Primitive Churches Were Not Governed By A Pope

"The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters. But as each one sought to appropriate to himself those whom he had baptized, instead of leading them to Christ, it was appointed that one of the presbyters, elected by his colleagues, should be set over all the others, and have chief supervision over the general well-being of the community. . .Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution by the Lord."

Jerome's commentary on Titus 1:7

A Critique Of The Secular Humanist Worldview

• Discussion:

          -There are various kinds of humanism that have been held to, ranging all the way back to Greco-Roman civilization. For instance, Desiderius Erasmus was a Catholic humanist, but the context of this article concerns the atheistic variety. Following are excerpts in bold from a classic humanist manifesto titled "The Philosophy of Humanism" by Corliss Lamont, with a critique of those assertions:

          "There are, as I see it, ten central propositions in the Humanist philosophy: First, Humanism believes in a naturalistic metaphysics or attitude toward the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth; and that regards Nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of matter and energy which exists independently of any mind or consciousness. Second, Humanism, drawing especially upon the laws and facts of science, believes man is an evolutionary product of the Nature of which he is part; that his mind is indivisibly conjoined with the functioning of his brain; and that as an inseparable unity of body and personality he can have no conscious survival after death.”

          It is interesting to note how the author of this book capitalizes the word nature. This could be interpreted to have religious connotations. It can even be argued that atheists themselves belong to a religion to which they themselves are their own gods. After all, there are atheist churches. There are atheist missionaries. There are evangelistic atheists who preach their worldview as being the truth. There are atheist circles that consider others who disagree with them as being heretical. Atheism is clearly a belief system with religious tendencies.

          Notice how the quotation above presupposes the validity of scientism, which is the belief that all truth is determined by the science laboratory. However, this view is refuted because there are many truths that exist beyond the realm of science (view full article). How can atheists be so quick to claim that there is no supernatural realm when they have no tangible evidence ruling in favor of their verdict? If we reduce the thinking processes of the human mind to being random chemical reflexes, then we have no legitimate reason to believe the claims of atheism because we would not be able to trust our own thoughts. Selfhood would be an empty illusion!

          Life without God is meaningless. If the universe came into existence by mere coincidence, and we just so happened to have evolved from a different species of primate forefathers over a period of several billion years, then it would follow that human life has no intrinsic value. The inevitable consequence of eliminating God from the equation of life would be that we possessed no more dignity than the soil, rocks, or other components which constitute the physical and chemical composition of this planet. The universe itself most certainly has no compassion for life. Time would simply progress as we wait for the natural, appointed termination of our physical existence. No afterlife means having no ultimate sense of purpose or fulfillment.

          “I believe that the facts of science offer overwhelming evidence in support of the Humanist thesis of the inseparable coexistence of body and personality. To begin with, biology has conclusively shown that man and all other forms of life were the result, not of a supernatural act of creation by God, but of an infinitely long process of evolution probably stretching over at least three billions years….”

           A Supreme Mind still could have created the universe by means of a giant cosmic explosion of expanding matter to accomplish the formation of animal species through evolutionary processes. Consequently, the "humanist thesis" does not really negate the possibility of supernatural creation. Further, the universe and the human body are so complex that countless factors remain unexplained or unproven. It is completely wrong for one to assert that supernatural intervention in creation has been ruled out. Even if scientists did manage to successfully develop a scientific model that functions without God, proof of being unnecessary is not the same as proof of nonexistence. The biblical worldview presents us with a universe that absolutely depends on God for its existence.

          “Humanism believes that Nature itself constitutes the sum total of reality…and that supernatural entities simply do not exist. This non reality of the supernatural means, on the human level, that men do not possess supernatural and immortal souls; and, on the level of the universe as a whole, that our cosmos does not possess a supernatural and eternal God.”

           Naturalism maintains that everything existing emerged from natural properties and causes to the exclusion of supernatural intervention. In other words, this logical framework operates on the premise that all things are physical and are thus dictated by the laws of physics and chemistry. However, we know that this position is false because things such as numbers, moral laws, and information are nonphysical entities. These things transcend the five senses which scientists use to make observations and draw inferences. The elementary concept of free will disproves naturalism because this philosophy assumes that scientific laws and states are literally in control of all things.

          “the scientific concept of evolution…effectively negates the old religious idea of a divine creation of the whole universe.”

           This assertion raises more questions than it does clarify issues. Can something come from nothing? Can meaningful and functional design arise from chaos? Can intelligence arise from non-intelligence? Can rationality arise from non-rationality? Can consciousness arise from non-consciousness?

          “Matter is self-existent, self-active, self-developing, self-enduring. It is auto-dynamic.”

          Is this not a circular argument (i.e. matter has power in of and itself because that is how it is)? How can matter be self-existent when it is comprised of finite particles? What infinite source of energy do atoms possess that enables matter able to act of itself without external causes? How can physical matter come from nothing or create itself? How could non-living matter become alive by itself? 

          ''A careful analysis of both the natural and the social sciences shows, in the first place, that we do not attain something that is to be called ‘absolute’ truth, but rather what John Dewey cautiously describes as ‘warranted assertibility''

          If there are no absolute truths, then a.) scientific laws are subjective, b.) no point in education because truth is subjective, c.) the concept of certainty is illusionary, d.) no such thing as crime because nobody can definitively declare an action to be evil, e.) no such thing as human rights, and f.) reality itself becomes an illusion. If there are no absolute truths, then there is no reason for us to believe any of the arguments made in favor of secular humanism. A society that functions consistently on a morally relativistic framework will be characterized by the basest forms of heathenism and barbarism. It would lose any right to call itself a civilization.

          “For Humanism no human acts are good or bad in or of themselves. Whether an act is good or bad is to be judged by the consequences for the individual and society.”

          Secular consequentialism is the ethical system which maintains that the morality of an action is dependent on its results. In other words, this worldview judges the morality of actions in accordance to their conclusions (not in the action itself). But this method of moral discernment is quite perplexing. What constitutes the authentic definition of good? Who gets to determine the meanings of good and evil? Good for who? What about bad personal motives that just so happened to produce positive consequences for other people? What about the fact that we cannot predict the outcomes of our actions before we act? From whence would morality come from in the first place?

          ''The Humanist refuses to accept any Ten Commandments or other ethical precepts as immutable and universal laws never to be challenged or questioned. He bows down to no alleged supreme moral authority either past or present…But we can say…some ends justify some means. In getting at the ethical significance of a means-end situation, it is always necessary to be specific and inquire,‘Does this particular end or set of ends justify this particular means or group of means?''

          It is unsurprising that atheists openly reject the notion of objective moral laws, since they are living in rebellion to the God who created them. The above quoted statements are symptomatic of a puffed-up heart. If individuals get to determine their own moral law codes, then what happens when they contradict each other or themselves? How would such an idea not render the building of civilization impossible?

Never Hesitate To Do That Which Is Good

"You cannot do a kindness too soon because you never know how soon it will be too late."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Does 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Support Sola Scriptura?

• Defining The Issues:

          -Tim Staples wrote an article with the intention of revealing what he thinks are fundamental problems with appealing to Scripture as the final court of authority in spiritual matters. In his article, Tim raises objections to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as a proof text for Sola Scriptura, stresses the role of extra-biblical oral tradition in the church, charges that the Protestant position on biblical authority is "contrary to reason" because it "is a textbook example of circular reasoning," and that the canon by definition needed to be assembled by an infallible teaching authority (which is assumed to be the Roman Catholic Church). The purpose of this article is to answer a number of the weak and misguided assertions of conventional Catholic apologetics (quoted here) against Sola Scriptura:

          "If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!" That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant. This bedrock Protestant teaching claims that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals for Christians."

          Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the only infallible spiritual standard for the Christian church to use. All uninspired authorities are to be kept subordinate to the written Word of God because it is inspired by Him. This explanation constitutes the classical Sola Scriptura doctrine as articulated by the Protestant Reformers. Thus, it is inaccurate for Roman Catholic apologists to portray Protestants who subscribe to this concept as having a "sole rule of faith" or "Bible only Christians." It is also incorrect for Tim Staples to say that we only accept "explicit approval" from the Bible, since it provides us with principles to apply in our daily lives.

          "First, it does not speak of the New Testament at all...Second, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians...James 1:4 illustrates the problem...Third, the Bible teaches that oral Tradition is equal to Scripture...Finally, 2 Timothy 3:16 is specifically addressed to members of the hierarchy. It is a pastoral epistle, written to a young bishop Paul had ordained..."

          The first Roman Catholic objection is refuted because 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is not discussing the scope of the canon, but rather the purpose and origin of Scripture. The Apostle Paul was speaking of it general terms. Further, no one can limit the scope of inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16 to the Old Testament, since the context itself places no such limitation. The Apostle Paul had the future in mind as he mentioned the coming of false teachers.

          The second objection to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not work for this reason: Can anybody produce a list of good works that cannot be found in Scripture? What else does the phrase "every good work" mean? Paul does not say that Scripture equips one for most or a few good works. Further, James's statement about endurance leading to perfection is descriptive of personal spiritual growth and maturity. The text does not comment on the sufficiency or authority of Scripture as the final rule of faith. James addresses a different theological and practical domain altogether. 2 Timothy 3:16 explicitly affirms Scripture's function in the life of a believer, while James 1:4 focuses on perseverance in trials.

          The third objection is absurd because it utilizes circular reasoning. Tim Staples has not proven that the traditions spoken of by the Apostle Paul were uniquely Roman Catholic dogmas (click here for full discussion).

          The fourth objection does not hold water because even if it were true that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 originally addressed ordained ministers, that would be irrelevant. Leaders in the church were given for the edification of the saints, who in turn do their own works of ministry (Ephesians 4:12). Further, why would Scripture function as a sufficient rule of faith for leadership, but not also for the average Christian in the pews? This argument imposes an assumption on to the text that does not naturally exist there: Paul nowhere limited the benefits of studying Scripture only to leaders in the church. 

          Claims that Sola Scriptura involves circular reasoning are countered by the argument that any ultimate authority must validate itself to avoid infinite regress. This is because, in philosophical reasoning, an ultimate authority cannot appeal to something higher to prove its validity—if it did, it would no longer be "ultimate." Without self-validation, one would need an endless chain of authorities to justify the previous one, which is logically unsustainable. Scripture's consistency and coherence are presented as a rational basis for its authority. Meanwhile, the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is needed to validate Scripture is seen as equally circular, since this claim would also require an infallible validation. Staple's attempt to refute the charge of circularity for Rome fails, as his reasoning relies on his church's own official interpretation of passages like Matthew 16:18-19—essentially, "it is so because Rome says it is so.

           Tim Staples argues that Sola Scriptura is an untenable theological position because the canon of Scripture required determination by an infallible teaching authority. The author of the article rightly notes that the Bible lacks an inspired table of contents. However, this critique overlooks key points: 1) The early church fathers, under divine providence, identified the canon, avoiding reliance solely on human judgment; 2) The widespread and enduring acceptance of books like Genesis and the gospels highlights their intrinsic authority; 3) The Protestant Reformers upheld the received tradition, demonstrating the continuity of the canon across history; 3) Without an ultimate self-authenticating authority, reliance on an infallible teaching body creates an infinite regress, as the authority of that body must also be validated; 4.) Every ultimate authority, by its nature, must appeal to itself for validation. For example, reason justifies reason, and logic justifies logic. Similarly, Scripture can appeal to its own consistency and coherence without contradiction; 5.) Using early church writings and ecumenical councils to affirm the canon aligns with Sola Scriptura, as these sources support rather than override Scripture’s authority.