Saturday, February 09, 2008
9And he [Jesus] said unto them [the Pharisees and scribes], Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Let us see first the commandments that Jesus identifies:
Exodus 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Deuteronomy 5:16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Exodus 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Deuteronomy 27:16 Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Jesus has identified both the positive and negative ordinances that are relevant. The first ordinance was: honor your parents, the second, if you dishonor your parents, capital punishment.
Nevertheless, despite these commandments, the Jews (meaning the leaders, the Pharisees and Scribes) sought to find exceptions.
Scripture states only that the way to meet the exception was to say "it is a gift," by which we understand that they meant a gift to God. Scripture does not specify how they justified such a tradition.
According to one person with whom I was recently discussing the matter, the justification was an appeal to:
Numbers 30:2 If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
In other words, the justification would be that Numbers 30:2 can be used to trump paternal requests by vowing to give the item to God, and consequently tying ones own hands from granting one's parents request. This is a rather ironic interpretation, when one considers the context of the verse.
Likewise, this same person suggested that Leviticus 27:28 might be used to justify the tradition:
Leviticus 27:28 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.
The point is that if you give it to God, it is God's, and consequently you cannot sell it or redeem it. How could you sell it if you had already given it to God? Well, one might give some fraction of the fruit of the land to God. For example, someone might swear an oath to God that if God will give him a son, he will give God a third of the wheat that his land produces. The result is that every year, at harvest time, he needs to give that wheat to God, and not sell it.
So, how might someone seek to set those two verses against the first five? The answer is this, when your parents come to you for help, you swear an oath to give the things to God, which then prevents you from giving them to your parents. See? Ah, but wouldn't that mean you had to give them to God? Oh, no. You see, you just give them to God conditionally, upon the condition that you live 200 years, or you promise to given them to God in 200 years. You see? Now, you never have to give up your stuff, either to God or your parents. Amazing, eh?
But, of course, such an interpretation of the latter two verses is plainly wrong, not only because it is so patently absurd (since the person has no real intent to fulfill his vow to God), but because it contradicts the commands to honor one's parents. In other words, the interpretation is clearly wrong because it sets Scripture against Scripture. God authorized men to swear to Him and to devote things to him, but not in order to violate His commandments. A man may not lawfully swear an oath to kill an innocent man, although the Jews sometimes tried this:
Acts 23:12 And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul.
Nor would God honor such an oath. Those who make such foolish oaths place themselves under inescapable shame. So also with those who make oaths to avoid honoring their parents, or to steal, or to commit adultery.
God cannot be set against himself, but men are fond of trying to find ways to do so. The "Corban" exception was one such example, and (as noted above) Jesus pointed out that the Jews did many things like that.
May God give us grace not to elevate the traditions of men to the level of the Word of God,
1And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded.
2If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
[SPECIAL PROVISION FOR UNMARRIED WOMEN]
3If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father's house in her youth; 4And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.
[SPECIAL PROVISION FOR MARRIED WOMEN]
6And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.
[SPECIAL PROVISION FOR FORMERLY MARRIED WOMEN]
9But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her. 10And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; 11And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 12But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her.
[EXCEPTION FOR WOMEN OF OATH-BREAKING HUSBANDS]
13Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. 14But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. 15But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity.
16These are the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father's house.
Thus, in general, a woman had the ability to bind herself by an oath/vow, but if there was a man in her life, either a father (if she was unmarried) or a husband (if she was married), then the father/husband could overrule the vow/oath. If he did so the first time he heard it, he would do so without guilt, and he did so later, he would bear the penalty for the woman's breaking the oath.
Notice that God not only gave men authority in the household over their wives and daughters, he also gave them responsibility. They were responsible to pay attention to their wives and daughters, and to repudiate their unlawful oaths/vows.
Sadly, in our day, most societies have - under the influence of Feminism - succombed to French ideas of egalitarianism of the sexes. That is to say, many people (even Christians) seem to imagine that men and women are and ought to be equals. This is contrary to Scripture, as can plainly be seen from the passage above.
There is nothing unjust about Numbers 30. It is God's perfect law and worthy of imitation by modern governments. It establishes, along with other passages, men as the heads of the household. This is both their right and privilege, but also their responsibility. It is no small thing to be responsible for another person.
Nevertheless, women in God's law are not inconsequential. Notice that there are special provisions for women who have lost their men (either by death or divorce), and consequently who stand alone. They are permitted to swear for themselves. When the patriarchy fails, there is a backup.
Although there is nothing ritualistic or especially regional about these provisions, one might try to say that these provisions are for the old testament time period, and that we have new egalitarianism under the New Testament administration.
This is not correct. Recall, for example, Paul's letter to the Ephesians:
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Unlike human patriarchies, there is no need for backup. We will never be left widowed or divorced by Christ. We are constantly under his headship, and we do well to honor that headship with loving obedience.
Praise be to Christ our groom,
Friday, February 08, 2008
This man did two things that most people would consider strange today:
1) he forbade his wives from seeking prenatal care during their pregnancy; and
2) he performed home circumcisions on two of his boys when they were eight days old, using a utility knife.
Apparently referring to the latter item, the article quotes a neighbor as saying that such a thing is "sick" and that he couldn't understand how anyone could do that:
"Sick, he's got a sick mind,” a former neighbor said. “Anybody that would do that to their children -- there's something really wrong with them.”
