Critical Renections

on
Roman Catholicism
A Review of Antithesis, September/October 19911, Vol. I, No.5
by joe 1I10recraft
ANTITHESIS: A REVIEW OF CONTEMPORARY
CHRISTIAN THOUGHT AND CULTURE. clail11S to be
"the new vanguaro of Christian though,t and culture," and I
agree thatitis. I know of no periodical superior to it But what
else would you expect fromapllblieation so closely identified
with Greg Bahnsen!
Most of the sixty pages of the September/October 1990 issue
of ANTITHESIS dealt with "Reflections on Roman
Catholicism." The most important articles in this issue were:
"RomewardBound: Evaluating Why Protestants Convert to
Catholicism"
by DavidHagopian.
"New Confusions for Old: ROme and Justification"
by Roger Wagner
"Enduring AlUltherrias of the Roman Catholic Eucharlst"
by Douglas Jones
"The Concept and Importance of Canonicity"
by Greg Bahnsen
"Issue and Interchange: Does Scripture Teach SOLA
SCRIPTURA?"
by Douglas Jones
TIris fresh, up-to-date, and intellectually vigorolls critique of
the fundamelllal errors of Roman Catholicism is thorollghly
biblical, sensitive, persllasive, entertaining, and easy-to-read.
The reasonforthis critical reflection onRoman Catholicism's
doctrines ofjllStification, tbeLord' s Slipper; and the canonical
authority of the Bible is the recent defection of several
Presbyterian ministers to Roman Catholicism. Each of these
articles is written with clarity and scholarship. Each reveals
the allthor's thorough, familiarity with his subject andhis total
commitment to the finality of Biblical allthority.
I pray that this review willll1()ve its readers to ptrrehase this
The COllnsei of Chalcedon FebruarylMarch 1991 Page 12
iss\leof ANTITHESiS and savor each article thorollghly for
themselves. Do not be with this summary. Pmcbase
the magazine and read it for yourself.
L''ROMEW ARD nOUND: EVALUATING WHY
PROTESTANTS CONVERT TO CAlHOUClSM"
by David Hagopian, page$l1-20
Hagopian's entertaining and enligh,tening article exposes
the reasons given by Protestants who have recell!ly joined the
Roman Catholic ChlIrch, and then shows theiremptiness with
the irrefutable logic of the Word of God.
the primary reasons given by these "Neocatholics" are: (1).
the ancientTraditionofthe Catholic Faith; (2). The Apostolic
Succession of the Roman Catholic Cb\IIch (from Peter to
present); (3). The rich and symbolic Liturgy and Mass of the
Roman Catholic Cb\IICh; (4). The mystiqlle and beallty of
Catholic ch\IIChes; and (S). Their admiration for the c\lrrent
Pope John Paul II. Hagopian evaluates each of these reasons
and shows that none of them contain either an adequate
confirmation of the (alleged) truth of Roman Catholicism, or
a credible negation of Protestantism. In other word, they are
insufficient reasons for leaving Jerusalem and Geneva for
Rome!
Althollgh the Roman Catholic Chmch is always identiJying
Peter as tbe first pope so identified by JesllS as "therock"lIpon
which He would bnild His ChllfCh, and to whom He would
give the "Keys of the kingdom," inMatthew 16, "Neocatholics
simplyassllffiethatChristtherebygavePeterPAPALallthority,
as opposed say, to representative authority as one of many
apostles who together fonned the fo!lndation of the early
chllICh, Epb. 2:20, ChristHimselfbeing the chief cornerstone.
Neocatholics also assmne that this passage, (Mat 16), grants
a right of sllccession from Peter onwaro. Until and llniess
Neocatholics can prove thatChrist, inMatthew 16, specifically
granted Peter papal authority and that Christ thereby intended
to establish an unbroken chain of apostolic succession from
Peter onward (both of which are read into the text), they have
not met the exegetical burden that is incumbent upon them."
(page 12)
Hagopian is insightful in questioning the "antiquity" of the
Roman Catholic Church. .. ... The Catholic view of church
history is the view that is truncated since, along with
dispensationa1ism, Catholicism simply assumes that the church
sprang up on the first century AD. A truly Reformed view of
church history, though, marks the beginning point of the
church far before that first Eastermom. On a truly covenantal
view of church history, the church -the covenant people of
God- did not rush on the scene in the first century AD."
(page 12)
Neocatholics claim that the Bible was never meant to be the
Christian' s only gnide in all matters of faith and life. The
living Tradition of the Church is meant to accompany and
interpret the Bible. Hagopian' s refutation of this view is
effective: "Some Neocatholics, forexample, claim that Christ
left a church, not a book, and that the Protestant doctrine of
SOLA SCRJPT(lRA is illogical because the formation of the
canon (i.e. what we recognize as Scripture) was itself a
monumental act of the church. Thus, we are told tha,t an
infallible Bible requires and presupposes an infallible church.
This argument, though, fails to differentiate between
RECOGNITION of the divine imprint which already existed
in Holy Writ and CREATION of Holy Writ The church
didn' tcreate Saipture; itsimply recognized the divineimprlnt
and authority Scripture already possessed because it was and
is the very Word of God." (page 12)
One of the most important points Hagopian makes in the light
of the recent Protestant defections to Romanism is that
"Anglicanism (Episcopalianism), in a very real way, has
served as training wheels helping to stabilize quite a few
Neocatholics on their road to Rome." (page 18). I made this
same point in. my article, "The Return to Rome" in the October
1990 issue of THE COUNSEL OF CHALCEDON.
The mystique of "high church liturgy," so common to Roman
Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and most Anglican and Lutheran
churches, separates them from most of the Reformed and
Evangelical churches. Yet, for several reasons it is this
mystique which has drawn people from Protestant churcbes,
by means of Episcopal churcbes, into the Roman Catholic
Church. Hagopian explains: "To understaod why some
Anglicans seem more disposed to Rome as opposed to
Wittenberg or Geneva, it is important to note that while the
Anglican Church was at one time heavily infiuenced by
Lutheran and Calvinistic thought (and in some cases still is),
the Oxford Movement of Ihe eady nineteenlh century , led by
(JohnHenry)Newman,revivedtheAngJicanChurch' sCalholic
heritage in many instances. Those who longed for this
Catholic heritage, quite naturally, eilher already viewed or
came to view the split wilh Rome not as a boast but as a
tragedy. Forthem, the Anglicanchurch was the VIA MEDIA,
the half-way house, between the Calholicheritagethey longed
forandlheEnglishculturelheylivedandbreathed." (page 18)
Therefore, Hagopian (rightly) observes: "For every
Neocalholic who tingles wben he walked into a Catholic
cathedral, church, or chapel, there is a Reformed Protestant
who rejoices in the regulative principle of worship and the
symbolism of true worship by relyingupon the graces Godhas
provided in His Word and in the sacraments of baptism and
communion" (page 17)
n. ''NEW CONFUSIONS FOR OLD:
ROME AND JUSTIFICATION"
by Roger Wagner, pages 24-33
After an interesting chapter by Jeffrey A Tucker entitled,
"Why I Left Protestantism for Calholicism," (pages 21-23),
Roger Wagner deals wilh the central issue between Rome and
Geneva---the nature of justification. In his article he does two
things very effectively. Heexposes the fivemajorweaknesses
of the Neocatholic defense and restatements of the Roman
Calholic doctrine of jnstification, and he sets forlb the four
basic elements of the Bible's doctrine of justification.
A. THE F1VE MAJOR WEAKNESSES OF THE
NEOCATHOLIC DEFENSE OF JUSTIFICATION
1. The Tempting Evangelical 'Ring'
The Neocatholic defense and restatement of the Roman
doctrine of justification has an evangelical flavor and is
appealing to Protestants. "Efforts to remove the langnage o(
'works,' 'self- righteousness,' and 'merit' goes a long way to
putting evangelical listeners at ease. But," writes Wagner,
"leaving the rhetoric to one side, the more teJling question is
whelherornottheirunderstandingofthe nature of justification
actually removes the REALITY of merit and works leading to
self-righteous justification." (page 26)
2. The Missing Antithesis
Because the Neocatholics almost exclusively concentrate on
The Counsel of Chlcedon FebruarylMarch 1991 Page 13
the role of 'good works' injustification, the debate "does not
adequately focus the antithesis" betweenRoman Catholicism
and protestantism on the doctrine of justification-is
justification by faith alone or is justification by ' faith and
works? Wagner points outthatoftentheNeocatholics misstate.
the Protestant view of the relation offaithand works, and that
"such failure (is) unforgivable in the present context of
debate," since, "as former evangelical Protestants, these men
know better." (page TI). Wagner makes clear that, whereas
Protestants reject good words as meritorious or quasi-
meritorious, nevertheless we do require good works in the life
of the justified believer, for "faith without works is dead."
3. The Absence of Exegesis
Amore substantial weaknessoftheNeocatholicdefenseofthe
Roman doctrine of justification is "the absence of any careful
exegesis of the relevant passages on justification" (page 27)
Wagner writes: ''Certainly it is not necessary that every
theologianorpolemicistdealwithallthequestionsorarguments
relevant to the subjectundetdiscussion..Butforcontemporary
Roman apologists to fail to mention or refute the substantial
exegetical considerations which appear to contradict the
Romanist view of justification is much more than a significant
oversight It amounts to a total failll\'e of the Romanist
position." (page 27)
4. The Downplaying of Sacerdotalism
Neocatholics, who are former evangelical Protestants, fail "to
face up to the ecclesiastical and sacramental dimensions of
Roman Catholic dogmai' because "the strong sacerdotal
dimensions of Roman Catholic justification would certainly
be a stumbling-block to many would-be converts from
Protestantism. - Defenders of Rome are somewhat coy
about acknowledging the fact (in their discussions of
. justification)thatwitlioutauricuiarconfessionandthereception
of priestly absolution in connection with acts of satisfaction
(vital elements of the Roman 'sacrament' of penance or
reconciliation), one cannot participate in the grace of
justification." (page 28)
5. The Trivializing of Judicial Pardon
Accordingto Wagnerthe Neocatholics consistently downplay
the reality and importilnce of divine judicial pardon, although
some do pay lip-servioe to it. "By thus trivializing God's
forgiveness (as a legal category), the Romanistdogmahas the
effect of minimizing with it the DIVINE JUSTICE that
demands such pardon, and, most importantly, the Savior who
SATISFIED the holy demands of THAT divine justice to
The Counsel of Chalcedon FebruarylMarch 1991 Page 14
secure for sinners THAT full and free pardon" (page 29)
B. THE FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE
BmLICAL DOCI'RINE OF JUSTIFICATION
Afterinforming his readers thathis intent is not to rehearse the
Protestant doctrine of justification in detail, which has been
done ably by many throughout history, Wagner sets forth "an
overview of the main lines of argument in favor of the
Protestant understanding of justification." (page 29) He lifts
the veil of Neocatholicism by pointing out that "the
contemporary advocates of the Roman view have raised no
new or telling objections to the view of the Reformers. They
have slmplyrestated the traditional position of Rome (before
andafterTrent)." (page29) As Wagner gladly admits, he has
imbibed deeply from John Murray's excellent book,
REDEMPTION: ACCOMPUSHEDANDAPPUED, which
his following comments on justification confirm.
1. "Justification is forensic In character." (page 29)
TheterminologyoftheBibleregardingjuslificationisforensic,
legal, judicial, ethical language. The concern of justification
is what God, the Judge of heaven and earth, declares with
reference to the believer--acquitted on the basI's of the
substitutionary work of Jesus Christ. Romanism teaches that
the concern of justification is what God does to the believer in
transfonning and elevated his creature nature. However, the
word, 'justify,' in the Bible tueans to declare righteous, not to
make righteous, Dt. 25:l;Ptov. 17:15; Lk. 7:29.
2. ''Justification is grounded in Christ, not faith or
. works!' (page 30)
Wagneris exactly correctwhenhe states that"the centtal point
of issue between the Roman and Reformation views of
justificationconcems its ground-the foundation upon which
God acoepts the sinner as righteous in His sight" (page 30)
"Romanists argue that the ground of justification is faith in
Christ plus a person's own good works (wrought in the power
of God's grace infused into the person who receives baptism.)"
