A response to GNRHead

A Response and Challenge to GNRHead

A internet poster named William, going by the handle GNRHead, has posted a series of videos on the internet, in which he defends Roman Catholic theology, with an emphasis on patristic issues. This is a response to his most recent video here (link here, warning, near profanity employed).

I'm not a big fan of the video format, because it is a slow format, particular if a conversation speed of delivery is used.

As GNRHead is discovering, there are many kinds of apologetics out there on the internet, including vile, abusive apologetics. I am sorry that he has been a recipient of those attacks. I also appreciate his apparently sincere belief that the Early Church Fathers held to Roman Catholic doctrines.

On the other hand, I firmly disagree.

Let me provide a single example, and permit GNRHead decide whether he would like to continue the interaction.

GNRHead states that "every single early church father agrees that Peter was the rock" in Matthew 16:18. That's simply not true.

In my own research, every time before the third century that an Early Church Father explains a metaphorical use of the term "Rock" they make that refer to Christ, not Peter.

Likewise, in the Shepherd of Hermas, the rock is Christ, the tower is the church, and the tower is built upon the rock.

Indeed, the first time an "Early Church Father" that might be taken to support the view you suggest is Tertullian in his letter against Marcion, some time around the the turn of the 3rd century.

Yet even Tertullian in later writing comments that Peter was called Peter in order to typify Christ, the Rock. And we look back more carefully at what Tertullian wrote in the single passage where Tertullian makes the connection, you will see that Tertullian writes not that Peter was the rock, but that Peter was called the rock.

Nevertheless, a further time Tertullian appears to call Peter the rock, again against Marcion.

In addition to that Hippolytus (a Bishop of Rome, though not not - according to the modern RCC, a pope, but an anti-pope), in his Discourse on the Holy Theophany, makes two references that could be taken to mean that Peter was the rock. He was writing in the first half of the 3rd century.

Then Cyprian applies the term rock to Peter, but not just to Peter but to all the bishops of the Church. Firmillian, in contrast, applied the term only to Peter, and mocked Stephen for claiming to sit in the chair of Peter. Both would have been writing toward the middle of the third century.

If you are reckoning Early Church Fathers as those before the council of Nicea, I wonder what makes you think that "all" of them held your view: the vast majority make no reference at all to the subject, and the few who mention it do so in very few places.

So here's the challenge to you:

Back up your claim that "every single early church father agrees that Peter was the rock" and then reconcile that with Augustine, who explicitly stated that it was mistaken to say that Peter was the rock.

Finally, note that even Trent does not have your back. After all Trent writes:

"For which cause, this council has thought good, that the Symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church makes use of,--as being that principle wherein all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agree, and that firm and alone foundation against which the gates of hell shall never prevail,--be expressed in the very same words in which it is read in all the churches."

Faith, not Peter, is described as being the foundation by Trent, which if you are to remain RCC, you must be bound to accept as true.

What will it be then? Is Peter or Faith in Christ the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

-Turretinfan

Quick Challenge on the Atonement

Quick Challenge on the Atonement

(I'm in the middle of responding to Godismyjudge's last comment, that included a complex definition of LFW, this little challenge shouldn't be a big diversion from that.)

Here's the challenge, if you believe that this verse:

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

means that the atonement is universal, i.e. that it was made for the sins of each and every person that ever was or ever will be (excluding, presumably, Christ himself since he was sinless).

If that is you:

1) What was the purpose in God's doing so? What did He hope to accomplish by propitiating universally?

2) Does Scripture state that purpose? If so, where does it state that purpose?

3) Will God accomplish that purpose? If not, why not? Is the answer to "why not" a conflicting purpose?

4) And does the Gospel have the same purpose as the universal propitiation?

Please try to answer the three questions above before continuing to the last section.

Now, if your answers were:

1) To save everyone.

2) Yes.

2 Peter 3:9

3) No. God wants man to have free will. Yes.

4) Yes.


If those were your answers to the questions, then let me ask you this final question:

Given this:

Luke 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

Matthew 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

Mark 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

And Given this:

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

How can it be that God's own will for humanity is divided against itself, and how can the Gospel fail to accomplish what God pleases?

-Turretinfan

Torching of the Text?

Torching of the Text?

A dubious argument in favor of the received text commented upon, with several objections thereto readily discarded.

Mr. Kurschner recently wrote a follow-up article (link is here) to an early article he had written (my response to that article is linked here) against the King James Version Only crowd. This presnt article of Mr. Kurschner's is stronger than the last, but still deserves some correction, and I still want to encourage Mr. Kurschner to address the easier topic of the alleged Scriptural basis for the KJVO movement.

In his article, Kurschner continues to perpetuate a fundamental misunderstanding of the textual scenario, writing: "In a recent article, I explained the historical facts that before the fourth century there were no distinct Byzantine readings in any Greek MSS of the papyri, majuscules, and other versions as well that would give for us a suggestion that the Byzantine textual family (or text-type) existed during that time."

Notice that the way this is worded, two possible views of the alleged historical facts are possible: first, that there are early Byzantine readings, but just not enough to suggest an early Byzantine textual family, and second that there are no early Byzantine readings, and thus no reason to suppose an early Byzantine textual family.

Mr. Kurschner continues, however, thereby eliminating the ambiguity: "Further, the 800-pound gorilla is that there are no Byzantine texts or distinct readings used in the voluminous writings of any early church fathers for the first 300 years of church history!" And there Mr. Kurschner is plainly wrong. The facts are against him.

Kurchner claims that no distinctively Byzantine readings are found in early texts. Rather than just assert that he is incorrect, I will refer the reader to Barbara Aland's "New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Early Church History: a discussion of methods," pages 16-17, and to the references cited therein, including Kurt Aland and B.M. Metzger, whose fame in the modern textual community should silence any fan of modern textual criticism. The following website, without citation, identifies some particular papyri that are alleged to contain Byzantine readings, if one would rather forgo buying a book.

Nevertheless, the generally accepted fact is that are early distinctive Byzantine readings, unless one automatically denies that a reading is distinctively Byzantine if it is found in any manuscript outside the Byzantine text-type.

Accordingly, the 800 lb. gorilla turns on its creator. If the absence of such readings was supposed to disprove the early presence of the Byzantine text-form, so much more does the verified presence of them rebut that argument.

But Mr. Kurschner is not content to stop there. He continues: "The Ante-Nicene fathers cited all the text-types, except the Byzantine." Considering that Mr. Kurschner got the issue of manuscript support wrong, I would like to see Mr. Kurschner's evidence for this claim, before accepting it as fact. It is somewhat similar to Hort's claim (although as I recall, Hort merely asserted that they failed to quote distinctive Byzantine readings). In any event, as we know, few of the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers have been preserved, the authenticity of many of the Ante-Nicean fathers' writings are in question, and (the autographs of the Ante-Nicean Fathers having perished, and in some case even the original language copies have perished as well) the Ante-Nicean Fathers are also beset by various textual critical issues in themselves. I wonder whether Mr. Kurschner believes that the extent copies of any of the Ante-Nicean Fathers date from before the 9th century, and - if so - which ones and how many?

Mr. Kurschner continues on even further, stating: "I have responded with asking if the Byzantine text was so "highly valuable that they wore out," then why do we find all of the early church fathers for 300 years using other texts such as the Alexandrian text-type, mix-types, etc., but absolutely no Byzantine texts?"

There are two responses: first "distinct" Byzantine readings are much fewer than Byzantine readings in general. There is plenty of evidence of Byzantine readings in the early church fathers, just not evidence of the "distinct" Byzantine readings. Second, the number of early church father writings is relatively small, is not well preserved, and is not necessarily authentic or representative.

Furthermore, they were highly valuable to scribes who devoted themselves to copying, not to the "fathers" who devoted themselves to teaching. It's not like the "fathers" could log on to Amazon.com (R) and download a copy of the Byzantine text-form to their Palm Pilots (R). They had to work with what they had, and - in some cases - may have had to work from memory.
Mr. Kurschner then concludes: "There is no evidence that anyone possessed or used this phantom “popular” and “highly valued” Byzantine text because it was a conflation after the turn of the fourth century." One supposes that Mr. Kurschner concludes that there were autographs of the New Testament, without any of them surviving to the present, yet his argument could be used with equal force to assert their non-existence. None of the early church fathers quote from a pure original text, and none of the manuscripts show any evidence of belonging to a family of error-free copies of the originals. Are then the autographs phantoms? Are they non-existent because direct evidence of them is absent? Of course not. Mr. Kurschner's argument is a logically fallacious appeal to the absence of evidence. It is an argument from silence.

Mr. Kurschner recognizes that there is explanation for the absence of early manuscripts (in the Byzantine textual family) besides the "worn-out" explanation, and that is the "intentional scribal destruction" theory.

Mr. Kurschner states: "another explanation for the silence of Byzantine readings have been offered: After a scribe made a copy of a manuscript, he "destroyed" the exemplar." This is not a particularly strong alternative explanation, for various reasons, several of which Mr. Kurschner states. The explanation seems to be based itself on the absence of parent texts for any of the early texts. In other words, nowhere do we find both a parent and its child (at least as far as we know). Even if that fact is so, it is weak support for the intentional destruction hypothesis.
There is some further basis in the fact that sacred items that had become unusably worn were sometimes cremated when they could not be washed. Accordingly, it would be unsurprising that such a practice could have been applied to very old manuscripts, a sort of Korvokian death-with-dignity for the early manuscripts at the hands of their keepers.

Mr. Kurshner provides 8 attempted resposes to this argument.

Mr. Kurschner's first argument states that the result would be only one copy per manuscript. However, Mr. Kurschner notes that sometimes there were scriptoriums with several copyists copying at once from a single manuscript. This argument is flawed, because if the alleged practice of burning the document was done after the copying was complete, since the multiple scribes were copying in parallel, the original would be destroyed when the scriptorium finished its parallel copies.

Mr. Kurschner's second argument states that if this practice were followed, there would always only be one copy of the Bible. However, as noted above, multiple parallel copies alleviates this difficulty to the alleged practice.

Mr. Kurschner's third argument is more persuasive, which is that there is no historical documentation for its practice, and no obvious reason to make such a practice standard. I agree with Mr. Kurschner and would add that one reason for doing so would be to conceal omissions and/or insertions (i.e. to intentionally corrupt the text). If such texts were in the Byzantine family, the family would fall under harsh scrutiny.

Mr. Kurschner's fourth argument is that manuscripts were very expensive, and it would have been very costly to engage in such a practice. This is also a sound argument and weighs against intentional destruction. I would add that we see evidence of the reuse of old parchments, writing be removed by sponge (or other techniques) and new writing placed on top.

Mr. Kurschner's fifth argument is not entirely cogent: it asks which scribes were destroying documents, and then states that it was not the orthodox fathers, a fact that is utterly aside from the question. No one supposes that any of the ante-Nicean fathers were copyists.

Mr. Kurchner's sixth argument is that early Christian Scribes would not "dare think about destroying God's Word" in view of the warning against adding or subtracting to God's word in the book of Revelation. The idea that burning a copy (or even an autograph) would be within the scope of Revelation's warning seems superstitious and unsupported by exegesis. That warning would encourage the scribes to copy accurately, but it would say nothing to them about the parchment being available as kindling or a spill. One wonders whether Mr. Kurschner personally believes that discarding a worn out Bible subjects one to being blotted out of the book of life. I would find that hard to believe. Why then attribute such superstitious nonsense to the early scribes?

Mr. Kurschner's seventh argument is more of a question plus a hypothesis. He asks why there are so many copies of the Byzantine textual family after 350 a.d. and none before. He posits that the explanation may be that the practice of burning the original died out around then. A simpler explanation is that in a time of less persecution, preparing multiple copies in parallel became easier, and simple geometry took over.

Mr. Kurschner's eighth argument is "Lastly, it is special pleading to argue that only scribes who copied Byzantine texts destroyed their texts, and the scribes who copied other non-Byzantine text-types did not, since they have early attestation." This argument, however, is not quite correct. There is no need to further plead anything with regard to copies of the non-Byzantine text-type manuscripts. The answer is that those manuscripts are rejects that were not copied, consequently not burnt, and therefore their presence indicates their untrustworthiness in the eyes of the early church, or at best that they never fell into the hands of copyists. Nevertheless, the whole mechanism of copy and burn appears to be special pleading (at least to me), because of the absence of historical documentation of the procedure, and the lack of motive by reputable scribes sufficient to outweigh to the economic incentive to preserve the manuscripts as long as possible.

