Challenge #1

In fairness to this contestant, I need to preface my response by noting that his answer was much lengthier than the pared-down version I have included here. In fact, it was too lengthy to include in toto, forcing me to abbreviate. However, the contestant’s response is not thereby ill-affected, since all that the contestant argues after this point is based on his premise (articulated above); a premise that I will demonstrate is erroneous. If the premise of his thesis is in error, then so are all the attendant conclusions which he draws from it later. Nevertheless, the interested reader may view the contestant's full response by clicking here.

The contestant, it seems, bases his argument on the notion that the biblical pattern mandates that the only people whom God makes eligible to establish or reform doctrine for the faith community are prophets, inspired writers of Scripture, anointed leaders (e.g. king Hezekiah or the Aaronic priesthood) and apostles. This is what the contestant calls "the Ephesian Principle"; namely, "submission to G[odly] A[uthority]s through individual Obligation to Choose rather than submission to self through Private Interpretation." There are several fallacies in the contestant’s argument, however.

First and foremost, the contestant must interpret the biblical data he has adduced prior to formulating his principle; hence, he has already engaged in private judgment and has failed the challenge. The contestant seems to think that if he can identify all those whom God has used to reform the established ecclesial climate, he can then establish a rule—prophets, inspired writers of Scripture, anointed leaders (e.g. king Hezekiah or the Aaronic priesthood) and apostles—only these people and no others. This is an extremely precarious reading of the data, however, since it is more likely that God did not intend to establish (and place a limit on) who reformed, but rather to establish (and place a limit on) how the reform took place; i.e., "according to all that is written in the Book of Moses"). In other words, the contestant has missed the point of the texts he claims supports his thesis. The texts do not answer the question "Who may initiate reform?", but rather "When should reform be initiated?" and "What guiding principle are we to use for reforming?" The answer to the first question ("When should reform be initiated?") is, according to the narrative, that reform is always long overdue whenever corruption creeps in. But how are we to know when corruption has crept in? The answer to this question becomes apparent when we answer the second question above ("What guiding principle are we to use when reforming?"). The answer to that question is "the Book of the Covenant" (2 Kings 23:2-3). The obvious conclusion is that when an established religious institution strays from the "Book of [its] Covenant," reform is always needed. The narrative further assumes that anyone with a normal reading and reasoning capacity can compare and contrast the Book of the Covenant with the established religious system to see if they are the same. The fact that the OT reformers included a "king" suggests that this reform could be initiated by anyone—i.e., not just the magisterial religious leaders—rather than that it needs to be an "anointed" leader (a very tendentious category designed to bolster the contestant’s argument). Were kings somehow preserved from subscribing to wrong doctrine? Or did they have some special reasoning capacity that the average person does not possess that ensured they would always be able to distinguish truth from error? If so, where are we told this? Moreover, as even the contestant himself later notes, Amos who was not an anointed leader, nor originally a prophet, became a prophet of God when he instituted reform. The significance of the OT reform narratives is two-fold: (1) that religious leaders and institutions—even those initially established by God himself—can and do go astray; and (2) that reform always entails a return to the terms and conditions of the covenant as originally given (hence, Hezekiah’s "Book of the Covenant"). The contestant has claimed that "everyone" agrees with his "Ephesian principle." Obviously, everyone does not; and it is clear that the contestant must first engage in private interpretation of the OT data before he can establish his highly precarious principle of following (what he calls) "Godly Authority," which, at the end of the day, is nothing more than an outworking of very dubious exegesis.

To illustrate why the contestant’s thesis doesn’t work in real life, we need look no farther than the case of the Pharisees. Ironically, the contestant points to the Pharisees (in combination with the Sadducees) as an example of Godly Authorities. He states it this way: "If the priests had a blood succession from either Levi or Aaron, or if they were holding a theocratic position . . . with no one else claiming to hold a more formal GA office or stature - then these people were collectively acting as the GAs in the time of Christ. However, the Ephesian Principle does not insist that GAs only do good, or only do rightful reform of doctrine. . . . With the Pharisees, Sadducees and priests acting as authentic GAs, it is then safely said that they were bad authentic GAs in the day of Christ." The contestant admits that the Pharisees were GAs, but he never explains just how they were GAs. The Pharisees weren’t prophets, apostles, kings, anointed leaders, or Scripture writers—nor did they claim to be. They were, in fact, lay leaders who only two centuries earlier had "protested" the corruption of the Sadducees (the true leaders), and came to power. Yet the contestant admits that Jesus acknowledged them as GAs. The precedence this sets is devastating to the contestant’s thesis. For if Jesus acknowledged the Pharisees as GAs, then there can be no objection to viewing the Protestant Reformers (who became prominent in a very similar way)—and, by extension, modern Protestants—as GAs.

1. He has limited the category of "anointed leader" to kings and priests; but in addition to "apostles and prophets," the New Testament also lists Evangelists and Pastor-Teachers (Eph 4:11) as Godly Authorities. In fact, according to 1 John 2:20-27 ALL believers are "anointed"; hence, any believer is qualified to initiate reform.
2. His understanding and application of Eph 2:20 is faulty for two reasons. First, the Greek phrase "apostles and prophets" in this passage is what is known as a "hendiadys" in Greek (lit., "one through two"). A more literal translation of this passage is "apostles, who are prophets." This is based on the Greek construction (popularly known as Granville Sharp’s rule, although a revised form of it) that two nouns separated by kai ("and") and governed by a single article ("the") are often to be seen a one group. Second, apostles and prophets are "foundational" only. Once the foundation has been laid, we don’t go around looking for more people to function as a foundation. At the very end of the age there are still only 12 apostles (Rev21:14). Since this is true, no one should be looking for modern "apostles and prophets" as current "Godly Authorities."
3. The "apostles and prophets" of the NT still act as a "Godly Authority" today by virtue of their written legacy. Therefore, if as the contestant maintains, we must subscribe to a "Godly Authority," then there can be no objection to choosing the apostles themselves (via their writings) as that Godly Authority. The contestant may object that the writings of the apostles need to be interpreted. But so do the writings of the popes need to be interpreted (and there are several interpretations from which to choose, as is witnessed by the responses to the remainder of the challenge questions). If the writings of the apostles must be disqualified from consideration just because someone has to understand them, then so also must Rome be disqualified since Rome’s teaching too needs to be understood. But at least in the case of the former, the Bible itself commands us to treat it as a Godly Authority, as well as to understand it. Indeed, since Paul tells us not to believe "anyone" who comes preaching a gospel that is "different" than that contained in the original apostolic deposit, all we need do is to compare that teaching to the teaching of any so-called "Godly Authority" to see whether the message is the same. What we find when we compare it to Rome is that the message is not the same, and so we must reject Rome. Paul is not asking us simply to submit to the teachings of a magisterial "Godly Authority"; indeed, he places even the apostles ("even if we") in the category of those to be rejected if the message they preach does not square with the original deposit. The contestant has used this same passage elsewhere to support his point that once we arrive at the right "Godly Authority" we are then to reject any other "Godly Authority." Yet it is clear that Paul assumes here that we should judge ALL supposed "Godly Authorities" by comparing their gospel to the original deposit. Hence, Paul commands us to use private judgment.
4. Since Eph 2:20 speaks only of the foundation of the church (and not the ongoing oversight of the church), a better passage to base an "Ephesian principle" on is Ehp 4:11 ("And he gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastor-teachers"). These are "anointed" leaders by any NT standard. Since they are anointed, then any Evangelist or Pastor-Teacher qualifies as a "Godly Authority" in the contestant’s Ephesian principle. Therefore, any "pastor-teacher" (such as Luther, Calvin or other such Reformer) completely meets the criteria of the contestant.

Having said all this, the careful reader will note that the contestant has "spun" the issue in such a way as to reflect his prior loyalties. Notice how the issue is cast: He explains his "Ephesian Principle" as "submission to GAs through individual Obligation to Choose rather than submission to self through Private Interpretation." By labeling the activity he engages in as "submission to a GA" though "Obligation to Choose" and the activity he opposes as "submission to self" through "Private Interpretation," he can set the stage for his subsequent conclusions. But the reader must remember that this is spin and nothing more. First, he misrepresents the Protestant position by characterizing it as "submission to self"—a statement that is hardly fair. Protestants submit to Scripture, not to self. If what he means by "self" is "private understanding" of Scripture, then he as a Roman Catholic is guilty of that same error in regard to his "private understanding" of Roman teaching (as opposed to a more moderate understanding). Second, I could just as easily "spin" the argument in the opposite direction by labeling his choice of Rome (or any "Godly Authority") as "Private Choice of Authority," and the Protestant principle of using Scripture alone as "Obligation to Interpret." I could then argue that while all who engage in the former must also engage in the latter, no one must engage in the former (obviously atheists aren’t choosing any "Godly Authority"). I would then point out that even those who engage in PCA must also engage in OI, for without OI no one could ever call himself a "traditionalist," a "conservative," a "moderate," or a "liberal" Roman Catholic—all of which are arrived at through OI of the relevant Catholic documents (see the answers to challenge question #4 for an apt illustration of this). Cast in this light, we see that no matter what label one wishes to use, the principle of private judgment simply cannot be avoided. Since the remainder of the contestant’s comments are based on this same faulty premise, we will refrain from commenting on them specifically. Suffice it to say that, biblically, we are commanded to sort out truth from error after the apostolic deposit has been given, and we are not even to believe an apostle himself (much less a subsequent, dubious "Godly Authority") if his message does not align with the original message (Gal 1:8-9). Indeed, the passage just mentioned makes absolutely no sense if we are instead simply to engage in Obligation to Choose and then resign ourselves to following that authority. Paul assumes we will be engaging in Private Judgment/Interpretation of the original gospel to test the authenticity of any other gospel.

Moreover, if someone were to follow the logic of the contestant’s argument consistently, then someone who has subscribed to the wrong GA initially could never leave it. For instance, a Mormon following this principle could never leave Mormonism to become Catholic. The contestant anticipates this objection and responds that since one always has the option for Obligation to Choose even after choosing the authority he will follow, that he could always reevaluate the situation and leave for another GA. However, it must be pointed out that once one has followed the principle of OC, one must remain in that system even if it is erroneous. For the instant one decides to reject the authority he has chosen, and begins to follow another, that person has ipso facto engaged in Private Judgment/Private Interpretation—for in order to leave a GA one must first question that GA. And if he engages in questioning the GA, he is ipso facto relying on his own understanding of Scripture, history, etc., to determine that the first authority is wrong and the second authority is correct.

One more consideration: The contestant has simply assumed all along (and we have indulged it until now) that he Roman Catholic system fulfills his "Ephesian principle." Yet, according to the contestant’s own view, "Godly Authority" includes apostles, prophets, kings (or other anointed leaders), levitical priests, and inspired writers of Scripture. Yet none of his Roman Catholic leaders qualify. The contestant has made much of the fact that the Reformers "didn’t claim to be Godly Authorities," and that they weren’t prophets. Yet the same may be said about the Roman Catholic magisterium. They are not prophets, apostles, kings, anointed leaders, levitical priests, or Scripture writers. They do claim to be successors of the apostles—but that is not the same as claiming to be an apostle. If, as the contestant argues, we must limit our inquiry to the biblical precedent, then supposed successors need not apply. They must therefore, on the contestant’s own criteria, be disqualified from further consideration as a "Godly Authority." The contestant may object that he uses this criteria only for those who are "reforming" existing beliefs. Yet if the Protestant position is true, then the Roman Catholic church has been subtly "reforming" beliefs for centuries, resulting in the currently extant Roman Catholic heresies. We are left with no other option, then, but to read on for a different "Catholic" answer to this challenge:

I’m glad to see that at least one Catholic admits the obvious double standard. However, it is simply gratuitous to suggest that this should be viewed as an exception. For what good reason? Moreover, if the statement: "the problem comes when it is made the highest authority" is intended to pit the Roman Catholic’s decision to follow Rome with the Protestant interpretation of the Bible, then it is a false comparison. It must be pointed out that it is impossible for private judgment NOT to become the highest ultimate authority when attempting to decide between conflicting ecclesial options. But the Protestant does not use private judgment as the final authority—the Bible is the final authority. If one argues that it is the interpretation of the Bible that is the Protestant’s highest authority, then it must be said with equal force that it is the Roman Catholic’s individual interpretation of Roman teaching that is the Roman Catholic’s final authority. Moreover, the contestant engages in the same logical fallacy that all Roman Catholic’s engage in when he mistakenly compares the one denomination of Rome to the many denominations of Protestantism. The more accurate comparison would be either between all systems that subscribe to the Bible PLUS an infallible interpreter and all systems that follow the Bible alone, or one denomination that subscribes to Scripture PLUS an infallible interpreter (e.g., Rome) and one denomination that subscribes to Scripture alone (e.g., Independent Baptists). But read on for a different Roman Catholic answer to this challenge:

All if which require the contestant to engage in private judgment of both the biblical texts and the historical record; making this answer the easiest to refute so far. But read on for a different Catholic answer to this challenge:

I take back what I said earlier. The last answer wasn’t the easiest to answer; this one is. The reason it is the easiest to answer is because the contestant doesn’t even address the challenge question. Instead, he simply assumes his interpretation of "church" (1 Tim 3:15), and the myriad of other tenets to which Roman Catholics subscribe, is valid; and then compares this to the Protestant position. Of course, in doing so, he has engaged in private judgment of the highest order—i.e., to select the "right" authority. He also engages in the same (yawn) mischaracterization of Protestantism that is rampant in Roman Catholicism. The "objective standard" which the contestant doesn’t think Protestants have is the Bible. His "standard" is no more objective than mine, and in fact is much less objective since it is a heretical one! But read on for yet another "Roman Catholic" answer:

Hmmmmm . . . and just how does the contestant distinguish his approach from Private Judgment? Didn’t he have to make a private judgment that it was the grace of God and not the deception of Satan that led him to Rome? Didn’t he have to interpret the "witness of Scripture?" Didn’t he have to use private judgment to recognize "the divine authority wielded by men"? But read on for yet another "Roman Catholic" answer:

So this contestant has decided that the tradition of his fathers is enough for him, even if it happens to be a wrong tradition. He would never know if it was wrong, however, since he, by his own admission, has never had to engage in this kind of decision making—the decision, in his own words, was made for him. In other words, if he had been born and raised Mormon, then Mormonism would be the religion he is currently defending today. Needless to say, that is not the most fail-safe method for determining truth! But read on for yet another "Roman Catholic" response:

That’s the contestant’s answer? Again, without engaging in private judgment, how does he know he’s reading history correctly? He is certainly right in his statement above; but that same evidence and faith has led a significant number of us in the opposite direction. And while that method is fine for the Protestant who sees Private Judgment as a legitimate principle, it cannot operate for someone who sees Private Judgment as illegitimate. So obviously the evidence to which the contestant refers cannot operate as a standard within Roman Catholicism. Read on for another interesting answer from our final contestant: