Skip to comments."What is Truth?" An Examination of Sola Scriptura
Posted on 03/26/2008 5:30:38 PM PDT by annalex
By Dwight Longenecker
Pontius Pilate asked the basic question for all humanity when he asked Jesus, "What is Truth?" The irony of the scene is powerful and poignant because the Eternal Truth stood before him incarnate as a human person. In John 14 Jesus proclaimed, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." Later in the gospel Peter said, "Where else shall we go Lord, but to you? You alone have the words of eternal life." So the Christian answer to this profound question is that Jesus himself is the Truth. If you want the Truth, come to him.
This is something all Christians agree on, but this answer does, however, raise more questions: How do we come to know Jesus as truth? How do we get in touch with this Jesus who is truth? We need answers to specific questions, like what should we believe? How shall we behave? How shall we run the church? Jesus may be the Truth, but how do we get hold of that truth? How do we know that what we believe is his truth?
In my evangelical days, I was told the truth was to be found in the Bible and in the Bible alone. In my Fundamentalist Bible lessons at Bob Jones University, I memorized a famous and important verse, 2 Timothy 3.16-17: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is useful for doctrine, for instruction, for correction and training in righteousness so the man of God man be fully equipped for every good work."
In other words, we believed that the Bible was where we were to turn to learn what to believe and how to behave. And we were to believe the Bible because it is inspiredit is God-breathed. But there are some problems with this view. A simple problem is that since 2 Timothy 3.16-17 itself is a part of the New Testament, it could not be referring to the New Testament. Paulin writing to Timothycould only have been talking about the Old Testament Scriptures.
But lets say for the sake of argument that this text also refers to the New Testament. While it certainly says that all Scripture is inspired and can be used to determine doctrine and Christian behavior, it doesnt say that Scripture is the ONLY authority for Gods truth. In fact, nowhere in the Bible do you find such a thing stated. In addition, if this is the only evidence for Biblical inspiration, another problem arises as soon as you start to push things a little.
The problem is this: 2 Timothy 3.16 states: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." This is then used by many to prove that Scripture is inspired. But how do we know that 2 Timothy 3.16 itself is inspired? This reasoning is circular. It goes like this:
"We believe the Bible. OK, why is that? Because it is inspired. Why do we believe it is inspired? Because the Bible says it is inspired and we believe the Bible. OK, how do we know the Bible is inspired? Because the Bible says it is inspired and we believe the Bible because it is inspired." Too much of this type of reasoning makes you dizzy. There has to be a better answer.
I then encountered another difficulty by the time I got to Bible college. I had always been taught that the Bible was simple to understand; that the basic gospel message was simple and straightforward. But if the gospel message was so simple and straightforward, then why were there so many different Christian denominations all in disagreement with one another?
When I asked one of my teachers, I was told that the different denominations agreed on the basicsthose things which were plain and simply understood from Scripturebut they disagreed on the extras. However, when I examined for myself what the different denominations taught they not only disagreed on little thingslike whether women should wear hats to church, or whether you had to be baptized by immersion or sprinklingbut they also disagreed on important things, like baptism in general, communion, how one can be saved, who was in charge of the church, who was going to heaven, and many other things. If Scripture was the only legitimate source of authority, shouldnt the Churchor churchesbe united around one simple, clear teaching from Scripture?
Another verse I was required to memorize was 2 Peter 1.20: "No scripture is of any private interpretation, but holy men of God spoke as the Holy Spirit instructed them." Obviously all the different Christian denominations disagree because they all have different interpretations of the Biblewhich they each believe is the most accurate. It struck me that if they all have different interpretations of the Bible, then they must be interpreting it on their own. But 2 Peter 1.20 warns that the Bible must not be interpreted privately. Something was definitely wrong here.
So I wound up with two basic problems:
1. If the Bible is the only support for its own inspiration, then it is merely proving itself which is illogical. There has to be some other authority that can validate the inspiration of the Bible.
2. If the Bible is the only source of authority for Christians, then why are the different churches so divided? Again there has to be some other authority which can decide how the Bible is to be understood.
