I noted a while back the response of a hyper-Calvinist to the announcement of the topic of the tenth in the Great Debate Series on Long Island, "Can a Non-Christian Enter Heaven?" Despite my lengthy history of apologetic interaction with Rome, my consistent affirmation of the fact that Rome does not possess the gospel of Jesus Christ, and my defense of Reformed soteriology against the likes of Norman Geisler, George Bryson, and Dave Hunt, hyper-Calvinists have chosen to use this opportunity to make sure everyone understands: it is not enough for you to believe in the Five Points: unless you 1) confess you were not a Christian until you understood and believed all Five Points, and 2) are willing to condemn to the fires of hell itself every person who does not understand and believe all five points in totality, you are not a Christian either (evidently that makes seven points you must believe). So, the theme out of the hyper camp is that both the debaters June 9th, Bill Rutland, the Roman Catholic, and James White, the Calvinist, are unregenerate, lost men! You can believe all Five Points, but, if you don't believe their "Extra Two," you are as lost as a Roman Catholic who affirms every element of Rome's false teaching.
One of the best known hyper-Calvinists is Marc D. Carpenter of outsidethecamp.org. I have denounced Carpenter repeatedly in the past, and watched with sadness as he has spiraled over the years into an ever tighter circle of error. The man is so hyper he has added John Calvin to his "Heterodoxy Hall of Shame" page (see for yourself). One of my great failures in life is that I haven't made it onto this page. It would be an honor to join Calvin, Berkhof, Boettner, Hodge, Spurgeon and others for refusing Carpenter's "Perfection of Knowledge Required for Salvation" heresy. Mr. Carpenter sent out an e-mail Saturday about the upcoming debate. I present it below in blockquote, with my comments/response interspersed.
So James White says that a non-Christian cannot enter heaven. Yet who does he consider a Christian? Does he consider some who deny the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ to be Christians? He most certainly does. (See the attachment.)
JRW: The attachment contained the text to a previous response to Carpenter, which is posted on our website, here.
To deny the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ is to deny the very heart of the gospel. Yet James White considers some who hold to this damnable heresy as his brothers in Christ. What does this say about James White's belief in the gospel?
It says Marc Carpenter refuses to listen to anyone's rebuttal of his errors. It says I recognize the difference between 1) ignorance, 2) error based upon tradition and ignorance, 3) inconsistency, and 4) knowing rejection of the truth. Unlike the wonderful black-and-white world of Marc Carpenter, I live in the real, flesh-and-blood world where you have the messy reality of God's truth encountering imperfect, sinful human beings. And unlike Carpenter, I happen to believe that God's grace works in conforming us to the image of Christ over time. That is, I happen to believe what the Bible says: we are to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18). That means God leaves room for growth. He does not birth us as full grown, mature believers with all knowledge of all truth. The newly regenerated believer clings to Christ and Christ alone: and then spends the rest of his or her life working out what that means in ever widening circles of sanctification. It means that I recognize the difference between a glorious and vital truth and the inconsistent denial thereof based upon ignorance (i.e., I affirm and defend the truth of the perfection of the atoning work of Jesus Christ in behalf of His people: but I had never heard of the phrase "limited atonement" when I placed my faith and trust in Jesus Christ for salvation, and would not, in fact, hear of it, or come to understand it, for another nearly two decades--yet, I was a Christian prior to hearing that phrase). Mr. Carpenter does not understand the distinction biblical Calvinism makes between the person who confesses the truth inconsistently, and the person who consistently denies the truth. The result is a small, tiny, cut-off little group that is defined, en toto, by its view of 7 Point Perfectionism, nothing else.
Consider: (1) James White believes that some who believe universal atonement are saved.
It is actually worse than that. I believe some folks who haven't a clue what universal atonement means are saved! I deny "universal atonement" if by that Carpenter means a non-substitutionary atonement that does not save, or, a substitutionary atonement that makes salvation only possible, but does not save. I have argued the case many times, and pointed out the errors that flow from holding to such a view. I have paid the price for my stance too, I assure you. But where I part company with Carpenter and bid him adieu is when he makes agreement with his particular formulation a definitional tenet of the knowledge of the redeemed. I was a Christian before I ever knew of the debate. The vast majority of those Carpenter would identify as "Arminians" do not have the first clue as to what the debate is about. And, of course, you cannot begin to substantiate the idea that Paul was going about adding "limited atonement" to the list of things that define the gospel proclamation, without which, there is no true faith. Do I call believers to hold to a consistent theology on the doctrine of the atonement? You bet I do. Do I teach it in the fellowship where I serve as an elder? Sure do. Do I believe it important to the honoring of God to believe it? Yes indeed. Do I believe someone who is ignorant of it is lost? Of course not. Do I believe someone who denies it and yet gives no evidence of actually understanding why is, by strict virtue of that denial, lost? Of course not. Do I agree that it is not a good thing for someone to be thoroughly informed of divine truths and reject them? That such could possibly indicate that such a person loves their traditions more than the truth? Yes, I do. But I also recognize that we normally jump to snap conclusions and God works on a much longer timetable than we do. I know that someone may well reject what I say to them for a multitude of reasons that have little to do with the actual teaching under discussion, and may change their mind a little later, or long after. In either case, it is not my job to attempt to look into their hearts.
(2) James White believes that all saved people believe the gospel.
Of course. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation.
Thus, (3) James White believes that some who believe universal atonement believe the gospel.
Guilty as charged, since, as I have noted, the vast majority of those who trust in Christ have not a clue what Carpenter is harping about here in the first place. They only know that they are sinners and Jesus is the only Savior. Is it inconsistent, ultimately, to believe Christ is a perfect Savior when He fails to save some, as less than biblical views of the atonement would indicate? Of course. But thankfully, inconsistency based upon ignorance is not a hindrance to God's work of salvation: He will work in the hearts of His people in His own time, in His own way. It is my job to speak the truth, His to save His people. It is not Carpenter's to become the judge, jury, and executioner of those who trust in Christ.
What does this show about James White's belief about the gospel? Since James White believes a person can believe the gospel and believe universal atonement at the same time, then he must believe that the gospel does not include the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ. James White has just denied the very heart of the gospel.
Here Carpenter blows a logical gasket, and he doesn't even cover over his error very well. Note that Carpenter equates "the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ" with "a perfect and consistent knowledge of particular redemption with all of its attendant issues, including substitution, penal satisfaction, election, predestination, union with Christ, and therefore, particularity." Let's take me again: I was very, very young when God's grace converted me (I guess that's not possible in Carpenter's very, very small world of hyper Calvinism). I hadn't a clue there was an argument about this issue. I only knew Christ took my punishment and I needed to repent of my sin and believe in Christ and Christ alone. Evidently, Carpenter does not believe that act of faith by a young child saved. Carpenter's hyperism moves the heart of the gospel away from Christ and into the intellect of the hyper-Calvinist who has read enough books and listened to enough debates to articulate the "proper" words in the proper order to the satisfaction of Marc Carpenter. He can have his empty, cold hyperism. I want nothing of it.
Also consider: (1) All who believe a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner are unregenerate. (2) Universal atonement is a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner.
Note again the refusal to recognize that not everyone who is not in his tiny little group has a clue what he's so upset about. "Universal atonement" is not a false gospel---it is not a "gospel" at all. It is a theory regarding the extent of the atonement. Many would say they believe in it simply because they are ignorant of the ramifications of the concept of substitutionary atonement, but the same people would clearly affirm the perfection of the atonement, never having been challenged to recognize the inconsistency of their position. Carpenter would slam the door of heaven in their faces for their inconsistencies. My, I wonder if Carpenter has any? And if he does, is heaven denied him as well? And was Mr. Carpenter regenerated only on the day he managed to rid himself of his final inconsistency? What an odd thing for a Calvinist to believe: that an unregenerate person would plow their way through all that reading, all that material, all that theology, just to finally come to an understanding of particular redemption and thereby receive salvation!
Thus, (3) all who believe universal atonement are unregenerate. James White and every person who would consider at least some universal atonement advocates to be regenerate MUST disagree with #3. And the only way people can disagree with #3 is if they disagree with at least one of the first two statements. Consider those who disagree with #1. These are people who believe that at least some who believe a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner are regenerate. Can a true Christian disagree with #1? Of course not. Consider those who disagree with #2. These are people who believe that universal atonement is not a false gospel of salvation conditioned on the sinner. Can a true Christian disagree with #2? Of course not. Thus, all who disagree with #3 (all who consider at least some universal atonement advocates to be saved) are unregenerate.
It is so plain! So clear! So compelling! And so absurd! Such simplistic logic has led Carpenter to have to define Calvin himself as insufficiently Calvinistic, leading to the inevitable conclusion that Marc Carpenter and his tiny band define the extent of the work of the Holy Spirit in our world today. What an incredible thought!
It is no wonder that God says that anyone who speaks peace to a person who brings a false gospel is unregenerate (2 John 11).
Hyper-Calvinists are not the best exegetes around. 2 John 9-11, in context, reads:
2 John 1:9-11 9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
John is not talking about universal atonement as "the teaching." He is talking about the teaching concerning the Father and the Son, and especially, in the Johannine literature, concerning the doctrine of the antiChrists, who denied that the Son came in the flesh. John is exhorting his readers not to greet those who have gone out of the fellowship and who are denying the Father and the Son. To connect these words to Carpenter's idiosyncratic hyper-Calvinism is, once again, absurd. Only by extending a truth (particular redemption) to the status of the final and full definition of the gospel itself can Carpenter make such an outrageous leap.
Those who say that Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception deny that the death of Christ actually pardoned, redeemed, propitiated, and reconciled.
That is a true statement: and in my experience, 1% of those with whom I have discussed the subject have realized the connection. Carpenter damns them to hell. I encourage them to consider what the Word says about the atonement. Carpenter is a grossly inconsistent hyper-Calvinist, for he seems to think that unregenerate men will actually invest the time and effort to pursue the entire issue. I recognize that I have a ground upon which to exhort believers who have never been faced with the issue, or who have only heard one side, mainly that of the surface-level arguments about "all the world" and the like, to consider well the teaching of the Scriptures about the atoning sacrifice of Christ. That is why I get to introduce so many to the doctrines of grace, and Marc Carpenter sits in his little enclave thinking God is saving two dozen folks in the entire world. It is simply sad.
They deny that Christ's blood actually atoned.
No, they say just the opposite. They say it did atone. They are inconsistent. They need to be taught. They need to be challenged. They do not need to be damned by some cold, condemning hyper-Calvinist.
They deny that it is the work of Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation. They deny the very heart of the gospel. They boast and glory in themselves. They are God-haters.
They deny no such thing: their stance is one of inconsistency, not denial. They do not boast in themselves, and I have often found those very folks to be the quickest to bow before the truth of the Word and embrace election and perfect atonement when they are approached as believers who hold to the authority of the Word. I have never once seen someone respond to being damned to hell by a hyper by looking more fully at these divine truths.
And those who speak peace to these God-haters, who call them brothers and sisters in Christ, who say that the universal atonement advocates believe the same gospel they do, show that they, too, deny the true gospel. They deny that the atoning, pardoning, redeeming, propitiating, reconciling blood of Christ is an essential part of the gospel. They, too, do not believe the gospel. They, too, are boasters who glory in the sinner. They, too, are God-haters.
And thus, Marc Carpenter sets himself up not only as the Pope of the small, grim little band of hyper-Calvinists, but as the Holy Spirit as well, demanding perfection of understanding, no growth in grace or knowledge, and claiming the ability to look into the hearts of men and determine who is a God-hater, all based upon his narrow, inconsistent, idiosyncratic theology. I suppose there is one thing that is good about exposing these people: their numbers do not grow. There is nothing attractive in hyper-Calvinism. It is cold, sterile, and repulsive. And thus it remains a side-show, a clear example of the fact that you can obtain intellectual knowledge that remains disconnected from your heart. Balance is vital in all aspects of the Christian faith, and hypers do not possess balance.
James White is just as unregenerate as Bill Rutland. In "The Great Debate 2005," there will be two unregenerate people debating each other. James White will be saying that it is not possible for a non-Christian to enter heaven. Yet he does not consider all universal atonement advocates to be non-Christians. Thus, he believes that it is possible for universal atonement advocates to enter heaven. This is just as heretical as anything Bill Rutland says.
There you go, folks. In the black-and-white world of Marc Carpenter, you can oppose Rome's doctrines, teach justification by grace through faith, the imputation of the perfect righteousness of Christ, and stand firm on all five points, but if you dare seek to lead others into a knowledge of the doctrines of grace by appealing to their love for Christ and His Word, rather than casting them into the flames of perdition, you yourself are no better off than a Roman Catholic who clings to transubstantiation, priestly absolution, and purgatory! Ah yes, the absurdity of the claim proves the point, but you must keep something in mind: Carpenter's little group thinks that this kind of wild-eyed claim is actually proof that they are right. A quick scan of his website proves that the idea that they are "outside the camp" (another idiosyncratic reading of the text on Carpenter's part) proves the correctness of their damning 99.9998% of professing believers to the flames of hell.
Does God save universal atonement advocates? He certainly does. But when He saves them, they will NO LONGER be universal atonement advocates. They will believe the true gospel of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. Belief of the gospel is not a condition or prerequisite to salvation; it is an immediate, inevitable, and essential fruit of salvation. Thus, when God saves someone, He causes that person to believe that it is the work of Christ alone that makes the difference between salvation and damnation and that ensures the salvation of everyone whom He represented.
Translation: if God does not lead you to understand this particular aspect of the atonement in the fashion Marc Carpenter believes proper, you are unregenerate. If you dare continue to believe something less specific and accurate than that defined by Marc Carpenter, you are lost as well. You may love Christ, believe He is God, believe He rose from the dead, believe you are saved by grace through faith ALONE without any human merit---but unless you have a perfectly consistent theology of the atonement, you are lost and unregenerate. Every saved person will believe like Marc Carpenter, and not only that, but every saved person also must believe that everyone else who disagrees is damned to hell (like me).
Hyper Calvinism is a sad spectacle in all of its manifestations, and I say that as a very strong Calvinist, one who holds to a modified supralapsarian view. But I truly enjoy making a fool out of the few who have attempted to paint me as a hyper-Calvinist by blowing away every mark of the hyper-Calvinist through my missions work, evangelism, and preaching. And I have been consistent in condemning the imbalance and error of hyper-Calvinism for quite some documentable time. I hope seeing the errors in the reasoning of men like Marc Carpenter will help true Calvinists to refute false accusations of hyper-ism (so many of our opponents attempt to lump us all together for emotional impact).
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Monday, September 12, 2011
The King James Only Controversy Can You Trust the Modern Translations? James R. White
INTRODUCTION
The salesclerk never saw it coming. He had just finished unpacking the new shipment of study Bibles and setting up the new display. He had been working at the Christian bookstore only a week. All seemed well. And then it happened. She seemed like any other lady looking for a Bible for her grandson. More than glad to help he pulled a nice NIV down from the shelf and opened the box. He noticed she immediately turned the Bible and looked at the spine. Her countenance changed. She put the Bible back in the box, withdrawing her hands quickly, as a person does when discovering an object is dirty or oily. "I would like a real Bible," she says. "A real Bible?" The salesclerk asks. "Yes," she replied, "a real Bible, the Bible God honors, the King James Bible, the A.V. 1611."
Scenes like this are repeated almost daily across the English-speaking world. Ask any person who has worked behind the Bible counter at a Christian bookstore. Many have been informed in no uncertain terms that the only Bible they should be carrying is the King James Version. The many others they offer are, in fact, nothing but perversions of God’s Word.
The church today faces many difficult issues and questions. It would seem that a controversy revolving around a group of people who embrace one particular translation of the Bible is barely a bump in the rocky road upon which the church travels. One may well ask why we should take the time to examine an issue such as the King James Only controversy. Are there not more important things to do? Certainly it is true that far too much energy, in our opinion, has been expended upon this topic already, but that energy has come almost exclusively from one side of the debate. Most biblical scholars and theologians, even of the most conservative stripe, do not feel the issue worthy of any real investment of time. So why write an entire book on the topic? An illustration might help.
One of our faithful volunteers was on the phone. The pastor of her church had preached on Matthew 18 on Sunday, and had read verse 11, "For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost" (NASB). She and her husband were both using the New International Version, the NIV, which does not have Matthew 18:11. Neither one saw the textual footnote at the bottom of the page that gave the translation of verse 11. Both were quite puzzled and wondered why the NIV would "delete" this verse.
These friends are not alone. Believers who were raised in good, solid Christian churches have to admit to a large measure of ignorance when it comes to the text of the Scriptures. Why are there different translations? Why are there controversies about words, phrases, sentences, even entire passages? Why does my pastor’s Bible have a verse that mine does not? It is this kind of confusion that provides the perfect breeding ground for controversy. Our friends knew they could call upon us to explain the situation. Many do not know whom they can turn to.
The King James Only controversy, by its very nature, brings disruption and contention right into the pews of the local Christian church. KJV Only advocates, due to the nature of their beliefs, are often disruptive of the fellowship in churches, feeling that their message of "God’s one true Bible" needs to be heard by all. Anyone who does not "know what they know" needs to be told quickly, and most often, forcefully. And since much of the KJV Only material alleges grand and complex conspiracies on the part of the modern translations, distrust of others who use (or would even defend) those translations often results in schisms within the fellowship and a debilitation of the local body.
Most important, men of God, pastors and elders entrusted with the care of the flock of God, are inevitably, and often unwillingly, drawn into this controversy. Time that should be spent in ministry to families, the sick, the hurting, has to be invested in explaining to zealous members of the congregation why their salvation is not dependent upon a seventeenth-century Anglican translation of the Bible. Energy that could be devoted to the study of the Word and the proclamation of God’s truth from the pulpit has to be directed toward allaying fears inspired by KJV Only publications. These pastors often have to adopt a defensive posture, for KJV Only advocates are quick to spread suspicion of weakness, or even heresy, against those who do not agree with their position.
Those not familiar with KJV Only publications need only pick up The Bible Believer’s Bulletin from Dr. Peter Ruckman (Pensacola Bible Institute) or books such as Let’s Weigh the Evidence by Barry Burton (Chick Publications, 1983), New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger (A.V. Publications, 1993), or Final Authority by William P. Grady (Grady Publications, 1993), to discover how vitriolic this argument can become. Charges of blasphemy, heresy, and even stupidity, fly thick from some elements of the KJV Only movement. Thankfully, not all who hold to this position engage in such name-calling, but sadly the movement as a whole is marked by this kind of invective. The willingness of individuals such as Peter Ruckman to dehumanize those who disagree with him through personal attack breeds an "us versus them" mentality in those who buy into the KJV Only position. Anyone who would seek to reason with these individuals runs the risk of being identified as an "enemy of God’s Word," i.e., the KJV.
Responsibility must be laid at the door of the KJV Only camp for the destruction of many Christian churches. Church splits have taken place as the direct result of the influence of KJV Only materials on elders, deacons, and other influential members. Many pastors have become quite wary of these materials, having experienced great troubles at the hands of those who become mesmerized by the KJV Only cry.
This book is written because of a desire for peace in the church of Jesus Christ. We are not speaking of a peace that is purchased at the price of compromise, but a peace that comes from single-minded devotion to the things of God. Our relationship with Jesus Christ is not based upon a particular Bible translation. Men and women had fine Christian lives for fifteen hundred years before the KJV came on the scene. Obviously one can live such a life without ever opening a KJV Bible. The church should not be distracted by even well-meaning people who seek to force others to read one particular translation of the Bible.
The KJV Only controversy feeds upon the ignorance among Christians regarding the origin, transmission, and translation of the Bible. Those who have taken the time to study this area are not likely candidates for induction into the KJV Only camp. Having a firm grasp of the issues that arise in transmitting an ancient text to the modern day and then translating that text from a rich foreign language into our less rich English tongue is not only vital in providing an answer to the KJV Only advocates, but it is also extremely important to the Christian mission in our day. As we proclaim the Gospel to an ever more skeptical world, we must be clear on why we believe the Bible to be God’s Word. This calls us to be students of that book, and requires us to study its history and the reasons for our trust in its veracity and accuracy.
The Christian who wishes to "give a reason for the hope" that is within him will be quite alarmed at the logical conclusions that are to be derived from the KJV Only perspective. The body of this work will demonstrate that the KJV Only position is forced to make statements about the Bible that in reality undercut the very foundations of the faith itself. Furthermore, KJV Only supporters have to downplay the importance of properly translating various passages of Scripture that are central to the demonstration of the deity of Christ so as to maintain the alleged infallibility of the KJV (see chapter 8). Christian people who believe that the faith is true and able to withstand scrutiny cannot allow such assertions to pass unchallenged.
