DID I REALLY LEAVE THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH?

TRUTH: THE DEFINING ISSUE
Shortly after writing my book I read Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism. Here I encountered a very aggressive Roman Catholic lay apologist attempting to validate the authority of the church and its traditions from church history, an area that most Protestants, including myself at the time, knew little about. His book underscored an issue often overlooked or misunderstood by Protestants-because of this, most contemporary Protestants do not properly understand Roman Catholics. The issue Keating raises is truth: What is it? Who has it? and How do you know? The Protestant thinks of truth as one dimensional — sola scriptura — ultimate truth and authority is in Scripture alone. But for many Roman Catholics truth is not so one dimensional. For the Roman Catholic, the church is ultimate truth and authority, not Scripture. Whereas the Roman Catholic Church affirms the full inspiration of Scripture, it is not the only truth or ultimate and final authority. The ultimate and final authority is the church. It is this Roman Catholic position that Keating attempts to argue on historical grounds.
What we are dealing with here are basic presuppositions about authority that have direct bearing on how one approaches Scripture. From a Roman Catholic perspective, what the conflict over the interpretation of Scripture boils down to is this: the 'infallible church' versus fallible individuals who have rebelled against the 'ultimate authority,' which was established by Christ. This point of view was highlighted in a recent letter I received from a Roman Catholic. The writer stated, 'I am a Catholic because of the promises our Lord made to the Church and the authority He gave to St. Peter as stated in the gospels. I believe they are just as valid today as then. I could not in good conscience belong to any other church.' Those are, no doubt, honest heartfelt convictions. Whether or not the facts that form the foundation for those convictions are true is another matter altogether, but this writer's sentiments clearly articulate the Roman Catholic presupposition regarding the authority of the church. Keating, Hahn, Matatics, and others attempt with earnest evangelistic zeal to defend this position through historical apologetics.
Keating's book became for me a personal challenge to study church history carefully. What does history really say regarding Scripture, authority, and tradition? Was the Protestant Reformation truly justified, or did the Reformers forsake the faith of the early church and introduce novel doctrines? It is important to note that the Reformers advanced their arguments as diligently on historical grounds as on theological. They knew church history, the church Fathers, and the major theologians of the church throughout the Middle Ages. An example of what I mean can be seen in John Calvin. In his Institutes, he quotes from no less than thirty-seven major church Fathers, not to mention many scholastic theologians, popes, and church councils. So the historical issues Keating sets forth are by no means new.
In one of his debates Keating stated that each individual has a solemn responsibility to seek and follow truth no matter how opposed it might be to what one has been taught or what it might cost in personal terms. I cannot agree more, and that is precisely why I write this article. I have spent the last five years in intensive historical research. I have gone to primary source material and have read many major works of the most notable church Fathers. I have read Roman Catholic and Protestant historians and have listened to hours of taped messages by Scott Hahn and Gerry Matatics. All this is to say that I am a Protestant by conviction on the basis of the truth of both Scripture and history. I sought to honestly determine if I had left the holy catholic church when I left the fellowship of Rome.
In this article I state some pertinent historical facts I discovered that bear primarily upon the issue of authority and the Roman Catholic Church. I will begin by stating the Roman Catholic position in a general way and then seek to deal with specific issues in particular.
The Roman Catholic Church claims that it alone is the one true church established by Christ and boasts of a two-thousand-year consensus for its teachings. It places under anathema — that is, it condemns to hell, unless there is repentance — all who disagree with her teachings,2 anathemas that, it is important to add, have never been repudiated. These claims are summarized in a principle implicitly enunciated by the second-century Father, Irenaeus.3 It was explicitly taught in the fifth century by Vincent of Lerins and later affirmed and officially sanctioned by the councils of Trent and Vatican I. It is the principle known as the 'unanimous consent of the Fathers.' Vincent expresses the principle in these terms: 'Those teachings are truly catholic and apostolic that have been believed everywhere, always, and by all.'4 To claim catholicity and apostolic authority, therefore, is not simply a matter of succession but, rather, a matter of conformity to apostolic doctrine and the test of universality, antiquity, and consent. Not only does it embody doctrines, but also the interpretation of Scripture. Both Trent and Vatican I state that it is unlawful for anyone to interpret Scripture 'contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers.'5 These councils tell us that there is a test by which the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can be judged and validated-the test of history-as expressed in the principle of unanimous consent. What do the historical facts really reveal for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church relative to its teachings on Scripture, tradition, the canon, the papacy, and Mary?

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
Roman Catholic dogma teaches that the doctrine of sola scriptura (that Scripture alone is sufficient and the ultimate authority in all matters of faith and morals) is unscriptural. This dogma is unfounded because sola scriptura is the express teaching of Scripture and in particular of the Lord Jesus Christ. The word sufficient is not found in the Word of God in an explicit sense to describe the Scriptures. But neither is the word trinity found in Scripture, yet the doctrine is taught plainly throughout its pages. The same is true with regard to the teaching of sola scriptura. It is as apparent as the teaching of the Trinity.6 The doctrine is clearly demonstrated in the life and teaching of Christ.
Clearly Scripture was the ultimate authority for Jesus' personal life and ministry. He always appealed to the written Word of God to settle disputes, never to oral tradition. When He refers to the 'Word of God', His reference is always to recorded Scripture. According to His teaching, Scripture was the final judge of all tradition. In fact, Jesus has virtually nothing positive to say about tradition (cf. Matthew 4:4; 5:17-19; 15:2-9; 22:29-32). Clearly, if the Son of God teaches that all tradition is to be judged by its conformity to the Scriptures, then tradition is subordinate to Scripture and Scripture is logically the ultimate authority.
Roman Catholic teaching claims that sola scriptura is unhistorical; that is, it contradicts the universal teaching of the early church. The more I have searched for the truth regarding these Roman Catholic beliefs, the more I have been compelled to conclude that the facts will not support this claim. Sola scriptura was the universal teaching of the church Fathers and for the church as a whole through the later Middle Ages. Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386) is reflective of the overall view of the Fathers:

Cyril of Jerusalem was a bishop of one of the most important sees of the church and responsible for instructing catechumens in the faith. No clearer concept of sola scriptura could be given than that seen in these statements of Cyril. He equates the teaching he is handing on to these catechumens with tradition, in which he specifically references 2 Thessalonians 2:15, that he says must be proven by Scripture. Tradition is simply the teaching of the church that he is passing on orally, but that tradition must be validated by the written Scriptures. He states further that the extent of authority vested in any teacher, be he bishop or layman, is limited to Scripture. No teaching is to be received that cannot be proven from Scripture. The church does have authority, as Cyril himself acknowledges, but it is an authority grounded in fidelity to Scripture and not principally in succession. According to Cyril, the church is subject to the final authority of Scripture, and even the church is to be disregarded if it moves outside that authority in its teaching.
Cyril is a vigorous proponent of the concept of sola scriptura. It is a teaching he handed down to the catechumens as an implicit article of the faith. As one reads the writings of the Fathers it becomes clear that Cyril's statements are representative of the church as a whole. J.N.D. Kelly affirms this observation:

Therefore, the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura is not a heresy or a novel doctrine, but in reality it is a reaffirmation of the faith of the early church. It is both biblical and historical, yet the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that oral tradition is a second source of divine revelation, equally as authoritative as Scripture and that this was the view held by the church Fathers. Such a claim, however, contradicts both Scripture and history. When the Fathers speak of a tradition handed down from the apostles independent of Scripture, they are referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices, never to doctrine. Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture as an authority, and the Word of God itself never teaches that tradition is inspired. The Scriptures give numerous warnings against tradition,9 and the Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture as a gnostic heresy. For the church Fathers apostolic tradition or teaching was embodied and preserved in Scripture. The teaching of the Fathers is this: What the apostles initially proclaimed and taught orally, they later committed to writing in the New Testament. Irenaeus succinctly states it in these words:

How is one to know what the apostles taught orally? It has been handed down to us in the Scriptures, and they in turn are the ground and pillar of our faith. The historical circumstances that prompted Irenaeus's words are important to understand. He was writing against the Gnostics who claimed to have access to an oral tradition handed down from the apostles, which was independent of the written Word of God. Irenaeus, as well as Tertullian, explicitly repudiates such a concept. The bishops of the church were in the direct line of succession from the apostles, and they were faithful to the apostolic teaching they proclaimed orally, but that doctrine could at every point be validated by Scripture. Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer affirms this:

In fact, the apostle Paul himself states that the gospel he initially preached orally could be verified by the written Scriptures.12 The church as a whole, up to the thirteenth century, never viewed tradition to be a source of revelation. Brian Tierney affirms this:

The Scriptures do refer to Paul delivering oral tradition to the believers of Thessalonica, which they were to obey (2 Thessalonians 2:15). But the word tradition used here does not refer to the same thing as the tradition of Roman Catholicism. The word as used in this text simply means 'teaching'. Paul has given them oral instruction, and that does not necessarily concern the major doctrines of the faith. That is clear from the same epistle, where he exhorts these believers to stand firm in the tradition they had received from him: 'to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching [tradition KJV] you received from us' (3:6). Paul's use of the term tradition here does not have the meaning assigned to it by the Roman Catholic Church in two important respects: in its concept and in its content. The very concept of Roman Catholic tradition as a separate source of revelation independent of Scripture contradicts both Scripture and the teaching of the historic catholic church. The Roman Catholic Church has departed from the teaching and practice of both the early church and the Word of God itself. The early church believed in sola scriptura, but the Roman Catholic Church has repudiated this principle in order to elevate its tradition to a position of authority equal to the Scriptures. The heresy of Gnosticism condemned by Irenaeus and Tertullian is embraced in this error.
In addition to the concept itself, there is also the issue of the actual doctrinal content of Roman Catholic tradition, for its specific teachings not only contradict the teaching of Scripture but that of the church of the first centuries. Over several centuries the Roman Catholic Church has added doctrines to the apostolic tradition that it says are dogmas of the faith, necessary to be believed for salvation. These dogmas were either never taught in the early church or were plainly repudiated by it. This is clearly seen from the following examples.

THE CANON
From my early training I learned that Catholicism claims that the church established the canon of Scripture in the fourth century and that therefore the church is the ultimate authority, not Scripture. Roman Catholic apologists often ask, 'If you accept the limits of the Canon that were authoritatively established by the Roman Catholic Church, why do you reject the ultimate authority of that Church?' The simple reason is that the premise upon which that logic rests is fallacious because the specific claims the Church of Rome makes for itself regarding the canon are contradicted by the facts of history. The Roman Catholic Church did not authoritatively establish the limits of the canon for the church. The New Testament books were already recognized in the church prior to the Western councils of Hippo and Carthage in North Africa in the fourth century. These were provincial councils that had no authority for the church universally, and their decrees on the Apocrypha were never accepted in the church as a whole. The church adopted the views of many of the Eastern Fathers such as Origen and Athanasius and Western Fathers such as Jerome. It expressed the view that these writings were useful for reading in the churches for the purpose of edification, but they were not to be counted as part of the canon of inspired Scripture since they were not part of the Hebrew canon. Consequently, they were not to be used for the establishment of doctrine. So the inclusion of additional books in the canon of Scripture by the Roman Catholic Church troubled me. Which visible community had this right? In commenting on the apocryphal books, Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, Jerome states:

That the Jewish canon did not include the Apocrypha and that the Protestant Reformers followed the practice of the Jews is affirmed by the New Catholic Encyclopedia: 'For the Old Testament, however, Protestants follow the Jewish canon; they have only the Old Testament books that are in the Hebrew Bible.'15 That the church as a whole never accepted the apocryphal books as part of the canon of Scripture after the councils of Carthage and Hippo is seen from these comments by Pope Gregory the Great (A.D. 590-604) on the book of 1 Maccabees:

This was the view that was held throughout the ensuing centuries of the history of the church. John Cosin, in his book A Scholastical History of the Canon, documents some fifty-two major ecclesiastical writers and theologians from the eighth to the sixteenth centuries who held to the view of Jerome. That this was the general view of the church up to as late as the sixteenth century is evidenced by these comments from Cardinal Cajetan, the great opponent of Luther in the Reformation, taken from his commentary on the Old Testament:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia affirms that Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as being canonical and that the councils of Carthage and Hippo did not establish the Old Testament canon. It states explicitly that this was not authoritatively done until the Council of Trent:

The first general council of the Western church to dogmatically decree the Apocrypha to be part of the canon and therefore to be accorded the status of Scripture was the Council of Trent in the mid-sixteenth century. This was done contrary to the universal practice of the Jews and the church up to that time. And Trent places under anathema all who reject this teaching.19 I discovered to my surprise that it was the Roman Catholic Church, not the Protestant, which was responsible for the introduction of novel teachings very late in the history of the church. When one examines the related issues of Scripture, tradition, and the canon, the facts reveal that it is the Protestant teaching that is closest to both Scripture and the teaching of the truly historic catholic church.

ON THE PAPACY
Catholicism since the late Middle Ages has taught that submission to the bishop of Rome is necessary for one's salvation. This teaching was given dogmatic expression by Pope Boniface VIII in an ex cathedra statement in his bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302) and was later reaffirmed by subsequent popes and councils such as Vatican I. His decree states:

Like all baptized Catholics I knew that the Church of Rome claimed that papal primacy was validated by the teaching of Scripture in Matthew 16:18-19 in its interpretation of the rock and keys. I had also been taught that this interpretation is validated by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers. These claims cannot be substantiated by the facts. Matthew 16 does not imply papal primacy, for the passage says absolutely nothing about successors to Peter or his office. As Oscar Cullmann has stated:

In addition to this, the unanimous consent of the Fathers opposes the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16. The Fathers generally interpret the rock in Matthew 16 as Christ or as Peter's confession of faith in Christ. Some of the Fathers do refer to Peter as the rock but only in the sense that he is the first to confess Christ to be the Son of God and is therefore representative of the entire church. The church is built, therefore, not on Peter personally (and subsequently on the bishops of Rome as his successors) but on Peter's confession of faith and ultimately, therefore, on Christ Himself. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) is typical of the Fathers in this interpretation of Matthew 16:18:

Here, all agree, is the most renowned theologian of the Catholic Church. He writes after nearly five centuries of church history and gives an interpretation of Matthew 16 (the most important verse of Scripture in Rome's argument for the church's authority) that is a direct contradiction of the Roman Catholic interpretation. How are we to explain this, if, as Vatican I states, there exists a unanimous consensus of interpretation of the meaning of this passage? Why does Augustine deliberately go against such a consensus?
The answer, quite simply, is that there never was a patristic consensus on the interpretation of Matthew 16 to support that propounded by the Roman Catholic Church. John Chrysostom (ca. A.D. 344-407), one of the greatest theologians and exegetes of the Eastern church, echoes Augustine in his interpretation with these words: 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession.'23 The fact is, the overwhelming majority of the Fathers of the early centuries did not support the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 as proposed by Vatican I. Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, one of the most renowned Roman Catholic historians of the last century, a teacher of church history for forty-seven years, affirmed, to my amazement, what I discovered in the church Fathers:

Roman Catholic apologists have consistently charged that the Protestant exegesis of Matthew 16 grew out of the Reformers' need to legitimize their opposition to the papacy. Consequently, they invented a novel interpretation that contradicted the traditional view of the church. But the facts actually reveal the opposite, as Oscar Culhnann confirms:

It is the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox interpretation that is endorsed by the Fathers of the early church and not the Roman Catholic, which contradicts that consensus. The Roman Catholic interpretation is, in fact, a direct contradiction of the decrees of Trent and Vatican I, which state that it is unlawful to interpret Scripture in any way contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
This is not to say that there was never a pro-papal interpretation given to Matthew 16:18-19. Beginning in the fourth century we find a papal interpretation promoted by the bishops of Rome. Leo I, in the fifth century, is the first to combine Matthew 16 with Luke 22 and John 21 to promote the theory of papal rule, but not the teaching of infallibility. From this time on the bishops of Rome began to adopt his interpretation to promote the papal office. But this papal interpretation was never the accepted exegesis of the Fathers and theologians of the church for centuries. Karlfried Froehlich affirms this in his analysis of the history of the exegesis of these passages up through the Middle Ages:

The Church of Rome claims that papal primacy can be validated by the facts of history in that it was the universal practice of the church from the very beginning. These claims are false; the facts of history contradict them. The attitudes and practices of the Fathers and councils27 reveal that the church never viewed the bishops of Rome as being endowed with supreme authority to rule the church universal. And there never has been a supreme human ruler in the church. This whole concept was repudiated by Pope Gregory the Great (A.D. 590-604) when he rebuked the bishop of Constantinople for attempting to arrogate to himself the title of 'universal bishop.' He insisted that such a position and title are unlawful in the church of Jesus Christ:

In the Roman Catholic Church I was taught that papal infallibility can be validated from Scripture in Matthew 16:18, Luke 22:32, and John 21:15-17.1 was further taught that its interpretation of these passages was given by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and that anyone who contradicts this teaching was to be anathematized.29 These dogmas are simply untrue. No Father, doctor, theologian, or canonist of the church for the first twelve centuries interpreted those passages in agreement with the Roman Catholic Church. They never interpreted these verses to even imply the teaching of papal infallibility. The patristic exegesis of Luke 22:32 saw Christ's prayer for Peter as a guarantee that Peter's faith will not ultimately fail, not that he would be infallible. The patristic writers viewed Peter as representative of the church, the bride whom Christ will not allow to fall away. In the patristic interpretation, this verse has nothing to do with personal infallibility but with the grace of indefectibility or final perseverance. The situation is similar when we turn to the patristic interpretation of John 21:15-17 in which Peter is representative of all who would hold positions as pastors within the church. For the Fathers of the Patristic Age, this passage had nothing to do with papal primacy or the exclusive teaching authority over the entire church that implied a gift of infallibility. The universal teaching and belief of the church was that the bishops of Rome were fallible-that they could and did err. Brian Tierney affirms this in these statements regarding the views of the twelfth and thirteenth-century canonists who were the authoritative commentators of their day:

I knew the Roman Catholic teaching on papal infallibility. Now I knew that it could not be validated by the facts of history and the universal practice of the church. Historical reality does not support what I had been taught as a communicant Catholic. The facts reveal that popes have erred, have contradicted themselves and each other as well. They have embraced heresy, and have been condemned for heresy by 'infallible' ecumenical councils, as well as by the popes themselves, thereby demonstrating that the church in its practice, and even the bishops of Rome, did not believe that popes were infallible.
Pope Honorius, as an example of this, was condemned as a heretic by the sixth ecumenical council (III Constantinople, A.D. 680-681) in his official capacity as pope,31 on the basis of the criteria that define an ex cathedra teaching. This council was confirmed by Pope Leo II who likewise anathematized the heretics mentioned by the council, including Pope Honorius. His words of condemnation are interesting, for he states that Honorius was one 'who did not illuminate the apostolic see by teaching the apostolic tradition but, by an act of treachery strove to subvert its immaculate faith.'32 This pope officially condemns his predecessor for actively subverting the faith by what he taught, and this judgment was confirmed by two succeeding ecumenical councils and by individual popes, who took the oath of papal office, for centuries afterward. Clearly, neither the popes nor the church at large have historically believed the doctrine of papal infallibility.

ON SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION
Another dogma taught me as a Roman Catholic was that the church alone had authority to interpret Scripture and that it has been granted infallibility in so doing. This claim is disproved by the facts of history. How can it be an infallible interpreter of Scripture when its interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Luke 22:32, and John 21:15-17 contradicts the interpretation given by the Fathers who make up the magisterium (which, from a Roman Catholic position, is itself an infallible interpreter of Scripture).
The Roman Catholic Church, at the councils of Trent and Vatican I, has bound itself never to interpret Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. It claims, amazingly, that all of its teachings can be verified by such consent. Such claims and assertions are simply false. None of the church's teachings in its tradition can claim a unanimous consent and much of its interpretation of Scripture, such as the papal passages, contradicts the unanimous interpretation given by the Fathers of the church.

ON MARY
One of the most significant aspects of Catholic faith and practice that many who consider leaving the Roman Catholic Church struggle with is personal devotion to Mary. The Roman Catholic Church claims that Mary was immaculately conceived (that is, she was born free of original sin) and that the Fathers likewise held to this teaching. She claims that this is a dogma of the faith revealed by God that is necessary to be believed for salvation. The Church states that any who would dispute the teaching are judged to be completely fallen from the faith and are condemned.33 Once again, as I made a careful study of Scripture and history, I soon discovered that these assertions were not true. This teaching should not be a dogma of the faith. It originated in the fifth century with the heretics Pelagius and Celestius34 and was universally rejected by both Fathers and popes of the early church, as evidenced by its rejection by Augustine and Gregory the Great, and in later centuries by Anselm, Bernard of Clairveaux, and Thomas Aquinas. The Roman Catholic patristic scholar, Walter Burghardt, confirms the patristic and papal rejection of this doctrine historically:

Personal study revealed to me that in later centuries the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was a matter of violent dispute within the church between Franciscans and Dominicans for centuries. It also contradicts the scriptural teaching of the universality of original, as well as actual, sin.36
Roman Catholicism teaches the faithful that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. It states that this too is a dogma of the faith, a truth divinely revealed by God and necessary to be believed for salvation. It goes so far as to assert that any who would dispute this doctrine have completely fallen from the faith and are condemned.37 Once again I had to conclude that Rome did not possess the truth of the historic church. What I found was complete silence in the writings of the Fathers regarding the end of Mary's life. For the first six centuries nothing is said on this matter. The first Father to promote the teaching of her assumption was Gregory of Tours in A.D. 590, and he based his teaching on an apocryphal gospel found in the Transitus literature. The assumption doctrine actually originated with this literature38 sometime in the fourth or fifth centuries and this specific teaching — the Transitus assumption of Mary was officially rejected as heretical. It was placed in the same category with such heretics as Arius, Pelagius, and Marcion and was condemned by two popes in the late fifth and early sixth centuries — Gelasius and Hormisdas. These popes place this doctrine, its authors and the contents of their writings, as well as all who follow their teachings, under an eternal anathema.39 Thus, the early church viewed this doctrine not as the pious expression of the faith of the faithful but as a heretical doctrine that probably originated from gnostic sources. Discoveries such as these only underlined my growing awareness that Rome did not accurately represent the historic doctrine of the early church, much less what I saw in the New Testament.
Rome teaches that Mary is a mediatrix and even a co-redemptrix with Christ and that grace cannot be applied to man except through her.40 This teaching is also false. It not only contradicts the scriptural teaching of the unique and exclusive mediatorial role of Christ41 but there is not one word found in Scripture of Mary functioning in the role of mediatrix or co-redemptrix. Nor is there one word of this kind of teaching in the writings of the Fathers.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary has been given the title Queen of Heaven and that she rules over the church along with her son Jesus Christ. This is also false. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture of such a title or role being assigned to Mary. There is no Queen of heaven and earth. There is only one sovereign Lord and ruler over the church, and He is the God-man Christ Jesus. There is not a word of this Marian doctrine in the patristic writings. What is really surprising is that it actually originated, as with the assumption teaching, with the heretical Transitus literature.42

CONCLUSION
In light of these facts what can we conclude? Many Roman Catholics, like me for a number of years, are genuinely sincere in their belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church, the 'infallible' authority established by Jesus Christ, which has preserved inviolate the apostolic tradition handed down from Christ to the apostles. But, sadly, the foundation upon which my presuppositions rested during those years was historically and biblically erroneous. The teachings of Keating, Hahn, Matatics, and others of like mind are not faithful to the facts of history. Scores of Catholics implicitly and uncritically accept what these men teach without serious study on their own simply because their arguments sound plausible. These apologists play on widespread ignorance within both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, and many are being misled.
An example of my point came home to me recently when I heard Scott Hahn make the unbelievable statement (on tape) before a predominantly Roman Catholic audience that no bishop of Rome has ever been accused of heresy. Most Catholics will hear that without recognizing it as an outright falsehood, thus settling into convictions that are rooted in error. This is just one of many examples that could be used from the teaching of these apologists. I am compelled to conclude that they are guilty of seriously misrepresenting the facts of history and of true Protestantism.
The claims for Roman Catholic authority cannot be supported by the facts of history or the truth of Scripture. In reality the Roman Catholic Church has departed from the teaching of the historic catholic church and can no longer be rightly described as catholic, but as Roman. The supposed two-thousand-year consensus for the teaching of its tradition is nonexistent. Even knowledgeable Roman Catholic authorities admit this to be the case. Patrologist Boniface Ramsey states:

It is not that the Church of Rome does not affirm any truths that are truly catholic and apostolic. There is a body of doctrine that Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox churches all share in common. The problem is with the teachings that are added to this common consensus, those that were introduced many centuries after the apostolic age and which the Church of Rome teaches are necessary to be believed for salvation. These added doctrines are a departure from the faith of the early church and the truth of Scripture. It is not the Reformation that introduced novel doctrines but the evolving Roman Catholic Church. The facts reveal that the Reformers' teachings can be validated both by Scripture and by the teaching of the Fathers. Therefore, historic Protestantism stands in the genuine tradition of historic Christianity, and those Roman Catholics who, like me, have left their church can be assured that, on the basis of the truth of history and Scripture, they have followed the biblical course, aligning themselves with the historic Christian truth and, thus, a biblical church.
History testifies that the Roman church is not an infallible interpreter of Scripture, that its popes are not infallible, that it did not establish the canon for the church, and that much of the teaching of its tradition was either completely unknown or explicitly repudiated by the Fathers of the early church.
Roman Catholic apologists justify the church's tradition on the basis of a theory of development-that is, that church tradition is a development of doctrine that was implicitly accepted in the early church and became more explicit over time. This is not supported by the facts. The teachings of Roman Catholic tradition were, in reality, repudiated by the early church. They are not supported, furthermore, by the principle of unanimous consent, and they plainly contradict Scripture. What we discover is not a development of truth but a departure from it. Roman Catholic teaching in its exaltation of tradition, the papacy, and the church is a depreciation of the authority of Scripture and the supreme authority of Jesus Christ. In the end, the Roman church has displaced divine authority with human authority. The Reformers' accusations still stand, supported by both Scripture and history.
What is so tragic in this controversy is not simply that men and women have embraced error regarding church history but that, in so doing, many have implicitly accepted Roman Catholic teaching on salvation, which is a perversion of the true gospel. Rome teacghes that one merits eternal life through one's own good works. This perversion is the same 'gospel' in principle that the apostle Paul denounces in his epistle to the Galatians. The sad result is that multitudes of Roman Catholics have a zealous love for and confidence in their church, without understanding biblical salvation. I was one such Catholic, struggling on in my darkness until God in His sovereign grace opened my eyes to the righteousness that is in Christ alone. I fear that many Roman Catholics have been inoculated against the truth of the gospel because they have been misinformed about the facts of history. Consequently they do not take seriously the salvation teachings of the Reformation, dismissing them as heresies that have emanated from men who have rebelled against the 'infallible' church. But what they do not realize is that just as the Reformers were right on the issues of history they were also right on the doctrine of salvation. The gospel they proclaimed of faith alone, grace alone, and Christ alone is the biblical gospel, the message of saving truth.
I conclude this article by making an appeal to Roman Catholics to 'come out from them and be separate' (2 Corinthians 6:17). Why do I say that? Am I being impolitic in this counsel, especially when many evangelicals are saying we should not call upon Catholics to leave their communion? Let me begin with an illustration. Dollinger was one of the most celebrated Roman Catholic historians of the late 18th century. Just before Vatican I, which convened to discuss the issues of papal rule and infallibility, he co-authored a book under the pseudonym, Janus, titled The Pope and the Council. In it he appealed to this council, in light of the facts of history, not to pass decrees that would contradict the truth. His plea fell on deaf ears. He refused to recant his position and was later excommunicated from the church he loved. His commitment to truth exacted an enormous price. When asked why he would not repudiate his intellect and reason for the sake of communion with Rome he stated:

I stand, a former Roman Catholic, with thousands whose conscience has compelled them to leave the church they once loved. So I reiterate the counsel of Catholic apologist Karl Keating: 'we have a solemn responsibility to seek and respond to truth.' That will be costly. I believe that a Roman Catholic who is sincerely committed to following truth will eventually leave the Roman Catholic Church, realizing as the Reformers taught that it is not the historic, biblical, holy, catholic church. Keating and Hahn feel no qualms about urging men and women to forsake evangelical Christianity for Roman Catholicism. I appeal to you, then, on the basis of the truth of history and Scripture, to leave your Catholic heritage. I give you the following reasons.
First, the ultimate commitment the Scriptures call us to is the person of Christ, not a church. We are called to trust, love, worship, and follow Christ exclusively. Inherent in that commitment is full acceptance of all that Scripture teaches regarding salvation and, in particular, the truth of the gospel. Paul states in Galatians 1:6-8 that any who embrace a perverted gospel actually deserts Christ. If a Roman Catholic obeys the salvation teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, it must logically result in disobedience to God and a desertion of Christ because these selfsame teachings invalidate God's Word. The Scriptures point us to the person of Christ, not a church, as the source of our eternal salvation.
The 'gospel' promulgated by the Church of Rome is a perversion of the gospel of grace. Therefore, to stay within Roman Catholicism is to be identified with a system that fundamentally denies the sufficiency of the work of Christ alone. Christ lays the issue squarely before us in uncompromising terms when He says, 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it' (Mark 8:34-35). There is no mention of the church as a means of salvation here or anywhere else in Scripture. To follow Christ means a life of denying self to live for His sake and the gospel's. This means we must be openly identified with Him and His truth and be willing to suffer the rejection, the ostracism, the criticism, and even loss of life that such identification can bring. Centuries of faithful evangelical Christians have learned these truths by sailing through such troubled waters. Can we do less, if necessary? There is a cross at the very center of our identification with Christ and His gospel. Jesus makes clear that we cannot seek peace and unity at any cost. Truth divides. Much of the ecumenical movement of the last fifty years or so would have us downplay the importance of truth for the sake of unity. But the ultimate issue is not unity; it is commitment to Christ. And that means a commitment to truth. The whole basis for church unity and for following and worshiping Christ is the truth of the gospel (cf. John 4:23-24; Galatians 1:6-8; Ephesians 1:13; Philippians 1:27-28; 3:2-11; Colossians 2:6-15.). If we forsake truth for a man-made unity, we actually forsake Christ!
Finally, I appeal to Roman Catholics to come out because the Church of Rome is moving farther and farther away from truth. The church has historically demonstrated a terrible resistance to correction and reform. By the anathemas of Trent and Vatican I and the papal decrees on Mary we have seen a continued and progressive departure from truth and a hardening of the Roman Church theologically against the gospel. On the other hand, there is a disturbing trend developing, a growing tolerance of pagan religions in the name of unity and peace. In 1986, when the pope stood with the representatives of the major religions of the world on a public platform to pray for peace, he did something that would have been unthinkable for a bishop of the catholic church in the early centuries of Christianity. Can you imagine a bishop of the second century standing on a public platform with the representatives of Gnosticism, Roman deities, and other pagan religions to pray for peace? Such a person would have been condemned for apostasy. Christ's gospel proclaims the fact that He alone is the answer to the sin of the world and that He alone can bring peace to men's hearts. I ask you, can one be true to Christ and remain in a system that so fundamentally denies Him in teaching and practice? Ponder your answer carefully.
The issues that separate Protestants and Roman Catholics are not minor. They are major. They have to do with the eternal destinies of men and women. They hit right at the heart of truth, both biblical and historical. The defining issue is truth. The Reformation was not unnecessary, unjustified, or a tragedy. The tragedy lies in the fact that it was necessary. It was, in fact, one of the greatest revivals ever witnessed in the history of the church, and it restored the church to the truth of the true gospel that had become obscured and perverted through the traditions of men.

Notes
1. Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), 10.

2. The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Universal Knowledge Foundation, 1912) gives the following background and definition for the term anathema: 'To understand the word anathema...we should first go back to the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off and exterminated.... In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful....But he who is separated from God is united to the devil, which explains why St. Paul, instead of anathematizing, sometimes delivers a person over to Satan (1 Tim. i,20; 1 Cor., v,5)....Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity....In passing this sentence the pontiff takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, and pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: "Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the Saints, in virtue of the power which has been given to us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.'" (1:455-56)

3. Irenaeus expresses the principle of universality, antiquity, and consent: (1) Universality: 'The universal church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the apostles' (Against Heresies II.9.1); (2) Antiquity: 'True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles and the ancient constitution of the church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops by which they have handed down that church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition, nor suffering curtailment in the truths which she believes' (Against Heresies IV.33.8); (3) Consent: 'The preaching of the church is everywhere consistent and continues in an even course and receives testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples' (Against Heresies III.24.1).

4. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory II.4-III.7, Series Two, vol. XI, of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955).

5. The Council of Trent states: 'No one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.' (See The Council of Trent [Rockford: Tan, 1978], 18-19)
This decree was reaffirmed by Vatican I.

6. Scripture is described as being pure, perfect, eternal, sure, truth, forever settled in heaven; it sanctifies, causes spiritual growth, is God-breathed, authoritative, it gives wisdom unto salvation, makes wise the simple, is living and active, is a guide, a fire, a hammer, a seed, the sword of the Spirit; it gives knowledge of God, is a lamp to our feet, a light to our path, produces reverence for God, heals, makes free, illuminates, produces faith, regenerates, converts the soul, brings conviction of sin, restrains from sin, is spiritual food, is infallible, inerrant, irrevocable, searches the heart and mind, produces life, defeats Satan, proves truth, refutes error, is holy, equips for every good work, is the final judge of all tradition, is the Word of God (Heb. 4:12, Pss. 119: 9-11, 38, 105, 130, 133, 160; 19:7-11; 111:7-8; Is. 40:8; Eph. 5:26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Jer. 5:14; 23:29; Matt. 13:18-23; Eph. 6:17; Ps. 107:20; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 1:23; 2:2; Acts 20:32; John 8:32, 10:35, 17:17; Matt. 15:2-9). Where are we told these things about tradition?

7. The Catechetical Lectures IV.17, V.12, XII.5, in A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845).

8. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 46.

9. 'See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ' (Col. 2:8); 'Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition....They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' (Matt. 15:6, 9; cf. Mark 7:3-13; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22; 1 Peter 1:18).

10. Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1.1, in Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaugh, trans., in The Writings of Irenaeus (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874).

11. Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953), 133.

12. 'Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.By this gospel you are saved, if
you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures' (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

13. Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 16-17.

14. St. Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome's Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, Daniel, Series Two, vol. VI, of Schaff and Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 492-93.

16. Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, vol. II parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, in A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, 424. The New Catholic Encyclopedia confirms that Pope Gregory did not accept a canonical status for the Apocrypha (II:390).

17. Taken from his comments on the final chapter of Esther, in Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament; cited in William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge: University Press, 1849), 48. Cf. John Cosin, A Scholastical History of the Canon (Oxford: Parker, 1849),111:257-58, and B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1889), 475.

19. 'If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the Old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema' (Fourth Session, Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures, of The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent [Rockford: Tan, 1978], 18).

20. Cited in Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church (London: Oxford Univ., 1963), 116. Vatican I, after affirming that the bishops of Rome are the rightful rulers over the church to whom all Christians must submit in matters of faith and morals and discipline states, 'This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation'; cited by Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper, 1877),11:263.

21. Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 207, 236.

22. St. Augustine, Sermon XXVI.1 2, Series Two, vol. VI, of Schaff and Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 340.

23. Homilies of S. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 54.3, in A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church.

24. Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dtlinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), 74.

26. Karlfried Froehlich, St. Peter, Papal Primacy and the Exegetical Tradition 1151-1350. Found in Christopher Ryan, ed., The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities 1150-1300 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute, 1989), 42, 4.

