Please note, this post has a high chance of getting date bumped into oblivion, because it is not a high priority.
David Waltz has responded to my previous post via his own blog.
He alleges two errors:
Error #1 – Alexandria was in full control of the Fatimids, NOT the Sunnis, during the period that Eutychius was Patriarch.
Quite right. That was my mistake. I have updated the original post to correct that error.
Error #2 – “your position” has NOTHING to do at all with the Nicene period that Eutychius was commenting on. He was merely supplying historical information on some of the diverse sects that attended the council. (Nice try though.)
This sword has two edges, if it has nothing to do with my position, the question everyone should be asking is: "why did you bring it up?" But I gladly agree that it has very little do with my position. I don't think I claimed it does have much to do with the position I presented, and on reviewing my original post, I don't see any contrary evidence.
Speaking of evidence, I gather that we will not be seeing any further or supporting evidence for the supposed existence of FSM-trinitarians at the time of Mohamed, to provide an excuse for Muslim scholars who do not wish to admit that their prophet erred, and that the Koran is not inspired.
-Turretinfan
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Friday, March 07, 2008
Were there ever FSM-Trinitarians?
In a previous post, we have demonstrated that Surah 5 of the Koran was directed at Christianity (and Judaism) generally, but with some errors regarding the discussion of the Trinity.
Some folks (most Muslim, but now one Roman Catholic) would like to imagine that Mohamed was not addressing Christianity, but rather some sect that held to a Trinity of Allah, Jesus, and Mary, which we refer to (for convenience) as FSM-trinitarianism.
Leaving aside the internal evidence of Surah 5 (which defeats that argument), there is a dearth of external evidence to substantiate the existence of such a sect.
David Waltz, the Roman Catholic mentioned above, quoted the following:
"The three gods in the Koran (c. 4, p. 81, c. 5, p. 92) are obviously directed against our Catholic mystery: but the Arabic commentators understand them of the Father, the Son, and the Virgin Mary, an heretical Trinity, maintained, as it is said, by some Barbarians at the Council of Nice, (Eutych. Annal. tom. i. p. 440.) But the existence of the Marianites is denied by the candid Beausobre, (Hist. de Manicheisme, tom. i. p. 532;) and he derives the mistake from the word Roxah, the Holy Ghost, which in some Oriental tongues is of the feminine gender, and is figuratively styled the mother of Christ in the Gospel of the Nazarenes." (Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. 50, The Modern Library edition (n.d.), pp. 81, 82.)
Before we get to the rest of the analysis, it's important to note:
1. That Gibbon, the historian providing the discussion, confirms the opinion set forth in my previous post, namely that Mohamed is attempting to interact with the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, he goes so far as to say that it is obvious.
2. Gibbon notes that there is a dissent by the "Arabic commentators," and identifies their source, but does not endorse that dissent.
3. Gibbon, in fact, cites evidence that undermines the dissent, and provides an explanation as to how Mohamed may have been confused by feminine reference to the Holy Ghost.
Incidentally, one can read the matter in context here: (link).
David wrote:
Until I read the above, I had never heard of attendees of the Councial of Nicea maintaining of a view of the Trinity that consisted of “the Father, the Son, and the Virgin Mary”. (any errors in original)
That's not surprising of course. Gibbon mentions such evidence, but dismisses it. It's interesting to note what David seems to observe and what he seems to overlook. Nevertheless, while we could simply dismiss the matter with Gibbon, let's dig deeper into the matter.
David continued:
"Gibbon’s reference is to Eutychius’ (10th century Patriarch of Alexandria, and noted historian) Annals. This work is found in volume 111 of Migne’s Patrologiæ Græca, a volume, which until this morning, I did not have access to. I wanted to check Migne’s before mentioning Gibbon. " (any errors in original)
Eutychius was a 10th century Melkite Patriarch in Alexandria. He reigned in the Coptic church in Egypt during a time when he was surrounded by the ruling majority of Fatamid Muslims. To maintain the position I presented on the previous page would have been dangerous to his health. As an interesting aside, he was also a Young Earth Creationist (placing Creation 5,500 years years before Christ).
There are several salient facts:
1) Eutychius lived more than 500 years after the council of Nicea.
2) Eutychius did not cite any evidence to support his claim, or explain in any way how he obtained this supposed information regarding Nicean attendees.
3) Eutychius' claim was only that there were some who showed up at the Nicean council with such views. Eutychius, for example, did not even claim that they left with those views. Furthermore, Eutychius does not suggest that these folks left spiritual descendants that survived for centuries until the time of Mohamed.
4) Eutychius is criticized for his weakness as an historian, by historians such as E. W. Kemp and C. Wilfrid Griggs (adopting Kemp's position) (link). Likewise David Cook indicated (and Gary W. Kronk adopted) that the Annales are "riddled with errors." (link) See also, for similar comments (Philip Rousseau) (William Smith et al.) (William Scott et al.) (cf. response of Eutychian supporter)
Dave continued by providing a quotation:
Here is the quote from Migne’s: Mittens ergo Constantius rex in omnes passim regiones, patriarchas et episcopos convocavit, adeo ut post annum et duos menses Niceæ convenirent his mille quadraginta octo episcopi, sententiis et religionibus inter se discrepantes. Erant ex illia qui affirmarent Christum et Matrem ipsius duos esse deus præter Deuni [summon :] errant hi Barbari, et Marianitæ audierunt. (Patrologiæ Græca, Tomus CXI, col. 1005, sec. 439-440.) (errors in Waltz's transcription are his own)
Some folks (most Muslim, but now one Roman Catholic) would like to imagine that Mohamed was not addressing Christianity, but rather some sect that held to a Trinity of Allah, Jesus, and Mary, which we refer to (for convenience) as FSM-trinitarianism.
Leaving aside the internal evidence of Surah 5 (which defeats that argument), there is a dearth of external evidence to substantiate the existence of such a sect.
David Waltz, the Roman Catholic mentioned above, quoted the following:
"The three gods in the Koran (c. 4, p. 81, c. 5, p. 92) are obviously directed against our Catholic mystery: but the Arabic commentators understand them of the Father, the Son, and the Virgin Mary, an heretical Trinity, maintained, as it is said, by some Barbarians at the Council of Nice, (Eutych. Annal. tom. i. p. 440.) But the existence of the Marianites is denied by the candid Beausobre, (Hist. de Manicheisme, tom. i. p. 532;) and he derives the mistake from the word Roxah, the Holy Ghost, which in some Oriental tongues is of the feminine gender, and is figuratively styled the mother of Christ in the Gospel of the Nazarenes." (Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. 50, The Modern Library edition (n.d.), pp. 81, 82.)
Before we get to the rest of the analysis, it's important to note:
1. That Gibbon, the historian providing the discussion, confirms the opinion set forth in my previous post, namely that Mohamed is attempting to interact with the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, he goes so far as to say that it is obvious.
2. Gibbon notes that there is a dissent by the "Arabic commentators," and identifies their source, but does not endorse that dissent.
3. Gibbon, in fact, cites evidence that undermines the dissent, and provides an explanation as to how Mohamed may have been confused by feminine reference to the Holy Ghost.
Incidentally, one can read the matter in context here: (link).
David wrote:
Until I read the above, I had never heard of attendees of the Councial of Nicea maintaining of a view of the Trinity that consisted of “the Father, the Son, and the Virgin Mary”. (any errors in original)
That's not surprising of course. Gibbon mentions such evidence, but dismisses it. It's interesting to note what David seems to observe and what he seems to overlook. Nevertheless, while we could simply dismiss the matter with Gibbon, let's dig deeper into the matter.
David continued:
"Gibbon’s reference is to Eutychius’ (10th century Patriarch of Alexandria, and noted historian) Annals. This work is found in volume 111 of Migne’s Patrologiæ Græca, a volume, which until this morning, I did not have access to. I wanted to check Migne’s before mentioning Gibbon. " (any errors in original)
Eutychius was a 10th century Melkite Patriarch in Alexandria. He reigned in the Coptic church in Egypt during a time when he was surrounded by the ruling majority of Fatamid Muslims. To maintain the position I presented on the previous page would have been dangerous to his health. As an interesting aside, he was also a Young Earth Creationist (placing Creation 5,500 years years before Christ).
There are several salient facts:
1) Eutychius lived more than 500 years after the council of Nicea.
2) Eutychius did not cite any evidence to support his claim, or explain in any way how he obtained this supposed information regarding Nicean attendees.
3) Eutychius' claim was only that there were some who showed up at the Nicean council with such views. Eutychius, for example, did not even claim that they left with those views. Furthermore, Eutychius does not suggest that these folks left spiritual descendants that survived for centuries until the time of Mohamed.
4) Eutychius is criticized for his weakness as an historian, by historians such as E. W. Kemp and C. Wilfrid Griggs (adopting Kemp's position) (link). Likewise David Cook indicated (and Gary W. Kronk adopted) that the Annales are "riddled with errors." (link) See also, for similar comments (Philip Rousseau) (William Smith et al.) (William Scott et al.) (cf. response of Eutychian supporter)
Dave continued by providing a quotation:
Here is the quote from Migne’s: Mittens ergo Constantius rex in omnes passim regiones, patriarchas et episcopos convocavit, adeo ut post annum et duos menses Niceæ convenirent his mille quadraginta octo episcopi, sententiis et religionibus inter se discrepantes. Erant ex illia qui affirmarent Christum et Matrem ipsius duos esse deus præter Deuni [summon :] errant hi Barbari, et Marianitæ audierunt. (Patrologiæ Græca, Tomus CXI, col. 1005, sec. 439-440.) (errors in Waltz's transcription are his own)
The correct quotation in key part is actually, "Erant ex illia qui affirmarent Christum et Matrem ipsius duos esse deos praeter Deum [summum:] erant hi Barbari, et Marianitae audierunt." which being roughly translated is: "There were among them those that affirmed Christ and his Mother to be two gods besides God [the most high:] there were here Barbarians and Marianites heard."
Furthermore, of course, this is only the Latin translation of what was presumably an Arabic original.
The full page can be read here (right hand column, clustered around the 440). A partial reproduction is shown below, click to expand the image for easier reading.
David concluded: "So, as you can now see for yourself, we now have Christian source for the existence of at least two Christian groups/sects that held to FSM (God [the Father], Christ, and Mother "in one"), backing up the testimony from the Qur'an."
a) Leaving aside the question of the interaction between the Melkites and the Copts (on the one hand) and the Muslims (on the other hand), the fact that Eutychius was not Muslim is not very strong evidence against bias.
b) Eutychius suggests that the group came to Nicea, but does not call them Christians: in fact, he calls them Barbarians and Marianites.
c) Eutychius' comment "Barbarians and Marianites" should probably be understood as heaped insults, rather than as a listing of two separate groups that held the same thing.
Conclusion
This is the best evidence that has been presented to try to rescue Mohamed's claim about FSM Trinitarians, but it is more or less strawy. It's a single witness who comes half a millenium after the alleged event took place. Furthermore, it's an event that predates Mohamed's claim by two centuries. Moreover, it is an event that is not described as having any geographical proximity to Mecca/Medina or even Arabia. It is an event alleged by a man living among Muslims. It is an event for which the man does not cite his sources. It is an event that is included in a book that has been repeatedly criticized for historical mistakes. It is an event that has (so far) only been conveyed to us in a Latin translation of an Arabic original.