Mr. Kurschner concludes: "All of this brings us back to the 800-pound gorilla sitting on the KJVO's desk: There are no distinct Byzantine readings in the writings of the Ante-Nicence fathers of the first 300 years of church history, not to mention any early versions testifying to it as well." Of course, I'm not KJVO, so if this gorilla exists, it is not sitting on my desk. But if it were, I'd question its weight. It is an argument from silence - pure and simple. It weighs little, because it could easily be overturned if we were to find a single cache of a half dozen ancient Byzantine text-form manuscripts that were reliably dated to the second century.

Mr. Kurschner goes on to explain that the explanation for the absence of Byzantine text-form manuscripts is that there was conflation in the manuscript collection in the Byzantine region around 400 and that the rest of the world stopped using Greek around that same time, thereby permitting the errant manuscripts to preponderate. Mr. Kurschner concludes that the Alexandrian text-form is therefore the superior Greek text. Leaving aside the lack of historical documentation that conflation occurred in the Byzantine region at that time, Mr. Kurschner's claim is puzzling for a few reasons. With a few exceptions, the ancient versions other than Greek did not follow the Alexandrian text-form. Thus, the explanation does not match the evidence, and should be discarded.

-Turretinfan

Comments by a Romanist, "Fred," Responded to

Response to Fred's Comments

Fred, who holds himself out as though he were a Roman Catholic, has posted comments on an earlier post. Since they have relatively little to do with the main point of that post (that Prof. Beckwith's religious views were revealed by Dr. White), and since Fred has chosen to present rather lengthy comments, I've provided a separate post to address them.

Hello again! Fred here.
You say: I'm surprised you would choose to continue this demonstration.

Why? I'm surprised that you would be surprised :-) You have said nothing by way of an actual demonstration up to now, and it remains to be seen whether you could win the debate or not. I wouldn't be surprised if you could do so, though such a victory obviously would have no bearing on whether you are actually correct about some things (including especially our points of disagreement).

Unfortunately, it appears that we will not have the opportunity to find that out. My vacation ends tonight, and with it will end any serious likelihood of me having time for this stuff (I almost never enter get involved in Internet debates). :-( In retrospect, given the constraints on my time I shouldn't have even replied in the first place, but that's water under the bridge now.

You say:
Legalism => Salvation by works
Denial of Sola Fide => Salvation by works
ergo
Denial of Sola Fide => Legalism

I'll grant you the first as a definitional statement. But the second is pure assertion. It is by no means the case that to deny sola fide is *necessarily* to affirm salvation by works. For the Pelagian, sure. Not for the Catholic, who says that by His grace God enables us to obey Him: "for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." For the Catholic, saved by Christ's work of atonement in sacrificing Himself on the cross, good works are something that he does in response to and as a consequence of the fact that he has been saved. In no way do they supplant Christ's sacrifice. In point of fact, this is not so very different from the Reformed perspective on works.

In sum: it is simply not the case that the *only* alternative to sola fide is works salvation. This is pure tommyrot: it's a Protestant article of faith, but it's no less mistaken for all that.

But I must ask you: if you really believe in salvation by faith alone, may an unrepentant adulterer who trusts in Christ get to heaven or not? If you say yes, then you have contradicted Gal. 5:19-21. If you say no (as I hope and expect you do), then immediately it becomes obvious that what we Christians do matters. We cannot live as we wish. We are obliged to obey God.

Most likely you will insist that such a man hasn't really trusted in Christ. To that I would respond: who are you to judge the condition of his faith? I certainly agree with you that he will not be saved unless he repents, but I would never presume to judge his faith. I do not know his heart.

Truly it seems to me that in large measure the quarrel between the Reformed and Catholics comes down to a question of assurance: you must insist upon sola fide because without it, your insistence upon 100% assurance of salvation dries up and blows away.Unfortunately, I don't see how this notion of 100% assurance can be maintained in the light of the following (among other things that might be said):

1) In Deut. 7, God says of Israel that he chose them and loved them: in other words, they were his elect. And yet many of the elect fell. Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, it seems unreasonable to insist being "elect" in the NT differs so dramatically from being "chosen" in the OT as to reduce the latter to ... something of virtually no force.

2) The parable of the sheep and the goats (Mt. 25:31-46), where the two are judged *not* on the basis of the quality of their faith, but on the basis of what they *did*.

3) The Last Judgment (Rev. 20), where men are judged "according to their works."

4) St. Paul writes to the *faithful* believers at Philippi: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Php. 2:12; even more interesting is v. 13, which confirms the Catholic doctrine that God enables us to obey him by his grace, so that we have no grounds for boasting). Why, if someone is saved by "faith alone", would he need to "work out" his salvation, and why, if his salvation is 100% assured, would he need to do this with "fear and trembling"???

5) Why would Hebrews sternly warn us, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, who have both tasted the heavenly gift and become partakers of the Holy Spirit, who have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, and then have fallen away, to be renewed again to repentance; since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and make him a mockery" (Heb. 6:4-6)?? It is not credible even to suggest that this is merely hypothetical. It's not credible, either, to pretend that genuine Christians are not the subject of the warning (what pseudo-Christian ever became a partaker of the Holy Spirit??).

You say: Salvation by cooperation with grace, is not the same thing as salvation by grace.

If the cooperation with grace is *itself* enabled by grace, it most certainly is the same thing. If I am unable to cooperate with God's grace until and unless God's grace enables me to do so, then the whole matter is entirely one of God's grace from start to finish.

Truly, it's remarkable that we Catholics can deny up and down that we believe in salvation by works, and we can insist until we're blue in the face that we're saved by grace, and yet you will still have the temerity to deny that we say that, and to insist that we're legalists.

You say: Did I accuse him of dishonesty? Did I say he lied? I don't recall saying that. He just concealed the truth.

Concealing a truth one is obligated to reveal is dishonest, as you know very well. So, of course, you did accuse him of this. And of course, as he has already made clear, he *considered* not making his reversion known: a course he did not ultimately pursue (even before it was made public), as he has written. I would only add that it's not at all clear that honesty obliges one to instantaneous action under the circumstances, so I'm not prepared to condemn him for his hesitation. Most importantly, it is clear that the ETS Board appears (according to its statement) to have no issues with the way that Dr. Beckwith has conducted himself. So what you and I think about the matter is really unimportant.

You write: Your claim of "balderdash" is contradicted by the Holy Spirit at the pen of Paul in Romans, particularly the fourth chapter.

Your "rebuttal" is contradicted by the Holy Spirit at the pen of St. James, particularly the second chapter.

You say: Your laughter regarding God's gracious restraint of the evil of men, including Roman Catholics, does not mean that the answer does not answer the question. Nevertheless, to be clear, only Christ was sinless, as Scripture says.

LOL again!! Let me refresh your memory as to the original question here, since it appears that you have forgotten: "Or maybe it's just that he thinks Catholics are evil no matter what they believe or do?"Such a question requires a "yes" or "no", not a theological discourse on whether God restrains the evil deeds of Reformed Presbyterians and all other men or not, and not a mention (important, but in the present context irrelevant) of the sinlessness of Christ.

Truly, I'm a bit surprised by your handling of this question. It was pretty obviously (for the most part, or so I thought) a rhetorical device, but you seem to be choking on it in your evasions of a simple yes or no. So now I'd really like to know the answer: Do you consider Catholics to be evil no matter what they do or believe? Yes or no?

I respond:

I'll reply on a chunk-by-chunk basis.

Fred wrote:

You say: I'm surprised you would choose to continue this demonstration.

Why? I'm surprised that you would be surprised :-) You have said nothing by way of an actual demonstration up to now, and it remains to be seen whether you could win the debate or not. I wouldn't be surprised if you could do so, though such a victory obviously would have no bearing on whether you are actually correct about some things (including especially our points of disagreement).

I reply:

I think a fair paraphrase of your comments are: "You could win the debate, but I'm still correct." Suffice to say that few will be persuaded by your bare assertion.

Fred wrote:

Unfortunately, it appears that we will not have the opportunity to find that out. My vacation ends tonight, and with it will end any serious likelihood of me having time for this stuff (I almost never enter get involved in Internet debates). :-( In retrospect, given the constraints on my time I shouldn't have even replied in the first place, but that's water under the bridge now.

I reply:

At least that will bring the discussion to a conclusion. Debates without a thesis tend to go on indefinitely.

Fred wrote:

You say:
Legalism => Salvation by works
Denial of Sola Fide => Salvation by works
ergo
Denial of Sola Fide => Legalism

I'll grant you the first as a definitional statement. But the second is pure assertion. It is by no means the case that to deny sola fide is *necessarily* to affirm salvation by works. For the Pelagian, sure. Not for the Catholic, who says that by His grace God enables us to obey Him: "for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." For the Catholic, saved by Christ's work of atonement in sacrificing Himself on the cross, good works are something that he does in response to and as a consequence of the fact that he has been saved. In no way do they supplant Christ's sacrifice. In point of fact, this is not so very different from the Reformed perspective on works.

In sum: it is simply not the case that the *only* alternative to sola fide is works salvation. This is pure tommyrot: it's a Protestant article of faith, but it's no less mistaken for all that.

I respond:

Contrary to your assertion, the Papist view of works is quite different from the Reformed perspective on works, hence the perceived need for Trent's dogmatic definitions.

The crux of your argument above is your assertion that not every denial of Sola Fide entails salvation by works. This is an incorrect assertion on your part.

That it is incorrect can be summarily seen in Galatians, second chapeter. For example:

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Faith alone is contrasted with human obedience. The "salvation" Rome offers is conditional on obedience. It is something that has to be earned, despite the protestations of some of its advocates.

And that's only the "salvation" offered to the "faithful" from eternal damnation. Salvation from "temporal punishment," is even more explicitly works-based in Roman Catholicism.

Fred wrote:

In sum: it is simply not the case that the *only* alternative to sola fide is works salvation. This is pure tommyrot: it's a Protestant article of faith, but it's no less mistaken for all that.

I reply:
Ah, but it is the only alternative, as per Paul's epistles. Calling the position "pure tommyrot" only shows your dislike of the position.

Fred wrote:

But I must ask you: if you really believe in salvation by faith alone, may an unrepentant adulterer who trusts in Christ get to heaven or not? If you say yes, then you have contradicted Gal. 5:19-21. If you say no (as I hope and expect you do), then immediately it becomes obvious that what we Christians do matters. We cannot live as we wish. We are obliged to obey God.

I reply:

Let's see whether Galatians 5:19-21 says a whisper about unrepentance:

Galatians 5:19-21
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

No, it does not say anything about unrepentance, and it has nothing to do with repentance or lack thereof.

And the totally separate answer to your question is that, because salvation is not based on the thoroughness of one's repentance, one may enter the kingdom of God without having repented of a specific particular sin, including an act of adultery. Anyone who has been regenerated will repent of his sins, but he may not catch every last sin, and he won't go to hell just because his repentance was not as thorough as a Roman Catholic would like it to be.

Fred wrote:

Most likely you will insist that such a man hasn't really trusted in Christ. To that I would respond: who are you to judge the condition of his faith? I certainly agree with you that he will not be saved unless he repents, but I would never presume to judge his faith. I do not know his heart.

I reply:

Perhaps then you are surprised at the real answer. But, in any event, judging the heart of a hypothetical person is hardly presumptuous.

Fred wrote:

Truly it seems to me that in large measure the quarrel between the Reformed and Catholics comes down to a question of assurance: you must insist upon sola fide because without it, your insistence upon 100% assurance of salvation dries up and blows away.Unfortunately, I don't see how this notion of 100% assurance can be maintained in the light of the following (among other things that might be said):

I reply:

Before I get into the specific examples, a few general comments are in order. There are many quarrels between Reformed Christians and Roman Catholics. Personally, I think that the biggest quarrel is over the more recent Ecumenical Counsels of Rome, namely Vatican I and Vatican II. Most specifically, Muslims do not worship our God, and if Roman Catholics do (as Vatican II seems to pretty clearly state) then they both worship some other God than we do.

Sola Fide is an important difference between us and Rome, as is sola gratia and sola scriptura. The so-called five sola's define many important points of distinction, and they are all Biblically driven.

Accordingly, your comment about 100% assurance is far off the mark. We leave open the possibility of self-deception, and we call believers to self-examination for that reason. Nevertheless, we have confidence and boldness because of our faith which is not alone. Indeed, because we believe what James and John wrote, we look to our works to provide us with assurance of salvation, and to serve as the basis for our consideration in self-examination.

Fred continued:

1) In Deut. 7, God says of Israel that he chose them and loved them: in other words, they were his elect. And yet many of the elect fell. Letting Scripture interpret Scripture, it seems unreasonable to insist being "elect" in the NT differs so dramatically from being "chosen" in the OT as to reduce the latter to ... something of virtually no force.

I reply:

You'd have to be either utterly unfamiliar with history of the Old Testament to think that Israel did not receive a special degree of favor that was not accorded to the other nations. Furthermore, Old Testament Israel was chosen as a nation, which pictured the individual election to salvation, of all the sheep of our Shepherd.

Fred continued:

2) The parable of the sheep and the goats (Mt. 25:31-46), where the two are judged *not* on the basis of the quality of their faith, but on the basis of what they *did*.

I reply:

You cannot be Roman Catholic and deny that salvation is by faith in view of Trent. To imagine that everyone has faith (such that both the sheep and the goats have faith) is bizarre and unintelligible. There are infidels, and Muslims are among them, as Christians have always believed (the Muslim detail obviously only came to be believed once there were Muslims).

Fred continued:

3) The Last Judgment (Rev. 20), where men are judged "according to their works."

I reply:

I fully agree that men will be judged according to their works, and if their works are anything short of perfect they will merit eternal punishment. The only escape is to be judged according to Christ's works: to have Him as your substitute. It is by the Substitionary Atonement of Christ that we escape judgment for our works.

Fred continued:

4) St. Paul writes to the *faithful* believers at Philippi: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Php. 2:12; even more interesting is v. 13, which confirms the Catholic doctrine that God enables us to obey him by his grace, so that we have no grounds for boasting). Why, if someone is saved by "faith alone", would he need to "work out" his salvation, and why, if his salvation is 100% assured, would he need to do this with "fear and trembling"???

I reply:

You to seem imagine that Paul means that they should work in order to be saved, rather than the more natural sense that they should work because they are saved. Verse 13 does not confirm Semi-Pelegianism, it confirms Reformed Theology. It states:

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

And Jerome, in the Vulgate translation confirms this view:

Philippians 2:13 (VUL) Deus est enim qui operatur in vobis et velle et perficere pro bona voluntate

Notice this is "in vobis" not "cum vobis."

God does not work WITH us but IN us to do His pleasure. Thus, when we do good works, that is by His grace, as Augustine taught.

But you ask, (I paraphrase) "Why do that?"

The answer is found in verses 14-16, namely that by our works we provide light to the world.

Fred continued:

5) Why would Hebrews sternly warn us, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, who have both tasted the heavenly gift and become partakers of the Holy Spirit, who have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, and then have fallen away, to be renewed again to repentance; since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and make him a mockery" (Heb. 6:4-6)?? It is not credible even to suggest that this is merely hypothetical. It's not credible, either, to pretend that genuine Christians are not the subject of the warning (what pseudo-Christian ever became a partaker of the Holy Spirit??).

I reply:

I have dealt with that passage on other occassions, and there is no need to do so again here. It is sufficient to point out that whatever this is, it is not the saved again-lost again-saved again doctrine of works salvation accompanied by auricular confession and penance. For it is written of such people "it is impossible ... to be renewed again to repentance."

Fred continued:

You say: Salvation by cooperation with grace, is not the same thing as salvation by grace.

If the cooperation with grace is *itself* enabled by grace, it most certainly is the same thing. If I am unable to cooperate with God's grace until and unless God's grace enables me to do so, then the whole matter is entirely one of God's grace from start to finish.