(page 30). Although some quasi-Protestants do substitute
'faith' or a 'decision forChris!' for faith and works as the basis
of justification, the Bible teaches "that NEITHER faith nor
good works are the GROUND of justification." (page 30).
Faith, which is a gift of God, is the means by which salvation
is received. Christ and his finished WOlX is the basis of our
salvation.
To put it in Wagner's terms: 'The ground of justification,
according to Scripture's consistent testimony is nothing lesS
than THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE LORD JESUS
CHRIST -expressed in His 'active obedience' (whereby He
perfectly kept the commandments of the Father in exhaustive
detail from the heart) and His 'passive obedience' (whereby
He fully satisfied the penal liability for broken law which
justly stands against His people)." (page 31)
3. "Justification is declarative and constitutive."
(page 31)
Wagner answers the Romanist objection that Protestantism's
justification is "a legal fiction," that is, God declares righteous
one whom He knows in fact is not righteous. The answer to
this objection, as Wagner properly explains, is to be found in
the biblical doctrineof ' imputation,' i.e., "the legal accounting
of one person's righteousness or sin to another," which
"presupposes a relationship of covenantal representation
between those who are parties to the imputation. By virtue of
this representation, sin and gnilt or righteousness and
justification can be imputed from one to the other." (page 31)
Wagner echoes Murray when he explains titat imputation is
invol vedinthree specific situations: (1). Adam's sin is imputed
to his posterity; (2). the sins of the elect are imputed to Christ,
their Substitute; and(3). the righteousness of Christ is imputed
to His people as the basis of their justification, Rom. 5: 1221.
On the other hand, Rome has tried to suppress this view and
emphasizes "infused grace" and its "resulting subjective
transformation in an individual's life," which brings about "a
true eradication of sin and a true sanctification and renewal so
titat the soul becomes objectively pleasing to God and so
merits heaven." (page 31) But basing man' s acoeptance with
Godinhimselfmustberejected. "Instead, we must understand
that, by virtue of our relationship to Christ as the 'last Adam,'
and as the covenantal 'head' of his people, we legally, but
nevertheless most truly, receive his righteousness as our own
through imputation, I Pet. 2:24. - As a result of His death for
us, the indictruent from the bench of the heavenly Judge of all
the earth, titatjustly stood against us, has been taken away,
Col. 2: 14. These are wonderful, gracious REALWES. They
are-praise God!-realities titatwillstand the test of the great
Dies irae, when all flesh will stand before God for the Final
Judgment" (page 32) (It is encouraging to see scholars as
Wagner, become personal and emotional in their scholarship.
It makes their point all the more powerful when they mix heat
with their light)
4. Justification is direct union with Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church usurps a unique mediatorial role
in the justification of sinners reserved exclusively forthe Lord
Jesus Christ It claims to be "the exclusive channel of divine
grace through its priesthood and sacraments. JustifYing (or
sanctifYing) grace is received through baptism, and is
'improved' by means of the sacrament of penance .... Through
penance-with its confessions and works of satisfaction-the
sinner receives grace and forgiveness for sins committed after
baptism." (page 32)
According to Wagner, the Protestant Reformers "rejected the
mediatorial workofthe churchin favor of arenewed emphasis
upon the mediatorial work of Jesus Christ. They claimed that
the Roman system of priestly intermediaries and
sacramentalism in fact mSf ANCED sinners from Christ
rlItherthan bringing them closer to Him." (page 32) Jesus did
come to bring forgiveness of sin and eternal life to all those
who put their trust in Him. "But the greatest glory of salvation
is titat we do not enjoy those cove11l\llt blessings in abslrllction
from the beloved Person who gives them to us. On the
conlrllry, these mercies are experienced by the believer 'in
union with Christ.' Jesus came into the world not simply to
give us blessings, but to give us Himself, Col. 1 :27." (page 32-
33)
Wagnerconcludeshis excellent article with thiscompassionate
summons: "Let us continue to resist the threat to the gospel
represented by the doctrines of Romanism-with
tllOughtfulness and compassion, and with our strongest
arguments and persuasions. And let us pray for these young
men who have sadly taken a wrong turn, one which endangers
their souls eternal1y. Let us pray that God would grlIciously
grant them, and others in the Roman Catholic Church, a NEW
Reformation. May the dislrllcting splendors and earthly
reassurances of Rome be eclipsed once again by 'the light of
the knowledge of the glory of Godin the face of Christ' (IlCor.
4:6)." (page 33)
III. "ENDURING ANATHEMAS OF THE
ROMAN CATHOLIC EUCHARIST"
by Douglas M. Jones, pages 34-41
Douglas M. Jones is right on target when he begins his very
helpful article on the Roman Catholic Eucharist(Communion)
with these words: "In an age like ours, which mocks religious
debate, a critical evaluation of the Roman Catholic Eucharist
appears quaint Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Sacrifice
of the Mass is nothing to trivialize. The stakes in this debate
are too high, and sincere persons on aU sides of the issue realize
titat this is not a minor Swiftian quibble. The answers in this
debate stand at the very heart of Christian faith and have
eternal consequences." (page 34)
The Counsel of ChalcedoD FebruarylMarch 1991 Page 15
The two main characteristics of the Roman Catholic. view of
theLord'sSupper,whichJones' carefully explains lind refutes
are: (1). its sacrificial, propitiatory nature; and (2). its nature
as "a meal in which Christ's body, blood .. soul, and Divinity
are present in the place of the substance of the common
elements. These two primary and
Real presence----are the targets for ReformedProtestantcharges
of idolatry and a distortion of Christ's atonemeilt." (page 38)
Ihavefoundinmanyefforts
to help converted Roman
Catholics out of their
Romanism and the Roman
Catholic Church, that most
of them I have talked to
have no ideathattheRoman
Church teaches that
Communion is a re-
sacrificingofChristandthat
in Communion the
participants are taught that
they literally eat Jesus
Christ. Jones shows that, without doubt, this is the official
view of the Roman Church, and thenhe proceeds torefute both
points from the Word of God. This article, along with the
others in this issue of ANTII'HESlS, is "must-reading" for
anyone who wants tounderstand the radical difference between
Roman Catholicism and Biblical Protestantism.