In both cases, therefore, I was driven to search for this authority.
LIVE WITH DISAGREEMENTS?
In the face of these questions a lot of people nowadays give up believing in the inspiration of the Bible. About the disagreements in the Church they say, "Well, sometimes, this side of heaven, you just cant be sure of the right interpretation. You have to live with these disagreements."
But can that be true? Is it possible that Jesus called himself the Way, the Truth and the Life, promised his apostles that they would know the truth (John 8.32, 16.13, etc.), commanded them to go out into all the world to preach the gospel, if, at the end of the day, they and we cant really know what is true after all? Is it possible that we have a gospel to proclaim, but God hasnt provided a certain way for us to know what that gospel consists of and how it is applied? Have we merely ended up like Pontius Pilate, shrugging our shoulders and saying cynically: "Ahh, what is truth anyway?"
There are, however, some excellent rock-solid answers for these questions. The Bible IS inspired, but the evidence for its inspiration rests on something more than 2 Timothy 3.16. There is also a sure-fire way to know the right interpretation of the Bible, but the evidence for that sure interpretation is profound and goes to the very roots of Scripture itself.
THE PROBLEM OF THE CANON
The Bible didnt just drop down out of heaven. Although we believe it was inspired by God, this inspiration happened through real people in real situations in real place and time. The Scriptures were written by the people of God, for the people of God. They were read by the people of God, used to teach the people of God, and used for the worship of the people of God. Maybe the best way to describe the Bible is to say that it is the story of the relationship between God and His peoplethe Churchboth the Old Testament Church and the New Testament Church. The Bible was never just a list of thingsa theological textbookabout God telling His people what they must believe. Neither was it merely a set of rules to be obeyed. Instead the Bible was first and foremost the story of Gods loving relationship with humanity.
Furthermore, the same people who wrote the Scripturesused the Scriptures, prayed the Scriptures and learned from the Scriptureschose which holy writings should be included as Scripture. Before Christ was born the books of what we now call the Old Testament were well established. During the first century of Christianity the gospels and epistle letters were all written either by the apostles chosen by Christ or one of their disciples. By the mid-second century, the early Christians were unanimous in accepting the four gospels and the thirteen letters of Paul. However, also during these early centuries of the Church many, many other writings appeared vying for equal acceptance as apostolic documents. Different local churches accepted varying and sometimes contradictory lists of books as authority, until finally in 382 AD at the Council of Rome the whole Church agreed on a final authoritative Canon of the books of the Old and New Testaments. This is identical to the list found in any contemporary Catholic Bible.
This, therefore, draws our attention to another deep problem with sola scriptura. Not only is the Bible itself impotent to prove its own inspiration or ensure its own interpretation, it could not specify exactly which of the hundreds of books were to be considered inspired Scripture. Another God-given authority needed to do this, and in the very words of the Council of Rome we see this authority identified: "Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun."
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
In the inspired Scripturesthe canon of which, therefore, being determined by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spiritwe discover the very authority we need to determine what is truth. In 1 Timothy 3.15, the Apostle Paul says something very important: "...Gods church is the household of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."
In Ephesians 3.10, he likewise taught that it was Gods " intent that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God should be made known."
In other words it is through the Church that we learn the truth about Jesusnot just through the Bible. It is by belonging to the living body of Christthe Churchthat we come to understand and know the mystery of Jesus Christ himself.
Paul says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. So the Church is the basis for the truth, the support for the truth. It is on the Church that the whole edifice rests and is supported. Its no exaggeration to say then that not only did the Church establish and validate the inspiration of the Bible, and determine which specific books were to be considered inspired Scripture, but that without the Church we wouldnt have a Bible at all.
But the Church did not pass on the teaching of Christ only in written form. From the earliest days the teaching was also passed on in oral form. In his letters to the young bishop Timothy, Paul wrote, "devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching." And, " continue in what you have learned... because you know those from whom you learned it and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures."
Paul here of course could only have been referring to the Old Testament, which he therefore held as authoritative. But he also believed, however, that his own teaching, both written and preached, were to be taken as authoritative for determining doctrine and right Christian behavior. This is stated most clearly in Pauls Second Letter to the Thessalonians, 2.15:"So then brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions we passed on to you whether by word of mouth or by letter." So the teachings which Paul received from Jesus he passed on both in writing and by word of mouth.
There are many who believe that the word of mouth tradition lost its authority as soon as the biblical books were written down, but it is significant to recognize that in the very quote above, Paul acknowledges that both sources of teaching existed side-by-side when he wrote to the Thessalonians. We also see that while Paul was writing what would later be declared inspired Scripture, he was not only receiving oral tradition from others, but continuing to pass it on to his hearers: "By this gospel you are saved if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you For what I received I passed on to you as of the first importance." (I Corinthians 15. 2-3)
Paul promotes the continuing importance of the oral teaching as well as the written when he tells Timothy: "What you heard from me keep as the pattern of sound teaching with faith and love in Jesus Christ: guard the good deposit which is entrusted to you." (2 Timothy 1.13) Elsewhere he praises the Corinthians for upholding the traditions which I have passed on to you. (I Cor.11.2)
Catholics believe that this ancient teaching of the apostles has been handed on from generation to generation and kept alive by the constant and continual life of the Church. Did Paul think this oral teaching was to be passed on? Paul said to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2.2: "And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others." In other words he commanded Timothy to hand on the oral tradition which he had received from Paul. Its interesting that in this passage Paul is referring to four generations of successionhis own, Timothys, the people Timothy would teach and the ones they would teach in turnwhich the Church would later identify as the Apostolic Succession.
THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH
The documents of the early Church in the years just after the death of the apostles show that they believed their Church leaders had inherited a precious deposit of faithboth in the writings of the apostles and in the oral traditions of the apostles. In about AD 95 Clement, the bishop of the Church in Rome wrote to the Church at Corinth: "the faith of the gospels is established and the tradition of the Apostles is revered."
Writing about the year 189 Irenaeusa bishop in the French city of Lyons wrote: "What if the apostles had not left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" Elsewhere Irenaeus also pointed out how important this apostolic tradition is for people to know the full truth. "It is possible then for everyone in every church who may wish to know the truth to contemplate the Traditions of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world."
This helps us answer the difficult questionwhere do we turn for a faithful interpretation of the Bible? Is there a body of teaching which has been faithfully passed down from the apostles that would help us to interpret the Scriptures the right way? If such a body of teaching exists then it provides a rich mine for us to turn to when we try to interpret the Scripture. If an ancient strand of teaching exists which goes back to the apostles themselves then we have not only the Scripture for a source book, but we have a rich tapestry of teaching which helps us to understand the Scripture.
As Catholics, we believe that we have just such a source for the proper interpretation of the Bible. So when we have a difficult question of Biblical interpretation we dont just read the rest of the Bible to find the answer to the difficult question. We turn to the tradition as preserved and protected by the Church to see what the people of God believed before us. Did they face the same questions? How did they answer them? Did they face similar circumstances? How did they confront them? Did they face the same doubts, problems, heresies and attacks? How did they stand up for the truth in their day? How can it help us determine the truth today?
THE GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
This of course is build on the belief that Jesus always keeps his promises. He promised that he would send the Holy Spirit upon his apostles to guide them into all truth (John 16.13). He also promised that he would be with his followers forever (John 14.16; Matt. 28.19). As a result the Church has always believed that she carries the responsibility preserving and protecting the Truth as handed down from Jesus through his apostles, in both written and oral form. And this Spirit of Pentecost is still poured out on the Churchguiding and protecting and teaching.
Some, however, may point with confidence to First John when he assured his disciples:
"You have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all know. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and know that no lie is of the truth the anointing which you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that any one should teach you " (1 Jn. 2.20-27)
Therefore, they claim that have no need of a Church to teach them; they have the Holy Spirit within them. They claim that they are not making any private interpretation of Scripture, as Peter warned, but are interpreting it through the Holy Spirit. But this in not what either the apostles meant, for in both cases the apostles are using their apostolic authority to correct their Spirit-filled hearers sometimes erroneous interpretations.
In 2 Peter 1.16-18, Peter claimed teaching authority because he was an eyewitness of Jesus life and glory, and received the truth directly from Jesus. He then states in 3.2 that the truth of God which was once was delivered by the holy prophets was now given through the apostles.
What is important to see here is that Peter compares the role of the New Testament apostles to the Old Testament prophets. God directly inspired the prophets. Their preaching was considered to be a direct word from God to the people of God. The apostles, chosen and empowered by Christ, are the God-inspired teachers of the New Testament people of God. When Peter says "No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation" he means that only the Prophet of Godthat is, the apostleis entitled and empowered by the Holy spirit to give the right interpretation.
Paul agrees with him. In Ephesians 3.5 he says that the mystery of God has now been revealed by the Spirit to Gods holy apostles and prophets. And it is this same Spirit-led group of men who are the foundation of the Church. So Paul says in 2.20 that the Ephesians are members of the Church, the household of God which is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the chief corner stone. Jesus is the corner stone of this Church, but it is the apostles and the prophetsinspired by Gods Holy Spiritwho provide the foundation for the Church. (Cf. Rev. 21.14)
This verse fits together with Pauls other teaching that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth? (I Tim 3.15) So the Churchbased on the teaching of the apostleswhich was inspired to write the Scripture and inspired to choose which books were to be included in the Bible, is also its chosen, Spirit-filled interpreter of Scripture.
WHERE DOES ONE FIND THIS APOSTOLIC CHURCH TODAY?
If its true that the apostles were the ones to interpret Scripture, and the apostolic Church was therefore the one to interpret Scripture, does that same apostolic authority exist today? If so, where can we find it?
We have seen that Paul explicitly handed on his teaching authority to Timothy and commanded him to hand that authority on to others who would in turn hand it on to their successors. But Timothy wasnt the only one. Paul also sent Titus to Crete to organize the Church there. Calling Titus his son in the faith, he said, "The reason I left you behind in Crete was for you to get everything organized there and to appoint elders in every town the way I told you." And what kind of a man must this elder be? "He must have a firm grasp of the unchanging tradition so that he can be counted on to expound sound doctrine." So in the New Testament we see Paul clearly setting up the Church with his sons in the faith as his successors in the various locations.
The writings of the early Church testify that the first generation of Christians after the apostles believed their Church leaders had somehow inherited the same teaching authority that the apostles had.
So Clement, the bishop of the Roman Church around 95 AD writes: "The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ...and they went out full of confidence in the Holy spirit...and appointed their first fruits...to be bishops and deacons. Our apostles knew there would be strife on the question of the bishops office, Therefore, they appointed these people already mentioned and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry." So Clement of Rome believed that the apostlesone of whom, John, may still have been alivehad wished for their teaching office to be continued in the Church.
Ignatius of Antioch was martyred in the year 115. In writing to the Trallian Church he equates the Church presbyters with apostles: "Therefore it is necessary (as is your practice) that you should do nothing without the bishop, but be also in subjection to the presbytery as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope..."
And Irenaeus who wrote around 180 AD also believed firmly that the Church had inherited the authority of the apostles to teach the truth faithfully. According to him it is because the Church leaders have inherited the apostolic authority that they can interpret Scripture properly. So he writes, "By knowledge of the truth we mean: the teaching of the Apostles; the order of the Church as established from earliest times throughout the world...preserved through the episcopal succession: for to the bishops the apostles committed the care of the Church in each place which has come down to our own time safeguarded by...the most complete exposition...the reading of the Scriptures without falsification and careful and consistent exposition of themavoiding both rashness and blasphemy."
Remembering that Paul handed on his teaching authority to Timothy and Titus, and seeing how through history that authority has been handed down from generation to generation, Catholics believe that the dynamic and living teaching authority continues to live within the Catholic bishops who have received their ministry in direct line from the apostles, passed down over the last 2,000 years.
Because of this direct link Catholics believe the Church has a living connection with the apostolic authority, and that within the living apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church we can find a rock-solid, sure, historic and unified body of teaching which illuminates and interprets the Bible without fail.
This is an edited version of Dwight Longeneckers apologetics series for Londons Premier Radio. Dwight was brought up in an evangelical home and graduated from Bob Jones University. He went on to study at Oxford and be ordained as an Anglican minister in England. Five years ago he and his family were received into the Catholic Church and he now works as a District Organizer for the St Barnabas Society and is also active as a Catholic writer and broadcaster.
Where else do evangelicals get their truth?
I like the way Dwight thinks. :-)
If its true that the apostles were the ones to interpret Scripture, and the apostolic Church was therefore the one to interpret Scripture, does that same apostolic authority exist today? If so, where can we find it?
Nothing about the post was about Fourty Seven, I just reposted his post word for word because it was a good explanation. If I was being critical, I would have pinged.
Through the holy spirit for one.
Please add me to your ping list. Thanks!
The written scripture exists so that when an individual or an institution begins to go astray, the sin situation can be detected and/or corrected. Christ himself referred to Old Testament canon when he denounced the religious authorities for substituting the traditions of the Talmud for the authentic commands from the Torah and the prophets.
What ever oral traditions that are true and of “good report” that are proclaimed by any Ecclesiastical Authority “worthy of being followed”, they cannot be in contradiction to scripture and of the life of Jesus Christ.
Oral traditions and “Talmudic” style interprative extrapolations of biblical canon must never supercede the biblical canon itself!
“Of course, as an aside, Father could ask the historical Protestants on what basis did/do you believe you have the authority to leave the Church, and reject apostolic succession? This line of questioning (IMO) would lead to constructive criticism of those churches which hold to solA scriptura”
By the same Authority that Christ himself broke with and denounced the religious authorities of his day, by pointing out the hypocrisy of their lives in line with what Moses and the prophets had actually written in the old testament(sola scriptura argument), not by what talmudic traditions had taught.
When the Catholic Church suffered its biggest schisms via the Reformation, it was in a sinful state. The “shepherd” had been struck through her own sin and arrogance, would you not expect the sheep to scatter and attempt to gather around its strongest remaining Rams?!!
It takes a lot of faith to believe that any doctrine not found in the bible man made and false. It takes a lot of faith to believe that a billion Catholics are misguided.
Most Christians who are not members of the Roman Catholic Church don’t spend a lot of time worrying one way or another about what Catholics believe. Our faith in Christ isn’t influenced one way or another about whether other folks may be mistaken in their faith.
“It takes a lot of faith to believe that any doctrine not found in the bible man made and false. It takes a lot of faith to believe that a billion Catholics are misguided.”
I think the issue has to do with man made doctrines that when followed, produce spiritual lives that are in opposition to to a life authenticated in scripture as Christ like and pure! If however one follows an oral tradition or doctrine that with other scripture,prayer and meditation leads you to to a closer walk with Christ then obviously that tradition or oral doctrine has merit.
I seriously doubt that an entire one billion ‘registered as such’ Catholics are entirely misguided, but we also need to remember that God once destroyed the entire world saving only 8 souls. It is possible that a great mass of folks in all stated churches(both Catholic and Protestant) are all following wrong paths. God seeks those who worship him in their hearts, who do so “in spirit and in truth”, he is not necessarily guided by the consensus of a billion Catholics.
Many Christians that have friends or family that are involved in the RCC spend a lot of time wondering if the heresies of the RCC are such that their friends/family are not even Christians.
I'm a little fuzzy on your phrase "produce spiritual lives".
I seriously doubt that an entire one billion registered as such Catholics are entirely misguided, but we also need to remember that God once destroyed the entire world saving only 8 souls. It is possible that a great mass of folks in all stated churches(both Catholic and Protestant) are all following wrong paths. God seeks those who worship him in their hearts, who do so in spirit and in truth, he is not necessarily guided by the consensus of a billion Catholics.
He is certainly not guided by the concensus of a billion RCs.
I’m a little fuzzy on your phrase “produce spiritual lives”.
How about the term “spiritual fruits” then as in “by their fruits you will know them”.
The Holy Spirit works within a soul to produce a Christ like nature, there-fore any oral doctrines or traditions that may not be strictly found in scripture that never -theless assist that soul in its growth will have no opposition by the Holy Spirit. That soul will produce fruit
and a Godly character over time!
Other extra biblical doctrine, while being accepted/promoted by a given ecclesiastical authority, that works in opposition to the work of the Holy Spirit within a person will stunt the growth of that person producing little, or no, or even evil fruit.
That is why many believers look askance at oral traditions and teachings that may have no antecedents in scripture. Do such doctrines produce good spiritual fruit when adhered to? Are they true, good,beautiful and of “good report” as Paul stated? Then we may ‘dwell on those things’. Other wise we are to stick to the gospels!
sola scriptura states that there is a role for tradition, its simply lower than Scripture just like any other source of knowledge
Yes. In that regard, it is useful to separate the Protestants in two groups, one that doesn't aknowldege ANY authority in the matter of the faith other than the scripture (as truncated in their tradition), and the other that acknowledges that the Early Church (never identified as Catholic and Orthodox) put together the scripture, but denies authority of the Catohlic (or Orthodox) church from some historical point onward. The article chiefly addresses the error of the first group.
What can we say to the second group? If they acknowledge the authority of the Early Church, but reject the Catholic authority today, then they should be able to (1) point out where the Catholic Church of today separated herself from the Early Church, and (2) study the expression of authority in the Early Church and submit to it as superior to what modern thinkers might think about the Holy Scripture.
On (1) the historical Protestants are vague and concentrate on abuses of the penance system such as sale of indilgencies and Roman splendor of 15c. This still leaves out the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and the corrections instituted at Trent.
On (2), I don't see any effort to study, say, pre-Nicean fathers of the Church such as Irenaeus, Ignatius or Cyprian. Instead, the least early of the pre-medieval Fathers and the most Westernized, Augustine is the only Early Church father read in the Protestant circles. His mentor Ambrose even is not read. If the "historical Protestants" kept their intellectual committment to the Early Church which gave them the scripture, they would end up in a hierarchical on the episcopal level, sacramental, heavily liturgical and liturgically conservative Orthodox Church, which denies the uniquely Protestant doctrines with no less vigor than Rome.
I don't trust that at all.
Excellent post, I look forward to any replies.
Thanks for the heads up Salvation! I don’t take any offense for not being pinged (to post 14), for the record, however I am glad I was pinged eventually because this post of annalex’s is very interesting to me.
Oh wow, I got a ping after all, thanks annalex. I think I might have to go back to “comments” in my “Pings”; the “full” does take up a lot more space. At any rate, should prove to be a good thread, I think.
I'd say right there in the 1st Century...
2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
For one thing, he wanted to warn them not to be taken in by phony "inspired truth." And so he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him: it would be signed in his own handwriting: "I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write" (3:17). He wanted to ensure that they would not be fooled again by forged epistles.
There's no reason to believe that your church fathers that you cite are not the same people Paul is referring to in his epistles...
As the article states, there is no evidence of Apostolic succession in the scriptures but these 'fathers' of yours promote their own apostolic succession...
It is “good form” to ping a poster you are quoting regardless of the reason for quoting him/her.
To put it another way, if we accept the voice of the Church as infallibly correct, then what Scripture says about these questions is ultimately irrelevant.
Not if the Church infallibly says, as the Catholic Church has over and over again, that the Scriptures are authoritative and without error. ... DUH.
To cite but one example, Scripture very plainly says, "There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). Nonetheless, the Catholic Church insists that Mary is her Son's "co-mediatrix."
He can't even get the titles right. It's "Mediatrix of all graces" and "co-redemptrix", not "co-mediatrix".
You guys ought to read somebody who can interact with Catholicism as something other than a cartoon cutout. They have to be out there. Jaroslav Pelikan could, but he's Orthodox now.
This article is pathetic.