers in the Catholic communion? And is this distinction visible or invisible? Can you tell by looking at a Catholic whether he’s in a state of grace or moral sin?

iii) Observe the leap from “visible unity” to “Eucharistic unity.” What is the exegetical basis for this synonymity?

iv) Do all communicants fulfill the terms of Jn 15 or Jn 17?

“History demonstrates that churches following the Protestant principle must sacrifice either one or the other: either choosing doctrinal purity over unity (conservatives) or choosing unity over purity (liberals and latitudinarians). Only through a visible authority (popes and councils) able to bring controversies to a decisive conclusion can the Church realize both of Christ’s stated intentions for it.”

Has Dr. Koons made anything resembling a serious effort to exegete this conclusion from Jn 15 or Jn 17?

“It is also important to be clear about the doctrine of papal infallibility as taught by Rome. It is certainly the case that wild and extravagant claims were made for the primacy and infallibility of the pope in Luther’s day. The normative doctrine of Rome is subtler and more qualified. The pope is infallible only on matters of faith and morals, and only when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, with the intention of speaking authoritatively on behalf of the whole church. Similar restrictions apply to the infallibility of church councils: their pronouncements are infallible only when they address matters of faith and morals and are intended to be authoritative statements of the teaching of the Church, and only when accepted as such by the pope.”

i) Pay careful attention to how the theory of doctrinal development undercuts religious certainty. He’s saying that Catholics had to wait for 19 hundred years to have a clear, working definition of papal infallibility. Same thing with the definition of conciliar authority, which had to await Vatican II for its latest reformulation.

ii) Also observe how this undercuts his appeal to ecclesiastical unity. It isn’t the same church from one period to the next. Rather, it passes through various phases. What it represents at one stage in its development is altered at a later stage it its continuous evolution.

“The Scriptural basis for infant baptism is, as any candid Lutheran would have to admit, less than compelling.”

How is that candid admission an argument for Catholicism? Why not become a Baptist?

“If Roman Catholics can show that the Scriptures do not teach sola scriptura (Scripture as the sole authority), the Lutherans are hoisted by their own petard.”

Even if that were so, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Protestantism as a whole is thereby undermined. One could argue that sola Scriptura wins by default through process of elimination. If there is no genuine alternative, then it’s sola Scriptura or bust.

I’m not saying that there is no scriptural argument for sola Scriptura, but merely drawing attention to his false dichotomy.

“Lutherans argue that an authoritative Church is unnecessary, since the Scriptures themselves can act as the judge in any case of doctrinal controversy. This claim depends of course on the thesis of the perspicuity or clarity of the Scriptures. I have not been able to find a consistent formulation of this thesis among Lutherans. Sometimes, it is admitted that the Scriptures are not always clear (as Peter writes about some of Paul’s epistles). However, if the Scriptures are not always clear, then there will be questions about which it is not clear what, if anything, the Scriptures have to say. The Lutheran position, however, depends on the claim that, on every disputed question, the Scriptures can always act effectively as the supreme court of appeal.”

Suppose that Koons is right about this? So what? What’s the next step?

i) He acts as if there are only two choices: Catholicism or Lutheranism. Where is his argument for such a restrictive choice?

ii) There is also the paradoxical way in which he allows a great deal of internal development and alteration in the case of Catholicism, while allowing no flexibility in the case of Lutheranism. Why treat Catholicism as fluid, but Lutheranism as static?

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Lutheranism did overstate its case. Maybe it can’t nail down quite as many things as it originally claimed.

Why does he cut Catholicism so much slack when he’s unwilling to cut Lutheranism any slack? Why not make the same retrospective allowances for Lutheranism as he’s made for Catholicism?

This is especially odd because he regards Catholicism as indefectible and, in some cases, infallible. So Catholicism ought to be less revisable than Lutheranism.

iii) But suppose that Lutherans don’t want to modify their position? Even if they are inflexible, how does that disprove other Protestant alternatives?

Why can’t a Protestant say that where Scripture is silent, that’s a point of liberty? It isn’t necessary to stipulate in advance that Scripture has an answer to every question we pose. If Scripture offers no specific guidance on certain questions, how does that invalidate sola Scriptura? Why would it not mean that there is more than one right thing to do?

“Lutherans have held, in fact, that every doctrine taught by Scriptures is a doctrine upon which church fellowship hangs. The Book of Concord is an attempt (futile, in the end) to settle in advance every possible dispute about the interpretation of Scripture, in order to provide a sufficient and permanent basis for confessional unity.”

And maybe Lutherans are wrong about that. Perhaps they overplayed their hand. But how is that an argument for Catholicism?

“Lutherans must insist that the Scriptures are not only clear, but clearly clear, when they are clear, and clearly unclear, when they are unclear. Even if the Scriptures are utterly clear on all the important doctrines, unless we can all tell exactly which passages address the ‘important’ doctrines, the Scriptures will not be able to act as the unmistakable judge in all doctrinal controversies.”

Assuming that this is correct, it would only mean that Lutherans need to scale back some of their exaggerated claims, not that Catholicism is true. In the heat of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, it was quite possible for polemical theology to get a bit carried away, for fear of making any damaging concessions. And, from our distance, it is possible for us to modify or moderate excessive claims.

For example, this is what a lot of Presbyterians have done in reference to the Puritan form of worship. They decided that the Puritans overreacted in this respect. Protestant theology has a capacity for self-criticism, and that’s because we submit to the Bible as our rule of faith. Our commitment is to Scripture, and not to tradition—not even Protestant traditions.

“There is only one coherent basis for the doctrine of sola scriptura: an empirical, a posteriori argument that uses actual error to eliminate all other claimants to infallible. If it can be shown that popes and councils have actually erred (by contradicting the Scriptures, for example), then the Scriptures will be left as the only remaining infallible authority. This basis places a heavy burden of proof on the Lutheran side, however. The Lutheran must demonstrate, without begging any question, that popes and valid councils (when properly interpreted) have in fact erred when proclaiming dogma (that which must be taught and believed in the Church).”

I agree that a Lutheran apologist or theologian (or Protestant in general) assumes a burden of proof. But why does he assume the sole burden of proof or even a preponderant burden of proof? Why isn’t there an equal onus on a Catholic apologist or theologian to “demonstrate, without begging any question, that popes and valid councils (when properly interpreted) have never erred when proclaiming dogma”? Both sides have their own burden of proof to discharge.

***QUOTE***

There is a danger of circular reasoning here. It is tempting to argue in something like the following way:

(i) Sola scriptura is true because popes and councils have erred.
(ii) We know that popes and councils have erred, because they have taught doctrines that cannot be supported by Scripture alone.
(iii) We know that these church teachings are in error, because sola scriptura is true.

This is obviously unacceptable. To establish the truth of sola scriptura, Protestants must demonstrate a contradiction between a dogmatic definition of the Church and the clear and unmistakable teaching of the Scriptures on a matter of faith or morals.

***END-QUOTE***

But this is clearly fallacious, and I don’t know why a trained logician would frame the issue in such utterly fallacious terms.

You don’t have to assume sola Scriptura to show that something is unscriptural. Even if sola scriptura were false, a Catholic dogma might still contradict Scripture.

There are liberal Protestant scholars who don’t believe in sola Scripture because they don’t believe in Scripture, period. They deny Biblical authority. They also deny ecclesiastical authority.

And yet they are still able to demonstrate that Catholic dogma contradicts the Bible at various points. That’s a simply matter of consistency. It doesn’t require any personal commitment to either of the two comparative sources, whether Scripture or tradition.

The same holds true if one were comparing the Bible to the Koran, or the Bible to the Mormon apocrypha. An atheist could do that. He could judge the Koran or the Mormon apocrypha to be in conflict with Scripture without assuming the truth of sola Scriptura. Same thing with the Gnostic apocrypha in comparison to the NT.

“The demonstration of a contradiction is difficult, for two reasons. First, the matters at issue are subtle ones, and it is difficult to demonstrate that a particular interpretation of Scripture on such a subtle issue is the correct one.”

Other issues aside, this cuts both ways. Traditional Catholicism takes issue with Protestant exegesis at many points. It asserts a contradiction between the correct, Catholic reading of Scripture and the incorrect, Protestant reading of Scripture. So if Koons chooses to complicate the issue with a lot of difficulties and subtleties, then this will complicate his efforts to correct Protestant exegesis.

“Second, one must also interpret Church teaching in light of the Church’s explicit acceptance of the Scriptures as an infallible norm. Charity demands that the Church’s teaching be interpreted in such a way as to be consistent with the Scriptures, if at all possible.”

Why should we put the most charitable construction on the relation between Scripture and Catholic dogma? If we already knew that Catholicism stood for the one true church, then, yes, such a charitable presumption would be in order. But that assumes the very question at issue.

Would he apply the same standard to Mormons or Muslims or Moonies? Does charity demand that Mormon dogma be interpreted in such a way as to be consistent with the Scriptures, if at all possible?

“There is evidence in Scripture for tradition: I Corinthians 11:2, I Timothy 2:2, II Timothy 1:13, and Jude 1:3. Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will guide ‘you’ (plural), that is, the whole Church, into all the truth. (John 16:13) Paul describes the Church as “the pillar and ground of the truth.” (I Timothy 3:15).”

There’s a basic difference between quoting Scripture and exegeting Scripture. I’ve already pointed out some of the problems in his appeal to Jn 16. And if he bothered to consult the two standard Catholic commentaries on 1 Tim 3:15 (by Monsignor Quinn and Luke Timothy Johnson), he should be able to see how far off the mark he is on that verse as well.

“As is often pointed out, the Canon of Scripture was itself fixed by the teaching authority of the Church. It is surely essential that the Church recognize only canonical books (not the Quran or the Book of Mormon, for example), but this fact is inconsistent with sola scriptura, since the Scriptures themselves do not contain a list of which books must be included (nor even very explicit instructions about how to determine the list – is Luke or Mark an apostle?).”

I’ve often discussed what is wrong with this stock objection. There are two basic errors in his objection:

i) Sola Scriptura does not preclude the use of extrabiblical evidence. For example, sola Scriptura is not opposed to Biblical archeology.

ii) There’s a great deal of intertextuality in Scripture, both prospective (e.g. thematic foreshadowing) and retrospective (e.g. literary allusions).

There are a number of standard works that canvass both the internal and external lines of evidence, viz.

Beckwith, R. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Eerdmans 1986)

Bruce, F. The Canon of Scripture (IVP 1988)

Carson, D. A. & D. Moo, An Introduction of the New Testament (Zondervan 2005).

Ellis, E. The Making of the New Testament Documents (Leiden: Brill 1999)

_____, The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in Light of Modern Research (Baker 1992)

Hays, R. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (Yale 1989)

Metzger, B. The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford 1987)

Sailhamer, J. Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Zondervan 1995)

Spawn, K. “As It Is Written” and Other Citation Formulae in the Old Testament (de Gruyter 2002)

Trobisch, D. Paul’s Letter Collection (QWP 2001)

_____, The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford 2000)

“This fact results in an outright contradiction in the Lutheran position. Sola scriptura implies two things: that the Church must not dogmatically teach anything that is not deducible from the Scriptures (since otherwise sola scriptura is violated), and that the Church must dogmatically teach which books are inspired (since otherwise sola scriptura is empty). However, it is not possible to deduce the canon from the Scriptures. Hence, sola scriptura is unsustainable.”

This may or may not be true of Lutheranism, but it’s hardly true for Protestantism as a whole. There are both inductive and deductive lines of evidence for the canon, and the deductive lines of evidence enjoy dogmatic force, but whether or not we can “dogmatically” teach which books of the Bible comprise the canon is an arbitrary rule of evidence.

“The Lutheran position only makes sense if we can suppose that all the doctrines can be logically deduced from the explicit statements of Scripture. That is, Lutheran theology must be completely ‘deductivist’ in method, if it is to be coherent. In contrast, Roman theologians can legitimately make use of inductive and other ‘ampliative’ (to use Charles S. Peirce’s term) forms of inference. Roman theologians can see the doctrines of the Church emerging from the text of Scripture by a kind of organic development (as John Henry Newman argued). The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, develops a body of doctrine that completes and fulfills God’s revelatory intentions for inspired Scripture.”

i) Other issues aside, Koons rejected sola fide because this was, to his way of thinking, a theological innovation. But the theory of development is also a theological innovation. He keeps referring us back to Newman. Yes, Newman—the Victorian churchman. What is more, Newman developed this theory as an Anglican. It is alien to Catholic tradition. It comes from the outside, and it comes 19 hundred years down the pike.

ii) In addition, contemporary Catholic theology is often revolutionary rather than evolutionary:

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20040406.html

“Catholics and Lutherans can agree that Scripture is, for the most part at least, the sole foundation of all theology. (Oral tradition plays a relatively minor role in Catholic theology.)”

No, they can’t, because Roman Catholicism pays lip-service to Scripture.

“Newman makes a compelling case that the development of such doctrines as the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and infant baptism does not fit the deductivist model.”

i) If you really think these doctrines are underdetermined by revelation, then why not be a Baptist or an Arian?

The logic of this objection seems to be that if I don’t have a good enough reason for what I believe, I should keeping on believing it, but adopt some auxiliary support system which will underwrite my irrational belief. I’m afraid that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

ii) This also goes to the tension between scepticism and fideism in so much of Catholic theology. They’re very sceptical about the Bible, and they use their scepticism as a springboard to justify a blind leap into the arms of ecclesiastical authority.

iii) A final problem is that folks like this don’t ever seem to study the exegetical literature on this subject. There’s a lot of fine, scholarly material written in defense of a high Christology. You don’t need Catholicism to shore up a rickety faith in the Incarnation. You simply need to be better informed about the witness of Scripture.

Indeed, to use the church this way is to admit that the church is just a stopgap for an inadequate argument. Why would Koons (or Francis Beckwith), as a trained philosopher, find such a blatantly makeshift solution intellectually satisfying?

“Lutheran protestations to the contrary, I cannot believe that every proposition in the Book of Concord can be deduced directly from the text of Scripture, interpreted only by means of neutral, grammatical-historical methods. At some point, one has to make judgments about which system of theology best makes sense of the biblical data, and these human judgments will be fallible and variable, except where superintended by the Holy Spirit. Hence the need for an infallible magisterium of the Church.”

Even if that’s the problem, how is that the answer? You don’t need a magisterium to ensure a certain result. What one requires, rather, is a doctrine of providence. God, in his providence, will see to it that his elect come to a saving knowledge of the truth. What is needed is not an infallible church, but infallible providence. Providence is a deterministic process, using various means to secure its appointed end.

“Some Roman Catholics claim that the Scriptures, like any text, need an authoritative interpreter. I think this claim is too broad. There are context-free meanings. These context-free meanings are sufficient to fix the central doctrines of the Gospel. (Moreover, the idea that every text requires an authoritative interpreter would apply with equal force to papal and conciliar writings. Indeed, it would seem to apply to oral pronouncements as well, leading to a vicious infinite regress.)”

Well said!

“However, the context-independent meanings of the Scriptures are not in fact sufficient to settle all doctrinal disputes that must be settled (including the question of which doctrines are essential and which are not). This is confirmed by the testimony of history, including Lutheran history. If the Scriptures were perspicuous comprehensively, there would be only one major sola scriptura
denomination, instead of hundreds.”

Other issues aside, that’s pretty simplistic:

i) Some sectarian and/or theological differences are due to differences in taste, national character, or national history.

ii) Some sectarian and/or theological differences are due to sin.

iii) Some sectarian and/or theological differences are due, not to disagreement over what Scripture says, but over what Scriptures leaves unsaid.

“It is hard for me to believe that God intended the Scriptures to be the sole and sufficient norm for doctrine, given their silence on so many issues that must be resolved if the Church is to function: May infants be baptized? Should those baptized by heretics or hypocrites be re-baptized? Which baptized Christians may commune, and which should not? Should repentant heretics and sinners be reconciled to the Church, and if so, how and under what conditions? Should orthodox members of schismatic sects be excommunicated? Should orthodox members of non-schismatic congregations be excommunicated, if those congregations practice improperly ‘open’ communion? Must the threefold ministry of bishops, presbyters and deacons be respected at all times? How
are clergy (in each order) to be ordained, elected, called or installed? Must there be at most one bishop in each city? What authority do bishops have, and what superior authority, if any, must they respect? What constitutes an authoritative council of the Church? These are matters upon which the Scriptures provide little explicit guidance, and yet, for practical reasons, it is impossible for Christians simply to agree to disagree about them.”

Two basic problems:

i) He is assuming, without benefit of argument, that there can only be one right way of doing anything. He needs to foster a proper appreciation for the principle of the adiaphora. In many cases, there is more than one licit option available to us.

ii) He is also trying to intuit God’s intentions instead of bothering to study divine precedent. There was no magisterium in second temple Judaism. As a result, you had a great deal of diversity in thought and practice. Cf.

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521341469

Why is what was acceptable for God’s old covenant community unacceptable for God’s new covenant community? If you want to know God’s intentions for the future (e.g. the church age), a good place to start is with his historical modus operandi.

