GreenBaggins on Theonomy - A Response

Lane Keister at GreenBaggins has a post in which he argues that "Theonomy is Biblically-Theologically Wrong" (link). I can summarize it thus: "redemptive-historical theology removes the O.T. civil laws while natural law replaces them."

1) Limited Agreement on the Church-State Distinction

I agree that the church and state are not one and the same thing in the New Testament.

a) However, I should note that Mr. Keister (because of his Redemptive-Historical framework) has failed to notice that church and state were not one and the same thing in the Old Testament. A redemptive-historical approach is so focused on the earthly ministry of Christ that it tends to lose sight of the original context of Old Testament passages. While there are redemptive-historical themes and a significant amount of typology in Scripture, we must never permit these themes to prevent us from understanding the literal sense of Scripture.

b) Additionally, I should note that Mr. Keister has failed to notice that even in the New Testament the civil government (whether that be king, governor, or whatever) is considered a "minister of God" (just as in the Old Testament, see Exodus 24:13 and Romans 13:4). In fairness, Mr. Keister does mention Romans 13 (and even mentions that the magistrate is ordained by God), but argues that there is nothing in Romans 13 that cannot be argued on the basis of natural law, which brings us to the second point of limited agreement.

2) Limited Agreement on the Natural Law

I agree that God has provided information about himself through the created order and especially through the conscience, which we can refer to as "Natural Law" and that we must not go contrary to Natural Law any more than to any other divine revelation.

a) However, Mr. Keister overlooks that the Natural Law is necessarily universally applicable. That is to say, God's revelation of himself through Nature and Conscience was also applicable to Old Testament Israel.

b) Additionally, Mr. Keister overlooks that the Natural Law tends not to be propositional. Thus, for example, Natural Law can tell us that crime must be punished, but it may not be able to tell us whether theft should be a capital offense. This actually brings us to a point of disagreement with Mr. Keister.

3) Mr. Keister's Arguments Against Capital Punishment for Violation of Second-Table Commandments are Unsupported and Unsupportable Either from Scripture or Natural Law

Mr. Keister states:

However, it is not the civil magistrate’s job to execute a boy for cursing his parents (as was true in the Old Testament civil laws). It is the church’s job to instruct and to exercise church discipline.

There are two problems with this claim:

a) Mr. Keister is arguing for church discipline to handle the affairs of civil government. Although he doubtless does not intend to do so, Mr. Keister is violating the two-kingdoms principle that civil affairs are within the authority of the civil magistrate: attempting to take this away from the civil magistrate and give it to the church. However, the church is not charged with punishing crime: that is not within its sphere of authority.

b) The issue of insubordination of children to parents is an issue of civil law, as is recognized by the Old Testament and in the Natural Law. The Old Testament explicitly ordains the death penalty for cursers of parents and places it, contextually in this list:

i) Regulation of Slavery (Exodus 21:1-11);
ii) Capital Punishment for Premeditated Murder and Relief for Accidental Homicide (Exodus 21:12-14);
iii) Capital Punishment for Battery of Parents (Exodus 21:15);
iv) Capital Punishment for Kidnap (Exodus 21:16);
v) Capital Punishment for Cursing of Parents (Exodus 21:17);
vi) Restitution for Battery (Exodus 21:18-19);
vii) Application of (ii) and (vi) in the case of slaves (Exodus 21:20-21);
viii) Punishment for Battery of Pregnant Woman (Exodus 21:22-25);
ix) Further application of (vi) in the case of slaves (Exodus 21:26-27);
x) Punishment of Homicide by Chattels (Exodus 21:28-32);
xi) Punishment for Damage to Chattels by Pit-digging (Exodus 21:33-34); and
xii) Punishment for Damage of Chattels on Chattels (Exodus 21:35-46).

Within that context it should be fairly clear that cursing one's parents is part of the civil code of Israel, and it is the responsibility of the civil magistrate (the "judges" mentioned, for example, in Exodus 21:6) to address these issues. It is not a matter governed through the church (i.e. through the priests) and it is not a matter connected with the ceremonial law or with an issue unique to the nation of Israel (as, for example, the land of Canaan).

c) It is worth noting that, in this instance, Mr. Keister has gone beyond even many fairly radical non-theonomists in suggesting that a second table offense should not be governed by the civil government.

d) Mr. Keister does not provide any real argument from the Natural Law in support of his contention that the Natural Law does not suggest such a penalty. On the contrary, Natural Law teaches that men must obey their parents, that parents deserve a special dignity, and that the greater the dignity of the offended party the worse the punishment should be on the offender. In short, while someone might argue that the specific punishment of death for cursers of parents cannot be gleaned from the Natural Law (given the inspecific nature of Natural Law), nevertheless the Old Testament civil law provides an example well within the bounds of Natural Law and fully consistent with it and certainly Mr. Keister's opinion that death penalty is inappropriate cannot be supported by natural law, even if the natural law does not clearly require such a penalty.

