All Have Sinned - Except Mary? (Responding to Steve Ray)

Steve Ray (Roman Catholic) writes:

From the early centuries Mary was considered the All Holy One and considered as without sin. Rom 3:23 is a general statement but does not mention exceptions to the rule. For example, Jesus was a man without sin, therefore an exception.

Jesus did not come short of the glory of God, because Jesus is God. Recall that the text says:

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Moreover, it's not just Romans 3:23.

Romans 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Job 25:4
How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Psalm 143:2
And enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.

This falls into the category of manifest exceptions. A similar manifest exception is explained here:

1 Corinthians 15:27
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

I would love to see this testimony to Mary as "the All Holy One." While it may possibly exist (there are many extant writings, "Holy One" is a divine title and "all-holy" is a divine attribute. So, particularly in the early patristic period and among orthodox writers, one would not expect to find this attributed to anyone but one of the persons of the Trinity.

But certainly Scripture does not describe Mary as sinless. On the contrary, she herself recognized her need for a Savior:

Luke 1:47
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Steve Ray continued:

The New Adam (Jesus) is without sin. From the 1st century Mary has been viewed as the New Eve. It would be appropriate, actually proper, that the New Eve be without sin also.

The bride of Adam was Eve, but the bride of Christ is not Mary, but the Church.

And the church will be sinless:

Ephesians 5:27
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Indeed, Mary as a member of that church is now in heaven, holy and immaculate. But it was through the work of Christ purifying her - first sanctifying her and later glorifying her. She was not sinless, just as none of us are sinless.

Again, there may have been some fathers who called Mary a "new Eve," but she's hardly a close parallel to Eve.

Steve Ray continued:

Those who die before the age of reason, or who are mentally deficient are also exceptions. Job could even be called an exception if you take God’s report of him literally (Job 1:8).

This is just a rehashing of Pelagius' error. Both Pelagius and Julian of Eclanum cited Job as an example of a person who was perfectly holy before the law. But Augustine, in Section 12 of Book 2 of "The Punishment and Forgiveness of Sins," denies that Job was sinless (and more expressly in section 14).

The statement, therefore, “He that is born of God sinneth not,”[1 John 3:9] is not contrary to the passage in which it is declared by those who are born of God, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”[1 John 1:8] For however complete may be a man’s present hope, and however real may be his renewal by spiritual regeneration in that part of his nature, he still, for all that, carries about a body which is corrupt, and which presses down his soul; and so long as this is the case, one must distinguish even in the same individual the relation and source of each several action. Now, I suppose it is not easy to find in God’s Scripture so weighty a testimony of holiness given of any man as that which is written of His three servants, Noah, Daniel, and Job, whom the Prophet Ezekiel describes as the only men able to be delivered from God’s impending wrath.[Ezekiel 14:14] In these three men he no doubt prefigures three classes of mankind to be delivered: in Noah, as I suppose, are represented righteous leaders of nations, by reason of his government of the ark as a type of the Church; in Daniel, men who are righteous in continence; in Job, those who are righteous in wedlock;—to say nothing of any other view of the passage, which it is unnecessary now to consider. It is, at any rate, clear from this testimony of the prophet, and from other inspired statements, how eminent were these worthies in righteousness. Yet no man must be led by their history to say, for instance, that drunkenness is not sin, although so good a man was overtaken by it; for we read that Noah was once drunk,[Genesis 9:21] but God forbid that it should be thought that he was an habitual drunkard.

(source)

But let us see what Job has to say of himself, after God’s great testimony of his righteousness. “I know of a truth,” he says, “that it is so: for how shall a mortal man be just before the Lord? For if He should enter into judgment with him, he would not be able to obey Him.”[Job 9:2-3] And shortly afterwards he asks: “Who shall resist His judgment? Even if I should seem righteous, my mouth will speak profanely.”[Job 9:19-20] And again, further on, he says: “I know He will not leave me unpunished. But since I am ungodly, why have I not died? If I should wash myself with snow, and be purged with clean hands, thou hadst thoroughly stained me with filth.”[Job 9:30] In another of his discourses he says: “For Thou hast written evil things against me, and hast compassed me with the sins of my youth; and Thou hast placed my foot in the stocks. Thou hast watched all my works, and hast inspected the soles of my feet, which wax old like a bottle, or like a moth-eaten garment. For man that is born of a woman hath but a short time to live, and is full of wrath; like a flower that hath bloomed, so doth he fall; he is gone like a shadow, and continueth not. Hast Thou not taken account even of him, and caused him to enter into judgment with Thee? For who is pure from uncleanness? Not even one; even should his life last but a day.”[Job 13:26 - 14:5] Then a little afterwards he says: “Thou hast numbered all my necessities; and not one of my sins hath escaped Thee. Thou hast sealed up my transgressions in a bag, and hast marked whatever I have done unwillingly.”[Job 14:16-17] See how Job, too, confesses his sins, and says how sure he is that there is none righteous before the Lord. So he is sure of this also, that if we say we have no sin, the truth is not in us. While, therefore, God bestows on him His high testimony of righteousness, according to the standard of human conduct, Job himself, taking his measure from that rule of righteousness, which, as well as he can, he beholds in God, knows of a truth that so it is; and he goes on at once to say, “How shall a mortal man be just before the Lord? For if He should enter into judgment with him, he would not be able to obey Him;” in other words, if, when challenged to judgment, he wished to show that nothing could be found in him which He could condemn, “he would not be able to obey him,” since he misses even that obedience which might enable him to obey Him who teaches that sins ought to be confessed. Accordingly [the Lord] rebukes certain men, saying, “Why will ye contend with me in judgment?”[Jeremiah 2:29] This [the Psalmist] averts, saying, “Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.”[Psalm 143:2] In accordance with this, Job also asks: “For who shall resist his judgment? Even if I should seem righteous, my mouth will speak profanely;” which means: If, contrary to His judgment, I should call myself righteous, when His perfect rule of righteousness proves me to be unrighteous, then of a truth my mouth would speak profanely, because it would speak against the truth of God.

(source)

Steve Ray continued:

Romans is also discussing that it is not only the Gentiles that have sinned but also the Jews. All can be a collective of peoples. “You Jews think you are righteous because you are of Abraham? You think only the Gentiles are in sin. No, all have sinned, Gentile and Jew alike”

Yes, "all" can have that sense. But the "there is none righteous, no not one" does not have a similar semantic range.

Steve Ray continued:

This is born out in Psalm 14 from where Rom 3:9 (parallel passage to Rom 3:23) is quoted. Here is says, Psalm 14:2–3 “The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.”

This doesn't support the previous assertion that this is just about "both Jews and Gentiles."

Steve Ray continued:

Yet immediately following we find that God has his righteous. Psalm 14:5–6 ”There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. You would confound the plans of the poor, but the Lord is his refuge.”

This refers to those who are justified by faith, not those who are immaculately sinless.

Psalm 14:7 "Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad."

The "righteous" people Steve Ray is pointing to are those in captivity in a foreign land for their sins!

Steve Ray continued:

As a Baptist I used to use the Bible often for proof-texts and sound bites. Scripture is much more subtle than that. It is our tradition, whether Baptist, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, etc., that guides us in our approach to Scripture. The real question is, which tradition will you allow to direct your interpretation and study? I chose the tradition that was practiced from the first century until today – which is Catholic.

Of course, people's traditions can interfere with letting the text of Scripture speak for itself. We should not glory in that, but seek to minimize the effect of our traditions, allowing the text to speak for itself.

That said, the fathers writings are valuable. I happen to have two patristic commentaries on Psalms in front of me. On Psalm 14, Augustine (354–430) says:

There is no one who does anything good, no, not even to the very last one. This expression, not even to the very last one, can either be understood as including that particular one, which would mean nobody at all, or it can be taken to mean "with the exception of one," indicating the Lord Christ ... This latter interpretation is the better one, because nobody is deemed to have done anything good right down to Christ, because nobody can unless Christ himself has shown how.

(Expositions on the Psalms, Psalm 1-32, at Psalm 13[14]:1, The Works of St. Augustine, a Translation for the 21st Century, p. 175, trans. Maria Boulding, OSB)

Likewise, Cassiodorus (c. 485 – c. 585) states:

They are corrupt because in abandoning the sanity of the Scriptures they have demonstrably fallen into sinful thoughts. ... There is none that doth good But what about the patriarchs? Did Noah not do good when he was obedient to the Lord's commands, and entered the ark to be saved? .... Even today through the Lord's kindness good things are done through the action of just men. But so that this denial may become wholly meaningful to you, ponder the words that follow: None, even to one. In fact that only One is Christ, without whom human weakness has not the strength either to begin or complete any good thing. So the statement was justified that no man can do good unless through His mercy we have gained Christ. When we reach Him and do not abandon Him, every good is undoubtedly performed.