“The sola scriptura position puts an impossible burden on each believer: in order to recognize true congregations, the individual believer must evaluate the congregation’s confession for complete freedom from doctrinal error. To perform this task, the believer must not believe the essential doctrines of the faith, he must know exactly which doctrines are essential and which are a matter of legitimate difference of opinion. This seems inconsistent with the variety of talents, gifts and callings: not every believer can be expected to be a theologian. The sola scriptura theory condemns the majority of believers to de facto exclusion from the true church, by virtue of their inability to distinguish truth
from error on all disputed matters.”

This objection is predicated on a number of assumptions for which he offers no supporting argument:

i) There are degrees of responsibility according to one’s aptitude and opportunities (Mt 25:14-30; Lk 12:48). Sola Scriptura doesn’t not imply that every Christian has the same intellectual obligations.

ii) There are degrees of doctrinal error. Why must one belong to a doctrinally inerrant denomination (or independent church)? Maybe I’m an amil. Does that prevent me from joining a premil church?

iii) Not all “disputed matters” are matters of doctrinal truth and error. Some matters are disputed because of what the Bible has left unstated. That is left to individual discretion and conscience.

iv) Let’s also remember that church membership, in the modern sense, is a postbiblical development. In the NT, baptism is the rite of church membership. A baptized Christian was a member of the NT church, period. There is no Biblical mandate to belong to a particular denomination. Church membership, in the modern sense (i.e. the age of schism and sectarianism) is adiaphorous.

“The Catholic position, in contrast, places a reasonable burden on the layman: he must simply recognize which congregations are in fellowship with that global church that is most continuous historically with the church of the apostles, i.e., with that church that has the most secure claim to being the Catholic (universal) Church. In other words, the believer need master only one, relatively small set of doctrines: those concerning the identity of the true Church, not, as Lutheranism requires, an exhaustive knowledge of every disputed point of theology. This effectively limits the believer’s choice to two: the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox, each of which recognizes the other as a part of the true visible church.”

This is a classic case of special pleading:

i) Why should we assume that catholicity or historical continuity is the criterion? What about the possibility of institutional apostasy? We have examples of that in the OT.

ii) Does he really think it’s such a simple matter to identify the “true church”?

iii) Isn’t the identity of the true church related to true doctrine? Does he think a church that teaches false doctrine is a true church?

“To be fair, there is a kind of individual responsibility that is inescapable. The Roman Catholic layman, no less than the Protestant, must rely on his own judgment as to which church is the visible church in all its fullness. This burden cannot be shifted to another.”

Well said!

“However, there is a palpable and historically real difference concerning the responsibility of the individual believer under the two conceptions of the Church. For Protestants, the individual believer has only one criterion to employ: he must compare the teaching of each intercommoning set of congregations with the teaching of the Bible on every point of doctrine, or, at the very least, on every essential point.”

This is a very artificial statement of the Protestant position:

i) God has given different Christians different aptitudes and opportunities. This varies in time and place. It is up to God who is born when and where. And this will, of course, impact their range of viable options. We work with what God has provided for us, to the best of our God-given ability. We are to be faithful to the circumstances in which we providentially find ourselves.

ii) Koons is also assuming there’s only one true church, so that a Christian’s mission in life is to go on a theological safari or expedition to discover the one true church. Now, that may reflect the Catholic outlook. And that may also reflect the viewpoint of confessional Lutheranism.

But many evangelicals, myself included, do not take the position that there is one true denomination, such that we must continue our quest until we hit upon the long lost church of the apostles. That’s all very romantic, and it makes for fun fiction, viz. In Search of Atlantis, the Holy Grail, the Fountain of Youth, King Solomon’s Mines, &c.

Many denominations and independent churches exemplify the true church in varying degrees. And saving faith does not demand membership in a doctrinally inerrant church. There’s a difference between good, better, and best.

Let’s remember that even in NT times, the apostolic churches were not doctrinally inerrant. For as soon as an apostle was away from one church, to plant or tend another, false teachers might come and sow seeds of heresy. It was then necessary for an apostle to write a letter or send a trouble-shooter to uproot the weeds.

“However, shifting from accuracy on all doctrinal matters to accuracy on all essential matters is, in practice, of very little help, since there is almost as much disagreement about which matters are essential as there is on the doctrines themselves. (Confessional Lutherans, for example, insist that the true church must take the correct position, with respect to each proposed
doctrine, on whether or not that doctrine is taught or implied by Scripture.”

Koons has made a horizontal conversion. He began and ended with a belief in the one true church, which he identifies with one particular denomination. He took his Lutheran paradigm and simply reapplied it to the Church of Rome. He’s never been able to see above or around his theological conditioning. Like an inmate in an underground dungeon, he simply burrowed a tunnel from one prison cell to another cell.

But I daresay that most Evangelicals do not operate with such a nominalistic paradigm, as if the true church must be identified with one concrete particular throughout time and space.

As I’ve said before, it depends on whether your ecclesiology is modeled on the temple or the tabernacle. Is the church portable in time and place? Or must it have a permanent mailing address? Is the church a pilgrim church, for spiritual wayfarers (e.g. Acts 7; Heb 11)? Or is it for those who dropped out of the race, exchanging their nomadic lifestyle for the cities on the plain? Is Abraham our role model? Or Lot?

“In contrast, on the Roman Catholic view, the individual believer can recognize the true church, not only by examining its doctrines one by one, but also by investigating its historical connection (via a physical and social chain of transmission) to the apostles.”

Of course, this is judging Catholicism by Catholic criteria. So how does an individual believer determine the true criteria before he can determine the true church?

To say that “on the Roman Catholic view, the individual believer can recognize the true church…by investigating its historical connection” gives the individual believer no reason to assume the Catholic viewpoint in the first place. Why is a Christian philosopher blind to such an obvious oversight?

“In some cases, this too can be a difficult process (for example, when there were two or even three competing “popes” during the Avignon period), but, for the most part, this has proved to be practically feasible, while the Protestant principle has utterly failed the test of history.”

i) Notice how he glosses over the Western Schism. But “for the most part” won’t do. If you’re going to hitch your wagon to historical continuity, then it must be just that: continuous. Any break or missing link in the chain of custody destroys the argument. His principle allows for no discontinuities at all. If the chain of custody breaks down at any point along the line, it’s a lost cause.

ii) Indeed, the Western Schism presents a Catholic conundrum. On the one hand, only a true pope can validate a church council. On the other hand, it was the council of Constance with deposed two papal claimants and elected a third.

iii) Even if the Protestant principle “has utterly failed the test of history” (whatever that’s supposed to mean), Koons has done nothing to establish that this test is the right test to administer to the issue at hand.

“Here’s another way of looking at the issue. The Scriptures clearly teach that the true church will possess two essential characteristics: unity and doctrinal purity. It is only the Roman Catholic Church (and, to a degree, the Orthodox churches) that has realized these two ends simultaneously.”

All assertion, no argument.

“The early Fathers (Ireneaus, Cyprian, Ignatius, etc.) all teach that apostolic succession was instituted by the apostles themselves and provides a guarantee of orthodoxy.”

i) There’s quite a chronological spread in their respective dates:

Ignatius>Irenaeus>Cyprian

ii) He isn’t giving us any direct quotes or sources to evaluate.

iii) Later church fathers aren’t always independent historical witnesses, for they frequently repeat what they read in earlier church fathers. So we need to distinguish between primary and secondary sources. Do we count them as many, or as one—given their derivative character?

iv) As one scholar points out, Ignatius is describing an ideal situation, not a real situation. Cf. K. Aland, A History of Christianity (Fortress 1985), 1:123.

v) Cyprian was a critic of papal primacy.

“The most fundamental question is, perhaps, that of what the Church consists in. Is there really a visible church founded by Christ and the apostles? If so, it must have some kind of structure and hierarchy, as does every other human institution (the family, the state).”

i) Throughout his discussion we encounter an incongruous tension between apriorism and history. He constantly acts as if you can simply intuit God’s intentions. Yet he also appeals to history. But history is inductive rather than deductive, a posteriori rather than a priori.

ii) Why “must” the church have some sort of “hierarchy”? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t, but his dogmatic apriorism is at odds with a genuinely historical rule of evidence.

iii) Here’s a novel idea: why not consult the Bible to see what kind of structure and hierarchy, if any, characterized the NT? Why not look out the window?

This is Koons’ method of argument:

a) Stipulate an axiomatic postulate regarding the identity of the true church.

b) Consult church history to see which denomination corresponds to your axiomatic postulate.

But why should anyone concede his stipulative methodology in the first place?

“This structure is not rigidly fixed: it evolves gradually over time. However, the reality of the visible Church entails that this evolving structure is there to be discovered in actual history.”

All assertion, no argument.

Speaking for myself, I don’t necessarily object to the idea of an evolving polity. The problem is when that postbiblical development hardens into dogma.

“On the Lutheran view, the visible Church consists of congregations, constituted by the gathering together in Christ’s name of some believers (along with some hypocrites) for the sake of preaching the Word and distributing the sacraments. What this picture lacks is any sense of the visible Church as an enduring entity, constituted by the faithful transmission of truth and the successive appointment of individuals to enduring offices from one generation to the next (2 Timothy 2:2).”

I’m not a Lutheran myself, but considering the fact that the Lutherans have been around for 500 years, and retained their confessional identity intact, I’d say that this picture presents the visible church as an enduring entity, constituted by a faithful transmission of the truth (as Lutherans define it) and regular ministry. Indeed, there has been far less dislocation in the Lutheran tradition than the Catholic tradition over that same period. Confessional Lutherans continue to confess the same creeds, according to original intent.

“It’s as though Christ founded the Church simply by inspiring the teaching and writing of the apostles and their associates, leaving it up to each subsequent generation to re-create a visible Church ex nihilo, using the written record of the apostolic teaching as its only guide. One obvious problem with this picture is that the Church continued to exist after the death of the last apostles for several centuries before the canon of the New Testament was definitively recognized as
such.”

You don’t need to have a full canon to have a functional canon. Indeed, as a practical matter, all denominations have a functional canon that is smaller than the full canon. For example, the Catholic church pays lip-service to Petrine primacy, but it’s not as if 1-2 Peter or the Petrine speeches in Acts have been either central or foundational to the formulation of Catholic dogma.

“Moreover, this picture seems to ignore the essentially historical nature of human existence, in favor of an excessively individualistic and rationalistic picture of humans as essentially disembodied and non-historical egos.”

This is just so much philosophical eyewash. Why doesn’t he study the way God administered the old covenant community. What about the religious life of the patriarchs? What about Israel in Egypt? What about the Exodus generation? Or the period of the Judges? What about the Babylonian exile? Or the Intertestamental period, including second temple Judaism? And what about the NT church, with its bare-bones, low-church polity? A collection of local house churches, hither and yon.

“The Church is not constituted by the Bible, since the recognition of the Bible as the permanent, normative record of God’s Word was an institutional fact (the formation of the canon), which presupposed a prior institutional fact: the existence of the Church as an enduring, trans-generational society. The Church is not prior to God’s Word, but it is prior to the delineation of Bible as the permanent source and standard of God’s Word.”

Another issues aside, have you ever noticed how Catholics are de facto Marcionites when they talk about the canon? They constantly act as if the OT canon didn’t exist.