Before dealing specifically with the subject of the Eucharist,
Jones begins his expose by explaining some of the basic
presuppositions of the Roman Catholic view of the Eucharist.
First, henotes that"the physicalistic language used to describe
grace is not metaphorical." (pages 34f) According to Rome
by grace man becomes God, "the greatestpossible assimilation
to and unification with God." (page 35) Second, injustification
and sanctification there is "the mutual co-operationofDivine
power and human freedom." (page 35) The Council of Trent
goes so far as to sentence to hell anyone who believes the
Biblical/Reformed doctrine of "irresistible grace," which
teaches that salvation, from start to finish, is all of God's
sovereign grace, Rom. 11:36. "Hence, by this claim alone,"
writesJones,"theRomanCatholicChurchhasforeverrevealed
itself as a false teacher, and, with Arminians and Lutherans,
has detennined that the SUCCESS of Almighty God's
Sovereign planrests upon the caprice offinite man." (page 35)
Third, Roman Catholicism teaches that God dispenses His
grace only through the instrumentality of the Roman Catholic
Church. AsPopePiusIXconfessed: "Byfaithitis to be firm1y
held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can
achieve salvation." (page 35) And, fourth, Jones points out
Counsel of Chalcedon FebruarylMarch 1991 Page 16
that the (seven) Sacraments, according to Rome, "infuse
sanctifying grace into the souls of the recipients" EX OPERE
OPERA TO. (page 35) Because "the sacraments contain the
sanctifying grace which they signify within themselves," "the
Sacraments operate by thepowerofthecompleted sacramental
rite," i.e. ex opere operato. (page 35) 'The sacramental grace
is caused by the validly operated sacramental sign," (page 36).
After this introduction, the
rest of Jones' article deals
with the two characteristics
of the Roman Mass and
Eucharist so repulsive to
Biblical Protestants.
I.According to Roman
Catholicism, the Lord's
Supperis a '''true and real
sacrifice,' not merely the
commemoration of a
sacrifice." (page 36) The
basic ingredients of this doctrine are that the Lord's Supper is:
(I). a genuine sacrifice of Jesus Christ; (2). an unbloody
sacrifice ofJesus Christ; (3). a sacrifice essentially identical to
Calvary; (4). "a liturgical reenactment of Christ's death .on
Calvary and not a blasphemous effort to 'add to' His saving
death and resurrection," (page 36); (5). a sacrificial act in
transubstantiation; (6). "the most perfect sacrifice of praise
and thanksgiving," (page 37); (7), a "truly propitiatory"
sacrifice, i.e., it turns away the wrath of God from its
recipients.
Jones.concludes: 'These seven characteristics summarize the
sacrificial nature of the Roman E\lcharist. Many, if not each
of these characteristics, ought to appall Protestants. The
source of this Protestant revulsion resides in the central claim
that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice" of Christ. (page 37)
2."The other unique and equally scandalous aspect of the
Roman Eucharist is the claim that 'immediately after the
consecration, the true body and the true blood of our Lord,
together with His soul and divinity exist under the form of the
bread and wine." (page 37) Rome teaches that "by ingesting
the Divine, they are directly in union and communion with
Him (God)". (page 37) Former Reformed minister Scott
Hahn goes sofaras to say: "Wehavebecomeatemple. - We
have become almost like the blessed virgin Mary, who carried
the Word incarnate within her womb for nine months. We
carry the Word incarnate for about ten or fifteen minutes."
(page 37)
AnotherRomanCatholic.Stravinskas. writeshowtheEucharist
actually deifies those who receive it: " ... weshouldreflectvery
carefu11y on the words we pray each day at Mass: ... may we
come to share in the divinity of Christ...' - We need to look
to the example of Jesus the Perfect Man. the Second Adam.
who brought us the possibility of becoming gods .... - Yes.
we can become gods with a small 'g'. for perfect humanity
leads to divinity ...... (page 37)
Several years ago. in the congregation I served in Atlanta. a
young girl from our church. Sharon. was witnessing to her
seven or eight year old Roman Catholic friend. saying to her
that she (Sharon) had Jesus in her heart. Her young friend
responded that. since she had been to church (Mass) that
moming. she had Jesus in her tummy!
The second half of Jones' article is an effective refutation of
Rome' s teacbingregardingtheLord' s Supper. He explains the
recent arguments of the Neocatholics. allegedly based on the
Bible. and then answers those arguments from the Bible.
FIRST. he refutes the idea that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice of
ANTITHESIS
A. Review of Contemporary Christian Thought and Culture
(
Demonstrating tile Superiority of Christ
and tile Futility of Unbelief
In recent Issues:
J . G . Machen Was Right About the Gulf Crisis"
Steve Schlissel's Stirring Rebuke to the CR.C
J.I. Packer on the Beauty of Puritan Worship
Marvin Olasky on Samuel Adams, the Calvinist
F..C. Beisner on Population Growth Myths
Ronald Nash on MoraJlIllteracy
Doug Bandow on the Folly of NATO
G.I. Williamson Defends Unlimited Atonement
Jack Phelps Rejects Education Vouchers
Doug Wilson Analyzes the Scandal of Wesley
Tony OJrto's Series on Scottish Presbyterianism
'''Chr/stlBn/ty come Into Its own' finally has lit
voice In my generatJon. "- John Owen Butler
"One of the more exdtJng projects
In quIte some time" ~ Journey Magazine
"Antithesis Is something many of us have
been des/ring for lit Ions time . .. ~ ~ Steve Wilkins
One-year subscription (six: Issues) to Ant:lt/lesJs Is $18.50 (students $13.00).
ANl11HESIS, 452.1 Campus Dr. '435. IrVine, CJ\ 92715
Don't Miss Out. Subscrlbe Today.
Christwithtwopowerfu1biblicalarguments: (1). "Ifanything ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~
is at the heart of Biblical redemption, it is' the claim that
'without the sbedding of blood there is no forgiveness.' (Heb.
9:22; Lev. 17: 11). Yet. the entire theology of the Eucharist
contradicts this basic Biblical teaching; the Eucharist is
dogmatically prescribed as an 'unbloody' sacrifice by which
the Lord is appeased and for which He 'pardons even the
gravest crimes and sins .... (page 39) (2). The Roman Catholic
Eucharist is "a violation of Hebrews 7-11 which teaches that
Christ'satonementwas onceforaU ... Rome's denial that the
Eucharist "repeats" the sacrifice of Christ is empty. since she
does claim that the Eucharist "re-enacts the once-for-aU
sacrifice 'in orderthatthe redemption won for our race should
produce its fruit in us individually .... (page 39) But Jones' is
not fooled by Rome' s answer. He points out that: "Contrary
to Roman Catholic claims. the theology of the Eucharist stiU
grossly denigrates Calvary since it assumes that Christ's
atonementwasradically incomplete. Romantheology assumes
that Christ did not complete His propitiatory and expiatory
work or else there would be no need for a re-enacted sacrifice
in the Eucharist." (page 39) Over against the views of Rome.
Jones cites Hebrews 9:12; 10:10.14. and 18.
SECOND. Jones refutes the Roman Catholic view of the
Eucharist that the recipients literally receives the true body.
blood. soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The central passages
Roman Catholics use to defend this view are John 6:48ff and
those passages containing the actual institution of the Lord's
Supper. Mat. 26:26ff; Mk. 14:22f; Lk. 22:15f. With great
wisdom and contextual. (and grammatical) faithfulness to the
Bible. he shows convincingly that none of these texts may be
used to defend Rome's view of "the real presence."
1. JOHN 6:48ff. Rome loves to quote verse 53: "unless you
eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood. you have
no life inyourselves," and to interpret these words with a crass
literalism. But Jones' argues that Jesus intendedhis comments
to be interpreted figuratively. He points out that even the
Roman Catholic Church does not interpret the entire passage
literally: (1). Christ is not some conglomeration of grain as
"bread."vs.48.51;(2).eatingChristsfleshisnotanunquaJified
necessity for salvation. v. 53; (3). believers do not actually.
live within the physical body of Christ. vs. 56; and (4). eating
this 'bread' does not mean that believers shall never die in
history. vs. 58. Therefore. there is insufficient reason to take
verse 53 literally . "Once they concede thatthe textdetennines
whether it should be taken as poetic. narrative. apocalyptic.
dogmatic. etc . they lose the heart of their case from John 6."
(page 39)
Jones could have quoted from Robert L. Dabney' s work.
LECTURES IN SYSTEMATIC THEOWGY. page 805: "We
easily set aside the argument from John 6:50ffby the remark.
that it applies not to the Lord's Supper. but to the spiritual
actings of faith on Christ figuratively described. For the
Lord's Supper was not yet instituted; and it is absurd to
suppose that our Savior would use language necessarily
unintelligible to aU His foUowers. the subject never having
been divulged to them. On the contrary. in verse 35. we find
The Counselor Chalcedon FebruarylMarch 1991 Page 17
that the coming and eating is defined as the actings of faith. If
the chapter be forced. into.anapplication to the Lord's Supper,
then verses 53 and. 54 explicitly teach thatevety one who eats
the Supper goes to heave!), and thatoo one who. fails to'eat it
. . ,
does; neither'of which Rome admits: and in verse 63, our
Savior fixes a figurative and spiritual interpretation of His
words, beyond all question."
2. THE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
(Mt. 26:26ff; Mk.14:22)
Roman Catholicismbelieves that "the principal biblical proof
for the Eucharistic Real Presence lieg in the words of
institution,"- ''This is My bodY" is My blood."
Acconling to Rome these words ofChpst must be interpreted
literally not figuratively. However, proving that their defense
is seriously flawed, Jones points out tbiit: (1 j. "Contrary to the
simplistic claim that the words are in no way figuriltive,
Scripnire provides a wide array of just such covenant language
which is obviously figurative, Gen. 17:13; I Cor: 10:4; Exod.'
12: 11. - TIie covenantal context bespeaks very important
figurative language; a literal interpretaiion crassly misses the
(39 in the or and 27 in the NT) is different fiom the Roman
Catholic Bible, whichalsoacceptsascanonicalsuchapocrypbal
books at Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, EcclesiastiCUs, Baruch, I and
II Maccabees.
Bahnsen shows in'a concise, biblical, logical and irrefutable
argument, so typical of Bahnsen, that "the books of the Roman
Catholic Apoctypha fail to demonstrate the characteristic
marks of inspiration (of the Holy Spirit) and authority. They
are not self-attesting, but rather contradict God's word
elsewhere." (page 45) He confirms the age-old testimony of
the Church that dod's written word is comprised of the sixty-
six books of the Bible.
1. THE FINALITY OF BmUCAL AurHORITY
He begins his argument by emphasizing the finality of the
Bible's authority. He makes a point Which both Catholics and
Charismatics fail to deal withadequate[y: "apostolic revelation
did not extend beyond the apostolic generation, the
'foundational days' of the church. Thus Jude in his day could
speak of 'the faith' -meaning the teaching content of the
point. (page 40) (2). Even Rome does not interpret the '==============
passages literally consistently. In Luke 22:20, it is not the
"blood" but the "cup" that is said to be ''the new covenant in
my blood."
This article ends with a sketch <if eleven main points of a
Biblical understanding of the meaning, nature and importimce
of the Lord's Supper, each point, as the author admits, "is
worthy of a lengthy discussionin and (page41). The
final paragraph is a final, compassionate plea to our Roman
Catholic friends to "come forth,My People; and each ofy-ou
save yourselves from the fierce anger of the Lord," Jer.
51:45." (page 41)
IV. ''THE CONCEPT AND IMPORTANCE
OF CANONICITY" . ' "
by Greg Bahnsen, pages 42-45
Greg Bahnsen is a brilliant and thoroughly Biblical systematic
theologian. One of the vety best, and this article confirms this
assessment. He deals herewith a vitally important subject-
the canonicity of the Bible. A "canon" is a standard of
authority, or as Bahnsen says, "a set of writings bearing
unique, divine authority for God's people." (page 43) The
concern of the article is this: what bookS' properly make up the
carion of the church, what books should be in the Bible? This
question is relevant to the subject of this issue ofT'ne Counsel
o/Chalcedoll, because the Protestant Bible of sixty-sIX books,
The Counselor Chalcedon o FebruarylMarch 1991 0 Page 18
Christian faith-as now 'once for all delivered to the saints,'
vs. 3. About this verse F.F. Bruce comments: 'Therefore, all
claims to convey an additional revelation ... are false
claims ... whether these claims are embodied in books which
aim at superseding or supplementing the Bible, or take the
form of extra-Biblical traditions .... " (page 42) Bahnsen
defends his statement in an important footnote on page 42:
"1be theological errorofbelievingthatspecial, verbal revelation
or quasi -revelation continued beyond the time of the apostles
is made equally by Roman Catholics (imputing inspired
authority to paper 'interpretations' and unwritten tradition)
and Charismatics (teaching tongues and prophecy as gifts to
be expected thrnughout the life of the church). Both the office
of Apostle and the gifts which accompanied theministty of the
apostles, II Cor. 12: 12; Heb. 2:3-4, were intended to be
temporary, confined to the founding of the church. To be an
Apostle, it was
required to be a
book. If God has spoken, what He says is divine in itself,
regardless of human response to it. - Accordingly, the canon
is not the product of the Christian church. The church has no
authority to control, create, ordefine the Word of God. Rather,
the canon controls, creates, and defines the church of Christ.
- When we understand this, we can see how erroneous it is
to suppose that the corporate church, at some council of its
leaders, voted on certain documents and constituted them the
canon. The church cannot subsequently attribute authority to
certain writings. Itcansimply receive them as God's revealed
word which, as such, always has been the church's canon."
(page 43) This flatly contradicts Rome's erroneous claim that
the church created the canon, and therefore the church
determines which books belong in the Bible.
3. THE SELF-ATTESTING
AUTHORITY OF THE BIDLE
witness of the
resurrected Christ,
Acts 1:22;e.g.ICor.
9:1, and to be
commissioned
directly by Him, Gal.
1:1, thus restricting
the apostolic office
tothe firstgeneration
of the church. Paul
indicated that he was
the last of the
apostles,ICor.15:?-
9; his successor,
"The theological error of believing that special, verbal revelation or quasi-
revelation continued beyond the time of the apostles is made equally by
Roman Catholics and Charismatics. Both the office of Apostle and the gifts
which accompanied the ministry of the apostles. IICor. 12:12. Heb. 2:3-4.
were in1ended to be temporary, confined to the founding of the church. To
be an Apostle, it was required to be a witness of the resurrected Christ, Acts
1 :22; e.g. I Cor. 9:1. and to be commissioned directly by Him, Cal. 1:1, thus
restricting the apostolic office to the first generation of the church. Paul
indicated that he was the last of the apostles. I Cor. 15:7-9; his successor.
Timothy. is never given that title. By later New Testament episties we have
no further mention or discussion of revelatory gifts like to"'.!)IJf!S <1nd
prophecy. for with the completing of that which was partial"-name:y, the
process of revelation-the temporary revelatory gifts of tongues and proph-
Bahnsen declares that
there is no person, power
or institution which has
the right or competency
to judge or verij'y the
wordofGod, Heb. 6: 13.
No man is qualified or
authorized by God to
stand in judgment over
the written word of God.
"Only God can identij'y
His own word. Thus
God's word must attest
ecy had to 'cease. I Cor. 13:8-10)." Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Timothy, is never given that title. By the later New Testament
epistleswehavenofurthermentionordiscussionofrevelatory
gifts like tongues and prophecy, for with the completing
(bringingto anendor 'perfection') of that which was 'partial'-
namely, the process ofrevelation--the temporary revelatory
gifts of tongues and prophecy had to 'cease', I Cor. 13:8-10."
2. THE AUTHORITY AND THE RECOGNmON
OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE BmLE
Fromdiscussing the finality of the Bible's authority, Bahnsen
goes directly to the question of what books properly make up
the canon (biblical standard) of the church. He explains that
"itis imperative that we do not confuse the nature of the canon
with the recognition of certain writings as canonical. - It is
the inspiration (by the Holy Spirit) of a book that rendell> it
authoritative, not human acceptance or recognition of the
to itself-must witness
to its own divine character and origin." (page 43) Bahnsen
drives this point home by quoting John 5:38-39.
3. THE INNER TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY
SPIRIT TO BmLICAL AUTHORITY
After dealing with the objective, self-attesting authority of the
Bible, Bahnsen goes on to discuss the necessity of the work of
the Holy Spirit in recognizing the authority of the Bible. He
writes: "The self-attestation of Scripture as God's Word
makes it objectively authoritative in itself, but such authority
will not be subjectively received without an internal, spiritoal
change in man. 1be Holy Spirit must open our sinful eyes and
give personal conviction concerning the Scripture's self-
witness, I Cor. 2: 12." (pages 43-44) Bahnsen denies that this
is relativistic subjectivism. "The internal testimony of the
Holy Spirit does not stand by itself or operate in a vacuum; it
mustbe teamed withtheobjectiveself-witnessofthe Scriptures
themselves." (page 44)
Tbe Counsel of Cbalcedon FebruarylMarcb 1991 Page 19
4. THE mSTORICAL SETTLEMENT OF THE
CANON UNDER GOD'S PROVIDENCE
Bahnsen makes the point Christians often fail to realize that
"those works which God gave to His people for their canon
always received immediate recognition as inspired" of the
Holy Spirit." (page 44) He then refers us to Dt.
Josh. 24:25;ISarn.lO:25;Dan. 9:2;ICor.14:37; ITbess. 2:13;
5:27; n Thess.3:14; 3:15-16.
"Histonealevidenceindicatesthat. .. theOldandNewTestament
canons were substantially recognized and already established
in the Christian church by the end of the second, century.
However, there is adequate Biblical and theological reason to
believe that the canon of Scripture was essentially setded even
in the earliest days of the church." (page 44) In Jesus' days
on earth, the Old Testament canon was fully setded, with its
39 books, (non-apocryphal), Mat. 5:18; Lk. 24:44;Jn. 10:35;
Rom. 15:4. ThewordsofChristhavebeeninerrandydelivered
to the church from the beginning through Christ's aposdes
under the power of the Holy Spirit, In. 14:26; 15:26f; 14: 16f;
16:13f; Mt. 10:40; Mat. 16:18.
The Spirit-inspired writings of Christ's apostles, were
immediately received as the Word of God by the apostolic
church, which saw itself as "being built upon the foundation
oftheapostlcsandprophets,ChristJesusbeingthecorncrstone,"
Eph. 2:20. The apostles identified each other's writings as
canonical, Gal. 1:1; 1 Cor. 14:37; n Pet. 3:16; 1 Tim. 5:18,
citing Lk. 10:7.
Bahnsen concludes this section with this statement: "So then,
trusting Christ's promise that He would indeed build His
church, and being confident in the controlling sovereignty of
God, we can be assured the God-ordained recognition of the
canon would be providentially in
retrospect, is now a matter of historical record. To think
otherwise would be, in actual effect, to deprive the Christian
church of the sure word of God." (page 44)
5. THE APPLICATION OF CANONICITY

Bahnsen concludes his article with an application of his
principles of canonicity to the claims of Rome concerning the
addition of the Apocrypha to the Bible, as the Word of God.
He points out that the apocryphal books, (written between the
aT and the NT), do not claim forthemselves divine a\lthority,
hence are not self-attesting. ''When Christ came, neither He
nor the aposdes ever quoted from the apocryphal books as
TheCol!osel of Cbalcedon FebruarylMarch 1991 Page 20
though they carried authority." (page 45) And throughout the ..
history of the early church, the apocryphal books ,are never
included in the Holy Spirit-inspired canon. Bahnsen quotes
. .
the great Athanasius, who forthrighdy rejects the authority of
the apocryphal books on page 45. Mostdevastating to
Catholic argument inBahnsen's q\lotatiQns from Jerome, the
translator of the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible, which the
Roman Catholic Church has decreed has ultimate authority
for determining church doctrine. Around 395, A.D., Jerome
listed the books of the Hebrew Bible, saying "whatever falls
outside these must be set apart among the Apocrypha."
Jerome then listed the books, now received by ROlDe as
canonical, and unequivocally states that they "are not in the.
(page 45)
Besides not claiming to be canonical, the apocryphal books
abound with doctrinal, ethical, historical and theological
errors. Bahnsen gives several examples of each category. He
concludes that the old Westminster Confession of Faith is
correctwhenitstates:"ThebookscommonlycalledApocrypha,
not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of
SCripture; and therefore are of ItO authority in the Church of
God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made uSe of, than
other human writings," 1,3. (page 45)
V. "DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH
'SOLA SCRIPTURA'?"
by Douglas Jones, pages 46-59
Each issue of ANTITHESIS contains a regular featUre which
allows opposing arguments on various topics to the
Christian life, entided, "Issue and The topic
debated in this issue between Reformed Protestant Do\lglas
Jones and former Presbyterian minister, now Neocatholic,
Gerald Matatics is "Does Scripture teach SOLA
squpI'lJRA?" The Latin phrase, "sola scriptum" was a
rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. Its point is that
"Scripture alone" is the final, sole and supreme norm for all .
questions of thought and practice. Roman Catholicism fJady
rejects the viewpoint of "sola scriptura," since it believers that
its doctrines and explanation oflife are to be drawn from the
equal authority of the Bible, church tradition, "and nature!
reason. Some Neocatholics have admitted that their shift to
Rome was the alleged absence in Protestant writings of a
biblical case for "sola scriptura."
In the lightofthis astounding clai!D by the Neocatholics, Jones .
thinks the Protestant should ask: "How can such a vast case '
(the Protestants .. have in fact made through (be years) be
missed? I should rather think that the Biblical case for soLA
SCRIPTURA is similar to Warfield' s claim conceming the
basis forthe infallibility of Scripture; the case overwhelms one
like a waterfall." (page 46)
Jones sets forth the thesis of his article with a quotation from
the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1,10: "The Supreme
Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be
detennined ... can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in
the Scripture." Incontradictiontothis Protestantprinciple, the
Roman Catholic Church claims that "both sacred Tradition
and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the
same devotion and reverence," Vatican II, Dei VeIbum. 9.
In his debate with Matatics, Jones begins his article with the
Biblicalcase forsola scriptura, and thenconcludes by answering
the Roman Catholic objections to sola scriptura.
1. THE BIDLICAL CASE FOR SOLA SCRIPTURA
Jones bases his case on "Biblical practices found in the Old
Testamentlaw, wisdom literature, and prophets and then from
New Testament theology and practice." (page 47) He shows
with many illustrations that every sectionofthe Old Testament
demonstrates "that the sole and supreme authority is God's
Word." (page 47) From the Law he takes prooffor his thesis
from the experience of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham,
Moses, and the Levitical Priests. For example, Jones shows
that"Gnd had expressly foIbidden Adam and Eve to eatofthe
tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but when they were
tempted by Satan, they demonstrated their disloyalty to God's
Word by considering it just another hypothesis on par With
Satan's word, which they could supposedly evaluate. In
effect, Adam and Eve placed themselves as judges over God' s
revelation in order to reject it. God' s revelation was clear:
Adam and Eve needed no secondary, infallible interpreter or
else their sin would have been excusable. Hence, we find
SOLA SCRIPTURA at the very beginning of redemptive
history." (page 47)
From the wisdom literature of the Old Testament, Jones draws
illustrations of sola scriptura from Psalms I , 19,37, and 119,
as well as from ProveIbs 30:5,6. From the prophets he makes
use of Isaiah 8:20; Jer. 31:31; Ezek. 37:24; and Dan. 3.
Then, Jones moves to the New Testament to show that "the
doctrine of SOLA SCRIPTURAis not only attheheartofthe
Old Covenant church; it also continues in the practice of the
New Covenant Church. " (page 48) He shows that the New
Testament assumes the finality of the authority of the Old
Testamentcanon, Mat. 23:2,3; 22:37-40; In. 10:35; Mat. 5: 18;
Lk.16:17;IIPet 2:19; I Cor. 10:1 I; II Tim. 3:16. According
to Jones these scripture references teach us that "if the Old
"Testament ... direct(s) us only to the Word of God as the
supremenormandnottoecclesiasticalorpriestlyexplications,
then the New Testament teaches the same." (page 48)
When the Protestant argues that Christ condemned the use of
Pharisaical traditions inMat 15 :3, Roman Catholicism usually
answers "that Christ only rejects human traditions and not
allegedly divine traditions as provided by the Roman church.
But if the normal Biblical practice is to reject any secondary
explications or traditions, then the burden is on the Roman
Catholic apologist to prove that Christ now approves of
secondary traditions." (page 48)
His second point is that the practice of the New Testament
church endorses SOLA SCRIPTURA, as well as its theology.
See Acts 1:20; 2:17ff; 13:47; 15: 16ff; Rom. 9,10,11; Gal. 3;
Hebrews. Like Jesus Christ, the apostles "do not direct
believers to secondaryexplicationsorextra-Scriptural Hebrew
traditions (though plentiful) as authoritative norms but to
examine the Word of God itself, Rom. 15:4; Eph. 6:17;IITim.
3:16; II Pet. 1:19; Rev. 1:3 .... " (page 48)
2. THE ROMAN CATHOUC OBJECTIONS
TOSOLASCRIPTURA
Jones gives us four main objections of Rome against the
principle of sola scriptura: (1). It is unbiblical, as Paul's
references to "traditions" show in II Thes. 2: 15; II Tim. 2:2; II
Cor. 11:2. Thatit is unbiblical is also shownby the alleged fact
that the Bible nowhere teaches such a doctrine. (2). It is
unhistorical, in that "the first generation of Christians did not
have the New Testament, only the church, to teach them," and
since it had "no single defender for the first thirteen centuries
of the church." (page49) (3). It is illogical orincoherent.And
(4). It is impractical, because it leads to "denominational
anarchy."
Jones refutes each of these objections. (1). He offers as
refutation the first half of his article on the biblical case for sola
scriptura. (Bahnsen answer the concerns about the word,
"tradition," inhis article.) (2).1his argument is not only false,
as Bahnsen's article has shown; but also, as Jones points out,
itis based on "a very truncated view of church history, because
the church did not begin in the first century. It began with the
very beginning of covenant history. (3). Both of these
arguments "assume that God cannot or does not authenticate
His own Word, apart from some human testimony. This is
false as per Hebrews 6: 13, but it also belies a very deficient
view of God in that, though He is supposedly all sovereign, he
The Counsel of Chalcedon FebruarylMarch 1991 Page 21
requires, human testimony to confirm, His Word." (page 49) subscribe toANTITHESIS, and purchase this issue on Roman
(4). This objection is based ontluee false assumptionS; fiist, Catholicism.n
"thatBiblical unity is identical toinstitutional1p1ity, asopposed
to unity in truth;" second, that "the mere exercise of 'church
authority' genuinely resolves doctrinal differences instead of
justjudicjouslyobliteratingthem;" and third, that"itbegs,the-
question by assuming the falsity of Sola Scriptura." (Page 49)
After Jones' defense of the premlse ttw.t"scripture teaches that
the Word of God is the Supreme Norm," an article is included
iD. which Matatlcs seeks to the premise that '.'the Word
of God is, the Supreme Nonn, Qut according to Scriptureitself,
God's Word is not entirely contained within Scripture alone ....
(page 50) Matatics own testimooy is th8t "while Pursuing a
Ph.D. in Biblical Interpretation at Westminster 'qIeological
Silminary, I came to the unexpeci!ldcoD<;lusioD that Sola
Scriptura wasutterly Unscriptural. Beconting other
Protestantprinciples wereunbibUcal too, I ultimately embraced
the ancient understanding of the Christian faith known as
Catholicism," (page 50) He then proceeds to offer "a Biblical
case againstSolaScriptura, incontrast.tohis (Jones') Biblical
case for the concept" (page 50) Then follows four pages of
(alleged) scriptural proof against the Protestant principle.
Following Mataticsargurnent, Jones is allowed to respond
four pages of small print. Then Matatics responds to Jones'
response in three more pages. (The entire debate is worth
careful 'study.) And the debate is concluded with Jones',
closingstatementon one page. His final conc1usionis this; "In
conclusion, then, the Roman Catholic Biblical case against
Sola Scriptura has pointed out many of the texts speaking of
inspired oral revelation butthose, we now agree, are irrelevant
._ I .
Mr. Matatics also agrees that inspired oral revelation ceased
with the passing of the apostolic era, hence, there is no need to
prove that oral revelation has ,ceased. What the
evidence does show, and Mr. Matatics has never disputed, is
my original point that the sole and supreme nonn invoked by
persons in both Old and New Testaments is God's Word oral
andlor written), in opposition to non-revelatory, uninspired,
yet infallible explications. As we've seen, the evidence for
this claim is abundant, like a watetfall, and, hence, once we
clear away all the debris; see that $cripture very <;learly
the very ancient truth of Sola Scriptura.We are now
able 10 draw the inference from my very first stalement: since
SolaScripturais Scriptural, anditprecludes RomanCatholicism
as a system of theology, we ought to wholeheartedly reject
Roman Catholicism." (page 59)
These articles were a delight 10 read, not only because they
ended up where I eJ>pected, but because they were carefully
andc1early written. Ihearti1y recommend that all our readers
. - !
Thll Cuunsei of Chalcedon FebruarylMarch 1991 Page 22
Join us in the
Worship of God
Chalcedon
Presbyterian
Church
7901 Roberts Rd.
Dunwoody, GA
Sunday 10:30 AM & 6P:vI
(404) 396-0965