Dr Greg Bahnsen - Catholic-Protestant Debate: Catholic-Protestant Debate Part 1 (Part 1)

This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute, where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

John Stewart, live from LA at 99.5 FM KKLA.

This is where we deal with the.

Issues head on Monday through Friday, 4 o' clock to 6, live today from the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim. You're welcome to come on down and watch. If you can find us, we're in the Terrazzo Room at the CMI Convention here at the Disneyland Hotel in beautiful Anaheim. On this wonderful Wednesday afternoon, Catholics and Protestants, where do they agree? Where do they disagree? Today we're going to focus exclusively on two issues. First, whether the Scripture should be our sole basis for Christian faith and practice or whether sacred tradition ought to be followed as well. Second, what place should Mary hold in the Christian experience? My guests today are eminently qualified to address these issues. We representing the Protestant view is Dr. Greg Bonson, scholar in residence of the California center for Christian Studies in Irvine. And representing the Catholic perspective, first, Father Michael Manning, who has a national television ministry on channel 18 KSCI. And also Professor Jerry Matatics, lay Catholic apologist, formerly a Catholic Answers and now professor of theology and Scripture at Aquinas College in Nashville, Tennessee. Also from 6 to 7, it'll be another edition of Bible on the Line. This and much more like Live from la, brought to you in part by the law offices of Bergland and Johnson, John Wirtz, Tax Preparation Services and Holly Anderson, PMS Treatment Clinic. To address these issues, my Protestant guest is Dr. Greg Bonson, scholar in residence of the California center for Christian studies in Irvine. Dr. Bonson, good having you with us.

Thanks for having me, John.

Also we have Father Michael Manning, who is well known. He is a Catholic who is on national television, channel 18, KSCI, and also a national network. Father Manning, good having you as well.

Good to be here, John. Thank you.

Good seeing you again.

Yes.

Also flown in from Nashville, Tennessee, special for this, and I'm not kidding about that, is Professor Jerry Matatic, lay Catholic apologist, formerly of Catholic Answers, now professor of theology and Scripture at Aquinas College in Nashville, Tennessee.

Jerry, good having you.

Thank you very much. I'm glad to be here.

Professor Madix, let's start with you. Scripture alone or Scripture and Tradition? Why does the Catholic Church believe the tradition must also be embraced to have.

A balanced church life?

Well, I'm really excited about the Catholic position because I'm excited about the Bible. I believe in the authority of Scripture and I think that Dr. Bonster and I would Agree, and Father Manning as well, that we need an authoritative word of God to address all the chaos in our culture today. My conviction, the conviction that moved me from being an anti Catholic Protestant minister and theologian to becoming a Catholic six years ago is that the Protestant view of sola scriptura actually ends up undermining the authority of Scripture and the Catholic position actually supports and buttresses it. In other words, Scripture can really be let loose to be the word of God and to change our lives and change our world.

Highlight how that is that sola scriptura, or the view that Scripture alone. How would that undermine?

Well, I think it undermines it, ironically enough, because sola scriptura, or the idea that the Bible alone is the only rule of faith and practice, is itself not a biblical idea. I mean, I'm going to contend that sola Scripture is itself unscriptural and therefore it's a self refuting proposition. In addition to that, it is unhistorical. There was no one who really seriously proposed this as a methodological principle for arriving at Christian truth until even to the time of Wycliffe, shortly before on the eve of the Reformation. It's unworkable. I think 500 years of protestant history has shown that people who restrict themselves to the Scriptures alone are not able to come to any kind of unanimity on what in fact these Scriptures do teach. There's disagreement on every single issue, just about. And therefore I think it's unreal. I think it was a good attempt on the part of some people to deal with the corruptions that they perceive in the church. But in the long run, I think it's done more harm than good.

Okay, Father Michael Manning, from your perspective as a Catholic TV personality, why go beyond Scripture? Why also embrace traditional.

Well, my way of approaching it is to ask what is the most important thing for a Christian? For me, it's Jesus. Jesus is the summoned substance of the revelation that the Father has given us. And we're able to experience in him the fullness of everything we're looking for. But when we try to understand Jesus, we find that there are like stages that go on with regard to the fullness of understanding this revelation. Certainly number one is when he was living, he was teaching, he was talking to people, he was working miracles, he was showing the Father's love, He was showing that kingdom and preaching it. But then after his death, resurrection and ascension, we find that those who knew him firsthand and those who knew those who knew those firsthand, picked up his command to go out to as many people as they could and tell people. So I want to tell you, John, about this experience that I've had with Jesus. He was a human being who was God, who was able to raise the dead and whatnot. And I would tell you that. And so we move through a real experience of people carrying on the tradition, applying it very much to their own personal circumstances. Ten years after Jesus lived, I'm living in Anaheim and, well, we're having a problem with a lot of divorce going on in Anaheim. And so the question arises, how are we going to deal with the Jesus message in this situation that's going on in Anaheim right now? And trying to grasp that after that stage, we then come to the stage which all of a sudden the word of mouth isn't enough. And it kind of centers around the destruction of the temple when people seem to have gotten a good bit more nervous about, well, we're not going to have those firsthand people around anymore. We're not going to have that authority that was so, so strong. Let's start writing things down. And so we find that Mark is probably written around the destruction of the temple around the year 70. And then maybe, maybe 10 years later, we have Luke and Matthew, and then a few years later, John. And so we have a writing down. And it's this kind of perspective of seeing, first the revelation is Jesus. Next we have those people that are trying to understand that and carry it on and pass it to others in an oral way. And then we have a written way. And so given that perspective, I see that there's a very valid place for not only what is written, which is the inspired word of God, but what also has been handed on by those people in a mouth.