“The articulation of God’s Word necessarily changes as language and culture change, so it is impossible for the Church to remain absolutely static in its
teaching. Inevitably, Christians face the task of distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate expressions of the Gospel in contemporary language and contemporary thought-forms, and this task cannot be accomplished through the mechanical application of grammar and logic. An element of judgment is required, and if the Church is to be maintained in its unity, there must be a final court of appeal within the Church itself and outside the text of Scripture.”

Once again, his confident apriorism flies in the face of history. For Diaspora Judaism faced the very same challenges. Witness the targumim and LXX. Yet there was no “final court of approval” within Diaspora Judaism, in the sense of a Jewish papacy.

“First, there is a simple argument: the Church teaches that it is infallible; the Church is authoritative and reliable; therefore, we must believe that the Church is infallible. If the Church is infallible, and the pope is, both de facto and de jure, the head of the Church, with the power and authority to establish and enforce doctrinal standards, then the pope must be infallible in so doing (that is, when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’).”

Well, that is certainly a simple argument. And it’s so question-begging as to be unintentionally comical. Suppose Mormonism or Scientology were to adapt his tendentious argument for their own use?

“The exact number of ex cathedra pronouncements by popes is a matter of some
controversy among Roman Catholic theologians. I have seen numbers between two and twelve mentioned as possibilities.”

Pay careful attention to this admission. After going on and on about the inadequacy of sola Scriptura to give us the authoritative answers we need, this is what the Catholic alternative actually amounts to. It’s like one of those insurance policies that offers you 100% coverage, except that after you figure in all of the deductibles and copays and escape clauses, it’s more like 5% coverage.

“Here is a second, somewhat more complicated argument. Let’s suppose that the Church is at least reliable and “indefectible” (to use an Anglican term) with respect to essential Christian doctrine. That is, the Church cannot err in any essential points and is very unlikely to err on any matter.”

And where’s the supporting argument for that monumental supposition?

“We can further suppose that the Church has these characteristics in perpetuity, since Christ’s promises to the Church have no expiration date.”

i) And where did Christ promise that “the Church cannot err in any essential points and is very unlikely to err on any matter”?

ii) Also, where did Christ make that promise to the Roman Catholic church?

“Since theology develops over time, building on the settled conclusions reached in the past, if the Church were reliable but fallible, errors would not only accumulate over time but would actually tend to increase at a geometric or exponential rate, each error increasing the probability of further errors. Hence, a reliable but fallible Church could not remain reliable for very long.”

Sounds like what the Protestant Reformers said about the medieval church.

“Therefore, the Church must be (at least) virtually infallible.”

Even if this were a valid argument, the conclusion is only as good as the premise. Koons gives us no reason to accept his operating premise. Once again, how is it that a trained philosopher is such a slipshod thinker? Why does he constantly skip over crucial steps in his argument in his headlong dash to the conclusion?

“One final argument. If the Church were fallible but taught that it was infallible, then its erroneous belief in its own infallibility would magnify its proneness to error. A Church that wrongly believed itself to be infallible would be virtually impossible to correct.”

And that, in a nutshell, is where the Catholic church went astray.

“However, the Church does teach that it is infallible. Hence, it is either actually infallible or wholly unreliable. It cannot be wholly unreliable, and so must be infallible in fact.”

“Wholly unreliable”? Isn’t that an overstatement? For one thing, when the church of Rome was the only Western denomination, the remnant were generally members of the Catholic church—although you had some godly schismatics as well. And that was a partial preservative. For example, the Augustinian tradition was a bulwark against Pelagianism. `

“On the remaining issues, purgatory, praying to the saints, the veneration of Mary, and the supremacy of the pope, I don’t find the Catholic positions to be absolutely convincing, either on the basis of Scripture or on the basis of the traditions of the Church. However, these are relatively minor issues. None is weighty enough to justify dividing the Church. Even if we were to suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Roman church is in error on these points, that would not justify dividing the Church.”

That says a lot more about his priorities than the Bible’s priorities.

“To its credit, the Catholic Church has moved a long way from the over-emphasis on purgatory that characterized the period of the Reformation. In the new Catholic Catechism, for example, the discussion of purgatory takes up only four
pages.”

Once again, this revisionism undermines his main argument for the unity of the church and necessity of having a divine teaching office.

“It is noteworthy that God does not instantaneously transform believers into a state of sinlessness at the moment of conversion. Instead, God invites us to cooperate in a gradual process of sanctification. This seems to follow from God’s respect for the integrity of the development of our personalities. He transforms us by persuasion and assistance, not coercively or violently. Given these facts, it is reasonable that our transition to sinlessness after death (the healing of our sinful proclivities) will also be a gradual one, requiring our willing cooperation. That such a continued process of sanctification might involve, as it does in this life, a measure of loving discipline also seems probable.”

i) He has cast the alternatives in the form of a straw man argument, as if sovereign grace must work “coercively or violently.” No attempt to seriously examine the actual alternative. Such intellectual impatience and resort to demagogical caricature hardly befits a Christian philosopher.

Moreover, it contradicts his own standard of charity. Is this the most charitable construction he can place on the opposing position?

ii) Actually, there is a categorical difference between the regenerate and unregenerate state, so why not a categorical difference between the regenerate state and the glorified state?

iii) It’s important to distinguish between the intermediate state and the final state. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Christians are not rendered sinless or impeccable right after death. That, of itself, would not be an argument for Purgatory, since heaven represents the intermediate state, not the final state.

So even if, for the sake of argument, we were still sinners, this doesn’t mean that we must suffer postmortem punishment to pay the remaining debt of venal sin. Even if the intermediate state were a further stage in our sanctification, that wouldn’t automatically debar us from heaven, or necessitate purgatorial penalties.

iv) In Catholic theology, a plenary indulgence can instantly cancel the temporal punishment due to venal sin, so it is possible for the departed to go directly to heaven without passing through Purgatory. Hence, Koon’s argument is inconsistent with Catholic dogma.

“If any of this is even possibly true, it is reasonable to pray for believers who have died. Why should death be a barrier to our love and concern, given that Christ, through His life, death and resurrection, has utterly defeated it?”

Other issues aside, prayers for the dead and requiem masses are consistent with Purgatory in one respect, but inconsistent in another. On the one hand they presuppose the existence of Purgatory. But if, on the other hand, it’s possible to expedite the time spent in Purgatory through our prayers or requiem masses, then the departed don’t need to spend all that time in Purgatory to either purify themselves or remit their venal sins.

“It is hard to see how asking the saints in heaven to pray for us is any more problematic than asking fellow believers on earth to do so. The epistle of James teaches us that the intercession of a righteous man accomplishes much (James 5:16).”

“The only reasonable barrier to this is doubt about whether the saints in heaven can hear our requests for prayer. Their awareness of our struggles would seem to be an implication of the communion of saints, as professed in the Apostles’ Creed.”

“There are a few Scriptural passages that suggest that the saints in heaven might well be aware of us. In the Book of Revelation 8:3,4, the saints of heaven are praying before God’s throne, and in Revelation 6:10 the martyred saints are aware that their blood has not yet been avenged. In Hebrews 12:1, we are described as surrounded by a ‘cloud of witnesses’, which would seem to include angels and departed saints. If they are witnesses of our lives, they are certainly able to pray for us in specific terms and respond to requests for prayer.”

Several problems:

i) The intercession of Mary and the saints is predicated on the treasury of merit.

ii) How can Mary, as a human being, hear millions of daily prayers simultaneously, much less process millions of daily prayers?

iii) None of the passages he cites tells us that the departed enjoy a specific knowledge of what is happening in the life of an individual. For example, the knowledge in Rev 6:10 is quite generic: they know that the final judgment has not yet arrived.

Heb 12:1 refers back to the exemplary witness of the OT and Intertestamental saints, during the days or their earthly pilgrimage. Their perseverance in the faith was a witness to those who come after.

As usual, there’s no effort on Koon’s part to seriously exegete his prooftexts.

“How could Christ’s victory over death be complete if death represented an unbreachable chasm between believers on earth and those in heaven?”

More of his armchair conjectures. He might as well ask, How could Christ’s victory over death be complete if we still die? Or if we still sin? Or if we still get sick?

His argument either proves too much or too little.

“The veneration of Mary is a hedge around the doctrine of the Incarnation. If Jesus is truly God, then Mary is truly the Mother of God. His uniqueness implies her uniqueness. To treat Mary as simply an ordinary woman puts at risk either the deity or the true humanity of Christ.”

Is this supposed to be an argument? How does “treating Mary as simply an ordinary woman puts at risk either the deity or the true humanity of Christ”?

“The immaculate conception of Mary, God’s supernatural protection of her from the effects of original sin, seems a reasonable inference in light of the uniquely intimate relation between her and Jesus. Would it really be appropriate for the incarnate Son of God to be borne and reared by a woman in the grip of original sin?”

Why would it be inappropriate for the Son of God to be born of a sinner? Would he be contaminated by contact with a sinner? Is that the implication?

And it’s not as if Mary was a single mom, and Jesus was an only child. He was also reared by Joseph—at least for a time. Joseph was a sinner. He grew up with his half-brothers. And if you want to say they were his cousins, they were still sinners.

He lived among sinners all his life. Touched them. Ate with them. He even sought them out. Notice how Mariolatry cultivates for Gnosticism.

“However, all Roman theologians are quick to insist that Mary’s mediating role is rather comparable to that held by all believers, who are a royal priesthood (I Peter 2:9) and ambassadors of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20).”

Comparable? Just compare 1 Pet 2:9 or 2 Cor 5:20 with the Catechism and ask yourself if it’s comparable:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm

“Mary played a unique role in God’s plan of redemption through Christ by allowing herself to become the mother of Christ (Luke 2).”

How did she “allow herself” to become the mother of Christ? What control did she have over a virginal conception? What could she do to either cause it or prevent it?

“It is true that there is a real conflict between Roman Mariology and the extreme form of monergism espoused by Luther and Calvin. Mary’s role as co-redemptrix highlights the fact that Christians are not utterly passive in the process of salvation, i.e., that we genuinely cooperate with God’s grace. This synergism is compatible with the fact that, in the final analysis, our salvation is God’s work alone, since even our acts of cooperation are the results of His grace. The Lutheran rejection of any positive human role is incompatible with sound Christology, since it is essential to our redemption that Christ be true man as well as true God. Humanity is not utterly passive in our redemption by God,
since Christ, the God-Man, is the redeemer.”

How is the Incarnation of God analogous to the regeneration of sinners? No, God Incarnate is not passive in redemption, for the Redeemer is sinless and impeccable, as well as being one of the architects (along with the Father and the Spirit) in the plan of redemption. How is that parallel to the plight of Adam’s fallen race?

“Some Lutherans and Protestants have argued that Marian devotion results from the intrusion of paganism (the cults of Isis, Astarte or Diana) into the Church…the same sort of claim could be made about all of Christian theology. There are many pagan precursors of a dying- and rising-god, for example.”

Faulty scholarship, based on parallelomania. Koons needs to brush up on Yamauchi, Metzger, and others.

“I find plausible the hypothesis proposed by C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien that pagan mythology is itself a kind of preparation for the gospel, a distorted foreshadowing of the True Myth of the Gospel. If so, it may be that the pagan worship of the virgin goddess or Earth Mother was a kind of crude anticipation of Mary’s role as Mother of God and Mother of the Church.”