It's not all that different from the ancient outside view on circumcision:
24And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him [Moses], and sought to kill him. 25Then Zipporah [Moses' wife] took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
But consider the contrast. The modern polygamist used a utility knife, whereas Zipporah used simply a sharp stone. The modern polygamist did it himself (and forbade his wives from seeking prenatal care) because he apparently distrusts doctors, a perfectly understable phobia, even if it is not one to which can fully relate.
I'm not defending the polygamist. Today we have doctors who can perform medical circumcisions, and there is no religious reason for continuing the rite of circumcision in view of the replacement of circumcision by baptism in the New Testament administration.
Nevertheless, to say that someone would have to have a "sick mind" to circumcise their children is simply to fail to recognize the religious significance of the act. The religious significance is the symbolic removal of the uncleanness of the flesh, as a symbol of the hoped-for removal of sin from the heart of the child. In a bloody way, it pictures what the bloodless sacrament of baptism pictures: the work of the spirit in regeneration.
The sacraments of the Old Testament (Passover and Circumcision) were bloody sacraments, picturing the blood of Christ with literal blood. The sacraments of the New Testament are not bloody, though they symbolize blood (both the wine of the Lord's Supper and the water of Baptism picturing the blood of Christ).
The passage above should also be a klaxon to those who think the paedobaptism issue is trivial. The paedocircumcison was not trivial to God. If Zipporah had not circumcised Moses' children, God would have executed the sentence of death for breaking the covenant:
Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
God takes the symbols seriously, and so should we.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
The key portion of the Koran that I want to focus you on is verse 116:
The Koran states:
[5.116] And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.
Surah 5:116 (YUS) And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.
What did Jesus say, though?
63But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Jesus acknowledged that he was the Son of God, which equated himself with God.
John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Jesus did not derogate the Father.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
But Jesus did claim to be God with the Father.
John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
Indeed, Jesus commanded men to believe on Him.
Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
And God commanded the angels to worship Him.
Therefore, we can see that Jesus did claim divinity. The Jews crucified him for that. The Koran's portrayal of Jesus, therefore, is misleading and incorrect. Jesus is God, but that is no derogation of the Father.
UPDATE: Nick Norelli has some similar thoughts (link).
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
1. Scapegoat Issues
Specifically, GIMJ has indicated that the NASB somehow suggests that scapegoat was offered, in some sense. Not sacrificed, but offered.
The support would seem to be: "two male goats for a sin offering" (vs. 5) and "When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat." (vs. 20). " The "he" there is Aaron, not the fit man.
It's interesting to note that verse 5 in the KJV is close to the same: "two kids of the goats for a sin offering" but verse 20 is different: "he shall bring the live goat."
In any event Leviticus 16 calls for the release of the goat, not its sacrifice.
There's another direction I could have taken the answer, and I would have taken it if space had permitted. Specifically, the Nova Vulgata translation (and New Jerusalem Bible) has a very untraditional view of the passage, with its substitution of Azazel for scapegoat. Why do I say "untraditional"? The first reason is the obvious break with the older (Jerome's and Clement's) Vulgate versions.
The second is the obvious disparity between the Vulgate and the Greek text. The translators of the Septuagint (LXX) clearly did not view the goat that shall be sent out (az azel) as a name, and consequently did not transliterate it, as they did with proper names.
What then can be a reason for using Azazel instead of "scapegoat" or Wycliffe's older "the goot that schal be sent out" (the goat that shall be sent out) (vs. 5)?
One reason would be bad theology, namely theology that wants to suggest that the goat was to be offered as a sacrifice to a demon. Think it is odd? It sure is. Nevertheless, there are really web sites out there suggesting that Leviticus 16 commanded that the goat be sacrificed to a demon named Azazel.
Why think that Azazel is a demon?
A. In Paradise Lost (I, 534), Milton uses the name for the standard-bearer of the rebel angels. It seems unlikely this is the original Azazel.
B. Enoch refers to Azazel as a particularly notable fallen angel (e.g. Enoch 10:12 All the earth has been corrupted by the effects of the teaching of Azazyel. To him therefore ascribe the whole crime.)
C. In Muslim demonology, Azazel is apparently the chief demon. I found this claim on many web sites, and I could not find any that cited any authoritative link between Iblis (the "Satan" of Islam) and the name Azazel. That doesn't mean that a link does not exist. One web site suggested that Iblis is short for Ha Bel Az (with Az being a short form of Azazel).
Of course, as far as I can tell, neither Muslim demonology, Milton, Enoch I, nor Irenaeus makes any connection between Azazel and the scapegoat of Leviticus 16.
B. Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 (Leviticus 16):
Ver. 8. The emissary-goat: caper emissarius; in Greek, apopompaios; in Hebrew, Hazazel. The goat to go off, or as some translate it, the scape-goat. This goat, on whose head the high priest was ordered to pour forth prayers, and to make a general confession of the sins of the people, laying them all, as it were, on his head; and after that to send him away into the wilderness, to be devoured by wild beasts, was a figure of our Saviour, charged with all our sins, in his passion. (source)
23And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there: 24And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people.