Father Manning, it sounds like the traditions that were important were already incorporated in Scripture. The way you present that, though. Oh, very much so.

Very, very important. And without Scripture, Scripture is a real foundation. As a Catholic that I've.

You're saying there are some things that weren't written down.

There might be things that perhaps weren't as explicitly found. I find that the whole tenor of the Jesus experience is an ongoing thing. There's a growing and a developing thing that each time, not only in the experience of, let's say, the community of Mark writing his gospel, but then we find the Gospel of Luke, perhaps there's even changes of ways of understanding certain things, the multiplication of the loaves, and we might see something a little bit of a different application to a different circumstance. And so we see an ongoing growth and a clarity, and that seems to open to me, the possibility of tradition being a vital part of this Jesus experience that we want, or you put.

That in a subjunctive mood, the possibility it might, but it seems a category.

I didn't mean to mean.

I just wanted to check on that.

No, no, no. Very much a vital part of the whole picture.

Okay. Dr. Greg Bonson, as a Protestant, sola scriptura. The Bible alone being authoritative.

Why?

Well, I agree at least with the portion of what Father Manning said when he began with the centrality of Christ. For a Protestant, that's why we focus on Scripture alone is because that alone communicates the Word of Christ to us. In the Book of Hebrews, chapter one, the author tells us that though God has revealed Himself in many ways in the past, at the end of these days he's revealed Himself by His Son. And I suppose if Christ were still on earth, ministering to men personally, we would all go to Christ. We would sit at his feet, we would learn of Him. In fact, we would do that probably without even a consideration of the 12 that were closest to him and so so forth. It's precisely because of Christ's way of dealing with His Church after the resurrection that we have to think about how do we know Christ now? We don't know him in the flesh, and he has appointed the apostles as his official spokesman. And if the apostles were with us today teaching orally, Protestants would say, okay, well, then they have the teaching authority in the Church. We must bow to them. But the apostles are gone as well. So the question is now, how do we know Jesus given the passing of Christ himself into heaven and the earthly passing of the apostles, who are alive, of course, in the presence of God, but not alive with us. When the Roman Catholic Church tells us that it honors Scripture and then says we must honor sacred tradition in order to uphold Scripture. The Protestant logic is somewhat convoluted. As a matter of fact, when something is added to the Word of God which is not itself divinely inspired, it does not uphold the authority of Scripture. It always detracts from it. In fact, eventually what tends to happen is in the sociological and psychological phenomenon, when things are added to the Word of God, they tend to even though you decry it and you say it's not right. And I'm sure that my two friends this afternoon would say that the fact is, what should the Word of God tends to eat up the Word of God. It takes greater authority because it becomes either the infallible interpreter or in some way a source over and above what you have in The Scriptures, and that's what, of course, Protestants found worthy of protest at the time of the Protestant Reformation, is that the word of God had been added to and corrupted by what was allegedly sacred tradition. The reason why I don't accept the idea of sacred tradition speaking to me in the Church today is because there are no apostles orally speaking to us today. And I defy anybody who claims sacred tradition to show in any worthwhile way, epistemologically or theologically, that what they call sacred tradition, which is outside of Scripture and not contrary to Scripture, does in fact trace back to the apostles.

Okay, on that note, we'll break. We'll come back and talk further about the specifics of this. We're talking about whether or not the Bible alone or both Bible and tradition ought to be embraced by Christians. We're talking about Protestants and Catholics. Where do we agree? Where do we disagree? The focus, first of all, is on Scripture. Is Scripture alone the basis of faith and practice, or should it be? Or should we also embrace sacred tradition? I'm talking with Dr. Greg Bonson, father.

Michael Manning, and Professor Jerry Matatics.

Professor Matatic, let me go back to you and ask a couple of specifics here. The Bible does talk about how we can make void the word of God for the sake of tradition. The Bible does talk about searching the Scriptures. The Bereans were more noble. They searched the Scriptures. Is that not some indicia that the Scriptures ought to be what we embrace for those matters that pertain to Christian life?

Well, no one here at this table denies that Scriptures are the inspired word of God, that they are normative for us, that we should search them. The question is, does the Bible teach anywhere that Scriptures alone are the word of God? Dr. Bonson is a philosopher by training and profession, and so I'm going to hold him to the. The laws of logic here. He used. He invoked logic himself and he talked about cognitive logic. But from my perspective, where I sit, I hear logical fallacies. In the Protestant position, he says that Hebrews 1, 1 and 2 tell us.

That Christ is the definitive revelation, and.

Therefore we love Scripture. But that's a logical leap. Jesus didn't say, now that I'm here, I'm the fullness of revelation. Now read Scripture and you'll encounter me. Jesus sent out the apostles, and the apostles brought the word of Christ to.

People that needed to hear that.

Jerry, maybe I can jump in there and save us a little bit of time. There's no logical leap. If you fill in the rest of what I said, I Said if Jesus were here teaching on earth today, we'd all be at his feet and we would listen to Him.

He is not.

And now everyone who names the name of Christ, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, whatever, everybody must now deal with the epistemological question, how do we know about Jesus? I still think we all agreed that the apostles were authorized authoritative spokesman for Jesus. And though I'm sure I'm going to make mistakes that you'll correct today, I don't think the one that you brought up is one that I've made. It's not a logical leap. To go from Christ is the supreme revelation of God to Scripture is the only way that I can authoritatively know of Christ today because he is not now ministering in the flesh to me, nor are his spokesman, the apostles.

You're still assuming what you have yet to demonstrate.

I haven't assumed anything. I've just told you. He's the supreme revelation of God. And you aren't speaking.

You're assuming that the only way we can hear Jesus speak is through Scripture. And I'm saying show me one Scripture in the New Testament.

No, let me back up again. We can hear Jesus speak in the flesh. By the way, he can speak from heaven too. He did through the Apostle Paul. He can speak through his apostles. Right, so forth and so on. So, no, that is not a premise of the argument. And so if you bring it up again, I'll just have to correct it again. I believe that Jesus can speak in any number of ways. The only authoritative way we know of who Jesus is and what he teaches is in the Scriptures today.

But there's.

Because the apostles are not here to speak for him.

No, but there's nothing in the New Testament that says the apostles are only going to speak to subsequent generations in writing. Second, Thessalonians 2:15 is a commandment of Paul to the Thessalonians, and by extension, all Christians pass on all the traditions, whether they're word of mouth or whether they're written.

And all of those traditions are found in Scripture.

That is what you need to demonstrate. You can't simply assume that you need to show that everything that the Apostle Paul says taught.

Do you want to prove?

Would it be.

Let's discuss that.

I like that Note, Thessalonians.

Okay, Dr. Greg Barneson, what about that? Stand firm and hold to the traditions. What did the Apostle Paul mean?

Okay, first of all, let me make real clear that the Protestant Church has for years, not recently and not within the last six years, developed the doctrine of Sola scriptura on the basis of Scripture alone. I mean, I think it's in some ways an engaging, maybe rhetorically interesting way to present the case, to say, well, can you prove it from Scripture alone? But that has always been the Protestant position, and it has never been a difficulty when I hear people say I never was able to get a Protestant professor to give it to me. I either have to believe you had incompetent professors or you weren't listening. So let me see if I can.

Make up for those incompetent professors by providing it yourself today.

That's what I'm offering to do right here. Okay. Before, first about tradition, and I think we all agree on this. One of the difficulties in talking about tradition is the connotation in the English language of that word. There are many things that might be called traditions in the Roman Catholic communion which they do not consider authoritative. They don't consider tracing back to the oral teaching of the apostles. It may be a tradition to kiss the feet of the statue of Mary and so forth, but I'm not aware of anybody saying that that's what the apostles taught as a matter of their oral tradition. The word tradition in Greek means that which is handed over or handed down, that which is entrusted. The New Testament tells us that the apostles had a pattern of sound words. That is what we might call those propositions about ethics, about God, those things which are true and necessary for us as believers. This pattern of sound words was taught by the apostles. It was first taught before it was written. There's no dispute about that. And it's this apostolic teaching which is normative in the church. And that kind of tradition, what they hand to the people of God and becomes part of Timothy's, you know, he's entrusted with this. He's the minister. On the basis of this pattern of sound words that is normative for the Church. The question for us is how do we today know what that pattern of sound words is? Just so you know, we don't want to make any logical mistakes here, but precisely the issue is how, after the passing of the oral teaching of the apostles, because of the passing of the apostles, do we now get back to that? The Protestant answer is only by Scripture. Now, do we want a scriptural defense of that, or should we talk about tradition a bit more?

Well, I think we need to. What I'm asking for is where does the Bible say. You've stated very well, Dr. Vonson. Where we agree that the tradition of the apostles was binding enormous in their day. The question is how do we get access to that tradition today? And I cited 2nd Thessalonians 2:15, which you have not yet addressed, that where we have a standing command of Paul to pass on tradition in both oral and written fashion. Now, you have, I think, done a superb job in theonomy and Christian ethics, your book of saying that a standing commandment is still binding until it's explicitly revoked. My challenge to you is where in the New Testament are we told we no longer have to go on passing on the word of God in an oral as well as a written tradition? Where is that principle revoked?

First of all, notice the equivocation, Jerry, in what you're asking here, not because it's going to settle a dispute between you and me, just so that we don't waste time. When the Bible tells me to pass on this tradition which is found in oral tradition, what Paul gives in word, he says in second Thessalonians and also in epistle in writing, that is to be done in writing, in oral presentation, in electronic communication, like we are on the radio here and so forth. If you're asking, do we believe we're still under obligation to pass on in every form of communication possible, that pattern of sound words called the apostolic tradition, of course the answer is yes, but I would think you already know that. The real question is, are we under obligation to pass on something which you think the apostles taught but cannot be found in the Bible? And I'm saying we would not have any obligation to do that until first you could show the apostles taught it.

Gentlemen, on that note, we'll take a break, come back and resume this. We're talking about the place of scripture and tradition, and should we embrace both or scripture alone for Christian practice? We're talking about where Protestants and Catholics agree and disagree. We're focusing first of all in the place of Scripture. Should it be Scripture alone, the Protestant Reformation view of sola scriptura, or should it be scripture plus sacred tradition? We're talking with Dr. Greg Bonson, Father.

Michael Manning and Professor Jerry Matatics.

Dr. Bonson, let me go back to you.

Professor Matatics had asked a question regarding.

2Nd Thessalonians 2:15, where it talks about standing firm, holding to the traditions.

We could add to that some of.

The things that are raised. For example, John 21, Everything concerning Christ's work is in the Scriptures.

Second Timothy 2, How Paul handed down.

Traditions to Timothy 1 Corinthians 11 to hold firm to the traditions. Where is the place today of traditions within Christianity, if not totally within the Bible? Where do we find these traditions?