If he wants to admit that Mariolatry represents a repristination of pagan idolatry and goddess worship, that’s fine with me.

“This presents another stark choice between a charitable and uncharitable construction. Interpreted uncharitably, the teaching of Trent seems to deny the uniqueness and sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and the uniqueness of His high priesthood. However, more recent theology, as expressed in the new Catholic Catechism, offers an acceptable interpretation: there is only one Sacrifice (on the Cross) and only one Priest (Christ Himself).”

Once more, see how his appeal to the doctrine of development undermines the unity of the church, or necessity of a divine teaching office. How are these retroactive reinterpretations consistent with the doctrinal unity of the church in time and space, as well as the role of the magisterium to forestall doctrinal error or incomprehension?

“In the past, private masses, in which only the celebrating priest communed, were common, but these have been, since Vatican II, actively discouraged as incompatible with the inner logic of the sacrament.”

Once again, we have a church which is constantly reinventing itself. Yet we’re told that this church alone preserves apostolic continuity and doctrinal unity.

“Second, Roman Catholic theology understands the benefit of the Mass to
include, not only communion as a means of grace, but also the satisfaction of the
temporal penalties for sin and the accumulation of ‘merit’. That is, it counts participation in (directly or indirectly) the Mass as a good work. This seems a reasonable position, given the rest of Catholic doctrine.”

Which undercuts the stated purpose of Purgatory if you celebrate enough requiem masses or, better yet, secure a plenary indulgence.

“Admittedly, the Scriptural arguments for Peter’s supremacy are inconclusive, at best. James seems to have presided over the first Church council, and Paul is adamant in insisting that his own authority derives directly from his calling by God and does not depend on Peter’s acknowledgment of it.”

Well said!

“The best argument for it is that Christ clearly intended that the Church should be visibly one, empirically united in love (especially Christ’s extended prayer in John 17, especially verse 21).”

Notice that he doesn’t bother to exegete Jn 17:21, which, in context, has reference to the ingathering of the Gentiles, in union with the Jewish remnant, so that both Gentile Christians and Messianic Jews form a common faith in a common Lord.

“Since God willed the end, He must also have willed a sufficient means. History clearly teaches that such visible unity is impossible without a single office to which all good-faith doctrinal and ecclesiastical disputes can be referred. Christ promises that the Spirit will guide the Church (collectively) to the truth (John 16:13).”

Except that he’s drawn that inference on the faulty foundation of his misappropriated prooftext (Jn 16:13). What we see here is a process of cumulative error. He starts with a false premise. This yields a conclusion which, in turn, becomes a false premise for another conclusion, and so it goes.

“Thus, in my view, recognizing a duty to submit to the authority of the pope does not depend on believing that there was a direct, permanent divine appointment of the pope as Christ’s vicar or representative on earth.”

So he’s rejecting the argument of Vatican I. Cf.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6

“The visible Church must be a single, unitary institution of some kind, and such a unitary institution must have an enduring structure of authority.”

He pulls these solemn imperatives out of his hat.

“Within a given location, this authority would require a supervisor or bishop. The global unity of the Church requires an office that recognizes, on behalf of the whole church, which individual is in fact the bishop of each jurisdiction.”

So why is there no monarchal episcopate in Scripture?

“Historically, this role has been played by the five patriarchs (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome), with the patriarch of Rome as first among equals.”

No, historically this role was played by the Roman Emperor or the Tsar.

“However, it remains the case that the Church is in need of a visible focus of unity, and only the papacy is capable of fulfilling that role.”

A much better candidate would be to make the Bible our visible focus of unity.

Of course, the Bible is a source of disagreement among Christians, but then, so is the papacy. So one is just as much benchmark of unity or disunity as another. But the Bible has the added advantage of being a divine benchmark rather than a man-made benchmark.

“Does the pope rule the Church by a divine right or merely a human one? The answer lies somewhere in between. The papacy did not receive a direct, once-and-for-all grant of a specific form of authority.”

This is a backdoor admission that you cannot establish the papacy as a dominical institution. You won’t find it in the Gospels.

“The authority of the pope depends on the facts of history, and it could change as circumstances change.”

Fine. Circumstances have changed. The Roman Empire is long gone. The historical significance of the papacy derives from his titular position in the imperial capital. Likewise, the papacy and episcopate were the sacred counterparts of the Roman imperium and aristocracy.

“In addition, I would not claim that the pope’s role as the successor of Peter can be found stated, even implicitly, in the text of the New Testament. At the same time, with the hindsight of two millennia, it is difficult to believe that the prominence of Peter in the Gospels as the spokesman of the apostles, the involvement of Peter and Paul in the establishment of the congregation in Rome and their martyrdom there, and the subsequent importance of the office of the bishop of Rome are mere coincidences. The references to Peter’s confession as a foundational rock for the Church (Matthew 16:18) and Jesus’ charge to Peter to care for his flock (John 21) should be sign as figures and prophecies of the crucial role that Peter’s successors were to play (as John Henry Newman argued in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine35).”

One little problem with this line of argument is that, traditionally, Protestants have also seen the papacy prophesied in certain NT verses—to wit, the Antichrist (2 Thes 2:1-12; Rev 13).

“As Newman argues in that work, the recognition of the central authority of the pope developed gradually over time. The same logic that led the Church to acknowledge the monarchical authority of each bishop in his diocese (namely, the need for local unity and order), drove the Church to find the role of the pope as “center of unity” and supreme judge within the community of bishops to be indispensable in practice. Looking backward from the vantage point of this historical experience, it is easy to find many statements and events that are indicative of papal supremacy. As Newman argued, it is necessary ‘to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier church by the determinate teaching of the latter’.”

Looking backward from the vantage point of our historical experience, it is also easy to find many statements and events that are indicative of the October Revolution, the Krystallnacht, or WWII.