4) Mr. Keister's Situation-Specific Dismissal Is Too Unspecific

Mr. Keister asserted: "Now, the theonomist will probably reply that the civil law of Old Testament Israel is of a piece with and is the outworking of the moral law given in the Ten Commandments. True, it is. But it is an outworking of the Ten Commandments for a particular place and people." (emphasis in original)

I certainly agree that it was for a particular place and people. That's a very true statement, and yet it does not follow that therefore the civil law of Israel would not be a good law for other places or peoples. There's nothing in the Bible or in the Natural Law to suggest that the hearts of post-Pentecost men are less hard than the hearts of the Jews from the time of Moses to the time of Pentecost (or till A.D. 70 or whenever it is alleged that the civil law of Israel ceased to have effect by those who reject what they refer to as "theonomy"). Furthermore, the Bible does tell us that the civil laws of Israel were given good laws:

Nehemiah 9:13 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:

In fact, they are set forth in Scripture as the paragon of all laws for governing nations:

Deuteronomy 4:8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

In principle, I agree that where the judgments are specific to Israel they are naturally not applicable to us - but judgments like those on honoring one's father and mother are not specific to Israel.

5) Mr. Keister Overstates His Point in Abandoning Old Testament Principles

Mr. Keister stated:

In other words, Jesus Christ is the apex of the trajectory of Old Testament Israel, and the church is in Christ. Therefore, it does not make sense to say that modern-day governments should run themselves according to principles that were given to Old Testament Israel as Old Testament Israel.

Surely, Mr. Keister is right that Jesus Christ is the focal point of the Bible. It does not follow, however, that the good laws given to Old Testament Israel are not based on principles that must be followed by any government that wishes to follow the law of God.

Mr. Keister has plainly overstated his point here, since Mr. Keister acknowledges the role of Natural Law. Nevertheless, since God cannot be inconsistent with Himself, and since the Natural Law is a Creation ordinance (at the latest, upon the Fall and the obtaining of the knowledge of good and evil), therefore the "principles" of the civil law of Israel must be the same principles found in the Natural Law (otherwise the civil law of Israel would not be good laws).

6) Mr. Keister's Redemptive-Historical Framework Causes Him to Conflate Categories

We see a conflation of categories in Mr. Keister's comment:

And yet the principles in the New Testament for church government say nothing of the sword. Instead, the weapons are spiritual, for we fight not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual enemies. Ephesians 6, by the way, is one reason why I believe the application of Old Testament Israel’s holy wars draws a straight line to spiritual warfare today in the church.

(emphasis in original, link omitted)

Mr. Keister is right in one way: the church (either of the Old or New Testament) was not entrusted with the sword. That's the duty of the civil magistrate - the king, governor, judges, etc. depending on the applicable form of government. On the other hand, in both the Old and New Testament the civil magistrate does bear the power of the sword (See Romans 13:4).

The roles and duties of the church and the state are different, just as the roles and duties of the parents and the state are different and the roles and duties of the parents and the church are different (although there are various overlaps at pints).

This leads me to the final point (prior to the conclusion).

7) Mr. Keister's Conflation Actually Undermines the Proper Two(or Five) Kingdoms Distinctives

Elsewhere I've discussed how there are not just two, but actually five, kingdoms (link). Each has its own proper sphere of authority, and the existence of one sphere of authority does not negate or invalidate the other spheres. Mr. Keister's emphasis on the duties of the church with respect to sin (i.e. church discipline) seem to suggest that because the church has some responsibilities with respect to sin "X" that therefore the civil government does not also, and in parallel, have responsibilities.

Specifically (so the argument seems to go), because the church is called on to excommunicate those who curse their parents, the civil government has no responsibility to put such villains to death. This flawed reasoning would seem to destroy the proper multiple kingdoms distinctives and cause the church to usurp the roles of the other spheres, especially the civil sphere.