Yeah, I think it's good, especially to refer to John's Gospel and the specific historic Roman Catholic explanation for why there is continuing oral tradition. Hey, remember, in the upper room, Jesus says that I have many things to tell you, but you can't bear them now. Which has been a fairly classic text throughout Roman Catholic apologetics in the ages to explain why the Church now is explaining those things or is now delivering those things which Jesus held back in the upper room or in his previous ministry. John Calvin, rightly in the institutes of the Christian religion, however, says that's quite an insult to the apostles to make use of that text, because it's rather clear that what Jesus is saying to the apostles is before the Spirit is given on the day of Pentecost. This is not going to do you much good at all. I mean, Peter is thinking about the use of a sword, for crying out loud. And when they don't understand the teaching of Jesus, he says, look, this is enough, and he goes to the garden. No, they can't bear it. Now, they were not prepared to do that. But the Protestant would say, after the giving of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, who does lead the apostles into all truth and so forth. There's no reason to think the church could not bear what Jesus wanted the Church to hear through the apostles. Now, where do we find apostolic teaching, the oral teaching of the apostles? Well, on one level, of course, we don't ever find the oral teaching of the apostles unless somebody thinks they're hearing the Apostle Paul right now speak to them. The question is, where is what they.

Taught to be found?

And you're saying it's totally encompassed in Scripture today?

No. Well, it seems to me very likely that there are things that they taught and that Jesus taught that are not in Scripture. However, the only thing that binds us as God's people today, past that apostolic generation, is what is committed to writing.

Now, he hasn't given us a verse.

That one second here.

But is the reason for that, that if you go outside of Scripture, there's no test as to whether or not that is authentically something the apostles and embrace? Is that one of your main concerns?

That's a sufficient reason right there.

Okay.

Somebody says, a man from the pulpit told me last week I'm supposed to kiss the feet of the statue of the Virgin Mary and that this is part, this is incumbent upon me as a follower of Jesus Christ to do this. And then somebody else says, well, you know, I found a book that says that the just will stand before God and live by faith. Now, as a philosopher here, I have two claims. They're both supposed to be from God. Now I know how to verify the one. That the just shall live by faith. I know that that traces back to a tradition, a written tradition, which can be found in a number of different places in the Bible. And there's a textual critical path back to its origin. Not that we have every textual critical issue settled, but what I want to know is I can compare different manuscripts to find out whether God did say the just shall live by faith. What is it? And this is a philosophical question. What is it I'm supposed to consult to know whether what this man says in the pulpit is supposed to trace back to the oral tradition of the apostles. How do I know that's true or not?

Okay, Professor Manatics, can you speak to that?

Yes, I'd be happy to. Dr. Bonson just said that we have no way. We have. In answer to your question, we have no way of having access to this apostolic material because there's no test that we can apply to it. But I would suggest that, in fact, there's no test that he can apply to the Scriptures themselves. In other words, he has no way of knowing, apart from tradition, that John's Gospel is, what he just called it a couple of minutes ago, John's Gospel. There's nothing in that Gospel that says this is written by John.

Well, I certainly don't accept that it's John's Gospel because the church says that it's John's Gospel. As a matter of fact, the reason why I accepted that it's John's Gospel. In fact, an unbeliever can go and look at the indicia of that as well.

It's a matter of textual history.

I don't think there's really much question or a dispute between us about textual.

Criticism unless you have some higher critical.

Doubt about the authenticity of these documents. My point is that doesn't depend upon somebody pulling rank on me saying, hey, I'm the bishop. I say it is. And so that settles it. I'm saying, hey, if this is John's Gospel, it's got a history. I can look into it.

I'm making a different point. I'm making the point that the only source that you have to know that John's Gospel is written by John, that Matthew is written by Matthew, that Marks is written by Mark. The only source you have for the apostolic character of the Scriptures is the testimony of the early church fathers. Unfortunately for Protestantism, the exact same church fathers who teach you that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke, John wrote John, also teach Catholic beliefs. And I am saying there's some picking and choosing there that cannot be logically defended as consistent. In other words, if the church fathers are reliable witnesses to the apostolic Church, why are they not reliable witnesses?

Utterly irrelevant to me.

If you want to talk about the.

First Gospel rather than calling it Matthew's Gospel for the sake of convenience, that'll be fine with me. But I mean, there was nothing built into that when I called it John's Gospel, although that is identified.

How do you know it's apostolic, is my question. How do you know Matthew, the first gospel, whatever you want to call it, how do you know that that gospel comes to you as a deposit of apostolic teaching?

The point being that are you not relying on some sort of tradition or historical indicia to affirm that Matthew wrote that guy? The same people who are, as the professor is saying, embracing other Catholic views?

No, I'm not depending upon that tradition to authorize the Scripture for me whatsoever. I am looking, of course, at the fact that the Christian church universally has adopted these documents as authoritative for it. There is in the history of canonicity, the fact that the church comes to the recognition of God's word. But that isn't the reason why I accept these things is that. I mean, the church doesn't pass down its tradition and then bind my conscience to that. It is God himself speaking to me in these documents that makes them the word of God to me. Jesus says, my sheep will hear my voice and follow me. I hear the voice.

Pure subjectivism, though. You're saying what the church's.

You either don't know what subjectivism is, or we need to go back and call it properly. That's not pure subjectivism because it's tied to the objective testimony in Scripture. It's yourself.

But the object and testimony of the church is, is what you invoke. In other words, you're saying the church, the church.

I just denied that the church has.

Assembled those documents and given you a collection of documents and said, here, Greg, this is. These documents tell you what the apostles said. You accept it. In other words, you are the beneficiary of the work of the church.

Not because the church hands it to me, though. Jared.

Well, how did you get.

I mean, I think you're right that when I grew up as a child, I find a boy book called the Bible and there's no doubt about it that people who are believers in The Church organized that, printed it and all that. But I mean that's really quite irrelevant, isn't it to the authority.

Relevant. I think it's the only way.

It's irrelevant to the philosophical question. It's not irrelevant to my personal history. But now why did, when I read that, did I say, oh well, I think this must be the Word of God because these people called the Church, gave it to me?

Absolutely not.

The Word of God bears its own, own authority. In fact, the Word of God created the Church.

Is it self authenticating then?

That's exactly right.

So you would see it as self.

Authenticating and professor, you would see it.

As being the Scriptures authenticated by the Church.

I agree it's self authenticating. I'm not, I don't want to detract from the inherent divinity, inspiration, inherency of the Scripture. We're totally, we're totally brothers on that issue with not a whit of difference. But that is not a sufficient authentication for the individual to know that these are the Mormon claims.

The same thing.

I've got a burning in my bosom that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God. Ultimately, Dr. Bonson and the Mormon would.

Be at a Mexican standoff.

They can each claim that the Spirit speaks to them. This is the Word of God. Why don't we let they don't appeal to any objective criterion that can settle the issue.

Well, I would appeal to the objective criterion of previously given Scripture. Let the Mormon come on and defend himself, the Mormons and the Mormons. But I would appeal that the Book of Mormon contradicts previous revelation and therefore cannot be.

Let's do this, gentlemen.

We'll take a break.

When we come back, I want to.

Ask about what traditions are we supposed to embrace in the Catholic perspective? We're talking about Catholicism and Protestant views, especially regarding Scripture. Is the Scripture alone sufficient or should we also embrace sacred tradition? Another day today of Catholic Protestant dialogue and we're talking first of all about the place of Scripture. Is it sufficient in and of itself or should we also embrace sacred tradition to balance out our church life? We're talking with Dr. Greg Bonson, father.

Michael Manning, Professor Jerry Matix.

Father Manning, let me go to you and ask this as a Protestant on.

Television, so you don't hear my voice.

That's right.

As an evangelical here you talked about from the Catholic perspective, embracing holy tradition, sacred tradition. As a Protestant I would ask if it's not in the Scripture, how do I know which traditions I'm supposed to embrace and are they not Somewhat fluctuating through the scope of 20th century.

Very much so. I think we need authority to be able to really keep that in line. And that's something that I think is very much in line with Catholicism is keeping me in line with traditions that might run off in all kind of directions, keeping me centered on the real important traditions which are in line with the revelation that Jesus has given.

But which traditions?

Oh, there are traditions, for example, that might not be explicitly seen concerning Mary, which we're going to be talking about, about later, that there's a real belief as a Catholic in the Immaculate Conception. You might even struggle with regard to the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is not seen explicitly in the Bible. But also that I can believe that through the traditions of the Church and through the clarity that the authority that the Holy Father gives, that I'm able to relax with that and know that that's through the inspiration of the Spirit, the moving on, and the fullness of what Jesus has taught.

Well, Father Michael, if I. If I don't accept the primacy of.

The Pope or I don't accept the Catholic Church as being the sole visible.

Remnant of Christ Church on earth, from a Protestant perspective, then how would I ever come to a perpetual virginity of Mary?

Or should I as a Protestant?

Well, I think, as Dr. Has said.

We'Re dealing with a understanding that the revelation of Jesus is not just explanation exclusively seen explicitly here. Nothing contradictory is going to go against it, but it can be real there. And I need to be open to the teachings of the Fathers of the Church who are carrying on this tradition in greater, making it explicit through the centuries. I refer to them, I understand them, and I'm able to understand a fullness which is much greater. Sometimes the idea of something that expands or something that. That goes beyond the written word sounds to be, oh, this is terrible. But in my own practical experience, without getting into. Into some of the more scholastic understanding of this verse, and that verse is that it can be a way of enriching my experience of Jesus. And I think that's important to say that that's where I come from, not as a scholar as these two men, but as a person who's been enriched through this experience.

Great professor Matatics to follow up on that. As Father Manning has indicated, he follows these traditions. I would pose the same question to you as a Protestant. Where do I find these traditions unless I accept at the foundation, the threshold issue of the Pope, the Pope's primacy and the Catholic Church? Or can I?

I don't think you have to start with the primacy of the Pope or the infallibility of the Church as a presupposition. In that regard, Dr. Bronson and I would not be equal. He is a presuppositionalist, I am not. I was very opposed to the truth of the Catholic faith. I spent, you know, much energy bringing people out of the Catholic Church. I became convinced that Catholicism was true against my initial expectations. And I did so on the basis of Scripture alone. In other words, I became a Catholic on Protestant grounds on the basis of sola scriptura, if you will. Just reading the Bible, I feel that there's enough evidence, if we read the Bible carefully and correctly to substantiate these Catholic traditions that are fleshed out in fuller detail. In other words, I don't think there's a single belief that I hold as a Catholic today, whether the Immaculate Conception, the perpetual virginity, the presence of purgatory as culminate sanctification. All of these things, I think are implicitly there in Scripture. I would make a biblical case for any and all of those. And as a matter of fact, I have a book coming out next month entitled how the Bible Converted Me to Catholicism. It was the Bible, it wasn't church fathers.

But it was important, Jerry, I think that people know that. I mean, whether you can make good.

On that claim or not, which, you.

Know, I'd be willing to listen.

I'll send you a free copy.

Well, my point is, though, that this.

Is not historically the testimony of the Roman Church. The Roman Church has been quite willing.

To say that there are things that.

Are part of the oral teaching of the apostles that do not find their way implicitly or explicitly in the Scriptures that it has the right to promulgate as authoritative over the people of God. And in this sense, they don't say that. In this sense, you're a Presbyterian, Roman Catholic. You're not a Roman Catholic.

No, that's not.

I, I would.

I would have to very respectfully disagree with the statement you just made. The Catholic Church has never said. And I would ask you, for you to make good on that claim. Give us an example of a magisterial statement where the church has said we can pull a rabbit out of a hat. That is not even alluded to in Scripture. Everything in tradition is. It is implicitly present in Scripture.

Okay.

The tradition simply explicates.

Well, I'll bite.

And I would argue the universal bishop.

I would say that that is implicitly present in the understanding.

No, I would want you to show is that in Catholic tradition that was not defended on the basis of tradition rather than on the basis of biblical exegesis. But I'm saying you may be able to do it. I haven't, you know, said you can't. What I'm saying is that is not the Roman Catholic Church's position. Yes, it is.

That's the, that's the position that I.

In Council of Trent specifically says that the sacred tradition may add things that are not found in the Scripture and that they are irreformable, but it does.

Not say that they're adding something that is not testified to in Scripture. When the Council of Trent defends the authority of the Church, for example, it quotes Scripture all the time. I think it's important to point out actually that everyone here is beholden to tradition. I think the way we frame the debate is somewhat misleading. It's not Scripture alone which the Protestant holds to versus Scripture and tradition. I believe that everyone operates with the tradition. Dr. Bonson and any other Protestant does not really read the Bible with a blank slate of a mind, a tabula rasa, without any exposure to commentaries and sermons and so forth. We see in Scripture things that other people from different traditions. For example, a Pentecostal would see, things in the Bible that you would not see.

Again, you're confusing issues. To say that people are influenced by the sociological tradition out of which they come is different from saying that tradition has an authority in your theology. Protestants have to grant us a psychological truth. Yeah, I've listened to preachers when I was a child and they've affected me. But in the end, I verify whether what they said is true or not by going to the Scripture, not going to Tradition. Whereas Trent says you may listen to the Magisterium and rest in a confident way in what the Magisterium says, even though you cannot find it in the Bible.

Jerry, let me ask you this as a follow up to what I was wondering about earlier. And on a lay level here. You mentioned how you thought that all of these traditions are implicit in Scripture.

Right.

But I would go to a scripture as you raised perpetual virginity of Mary and look at verses such as Matthew 1:25, where it says Joseph kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son. And in Matthew 13 where it talks about the brothers and the sisters of Jesus, and it would therefore be incumbent on you to say, well, I have to explain those differently. I mean, how would one come to those verses and still end up with a perpetual virginity and say it's implicit in the Scriptures?

Well, no Catholic is going to claim that there aren't verses in the Bible which can be utilized to which seem to contradict the Catholic position. But Dr. Bonson has to reckon with that same reality every single day. Every time he talks to a Jehovah's Witness, the Jehovah's Witness is going to say, Dr. Bonson, how can you explain away all these verses which say that the Father is greater than Jesus and so on and so forth? In other words, Dr. Bonson himself admits that it is possible to read Scripture in a mistaken fashion. Peter himself reminds us of that. But there are things difficult to understand. Second Peter 3, 16. I don't think that any of those passages contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary. I think there is a very balanced and very exegetically honest way of pointing out that all of those verses only mislead people into thinking that perpetual virginity is not taught and that there are other pathogens which make it appropriate to believe in the perpetual virginity.

Because my point was that.

And we can look at the specifics in the woman, right?

And we'll get to Mary. But the point being that there are some things you. Well, you say everything is implicit in the Scripture, but here's an example where it's explicit, but it seems to me to be explicitly opposite what Catholic tradition is.

The misreading of those verses, I would say, is an example of an explicit position, that is that Mary was not perpetually virgin. Luther, Calvin and the early Reformers were great biblical scholars. I don't want to deny that at all. I hold them in high esteem insofar as they were correct in many things. And it's interesting that they held the perpetual virginity of Mary. In other words, Dr. Bonson would be departing from the Reformers on that point. They read Scripture and saw it as not contradicting their perpetuality.

Let's hold that idea.

One more thing for you, professor, and that would be which traditions, though, which traditions are we supposed to embrace? And is that not in flux, something.

That can change tomorrow?

No, it's not in flux, although that's a common misunderstanding of Catholicism. And in my experience, the hardest row that the Catholic has to hoe is to clear up these misunderstandings. I would say the answer to that question is the same answer to the question how do we know what books to read in Scripture? In other words, the church, Father Manning, I think, has done a very good job of reminding us that in the Catholic understanding Scripture, tradition, and the idea of a church as an infallible teaching agent, a magisterium is the Latin word we use, these three things work together. The first three, legged stool, and they all interact with one another. So the way I know which beliefs about Mary or about salvation do indeed flow from the Apostles is by listening to what the Church says in its official magisterial statement. The same way I know what books are supposed to be in my Bible. I can't get back there. I can't jump in a time machine and personally interview the early churches and find out whether Matthew wrote this book or not. I am the beneficiary of the Church and so is every Protestant. And I think Protestantism, although it doesn't mean to ultimately implicitly bites the hand that feeds it.

I understand the concept that you're setting.

Forth, and rather than attack it directly.

I want to find out, though, because I know what the position of Trent is on this matter. And I'm not sure you've answered John's question. Are you saying that all of the tradition of the apostles that is not found in writing or is not found in what Protestants would call the canonical Scriptures have now been declared upon by the magisterium of the church as of 1992, and that there is no more living tradition that might be divulged in the Church in the future?

No, of course you're saying that.

Okay, first you said that all the tradition has been circumscribed.

No, what I said was that all the tradition Catholics agree with Protestants that there is no ongoing revelation that is God is not revealing new truth. And I know that you know enough about Catholicism to understand it, that when the perpetual virginity of Mary or her immaculate conception in 1854 is promulgated, it's not being created at that point, simply being defined. My point was that everything that we believe as Catholics comes from the apostles. That is a fixed body of information.

But it is in flux.

In that more can be added to.

This living tradition, we can come to a clear, clearer understanding. We can fine tune and crystallize what this traditional fact is. In other words, it can be disputed. But you yourself did the same thing about, say, the Trinity. You believe that the Trinity was taught in some implicit sense by the Apostles, and yet the Church had to meet in council after council to hammer out exactly which way should we formulate that the Church grew, it had an organic development in its understanding of the triune nature of God. The same thing holds.

I don't blame you for trying to.

Draw the analogy, of course.

The great difference is an objective testimony in Scripture upon which the Church debated the doctrine. There's no qualitative over against something?

No.

I mean no. The raw data is there tradition of the apostles to be found apart from.

Jump in because it's such good stuff.

We need to break.

When we come back, I want us to perhaps give you a chance to summarize your views of Scripture and then we'll go on and talk about the issue of Mary Coming up later on, we'll take phone calls. We're talking here from the CMI convention talking about Protestants and Catholics perspective on the Scriptures, Scripture alone or scripture plus sacred tradition. My guest, Dr. Greg Bonson. Father Michael Manning, Professor Jerry Matatics. Coming up, we'll be taking your phone calls. Also, we'll be talking about the place of Mary in the church coming right up. But I thought I'd give my guests a chance to summarize their views relevant to scripture. And Professor Bonson, perhaps to go back to you and we'll want you to tie in that second Thessalonians response somewhere. Summarize why scripture alone, not scripture and tradition.

Okay.

If you can give me just a couple of minutes. First of all, real quickly, I think the Old Testament experience is a good one to look at because everyone grants there was an oral presentation of God's word at many points. The prophets speaking in the name of.

God, the very word of God being.

Put in their mouth, and so forth. In the Old Testament, where we all grant there was both written revelation of God as well as all oral presentation of God's Word, false teachers were exposed not by going to the person of Isaiah or to the person of Jeremiah, but false prophets were exposed by going to the law which was inscribed Deuteronomy 13 or as Isaiah 8 says, to the written testimony. And so even in the day when we know there was oral revelation being given, it was still the written version of that revelation that became the final standard for testing teachers. Jesus appears and argues with his opponents. In those cases where he doesn't appeal to his own inherent authority, which he had, he clinches his arguments not by going to the oral tradition or the living tradition of the prophets. He says it is written. Have you not read? You search the Scriptures and in the New Testament we find the same pattern as in the Old Testament. The spirit of error is identified according to 1 John 4, against the teaching of the apostles. He who knows God hears us. John says, Paul says in First Corinthians 14, if anyone thinks he's a prophet or is spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you are the commandment of the Lord. And so in the New Testament, I mean, we're talking about the period before the apostles had passed away from the earthly sin. Even when the apostles were presenting oral revelation of God's word and there was written revelation as well, the apostles themselves said that they should be tested by the written Scriptures. The apostles called for the church to test their own instruction according to the written revelation of God. In Acts 17:11, Paul commends the Bereans that they examined the scripture scriptures daily. Whether these things were so, that is what Paul was teaching. Now, the amazing thing is Paul could have, quote, pulled rank. He could have said, I'm an apostle. You have to accept what I say. But he says, if you're going to test it, you test it according to the written Scriptures and the proof text that Mr. Matatex has been hoping for.

For a long time. I'm going to give him finally, I.

Think, a very good one that clinches this is First Corinthians 4, verse 6, where again it's Paul speaking. And he says, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit in order that you might learn by us the saying not to go beyond the things which are written. Not to go beyond the things which are written. Now, the first thing you might think of is, well, but the apostles were going beyond the things which were written. The only problem is the apostles identified what they wrote as the other scriptures. It's true the apostles had oral teaching, but the standard for testing Paul as an apostle and the standard which he imposed on the church was not the oral teaching of the church. That would be a living tradition lasting. He said, I'm teaching you not to go beyond the things which are written. Or the NIV translation says that you might learn from us the meaning of the saying, do not go beyond what is written. Let me just point out that Leon Morris, who, although he's a Protestant, I think would be granted as a fairly competent New Testament scholar, writes in his commentary on first Corinthians that this was a catch cry familiar to Paul and his readers, directing attention to the need for conformity to Scripture. The reason he calls it a catch cry is because in the Greek it's introduced with a definite article that you might learn the. And then you get this, don't go beyond the the Scriptures. The fact that it was a catch cry, I think is interesting. It sounds very much like the catch cry of the Protestant Reformation Sola Scriptura that you might learn not to go beyond the Scriptures.

Okay, you're listening to KKLA Los Angeles Professor Matatic's Perhaps a summary for us. Why Scripture and tradition?

I'd like to give my summary just by way of a response to the things that Dr. Bonson just said. I feel like that was a real misrepresentation of just about every one of those scripture passages. The Old Testament shows us the oral and the written word of God, two forms, and it doesn't never say anywhere. There is not a single verse that he cited that said we should judge things by the written word alone. He inserted the word written in Isaiah 8. It says to the law and to the testimony. Doesn't say to the written testimony as he misquoted it. There are all kinds of verses in the Old Testament. For example, 1st Samuel, chapter 30, verse 25, which says that David made a certain principle, a statute and ordinance for Israel from that day to this. It was not something that was inscripturated. In Second Chronicles 29, verse 25, we read that that Hezekiah organized the Levites in the worship of God, which is obviously the most sacred, the most holy thing of all, according to the way prescribed by David and Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet, as it was commanded by the Lord through his prophets. Now that's happening around 726 B.C. that's about a quarter of a millennium after David and Gad and Nathan existed. And yet there is still this authoritative precept that has been passed on down for a quarter of a millennium that is not written down anywhere. There's nothing in the Scripture that required the Levites to worship in this particular way. We don't see people practicing sola scriptura in the Old Testament. We're seeing them following the word of God. But the question begging that's going ON Here is Dr. Bonson's assumption that word of God means Scripture. And so when he says, we believe in tradition, we're adding to the word of God. We're not claiming that we' adding to.

The word of God.

We're listening to the fullness of the word of God written as well as oral. Paul does not, in Acts, chapter 17, say, you fallible individuals sit in judgment on me. I think that's one of the most misused passages about this whole issue. The reason that the Bereans are more noble than the Thessalonians in verse 11, if you look at the context, is not because they were testing culture, whereas the Thessalonians were just swallowing whatever he believed like some sort of proto Catholic. The Thessalonians were rioting. They were Disobedient. They were not listening to Paul at all. The, the Bereans were noble because they listened. And when they would examine the Scriptures, they would see that what Paul was, was quoting was Scripture.

Professor, I hate to jump in because you're on a roll here, but regarding, for example, the magisterium, where is that implicit in the Scriptures that we would have a group of people who would determine what?

I don't think it's implicit. I think it's as explicit. I think the excels are the first line of that magisterium. Contrary to what Dr. Bonson said, Paul told rank all the time he went beyond what was written himself. Many times in First Corinthians 7, he will quote things that Jesus said and then he'll say, now this I say not the Lord, but I say he would speak and address new situations.

Gary, I said he didn't do it.

In a particular text. I said that he does pull rank sometimes, but in Acts 17, he does.

Well, let's just say for the sake of argument, the apostles are the prototype of the magisterium today. But where is the internal evidence in Scripture that there were to be successors? And then as to how these are.

Chosen, I think it's all over the New Testament. If we listen to the pastoral epistles carefully. By the way, when we see Paul writing to Timothy, two letters and one to Titus, he addresses them as my true son in the faith. At the beginning of those letters, he understands basically upon the Old Testament, and I agree with Dr. Bonds, we have to read the new in the light of the old. There's tremendous continuity there that the office, the teaching office in the church is one of dynastic succession. There's a spiritual priesthood as it were going on in the New Testament. And as the priesthood was passed on from father to son under the old covenant, so it is in the new. So Paul can address Timothy and Titus as his spiritual sons.

Timothy's never called an apostle, though. Jerry, what doesn't that.

I think you're misunderstanding only the Bible, but the Catholic position here. Dr. Bunt, the Catholic position is not that an apostolic succession means that the successor is an apostle. You can be the successor of a founder. That doesn't make you a founder.

There is a.

There's a quality. Well, then maybe we can stop the debate right there. If the successors do not have apostolic.

Prerogative, they're not apostles.

That's all I'm saying.

Okay, well, if they are not apostles, then they don't have the prerogatives of the Apostles. And that settles them.

They don't have. No, it doesn't settle it, because that's too glib an assumption that, that. That it's all or nothing, that if I'm not an apostle, therefore I have no authority whatsoever.

What I'm saying is, I'll tell you what's where. You try to read in something between those two positions. If it's not all or nothing, where do you get the exegetical support for part of apostolic authority?

I'll give it to you right now in the upper room, which you alluded to yourself. Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would inspire them. He would speak through them. Matthew 10:20 says the same thing over and over again. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would speak through them. So it will not be you speaking, but me speaking through you. He says that promise is not made by the apostles to their successors. Nonetheless, what is very interesting is that when Paul addresses Timothy and Titus, and the Catholic Church has never said that Timothy and Titus and subsequent bishops are inspired, nonetheless, they, as teaching officers in the church, have an authority, not an inspiration, but an authority. And Paul said, timothy, don't just believe what I wrote you, and don't just tell people to believe what is written. He said, you are to rebuke these heresies and these heretics once, twice, and after that, cut them off.

Gary, you know, I'm a Presbyterian.

I don't have any problem with pastors preaching with authority.

The basis of their authority, however, is going to be apostolic, right? As you said, the preacher who follows in the train of the apostles does.

Not have the prerogatives, doesn't have the.

Inspiration of the apostles, right?

And so unless you can show that.

What you're preaching is apostolic, it doesn't have authority.

And that is why I said, that settles it.

But the reason Paul, the way Timothy could demonstrate that is what Paul says in second Timothy 2. 2. You, he says, are to preach this sound form of words which you alluded to. You are to pass on to others the things that you heard me say in the presence of many witnesses. You are to pass on to reliable men after you, who will in turn pass them on to others. In other words, people could say, I heard Paul tell you these things, Timothy. And Timothy could expect people to adhere to his authority because it was what Paul had taught him.

People can't say that today, Jerry, but.

You can't say the same thing about the Bible either. In other words, you.

Anybody can do textual criticism of the.

Bible if they want to learn how.

To do it and can see that we have manuscript evidence that goes back to whatever point you can do. And it's not because the Church tells me to accept it, but because I can examine it on my own.

But here, gentlemen, let me jump in. We need to take a break again when we continue with Shift Gears a Bit and talk about the place of Mary. We're talking about where Protestants and Catholics agree and disagree. We've been focusing on Scripture versus Scripture and Tradition, and we'll go beyond that next. Talk about the place of Mary.

This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute. Duplication, sharing and distribution is encouraged. For more information about the life and Ministry of Dr. Greg L. Bonson, visit our bonsoninstitute.com where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.