Misquoting Athanasius

It's very popular among Rome's apologists today, to make claims that famous church fathers, those that "Protestants" would have heard of, held to the same views as Rome teaches today. Unfortunately for Catholicism, history is not her friend. So, while occasionally a church father or two will provide some seemingly helpful material for the apologist for Catholicism, these sorts of things often aren't really good enough to provide a compelling case from the best known fathers.

So some of these apologists turn to spurious works: pseudographic writings that are attributed to some father but were not actually written by him. This can happen two ways: (1) unintentionally or (2) deliberately.

The unintentional error can happen to anyone. One of the callers to the "Dividing Line" radio program recently made reference to a quotation with respect to the Johannine Comma that John Calvin had attributed to Jerome. Upon the further investigation, it appears that the author of the quotation was not Jerome himself, but a later writer using Jerome's name. Thus, the person who called unintentionally used a pseudographic writing (through simply adopting what Calvin said, but not investigating it more thoroughly).

A deliberate error is more serious. I have a particular quotation in mind, and at this point, I want to refrain from stating that Rome's apologists are deliberately quoting a pseudographic source as though it were authentic. After all, they may simply be falling into the same error that our caller fell into of using outdated or inaccurate information from a secondary source.

Nevertheless, a particular quotation allegedly from Athanasius has come to my attention. Athanasius is one of those church fathers that lots of "Protestants" have heard of and respect. It would be an interesting survey to do, but I think that among Reformed Christians especially, one would find almost no criticism or negative attitudes towards Athanasius: after all, Athanasius stood for orthodoxy against error in a Martin-Luther-esque manner - "Athanasius Contra Mundum" (Athanasius Against the World).

Athanasius was a Reformer in his day, so what a shock it would be to "Protestants" if Athanasius turned out to be Roman Catholic! And of course, unbeknown to typical "Protestants", there are a number of areas where there would be a significant difference between Athanasius doctrines or practices and those of the more Biblical churches of the Reformation. Those legitimate differences, however, are apparently not enough.

So, now we find apologists for Rome citing a spurious, pseudographic work entitled "Homily of the Papyrus of Turin." This work is not part of any standard corpus of Athanasian writings, and no scholar who deals with Athanasius has (to my knowledge) ever identified it as authentic. It is not found in any Greek manuscripts but apparently comes down to us in a single Coptic manuscript. The manuscript does have the name "Athanasius" at the top, but this is not a sufficient reason to consider it an authentic work, as anyone familiar with ancient manuscripts would be aware.

Who are the guilty parties? Well, we see Steve Ray both at his own site as well as at the Catholic Answers site and This Rock magazine, Dave Armstrong, John Salza at CAI, and if one searches the Internet one will find quite a number of lesser luminaries in the field of Roman apologetics providing the same quotations.

Why are they doing this? I would like to assume that they just don't know better. As noted above, Mr. Ray's use of this spurious, pseudographic work was published in the popular This Rock magazine in 2005, which would have given it a wide distribution. It is possible that many folks that are using this quotation simply got it from Mr. Ray, mistakenly believing that Mr. Ray carefully checks his sources.

But where did Mr. Ray get it? Mr. Ray doesn't read Coptic (as far as I know) - so how did he get an English translation of the text to present? I think the answer to that question lies in Mr. Luigi Gambero's book, "Mary and the Fathers of the Church," first published in English in 1999. At pages 106 and 107, Mr. Gambero provides two quotations from this source. Mr. Gambero himself cites to the earlier work of Louis-Théophile Lefort, in Le Muséon 71 (1958).

Scholarly citations aside from Mr. Gambero typically correctly identify the work as Pseudo-Athanasius (see, for example, Virginia Burrus' citation at p. 258 of Late Ancient Christianity or David Frankfurter's citation at p. 35 of Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt) or at least identify the work simply as "attributed to" Athanasius or other indicators of the dubious (at best) nature of the claim that Athanasius was the work's author.

What about Mr. Gambero? He provides no argument at all in favor of authenticity of the quotation. Since Mr. Gambero did not write the book in English, but instead the work was translated from the Italian original, perhaps the translator left out some indication that Mr. Gambero had originally provided. Unfortunately, where I am now, a copy of the Italian original (published in 1991 and now out of print and largely unavailable for sale in a used condition) is not within my reach. If any of my readers has a copy and would care to let me know what citation is provided by Gambero in the original, I'd be much obliged.

Assuming that the translator has done a proper job, however, we are left weighing the weight of the scholarly consensus against authenticity with an unexplained citation by Mr. Gambero to the work as though it were authentic. Furthermore, Mr. Gambero (while certainly a scholar within his field) is not entirely without bias. One web bio described him this way:

Fr. Luigi Gambero, S.M., a Marianist priest, studied philosophy and theology at the University of Fribourg and the Lateran University in Rome. He specialized in Mariology at the Pontifical Faculty of the Marianum in Rome. He presently teaches patristics at the Marianum and at the University of Dayton.

I attempted to find contact information for Mr. Gambero through the University of Dayton, but it does not appear to be available. Again, if a reader is able to get in contact with Mr. Gambero, I would be much obliged to have the opportunity to hear his own explanation for this use of a pseudographic work, which has resulted in widespread miscitation of the work in the world of modern Roman apologetics.

Hopefully, this article will spur Mr. Ray and others to begin publishing suitable retractions to try to undo the (we assume unintentional) errors they have been propagating. I note that I would include in that group Mr. William Albrecht who recently posted a video in which reads back from this work as though it were Athanasius (link), even mistakenly using the section title from Gambero ("In Praise of the Blessed Virgin") rather than the actual title of the work.

This is not the first time I've brought this matter to light. I had previously discussed this on my blog (link), and no one from the side of Rome has come forward to correct this mistake or justify this citation.

So here's my challenge to Albrecht, Armstrong, Catholic Answers, CAI, and Steve Ray: stop using spurious and pseudographic quotations to try to bolster your cause. We realize that this may have been an unintentional error, but you can no longer use ignorance as an excuse now that this matter has been brought to light. When Alpha and Omega Ministries discovers an error in a quotation from the church fathers, we're not afraid to fix the mistake (as demonstrated here). We're not afraid of what the Early Church Fathers actually said or didn't say, are you?

-TurretinFan

Updates: 4 March 2009

1) As noted in my more recent post in response to William Albrecht's attempted defense of the spurious (or - at best - dubious) work, since the scholars I already named in the article above weren't enough for Mr. Albrecht, I've added one more, Mr. Angelo Gila. Mr. Gila is not only a doctor of theology, whose doctoral thesis was a study of the Marian writings of Severus of Gabala, but Mr. Gila is also a Servite friar - a friar in the order of the Servants of Mary - as well as a resident of the Turin area of Northern Italy (the very area where they papyrus manuscript fragments are housed). In a scholarly article published in the "Theotokos" journal, (Theotokos VIII (2000) 601-631), at page 613, Mr. Gila correctly identifies this work as Pseudo-Athanasius.

2) One kind reader has noted that Jay Dyer is another of the folks that have used this quotation (link). [Further update: 5 March 2009 - Mr. Dyer has graciously agreed to remove his reliance on that particular quotation. My hat is off to Mr. Dyer.]

3) Another kind reader has observed that it might be helpful to provide the work's number in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum. This work has been indexed and is included in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum, Volume 2, from Athanasius to Chrysostom (published 1974). At that time, the work was identified as Homilia adversus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria and was assigned the index number 2187, which is in the range of the "dubious" works for those works attributed to Athanasius.

Updates: 5 March 2009

1) Mr. Hoffer has correctly pointed out that Virginia Burrus is the editor of "Late Ancient Christianity," but that the article in question is also by David Frankfurter. This ought to have been pointed out above.

2) Other editors besides Burrus could be identified as approving of Frankfurter's identification of this work as Pseudo-Athanasius. For example, see "Envisioning Magic" edited by Peter Schäfer et al., page 126, and "Religions of Late Antiquity in Practice" edited by Richard Valantasis, page 475. In both cases, the articles in question are by David Frankfurter.

3) Probably it's worth providing an example of the entries that this work gets in a couple of lists. The Université Laval (of Quebec) provides the following entries (under the direction of René-Michel Roberge), respectively in "by the author" and "by the editor" lists of patristic works:

ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria" (coptice)
Lefort, L.-Th. * ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei
Maria" (coptice) * (introduction, apparat critique, traduction française,
repagination du papyrus, commentaire et notes) *22124 1P197 1958 PRSY (link to author index - pdf)

Lefort, L.-Th. * ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei
Maria" (coptice) * (introduction, apparat critique, traduction française,
repagination du papyrus, commentaire et notes) *22124 1P197 1958 PRSY (link to editor index - pdf)

Likewise, the Biblindex provides the entry corresponding to the Center for Patristics Analysis and Documentation (CADP) collection as follows (source):

ATHANASIVS ALEXANDRINVS ? Homliia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria 93470 CPG 2187

In both of the lists above, the "?" is the designator that the work is a dubious work, rather than being within list of authentic works (which would omit the "?"). The lists could have gone further and indicated the work as explicitly pseudographic by using the indicator "pse" - a straw that only someone desperate to continuing citing the work would grasp at.

Madrid vs. Augustine on Bodily Presence

In a recent post on his blog (link), Mr. Madrid took the time to respond (without naming me) to a post I had presented on the Alpha and Omega Ministries web site http://www.aomin.org/ - but Mr. Madrid couldn't actually address Augustine's comment, opting instead to rely on his own assertion and a number of pasted quotations of things Augustine said elsewhere: things that don't contradict the explanation of Augustine found in Augustine himself.



-TurretinFan

Steve Hays on "Pelagian Calvinism"

Steve Hays has provided an in-depth response to Perry Robinson's mischaracterization of Calvinism as "Pelagian." (link)

-TurretinFan

I'll Debate Richard Dawkins for $100,000

If he'll pay me $100,000, I'll engage him in a debate. The money won't come to me, it will go to two or three charitable organizations. I'm not in it for money, I just want to get Dawkins to part with $100,000 of his money so that the money will not be available for mocking Christianity or other similar nonsense. Sounds pretty silly of me, no?

Well, swap in world-famous Christian apologist Ray Comfort for Mr. Dawkins and give Mr. Dawkins my spot, and you've got yourself the stranger-than-fiction true account of an atheist who is so afraid to debate that he's unwilling to accept $20,000 - twice his usual speaking fee of $10,000. (link)

-TurretinFan

Patrick Madrid and Hugh Barbour vs. ECFs

This video (audio only for now) discusses the problems that Patrick Madrid and Hugh Barbour (whom Mr. Madrid was reproducing) encounter when they try to make the Early Church Fathers (ECFs) Roman Catholics, rather than just letting them speak for themselves. The topic is the sacrifice of the Eucharist and the ECFs in question are the Didache and the Epistola Apostolorum.



-TurretinFan

Augustine vs. Albrecht

In response to Mr. Albrecht's video (link), I provide the following two-part response:

Part 1



Part 2



Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

More Evidence of Creation and Providence

There is no lack of evidence that God created and rules all things. In this case, the evidence is a marvellously designed fish, which has a transparent dome on the top of its head, and tube-like eyes that can rotate up to look through the dome to look for prey above the fish (link). I realize that there will still be people who will try to attribute this technological wonder to chance and "natural processes," but surely one whose eyes have been opened will recognize this as God's Creation and Providence.

-TurretinFan

Biblical Basis for Ash Wednesday?

One of my readers asked me what the Biblical basis for Ash Wednesday is. I answer:

I don't see any biblical basis either for Ash Wednesday or for Lent generally (Ash Wednesday marking the start of Lent). In fact, the practice of traipsing around throughout the day with ashes on one's forehead is contrary to Jesus' teaching:

Matthew 6:17-18

17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; 18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.

-TurretinFan

Dr. White's Humanity and Augustine on the Bodily Presence of Christ

Dr. White is human. To those of us who know and love him, this is no surprise. We realize that he is a man, just like us, and that consequently he makes mistakes. As Alexander Pope said, "To err is human, to forgive divine." Dr. White is human and he, from time to time, errs.
Recently a lay apologist for Catholicism identified one such proof of Dr. White's humanity. Specifically, the apologist identified a quotation that should have read:

In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me you will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes....He left the world by a bodily withdrawal, He proceeded to the Father by His ascension man, but He forsook not the world in the ruling activity of His presence.
The Lord Jesus, in the discourse which He addressed to His disciples after the supper, when Himself in immediate proximity to His passion, and, as it were, on the eve of departure, and of depriving them of His bodily presence while continuing His spiritual presence to all His disciples till the very end of the world...." (Augustine, John: Tractates 50, 92, 102, and 118).

Instead, the quotation omitted "of departure, and" and also changed "eve" to "even."
This was a transcription error that Dr. White either made himself or failed to correct (if he took the quotation from another source). Either way, this error is an example of one of the most common kinds of scribal errors: homoeoteleuton owing to (or occasioned by) parablepsis. Those who have listened to the debate on "Misquoting Jesus" between Dr. White and Dr. Bart Ehrman (link) will know what I am referencing. This is an error where a portion of the text (in this case "of departure, and" is omitted due to the transcriber's eye confusing two similar-looking series of letters. In this case "of departure" and "of depriving" begin with the same first five letters. Thus, Dr. White looked away from the text perhaps while typing "even [sic] of dep..." and landed back on "of depriving" rather than on "of departure," resulting in the error we see. The spelling variant of "even" for "eve" could be attributed to any number of issues too, but it likewise appears to be occasioned simply by an error in typing. Perhaps Dr. White (or whoever transcribed the text) had recently been reading the KJV, which tends to prefer the spelling "even" (e.g. Exodus 12:18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.)
This error was brought to our attention by an apologist for Catholicism who identified it as Dr. White's "MISUSE" (caps in original) and "mishandling" of Augustine. He's right in saying that the quotation was inaccurate, in that it included this transcription error. On the other hand, this sort of error was really trivial. The inadvertent omission of "of departure, and" was simply a formal error, not a substantive one.
In fact, the apologist for Catholicism actually noted only the minor transcription error in the second paragraph of the quotation, but overlooked a similar instance of homoeoteleuton occasioned by parablepsis in the first paragraph it was written "In other words, in respect of His divine presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples," but the full quotation should be "In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples," (omitted part shown with underscore). Here the matching series of letters is "in respect of His [divine] presence." Dr. White, or whoever was transcribing the quotation, appears to have accidentally jumped from one "presence" to the next, and picked up at the second "presence."
We have fixed all three of these errors at the original web page where they occurred (link).
Unfortunately, however, the apologist for Catholicism by focusing on the transcription error missed the point for which Augustine was cited. Augustine believed that Christ's bodily presence was removed to heaven. Thus, although Augustine agreed that Christ's divine presence continued to be with his disciples, Augustine believed that the ascension of Jesus into heaven "deprived" the disciples of Jesus' presence "in the flesh."
What does this demonstrate?
This demonstrates that Augustine did not hold to the later medieval innovation of transubstantiation. This fact is not surprising to those who permit the church fathers to be the church fathers. This may, however, be surprising to those who imagine that the church fathers believed everything that the Vatican teaches today.
In conclusion, yes - Dr. White is human and sometimes falls into homoeoteleuton owing to parablepsis, just like any other scribe. Such changes to the text of Augustine are not intentional and do not (at least not in these cases) change the meaning of what Augustine was saying. In fact, with the omitted material reinserted, the text of Augustine and his rejection of the literal bodily presence of Jesus on earth after the ascension becomes even more clear than it was before. Accordingly, I would like to thank the apologist in question (William Albrecht) for bringing this to our attention, but I would also like to encourage this apologist to focus on the fact that Augustine clearly did not view the Eucharist as providing a continued, literal bodily presence of Jesus on Earth, consistent with the Scriptures which teach:

Matthew 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

("Didn't he know that he'd be sitting in tabernacles of gold in the altars of churches?")

-TurretinFan

Shocked, I Tell Ya

Steve Hays reports on shocking information about yours truly (link). Tongue-in-cheek warning.

-TurretinFan

Follow-Up Response to Jay Dyer

Introduction

I have recently had the pleasure of going through an 11-point set of accusations against Calvinism by Mr. Jay Dyer. He has responded to several of the posts in my series and directed me to other posts that he has written that he thinks are relevant to the issues under discussion. The Jay Dyer Index provides a full set (at least I believe it is full) of the relevant posts in this interaction.

As one of the commenters on Mr. Dyer's blog indicated, Mr. Dyer is not your average Romanist. This is true on several levels, but the most relevant levels are those connected to having an Eastern Orthodox background and being a "Byzantine Rite Catholic" these days, as well as previously having been associated with a Reformed church. More than that, Mr. Dyer has clearly spent a lot of time reading and studying the issues, and cites not only to the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils (though he pretty much sticks to the first seven - perhaps a hangover from his EO days) but also the some of the church fathers (particularly those of the East - perhaps another artifact of his journey).

These things place Mr. Dyer in somewhat of a unique position, which both makes reading his material interesting, but also reduces the value in addressing his position. That is to say, because his views are so unique, they are interesting, but a response to them is pretty much just a response to Mr. Dyer. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if some of Mr. Dyer's accusations get repeated, especially by people who are simply looking for a cattle prod with which to zap Calvinists, even though they themselves do not understand Mr. Dyer's methodology or arguments. In this respect (the desire to label Calvinism a heresy) I think Mr. Dyer is more creative than others, but not completely unique.

So, perhaps a further response is justified. After carefully reviewing all of the material that I've identified at the Index post linked above, I think I may have identified a number of core issues that are at the heart of Mr. Dyer's criticisms of Calvinism. I will try, in this post, to identify those issues and provide a suitable response. Mr. Dyer's postings have been voluminous, and I apologize in advance that I will not be providing specific citations to his comments in support of the items I identify. I do invite Mr. Dyer to provide a response (at his own blog) to this, in the event that he feels I have mischaracterized his position.

1. Luther Was Not a Calvinist/Systematic Theologian

Mr. Dyer in several places makes reference to Luther, as though Luther were a Calvinist and/or a Systematic Theologian. Neither of these is correct. Although Luther had many powerful insights, and though Luther did a lot to aid the awakening of Europe to the truth of the Scriptures, Luther was neither fully Calvinistic nor systematic.

2. Question in Responses to Accusations is Calvinism not Romanism

Mr. Dyer seemed to have the impression that my responses were directed to showing distinctives of Calvinism in contrast to Romanism. Although each of the responses had an "accusation redirected" section, those sections were the only ones dealing specifically with Romanism. Just because Rome presents a false gospel doesn't mean that every aspect of Roman theology is necessarily wrong. There are certainly points of at least apparent formal agreement between Calvinism and Romanism, where Romanism embraces the truth. Thus, when (in my responses) I state the Calvinist position, this may or may not be accepted by Rome. That's not the point: the point is that Calvinism's position is the Scriptural position. If others agree, great.

3. Monergism Means God Alone Saves

A few times Mr. Dyer seemed to rely on a sort of play on words to suggest that monergism, the doctrine that God alone saves, is equivalent to monothelitism, the idea that Jesus had only one will. There's no logical connection, however, just a verbal similarity. Mr. Dyer nowhere (that I could find) presents any good reason for making this jump, and this sort of analysis via play on words is not a valid criticism.

4. Paul Says It - We Believe It

In a couple of instances, Mr. Dyer seemed to take issue with the fact that I quoted Paul. For example, Paul says

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

and

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Mr. Dyer seems to treat my quotation of these passages as implying what he perceives to be a Manichean view of God. If so, however, Mr. Dyer's issue is not really with me, but with Paul.

In fairness, I should point out that Mr. Dyer does elsewhere rely on things that Paul says, so Mr. Dyer is just being obtuse or inconsistent here. What Mr. Dyer doesn't do, however, is get beyond a reaction to expressions like "sinful flesh" and "by nature the children of wrath" to explain what he believes Paul means, and how he think that what Paul is saying differs from what Calvinists believe. In other words, the combination of exegesis and application isn't there on these texts.

5. Atonement Issues

Mr. Dyer seems to have a number of issues relating to the atonement. In Mr. Dyer's criticisms of the Calvinist position, the issues connected to the atoning work of Christ on the cross arise repeatedly. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether Mr. Dyer himself has a clear understanding both of the necessity and manner of Christ's atoning work. For Mr. Dyer, the emphasis seems to be (as with remaining writings of a few of the Early Church Fathers) more on the incarnation itself than on the atonement. There does not seem to be a "sacrifice for sin" concept present in his explanations regarding the saving work of Christ. This is an unfortunate gap in Mr. Dyer's theology, and may be one of the sources of his objections, though it is not made explicit in his critiques.

5a. In the Atonement, the Trinity Had One Purpose

Mr. Dyer repeatedly makes the claim that (in effect) if Jesus suffered the wrath of God on the cross for the sins of the elect, this implies that Jesus' divine will was somehow separate from the Father's divine will. There is, however, no logical link. Christ suffered the cross and the wrath of God voluntarily. Not only was there no disunion in the divine will over this, the Son and the Father were of one purpose, will, and intention in the cross. Christ's human will was made subservient and obedient to the divine will, which is one reason we can refer to the death of Christ as the "passive obedience" of Christ (though that label is not the most useful).

In short, there is no merit to the claim that the Calvinist view of the atonement implies a severance of the divine will. Mr. Dyer appears simply to assert this, and does not provide a supporting argument or explanation to back it up (although he makes a vague reference to "legal imputation"). There's no logical reason why Jesus would have to have a different will in order to experience the wrath of God on the cross on our (the elect's) behalf, nor for legal imputation to take place. Quite to the contrary, it is the unity of the divine will that is important to show that Jesus' death for our sins was not unjust, since he voluntarily offered himself on our behalf.

5b. Invalid Appeal to Perichoresis - Confusion of Persons

Mr. Dyer further objects to the Calvinistic doctrine of the atonement based on reference to perichoresis: the eternal mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity. It seems as though rather than properly affirming the relationship of the persons of the trinity, in trying to criticize Calvinism Mr. Dyer is flirting with Sabellianism, as though there were no distinction between the persons (though, of course, Mr. Dyer is not a modalist).

Mr. Dyer appears to believe that the Calvinistic view of the atonement necessarily involves a termination of perichoresis, but he provides no real argument in support of this contention. Mr. Dyer frequently refers to the expression "cut off" but the Calvinistic position is not that the Son was removed from the Trinity, but that he was crucified, died, and was buried - and continued under the power of death for a time.

6. Relation of Human Nature to Salvation

Another central problem that seems to crop up is the relation of human nature to salvation. Mr. Dyer seems to have a confused idea (or at least his comments are confused or confusing) about the way in which human nature relates to salvation. It is people (individual people) that are saved, not "human nature" as such. Salvation is about turning away the judgment of God from individual people, which people are consequently referred to as "saved."

There is an important relation of human nature to salvation, and this was highlighted in Anselm's Cur Deus Homo. The basic issue is that it was necessary that a human being be punished for sin. The blood of bulls and goats was insufficient. Furthermore, that human being had to be undeserving of the punishment himself. Finally, the human being had to be of such great personal dignity as to, by his death, satisfy justice for all those whom God wished to save. Thus, Jesus took on human nature: that is to say, he became a man, even while still being God. Thus, he was and is, God and man, in two distinct natures and one person, as he will be forever.

6a. By Nature, Children of Wrath

The fall brought about a change in mankind, such that all men under Adam's headship are, by nature, depraved in their spiritual faculties, so that they love darkness rather than light. They are, as Paul describes it, by nature children of wrath. This is the natural state of man, after the fall. One thing that saving grace does is, in regeneration, that it begins to restore the spiritual faculties of man. Man begins to love God rather than hating him. This is a restoration of man's nature. The restoration begins in and continues in sanctification. In glorification (upon death or translation), the restoration is complete, and (one might say) gloried man is better off than Adam was before the fall, since the glorified man will not sin.

It is unclear from Mr. Dyer's remarks whether he simply does not understand these Scriptural doctrines, or whether he objects to them. For example, Mr. Dyer alleges that Calvinism teaches that "nature" is inherently evil. This is misleading at best. Fallen human nature is depraved, but not human nature in the abstract.

Mr. Dyer seems to treat human nature as though it were a thing. Such that (in his view) when we say that in the fall human nature became depraved, we are referring to this "thing" of human nature being corrupted, as opposed to the manifestation of the concept being corrupted (as is the actual position). If we meant what Mr. Dyer said, the idea of human nature being restored wouldn't make much sense - the concept of the restoration of human nature, in an individual, only makes sense from the standpoint of a concept of human nature with individual corrupt manifestations, rather than from the standpoint of a "thing" that stands alone.

6b. Christ's Human Nature Not Corrupted

There are a number of odd things that Mr. Dyer suggests regarding Christ's human nature. For example, Dyer asserts that Christ assumed "universal human nature." While this is not necessarily wrong, Mr. Dyer emphasizes "universal" to the point of apparently suggesting that the manifestation of human nature in individual people cannot suffer the effects of the fall in terms of depravity, or that if it does, then Jesus two must necessarily similarly be depraved to be truly human.

This is nonsensical for two reasons. First, Mr. Dyer himself realizes that Jesus did not have original sin (which all men after the fall have at birth, save Christ alone) or concupiscence (proclivity to sin). This is one way in which Jesus is just like the rest of humanity, but without experiencing the spiritual effects of the fall.

A second reason that this is nonsensical is Mr. Dyer's recognition that grace alters nature. That is to say, Mr. Dyer appears to recognize that God's grace can transform the nature of a man. Mr. Dyer even refers to deification/divinization which - at least to a degree - relates to this concept. If, however, any improvement in nature rendered the person outside of humanity, then we would cease to be human if we experienced grace. This, however, is an absurd outcome.

Consequently Mr. Dyer's allegation is demonstrably false. Jesus can take on human nature in a pure form, without the depravity introduced in Adam's heirs by the fall, while still being as truly human as Adam was before the fall.

6c. Jesus Was Raised For of Our Justification

Mr. Dyer seems to suggest that Jesus' nature inherently needed to die and be "raised/deified." This is a very strange claim. Jesus' death was for our sins. Jesus did not die because it was intrinsic to his human nature, but because the wages of sin are death. Jesus was raised by the Father because our righteousness had been accomplished and the Father was satisfied with the work of Christ.

Jesus' humanity was not itself deserving of death. He took our sins upon himself. