That St. Joseph's has a couple of Leviticus 18:22 alumnae is not really a news story. What is remarkable is the approbation of their story by their fellow alumni. The school, it seems, initially tried to exclude them from a contest, "How I met my Hawkmate," but then caved. (read more here - not for tender eyes)
There is also a remarkable story to be considered in their seared consciences as contrasted with the more tender consciences of the men in our previous story. They have pride in their sin, not shame, whilst their Colombian counterparts were absolutely overcome (in Judas-like fashion) with shame.
-TurretinFan
Friday, February 17, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Lent is Biblical?!
So proclaims one blog. Of course, there's no mention of Lent in Scripture. So, how could it be Biblical? The tortured reasoning is that there are "several forty day parallels in Scripture." Let's look at those parallels:
Exodus 24:18 And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.
Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Deuteronomy 9:9 When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:
Deuteronomy 9:25 Thus I fell down before the LORD forty days and forty nights, as I fell down at the first; because the LORD had said he would destroy you.
The following was curiously omitted by the author:
Deuteronomy 10:10 And I stayed in the mount, according to the first time, forty days and forty nights; and the LORD hearkened unto me at that time also, and the LORD would not destroy thee.
1 Kings 19:8 And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God.
Ezekiel 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
Oddly, the author didn't include the other synoptic accounts:
Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
Luke 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
Except for the Ezekiel reference, these are all examples of fasting for forty days. But note:
a) These are not prescriptive. There is nothing about these passages that suggests "imitate this example." Moreover, while there are three examples (Moses, Elijah, and Jesus) none is described as imitating the other.
b) These are supernatural and miraculous. No normal human being under ordinary circumstances can survive for 40 days without food and water. These are not part of some general plan of godly living.
c) These are isolated, not annual, events. Moses apparently fasted for forty days more than once, but it was an occasional, not regular fast. The others fasted for forty days once.
In short, these fasts are only similar to Lent in a very superficial way. Lent is simply dietary restrictions for forty days (not even consecutive days) and the way it is practiced in places like the U.S. and U.K., it's' not even really that.
The Ezekiel example is just a strange inclusion. For you will see that although a special diet is mentioned, it is not simply for forty days:
Ezekiel 4:1-17
b) Moreover, the whole point of the diet was to illustrate the coming siege, destruction, and dispersal of the Israelites.
c) Thus, for example, the dung-baked bread was to be dung-baked to illustrate that the Israelites were going to be eating defiled bread. The odd combination of ingredients illustrates the destruction of the usual separation that Israel had experienced. The measured food and water illustrate the times of austerity that were coming. The "eat it as barley cakes" is to show that these austere portions would be considered a blessing.
In short, the Ezekiel fast (if we can call it that) points forward to a curse from God. It is descriptive and prophetic, not prescriptive. Like the fasts, it is occasional - not annual (indeed it could not be annual on this planet).
This seems absurd, ridiculous, and frankly beneath response. Yet it is apparently being offered on Facebook (evidence) as though it were a serious defense of the practice of the Roman communion.
Of course, none of this is to suggest that fasting, in itself, is wrong. Nevertheless, Christian fasting is purposeful and, usually, secret. Jesus taught us:
Matthew 6:16-18
Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
See people with ash daubed on their face? They are not following this teaching.
-TurretinFan
Moses’ fasts on the the holy mountain (Ex 24:18; 34:28; Deut 9:9) and his intercession for Israel (Deut 9:25), Elijah’s journey to Mt. Horeb (1 Ki 19:8), Ezekiel’s lying on one side (Ezek 4:6), and Christ’s fast in the wilderness (Mt 4:2).And what to do the texts say:
Exodus 24:18 And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.
Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Deuteronomy 9:9 When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:
Deuteronomy 9:25 Thus I fell down before the LORD forty days and forty nights, as I fell down at the first; because the LORD had said he would destroy you.
The following was curiously omitted by the author:
Deuteronomy 10:10 And I stayed in the mount, according to the first time, forty days and forty nights; and the LORD hearkened unto me at that time also, and the LORD would not destroy thee.
1 Kings 19:8 And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God.
Ezekiel 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
Oddly, the author didn't include the other synoptic accounts:
Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
Luke 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
Except for the Ezekiel reference, these are all examples of fasting for forty days. But note:
a) These are not prescriptive. There is nothing about these passages that suggests "imitate this example." Moreover, while there are three examples (Moses, Elijah, and Jesus) none is described as imitating the other.
b) These are supernatural and miraculous. No normal human being under ordinary circumstances can survive for 40 days without food and water. These are not part of some general plan of godly living.
c) These are isolated, not annual, events. Moses apparently fasted for forty days more than once, but it was an occasional, not regular fast. The others fasted for forty days once.
In short, these fasts are only similar to Lent in a very superficial way. Lent is simply dietary restrictions for forty days (not even consecutive days) and the way it is practiced in places like the U.S. and U.K., it's' not even really that.
The Ezekiel example is just a strange inclusion. For you will see that although a special diet is mentioned, it is not simply for forty days:
Ezekiel 4:1-17
Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and pourtray upon it the city, even Jerusalem: and lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about. Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel.a) As you can, Ezekiel's curious diet was not for forty days, but for nearly four hundred days.
Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it. And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege.
Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof.
And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it. Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink.
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith. Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment: that they may want bread and water, and be astonied one with another, and consume away for their iniquity.
b) Moreover, the whole point of the diet was to illustrate the coming siege, destruction, and dispersal of the Israelites.
c) Thus, for example, the dung-baked bread was to be dung-baked to illustrate that the Israelites were going to be eating defiled bread. The odd combination of ingredients illustrates the destruction of the usual separation that Israel had experienced. The measured food and water illustrate the times of austerity that were coming. The "eat it as barley cakes" is to show that these austere portions would be considered a blessing.
In short, the Ezekiel fast (if we can call it that) points forward to a curse from God. It is descriptive and prophetic, not prescriptive. Like the fasts, it is occasional - not annual (indeed it could not be annual on this planet).
This seems absurd, ridiculous, and frankly beneath response. Yet it is apparently being offered on Facebook (evidence) as though it were a serious defense of the practice of the Roman communion.
Of course, none of this is to suggest that fasting, in itself, is wrong. Nevertheless, Christian fasting is purposeful and, usually, secret. Jesus taught us:
Matthew 6:16-18
Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
See people with ash daubed on their face? They are not following this teaching.
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
This Goes Beyond Lampoon ...
I'm not sure what else to say about this story about a pair of Columbian priests (Roman communion) who made the headlines when they were discovered murdered. Martyrs, do you think? It turns out it was a murder for hire. They were the ones who hired the hitmen. There's more, but it's not for tender eyes.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Fenner on the Second Commandment
From Christs Alarm To Drowsy Saints: Or, Christs Epistle to his Churches, by William Fenner (1600-1640):
(Thanks to Matthew Lankford at the Idolatry Condemned blog for bringing this to my attention)
Q. 66. What art thou commanded in the second Commandment?
A. Not to serve God with will-worship, though it seem never so wise and humble, and mortifying (Colossians 2:23). To abhor all gross thoughts of God (Acts 17:29) as that he is such a one, as mens' selves do think him to be (Psalm 50:21). Not to make any Image (Deuteronomy 5:8) unless God should reveal a new Commandment, as once he did for Cherubims in the sanctuary (Exodus 25:18) and the brazen Serpent in the wilderness (Numbers 21:8) or unless it be in a civil use (Matthew 22:20). To abhor images of Idolaters, either to worship God before them (2 Chronicles 25:14) or in them, as the Jews did God in Baal (Hosea 2:16) or to be put in mind of God by them (Hosea 2:17) or being at Mass or communion of Service with them (1 Corinthians 10:21) or housing them (2 John 10) or bidding them God speed (2 John 11) or learning any of their devises or customs of them (Deuteronomy 12:30) or familiar reading their Books (Acts 19:19). Unless it be to confute them by their own writers (Acts 17:28) and to upbraid carnal Professors with their strictness in their kinds (Romans 2:14-17, &c.).
Q. 67. What else art thou commanded in the Second Commandment?
A. Not to lean to mine own knowledge (Proverbs 3:5) nor to serve God by the precepts of Men (Isaiah 29:13) nor as men bid me (Mark 7:6). Nor according to the Traditions and customs of the lives of our Fore-fathers (1 Peter 1:18). I am commanded to do, not only in matter what, but also in manner, as the Lord commandeth (Genesis 6:22). For otherwise my prayers and services that I do unto God, and all my sacrifices and oblations are no better then murder, or a Dog's neck, or Swine's blood, or Idolatry; so indeed it is, if I serve him after my own ways (Isaiah 66:3) not only sticks and stones are Idols (Leviticus 26:1) but carnal fancies, imaginations, dulness, deadness, luke-warmness; for there be idols in the heart (Ezekiel 14:3-4). Covetousness is Idolatry (Colossians 3:5). Stubbornness is as idolatry (1 Samuel 15:23). A careless Christian is an Idol, there is an idol Professor, an idol Christian, an idol Shepherd (Zechariah 11:17).
(Thanks to Matthew Lankford at the Idolatry Condemned blog for bringing this to my attention)
Vatican Politics - Not Quite the 15th and 16th Centuries But ...
There have been some interesting happenings at the Vatican (link to article). The Vatican was busy last week denying what the leaked communication implied (and who knows where the truth lies), but it will be interesting to see how this pans out in terms of who is the next pope. The article suggests that Tarcisio Bertone may be the one we should expect to succeed Benedict XVI. It would be an interesting change of pace, in terms of different personalities. One imagines he would be more willing than Benedict XVI to define the dogma of the co-redemptrix.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Monday, February 13, 2012
"Your Interpretation of" - a Common Objection Debunked
The Called to Communion clique is fond of replacing "Scripture" with "your interpretation of Scripture." This has the rhetorical effect of making the appeal to Scripture sound less authoritative. After all, "that's just your interpretation" is idiomatic of something that has little value. It's part of the culture of relativism, in which your interpretation is just as good as my interpretation is just as good as anyone else's interpretation.
Of course, Called to Communion uses this bait to try to plant the hook of "The Church's Interpretation" as a non-relativistic alternative to the sea of relativism. The sea of relativism, though, is not a true alternative. Not all interpretations are equally valid, and the fact that something is one's interpretation doesn't mean it has no validity or that it has equal validity with the interpretation of someone else.
In the case of a document, like Scripture, that has an intended meaning, the meaning is what the author intended, which is generally a single meaning - or in the case of certain genres a pair of meanings (the technique of double entendre is an example of the latter). And, of course, certain texts which employ figures of speech have multiple layers of meaning (depending on how one analyzes meaning - a topic really beyond this short article).
What makes an interpretation correct is it's correspondence to authorial intent. Things like majority vote of the people, or endorsement by the right number of credentialed and certified scholars, do not matter in this sphere. Instead, all that matters is alignment with what the author actually intended.
There are a variety of hypotheses about how we can determine what an author meant. If we assume that the book is incoherent or corrupted, so that it cannot convey its actual meaning itself, then we need to go to another source. This is what the Gnostics alleged, and what - in essence - each of Rome, Islam, and Mormonism have had to allege.
On the other hand, if we believe the book to be preserved and coherent, then the best way to determine the meaning of the book is from the book itself. If we want to know what some phrase or word means, we look to the context. When we read the Scriptures as a whole, we read them harmoniously - not discordantly. Paul's teaching of justification by faith apart from works doesn't contradict James' teaching on justification - even if the solution does not immediately smack everyone in the face with a two-by-four.
If we adopt the former hypothesis, we undermine Scriptural authority, if we adopt the latter hypothesis, we affirm Scriptural authority.
In a previous post, I made a comparison between the religion of Roman Catholicism and Islam (as well as Mormonism). The one particular comparison I made, which is significant, has to do with whether the Scriptures are themselves the rule of faith. Catholicism, like Islam and Mormonism, rejects this - along, I might add, with Gnosticism (see this more detailed discussion of Gnosticism's hermeneutic).
Islam makes the Qur'an (and the teachings and example of Mohammed) their rule, Mormonism makes the Book of Mormon, the Doctrines and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price (and the teachings of Joseph Smith and subsequent alleged apostles) their rule, while Catholicism makes the teachings of the Magisterium (the "universal and ordinary magisterium" but also and chiefly the teachings of the allegedly ecumenical councils and the allegedly ex cathedra statements of the bishops of Rome) their rule.
The analogy is very precise: these religions offer an authority that supersedes Scripture's authority. Rome doesn't call the decrees of their allegedly ecumenical councils and "ex cathedra" papal statements "scripture," but they give them superior authority to Scripture. (I should point out that the teachings of the "universal and ordinary magisterium" are also given authoritative weight. The only problem here is that it is far from clear what exactly that body of teachings is. While the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithful sometimes appeals to the UOM on certain points, they themselves are not considered infallible.)
One objection that I received in response from "Ryan" is the sort of objection promoted at the "Called to Communion" blog. The objection is as follows: "I give statements of the Magisterium and ex cathedra papal statements superior authority to MY OWN interpretation, not to Scripture itself."
It may sound nice to those in the Roman communion to say "interpretation" but what they are really saying is that it doesn't matter to them how clearly Scripture contradicts the allegedly ecumenical councils and ex cathedra papal statements, they are going to believe the magisterium. That's just saying that Scripture has no authority to them - or at least no authority in matters on which the magisterium has also spoken.
The objection continued: "What you are really saying is YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture is more authoritative than the Catholic Magisterium."
I answer:
a) "The Catholic Magisterium" has very rarely actually interpreted Scripture. Try to find me any whole chapter for which there is an allegedly infallible interpretation (and this supposedly after almost 2000 years of existence).
b) What I'm really saying is that Scripture itself has more authority than the Roman magisterium. After all, you have to "interpret" the magisterium just as you have to "interpret" the Scriptures. So, compare apples to apples.
c) In other words, if you insist on pedantically inserting "interpretation of" into the discussion (as the Called to Communion crowd encourages folks to do), then the comparison is between "your interpretation of Scripture" and "your interpretation of the magisterium." But really, the comparison is between the Scripture and the magisterium. The "your interpretation of" or "my interpretation of" is just a needless insertion.
d) In some cases, the insertion of "your interpretation of" next to "Scripture" but not next to "magisterium" is part of the overall campaign of trying to supersede Scripture's authority. I don't assume that was Ryan's intent. Nevertheless, the result of adding "your interpretation of" next to "X" is rhetorically speaking to make the "X" sound less authoritative. "Scripture" sounds more authoritative than "your interpretation of Scripture," as well it should!
e) In some cases, the insertion of "your interpretation of" next to "Scripture" is just wrong. For example, our rule of faith in Christianity is not "my interpretation of Scripture" (which is something changeable) but Scripture itself (which is unchangeable). Scripture (like everything else, including the magisterium's writings) must be understood to be applied. Nevertheless, it is Scripture itself that is our rule of faith.
The objection continued: "Because you believe the Bible teaches monergism, and the Catholic Church does not believe the Bible teaches monergism, you are really comparing your interpretation to the Church's interpretation, whereas I submit my own interpretive authority to the Church."
I answer:
a) As I noted above, that's just another way of saying "no matter how clearly the Scripture teaches monergism, I will follow what the magisterium says to the contrary." It's not "submitting [your] own interpretive authority to [Rome]" it's failing to do your duty of discernment, for Scripture warns you that false teachers will arise, and it warns you about this eventuality quite clearly.
b) Your church may well insist by dogma that the Bible does not teach monergism, but she does not do so by interpretation of Scripture. Look at Trent, for example. There cooperation is defined dogma, but where is any interpretation of any particular scriptures provided? So you should see that she is not so much interpreting as just insisting.
The objection continued: "You might not think baptism regenerates us, but the Church has interpreted the Bible to mean we are indeed regenerated by baptism."
I answer: I think as you look more closely, you will find that this too is a matter of insistence, not interpretation, per se.
The objection continued: "The difference is not that the Church has superseded Scripture by daring to interpret it authoritatively; the difference is that you think your interpretation is better."
I answer:
a) Actually, I think that Scripture's meaning is truth and it is objective. So, in questions of interpretation, the question is who is right, not who is "better."
b) Your church has attempted to supersede Scripture by demanding that you understand Scripture only in ways that do not contradict what you understand your church to be saying is true. In other words, your interpretation of Scripture must be submitted to your interpretation of the magisterium, or to speak normally - Scripture's authority must be submitted to that of the magisterium.
The objection concluded: "If your analogy holds, YOUR own authority has also superseded Scripture."
I answer: Unlike your church, I don't purport to be infallible. What I insist is true is always open to correction from the authority of Scripture. What your church insists is true is not open to similar correction. She feigns to speak infallibly, I do not.
-Turretinfan
Of course, Called to Communion uses this bait to try to plant the hook of "The Church's Interpretation" as a non-relativistic alternative to the sea of relativism. The sea of relativism, though, is not a true alternative. Not all interpretations are equally valid, and the fact that something is one's interpretation doesn't mean it has no validity or that it has equal validity with the interpretation of someone else.
In the case of a document, like Scripture, that has an intended meaning, the meaning is what the author intended, which is generally a single meaning - or in the case of certain genres a pair of meanings (the technique of double entendre is an example of the latter). And, of course, certain texts which employ figures of speech have multiple layers of meaning (depending on how one analyzes meaning - a topic really beyond this short article).
What makes an interpretation correct is it's correspondence to authorial intent. Things like majority vote of the people, or endorsement by the right number of credentialed and certified scholars, do not matter in this sphere. Instead, all that matters is alignment with what the author actually intended.
There are a variety of hypotheses about how we can determine what an author meant. If we assume that the book is incoherent or corrupted, so that it cannot convey its actual meaning itself, then we need to go to another source. This is what the Gnostics alleged, and what - in essence - each of Rome, Islam, and Mormonism have had to allege.
On the other hand, if we believe the book to be preserved and coherent, then the best way to determine the meaning of the book is from the book itself. If we want to know what some phrase or word means, we look to the context. When we read the Scriptures as a whole, we read them harmoniously - not discordantly. Paul's teaching of justification by faith apart from works doesn't contradict James' teaching on justification - even if the solution does not immediately smack everyone in the face with a two-by-four.
If we adopt the former hypothesis, we undermine Scriptural authority, if we adopt the latter hypothesis, we affirm Scriptural authority.
In a previous post, I made a comparison between the religion of Roman Catholicism and Islam (as well as Mormonism). The one particular comparison I made, which is significant, has to do with whether the Scriptures are themselves the rule of faith. Catholicism, like Islam and Mormonism, rejects this - along, I might add, with Gnosticism (see this more detailed discussion of Gnosticism's hermeneutic).
Islam makes the Qur'an (and the teachings and example of Mohammed) their rule, Mormonism makes the Book of Mormon, the Doctrines and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price (and the teachings of Joseph Smith and subsequent alleged apostles) their rule, while Catholicism makes the teachings of the Magisterium (the "universal and ordinary magisterium" but also and chiefly the teachings of the allegedly ecumenical councils and the allegedly ex cathedra statements of the bishops of Rome) their rule.
The analogy is very precise: these religions offer an authority that supersedes Scripture's authority. Rome doesn't call the decrees of their allegedly ecumenical councils and "ex cathedra" papal statements "scripture," but they give them superior authority to Scripture. (I should point out that the teachings of the "universal and ordinary magisterium" are also given authoritative weight. The only problem here is that it is far from clear what exactly that body of teachings is. While the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithful sometimes appeals to the UOM on certain points, they themselves are not considered infallible.)
One objection that I received in response from "Ryan" is the sort of objection promoted at the "Called to Communion" blog. The objection is as follows: "I give statements of the Magisterium and ex cathedra papal statements superior authority to MY OWN interpretation, not to Scripture itself."
It may sound nice to those in the Roman communion to say "interpretation" but what they are really saying is that it doesn't matter to them how clearly Scripture contradicts the allegedly ecumenical councils and ex cathedra papal statements, they are going to believe the magisterium. That's just saying that Scripture has no authority to them - or at least no authority in matters on which the magisterium has also spoken.
The objection continued: "What you are really saying is YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture is more authoritative than the Catholic Magisterium."
I answer:
a) "The Catholic Magisterium" has very rarely actually interpreted Scripture. Try to find me any whole chapter for which there is an allegedly infallible interpretation (and this supposedly after almost 2000 years of existence).
b) What I'm really saying is that Scripture itself has more authority than the Roman magisterium. After all, you have to "interpret" the magisterium just as you have to "interpret" the Scriptures. So, compare apples to apples.
c) In other words, if you insist on pedantically inserting "interpretation of" into the discussion (as the Called to Communion crowd encourages folks to do), then the comparison is between "your interpretation of Scripture" and "your interpretation of the magisterium." But really, the comparison is between the Scripture and the magisterium. The "your interpretation of" or "my interpretation of" is just a needless insertion.
d) In some cases, the insertion of "your interpretation of" next to "Scripture" but not next to "magisterium" is part of the overall campaign of trying to supersede Scripture's authority. I don't assume that was Ryan's intent. Nevertheless, the result of adding "your interpretation of" next to "X" is rhetorically speaking to make the "X" sound less authoritative. "Scripture" sounds more authoritative than "your interpretation of Scripture," as well it should!
e) In some cases, the insertion of "your interpretation of" next to "Scripture" is just wrong. For example, our rule of faith in Christianity is not "my interpretation of Scripture" (which is something changeable) but Scripture itself (which is unchangeable). Scripture (like everything else, including the magisterium's writings) must be understood to be applied. Nevertheless, it is Scripture itself that is our rule of faith.
The objection continued: "Because you believe the Bible teaches monergism, and the Catholic Church does not believe the Bible teaches monergism, you are really comparing your interpretation to the Church's interpretation, whereas I submit my own interpretive authority to the Church."
I answer:
a) As I noted above, that's just another way of saying "no matter how clearly the Scripture teaches monergism, I will follow what the magisterium says to the contrary." It's not "submitting [your] own interpretive authority to [Rome]" it's failing to do your duty of discernment, for Scripture warns you that false teachers will arise, and it warns you about this eventuality quite clearly.
b) Your church may well insist by dogma that the Bible does not teach monergism, but she does not do so by interpretation of Scripture. Look at Trent, for example. There cooperation is defined dogma, but where is any interpretation of any particular scriptures provided? So you should see that she is not so much interpreting as just insisting.
The objection continued: "You might not think baptism regenerates us, but the Church has interpreted the Bible to mean we are indeed regenerated by baptism."
I answer: I think as you look more closely, you will find that this too is a matter of insistence, not interpretation, per se.
The objection continued: "The difference is not that the Church has superseded Scripture by daring to interpret it authoritatively; the difference is that you think your interpretation is better."
I answer:
a) Actually, I think that Scripture's meaning is truth and it is objective. So, in questions of interpretation, the question is who is right, not who is "better."
b) Your church has attempted to supersede Scripture by demanding that you understand Scripture only in ways that do not contradict what you understand your church to be saying is true. In other words, your interpretation of Scripture must be submitted to your interpretation of the magisterium, or to speak normally - Scripture's authority must be submitted to that of the magisterium.
The objection concluded: "If your analogy holds, YOUR own authority has also superseded Scripture."
I answer: Unlike your church, I don't purport to be infallible. What I insist is true is always open to correction from the authority of Scripture. What your church insists is true is not open to similar correction. She feigns to speak infallibly, I do not.
-Turretinfan
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Who Led Dr. Caner to Christ? Was his Grandmother involved?
We saw that a pre-9/11 poster advertising Dr. Caner as a speaker says that Dr. Caner's grandmother led him to Christ. We also see that in this video (about half way through - note the "almost in college" claim for his conversion date at the beginning) Dr. Caner says: "All it did, was take one simple grandmother, to explain to me that everything's a trinity. Space is a Trinity, Time is a Trinity." (link to current place)(link to original source - now broken)
I don't know whether Dr. Caner's grandmother was influential in his conversion. I don't know the truth of how he came to serve Christ - and I don't need to know that. I wonder whether perhaps his grandmother was influential in that process, along with his classmate from high school, but I obviously have no way of knowing. Indeed, in the video clip linked-to above, Dr. Caner does not even say that the grandmother was his grandmother, or that this explanation was provided before his conversion. Still, it is an interesting clip.
I don't really care for the spatial and temporal analogies to the Trinity. I don't see any need here to get into why that is, but I think it's sufficient to say I don't think the Trinity as Trinity is directly analogous to anything in nature - the Trinity is other.
-TurretinFan
I don't know whether Dr. Caner's grandmother was influential in his conversion. I don't know the truth of how he came to serve Christ - and I don't need to know that. I wonder whether perhaps his grandmother was influential in that process, along with his classmate from high school, but I obviously have no way of knowing. Indeed, in the video clip linked-to above, Dr. Caner does not even say that the grandmother was his grandmother, or that this explanation was provided before his conversion. Still, it is an interesting clip.
I don't really care for the spatial and temporal analogies to the Trinity. I don't see any need here to get into why that is, but I think it's sufficient to say I don't think the Trinity as Trinity is directly analogous to anything in nature - the Trinity is other.
-TurretinFan
More Ergun Caner stuff ... from MosesModel
MosesModel has a few more Caner-related posts.
One offers a comparison of Caner's statements regarding what is allegedly written on the wall of a mosque in Kabul.
One highlights an amusing error regarding Caner's marriage status. It also demonstrates that not every erroneous statement about Ergun Caner's biography is the fault of Ergun Caner.
Another highlights some issues with a sermon by Ergun Caner from January 1, 2012.
-TurretinFan
One offers a comparison of Caner's statements regarding what is allegedly written on the wall of a mosque in Kabul.
One highlights an amusing error regarding Caner's marriage status. It also demonstrates that not every erroneous statement about Ergun Caner's biography is the fault of Ergun Caner.
Another highlights some issues with a sermon by Ergun Caner from January 1, 2012.
-TurretinFan
Caners on the John Ankerberg Show
There are a number of clips of the Caners' previous (before 2013) appearance(s) on the John Ankerberg show. It is unclear how this appearance will compare with the 2013 appearance in terms of the Caners' biographies/autobiographies. The following are some notes from those clips, with links to the clips. I'm not sure how much use these are, but I offer them more or less by way of an index for interested people, since it appears quite a few people are interested in the subject.
What is Christmas time like for a Muslim?
Ankerberg's question seems to assume that the Caners both came to America, when in fact Emir was born here. Emir does not clarify this in the clip.
Emir claims that they did not celebrate Christmas due to their father's protectiveness.
What is Salvation for a Muslim?
No biographical details.
Former Muslim Testimony
Ergun claims that they did not have close friends, even in high school.
Ergun credits Jerry Tackett with being tenacious for years.
Ergun claims that walking into a church would "defile" him.
It is interesting to hear Emir claim that the verse in the Quran that says that "they did not crucify him" says that someone took his place. That's definitely a predominate Muslim interpretation of the verse, but it is not what the verse says.
Ergun claims that Shabir Ally would always ask in debate, "What does one man's death have to do with me?"
Former Muslim Disowned by Father
How did you survive being disowned by your father, Ankerberg asks. Ergun talks about how his father was a hero to him.
Islam Proselytizing America
No biographical details.
What do Muslims Believe about Jesus?
No biographical details.
Leading a Muslim to Christ
Emir cites "volume 5 of the Hadith, number 266."
Muslim Belief about Grace and Unconditional Love
No biographical details.
What do Muslims Believe?
No biographical details.
What happens when a Muslim Becomes a Christian?
Ergun talks about coming forward the fourth or fifth time he had been in church, to be led to Jesus by the minister.
Emir says that Ergun was saved about a year prior to Emir. Emir says that the same friend "along with my brother" invited Emir to church as well. Emir claims he went forward that night and was saved. Interestingly, at page 19 of "Unveiling Islam," the Caners had claimed that Ergun invited Emir to church after Erdem had been saved in their basement (link).
Emir claims that he and Ergun were disowned at separate times by their father.
Emir cites "Hadith, Volume 9, Number 57," but adds "of Bukhari's hadith."
Ergun claims he went to his father and told him that he believes Jesus is the Son of God.
He said that after he didn't see his father for another 17 years.
How can a Muslim know he is going to Heaven?
No biographical details.
Do Muslims have to Pay for their Own Sins?
No biographical details.
What will happen if Islam keeps Growing?
No biographical details.
What will happen if Christian keeps getting "watered down"
No biographical details.
Sharia Law
Emir claims that in Sharia if a woman is raped it is considered her fault.
Is Jihad Physical Warfare?
No biographical details.
How Many Countries have Sharia Law?
Ergun claims he does debates.
Muslim Beliefs about End-time Events
No biographical details.
Muslims and Eschatology
Ergun claims that he was taught that the Jews drink the blood of Palestinian children.
Why is Jerusalem important to Muslims?
Ergun claims he was raised to hate the Jews.
Ergun also claims he believes Jesus died so that Osama bin Ladin could be saved.
Does Islamic Eschatology Depend on Conquest of the World?
Ergun claims that his father died believing that the first gulf war didn't take place, because Islam can't lose.
Is Mohammed the Prophet that we all should Follow?
No biographical details.
Is Mohammed the Exemplar we should follow?
The Caners claim to be working on a commentary on every verse in the Koran from an Evangelical standpoint ("2.3 million words" - Ergun Caner).
What is the Influences on or of Mohammad?
Ergun treats the "Gospel of Barnabas" as being written "five centuries after any apostles have been on the planet." (In fact, it's a 14th century forgery, more than five centuries after Mohammad) Ergun claims that this development gives Mohammad credence.
Interestingly, Ergun suggests we should beware of a man who is the hero of every illustration, beware of a pastor who is the hero of every story.
Compare Jesus with Mohammad
No biographic details.
What about the Dark Side of Islam?
No biographic details.
Who is Allah?
Ergun refers to his and Emir's debates, and claims that they have not met one scholar who would say that Allah and Jehovah God of the Bible are the same God.
What is the plan of salvation in Islam?
No biographic details.
What about Hell in Islam?
No biographic details.
What about the Holy Spirit in Islam?
No biographic details.
Where do the five pillars of Islam come in?
No biographic details.
What is the good news Islam doesn't have?
No biographic details.
Why is it so hard for Muslim people to become Christians?
Emir notes that he and Ergun were disowned by their father.
Caners talk about their father, a devout Muslim
Ergun talks about being cut out of pictures. Ergun claims he never got to see two sisters born or raised.
Ergun describes coming to see their dying father.
Emir talks about how he and Erdem were saved the same week and baptized the same Sunday.
Emir mentions that his mother had become a Sunni Muslim because of their father. Emir also mentions the salvation of his grandmother, without claiming she had been a Muslim.
Emir also refers to his half-sisters as sisters.
What can happen to Muslim women who are saved?
No biographic details.
Can we reach Muslims here in America?
No biographic details, aside from mentioning international trips.
A Palestinian Arab that became a Christian
No biographical details.
Leading a Muslim to Christ
No biographical details.
-TurretinFan
What is Christmas time like for a Muslim?
Ankerberg's question seems to assume that the Caners both came to America, when in fact Emir was born here. Emir does not clarify this in the clip.
Emir claims that they did not celebrate Christmas due to their father's protectiveness.
What is Salvation for a Muslim?
No biographical details.
Former Muslim Testimony
Ergun claims that they did not have close friends, even in high school.
Ergun credits Jerry Tackett with being tenacious for years.
Ergun claims that walking into a church would "defile" him.
It is interesting to hear Emir claim that the verse in the Quran that says that "they did not crucify him" says that someone took his place. That's definitely a predominate Muslim interpretation of the verse, but it is not what the verse says.
Ergun claims that Shabir Ally would always ask in debate, "What does one man's death have to do with me?"
Former Muslim Disowned by Father
How did you survive being disowned by your father, Ankerberg asks. Ergun talks about how his father was a hero to him.
Islam Proselytizing America
No biographical details.
What do Muslims Believe about Jesus?
No biographical details.
Leading a Muslim to Christ
Emir cites "volume 5 of the Hadith, number 266."
Muslim Belief about Grace and Unconditional Love
No biographical details.
What do Muslims Believe?
No biographical details.
What happens when a Muslim Becomes a Christian?
Ergun talks about coming forward the fourth or fifth time he had been in church, to be led to Jesus by the minister.
Emir says that Ergun was saved about a year prior to Emir. Emir says that the same friend "along with my brother" invited Emir to church as well. Emir claims he went forward that night and was saved. Interestingly, at page 19 of "Unveiling Islam," the Caners had claimed that Ergun invited Emir to church after Erdem had been saved in their basement (link).
Emir claims that he and Ergun were disowned at separate times by their father.
Emir cites "Hadith, Volume 9, Number 57," but adds "of Bukhari's hadith."
Ergun claims he went to his father and told him that he believes Jesus is the Son of God.
He said that after he didn't see his father for another 17 years.
How can a Muslim know he is going to Heaven?
No biographical details.
Do Muslims have to Pay for their Own Sins?
No biographical details.
What will happen if Islam keeps Growing?
No biographical details.
What will happen if Christian keeps getting "watered down"
No biographical details.
Sharia Law
Emir claims that in Sharia if a woman is raped it is considered her fault.
Is Jihad Physical Warfare?
No biographical details.
How Many Countries have Sharia Law?
Ergun claims he does debates.
Muslim Beliefs about End-time Events
No biographical details.
Muslims and Eschatology
Ergun claims that he was taught that the Jews drink the blood of Palestinian children.
Why is Jerusalem important to Muslims?
Ergun claims he was raised to hate the Jews.
Ergun also claims he believes Jesus died so that Osama bin Ladin could be saved.
Does Islamic Eschatology Depend on Conquest of the World?
Ergun claims that his father died believing that the first gulf war didn't take place, because Islam can't lose.
Is Mohammed the Prophet that we all should Follow?
No biographical details.
Is Mohammed the Exemplar we should follow?
The Caners claim to be working on a commentary on every verse in the Koran from an Evangelical standpoint ("2.3 million words" - Ergun Caner).
What is the Influences on or of Mohammad?
Ergun treats the "Gospel of Barnabas" as being written "five centuries after any apostles have been on the planet." (In fact, it's a 14th century forgery, more than five centuries after Mohammad) Ergun claims that this development gives Mohammad credence.
Interestingly, Ergun suggests we should beware of a man who is the hero of every illustration, beware of a pastor who is the hero of every story.
Compare Jesus with Mohammad
No biographic details.
What about the Dark Side of Islam?
No biographic details.
Who is Allah?
Ergun refers to his and Emir's debates, and claims that they have not met one scholar who would say that Allah and Jehovah God of the Bible are the same God.
What is the plan of salvation in Islam?
No biographic details.
What about Hell in Islam?
No biographic details.
What about the Holy Spirit in Islam?
No biographic details.
Where do the five pillars of Islam come in?
No biographic details.
What is the good news Islam doesn't have?
No biographic details.
Why is it so hard for Muslim people to become Christians?
Emir notes that he and Ergun were disowned by their father.
Caners talk about their father, a devout Muslim
Ergun talks about being cut out of pictures. Ergun claims he never got to see two sisters born or raised.
Ergun describes coming to see their dying father.
Emir talks about how he and Erdem were saved the same week and baptized the same Sunday.
Emir mentions that his mother had become a Sunni Muslim because of their father. Emir also mentions the salvation of his grandmother, without claiming she had been a Muslim.
Emir also refers to his half-sisters as sisters.
What can happen to Muslim women who are saved?
No biographic details.
Can we reach Muslims here in America?
No biographic details, aside from mentioning international trips.
A Palestinian Arab that became a Christian
No biographical details.
Leading a Muslim to Christ
No biographical details.
-TurretinFan
Friday, February 10, 2012
Is Charity a Means to Salvation?
Does the Pope teach works salvation? The Vatican Information Service capsulized one of his recent talks under the heading, "POPE'S LENTEN MESSAGE: CHARITY AS A MEANS TO SALVATION," but perhaps more significantly consider his own words, as provided by VIS:
By contrast, we believe that salvation is entirely of the Lord. We teach that it is all of God. God is both the author and finisher of our salvation.
Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
Christ is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and end:
Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Don't get me wrong. Good works are important, as the pope quoted, the Scriptures say:
Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Yet it is not by those works that we are saved. As it is written:
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Amen, and praise the Lord for his mercy and grace, which endure forever.
-TurretinFan
All of us have received spiritual or material riches meant to be used for the fulfilment of God's plan, for the good of the Church and for our personal salvation.(Benedict XVI via Vatican Information Service, 7 February 2012)
By contrast, we believe that salvation is entirely of the Lord. We teach that it is all of God. God is both the author and finisher of our salvation.
Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
Christ is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and end:
Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Don't get me wrong. Good works are important, as the pope quoted, the Scriptures say:
Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Yet it is not by those works that we are saved. As it is written:
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Amen, and praise the Lord for his mercy and grace, which endure forever.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Is Rejecting Rome the Only Protestant Unity?
Andre writes:
That said, Andre has a warped perspective. His former pastor would say the same thing if Andre was leaving for Islam or Mormonism, both of which claim (like Romanism) to have an authority that either de facto or de jure supercedes the Bible. The problem is that Andre has left the visible church to join a church that rejects the gospel and has a history of persecuting those who preach the gospel.
We would and do give him the same sorts of warnings we give to those who leave for Islam or Mormonism. The Roman magisterium is no more legitimate than Mohammed or Joseph Smith, notwithstanding their lofty claims for themselves. We fear for the souls of those who take such actions, because they are turning their backs on the gospel, and departing from the catholic and apostolic faith.
Our warnings to those who join the federal visionist or new perspectivist groups tend to be somewhat different, mainly because their serious doctrinal errors there do not necessarily rise to the level of rejecting the gospel. The warnings we would give in those cases would be similar to the warnings we would give to someone leaving to a Methodist or Lutheran church.
I'm not sure whether Andre understands this important distinction between the gospel and other important doctrines. I will, however, pray for his repentance and restoration to the visible church.
-TurretinFan
In my exit interview, federal vision, NPP, and NT Wright were suddenly my pastor’s best friends. He told me that he’d be comfortable if I worshipped with them but that he would worry for my soul if I joined the Catholic Church. When I heard that, I was even more comforted by my decisions. Because suspicion toward Rome seems to be the only thing uniting Protestants at this point.First, let me tip my hat to Andre for at least going through the "exit interview" process. While I am sure I have a lot of issues with him and his views, I am glad to see that he took the process with more seriousness than many.
That said, Andre has a warped perspective. His former pastor would say the same thing if Andre was leaving for Islam or Mormonism, both of which claim (like Romanism) to have an authority that either de facto or de jure supercedes the Bible. The problem is that Andre has left the visible church to join a church that rejects the gospel and has a history of persecuting those who preach the gospel.
We would and do give him the same sorts of warnings we give to those who leave for Islam or Mormonism. The Roman magisterium is no more legitimate than Mohammed or Joseph Smith, notwithstanding their lofty claims for themselves. We fear for the souls of those who take such actions, because they are turning their backs on the gospel, and departing from the catholic and apostolic faith.
Our warnings to those who join the federal visionist or new perspectivist groups tend to be somewhat different, mainly because their serious doctrinal errors there do not necessarily rise to the level of rejecting the gospel. The warnings we would give in those cases would be similar to the warnings we would give to someone leaving to a Methodist or Lutheran church.
I'm not sure whether Andre understands this important distinction between the gospel and other important doctrines. I will, however, pray for his repentance and restoration to the visible church.
-TurretinFan
Why Does the Universe Look So Old?
In human terms, of course, the universe is old. It's thousands of years old, much older than any living human, and maybe two orders of magnitude older than a typical retiree. It's old. It is not, however, as old as people who adopt the presupposition of naturalism think it is.
These days they are telling us that the universe is between 13-14 Billion years old. Even the Earth itself is between 4-5 Billion years old, they tell us. Perhaps, on the presupposition of naturalism, that's the "right" approximate age.
That presupposition of naturalism, however, is wrong. The Earth only appears to be as old as naturalism would suggest it is.
But why then does the Earth look so "old." Is God lying to us by dressing the world in old clothes to deceive us about its true age?
First, God can hardly be accused of deceiving us about the world's age, when he gives us such detailed information in Genesis and Exodus that allows us to generate an approximate age of the universe.
Second, what would a "young" universe look like? On naturalism, a 6000 year old universe would be one that is totally inhospitable to life - the same for a 6000 year old Earth. So, one obvious answer for the reason that the Earth and Universe don't look "young" is that the Earth and Universe are here to support life.
Third, as David Gadbois has noted (see here) any conceivable universe that has the laws of conversation of mass and energy would look older than it is, because the existence of matter and/or energy would imply the indefinite past existence of matter and energy.
Fourth, this "apparent age" is subjective. Sure, I know that "scientists" use various objective measures and perform calculations, but the notion of appearance is itself inherently subjective. We see this subjectivity in the "increasing age of the universe" phenomenon. Nineteenth century scientists evidently estimated the age of the world in the tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years range. By contrast, the age of the earth is now estimated to be the billions of years, range - with no real guarantee that new theories won't bring new revisions.
In short, given propositional divine revelation, any appearance of age of the universe is hardly problematic. Moreover, since naturalism cannot account for fully formed worlds springing into being in a moment, it is unsurprising that the universe "appears" older than it is. When the universe had just been formed, every possible naturalistic judgment of the earth's age would necessarily suggest it was older than it actually is. That is especially the case for an habitable world, given that both new universes and new earths (as described by the scientific theories du jour) would be completely inhospitable to human life.
-TurretinFan
These days they are telling us that the universe is between 13-14 Billion years old. Even the Earth itself is between 4-5 Billion years old, they tell us. Perhaps, on the presupposition of naturalism, that's the "right" approximate age.
That presupposition of naturalism, however, is wrong. The Earth only appears to be as old as naturalism would suggest it is.
But why then does the Earth look so "old." Is God lying to us by dressing the world in old clothes to deceive us about its true age?
First, God can hardly be accused of deceiving us about the world's age, when he gives us such detailed information in Genesis and Exodus that allows us to generate an approximate age of the universe.
Second, what would a "young" universe look like? On naturalism, a 6000 year old universe would be one that is totally inhospitable to life - the same for a 6000 year old Earth. So, one obvious answer for the reason that the Earth and Universe don't look "young" is that the Earth and Universe are here to support life.
Third, as David Gadbois has noted (see here) any conceivable universe that has the laws of conversation of mass and energy would look older than it is, because the existence of matter and/or energy would imply the indefinite past existence of matter and energy.
Fourth, this "apparent age" is subjective. Sure, I know that "scientists" use various objective measures and perform calculations, but the notion of appearance is itself inherently subjective. We see this subjectivity in the "increasing age of the universe" phenomenon. Nineteenth century scientists evidently estimated the age of the world in the tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years range. By contrast, the age of the earth is now estimated to be the billions of years, range - with no real guarantee that new theories won't bring new revisions.
In short, given propositional divine revelation, any appearance of age of the universe is hardly problematic. Moreover, since naturalism cannot account for fully formed worlds springing into being in a moment, it is unsurprising that the universe "appears" older than it is. When the universe had just been formed, every possible naturalistic judgment of the earth's age would necessarily suggest it was older than it actually is. That is especially the case for an habitable world, given that both new universes and new earths (as described by the scientific theories du jour) would be completely inhospitable to human life.
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Another Beckwith-like Apostasy to Rome
You may recall that some time ago, Francis Beckwith made waves by secretly rejoining the Roman communion, while continuing in his role as president of Evangelical Theological Society. Sadly, we can add to that another similar tale.
Mr. Jason Stewart was an OPC pastor. According to a letter provided by his (now former) presbytery:
We will pray for repentance and restoration of Mr. Stewart (the erasure by Presbytery is de facto deposition and excommunication). Until that time, however, he ought to consider himself outside the visible and catholic church, and under threat of eternal judgment.
The reason for posting this point publicly, of course, is to draw attention to the issue of deception alleged by his former presbytery. I don't expect that this will matter to the Called to Communion team, but it ought to matter to seekers of truth. It helps to demonstrate the principle announced by the apostle, that they went out from us, because they were not of us. It also helps to qualify the credentials that are being used to promote his "conversion story" ("OPC Pastor ...") - yes, he managed to infiltrate the presbytery - but his manner of departure shows the sort of person he was.
-TurretinFan
Mr. Jason Stewart was an OPC pastor. According to a letter provided by his (now former) presbytery:
Whereas the date Mr. Stewart entered into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church (January 10, 2011) evidences a studied commitment to that church’s doctrine and practices while he remained a minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, andOne wonders whether his new-found comrades at the Roman blog, Called to Communion, are aware of the facts of his conversion experience. In his account, he characterizes the events as: "Our decision to leave Presbyterianism for the Catholic Church surprised many." I'll say!
Whereas, in contravention of his ordination vows (FOG XXIII.8. (1-4)), Mr. Stewart did not disclose his change of convictions to his Presbytery until March 10, 2011, thus deceiving both the Presbytery, and the congregation of Trinity, Easton, and
Whereas Mr. Stewart has refused to be dissuaded from his course,
Therefore, in accordance with Book of Discipline V.2.b (1), Presbytery erased his name from its rolls, recorded the circumstances in its minutes, and communicated this action as a form of discipline (BOD V.2) to the congregation of Trinity, Easton with exhortation and encouragement toward a godly response to these events and to Mr. Stewart.
We will pray for repentance and restoration of Mr. Stewart (the erasure by Presbytery is de facto deposition and excommunication). Until that time, however, he ought to consider himself outside the visible and catholic church, and under threat of eternal judgment.
The reason for posting this point publicly, of course, is to draw attention to the issue of deception alleged by his former presbytery. I don't expect that this will matter to the Called to Communion team, but it ought to matter to seekers of truth. It helps to demonstrate the principle announced by the apostle, that they went out from us, because they were not of us. It also helps to qualify the credentials that are being used to promote his "conversion story" ("OPC Pastor ...") - yes, he managed to infiltrate the presbytery - but his manner of departure shows the sort of person he was.
-TurretinFan
Bodily Exercise Profiteth ...
Western culture is obsessed with a variety of conflicting things. One of those obsessions is health. Perhaps from good motives connected with our duty to preserve life under the sixth commandment, or perhaps from other motives, a lot of Christians in Western culture have come to think that being healthy is godly, and that being unhealthy is sinful.
We're not talking about people who get cancer - but people who eat fast food, or fatty food, or sugary food, or who smoke. These people are told that the Bible tells them to live a healthy life. So, what does Scripture actually say?
Well, Scripture does say that there is value in bodily exercise, but it calls the value "little."
1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
Moreover, there are general warnings in Scripture against glutton, sloth, and drunkenness. The following is a nice example of all three.
Proverbs 23:21 For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.
But what are the usual prooftexts of the Christian Health movement? One is 1 Timothy 4:8, omitting the portion after "profiteth." The more popular verses, however, are the verse that says our body is a temple, and another one that describes bringing our body under submission.
Those verses, however, are being taken out of context.
1 Corinthians 6:13-20
Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
The point Paul is making is not to stay away from the doughnuts, but rather to avoid fornication. Paul is not concerned with sub-optimally healthy diet choices, but with immoral behavior.
Likewise:
1 Corinthians 9:23-27
And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: but I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
In this context, Paul is making an analogy between the preparations an athlete makes and the preparation that an evangelist makes. The expression "keep under my body, and bring it into subjection" is part of that analogy. The point is that our spiritual preparations should be as rigorous as the physical preparations of an athlete.
None of the above should be an endorsement of living in a way that takes no regard for one's health. We are to have a concern for our own life and the lives our neighbors, under the sixth commandment. That doesn't mean any particular health craze is good or right - or that trying extend our life through obsessing over diet or exercise is good or right. The point is simply that making health eating, drinking, etc. a priority is a matter of Christian liberty, not a matter of moral duty.
-TurretinFan
We're not talking about people who get cancer - but people who eat fast food, or fatty food, or sugary food, or who smoke. These people are told that the Bible tells them to live a healthy life. So, what does Scripture actually say?
Well, Scripture does say that there is value in bodily exercise, but it calls the value "little."
1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
Moreover, there are general warnings in Scripture against glutton, sloth, and drunkenness. The following is a nice example of all three.
Proverbs 23:21 For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.
But what are the usual prooftexts of the Christian Health movement? One is 1 Timothy 4:8, omitting the portion after "profiteth." The more popular verses, however, are the verse that says our body is a temple, and another one that describes bringing our body under submission.
Those verses, however, are being taken out of context.
1 Corinthians 6:13-20
Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
The point Paul is making is not to stay away from the doughnuts, but rather to avoid fornication. Paul is not concerned with sub-optimally healthy diet choices, but with immoral behavior.
Likewise:
1 Corinthians 9:23-27
And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: but I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
In this context, Paul is making an analogy between the preparations an athlete makes and the preparation that an evangelist makes. The expression "keep under my body, and bring it into subjection" is part of that analogy. The point is that our spiritual preparations should be as rigorous as the physical preparations of an athlete.
None of the above should be an endorsement of living in a way that takes no regard for one's health. We are to have a concern for our own life and the lives our neighbors, under the sixth commandment. That doesn't mean any particular health craze is good or right - or that trying extend our life through obsessing over diet or exercise is good or right. The point is simply that making health eating, drinking, etc. a priority is a matter of Christian liberty, not a matter of moral duty.
-TurretinFan
Maximus the Roman Catholic Confessor?
My friend James Swan posted a short article describing Maximus the Confessor's view of Rome's authority. Matthew Bellisario at the Catholic Champion has now posted a response.
The material provided by my friend, Mr. Swan, was as follows:
Maximus, according to this material, was posed with the question about what he would do if Rome united with the Constantinople on the question of the two wills of Christ. That is to say, they asked him what he would do if Rome embraced monothelitism.
The first way that they posed the question led him to respond that if the legates of the patriarch (meaning the bishop of Rome) did not have a letter from the partriarch, even if they technically took communion with the bishop of Constantinople (as evidently was expected) that would not prove that the Partriarchite had consented to that monothelitism is either correct or acceptable.
Thus, they modified their question. As modified, Maximus could no longer escape the idea that Rome had embraced monothelitism. His response under that proposed hypothetical scenario was to maintain his current position. Even if Rome accepted monothelitism, he would not.
That position is not, in itself, Sola Scriptura. After all, Maximus does not explicitly state that the reason for his refusal to adopt Rome's position is because Scripture is a higher authority. One might infer such a position from his reference to Galatians (Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.).
Whether or not such an inference is correct, Maximus the Confessor is plainly not a Roman Catholic - willing to accept whatever position Rome adopts.
Mr. Bellisario has attempted to provide some counterpoints. He provides three quotations with the citation, "(Saint Maximus the Confessor- The opuscula fragments)." The first quotation is as follows:
The authenticity of this text is disputed (Cooper, p. 181) a fact that Mr. Bellisario fails to mention to the reader (presumably because he doesn't know). Moreover, what does the passage say that Bellisario can affirm? It says some nice things about Rome and the six synods - but wait. It refers to "six synods." People assume the means the first five major councils (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431, and Chalcedon 451), plus the 649 synod of the Lateran. But Bellisario would not consider that last one to be an ecumenical council (nor did it have the characteristics of such a council). And if it refers to the ecumenical council that addressed the monothelitism controversy, then it definitely isn't from Maximus - he didn't live to see that synod.
Moreover, nothing in the passage about indicates that Rome is characteristically unable ever to fall into error for a time. It does seem to suggest a thought that Rome will not be "overcome by the gates of Hades" (a misuse of that passage), but would it be "overcome" if for a time it fell into error?
But as Cooper suggests (p. 187), whether or not the passage is authentic we should consider Maximus' mature ecclesiology, as seen in the Disputatio Bizyae discussing with Theodosius:
The next quotation Bellisario provided was this:
The point that Maximus is making here, though, is simply that he has not expounded a novel doctrine. He believes that he is just teaching what the church has universally held. His reference here to "the catholic church" is not a reference to the Roman Catholic church but to the universal church.
Likewise, Bellisario's third quotation (also found in this article) is as follows:
This has nothing really to do with Mr. Swan's thesis. It's not clear why Bellisario thinks it's important to this topic (he makes a comment in his post that seems to try to tie this quotation to a point of contrast between Luther's liturgy and Maximus' liturgy - something rather tangential at best). Louth thought it was important because the relationship of Emperor to church was one that was going to be significant in coming centuries.
Shortly after presenting that quotation, the article from which Bellisario appears to have been drawing goes on to point out that in fact Rome did succumb to imperial pressures:
What an interesting omission from Bellisaro! You see, the hypothetical posed to Maximus turned out not to be a hypothetical. Vitalian did cave to imperial pressure, and this was communicated to Maximus. His response, in his final letter, Maximus recognized that it is the confession of faith that defines the church, not the church that defines the confession of faith. And with that, Maximus cannot be said to be Roman Catholic, no matter how high an esteem he had for Rome at certain times (especially right after the synod of the Lateran of 649, when Rome had repudiated monothelitism).
I'm sure more could be said, but we'll leave it at that. Swan's thesis has been adequately demonstrated, and Bellisario's seemingly plagiarized material has been replaced into its proper context and given proper attribution.
-TurretinFan
P.S. In the comment box at Mr. Swan's blog, I provided a short walk-through of the original quotation, which it may be useful to include here:
Walk through the quotation.
1) "And what will you do if the Romans unite with the Byzantines? For behold, yesterday there came legates of Rome and tomorrow on Sunday they will take communion with the patriarch; it will become evident to all that it was you who turned the Romans away. Doubtless with you removed, there will then be an easy union."
They pose this as an argument that it is going to be just Maximus against all the major churches.
2) "Those who are coming cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome, even if they should take communion because they have not brought a letter to the patriarch. And I am not at all convinced that the Romans will unite with them unless they confess that our Lord and God by nature both wills and works our salvation according to each of the natures from which he is, in which he is, as well as which he is."
But, you see, Maximus is too clever. He points out that the mere communion of the legates is not enough to show that the Roman church is in agreement with Constantinople, because they don't bear a letter to that effect addressed to the patriarch.
3) "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?"
They set this aside, and ask what if the church of Rome does join with the other churches?
4) "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached"
Maximus refuses to assent, even under that circumstance.
The material provided by my friend, Mr. Swan, was as follows:
7. They said to him, "And what will you do if the Romans unite with the Byzantines? For behold, yesterday there came legates of Rome and tomorrow on Sunday they will take communion with the patriarch; it will become evident to all that it was you who turned the Romans away. Doubtless with you removed, there will then be an easy union." And he said to them, "Those who are coming cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome, even if they should take communion because they have not brought a letter to the patriarch. And I am not at all convinced that the Romans will unite with them unless they confess that our Lord and God by nature both wills and works our salvation according to each of the natures from which he is, in which he is, as well as which he is." And they said, "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?" He replied, "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached"Maximus the Confessor, Selected Writings (Paulist Press, 1985), p. 23.
Maximus, according to this material, was posed with the question about what he would do if Rome united with the Constantinople on the question of the two wills of Christ. That is to say, they asked him what he would do if Rome embraced monothelitism.
The first way that they posed the question led him to respond that if the legates of the patriarch (meaning the bishop of Rome) did not have a letter from the partriarch, even if they technically took communion with the bishop of Constantinople (as evidently was expected) that would not prove that the Partriarchite had consented to that monothelitism is either correct or acceptable.
Thus, they modified their question. As modified, Maximus could no longer escape the idea that Rome had embraced monothelitism. His response under that proposed hypothetical scenario was to maintain his current position. Even if Rome accepted monothelitism, he would not.
That position is not, in itself, Sola Scriptura. After all, Maximus does not explicitly state that the reason for his refusal to adopt Rome's position is because Scripture is a higher authority. One might infer such a position from his reference to Galatians (Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.).
Whether or not such an inference is correct, Maximus the Confessor is plainly not a Roman Catholic - willing to accept whatever position Rome adopts.
Mr. Bellisario has attempted to provide some counterpoints. He provides three quotations with the citation, "(Saint Maximus the Confessor- The opuscula fragments)." The first quotation is as follows:
All the ends of the inhabited world, and those who anywhere on earth confess the Lord with a pure and orthodox faith, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and her confession and faith as to a sun of eternal light, receiving from her the radiant beam of the patristic and holy doctrines, just as the holy six synods, inspired and sacred, purely and with all devotion set them forth, uttering most clearly the symbol of faith. For, from the time of the descent to us of the incarnate Word of God, all the Churches of the Christians everywhere have held and possess this most great Church as the sole base and foundation, since, according to the very promise of the Saviour, it will never be overpowered by the gates of hell, but rather has the keys of the orthodox faith and confession in him, and to those who approach it with reverence it opens the genuine and unique piety, but shuts and stops every heretical mouth that speaks utter wickedness. For that which the creator of everything himself, our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, established and built up - together with his disciples and apostles, and the Holy Fathers and teachers and martyrs who came after - have been consecrated by their own works and words, by their sufferings and sweat, by their labours and blood, and finally by their remarkable deaths for the sake of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of us who believe in him, they, through two words, uttered without pain or death - O the long-suffering and forbearance of God! - are eager to dissolve and to set at naught the great, all-illumining and all-praised mystery of the orthodox worship of the Christians.It appears that this is an alternative translation of the following:
For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly to the most holy church of the Romans and its confession and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating splendor of the fathers and the sacred dogmas, just as the divinely-inspired and sacred six synods have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For ever since the incarnate word of God came down to us, all the churches of Christians everywhere have held that greatest Church there to be their sole base and foundation, since on the one hand, it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the very promise of the Savior, but holds the keys of the orthodox confession and faith in him and opens the only true and real religion to those who approach with godliness, and on the other hand, it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks unrighteousness against the Most High. For that which was founded and built by the creator and master of the universe himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, and his disciples and apostles, and following them the holy fathers and teachers and martyrs consecrated by their own words and deeds, and by their agony and sweat, suffering and bloodshed, and finally by their violent death for the catholic and apostolic Church of us who believe in him, they strive to destroy though two words [uttered] without effort and without death – O the patience and forbearance of God! –and [so seek] to annul the great ever-radiant and ever-lauded mystery of the orthodox worship of Christians.(Opuscula 11, translation from The body in St. Maximus the Confessor: holy flesh, wholly deified by Adam G. Cooper, pp. 181-82)
The authenticity of this text is disputed (Cooper, p. 181) a fact that Mr. Bellisario fails to mention to the reader (presumably because he doesn't know). Moreover, what does the passage say that Bellisario can affirm? It says some nice things about Rome and the six synods - but wait. It refers to "six synods." People assume the means the first five major councils (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431, and Chalcedon 451), plus the 649 synod of the Lateran. But Bellisario would not consider that last one to be an ecumenical council (nor did it have the characteristics of such a council). And if it refers to the ecumenical council that addressed the monothelitism controversy, then it definitely isn't from Maximus - he didn't live to see that synod.
Moreover, nothing in the passage about indicates that Rome is characteristically unable ever to fall into error for a time. It does seem to suggest a thought that Rome will not be "overcome by the gates of Hades" (a misuse of that passage), but would it be "overcome" if for a time it fell into error?
But as Cooper suggests (p. 187), whether or not the passage is authentic we should consider Maximus' mature ecclesiology, as seen in the Disputatio Bizyae discussing with Theodosius:
What kind of believer accepts a dispensation silencing the very words which God of all ordained to be spoken by the apostles and prophets and teachers? Let us investigate, reverend master, what kind of evil this summary blindly arrives at. For if 'God appointed in the Church first apostles, then prophets, and third teachers' (1 Cor. 12:28) 'for the perfecting of the saints' (Eph. 4:12), having said in the Gospel to the apostles and through them to those after them, 'What I say to you, I say to all' (Mark 13:38), and again, 'He who receives you receives me, and he who rejects you rejects me' (Luke 10:16), it is clearly manifest that whoever does not receive the apostles and prophets and teachers, but rejects their words, rejects Christ himself.Notice how in this passage he makes individual conscience effectively supreme even over the apparent "apostles, prophets, and teachers" of his day - even to the point of hinting that he may be faced with the great apostasy.
Let us also investigate the other passage. God chose to raise up apostles and prophets and teachers for the perfecting of the saints. But in order to oppose godly religion the devil chose to raise up false apostles and false prophets and false teachers, so that the old law was opposed, as was also the evangelical law. And as far as I understand it the false apostles and false prophets and false teachers are the heretics alone, whose words and train of thought are distorted. Consequently, just as the one who receives the true apostles and prophets and teachers receives God, likewise the one who receives false apostles and false prophets and false teachers receives the devil. So the one who throws out the saints along with the cursed and impure heretics -- mark my word! -- manifestly condemns God along with the devil.
If, in that case, in racking our brains to come up with new words in our own times we find those words to have descended to this extreme evil, watch out lest we -- whilst alleging and proclaiming 'peace'-- be found to be struck ill with apostasy which the divine Apostle said beforehand would accompany the coming of the antichrist (2 Thess. 2:3-4).
I have spoken this to you, my lords, without holding back.... With these things inscribed in the tablet of my heart, are you telling me to enter into fellowship with a church in which these [other] things are proclaimed, and to have communion with those who actually expel God and, I imagine, the devil with God? May God -- who for my sake was made like me -- sin excepted -- never let this happen to me!
The next quotation Bellisario provided was this:
"I don't have a teaching of my own, but the common one of the Catholic Church. I mean that I haven't initiated any expression at all that could be called my own teaching."Before we continue, it's worth pointing out that it appears that Bellisario may have gleaned this and the previous quotation from Andrew Louth's article on Maximus's ecclesiology (which can be found here). In that article, it is cited as "Relatio," and is a portion of the transcript of his trial.
The point that Maximus is making here, though, is simply that he has not expounded a novel doctrine. He believes that he is just teaching what the church has universally held. His reference here to "the catholic church" is not a reference to the Roman Catholic church but to the universal church.
Likewise, Bellisario's third quotation (also found in this article) is as follows:
"No, he (The emperor is not a priest) isn't, because he neither stands beside the altar, and after the consecration of the bread elevates it with the words. Holy things for the holy, nor does he baptize, nor perform the rite of anointing, nor does he ordain and make bishops and presbyters and deacons; nor does he anoint churches, nor does he bear the symbols of the priesthood, the omophorion and the Gospel book, [as he bears the symbols] of imperial office, the crown and the purple."(Relatio 4, as cited in the article)
This has nothing really to do with Mr. Swan's thesis. It's not clear why Bellisario thinks it's important to this topic (he makes a comment in his post that seems to try to tie this quotation to a point of contrast between Luther's liturgy and Maximus' liturgy - something rather tangential at best). Louth thought it was important because the relationship of Emperor to church was one that was going to be significant in coming centuries.
Shortly after presenting that quotation, the article from which Bellisario appears to have been drawing goes on to point out that in fact Rome did succumb to imperial pressures:
A precious document for Maximos' doctrine of the Church is the last writing we have from his hand, a short letter written on 19 April 658 to Anastasios, his disciple and spiritual child of by then forty years' standing, who was exiled apart from his master. (18) By then, Maximos and his few followers were on their own, Rome - in the person of Pope Vitalian - having succumbed to imperial pressure and entered into communion with the other patriarchal sees. In reply to the question - or taunt - 'What Church do you belong to? Constantinople? Rome? Antioch? Alexandria? Jerusalem? See, all of them are united, together with the provinces subject to them'. Maximos says he had replied, 'The God of all pronounced that the Catholic Church was the correct and saving confession of the faith in him when he called Peter blessed because of the terms in which he had made proper confession of him'. The Petrine foundation of the Church is Peter's faith, which even his successor can abandon, as Maximos had just learnt.(Louth, p. 118)
(18) The letter can be found in Allen-Neil, pp. 120-3
What an interesting omission from Bellisaro! You see, the hypothetical posed to Maximus turned out not to be a hypothetical. Vitalian did cave to imperial pressure, and this was communicated to Maximus. His response, in his final letter, Maximus recognized that it is the confession of faith that defines the church, not the church that defines the confession of faith. And with that, Maximus cannot be said to be Roman Catholic, no matter how high an esteem he had for Rome at certain times (especially right after the synod of the Lateran of 649, when Rome had repudiated monothelitism).
I'm sure more could be said, but we'll leave it at that. Swan's thesis has been adequately demonstrated, and Bellisario's seemingly plagiarized material has been replaced into its proper context and given proper attribution.
-TurretinFan
P.S. In the comment box at Mr. Swan's blog, I provided a short walk-through of the original quotation, which it may be useful to include here:
Walk through the quotation.
1) "And what will you do if the Romans unite with the Byzantines? For behold, yesterday there came legates of Rome and tomorrow on Sunday they will take communion with the patriarch; it will become evident to all that it was you who turned the Romans away. Doubtless with you removed, there will then be an easy union."
They pose this as an argument that it is going to be just Maximus against all the major churches.
2) "Those who are coming cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome, even if they should take communion because they have not brought a letter to the patriarch. And I am not at all convinced that the Romans will unite with them unless they confess that our Lord and God by nature both wills and works our salvation according to each of the natures from which he is, in which he is, as well as which he is."
But, you see, Maximus is too clever. He points out that the mere communion of the legates is not enough to show that the Roman church is in agreement with Constantinople, because they don't bear a letter to that effect addressed to the patriarch.
3) "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?"
They set this aside, and ask what if the church of Rome does join with the other churches?
4) "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached"
Maximus refuses to assent, even under that circumstance.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Does Allah Preserve His Words?
Since I am on James White's blogging team, and am friends with him, I was sure to carefully read an article posted with the alarming title, "Exposing James White’s Deceit and Ignorance of Islamic Scripture," from the "Calling Christians" website.
The title wasn't supported by the body of the piece. "Deceit and Ignorance" turned out to be, at most, a difference of opinion between the author of the piece and my friend, Dr. White. The article begins thus:
We are aware that the way Muslims attempt to hold these two ideas is by limiting (1) to simply saying that Allah preserves some portion (or all) of the Qur'an and/or by denying that the Old and New Testaments correspond to the Torah and Injeel.
This particular author begins his response, following the introduction above:
The author continues:
The author proceeds:
The author then attempts to identify a solution to the disconnect:
The author then posed the argument based on context:
It seems that (for part of the argument) the author is trying to argue that the Qur'an's references to corruption relate to attempted corruption of the meaning, but that this attempted corruption was essentially ineffective. This approach might make sense, but would imply that the meaning remains intact. That solution implies that the Old and New Testaments are intact in their meaning (within the context of Dr. White's criticism).
But the author of the article is not finished. He continues:
This point is also something of a red herring. Even if there were a different book called the Injil that was allegedly given to Jesus, where has this been preserved at all? In other words, the situation is much worse for the Muslim who tries to avail himself of this particular argument. Instead of simply small textual variants in the New Testament, now the Muslim must account for the seeming complete destruction of the whole book and any record of its existence. After all, there is no record before Mohammed of any book given to Jesus.
There is a similar problem with respect to the argument about the Torah. So, the Muslim is claiming that the Torah which has been preserved is not the Torah referenced in the Qur'an. But then the lack of preservation is much worse than the Muslim has contended - the original Torah is completely gone if the one we have is not the original Torah but some new fake Torah.
Moreover, there is another problem, the Koran seems to suggest that the Torah and Injil are in the possession of the people of Mohammed's day:
So, it seems that the problem hasn't really been addressed. But let's consider how the author tries to wrap up this argument:
The author of the article then provides a section designated as "conclusion":
Moreover, there is no good argument provided for the assertion that the Torah and Injil do not correspond to Old and New Testament. Regarding the Injil, the argument that it cannot be the New Testament because of the mode of transmission (a) makes the problem even worse for the Muslim and (b) assumes both the reliability of the Qur'an on this point and the reliability of Christian accounts of how the gospels were given.
As for the fallacy of ad ignorantium, it has not been substantiated by the author of the article, and so we may leave our response at that.
-TurretinFan
The title wasn't supported by the body of the piece. "Deceit and Ignorance" turned out to be, at most, a difference of opinion between the author of the piece and my friend, Dr. White. The article begins thus:
In a recent twitter exchange with James White, I found him proposing such an absurd view of Islamic ‘aqidah that I simply had to write an article to correct his misinformation. In the field of academia, we try our best to uphold certain standards, however Alpha and Omega Ministries as missionary zealots don’t have to appeal to this high standard of intellectualism. So what exactly is James’ problem this time around? Let’s see:There is a lot of baggage mixed in there, but the author of the piece is correct that we think that it is inconsistent to hold to the ideas that (1) Allah preserves his word, (2) the Old and New Testaments are the word of Allah, and (3) the Old and New Testaments are corrupt.
[twitter post images here, in which Dr. White states: "How do you explain such texts as 5:47, 5:68, and 10:94 if you affirm (as you have) tahrif il-lafzi?"]
In essence, James White is appealing to the fallacious argument of appeal to ad ignorantium. Summarily, he’s trying to expound the concept that Muslims believe in a self contradicting tenet. This being, that in Islam, while we believe God’s word cannot become corrupted, we also believe that “God’s word” did come corrupt. For example, we say the Qur’an is the word of Allaah and therefore it cannot be changed or corrupted, yet in the same voice, supposedly we claim that the Injil and Tawrah, which are also the words of Allaah, have been altered. The terms which James is trying to use are, Tahrif ul Lafzi (corruption of written words) and Tahrif ul M’anavi (corruption of meaning).
What James White and his missionary zealot friends try to assert is that Muslims have not only a contradicting belief, but because of this belief it is the Qur’an which is wrong and the Bible is the true word of God.
We are aware that the way Muslims attempt to hold these two ideas is by limiting (1) to simply saying that Allah preserves some portion (or all) of the Qur'an and/or by denying that the Old and New Testaments correspond to the Torah and Injeel.
This particular author begins his response, following the introduction above:
The Islamic belief is that God protects His revelations from becoming corrupt, altered and interfered with. In this regard, we do not hold the belief that God’s words can succumb to corruption, alteration and human interference.Thus, this particular author has made a more general statement, akin to our (1) above.
The author continues:
Therefore we must correct James’ assertion that we believe God’s words can be corrupted by man, the Qur’an is clear that God would not allow this. It is the belief of all Muslims and if one did not know this belief (you now kn0w) that it is impermissible for a Muslim to believe that God’s words can become corrupted.Clearly, the author has misunderstood Dr. White's point. Dr. White was not arguing for corruption of God's word, but simply noting a contradiction within Islamic views.
The author proceeds:
With that in mind what about the verses in the Qur’an which mention the corruption of the previous scriptures such as the Injil, Tawrah and Zabur?The author then sets forth the basic gist of the points about corruption:
There are many verses in the Qur’an which indicate to us that God’s wahy (revelation) has been skewered by the hands of man, both literal words changes and contextual alterations (interpretations):So far, the author seems to have provided a reasonable presentation of the position he is arguing against, although we would say "God's word" rather than "God's words."
يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ ۙ وَنَسُوا حَظًّا مِمَّا ذُكِّرُوا بِهِ ۚ وَلَا تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَىٰ خَائِنَةٍ مِنْهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مِنْهُمْ ۖ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاصْفَحْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِيWe seemingly have arrived at a theological impasse. On one end, we read above that God would protect His revelations and now we’re reading that God’s revelations were altered by men, corrupted, their meanings and letters distorted. Yet, before we jump to conclusions, we have to analyse what we have attained so far:
They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. – Qur’an : 5 : 13.
وَإِنَّ مِنْهُمْ لَفَرِيقًا يَلْوُونَ أَلْسِنَتَهُمْ بِالْكِتَابِ لِتَحْسَبُوهُ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللَّـهِ الْكَذِبَ وَهُمْ يَعْلَمُونَ
And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah. And they speak untruth about Allah while they know. – Qur’an : 3 : 78.
مِنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ مُسْمَعٍ وَرَاعِنَا لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ ۚ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانْظُرْنَا لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَـٰكِنْ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّـهُ بِكُفْرِهِمْ فَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا
Among the Jews are those who distort words from their [proper] usages and say, “We hear and disobey” and “Hear but be not heard” and “Ra’ina,” twisting their tongues and defaming the religion. And if they had said [instead], “We hear and obey” and “Wait for us [to understand],” it would have been better for them and more suitable. But Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. – Qur’an : 4 : 46.
(1) God’s words cannot become corrupted.
(2) God’s words did become corrupted.
There seems to be a clear disconnect here.
The author then attempts to identify a solution to the disconnect:
Something’s missing from this puzzle and we know what it is. Context. Did God’s word in itself become corrupted? And this is a question we must take seriously into consideration. What we see from the above verses is that there are two cases for God’s word apparently becoming corrupted:We certainly have no objection to contextual consideration of the Qur'an, despite the seeming possible futility of applying a contextual method to what amounts to a posthumous topical collection of recalled sayings.
(1) Interpretative alterations.
(2) Textual alterations.
With this in mind, let’s examine both cases.
The author then posed the argument based on context:
It is true as we read from the Qur’aan: 5:13, 4:46, 3:78 that God’s revelations were reinterpreted. These interpretations followed the folly desires of men, in some areas to abrogate God’s law to suit material wants and desires, for power, even for illicit pleasures:Regarding the author's conclusion, the solution he is offering is a qualification on the protection of "until newer revelation was sent." That solution is not actually found in the materials he has identified. In other words, the context has not substantiated his charge.
Their gist is that the Jews were habitually used to issuing religious edicts as desired by the people, either for the benefit of relatives or to satisfy their greed for money, property, influence, and recognition. This had become a common custom particularly in matters involving punishments that they would, if the crime was committed by an influential person, change the severe punishment of the Torah into an ordinary one. It is this behaviour, part of theirs which has been described in the first verse (41) in the following words: يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَوَاضِعِهِ (They displace the words after their having been placed properly).However, God did guard the message (risalah) of the revelations (wahy). God sent messengers, prophets to correct the wrong interpretations by these pseudo religious scholars:
Now the people who were used to making the severe punishments of the Torah easy for their clients by changing them saw an opportunity for themselves whereby they could take such shady matters to the Holy Prophet {saw} and make him their judge or arbitrator. The dual advantage they saw in it was that they would reap the benefits of all easy and light rules of Islamic law, while at the same time, they would not have to commit the crime of altering the Torah. But, here too, they had their crookedness at work as they would hold on to their decision of taking their case to him until such time that they succeeded in finding out beforehand through some source or ruse as to the actual verdict which would be delivered in their case when presented. Then, if they found this verdict matching their wishes, they would make him their arbitrator and have him decide their case. If it happened to be contrary to their wishses, they would leave it at that.- Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan : Mufti Rafi Uthmani, pages 164- 165.
إِذْ أَرْسَلْنَا إِلَيْهِمُ اثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ فَقَالُوا إِنَّا إِلَيْكُمْ مُرْسَلُونَIn fact, the New Testament, confirms that Messengers were sent to the people who tried to alter His message through new interpretations:
When We sent to them two but they denied them, so We strengthened them with a third, and they said, “Indeed, we are messengers to you.” – Qur’an : Suratul Yasin (36) : 14.
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. – Bible : Matthew (23) : 37.So as we can see, the Qur’an is correct, God did protect the meaning of His message, until newer revelation was sent. For example the Qur’an abrogates the Injil as the Injil abrogated the Tawrah, and if the case arose where persons were distorting the meaning of a scripture or Prophet’s message, we read that God sent apostles, messengers, Prophets in some instances to correct the people (see 36:14 above).
It seems that (for part of the argument) the author is trying to argue that the Qur'an's references to corruption relate to attempted corruption of the meaning, but that this attempted corruption was essentially ineffective. This approach might make sense, but would imply that the meaning remains intact. That solution implies that the Old and New Testaments are intact in their meaning (within the context of Dr. White's criticism).
But the author of the article is not finished. He continues:
However, now we’ve arrived at the crux of the matter, textual corruption. As Muslims we assert that God’s message is preserved by God (as seen above, contextually), but what about textually? We read earlier that God protects His message in totality, that is, textually and contextually (meanings, interpretations). However as Muslims, we also do say that we do not believe in the Old Testaments of the Jews and Christians nor do we believe in the New Testaments of the Christians as being valid, because we assert they are not the words of God. Since they are not the words of God, they can indeed become corrupted and God did not promise to guard the works of man, but only His words.This is the approach mentioned above of denying that the Old and New Testaments correspond to the Torah and Injeel. But is this feasible? Let's consider how the author of the article tries to defend this approach:
For example, in the case of the Old Testament, where missionary zealots such as Sam Shamoun and James White try to propose, that their Torah is the Torah from Allaah, we have to correct that appeal to ignorance. The Qur’an does not say that the Old Testament is the word of God, in fact, we read above (5:13) where the Qur’an calls the Torah/ Old Testament of the Jews and Christians as being interpolations from the tongues and minds of men. It is in this regard that the Islamic belief is not that God’s word was corrupted, but that people wrote words and then claimed them to be God’s:As for the last argument, this argument is only relevant to the Gospels, not to the Torah or the Zabur (Psalter, book of Psalms). Moreover, this argument presupposes that it is true that the Injil was given as a revelation to Jesus. However, this assertion itself is not correct. Indeed, it is simply another error of Mohamed's teaching.فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُوا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَWith that being said, we must come to the understanding that when the Qur’an says that the message became corrupted, that is textually, it refers to those who put aside God’s revelation and in its stead, replaced the void with their own sayings, beliefs and propaganda. One example is of the Christian New Testament. The Qur’an says that a scripture (Injil) was given to Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him):
So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. – Qur’an : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِمْ بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ ۖ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنْجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِلْمُتَّقِيHowever Christians by themselves prove the Islamic belief of textual corruption as displayed above:
And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. – Qur’an : 5: 46.
(1) Muslims believe that Jesus (Issa, may God be pleased with him) was given a revelation by God called the Injil.
(2) Christians believe that inspired scripture about Jesus originated with the apostles of Christ.
Therefore the Christian argument in reality disproves itself.
This point is also something of a red herring. Even if there were a different book called the Injil that was allegedly given to Jesus, where has this been preserved at all? In other words, the situation is much worse for the Muslim who tries to avail himself of this particular argument. Instead of simply small textual variants in the New Testament, now the Muslim must account for the seeming complete destruction of the whole book and any record of its existence. After all, there is no record before Mohammed of any book given to Jesus.
There is a similar problem with respect to the argument about the Torah. So, the Muslim is claiming that the Torah which has been preserved is not the Torah referenced in the Qur'an. But then the lack of preservation is much worse than the Muslim has contended - the original Torah is completely gone if the one we have is not the original Torah but some new fake Torah.
Moreover, there is another problem, the Koran seems to suggest that the Torah and Injil are in the possession of the people of Mohammed's day:
وَلَمَّا جَاءَهُمْ كِتَابٌ مِّنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ مُصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَهُمْ وَكَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ يَسْتَفْتِحُونَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُم مَّا عَرَفُوا كَفَرُوا بِهِ ۚ فَلَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognised, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith. Qur'an 2:89 (Yusuf Ali translation)If the Torah and Injil are something that were with Christians and Jews in the 7th century, then they weren't destroyed. Moreover, we know what the Old and New Testaments looked like in the 7th century - in fact we have even older copies than that.
So, it seems that the problem hasn't really been addressed. But let's consider how the author tries to wrap up this argument:
They have now failed on two fronts. Firstly, the premise that Muslims contradict themselves when they say the Bible is corrupted is proven false as we do not believe the Bible is the word of God. We don’t believe it is the word of God for namely two reasons:Most of this argument is already addressed above. Some people who call themselves Christians may not believe that the Bible is the very word of God, but verbal plenary inspiration is an important part of orthodox Christian belief. We do not believe that only the ideas but not the words are inspired. Our view of the mechanism of inspiration may differ from that of Muslims (we don't believe that the words simply are spoken, as it were, in the ears of the prophets), but that difference seems to be irrelevant to this particular argument.
(1) Christians assert it’s from the apostles and not from the Prophet Jesus (may God be pleased with him).
(2) Christians assert the revelation (wahy) isn’t revelation verbatim from God, which is what Muslims believe, but that the Bible is an inspired word from God, through the words of men.
Secondly, since they have made significant distinctions with what the Muslim concept of revelation is and what their scripture is actually comprised of, then they have shown that the Bible (New Testament) is not the Injil and as it follows, the Injil is not the Bible.
The author of the article then provides a section designated as "conclusion":
Therefore, we must come to a logical conclusion. When missionary zealots such as Sam Shamoun and James White, along with their propganda team at AI, state that the Qur’an is wrong for saying the Bible is corrupted because Muslims believe the word of God can’t be corrupted, we must educate them. It is in this light, that our response should be, as such:As noted above, however, this doesn't really solve the problem - it just makes it worse. The Torah and Injil are now not merely somehow obscured through textual variation, but instead are completely destroyed. Under this theory, they are preserved much worse than if the Old and New Testaments are the Torah and Injil.We do not believe it is the word of God because:
- Muslims believe the word of God cannot be corrupted.
- We believe the Bible is corrupted because it is not the word of God.
In conclusion:
- Christians do not believe the Bible is the verbatim word of God, but inspired ideas from God through the words of men.
What was wrong with James White’s missionary belief, is that they think the Bible is the word of God and therefore we should accept this belief and as a consequence adhere to it, however as displayed above they don’t believe in the kind of scripture we do, they make a clear distinction between the Injil which we believe God revealed to Isa (Jesus, may God be pleased with him), while they believe in a scripture inspired by God, worded by the minds of men, which manifested after Jesus had walked the earth.
- Therefore the Bible is corrupted because it is not the word of God and as such Muslims do not believe in it.
May God guide those who appeal to the fallacy of ad ignorantium.
Moreover, there is no good argument provided for the assertion that the Torah and Injil do not correspond to Old and New Testament. Regarding the Injil, the argument that it cannot be the New Testament because of the mode of transmission (a) makes the problem even worse for the Muslim and (b) assumes both the reliability of the Qur'an on this point and the reliability of Christian accounts of how the gospels were given.
As for the fallacy of ad ignorantium, it has not been substantiated by the author of the article, and so we may leave our response at that.
-TurretinFan
Sunday, February 05, 2012
Unto What Shall We Liken the Roman Hermeneutic?
Rome insists that she is an authentic interpreter of Scripture. We can easily provide an example, within a document defining a dogma, of Rome making a clear blunder. But let's leave that aside for a second, and consider the effect of Rome's claims on a conversation.
Christian: We should reject Marian devotion because the Bible teaches us to trust in God alone.
Roman apologist: You have wrongly interpreted the Bible. Only Rome can authentically interpret the Bible.
Christian: That's not true, the Bible was written to be understood. Anyone can authentically interpret the Bible, and many do - some more, and others less, well than others.
Roman Apologist: No, you cannot understand the Bible without the Roman Catholic church.
Christian: That's not so.
Roman Apologist: Look, it says so right here in Matthew 16:18.
Pause
Now, that appeal to Scripture looks an awful lot like the Roman Apologist conceding that people can understand the Bible without the Roman communion. But behind that appearance lies a question about what this Roman hermeneutic entails.
1) Is it like special decoder glasses?
Is the Bible simply incomprehensible on its own, and one needs the Roman church to provide spectacles to make the incomprehensible, comprehensible? If that were true, then it would make no sense to appeal to Scripture to anyone not already looking through the spectacles.
2) Is it like the answer key to a Rubik's cube?
Is the Bible simply highly complicated, and one needs the Roman church to show the map of the way through to get the solution? If this were the case, the appeal to Scripture might make sense. This is just the first breadcrumb along a trail that eventually leads to Rome. In fact, though, all of Rome's attempts to prove her distinctive doctrines from Scripture fail. When you get an answer key to a Rubik's cube, you can see the parts all come together to form the solved puzzle, even if you couldn't have done it on your own. But with Rome, you don't get satisfactory answers like that. You get alleged solutions, but even knowing the supposed solutions, one cannot arrive at these solutions from Scripture.
3) Is it like the person who showed you how to look at "Magic Eye" 3D pictures?
Sure, at first it was just a weird bunch of lines and patterns, but once you were taught how to change your focus, suddenly the beautiful stereoscopic patterns emerged. Some of Rome's converts stories make it sound like they feel Rome's hermeneutic is similar to this. The two problems are - first, they don't seem to be able to teach us how to see the butterfly amidst the squiggly lines - and second, until we see the butterfly, appeals to Scripture are just appeals to squiggle lines, and consequently futile.
4) Is it like Humpty Dumpty?
In Alice Through the Looking Glass, she encounters the character Humpty Dumpty who insists on making words mean what he wants them to mean, even when that meaning is quite distant from any conventional sense of the word. Some of the arguments from the Roman side favor this interpretation. After all, some Roman apologists try to approach the Bible as though it were the creation of the Church, rather than being God's word delivered to the churches (and CCC 111 and 113 seem to encourage them to take this approach). If the Bible were the product of the Church, then the authorial intent behind the words becomes important, and we need to let Humpty Dumpty use words like "only mediator" in a far from conventional sense. One problem with that is that it turns the text of Scripture into such a "living document" that the document itself has no particular significance. Matthew 16:18 might as well teach the papacy as it teaches the bodily assumption of Mary, so long as Rome says that is what it means. The fact that we don't see it in the actual meaning of the words doesn't matter.
Ultimately, no matter what we liken the Roman hermeneutic to, we should realize that the Roman hermeneutic boils down to sola ecclesia: what Rome says goes. If the Bible appears to say the same thing, and that convinces someone that Rome is right - great. If the Bible appears to say the opposite, the Bible's apparent meaning should be subordinated to what Rome teaches.
But if that's Rome's hermeneutic, then the appeals to Scripture as an authority are really disingenuous. Honest Roman apologists shouldn't argue that we should believe them because (to use their lingo) we interpret the Bible the same way they do. After all, when we interpret the Bible differently, we're supposed to just set that aside, no matter how clear the Bible is.
Yet, I welcome comments from Roman apologists, clergy, and even laity. To what do you liken the Roman hermeneutic, and to what shall I compare it? And when you try to quote the Bible to me, do you think I'm just unaware that your church teaches that "all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God" (CCC 119, quoting Dei Verbum 12, 3rd paragraph)?
-TurretinFan
P.S. Oh, and by the way - the alternative is that the Bible is the very word of God, and that God made it clear enough to serve as a rule of faith and life for his church. Not all parts are equally clear, however, and sin blinds the minds of some men so that even the most clear parts become dull. Nevertheless, core doctrines (like the contents of the Apostles' creed, for example) are plainly and unmistakeably set forth in the Scriptures, without the need for any special glasses, tricky eye techniques, or authoritative lexicography.
Christian: We should reject Marian devotion because the Bible teaches us to trust in God alone.
Roman apologist: You have wrongly interpreted the Bible. Only Rome can authentically interpret the Bible.
Christian: That's not true, the Bible was written to be understood. Anyone can authentically interpret the Bible, and many do - some more, and others less, well than others.
Roman Apologist: No, you cannot understand the Bible without the Roman Catholic church.
Christian: That's not so.
Roman Apologist: Look, it says so right here in Matthew 16:18.
Pause
Now, that appeal to Scripture looks an awful lot like the Roman Apologist conceding that people can understand the Bible without the Roman communion. But behind that appearance lies a question about what this Roman hermeneutic entails.
1) Is it like special decoder glasses?
Is the Bible simply incomprehensible on its own, and one needs the Roman church to provide spectacles to make the incomprehensible, comprehensible? If that were true, then it would make no sense to appeal to Scripture to anyone not already looking through the spectacles.
2) Is it like the answer key to a Rubik's cube?
Is the Bible simply highly complicated, and one needs the Roman church to show the map of the way through to get the solution? If this were the case, the appeal to Scripture might make sense. This is just the first breadcrumb along a trail that eventually leads to Rome. In fact, though, all of Rome's attempts to prove her distinctive doctrines from Scripture fail. When you get an answer key to a Rubik's cube, you can see the parts all come together to form the solved puzzle, even if you couldn't have done it on your own. But with Rome, you don't get satisfactory answers like that. You get alleged solutions, but even knowing the supposed solutions, one cannot arrive at these solutions from Scripture.
3) Is it like the person who showed you how to look at "Magic Eye" 3D pictures?
Sure, at first it was just a weird bunch of lines and patterns, but once you were taught how to change your focus, suddenly the beautiful stereoscopic patterns emerged. Some of Rome's converts stories make it sound like they feel Rome's hermeneutic is similar to this. The two problems are - first, they don't seem to be able to teach us how to see the butterfly amidst the squiggly lines - and second, until we see the butterfly, appeals to Scripture are just appeals to squiggle lines, and consequently futile.
4) Is it like Humpty Dumpty?
In Alice Through the Looking Glass, she encounters the character Humpty Dumpty who insists on making words mean what he wants them to mean, even when that meaning is quite distant from any conventional sense of the word. Some of the arguments from the Roman side favor this interpretation. After all, some Roman apologists try to approach the Bible as though it were the creation of the Church, rather than being God's word delivered to the churches (and CCC 111 and 113 seem to encourage them to take this approach). If the Bible were the product of the Church, then the authorial intent behind the words becomes important, and we need to let Humpty Dumpty use words like "only mediator" in a far from conventional sense. One problem with that is that it turns the text of Scripture into such a "living document" that the document itself has no particular significance. Matthew 16:18 might as well teach the papacy as it teaches the bodily assumption of Mary, so long as Rome says that is what it means. The fact that we don't see it in the actual meaning of the words doesn't matter.
Ultimately, no matter what we liken the Roman hermeneutic to, we should realize that the Roman hermeneutic boils down to sola ecclesia: what Rome says goes. If the Bible appears to say the same thing, and that convinces someone that Rome is right - great. If the Bible appears to say the opposite, the Bible's apparent meaning should be subordinated to what Rome teaches.
But if that's Rome's hermeneutic, then the appeals to Scripture as an authority are really disingenuous. Honest Roman apologists shouldn't argue that we should believe them because (to use their lingo) we interpret the Bible the same way they do. After all, when we interpret the Bible differently, we're supposed to just set that aside, no matter how clear the Bible is.
Yet, I welcome comments from Roman apologists, clergy, and even laity. To what do you liken the Roman hermeneutic, and to what shall I compare it? And when you try to quote the Bible to me, do you think I'm just unaware that your church teaches that "all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God" (CCC 119, quoting Dei Verbum 12, 3rd paragraph)?
-TurretinFan
P.S. Oh, and by the way - the alternative is that the Bible is the very word of God, and that God made it clear enough to serve as a rule of faith and life for his church. Not all parts are equally clear, however, and sin blinds the minds of some men so that even the most clear parts become dull. Nevertheless, core doctrines (like the contents of the Apostles' creed, for example) are plainly and unmistakeably set forth in the Scriptures, without the need for any special glasses, tricky eye techniques, or authoritative lexicography.
Saturday, February 04, 2012
How Many Mediators?
The Vatican Information Service reports (3 February 2012), referring to Benedict XVI:
Leaving aside the absurdity of asking a foreigner who doesn't speak your language and whose ears have long ago returned to dust for anything, we can still see that Marian devotion as advocated by the current and immediately previous popes is not just asking Mary to pray, like we might ask our friends.
Instead, Mary is being asked to intercede on behalf of a class of people. It is true that this particular request is actually a request for Mary to pray for that class of people. Thus, it bears some parallels to the description we are given.
The prayer is described as particularly intercessory. The reason, implied but not stated, for the request is the presumed great power of Mary to obtain those things for which she intercedes. Yet Scripture suggests that Mary is not especially important in the kingdom of God. In fact, in response to:
Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
Jesus said:
Luke 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
And in response to Mary trying to get an audience with Jesus in this case:
Mark 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
Jesus said:
Mark 3:33-35
And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
So why, dear reader, would you follow the example and teachings of the most recent two popes and seek out Mary's intercession, despite Jesus' teachings?
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
So, if you must pray for those in "consecrated life" then why not pray directly to the Father by the intercession of the Son? Surely you do not think that Mary is a better intercessor than the Son.
-TurretinFan
P.S. Perhaps it will occur to someone, "But then why ask our brethren here on Earth to pray for us?" One reason we do that here on Earth is that we have a reciprocal duty to bear one another's burdens. We can't bear Mary's burdens, because she doesn't have any. Moreover, no matter how Rome's apologists may try to dress it up, we all know she's not being asked as just another sister in Christ, but as a perceived woman of great power and influence.
In conclusion he quoted some words of Blessed John Paul II, calling on the Virgin Mary to intercede with the Lord, so that "all who have received the gift of following Him in consecrated life may be enabled to bear witness to that gift by their transfigured lives, as they joyfully make their way with all their brothers and sisters towards our heavenly homeland and the light which will never grow dim".In response to our criticism that Rome makes Mary another mediator and encourages her people to pray not only to God but also to Mary, we are frequently told that those in the Roman communion are just taught to ask Mary to pray for them.
Leaving aside the absurdity of asking a foreigner who doesn't speak your language and whose ears have long ago returned to dust for anything, we can still see that Marian devotion as advocated by the current and immediately previous popes is not just asking Mary to pray, like we might ask our friends.
Instead, Mary is being asked to intercede on behalf of a class of people. It is true that this particular request is actually a request for Mary to pray for that class of people. Thus, it bears some parallels to the description we are given.
The prayer is described as particularly intercessory. The reason, implied but not stated, for the request is the presumed great power of Mary to obtain those things for which she intercedes. Yet Scripture suggests that Mary is not especially important in the kingdom of God. In fact, in response to:
Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
Jesus said:
Luke 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
And in response to Mary trying to get an audience with Jesus in this case:
Mark 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
Jesus said:
Mark 3:33-35
And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
So why, dear reader, would you follow the example and teachings of the most recent two popes and seek out Mary's intercession, despite Jesus' teachings?
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
So, if you must pray for those in "consecrated life" then why not pray directly to the Father by the intercession of the Son? Surely you do not think that Mary is a better intercessor than the Son.
-TurretinFan
P.S. Perhaps it will occur to someone, "But then why ask our brethren here on Earth to pray for us?" One reason we do that here on Earth is that we have a reciprocal duty to bear one another's burdens. We can't bear Mary's burdens, because she doesn't have any. Moreover, no matter how Rome's apologists may try to dress it up, we all know she's not being asked as just another sister in Christ, but as a perceived woman of great power and influence.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Disintegration of Families ...
James Jordan has a new post in which he criticizes churches where families sit together for worship (a practice that has at least hundreds of years of practice in the Americas). He claims:
There's no compelling reason to think that those practices go back 2000 years. Moreover, among the old believers, the practice is not to sit on separate sides, but to stand on separate sides. So, if this really were a movement by the Holy Spirit, Jordan should be advocating for standing, not sitting.
But let's consider his justification for the practice:
This justification would make sense if he left out "neither male nor female." Once that is included, the rationale for segregating the sexes during worship falls apart. If there is no male or female, there is no justification for segregation based on that principle.
Jordan also hurls accusation against Vision Forum for advocating the importance of families worshiping together:
Jordan goes on to claim that Wes White and others are "opposed" to "reformation theology," which is just one more ridiculous claim, like Jodan's claim that "the notion that husbands should serve their wives and children the Lord’s Supper" was "a capital offense in the Bible; Exodus 35:2-3; Numbers 16."
Given all the ridiculous claims in the post (from beginning to end) one may wonder why I would bother responding. It seems that James Jordan is one of the leaders of the Federal Vision. If those in the Federal Vision movement consider him one of their leaders, then presumably they will be glad to hear responses to him.
-TurretinFan
The simple fact is that for 2000 years, the Holy Spirit moved the church to have men and women sitting separately during divine worship.I can easily guess where he gets this idea. Among the Eastern Orthodox, particularly the "old believers" there is a tradition of separating males and females to different sides of the church during the service. The women go on the side with the large icon of Mary, whereas the men go on the side with the large icon of Jesus.
There's no compelling reason to think that those practices go back 2000 years. Moreover, among the old believers, the practice is not to sit on separate sides, but to stand on separate sides. So, if this really were a movement by the Holy Spirit, Jordan should be advocating for standing, not sitting.
But let's consider his justification for the practice:
This is because in heaven there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage. There is neither male nor female, bond nor free, child nor parent. Hence, ascended worship, taking place seated in the heavenlies, involves an affirmation of God’s Family and a setting aside of the earthly family.
This justification would make sense if he left out "neither male nor female." Once that is included, the rationale for segregating the sexes during worship falls apart. If there is no male or female, there is no justification for segregation based on that principle.
Jordan also hurls accusation against Vision Forum for advocating the importance of families worshiping together:
Functioning beneath the surface with such groups as Vision Forum and the like is a form of idolatry. We read that the family is the foundation of civilization. That is a fairly ridiculous notion, since the family is a highly temporary social unit. The Bible commands that a child leave his father and mother when he marries (Genesis 2:24).This is another example of Jordan's arguments not following. The fact that a family is - to some degree - a temporary social unity does not prevent it from being the foundation of civilization. The very passage Jordan cites is one in which a member of a family is setting out to create his own family. That passage only reinforces the role that family plays in this life.
Jordan goes on to claim that Wes White and others are "opposed" to "reformation theology," which is just one more ridiculous claim, like Jodan's claim that "the notion that husbands should serve their wives and children the Lord’s Supper" was "a capital offense in the Bible; Exodus 35:2-3; Numbers 16."
Given all the ridiculous claims in the post (from beginning to end) one may wonder why I would bother responding. It seems that James Jordan is one of the leaders of the Federal Vision. If those in the Federal Vision movement consider him one of their leaders, then presumably they will be glad to hear responses to him.
-TurretinFan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