In short, we can easily overcome the best evidence to support the existence of FSM-trinitarians, which was presented in order to provide an out for Mohamed under a hypothesis that Mohamed was (in some parts of Surah 5) addressing an heretical sect that has since disappeared. In short, the previously presented theory that Mohamed simply did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity has survived the challenge, and we may continue to safely assume that there were no FSM-trinitarians running around at the time Mohamed lived.
UPDATE: corrected Sunni to Fatamid, above, thanks to David Waltz.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
This is Catholic Internet Apologetics and a Reasonable Response thereto
GNRHead posted a two-part diatribe broadsiding Dr. White with a significant number of accusations, even taking time to wave his finger at the camera and insist that Dr. White should be ashamed of himself.
Dr. White posted the video that I have embedded below that makes short work of the bulk of GNRHead's argument. There is certainly more that could be said, and there are unaswered (though not unanswerable) allegations.
The main point, though, is a good one. It is important for apologists to have a reasonably broad knowledge of church history, because there are all sorts of absurd claims that float about on the Internet.
Here is the video:
I hope you enjoy.
Sola Deo Gloria,
-TurretinFan
Dr. White posted the video that I have embedded below that makes short work of the bulk of GNRHead's argument. There is certainly more that could be said, and there are unaswered (though not unanswerable) allegations.
The main point, though, is a good one. It is important for apologists to have a reasonably broad knowledge of church history, because there are all sorts of absurd claims that float about on the Internet.
Here is the video:
I hope you enjoy.
Sola Deo Gloria,
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Biblical Institution of Patriarchy - Objections Answered
In response to an earlier post on the Biblical institution of the patriarchy, Ken asks (in comments here):
1) How does a Christian respond to the claim that such bible passages are sexist? That word is so full of loaded meaning that trying to defend against its imputation is like saying you support Neo-Nazis.
Of course, that's just a label. It is a pejorative label, but the question we need to ask is why the person considers it sexist. Is it simply because it treats the sexes differently? Usually the answer is vapid. The answer is that the label was applied simply because the issue was sex-related, and the opinion was contrary to the opinion of the name-caller.
2) What is the ideal way to respond to a professed liberal Christian who would say that they have a deep personal faith but disdain to honestly interact with passages like these (that challenge modern and post-modern sentiments)?
Q1: A deep personal in faith in whom or what? The answer typically is Jesus/God.
Q2: Do you realize that Scripture is the word of God? The answer is usually yes.
Q3: Do you love Jesus/God? It's hard to find one who will say "no" at this point.
Q4: So, do you care what this person you love has to say? Naturally, they must affirm or we are back to Q3 and perhaps Q2 or Q1.
Q5: Here's what He says here ... do you agree with what is written?
and so forth.
The problem is, they usually try to change the subject as one is walking through. They would rather their faith be "personal" or perhaps they don't want to hear "preaching," or something like that.
-Turretinfan
N.B. Note that Ken is not objecting to the matter, he's just pointing out an objection we sometimes hear.
1) How does a Christian respond to the claim that such bible passages are sexist? That word is so full of loaded meaning that trying to defend against its imputation is like saying you support Neo-Nazis.
Of course, that's just a label. It is a pejorative label, but the question we need to ask is why the person considers it sexist. Is it simply because it treats the sexes differently? Usually the answer is vapid. The answer is that the label was applied simply because the issue was sex-related, and the opinion was contrary to the opinion of the name-caller.
2) What is the ideal way to respond to a professed liberal Christian who would say that they have a deep personal faith but disdain to honestly interact with passages like these (that challenge modern and post-modern sentiments)?
Q1: A deep personal in faith in whom or what? The answer typically is Jesus/God.
Q2: Do you realize that Scripture is the word of God? The answer is usually yes.
Q3: Do you love Jesus/God? It's hard to find one who will say "no" at this point.
Q4: So, do you care what this person you love has to say? Naturally, they must affirm or we are back to Q3 and perhaps Q2 or Q1.
Q5: Here's what He says here ... do you agree with what is written?
and so forth.
The problem is, they usually try to change the subject as one is walking through. They would rather their faith be "personal" or perhaps they don't want to hear "preaching," or something like that.
-Turretinfan
N.B. Note that Ken is not objecting to the matter, he's just pointing out an objection we sometimes hear.
Truly it is Written
John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
This linked article demonstrates the sad truth that the Jews have rejected both Moses and Jesus (link). Certainly the man in the article is an extreme example. Nevertheless, anyone who claims to follow the Torah but does not follow Jesus is not following the Torah, for the Torah points to Jesus.
Jesus is the Messiah, God in the flesh, the Savior of the world.
Praise be to His glorious name,
-Turretinfan
This linked article demonstrates the sad truth that the Jews have rejected both Moses and Jesus (link). Certainly the man in the article is an extreme example. Nevertheless, anyone who claims to follow the Torah but does not follow Jesus is not following the Torah, for the Torah points to Jesus.
Jesus is the Messiah, God in the flesh, the Savior of the world.
Praise be to His glorious name,
-Turretinfan
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Mohamed, Surah 5, and the Trinity
I have engaged recently in an internet dialog on the subject of whether Mohamed, the alleged prophet followed by Islam, understood the Trinity. I conclude that the answer is "no," and I have a demonstration prepared.
1. Surah 5 is Mohamed's Writing
Surah 5 is part of the Koran, and consequently one of the writings of Mohamed (though not necessarily penned by him personally). Because the early manuscripts of the Koran are limited, we will be dealing with a translation of the Koran into English based on the dominant family of Koranic texts, the Uthmanic rescension. For the purpose of this analysis, we will presume that Uthman made the correct textual critical choices, and - as well - that the English translation is reasonably accurate. There are certainly other English translation available. The English translation I am providing can be found here (link).
2. Surah 5 addresses the Jews and Christians generally
There are a number of issues addressed in Surah 5. In the first portion of the Surah, various dietary laws are stressed, main similar to Old Testament Jewish laws and the New Testament Council of Jersalem restrictions.
There is what seems at first to be an aside in verse 3:
"This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
You will notice, however, that "those who disbelieve despaired of your religion" is a reference to the Jews and Christians that Mohamed views as the forerunners of Islam (the "perfected ... religion").
After a few more rules on cleanliness, Mohamed proceeds to some general remaks on good behavior (vs 8): "O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety, and he careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Aware of what you do."
And Mohamed attaches a promise to the good behavior, which we should understand to include not only the general goodness but also maintenance of the cleanliness laws (vs. 9): "Allah has promised to those who believe and do good deeds (that) they shall have forgiveness and a mighty reward."
It is plain works salvation, contrary to the teachings of the Bible (both of the Old, but more especially of the New, Testaments).
Then in the next verse, Mohamed cautions against the "disobedient" paths (vs. 10): "And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject our communications, these are the companions of the name."
In verses 11-14, Mohamed suggests that both the Jews and the Christians forsook Islam. He recounts the supposed covenant-breaking of both the Jews and the Christians:
"O you who believe! remember Allah's favor on you when a people had determined to stretch forth their hands towards you, but He withheld their hands from you, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and on Allah let the believers rely. And certainly Allah made a covenant with the children of Israel, and We raised up among them twelve chieftains; and Allah said: Surely I am with you; if you keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and believe in My apostles and asslst them and offer to Allah a goodly gift, I will most certainly cover your evil deeds, and I will most certainly cause you to enter into gardens beneath which rivers flow, but whoever disbelieves from among you after that, he indeed shall lose the right way. But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others). And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did."
After this condemnation of both Jews and Christians, Mohamed continues by grouping them together as the "people of the book." He makes a proselytory message to them (I'd call it evangelistic if he were offering the gospel) (vss. 15-16): O followers of the Book! indeed Our Apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah; With it Allah guides him who will follow His pleasure into the ways of safety and brings them out of utter darkness into light by His will and guides them to the right path."
The point of the message that Mohamed is giving is simple: I have the knowledge that was concealed, therefore you need me.
Next, Mohamed aims a dart at the Christians, arguing in verse 17: "Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely, Allah-- He is the Messiah, son of Marium [i.e. Mary]. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and all those on the earth? And Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things."
In other words, the basic argument seems to be this: if Jesus is God, how could he have been destroyed and his mother? The answer, of course, is that Jesus gave his life freely, no one took it from him. He gave it as a sacrifice for the sins of his people.
Mohamed then turns to a joint critique of the Jews and Christians (vss. 18-19(: "And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him is the eventual coming. O followers of the Book! indeed Our Apostle has come to you explaining to you after a cessation of the (mission of the) apostles, lest you say: There came not to us a giver of good news or a warner, so indeed there has come to you a giver of good news and a warner; and Allah has power over all things."
Here is the next point: Mohamed points to judgment on Jews and Christians as proof that they do not follow Allah. However, (a) God chastens us (Christians) and chastened them (Jews) because of our parent/child relationship to God, and (b) it is not as though judgments do not come on Muslims. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami killed more than 200,000 people and left homeless more than a million - largely Muslims.
In verses 22-35, Mohamed essentially makes various arguments from Moses and warns against dibelief. Next, at verses 36-37, Mohamed provides a warning to disbeleivers (referring, essentially, to the Jews and Christians.
"Surely (as for) those who disbelieve, even if they had what is in the earth, all of it, and the like of it with it, that they might ransom themselves with it from the punishment of the day of resurrection, it shall not be accepted from them, and they shall have a painful punishment. They would desire to go forth from the fire, and they shall not go forth from it, and they shall have a lasting punishment."
Then, Mohamed provides a the hand amputation for theft law, and a message of forgiveness from Allah upon repentence.
After that, at verses 41-46, Mohamed attacks the apostacy of the Jews, accusing them of failing to follow the Torah, and especially of failing to follow Jesus.
Then, at verses 47-50, Mohamed attacks the alleged apostacy of the Christians, accusing them of failing to follow the Evangel - the gospels, and especially the law.
Then, at verses 51-63, Mohamed exhorts Muslims not to befriend Christians and Jews, and provides some rather stern condmenation of them.
Verses 64-65 address the Jews failure to follow the Torah.
Verses 66-68 address both the Jews and the Christians.
Verse 69 suggests that if the Jews, Christians and Sabellians "believe ... and [do] good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve."
Verses 70-71 condemn the Jews for killing the prophets.
At verses 72-81, Mohamed launches a diatribe against Christians for believing in Christ's divinity and for accepting trinitarianism, which Mohamed (as will be seen later) mistakenly thinks is a trinity of the Allah, Jesus, and Mary.
"Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust. Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve. Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away. Say: Do you serve besides Allah that which does not control for you any harm, or any profit? And Allah-- He is the Hearing, the Knowing. Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path. Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit. They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did. You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide. And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are transgressors."
In verse 82, Mohamed even goes so far as to refer to Christians as polytheists: "Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly."
Next, there are a number of additional laws.
Then, from verses 109-115 there is a fictional dialog with Jesus, culminating in verse 116: "And when Allah will say: O Isa [Jesus] son of Marium [Mary]! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things."
This confirms the analysis above, that Mohamed was attempting (errantly) to attack the Christian doctrine of Trinitarianism, while mistakenly identifying Mary as the third person of the Trinitiy.
The remaining four verses of the Surah conclude the fictional dialog with Jesus, which emphasizes obedience to the law allegedly given by Allah.
-Turretinfan
1. Surah 5 is Mohamed's Writing
Surah 5 is part of the Koran, and consequently one of the writings of Mohamed (though not necessarily penned by him personally). Because the early manuscripts of the Koran are limited, we will be dealing with a translation of the Koran into English based on the dominant family of Koranic texts, the Uthmanic rescension. For the purpose of this analysis, we will presume that Uthman made the correct textual critical choices, and - as well - that the English translation is reasonably accurate. There are certainly other English translation available. The English translation I am providing can be found here (link).
2. Surah 5 addresses the Jews and Christians generally
There are a number of issues addressed in Surah 5. In the first portion of the Surah, various dietary laws are stressed, main similar to Old Testament Jewish laws and the New Testament Council of Jersalem restrictions.
There is what seems at first to be an aside in verse 3:
"This day have those who disbelieve despaired of your religion, so fear them not, and fear Me. This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion; but whoever is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
You will notice, however, that "those who disbelieve despaired of your religion" is a reference to the Jews and Christians that Mohamed views as the forerunners of Islam (the "perfected ... religion").
After a few more rules on cleanliness, Mohamed proceeds to some general remaks on good behavior (vs 8): "O you who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety, and he careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Aware of what you do."
And Mohamed attaches a promise to the good behavior, which we should understand to include not only the general goodness but also maintenance of the cleanliness laws (vs. 9): "Allah has promised to those who believe and do good deeds (that) they shall have forgiveness and a mighty reward."
It is plain works salvation, contrary to the teachings of the Bible (both of the Old, but more especially of the New, Testaments).
Then in the next verse, Mohamed cautions against the "disobedient" paths (vs. 10): "And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject our communications, these are the companions of the name."
In verses 11-14, Mohamed suggests that both the Jews and the Christians forsook Islam. He recounts the supposed covenant-breaking of both the Jews and the Christians:
"O you who believe! remember Allah's favor on you when a people had determined to stretch forth their hands towards you, but He withheld their hands from you, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; and on Allah let the believers rely. And certainly Allah made a covenant with the children of Israel, and We raised up among them twelve chieftains; and Allah said: Surely I am with you; if you keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and believe in My apostles and asslst them and offer to Allah a goodly gift, I will most certainly cover your evil deeds, and I will most certainly cause you to enter into gardens beneath which rivers flow, but whoever disbelieves from among you after that, he indeed shall lose the right way. But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others). And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did."
After this condemnation of both Jews and Christians, Mohamed continues by grouping them together as the "people of the book." He makes a proselytory message to them (I'd call it evangelistic if he were offering the gospel) (vss. 15-16): O followers of the Book! indeed Our Apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah; With it Allah guides him who will follow His pleasure into the ways of safety and brings them out of utter darkness into light by His will and guides them to the right path."
The point of the message that Mohamed is giving is simple: I have the knowledge that was concealed, therefore you need me.
Next, Mohamed aims a dart at the Christians, arguing in verse 17: "Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely, Allah-- He is the Messiah, son of Marium [i.e. Mary]. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and all those on the earth? And Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things."
In other words, the basic argument seems to be this: if Jesus is God, how could he have been destroyed and his mother? The answer, of course, is that Jesus gave his life freely, no one took it from him. He gave it as a sacrifice for the sins of his people.
Mohamed then turns to a joint critique of the Jews and Christians (vss. 18-19(: "And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him is the eventual coming. O followers of the Book! indeed Our Apostle has come to you explaining to you after a cessation of the (mission of the) apostles, lest you say: There came not to us a giver of good news or a warner, so indeed there has come to you a giver of good news and a warner; and Allah has power over all things."
Here is the next point: Mohamed points to judgment on Jews and Christians as proof that they do not follow Allah. However, (a) God chastens us (Christians) and chastened them (Jews) because of our parent/child relationship to God, and (b) it is not as though judgments do not come on Muslims. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami killed more than 200,000 people and left homeless more than a million - largely Muslims.
In verses 22-35, Mohamed essentially makes various arguments from Moses and warns against dibelief. Next, at verses 36-37, Mohamed provides a warning to disbeleivers (referring, essentially, to the Jews and Christians.
"Surely (as for) those who disbelieve, even if they had what is in the earth, all of it, and the like of it with it, that they might ransom themselves with it from the punishment of the day of resurrection, it shall not be accepted from them, and they shall have a painful punishment. They would desire to go forth from the fire, and they shall not go forth from it, and they shall have a lasting punishment."
Then, Mohamed provides a the hand amputation for theft law, and a message of forgiveness from Allah upon repentence.
After that, at verses 41-46, Mohamed attacks the apostacy of the Jews, accusing them of failing to follow the Torah, and especially of failing to follow Jesus.
Then, at verses 47-50, Mohamed attacks the alleged apostacy of the Christians, accusing them of failing to follow the Evangel - the gospels, and especially the law.
Then, at verses 51-63, Mohamed exhorts Muslims not to befriend Christians and Jews, and provides some rather stern condmenation of them.
Verses 64-65 address the Jews failure to follow the Torah.
Verses 66-68 address both the Jews and the Christians.
Verse 69 suggests that if the Jews, Christians and Sabellians "believe ... and [do] good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve."
Verses 70-71 condemn the Jews for killing the prophets.
At verses 72-81, Mohamed launches a diatribe against Christians for believing in Christ's divinity and for accepting trinitarianism, which Mohamed (as will be seen later) mistakenly thinks is a trinity of the Allah, Jesus, and Mary.
"Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust. Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve. Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away. Say: Do you serve besides Allah that which does not control for you any harm, or any profit? And Allah-- He is the Hearing, the Knowing. Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path. Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit. They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did. You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide. And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are transgressors."
In verse 82, Mohamed even goes so far as to refer to Christians as polytheists: "Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly."
Next, there are a number of additional laws.
Then, from verses 109-115 there is a fictional dialog with Jesus, culminating in verse 116: "And when Allah will say: O Isa [Jesus] son of Marium [Mary]! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things."
This confirms the analysis above, that Mohamed was attempting (errantly) to attack the Christian doctrine of Trinitarianism, while mistakenly identifying Mary as the third person of the Trinitiy.
The remaining four verses of the Surah conclude the fictional dialog with Jesus, which emphasizes obedience to the law allegedly given by Allah.
-Turretinfan
Monday, March 03, 2008
Virgin Shall Conceive
I stumbled across this very odd video of a young man who thinks he has found an error in Christian doctrine. His point is this:
Sam Harris, in "The End of Faith" claims that the idea of the Virgin Birth comes from a mistranslation. Now, unfortunately the young man does not get it. He does not get the truth of the Virgin Birth and he does not yet Sam Harris' claims.
1. The basic idea here is that the word in Hebrew that is translated "virgin" means "young woman."
2. What the young man fails to recognize is that the argument for mistranslation is about the translation of the Old Testament prophecy, not about the translation of the New Testament account.
3. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth is not the doctrine of the "immaculate conception," though certainly Jesus himself was conceived and born sinless.
4. The gospel accounts (whether originally written in Greek - or in any other language) were clear about Mary's virginity prior to Christ's birth. The issue is clarified various ways, but the primary way is by the repeated discussion of the fact that Mary did not "know" (i.e. make love to) any man before Christ's birth; indeed, she did not even "know" Joseph, until Jesus was born. There is no possibility in the gospels, therefore, of a mistranslation from Hebrew to Greek, even if someone subscribed to the novel theory of Aramaic priority of the gospels, or the like.
5. The prophecy in Isaiah is this:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, Behold a virgin (עלמה - almah) shall conceive and bear a son and shall his name Immanuel.
Now, the LXX translators who lived before the virgin birth of Christ correctly translated almah as παρθένος (parthenos), which means "virgin." It is true that almah has a broader semantic range. Nevertheless, there is a valid contextual reason for selecting the specific sense of "virgin." That reason is that a young woman giving birth is not particularly significant, but a virgin conceiving is something extraordinary. Yet, as you can see from the first part of the verse, the point of the communication is to relate a sign, something startling. Hence, the LXX translators correctly translated almah as parthenos, even though almah can have a more generic sense of "young woman."
Well, here is the link to the young man's video (link). It's sort of a watch it and weep scenario, but it is important to recognize the errors that are circulating out there.
-Turretinfan
Sam Harris, in "The End of Faith" claims that the idea of the Virgin Birth comes from a mistranslation. Now, unfortunately the young man does not get it. He does not get the truth of the Virgin Birth and he does not yet Sam Harris' claims.
1. The basic idea here is that the word in Hebrew that is translated "virgin" means "young woman."
2. What the young man fails to recognize is that the argument for mistranslation is about the translation of the Old Testament prophecy, not about the translation of the New Testament account.
3. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth is not the doctrine of the "immaculate conception," though certainly Jesus himself was conceived and born sinless.
4. The gospel accounts (whether originally written in Greek - or in any other language) were clear about Mary's virginity prior to Christ's birth. The issue is clarified various ways, but the primary way is by the repeated discussion of the fact that Mary did not "know" (i.e. make love to) any man before Christ's birth; indeed, she did not even "know" Joseph, until Jesus was born. There is no possibility in the gospels, therefore, of a mistranslation from Hebrew to Greek, even if someone subscribed to the novel theory of Aramaic priority of the gospels, or the like.
5. The prophecy in Isaiah is this:
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign, Behold a virgin (עלמה - almah) shall conceive and bear a son and shall his name Immanuel.
Now, the LXX translators who lived before the virgin birth of Christ correctly translated almah as παρθένος (parthenos), which means "virgin." It is true that almah has a broader semantic range. Nevertheless, there is a valid contextual reason for selecting the specific sense of "virgin." That reason is that a young woman giving birth is not particularly significant, but a virgin conceiving is something extraordinary. Yet, as you can see from the first part of the verse, the point of the communication is to relate a sign, something startling. Hence, the LXX translators correctly translated almah as parthenos, even though almah can have a more generic sense of "young woman."
Well, here is the link to the young man's video (link). It's sort of a watch it and weep scenario, but it is important to recognize the errors that are circulating out there.
-Turretinfan
The Remains of Russian Orthodoxy
Stalin was a notorious opposer of Christianity. In Stalin's day, those who wished to worship had to do so underground in the Soviet Union. Later, the rules were relaxed, and religious life again became open.
Why did the Communist Party permit this?
One obvious answer is control. An underground church is a threat to the establishment, but an open church is controllable. Today, much of that control may be gone, but there is certainly a view that there were many KGB within the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox church, and that many of the influential patriarchs even today may have both KGB and Communist Party of the Soviet Union credentials.
The following linked article discusses some theories. It should be read with discernment - i.e. with a grain of salt. The person who wrote the article is in a position to know the KGB, but is not in as good a position to know the ROC. That said, the article seems to raise the important issues and ask the tough question: why did the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) reunite with the ROC? Was the ROCOR also infiltrated, is its leadership naive, or has there been repentance/conversion of the KGB members/collaborators who hold office in the ROC?
(link)
-Turretinfan
Why did the Communist Party permit this?
One obvious answer is control. An underground church is a threat to the establishment, but an open church is controllable. Today, much of that control may be gone, but there is certainly a view that there were many KGB within the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox church, and that many of the influential patriarchs even today may have both KGB and Communist Party of the Soviet Union credentials.
The following linked article discusses some theories. It should be read with discernment - i.e. with a grain of salt. The person who wrote the article is in a position to know the KGB, but is not in as good a position to know the ROC. That said, the article seems to raise the important issues and ask the tough question: why did the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) reunite with the ROC? Was the ROCOR also infiltrated, is its leadership naive, or has there been repentance/conversion of the KGB members/collaborators who hold office in the ROC?
(link)
-Turretinfan
Another Calvinistic Jewel in the Apostolic Fathers
CAVEAT: "Calvinistic" is an anachronism. Calvin wasn't born yet. The proper chronological way to describe the situation is to say that Calvin was being Ignatian -- or (better yet) that both Calvin and Ignatius were being Scriptural.
As I was concluding my reading of one book of selections the apostolic fathers, I read through the Syriac versions of Ignatius (in English translation) and came across this Calvinistic gem, taken from Ignatius' Second Epistle to the Ephesians:
(source)
-Turretinfan
As I was concluding my reading of one book of selections the apostolic fathers, I read through the Syriac versions of Ignatius (in English translation) and came across this Calvinistic gem, taken from Ignatius' Second Epistle to the Ephesians:
Ignatius, who is Theophorus, to the Church which is blessed in the greatness of God the Father, and perfected; to her who was separated from eternity to be at all times for glory that abideth and changeth not, and is perfected and chosen in the purpose of truth, by the will of the Father of Jesus Christ our God; to her who was worthy of happiness; to her who is at Ephesus in Jesus Christ in joy unblamable; much peace.
(source)
-Turretinfan
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Mormon Theology from a Mormon
When the two young men show up at your door, most will not make a presentation like the one that follows. Nevertheless, for someone wanting to see some of the differences between Christianity and Mormonism (particularly with respect to the Gospel and the afterlife), the following blog entry from Mormon Matters provides some succinct distinctions.
Obviously, I do not endorse Mormonism. Nevertheless, the article may be eye-opening if the only thing you know about Mormonism is that they wear special underwear. (link)
It is key to be aware of the fact that we teach a very different gospel from Mormonism. We teach the pure gospel taught by Jesus and the apostles.
-TurretinFan
Obviously, I do not endorse Mormonism. Nevertheless, the article may be eye-opening if the only thing you know about Mormonism is that they wear special underwear. (link)
It is key to be aware of the fact that we teach a very different gospel from Mormonism. We teach the pure gospel taught by Jesus and the apostles.
-TurretinFan
Gems of Calvinism from the Early Church: Ignatius
CAVEAT: "Calvinistic" is an anachronism. Calvin wasn't born yet. The proper chronological way to describe the situation is to say that Calvin was being Ignatian -- or (better yet) that both Calvin and Ignatius were being Scriptural.
In my reading of the Apostolic Fathers, another gem from the Apostolic Fathers caught my eye, this one from the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (opening sentence):
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus in Asia, deservedly thought happy, blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, predestinated before the worlds to be for ever for a glory abiding, not to be overturned, united and elect in the true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God, much joy in Jesus Christ and in blameless grace.
(source)
-Turretinfan
In my reading of the Apostolic Fathers, another gem from the Apostolic Fathers caught my eye, this one from the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (opening sentence):
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus in Asia, deservedly thought happy, blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, predestinated before the worlds to be for ever for a glory abiding, not to be overturned, united and elect in the true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God, much joy in Jesus Christ and in blameless grace.
(source)
-Turretinfan
Anti-Spanking Propoganda
I have previously noted that corporal punishment of children by their parents, especially their fathers, is a Scriptural mandate. Liberalism does not approve. Liberalism views spanking a form of child abuse, and seeks to outlaw it. In some places, such as Sweden, Liberalism has succeeded in that objective. In other places, parents continue to have the right to raise their children in love.
The Apostle Paul explains:
Nevertheless, modern liberalism opposes spanking out of a false sense of love, and a false concept of what love is. Most amusing in this opposition to love was an article posted at MSN Health. The article attempted to demonize spanking by trying to link it to bad behavior.
The article made various allegations. Perhaps they are even true. Although I have provided a link, I don't suggest that anyone read it (link). Nevertheless, if one reads it one will find a curious, seemingly anachronistic reference to sexual deviancy.
You see, in general liberalism doesn't like to speak of sexual behaviors as "deviant." After all, liberalism is the largest voice for the sexual deviancy of fornication and especially homosexual fornication. The only reason to use that kind of terminology is to try to confuse non-Liberals.
Why would that be done? Because the piece is essentially an apologetic aimed at drumming up opposition to spanking from social conservatives.
Don't get me wrong: spanking can be abused. We must discipline our children (corporeally when necessary), but we must do so in love, not in rage. Furthermore, we must teach our children what is right and wrong when it comes to sexual behaviors. We cannot oppose liberalism on child discipline but swallow the camel of sexual deviance endorsed by liberalism in the various forms of extramarital sexual relations.
We should not buy the anti-spanking propoganda, but we must learn from the cautions it provides. We must teach our young men how they should behave themselves. Furthermore, we must be cautious to implement spanking and other forms of corporeal discipline for the benefit of our children.
-Turretinfan
The Apostle Paul explains:
Nevertheless, modern liberalism opposes spanking out of a false sense of love, and a false concept of what love is. Most amusing in this opposition to love was an article posted at MSN Health. The article attempted to demonize spanking by trying to link it to bad behavior.
The article made various allegations. Perhaps they are even true. Although I have provided a link, I don't suggest that anyone read it (link). Nevertheless, if one reads it one will find a curious, seemingly anachronistic reference to sexual deviancy.
You see, in general liberalism doesn't like to speak of sexual behaviors as "deviant." After all, liberalism is the largest voice for the sexual deviancy of fornication and especially homosexual fornication. The only reason to use that kind of terminology is to try to confuse non-Liberals.
Why would that be done? Because the piece is essentially an apologetic aimed at drumming up opposition to spanking from social conservatives.
Don't get me wrong: spanking can be abused. We must discipline our children (corporeally when necessary), but we must do so in love, not in rage. Furthermore, we must teach our children what is right and wrong when it comes to sexual behaviors. We cannot oppose liberalism on child discipline but swallow the camel of sexual deviance endorsed by liberalism in the various forms of extramarital sexual relations.
We should not buy the anti-spanking propoganda, but we must learn from the cautions it provides. We must teach our young men how they should behave themselves. Furthermore, we must be cautious to implement spanking and other forms of corporeal discipline for the benefit of our children.
-Turretinfan
Semi-Pelagianism According to Schaff
Occasionally people will complain that the term "semi-pelagianism" gets thrown around too freely. As an antidote, here are some comments from noted historian Philip Schaff:
Semi-Pelagianism is a somewhat vague and indefinite attempt at reconciliation, hovering midway between the sharply marked systems of Pelagius and Augustine, taking off the edge of each, and inclining now to the one, now to the other. The name was introduced during the scholastic age, but the system of doctrine, in all essential points, was formed in Southern France in the fifth century, during the latter years of Augustine’s life and soon after his death. It proceeded from the combined influence of the pre-Augustinian synergism and monastic legalism. Its leading idea is, that divine grace and the human will jointly accomplish the work of conversion and sanctification, and that ordinarily man must take the first step. It rejects the Pelagian doctrine of the moral roundness of man, but rejects also the Augustinian doctrine of the entire corruption and bondage of the natural man, and substitutes the idea of a diseased or crippled state of the voluntary power. It disowns the Pelagian conception of grace as a mere external auxiliary; but also, quite as decidedly, the Augustinian doctrines of the sovereignty, irresistibleness, and limitation of grace; and affirms the necessity and the internal operation of grace with and through human agency, a general atonement through Christ, and a predestination to salvation conditioned by the foreknowledge of faith. The union of the Pelagian and Augustinian elements thus attempted is not, however, an inward organic coalescence, but rather a mechanical and arbitrary combination, which really satisfies neither the one interest nor the other, but commonly leans to the Pelagian side.
For this reason it admirably suited the legalistic and ascetic piety of the middle age, and indeed always remained within the pale of the Catholic church, and never produced a separate sect.
We glance now at the main features of the origin and progress of this school.
The Pelagian system had been vanquished by Augustine, and rejected and condemned as heresy by the church. This result, however, did not in itself necessarily imply the complete approval of the Augustinian system. Many, even opponents of Pelagius, recoiled from a position so wide of the older fathers as Augustine’s doctrines of the bondage of man and the absolute election of grace, and preferred a middle ground.
First the monks of the convent of Adrumetum in North Africa differed among themselves over the doctrine of predestination; some perverting it to carnal security, others plunging from it into anguish and desperation, and yet others feeling compelled to lay more stress than Augustine upon human freedom and responsibility. Augustine endeavored to allay the scruples of these monks by his two treatises, De gratia et libero arbitrio, and De correptione et gratia. The abbot Valentinus answered these in the name of the monks in a reverent and submissive tone.
But simultaneously a more dangerous opposition to the doctrine of predestination arose in Southern Gaul, in the form of a regular theological school within the Catholic church. The members of this school were first called “remnants of the Pelagians,” but commonly Massilians, from Massilia (Marseilles), their chief centre, and afterwards Semi-Pelagians. Augustine received an account of this from two learned and pious lay friends, Prosper, and Hilarius, who begged that he himself would take the pen against it. This was the occasion of his two works, De praedestinatione sanctorum, and De dono perseverentiae, with which he worthily closed his labors as an author. He deals with these disputants more gently than with the Pelagians, and addresses them as brethren. After his death (430) the discussion was continued principally in Gaul; for then North Africa was disquieted by the victorious invasion of the Vandals, which for several decades shut it out from the circle of theological and ecclesiastical activity.
At the head of the Semi-Pelagian party stood John Cassian, the founder and abbot of the monastery at Massilia, a man of thorough cultivation, rich experience, and unquestioned orthodoxy.He was a grateful disciple of Chrysostom, who ordained him deacon, and apparently also presbyter. His Greek training and his predilection for monasticism were a favorable soil for his Semi-Pelagian theory. He labored awhile in Rome with Pelagius, and afterwards in Southern France, in the cause of monastic piety, which he efficiently promoted by exhortation and example. Monasticism sought in cloistered retreats a protection against the allurements of sin, the desolating incursions of the barbarians, and the wretchedness of an age of tumult and confusion. But the enthusiasm for the monastic life tended strongly to over-value external acts and ascetic discipline, and resisted the free evangelical bent of the Augustinian theology. Cassian wrote twelve books De coenobiorum institutis, in which be first describes the outward life of the monks, and then their inward conflicts and victories over the eight capital vices: intemperance, unchastity, avarice, anger, sadness, dulness, ambition, and pride. More important are his fourteen Collationes Patrum, conversations which Cassian and his friend Germanus had had with the most experienced ascetics in Egypt, during a seven years’ sojourn there.
In this work, especially in the thirteenth Colloquy, he rejects decidedly the errors of Pelagius, and affirms the universal sinfulness of men, the introduction of it by the fall of Adam, and the necessity, of divine grace to every individual act. But, with evident reference to Augustine, though without naming him, he combats the doctrines of election and of the irresistible and particular operation of grace, which were in conflict with the church tradition, especially, with the Oriental theology, and with his own earnest ascetic legalism.
In opposition to both systems he taught that the divine image and human freedom were not annihilated, but only weakened, by the fall; in other words, that man is sick, but not dead, that he cannot indeed help himself, but that he can desire the help of a physician, and either accept or refuse it when offered, and that he must cooperate with the grace of God in his salvation. The question, which of the two factors has the initiative, he answers, altogether empirically, to this effect: that sometimes, and indeed usually, the human will, as in the cases of the Prodigal Son, Zacchaeus, the Penitent Thief, and Cornelius, determines itself to conversion; sometimes grace anticipates it, and, as with Matthew and Paul, draws the resisting will—yet, even in this case, without constraint—to God. Here, therefore, the gratia praeveniens is manifestly overlooked.
These are essentially Semi-Pelagian principles, though capable of various modifications and applications. The church, even the Roman church, has rightly emphasized the necessity of prevenient grace, but has not impeached Cassian, who is properly the father of the Semi-Pelagian theory. Leo the Great even commissioned him to write a work against Nestorianism, in which he found an excellent opportunity to establish his orthodoxy, and to clear himself of all connection with the kindred heresies of Pelagianism and Nestorianism, which were condemned together at Ephesus in 431. He died after 432, at an advanced age, and though not formally canonized, is honored as a saint by some dioceses. His works are very extensively read for practical edification.
Against the thirteenth Colloquy of Cassian, Prosper Aquitanus, an Augustinian divine and poet, who, probably on account of the desolations of the Vandals, had left his native Aquitania for the South of Gaul, and found comfort and repose in the doctrines of election amid the wars of his age, wrote a book upon grace and freedom, about 432, in which he criticises twelve propositions of Cassian, and declares them all heretical, except the first. He also composed a long poem in defence of Augustine and his system, and refuted the “Gallic slanders and Vincentian imputations,” which placed the doctrine of predestination in the most odious light.
But the Semi-Pelagian doctrine was the more popular, and made great progress in France. Its principal advocates after Cassian are the following: the presbyter-monk Vicentius of Lerinum, author of the Commonitorium, in which he developed the true catholic test of doctrine, the threefold consensus, in covert antagonism to the novel doctrines of Augustinianism (about 434); Faustus, bishop of Rhegium (Riez), who at the council of Arles (475) refuted the hyper-Augustinian presbyter Lucidus, and was commissioned by the council to write a work upon the grace of God and human freedom; ennadius, presbyter at Marseilles (died after 495), who continued the biographical work of Jerome, De viris illustribus, down to 495, and attributed Augustine’s doctrine of predestination to his itch for writing; Arnobius the younger; and the much discussed anonymous tract Praedestinatus (about 460), which, by gross exaggeration, and by an unwarranted imputation of logical results which Augustine had expressly forestalled, placed the doctrine of predestination in an odious light, and then refuted it.
The author of the Praedestinatus says, that a treatise had fallen into his hands, which fraudulently bore upon its face the name of the Orthodox teacher Augustine, in order to smuggle in, under a Catholic name, a blasphemous dogma, pernicious to the faith. On this account he had undertaken to transcribe and to refute this work. The treatise itself consists of three books; the first, following Augustine’s book, De haeresibus, gives a description of ninety heresies from Simon Magus down to the time of the author, and brings up, as the last of them, the doctrine of a double predestination, as a doctrine which makes God the author of evil, and renders all the moral endeavors of men fruitless; the second book is the pseudo-Augustinian treatise upon this ninetieth heresy, but is apparently merely a Semi-Pelagian caricature by the same author; the third book contains the refutation of the thus travestied pseudo-Augustinian doctrine of predestination, employing the usual Semi-Pelagian arguments.
A counterpart to this treatise is found in the also anonymous work, De vocatione omnium gentium, which endeavors to commend Augustinianism by mitigation, in the same degree that the Praedestinatus endeavors to stultify it by exaggeration. It has been ascribed to pope Leo I. († 461), of whom it would not be unworthy; but it cannot be supposed that the work of so distinguished a man could have remained anonymous. The author avoids even the term praedestinatio, and teaches expressly, that Christ died for all men and would have all to be saved; thus rejecting the Augustinian particularism. But, on the other hand, he also rejects the Semi-Pelagian principles, and asserts the utter inability of the natural man to do good. He unhesitatingly sets grace above the human will, and represents the whole life of faith, from beginning to end, as a work of unmerited grace. He develops the three thoughts, that God desires the salvation of all men; that no one is saved by his own merits, but by grace; and that the human understanding cannot fathom the depths of divine wisdom. We must trust in the righteousness of God. Every one of the damned suffers only the righteous punishment of his sins; while no saint can boast himself in his merits, since it is only of pure grace that he is saved. But how is it with the great multitude of infants that die every year without baptism, and without opportunity of coming to the knowledge of salvation? The author feels this difficulty, without, however, being able to solve it. He calls to his help the representative character of parents, and dilutes the Augustinian doctrine of original sin to the negative conception of a mere defect of good, which, of course, also reduces the idea of hereditary guilt and the damnation of unbaptized children. He distinguishes between a general grace which comes to man through the external revelation in nature, law, and gospel, and a special grace, which effects conversion and regeneration by an inward impartation of saving power, and which is only bestowed on those that are saved.
Semi-Pelagianism prevailed in Gaul for several decades. Under the lead of Faustus of Rhegium it gained the victory in two synods, at Arles in 472 and at Lyons in 475, where Augustine’s doctrine of predestination was condemned, though without mention of his name.
(source) (emphasis added)
That provides a very lengthy explanation, but you will find that at other places Schaff simply uses Semi-Pelagian as a synonym for synergistic. For example, "in reference to the freedom of the will and predestination he adopted synergistic or Semi-Pelagian views," (source) (emphasis added) or "The position of the Greek church upon this question is only negative; she has in name condemned Pelagianism, but has never received the positive doctrines of Augustine. She continued to teach synergistic or Semi-Pelagian views, without, however, entering into a deeper investigation of the relation of human freedom to divine grace." (source) (emphasis added) "And yet we must say that the Reformers, following the lead of the great saint of Hippo, went to a one-sided extreme. Melanchthon felt this, and proposed the system of synergism, which is akin to the semi-Pelagian and Arminian theories. Oecolampadius kept within the limits of Christian experience and expressed it in the sound sentence, "Salus nostra ex Deo, perditio nostra ex nobis." We must always keep in mind both the divine and the human, the speculative and the practical aspects of this problem of ages; in other words, we must combine divine sovereignty and human responsibility as complemental truths. There is a moral as well as an intellectual logic,—a logic of the heart and conscience as well as a logic of the head. The former must keep the latter in check and save it from running into supralapsarianism and at last into fatalism and pantheism, which is just as bad as Pelagianism." (source) (emphasis added)
-TurretinFan
Semi-Pelagianism is a somewhat vague and indefinite attempt at reconciliation, hovering midway between the sharply marked systems of Pelagius and Augustine, taking off the edge of each, and inclining now to the one, now to the other. The name was introduced during the scholastic age, but the system of doctrine, in all essential points, was formed in Southern France in the fifth century, during the latter years of Augustine’s life and soon after his death. It proceeded from the combined influence of the pre-Augustinian synergism and monastic legalism. Its leading idea is, that divine grace and the human will jointly accomplish the work of conversion and sanctification, and that ordinarily man must take the first step. It rejects the Pelagian doctrine of the moral roundness of man, but rejects also the Augustinian doctrine of the entire corruption and bondage of the natural man, and substitutes the idea of a diseased or crippled state of the voluntary power. It disowns the Pelagian conception of grace as a mere external auxiliary; but also, quite as decidedly, the Augustinian doctrines of the sovereignty, irresistibleness, and limitation of grace; and affirms the necessity and the internal operation of grace with and through human agency, a general atonement through Christ, and a predestination to salvation conditioned by the foreknowledge of faith. The union of the Pelagian and Augustinian elements thus attempted is not, however, an inward organic coalescence, but rather a mechanical and arbitrary combination, which really satisfies neither the one interest nor the other, but commonly leans to the Pelagian side.
For this reason it admirably suited the legalistic and ascetic piety of the middle age, and indeed always remained within the pale of the Catholic church, and never produced a separate sect.
We glance now at the main features of the origin and progress of this school.
The Pelagian system had been vanquished by Augustine, and rejected and condemned as heresy by the church. This result, however, did not in itself necessarily imply the complete approval of the Augustinian system. Many, even opponents of Pelagius, recoiled from a position so wide of the older fathers as Augustine’s doctrines of the bondage of man and the absolute election of grace, and preferred a middle ground.
First the monks of the convent of Adrumetum in North Africa differed among themselves over the doctrine of predestination; some perverting it to carnal security, others plunging from it into anguish and desperation, and yet others feeling compelled to lay more stress than Augustine upon human freedom and responsibility. Augustine endeavored to allay the scruples of these monks by his two treatises, De gratia et libero arbitrio, and De correptione et gratia. The abbot Valentinus answered these in the name of the monks in a reverent and submissive tone.
But simultaneously a more dangerous opposition to the doctrine of predestination arose in Southern Gaul, in the form of a regular theological school within the Catholic church. The members of this school were first called “remnants of the Pelagians,” but commonly Massilians, from Massilia (Marseilles), their chief centre, and afterwards Semi-Pelagians. Augustine received an account of this from two learned and pious lay friends, Prosper, and Hilarius, who begged that he himself would take the pen against it. This was the occasion of his two works, De praedestinatione sanctorum, and De dono perseverentiae, with which he worthily closed his labors as an author. He deals with these disputants more gently than with the Pelagians, and addresses them as brethren. After his death (430) the discussion was continued principally in Gaul; for then North Africa was disquieted by the victorious invasion of the Vandals, which for several decades shut it out from the circle of theological and ecclesiastical activity.
At the head of the Semi-Pelagian party stood John Cassian, the founder and abbot of the monastery at Massilia, a man of thorough cultivation, rich experience, and unquestioned orthodoxy.He was a grateful disciple of Chrysostom, who ordained him deacon, and apparently also presbyter. His Greek training and his predilection for monasticism were a favorable soil for his Semi-Pelagian theory. He labored awhile in Rome with Pelagius, and afterwards in Southern France, in the cause of monastic piety, which he efficiently promoted by exhortation and example. Monasticism sought in cloistered retreats a protection against the allurements of sin, the desolating incursions of the barbarians, and the wretchedness of an age of tumult and confusion. But the enthusiasm for the monastic life tended strongly to over-value external acts and ascetic discipline, and resisted the free evangelical bent of the Augustinian theology. Cassian wrote twelve books De coenobiorum institutis, in which be first describes the outward life of the monks, and then their inward conflicts and victories over the eight capital vices: intemperance, unchastity, avarice, anger, sadness, dulness, ambition, and pride. More important are his fourteen Collationes Patrum, conversations which Cassian and his friend Germanus had had with the most experienced ascetics in Egypt, during a seven years’ sojourn there.
In this work, especially in the thirteenth Colloquy, he rejects decidedly the errors of Pelagius, and affirms the universal sinfulness of men, the introduction of it by the fall of Adam, and the necessity, of divine grace to every individual act. But, with evident reference to Augustine, though without naming him, he combats the doctrines of election and of the irresistible and particular operation of grace, which were in conflict with the church tradition, especially, with the Oriental theology, and with his own earnest ascetic legalism.
In opposition to both systems he taught that the divine image and human freedom were not annihilated, but only weakened, by the fall; in other words, that man is sick, but not dead, that he cannot indeed help himself, but that he can desire the help of a physician, and either accept or refuse it when offered, and that he must cooperate with the grace of God in his salvation. The question, which of the two factors has the initiative, he answers, altogether empirically, to this effect: that sometimes, and indeed usually, the human will, as in the cases of the Prodigal Son, Zacchaeus, the Penitent Thief, and Cornelius, determines itself to conversion; sometimes grace anticipates it, and, as with Matthew and Paul, draws the resisting will—yet, even in this case, without constraint—to God. Here, therefore, the gratia praeveniens is manifestly overlooked.
These are essentially Semi-Pelagian principles, though capable of various modifications and applications. The church, even the Roman church, has rightly emphasized the necessity of prevenient grace, but has not impeached Cassian, who is properly the father of the Semi-Pelagian theory. Leo the Great even commissioned him to write a work against Nestorianism, in which he found an excellent opportunity to establish his orthodoxy, and to clear himself of all connection with the kindred heresies of Pelagianism and Nestorianism, which were condemned together at Ephesus in 431. He died after 432, at an advanced age, and though not formally canonized, is honored as a saint by some dioceses. His works are very extensively read for practical edification.
Against the thirteenth Colloquy of Cassian, Prosper Aquitanus, an Augustinian divine and poet, who, probably on account of the desolations of the Vandals, had left his native Aquitania for the South of Gaul, and found comfort and repose in the doctrines of election amid the wars of his age, wrote a book upon grace and freedom, about 432, in which he criticises twelve propositions of Cassian, and declares them all heretical, except the first. He also composed a long poem in defence of Augustine and his system, and refuted the “Gallic slanders and Vincentian imputations,” which placed the doctrine of predestination in the most odious light.
But the Semi-Pelagian doctrine was the more popular, and made great progress in France. Its principal advocates after Cassian are the following: the presbyter-monk Vicentius of Lerinum, author of the Commonitorium, in which he developed the true catholic test of doctrine, the threefold consensus, in covert antagonism to the novel doctrines of Augustinianism (about 434); Faustus, bishop of Rhegium (Riez), who at the council of Arles (475) refuted the hyper-Augustinian presbyter Lucidus, and was commissioned by the council to write a work upon the grace of God and human freedom; ennadius, presbyter at Marseilles (died after 495), who continued the biographical work of Jerome, De viris illustribus, down to 495, and attributed Augustine’s doctrine of predestination to his itch for writing; Arnobius the younger; and the much discussed anonymous tract Praedestinatus (about 460), which, by gross exaggeration, and by an unwarranted imputation of logical results which Augustine had expressly forestalled, placed the doctrine of predestination in an odious light, and then refuted it.
The author of the Praedestinatus says, that a treatise had fallen into his hands, which fraudulently bore upon its face the name of the Orthodox teacher Augustine, in order to smuggle in, under a Catholic name, a blasphemous dogma, pernicious to the faith. On this account he had undertaken to transcribe and to refute this work. The treatise itself consists of three books; the first, following Augustine’s book, De haeresibus, gives a description of ninety heresies from Simon Magus down to the time of the author, and brings up, as the last of them, the doctrine of a double predestination, as a doctrine which makes God the author of evil, and renders all the moral endeavors of men fruitless; the second book is the pseudo-Augustinian treatise upon this ninetieth heresy, but is apparently merely a Semi-Pelagian caricature by the same author; the third book contains the refutation of the thus travestied pseudo-Augustinian doctrine of predestination, employing the usual Semi-Pelagian arguments.
A counterpart to this treatise is found in the also anonymous work, De vocatione omnium gentium, which endeavors to commend Augustinianism by mitigation, in the same degree that the Praedestinatus endeavors to stultify it by exaggeration. It has been ascribed to pope Leo I. († 461), of whom it would not be unworthy; but it cannot be supposed that the work of so distinguished a man could have remained anonymous. The author avoids even the term praedestinatio, and teaches expressly, that Christ died for all men and would have all to be saved; thus rejecting the Augustinian particularism. But, on the other hand, he also rejects the Semi-Pelagian principles, and asserts the utter inability of the natural man to do good. He unhesitatingly sets grace above the human will, and represents the whole life of faith, from beginning to end, as a work of unmerited grace. He develops the three thoughts, that God desires the salvation of all men; that no one is saved by his own merits, but by grace; and that the human understanding cannot fathom the depths of divine wisdom. We must trust in the righteousness of God. Every one of the damned suffers only the righteous punishment of his sins; while no saint can boast himself in his merits, since it is only of pure grace that he is saved. But how is it with the great multitude of infants that die every year without baptism, and without opportunity of coming to the knowledge of salvation? The author feels this difficulty, without, however, being able to solve it. He calls to his help the representative character of parents, and dilutes the Augustinian doctrine of original sin to the negative conception of a mere defect of good, which, of course, also reduces the idea of hereditary guilt and the damnation of unbaptized children. He distinguishes between a general grace which comes to man through the external revelation in nature, law, and gospel, and a special grace, which effects conversion and regeneration by an inward impartation of saving power, and which is only bestowed on those that are saved.
Semi-Pelagianism prevailed in Gaul for several decades. Under the lead of Faustus of Rhegium it gained the victory in two synods, at Arles in 472 and at Lyons in 475, where Augustine’s doctrine of predestination was condemned, though without mention of his name.
(source) (emphasis added)
That provides a very lengthy explanation, but you will find that at other places Schaff simply uses Semi-Pelagian as a synonym for synergistic. For example, "in reference to the freedom of the will and predestination he adopted synergistic or Semi-Pelagian views," (source) (emphasis added) or "The position of the Greek church upon this question is only negative; she has in name condemned Pelagianism, but has never received the positive doctrines of Augustine. She continued to teach synergistic or Semi-Pelagian views, without, however, entering into a deeper investigation of the relation of human freedom to divine grace." (source) (emphasis added) "And yet we must say that the Reformers, following the lead of the great saint of Hippo, went to a one-sided extreme. Melanchthon felt this, and proposed the system of synergism, which is akin to the semi-Pelagian and Arminian theories. Oecolampadius kept within the limits of Christian experience and expressed it in the sound sentence, "Salus nostra ex Deo, perditio nostra ex nobis." We must always keep in mind both the divine and the human, the speculative and the practical aspects of this problem of ages; in other words, we must combine divine sovereignty and human responsibility as complemental truths. There is a moral as well as an intellectual logic,—a logic of the heart and conscience as well as a logic of the head. The former must keep the latter in check and save it from running into supralapsarianism and at last into fatalism and pantheism, which is just as bad as Pelagianism." (source) (emphasis added)
-TurretinFan
Friday, February 29, 2008
Misconceptions about Roman Catholicism: Works Salvation
This post is intended to be part of series on misconceptions about Roman Catholicism. In this post, we address the issue of works salvation. Roman Catholicism, according to the Reformation, teaches works salvation.
What we do not mean:
1) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism teaches that man unassisted by grace merits salvation.
2) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism denies the necessity of grace.
3) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism is fully Pelagian.
4) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism denies a role for grace at every stage of salvation.
5) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism denies any role for Christ's sacrifice in salvation.
We admit:
1) We admit that Roman Catholicism teaches that grace is necessary for salvation.
2) We admit that Roman Catholicism teaches that grace is involved at every point in salvation.
3) We admit that Roman Catholicism ascribes great importance to grace.
4) We admit that Roman Catholicism condemns Pelagianism.
5) We admit that Roman Catholicism views good works as the product of grace.
6) We admit that Roman Catholicism has a role for the sacrifice of Christ in salvation.
Nevertheless,
We criticize the Roman Catholic position as teaching works-salvation, because of a semi-Peligian error: the ascription of a role for human cooperation in salvation. We view Roman Catholicism as teaching works-salvation because:
1) Roman Catholicism teaches that cooperation with grace is also necessary for salvation. ("by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace" - Trent, Session 6, Chapter 5, see also Canons IV and IX on Justification)
2) Roman Catholicism teaches that cooperation with grace is necessary at many points in salvation. (Ibid, chapters 7 ("the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation") and 10 ("they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified"),
3) Roman Catholicism condemns monergism ("CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema." - "CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.").
4) Roman Catholicism teaches the meritorious value of good works performed by mere men ("CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.").
5) Roman Catholicism teaches final justification based on actual (infused) righteousness ("For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God" ... "Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own as from ourselves; nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated: for that justice which is called ours, because that we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because that it is infused into us of God, through the merit of Christ. ").
6) Roman Catholicism teaches that it is possible for human beings to expiate sin through acts of contrition. (Trent, Fourteenth Session, Chapter 5, "For venial sins, whereby we are not excluded from the grace of God, and into which we fall more frequently, although they be rightly and profitably, and without any presumption declared in confession, as the custom of pious persons demonstrates, yet may they be omitted without guilt, and be expiated by many other remedies.")
7) Roman Catholicism teaches that Purgatory removes the guilt of sin (Trent, Twenty-Fifth Session, Decree Concerning Purgatory: "there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar;" "CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.").
What we do not mean:
1) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism teaches that man unassisted by grace merits salvation.
2) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism denies the necessity of grace.
3) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism is fully Pelagian.
4) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism denies a role for grace at every stage of salvation.
5) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism denies any role for Christ's sacrifice in salvation.
We admit:
1) We admit that Roman Catholicism teaches that grace is necessary for salvation.
2) We admit that Roman Catholicism teaches that grace is involved at every point in salvation.
3) We admit that Roman Catholicism ascribes great importance to grace.
4) We admit that Roman Catholicism condemns Pelagianism.
5) We admit that Roman Catholicism views good works as the product of grace.
6) We admit that Roman Catholicism has a role for the sacrifice of Christ in salvation.
Nevertheless,
We criticize the Roman Catholic position as teaching works-salvation, because of a semi-Peligian error: the ascription of a role for human cooperation in salvation. We view Roman Catholicism as teaching works-salvation because:
1) Roman Catholicism teaches that cooperation with grace is also necessary for salvation. ("by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace" - Trent, Session 6, Chapter 5, see also Canons IV and IX on Justification)
2) Roman Catholicism teaches that cooperation with grace is necessary at many points in salvation. (Ibid, chapters 7 ("the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation") and 10 ("they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified"),
3) Roman Catholicism condemns monergism ("CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema." - "CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.").
4) Roman Catholicism teaches the meritorious value of good works performed by mere men ("CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.").
5) Roman Catholicism teaches final justification based on actual (infused) righteousness ("For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God" ... "Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own as from ourselves; nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated: for that justice which is called ours, because that we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because that it is infused into us of God, through the merit of Christ. ").
6) Roman Catholicism teaches that it is possible for human beings to expiate sin through acts of contrition. (Trent, Fourteenth Session, Chapter 5, "For venial sins, whereby we are not excluded from the grace of God, and into which we fall more frequently, although they be rightly and profitably, and without any presumption declared in confession, as the custom of pious persons demonstrates, yet may they be omitted without guilt, and be expiated by many other remedies.")
7) Roman Catholicism teaches that Purgatory removes the guilt of sin (Trent, Twenty-Fifth Session, Decree Concerning Purgatory: "there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar;" "CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.").
Therefore, for these reasons, we hold that Rome teaches salvation by works, in contravention of the Scriptural doctirnes of sola gratia and sola fide. We criticize the Roman Catholic position as teaching works-salvation, because of a semi-Peligian error: the ascription of a role for human cooperation in salvation. We, of course, do not conflate that particular semi-Pelagian error with historic Semi-Pelagianism in all its minutiae, nor is the label the point. The point is that works salvation is not the gospel and will not save.
We preach a different gospel: a gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and
To the glory of God alone,
-Turretinfan
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Miscellaneous Responses to Orthodox
A while back (this post has been three months, thirteen days in the making), Orthodox offered a set of comments that I never fully responded to. I take this opportunity to do so.
Legend: MP (Me, i.e. TurretinFan, Previously); O (Orthodox); G (Gene Bridges) and TF (TurretinFan)
MP: A command is not an offer. The imperative command to repent and believe is consequently neither false, nor an offer.
O: Repent, believe and you will be saved is an offer by any reasonable definition thereof.
TF: It can be viewed as an offer, it can be viewed as a warning, and it can even be viewed as a threat. It can even be viewed as an opportunity. Just about any command can be viewed those various ways, especially commands with promise (compare, for example, the fifth commandment: Honor thy father ... that thy days may be long ...).
MP: Furthermore, no one is able to be sinless, and yet the law does command that. The law is not a "false offer" because it commands what man cannot do.
O: Where is the evidence that man cannot be sinless? Man chooses not to be sinless, I don't see the evidence that man cannot be sinless. Christ commands "be perfect". It remains the aim. That nobody has done it doesn't prove that man cannot do it. Men would find it very difficult to do it, but not impossible.
TF: The fact that nobody has done it is strong evidence that man cannot do it. But the proof is in Scripture. Scripture explains that the natural man is at emnity with God.
MP: An affirmation of man's ability to obey the commands is an affirmation of Pelagianism.
O: No, Pelagianism says that man can do it without the assistance of grace. Since God promises grace to those who ask, clearly this has nothing to do with Pelagianism.
TF: It is has "nothing to do with" Pelagianism in the same way that semi-Pelagianism has nothing to do with Pelagianism. But, of course, that's not a defense of man's ability. If you are saying that grace is required, you are affirming man's natural inability.
MP:. If one recognizes that grace is necessary for man to obey, then one must realize that man's ability to obey commands has nothing to do with whether the commands are fair, reasonable, or the like.
O: Not so, because God freely gives grace to those who ask. God is not asking for anything for which he doesn't provide the means.
TF: That's a bit different position. Nevertheless, if the question is whether God provides the means, then the question is whether God must provide such means, given the command. If so, then he does not provide the means freely, and consequently it is not properly called grace, since man would have a right to demand such means.
MP: a) Men are condemned for their sins. It would be no excuse if salvation were not offered, just as it is no excuse that not all have the gospel preached to them
O: Paul says that God's qualities are made manifest so that men are without excuse. According to you it is unnecessary because men are without excuse anyway. Well, go argue with the apostle.
TF: God's qualities are not the gospel. Thus, this is a fallacy of equivocation. It is also fallacy of denying the antecedent: as a logical matter, simply because they are without excuse because God has manifested Himself to them, does not imply (as a matter of logic) that they would have been with excuse if God had not revealed Himself to them.
MP: b) Men are condemned for their sins. Lack of atonement is simply the fact of the matter for those who are not "at one" with God.
O; Again, go argue with the apostle. Apparently he thinks that knowing the basics about God is a prerequisite to not having an excuse.
TF: Same fallacies here as in the previous paragraph: and perhaps even more aggravated. The apostle doesn't address the issue of the atonement, and does not deny that men are condemned for their sins.
MP: I answer: That's not an accurate picture of Reformed theology. If anyone truly repents and believes, they will be saved. End of story.
O: You have to [add] that "truly" [] in order to exclude a whole lot of people who sincerely believe that they repented and believe but later fall away. You are forced to make "truly" to have a special meaning []. Except that the bible never lists such a group.
TF: The apostle James in his catholic epistle discusses that group: the group with a "dead" faith.
MP: I answer: That's a misrepresentation of the Reformed position as well as of Scripture.
a) The categories of hypocrites, self-deceived, and wolves-in-sheep's-clothing are Biblical categories; and
O: Hypocrites are not the categories under discussion. Don't distract from the topic by bringing in something else. What was under discussion was people who were sincere but then fell away.
TF: It seems O wants to discuss only the self-deceived.
O: As for "self-deceived", since repentance and belief are something that the self does within oneself, it's not a sensical object of self-deception. By putting that in there you open the floodgates to everything and everyone potentially being self-deceived.
TF: First of all, to deny self-deception generally would be foolish.
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Since sin is something that one does within oneself, any categorical barrier as proposed would necessarily conflict with the apostle's teaching.
To argue that this is a slippery slope, one must establish not only that there is a slope, but that it is steep and slippery. This argument can be defeated if there are fences in places to prevent the slope from being considered steep and slippery. In this case there are several fences: one is the various testimonies adduced in John's first catholic epistle, another related one is the discussion in James' catholic epistle.
O: And again, you introduce this wholly unbiblical category of people who think they believe but don't. A scary category to have in a theological system indeed.
TF: James addresses people in that category in his epistle. Those with "dead" faith. Also, we see that category in the parable of the sower.
MP: b) The parable of the sower provides a great lesson in the distinction between false and true faith.
O: In the parable of the sower, seeds grow up and then are choked and die. There's no suggestion they weren't valid seeds to begin with.
TF: You don't seem very familiar with the parable. In the parable, the seed is the Word of God. The various hearts are the various grounds. The good ground is one, but there are several types of bad ground.
MP: I answer: It's really not dependent on any Reformed order of salvation
O: Yes it is, because your claim is that since the ice-cream man controls who steps into his shop he can put out the sign offering to all. But if that ordering is challenged, your argument ceases.
TF: I honestly don't understand this objection - perhaps it is because the context is missing.
MP: but even if it were, that would be fair game, given the nature of the counter-objection.
O: When you are trying to prove a doctrine not explicitely taught in scripture, it doesn't look good when you use as justification another doctrine not explicitely taught in scripture. That's why I say you've got so many precepts built upon precepts you can't see the bottom any more.
TF: That remark is not accurate or handy. The hidden assumption that every doctrine has to be found explicitly in Scripture is not a tenant of either yours or mine. And - as well - it seems you are mistaking rebuttal for proof.
G: This is a classic case of Orthodox utterly ignoring what he has been told in the past
O: No, it's a case of you having an incomprehensibly complicated system that isn't taught in the bible.
TF: Sometimes incomprehensibility is in the mind of the beholder. I think this is such a case, because I know plenty of people who comprehend the system. As for it not being taught in Scripture, we both know that arguments have presented showing that it is taught in Scripture. Simply stating to the contrary is a dispute, but not argument.
-Turretinfan
Legend: MP (Me, i.e. TurretinFan, Previously); O (Orthodox); G (Gene Bridges) and TF (TurretinFan)
MP: A command is not an offer. The imperative command to repent and believe is consequently neither false, nor an offer.
O: Repent, believe and you will be saved is an offer by any reasonable definition thereof.
TF: It can be viewed as an offer, it can be viewed as a warning, and it can even be viewed as a threat. It can even be viewed as an opportunity. Just about any command can be viewed those various ways, especially commands with promise (compare, for example, the fifth commandment: Honor thy father ... that thy days may be long ...).
MP: Furthermore, no one is able to be sinless, and yet the law does command that. The law is not a "false offer" because it commands what man cannot do.
O: Where is the evidence that man cannot be sinless? Man chooses not to be sinless, I don't see the evidence that man cannot be sinless. Christ commands "be perfect". It remains the aim. That nobody has done it doesn't prove that man cannot do it. Men would find it very difficult to do it, but not impossible.
TF: The fact that nobody has done it is strong evidence that man cannot do it. But the proof is in Scripture. Scripture explains that the natural man is at emnity with God.
MP: An affirmation of man's ability to obey the commands is an affirmation of Pelagianism.
O: No, Pelagianism says that man can do it without the assistance of grace. Since God promises grace to those who ask, clearly this has nothing to do with Pelagianism.
TF: It is has "nothing to do with" Pelagianism in the same way that semi-Pelagianism has nothing to do with Pelagianism. But, of course, that's not a defense of man's ability. If you are saying that grace is required, you are affirming man's natural inability.
MP:. If one recognizes that grace is necessary for man to obey, then one must realize that man's ability to obey commands has nothing to do with whether the commands are fair, reasonable, or the like.
O: Not so, because God freely gives grace to those who ask. God is not asking for anything for which he doesn't provide the means.
TF: That's a bit different position. Nevertheless, if the question is whether God provides the means, then the question is whether God must provide such means, given the command. If so, then he does not provide the means freely, and consequently it is not properly called grace, since man would have a right to demand such means.
MP: a) Men are condemned for their sins. It would be no excuse if salvation were not offered, just as it is no excuse that not all have the gospel preached to them
O: Paul says that God's qualities are made manifest so that men are without excuse. According to you it is unnecessary because men are without excuse anyway. Well, go argue with the apostle.
TF: God's qualities are not the gospel. Thus, this is a fallacy of equivocation. It is also fallacy of denying the antecedent: as a logical matter, simply because they are without excuse because God has manifested Himself to them, does not imply (as a matter of logic) that they would have been with excuse if God had not revealed Himself to them.
MP: b) Men are condemned for their sins. Lack of atonement is simply the fact of the matter for those who are not "at one" with God.
O; Again, go argue with the apostle. Apparently he thinks that knowing the basics about God is a prerequisite to not having an excuse.
TF: Same fallacies here as in the previous paragraph: and perhaps even more aggravated. The apostle doesn't address the issue of the atonement, and does not deny that men are condemned for their sins.
MP: I answer: That's not an accurate picture of Reformed theology. If anyone truly repents and believes, they will be saved. End of story.
O: You have to [add] that "truly" [] in order to exclude a whole lot of people who sincerely believe that they repented and believe but later fall away. You are forced to make "truly" to have a special meaning []. Except that the bible never lists such a group.
TF: The apostle James in his catholic epistle discusses that group: the group with a "dead" faith.
MP: I answer: That's a misrepresentation of the Reformed position as well as of Scripture.
a) The categories of hypocrites, self-deceived, and wolves-in-sheep's-clothing are Biblical categories; and
O: Hypocrites are not the categories under discussion. Don't distract from the topic by bringing in something else. What was under discussion was people who were sincere but then fell away.
TF: It seems O wants to discuss only the self-deceived.
O: As for "self-deceived", since repentance and belief are something that the self does within oneself, it's not a sensical object of self-deception. By putting that in there you open the floodgates to everything and everyone potentially being self-deceived.
TF: First of all, to deny self-deception generally would be foolish.
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Since sin is something that one does within oneself, any categorical barrier as proposed would necessarily conflict with the apostle's teaching.
To argue that this is a slippery slope, one must establish not only that there is a slope, but that it is steep and slippery. This argument can be defeated if there are fences in places to prevent the slope from being considered steep and slippery. In this case there are several fences: one is the various testimonies adduced in John's first catholic epistle, another related one is the discussion in James' catholic epistle.
O: And again, you introduce this wholly unbiblical category of people who think they believe but don't. A scary category to have in a theological system indeed.
TF: James addresses people in that category in his epistle. Those with "dead" faith. Also, we see that category in the parable of the sower.
MP: b) The parable of the sower provides a great lesson in the distinction between false and true faith.
O: In the parable of the sower, seeds grow up and then are choked and die. There's no suggestion they weren't valid seeds to begin with.
TF: You don't seem very familiar with the parable. In the parable, the seed is the Word of God. The various hearts are the various grounds. The good ground is one, but there are several types of bad ground.
MP: I answer: It's really not dependent on any Reformed order of salvation
O: Yes it is, because your claim is that since the ice-cream man controls who steps into his shop he can put out the sign offering to all. But if that ordering is challenged, your argument ceases.
TF: I honestly don't understand this objection - perhaps it is because the context is missing.
MP: but even if it were, that would be fair game, given the nature of the counter-objection.
O: When you are trying to prove a doctrine not explicitely taught in scripture, it doesn't look good when you use as justification another doctrine not explicitely taught in scripture. That's why I say you've got so many precepts built upon precepts you can't see the bottom any more.
TF: That remark is not accurate or handy. The hidden assumption that every doctrine has to be found explicitly in Scripture is not a tenant of either yours or mine. And - as well - it seems you are mistaking rebuttal for proof.
G: This is a classic case of Orthodox utterly ignoring what he has been told in the past
O: No, it's a case of you having an incomprehensibly complicated system that isn't taught in the bible.
TF: Sometimes incomprehensibility is in the mind of the beholder. I think this is such a case, because I know plenty of people who comprehend the system. As for it not being taught in Scripture, we both know that arguments have presented showing that it is taught in Scripture. Simply stating to the contrary is a dispute, but not argument.
-Turretinfan
Monday, February 25, 2008
Endorsement of the Real Turretin
I was pleased to read this succinct uniequivocal endorsement of the real Francis Turretin (link). May God grant us more men like him. The blog hosting the endorsement is called "Daniel and the Lion's Den," and seems to be hosted by Danny Patterson.
-Turretinfan
-Turretinfan
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Redundancy in James?
In the King James Version, the James 5:16 seems to contain a little redundancy and/or truism:
James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
The redundancy is "effectual" and "availeth much." If it is effectual (in modern usage) then it means it works.
The apparent redundancy is a result of a slight semantic shift and an attempt to convey a Greek word in English.
The underlying Greek is:
Jas 5:16 εξομολογεισθε αλληλοις τα παραπτωματα και ευχεσθε υπερ αλληλων οπως ιαθητε πολυ ισχυει δεησις δικαιου ενεργουμενη
In this, the phrase in question is: "πολυ ισχυει δεησις δικαιου ενεργουμενη"
πολυ => greatly
ισχυει => enables/has force
δεησις => (a / the) prayer
δικαιου => righteous
ενεργουμενη => [(the thing that) is (itself) empowering]
The tricky word, as you can guess, is the last one - it is a present middle participle, which is a bit challenging to express in English. The KJV translators tried to express its meaning using the phrase "effectual fervent." The point of the passage is that we should pray for one another, and that we should have confidence to pray for one another on the basis that an empowered prayer by a righteous man can accomplish great things, both as to physical healing and also conversion: with Elias' prayers for and against rain provided as an example.
Pray to God and pray boldly, for if God gives your prayer power, you may save a soul by prayer!
-Turretinfan
James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
The redundancy is "effectual" and "availeth much." If it is effectual (in modern usage) then it means it works.
The apparent redundancy is a result of a slight semantic shift and an attempt to convey a Greek word in English.
The underlying Greek is:
Jas 5:16 εξομολογεισθε αλληλοις τα παραπτωματα και ευχεσθε υπερ αλληλων οπως ιαθητε πολυ ισχυει δεησις δικαιου ενεργουμενη
In this, the phrase in question is: "πολυ ισχυει δεησις δικαιου ενεργουμενη"
πολυ => greatly
ισχυει => enables/has force
δεησις => (a / the) prayer
δικαιου => righteous
ενεργουμενη => [(the thing that) is (itself) empowering]
The tricky word, as you can guess, is the last one - it is a present middle participle, which is a bit challenging to express in English. The KJV translators tried to express its meaning using the phrase "effectual fervent." The point of the passage is that we should pray for one another, and that we should have confidence to pray for one another on the basis that an empowered prayer by a righteous man can accomplish great things, both as to physical healing and also conversion: with Elias' prayers for and against rain provided as an example.
Pray to God and pray boldly, for if God gives your prayer power, you may save a soul by prayer!
-Turretinfan
Friday, February 22, 2008
Heart and Ear Circumcision
I happened to be reading and came across this gem:
*****
He saith also again concerning our ears how he hath circumcised our heart. The Lord saith in the prophet, They have hearkened unto me with the hearing of their ears; and again, he saith, They that are afar off shall hear with their ears; they shall know what I have done; and be ye circumcised, saith the Lord, in your heart; and again, Hear, O Israel, for thus saith the Lord thy God; and again the Spirit of the Lord prophesied, Who is he that wisheth to live for ever? let him hearken unto the voice of my Son.
And again he saith, Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken these things for a testimony. And again he saith, Hearken unto the voice of the Lord, ye rulers of this people. And again he saith, Hearken ye children unto the voice of one crying in the wilderness.
To this end, therefore, hath he circumcised our hearing, that when we hear his word, we should believe; for the circumcision in which they trust is done away with.
For he hath said that circumcision is not that which was made in the flesh; but they have transgressed, for an evil angel hath deluded them. He saith unto them, These things saith the Lord your God, —here I find a new commandment—Sow not among thorns, but be ye circumcised unto your Lord. And what saith he? Circumcise the hardness of your hearts, and harden not your neck. And again, Behold, saith the Lord, all the Gentiles are uncircumcised in their foreskin, but this people is uncircumcised in their hearts.
*****
Who is this Calvinistic writer? Who is it that believes that God circumcised our hearing, that when we hear his word, we should believe? The answer is the author of the Epistle of Barnabas (usually thought not actually to be written by the companion of Paul).
Our knowledge of the content of the book is largely thanks to its inclusion in the Codex Sinaiticus, and has been dated to the first or second century (generally between A.D. 70 - 150).
The translation above is Charles Hoole's (I have not verified its accuracy against the Greek) and is available via Google Books here (link).
Praise be to God for the Irresistable grace of Circumcision of heart, mind, eyes, and ears,
-Turretinfan
*****
He saith also again concerning our ears how he hath circumcised our heart. The Lord saith in the prophet, They have hearkened unto me with the hearing of their ears; and again, he saith, They that are afar off shall hear with their ears; they shall know what I have done; and be ye circumcised, saith the Lord, in your heart; and again, Hear, O Israel, for thus saith the Lord thy God; and again the Spirit of the Lord prophesied, Who is he that wisheth to live for ever? let him hearken unto the voice of my Son.
And again he saith, Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken these things for a testimony. And again he saith, Hearken unto the voice of the Lord, ye rulers of this people. And again he saith, Hearken ye children unto the voice of one crying in the wilderness.
To this end, therefore, hath he circumcised our hearing, that when we hear his word, we should believe; for the circumcision in which they trust is done away with.
For he hath said that circumcision is not that which was made in the flesh; but they have transgressed, for an evil angel hath deluded them. He saith unto them, These things saith the Lord your God, —here I find a new commandment—Sow not among thorns, but be ye circumcised unto your Lord. And what saith he? Circumcise the hardness of your hearts, and harden not your neck. And again, Behold, saith the Lord, all the Gentiles are uncircumcised in their foreskin, but this people is uncircumcised in their hearts.
*****
Who is this Calvinistic writer? Who is it that believes that God circumcised our hearing, that when we hear his word, we should believe? The answer is the author of the Epistle of Barnabas (usually thought not actually to be written by the companion of Paul).
Our knowledge of the content of the book is largely thanks to its inclusion in the Codex Sinaiticus, and has been dated to the first or second century (generally between A.D. 70 - 150).
The translation above is Charles Hoole's (I have not verified its accuracy against the Greek) and is available via Google Books here (link).
Praise be to God for the Irresistable grace of Circumcision of heart, mind, eyes, and ears,
-Turretinfan
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Remember this guy?
Do you remember Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf? He was the Iraqi official who reported on the very brief Iraq invasion in terms that were extremely favorable to the Iraqi ruling regime.
One example of his lines:
"Now even the American command is under siege. We are hitting it from the north, east, south and west. We chase them here and they chase us there. But at the end we are the people who are laying siege to them. And it is not them who are besieging us."
Many more here (link). In a somewhat macabre pun he was labelled "Comical Ali."
Then I read this similarly comical balderdash:
"Protestants run from or mock Catholic presentations, rather than interact with them; let alone try to refute them. There appears to be a crisis of confidence in Protestant circles."
Meanwhile, when asked by one of his Catholic supporters to address a Protestant article, he turns tail:
"I'm trying to get away from replying to anti-Catholics. "
I had to laugh out loud. His position has been crushed from every side, and is cut off more and more each day, but he announces that the matter is just the oppsite. He fails to respond to critique after critique of his own work, but the bluster comes hard and thick.
This guy actually is so brazen as to claim: "But these guys are all petrified of discussing it with me "live", with everyone watching."
Not even his Catholic supporters buy it any more. I would be surprised if even one of the people whom he "challenged" was even the slightest bit worried, much less afraid, and certainly none were petrified of discussing the matter with him "live" with people watching.
As one of the people falsely charged, I can testify that this guy's fear-sensing ability is as good as his exegetical abilities.
One can almost hear the immortal words of Comical Ali:
"They fled. The American louts fled. Indeed, concerning the fighting waged by the heroes of the Arab Socialist Baath Party yesterday, one amazing thing really is the cowardice of the American soldiers. we had not anticipated this."
May God pour out his mercy on those in the Catholic church, and particular on her propagandists,
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: Reginald has noted that I did not ask his opinion before posting this. (link) Specifically, he found the line: "Not even his Catholic supporters buy it any more," overstretched, I think. Obviously, I guess I should add that perhaps some of his supporters may actually think that the people Dave "challenged" are quaking in their boots with fear of Dave. From comments I've seen by Catholics on this, though, I believe that many realize that Dave's imagination has gotten the better of him.
One example of his lines:
"Now even the American command is under siege. We are hitting it from the north, east, south and west. We chase them here and they chase us there. But at the end we are the people who are laying siege to them. And it is not them who are besieging us."
Many more here (link). In a somewhat macabre pun he was labelled "Comical Ali."
Then I read this similarly comical balderdash:
"Protestants run from or mock Catholic presentations, rather than interact with them; let alone try to refute them. There appears to be a crisis of confidence in Protestant circles."
Meanwhile, when asked by one of his Catholic supporters to address a Protestant article, he turns tail:
"I'm trying to get away from replying to anti-Catholics. "
I had to laugh out loud. His position has been crushed from every side, and is cut off more and more each day, but he announces that the matter is just the oppsite. He fails to respond to critique after critique of his own work, but the bluster comes hard and thick.
This guy actually is so brazen as to claim: "But these guys are all petrified of discussing it with me "live", with everyone watching."
Not even his Catholic supporters buy it any more. I would be surprised if even one of the people whom he "challenged" was even the slightest bit worried, much less afraid, and certainly none were petrified of discussing the matter with him "live" with people watching.
As one of the people falsely charged, I can testify that this guy's fear-sensing ability is as good as his exegetical abilities.
One can almost hear the immortal words of Comical Ali:
"They fled. The American louts fled. Indeed, concerning the fighting waged by the heroes of the Arab Socialist Baath Party yesterday, one amazing thing really is the cowardice of the American soldiers. we had not anticipated this."
May God pour out his mercy on those in the Catholic church, and particular on her propagandists,
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: Reginald has noted that I did not ask his opinion before posting this. (link) Specifically, he found the line: "Not even his Catholic supporters buy it any more," overstretched, I think. Obviously, I guess I should add that perhaps some of his supporters may actually think that the people Dave "challenged" are quaking in their boots with fear of Dave. From comments I've seen by Catholics on this, though, I believe that many realize that Dave's imagination has gotten the better of him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
