Roman Catholicism

By What Authority Indeed?

James White

The following exchange took place on a Roman Catholic list in 1997 over the course of a couple of weeks. As you will see at the end of this exchange, Mr. Mark Shea, author of By What Authority?, threatened legal action if I posted this material. However, in February of 2002, Mr. Shea himself posted an entire section of this exchange on a public board. Taking his lead, I provide below all of my posts in this exchange.

In article <31721ff0@cclink.fhcrc.org>, marks <mshea@CCLINK.FHCRC.ORG> writes:

>    1. How do you know what books constitute Scripture apart from the
>    authority of Sacred Tradition (which you have attacked as
>    'tradition of men'?)

Greetings, Mark:

"Where had I gone wrong?"

---Mark Shea, _By What Authority?_, p. 83.

Indeed, that is the question, is it not?

First, my compliments on a very well written book. It communicates its message clearly, and with a lot of personality. Stuffy scholar-types will sniffle at it, but don't let that bother you. It seems that there are many who feel that if you don't address difficult topics solely in scholarly language, you would be better off saying nothing at all. Scholarship for the sake of scholars only. Not for me, anyway.

My copy of your work is well marked, I assure you. There are many, many issues upon which I believe you have indeed "gone wrong," but they will come up as the conversation progresses---and that assumes, of course, that the converstion will, in fact, progress.

BTW, before I forget, I found the expose of the Jesus Seminar and the like to be most entertaining. It was also most useful in reaching your target audience, for they would inevitably join you in recoiling at the arrogant heresy of the Robert Funks of the world. I might note that Funk once told me and some others on a radio program to "go to hell" and then hung up on us. Such a kind and loving man. ;)

But lest I be accused of wasting bandwidth, let's get to the heart of the matter. Your main argument is that without "Sacred Tradition," sola scriptura cannot stand, since the canon of Scripture requires external revelation so as to provide certainty. Such is a quick synopsis of the argument you develop in chapters 3-5 of _By What Authority_. But to be able to accurately evaluate the claims you make in these 43 short pages, I would like to ascertain a few more particulars that didn't make it into the text of your book:

1) You use the term "revelation" of the canon. I realize your work is not intended to meet the standards of the ITN-PS (International Theological Nit-Pickers Society), but the term "revelation" does carry some pretty heavy dogmatic baggage. In fact, I've met more than one Roman Catholic who would say that specific, special "revelation" is limited to *Scripture.* Certainly the vast majority would say that revelation ended with the Scriptures: there is none past the apostolic age. Hence, could you expand just a bit on what you mean by identifying the canon as "revelation" that exists outside of Scripture? It would seem you certainly don't hold to the "material sufficiency" viewpoint of Scripture, but more to the partim-partim viewpoint of the majority at Trent.

2) Along the same lines, could you help me understand where you derive the Sacred Tradition that provides you with your current canon? I mean, Hippo and Carthage were not ecumenical councils; you find lots of folks, including Popes, holding to a different canon of Scripture *after* both of those provincial councils. Many sources admit that the first *dogmatic* listing of the canon as you now have it is found in Trent. Now, I really don't think the point you were trying to communicate in your book was, "The canon was uncertain and unknowable until 1546." That really wouldn't fly too well with your target audience. So, just how does one define "Sacred Tradition" in your view? And it might help many who find your arguments persuasive to compare and contrast the "Sacred Tradition" that tells you 2 Maccabees is Scripture with the "Sacred Tradition" that tells you that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven: or is it the same "Sacred Tradition"?

I think those questions should get us started, don't you? In closing, might you indicate, briefly, if you have read any of the following works of late?

_Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible_, Don Kistler, ed. (Soli Deo Gloria Publishers, 1995).
_Peter and the Rock_, by William Webster (Christian Resources, 1996).
_The Roman Catholic Controversy_ (Bethany House, 1996).

If you haven't had a chance to drop by our web page since mid-December, it's changed---rather radically. A review of your book will be posted there shortly. http://www.aomin.org.

In His service,

James>>>

*/// James White, Orthopodeo@aol.com \\\*
>>> Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, AZ Campus <<<
>>> Faraston Theological Seminary <<<
"The Gospel is ours to proclaim, not to edit."
Web Page: http://www.aomin.org

[To CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU on 03-04-97

I hope to engage in further dialogue on the issue of Mark Shea's presentation of the necessity of "Sacred Tradition" soon. However, Mark's initial response included the following materials:

Upon noting that he had not read any of the recent Protestant works defending the position he decries, Mark writes:

> James, before we get much further, please be aware of several
> things.

>      1. I am writing from work, the only account I have, and therefore
>      have little time to engage in protracted debates with somebody
>      who runs a professional anti-Catholic "ministry" (Alpha Omega
>      Ministries, for all you lurkers) dedicated to the destruction of
>      the Catholic Church and all its works and ways.

If I responded to someone who wrote to me concerning my own books and characterized them as being dedicated to "the destruction of the Christian Church and all its works and ways," I'd sort of expect any further conversation to be, well, short. I am always amazed at the double standard that exists with some Roman Catholic apologists. While I did not mention you specifically in _The Roman Catholic Controversy_, I consistently referred to others, such as Karl Keating, Patrick Madrid, Tim Staples, Scott Hahn, etc., as "Roman Catholic apologists." I did not refer to them as "anti-Protestants," nor did I describe their ministries as being "dedicated to the destruction of the Christian Church and all its works and ways." I feel no compulsion to "poison the well" and attempt to immediately bring negative emotions to bear. Let the truth be clearly heard without the muddle of emotionalism. So, Mark, I have to ask you: do you characterize all Protestant ministries that dare say, "No, Rome has erred on such and such a point," as you do ours? And may I ask why you ignore our work with Mormons, JW's, atheists, and the like? Please forgive me for being blunt, but aren't you just doing your best to paint our work in the worst possible light, and that unfairly?

>      2. My wife is *this close* from having a baby, which means I
>      will, quite suddenly, be silent (very possibly without a word of
>      explanation, depending on when baby comes) and remain so for at
>      least a week.

Fully understood, of course. I placed no time demands in my initial post.

>      3. I have *massive* writing projects ahead which concern me a
>      great deal more than having to re-write my book on Internet to
>      satisfy your incredible hunger to argue with Catholics.

I will allow the fair-minded reader to judge the last section of your comment. Somehow I doubt you would appreciate such a comment in a different context. I'll chalk it up to pre-baby pressures. As to writing projects, I have three books myself.

> 4. I am blasting off to New Zealand in early April and have a ton
> of preparation for that little sojourn down under.

Minneapolis, Albuquerque, Salt Lake, Indianapolis, and Long Island---all in the next 90 days, not including teaching a Systematic Theology class along the way.

>      All of which is to say, my answers stand a good chance of becoming
>      ever more terse and (soon) non-existent. Silence, however,
>      will not imply that you have shamed me into the mute inability to
>      reply to your crushing logical defence of sola scriptura (since
>      there is no such thing). It just means I have too much to do and
>      to little time to do it.

< chuckle > "....since there is no such thing." I find the statement sort of humorous, in light of the fact that upon being asked if you have read any of the recent Protestant works on the subject, you said, "Nope." Again, if you encountered someone making comments like this in a different venue, well, I think you might see what they indicate.

>      However, if others want to join the fray with you, I welcome it.
>      Only please, you others, don't start answering for me ("Mark
>      meant X by this passage"). Please give your own answers to James'
>      tedious assaults on Catholic Faith, not what you guess mine might
>      be. That will reduce confusion.

You know, Mark, I've read the complaints of many Catholics, including some of your own friends, about how they felt they were being treated when they entered into dialogues on other lists. Yet, I can honestly say, I can't remember a single one of them who ever received such a transparently bigoted response to an *initial* post as this one. I could have posted something about "Mark Shea's tedious assaults on the Bible," but I didn't. Instead, I asked questions based upon your own text. For some reason, you can't possibly accept the idea that anyone could 1) understand your arguments, 2) understand the arguments of Hahn, Keating, Madrid, Staples, et. al., and yet 3) not only reject those arguments, but present counter arguments as well. Hence, it seems you take the "stir up the emotions, rally the troops," rather than the "demonstrate the truth by presentation" approach. I'm disappointed, but I got over being surprised by such things a long time ago.

I was hoping some interaction would help produce a better, more *fair* and insightful review of your book. I'm sorry, but I get the *distinct* feeling that such isn't going to be the case.

[To CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU on 03-05-97

(Psalm 56:4) In God, whose word I praise, In God I have put my trust; I shall not be afraid. What can mere man do to me?

In a message dated 97-03-06 12:43:14 EST, you write:

> > If I responded to someone who wrote to me concerning my own books and
> > characterized them as being dedicated to "the destruction of the Christian
> > Church and all its works and ways," I'd sort of expect any further
> > conversation to be, well, short. I am always amazed at the double standard
> > that exists with some Roman Catholic apologists.
>
> etc.
>
> James. You complain of a double standard. I notice you make a distinction
> between the "Christian Church" and the Catholic Church.

< chuckle > Uh, Mark, would you rather I had said "Catholic Church" there? That wouldn't have made a whole lot of sense, would it? No, but that's not your concern anyway, it seems.

You know, I don't think I can remember a single conversation---if such a term is even semi useful here---that has degraded as *quickly* as this one. In fact, the thought just struck me that the monks of the St. Benedict Center have always been far more courteous and kind than you have. I can't help but notice the massive difference in attitude between your book and this series of posts.

Everything I pointed out in my last post---mainly the appeal to the "crowd" and the unfair, unkind, and inaccurate caricatures you presented in your last post---went unanswered here. Instead, more attempts to "poison the well" are presented, nothing more.

> I believe Protestants are Christian, James.
>
> Are Catholics Christian, James?

I don't even think all Protestants are Christians, Mark, do you? Robert Funk is technically a Protestant, isn't he, Mark? But I don't believe he's a Christian, do you? And what's the name of the lesbian witch who is professor of theology at Boston College? She's a Catholic, but I doubt very much she's a Christian---what do you think, Mark?

You err, badly, if you think I equate "Protestant = Christian, Catholic = non-Christian." You might try reading some of the works Protestants write on these issues, Mark. It would really help you to quit tilting at windmills. For example, a few months back I offered to send you _The Roman Catholic Controversy_ in exchange for your own book: you declined. On pages 26-27 of that book you will find the following:

I am not saying that there are no professing Roman Catholics who are saved, nor that there are not Roman Catholic leaders who do not embrace God's grace in a saving manner. I speak of the official teachings of Rome, enshrined in her creeds, encyclicals, and conciliar documents, when I speak of Rome's "teachings." It is plain to all who will look that there is as wide a diversity of understandings of those teachings among Catholics as there are differing perspectives amongst Protestants on similar issues. It is vital to differentiate between the official teachings of Rome and the individual understandings of those teachings.

Many conservative Protestants, convinced that the Roman Catholic system has departed, fatally, from the true path, struggle with the idea that there are still those within that system that are heirs of eternal life. It should be remembered, however, that Protestants have always acknowledged the wideness of God's grace and mercy in this way. We look back upon men like Wycliffe and Hus, and recognize that they found the truth of the gospel even while they were within the confines of the Roman communion. Luther surely understood what it was to be justified by faith while a Roman Catholic monk. Are we really to assume he was the first, or even the last? Surely not.

> {Snip all the rest of the stuff documenting the fact that James
> has gone round and round with much wiser heads than mine on "bible
> only" revelation and is immune to the effects of argumentation.}

Note again the unfair, unkind caricaturization: "is immune to the effect of argumentation." It must be very nice to proclaim yourself the victor without ever dirtying your hands with the details, Mark.

> James, you have simply proven my point. If you are really interested
> in this stuff, just go over the voluminous transcripts of your
> own unlistening conversations with Catholic on your Sola list.

Note again: "unlistening conversations." Does the term "bigotry" enter into the picture here, perhaps? At the very least, "bias" is a proper term. It would be very easy to dismiss yourself, David Currie, Steve Ray, etc., as those who were unwilling to "listen" before their conversion to Rome. I prefer tackling the issues, Mark. Why don't you?

> Or better yet, read my book again (since your questions yesterday
> were already addressed there, but you did not seem aware of it).

If you mean the questions I originally posted, that assumes your book is self-attesting and perspicuous. :) Of course, the problem is, Roman theology has so many facets and currents and the like that there are certain questions that must be asked to get a firm hold on a particular person's viewpoint.

> I've written my book once. I don't have to write it again.

Yes, Mark. I'm not asking you to re-write your book. I'm asking you to explain and defend its statements. I must admit---as an author, I find your attitude most strange. My book on the KJV controversy has brought hundreds of letters and e-mails. I've had a hard time bringing myself to write back to everyone and say, "I've written my book once. I don't have to write it again." Difficult attitude to understand.

> Protestants are Christian, James.

Those who are in Christ are, Mark. The name means nothing---only Christ means anything.

> Are Catholics Christian, James? Yes or no. Then tell us about double
> standards.

Let's say I gave you a blanket "no," Mark---logically, how in the world would that amount to a double-standard like the one you are using consistently in your responses? It wouldn't. But my answer is the same: those who are in Christ are, Mark. The name means nothing---only Christ means anything. Again, if you would bother to keep up with Protestant writings on the subject, you'd be aware of that.

Mark, your book is full of errors, leaps in logic, half-truths, and downright *untruths.* The logical way of dealing with this is to 1) attempt to ascertain as accurately as possible what the author of such a book *meant,* 2) dialogue on the specific historical errors (such as your constant assumption of the universal acceptance of the Apocrypha, which is simply *untrue*), 3) present cogent and, in your case, completely ignored, Protestant arguments, and 4) provide to everyone interested the conclusions of such an inquiry. Since you won't allow even the first step, I can only critique the historical errors, point out the simple fact that you haven't interacted with the responses to your own position, nor with the *real* Protestant position, and finally inform those interested that when asked to engage such topics, the result on your part was pure emotionalism, the old "play to the crowd and make the other guy look like a real nasty dude" tactic. Like I said, disappointing, but not overly surprising.

   +-------<<<<< Orthopodeo@aol.com >>>>>-------+
   +                                            +
   +                James White                 +
   +            http://www.aomin.org            +
   +                                            +
   +-------<<<<<<< Sola Scriptura! >>>>>>-------+

         Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err
        in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the
        canonical Scriptures of God (Augustine, De unitate ecclesiae, 10).

[To CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU on 03-06-97]</

(Psalm 119:18) Open my eyes, that I may behold Wonderful things from Your law.

In a message dated 97-03-06 15:01:25 EST, you write:

> Mark's book strikes at a very central weakness inherent in the idea of Sola
> Scriptura: if a believer can't practically decide what is, and what is not
> Scripture, than how can he be expected to follow Scripture, and to follow it
> as the sole practical guide to his faith? Mark's whole question boils down
> to:
>
> In practice, how is one to know what is and what is not Scripture, apart
> from Tradition?

That isn't, actually, what Mark's question "boils down to." There is so much more to the question that goes far beyond that---the definition of "Tradition," as I pointed out in my original post, for example, is *vital.*

Since you've read my book, and seem willing to answer some questions, I'd like to ask you to answer the question in the third paragraph of page 94 regarding how a Jewish man knew "infallibly" what the canon of Scripture was prior to the time of Christ.

BTW, in light of Mark's answers yesterday, are you comfortable saying that no one *did* know, with infallible certainty, what Scripture was until 1546?

> As long as your response to him fails to answer this question, you fail to
> provide a logical alternative to Sacred Tradition. Please give an answer
> that would allow me to practically discern why I should agree that (for
> example):
>
> 1) Clement, Wisdom, and Enoch are not Scriptural
> 2) Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Hebrews, James, and Revelations are
>
> Instead of treating Mark's important question, you have so far avoided the
> issue. Your posted responses were more along the lines of attacking the
> Catholic position (and getting some facts wrong as you did), derisive ad
> hominem attacks on Mark (these make you look bad), and other irrelevant
> rhetorical flourishes.

Like I pointed out, since it is Mark who has introduced ad-hominem, emotionally-based arguments, and that in the *first* response, I despair of getting much of a fair hearing from you.

> You say that there have been counter-arguments to Mark's arguments. So how
> do they answer this question?
>
> You chuckle, and deride Mark for not reading any of the 3 books that you
> promote as good counter-arguments. I did read one of your suggestions, your
> own "The Roman Catholic Controversy." With regard to the canon in
> particular, I was quite unimpressed with your reasoning.

I am not surprised.

> From memory (and it
> has been about 3 months since I looked at it), several things struck me:
>
> 1) You frankly admit that uncertainty about the canon would bring down the
> entire position of Sola Scriptura. (You deny that there is a problem here,
> but my jaw dropped at this candor, since you flat-out agree with Mark in
> the importance of the question to your side.)
>
> 2) You seemed to say that Catholics might have a point with regard to the
> New Testament canon. (You quickly pass over this apparent admission, even
> though you previously said that uncertainty about the canon is serious.)
>
> 3) You state that our knowledge of the OT canon, on the other hand, was
> solid. This was the bulk of your rebuttal of the canon question. Your
> arguments for this were along the lines of "Well, of course there is a
> canon," but you never said *how* we are to discern it. Catholics agree that
> there is a canon too, so why do you beat at this straw man? Your treatment
> is completely useless for determining as a practical matter what, precisely,
> the canon is, and utterly fails to answer the question.

Well, I can honestly say, your memory isn't too good. :) I really haven't the foggiest idea how to respond to these three statements, since they have almost nothing whatsoever to do with anything I've written in my book.

1) No, I made no such admission, and would love you to cite the passage that you think makes this point.

2) I said it might *appear* that the Roman argument works for the NT, but it collapses on the OT. Specifically, I said on page 94, "While the Roman Catholic argument about the canon might appear to have some validity with reference to the New Testament, it falls apart upon application to the Old." If you had read this statement in its context, you would see that I am not saying you "might have a point with regard to the New Testament canon."

3) You skip over the discussion of canon as a function of Scripture, as if it wasn't even there. Did you understand that discussion?

> After reading your book, the end result was that I came away more impressed
> than ever that discerning the canon was a central flaw in Sola Scriptura,
> and that there was no good rebuttal here from your position. If the other
> two books fail as badly, then I don't see why reading them is relevant to
> this discussion.

Honestly, I doubt any information is useful to a person who is unwilling to listen or consider, so I'm not surprised. However, I wonder why Mark's book blissfully ignores all of these issues?

> If they do answer the question, then could you please
> summarize the rules they use for determining the canon? If your summary
> sounds stimulating, then you might get us interested enough to want to track
> them down directly.

Rules? Since canon is a function of inspiration, are you seriously asking for rules that would apply to God? Or did you ignore the difference between the canon as a function of Scripture, and our own recognition of it?

> Catholics don't have a Sola Scriptura position, but you do. An attack on how
> we discern Scripture isn't the central question in our faith understanding
> that it is in yours.

No, Catholics don't have a sola scriptura position. They have a sola ecclesia position. The final authority, in all things, is the Church. BTW, why is it an "attack"? Why is pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions in Roman positions defined by yourself and Mark as "attacks"?

   +-------<<<<< Orthopodeo@aol.com >>>>>-------+
   +                                            +
   +                James White                 +
   +            http://www.aomin.org            +
   +                                            +
   +-------<<<<<<< Sola Scriptura! >>>>>>-------+

        Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let
        us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd.
        Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical
        Scriptures (Augustine, De unitate ecclesiae, 3).

In a message dated 97-03-06 16:43:34 EST, you write:

>      Well, don't feel like it's a duty. I just figured it might be
>      entertaining to let other people try to coax James into answering
>      the straight question "How do I, Joe/Jane Schmoo-in-the-Pew, know
>      what is inspired Scripture apart from Sacred Tradition and the
>      authority of the Church?" So far I have never seen James give a
>      straight answer to that question. Nobody I know has ever seen him
>      do it either. Perhaps if enough Catholics ask him, he will
>      achieve critical mass (as distinct from achieving criticism of the
>      mass) and answer that simple question. But I kinda doubt it.
>      Watch his modus operandi. He believes the best defence is a
>      good offence and so focuses entirely on criticizing Catholics and
>      asking interminable questions about things he's already received
>      answers to a hundred times before. Ask him however many times
>      you may, and he *never* tells us how he knows what is inspired
>      Scripture, he just ignores the question and makes another stale
>      complaint about Sacred Tradition.

Your kindness, fairness, and sense of fair play is truly over-whelming, Mark.

I'm sure you don't want to answer questions about whether your claims about "Sacred Tradition" are consistent and logical---then again, epistemologically speaking, since you've bought into sola ecclesia, such questions are not answerable anyway. Rome must be right because, well, Rome is *always* right. Never mind that you have to base your arguments upon falsehoods regarding the OT canon, etc., as long as it is in the service of the Mother Church.

You see, Mark: you *claim* to have infallible knowledge of the canon because you accept what Rome tells you is "Sacred Tradition." Now, I then ask you, "How do you *know* that's Sacred Tradition?" and you are right back to square one. All you've done is move the ultimate epistemological question one step back----it's so plain, it's amazing you don't see it. Yet you launch your attack against those who won't play the shell game with you, and won't invest in themselves the quality of infallibility. It may work with some folks, Mark, but by God's grace, it doesn't work with *everyone.*

A few examples of errors and shallow research in your book, Mark:

pp. 54-55:

"And that Scripture included, from the fourth century to the Reformation, seven books (Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, and Baruch) and some pieces of Daniel and Esther which you Evangelicals reject as 'apocryphal.' "

All through your book you assume the consistent acceptance of the Apocryphal books---yet, if you had bothered to read some of the most basic works on the subject (such as Beckwith's 1985 work), you would know better. You would know Pope Gregory the Great rejected some of these very books you claim were universally hailed as Scripture. Now how can that be, since he would be the keeper of the capital 'T' Tradition par-excellence? And what in the world was Cardinal Cajetan babbling about here:

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed among the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned canonical. For the words as well as of councils and of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorized in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clear through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage." (Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament; cited in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: University Press, 1849, 48.)

Confusion about what is, and what is not, canon, as late as the Reformation? How can this be?

p. 55:

"Therefore pardon me for saying so, said the voice of modernism, but it looks to us realists as though your own great Protestant theologian, R.C. Sproul, is more realistic than you. For he at least acknowledges the incoherence of your "purely biblical" revelation by describing your traditional Bible as a "fallible collection of infallible books" (whatever that means)."

The "voice of modernism" sounds suspiciously like a relative of Screwtape and his cohort, know what I mean? He must write for This Rock. Anyway, it's too bad you haven't read those books I mentioned: R.C. has an article in there where he explains exactly what that line means. Unfortunately, he would no more say that your "purely biblical" view was "incoherent" than he'd say the Pope is infallible. But I have gotten the *very* strong idea that such citations of Protestant scholars are, in your view, to be used in the service of something other than fairness. Of course, I find the out-of-context citation of Protestant scholars to be epidemic in current RC apologetics works (the new work by Butler, Dahlgren and Hess comes to mind immediately), so I guess it might be catching. :)

Now in closing (aren't you glad?), I made a note right above the "NOTES" on page 55. It reads, "Key error -- abandoning the real source, theopneustos." In all your recitation of your brave attempt to defend sola scriptura, you never once give me the indication that you ever knew what it was based *upon.* And a book that attacks sola scriptura, without knowing the *basis* of the doctrine, is not a book that will accomplish much in the long run.

        Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever
        side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that
        side will be cast the vote of truth (Basil, Ep. ad Eustathius, NPNF
        II, 8:229).

[To CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU on 03-06-97]</

In a message dated 97-03-07 12:21:19 EST, you write:

>     Shoveling mercury with a pitchfork, I wrote of James White:
>
> >      Ask him however many times
> >      you may, and he *never* tells us how he knows what is inspired
> >      Scripture, he just ignores the question and makes another stale
> >      complaint about Sacred Tradition.
>
>      And James, as if to oblige me, replies...
>
> I'm sure you don't want to answer questions about whether your claims about
> "Sacred Tradition" are consistent and logical---then again, epistemologically
> speaking, since you've bought into sola ecclesia, such questions are not
> answerable anyway. Rome must be right because, well, Rome is *always* right.
>
>   Never mind that you have to base your arguments upon falsehoods regarding
> the OT canon, etc., as long as it is in the service of the Mother Church.
>
>      etc.

< Which assertions, I note, go utterly ignored in all of Mark's replies, and his book. >

>      Not many people know this, but James has actually had a button
>      installed on his word processor to generate these "Ignore the
>      question and attack Sacred Tradition" replies automatically. My
>      prediction was, dare I say it?, infallible! :)

No, I have a lot of macros, but that isn't one of them. Again, Mark, it's pretty clear you have no intention of allowing a level playing field, nor do you have the first desire to apply the same rules to your own position you insist upon for others. You demand answers to your questions without allowing anyone to say, "Uh, excuse me, Mark, but your own position can't answer that question logically, so why are you asking it?" I've gotten that indication quite clearly, so you can stop providing daily examples for us all. :) BTW, pointing out that a person is being inconsistent in their position *does* amount to a *partial* answer. Now, I could easily say, "And Mark, since you admit to not bother to read much in the way of Protestant scholarship, you don't have good ground upon which to stand. As some famous person ("Corkscrew," perhaps, or maybe "Slimemold"?) has said, 'I've already written my book. I'm not going to write it again.' " But, that would be a most unfriendly thing to say, so I won't.

While riding today I decided to try to find at least a few moments to begin some *short* posts on the subject of the authority of Scripture---to present the topic as it is completely ignored by you, Currie, Ray, and just about everyone else I've been reading recently. Sort of like the black hole of Catholic apologetics, I guess. If I could figure out a way to attach my laptop to the aero bars of my bike, *and* type, while riding, I might get that done sooner. But alas, I haven't figured that out yet. Instead, I'm staring four sermons, a trip to Albuquerque, a trip to Minneapolis, the rest of the chapters in my book on the Trinity, and five solid nights the week before Easter of missions work at the Mormon Easter Pageant in Mesa, AZ---all in the next 24 days. Patience is still a virtue, isn't it?

> Fact is, James *has* no answer to the question, knows it, and so
> must change the subject.

Bullies write like this, Mark, not thoughtful people. I could act the same way: "Why does Mark not interact with the currently published Protestant literature on this issue? Why doesn't he deal with Sproul honestly? It's easy: he can't. He has no answers, so he decieves by blowing smoke." Yeah, that's *real* easy. And you know how long those conversations last? Not long, I assure you. So how about dumping the bravado, quit acting like a mind reader, and get serious, Mark? You confess you haven't even read _The Roman Catholic Controversy_. I've read Keating, Madrid, Ray, Currie, Shea, Butler/Dalhgren/Hess, et. al.; so upon what ground do you logically say *I* don't have an answer??

>      I have not yet checked the rest of my email (Charles, I'm getting
>      posts from March 5 arriving this morning. Dunno why.), but I am
>      curious as to my other post. James is intensely interested in
>      fairness. He asked me two questions in his initial post, which I
>      answered. I then mentioned he runs an anti-Catholic "ministry."
>      James, with a marvelous display of ruffled feathers declared this
>      "unfair" and said I was "anti-Protestant".

Excuse me, Mark? Do you deal with all of history in this manner? You surely must realize that those on the list can read posts for themselves. And there is something called an "archive file" too. You said:

    1. I am writing from work, the only account I have, and therefore
    have little time to engage in protracted debates with somebody
    who runs a professional anti-Catholic "ministry" (Alpha Omega
    Ministries, for all you lurkers) dedicated to the destruction of
    the Catholic Church and all its works and ways.

In my reply, I wrote:

1) You've never provided a logical response to this criticism.

2) There is nothing in this that calls *you* an "anti-Protestant." In fact, as anyone can see, I specifically *deny* using the term.

So, Mark, we seem to be left with two possibilities here:

1) Mark is so freaked about a soon-to-be little Shea, that his mind is blitzed and not functioning well, or,

2) Mark is misrepresenting conversations that took place only a few days ago for maximum emotional effect.

Which is it, Mark?

>      Now I believe Protestants are Christian. I can think of several
>      (George MacDonald, CS Lewis (that good Ulsterman), and Dorothy
>      Sayers, as well as good eggs like Chuck Swindoll, Jack Hayford,
>      Elisabeth Eliot, the sainted Jim Eliot and several members of my
>      wife's family whom I regard as great saints. The only conceivable
>      reason I think I might not see them in heaven is that they will be
>      so close to the Throne (and I so far up in the nosebleed seats)
>      that I won't be able to spy them at that distance.

I might point out, Mark, that their lives were lived as they were only because they were blessed to live at a time when they had the freedom to believe as they did.

>      But now, having answered James' questions, I ask in return: does
>      James say Catholics are Christian?
>
>      After he answers those two simple questions (Are Catholics
>      Christian?/How do I determine what the canon is apart from Sacred
>      Tradition and the Magisterium?) we will be in a much better
>      position to discuss fairness, etc.)
>
>      James, thanks for your input. It is nice to be vindicated so
>      publically. Your comments are duly noted.
>
>      I look forward to a straight answer to my straight questions.

Hmm, is your mail program not working well, Mark? Seems I pointed out the answers to those questions a few days ago. Possibly the messages you are getting are so garbled and so muddled that that explains why you'd say publically that I identified you as an "anti-Protestant"? Here, let me re-post a section from 3/6/97:

Now, let's hope that makes it through the process intact.

In a message dated 97-03-07 12:43:58 EST, you write:

> >    In practice, how is one to know what is and what is not Scripture, apart
> >    from Tradition?
>
>      And James hits the button on his word processor...
>
> That isn't, actually, what Mark's question "boils down to." There is so much
> more to the question that goes far beyond that---the definition of
> "Tradition," as I pointed out in my original post, for example, is *vital.*
>
>      etc.
>
>      and somehow never *does* get around to giving a straight answer to
>      that straight question.
>
>      Have a pitchfork, Michael! There's a lot of shoveling to do!

Mark, may I ask that you at least act civilly, and not intrude your insults into everyone else's threads? You may not like me (that's obvious); you may want everyone else to dislike me as well (equally obvious); but unless you have a REALLY strong reason for not wanting any meaningful conversations to take place here, I'd like to ask that you drop the constant personal stuff. How about it?

BTW, I find it amazing that you can say, "Nope, haven't read your book, haven't read the Soli Deo Gloria work, either," and then, with a straight face, say, "He never does give a straight answer, does he?" I've just got to ask, Mark: how in the world would you know?

Over the past few days I've been asked the same question over and over again: "So, how do you know the canon?" No matter what I say, the same question comes back.

It's not that it isn't an important question: it is. But I'm reminded a good bit of the young LDS folks I have shared with at the Mormon Easter Pageant the last 13 years: they ask the same questions, over and over again, and are often far too impatient to allow a meaningful reply. "So what about the Book of Mormon, huh? Have you read it? Huh?" "Yes," I reply, "I have." "So, have you prayed about it?" "No," I reply, "I haven't, because...." And at that point a million objections start flying. Once in a while I can focus them enough to accomplish something, but most of the time, they are off to the races.

Mark Shea has written a book based upon that one question. I can see why he'd be a bit uncomfortable having to back up a bit and find out if this one question, that has so changed his life, is actually a valid and self-consistent one. But I don't know of anyone else here with quite the same vested interest, so addressing the fundamental issues would seem worthwhile.

I'm not going to re-write what I've written, either. But I am going to summarize some things, and add a lot of new things, too. And as God gives me grace, I'm going to fight verbosity to the death. :)

I'd like to start with a quote, if I might, from Athanasius' _Contra Gentes_ I:1: "For indeed the holy and God-breathed (Gr: theopneustos) Scriptures are sufficient (Gr: autarkeis) for the preaching of the truth."

If Protestants could have a patron saint, Athanasius would be mine. :) I spent most of yesterday editing an article I've written for the next edition of the CRI Journal titled, "What Really Happened at Nicea?" The article covers the council, the role of Constantine, the homoousion clause, and the Arian ascendancy in the decades following Nicea. And, of course, in the midst of all that, you can't help but to talk about Athanasius.

Here's one tenacious fellow. Kicked out of his see five times, on-the-outs with the majority of the church hierarchy of his day, Athanasius stood firm despite all the reasons *not to.* "Athanasius contra mundum" spoke to a real truth.

I feel a real kinship with Athanasius in many areas. I have dealt extensively with JW's, and his extensive refutations of the Arians are music to my ears. He wrote the first in-depth treatise on the atonement, too.

At one point in his life, Athanasius had to choose: would he bow to the organized church, or would he remain faithful to witness of Scripture? He chose the latter, much to our benefit today.

All of this brings me to point number one: I believe it is easily establishable that Athanasius viewed 2 Timothy 3:16 as I do. That is, he saw that the *nature* of Scripture places it upon a level that is above all other authorities. Scripture is theopneustos, God-breathed.

Sola scriptura is based upon the acceptance of this truth: that Scripture is God-breathed. Hence, one of the common arguments used *against* sola scriptura, that being that there are 23,000 denominations today, hence, sola scriptura can't be true, is obviously fatally flawed: not only does the argument provide internal consistency problems, but how many of those 23,000 denominations really believe the Bible is God-breathed? Very few, I'm sad to say. Be that as it may, if Roman apologists are going to provide a meaningful critique of sola scriptura, they are going to have to start here, for this is the source of the doctrine. Scripture is God speaking---it carries His authority, not derivatively, but personally. I do not believe there is any other source of authority, be that tradition or magisterium, that is theopneustos. Hence, point #1:

Scripture is theopneustos, that is, God-breathed.

The doctrine of the Church should be proven, not announced; therefore
show that the Scriptures teach these things. ----Theodoret

[To CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU on 03-07-97]</

(Psalm 119:18) Open my eyes, that I may behold Wonderful things from Your law.

In a message dated 97-03-07 14:38:51 EST, you write:

> > That isn't, actually, what Mark's question "boils down to." There is so much
> > more to the question that goes far beyond that---the definition of
> > "Tradition," as I pointed out in my original post, for example, is *vital.*

> If you're uncomfortable with the idea of Tradition, then I'll rephrase the
> question for you:
>
> In practice, how is someone to know what is, and what is not, Scripture?

You miss my point. "Tradition" is the *means* Mark uses---hence, what is meant by "Tradition" becomes central. Yet, answering the question of what is, and what is not, "Tradition," is quite a sticky subject, and I think Mark well knows that.

Let me illustrate: if you believe there is an apostolic tradition that defines the canon, do you believe it is actually traceable to the apostles themselves? If so, who gave this "tradition"? Who passed it on? Why did it take so long to surface? Why did Athanasius "miss" this tradition and give a different canon in his 39th Festal Letter of 369? Would such a tradition fit into how you view 2 Thessalonians 2:15? If so, then you should be able to trace it.

Of course, a lot of modern Roman Catholics don't hold to that view of "Tradition." The teaching authority of the Church, in essence, becomes the "Tradition." But we've just barely begun to scratch the surface of all the various views of "Tradition" at all. The problem is, if you say "Tradition" determines your canon, but you can't tell me exactly what "Tradition" is, how are you in any better position than I am?

> This is key, whether you care to admit it or not. Come on, James. Give us a
> direct answer to the question.

You've read my book, and well know I *do* give a direct answer. Why is everyone on this "you won't give a direct answer" kick? I don't appeal to an extra-biblical revelation, since I deny one exists. I don't believe the canon is a separate revelation, but is a function of Scripture itself---a function of inspiration. Now, logically, the next question would be, "Please define what you mean by that." But so far, all I've gotten is, "Just answer the question on the grounds *we* set." Strange, isn't it?

> > Since you've read my book, and seem willing to answer some questions...
>
> In the past few days, you've tossed several questions off, and several of us
> have gone to apparent trouble and time to answer them for you. I haven't|
> seen any sign that you care about considering our replies. Several of us
> made some effort to take your questions seriously, and civil discourse
> requires that you do the same. So before I answer you, please demonstrate
> that you care for a rational discussion here by giving us a direct answer to
> Mark's question.

I have clearly done so. I can't imagine what you are talking about.

> > Rules? Since canon is a function of inspiration, are you seriously asking
> > for rules that would apply to God? Or did you ignore the difference between
> > the canon as a function of Scripture, and our own recognition of it?

> Come on, James. We both agree that God does what he wants. The fact is that
> we both use rules to help us discern what he has done and what he wants us
> to do. If you deny this, then your own charges that the Catholic Church
> behaves contrary to God's will are logically meaningless, since you yourself
> admit no rules that you can use to tell whether anything adheres to God's
> will.

Huh? I don't follow. You claimed to have read the section of my book where I discuss this, yet, when I answer on that basis, you don't follow. Is the canon a function of inspiration? Yes or no?

> Either you're engaging in another straw man argument here, or you really do
> misunderstand my question. Just in case it is the latter, I'll clarify for
> you:
>
> What practical rules can a *person* use to determine what is, and is
> not, Scripture?
>
> If you continue to avoid answering this, then we will have to assume that
> you have no workable way of defining Scripture for yourself. The result is
> that you simply have no logical basis for telling Catholics with any
> certainty that they are un-Scriptural.

"If you don't answer this question right now, without providing a basis, and on the basis we define, you lose." OK, well, whatever. I'll continue laying the foundations in the posts I'm writing to the list in general. If that's not good enough for you, well, I'm sorry. Not much I can do about that.

[To CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU on 03-07-97]</

       In regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith,
        not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Script-
        ures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever
        arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not
        give ready belief, unless you receive from the Holy Script-
        ures the proof of the things which I announce. The salvation
        in which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but
        from the Holy Scriptures. --St. Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 350)
        _Catechetical Lectures_ 4:17.

Yesterday I noted a little bit concerning the *nature* of Scripture. It is God-breathed, theopneustos. This is the only use of this term in the NT, and it is vital to note that Paul says that it is the *Scriptures themselves* that are God-breathed. We often play fast and loose with the term "inspired" and "inspiration." We speak of the Apostles writing by inspiration, yet, biblically, the only thing that is truly "inspired" in this high manner is Scripture itself: the final product.

Paul was not alone, however, in saying that Scripture is God's speaking. The Lord Jesus had taught his before:

(Mat 22:29-33) But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. [30] "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. [31] "But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: [32] 'I AM THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." [33] When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

Note the specific assertion of the Lord: "have you not read WHAT WAS SPOKEN TO YOU BY GOD...." The juxtaposition of "read" and "spoken" is striking. Jesus held these Jewish men accountable for the very speaking of God in Scripture. This is plainly borne out by the phrase, "spoken TO YOU." Yet, of course, these words had been spoken to Moses centuries before. Yet in the Lord's view, they are living words, so that when we read them, they are spoken to *us* as well.

This background allows us to understand a passage that is often cited by Protestants in regard to sola scriptura:

(Mat 15:3-9) And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? [4] "For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.' [5] "But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God," [6] he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. [7] "You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: [8] 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. [9] 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'"

Mark's parallel passage is useful, too:

(Mark 7:6-13) And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. [7] 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' [8] "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." [9] He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. [10] "For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH'; [11] but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' [12] you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; [13] thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."

In most Roman apologetics works, these passages are dismissed in a cavalier manner with, "Well, this is talking about *human* traditions, not *divine* traditions." But such completely misses the point.

1) The Jews claimed the Corban tradition was divine in origin. As David Palm rightly points out, Tractate Aboth of the Mishnah makes explicit claims concerning the passing down of oral tradition through the leadership of the people of Israel. This is exactly what Mark notes in verse 13, "by your tradition which you have handed down." Yet, the Lord Jesus *rejects* the Corban rule, and on what basis? It's incompatibility with Scripture.

2) The point of Matthew 15/Mark 7 is not that all "tradition" of any kind be rejected; it is that all tradition of any kind---even that which is claimed to be "divine," is SUBJECT to and hence INFERIOR to, Scripture. No three-legged stools or anything of the kind.

Hence:

1) Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos).

2) Because Scripture is God speaking, it is the standard by which all "tradition" is to be measured.

Soon we will need to discuss the epistemology involved in admitting that God has spoken, and how one could offer "proof" that would validate God's own truth claims. And, we need to look at Matthew 23 and "Moses' seat" as well: a passage often badly misused in this discussion.

The doctrine of the Church should be proven, not announced; therefore
show that the Scriptures teach these things. ----Theodoret

[To {N%} on 03-08-97]</

Psalm 119:18) Open my eyes, that I may behold Wonderful things from Your law.

In a message dated 97-03-08 11:12:31 EST, you write:

> James: Who said "Read my book"? Only the bullying, bigoted,
> sha