Let me give some illustrative counter-examples.

Example 1: Man commits adultery, two witnesses observe this, and the offended wife brings the matter before the judges.

Reaction by State: It would be appropriate for the state to punish this man for his crime. I see no reason (notwithstanding the Pericope Adulterae) why that punishment must not be death.

Reaction by Church: Discipline, up to and perhaps including excommunication (upon following the appropriate protocols).

Reaction by the Adulterer's Father: Condemnation of his son's misdeed, and exhortation to repentance.

Reaction by the Adulterer's Spouse: In this case, the offense has destroyed this particular sphere of authority. Thus, the woman is not required to "submit" to the adultery, although she ought to seek to forgive this man who has sinned against her.

Reaction by the Adulterer's Employer: Condemnation of his employee's misdeed, and exhortation to repentance.

Example 2: Man (out of hate) kills someone who works for him, two witnesses observe, and the family of the deceased brings it before the judges.

Reaction by State: Death for the murderer.

Reaction by the Church: Discipline, up to and perhaps including excommunication (upon following the appropriate protocols).

Reaction by the Murderer's Father: Condemnation of his son's misdeed, and exhortation to Repentance.

Reaction by the Murderer's Spouse (if applicable): Exhortation to Repentance.

Reaction by the Murderer's Employees: Exhortation to repentance.

We could go on and on with other examples. The point of these examples would simply be to show that each sphere of authority generally can react to any given sin. That reaction may be different in one sphere of authority or another. Thus, the fact that the state is going to execute the death penalty for murder does not preclude the church from acting to discipline the man, perhaps even excommunicating him if the circumstances warrant. Likewise, a father need not remain silent when his son does something wrong, but can condemn him for his sin and exhort him to repentance.

In some spheres, the ability to exhort to repentance may be limited: for example, one may be able to exhort one's employer or husband to a godly life of repentance largely through example. Nevertheless, each violation of God's law should provoke the appropriate reaction from each of the sphere's of authority.

Conclusion

Accordingly, I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Keister's contention regarding theonomy (in general - as opposed to a specific flavor of theonomy) being Biblically and/or Theologically Wrong. I must, of course, qualify that disagreement. If theonomy causes one to lose sight of the preeminent role of Jesus in the Bible, then theonomy (in that instance) is wrong. If one is so focused on the duties of the civil magistrate that one commits the opposite error from that identified above, and places all the responsibility for reacting to sin in the hands of the state, then that species of theonomy is wrong.

But a true, Biblical theonomy embraces the multiple (two, five, or however many) kingdoms and the ministers of each of those kingdoms: the father has his duties, as does the parent, the spouse, the employer/employee, the elder/deacon/layman, and the king/subject. One does not trump the other, and one does not usurp or supplant the other. The King must be honored, so must the master, the father, the husband, and the elder. Each is to be honored and obeyed and each has certain responsibilities. God has given these spheres of authority, and each should be governed according to the word and law of God, as revealed both in Nature and Conscience but also in Scripture.

-TurretinFan

John of Damascus vs. An Allegedly Ecumenical Council

This is a video response (as usual, audio only) to a post by Matthew Bellisario (link). Although Bellisario starts off his post by saying "Once again we see that Turretin Fan is clueless when it come to Biblical exegesis," he fails to back it up, not identifying any exegetical errors or even providing any of his own exegesis, but simply quoting from a work attributed to John of Damascus.



In addition to what is in the video, let me add this:

According to Bellisario, John of Damascus wrote this:

I worship the image of Christ as the Incarnate God; that of Our Lady (thV qeotokou), the Mother of us all, as the Mother of God's Son; that of the saints as the friends of God. They have withstood sin unto blood, and followed Christ in shedding their blood for Him, who shed His blood for them.

(the Greek transliteration there is for the term "the Theotokos")

One question for Bellisario, since he quoted these words, does he accept them? Does Bellisario worship "the image of Christ" and the image of "Our Lady" and the images of "the saints"?

Notice that I said "worship" just as Bellisario has quoted John of Damascus. I'll even give Mr. Bellisario a bit of a break, since John of Damascus seems to suggest that he does not worship the image itself but the the thing the image represents. So, does Mr. Bellisario worship (in addition to Jesus) Mary and the martyrs? Because most Romanists won't actually admit this - they'll claim that they only worship God.

-TurretinFan

The Sort of Evangelical I'm Not

I'm not the sort of Evangelical who thinks that this "gear" (link1 link2 - same guy - two posts on his "gear") is ok. I'm the sort of Reformed believer that thinks that these verses are in the Bible:

Isaiah 44:10 Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?

Jeremiah 10:14 Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.

Jeremiah 51:17 Every man is brutish by his knowledge; every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.

Isaiah 44:9 They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.

Nahum 1:14 And the LORD hath given a commandment concerning thee, that no more of thy name be sown: out of the house of thy gods will I cut off the graven image and the molten image: I will make thy grave; for thou art vile.

Isaiah 44:15 Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.

Habakkuk 2:18 What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols?

Isaiah 44:17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.

Isaiah 45:20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.

Isaiah 48:5 I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them.

Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Leviticus 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 4:15-19
15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, 18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: 19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven.

Deuteronomy 4:23-26
23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee. 24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. 25 When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger: 26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.

Deuteronomy 5:8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:

Deuteronomy 27:15 Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.

Revelation 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

I know that won't make me overly popular with the kind of Evangelicalism that is currently in collapse according to that same guy (link), but if I wanted to be popular I wouldn't speak out against sin. I'm far less concerned by the appearance that the iMonk is Romanizing (though anyone who stays around my blog will realize that I'm no fan of Rome) and far more concerned that he doesn't take the Scriptural prohibition on idols seriously. If one is going to point to a reason why the brand of Evangelicalism that accepts idols is going to perish, failure to heed God's word in Scripture is (in my view) the number one reason.

No, having idols of Jesus whether in statute, crucifix, or icon form isn't going to turn you into a Roman Catholic - but it does take your eyes away from the divinely sanctioned way in which we see Christ: the Bible and the sacraments. We see Christ in Scriptures, and we remember him and his death not through small metal symbols or statuettes but through the bread and the cup of the Lord's Supper.

-TurretinFan

Blogging and the Church

I'm sorry to see him leave the blogosphere, but here are some serious thoughts on blogging and its consequences from Paul Wallace at Reformed and Baptist (link). I realize the irony of my linking to it, as though Mr. Wallace were Mr. Big or providing the latest "new wisdom." Consider reading his post anyways.

-TurretinFan

Thanks to Lee Shelton IV (link) for pointing this out to me.

The Gates of Hell shall not Prevail Against the Church

This phrase "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" is one I hear used often and misused often. The one point everyone seems to recognize correctly is that "it" refers to the church. Not any particular church, but the church: the body of Christ universal.

1. The "We will Survive" Error

The most frequent error I hear with respect to this verse is to imagine that the "gates of hell" are the battering rams of Satan attacking the church in this life. That's definitely not what the verse means, though one can even find this kind of view among the church fathers.

Gates are, as far as warfare goes, defensive only. They do not attack. When the enemy attacks the church he does so with firey darts, but not with gates.

2. Storming Hell? A potential error.

Oftentimes, someone who notices that the gates of hell cannot be offensive weapons of battle against the church assume that they represent the defenses of the kingdom of this world, and therefore interpret this verse as saying that the church will defeat the kingdom of this world, storming and plundering the kingdom of Satan.

This view is not completely out of the question. The basic concept is surely correct, that the church will and does (by the gospel) plunder and invade the kingdom of the world. There are two cities: the city of God and the city of man. We in the city of God are in constant spiritual warfare, and we should be engaged in the raiding parties necessary to bring souls out of the power of the kingdom of darkness.

3. Resurrection

But I think the best view of this verse is as pointing to the resurrection. The church, the body of Christ, all those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, will be raised to eternal life. In this view, the "gates of hell" stand simply for the bands of death.

After all, while we usually use the term "hell" to refer to the place of the damned, the term "hell" in Scripture often refers simply to the place of the dead. I think one reason people turn to interpretation (2) above is from simply hearing interpretation (1) too much. They realize that (1) is wrong, but don't recognize that this is not a warfare analogy at all.

Instead, hell is like a prison, with gates that close in the dead, so that they cannot return to life. These gates are opened with keys. This, I think, is perhaps the most crucial (key? ha!) thing that permits us to properly understand the sense of the text.

Recall that John tells us that Jesus has the keys of hell and death:

Revelation 1:17-18
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Notice that we know this is Jesus: he is the first and the last, the one that lives although he was dead, and now lives eternally. It is through faith in Jesus that we escape death. Indeed, it is only by faith in Jesus that we escape the bonds of death. All mankind will be raised, but those who do not trust in Christ will be raised to the second death.

This all makes sense in the context, for the very next verse continues:

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What are these keys? There is debate by some over this, but the easiest explanation is that they are the gospel: they are the way in which we are freed from the gates of hell. Thus, even as here Jesus told Peter that Peter would receive these keys, so also the same promise (without mentioning the keys specifically) is given to the other apostles:

Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The apostles fulfilled this purpose. They preached the gospel and committed Jesus' teachings to writings: the scriptures of the New Testament.

It's important to recall that this is the metaphor of the key in Scripture: it is one of unlocking and locking. Thus, we see the lawyers criticized for essentially locking away the truth of Old Testament Scripture:

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

In contrast, Jesus is said to have the key of David, and to be able to shut and close without contest:

Revelation 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

(Quoting from: Isaiah 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.)

So, what is it that the verse is saying? It is saying, as best I understand it, that death will not prevail against the church, but rather Jesus will raise us from the dead - and that Jesus did show this way of escape (these keys of the kingdom of heaven) by which we can be loosed from(if he have faith like Peter did) and be bound in (if we do not have the faith of Peter) death.

In my opinion, the final confirmation that this is correct comes from what immediately follow verse 19:

Matthew 16:20-21
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. 21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

This is the victory over death and hell, and these are the keys that Peter freely gave us, recorded in Peter's sermon in the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles:

Acts 2:23-28
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

Notice how the pains of death are "loosed" because they could not "hold" him. Thus, Jesus was not left in the grave, in the place of the dead, but he was raised to eternal life, as will all those who repent of their sins and trust in him.

Dear reader, if you have not repented of your sins and trusted in Jesus, do so today. It is the only way that you will prevail against the gates of hell.

-TurretinFan

Hebrews 1:8 - A Proof of Jesus' Divinity

This is a response to a video (link) that seems to suggest that we cannot use Hebrews 1:8 to establish the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. I respectfully but firmly disagree, for the reasons I set forth in more detail in video (sorry, audio only, plus a slideshow in case you must watch something).



Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

Wisdom on Lying

Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight.

Proverbs 17:7 Excellent speech becometh not a fool: much less do lying lips a prince.

Proverbs 10:18 He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool.

Psalm 120:2 Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue.

Psalm 31:18 Let the lying lips be put to silence; which speak grievous things proudly and contemptuously against the righteous.

Especially appropriate for this day of the year.

-TurretinFan

Bellisario on Contraception (Again!)

Contraception seems to be a very hot topic for Mr. Bellisario, as he has yet another post on it on his blog (link).

Let's examine what he says:

Turretin Fan has posted an audio response to my earlier article on contraception. He claims that since there are not any anathemas attached to the statements by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on the teaching of contraception, that it is not infallible doctrine. The teaching that I posted earlier is the only "officially" held position that the Catholic Church has on contraception. First off there does not have to be an anathema attached to a teaching in order for it to be infallible. This is a qualifier that Turretin Fan has invented, since the Church has never taught that in order for something to be doctrine or dogma that there must be an anathema attached to it. Where Tf gets this I have no idea. It sounds like he presents an "Ace in the hole" here, but there is nothing that substantiates this undocumented statement of his.

Yes, Mr. Bellisario actually wrote that!

I suppose that Mr. Bellisario thinks I invented this:

The Pope must attach the sanction of anathema to the decree, either explicitly or implicitly. In other words, since obedience to superiors is necessary for salvation, the anathema means that the representative of Christ on earth intends to avail himself of the full height of his God-given authority and command our intellectual assent.

(source)

Of course, that applies specifically to papal infallibility, but a similar concept exists with respect to conciliar infallibility.

Perhaps, as well, Mr. Bellisario thinks I invented this:

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

(source)

"Defined no dogma at all" and was a "merely pastoral council." Inconvenient for Bellisario? Yes. Invented by TurretinFan? No.

Don't get me wrong: Vatican II is still viewed within Catholicism (leaving aside the sedavacantists and similar groups) as valid and binding. Indeed the same source I quoted immediately above says: "It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church." And, of course, this source is the same person who is now pope.

I almost stopped my response to Mr. Bellisario's ignorance at this point, but then thought that perhaps I should make clear the link between defining a doctrine and infallibility, though perhaps poor Mr. Bellisario will think I invented this as well:

It has been sometimes said that it is impossible to know whether or not a theological definition has been issued; but very few words are needed to show that the assertion is without foundation. At times, doubt will remain about the definitive nature of a decree, but as a rule no possibility of doubt is consistent with the terminology of a definitive decree. Thus in the doctrinal teaching of a general council, anathema attached to condemned errors is a certain sign of an infallible definition.

(source)

Bellisario continued:

Turretin says I cannot defend my position in regards to the Church's teaching on contraception. I have demonstrated quite clearly that the Catholic Church has one clear teaching on this subject. (Contraception, more specifically the use of condoms). Let us dive into this empty argument provided by Turretin Fan. He claims that he has proven that there is disunity within the Catholic Church. My point is that there is no division within the "official" teaching of the Church. I do not know whether Turretin understands this or not, but individual bishops do not make up Catholic doctrine. He claims that since there is disagreement among bishops of the Church, that that in itself defeats Rome's claims of the infallible Catholic Magisterium. This however does not prove that at all.

Or to paraphrase Bellisario, "I don't care what TurretinFan's point is, I want to argue over something else!" This is a great example of the use of straw man tactics that we see over and over again from Bellisario. Mr. Bellisario seems to be unable (or unwilling) to address the points I actually raise:

1) That the teaching on contraception in Humanae Vitae is not a doctrinal definition and consequently is considered "infallible" teaching within Romanism; and

2) The fact that Humanae Vitae teaches what it teaches doesn't prevent, in practice, the bishops of his church openly holding to positions that disagree with Mr. Bellisario's position.

Bellisario continued:

It is my argument that just because there are many bishops who refuse to follow the Magisterium's clear "official" teaching on this subject, doesn't negate the authority of the Magisterium, nor its effectiveness in teaching clear unifying doctrine. All it does is demonstrate that there are and always have been those who dissent from "official" Church teaching. So no, Turretin Fan has not demonstrated that there is disunity in the Catholic Church that upsets the authority and clearly held doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Magisterium can promulgate the truth all day long, yet if bishops refuse to follow, Turretin attaches the blame on the Magisterium and claims that it doesn't solve doctrinal problems. This is clearly nonsense. Yes we have many clear examples of bishops rejecting Church teaching. So what? As I stated before, there have been times in the past where many bishops bought into heresies. The Church Magisterium however always held fast to true doctrine and dogma.

Notice how the straw man comes out again, this time attacked as "clearly nonsense." Well, you know, I'm sure my position can sound like nonsense when it is misrepresented by Bellisario, but my actual position is something with which Bellisario cannot argue (as usual).

Bellisario continued:

Turretin Fan readily admits in his audio response that he never claimed to prove that "official" Catholic teaching was divided on this issue. It is quite obvious that any Catholic who wants to remain faithful to the Church will follow "official" teachings and not individual bishop's dissenting views. Turretin Fan's argument does not upset the Magisterium as he claims it does. What would he have Rome do, go out and hunt everyone down who dissents from "official" Church teaching and off them? That may not be a bad idea....I am joking here... Well Rome has essentially done this doctrinally in her documents. In my next post I will address the teaching of the Church and whether or not the teaching on contraception by the Church is an infallible doctrine.

Ah, at last Mr. Bellisario pays some limited attention to what I was saying. Yes, I never claimed to prove that "official" Catholic teaching was divided on this issue.

Mr. Bellisario jokes about hunting down those who dissent, but these folks are "dissenting" on an issue that has not been defined. That's something that Mr. Bellisario doesn't seem to get. There are really two issues here:

1) The issues Bellisario has identified as allegedly wrong positions by bishops of his own church (bishops that still hold their office and openly teach what they teach) are not contrary to any infallible teaching of his church (though they are contrary to things that Benedict XVI has said, and they are arguably contrary to what the CCC and Humanae Vitae said); and

2) Whether or not this matter has been defined, there is doctrinal and moral disunity within Catholicism, despite the organizational unity.

The second point is really the main point of this discussion, whereas the first point is carry-over from the previous debacle where Gene Bridges schooled Mr. Bellisario on the issue of contraception.

Bellisario continued:

I also got a chuckle once again that Turretin creates a "Mr. Bellisario vs the bishop" scenario instead of "official" Church teaching vs the bishop scenario, which would be a much more accurate headline. Be that as it may, Turretin Fan has only demonstrated that there are and always will be dissenters in the Church. He also readily admits that there is clear "official" Catholic Church teaching on this matter, which defeats his argument trying to tear down the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. In my next article I will go through the wording of "official" church documents and demonstrate that this moral teaching cannot be changed, and therefore falls into the category of Church doctrine.

Again, we see more straw man arguments. Although he noted above (apparently) that it is not my goal with this argument to "tear down the Magisterium of the Catholic Church" - now Mr. Bellisario claims that he has defeated this argument that I haven't presented. It seems Mr. Bellisario has struck on the perfect way to win arguments: argue with points that the other side doesn't either present or defend.

-TurretinFan

P.S. For more on the infallibility issue and Humanae Vitae, check out my friendly Romanist opponent, Kelly Wilson at Kakistocrat (link).

UPDATE: Bellisario simply couldn't get enough of this topic and posted YET AGAIN! (link) I'll address his comments below:

I really got a kick out of Turretin's last post where he tries, unsuccessfully to substantiate, that for the Catholic church to define something infallibly it must use anathemas to do so. Anyone who knows anything about Catholicism knows this is simply not true. Turretin thought it would clever to post on the specific use of papal proclamations which we haven't even discussed so far. We are not arguing over one document as TF is suggesting. If you see my original post i used several. Then he quotes something on Vatican II which we also haven't even addressed specifically, but TF likes to use Red Herrings to hide his idiotic arguments. I guess he didn't notice that many of the documents I soured were not from VCII. I won't waste any more time on the foolish Turretin Fan because he is not rational.

Poor Bellisario, his ignorance exposed, lashes out. It's not the first time he's made this kind of comment and it won't be the last. Since he doesn't actually address the issues in this portion of his rant, there's no need for further response from me.

Bellisario continued:

It is unfortunate but I do not have the time to keep engaging with bloggers like himself because he will just lead you around in circular arguments, which is another favorite tactic of his. He figures if he writes enough nonsense that he will wear his opponent down and then he can claim victory. Well he has successfully worn me down, and yet once again he has not proven that the Catholic church is divided on the issue of contraception when it comes to "official" Church teaching. He keeps saying that he doens't intend to do so, yet what is his point? It is to try and prove that the Catholic Church is not unified in its teaching regarding contraception.

As noted above, this is Bellisario's constant retreat: the straw man. Sometimes, I'm not sure that Bellisario knows it is a straw man, but after it has been pointed out and he still repeats the same false characterizations you have to figure he's realized he cannot defeat the argument presented, so he's off to try to argue against something else.

For my actual point, see above.

Bellisario concluded:

He is trying to argue this from an untenable positions, because he refuses to acknowledge "official" Catholic teaching in favor of individual opinions. That is why i had to emphasize that there is a "official" Church teaching that all Catholics are obliged to follow. this would hold even if the teaching was not infallible. Turetin also does not understand this either. He refuses to acknowledge that individual bishops have no bearing on the "official" Church teaching, and so Catholics who follow the "official" Church teaching are not divided. The two unfortunately are synonymous to the pitiful "Reformed" apologist. I will tear myself away from this and now focus on the Catholic doctrine regarding human sexuality, and more specifically contraception. I am now working on a response to Kelly, who stopped by my blog and sided with me on part of my post against TF, yet challenged me on whether or not the Church has infallibly defined this teaching on human sexuality. My argument will be that is is infallibly defined. Thanks for reading.

As noted above, this is just a response to Bellisario's straw man. He complains about a lack of time. One solution would be for him to spend less of his time on straw men.

-TurretinFan

Bellisario vs Portuguese Bishops - An Audio/Video Response

Bellisario has tried to respond to my previous post (link to Bellisario, link to my previous post). I now respond by video (just audio, but with a mostly unrelated slideshow on top of it). This video discusses the fact that Catholicism cannot provide unity on issues like contraception. We sometimes hear claims that Catholicism's magisterium is needed to provide doctrinal and moral unity and certainty, but the facts belie this erroneous conclusion. The organizational unity of Rome may lead to doctrinal unity on some issues, but it does not on the contraception issue: one of the pet issues in Romanist apologetics today.



Enjoy!

-TurretinFan