It is very important to understand the motivation behind this book. This book is not being written to push one particular translation of the Bible over another. There is no desire to get everyone to read the NASB, or the NIV, or the NKJV, or the RSV, or any other ?modern? translation. On the other hand, I am not in any way seeking to stop those who use the KJV from reading that venerable translation. This book is not against the King James Version. I know many fine Christian people who use the KJV and for whom the translation works just fine. However, 1 do oppose those who would force others to use the KJV or risk God’s wrath for allegedly questioning His Word. / oppose KJV Onlyism, not the King James Version itself.
It is not our intention to provide a history or even a full description of the KJV Only movement. This work is not designed to respond to specific individuals within that camp. Rather, the wish is to provide a broad response to the general claims, providing a reasoned response to the concept that there is any particular translation of the Bible in English that God requires the faithful Christian to use. There will also be an examination of the most commonly cited passages in the Holy Scriptures that are utilized by KJV Only advocates to "make their case."
The author of this work is a biblical conservative. In light of this, there are a number of Bible translations that I would not personally recommend. This work does not seek, by responding to the KJV Only position, to give carte blanche to any and all beliefs or theories that might be put forward under the guise of "academic freedom." I am no friend to those who would seek to undercut the very foundations of the Christian faith. Indeed, it is a concern for the integrity of the faith that drives this reply to the KJV Only position, for the cause of conservative values in the Christian faith is by no means aided by the existence of the KJV Only camp. The willingness of many to sacrifice all semblance of logic and rationality in the cause of defending a great, yet imperfect, translation of the Bible as if it were inspired is used by skeptics as evidence of how "backwards" conservatives as a whole truly are.
Whatever factors have motivated you to pick up this volume, let us ask for this one thing: a willingness to listen, to think, and to consider. Much time has been taken to hear the KJV Only position in its many and varied expressions. I have gone to great lengths to be accurate in representing a many-faceted movement. I ask only the same in return. Critical thought is encouraged, not in a humanistic sense whereby man is set up as some sort of demigod, capable of judging even the things of God by his own puny standards. Rather, I encourage the thinking that is marked by wisdom, a wisdom that examines the facts and holds to the highest standard of truth. Christians should not engage in circular reasoning and unfair argumentation. The KJV Only controversy should be examined in such a way that all of us, no matter what our perspective, seek to be consistent in our thinking, consistent in our argumentation, consistent in our beliefs.
Finally, for those who come to this discussion with deep and long-standing commitments to the Authorized Version (AV, as we shall call it at times), please consider well the necessity of examining your beliefs, no matter how cherished they may be, on the basis of God’s truth. We all have our traditions. Yes, even those who claim to "go by the Bible alone" have their traditions, and the more aware we are of our traditions, the more fully we can test them by Scripture. Those who are blind to their own traditions are the least likely to be fully biblical in their beliefs. We all must constantly test our faith by Scripture, and we must pray for a willingness to abandon those beliefs that are found to be contrary to God’s revealed truth.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pgs. III-VIII.
Chapter 1: "King James Only"
The Role of Christian Freedom
The use of a particular English translation of the Bible is surely a personal choice. Many factors can, and should, go into your decisions as you purchase Bible translations. Whether you like a more literal, formal translation, or a more "dynamic," free-flowing translation will impact your choices. Study editions, companion volumes, concordances, even the print style and size, are all issues to take into consideration. What translation is predominant in your local church is important as well, especially if you will be teaching or leading Bible studies. But one thing that should never be a factor is intimidation. You should never have to wonder if you are going to be accepted by others if you use an NIV rather than a KJV (or vice versa!). Fellowship should never be based upon the English translation one carries and studies.
I firmly believe that if people wish to use the KJV, they should feel free to do so. If they find its poetic form, its rhythmic beauty, to be preferable to "modern language," let no one be critical. God made us all differently, for which we should be very grateful. But while quick to grant this freedom to others, it cannot be expected that this freedom would be given by those who have joined the KJV Only movement. For them this is not an issue of freedom, but of doctrine, belief, and faith. While never making their use of the KJV a barrier to our having fellowship with them, sadly, they very often make my use of anything but the KJV an impediment to our relationship. That sharing in the gospel of Christ can be disrupted by such an issue should cause anyone a moment’s reflection, and more than passing concern.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 5.
Chapter 2: "If it Ain’t Broke "
And the Beat Goes On
It would be funny, if it were not so serious. Jerome takes the heat for translating the Vulgate, which eventually becomes the standard. Erasmus then takes the heat for challenging Jerome and for publishing the Greek New Testament. Then, four hundred years later, it is Erasmus’ work itself, in the form of the Textus Receptus, which has become enshrined as "tradition" by advocates of the AV! He who once resisted tradition has become the tradition itself. The cycle continues. Will there someday be an "NIV Only" movement? We can only hope not.
There is nothing wrong with tradition, as long as we do not confuse tradition with truth. As soon as we become more attached to our traditions than we are to the truth, we are in very deep trouble. The best tradition is that which is recognized for exactly what it is: a tradition that may help us to worship God or serve Him better, but which is not in and of itself the embodiment of truth. Traditions must be tested, and that includes traditions that touch on the use of particular translations or texts. As soon as we make our tradition the test of someone else’s standing with God (as people did to Jerome, Erasmus, and today to those who would use a translation other than the KJV), we have elevated that tradition to a status that is anti-biblical.
Before we can enter into the specifics of Erasmus’ work, and hence the translation of the KJV itself, we need to lay a groundwork in the history of the biblical text itself, and to this topic we now turn.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 17.
Chapter 3: "Start at the Beginning"
A Final Word on the text of the New Testament
KJV Only advocates are quick to assert that those who do not join them in making the KJV the final authority in all things do not believe in the "preservation of the Scriptures." Almost all KJV Only books will contain a section on how God has promised to preserve His words, and they will, of course, assume that these "words" are found in the KJV. At this point they believe themselves to be holding the "high ground" in the debate, fighting for a belief that all Christians would naturally defend: the idea that God has revealed himself, and has done so in such a way that we can continue to know that revelation perfectly today.
The problem with the position taken by the defender of the AV is that he has not demonstrated that his way is the only way to understand the idea of "preservation." Does God have to preserve His Word in the way KJV Only advocates believe? Or might God have done this in another way?
Our brief look at the history of the text of the New Testament suggests that there might be a way other than "re-inspiring" the entire Bible (as some would have us believe God did in 1611), or even supernaturally guiding men to give us a particular translation. What if God preserved His Word in a much less flashy way?
When we look at how God led His people to recognize the canon of Scripture, the listing of the books that were inspired over against those books which were not, we note that God did not engage in any celestial fireworks in the process. No angels showed up with golden tablets marked "Divine Index." Instead, God worked with His people over time, leading them to recognize what He had already done through the act of inspiration. It took time, and some might wish for a more "spectacular" method, but God did it in His way, in His time.
The same thing is true regarding the protection and preservation of the text of the Bible. One might well see a tremendous amount of divine wisdom in the way in which God worked over the years. By having the text of the New Testament in particular "explode" across the known world, ending up in the far-flung corners of the Roman Empire in a relatively short period of time, God protected that text from the one thing that we could never detect: the wholesale change of doctrine or theology by one particular man or group who had full control over the text at any one point in its history. You see, because the New Testament books were written at various times, and were quickly copied and distributed as soon as they were written, there was never a time when any one man, or any group of men, could gather up all the manuscripts and make extensive changes in the text itself, such as cutting out the deity of Christ, or inserting some foreign doctrine or concept. No one could gather up the texts and try to make them all say the same thing by "harmonizing" them, either. If someone had indeed done such a thing, we could never know for certain what the apostles had written, and what the truth actually is. But such a thing did not, and could not, happen. Indeed, by the time anyone did obtain great ecclesiastical power in the name of Christianity, texts like p66 or p75 were already long buried in the sands of Egypt, out of the reach of anyone who would try to alter them. The fact that their text is nearly identical to even the most "Byzantine" manuscript of 1,000 years later is testimony to the overall purity of the New Testament text.
The side effect of this method of preserving the New Testament is the relatively small amount of textual variation that we will be discussing extensively below. But one point must be emphasized. Dr. Kurt Aland has pointed out what he calls the tenacity of the New Testament text. This refers to the fact that once a variant reading appears in a manuscript, it doesn’t simply go away. It gets copied and ends up in other manuscripts. Why is this important? It is important because readings don’t just "disappear" in the New Testament. And that means that we still have the original readings of the New Testament works. You see, if readings could just "disappear" without a trace, we would have to face the fact that the original reading may have "fallen through the cracks" as well. But the tenacity of the New Testament text, while forcing us to deal with textual variants, also provides us with the assurance that our work is not in vain. One of those variant readings is indeed the original. We are called to invest our energies in discovering which one it is.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 47-48.
Chapter 4: "Putting it Together"
A Grand Work
Hopefully we can better analyze the claims of the KJV Only movement in light of the facts of how the KJV came into existence. The King James Version is a monument to those who labored to bring it into existence. Of this there can be no question. But as we have seen, it was a human process, and as in all of human life and endeavor, it did not partake of infallibility.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 82.
Chapter 5: "The King James Only Camp"
The term "misrepresentation" seems, at times, simply too mild to describe this kind of writing. And when one remembers that this is ‘ directed toward servants of Christ who are working to proclaim His truth in churches and missionary works all over the land and even the world, one has trouble passing over Dr. __________’s invective in silence.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 121.
Chapter 6: "Translational Differences"
No Grand Conspiracies
It seems fair to say that, in a majority of the passages examined in the preceding pages, translations such as the NASB and NIV have been seen to surpass the KJV with reference to clarity and ease of comprehension far more often than the reverse. No grand conspiracies have been uncovered, no attempts to hide doctrines or beliefs by mistranslating the text have been found. What we have discovered is that the comparison of various translations of the Bible is often very useful in ascertaining the meaning of the passage being studied, and that the KJV is one of those many fine translations available for just that task. When used in conjunction with such fine modern translations as the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, the KJV adds a noble rendering to the list and is often helpful in grasping the literal meaning of the terms involved.
We hope it has also become clear that we must be very careful to look closely at the claims of those who would attack the work of Christian scholars as found in the NKJV or NIV. Most of the time a translation that differs from the KJV is just as valid and reliable as the one found in the AV itself, and frequently, it is more clear and understandable. When differences are examined in a context of seeking to understand the reasons for the differences, rather than in one of fear and emotion, we learn more about the Word and the original intents of the authors. This is how Christian dialogue and discussion should take place. Whenever you encounter a supposed "change" in the Bible’s text, take the time to look carefully at the available information. You will discover that there are reasons for the differences, and that there is no rationale at all for running to theories of conspiracies or evil intentions on the part of modern translators. Their goal is not to corrupt God’s Word but to preserve it and accurately pass it on to future generations.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 146-147.
Chapter 7: "Textual Differences"
Modern Texts Found Innocent
Conspiratorial thinking tends to see the "facts" in such a way as to always support one’s preconceived notions. Once a person has accepted the idea that the ?modern versions? are somehow in league with one another to "get" the KJV and to "hide" God’s truths, every instance of variation between the KJV and those versions is filled with great importance. Rather than examining the facts and gaining a proper perspective on the issue, KJV Only advocates find in the most innocent scribal error a grand scheme to rob Christ of His deity or deny that salvation is by grace through faith. Yet, even a cursory examination of the facts is sufficient to make the reasoning behind the modern versions and their textual choices plain and understandable for those who are willing to listen.
Those who use a modern translation that was produced by godly men who were seeking simply to follow the best texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, and to faithfully translate those texts into the English language, can have great confidence that they are reading God’s Word in the best form in which it can be found in their language. The comparison of these translations against one another only serves to sharpen our understanding of the intention of the original authors. And when textual variants appear in footnotes or in comparison with the KJV, believers can be assured that these things arose not because of some attempt to hide the truth from them, but due to the very understandable actions of scribes down through the centuries who were themselves doing their best to accurately copy those precious manuscripts. Rather than being fearful that they can’t be "certain" about what God has revealed, they should rejoice that God has made it possible for them to have and hold His Word, and they should seek to obey His will that is so clearly presented therein. The preacher and teacher can proclaim God’s truth from the pages of such a translation with the full assurance that he is proclaiming the whole counsel of God, and can trust God with the results.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 186-187.
Chapter 8: "The Son of God, the Lord of Glory"
Modern Translations Vindicated Again
The doctrine of the deity of Christ is indeed a vitally important issue. But we have seen that KJV Only advocates are, in fact, guilty of using an important doctrine as a brickbat to further their promotion of the KJV. Their arguments have been found, again, to be utterly inconsistent and most often circular. Modern translations such as the NIV and NASB have been cleared of the accusations made against them, not by appeal to emotion or through use of insulting rhetoric, but by examination of the facts themselves. Surely we must decry the use | of such a precious doctrine as the deity of Christ in the way we have seen it used by advocates of the AV. Such is surely not a proper use of such an important Christian belief. And what is worse, we have often seen that passages that do testify to the deity of Christ, and hence should be shared with those who have been deceived on this topic, are often translated more clearly in the modern translations than in the KJV. Followers of the prophets of KJV Onlyism are, therefore, less prepared to defend the faith than those who have not limited themselves to a single English translation from the seventeenth century.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 219.
Chapter 9: "Problems in the KJV"
It needs to be emphasized one more time that the preceding information is not meant to "bash" the KJV, but to treat it as its translators would have desired. Any result of human effort will be, in some measure, flawed. And despite the strong assertions of some in the KJV Only camp, the AV is the result of human effort, human skill, human work. As a result, we are able to locate problems, ranging from unclear translations to simple mistranslations, such as Acts 5:30. This is exactly what one would expect given the background of the KJV, but it is not what one would expect if the claims of KJV Only defenders regarding supernatural oversight or even inspiration are true. The presence of errors and mishaps in the text of the KJV is an insurmountable obstacle for those who wish to proclaim the KJV inspired, inerrant, and infallible.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 237-238.
Let The Reader Understand
This book has been a plea for understanding. It is my desire that the reader, upon completing this work, will first and foremost have a desire to understand why our English translations of the Bible read as they do. This is the one thing that I have found to be lacking in most KJV Only advocates with whom I have spoken: a desire to truly know why someone might be willing to use something other than the KJV, to really understand why some readings in the modern translations are, in fact, superior to those in the KJV. You cannot get far with a person who does not wish to travel with you. And I well know that many who are in the KJV Only camp will never set foot upon the path I have attempted to clear in the past pages.
I have written this work for the person who has a godly desire to know the truth. I have not attempted to convince the already convinced. I have written for those who are seeking answers, facts, explanations. I have been prompted by the honest inquiries, the concerned questions, of those who wonder about the claims made by KJV Only advocates. 1 have sought to be of assistance to the beleaguered pastor who does not need yet another problem cropping up in the congregation. And 1 admit to a desire to aid in the vindication of men of God who have labored diligently in the field of textual study and translation, a field hardly fraught with riches and glory. The constant denigration of their work, their spirituality, and even their intelligence cries out for a solid refutation and even rebuke, and 1 hope to have provided that in these pages.
King James Onlyism is a human tradition. It has no basis in history. It has no foundation in fact. It is internally inconsistent, utilizing circular reasoning at its core, and involves the use of more double standards than almost any system of thought I have ever encountered. And yet it is embraced by fellow believers, and as such must be addressed if I am to follow Christ’s command, "Love one another."
The facts of the matter are now before you, the reader. Whatever you decide I pray that your deepest desire will be to believe only what is true, nothing that is false. I hope that you will be challenged to dig deeper, to become a student of the Word who is not dependent upon this writer or that "authority," but one who can draw from the rich supply of wisdom and knowledge that is available to us in our day, doing this solely and only to the glory of God.
Finally, as 1 said at the beginning, my desire is for the peace of Christ’s church. I truly hope that this work will help to quell restless spirits in congregations who are by their zealousness for a human tradition (KJV Onlyism) causing dissension and discord. May the facts of the matter, rather than the emotions of the moment, convince such people to refrain from disturbing the brethren, and may the church focus instead upon the weighty and important issues that face her.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 249-50.
The salesclerk never saw it coming. He had just finished unpacking the new shipment of study Bibles and setting up the new display. He had been working at the Christian bookstore only a week. All seemed well. And then it happened. She seemed like any other lady looking for a Bible for her grandson. More than glad to help he pulled a nice NIV down from the shelf and opened the box. He noticed she immediately turned the Bible and looked at the spine. Her countenance changed. She put the Bible back in the box, withdrawing her hands quickly, as a person does when discovering an object is dirty or oily. "I would like a real Bible," she says. "A real Bible?" The salesclerk asks. "Yes," she replied, "a real Bible, the Bible God honors, the King James Bible, the A.V. 1611."
Scenes like this are repeated almost daily across the English-speaking world. Ask any person who has worked behind the Bible counter at a Christian bookstore. Many have been informed in no uncertain terms that the only Bible they should be carrying is the King James Version. The many others they offer are, in fact, nothing but perversions of God’s Word.
The church today faces many difficult issues and questions. It would seem that a controversy revolving around a group of people who embrace one particular translation of the Bible is barely a bump in the rocky road upon which the church travels. One may well ask why we should take the time to examine an issue such as the King James Only controversy. Are there not more important things to do? Certainly it is true that far too much energy, in our opinion, has been expended upon this topic already, but that energy has come almost exclusively from one side of the debate. Most biblical scholars and theologians, even of the most conservative stripe, do not feel the issue worthy of any real investment of time. So why write an entire book on the topic? An illustration might help.
One of our faithful volunteers was on the phone. The pastor of her church had preached on Matthew 18 on Sunday, and had read verse 11, "For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost" (NASB). She and her husband were both using the New International Version, the NIV, which does not have Matthew 18:11. Neither one saw the textual footnote at the bottom of the page that gave the translation of verse 11. Both were quite puzzled and wondered why the NIV would "delete" this verse.
These friends are not alone. Believers who were raised in good, solid Christian churches have to admit to a large measure of ignorance when it comes to the text of the Scriptures. Why are there different translations? Why are there controversies about words, phrases, sentences, even entire passages? Why does my pastor’s Bible have a verse that mine does not? It is this kind of confusion that provides the perfect breeding ground for controversy. Our friends knew they could call upon us to explain the situation. Many do not know whom they can turn to.
The King James Only controversy, by its very nature, brings disruption and contention right into the pews of the local Christian church. KJV Only advocates, due to the nature of their beliefs, are often disruptive of the fellowship in churches, feeling that their message of "God’s one true Bible" needs to be heard by all. Anyone who does not "know what they know" needs to be told quickly, and most often, forcefully. And since much of the KJV Only material alleges grand and complex conspiracies on the part of the modern translations, distrust of others who use (or would even defend) those translations often results in schisms within the fellowship and a debilitation of the local body.
Most important, men of God, pastors and elders entrusted with the care of the flock of God, are inevitably, and often unwillingly, drawn into this controversy. Time that should be spent in ministry to families, the sick, the hurting, has to be invested in explaining to zealous members of the congregation why their salvation is not dependent upon a seventeenth-century Anglican translation of the Bible. Energy that could be devoted to the study of the Word and the proclamation of God’s truth from the pulpit has to be directed toward allaying fears inspired by KJV Only publications. These pastors often have to adopt a defensive posture, for KJV Only advocates are quick to spread suspicion of weakness, or even heresy, against those who do not agree with their position.
Those not familiar with KJV Only publications need only pick up The Bible Believer’s Bulletin from Dr. Peter Ruckman (Pensacola Bible Institute) or books such as Let’s Weigh the Evidence by Barry Burton (Chick Publications, 1983), New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger (A.V. Publications, 1993), or Final Authority by William P. Grady (Grady Publications, 1993), to discover how vitriolic this argument can become. Charges of blasphemy, heresy, and even stupidity, fly thick from some elements of the KJV Only movement. Thankfully, not all who hold to this position engage in such name-calling, but sadly the movement as a whole is marked by this kind of invective. The willingness of individuals such as Peter Ruckman to dehumanize those who disagree with him through personal attack breeds an "us versus them" mentality in those who buy into the KJV Only position. Anyone who would seek to reason with these individuals runs the risk of being identified as an "enemy of God’s Word," i.e., the KJV.
Responsibility must be laid at the door of the KJV Only camp for the destruction of many Christian churches. Church splits have taken place as the direct result of the influence of KJV Only materials on elders, deacons, and other influential members. Many pastors have become quite wary of these materials, having experienced great troubles at the hands of those who become mesmerized by the KJV Only cry.
This book is written because of a desire for peace in the church of Jesus Christ. We are not speaking of a peace that is purchased at the price of compromise, but a peace that comes from single-minded devotion to the things of God. Our relationship with Jesus Christ is not based upon a particular Bible translation. Men and women had fine Christian lives for fifteen hundred years before the KJV came on the scene. Obviously one can live such a life without ever opening a KJV Bible. The church should not be distracted by even well-meaning people who seek to force others to read one particular translation of the Bible.