I reply:

And does the cooperation-enabling grace require cooperation, or is it only the later grace that requires cooperation? It's a rhetorical question, because the concept of two stages of grace is unscriptural balderdash. In any event, however, since that cooperation-enabling grace does not save, it ought not to be counted when we are speaking of being "saved by grace," and consequently cannot be appealled to in order to bolster a claim to salvation by grace. No, salvation by cooperation with grace is no more salvation by grace than cooperating with the water (swimming) can be characterized as salvation from drowning by lake. The lake didn't save such a man, he saved himself by his cooperation with the lake.

Fred continued:

Truly, it's remarkable that we Catholics can deny up and down that we believe in salvation by works, and we can insist until we're blue in the face that we're saved by grace, and yet you will still have the temerity to deny that we say that, and to insist that we're legalists.

I reply:

We say what we say because it is the truth. Rome denies salvation by grace alone, by faith alone, because it denies the supreme authority of Scripture alone. Thus, Rome can make whatever conflicting claims it likes. It still teaches a legalistic salvation of adherence to the law as the path to heaven. It still denies that grace saves us, instead asserting (like the Protestant Arminians) that grace merely makes salvation a possibility. And consequently, the accusations of legalism and salvation by works (though not by works alone) sticks.

Fred continued:

You say: Did I accuse him of dishonesty? Did I say he lied? I don't recall saying that. He just concealed the truth.

Concealing a truth one is obligated to reveal is dishonest, as you know very well. So, of course, you did accuse him of this. And of course, as he has already made clear, he *considered* not making his reversion known: a course he did not ultimately pursue (even before it was made public), as he has written. I would only add that it's not at all clear that honesty obliges one to instantaneous action under the circumstances, so I'm not prepared to condemn him for his hesitation. Most importantly, it is clear that the ETS Board appears (according to its statement) to have no issues with the way that Dr. Beckwith has conducted himself. So what you and I think about the matter is really unimportant.

I reply:

I think you have essentially acknowledged that I did not directly accuse him of dishonesty. Did I claim that this was a situation in which Dr. Beckwith was under a moral obligation to reveal the the truth? Of course, again, the answer is no.

I hardly think that the ETS Board's judgment affects the situation. He also did not notify them until after the fact.

You wrote: "a course he did not ultimately pursue," but of course he did not have the option of persuing it becasue he was asked to serve in a role that he could only serve in as an open Roman Catholic. Even then, it is not clear that he intended his changed views to become public any time soon.

Fred continued:

You write: Your claim of "balderdash" is contradicted by the Holy Spirit at the pen of Paul in Romans, particularly the fourth chapter.

Your "rebuttal" is contradicted by the Holy Spirit at the pen of St. James, particularly the second chapter.

I reply:

James does not contradict Paul. James speaks of how we are justified in the eyes of men, and Paul in the eyes of God.

Fred continued:

You say: Your laughter regarding God's gracious restraint of the evil of men, including Roman Catholics, does not mean that the answer does not answer the question. Nevertheless, to be clear, only Christ was sinless, as Scripture says.

LOL again!! Let me refresh your memory as to the original question here, since it appears that you have forgotten: "Or maybe it's just that he thinks Catholics are evil no matter what they believe or do?"Such a question requires a "yes" or "no", not a theological discourse on whether God restrains the evil deeds of Reformed Presbyterians and all other men or not, and not a mention (important, but in the present context irrelevant) of the sinlessness of Christ.

I reply:

Actually, a grandstanding, rhetorical question like that, does not require any answer. Nevertheless, clarification has been provided, and if the answer is still obscure, it is not the fault of the present author.

Fred continued:

Truly, I'm a bit surprised by your handling of this question. It was pretty obviously (for the most part, or so I thought) a rhetorical device, but you seem to be choking on it in your evasions of a simple yes or no. So now I'd really like to know the answer: Do you consider Catholics to be evil no matter what they do or believe? Yes or no?

I reply:

See above, but if you feel it has not been answered, please explain what you mean by "evil." Do you mean that they sin like everyone else? Or do you mean that they commit genocide like Hitler with the Gypsies and Jews?

Explain yourself, Fred.

-Turretinfan