2. Exegesis Questions
The biggest problem I have with PhatCatholic's response is that he does not provide any exegesis. I also have some problems with the answers he provides:a) "I hope you will excuse my ignorance on this point, but I don't understand the distinction you are making between "spiritual uncleanness" and "ritual uncleanness." My understanding is that, if anyone breaks the ritual law on any point, he commits a sin, and sin makes him spiritually unclean. It was a sin to touch a dead animal, or a woman who was going through her period. Sin is a very spiritual matter and it requires a spiritual remedy.Plus, how many ways are there for someone to actually be unclean? I'm only aware of two: physical and/or spiritual. If you touched a dead animal you were unclean, whether you got a speck of dirt on you or not. When you broke the law on that point it had a spiritual consequence, and of course, the required remedy (the water for impurity) had a spiritual consequence as well."
There are a number of problems with this. First, it is clear that PhatCatholic is simply unfamiliar with the category of ritual uncleanness. Ritual uncleanness pictured spiritual uncleanness. Nevertheless, ritual uncleanness was not inherently sinful.If it were, PhatCatholic would have some serious problems. Remember, a woman with an issue of blood (ceremonially/ritually unclean) touched Jesus, but Jesus was sinless. Furthermore, even leaving aside that issue, Mary (who was greatly blessed) was a woman. Catholic claim she was sinlessly holy. Nevertheless, women generally have periods, when they are not pregnant, and Mary was (in Catholic theology) only pregnant once.
But, of course, we don't have any direct Scriptural evidence that Mary ever had a period.There's one more catch:
Leviticus 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.Mary did conceive and bear a man child, Jesus, and she was consequently unclean seven days. If uncleanness = sin, then the Catholic doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary must be discarded.
The reason, of course, that such an argument is not used in Catholic-Protestant debates on Mary's sinlessness is that ceremonial/ritual uncleanness was not equivalent to sinfulness. PhatCatholic simply did not know what he was talking about when whe made the "unclean spirits" argument.b) "Types, by their very nature, only go so far. I wasn't even using that passage as an explicit example. But, the fact remains that the water in question is holy and it is being used to remove spiritual uncleanliness. That's the only reason why I cited it."
Types are irrelevant here. PhatCatholic may have meant something like "analogs." The analogy is weak. The fact that PhatCatholic only cited the passage as an example of water removing uncleanness (and note above PhatCatholic's failure to appreciate the difference between sin and ritual uncleanness), makes its use fairly well moot.
c) "Do you expect me to respond to all of that? I guess I can if you really want me to, but I would have rather respond to your own words, instead of a great big copy-and-paste. Also, you seem to be making an argument from authority by utilizing what "Keil & Delitzch" have to say. The problem is, I've never heard of those guys (sorry!) and so their opinion on this matter doesn't really mean a whole lot to me. Finally, do you know what the "shotgun approach" is? It's when you overwhelm someone with a massive amount of information and then, when he/she can't respond to it all (b/c of the undue burden placed upon the person's time and energy) then the person with the shotgun claims the victory. I hope that's not what you are doing here."Presumably Keil & Delitzch are Catholic theologians, which is the only reason I can think that Gene would have cited them. It's interesting that PhatCatholic thinks he could take them on. Nevertheless, I suspect that, once he realized that they were Catholics, he would recognize that he had made a mistake about his interpretation of the passages. I think that was Gene's point: PhatCatholics attempted scriptural justification was contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church, and consequently was internally inconsistent.
That's a similar point to the one I made repeatedly about the absence of relevant teachings in the Scriptures or early fathers.
d) "You are right, the word-limit severely hampered me. I thank you for understanding that. "
The word limit more severely hampered my ability to respond to each of the Scriptures string-cited by PhatCatholic.
e) "Now, you'll notice that tfan is rejecting the very notion that water can even be made holy."
It's simply not true that I rejected the idea that water can be consecrated (which is what I assume that PC means by "be made holy").
f) "I am showing him, with those passages, that he is wrong. Water can in fact be made holy, and it is in that limited sense that it is thus "holy water.""
I'm afraid that was something of a waste, unless PC meant something other than "consecrated" by "holy." Like, if he meant it was endued with magic or other supernatural powers. Nevertheless, I'd agree that water can be endowed with such powers, so it would still be a waste.
g) "I'm not saying that it is "holy water" in the developed sense, as in "water that is blessed by a Catholic priest." Those passages are merely examples of water that was made holy, and/or water that was used in the same way that "holy water" (in the developed sense) is used today."
None of those passages, of course, show water being used in a similar way to the way that PC used "holy water" in his "confrontation with the devil." That dissimilarity is the point. As I repeatedly emphasized during the debate this superstition that consecrated water is going to stop demons is nothing more than a superstition.
h) "Basically, the passages in question provide the principles that inform the practice, which, if you'll read the introduction to my opening statement, is all I ever set out to provide. I think that when Dave posted my opening statement on his blog, he may have caused some confusion regarding my use of Scripture when he did not include that introduction."
I don't think that by citing those verses PC managed to identify the actual principles that inform the practice, and arguing the affirmative side imposes a duty on one to do more than merely explain why it is done.
i) "Hopefully, we can resolve this. If you read the passages, water is definitely being made holy and is being used as holy water is used. God blessed the water (cf. Exo 23:25); the priest took "holy water" (Num 5:17); the "water for impurity" is used to remove sin and uncleanliness (cf. Num 19:9,13-20); Elisha makes the water "healed" [KJV], "purified" [NAS], or "wholesome" [RSV] (cf. 2 Ki 2:19-22). These examples contradict tfan's implication that water cannot be made holy."
As noted above, that wasn't my contention. Unfortunately, those tag lines is as close as PhatCAtholic gets to exegesis of the verse. As noted above, PhatCatholic fails to distinguish between removal of ritual uncleanness and removal of the sin that ritual uncleanness symbolizes. That failure to distinguish sinks his argument.
With all due respect, the arguments presented are not sound. The only way one gets from his three main points to the resolution is by induction, based on an assumption that the practice is correct. Likewise, the only way to get from the anecdotal evidence to the resolution is by assuming that the accounts are accurate, and by filtering out the other factors involved.
k. "In other words, nothing is ever right simply b/c I say so."
l. "Instead, it is right b/c of the evidence and the argumentation that I provide."
With respect, I don't think that PC can claim to have one on the evidence and arguments presented.
m. "However, I'm simply supposed to believe that water is superstitious b/c some unnamed doctor a long time ago told Perrin that there were many superstitions among the people in medieval times? I mean, give me a break! Tfan wants me to simply take this guy's word for it."
Well, I didn't name the doctor, but Perrin did. The doctor wrote a book, and Perrin cites to his book. The doctor is being cited for something with respect to which he is a proper authority, i.e. an expert. That subject is ailments. If I say, "That guy has a demon," and a doctor says, "No, he has pneumonia," you better believe people are going to suggest taking penicillin rather than a holy water bath.
n. "That's an argument from authority, and if you're going to make an argument like that, then you have to make sure the person you are citing is an actual authority."
Done.6. "No, but if you are going to use someone as an authority on history (which you just said tfan is doing here), then the person better actually be an authority on history! I dare say neither Perrin nor the doctor he talked to are authorities on this matter"
Perrin is an authority on history (he is an historian), and the citation was to one of his books on the subject. The doctor in question was an authority on medicine and demons and was being cited from his book on the subject by Perrin.
I'm willing to bet that PhatCatholic did not investigate the matter before responding as he did. The result is that he is getting clobbered by getting the credentials of those whose credentials he questions. This is avoidable with a little bit of research.
7. "I don't engage in "rhetorical shorthand." I don't play tricks and I don't dodge anything. The sentence I provided pretty much said everything I wanted to say about that. But, you are right about me trying to do too much with my concluding statement. I have yet to master the art of working well within a defined word limit. Thank you for the advice."Well, there may have been some rhetorical shorthand, but I don't think PC intentionally played tricks or tried to dodge. In some cases I think PC missed the point, but I think those were honest errors. For example, while I think PC's analysis above mischaracterizes my position, I don't think he does so intentionally.
3. PhatCatholic's Conclusion
PhatCatholic's concluding argument (link) needs a little further response from me.
Leaving aside the cheesy opening graphic (ha!), PhatCatholic's claim that: "Let's begin by listing the various holes and omissions that weaken tfan's defense of the negative position:" seems to indicate that PhatCatholic did not properly recognize the burden of proof in the round. A canonball riddled with holes, even to the point of become grape shot rather than a single ball, would still sink his ship.
But let's look at the holes, and discuss them:
a) "No response to my proof that he exagerated when he said, "the passage cited by PC does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions.""
I demonstrated that the chapter does not appear at all in two versions of the Constitutions and shows evidence of insertion in a third version (i.e. it was missing in parent version that no longer exists). That's fairly good evidence that the chapter was a later insertion, and not an original part of the manuscript.
And I did respond to this in my conclusion: "There is no way to definitively push the cited passage of the Apostolic canons past the 12 century, and, as already demonstrated, there is evidence suggesting insertion."
b) "No response to my argument that the anonymity of the author of the Apostolic Constitutions does not itself discredit the statements found therein."
My response to the argument generally was: "They claim to be written by Clement of Rome, and the author claims that they are a collection of the statements of the apostles. Both claims are generally recognized to be false." They are not anonymous, they are pseudonymous. They bear a false name. They are double pseudonymous, because they bear a false name as to the collection (it was not compiled by Clement) and because they bear false names as to the actual statements (they are not statements of the various apostles to whom they are ascribed).
c) "Nowhere in our cross-examination did he show that the casting out of devils that Bede reports was due to the soil instead of water. Tfan asserted that they were cast out by soil, I told him why they weren't, and he simply repeated his position instead of refuting my answer."
First of all, PC did not ask me to show that during cross-examination. He provided me three questions, not one asked for that sort of answer.
Second, if you read his source document, you'll find that it goes like this:
- allegedly holy man dies
- his bones (relics) are washed in water
- that water is dumped in a corner of the cemetery
- the dust from that corner of the cemetery has miraculous powers
For the ultra dubious, here's the quotation at length:
From that time, the very earth which received that holy water, had the power of saving grace in casting out devils from the bodies of persons possessed.Note that it is not the water that casts out demons, but the dust.
Lastly, when the aforesaid queen afterwards abode some time in that monastery, there came to visit her a certain venerable abbess, who is still living, called Ethelhild, the sister of the holy men, Ethelwinand Aldwin, the first of whom was bishop in the province of Lindsey, the other abbot of the monastery of Peartaneu; not far from which was the monastery of Ethelhild. When this lady was come, in a conversation between her and the queen, the discourse, among other things, turning upon Oswald, she said, that she also had that night seen the light over his relics reaching up to heaven. The queen thereupon added, that the very dust of the pavement on which the water that washed the bones had been poured out, had already healed many sick persons. The abbess thereupon desired that some of that health-bringing dust might be given her, and, receiving it, she tied it up in a cloth, and, putting it into a casket, returned home. Some time after, when she was in her monastery, there came to it a guest, who was wont often in the night to be on a sudden grievously tormented with an unclean spirit; he being hospitably entertained, when he had gone to bed after supper, was suddenly seized by the Devil, and began to cry out, to gnash his teeth, to foam at the mouth, and to writhe and distort his limbs. None being able to hold or bind him, the servant ran, and knocking at the door, told the abbess. She, opening the monastery door, went out herself with one of the nuns to the men’s apartment, and calling a priest, desired that he would go with her to the sufferer. Being come thither, and seeing many present, who had not been able, by their efforts, to hold the tormented person and restrain his convulsive movements, the priest used exorcisms, and did all that he could to assuage the madness of the unfortunate man, but, though he took much pains, he could not prevail. When no hope appeared of easing him in his ravings, the abbess bethought herself of the dust, and immediately bade her handmaiden go and fetch her the casket in which it was. As soon as she came with it, as she had been bidden, and was entering the hall of the house, in the inner part whereof the possessed person was writhing in torment, he suddenly became silent, and laid down his head, as if he had been falling asleep, stretching out all his limbs to rest. "Silence fell upon all and intent they gazed," anxiously waiting to see the end of the matter. And after about the space of an hour the man that had been tormented sat up, and fetching a deep sigh, said, "Now I am whole, for I am restored to my senses." They earnestly inquired how that came to pass, and he answered, "As soon as that maiden drew near the hall of this house, with the casket she brought, all the evil spirits that vexed me departed and left me, and were no more to be seen." Then the abbess gave him a little of that dust, and the priest having prayed, he passed that night in great peace; nor was he, from that time forward, alarmed by night, or in any way troubled by his old enemy.
d) "No response to me when I said that the way in which the water became holy was irrelevant."
I think I actually did not respond directly to this remark. It didn't seem particularly significant to me. I was more focused on other things. My response, had I considered it important, would have been to note that there is a difference between water that has touched a relic and water that has been consecrated by a priest. Even if the former kind of water can be called "holy" it is "holy" in a different way from consecrated water.
e) "No Scripture passage provided that either explicitly or implicitly rejects the use of holy water against demons."
This is a bit of an absurd argument. The burden of proof is not on me to find reasons to reject the practice. There may be no such passage. That's inconsequential. If that's so, there is also no passage that explicitly or implicitly rejects the chanting of digits of Pi 3.141592... as a way of confusing demons. That's not support for the Pi-chanting position.
f) "No response to the proof I provided against his assertion that "special miracles" ceased after the Apostolic period."
Follow the link. I could not find any such proof there. I could not even find evidence against the assertion of Chrysostom there. I think I justifiably concluded that PhatCatholic had conceded that matter in face of the testimony of a saint and doctor of his church (according to his church). Since it was mostly a tangential matter, I did not rub it in, in my conclusion.
g) "In his haste to disagree with me he contradicted himself on this point, denying that holy things can be effective against demons (here) after he had affirmed the effectivneness of soil (here)."
I don't agree that soil is effective. Those about whom Bede reports were just superstitious. I'm afraid that PC is rather optimistic in his assessment of the matter. Bede claimed that the people reported that the soil was effective. One might even claim that Bede endorsed the matter by reporting it. Regardless, PC seems to have been confused about the point I made.
Furthermore, my point was not that "holy things cannot be effective against demons," but that PC had provided no reason to suppose that they are effective against demons generally (i.e. that holy things in general are effective), or that "holy water" specifically is effective against demons. I don't suppose that consecrated items are in fact effective at stopping demons, and I don't believe "relics" are "holy." I'm afraid on this matter, PhatCatholic was guilty of assuming too much.
h) "When I pointed out the irrelevancy of his statement, "'unclean' is simply a figure of speech for the fact that they are evil," I again received no response."
In fact, I did respond. I stated: "If we were trying to make unclean spirits clean, sprinkling holy water on them might make sense. But we are not, so it doesn’t. Ritual uncleanness for which the OT prescribed washing is unlike spiritual uncleanness, for which the OT prescribed sacrifice."
Based on PC's comments to Gene, he may simply have missed this portion of my concluding statement.
i) "When I showed that it could just as easily be the holiness of Jesus' name that expels demons as it could be the authority of it....you guessed it, nothing."
j) "When I showed that it could just as easily be the holiness of Jesus' name that expels demons as it could be the authority of it....you guessed it, nothing."
I did not directly address this matter again in my conclusion, because I felt like my previous comments on the matter were sufficient, and it seemed like a minor matter. The supporting argument as to why "in the name" means "by the authority" would probably take a lot of space, and I won't get into it here. I don't think it is that controversial.
Regardless, even if it were true that "it could just as easily be the holiness of Jesus' name that expels demons as it could be the authority of it" - such would hurt PhatCatholic's argument, not help it. That is to say, his inductive argument is not persuasive if those two possibilities are just equal. The "holiness" option has to be more likely than not to be of any persuasive weight.
k) "When I explained the exceptions in which the devil and his demons are allowed to be in the presence of holiness, he simply called this a "fall-back position" without actually refuting it."
Well, it is a fall-back position, and that does demonstrate a shifting position. As demonstrated in my concluding argument (link), PhatCatholic had to shift further and further away from the resolution to weaker and weaker positions. Since PhatCatholic's claim that God sometimes makes exceptions to the general rule was just special pleading (there is no evidence of a general rule to begin with), there wasn't much there to "actually refut[e]."
After a series of quotations/paraphrases, PhatCatholic asserts: "It should be obvious by now that the use of holy water is far from "innovative", nor is it an invention of the Middle Ages."
a) At least some (and apparently nearly all) of his sources refer to medieval sources, with the 6th and 7th centuries being in the medieval period.
b) Furthermore, PC essentially admitted that there is no evidence of the practice before the 4th century at the very earliest, which would just mean that the innovation was just prior to the medieval period.
c) On the other hand, I identified the Pope that instituted the weekly blessing of water, which is the source of modern "holy water" of the kind that PC doubtless used in his "confrontation with the devil."
PhatCatholic then misinterprets the Apostolic Constitutions, saying: "But that's not what that quotation means. Just because an exorcist is not sanctified by the act of expelling a demon, that doesn't mean that he was not already holy to begin with." I encourage him to read the document more carefully. Chapter II of Book VIII of the Apostolic Constitutions begins: "We add, in the next place, that neither is every one that prophesies holy, nor every one that casts out devils religious: ...." It should be clear then, that my rebuttal did accurately represent the quotation.
Next, PhatCatholic disputed my comment regarding the obvious contradiction between his claim that holy water is effective at stopping demons and a prohibition on demoniacs being ordained or praying with the faithful.
PC writes: "This is not an unnecessary prohibition. You wouldn't want someone ordained who is susceptible to possession by the devil. As for the prohibition from praying with the faithful, there are always sinners in the Church who could be negatively influenced by the demoniac, were the demon to return."
I agree that it is a reasonable prohibition. I don't have anything against the prohibition. The reason it is contradictory to PC's position, though, is that an ordained man cannot help but be involved with "holy" things. Indeed, if the church described by the Apostolic Constitutions were like a modern Roman Catholic church, the ordained man would be in contact with "holy water" on a regular basis both in performing baptisms and performing the weekly water consecration. But we know that the latter ritual only was innovated latter. Likewise, if the congregants then, as now, washed themselves ceremonially in holy water upon entering and leaving the church (as is done now) then there would be no need for a prohibition on demoniacs entering IF holy water were effective against demons.
PC then tried to respond to my point that: "2. It has not been established that “Holy Water” is, in fact, holy." He seemed to miss the point, going off on a tangent about how water can be made holy. The point was actually that he had not demonstrated that what we see in Roman Catholic churches today is actually holy. That is to say, he has not demonstrated that he had anything more than regular tap water in his possession during his confrontation with the devil.
PC asserted that water is "holy" when Christians are involved, which would seem like a handy rule of thumb (though not something that PC could demonstrate). Interestingly, PC had early made reference to the exorcism performed by a man named "Joseph," who - according to the account provided at New Advent, his source - was not a Christian at the time, and consequently could not be said to have used "holy" water in the sense that PC requires.
PC's standard would also make for an interesting dilemma for those whose priest turns out to be a hypocrite who was not really a Christian. Or perhaps PC just means that someone must be outwardly a Christian in order to make water holy. It's really irrelevant to the big picture.
Finally, PC stated: "There are no logical fallacies involved here. We are both operating under the assumption that if a belief and/or practice is found in the early Church, it is a valid one. That's why tfan has made that a requirement of me. I am simply fulfilling his requirement."
I wasn't operating under that assumption at all. Regardless, I documented the many logical fallacies at length in my conclusion, and that should speak for itself.
PC next claimed: "This is not true. Scripture specifically said that the "water for impurity" was used "for the removal of sin" (Num 19:9)." as I think Gene pointed out, "it is for the removal of sin" refers to the sacrifice of the animal, not to the water.
PC next stated: "Physicians do not have authority in theological matters." Gene's rebuttal regarding Dr. Sippo (a lay Roman Catholic apologist and M.D.) was amusing. The main point, however, is that the physician was being cited with respect to illness. Physicians are authoritative on those matters. Furthermore, a Catholic physician was being cited, to cure the problem of bias that might be claimed if a Reformed physician were cited. Perrin cited others to confirm that matter, but I could not immediately determine whether they were Catholic and consequently left them out of the debate round.
PC next stated: "That doesn't mean that holy water was one such superstition." I agree that it doesn't. The fact is, the evidence of numerous superstitions in the middle ages tends to confirm the negative position that this is just one more of them. That combined with the physician's testimony makes it a lead pipe cinch.
PC concludes thus:
In closing, I had several quotes from the ECF’s on holy oil that I promised to provide, but the word limit confines me to this single quotation:
- "I know that a young woman of Hippo was immediately dispossessed of a devil, on anointing herself with oil, mixed with the tears of the prebsyter who had been praying for her." --St. Augustine, City of God (413-427 A.D.), Bk. 22
If there was every a doubt that holy things can be used to cast away demons, that should expel it.
I found this odd for several reasons.
* First, I had provided evidence that Augustine's views on miracles developed as he grew more spiritually mature, and that they developed in favor of Chrysostom's view.
* Second, the oil is just oil, not "holy oil."
* Third, the oil is administered by the supposed demoniac herself.
* Fourth, the tears of the presbyter are not described as "holy" and would not be "holy" in the same sense that "holy water" that one finds in fonts in RC churches today is "holy."
Thus, I found the conclusion rather unsatisfactory. Obviously, though, I am biased.
4. Word Length
PhatCatholic counted words differently than I did. For example, by my count his conclusion was actually 1492 words (just shy of 50% over his limit). In contrast, by his count it was still over the limit, but by less than 10%. Similar problems arose during the rebuttal. In hindsight, I probably should not have been so flexible on the word length in the rebuttal period. I don't think PC was trying to be devious, and I don't want anyone to read this paragraph that way. I will try to make the word limit issues more clear for the future. Lesson learned.
5. PhatCatholic's Answers to Audience Questions
PC's first answer was:
When you say, "the quotations," I'm assuming you mean the quotations from the early Church, or from more recent authors about the early Church. Now, I realize that none of the works from which these quotations were taken are "infallible", per se, but I also don't think that's anything I need to worry about. You don't need the charism of infallibility in order to make a true statement, and, infallible or not, these works show that the use of holy water against demonic activity was neither "innovative," nor was it an invention of the Middle Ages. That was my purpose for using them, and I think they serve that purpose.I felt like this answer missed Dan's point, and didn't really address the question. Dan asked what kind of persuasive weight the quotations should have. PC quoted from Catholic sources citing anecdotal evidence that was, in some cases, documented very poorly (by the original source used by the secondary source cited by PC). This evidence is not very persuasive because of bias (New Advent is naturally going to take the "Catholic" side of the matter, for example), because of extraction (the sources were being filtered through several levels of abstraction from the source documents), and because of the fallacies identified in my conclusion.
I could have used infallible sources of Catholic doctrine, such as papal encyclicals or conciliar statements, but I'm afraid these hold little weight with Protestants. As such, there's no point in even bringing them in.
In short, the persuasive weight of those quotations was very small.
I felt like PC's claim about being able to cite encyclicals and conciliar statements was either misleading or disappointing. PC surely knew that some of his audience would be Catholic readers. For them, at least, such statements (if they even exist) would have been helpful. I'm not sure, though, that they even exist at any time that would contradict my claims of the matter being a medieval innovation based on superstition.
I also felt that Ken's answer was penetrating. Ken asked how Christians can tell that demons are at work. PC provides a bunch of symptoms (most of which were not present, as far as I can tell by his own account, in the instance of his alleged confrontation with a demon). The bottom line, though, is that demons are generally invisible and intangible, and it is easy to blame unknown ailments on demons. In some cases, we may even see the phrase "evil spirit" used simply the way people use "negative energy" or a "sick feeling" today. In other words, demons can be used metaphorically, though it would be improper to do so in the case of a person being described as possessed by a demon.
In other words, it's not always easy to tell if a demon is there, absent divine inspiration as to the fact. This lack of ease of identification makes the arousal of superstitious quite easy. If crops die: demons. If they survive: the exorcism worked.
Note that the claims as to holy water's efficacy filter out the failures. Note, for example, that in the Bede's account (shown above) the priest attempted an exorcism and failed. What's the batting average of this particular superstition. We don't know. It's not scientific, even though the Rituale Romanum is quite detailed.
Finally, I think PC's answer to Gene's question sealed PC's defeat:
Gene had asked: "is it fair to say that it takes a lot more than holy water to stop demons?"
PC responded: "Yes, and sometimes it doesn't take holy water at all."
This seems to me to be the nail in the coffin. The admission that it takes a lot more than holy water to stop demons demonstrates pretty clearly that holy water is not effective.
PC continued: "After all, Jesus said that some demons are only cast out by prayer and fasting (cf. Mt 17:21, KJV). Sometimes it only takes an adjuration in the name of Jesus Christ, which is how it was most often done in the early Church. I never presented holy water as the panacea, or cure-all for demonic activity. My purpose was only to show that it can be effective."
With respect, I think PC failed his task. Obviously, I am biased. In any event, I think PC for participating in the debate. I hope he enjoyed the experience. I would love to have him back to the debate blog in the future at some point, if he is interested, and if we can find a mutually satisfactory topic.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
It's hard to pick between:
A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity (volume 1) (volume 2) (volume 3) or (abridged)
John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (link1) (link 2)
I'll confess to not having read through either of those, even in the abridged form, though I've read much of Gill's exposition as the occasion warranted.
The reason? Death.
Old nuns are dying or and many other nuns are simply abandoning their vows. There are new recruits, but the new recruits are not keeping pace with the exiting folks.
The current breakdown according to the article is:
1.1 Billion Catholics
0.09% are in monastic orders (total: 945,210)
753,400 are women (about 0.13% of all Catholic women)
191,810 are men (about 0.04% of all Catholic men)
The Reformation churches have consistently held that monastic vows are unlawful. While we are not rejoicing because of the death of nuns and monks, we are glad to see the ranks of the monastic orders dwindling. It would be a delight if, by God's grace, the entire monastic system were abolished. This is an example of change for the better brought about by Vatican II, though perhaps not by intent.
Here are a list of his works that are currently available (to my knowledge). Sadly, only one is currently freely available in English.
Pictet, Benedict - Brevis Syllabus Controversarium (Brief Syllabus of Controversies) (Latin) (link)
Pictet, Benedict - Theologia Christiana (Christian Theology) (Latin) (link) (this may be incomplete, as the entire work may span multiple volumes)
Pictet, Benedict - Christian Theology (in English!) (link) (pdf from Archive.org) ( black and white pdf from Archive.org) (txt format)
Pictet, Benedict - Traite Centre L'Indifference Des Religions (Main Traits of Religious Indifference) (French) (link)
Pictet, Benedict - La Morale Chretienne ou L'Art De Bien Vivre (The Moral Christian or the Art of the Good Life) (French) (link)
Pictet, Benedict - Prières pour tous les jours de la semaine (Prayers for all the days of the week) (French) (link)
Finally, here is a quick biography of the man:
de Bude, Eugene - Vie de Benedict Pictet (Life of Benedict Pictet) (French) (link)
The Works of Francis Turretin are now freely available in the original Latin. It will be quite some time before they are fully translated into English. Nevertheless, for those that read Latin, the followings gems have been scanned into the Google Books collection:
Volume 1 (link)
Volume 2 (link)
Volume 3 (link)
Volume 4 (link)These are, of course, the works of the real Turretin, not this modern blogger. The first three volumes are essentially Turretin's Magnus Opus (the Institutes of Elenctic Theology), which has been translated into English. The fourth volume is the one containing miscellaneous works, such as Turretin's work on the necessity of secession from the Roman church.
Praise be to God for the works of his servants, such as the real Turretin,
In the video above, Dr. James White addresses atheist Christopher Hitchens' complaint that man was suffering for a long time, while God was just watching.
What is the answer?
Hitchens has not addressed Christianity. Christianity asserts that God has had a plan from the very beginning and that nothing comes to pass that is not part of God's plan, and that is not for the best.
Of course, many things come to pass that are not the "best" for that particular person, but the appropriate worldview is God's perspective, not that of the individual man.
Christianity is not a form of theofic humanism, in which God plays the role of Santa Claus to a deserving mass of humanity. Instead, Christianity is a God-centred religion in which all that is, is directed to His glory.
May our Creator and Provider be praised!
Monday, February 04, 2008
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Sometimes this question is even phrased as an argument, something to the effect that singing only the Psalms is somehow wrong or anti-trinitarian.
Pastor Ian Campbell provides an excellent answer to this question/objection (link).
To give you a taste of the article, here is it's opening paragraph:
I detect an increasing interest in the Psalms. Paul. S. Jones, in the essay, 'Hymnody in a post-hymnody world' says that "Singing psalms in worship is a biblical mandate -- not an optional activity' (Give Praise to God, p255). In the same volume Terry Johnson, in 'Restoring Psalm Singing to our Worship', asks: "What are the implications of a psalter in the canon of Scripture?" (p259), and concludes that "Our ancestors were psalm singers! The Psalter gave to their faith the bold, robust quality that we still admire today. A revival of their use has begun in our time... may they become a fixed element in the worship of evangelical Christians once more" (p286).
May the God of David and Asaph shine his blessings on us,
This is just not true.
I've commented on the harmony between TurretinFan's views and the views of Dabney (link), Hodge (both A.A. and Charles), and Shedd (link) on the subject of the atonement.
If that were enough, we can see that each of the men in question rely on Turretin in their teaching on atonement:
Shedd (Dogmatic Theology, p. 481)
Dabney (Chapter 35 of his Systematic Theology)
Hodge (Systematic Theology, p. 474) (And of course, Hodge is famous for insisting that his students read Turretin (as recalled by his son))
I can guess where Ben got the idea: from one of several misinformation sites out there: "Calvin and Calvinism" "Theological Meditations" and the like, at which Amyraldian and Amyraldian-esque men pretend that Calvinism is something other than what it is, at the expense of the truth.
I hope Ben will consider actually getting a copy of Turretin's Institutes and reading it, or of any of the systematic theologies of Shedd, Dabney, or Hodge. He seems to be a bright young man who has just grabbed a few wrong sources. I'll be looking forward to watching him blossom.
Remember that there is a lot of false advertising (link1, link2) out there.
May God assist us in maintaining the truth!
UPDATE: Oddly, I've seen what seems to be the exact same article in several other places. Perhaps Ben is not the author after all. (link) (link2)
In the video above, Dr. White provides a brief explanation of the Hypostatic union. This presentation was originally targeted toward Muslims, but may also be handy for Unitarians or Pentacostal Oneness folks as well.
Praise be to our Lord Jesus Christ!
The video above is an excellent brief summary of the problems with typical evangelism that fails to present the gospel, in favor of getting people to "make a decision."
It's not long, it's not complicated. The "10 reasons not to accept Jesus" may make you scratch your head when you hear the title, but when you are through listening, hopefully you will be giving the bad habit of ineffective evangelization a second thought.
May God give us grace to witness to the truth of the Gospel (Repent of your sins and trust in Christ alone for salvation) effectively,
1. Paul says Timothy should keep the things Paul communicated to him orally;
2. Paul did not place any time limit on that command;
3. Therefore, Timothy had to follow them indefinitely; and
3. Therefore, also, we have to keep those oral commands.
Of course, the argument is flawed. But Steve Hays tweaks the argument's nose in a fairly succinct and effective way.
Enjoy! (link) (to which I would simply add: That thou doest, do quickly.)