The KJV Only controversy feeds upon the ignorance among Christians regarding the origin, transmission, and translation of the Bible. Those who have taken the time to study this area are not likely candidates for induction into the KJV Only camp. Having a firm grasp of the issues that arise in transmitting an ancient text to the modern day and then translating that text from a rich foreign language into our less rich English tongue is not only vital in providing an answer to the KJV Only advocates, but it is also extremely important to the Christian mission in our day. As we proclaim the Gospel to an ever more skeptical world, we must be clear on why we believe the Bible to be God’s Word. This calls us to be students of that book, and requires us to study its history and the reasons for our trust in its veracity and accuracy.
The Christian who wishes to "give a reason for the hope" that is within him will be quite alarmed at the logical conclusions that are to be derived from the KJV Only perspective. The body of this work will demonstrate that the KJV Only position is forced to make statements about the Bible that in reality undercut the very foundations of the faith itself. Furthermore, KJV Only supporters have to downplay the importance of properly translating various passages of Scripture that are central to the demonstration of the deity of Christ so as to maintain the alleged infallibility of the KJV (see chapter 8). Christian people who believe that the faith is true and able to withstand scrutiny cannot allow such assertions to pass unchallenged.
It is very important to understand the motivation behind this book. This book is not being written to push one particular translation of the Bible over another. There is no desire to get everyone to read the NASB, or the NIV, or the NKJV, or the RSV, or any other ?modern? translation. On the other hand, I am not in any way seeking to stop those who use the KJV from reading that venerable translation. This book is not against the King James Version. I know many fine Christian people who use the KJV and for whom the translation works just fine. However, 1 do oppose those who would force others to use the KJV or risk God’s wrath for allegedly questioning His Word. / oppose KJV Onlyism, not the King James Version itself.
It is not our intention to provide a history or even a full description of the KJV Only movement. This work is not designed to respond to specific individuals within that camp. Rather, the wish is to provide a broad response to the general claims, providing a reasoned response to the concept that there is any particular translation of the Bible in English that God requires the faithful Christian to use. There will also be an examination of the most commonly cited passages in the Holy Scriptures that are utilized by KJV Only advocates to "make their case."
The author of this work is a biblical conservative. In light of this, there are a number of Bible translations that I would not personally recommend. This work does not seek, by responding to the KJV Only position, to give carte blanche to any and all beliefs or theories that might be put forward under the guise of "academic freedom." I am no friend to those who would seek to undercut the very foundations of the Christian faith. Indeed, it is a concern for the integrity of the faith that drives this reply to the KJV Only position, for the cause of conservative values in the Christian faith is by no means aided by the existence of the KJV Only camp. The willingness of many to sacrifice all semblance of logic and rationality in the cause of defending a great, yet imperfect, translation of the Bible as if it were inspired is used by skeptics as evidence of how "backwards" conservatives as a whole truly are.
Whatever factors have motivated you to pick up this volume, let us ask for this one thing: a willingness to listen, to think, and to consider. Much time has been taken to hear the KJV Only position in its many and varied expressions. I have gone to great lengths to be accurate in representing a many-faceted movement. I ask only the same in return. Critical thought is encouraged, not in a humanistic sense whereby man is set up as some sort of demigod, capable of judging even the things of God by his own puny standards. Rather, I encourage the thinking that is marked by wisdom, a wisdom that examines the facts and holds to the highest standard of truth. Christians should not engage in circular reasoning and unfair argumentation. The KJV Only controversy should be examined in such a way that all of us, no matter what our perspective, seek to be consistent in our thinking, consistent in our argumentation, consistent in our beliefs.
Finally, for those who come to this discussion with deep and long-standing commitments to the Authorized Version (AV, as we shall call it at times), please consider well the necessity of examining your beliefs, no matter how cherished they may be, on the basis of God’s truth. We all have our traditions. Yes, even those who claim to "go by the Bible alone" have their traditions, and the more aware we are of our traditions, the more fully we can test them by Scripture. Those who are blind to their own traditions are the least likely to be fully biblical in their beliefs. We all must constantly test our faith by Scripture, and we must pray for a willingness to abandon those beliefs that are found to be contrary to God’s revealed truth.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pgs. III-VIII.
Chapter 1: "King James Only"
The Role of Christian Freedom
The use of a particular English translation of the Bible is surely a personal choice. Many factors can, and should, go into your decisions as you purchase Bible translations. Whether you like a more literal, formal translation, or a more "dynamic," free-flowing translation will impact your choices. Study editions, companion volumes, concordances, even the print style and size, are all issues to take into consideration. What translation is predominant in your local church is important as well, especially if you will be teaching or leading Bible studies. But one thing that should never be a factor is intimidation. You should never have to wonder if you are going to be accepted by others if you use an NIV rather than a KJV (or vice versa!). Fellowship should never be based upon the English translation one carries and studies.
I firmly believe that if people wish to use the KJV, they should feel free to do so. If they find its poetic form, its rhythmic beauty, to be preferable to "modern language," let no one be critical. God made us all differently, for which we should be very grateful. But while quick to grant this freedom to others, it cannot be expected that this freedom would be given by those who have joined the KJV Only movement. For them this is not an issue of freedom, but of doctrine, belief, and faith. While never making their use of the KJV a barrier to our having fellowship with them, sadly, they very often make my use of anything but the KJV an impediment to our relationship. That sharing in the gospel of Christ can be disrupted by such an issue should cause anyone a moment’s reflection, and more than passing concern.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 5.
Chapter 2: "If it Ain’t Broke "
And the Beat Goes On
It would be funny, if it were not so serious. Jerome takes the heat for translating the Vulgate, which eventually becomes the standard. Erasmus then takes the heat for challenging Jerome and for publishing the Greek New Testament. Then, four hundred years later, it is Erasmus’ work itself, in the form of the Textus Receptus, which has become enshrined as "tradition" by advocates of the AV! He who once resisted tradition has become the tradition itself. The cycle continues. Will there someday be an "NIV Only" movement? We can only hope not.
There is nothing wrong with tradition, as long as we do not confuse tradition with truth. As soon as we become more attached to our traditions than we are to the truth, we are in very deep trouble. The best tradition is that which is recognized for exactly what it is: a tradition that may help us to worship God or serve Him better, but which is not in and of itself the embodiment of truth. Traditions must be tested, and that includes traditions that touch on the use of particular translations or texts. As soon as we make our tradition the test of someone else’s standing with God (as people did to Jerome, Erasmus, and today to those who would use a translation other than the KJV), we have elevated that tradition to a status that is anti-biblical.
Before we can enter into the specifics of Erasmus’ work, and hence the translation of the KJV itself, we need to lay a groundwork in the history of the biblical text itself, and to this topic we now turn.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 17.
Chapter 3: "Start at the Beginning"
A Final Word on the text of the New Testament
KJV Only advocates are quick to assert that those who do not join them in making the KJV the final authority in all things do not believe in the "preservation of the Scriptures." Almost all KJV Only books will contain a section on how God has promised to preserve His words, and they will, of course, assume that these "words" are found in the KJV. At this point they believe themselves to be holding the "high ground" in the debate, fighting for a belief that all Christians would naturally defend: the idea that God has revealed himself, and has done so in such a way that we can continue to know that revelation perfectly today.
The problem with the position taken by the defender of the AV is that he has not demonstrated that his way is the only way to understand the idea of "preservation." Does God have to preserve His Word in the way KJV Only advocates believe? Or might God have done this in another way?
Our brief look at the history of the text of the New Testament suggests that there might be a way other than "re-inspiring" the entire Bible (as some would have us believe God did in 1611), or even supernaturally guiding men to give us a particular translation. What if God preserved His Word in a much less flashy way?
When we look at how God led His people to recognize the canon of Scripture, the listing of the books that were inspired over against those books which were not, we note that God did not engage in any celestial fireworks in the process. No angels showed up with golden tablets marked "Divine Index." Instead, God worked with His people over time, leading them to recognize what He had already done through the act of inspiration. It took time, and some might wish for a more "spectacular" method, but God did it in His way, in His time.
The same thing is true regarding the protection and preservation of the text of the Bible. One might well see a tremendous amount of divine wisdom in the way in which God worked over the years. By having the text of the New Testament in particular "explode" across the known world, ending up in the far-flung corners of the Roman Empire in a relatively short period of time, God protected that text from the one thing that we could never detect: the wholesale change of doctrine or theology by one particular man or group who had full control over the text at any one point in its history. You see, because the New Testament books were written at various times, and were quickly copied and distributed as soon as they were written, there was never a time when any one man, or any group of men, could gather up all the manuscripts and make extensive changes in the text itself, such as cutting out the deity of Christ, or inserting some foreign doctrine or concept. No one could gather up the texts and try to make them all say the same thing by "harmonizing" them, either. If someone had indeed done such a thing, we could never know for certain what the apostles had written, and what the truth actually is. But such a thing did not, and could not, happen. Indeed, by the time anyone did obtain great ecclesiastical power in the name of Christianity, texts like p66 or p75 were already long buried in the sands of Egypt, out of the reach of anyone who would try to alter them. The fact that their text is nearly identical to even the most "Byzantine" manuscript of 1,000 years later is testimony to the overall purity of the New Testament text.
The side effect of this method of preserving the New Testament is the relatively small amount of textual variation that we will be discussing extensively below. But one point must be emphasized. Dr. Kurt Aland has pointed out what he calls the tenacity of the New Testament text. This refers to the fact that once a variant reading appears in a manuscript, it doesn’t simply go away. It gets copied and ends up in other manuscripts. Why is this important? It is important because readings don’t just "disappear" in the New Testament. And that means that we still have the original readings of the New Testament works. You see, if readings could just "disappear" without a trace, we would have to face the fact that the original reading may have "fallen through the cracks" as well. But the tenacity of the New Testament text, while forcing us to deal with textual variants, also provides us with the assurance that our work is not in vain. One of those variant readings is indeed the original. We are called to invest our energies in discovering which one it is.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 47-48.
Chapter 4: "Putting it Together"
A Grand Work
Hopefully we can better analyze the claims of the KJV Only movement in light of the facts of how the KJV came into existence. The King James Version is a monument to those who labored to bring it into existence. Of this there can be no question. But as we have seen, it was a human process, and as in all of human life and endeavor, it did not partake of infallibility.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 82.
Chapter 5: "The King James Only Camp"
The term "misrepresentation" seems, at times, simply too mild to describe this kind of writing. And when one remembers that this is ‘ directed toward servants of Christ who are working to proclaim His truth in churches and missionary works all over the land and even the world, one has trouble passing over Dr. __________’s invective in silence.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 121.
Chapter 6: "Translational Differences"
No Grand Conspiracies
It seems fair to say that, in a majority of the passages examined in the preceding pages, translations such as the NASB and NIV have been seen to surpass the KJV with reference to clarity and ease of comprehension far more often than the reverse. No grand conspiracies have been uncovered, no attempts to hide doctrines or beliefs by mistranslating the text have been found. What we have discovered is that the comparison of various translations of the Bible is often very useful in ascertaining the meaning of the passage being studied, and that the KJV is one of those many fine translations available for just that task. When used in conjunction with such fine modern translations as the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, the KJV adds a noble rendering to the list and is often helpful in grasping the literal meaning of the terms involved.
We hope it has also become clear that we must be very careful to look closely at the claims of those who would attack the work of Christian scholars as found in the NKJV or NIV. Most of the time a translation that differs from the KJV is just as valid and reliable as the one found in the AV itself, and frequently, it is more clear and understandable. When differences are examined in a context of seeking to understand the reasons for the differences, rather than in one of fear and emotion, we learn more about the Word and the original intents of the authors. This is how Christian dialogue and discussion should take place. Whenever you encounter a supposed "change" in the Bible’s text, take the time to look carefully at the available information. You will discover that there are reasons for the differences, and that there is no rationale at all for running to theories of conspiracies or evil intentions on the part of modern translators. Their goal is not to corrupt God’s Word but to preserve it and accurately pass it on to future generations.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 146-147.
Chapter 7: "Textual Differences"
Modern Texts Found Innocent
Conspiratorial thinking tends to see the "facts" in such a way as to always support one’s preconceived notions. Once a person has accepted the idea that the ?modern versions? are somehow in league with one another to "get" the KJV and to "hide" God’s truths, every instance of variation between the KJV and those versions is filled with great importance. Rather than examining the facts and gaining a proper perspective on the issue, KJV Only advocates find in the most innocent scribal error a grand scheme to rob Christ of His deity or deny that salvation is by grace through faith. Yet, even a cursory examination of the facts is sufficient to make the reasoning behind the modern versions and their textual choices plain and understandable for those who are willing to listen.
Those who use a modern translation that was produced by godly men who were seeking simply to follow the best texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, and to faithfully translate those texts into the English language, can have great confidence that they are reading God’s Word in the best form in which it can be found in their language. The comparison of these translations against one another only serves to sharpen our understanding of the intention of the original authors. And when textual variants appear in footnotes or in comparison with the KJV, believers can be assured that these things arose not because of some attempt to hide the truth from them, but due to the very understandable actions of scribes down through the centuries who were themselves doing their best to accurately copy those precious manuscripts. Rather than being fearful that they can’t be "certain" about what God has revealed, they should rejoice that God has made it possible for them to have and hold His Word, and they should seek to obey His will that is so clearly presented therein. The preacher and teacher can proclaim God’s truth from the pages of such a translation with the full assurance that he is proclaiming the whole counsel of God, and can trust God with the results.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 186-187.
Chapter 8: "The Son of God, the Lord of Glory"
Modern Translations Vindicated Again
The doctrine of the deity of Christ is indeed a vitally important issue. But we have seen that KJV Only advocates are, in fact, guilty of using an important doctrine as a brickbat to further their promotion of the KJV. Their arguments have been found, again, to be utterly inconsistent and most often circular. Modern translations such as the NIV and NASB have been cleared of the accusations made against them, not by appeal to emotion or through use of insulting rhetoric, but by examination of the facts themselves. Surely we must decry the use | of such a precious doctrine as the deity of Christ in the way we have seen it used by advocates of the AV. Such is surely not a proper use of such an important Christian belief. And what is worse, we have often seen that passages that do testify to the deity of Christ, and hence should be shared with those who have been deceived on this topic, are often translated more clearly in the modern translations than in the KJV. Followers of the prophets of KJV Onlyism are, therefore, less prepared to defend the faith than those who have not limited themselves to a single English translation from the seventeenth century.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 219.
Chapter 9: "Problems in the KJV"
It needs to be emphasized one more time that the preceding information is not meant to "bash" the KJV, but to treat it as its translators would have desired. Any result of human effort will be, in some measure, flawed. And despite the strong assertions of some in the KJV Only camp, the AV is the result of human effort, human skill, human work. As a result, we are able to locate problems, ranging from unclear translations to simple mistranslations, such as Acts 5:30. This is exactly what one would expect given the background of the KJV, but it is not what one would expect if the claims of KJV Only defenders regarding supernatural oversight or even inspiration are true. The presence of errors and mishaps in the text of the KJV is an insurmountable obstacle for those who wish to proclaim the KJV inspired, inerrant, and infallible.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 237-238.
Let The Reader Understand
This book has been a plea for understanding. It is my desire that the reader, upon completing this work, will first and foremost have a desire to understand why our English translations of the Bible read as they do. This is the one thing that I have found to be lacking in most KJV Only advocates with whom I have spoken: a desire to truly know why someone might be willing to use something other than the KJV, to really understand why some readings in the modern translations are, in fact, superior to those in the KJV. You cannot get far with a person who does not wish to travel with you. And I well know that many who are in the KJV Only camp will never set foot upon the path I have attempted to clear in the past pages.
I have written this work for the person who has a godly desire to know the truth. I have not attempted to convince the already convinced. I have written for those who are seeking answers, facts, explanations. I have been prompted by the honest inquiries, the concerned questions, of those who wonder about the claims made by KJV Only advocates. 1 have sought to be of assistance to the beleaguered pastor who does not need yet another problem cropping up in the congregation. And 1 admit to a desire to aid in the vindication of men of God who have labored diligently in the field of textual study and translation, a field hardly fraught with riches and glory. The constant denigration of their work, their spirituality, and even their intelligence cries out for a solid refutation and even rebuke, and 1 hope to have provided that in these pages.
King James Onlyism is a human tradition. It has no basis in history. It has no foundation in fact. It is internally inconsistent, utilizing circular reasoning at its core, and involves the use of more double standards than almost any system of thought I have ever encountered. And yet it is embraced by fellow believers, and as such must be addressed if I am to follow Christ’s command, "Love one another."
The facts of the matter are now before you, the reader. Whatever you decide I pray that your deepest desire will be to believe only what is true, nothing that is false. I hope that you will be challenged to dig deeper, to become a student of the Word who is not dependent upon this writer or that "authority," but one who can draw from the rich supply of wisdom and knowledge that is available to us in our day, doing this solely and only to the glory of God.
Finally, as 1 said at the beginning, my desire is for the peace of Christ’s church. I truly hope that this work will help to quell restless spirits in congregations who are by their zealousness for a human tradition (KJV Onlyism) causing dissension and discord. May the facts of the matter, rather than the emotions of the moment, convince such people to refrain from disturbing the brethren, and may the church focus instead upon the weighty and important issues that face her.
The King James Only Controversy. James R. White. 1995. Bethany House Publishers. Minneapolis, MN 55438.
Pg. 249-50.
Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example April 11, 2000 by James White
The large gap that exists between Roman Catholic historical scholarship and Roman Catholic apologists is a large one indeed. One often finds the historians admitting what the apologists will not regarding the truths of history that are so often utterly contradictory to later Roman dogmatic claims. This is especially true regarding such modern doctrinal developments as the Marian dogmas and the infallible Papacy.
Over the past few years Roman Catholic apologists have been producing a great deal of written material of varying levels of quality. Books and magazines of this nature gain a wide audience. As in so much of our modern culture, many readers are willing to simply accept at face value whatever is said without performing any first-hand testing of the quality of the data being presented, let alone the conclusions that follow. The result has been a growing body of "Catholic legends," claims or concepts that are being presented as absolute fact by large numbers of Catholics who simply do not know better.
A glowing example of how these "urban legends" get started can be seen in the way in which Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism is treated by Catholic readers starved for some kind of an answer to the Evangelical position. If it appears in the pages of C&F, it must be true! And so highly questionable statements of dubious historic integrity (easily challenged by anyone familiar with the historic sources) end up being repeated as pure fact by those who implicitly trust their sources.
On page 217 of Catholicism and Fundamentalism we find a paragraph that has given rise to two of these "Catholic legends," ideas that are utterly without merit, historically speaking, but are now a part of the "lore" that makes up the majority of Catholic apologetics. Just as the medieval Church built its power on the back of spurious documents and forged decretals, modern Roman Catholics find a means of propping up their faith in supposedly historical dogmas through this kind of writing:
As Christians got clearer and clearer notions of the teaching authority of the whole Church and of the primacy of the Pope, they got clearer notions of the Pope’s own infallibility. This happened early on. In 433 Pope Sixtus III declared that to assent to the Bishop of Rome’s decision is to assent to Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith does not fail. Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, asked: "Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" Augustine of Hippo summed up the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is closed."
We have often seen amateur Catholic apologists confidently asserting that Cyprian believed in the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, or that Augustine took the word of Rome as the final authority. Surely that is Keating’s intention, given the context, in citing both patristic sources. But, as all students of church history know (and as Roman Catholic historians have admitted for a very long time), neither early father would have agreed with the use of their words by Keating. In fact, Keating could never defend the veracity of his research against a meaningful criticism. Let’s look briefly at Cyprian and Augustine and see how this Catholic legend is just that: legendary.
Cyprian
Cyprian did indeed speak of the "seat of Peter," in Latin, the "cathedra Petri." It was also very central to his view of church unity and authority. No one who broke unity with the cathedra Petri was truly in the Church. All of this is quite true. And beyond this, Cyprian spoke highly of the Roman see when defending Cornelius as a result of the Novationist schism in Rome. He rebuked those who rejected Cornelius’ position as the bishop of Rome. Despite this, Cyprian sent a sharp rebuke to Cornelius when he gave audience to men who had been deposed in North Africa.
But it is just here that we learn how important it is to study church history as a discipline, not as a mere tool to be used in polemic debate. We can assume out of generosity that when Mr. Keating wrote his book he actually believed that when Cyprian spoke of the "cathedra Petri" that Cyprian understood this phrase as a modern Roman Catholic would. That is, he may well have assumed that the "seat of Peter" was understood by everyone back then to refer to the bishop of Rome. However, all students of church history know differently. Cyprian (and the North African church as a whole for the span of centuries) believed the "chair of Peter" referred to all bishops in all churches across the world. Cyprian, for example, claimed to sit upon the "cathedra Petri" as did all bishops. For example, he wrote in Epistle XXVI:
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers (emphasis added).
This fact is recognized by Roman Catholic historians. Johannes Quasten, Catholic patristic scholar, commented, (Patrology, vol. 2, p. 375), "Thus he understands Matth. 16, 18 of the whole episcopate, the various members of which, attached to one another by the laws of charity and concord, thus render the Church universal a single body." And a little later Quasten cites the words of an African Synod, led by Cyprian, which said:
No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein (CSEL 3, 1, 436).
Quasten then comments:
From these words it is evident that Cyprian does not recognize a primacy of jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over his colleagues. Nor does he think Peter was given power over the other apostles....No more did Peter claim it: ‘Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed’ (Epist. 71, 3).
Quasten goes on to note that Cyprian did see Rome as an important see, however,
…even in this letter he makes it quite clear that he does not concede to Rome any higher right to legislate for other sees because he expects her not to interfere in his own diocese ‘since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord’ (Epist. 59,14).
But there is more, much more, from Roman Catholic writers. Michael Winter writes in St. Peter and the Popes (Wesport: Greenwood, 1960, pp. 47-48):
Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connections of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a pro-papal sense which was alien to his thought.....Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority...Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter.
Robert Eno, another historian, writes in The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazer, 1990), p. 58, "The Chair of Peter...belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome....You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church." And finally, Jesuit Klaus Schatz writes in Papal Primacy, p. 20, "Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop."
But there is more. Cornelius’ successor, Stephen, was an arrogant prelate. Full of himself, he sowed discord amongst the churches. Cyprian severely reprimanded him, as did others. When Stephen attempted to meddle in the affairs of the North African churches, including overturning the deposing of one Basilides, who then went to Rome to attempt to find assistance in his cause, Cyprian and the North Africans rejected his attempts. Cyprian wrote,
Neither can it rescind an ordination rightly perfected, that Basilides, after the detection of his crimes, and the baring of his conscience even by his own confession, went to Rome and deceived Stephen our colleague, placed at a distance, and ignorant of what had been done, and of the truth, to canvass that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been righteously deposed.
Deceived the bishop of Rome? The source of infallible and apostolic truth could be deceived about the orthodoxy of a man so as to improperly guide the church in regards to its leadership and teaching? How could such be? Obviously, the church of this day had no concept of an infallible Pope, nor any concept that the bishop of Rome was the universal head of the Church. Any reading of the correspondence between Cyprian and Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea (such as Epistle LXXIV, wherein Firmilian accuses Stephen of numerous errors, including transmitting false "tradition"), makes it very clear: neither believed as Karl Keating would like his readers to think they did.
Now we noted above that at the time Karl Keating wrote Catholicism and Fundamentalism, it is quite possible he was ignorant of the situation. He may, like so many other Roman Catholic apologists, have assumed that "chair of Peter" always meant the Roman bishop. He had probably never read much of Cyprian for himself, and was just going on what others had told him. But, the fact of the matter is, that is no longer an excuse. In the years since the publication of the work, Keating has been shown his error, multiple times. And yet his book, and his organization, continues to promote the myth that Cyprian was a believer in Papal infallibility. A glowing Roman Catholic myth.
Augustine’s Sermon 131
Even less excusable is the constant use of Augustine’s comments in Sermon 131, quoted by Keating as "Rome has spoken; the case is closed." Keating puts these words in quotes, indicating that Augustine actually said this. He places it in the context of Papal Infallibility. It is clearly his intention to communicate to his readers that Augustine 1) said these words, and 2) was speaking about the subject in his sermon.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Augustine never said what Keating quotes. In fact, here is the actual Latin text of the final section of Sermon 131 from Migne, PL 38:734:
Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error.
Translated, it reads,
. . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise.
These comments are in reference to the heresy of Pelagianism, which Augustine had been battling in the church in North Africa. This sermon, delivered September 23, 416, begins, ironically, with an exposition of John 6:53 that is directly contradictory to modern Roman teaching on the doctrine of transubstantiation. Since so few take the time to actually read the contexts of the statements about which arguments are based in patristic sources, I provide the first two sections of this sermon, which show us the direction that Augustine was taking:
We have heard the True Master, the Divine Redeemer, the human Savior, commending to us our Ransom, His Blood. For He spake to us of His Body and Blood; He called His Body Meat, His Blood Drink. The faithful recognize the Sacrament of the faithful. But the hearers what else do they but hear? When therefore commending such Meat and such Drink He said, "Except ye shall eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, ye shall have no life in you; " (and this that He said concerning life, who else said it but the Life Itself? But that man shall have death, not life, who shall think that the Life is false), His disciples were offended, not all of them indeed, but very many, saying within themselves, "This is an hard saying, who can hear it? " But when the Lord knew this in Himself, and heard the murmurings of their thought, He answered them, thinking though uttering nothing, that they might understand that they were heard, and might cease to entertain such thoughts. What then did He answer? "Doth this offend you?" "What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?" What meaneth this? "Doth this offend you ?" "Do ye imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? ‘ What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before ?’" Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed. So then He both gave us of His Body and Blood a healthful refreshment, and briefly solved so great a question as to His Own Entireness. Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but thou art in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby thou art refreshed, faileth not. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man’s Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, "It is the Spirit That quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life. But there are some of you," saith He, "that believe not." Such were they who said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it?" It is hard, but only to the hard; that is, it is incredible, but only to the incredulous.
2. But in order to teach us that this very believing is matter of gift, not of desert, He saith, "As I have said unto you, no man cometh unto Me, except it were given him of My Father." Now as to where the Lord said this, if we call to mind the foregoing words of the Gospel, we shall find that He had said, "No man cometh unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him." He did not lead, but draw. This violence is done to the heart, not the body. Why then dost thou marvel? Believe, and thou comest; love, and thou art drawn. Do not suppose here any rough and uneasy violence; it is gentle, it is sweet; it is the very sweetness that draweth thee. Is not a sheep drawn, when fresh grass is shown to it in its hunger? Yet I imagine that it is not bodily driven on, but fast bound by desire. In such wise do thou come too to Christ; do not conceive of long journeyings; where thou believest, there thou comest. For unto Him, who is everywhere we come by love, not by sailing. But forasmuch as even in this kind of voyage, waves and tempests of divers temptations abound; believe on the Crucified; that thy faith may be able to ascend the Wood. Thou shalt not sink, but shalt be borne upon the Wood. Thus, even thus, amid the waves of this world did he sail, who said, "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."
The entire sermon is a presentation of the gospel of grace. And to give the proper context to the actual words of Augustine, read the sections that immediately precede his final statements:
8. …Hear what God saith; "Who crowneth thee with mercy and pity." Of His mercy He crowneth thee, of His pity He crowneth thee. For thou hadst no worthiness that He should call thee, and being called should justify thee, being justified glorify thee. "The remnant is saved by the election of grace. But if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. For to him that worketh, the reward shall not be reckoned according to grace, but according to debt." The Apostle saith, "Not according to grace, but according to debt." But "thee He crowneth with pity and mercy;" and if thy own merits have gone before, God saith to thee, "Examine well thy merits, and thou shalt see that they are My gifts."
9. This then is the righteousness of God. As it is called, "The Lord’s salvation," not whereby the Lord is saved, but which He giveth to them whom He saveth; so too the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord is called the righteousness of God, not as that whereby the Lord is righteous, but whereby He justifieth those whom of ungodly He maketh righteous. But some, as the Jews in former times, both wish to be called Christians, and still ignorant of God’s righteousness, desire to establish their own, even in our own times, in the times of open grace, the times of the full revelation of grace which before was hidden; in the times of grace now manifested in the floor, which once lay hid in the fleece. I see that a few have understood me, that more have not understood, whom I will by no means defraud by keeping silence. Gideon, one of the righteous men of old, asked for a sign from the Lord, and said, "I pray, Lord, that this fleece which I put in the floor be bedewed, and that the floor be dry." And it was so; the fleece was bedewed, the whole floor was dry. In the morning he wrung out the fleece in a basin; forasmuch as to the humble is grace given; and in a basin, ye know what the Lord did to His disciples. Again, he asked for another sign; "O Lord, I would," saith he, "that the fleece be dry, the floor bedewed." And it was so. Call to mind the time of the Old Testament, grace was hidden in a cloud, as the rain in the fleece. Mark now the time of the New Testament, consider well the nation of the Jews, thou wilt find it as a dry fleece; whereas the whole world, like that floor, is full of grace, not hidden, but manifested. Wherefore we are forced exceedingly to bewail our brethren, who strive not against hidden, but against open and manifested grace. There is allowance for the Jews. What shall we say of Christians? Wherefore are ye enemies to the grace of Christ? Why rely ye on yourselves? Why unthankful? For why did Christ come? Was not nature here before? Was not nature here, which ye only deceive by your excessive praise? Was not the Law here? But the Apostle says, "If righteousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain." What the Apostle says of the Law, that say we of nature to these men. "If righteousness come by nature, then Christ is dead in vain."
The final words of the sermon, then, in which we find the key phrase (placed in bold), are in reference to this heresy, this error (Pelagianism), and its denial of grace. I simply point out that throughout the sermon you have had one source of authority cited over and over again: Holy Scripture. No quotations of Popes or prelates, just Scripture. With this in mind, we come to the actual passage:
10. What then was said of the Jews, the same altogether do we see in these men now. "They have a zeal of God: I hear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." What is, "not according to knowledge"? "For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." My Brethren, share with me in my sorrow. When ye find such as these, do not hide them; be there no such misdirected mercy in you; by all means, when ye find such, hide them not. Convince the gainsayers, and those who resist, bring to us. For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! Therefore do we advise that they may take heed, we teach that they may be instructed, we pray that they may be changed. Let us turn to the Lord, etc.
It is a measure of the utter desperation of the Roman position to have to make reference to such things, in our opinion. The topic is not the bishop of Rome nor the authority of Rome. It is obvious, beyond question, that Augustine’s point is that Pelagianism is a refuted error. It is not refuted because the bishop of Rome has refuted it. It is refuted because it is opposed to Scripture. Two councils have concluded this, and the bishop of Rome has agreed. From Augustine’s position, the error has been exposed and refuted. If only those who are in error would come to know the truth! Augustine exhorts his hearers to teach the gainsayers, and pray that they may be dissuaded from their errors.
This then is the context and content of Sermon 131 of Augustine (which is, btw, Sermon 81 in the Eerdman’s set, pp. 501-504 of volume VI for those who wish to read the entirety of the work). It is now painfully obvious that to place the words "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" in quotation marks and attribute them to Augustine in the context of Papal Infallibility is simply inexcusable. But, there is more to the situation than that. For history shows us that Augustine would never have uttered such words in the context Keating alleges. How he responded when Zosimus became bishop of Rome and attacked the North African churches for condemning Pelagius proves, to any person even semi-desirous of fairly dealing with Augustine’s position, that Augustine did not view the bishop of Rome as the infallible leader of the Christian Church. But to appreciate fully the depth of the error of Roman Catholic controversialists at this point, we must take a few moments to study the history.
B.B. Warfield wrote concerning the history of the Pelagian controversy, and especially of Augustine’s response to Zosimus, bishop of Rome:
Soon afterwards two Gallic bishops, — Heros of Arles, and Lazarus of Aix, — who were then in Palestine, lodged a formal accusation against Pelagius with the metropolitan, Eulogius of Caesarea; and he convened a synod of fourteen bishops which met at Lydda (Diospolis), in December of the same year (415), for the trial of the case. Perhaps no greater ecclesiastical farce was ever enacted than this synod exhibited. When the time arrived, the accusers were prevented from being present by illness, and Pelagius was confronted only by the written accusation. This was both unskillfully drawn, and was written in Latin which the synod did not understand. It was, therefore, not even consecutively read, and was only head rendered into Greek by an interpreter. Pelagius began by reading aloud several letters to himself from various men of reputation in the Episcopate, — among them a friendly not from Augustin. Thoroughly acquainted with both Latin and Greek, he was enabled skillfully to thread every difficulty, and pass safely through the ordeal. Jerome called this a "miserable synod," and not unjustly: at the same time it is sufficient to vindicate the honesty and earnestness of the bishops’ intentions, that even in such circumstances, and despite the more undeveloped opinions of the East on the questions involved, Pelagius escaped condemnation only by a course of most ingenious disingenuousness, and only at the cost both of disowning Coelestius and his teachings, of which he had been the real father, and of leading the synod to believe that he was anathematizing the very doctrines which he was himself proclaiming. There is really no possibility of doubting, as any one will see who reads the proceedings of the synod, that Pelagius obtained his acquittal here either by a "lying condemnation or a tricky interpretation" of his own teachings; and Augustin is perfectly justified in asserting that the "heresy was not acquitted, but the man who denied the heresy," and who would himself have been anathematized had he not anathematized the heresy.
However obtained, the acquittal of Pelagius was yet an accomplished fact. Neither he nor his friends delayed to make the most widely extended use of their good fortune. Pelagius himself was jubilant. Accounts of the synodal proceedings were sent to the West, not altogether free from uncandid alterations; and Pelagius soon put forth a work In Defense of Free-Will, in which he triumphed in his acquittal and "explained his explanations" at the synod. Nor were the champions of the opposite opinion idle. As soon as the news arrived in North Africa, and before the authentic records of the synod had reached that region, the condemnation of Pelagius and Coelestius was re-affirmed in two provincial synods, — one, consisting of sixty-eight bishops, met at Carthage about midsummer of 416; and the other, consisting of about sixty bishops, met soon afterwards at Mileve (Mila). Thus Palestine and North Africa were arrayed against one another, and it became of great importance to obtain the support of the Patriarchal See of Rome. Both sides made the attempt, but fortune favored the Africans. Each of the North-African synods sent a synodal letter to Innocent I., then Bishop of Rome, engaging his assent to their action: to these, five bishops, Aurelius of Carthage and Augustin among them, added a third "familiar" letter of their own, in which they urged upon Innocent to examine into Pelagius’ teaching, and provided him with the material on which he might base a decision. The letters reached Innocent in time for him to take advice of his clergy, and send favorable replies on Jan. 27, 417. In these he expressed his agreement with the African decisions, asserted the necessity of inward grace, rejected the Pelagian theory of infant baptism, and declared Pelagius and Coelestius excommunicated until they should return to orthodoxy. In about six weeks more he was dead: but Zosimus, his successor, was scarcely installed in his place before Coelestius appeared at Rome in person to plead his cause; while shortly afterwards letters arrived from Pelagius addressed to Innocent, and by an artful statement of his belief and a recommendation from Praylus, lately become bishop of Jerusalem in John’s stead, attempting to enlist Rome in his favor. Zosimus, who appears to have been a Greek and therefore inclined to make little of the merits of this Western controversy, went over to Coelestius at once, upon his profession of willingness to anathematize all doctrines which the pontifical see had condemned or should condemn; and wrote a sharp and arrogant letter to Africa, proclaiming Coelestius "catholic," and requiring the Africans to appear within two months at Rome to prosecute their charges, or else to abandon them.
At this point I insert the comment of Schaff, who expands upon the content of this letter from Zosimus:
Zosimus, who evidently had no independent theological opinion whatever, now issued (417) to the North African bishops an encyclical letter accompanied by the documentary evidence, censuring them for not having investigated the matter more thoroughly, and for having aspired, in foolish, overcurious controversies, to know more than the Holy Scriptures. At the same time he bore emphatic testimony to the orthodoxy of Pelagius and Coelestius, and described their chief opponents, Heros and Lazarus, as worthless characters, whom he had visited with excommunication and deposition. They in Rome, he says, could hardly refrain from tears, that such men, who so often mentioned the gratia Dei and the adjutorium divinum, should have been condemned as heretics. Finally he entreated the bishops to submit themselves to the authority of the Roman see. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, III:798).
Lest someone mistrust Protestant writers, note this Roman Catholic author, a professor at the Catholic University of America:
Augustine...could see through the entire charade. The pope had neglected to inquire rigorously into the Pelagian’s (Caelestius) understanding of grace; he had been content to accept superficial responses....A second letter from Zosimus to the Africans, Postquam a nobis written in September 417, did nothing to dispel Augustine’s worries. Pelagius had written to the pope once again, thoroughly convincing him of his orthodoxy, and Zosimus had ordered Pelagius’ letters to be read aloud at the papal court in order that everyone could be apprised of his orthodoxy. To the Africans Zosimus ebulliently exclaimed: ‘Would that some of you, dearest brethren, could have been present at the reading of the letters. What was the joy of the holy men who were present; what was the admiration of each of them! Some of them could scarcely restrain themselves from tears and weeping that such men of absolutely correct faith could have been suspected. Was there a single place in which the grace of God or his aid was omitted?’ At the end of his letter, however, the pope lambasted the Africans as ‘whirlwinds’ and ‘storms of the church’ and accused them of judging Pelagius and Caelestius wholly unfairly….In Quamuis patrum written in March 418, he deliberately flaunted his apostolic authority and claimed that no one should dispute his judgment.…"So great is our authority that no decision of ours can be subjected to review....Such is the authority of Peter and the venerable decrees of the church that all questions concerning human and divine laws, as well as all disciplinary matters, must be referred to Rome for ultimate resolution." This was high–flown language indeed and, as far as the Africans were concerned, totally unacceptable (J.E. Merdinger, Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine (New Haven: Yale University, 1997), pp. 128-129).
Keep these words in mind: Zosimus was claiming grand authority; Zosimus’ conclusions were clear and unequivocal. I continue with Warfield:
On the arrival of Pelagius’ papers, this letter was followed by another (September, 417), in which Zosimus, with the approbation of the clergy, declared both Pelagius and Coelestius to be orthodox, and severely rebuked the Africans for their hasty judgment. It is difficult to understand Zosimus’ action in this matter: neither of the confessions presented by the accused teachers ought to have deceived him, and if he was seizing the occasion to magnify the Roman see, his mistake was dreadful. Late in 417, or early in 418, the African bishops assembled at Carthage, in number more than two hundred and replied to Zosimus that they had decided that the sentence pronounced against Pelagius and Coelestius should remain in force until they should unequivocally acknowledge that "we are aided by the grace of God, through Christ, not only to know, but to do what is right, in each single act, so that without grace we are unable to have, think, speak, or do anything pertaining to piety." This firmness made Zosimus waver. He answered swellingly but timidly, declaring that he had maturely examined the matter, but it had not been his intention finally to acquit Coelestius; and now he had left all things in the condition in which they were before, but he claimed the right of final judgment to himself. Matters were hastening to a conclusion, however, that would leave him no opportunity to escape from the mortification of an entire change of front. This letter was written on the 21st of March, 418; it was received in Africa on the 29th of April; and on the very next day an imperial decree was issued from Ravenna ordering Pelagius and Coelestius to be banished from Rome, with all who held their opinions; while on the next day, May 1, a plenary council of about two hundred bishops met at Carthage, and in nine canons condemned all the essential features of Pelagianism. Whether this simultaneous action was the result of skillful arrangement, can only be conjectured: its effect was in any case necessarily crushing. There could be no appeal from the civil decision, and it played directly into the hands of the African definition of the faith. The synod’s nine canons part naturally into three triads. The first of these deals with the relation of mankind to original sin, and anathematizes in turn those who assert that physical death is a necessity of nature, and not a result of Adam’s sin; those who assert that new-born children derive nothing of original sin from Adam to be expiated by the laver of regeneration; and those who assert a distinction between the kingdom of heaven and eternal life, for entrance into the former of which alone baptism is necessary. The second triad deals with the nature of grace, and anathematizes those who assert that grace aids us not to sin, only by teaching us what is sinful, not by enabling us to will and do what we know to be right; and those who assert that grace only enables us to do more easily what we should without it still be able to do. The third triad deals with the universal sinfulness of the race, and anathematizes those who assert that the apostles’ (I John I.8) confession of sin is due only to their humility; those who say that "Forgive us our trespasses" in the Lord’s Prayer, is pronounced by the saints, not for themselves, but for the sinners in their company; and those who say that the saints use these words of themselves only out of humility and not truly. Here we see a careful traversing of the whole ground of the controversy, with a conscious reference to the three chief contentions of the Pelagian teachers.
The appeal to the civil power, by whomsoever made, was, of course, indefensible, although it accorded with the opinions of the day, and was entirely approved by Augustin. But it was the ruin of the Pelagian cause. Zosimus found himself forced either to go into banishment with his wards, or to desert their cause. He appears never to have had any personal convictions on the dogmatic points involved in the controversy, and so, all the more readily, yielded to the necessity of the moment. He cited Coelestius to appear before a council for a new examination; but that heresiarch consulted prudence, and withdrew from the city. Zosimus, possibly in the effort to appear a leader in the cause he had opposed, not only condemned and excommunicated the men whom less than six months before he had pronounced "orthodox" after a ‘mature consideration of the matters involved,’ but, in obedience to the imperial decree, issued a stringent paper which condemned Pelagius and the Pelagians, and affirmed the African doctrines as to corruption of nature, true grace, and the necessity of baptism. To this he required subscription from all bishops as a test of orthodoxy. (NPNF Series 1:V, xviii-xx).
We should remember a few vital points. First, Zosimus claimed to have "maturely examined" the issue of the confession of Pelagius and Coelestus. He proclaimed them orthodox and Catholic, and gave instructions to the North Africans based upon his self-proclaimed authority. Next, the North Africans rejected his instructions. Knowing full well what he intended, the North African bishops, including Augustine, stood their ground upon the basis of Scriptural teaching. If a person today said, "I understand the bishop of Rome says X about such and such a person, and proclaims them orthodox on the basis of a mature examination, but I reject his conclusions based upon Scriptural teaching," would you identify that person as 1) Roman Catholic, or 2) Protestant? Third, despite his claims to authority and despite his claim to have "maturely examined" the issue as the bishop of Rome, Zosimus had to do a complete about-face. What changed? RC apologists say Zosimus had just been deceived and he learned of his deception, and that he would have done the right thing from the start had he known all the facts. But it is too obvious that Zosimus came into the situation desirous of flexing his new "muscle" as bishop of the largest see in the West, and foolishly and rashly made pronouncements about vital issues (here, the very nature of the gospel, rehabilitating a rank heretic!) and only reversed course by force and not by conviction. Next, for those who ask why either side appealed to Rome in the first place, the answer is obvious: the situation pitted the Palestinian churches against the North African churches, and both sides recognized the value of having the only apostolic see in the West on their side. The fact that the North African churches likewise appealed to the Emperor in Ravenna for confirmation of their action no more means they saw the Emperor as the "head of the church" than their appeal to Rome does. Finally, it is obvious beyond question that Augustine did not take the view that Zosimus was an infallible leader of the Christian Church. If he and the bishops of North Africa had, they would never have acted as they did.
At this point someone might well say, "OK, well, Karl Keating was in error on that. Maybe he hadn’t done his homework." Perhaps so. But many years have passed since his book was published. Surely in that time he has been faced with these facts. His organization, Catholic Answers, publishes a magazine, This Rock, that contains a regular section called "The Fathers Know Best." Surely, in all those years, the people working at Catholic Answers would have to become aware of the historic facts that demonstrate the error of Keating’s assertion in his book. But at the very least, we hope that our readers will continue to bring this issue to his attention and challenge him to correct his error.
[For even more on this topic, see William Webster’s comments: http://www.christiantruth.com/ray5augustine.html]
Stephen Ray’s Presentation
But while we can excuse Keating on the basis of possible ignorance of the actual events of history, we cannot do so with Catholic convert Stephen K. Ray. Instead, we must soberly conclude that his treatment of this issue in his 1999 book Upon This Rock (Ignatius Press) is simply deceptive. This work is, in my opinion, the clearest example of the lengths to which a Roman controversialist will go in twisting history so as to support Roman claims. In a work that is without question one of the least accurate and scholarly works I have ever seen on the subject, one that argues in circles constantly, Ray addresses both Cyprian and Augustine’s views. However, given that Ray does not use the tools of a historian, and in fact utterly abandons any kind of scholarly methodology, the result is predictable. He early on exposes how utterly unreliable his work will be in words such as these:
Sometimes silence is more eloquent than words. This is especially true in Church history. We hear so much about what the Fathers say and so little about what they do not say. This is revealing and should play a significant role in our research. (Upon this Rock, p. 12).
Such a methodology is, quite simply laughable. Ray goes on to use this to argue that unless an early Father specifically denies Petrine primacy and succession that this is somehow "relevant" to historical research. It is painfully obvious, to any semi-unbiased reviewer, that Ray is assuming what he seems to know he cannot prove. The grotesquely anachronistic "examination" that follows is glowing evidence of Ray’s inability to accurately handle historical data and to provide any kind of meaningful presentation. Protestant apologist William Webster has thoroughly refuted Ray (see www.christiantruth.com) who, in response, has only been able to provide more thorough documentation of his own anachronistic, circular reasoning. Utilization of Ray’s means of thought could provide the basis for any kind of belief in the early church, no matter how far-fetched.
But despite this, Ray’s treatment of both Cyprian and Augustine is not just grossly flawed, it is deceptive. It is obvious Ray knows the truth of the matter, but he either suppresses that truth, or twists it into a shape unrecognizable to anyone who reads the early Fathers for themselves. When dealing with Cyprian he desperately attempts to undercut the reality of Cyprian’s view of the cathedra Petri, and likewise somehow "forgets" to cite the passages we provided above which demonstrate Cyprian’s rejection of Stephen’s meddling in the affairs of the North African Church. Though providing lengthy footnotes, he does nothing but ignore Cyprian’s real doctrine, while attacking William Webster for pointing out the obvious. But our concern is much more with the tremendously deceptive presentation regarding Augustine’s Sermon 131.
Beginning on page 230, Ray provides a completely circular argument, not based upon Augustine, but upon Ray’s desperate need to read into Augustine the concept of Petrine primacy in the bishop of Rome. His citations (as throughout the book) are meant to be relevant only given the assumption of what he is trying to prove, the pre-existing commitment to the modern Roman theory of Petrine primacy. He even takes a pathetically weak shot at my own discussion of Augustine’s view of Matthew 16:18-19 which is so poorly constructed that there is no need to refute it: it stands as its own refutation. But on page 233 we read the following: "Roma locuta est; causa finita est [Rome has spoken; the case is closed]." Look familiar? It should. As we have seen, Augustine never said this. Ray uses the same quotes Keating did: but, he then attaches an almost page-length footnote that shows that he is well aware Augustine never uttered these words! This is the deception. Keating can claim ignorance: Ray has no such excuse. Look at what Ray says:
This popular, shortened version of Augustine’s statement put to rest the contention caused by the Pelagian heretics. The full text of his statement—the exact equivalent of the shortened version above—is, "[On the matter of the Pelagians] two Councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [Rome]; and from there rescripts [decrees from the Pope] have come. The matter is at an end [causa finita est]; would that the error too might sometime be at an end." (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, 3:28).
As we see, Ray knows that Augustine did not say the words he quotes, but, he excuses this misrepresentation by re-translating the term "rescripts" (Latin: rescripta) as "decrees from the Pope." Upon what basis does he do this? We are not told. We know that Innocent responded to the actions of the councils in North Africa. It is pure anachronism to 1) assume the North Africans held to Rome’s view of supremacy, 2) assume that the North Africans felt their actions required "ratification" by the bishop of Rome, and 3) assume that Augustine was basing his statement "the matter is at an end" on the decision of Innocent rather than (as the context shows) the Scriptural arguments he had presented against Pelagianism and the actions of the North African councils. Ray makes no reference to the actual substance of Sermon 131. He never quotes it. And what is worse, he utterly ignores the entire issue of Zosimus and the entire history of what transpired immediately after this sermon was preached! Instead, he provides two Roman Catholic citations that utterly ignore the historical context of Augustine’s words. One, from Bernard Otten, is a simply ridiculous assertion that while Augustine never said "Roma locuta est," "its equivalents occur again and again." We have already seen Sermon 131 surely does not do this, so where else do we look for these "equivalents"? We are not told. Another pro-Rome work is cited that inserts the anachronistic idea that the North African bishops felt they had to send the conclusions of their councils to Rome "for ratification," and as normal, we are not given any foundation upon which we can examine the claim. The fact that the North Africans rejected Zosimus’ clear, forceful rehabilitation of Pelagius, which included his insulting the North Africans as "storms of the church" and "whirlwinds" and which came couched within his complete claim of apostolic authority, shows this is not the case. The North Africans rejected his authority and his conclusions. So upon what basis can anyone say they felt the decisions of their councils needed Roman ratification? Indeed, as John Meyendorff points out, barely three years later these same African bishops wrote to Celestine, bishop of Rome, and said, "Who will believe that our God could inspire justice in the inquiries of one man only (i.e., the bishop of Rome) and refuse it to innumerable bishops gathered in council?" (Imperial Unity and Christian Division, 1989, p. 65). Does that sound like these men believed as Stephen Ray assumes everyone must have? Surely not. The facts are clear.
Myths are Dangerous
I have dialogued with many a Roman Catholic who, upon facing the biblical evidence concerning the gospel of grace, has retreated into an argument based upon the authority of Rome. And when challenged on that, they have reproduced these very Roman Catholic legends, myths, based upon the misrepresentation of men like Cyprian and Augustine. These folks really believe Augustine was a servant of an infallible Pope. He wasn’t. They actually believe someone who lived as early as Cyprian believed the bishop of Rome was the sole successor of Peter. He didn’t. But these legends have been used to provide a foundation upon which the authority claims of Rome are based. And just as generations lived under the lies of forgeries upon which Papal authority was based in the medieval period, so modern people are kept from truly understanding the gospel of grace by an authoritative system that continues to propagate itself on the basis of untruth, whether that comes from ignorant repetition of what one has heard somewhere else, or the purposeful, deceptive twisting of history and the early Fathers.
Over the past few years Roman Catholic apologists have been producing a great deal of written material of varying levels of quality. Books and magazines of this nature gain a wide audience. As in so much of our modern culture, many readers are willing to simply accept at face value whatever is said without performing any first-hand testing of the quality of the data being presented, let alone the conclusions that follow. The result has been a growing body of "Catholic legends," claims or concepts that are being presented as absolute fact by large numbers of Catholics who simply do not know better.
A glowing example of how these "urban legends" get started can be seen in the way in which Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism is treated by Catholic readers starved for some kind of an answer to the Evangelical position. If it appears in the pages of C&F, it must be true! And so highly questionable statements of dubious historic integrity (easily challenged by anyone familiar with the historic sources) end up being repeated as pure fact by those who implicitly trust their sources.
On page 217 of Catholicism and Fundamentalism we find a paragraph that has given rise to two of these "Catholic legends," ideas that are utterly without merit, historically speaking, but are now a part of the "lore" that makes up the majority of Catholic apologetics. Just as the medieval Church built its power on the back of spurious documents and forged decretals, modern Roman Catholics find a means of propping up their faith in supposedly historical dogmas through this kind of writing:
As Christians got clearer and clearer notions of the teaching authority of the whole Church and of the primacy of the Pope, they got clearer notions of the Pope’s own infallibility. This happened early on. In 433 Pope Sixtus III declared that to assent to the Bishop of Rome’s decision is to assent to Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith does not fail. Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, asked: "Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" Augustine of Hippo summed up the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is closed."
We have often seen amateur Catholic apologists confidently asserting that Cyprian believed in the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, or that Augustine took the word of Rome as the final authority. Surely that is Keating’s intention, given the context, in citing both patristic sources. But, as all students of church history know (and as Roman Catholic historians have admitted for a very long time), neither early father would have agreed with the use of their words by Keating. In fact, Keating could never defend the veracity of his research against a meaningful criticism. Let’s look briefly at Cyprian and Augustine and see how this Catholic legend is just that: legendary.
Cyprian
Cyprian did indeed speak of the "seat of Peter," in Latin, the "cathedra Petri." It was also very central to his view of church unity and authority. No one who broke unity with the cathedra Petri was truly in the Church. All of this is quite true. And beyond this, Cyprian spoke highly of the Roman see when defending Cornelius as a result of the Novationist schism in Rome. He rebuked those who rejected Cornelius’ position as the bishop of Rome. Despite this, Cyprian sent a sharp rebuke to Cornelius when he gave audience to men who had been deposed in North Africa.
But it is just here that we learn how important it is to study church history as a discipline, not as a mere tool to be used in polemic debate. We can assume out of generosity that when Mr. Keating wrote his book he actually believed that when Cyprian spoke of the "cathedra Petri" that Cyprian understood this phrase as a modern Roman Catholic would. That is, he may well have assumed that the "seat of Peter" was understood by everyone back then to refer to the bishop of Rome. However, all students of church history know differently. Cyprian (and the North African church as a whole for the span of centuries) believed the "chair of Peter" referred to all bishops in all churches across the world. Cyprian, for example, claimed to sit upon the "cathedra Petri" as did all bishops. For example, he wrote in Epistle XXVI:
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers (emphasis added).
This fact is recognized by Roman Catholic historians. Johannes Quasten, Catholic patristic scholar, commented, (Patrology, vol. 2, p. 375), "Thus he understands Matth. 16, 18 of the whole episcopate, the various members of which, attached to one another by the laws of charity and concord, thus render the Church universal a single body." And a little later Quasten cites the words of an African Synod, led by Cyprian, which said:
No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein (CSEL 3, 1, 436).
Quasten then comments:
From these words it is evident that Cyprian does not recognize a primacy of jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over his colleagues. Nor does he think Peter was given power over the other apostles....No more did Peter claim it: ‘Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed’ (Epist. 71, 3).
Quasten goes on to note that Cyprian did see Rome as an important see, however,
…even in this letter he makes it quite clear that he does not concede to Rome any higher right to legislate for other sees because he expects her not to interfere in his own diocese ‘since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord’ (Epist. 59,14).
But there is more, much more, from Roman Catholic writers. Michael Winter writes in St. Peter and the Popes (Wesport: Greenwood, 1960, pp. 47-48):
Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connections of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a pro-papal sense which was alien to his thought.....Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority...Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter.
Robert Eno, another historian, writes in The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazer, 1990), p. 58, "The Chair of Peter...belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome....You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church." And finally, Jesuit Klaus Schatz writes in Papal Primacy, p. 20, "Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop."
But there is more. Cornelius’ successor, Stephen, was an arrogant prelate. Full of himself, he sowed discord amongst the churches. Cyprian severely reprimanded him, as did others. When Stephen attempted to meddle in the affairs of the North African churches, including overturning the deposing of one Basilides, who then went to Rome to attempt to find assistance in his cause, Cyprian and the North Africans rejected his attempts. Cyprian wrote,
Neither can it rescind an ordination rightly perfected, that Basilides, after the detection of his crimes, and the baring of his conscience even by his own confession, went to Rome and deceived Stephen our colleague, placed at a distance, and ignorant of what had been done, and of the truth, to canvass that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been righteously deposed.
Deceived the bishop of Rome? The source of infallible and apostolic truth could be deceived about the orthodoxy of a man so as to improperly guide the church in regards to its leadership and teaching? How could such be? Obviously, the church of this day had no concept of an infallible Pope, nor any concept that the bishop of Rome was the universal head of the Church. Any reading of the correspondence between Cyprian and Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea (such as Epistle LXXIV, wherein Firmilian accuses Stephen of numerous errors, including transmitting false "tradition"), makes it very clear: neither believed as Karl Keating would like his readers to think they did.
Now we noted above that at the time Karl Keating wrote Catholicism and Fundamentalism, it is quite possible he was ignorant of the situation. He may, like so many other Roman Catholic apologists, have assumed that "chair of Peter" always meant the Roman bishop. He had probably never read much of Cyprian for himself, and was just going on what others had told him. But, the fact of the matter is, that is no longer an excuse. In the years since the publication of the work, Keating has been shown his error, multiple times. And yet his book, and his organization, continues to promote the myth that Cyprian was a believer in Papal infallibility. A glowing Roman Catholic myth.
Augustine’s Sermon 131
Even less excusable is the constant use of Augustine’s comments in Sermon 131, quoted by Keating as "Rome has spoken; the case is closed." Keating puts these words in quotes, indicating that Augustine actually said this. He places it in the context of Papal Infallibility. It is clearly his intention to communicate to his readers that Augustine 1) said these words, and 2) was speaking about the subject in his sermon.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Augustine never said what Keating quotes. In fact, here is the actual Latin text of the final section of Sermon 131 from Migne, PL 38:734:
Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error.
Translated, it reads,
. . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise.
These comments are in reference to the heresy of Pelagianism, which Augustine had been battling in the church in North Africa. This sermon, delivered September 23, 416, begins, ironically, with an exposition of John 6:53 that is directly contradictory to modern Roman teaching on the doctrine of transubstantiation. Since so few take the time to actually read the contexts of the statements about which arguments are based in patristic sources, I provide the first two sections of this sermon, which show us the direction that Augustine was taking:
We have heard the True Master, the Divine Redeemer, the human Savior, commending to us our Ransom, His Blood. For He spake to us of His Body and Blood; He called His Body Meat, His Blood Drink. The faithful recognize the Sacrament of the faithful. But the hearers what else do they but hear? When therefore commending such Meat and such Drink He said, "Except ye shall eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, ye shall have no life in you; " (and this that He said concerning life, who else said it but the Life Itself? But that man shall have death, not life, who shall think that the Life is false), His disciples were offended, not all of them indeed, but very many, saying within themselves, "This is an hard saying, who can hear it? " But when the Lord knew this in Himself, and heard the murmurings of their thought, He answered them, thinking though uttering nothing, that they might understand that they were heard, and might cease to entertain such thoughts. What then did He answer? "Doth this offend you?" "What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?" What meaneth this? "Doth this offend you ?" "Do ye imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? ‘ What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before ?’" Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed. So then He both gave us of His Body and Blood a healthful refreshment, and briefly solved so great a question as to His Own Entireness. Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but thou art in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby thou art refreshed, faileth not. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man’s Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, "It is the Spirit That quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life. But there are some of you," saith He, "that believe not." Such were they who said, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it?" It is hard, but only to the hard; that is, it is incredible, but only to the incredulous.
2. But in order to teach us that this very believing is matter of gift, not of desert, He saith, "As I have said unto you, no man cometh unto Me, except it were given him of My Father." Now as to where the Lord said this, if we call to mind the foregoing words of the Gospel, we shall find that He had said, "No man cometh unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him." He did not lead, but draw. This violence is done to the heart, not the body. Why then dost thou marvel? Believe, and thou comest; love, and thou art drawn. Do not suppose here any rough and uneasy violence; it is gentle, it is sweet; it is the very sweetness that draweth thee. Is not a sheep drawn, when fresh grass is shown to it in its hunger? Yet I imagine that it is not bodily driven on, but fast bound by desire. In such wise do thou come too to Christ; do not conceive of long journeyings; where thou believest, there thou comest. For unto Him, who is everywhere we come by love, not by sailing. But forasmuch as even in this kind of voyage, waves and tempests of divers temptations abound; believe on the Crucified; that thy faith may be able to ascend the Wood. Thou shalt not sink, but shalt be borne upon the Wood. Thus, even thus, amid the waves of this world did he sail, who said, "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."
The entire sermon is a presentation of the gospel of grace. And to give the proper context to the actual words of Augustine, read the sections that immediately precede his final statements:
8. …Hear what God saith; "Who crowneth thee with mercy and pity." Of His mercy He crowneth thee, of His pity He crowneth thee. For thou hadst no worthiness that He should call thee, and being called should justify thee, being justified glorify thee. "The remnant is saved by the election of grace. But if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. For to him that worketh, the reward shall not be reckoned according to grace, but according to debt." The Apostle saith, "Not according to grace, but according to debt." But "thee He crowneth with pity and mercy;" and if thy own merits have gone before, God saith to thee, "Examine well thy merits, and thou shalt see that they are My gifts."
9. This then is the righteousness of God. As it is called, "The Lord’s salvation," not whereby the Lord is saved, but which He giveth to them whom He saveth; so too the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord is called the righteousness of God, not as that whereby the Lord is righteous, but whereby He justifieth those whom of ungodly He maketh righteous. But some, as the Jews in former times, both wish to be called Christians, and still ignorant of God’s righteousness, desire to establish their own, even in our own times, in the times of open grace, the times of the full revelation of grace which before was hidden; in the times of grace now manifested in the floor, which once lay hid in the fleece. I see that a few have understood me, that more have not understood, whom I will by no means defraud by keeping silence. Gideon, one of the righteous men of old, asked for a sign from the Lord, and said, "I pray, Lord, that this fleece which I put in the floor be bedewed, and that the floor be dry." And it was so; the fleece was bedewed, the whole floor was dry. In the morning he wrung out the fleece in a basin; forasmuch as to the humble is grace given; and in a basin, ye know what the Lord did to His disciples. Again, he asked for another sign; "O Lord, I would," saith he, "that the fleece be dry, the floor bedewed." And it was so. Call to mind the time of the Old Testament, grace was hidden in a cloud, as the rain in the fleece. Mark now the time of the New Testament, consider well the nation of the Jews, thou wilt find it as a dry fleece; whereas the whole world, like that floor, is full of grace, not hidden, but manifested. Wherefore we are forced exceedingly to bewail our brethren, who strive not against hidden, but against open and manifested grace. There is allowance for the Jews. What shall we say of Christians? Wherefore are ye enemies to the grace of Christ? Why rely ye on yourselves? Why unthankful? For why did Christ come? Was not nature here before? Was not nature here, which ye only deceive by your excessive praise? Was not the Law here? But the Apostle says, "If righteousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain." What the Apostle says of the Law, that say we of nature to these men. "If righteousness come by nature, then Christ is dead in vain."
The final words of the sermon, then, in which we find the key phrase (placed in bold), are in reference to this heresy, this error (Pelagianism), and its denial of grace. I simply point out that throughout the sermon you have had one source of authority cited over and over again: Holy Scripture. No quotations of Popes or prelates, just Scripture. With this in mind, we come to the actual passage:
10. What then was said of the Jews, the same altogether do we see in these men now. "They have a zeal of God: I hear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." What is, "not according to knowledge"? "For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." My Brethren, share with me in my sorrow. When ye find such as these, do not hide them; be there no such misdirected mercy in you; by all means, when ye find such, hide them not. Convince the gainsayers, and those who resist, bring to us. For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! Therefore do we advise that they may take heed, we teach that they may be instructed, we pray that they may be changed. Let us turn to the Lord, etc.
It is a measure of the utter desperation of the Roman position to have to make reference to such things, in our opinion. The topic is not the bishop of Rome nor the authority of Rome. It is obvious, beyond question, that Augustine’s point is that Pelagianism is a refuted error. It is not refuted because the bishop of Rome has refuted it. It is refuted because it is opposed to Scripture. Two councils have concluded this, and the bishop of Rome has agreed. From Augustine’s position, the error has been exposed and refuted. If only those who are in error would come to know the truth! Augustine exhorts his hearers to teach the gainsayers, and pray that they may be dissuaded from their errors.
This then is the context and content of Sermon 131 of Augustine (which is, btw, Sermon 81 in the Eerdman’s set, pp. 501-504 of volume VI for those who wish to read the entirety of the work). It is now painfully obvious that to place the words "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" in quotation marks and attribute them to Augustine in the context of Papal Infallibility is simply inexcusable. But, there is more to the situation than that. For history shows us that Augustine would never have uttered such words in the context Keating alleges. How he responded when Zosimus became bishop of Rome and attacked the North African churches for condemning Pelagius proves, to any person even semi-desirous of fairly dealing with Augustine’s position, that Augustine did not view the bishop of Rome as the infallible leader of the Christian Church. But to appreciate fully the depth of the error of Roman Catholic controversialists at this point, we must take a few moments to study the history.
B.B. Warfield wrote concerning the history of the Pelagian controversy, and especially of Augustine’s response to Zosimus, bishop of Rome:
Soon afterwards two Gallic bishops, — Heros of Arles, and Lazarus of Aix, — who were then in Palestine, lodged a formal accusation against Pelagius with the metropolitan, Eulogius of Caesarea; and he convened a synod of fourteen bishops which met at Lydda (Diospolis), in December of the same year (415), for the trial of the case. Perhaps no greater ecclesiastical farce was ever enacted than this synod exhibited. When the time arrived, the accusers were prevented from being present by illness, and Pelagius was confronted only by the written accusation. This was both unskillfully drawn, and was written in Latin which the synod did not understand. It was, therefore, not even consecutively read, and was only head rendered into Greek by an interpreter. Pelagius began by reading aloud several letters to himself from various men of reputation in the Episcopate, — among them a friendly not from Augustin. Thoroughly acquainted with both Latin and Greek, he was enabled skillfully to thread every difficulty, and pass safely through the ordeal. Jerome called this a "miserable synod," and not unjustly: at the same time it is sufficient to vindicate the honesty and earnestness of the bishops’ intentions, that even in such circumstances, and despite the more undeveloped opinions of the East on the questions involved, Pelagius escaped condemnation only by a course of most ingenious disingenuousness, and only at the cost both of disowning Coelestius and his teachings, of which he had been the real father, and of leading the synod to believe that he was anathematizing the very doctrines which he was himself proclaiming. There is really no possibility of doubting, as any one will see who reads the proceedings of the synod, that Pelagius obtained his acquittal here either by a "lying condemnation or a tricky interpretation" of his own teachings; and Augustin is perfectly justified in asserting that the "heresy was not acquitted, but the man who denied the heresy," and who would himself have been anathematized had he not anathematized the heresy.
However obtained, the acquittal of Pelagius was yet an accomplished fact. Neither he nor his friends delayed to make the most widely extended use of their good fortune. Pelagius himself was jubilant. Accounts of the synodal proceedings were sent to the West, not altogether free from uncandid alterations; and Pelagius soon put forth a work In Defense of Free-Will, in which he triumphed in his acquittal and "explained his explanations" at the synod. Nor were the champions of the opposite opinion idle. As soon as the news arrived in North Africa, and before the authentic records of the synod had reached that region, the condemnation of Pelagius and Coelestius was re-affirmed in two provincial synods, — one, consisting of sixty-eight bishops, met at Carthage about midsummer of 416; and the other, consisting of about sixty bishops, met soon afterwards at Mileve (Mila). Thus Palestine and North Africa were arrayed against one another, and it became of great importance to obtain the support of the Patriarchal See of Rome. Both sides made the attempt, but fortune favored the Africans. Each of the North-African synods sent a synodal letter to Innocent I., then Bishop of Rome, engaging his assent to their action: to these, five bishops, Aurelius of Carthage and Augustin among them, added a third "familiar" letter of their own, in which they urged upon Innocent to examine into Pelagius’ teaching, and provided him with the material on which he might base a decision. The letters reached Innocent in time for him to take advice of his clergy, and send favorable replies on Jan. 27, 417. In these he expressed his agreement with the African decisions, asserted the necessity of inward grace, rejected the Pelagian theory of infant baptism, and declared Pelagius and Coelestius excommunicated until they should return to orthodoxy. In about six weeks more he was dead: but Zosimus, his successor, was scarcely installed in his place before Coelestius appeared at Rome in person to plead his cause; while shortly afterwards letters arrived from Pelagius addressed to Innocent, and by an artful statement of his belief and a recommendation from Praylus, lately become bishop of Jerusalem in John’s stead, attempting to enlist Rome in his favor. Zosimus, who appears to have been a Greek and therefore inclined to make little of the merits of this Western controversy, went over to Coelestius at once, upon his profession of willingness to anathematize all doctrines which the pontifical see had condemned or should condemn; and wrote a sharp and arrogant letter to Africa, proclaiming Coelestius "catholic," and requiring the Africans to appear within two months at Rome to prosecute their charges, or else to abandon them.
At this point I insert the comment of Schaff, who expands upon the content of this letter from Zosimus:
Zosimus, who evidently had no independent theological opinion whatever, now issued (417) to the North African bishops an encyclical letter accompanied by the documentary evidence, censuring them for not having investigated the matter more thoroughly, and for having aspired, in foolish, overcurious controversies, to know more than the Holy Scriptures. At the same time he bore emphatic testimony to the orthodoxy of Pelagius and Coelestius, and described their chief opponents, Heros and Lazarus, as worthless characters, whom he had visited with excommunication and deposition. They in Rome, he says, could hardly refrain from tears, that such men, who so often mentioned the gratia Dei and the adjutorium divinum, should have been condemned as heretics. Finally he entreated the bishops to submit themselves to the authority of the Roman see. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, III:798).
Lest someone mistrust Protestant writers, note this Roman Catholic author, a professor at the Catholic University of America:
Augustine...could see through the entire charade. The pope had neglected to inquire rigorously into the Pelagian’s (Caelestius) understanding of grace; he had been content to accept superficial responses....A second letter from Zosimus to the Africans, Postquam a nobis written in September 417, did nothing to dispel Augustine’s worries. Pelagius had written to the pope once again, thoroughly convincing him of his orthodoxy, and Zosimus had ordered Pelagius’ letters to be read aloud at the papal court in order that everyone could be apprised of his orthodoxy. To the Africans Zosimus ebulliently exclaimed: ‘Would that some of you, dearest brethren, could have been present at the reading of the letters. What was the joy of the holy men who were present; what was the admiration of each of them! Some of them could scarcely restrain themselves from tears and weeping that such men of absolutely correct faith could have been suspected. Was there a single place in which the grace of God or his aid was omitted?’ At the end of his letter, however, the pope lambasted the Africans as ‘whirlwinds’ and ‘storms of the church’ and accused them of judging Pelagius and Caelestius wholly unfairly….In Quamuis patrum written in March 418, he deliberately flaunted his apostolic authority and claimed that no one should dispute his judgment.…"So great is our authority that no decision of ours can be subjected to review....Such is the authority of Peter and the venerable decrees of the church that all questions concerning human and divine laws, as well as all disciplinary matters, must be referred to Rome for ultimate resolution." This was high–flown language indeed and, as far as the Africans were concerned, totally unacceptable (J.E. Merdinger, Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine (New Haven: Yale University, 1997), pp. 128-129).
Keep these words in mind: Zosimus was claiming grand authority; Zosimus’ conclusions were clear and unequivocal. I continue with Warfield:
On the arrival of Pelagius’ papers, this letter was followed by another (September, 417), in which Zosimus, with the approbation of the clergy, declared both Pelagius and Coelestius to be orthodox, and severely rebuked the Africans for their hasty judgment. It is difficult to understand Zosimus’ action in this matter: neither of the confessions presented by the accused teachers ought to have deceived him, and if he was seizing the occasion to magnify the Roman see, his mistake was dreadful. Late in 417, or early in 418, the African bishops assembled at Carthage, in number more than two hundred and replied to Zosimus that they had decided that the sentence pronounced against Pelagius and Coelestius should remain in force until they should unequivocally acknowledge that "we are aided by the grace of God, through Christ, not only to know, but to do what is right, in each single act, so that without grace we are unable to have, think, speak, or do anything pertaining to piety." This firmness made Zosimus waver. He answered swellingly but timidly, declaring that he had maturely examined the matter, but it had not been his intention finally to acquit Coelestius; and now he had left all things in the condition in which they were before, but he claimed the right of final judgment to himself. Matters were hastening to a conclusion, however, that would leave him no opportunity to escape from the mortification of an entire change of front. This letter was written on the 21st of March, 418; it was received in Africa on the 29th of April; and on the very next day an imperial decree was issued from Ravenna ordering Pelagius and Coelestius to be banished from Rome, with all who held their opinions; while on the next day, May 1, a plenary council of about two hundred bishops met at Carthage, and in nine canons condemned all the essential features of Pelagianism. Whether this simultaneous action was the result of skillful arrangement, can only be conjectured: its effect was in any case necessarily crushing. There could be no appeal from the civil decision, and it played directly into the hands of the African definition of the faith. The synod’s nine canons part naturally into three triads. The first of these deals with the relation of mankind to original sin, and anathematizes in turn those who assert that physical death is a necessity of nature, and not a result of Adam’s sin; those who assert that new-born children derive nothing of original sin from Adam to be expiated by the laver of regeneration; and those who assert a distinction between the kingdom of heaven and eternal life, for entrance into the former of which alone baptism is necessary. The second triad deals with the nature of grace, and anathematizes those who assert that grace aids us not to sin, only by teaching us what is sinful, not by enabling us to will and do what we know to be right; and those who assert that grace only enables us to do more easily what we should without it still be able to do. The third triad deals with the universal sinfulness of the race, and anathematizes those who assert that the apostles’ (I John I.8) confession of sin is due only to their humility; those who say that "Forgive us our trespasses" in the Lord’s Prayer, is pronounced by the saints, not for themselves, but for the sinners in their company; and those who say that the saints use these words of themselves only out of humility and not truly. Here we see a careful traversing of the whole ground of the controversy, with a conscious reference to the three chief contentions of the Pelagian teachers.
The appeal to the civil power, by whomsoever made, was, of course, indefensible, although it accorded with the opinions of the day, and was entirely approved by Augustin. But it was the ruin of the Pelagian cause. Zosimus found himself forced either to go into banishment with his wards, or to desert their cause. He appears never to have had any personal convictions on the dogmatic points involved in the controversy, and so, all the more readily, yielded to the necessity of the moment. He cited Coelestius to appear before a council for a new examination; but that heresiarch consulted prudence, and withdrew from the city. Zosimus, possibly in the effort to appear a leader in the cause he had opposed, not only condemned and excommunicated the men whom less than six months before he had pronounced "orthodox" after a ‘mature consideration of the matters involved,’ but, in obedience to the imperial decree, issued a stringent paper which condemned Pelagius and the Pelagians, and affirmed the African doctrines as to corruption of nature, true grace, and the necessity of baptism. To this he required subscription from all bishops as a test of orthodoxy. (NPNF Series 1:V, xviii-xx).
We should remember a few vital points. First, Zosimus claimed to have "maturely examined" the issue of the confession of Pelagius and Coelestus. He proclaimed them orthodox and Catholic, and gave instructions to the North Africans based upon his self-proclaimed authority. Next, the North Africans rejected his instructions. Knowing full well what he intended, the North African bishops, including Augustine, stood their ground upon the basis of Scriptural teaching. If a person today said, "I understand the bishop of Rome says X about such and such a person, and proclaims them orthodox on the basis of a mature examination, but I reject his conclusions based upon Scriptural teaching," would you identify that person as 1) Roman Catholic, or 2) Protestant? Third, despite his claims to authority and despite his claim to have "maturely examined" the issue as the bishop of Rome, Zosimus had to do a complete about-face. What changed? RC apologists say Zosimus had just been deceived and he learned of his deception, and that he would have done the right thing from the start had he known all the facts. But it is too obvious that Zosimus came into the situation desirous of flexing his new "muscle" as bishop of the largest see in the West, and foolishly and rashly made pronouncements about vital issues (here, the very nature of the gospel, rehabilitating a rank heretic!) and only reversed course by force and not by conviction. Next, for those who ask why either side appealed to Rome in the first place, the answer is obvious: the situation pitted the Palestinian churches against the North African churches, and both sides recognized the value of having the only apostolic see in the West on their side. The fact that the North African churches likewise appealed to the Emperor in Ravenna for confirmation of their action no more means they saw the Emperor as the "head of the church" than their appeal to Rome does. Finally, it is obvious beyond question that Augustine did not take the view that Zosimus was an infallible leader of the Christian Church. If he and the bishops of North Africa had, they would never have acted as they did.
At this point someone might well say, "OK, well, Karl Keating was in error on that. Maybe he hadn’t done his homework." Perhaps so. But many years have passed since his book was published. Surely in that time he has been faced with these facts. His organization, Catholic Answers, publishes a magazine, This Rock, that contains a regular section called "The Fathers Know Best." Surely, in all those years, the people working at Catholic Answers would have to become aware of the historic facts that demonstrate the error of Keating’s assertion in his book. But at the very least, we hope that our readers will continue to bring this issue to his attention and challenge him to correct his error.
[For even more on this topic, see William Webster’s comments: http://www.christiantruth.com/ray5augustine.html]
Stephen Ray’s Presentation
But while we can excuse Keating on the basis of possible ignorance of the actual events of history, we cannot do so with Catholic convert Stephen K. Ray. Instead, we must soberly conclude that his treatment of this issue in his 1999 book Upon This Rock (Ignatius Press) is simply deceptive. This work is, in my opinion, the clearest example of the lengths to which a Roman controversialist will go in twisting history so as to support Roman claims. In a work that is without question one of the least accurate and scholarly works I have ever seen on the subject, one that argues in circles constantly, Ray addresses both Cyprian and Augustine’s views. However, given that Ray does not use the tools of a historian, and in fact utterly abandons any kind of scholarly methodology, the result is predictable. He early on exposes how utterly unreliable his work will be in words such as these:
Sometimes silence is more eloquent than words. This is especially true in Church history. We hear so much about what the Fathers say and so little about what they do not say. This is revealing and should play a significant role in our research. (Upon this Rock, p. 12).
Such a methodology is, quite simply laughable. Ray goes on to use this to argue that unless an early Father specifically denies Petrine primacy and succession that this is somehow "relevant" to historical research. It is painfully obvious, to any semi-unbiased reviewer, that Ray is assuming what he seems to know he cannot prove. The grotesquely anachronistic "examination" that follows is glowing evidence of Ray’s inability to accurately handle historical data and to provide any kind of meaningful presentation. Protestant apologist William Webster has thoroughly refuted Ray (see www.christiantruth.com) who, in response, has only been able to provide more thorough documentation of his own anachronistic, circular reasoning. Utilization of Ray’s means of thought could provide the basis for any kind of belief in the early church, no matter how far-fetched.
But despite this, Ray’s treatment of both Cyprian and Augustine is not just grossly flawed, it is deceptive. It is obvious Ray knows the truth of the matter, but he either suppresses that truth, or twists it into a shape unrecognizable to anyone who reads the early Fathers for themselves. When dealing with Cyprian he desperately attempts to undercut the reality of Cyprian’s view of the cathedra Petri, and likewise somehow "forgets" to cite the passages we provided above which demonstrate Cyprian’s rejection of Stephen’s meddling in the affairs of the North African Church. Though providing lengthy footnotes, he does nothing but ignore Cyprian’s real doctrine, while attacking William Webster for pointing out the obvious. But our concern is much more with the tremendously deceptive presentation regarding Augustine’s Sermon 131.
Beginning on page 230, Ray provides a completely circular argument, not based upon Augustine, but upon Ray’s desperate need to read into Augustine the concept of Petrine primacy in the bishop of Rome. His citations (as throughout the book) are meant to be relevant only given the assumption of what he is trying to prove, the pre-existing commitment to the modern Roman theory of Petrine primacy. He even takes a pathetically weak shot at my own discussion of Augustine’s view of Matthew 16:18-19 which is so poorly constructed that there is no need to refute it: it stands as its own refutation. But on page 233 we read the following: "Roma locuta est; causa finita est [Rome has spoken; the case is closed]." Look familiar? It should. As we have seen, Augustine never said this. Ray uses the same quotes Keating did: but, he then attaches an almost page-length footnote that shows that he is well aware Augustine never uttered these words! This is the deception. Keating can claim ignorance: Ray has no such excuse. Look at what Ray says:
This popular, shortened version of Augustine’s statement put to rest the contention caused by the Pelagian heretics. The full text of his statement—the exact equivalent of the shortened version above—is, "[On the matter of the Pelagians] two Councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [Rome]; and from there rescripts [decrees from the Pope] have come. The matter is at an end [causa finita est]; would that the error too might sometime be at an end." (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, 3:28).
As we see, Ray knows that Augustine did not say the words he quotes, but, he excuses this misrepresentation by re-translating the term "rescripts" (Latin: rescripta) as "decrees from the Pope." Upon what basis does he do this? We are not told. We know that Innocent responded to the actions of the councils in North Africa. It is pure anachronism to 1) assume the North Africans held to Rome’s view of supremacy, 2) assume that the North Africans felt their actions required "ratification" by the bishop of Rome, and 3) assume that Augustine was basing his statement "the matter is at an end" on the decision of Innocent rather than (as the context shows) the Scriptural arguments he had presented against Pelagianism and the actions of the North African councils. Ray makes no reference to the actual substance of Sermon 131. He never quotes it. And what is worse, he utterly ignores the entire issue of Zosimus and the entire history of what transpired immediately after this sermon was preached! Instead, he provides two Roman Catholic citations that utterly ignore the historical context of Augustine’s words. One, from Bernard Otten, is a simply ridiculous assertion that while Augustine never said "Roma locuta est," "its equivalents occur again and again." We have already seen Sermon 131 surely does not do this, so where else do we look for these "equivalents"? We are not told. Another pro-Rome work is cited that inserts the anachronistic idea that the North African bishops felt they had to send the conclusions of their councils to Rome "for ratification," and as normal, we are not given any foundation upon which we can examine the claim. The fact that the North Africans rejected Zosimus’ clear, forceful rehabilitation of Pelagius, which included his insulting the North Africans as "storms of the church" and "whirlwinds" and which came couched within his complete claim of apostolic authority, shows this is not the case. The North Africans rejected his authority and his conclusions. So upon what basis can anyone say they felt the decisions of their councils needed Roman ratification? Indeed, as John Meyendorff points out, barely three years later these same African bishops wrote to Celestine, bishop of Rome, and said, "Who will believe that our God could inspire justice in the inquiries of one man only (i.e., the bishop of Rome) and refuse it to innumerable bishops gathered in council?" (Imperial Unity and Christian Division, 1989, p. 65). Does that sound like these men believed as Stephen Ray assumes everyone must have? Surely not. The facts are clear.
Myths are Dangerous
I have dialogued with many a Roman Catholic who, upon facing the biblical evidence concerning the gospel of grace, has retreated into an argument based upon the authority of Rome. And when challenged on that, they have reproduced these very Roman Catholic legends, myths, based upon the misrepresentation of men like Cyprian and Augustine. These folks really believe Augustine was a servant of an infallible Pope. He wasn’t. They actually believe someone who lived as early as Cyprian believed the bishop of Rome was the sole successor of Peter. He didn’t. But these legends have been used to provide a foundation upon which the authority claims of Rome are based. And just as generations lived under the lies of forgeries upon which Papal authority was based in the medieval period, so modern people are kept from truly understanding the gospel of grace by an authoritative system that continues to propagate itself on the basis of untruth, whether that comes from ignorant repetition of what one has heard somewhere else, or the purposeful, deceptive twisting of history and the early Fathers.
A Biblical Basis for the "Immaculate Conception"? A Review and Rebuttal of Patrick Madrid's Article "Ark of the New Covenant" in "This Rock" magazine, December 1991. by James White
Catholic Answers has some interesting ways of grabbing your attention. By placing the beginning paragraph or two of the lead article of their monthly magazine, This Rock, on the very cover of the work, they draw your attention into reading the rest of the article. True to form, the December, 1991 edition sported Pat Madrid's article, "Ark of the New Covenant" with the interesting lead in, "His face stiffened, and his eyes narrowed to slits. Until now the Calvary Chapel pastor had been calm as he `shared the gospel' with me, but when I mentioned my belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception, his attitude changed." Using a "real-life" backdrop for the presentation of some particular topic is another fine writing tool used by the folks at Catholic Answers. As you continue to read about this encounter, you discover that our author, Pat Madrid, is going to provide Biblical support for his belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. He writes of his encounter with the Protestant pastor,
After we'd examined the biblical evidence for the doctrine, the
anti-Marianism he'd shown became muted, but it was clear that,
at least emotionally if not biblically, Mary was a stumbling
block for him. Like most Christians (Catholic and Protestant)
the minister was unaware of the biblical support for the
Church's teaching on the Immaculate Conception. But sometimes
even knowledge of these passages isn't enough. Many former
Evangelicals who have converted to the Catholic Church relate
how hard it was for them to put aside prejudices and embrace
Marian doctrines even after they'd thoroughly satisfied
themselves through prayer and Scripture study that such
teachings were indeed biblical.
Such words indicated to me that I was going to have the opportunity of seeing solid, Biblical argumentation for the concept of the Immaculate Conception in what followed. Unfortunately, what was presented as "biblical evidence" turned out to be much less than convincing.
Before examining Mr. Madrid's attempt to substantiate the Immaculate Conception of Mary, let's set one thing straight. Mr. Madrid speaks of "anti-Marianism" in the above quotation. From the Roman position, the Protestant's refusal to accept the Roman Catholic teachings on Mary is "anti-Marianism." Yet, is this a valid statement on Mr. Madrid's part? I certainly do not believe so. Rejection of non-Biblical and anti- Biblical teachings about Mary does not make one "anti-Mary." Indeed, one might well assert that to be concerned about maintaining the truth about she who was "blessed among women" would include safeguarding her against idolatrous worship, etc. I am sure that if Mary was aware of the millions who attempt to pray to her, ask her intercession, and dedicate themselves to her, all in direct violation of Biblical commands, she would be greatly distressed and grieved. I believe that God, in His mercy, has surely shielded Mary from such knowledge. So, one might well turn the charge of "anti-Marianism" against those who propagate such items of belief as these:
Prayer to Our Lady: Hail Mary, etc. My Queen! My Mother! I
give thee all myself, and, to show my devotion to thee, I
consecrate to thee my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my
entire self. Wherefore, O loving Mother, as I am thine own,
keep me, defend me, as thy property and possession.
The above prayer provides a promised indulgence of 500 days for a month's recitation. In another publication we find the promise of the Virgin Mary concerning the "Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel." The scapular is said to be a "gift to you from your heavenly mother," and is said to be an "assurance of salvation." Mary's own promise, supposedly given July 16th, 1251, is that "Whosoever dies clothed in this (scapular) shall not suffer eternal fire." The following prayer, titled "The Morning Offering," is included:
O my God, in union with the Immaculate Heart of Mary (here kiss
your Scapular as a sign of your consecration; partial indulgence
also), I offer Thee the Precious Blood of Jesus from all the
altars throughout the world, joining with It the offering of my
every thought, word and action of this day. O my Jesus, I
desire today to gain every indulgence and merit I can and I
offer them, together with myself, to Mary Immaculate, that she
may best apply them in the interests of Thy most Sacred Heart.
Precious Blood of Jesus, save us! Immaculate Heart of Mary,
pray for us! Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!
This is surely the true "anti-Marianism," for Mary would never desire that anyone consecrate themselves to her. She would recognize that any such action takes away from the sole glory of Jesus Christ, and, as He is her Savior and Lord as well, she would never seek to be placed in competition with Him, even if those so doing denied that such a competition was the end result of their teachings. Now, I recognize that some of the sentiments expressed in the above quotations are not considered to be items that must be believed by Roman Catholics. Apologists such as Mr. Madrid are quick to point out the difference between true Catholic doctrine and devotional beliefs. But in passing let us note that if the Roman Church allows her people to believe these things, she must either not have any concern for truth (if these beliefs are not true), or she must believe them true as well, and simply lack the courage to say so directly and openly. One cannot imagine the Apostle Paul allowing believers in the churches to pray to someone other than God and, when asked about this practice, saying, "Well, it's not really something that you have to believe to be saved--they are not being hurt by the practice, so it's a matter of individual choice." So, denying the Roman Catholic doctrines concerning Mary is not "anti-Marianism." It is "anti-Marian-distortionism" if anything at all.
Before providing what the "Bible has to say in favor of the Catholic position" regarding Mary's Immaculate Conception, Mr. Madrid takes the time to review some common objections to the doctrine from the Protestant perspective. He asserts that Mary was indeed saved from sin, but in a "different and more glorious way than the rest of us are." The merits of Christ were applied to her, he says, prior to her birth, in an anticipatory way, so that she was born without sin. By citing the examples of babies who are aborted, or people born with mental deficiencies, Mr. Madrid thinks to show that Paul's universal statements of sinfulness (Romans 3 and 5) admit of exceptions. Without taking the time to discuss the fall, sin, etc., we note in passing that we would not wish to put Mary in the same category as aborted children and those born with mental problems. But, Mr. Madrid is right about one thing--the Bible does not explicitly say that Mary sinned. Of course, it doesn't explicitly say that 99.9% of all of humanity, by name, has sinned. It doesn't need to. I think the reason that it does not address Mary's situation is quite simple--neither Luke, nor any other Biblical writer, had the foggiest idea of the concept of the Immaculate Conception, so it does not enter into their writings. Mr. Madrid, however, should be aware of the danger of this kind of exegesis. He is an expert on Mormonism, and must realize that there is no explicit statement that "Jesus is not the spirit-brother of Lucifer" (an LDS belief that he and I would both reject). As we shall see, Pat Madrid is forced to utilize "interpretive methods" that leave the door open for any kind of teaching--whether LDS, Jehovah's Witness, Moonie, or any other. But, I'm getting ahead of myself....
In introducing the Biblical evidence for the Immaculate Conception, Mr. Madrid says the following:
Now let's consider what the Bible has to say in favor of the
Catholic position. It's important to recognize that neither the
words "Immaculate Conception" nor the precise formula adopted by
the Church to enunciate this truth are found in the Bible. This
doesn't mean the doctrine isn't biblical, only that the truth of
the Immaculate Conception, like the truths of the Trinity and
Jesus' hypostatic union (that Jesus was incarnated as God and
man, possessing completely and simultaneously two natures,
divine and human, in one divine person), is mentioned either in
other words or only indirectly.
Pat makes a good point. One does not need to find the phrase "Immaculate Conception" in the Bible for it to be Biblical anymore than one has to find the term "Trinity" in the Bible for it to be Biblical. We agree on this point. However, knowing that Pat, like myself, works extensively with Mormons, and that he is familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses as well (Mark Brumley is the expert on the Witnesses at Catholic Answers), I am certain that he is well aware that the depth and breadth of Biblical evidence for both the Trinity, and the hypostatic union, is light years beyond that of the Immaculate Conception. Layer after layer of Biblical data can be presented, in context, for the Trinity--one could fill this entire publication with evidence of monotheism, the existence of the three Persons, and the equality of those Persons (the three foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity). One could dig into linguistics, for example, and show how theotetos, that is, "deity," at Colossians 2:9, clearly demonstrates that Jesus is God in human flesh. One could examine John's usage of ego eimi, "I Am," and see how this, too, shows the deity of Christ. One can note the many instances of "triadic formulae" throughout the New Testament, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are placed together in divine settings (Ephesians 4:4-5, 2 Corinthians 13:14). Given that Mr. Madrid parallels the Immaculate Conception with the Trinity and the hypostatic union, then, do we find him presenting the same kind of Biblical evidence for the doctrine? No, we do not. In fact, Pat managed to get the specifically exegetical material (in opposition to typological evidence, material that depends upon "types" rather than direct assertion or teaching) into one paragraph of fifteen lines. Here it is:
Look first at two passages in Luke 1. In verse 28, the angel
Gabriel greets Mary as "kecharitomene" ("full of grace" or
"highly favored"). This is a recognition of her sinless state.
In verse 42 Elizabeth greets Mary as "blessed among women." The
original import of this phrase is lost in English translation.
Since neither the Hebrew nor Aramaic languages have superlatives
(best, highest, tallest, holiest), a speaker of those languages
would have say (sic), "You are tall among men" or "You are
wealthy among men" to mean "You are the tallest" or "You are the
wealthiest." Elizabeth's words mean Mary was the holiest of all
women.
That's it. That's the entirety of the specific, exegetical evidence of the doctrine, according to Pat Madrid. Yes, he goes on to present lots of "typological" attempts to find Mary in various Old Testament stories. We shall examine them later. But, with reference to specific, direct teaching, this is all that is offered, and all that is said in defense of the interpretation put forward. Obviously, then, the Immaculate Conception does not qualify to be included in the Trinity/hypostatic union category of Biblical teachings that are not mentioned directly by name, for the evidence presented is, quite simply, paltry when compared to the direct, obvious evidence for the Trinity and the hypostatic union.
Does Mr. Madrid's interpretation stand up to scrutiny? It most certainly does not. Let us begin with the first assertion. Luke 1:28 says,
The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly
favored! The Lord is with you" (NIV).
Mr. Madrid's sole comment on this passage is, "This is a recognition of her sinless state." How does Pat know this? He doesn't say. But Pat's boss, the head of Catholic Answers, Karl Keating, at least attempted a fuller discussion in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. In speaking of the Greek term, kecaritomene, he alleged:
The newer translations leave out something the Greek conveys,
something the older translation conveys, which is that this
grace (and the core of the word kecharitomene is charis, after
all) is at once permanent and of a singular kind. The Greek
indicates a perfection of grace. A perfection must be perfect
not only intensively, but extensively. The grace Mary enjoyed
must not only have been as "full" or strong or complete as
possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the
whole of her life, from conception. That is, she must have been
in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her
existence to have been called "full of grace" or to have been
filled with divine favor in a singular way. This is just what
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds... (p. 269).
Perhaps Pat just didn't have the room to put all that into his article. Or, we could hope, he didn't include it, because he recognizes that the above quotation goes so far beyond anything a serious exegete of the passage in Greek could possibly say that it rivals the attempts made by Mormons to substantiate the concept of men being exalted to the status of a God by citing Romans 8:17. This can be seen by examining the term in question, the perfect passive participle kecaritwmenh. Does the term carry an entire doctrine, unknown in the rest of the New Testament, unheard of by the first three centuries of the Christian Church, in itself? Or are modern Roman Catholic interpreters reading into this term a tremendous amount of material that was never intended by Luke?
First, let's look at the lexical meaning of the root of the term, that being the Greek word caritow. Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (edited by Gingrich and Danker) defines the usage of caritow at Luke 1:28, "favored one (in the sight of God)." No lexical source that we have found gives as a meaning of caritow "sinlessness." The term refers to favor, in the case of Luke 1:28, divine favor, that is, God's grace. The only other occurrence of caritow is at Ephesians 1:6, "...to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves" (NIV). If the bare term caritow means "sinlessness," then it follows that the elect of God, throughout their lives, have been sinless as well.
However, if we look at Mr. Keating's presentation, it seems clear that he is basing his interpretation not primarily upon the lexical meaning of the word caritow, but upon the form it takes in Luke 1:28, that being the perfect passive participle, kecaritomene. Note that Keating alleges that the "Greek indicates a perfection of grace." He seems to be playing on the perfect tense of the participle. But, as anyone trained in Greek is aware, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a participle to the idea that the Greek "indicates a perfection of grace." First, participles primarily derive their tense aspect from the main verb of the sentence. In this case, however, we have a vocative participle, and no main verb in what is in actuality simply a greeting. (The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.) What are we to do with the perfect tense of the participle, then? We might take it as an intensive perfect, one that emphatically states that something *is* (see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament pg. 202), but most likely it is simply emphasizing the certainty of the favor given, just as the perfect passive participle in Matthew 25:34 ("Come, you who are blessed by my Father..."), 1 Thessalonians 1:4 ("For we know, brothers loved by God..."), and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 ("But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord...") emphasizes the completedness of the action as well. No one would argue that in Matthew 25:34, Jesus means to tell us that the righteous have a "perfection of blessedness that indicates that they had this perfection throughout their life, for a perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively" (to borrow from Mr. Keating's presentation). The application of Keating's thoughts to any of the above passages results in foolishness. Hence, it is obvious that when Keating says that the Greek indicates that Mary "must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called `full of grace' or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way," he is, in point of fact, not deriving this from the Greek at all, but from his own theology, which he then reads back into the text. There is simply nothing in the Greek to support the pretentious interpretation put forward by Keating and Madrid. Therefore, Madrid's statement, "This is a recognition of her sinless state," falls for lack of support. The angel addressed Mary as "highly favored," for, as he himself said, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God."
The second passage cited by Madrid is also found in Luke 1, this time, the 42nd verse, which reads,
In a loud voice she exclaimed, "Blessed are you among women, and
blessed is the child you will bear!" (NIV)
Madrid is quite correct to point out that Hebrew and Aramaic do not have superlative forms, and that the phrase "blessed among women" (euloghmenh su en gunaixin) should be translated as a superlative. I would suggest something like, "you are most blessed of all women." However, as it often the case, truth can be used in a sleight-of-hand trick, and that is what we have here. While all the discussion of the superlative force is true, Mr. Madrid goes on to slip in a wholly unwarranted conclusion, right on the heels of his proper discussion of the superlative force of the passage. Note that he concludes his paragraph with the sentence, "Elizabeth's words mean Mary was the holiest of all women." Where did that come from? To substantiate such a statement, Mr. Madrid would have to prove to us that eulogeo does not actually mean "blessed" here (as all lexical sources say it does), but actually means "holy" instead. But Mr. Madrid doesn't even attempt to do this. He just makes the bald assertion, and leaves it at that--without a bit of commentary.
Does Elizabeth's words tell us that Mary was the holiest of all women? Well, you certainly wouldn't get that idea from simply reading the passage. There is nothing in the word eulogemene that speaks of sinlessness or holiness. If Mr. Madrid attempts to use the form of the term in the passage to come up with the Immaculate Conception idea, does it follow that all the righteous in Matthew 25:34 were immaculately conceived as well, since the same term is used of them? It seems that would prove too much. But, it's the only route open to the Roman apologist, who, of course, has attempted to prove too much already by even citing this passage and asserting that being "blessed among women" means "the holiest of all women."
Remember that Pat began his article by mentioning the "biblical evidence for the doctrine" of the Immaculate Conception. However, we have found no evidence in what has been presented. Yet, the article did not end with the one paragraph cited earlier. Instead, we find a whole section dedicated to the discussion of "types" of Mary in the Old Testament. To give the reader a sense of what kind of interpretation the Roman Catholic is forced to utilize to find "biblical evidence" for the Immaculate Conception, we provide the first example from Mr. Madrid's article:
Mary's Immaculate Conception is foreshadowed in Genesis 1, where
God creates the universe in an immaculate state, free from any
blemish or stain or sin or imperfection. This is borne out by
the repeated mention in Genesis 1 of God beholding his creations
and saying they were "very good." Out of pristine matter the
Lord created Adam, the first immaculately created human being,
forming him from the "womb" of the Earth. The immaculate
elements from which the first Adam received his substance
foreshadowed the immaculate mother from whom the second Adam
(Romans 5:14) took his human substance.
How does one deal with interpretation such as this? Personally, I don't see Mary foreshadowed in creation, do you? I don't recall any emphasis in the original text upon the "immaculate" elements of the earth, nor upon the idea that Adam was formed in the "womb" of the immaculate earth. Are we to believe that Moses had these ideas in mind, or is it just a result of inspiration? I have no problem with the types that are directly presented to us in Scripture--Paul uses such an allegory in Galatians 4:21-31. But I also realize that there is no end to the "types" that one can find in Scripture, nor any controls upon how far you can take such a method.
An examination of the types Mr. Madrid presents shows us the danger of this kind of interpretation. Forced by lack of direct evidence to rely upon a lesser source of information, Madrid points to Genesis 3:5 and the "proto-evangelon":
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will
strike his heel (Genesis 3:15, NIV).
After identifying the "seed of the woman" as Mary, Madrid says,
If Mary was not completely sinless this prophesy becomes
untenable. Why is that? The passage points to Mary's
Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity
between the woman and Satan. Such enmity would have been
impossible if Mary were tainted by sin....
We are forced to ask, where does the passage even address a complete enmity between the woman and Satan? Upon what basis can Mr. Madrid insert into this passage some concept of Immaculate Conception? Is there not enmity between believers and the world? Does that make us sinless? Does the fact that we still have sin in our lives mean that not enmity exists at all? Hardly.
The greatest effort in typological interpretation by Mr. Madrid comes in his attempt to parallel the Ark of the Covenant and Mary. The first parallel he draws has to do with the fact that God took such great pains to make sure the Ark was properly constructed. He says,
God wanted the ark to be as perfect and unblemished as humanly
possible so it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the
written Word of God. How much more so would God want Mary, the
ark of the new covenant, to be perfect and unblemished since she
would carry within her womb the Word of God in flesh.
Does this kind of interpretation bear the weight of investigation? While we admit the force such things carry with those who already accept these doctrine, we point out that there is no way to test the interpretation. We can easily point out absurdities to which the parallel can be pushed--for example, must Mary have been stolen by God's enemies for a time, so that she could be brought back to the people of God with great rejoicing? Who was Mary's Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:3-8)? Madrid draws a further parallel between the three months the ark was with Obededom and the three months Mary was with Elizabeth. What, then, is the parallel with David's action of sacrificing a bull and a fattened calf when those who were carrying the ark had taken six steps (2 Samuel 6:13)? See, Mr. Madrid feels free to pick and choose what aspects of Mary's life he wishes to parallel in the ark, and which he does not--there are no rules in this kind of interpretation, and it can lead to just about any conclusion. Pat seems to recognize at least some of this, for he says,
Granted, none of these verses "proves" Mary's Immaculate
Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible
nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original
sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is
silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence
supports the Catholic teaching.
We are left wondering at Mr. Madrid's definition of "biblical evidence," but we are glad to see that he recognizes that all that has come before does not "prove" the Immaculate Conception. One will believe that doctrine only if one believes that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible and has an authority that does not need Scriptural basis. It seems that, sadly, Mr. Madrid accepts Rome's claims.
There is one other item that needs to be addressed in this article. Madrid says,
The Mary/ark imagery appears again in Revelation 11:19 and 12:1-
17, where she is called the mother of all "those who keep God's
commandments and bear witness to Jesus" (verse 17). The ark
symbolism found in Luke 1 and Revelation 11 and 12 was not lost
on the early Christians. They could see the parallels between
the Old Testament's description of the ark and the New
Testament's discussion of Mary's role.
We are forced to wonder again as to how Mr. Madrid is defining the phrase "early Christians." If we take "early" to mean "prior to the year 400," we find that he has no basis for his statements. It is plain for all to see that the entire concept of the Immaculate Conception is missing from the earliest patristic sources--indeed, Mary does not enter into the picture for quite some time, entering first because of the Christological controversies, and only later, under the impulse of asceticism and monasticism, as a central figure in her own right. But, for the first four centuries, the "Virgin Mother" for Christians was not Mary, but the Church. The woman in Revelation 12 was not Mary, but the Church as well (see Hippolytus, _On Christ and Antichrist_, 61, in ANF, V:217). Indeed, one will find controversies brewing over the concept of the Immaculate Conception a thousand years later, when the Dominicans and the Franciscans were at each other's throats over the issue. At the time, the "infallible authority" remained silent, following a middle course between the two sides. As late as the nineteenth century we find the Roman Catholic bishop Milner saying,
The Church does not decide the controversy concerning the
Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and several other disputed
points, because she sees nothing clear and certain concerning
them either in the written or unwritten Word, and therefore
leaves her children to form their own opinions concerning them
(cited in Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, p. 182).
So even tradition fails our Roman Catholic apologist in attempting to find a basis for the Immaculate Conception. The simple fact is that this doctrine is a very late development, a part of Roman Catholic teaching, officially, for less than 150 years. It has no Biblical basis, nor does it have foundation in the early writings of the Church. It was a hotly debated topic for centuries, and no "infallible Pope" dared schism by exercising his infallibility to end the argument until the nineteenth century. It is one of many Marian doctrines that, as a whole, not only greatly detract from the true, Biblical presentation of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, but which promote clearly false concepts in the minds of faithful Catholics everywhere. Given the results of our review, it seems clear that Pat Madrid's "examination" of the "biblical evidence" for the doctrine with the Calvary Chapel pastor took a very short period of time.
After we'd examined the biblical evidence for the doctrine, the
anti-Marianism he'd shown became muted, but it was clear that,
at least emotionally if not biblically, Mary was a stumbling
block for him. Like most Christians (Catholic and Protestant)
the minister was unaware of the biblical support for the
Church's teaching on the Immaculate Conception. But sometimes
even knowledge of these passages isn't enough. Many former
Evangelicals who have converted to the Catholic Church relate
how hard it was for them to put aside prejudices and embrace
Marian doctrines even after they'd thoroughly satisfied
themselves through prayer and Scripture study that such
teachings were indeed biblical.
Such words indicated to me that I was going to have the opportunity of seeing solid, Biblical argumentation for the concept of the Immaculate Conception in what followed. Unfortunately, what was presented as "biblical evidence" turned out to be much less than convincing.
Before examining Mr. Madrid's attempt to substantiate the Immaculate Conception of Mary, let's set one thing straight. Mr. Madrid speaks of "anti-Marianism" in the above quotation. From the Roman position, the Protestant's refusal to accept the Roman Catholic teachings on Mary is "anti-Marianism." Yet, is this a valid statement on Mr. Madrid's part? I certainly do not believe so. Rejection of non-Biblical and anti- Biblical teachings about Mary does not make one "anti-Mary." Indeed, one might well assert that to be concerned about maintaining the truth about she who was "blessed among women" would include safeguarding her against idolatrous worship, etc. I am sure that if Mary was aware of the millions who attempt to pray to her, ask her intercession, and dedicate themselves to her, all in direct violation of Biblical commands, she would be greatly distressed and grieved. I believe that God, in His mercy, has surely shielded Mary from such knowledge. So, one might well turn the charge of "anti-Marianism" against those who propagate such items of belief as these:
Prayer to Our Lady: Hail Mary, etc. My Queen! My Mother! I
give thee all myself, and, to show my devotion to thee, I
consecrate to thee my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my
entire self. Wherefore, O loving Mother, as I am thine own,
keep me, defend me, as thy property and possession.
The above prayer provides a promised indulgence of 500 days for a month's recitation. In another publication we find the promise of the Virgin Mary concerning the "Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel." The scapular is said to be a "gift to you from your heavenly mother," and is said to be an "assurance of salvation." Mary's own promise, supposedly given July 16th, 1251, is that "Whosoever dies clothed in this (scapular) shall not suffer eternal fire." The following prayer, titled "The Morning Offering," is included:
O my God, in union with the Immaculate Heart of Mary (here kiss
your Scapular as a sign of your consecration; partial indulgence
also), I offer Thee the Precious Blood of Jesus from all the
altars throughout the world, joining with It the offering of my
every thought, word and action of this day. O my Jesus, I
desire today to gain every indulgence and merit I can and I
offer them, together with myself, to Mary Immaculate, that she
may best apply them in the interests of Thy most Sacred Heart.
Precious Blood of Jesus, save us! Immaculate Heart of Mary,
pray for us! Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!
This is surely the true "anti-Marianism," for Mary would never desire that anyone consecrate themselves to her. She would recognize that any such action takes away from the sole glory of Jesus Christ, and, as He is her Savior and Lord as well, she would never seek to be placed in competition with Him, even if those so doing denied that such a competition was the end result of their teachings. Now, I recognize that some of the sentiments expressed in the above quotations are not considered to be items that must be believed by Roman Catholics. Apologists such as Mr. Madrid are quick to point out the difference between true Catholic doctrine and devotional beliefs. But in passing let us note that if the Roman Church allows her people to believe these things, she must either not have any concern for truth (if these beliefs are not true), or she must believe them true as well, and simply lack the courage to say so directly and openly. One cannot imagine the Apostle Paul allowing believers in the churches to pray to someone other than God and, when asked about this practice, saying, "Well, it's not really something that you have to believe to be saved--they are not being hurt by the practice, so it's a matter of individual choice." So, denying the Roman Catholic doctrines concerning Mary is not "anti-Marianism." It is "anti-Marian-distortionism" if anything at all.
Before providing what the "Bible has to say in favor of the Catholic position" regarding Mary's Immaculate Conception, Mr. Madrid takes the time to review some common objections to the doctrine from the Protestant perspective. He asserts that Mary was indeed saved from sin, but in a "different and more glorious way than the rest of us are." The merits of Christ were applied to her, he says, prior to her birth, in an anticipatory way, so that she was born without sin. By citing the examples of babies who are aborted, or people born with mental deficiencies, Mr. Madrid thinks to show that Paul's universal statements of sinfulness (Romans 3 and 5) admit of exceptions. Without taking the time to discuss the fall, sin, etc., we note in passing that we would not wish to put Mary in the same category as aborted children and those born with mental problems. But, Mr. Madrid is right about one thing--the Bible does not explicitly say that Mary sinned. Of course, it doesn't explicitly say that 99.9% of all of humanity, by name, has sinned. It doesn't need to. I think the reason that it does not address Mary's situation is quite simple--neither Luke, nor any other Biblical writer, had the foggiest idea of the concept of the Immaculate Conception, so it does not enter into their writings. Mr. Madrid, however, should be aware of the danger of this kind of exegesis. He is an expert on Mormonism, and must realize that there is no explicit statement that "Jesus is not the spirit-brother of Lucifer" (an LDS belief that he and I would both reject). As we shall see, Pat Madrid is forced to utilize "interpretive methods" that leave the door open for any kind of teaching--whether LDS, Jehovah's Witness, Moonie, or any other. But, I'm getting ahead of myself....
In introducing the Biblical evidence for the Immaculate Conception, Mr. Madrid says the following:
Now let's consider what the Bible has to say in favor of the
Catholic position. It's important to recognize that neither the
words "Immaculate Conception" nor the precise formula adopted by
the Church to enunciate this truth are found in the Bible. This
doesn't mean the doctrine isn't biblical, only that the truth of
the Immaculate Conception, like the truths of the Trinity and
Jesus' hypostatic union (that Jesus was incarnated as God and
man, possessing completely and simultaneously two natures,
divine and human, in one divine person), is mentioned either in
other words or only indirectly.
Pat makes a good point. One does not need to find the phrase "Immaculate Conception" in the Bible for it to be Biblical anymore than one has to find the term "Trinity" in the Bible for it to be Biblical. We agree on this point. However, knowing that Pat, like myself, works extensively with Mormons, and that he is familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses as well (Mark Brumley is the expert on the Witnesses at Catholic Answers), I am certain that he is well aware that the depth and breadth of Biblical evidence for both the Trinity, and the hypostatic union, is light years beyond that of the Immaculate Conception. Layer after layer of Biblical data can be presented, in context, for the Trinity--one could fill this entire publication with evidence of monotheism, the existence of the three Persons, and the equality of those Persons (the three foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity). One could dig into linguistics, for example, and show how theotetos, that is, "deity," at Colossians 2:9, clearly demonstrates that Jesus is God in human flesh. One could examine John's usage of ego eimi, "I Am," and see how this, too, shows the deity of Christ. One can note the many instances of "triadic formulae" throughout the New Testament, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are placed together in divine settings (Ephesians 4:4-5, 2 Corinthians 13:14). Given that Mr. Madrid parallels the Immaculate Conception with the Trinity and the hypostatic union, then, do we find him presenting the same kind of Biblical evidence for the doctrine? No, we do not. In fact, Pat managed to get the specifically exegetical material (in opposition to typological evidence, material that depends upon "types" rather than direct assertion or teaching) into one paragraph of fifteen lines. Here it is:
Look first at two passages in Luke 1. In verse 28, the angel
Gabriel greets Mary as "kecharitomene" ("full of grace" or
"highly favored"). This is a recognition of her sinless state.
In verse 42 Elizabeth greets Mary as "blessed among women." The
original import of this phrase is lost in English translation.
Since neither the Hebrew nor Aramaic languages have superlatives
(best, highest, tallest, holiest), a speaker of those languages
would have say (sic), "You are tall among men" or "You are
wealthy among men" to mean "You are the tallest" or "You are the
wealthiest." Elizabeth's words mean Mary was the holiest of all
women.
That's it. That's the entirety of the specific, exegetical evidence of the doctrine, according to Pat Madrid. Yes, he goes on to present lots of "typological" attempts to find Mary in various Old Testament stories. We shall examine them later. But, with reference to specific, direct teaching, this is all that is offered, and all that is said in defense of the interpretation put forward. Obviously, then, the Immaculate Conception does not qualify to be included in the Trinity/hypostatic union category of Biblical teachings that are not mentioned directly by name, for the evidence presented is, quite simply, paltry when compared to the direct, obvious evidence for the Trinity and the hypostatic union.
Does Mr. Madrid's interpretation stand up to scrutiny? It most certainly does not. Let us begin with the first assertion. Luke 1:28 says,
The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly
favored! The Lord is with you" (NIV).
Mr. Madrid's sole comment on this passage is, "This is a recognition of her sinless state." How does Pat know this? He doesn't say. But Pat's boss, the head of Catholic Answers, Karl Keating, at least attempted a fuller discussion in his book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism. In speaking of the Greek term, kecaritomene, he alleged:
The newer translations leave out something the Greek conveys,
something the older translation conveys, which is that this
grace (and the core of the word kecharitomene is charis, after
all) is at once permanent and of a singular kind. The Greek
indicates a perfection of grace. A perfection must be perfect
not only intensively, but extensively. The grace Mary enjoyed
must not only have been as "full" or strong or complete as
possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the
whole of her life, from conception. That is, she must have been
in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her
existence to have been called "full of grace" or to have been
filled with divine favor in a singular way. This is just what
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds... (p. 269).
Perhaps Pat just didn't have the room to put all that into his article. Or, we could hope, he didn't include it, because he recognizes that the above quotation goes so far beyond anything a serious exegete of the passage in Greek could possibly say that it rivals the attempts made by Mormons to substantiate the concept of men being exalted to the status of a God by citing Romans 8:17. This can be seen by examining the term in question, the perfect passive participle kecaritwmenh. Does the term carry an entire doctrine, unknown in the rest of the New Testament, unheard of by the first three centuries of the Christian Church, in itself? Or are modern Roman Catholic interpreters reading into this term a tremendous amount of material that was never intended by Luke?
First, let's look at the lexical meaning of the root of the term, that being the Greek word caritow. Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (edited by Gingrich and Danker) defines the usage of caritow at Luke 1:28, "favored one (in the sight of God)." No lexical source that we have found gives as a meaning of caritow "sinlessness." The term refers to favor, in the case of Luke 1:28, divine favor, that is, God's grace. The only other occurrence of caritow is at Ephesians 1:6, "...to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves" (NIV). If the bare term caritow means "sinlessness," then it follows that the elect of God, throughout their lives, have been sinless as well.
However, if we look at Mr. Keating's presentation, it seems clear that he is basing his interpretation not primarily upon the lexical meaning of the word caritow, but upon the form it takes in Luke 1:28, that being the perfect passive participle, kecaritomene. Note that Keating alleges that the "Greek indicates a perfection of grace." He seems to be playing on the perfect tense of the participle. But, as anyone trained in Greek is aware, there is no way to jump from the perfect tense of a participle to the idea that the Greek "indicates a perfection of grace." First, participles primarily derive their tense aspect from the main verb of the sentence. In this case, however, we have a vocative participle, and no main verb in what is in actuality simply a greeting. (The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.) What are we to do with the perfect tense of the participle, then? We might take it as an intensive perfect, one that emphatically states that something *is* (see Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament pg. 202), but most likely it is simply emphasizing the certainty of the favor given, just as the perfect passive participle in Matthew 25:34 ("Come, you who are blessed by my Father..."), 1 Thessalonians 1:4 ("For we know, brothers loved by God..."), and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 ("But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord...") emphasizes the completedness of the action as well. No one would argue that in Matthew 25:34, Jesus means to tell us that the righteous have a "perfection of blessedness that indicates that they had this perfection throughout their life, for a perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively" (to borrow from Mr. Keating's presentation). The application of Keating's thoughts to any of the above passages results in foolishness. Hence, it is obvious that when Keating says that the Greek indicates that Mary "must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called `full of grace' or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way," he is, in point of fact, not deriving this from the Greek at all, but from his own theology, which he then reads back into the text. There is simply nothing in the Greek to support the pretentious interpretation put forward by Keating and Madrid. Therefore, Madrid's statement, "This is a recognition of her sinless state," falls for lack of support. The angel addressed Mary as "highly favored," for, as he himself said, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God."
The second passage cited by Madrid is also found in Luke 1, this time, the 42nd verse, which reads,
In a loud voice she exclaimed, "Blessed are you among women, and
blessed is the child you will bear!" (NIV)
Madrid is quite correct to point out that Hebrew and Aramaic do not have superlative forms, and that the phrase "blessed among women" (euloghmenh su en gunaixin) should be translated as a superlative. I would suggest something like, "you are most blessed of all women." However, as it often the case, truth can be used in a sleight-of-hand trick, and that is what we have here. While all the discussion of the superlative force is true, Mr. Madrid goes on to slip in a wholly unwarranted conclusion, right on the heels of his proper discussion of the superlative force of the passage. Note that he concludes his paragraph with the sentence, "Elizabeth's words mean Mary was the holiest of all women." Where did that come from? To substantiate such a statement, Mr. Madrid would have to prove to us that eulogeo does not actually mean "blessed" here (as all lexical sources say it does), but actually means "holy" instead. But Mr. Madrid doesn't even attempt to do this. He just makes the bald assertion, and leaves it at that--without a bit of commentary.
Does Elizabeth's words tell us that Mary was the holiest of all women? Well, you certainly wouldn't get that idea from simply reading the passage. There is nothing in the word eulogemene that speaks of sinlessness or holiness. If Mr. Madrid attempts to use the form of the term in the passage to come up with the Immaculate Conception idea, does it follow that all the righteous in Matthew 25:34 were immaculately conceived as well, since the same term is used of them? It seems that would prove too much. But, it's the only route open to the Roman apologist, who, of course, has attempted to prove too much already by even citing this passage and asserting that being "blessed among women" means "the holiest of all women."
Remember that Pat began his article by mentioning the "biblical evidence for the doctrine" of the Immaculate Conception. However, we have found no evidence in what has been presented. Yet, the article did not end with the one paragraph cited earlier. Instead, we find a whole section dedicated to the discussion of "types" of Mary in the Old Testament. To give the reader a sense of what kind of interpretation the Roman Catholic is forced to utilize to find "biblical evidence" for the Immaculate Conception, we provide the first example from Mr. Madrid's article:
Mary's Immaculate Conception is foreshadowed in Genesis 1, where
God creates the universe in an immaculate state, free from any
blemish or stain or sin or imperfection. This is borne out by
the repeated mention in Genesis 1 of God beholding his creations
and saying they were "very good." Out of pristine matter the
Lord created Adam, the first immaculately created human being,
forming him from the "womb" of the Earth. The immaculate
elements from which the first Adam received his substance
foreshadowed the immaculate mother from whom the second Adam
(Romans 5:14) took his human substance.
How does one deal with interpretation such as this? Personally, I don't see Mary foreshadowed in creation, do you? I don't recall any emphasis in the original text upon the "immaculate" elements of the earth, nor upon the idea that Adam was formed in the "womb" of the immaculate earth. Are we to believe that Moses had these ideas in mind, or is it just a result of inspiration? I have no problem with the types that are directly presented to us in Scripture--Paul uses such an allegory in Galatians 4:21-31. But I also realize that there is no end to the "types" that one can find in Scripture, nor any controls upon how far you can take such a method.
An examination of the types Mr. Madrid presents shows us the danger of this kind of interpretation. Forced by lack of direct evidence to rely upon a lesser source of information, Madrid points to Genesis 3:5 and the "proto-evangelon":
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will
strike his heel (Genesis 3:15, NIV).
After identifying the "seed of the woman" as Mary, Madrid says,
If Mary was not completely sinless this prophesy becomes
untenable. Why is that? The passage points to Mary's
Immaculate Conception because it mentions a complete enmity
between the woman and Satan. Such enmity would have been
impossible if Mary were tainted by sin....
We are forced to ask, where does the passage even address a complete enmity between the woman and Satan? Upon what basis can Mr. Madrid insert into this passage some concept of Immaculate Conception? Is there not enmity between believers and the world? Does that make us sinless? Does the fact that we still have sin in our lives mean that not enmity exists at all? Hardly.
The greatest effort in typological interpretation by Mr. Madrid comes in his attempt to parallel the Ark of the Covenant and Mary. The first parallel he draws has to do with the fact that God took such great pains to make sure the Ark was properly constructed. He says,
God wanted the ark to be as perfect and unblemished as humanly
possible so it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the
written Word of God. How much more so would God want Mary, the
ark of the new covenant, to be perfect and unblemished since she
would carry within her womb the Word of God in flesh.
Does this kind of interpretation bear the weight of investigation? While we admit the force such things carry with those who already accept these doctrine, we point out that there is no way to test the interpretation. We can easily point out absurdities to which the parallel can be pushed--for example, must Mary have been stolen by God's enemies for a time, so that she could be brought back to the people of God with great rejoicing? Who was Mary's Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:3-8)? Madrid draws a further parallel between the three months the ark was with Obededom and the three months Mary was with Elizabeth. What, then, is the parallel with David's action of sacrificing a bull and a fattened calf when those who were carrying the ark had taken six steps (2 Samuel 6:13)? See, Mr. Madrid feels free to pick and choose what aspects of Mary's life he wishes to parallel in the ark, and which he does not--there are no rules in this kind of interpretation, and it can lead to just about any conclusion. Pat seems to recognize at least some of this, for he says,
Granted, none of these verses "proves" Mary's Immaculate
Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible
nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original
sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is
silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence
supports the Catholic teaching.
We are left wondering at Mr. Madrid's definition of "biblical evidence," but we are glad to see that he recognizes that all that has come before does not "prove" the Immaculate Conception. One will believe that doctrine only if one believes that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible and has an authority that does not need Scriptural basis. It seems that, sadly, Mr. Madrid accepts Rome's claims.
There is one other item that needs to be addressed in this article. Madrid says,
The Mary/ark imagery appears again in Revelation 11:19 and 12:1-
17, where she is called the mother of all "those who keep God's
commandments and bear witness to Jesus" (verse 17). The ark
symbolism found in Luke 1 and Revelation 11 and 12 was not lost
on the early Christians. They could see the parallels between
the Old Testament's description of the ark and the New
Testament's discussion of Mary's role.
We are forced to wonder again as to how Mr. Madrid is defining the phrase "early Christians." If we take "early" to mean "prior to the year 400," we find that he has no basis for his statements. It is plain for all to see that the entire concept of the Immaculate Conception is missing from the earliest patristic sources--indeed, Mary does not enter into the picture for quite some time, entering first because of the Christological controversies, and only later, under the impulse of asceticism and monasticism, as a central figure in her own right. But, for the first four centuries, the "Virgin Mother" for Christians was not Mary, but the Church. The woman in Revelation 12 was not Mary, but the Church as well (see Hippolytus, _On Christ and Antichrist_, 61, in ANF, V:217). Indeed, one will find controversies brewing over the concept of the Immaculate Conception a thousand years later, when the Dominicans and the Franciscans were at each other's throats over the issue. At the time, the "infallible authority" remained silent, following a middle course between the two sides. As late as the nineteenth century we find the Roman Catholic bishop Milner saying,
The Church does not decide the controversy concerning the
Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and several other disputed
points, because she sees nothing clear and certain concerning
them either in the written or unwritten Word, and therefore
leaves her children to form their own opinions concerning them
(cited in Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, p. 182).
So even tradition fails our Roman Catholic apologist in attempting to find a basis for the Immaculate Conception. The simple fact is that this doctrine is a very late development, a part of Roman Catholic teaching, officially, for less than 150 years. It has no Biblical basis, nor does it have foundation in the early writings of the Church. It was a hotly debated topic for centuries, and no "infallible Pope" dared schism by exercising his infallibility to end the argument until the nineteenth century. It is one of many Marian doctrines that, as a whole, not only greatly detract from the true, Biblical presentation of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, but which promote clearly false concepts in the minds of faithful Catholics everywhere. Given the results of our review, it seems clear that Pat Madrid's "examination" of the "biblical evidence" for the doctrine with the Calvary Chapel pastor took a very short period of time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)