(Explanation of the Psalms, Vol. 1, at Psalm 13[14]:1, Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 51, p. 150)

Before posting, I thought I would check the catena found in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series. There I found some interesting words from Asterius the Homilist (4th/5th century):

"There is no one who speaks good," when all the disciples fled as they abandoned him. John ran off naked. Peter denied him, the disciples fled, the spear of doubt pierced the soul of Mary. There was no one who showed the fruit of love in his suffering. ... Even after his death, the soldier pierced his side. ... Surely he has visited us and wants to save, but none desires to be shown the medicine.

(Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Psalms 1-50, at Psalm 14:1, pp. 110-11, ellipses in ACCS, for discussion of Asterius' Nicene credentials, see Wolfram Kinzig's "In Search of Asterius: Studies on the Authorship of the Homilies on the Psalms")

So far from supporting Steve Rays "Jews and Gentiles" interpretation, Asterius even apparently ascribes sinful doubt to Mary!

I'm sure Steve Ray is very much enamored with traditions, but his traditions are not as ancient as he supposes. He ought rather to follow the still more ancient traditions of the apostles, who were inspired by God to inscripturate the revelation given to them. If he had done that, he could avoid the corruption of those who abandon the sanity of Scripture and fall into the sinful thought of ascribing sinless perfection and immaculate conception to Mary.

-TurretinFan

Special Creation is a Key Part of the Gospel - not a "Taint"

Special Creation is a Key Part of the Gospel - not a "Taint" (to build on my previous post). Special creation is something frequently mentioned by both apostolic-era preachers and apostolic era-books.

Stephen's Sermon
Acts 7:48-51
Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things? Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Judged by the standard of short-term pragmatism, one might argue that Stephen's sermon was not very effective (he was killed at the end of the sermon). Then again, Paul (then Saul of Tarsus) apparently was there witnessing it and was later converted.

And Paul himself made special creation a prominent part of his messages:

Paul's Sermon in Lycaonia
Acts 14:15
And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:

Paul's Sermon on Mars' Hill
Acts 17:24-26
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

And Paul did not hesitate to mention it in his letter to the Corinthians:

Paul's Letter to the Corinthians
1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Moreover, the doctrine gets top billing in both John's Gospel and the book of Hebrews:

Book of John
John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Book of Hebrews
Hebrews 1:1-2
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Hebrews 2:10
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

-TurretinFan

Martyrdom of Polycarp

The work called "The Martyrdom of Polycarp," is a story of martyrdom that is itself more historical fiction than historical account. That is not to say that Polycarp was not martyred. Rather it is to say that many of the details of the story are not accurate.

In The Myth of Persecution, Dr. Candida Moss makes several interesting observations, but one that particularly struck home (pp. 103-04):

In a similar way, the author describes religious devotional practices that didn't really take hold until the third century. At the conclusion of the piece, after Polycarp's body is burned for a second time, the Christians steal the fragments of bone and ash that remain and deposit them in an appropriate place for safekeeping. This is not just a concern for proper burial; the author describes Polycarp's remains as "more valuable than precious stones" and says that the remains were placed somewhere that Christians could gather to remember the saints and prepare themselves for their own martyrdom. The situation envisioned here is the veneration of relics.

... Apart from the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the practice of collecting and venerating the bodies of martyrs is completely unparalleled in the second century. Our next earliest references to relics are from the third century and are much less developed. They may not even be firm references to relics so much as references to the distribution of mementos. In contrast, the Martyrdom of Polycarp does not just refer to relics; it provides an explanation for why the church in Smyrna doesn't have the whole body. That it was necessary to apologize for the absence of relics again presupposes a situation in which relic veneration was already booming. It's difficult to imagine the need to offer this explanation, if the audience wasn't expecting more, and it's difficult to imagine that the audience would have expected more before the third century.

Dr. Moss has a full paper on the dating of "the Martyrdom of Polycarp," which can be accessed for free (at this link). Ultimately, Dr. Moss concludes that the current version of the story was probably composed in the early third century.

For people looking for examples of the kinds of problems that readers of patristics face, I encourage people to check out Dr. Moss' paper. The work should also help confirm our position on the reliability of the New Testament itself, which is not subject to the same textual transmission difficulties as the story of Polycarp's end.

I think it is worth noting that Dr. Moss dates the work earlier than some of the scholars whose work she is addressing. That said, as Dr. Moss notes in the paper (p. 19): "To my knowledge, no scholar who has regarded MPol as a forgery has ever been convinced that the extant version was written in the middle of the second century."

All the above dove-tails with a point I was noting to someone (in the comment box at GreenBaggins, if I'm not mistaken) that the cult of the dead was not part of the apostolic tradition and only arose later. Even by the time of Augustine in the 4th and 5th centuries, it was not so highly developed as it was in later centuries, such as under King Philip II of Spain (1527-98), who apparently housed 8,000 relics (and over 1,000 paintings) within his palace, el Escorial (see discussion here).

-TurretinFan

Some of the Counsel of God is a "Taint" to the Rest?

Michael Patton seems to be continuing his downward spiral. In a new post, he writes:

The historic message of the Bible needs to take precedence over the theological nature of the Bible. And here is where I feel we Evangelicals, in our zeal and love for the Bible, taint the Gospel with unnecessary additions. These additions, more often than not, drag us down rabbit trails where we can end up losing Jesus altogether as we defend against thousands of claims of Bible contradictions.

This is really unbelievable. The theological nature of the Bible, outside some core represents a "taint" that risks "losing Jesus"? Contrast that with:

Acts 20:27
For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

Deuteronomy 8:3
And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Psalm 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

And what do the Scripture teach about Jesus?

Hebrews 1:1-2
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Much more could be added, but inspiration and special creation are two of the things that Scripture teaches us about Jesus Christ. So, Patton should not consider these theological points either "unnecessary additions" or a "taint."

-TurretinFan

Status vs. Behavior

OLSON: Well, you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages, raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you—if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status.

Amy Hall has some good thoughts about this (link), but I want to point something else out - actually three things, the first of which is:

When the government prohibits marriage to already-married people, it is prohibiting "exercise of a right" (assuming marriage is a right) based on their status of being married. It is prohibition that is explicitly based on the status of the person. In fact, if getting a marriage license were like getting a job, they wouldn't be allowed to ask if you were already married. Prohibition of polygamy is about status. That's my main point.

The second is much more nuanced. When two people of the same sex seek to be "married" to each other, they are not being prohibited from "exercise of a right" - even if marriage is a right - because they don't want marriage as that term is defined. They want something that isn't marriage, which they want to be called marriage and treated as marriage.

The third point is that calling marriage a "right" is odd, given that in America single people apparently don't have this right unless someone else voluntarily consents to it. Can you imagine if your right to free speech depended on the people hearing you consenting to it? I'm pretty sure the pro-abortion folks wouldn't think a woman has a "right to choose" if she has to get someone else (like whoever procreated with her or the child) to voluntarily consent.

-TurreitnFan

Called to This Communion?

Roman Catholic Michael Voris has a new video railing against Cardinal Dolan and Cardinal Wuerl because they admit to communion those who Voris thinks should be excluded - especially Voris' Vice President, Joe Biden. Here's the video:

If you are a Roman Catholic who disagrees with Voris, you are a "Dolanite." Ironically, Voris' own bishop has forbidden him from using the term "Catholic" to describe his own activities (link).

Voris tries to appeal to Pope Francis' supposedly hard line against pro-abortion politicians, but Biden was also given communion at Pope Francis' inaugural mass together with Nancy Pelosi (as reported here).

And the folks at "Called to Communion" want me to join this communion with the supposed benefit being visible unity? No thanks.

-TurretinFan

Mr. Patton, Your Anecdotes don't Provide a Biblical Argument

Sadly, Michael Patton has decided to double down on his attack on the fundamental importance of Special Creation and Inerrancy with a new post titled "FORGET ABOUT EVOLUTION AND INERRANCY (FOR A MINUTE)."

Patton doesn't offer any Biblical or even logical argument for his position. He just provides two anecdotes of people who were allegedly persuaded to set aside their concerns about evolution or inerrancy and consequently became Christians. Patton writes:

These two stories are illustrations of the importance of keeping to the “make or break” issues of our faith when sharing the Gospel. The issue of origins and inspiration and inerrancy are very important. We eventually need to discuss them. But they are not ”make or break issues.” And they can be used to sidetrack the Gospel into endless and fruitless debate. They can often keep you from getting to Christ. The two people above may have never really heard an actual argument for the Gospel. They were both intellectual types who were ready to debate so many things that did not matter. I don’t need to convince an unbeliever that the Bible is inspired or inerrant. The issue of evolution does not matter if it is only keeping you from sharing the Gospel. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes people will have legitimate hang-ups about these and other things that need to be dealt with. But sometimes we need to deal with them by explaining that they have no bearing on whether Jesus rose from the grave. Once we establish Christ’s resurrection, you can get back to those things. But in our apologetics, we need to do everything we can to get to the historicity of the resurrection.

That's very clearly an appeal to expediency and pragmatism. But the argument lacks the necessary foundation to be anything more than an assertion and two anecdotes.

For example, Patton hasn't provided any revelation from God in support of his conclusion that special creation and inerrancy aren't make-or-break issues.

Likewise, Patton has not actually engaged in scientific experiment - providing controlled comparisons between consistent, uncompromising evangelism and evangelism of the kind that Patton seems to prefer.

All that said - as with the previous post, not everything Patton says is wrong.  It can be useful to get people to stop focusing on the excuses they are making for not addressing the central gospel issues of creation, sin, and redemption (accomplished and applied).

In fact, there are non-compromising ways of handling those excuses.  I recall reading Eusebius responding to an objection that Jesus was raised from the dead too soon - the sign of Jonah was "three days and three nights," whereas Jesus was risen before Sunday night.  He simply and quickly identified the absurdity of the objection (see how), without setting aside things like Biblical inerrancy.

-TurretinFan

Everlasting Contempt

In my debates on hell, I didn't mention the following verse:

Daniel 12:2
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Perhaps I should have, as it helps to make clear one of the verses I did cited:

Isaiah 66:22-24For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

The point of this is not specifically to make clear that the punishment of hell will include torment of the damned. After all, that aspect of hell is abundantly clear from verse like the following:

Luke 16:28
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Revelation 14:11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Rather the point of citing Daniel 12:2 in connection with Isaiah 66:22-24 is that the condition of the wicked is a permanent condition. It won't cease, either for salvation or annihilation. Instead, it will be a perpetual memorial to God's justice and power.

Daniel 12:2 also confirms the general resurrection, which we see more clearly in the New Testament.

John 5:29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
Acts 24:15And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

People might find my reference to Isaiah 66 surprising, because on its face it is not clear that these corpses are people who are alive in some sense, even while being dead in another and important sense.

But the second death is spelled out more clearly in Revelation 20:

Revelation 20:7-15
And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Notice that the lake of fire is a place of eternal torment, and it is the second death.

And ultimately, the reason why the "traditional view" of hell is the view of hell that we will continue to hold is because it is the Scriptural view - represented not only by the above verses, but most especially by

Matthew 25:46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

That punishment will generally be the wrath of God, and will particularly involve both torment and also specifically shame and contempt.

-TurretinFan

Michael Patton - Wrong 6 out of 8 Times

Michael Patton's recent post, "Eight Issues that Do NOT Make or Break Christianity" is not his finest moment. Of the eight positions he picks, six are issues that go to the fundamentals of the faith, to wit (using his numbers):

1 . Young Earth Creationism

You don't have to agree with every argument or every position from Answers in Genesis, but special creation as a matter of historical fact is a fundamental aspect of the Christian faith and a doctrine plainly taught in Scripture.

2. The authorship of the Pastoral Epistles

The pastoral epistles clearly state their authorship (see vs. 1 of each of them). It may not be a fundamental of the faith in itself, but it is a plain teaching of the text.

3. The inerrancy of Scripture

The Scriptures are the Word of God. God does not make errors.

4. Whether the flood covered entire earth

The Scriptures plainly teach that the flood did cover the entire earth. While this issue is not as fundamental as special creation, the significance of the Noahic covenant is very significant.

6. The inspiration of Scripture

The doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures is fundamental to the faith and is plainly taught.

8. The theory of evolution

Rejection of the theory of evolution is necessary in view of the plainly taught doctrine of special creation.

The only two points on which Patton was correct were:

5. The character witness of Christians

Christianity is about Christ, not about his followers. We are not disciples of anyone but God. If we were disciples of someone else, that person's character could be in question, but we are not.

7. The unity of Christianity

Christian unity will be complete in the kingdom to come. It is incomplete now for many reasons, but chiefly because God has chosen that it will be incomplete now.

Oh, and even about the two he gets right, on #7 he claims:

It is important to note that all of orthodox Christianity has always been united on many things. There is a certain perspicuity (clarity) to the Scripture which has brought about this universal unity. We call this the regula fide or the canon veritas. It is simply an expression of orthodox belief, arguing that there are certain beliefs shared by all Christians, everywhere, at every point in history. There are too many things to list, but in essence we all agree on the person and work of Christ.

Obviously, I don't speak for Patton or whatever group he associates with, but for us (as for Thomas Aquinas) "only canonical Scripture is the rule of faith." There are many plain teachings in Scripture, to be sure, and generally speaking true believers agree on them (although human tradition is a powerful distorter). But Christianity unity is chiefly about unity in Christ - in the fact that we each have union with Christ through faith in Him. Thus, by faith we are the body of Christ, a fact we celebrate when we remember the Lord's death until he comes.

Note well - I'm not saying that Christians must have a correct understanding about the six things above in order to be saved. The way to be saved is by trusting in Christ alone for salvation, as he is presented in the Gospel. People can be saved with numerous doctrinal errors, even about very important points on which compromise is impossible.

Patton writes: "I have seen too many people who walk away from the faith due to their trust in some non-essential issue coming unglued." Of course, as a Calvinist, I'm well aware of the fact that people who walk away from "the faith" do so either on a temporary basis (as I hope and pray is the case for Jason Stellman) or because they were never one of us.

-TurretinFan

When did Roman Catholicism Begin?

Over at Greenbaggins, Scott asked:

TF, when, exactly, do you believe Roman Catholicism began?

I answer:

If Roman Catholicism is defined by her (supposedly) infallibly defined dogmas, her birthday is November 1, 1950, which is when her pope defined the fiction of the bodily assumption. If she is defined by the last (supposedly) ecumenical council she accepts, she's even younger (December 8, 1965), the date of conclusion of the Second Vatican Council. If she is defined by her canon laws, the most recent major edition was January 28, 1983. If she's defined by her current pope, then she's newborn.

But if she's simply vaguely defined as a movement, it's hard to provide a fixed date. Benedict XVI treated Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) as the father of Roman Catholicism - despite the fact that Thomas Aquinas' views would place him outside the RCC today.

Perhaps better dates would be the dates of the councils of Constance (1418), Florence (1445) and Trent (1563), where certain strands of scholastic theology gained ecclesiastical dominance over other strands. Then again, a lot of Tridentine RCism has been undermined in contemporary RCism.

And frankly, that's probably the best way to date the movement - to the "late medieval" period - 15th or 16th century, although there were undoubtedly doctrinal roots that go back earlier, even while recognizing that RCism continues to change even today.

That doesn't mean that no one before 1054 held to any views in common with Roman Catholics, and it doesn't mean that things like the Edict of Milan or the forged "Donation of Constantine" were insignificant factors in producing what eventually came to be RCism. Still, calling anyone in the late patristic or early medieval period "Roman Catholic" is anachronistic.

-TurretinFan

Why Not Rome?

Reformed Reader has ten great reasons not to join the Roman communion. My own top ten list would probably be something like this (going off the cuff, and not in any particular order):

1) Worship of Bread

The host is bread - it's not God and shouldn't be worshiped as God. In the Lord's supper, the bread is the body of Christ, but in a non-literal sense (as should be obvious).

2) Papacy

God is my Holy Father, not any mere man.

3) Priesthood

Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and man.

4) Mary

Mary was blessed and saved from her sins. She is our fellow creature and not to be offered hyper-dulia.

5) Worship by Images

God has explicitly forbidden the making or religious reverencing of images.

6) Prayers to the Dead

Those who are dead in Christ are - you know - dead in Christ. Their souls are with God. They cannot hear you any more than you can hear them.

7) Blood of the Martyrs

How could I join a denomination that persecuted the church of Christ and has not repented of this?

8) Ultra-Sectarianism

The worst example of schism is Rome, who pretends to be the only true church. Joining Roman communion is participation in that schism.

9) Scriptures

Rome does acknowledge Scripture's authority with her lips, but then takes that authority back by making human tradition the lens through which Scripture must be read.

10) Judgment or Gospel

I have no desire to receive the judgments God will mete out against those who preach or follow another gospel. Rather, I must and will hold fast to the gospel that the apostles preached, which is recorded in Scripture.

-TurretinFan

New Roman Catholic Pope Elected by the Cardinals

Not this guy (link) but Jorge Mario Bergoglio, from Argentina. Naturally, he is "Pope Francis."

Until He Pay the Uttermost Farthing

Two of the verses sometimes used to argue for the position that hell is eternal state:

Matthew 5:26
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Matthew 18:34
And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

Thinking about this long ago, I had assumed that the man would eventually be able to pay off the debt, even if it took millenia to do it. So, I was confused about how this would be a good illustration of eternity, unless the point was that millenia is an analogy for eternity.

But what I had neglected to consider was basic economics. The man owes the massive debt in today's money. But a talent of gold tomorrow is worth less than a talent of gold today - and a talent of gold in a hundred years is even less. There is time value to money.

The amount of money owed in the Matthew 18 parable is massive. Some have suggested that a talent corresponds to about 6,000 days wages. Thus, 10,000 talents corresponds to about 60,000,000 days wages. If money had no time value, it would take 164,000 years (or so) to pay off the debt. But if the time value of money is even 1/1000th of a percent, the man would never be able to pay the interest on the debt - each day he would owe even more than the previous day.

-TurretinFan

P.S. I provided a clarifying comment in the comment box, but perhaps it makes sense to place it in the main post:

It's not a question of inflation. Even in an inflation-free system, a dollar (or ruble, or yen, or euro, or peso, or pound) today is worth more to people than a dollar (or whatever) a year from now. That is to say, even if the dollar will buy the same sandwich in one year that it buys today, we'd rather have the money now, thanks. It's a fundamental principle of economics.

And Matthew, Matthew's audience, and (obviously) Jesus were aware of the concept of interest. Interest factors explicitly into another parable (the parable of the talents, see Matthew 25). In that parable, the lord was not satisfied to merely have his talent back at the end of the time period. He expected that it should at least have received interest.

Habemus Papam!

Habemus Papam. No, the Roman Catholics don't have a pope. But Christians have a father. As Scripture teaches: "call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9) Perhaps I should have said "Habemus Patrem" to be more accurate, but that would lose the rhetorical effect, and no one is left confused by what I mean, I trust.

-TurretinFan

R. Scott Clark on "All Heretics Quote Scripture"

R. Scott Clark today responded on his blog to the comment that "all heretics quote Scripture." It's a true statement that simply testifies to the universal recognition of the authority of Scripture. It does not prove what its advocates seem to want to imagine that it proves. R. Scott Clark explains:

According to the Reformed churches, the Bible is the Word of God. It norms all norms. Even though it is contrary to the spirit of the modern age we still hold that the Bible is sovereign over the church (contra Rome) and the reader (contra rationalism and subjectivism). We say that the Scriptures produced the church (not the reverse). The Scriptures fundamentally are the Word of God. That Word was given through human authors but that process of revelation was superintended by God the Spirit. It was Spirit speaking through prophets and apostles. There is a real humanity to Scripture but that humanity does not norm the divine authority, inspiration, integrity, or truthfulness of Scripture.

The churches do not create the canon or the Scriptures. Rather the churches simply receive the Scriptures and the canon. The Scriptures are divinely formed. Contra Rome the authority of the church is ministerial not magisterial. The same principle applies to the autonomous modern rationalist or subjectivist.

It’s true that the Bible must be read. This is where the church enters. Who gets to say what the Scriptures mean? Is it the sovereign rationalist or the sovereign subjectivist? No, it is the divinely instituted and constituted community of interpretation. Does that community (the church) norm the revelation? No. The revelation norms the community. At the same time we are not skeptical. The Scriptures can be understood because they are meant to be understood and interpreted and we are constituted to read and interpret Scripture. We do so, the Spirit helping us, illuminating the Word for us and witness to us that what the Scriptures teach is true.

I would only tweak his statement "the Scriptures produced the church" by pointing out that strictly speaking it was revelation that produced the church, and that the revelation that produced the church has been inscripturated now, though it was in the process of being inscripturated during the apostolic age.

As far as the origin of the quotation goes, Vincent of Lerins was one of the early people to use a line like that one in his Commonitory. But the phrase is used (in a very different sense) today by apologists for Rome, such Bryan Cross, who wrote:

Because the essence of Scripture is not the letter but the meaning, it is not enough to have Scripture as support for one’s doctrine, since “all heretics quote Scripture.”

But this statement presupposes that the letter of Scripture does not convey the meaning of Scripture. Otherwise, it should be sufficient to have the letter of Scripture as support, if the letter and the meaning are harmonious and the letter of Scripture is not ambiguous.

Bryan does not plainly state that he thinks Scripture is ambiguous, but David DeJong in the comment box at Called to (Roman) Communion express the matter straight:

As soon as you recognize that Scripture is ambiguous and that there is not going to be interpretive agreement on every issue (e.g. baptism) and that sincere Christians can sincerely disagree, then you need to account for that in your construal of “essentials.”

It is an old error, one Irenaeus identified with the Gnostics in his "Against Heresies," as we've previously seen (link).

-TurretinFan

Trinity Review of Year of Faith

Despite the passing of John Robbins, the Trinity Review continues occasionally to publish reviews. The latest one is a review of Rome's "Year of Faith." The review takes a position of continuity with respect to Rome - it continues to reject the gospel now, just as it has at least since Trent. The language may be more polished now, but that makes the snare more subtle. One of the best lines in the review was "Once Evangelicals go down the ecumenical path into Rome and its rituals, it is difficult to resist her deceptions, except by the Word of God." To that I would add that consequently one of the first things that many of Rome's apologists seem eager to do is to cast suspicion and doubt on the Scriptures and their clarity, as though the Scriptures were hopelessly ambiguous and in need an of external, authoritative interpreter.

-TurretinFan

P.S. I should add that Benedict XVI's long-awaited encyclical on faith was not published, allegedly because it was not complete. If it is ever completed and published, the Vatican has already indicated that it will not be an encyclical and will not in itself carry the weight of papal authority.

Unionism Rejected (by a Lutheran, of course)

You can skip the first two minutes of the video, which has almost nothing to do with the topic of the video. The topic of the video relates to "unionism," which is a Lutheran term for co-organization, joint worship, and/or cooperation between churches that hold to different things. Historically, the union that prompted the coining of this term was (I believe) the Prussian Union of 1817, which was a union of Lutheran and Reformed churches.

Obviously, I'm not Lutheran, and I would agree with my Reformed forebearers that the Lutheran churches teach error - particularly error regarding the sacraments and worship. I agree with the Lutheran in this video that we need to agree to disagree apart, at least in some sense. We cannot simply ignore our differences or pretend that they do not exist.

Furthermore, I agree with the Lutheran in this video, that people are justified by grace alone through faith alone, not by being doctrinally perfect. Thus, while I think that Lutheran churches have false doctrine (on certain points) and improper worship (on certain points), I acknowledge that Lutheran churchgoers may be saved through faith in Christ alone.

The problem with objections to "unionism" is that some of them tend to be pretty extreme. The Lutheran in the video doesn't give many examples of what constitutes "unionism" in his view, so it is hard to say where he stands on that point.

I'm appreciative of the efforts of groups like the "White Horse Inn," in which Lutherans and Reformed people cooperate in presenting the gospel and in addressing certain errors rejected both by Lutherans and Reformed. Moreover, I myself cooperate in presenting the gospel with my baptist brother, James White - despite our important differences on issues of paedobaptism and church government.

Thus, although there are differences that are enough to prevent us from having a denominational unity with either Lutherans or Baptists, we can still cooperate in areas that do not require such denominational unity. To the extent that the Lutheran in the video would oppose such an idea, I would respectfully disagree with him.

Nevertheless, in general his comments do help to explain the importance of maintaining doctrinal orthodoxy, even at the expense of unity. For that limited point:

-TurretinFan

Caners on the John Ankerberg Show - Part 3

"Life of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad" is a third episode of the Caners on the John Ankerberg Show in 2013.

Biography/Autobiography
The intro has the same line about growing up in Columbus and having a mosque-building father (which has already been discussed here).  Ankerberg says that "their family disowned them," (1:44) which we could ask Ankerberg to justify - the justification would seem to be that their non-custodial father disowned them.

Substance
Ergun seems to insist that that Shahada says that Mohammed is "his final seal of the prophets" or "the final prophet."  While that is doubtless the Sunni view of Mohammed, the literal translation of portion of the Shahada about Mohammed is just "... Mohammed is the messenger of Allah."

One important point that is presented is the fact that Mohammed is described in the Koran as being an example for Muslims:

Surah 33:21 Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah. (YUS)

However, if one attempts to have as many wives as Mohammed, one will run smack into the limitation of four wives that is present in Islam.  Likewise, if one attempts to prevent ones widows from marrying, one will run afoul of Islamic law.

Ergun raises the idea (around 5:30 into the clip) that Mohammed says in the Hadith that "he" was spiritually married to Mary.  The apparent source for this is the following, as taken from the Caners' book, "Unveiling Islam":

"Oh Khadija, know that God has wedded me to Mary, Christ's mother in paradise." HE repeated this to Aiysha, "Oh Aiysha [sic], didn't you know that God Almighty in heaven has wedded me to Mary, the daughter of Imran, to Kulthum, Moses' sister and to Assiya, wife of the Pharoh."7
...
7. Related by Abu Umama in later ahadith.

(pp. 136 and 141, "[sic]" is in the book - note that the book is not necessarily the Caners' own writing - the chapters are allegedly written by various women)

I tried to track down a better citation for this alleged narration.  I found an article by Salman Hassan Jabbar, dated to 1994, which states:

Also worth mentioning in this connection is that Muhammad will have the lion's share of all the good things in paradise for surely he was singled out for favor by God by virtue of his flight into the seven heavens (Al Isra'a wal Mi'raj incident) It was there too that he received from God's hand all the teachings which he transmitted to his followers. When he returned to earth from that trip he was unable to hide the fact from his first wife, Khadija - the eldest. He told her as she lay dying: "Oh Khadija, know that God has wedded me to Mary, Christ's mother in paradise." He repeated this story to his favorite wife, Aiysha, after the Hejira, saying:" Oh Aiysha, didn't you know that God Almighty in heaven wedded me to Mary the daughter of Imran, to Kulthum, Moses' sister and to Assiya, wife of the Pharaoh". (related by Abu Umama)

Abu Umama was one of the companions (sahaba) of Mohammad.  That said, I was not able to verify this supposed hadith from either Bukhari's collection of hadith or Muslim's collection of hadith.

With a little more digging, I found an interesting response from Rasheed Gonzales (link to response) to use of this narration.  In relevant part, Rasheed writes:

Let us now take a look at what Ibn Kathîr said in his exegesis of the above mentioned verse (66:5) in his Tafsîr al-Qur'ân al-'Adhîm. Ibn Kathîr mentions,

In his al-Mu'jam al-Kabîr, Abul-Qâsim at-Tabarânî said,

Abū Bakr bin Sadaqah narrated to us: Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Marzūq narrated to us: 'Abdullah bin Umayyah narrated to us: 'Abdul-Quddūs narrated to us from Sâlih bin Hayyân, from Ibn Buraidah, from his father: [concerning] «widows and virgins» (66:5), [who] said, "In this verse, Allah promised His prophet, may Allah send salutations and peace upon him, that He would marry him to the widow: Âsiyah, wife of Pharaoh, and with the virgins: Mary bint 'Imrân."

In his biography of Mary, peace be upon her, Hâfidh Ibn 'Asâkir mentioned from the route of Suwaid bin Sa'îd: Muhammad bin Sâlih bin 'Umar narrated to us from ad-Dahhâk and Mujâhid, from Ibn 'Umar, he said,

Gabriel came to Allah's messenger, may Allah send salutations and peace upon him, at the death of Khadîjah and said, "Surely, Allah greets her with peace and gives glad tidings of a house of pearls in Paradise, distant from the fire, containing no hardship, nor noise, of hollow pearls between Mary bint 'Imrân's house and Âsiyah bint Muzâhim's house."

And from the hadîth of Abî Bakr al-Hudhalî, from 'Ikrimah, from Ibn 'Abbâs that the Prophet, may Allah send salutations and peace upon him, entered upon Khadîjah while she was dying and said, «O Khadîjah, if you meet your co-wives, then greet them with peace from me.» She said, "O Allah's messenger, have you married before me?" He said, «No, but Allah will marry me to Mary bint 'Imrân, Âsiyah wife of Pharaoh, and Kulthum sister of Moses.» [It is] weak also.

Abū Ya'lâ said,

Ibrâhîm bin 'Ar'arah narrated to us: 'Abdun-Nūr bin 'Abdillah narrated to us: Yūnus bin Shu'aib narrated to us from Abî Umâmah, he said, 'Allah's messenger, may Allah send salutations and peace upon him, said, «I have learned that Allah married me in Paradise to Mary bint 'Imrân, Kulthum sister of Moses, and Âsiyah wife of Pharaoh.» So I said: [be it] a pleasure for you, O Allah's messenger!'

(see the remainder of Rasheed's post, for the argument from this quotation, but the gist of the argument is that the chain of narration is weak, and it is possible that this hadith is actually ancient Christian propaganda, designed to make Muslims appear [even more?] despicable to Christians.)

Amusing Quotation
At around 8:15 into the clip, Ergun provides an amusing soundbite, "Fine, I don't like half the Christians I know." His point was that it is not Christians who are the reason for us to be Christians, it is Christ.  That point is valid and good, even though the statement itself is itself a little amusing and somewhat sad, given our experience with him.

-TurretinFan

August/September of a Year of Biblical Womanhood (Guest Post)

The following is part seven of a critical review of Rachel Held Evans's book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband “Master”, Thomas Nelson, 2012 (see this link for a little more background and an index to all sections of the review). Ms. Evans's book starts with October and ends with September, thus this review follows Ms. Evans's order.

AUGUST

A month of Silence, in which Rachel critiques the Apostle Paul (and of course, by implication, the Holy Spirit) for two passages: 1 Timothy 2:11-12, verses saying that a woman should learn in quietness and submission and not teach and/or assume authority over a man; and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, verses that say the same thing, adding that women who have questions should ask their husbands at home, because women shouldn’t speak in the church.

It seems that Ms. Evans understands the importance of context in Biblical interpretation, for she mentioned it in a previous chapter, so it is surprising that she does not deal with the verses 13 and 14 in 1 Timothy 2 which follow the first set of verses she cites. Here the Apostle Paul gives the reason for the teaching: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.” So here we have two separate reasons: the order of creation and aptitude for deception displayed at the Fall. One conservative commentator suggests that since the woman was deceived into sin, she was less culpable than Adam who went into transgression with his eyes wide open. Whatever you think of this comment, it is indisputable that the reason God gives for women to not be teachers and authorities in churches is based on two historical incidents: the Creation and the Fall.

Evans views New Testament epistles as “letters, broken pieces of correspondence between early Christians, dating back thousands of years,” clearly once again impugning the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. This is really the key to her errors. There are differences among believers about a number of things such as forms of church government, mode and type of baptism, worship song, etc. This is undeniable, and in this life in which we see “in a glass darkly” it is hardly avoidable. Yet these differences can be accepted graciously if those who hold to the different views share a view of Scripture that acknowledges it as infallible and inerrant. But when Scripture is no longer believed to be God-breathed and therefore without error, one’s conclusions become suspect. One may arrive at “conservative” conclusions even with unsound, liberal assumptions (an accusation sometimes leveled against scholar-theologian F.F. Bruce). Nevertheless, a high view of Scripture is warranted by Scripture itself!

One of what Evans calls “the embarrassing bits” of the Bible is Titus 1:12 which she quotes as saying, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This (partial) quotation is followed by a few not very funny, sarcastic remarks; however, she once again neglected her own rule about context-- she left out the beginning of the sentence, “One of them, a prophet of their own, said…” Kathy Keller did a good job reviewing the book on the Gospel Coalition website [FN1], making mention of Evans’ glaring omission.

And when Rachel says she never once heard a sermon preached on this passage, may we not conclude that she just ought to get out more or go to better churches? Surely SermonAudio.com is easy enough to use.

She constructs a straw man argument next by saying, “we dishonor the original intent and purpose of the Epistles when we assume they were written in a vacuum for the purpose of filling our calendars and bumper stickers.” No doubt people use them that way, but who would assume they were written with such an intent and in a vacuum? For a few much more cogent comments about placarding Bible verses without context, please see Rosaria Butterfield’s Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, pp. 66-67, a book which takes the Bible’s inerrancy and inspiration quite seriously.

The next part of the book gets really interesting. I’d love to know who originated the story, but here are the key elements of the plot:

churches of Ephesus and Corinth attracted a lot of women, particularly widows…of particular concern to Paul was a group of young widows who had infiltrated the church and developed a reputation for dressing promiscuously, sleeping around, gossiping, spreading unorthodox ideas, interrupting church services with questions, mooching off the church’s widow fund and generally making common floozies of themselves (1 Timothy 5)

I am not making this up; it’s on page 261. This is how she, quoting Scott McKnight’s The Blue Parakeet, reconciles that some women could prophesy (1 Corinthians 11:4) and others were to keep silent. She concludes, “Obviously Paul didn’t have a problem with women teaching in general” because of Priscilla and Timothy’s mother and grandmother. Did Priscilla teach in the church? Did Timothy’s mother and grandmother teach in the church? Did women who prophesied (in fulfillment of Joel 2:28) teach? Or did they utter what the Holy Spirit gave them by inspiration? These are important questions Ms. Evans leaves unanswered.

The latter part of the chapter covers her visits to 1) a Benedictine monastery in Alabama; and 2) a Quaker Meeting in West Knoxville, Tennessee. Nothing of much interest happened, except she learned that wearing heels in a monastery is distracting so she switched to flats for the Quaker meeting. An important lesson, should any ladies reading this decide to make such visits themselves.

SEPTEMBER

The keynote for the last month of Rachel’s Biblical Year is “Grace” and the key verse is “On the first day of the seventh month you are to have a day of rest, a sacred assembly commemorated with trumpet blasts.” What follows is her comical foray into finding a shofar (ram’s horn), learning to sound it, and then proceeding to keep the Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year), which included baking challah and less traditionally, making a New Year’s Resolution List. In the coming year she would: try a new recipe a week, eat more ethically (seriously!), embrace the prospect of motherhood, identify and praise women of valor, nurture the contemplative impulse, make room for ritual and remembrance, champion women leaders in the Church, partner with World Vision to work for the women’s empowerment and education worldwide, and honor Dan (her husband).

She also had a Tashlich ceremony, dating back, she says, to the Middle Ages, in which “the sins of the repentant are ceremonially cast into the currents of God’s grace.” She ties her conclusion to her introduction: 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 commended long hair for women; Rachel had let hers grow for 368 days. Time for a haircut; and so the Year of Biblical Womanhood concludes in a hydraulic chair in a hair salon.

This book is entertaining, at times flippant, and without a doubt, highly marketable. It also fails to revere the inerrant, infallible, and inspired Word of God. In her conclusion she reiterates the culturally conditioned character of the Bible. However, Rachel says she’s not finished with the Bible, and let’s hope the future brings her a blessing from God’s Word.

***

FN1: Editorial note: link is provided for information, not endorsement of everything the Kellers teach.


***

(This is a guest post.)

-TurretinFan

Douglas Wilson vs. Andrew Sullivan on "Gay Marriage"

Doug Wilson has posted the gist of his prepared remarks from a debate with Andrew Sullivan on the topic of so-called "gay marriage." (link to remarks) In general, I would agree with what Wilson said - although I cannot confirm his positive comments on Sullivan's behavior (as I did not witness the debate).

Wilson has a great way with words, a gift I would love to obtain. For example:

As Dan Phillips has aptly noted, the most offensive verse in the Bible is not to be found in Leviticus or Deuteronomy with laws concerning homosexuals. It is not to be found in the New Testament when Paul tells wives to be submissive to their own husbands. It is not to be found in the places commanding the Amalekites to be smitten. The most offensive verse in the Bible is the very first one—in the beginning God created the heavens and earth (Gen. 1:1). This means that there are only two ways to go. We can work to discover the meaning of the world around us, a meaning embedded there by God. Or we can rebel against that meaning, and try to roll our own. Once we have rolled it, we usually try to smoke it.

This observation is really central to most of the interaction with non-Christianity - from Atheism/Agnosticism to Roman Catholicism. Our understanding of the world needs to proceed from the revelation God has provided, and if we don't do that we end up victims of our own foolishness.

-TurretinFan

June/July of a Year of Biblical Womanhood (Guest Post)

The following is part six of a critical review of Rachel Held Evans's book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband “Master”, Thomas Nelson, 2012 (see this link for a little more background and an index to all sections of the review). Ms. Evans's book starts with October and ends with September, thus this review follows Ms. Evans's order.

JUNE

We feel that we’ve gotten to the crux of the matter this month with a topic of “Submission.” Early on Evans suggests that passages on this topic in both Peter’s and Paul’s writings (1 Peter 3:1-2, and Colossians 3:18 and Ephesians 5:22-23) are in fact not normative and that conservative evangelicals are wrong to assume so. Again, this is another slam on the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. Narratives do not necessarily describe normative behavior, but certainly exhortations and commands do. The way out of this conundrum for Ms. Evans is to suggest -- like liberal commentators before her -- that these passages on wifely submission are either preceded by or followed by instructions on slaves submitting to their masters, and, as she says, “the implications are astounding.”

Again she draws a wrong conclusion: that anyone who believes in wifely submission therefore must also agree with slavery, and slavery of a first-century type. These verses, she tells us, are just the Christian spin on Greco-Roman household codes which gave men unilateral authority over wives, slaves and children. Perhaps without realizing it here she denies the Holy Spirit-inspired character of the Word of God. She then goes on to quote verses that talk about living as free people, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves (1 Peter 2:16) and submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21) and calls these words “subversive” ones, lying “beneath the seemingly acquiescent text” as if the Bible carries with it a hidden code. This is just nonsense. According to Timothy G. Gombis of Cedarville University (link):

After his harsh critique of pagan culture throughout the present section of the letter, it is hardly credible to claim that Paul is attempting to find common ground between Christian communities and the surrounding culture. Far from minimizing the differences between what he calls the Old Humanity (Ephesians 4:22) and the New Humanity (Ephesians 2:15; 4:24), Paul is stressing the absolute incompatibility of the two spheres.

His entire article, published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society makes worthwhile reading.

Next, if Ms. Evans’ quotations are correct, I agree with her that Raymond Ortlund and John Piper in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, seem to do a bit of stretching Scripture to arrive at their conclusions. Piper talks about the impropriety of female city planners or female officials at sporting events, a venture into left field in my opinion [Fn1]. The Bible is clear enough with what it says, without speculating where it is silent.

Another of Evans’ targets is Debi Pearl and her book, Created to be His Helpmeet. Even if Debi Pearl represents an extreme (as she is presented), that doesn’t mean that we have to agree with Rachel Evans. There’s good stuff outside of the two.

JULY

“What does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8) God’s justice is an attribute that He expects His followers to personally appropriate. Clearly justice is required by our Lord: justice in witness bearing, in commerce, and in personal relationships. This chapter of Evans’ book is devoted to this concept. With that there is no problem. But note the following: after citing several Old Testament passages, she begins to talk about Jesus who is “committed…to these central Jewish teachings…” as if Jesus Himself is not God, the Word of God incarnate! She paints Him as a Jewish rabbi of the first century who continues the teachings of the Old Testament prophets, rather -- I suppose -- the way the Islamic religion pictures Him.[FN2]

She indicts a shallow evangelicalism, one which will even listen to unbelievers, even cultists, to tell them what to do religiously: she refers to Glenn Beck (Mormon) telling Christians to leave churches that advocate social justice. This is bizarre. Never having read or listened to Glenn Beck I can only take her word for it and shake my head in amazement. I think Christians may be spending more time with talk radio than the Bible. This is a shame -- even if the "social justice" churches are bad, the reason for leaving them has to be Scripture, not Political Activists.

But a little religious history may be in order. Early in the 20th century the liberal churches became centers that did barely anything but advocate social agendas. The Gospel was nearly gone from their churches. The words were the same but the meanings were different. They saw no need for redemption, for propitiation, for substitution for they were not in touch with the concept and reality of sin against a holy God. For further reading, The Presbyterian Controversy by Bradley J. Longfield is recommended (link to Amazon).

