Critiquing: #057 — The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches

March 18, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything — Premier

Roman Catholic Bible — Eastern Orthodox tradition — Protestant Reformation — Doctrine of Purgatory — Canon of the Bible

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B-	The discussion is mostly accurate but contains minor factual inaccuracies. For example, the portrayal of the Council of Trent’s decisions oversimplifies the complex theological and political factors involved.
Degree of Coherence	B	The podcast maintains a logical flow, effectively linking historical events and theological points. However, some connections are made without sufficient elaboration, potentially confusing listeners unfamiliar with the topics.
Absence of Fallacies	C+	Some arguments are presented without addressing potential counterarguments, leading to logical fallacies such as hasty generalizations and appeals to tradition. For instance, the claim about the Septuagint’s influence on the Catholic canon is made without considering the nuanced historical debates.
Degree of Evidence	C	While some historical references are provided, the episode often relies on generalizations and personal opinions rather than specific scholarly sources. This weakens the overall argument, as it lacks the necessary depth and rigor.
Degree of Testability	C-	The claims made about theological interpretations and historical events are not easily testable due to their reliance on subjective perspectives and the inherent complexities of religious history. Assertions about the doctrinal developments and their impacts are difficult to empirically verify.
Rational Confidence	C	The podcast presents its arguments with moderate confidence, but some claims lack sufficient evidence and rigorous analysis to fully justify the level of certainty expressed. The reliance on broad statements and personal opinions undermines the rational confidence that should map strictly to the degree of evidence provided.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Evidence

The episode often relies on general knowledge and personal opinions, lacking specific scholarly sources to substantiate claims. For instance, the claim about the Protestant Reformation’s impact on the canon of the Bible is not backed by direct references to historical documents or scholarly analysis.

“The Reformers said we want the true original Bible. That means the Hebrew Old Testament, including some bits in Aramaic and the Greek New Testament.”

This assertion simplifies a multifaceted historical debate, ignoring the extensive scholarly work on the formation of the biblical canon and the diverse practices of early Christian communities.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: Protestant and Catholic Bibles

Premises:

1. Protestant Bibles follow the Hebrew canon for the Old Testament.
2. Catholic Bibles include additional books known as the Apocrypha.
3. The inclusion of these books stems from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament used in early Christianity.
4. The Protestant Reformation aimed to return to the “true original Bible,” hence excluding the Apocrypha.

Conclusion:
Protestant Bibles exclude the Apocrypha because they follow the Hebrew canon, while Catholic Bibles include it due to historical use of the Septuagint in early Christianity.

Counter-Argument:
The argument simplifies the complex history of biblical canon formation. It overlooks the diversity of early Christian communities and their varying scriptural practices. Additionally, it does not account for the theological and cultural factors influencing different Christian traditions. The insistence on a “true original Bible” is itself a theological stance, influenced by the specific historical and doctrinal context of the Reformation. Moreover, the early church’s use of the Septuagint was not uniform, and different communities had different texts they considered authoritative. Thus, the claim that the Protestant exclusion of the Apocrypha represents a return to an original canon is historically and theologically contentious.

Argument 2: Doctrine of Purgatory in Catholicism

Premises:

1. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is claimed to be supported by the books of the Maccabees.
2. Protestant Bibles exclude the Maccabees, rejecting this doctrine.
3. The Council of Trent affirmed the Catholic canon, including the Maccabees, thus supporting the doctrine of purgatory.
4. The doctrine of purgatory is seen by some as inconsistent with New Testament teachings.

Conclusion:
The Catholic doctrine of purgatory is problematic as it relies on the Maccabees, which are excluded by Protestants and seen as not consistent with New Testament teachings.

Counter-Argument:
While the Catholic doctrine of purgatory is indeed supported by texts such as the Maccabees, this does not necessarily invalidate the doctrine itself. The development of theological doctrines often involves interpretation and integration of various scriptural and traditional elements. The Protestant exclusion of the Maccabees reflects a particular theological stance rooted in the Reformation’s emphasis on sola scriptura and the perceived purity of the Hebrew canon. However, the broader Christian tradition, including the early church, has engaged with a wider range of texts. Moreover, the doctrine of purgatory addresses theological and pastoral concerns about the process of sanctification and the afterlife, which are not entirely absent from the New Testament. For example, passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:15 and 1 Peter 1:7 can be interpreted as hinting at a purifying process. Thus, the critique may oversimplify the nuanced and multifaceted nature of theological development in Christian history.

◉ Addressing Canonicity:

The Incompatibility of a Holy Book with an Omnipresent and Omnipotent God

The concept of a Holy Book is foundational to many religious traditions, serving as a tangible representation of divine will and nature. However, when considering the attributes of an omnipresent and omnipotent God, the reliance on a Holy Book as a primary mode of communication becomes paradoxical. This essay explores the inherent contradictions between the nature of an all-encompassing deity and the disputes that arise from the existence of a canonized text.

An omnipresent God is one who is constantly present everywhere, in all places at all times. This divine attribute suggests a continuous, personal interaction with all of creation, rendering any intermediary, such as a Holy Book, redundant. If God is indeed standing next to each of us, guiding and communicating directly, the necessity for a written record of divine will diminishes. The very idea of needing to reference a text for understanding God’s nature seems superfluous when one considers the immediacy of God’s presence.

Moreover, an omnipotent God—all-powerful and able to accomplish any purpose—would not be constrained by the limitations inherent in human language and textual transmission. The act of confining divine communication to a Holy Book introduces potential for misinterpretation, translation errors, and contextual misunderstandings. If God’s intent is to make His nature and will unequivocally known, relying on a medium that is subject to human error and historical variation appears counterintuitive.

The presence of disputes over the content of Holy Books further underscores the paradox. Throughout history, various religious communities have contested the canon of their sacred texts, leading to schisms and doctrinal divergences. These disputes indicate that the transmission of divine will through a static text is inherently problematic. An omniscient God would foresee these issues and, presumably, would choose a more direct and infallible means of communication if the goal were unequivocal clarity.

Additionally, the notion of a Holy Book as a definitive source of divine will conflicts with the dynamic and experiential nature of human spirituality. Personal experiences, revelations, and inner convictions often play a significant role in one’s understanding of the divine. An omnipresent and omnipotent God would likely engage with individuals through these personal, direct experiences rather than through a uniform, written document. The richness and variability of human experience suggest that divine communication would be equally diverse and personalized, rather than constrained to a single textual source.

In conclusion, the existence of a Holy Book as the primary means of divine communication is incongruous with the attributes of an omnipresent and omnipotent God. Such a deity would not be limited by the constraints of human language or the potential for textual disputes. Instead, God’s nature and will would be made known through direct, personal, and infallible interactions with each individual. This perspective invites a reevaluation of the role and significance of sacred texts in understanding the divine.

---

We warmly welcome further discussion on this topic in the comments section. Your thoughts and insights are invaluable to this ongoing conversation.