The apostles are also θεόπνευστος, Dr.* White.

read­er with the improb­a­ble name of “Rooney” dares to dis­pute my claim that the Greek word θεόπνευστος (theop­neustos; 2 Tim. 3:16) applies as much to John 20:21–23. My point was that Dr.* James White is wrong to say that the Scrip­tures alone are “God-breathed.” He may say it until he runs out of breath—for that seems to be his goal—but he will still be wrong. As evi­dence, I quot­ed this sin­gu­lar pas­sage from John, where­in Christ appears to the dis­ci­ples after the Res­ur­rec­tion and breathes on them:

Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed [ἐνεφύσησεν] on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost [πνεῦμα]. Whose soev­er sins ye remit, they are remit­ted unto them; and whose soev­er sins ye retain, they are retained.

If Christ is God (and I doubt even Dr.* White is so bold as to deny the divin­i­ty of Christ), and if Christ breathes on the apos­tles, then the apos­tles are also θεóπνευστος.

rooney the exegete.

But Prin­ci­pal Rooney thinks he can exegete this text in a way con­sis­tent with the mut­ter­ings of Dr.* White. Writes Rooney:

Maybe Christ breathed on the apos­tles the con­tent of the gospel—

[No. Let me stop the man here. The Greek word for “gospel” is evan­ge­lion (εὐαγγέλιον), a dif­fer­ent word than pneu­ma (πνεῦμα), which is what Christ actu­al­ly breathed on them.]

—which they lat­er wrote down as scrip­ture or pro­claimed by mouth, though the con­tent of the oral stuff would be sim­i­lar to that writ­ten down. Any­thing not writ­ten down, would be mere spec­u­la­tion.

Well, okay. One is amused by the com­plaint about “mere spec­u­la­tion” at the end of a pas­sage that begins with the word “maybe.” But let­ting go that odd fit of sleep on his part, Prin­ci­pal Rooney’s own “mere spec­u­la­tion” goes wrong on sev­er­al accounts. The first is that the pas­sage has noth­ing to do with Christ send­ing the apos­tles out to write Scrip­ture. He is send­ing them out, rather, to for­give sins (ἀφῆτε). Verse 23 makes that plain. Christ says, “Those whose sins you for­give are for­giv­en”; He does not say, “Those books you write are alone infal­li­ble.”

A sec­ond prob­lem with Rooney’s exe­ge­sis is that Christ breathes on all the apos­tles with­out excep­tion, and yet only some of the them went on to write the New Tes­ta­ment. Where’s the Gospel Accord­ing to Nathanael? Where are the gen­er­al epis­tles of Simon the Zealot? What shirk­ers they were! St. Paul, by far, wrote the major­i­ty of the New Tes­ta­ment, and yet there’s no account of Christ breath­ing on him. (Nor on Luke, for that mat­ter, who was known for steal­ing the wind right out of Andrew.) Turn to Acts 9:3–9, where Luke tells us about Paul’s sur­prise appoint­ment with Jesus on the road to Dam­as­cus. You’ll find ref­er­ences to light (φῶς, phos) and a voice (φωνὴν, pho­nen), but not a word about breath (πνεῦμα, pneu­ma).

age plays tricks on dr.* white’s eyes.

Yet a third prob­lem is that Christ pref­aces this encounter with the apos­tles by say­ing, “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” The apos­tles are being giv­en the same com­mis­sion that God the Father gave to Christ. But that was not to write infal­li­ble Scrip­ture; so for Him to say to the apos­tles “as I so you”—if Rooney’s exe­ge­sis is correct—would rather mud­dy the issue than oth­er­wise. The fact remains: If Christ is God, and if Christ breathes on the apos­tles, then the apos­tles are also θεóπνευστος. Will Rooney deny the divin­i­ty of Christ? Will Dr.* White? Are they yet that bold? 2 Tim. 3:16 applies the word to “all” Scrip­ture, not to “only” Scrip­ture. (The word is πᾶσα, pasa; not μόνον, monon.) Thus the good Dr.* White’s exe­ge­sis relies on a mis­quo­ta­tion of Paul. Paul says πᾶσα and he reads μόνον. Age does tricky things with the eyes; Dr.* White may want to see anoth­er doctor—preferably one whose optom­e­try degree was not sent by mail.

In John 20, when Christ breathes on the apos­tles, He says to them, “Receive the Holy Spir­it.” Now, you may ask at this point: Is there any­where else, look you through all of Sacred Scrip­ture, where Christ speaks about the apos­tles receiv­ing the Holy Spir­it? Per­ad­ven­ture by look­ing at such relat­ed texts, as the WCF tells us we ought, we may be clear as to what is there­by con­ferred upon them. And glad I am you did ask, for in fact there is—the key text being John 16:12–14. Christ, speak­ing again to his dis­ci­ples, pri­or to his arrest in Ges­the­mane, says:

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye can­not bear them now. How­beit when he, the Spir­it of truth [πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας] is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of him­self; but what­so­ev­er he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glo­ri­fy me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

So when Christ speaks to his dis­ci­ples about receiv­ing the Holy Spir­it, it is in the con­text of them being “guide[d] … into all truth.” The apos­tles will be able to dis­cern all the truth, not because there is any­thing unique­ly spe­cial about them as opposed to the rest of human­i­ty, but only by the work­ing of the Holy Spir­it with­in them. It is a charism, not a char­ac­ter­is­tic.

In still one more pas­sage, we read about the descent of the Holy Spir­it upon the apos­tles on Pen­te­cost. And here too make note of the ref­er­ence to the breath of God; though, in this text, St. Luke describes it in the form of a sim­i­le:

And sud­den­ly there came a sound from heav­en as of a rush­ing mighty wind [πνοῆς], and it filled all the house where they were sit­ting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with oth­er tongues, as the Spir­it gave them utter­ance. (Acts 2:2–4)

Here the Holy Spir­it goes beyond giv­ing the apos­tles the charism of infal­li­bil­i­ty; he gives them the addi­tion­al gift of tongues: being able to teach the Gospel in peo­ple’s native lan­guage. That is not an insignif­i­cant charism to have if the pur­pose is to spread Chris­tian­i­ty to as many peo­ple as pos­si­ble as quick­ly as pos­si­ble.

the transmission of divine revelation.

Dr.* White and I would agree that the sense of the word θεóπνευστος has to do with infal­li­bil­i­ty. Where we dis­agree is in its appli­ca­tion. He—all Reformed apol­o­gists and the­olo­gians, in fact—apply it to Scrip­ture alone; I—all Catholic apol­o­gists and the­olo­gians, in fact—apply it also to the Church. The dif­fer­ence lies in our view of apos­tolic suc­ces­sion. For Dr.* White, it is all well and good to say that the apos­tles were gift­ed with the author­i­ty to write and teach infal­li­bly. He would not dis­pute that. But for him, the fact that rev­e­la­tion end­ed after the death of the last apos­tle means that the charism of infal­li­bil­i­ty does not con­tin­ue by way of apos­tolic suc­ces­sion; not even if it be in mere­ly an inter­pre­tive and exeget­i­cal capac­i­ty, not even if it is only to define and safe­guard the deposit of faith. It is on this ques­tion that the Protes­tant and the Catholic part ways.

Accord­ing to the Catholic Church, the charism of infal­li­bil­i­ty (in the con­text of the author­i­ty to teach the whole Church) is passed on to the suc­ces­sors of the apos­tles, through the lay­ing on of hands, and is present in the pope and the bish­ops of the Church who teach in union with him. Here is how the Cat­e­chism of the Catholic Church puts it, in the sec­tion enti­tled “The Trans­mis­sion of Divine Rev­e­la­tion” (§74–79):

Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Rev­e­la­tion of the most high God is summed up, com­mand­ed the apos­tles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised before­hand by the prophets, and which he ful­filled in his own per­son and pro­mul­gat­ed with his own lips. In preach­ing the Gospel, they were to com­mu­ni­cate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all sav­ing truth and moral dis­ci­pline. In keep­ing with the Lord’s com­mand, the Gospel was hand­ed on [both oral­ly and in writ­ing]. … ‘In order that the full and liv­ing Gospel might always be pre­served in the Church the apos­tles left bish­ops as their suc­ces­sors. They gave them “their own posi­tion of teach­ing author­i­ty.“ ‘ Indeed, ‘the apos­tolic preach­ing, which is expressed in a spe­cial way in the inspired books, was to be pre­served in a con­tin­u­ous line of suc­ces­sion until the end of time.’ … The Father’s self-com­mu­ni­ca­tion made through his Word in the Holy Spir­it, remains present and active in the Church.

One will note, if one but reads the New Testament—and I doubt it noth­ing that both Prin­ci­pal Rooney and Dr.* White have read every last infal­li­ble text in that reli­able rock of a resource—that the lay­ing on of hands (epithentes tas cheiras, ἐπιθέντες τὰς χεῖρας) was cen­tral to receiv­ing a Church com­mis­sion. In the Book of Acts, Saul and Barn­abas receive theirs this way (Acts 13:3). And St. Paul, lat­er, refers to Tim­o­th­y’s apos­tolic gifts, which he received “when the elders laid their hands upon [him]” (1 Tim. 4:14; same expres­sion, epithe­seos ton che­iron). The lay­ing on of hands was stan­dard prac­tice, and thus—as with St. Timothy—when the apos­tles’ suc­ces­sors had hands laid upon them, not only was author­i­ty passed on to them, but charism as well. (Note how the Eng­lish word charism is close­ly relat­ed to the Greek word for “hands” in Acts 13:3 and 1 Tim­o­thy 4:14: cheiras.)

irenaeus, cyprian, and tertullian contra white.

Now, that this was how the ear­li­est Chris­tians under­stood it, we know from sev­er­al ear­ly Church writ­ings. One of these is Ire­naeus’s Against Here­sies.

Where­fore it is incum­bent to obey the pres­byters [i.e., the priests] who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, pos­sess the suc­ces­sion from the apos­tles; those who, togeth­er with the suc­ces­sion of the epis­co­pate, have received the cer­tain gift of truth, accord­ing to the good plea­sure of the Father. But [it is also incum­bent] [N.B.] to hold in sus­pi­cion oth­ers who depart from the prim­i­tive suc­ces­sion, and assem­ble them­selves togeth­er in any place what­so­ev­er, [look­ing upon them] either as heretics of per­verse minds, or as schis­mat­ics puffed up and self-pleas­ing. (IV.26)

In the view of Irenaeus—writing against the Gnos­tic heresy around the year 180 A.D. (well after the death of the last apostle)—not only was apos­tolic suc­ces­sion a real­i­ty, but so too was the charism of infal­li­bil­i­ty with­in their suc­ces­sors. “The cer­tain gift of truth,” he calls it. More than that, Ire­naeus has very strong words for those who would deny or depart from the author­i­ty of the bish­ops; he calls them “heretics,” “per­verse minds,” and “schis­mat­ics” who are “puffed up and self-pleas­ing.” This does not sound good for the good Dr.* White.

But Ire­naeus is far from being alone in all this. St. Cypri­an of Carthage, writ­ing in the third cen­tu­ry, speaks sim­i­lar words, this time in ref­er­ence to the pri­ma­cy of Peter:

The Lord speaks to Peter [N.B., not to Peter “and the oth­ers”.] say­ing, “I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not pre­vail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the king­dom of heav­en; and what­so­ev­er you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heav­en, and what­so­ev­er you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heav­en.” And again to the same [i.e., Peter alone.] He says, after His res­ur­rec­tion, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apos­tles, after His res­ur­rec­tion, He gives an equal pow­er, and says, “As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soev­er sins you retain, they shall be retained”; yet, that He might set forth uni­ty, He arranged by His author­i­ty the ori­gin of that uni­ty, as begin­ning from one. [i.e., Peter.] (On the Uni­ty of the Church 4)

“That he might set forth uni­ty,” Christ estab­lished, not sola scrip­tura, but apos­tolic suc­ces­sion. Cypri­an reads not just John 20:22 in the light of apos­tolic suc­ces­sion, but Matt. 16:18 too. Reformed apol­o­gists, in fact, have an impos­si­ble task try­ing to find any Church Father at all from these first cen­turies who reads Matt. 16:18 the way they do. (Name one, Dr.* White.) Cypri­an exegetes these pas­sages the same way the Catholic Church does: in the light of the charism of infal­li­bil­i­ty, apos­tolic suc­ces­sion, and the uni­ty of the Church.

But one could mul­ti­ply exam­ples with ease. Here, is Clement I, around A.D. 80:

Through coun­try­side and city [the apos­tles] preached, and they appoint­ed their ear­li­est con­verts, test­ing them by the Spir­it, to be the bish­ops and dea­cons of future believ­ers. Nor was this a nov­el­ty, for bish­ops and dea­cons had been writ­ten about a long time ear­li­er. … Our apos­tles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bish­op. For this rea­son, there­fore, hav­ing received per­fect fore­knowl­edge, they appoint­ed those who have already been men­tioned and after­wards added the fur­ther pro­vi­sion that, if they should die, oth­er approved men should suc­ceed to their min­istry. (Let­ter to the Corinthi­ans 42:4–5; 44:1–3)

Because they knew there would be strife, they gave us—not sola scrip­tura, but teach­ing bish­ops in per­pe­tu­ity.

And—I’ll give but one more—here is Ter­tul­lian, writ­ing around the year 200 A.D., and point­ing out, once more, that it is not mere­ly author­i­ty that is passed on through apos­tolic suc­ces­sion but puri­ty of doc­trine as well:

But should [these heretics] even effect the con­trivance [of com­pos­ing a suc­ces­sion list for them­selves], they will not advance a step. For their very doc­trine, after com­par­i­son with that of the apos­tles [as con­tained in oth­er church­es], will declare, by its own diver­si­ty and con­tra­ri­ety, that it had for its author nei­ther an apos­tle nor an apos­tolic man; because, as the apos­tles would nev­er have taught things which were self-con­tra­dic­to­ry. (Against the Heretics 32)

If one puts all such evi­dence as this togeth­er, he would need inven­tion to deny: (1) that the charism of infal­li­bil­i­ty was passed on to the apos­tles through the breath of Christ; (2) that the ear­ly Church under­stood that this charism con­tin­ued, after Christ, through apos­tolic suc­ces­sion and the lay­ing on of hands; (3) that the ear­ly Church like­wise taught that the apos­tles’ suc­ces­sors were owed obe­di­ence for that rea­son. To part from them was to be—in Ire­naeus’ words—a heretic and a schis­mat­ic.

It is not “Scrip­ture alone”; but the apos­tles, and their present-day suc­ces­sors, are also θεóπνευστος.