Churches and Christians that are true to the Bible need not fear to advocate social justice, properly defined [FN3]. In fact, most conservative churches I know of do just that. They are on the frontlines speaking for the unborn, the most helpless segment of our society, seeking to save those lives. Francis Schaeffer laid the groundwork for a resurgence of Biblical action with A Christian Manifesto (Amazon link). Many have heeded his call. He asserted that Christianity is not conservative; it is revolutionary. Speaking of two camps, the New Left and the Establishment elite, he suggested that at times we will be "co-belligerents" with one or the other, but not true allies with either of them. Schaeffer spoke of "a growing Establishment totalitarianism" and warned that "evangelicals will slide without thought into accepting the Establishment elite." If this generation does not know Schaeffer, it needs to get in touch with his writings.

The Biblical woman for the month of July is “Junia, the Apostle” whom Rachel calls “perhaps the most silenced woman in the Bible.” Following Scott McKnight of The Blue Parakeet fame, she trashes the idea that “of note among the apostles” means “well known among the apostles.” She repeats McKnight’s argument that Junia (female) was changed to Junias (male) because the copyist deemed it unacceptable for a woman to be an apostle! But James R. White notes:

How does McKnight know the intentions and beliefs of ancient scribes? While it is common enough for modern textual scholars to engage in time-traveling mind-reading today, neither McKnight, nor anyone else, can tell us with any certainty what any particular unknown and unnamed scribe believed in the ancient world. In fact, both sources cited in McKnight’s notes indicate that the situation is significantly more complex and nuanced than his discussion indicates. The reality is that nobody changed any spelling at all. The difference between Junia and Junias is a matter of accenting, and the earliest manuscripts do not have accent marks. Hence, McKnight’s assertion that this text was changed “because women aren’t supposed to be ‘apostles’” evaporates on examination, as does much of his larger argument.

I don’t think there was any conspiracy to keep the apostles all male. After all, the word “apostle” can mean messenger, without any connotation of ordination. There are others in the New Testament called “apostles” yet were not numbered with the 12 (or thirteen), such as Silas, Apollos and Barnabas. Yet the solution may be just as White explains above—a matter of accent marks in the earliest manuscripts.

***

FN1: Editorial note -- although the pun is excellent, T-Fan would generally concur with folks like Piper.

FN2: Editorial note -- please bear in mind that "justice" is one thing and "social justice" is another thing.

FN3: Editorial note -- i.e. not Marxism, or other hijacked meanings of the term, which are rampant today.

(This is a guest post.)

-TurretinFan

Response to "Ten Things I wish the Church Knew About Homosexuality"

There's a list of "Ten Things" that the author states he wishes "the Church" knew about what he characterizes as "homosexuality." I'll address each item in turn.

1. If Jesus did not mention a subject, it cannot be essential to his teachings.

a) Jesus did mention the subject of sexual sin, and he did so repeatedly. For example:

Matthew 15:19
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

b) Jesus even specifically mentioned the example of Sodom as a group particularly worthy of judgment.

Luke 10:12
But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

c) Jesus affirmed the whole moral law of the old testament, both by not destroying it, and by instructing his disciples to obey his commandments.

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

John 15:10
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Recall:

Deuteronomy 7:9
Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

d) Whether it is "essential" or not is not the point. The central message of Jesus was to repent (of sin) and believe the Gospel. The emphasis was clearly on the gospel, yet it would be foolishness to ignore repentance from sin. Understanding repentance from sin requires that we recognize what sin is. That applies to a broad range of sins, many of which Jesus did not discuss in depth.

2. You are not being persecuted when prevented from persecuting others.

This point is somewhat vague, but the obvious counter-points are:
a) It's not in itself persecution to tell people to repent of their sins; and
2) It's not in itself persecution to prosecute criminal behavior, including criminal sexual behavior.

3. Truth isn’t like wine that gets better with age. It’s more like manna you must recognize wherever you are and whoever you are with.

a) Truth is absolute and timeless. It doesn't get "better with age," but it does stay true.
b) Manna was sent from heaven. So was the moral law delivered to Moses. If you recognized that, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.
c) Manna is not just whatever you want it to be, and neither is truth.

4. You cannot call it “special rights” when someone asks for the same rights you have.

a) People who want the "right" to sleep with someone to whom they are not married are not asking for rights that I have. I have the right to sleep with my spouse, and not with anyone else.
b) People who want the right to call their fornication "marriage" are not asking for the rights that I have. I don't have the "right" to call my fornication "marriage," and neither does anyone else.
c) People who want the right to marry same sex are not asking for the rights that I have. I have the right to marry opposite sex, and they have that same right - they just have no desire to exercise that right.

5. It is no longer your personal religious view if you’re bothering someone else.

a) I'm pretty sure one of the major reasons for having rights to express people's personal views is exactly because they bother other people. If they didn't bother other people, why would the state need to protect such speech?
b) It's not just our personal religious view - it's the view of our churches.
c) It's also not just our personal religious view, our the view of our churches, but it is an actual matter of fact, revealed by God.

6. Marriage is a civil ceremony, which means it’s a civil right.

a) This argument seems to be based on the particular cultural conventions of modern Western society. Modern society is not a source of truth - it's traditions and norms shift over time.
b) Homosexuals don't usually want to marry (in the normal sense of that word), because they are not interested in the opposite-sex obligations of marriage.
c) Even if in some sense marriage is a "civil right," surely does not mean that there cannot be limitations on it.

7. If how someone stimulates the pubic nerve has become the needle to your moral compass, you are the one who is lost.

Don't worry, that's not the needle of our moral compass.

8. To condemn homosexuality, you must use parts of the Bible you don’t yourself obey. Anyone who obeyed every part of Leviticus would rightly be put in prison.

It is always sad, but not surprising, when people are so morally bankrupt that they think the civil laws of Leviticus are bad laws - evil laws. But what is the basis for that moral judgment?

9. If we do not do the right thing in our day, our grandchildren will look at us with same embarrassment we look at racist grandparents.

Again, what is the standard of what is "right"? If the Bible is the standard, it is those who are exalting homosexuality that will be embarrassed on the day of judgment.

10. When Jesus forbade judging, that included you.

This text is an important text:
Matthew 7:1-2
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

So is this text:

John 7:24
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

And so is this text:

1 Corinthians 6:2
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

And most people who appeal to the first one are not even aware of the other two, or the proper harmony amongst them.

A full explanation would exceed the scope of this post, but suffice to say that Matthew 7:1-2 does not mean that we cannot or should not pass moral judgments on people or behaviors. If it did, that would mean we cannot say that murder is wrong, or say that thieves are sinning in what they are doing. That's an absurd result, and it should demonstrate the absurdity of applying the verse to say that we can't say that criminal sexual acts are sinful.

-TurretinFan

Garry Wills - Why Priests? - Introduction

Dr. Garry Wills is a lay Roman Catholic. His PhD in classics is from Yale (1961) and he taught history for 18 years at Johns Hopkins University. The Los Angeles Times describes him as "American Catholicism's most formidable law scholar," and the New York Times describes him as "One of the country's most distinguished intellectuals." Wills' "Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America," won the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993. In 2008, John L. Allen, Jr. described Wills as "perhaps the most distinguished Catholic intellectual in America over the last 50 years" in the National Catholic Reporter. His writings generally focus on historical topics, many of them on the intersection of history and religion. (I wonder if calling him a "Roman Catholic Darryl Hart" would be taken as the mutual compliment it would be intended to be?)

Some think that the dwindling number of priests can be remedied by the addition of women priests, or married priests, or openly gay priests. In fact, the real solution is: no priests. It should not be difficult to imagine a Christianity without priests. Read carefully through the entire New Testament and you will not find an individual human priest mentioned in the Christian communities (only Jewish priests in service to the Temple). Only one book of the New Testament, the Letter to Hebrews, mentions an individual priest, and he is unique -- Jesus. He has no followers in that office, according to the Letter.

It is not surprising, then, that some Protestant communities are able to be good Christians without having any priests. Some priests of my youth mocked them for that reason. They said a Protestant ceremony was just a town meeting, without the sacramental consecration and consumption of the body and blood of Jesus. When I was told one of my pastors that I had admired the sermon of a visiting priest, he said I should not be looking to have my ears ticked, like some Protestant, but should concentrate on the mystery of the Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, he was implying, we would have no religion at all.

(Why Priests, Introduction, p. 2)

Gary Wills' proposal is going to be shocking to traditionalist Roman Catholics, partly because it would require a radical change in Roman Catholicism, and partly because that radical change would like the Reformation, at least as to a substantial part of its ecclesiology (his position was compared to that of Luther in the New York Times).

We hold to the priesthood of believers, and maintain that Christians have direct access to God through the sole mediation of Christ. Thus, we reject the idea of merely human priests, affirming instead the apostolic model of a church without priests.

Wills' proposal is one that is surprisingly ecumenical. While there would still be certain issues regarding worship that would need to be addressed, removal of the priesthood would be a major stepping stone toward Roman Catholicism being in ecumenical union with "Protestants."

Will Will's proposal be adopted? It seems unlikely. Those in power in Rome have every vested interest in maintaining the structures of power that require a priesthood.

-TurretinFan

P.S. I seriously doubt that any of Garry Wills' books (from his prize winning books, to his least well recognized books, and including this book) has been submitted for nihil obstat or imprimatur. Naturally, a book (like Why Priests?) that argues as one of its main points that there shouldn't be priests, is not a good candidate for either certification.

Caners on the John Ankerberg Show - Part 2

I'm not sure whether John Ankerberg plans to archive these videos on the web, as it appears that the plan is to offer these videos on DVD in exchange for a "gift" of $39 (link to page where video can be seen).  Thus, it makes sense to discuss these videos in series as they come out.

Biography/Autobiography
The intro has the same line about growing up in Columbus and having a mosque-building father (which has already been discussed here).  Numerous times in this section John Ankerberg asks the Caners to describe their own experience.  In most cases, the Caners deflect back to general statements about Muslims.

Around 6:40 into the clip, Emir suggests that knowing God loved him, rather than simply his deeds, was a breakthrough for him. 

Around 7 minutes in, Emir suggests that the tension between Justice and Mercy was one of the reasons for his move from Islam to Christianity.

Around 17:15 into the clip, Ergun discusses Clarence Miller posing the liar, lunatic, Lord trilemma to him (without the liar branch, naturally, since Ergun was claiming that he respected Jesus).

There's not much else to say about this episode, so I'll desist here.

-TurretinFan

Reformed Apologetics and Scripture

Dr. Scott Oliphint has a short lecture (about 20 minutes or so) titled "Apologetics and the Doctrine of Scripture," in which he explains Reformed Apologetics. In Oliphint's view, Reformed (he likes the label "Covenantal") Apologetics are simply the apologetic implications of Reformed theology. In other words, theology informs apologetics - the two are not entirely separate endeavors. But what are the apologetic implications of Reformed theology? The primary implications relate to an epistemology of divine condescension.

God is known by Revelation (both general revelation and special revelation). Creation is related to God (either positively or negatively). Thus, a right understanding of Creation as a whole requires a right understanding of God, since the two are related. A right understanding of the relationship between Creation and God is obtained by Revelation. Since the Revelation comes from God, it is necessarily true. The clearest form of Revelation is verbal revelation, and indeed it is verbal revelation that serves as the basis for understanding general revelation. Scripture is the verbal revelation we currently have.

Therefore, in apologetics, as in evangelism, we present the truth of Scripture as against the claims of rival systems. Since the rival systems are necessarily false, the apologist's job is to help the unbeliever understand that the rival system is false, as well as to help the unbeliever understand that the Scripture is true.

In other words, the fundamental positive assertions of Reformed apologetics are (1) God has spoken and (2) it is our (humans') privilege and duty to do what God has commanded us.

William Edgar explains (here) a little different aspect of Reformed apologetics. He explains a general approach:
1) We acknowledge that unbelievers hold much true knowledge (knowledge that is objectively true).
2) We explain to the unbelievers that some of their beliefs are inconsistent with this true knowledge.
3) We invite the unbeliever to learn/believe/experience the truth of Scripture.

Of course, the steps aren't necessarily in that order, but rather are a general outline of the aspects of conversation we use in evangelism and apologetics. The steps are premised on our position that we know the truth because God has revealed it to us in Scripture.

I would add that this should govern our apologetic priorities, our apologetic targets, and our apologetic balance. For example, the authority of Scripture (as against that of the Roman magisterium, or that of the alleged prophets Mohammed or Joseph Smith) is a high apologetic priority, whereas pointing out the clash between Islam or traditional Roman Catholicism and post-modern ethics is something that would be a very low priority. That's partly because post-modern ethics are not especially faithful to Biblical ethics (even though they haven't entirely eradicated the light of nature). On apologetic balance, the point is that while there is a time for negative, internal critiques of other systems, this negative material must be supplemented by a positive presentation of the revealed truth of God in Scripture -- not necessarily in every presentation, but certainly not rarely.

-TurretinFan

Darryl Hart on American Roman Catholicism

Darryl Hart at "Old Life" provides some quotations regarding the uniquely American experience of Roman Catholicism and how it hasn't really taken political root (link). I would add that Roman Catholicism does tend to exhibit a degree of syncretism. Thus, in its American embodiment it tends to be rather Protestant, but it has other flavors in other countries. For example, in Brazil, the Marxist influence is hard to deny (and is the topic of a significant amount of frustration amongst more traditional folks there).

-TurretinFan

April/May of a Year of Biblical Womanhood (Guest Post)

The following is part five of a critical review of Rachel Held Evans's book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband “Master”, Thomas Nelson, 2012 (see this link for a little more background and an index to all sections of the review). Ms. Evans's book starts with October and ends with September, thus this review follows Ms. Evans's order.

APRIL

There is not a lot to say about this month and its topic of Purity. The author misses the point of the Old Testament ceremonial regulations found in the following passages: Leviticus 15:19, Exodus 13:6-10, and Exodus 12:17. She consults with an Orthodox Jewish woman who gives her the Jewish scoop on these things, but the point of these laws is missed because their typical nature is not seen. The antidote to this chapter is to read and study 1 Corinthians 5:1-8, as well as to thoroughly study the book of Hebrews. An excellent commentary to study on this subject is Andrew Bonar's commentary on Leviticus (or click here for the free Google book version).

MAY

Fertility is the focus of this chapter and Evans’ take on topics like parenting, motherhood, large families, and babyhood comes into focus pretty clearly. First, Rachel reads a stack of parenting books, from William Sears and his view of attachment parenting to Ezzo's oddly detached view of parenting in On Becoming Baby Wise. Strangely, Rachel does not come down on either side. For a woman who purports to value discernment of biblical things I was surprised that she did not do more research on the nature of the Ezzo’s teachings. "Baby Wise" has been associated with ill health in babies (by mainstream pediatrics) and divided at least one church. I would have liked to have seen some real interaction with the Ezzo movement.

Next, she describes the “Quiverfull lifestyle” and contrasts her poverty-stricken friend from a large family with the Duggar family, now with 19 children and doing very well financially and apparently in every other way. But the quote from Jim Bob Duggar, “People think we are overpopulating the world. We are just following our convictions” seems fair enough. It doesn’t sound like a plot to make every family embrace their ultimate fertility to me. Do some people like to impose their “lifestyle” on others? I can think of lots of people who do, but I know of nobody who has tried to impose the large family lifestyle on others. I think that the Quiverfull movement is wrong on several counts, but no one is forcing me to join it.

This is the month Rachel and Dan receive via UPS their vinyl “baby,” a creepy marketing toy/ploy intended to get people to pay money experience what it’s like to have a baby around the house before they take the leap and become pregnant. It makes for a lot of creepy jokes about “Chip” (aka “Chucky”) before he’s mailed back to the rental company.

****

(This is a guest post.)

-TurretinFan

A Half Century for the Emergence of the Council

One of the supposed benefits of Rome's councils is that they allegedly provide a clarity that is missing from Scripture. But those who think this should consider Benedict XVI's comments on Vatican II:

I would now like to add yet a third point: there was the Council of the Fathers – the real Council – but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council apart, and the world perceived the Council through the latter, through the media. Thus, the Council that reached the people with immediate effect was that of the media, not that of the Fathers.

...

We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy … and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force.

(Original Link: Benedict XVI, "The Second Vatican Council, as I saw it" Updated Link: Meeting with the Parish Priests and Clergy of Rome, 14 February 2013 - the second ellipsis is part of the official text, the first is mine)

If a council is so easily misrepresented and so widely misunderstood, even when its writings are all easily obtained, how is that supposed to be a solution to the problem of alleged ambiguity in Scripture?

-TurretinFan