|
Third of Four One-Minute Questions
----------------------------------
Gerry Matatics Starts
Matatics
Mr. White, will you please tell us who wrote, first of all,
the first Gospel that we have, what is commonly referred to as
the Gospel of Matthew? And would you please tell us how you know
who that author is? Really, I guess that's all the time I need to
take to ask my question.
White
Well, it's not going to take me too long to answer it.
Historically, the research indicates from the reading of, for
example, the early Fathers, that it was believed that this was
Matthew who wrote it. The Bible does not say that, hence it is
not an article of faith. I'm not going to tie somebody to a stake
and then burn them for saying, "Well, I'm not totally sure
whether Matthew wrote that or not," but I still believe that
that's the Word of God. I just want to, if you don't mind, head
you off at the pass by pointing out to you that just because I
can gain information--concerning, for example the book of
Matthew, who wrote the book of Matthew or even John, for example,
or theories about Mark appearing in his own Gospel as a young man
who flees naked on the night of the betrayal of Christ, all these
things--just because I can gain that information from reading the
Fathers does not mean that the authority of Matthew or the
authority of Mark finds its basis outside of their inspiration.
And so I can truly acknowledge that, just as Paul spoke of Jannes
and Jambres because of knowledge that he had outside of
Scripture, from the very beginning, Gerry, that one of the very
first things that I said that sola scriptura is not a denial, is
not a statement that the Scriptures are comprehensive and
exhaustive in providing every bit of information about
everything. That's not necessary for inspiration to be true.
Matatics
Well, my point is not finding out if the naked young man is an
important doctrine or not, but my point is simply that the
authorship of that Gospel is critical to its authority. The
Catholic Church does not teach that the basis of the authority of
that Gospel is outside the Gospel. It is precisely inherent. I
agree with you that the authority inheres within the book. But
the only way that we know that the book is authoritative if it
is, in fact, apostolic, if it is written by an Apostle or someone
endorsed by an Apostle as Paul endorses Luke, for example or
Peter endorses Mark. That is the way the arguments are made,
ladies and gentlemen, about whether, in fact these books are not
simply the words of mere men but the Word of God in the words of
men. In other words, if you have no way of knowing that Matthew
wrote this book, or an apostolically authorized man wrote the
book, you have no way of knowing if it's apostolic and therefore
no way of knowing if its canonical and therefore no way of
knowing that it is the inspired Word of God. The only way you do
have of knowing that Matthew wrote this book is by listening the
teaching of the early Church Fathers, by entrusting in the
tradition, in other words.
And once again you have an inconsistency here in the
Protestant position. The only way out of this could be for the
Protestant to say, "Oh, the Holy Spirit confirms to me that
Matthew wrote this Gospel. I just know that Matthew wrote it,
even apart from trusting the early Church Fathers." It's a
purely intersubjective thing. The problem with that is that there
is no statement in the Gospel of Matthew that says, "Matthew
wrote this, copyright 45 a.d., Matthew the Apostle, formerly the
tax collector." There's no statement. If you resort to the
inner testimony of the Holy Spirit what you end up then is
refuting your own position because your position is that you only
believe statements contained in the Bible and now you're saying
that the Holy Spirit is mediating to you some extrapropositional
truth, namely that Matthew wrote this first Gospel when the
Gospel itself does not contain it.
White
Well, in my one minute I'd like to point out, first of all,
that Matthew was considered canonical long before there was ever
a man who sat on the throne in Rome who called himself a pope,
long before any council ever met to discuss it. Even the
Muratorian fragment gives example of this. Clement of Rome was
well aware of this long before there was any council to gather,
so I think that your position is not exactly consistent.
I'd also like to point out that the Psalmist, for example in
Psalm 119, knew what the Word of God was hundreds of years before
there was ever a Christian Church in Rome. He didn't require the
Roman Catholic Church to know what the Word of God was. Why do I?
And finally, you say, "The only reason you know this is
from the early Church Fathers." Did you know that Irenaeus
thought Jesus was 50 years old when he was crucified? Was he? Do
you believe everything Irenaeus said? How about the ransom to
Satan theory? That's a real popular perspective on the atonement.
I mean that's almost a majority view of many of the early
fathers. You don't agree with it and I don't either. Why? You do
stand in judgment of them but only when Rome says, "This is
where they're wrong, this is where they're right." It's a
pick and choose thing. You accuse me of picking and choosing. The
Church has done the exact same thing.
|