27. The Council of Constance (A.D. 1414-1418) passed the following decree regarding the supreme authority of General Councils over popes: 'This holy Council of Constance...declares, first that it is lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, that it constitutes a General Council, representing the Catholic Church, and that therefore it has its authority immediately from Christ; and that all men, of every rank and condition, including the Pope himself, is bound to obey it in matters concerning the Faith, the abolition of the schism, and the reformation of the Church of God in its head and its members. Secondly, it declares that any one, of any rank or condition, who shall contumaciously refuse to obey the orders, decrees, statutes or instructions, made or to be made by this holy Council, or by any other lawfully assembled council....shall, unless he comes to a right frame of mind, be subjected to a fitting penance and punished appropriately: and, if need be, recourse shall be had to the other sanctions of the law' (Decree: Sacrosancta [A.D. 1415]; taken from Henry Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church [London: Oxford Univ., 1963], 135). The decrees of this council were officially approved by Pope Martin V (A.D. 1417-1431) and by Pope Eugenius IV (A.D. 1431-1447).

28. Epistles of St. Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle 33, and Book V, Epistle 18, Series Two, vol. XII, of Schaff and Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 226, 167.

29. Vatican I states: 'We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if any one-which may God avert-presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema' (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, Concerning the Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff, Chapter IV; cited by Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877], 2:270-71).

31. The exact words of condemnation by the sixth ecumenical council are as follows:
'After we had reconsidered….the doctrinal letters of Sergius….to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God....We define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what was written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines....But as the author of evil... having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus....Sergius....Honorius who was Pope of elder Rune)....has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris….To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!' (The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Second Series, vol. XIV, of Schaff and Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 342-44)

32. Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 11. See also Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), V:180.

33. These are the words of Pope Pius IX relative to the teaching of the Immaculate Conception: 'Therefore, if some should presume to think in their hearts otherwise than we have defined (which God forbid), they shall know and thoroughly understand that they are by their own judgment condemned, have made shipwreck concerning the faith, and fallen away from the unity of the Church; and, moreover, that they, by this very act, subject themselves to the penalties ordained by law if, by word or writing, or any other external means, they dare to signify what they think in their heart' (The Decree of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, From the Bull Ineffabilis Deus [A.D. 1854]. Taken from Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 2:212).

34. Pelagius and Celestius used Mary, the mother of Jesus, as an example of one born free of original sin. Vincent of Lerins points out the origin of the teaching of the Immaculate Conception with these words: 'Who ever originated a heresy that did not first dissever himself from the consentient agreement of the universality and antiquity of the Catholic Church? That this is so is demonstrated in the clearest way by examples. For who ever before the profane Pelagius attributed so much antecedent strength to Free-will, as to deny the necessity of God's grace to aid it towards every good in every single act? Who ever before his monstrous disciple Celestius denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin?' (Vincent of Lerins, A Commonitory 24.62, Series Two, vol. XI, of Schaff and Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 149-50).

36. 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' (Rom. 3:23). 'There is none righteous, not even one' (Rom. 3:10).

37. Pope Pius XII affirms this in these words:
'We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory. Hence, if anyone, which God forbid, should dare wilfully to deny or call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has completely fallen from the divine and Catholic faith….It is forbidden to any man to change this, Our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul' (Munificentissimus Deus [A.D. 1950], 44-45, 47; taken from Selected Documents of Pope Pius XII [Washington: National Catholic Welfare Conference])

38. This fact is affirmed by the Roman Catholic historian and Mariologist Juniper Carol (Mariology, 1:149) in these comments: 'The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus beatae Mariae of Pseudo-Melito.'

39. In his decree, Decretum de Libris Canonicis Ecclesiasticis et Apocrypha, which was later affirmed by Pope Hormisdas, Gelasius lists the Transitus teaching by the following title: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae under the following condemnation: 'These and writings similar to these, which....all the heresiarchs and their disciples, or the schismatics have taught or written....we confess have not only been rejected but also banished from the whole Roman and Apostolic Church and with their authors and followers of their authors have been condemned forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema' (St. Gelasius I, Epistle 42; taken from Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma [London: Herder, 1954], 69-70). Cf. Migne P.L., vol. 59, col. 162, 164.

40. Popes Leo XIII and Benedict XV make these statements: 'When Mary offered herself completely to God together with her Son in the temple, she was already sharing with him the painful atonement on behalf of the human race....(at the foot of the cross) she was a co-worker with Christ in His expiation for mankind and she offered up her Son to the divine justice dying with him in her heart (Jucunda semper)....Thus she (Mary) suffered and all but died along with her Son suffering and dying-thus for the salvation of men she abdicated the rights of a mother toward her son, and insofar as it was hers to do, she immolated the Son to placate God's justice, so that she herself may justly be said to have redeemed together with Christ the human race. (De Corredemptione; cited by Carol, ed., Mariology, 1:383, 37)

41.'For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Tim. 2:5).

42.'Since explicit testimonies to Mary as Queen date from the fifth century and are linked closely with her divine Maternity, the richest source of this doctrine is the Transitus Mariae literature. In proclaiming the glories of the Mother of God and in describing her triumphant entrance into paradise, they hail her as a glorious queen' (Carol, ed., Mariology, 1:177).

43. Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), 6.

44. Cited by W. J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (London: John Murray, 1909), 324.

“As a follow up, give me your critique of this article on Isaiah 53.”

It is held by most commentators that the passage refers to the Servant as one who has been put to death by his enemies, but who will, astonishingly, be restored to life by Yahweh, who accepts his suffering and death as vicariously atoning for the sins of others. This view might be tenable if the Servant were an allegorical figure representing the nation of Israel, though it would then ascribe to Isaiah a view of the mission of Israel to the world which would be quite unparalleled. But Isa. 42:1-4; 49:1-6 show that the Servant in this group of passages cannot be Israel. If on the other hand this passage is interpreted as referring to a historical individual whose death is regarded as bringing atonement for the sins of others so that the guilty might go free this, to an Israelite, would be contrary to their interpretation of the principles of justice in the Old Testament. Further, who is it that goes free? The speakers can hardly be representatives of the heathen nations; and if they are Israelites, they have not escaped punishment for their sins, but have on the contrary, as Isaiah states elsewhere, paid in full. A further difficulty concerns the supposed resurrection of the Servant. As a metaphor of the restoration of Israel after exile this might be conceivable (Ezek. 37:1-14), but with reference to an individual it is totally foreign to the Judaism of the sixth century BC and today as witness your cited commentary.

The specific historical setting of Isa. 52:13-53:12 is described at some length in Ezra 3-6, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8. Darius had successfully established his rule and now appears in Jerusalem in 518 B.C. Zerubbabel had set to work diligently (Ezra 3:1-13). But the governor of the territory and Judah’s neighbors did not understand (Ezra 4:1-5). They intervened and stopped the work on the Temple (Ezra 4:24). In the second year of his reign, 520 B.C. (Ezra 4:24 and Hag/Zech), Darius seemed to be firmly in control of the Empire, so Zerubbabel and his helpers set to work immediately (Ezra 5:1-2). Tattenai, governor of the satrapy Over the River, and Shether-Bozenair interfered again (Ezra 5:3-4). But work was allowed to proceed while a report was requested from Persian officials at court. Before work was resumed with official support, Zerubbabel’s name disappears from the account. This scene in the vision suggests that he was beaten and killed in an encounter with authorities who had no idea that the emperor would support his work. Undoubtedly this brought increased bitterness in Judah toward the empire. Darius, who showed the kind of religious toleration that characterized his predecessor, Cyrus, was also concerned to stabilize his position in Palestine for the coming Egyptian campaign and for the sake of increased naval activity from Phoenician ports. The scene portrays the emperor’s intervention to set matters right in Jerusalem, not simply with a letter (as in Ezra 6:1-13) but by a personal appearance there during a military campaign in that region.

Yahweh notes Darius’s status and work with satisfaction (v 13). Then Darius hears an inquiry into complaints of Zerubbabel’s death. The sufferer does not speak because he is already dead. A remarkable feature of the accounts is the leadership of Zerubbabel in the early work on the Temple and in the conflict with the territorial governor and leaders of neighboring districts. But his name totally missing in the accounts of the completion of that work.

But from that specific historical setting emerges a universal truth about God and his ways that is vital for the faith of Jew and Christian: the principle of substitutionary atonement, not only through animal sacrifice as in the Day of Atonement, but supremely through a willing person. This is effective atonement when the recipients of the benefits gained through the sacrifice confess their guilt and recognize that one has died for them (53:4-6) and when the sovereign agrees to recognize the atoning effect (53:10-12). Christians have viewed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in these terms and used this passage to interpret and appropriate that meaning (Luke 22:37; Mark 10:45; Matt 20:28; Mark 14:24; Matt 26:28; Luke 22:20. The deacon Phillip interpreted this Isaiah 53 passage as referring to Jesus (Acts 8:32-35) as did Jesus and Paul.

That is perhaps the first time that Scripture speaks of a Messiah who will defeat the one who facilitated sin

That is a narrow Christian interpretation, allegorical at that, and by not means the only informed opinion there is.

Judaism does not know the "devil," and never did. Nowhere is there any association made between the serpent in Gen 3 and Satan, the obedient angel of God mentioned in Job 2.

Mosaic Judaism neither speaks of the "fall" of man, the need for his "salvation," nor does it prophesy of, or find any need for a "messiah." Judaism believes in a human (not divine) messiah who will defeat Jewish enemies and re-establish the kingdom of Israel, not a God in human form who will save the souls of his beloved elect, Jew and Gentile alike.

So, no matter how you turn it around, neither Moses nor Judaism could have ever have prophesied of a man-God coming to save the souls of the world from the "fall" in Eden, while fighting with a stubborn angel who decided to desert God. To the Jewish mind that is a preposterous and deliberate distortion of Judaism!

Jewish expert interpretation of Isaiah 57 likewise leads to a different conclusion than the one created by the Christians.

There are numerous sources that offer their interpretations. I realize that you may believe some and reject some, but that does not make your interpretation true or even valid.

I highly recommend you consult authoritative Jewish sources for a more informative view on this subject. You may be amazed.

All I asked of you was to show me where Moses writes about Jesus, as claimed, not where you allegorically interpret that he may be speaking of Jesus. As expected, you didn't show me where he writes about Jesus because Moses never wrote about Jesus (why would he!?), but also as expected you gave me extrapolated allegorical inferences, allegation, and suppositions as to what might be "Jesus" in the OT.

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren and will put My words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (Deut. 18:18-19)”(Moses speaking)

Who was the prophet Moses was going to raise? What was his name? And if it were Jesus, as you allege, then by this argument, Moses put the words in Jesus' mouth and he did as Moses commanded him!

Surely you must be kidding!

The books of Moses who wrote the Pentateuch record other prophecies such as Balaam..”I have seen a star arise out of Jacob”

Balaam? You are comparing Balaam to Jesus? Oh boy!

How about Moses recording the greatest prophecy of all, made to Eve and the Serpent... that the “seed of Eve would have emnity with the seed of the serpent and that her seed would crush the serpent’s head while his heel would be bruised by it”

This is a Christian interpretation, and a hyperbolic one I must add. It just states that the humans and serpents will be at odds with each other, as is the case. We step on them and they go for our heel.

The serpent is described in Genesis as just another beast God created, except more cunning than others. There is no connection between that serpent and the satan, a loyal angel of the OT God described in a couple of passages as the heavenly overzealous prosecutor general and in Job 2 as one of the angelic hosts.

So Moses directly prophesied of Jesus

Why would he? Judaism does not see what transpired in the Garden of Eden as the "fall" of mankind nor does it see mankind in need of spiritual healing and salvation. That is something Paul fabricated and then St. Augustine took it a notch higher. But in both cases it is a gross distortion as seen by the very people who wrote the OT.

Now, some second and first century BC Jews believed the messiah was coming. That messiah was to be a human, mortal, warrior-king who would defeat Israel's enemies and re-establish the kingdom of Israel, as well as gather all the Jews in dispersion and bring them to God's promised land.

There was no need for a Jesus-like "savior" for any Jewish biblical author to write about, especially if he were to be divine but in human form and on a mission to "save" the very people he was supposed to liberate Israel from—the Greeks and Romans, for instance!

It was, after all, the Maccabean Revolt (provoked by a Hellenic despot who ruled Israel), as well as the Roman occupation of Palestine, that contributed to Jewish expectations of an imminent messianic appearance that would lead to military defeat of the Gentile oppressors.

Abraham had met Melchizidek, the priestly order of whom Jesus belonged to according to Paul.

Yes, according to Paul. I suggest you read some more on the character of Melchizedek. You may be amazed how shaky Paul's' version is.

Thank you. I was hoping you would address the referenced articles' claims, rather than simply make a Christian "deposition." You say "But Isa. 42:1-4; 49:1-6 show that the Servant in this group of passages cannot be Israel."

And the Jews for Judaism say with equal conviction and apparent authority (all emphases are mine):

Israel in the singular is called God's servant throughout Isaiah

Other references to Israel as God's servant include Jer. 30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by God, as in Isa. 53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22; Lk. 1:54. ALSO: Given the Christian view that Jesus is God, is God His own servant?

You then state "This is effective atonement when the recipients of the benefits gained through the sacrifice confess their guilt and recognize that one has died for them (53:4-6) and when the sovereign agrees to recognize the atoning effect (53:10-12)."

And the article replies:

from

Hebrew Isaiah is an impeccable copy of the earlier copies found at Qumran, so I would say it must be a translational issue, or intentional, deliberate alteration of the Hebrew text by Christian scribes for doctrinal purposes.

The author then continues to address your author's second reference thus:

[author's note] 53:10 "He will prolong his days." Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God?

53:11 "With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just." Note again the correct translation: the Servant will cause many to be just, he will not "justify the many."

The Jewish mission is to serve as a "light to the nations" which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true God, this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God's Law (Isa. 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3).

53:12 "Therefore, I will divide a portion to him with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty." If Jesus is God, does the idea of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jewish people - who righteously bore the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God (Ps. 44) - who will be rewarded, and this in the manner described more fully in Isaiah chapters 52 and 54?

Any additional comment seems unnecessary. It is clear to me which version makes more sense.

The Lord was speaking thru Moses as God gave him utterance...you can decide the truth or falsity of that statement between youself and that which you consider a deity if you wish.

Moses was not saying “I” meaning “himself” would raise up...God, thru Moses was speaking of himself...Look at verse 17...”17.And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken”....then look at the rest of it...”I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren and will put My words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (Deut. 18:18-19)”

Moses was quoting God who was speaking of his son...

Need further proof that this verse relates to Jesus...Look at what Jesus says...”I have not spoken on My own, but the Father who sent Me has Himself given Me a commandment
about what to say and what to speak. And I know that His commandment is eternal life. What
I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told Me” (John 12:49-50).

Look at the parallels between the Mosaic prophecy in which God the father says..”I will put my words in His Mouth and he will speak what I command him... and what Jesus says” I will speak just as the father has told me!”
Jesus was demonstrating that He and only He was the fullfillment of Moses’ prophecy from Deut 18!!!
The OT in deed is shot thru and thru with the savory presence of Christ !!!!

Praise God from whom all blessings flow!!! Praise Him for the gift of Himself thru the spilt blood of Jesus and His poured out Spirit ....and his words will never pass away!!!

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (c. 180 AD): “So forceful are these arguments that no one should henceforth seek the truth from ANY OTHER SOURCE since it would be simple to get it from THE CHURCH ....On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the TRADITION OF TRUTH ..For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writing? Would it be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of Tradition which they handed down to those whom they committed the Churches?” (Against the Heresies 3:4:1)

For Irenaeus Tradition and Scripture were synonymous.

When Irenaeus defines the doctrinal content of the canon of truth or the apostolic tradition, he defines it as simply the summation of the major teaching of the Old and New Testaments. Thus, any oral tradition separate from Scripture in content, which does not conform to the teaching of Scripture, is, in the view of Irenaeus, a Gnostic heresy. Succession proves that the bishops preach and teach the true apostolic tradition, while Scripture verifies what the content of that apostolic tradition is.

what Irenaeus meant by tradition in against heresies, book I chapt 10. That passage reads:

"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess’ to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send ‘spiritual wickednesses,’ and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory."

Note that according to Irenaeus, the Church has received what he calls this faith from the apostles and their disciples. He then goes on to give the doctrinal content of this faith which are primarily the cardinal truths of the Creed. And this faith, and the content as he has defined it, is equated with what he calls the tradition. He puts it this way: "The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith...For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world...For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it."

So, tradition, as defined by Irenaeus, is equivalent to the faith handed down from the apostles, which he often refers to as ‘the rule of faith.’ This rule has a very specific content, all of which is contained in Scripture. He makes no mention of other and purely oral doctrines that are essential for the faith.33 Every doctrine of the rule is derived from Scripture. Tradition, therefore, is the rule of faith expressly taught in Scripture. We have already seen that Irenaeus believed that what was initially taught orally by the apostles was later committed to Scripture, and that it was through Scripture that the apostolic tradition was transmitted to the Church. In other words, the apostolic teaching did not remain oral in nature. It was inscripturated. Thus, the content of the apostolic tradition preserved and preached (orally) in the Churches by the presbyters is identical in content with the teaching of Scripture. Tradition is verified by Scripture; they are one and the same. Contrary to Sungenis’ assertion, there is no other body of doctrine, oral in nature and independent of Scripture. The tradition of the Church is simply that teaching which is grounded upon and derived from Scripture. According to Irenaeus, apostolic tradition reaches us by two means: Scripture and the preaching and teaching of the Church, preserved in purity by the succession of her bishops. Did Irenaeus believe this rendered Scripture insufficient? By no means, because oral proclamation of the truth is simply the public proclamation of the teaching of Scripture. It is Scriptural truth presented orally, just as the present day preacher preaches a message derived from Scripture.

“Thank you. I was hoping you would address the referenced articles' claims, rather than simply make a Christian "deposition." You say "But Isa. 42:1-4; 49:1-6 show that the Servant in this group of passages cannot be Israel."

Isa. 42:1-4, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.”

This can’t be Israel since Israel is about to go into captivity and its cities and land devastated because of idolatry. Israel was a war-like nation, not a peaceable nation as this servant is described. From the time of the return from exile, Israel has never “brought forth judgment unto truth”. The isles of the earth to this day hunger after its demise.

Isa. 49:1-6, “ Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me; And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God. And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.”

The last verse would disqualify Israel from being the servant since it speaks of gathering Jacob again to Him. Israel is Jacob.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

First is the issue of circular reasoning.The author himself engages in “circular reasoning” by assuming that the writer is referring to Israel as the “suffering servant”.

the most that could be said is this: Isaiah 53 is about someone who dies for the sins of others. People may have seen Jesus die, but did anyone see him die as an atonement for the sins of others?

Why would it make any difference whether someone recognized at the time Jesus died, he was dying for the sins of others? He told his disciples what he was going to do and at the time they did not believe him. After the resurrection, they understood and believed. The atoning transaction was between Jesus and God the Father. Israel went into captivity for its own sin; the sin of idolatry. There is no evidence anywhere where Israel atoned for the sins of others; in fact, because of its sin, Israel could not atone for another’s sin, only its own.

Second (and consistent with all Jewish teaching at the time), Jesus' own disciples didn't view Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy.

That’s true, however Luke 24:44-47, “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”

After their understanding was enlightened they understood the significance of the prophecy and taught it to their disciples: The deacon Philip interpreted this Isaiah 53 passage as referring to Jesus (Acts 8:32-35, "The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus").

The apostle Paul understood the prophecy referred to Jesus : Rom 10:13-16, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?”

Even Jesus didn't see Isaiah 53 as crucial to his messianic claims - why else did he call the Jews children of the devil for not believing in him before the alleged resurrection (Jn. 8:39-47)?

Jesus understood the significance of the prophecy: Jhn 12:37-41, “But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.”

And why did he later request that God "remove this cup from me" (Mk. 14:36) - didn't he know that a "removal of the cup" would violate the gentile understanding of Isaiah 53?

Jesus was human. Heb. 5:7-8, “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.”

The author does not finish the thought, “never the less, not my will but Thine be done.”

And third, even if we accept the gentile Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, where is it indicated (either in Isaiah 53 or anywhere else in our Jewish Scriptures) that you must believe in this "Messiah" to get the benefits? I don’t understand his point.

This should answer the writer’s verse by verse interpretation.

“Given the Christian view that Jesus is God, is God His own servant?” Sounds just like a Nicodemus type question..”Can a man be born twice?”

No and Yes!...By Jesus serving the Father as a fully actuated sinless man (as well as being God in flesh), he was the perfect example of how men should serve God. Jesus even served his disciples by washing their feet while exhorting them to Love one another. Jesus serves those who love him by washing away their sins and “dropping them into the sea of forgetfullness and remembering those sins no more.” then telling us...”Go and sin no more”. Then Jesus serves us again by promising us the power of the Holy Spirit...so that men could boldly proclaim the gospel to every creature, then baptizing them in the Shekinah glory of God’s spirit. By serving as a man, by giving up his pre-incarnate Glory willingly, he was the ultimate expression of God’s heart extended to fallen humans.

The premise of your question needs to be adjusted...God became a servant and advocate for man, by becoming a perfect man himself,,,since there was no other man that could lift the curse of sin and degredation because all men have sinned”and come short of the glory of God”. There was no animal sacrifice that could fully cleanse men of sin except God’s own sacrifice of his expressed heart to man..that is Jesus Christ. In Genesis we find indications of what God was intending to do, when he at first commanded Abraham to offer up his son Isaac as a sacrifice...later staying his hand when God saw that Abraham was willing to lose all he cherished in trust to God. Abraham I believe began to get the hint when after sacrificing the” provided ram”, Abraham named the place “God the Provider” (Jehovah gyra).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.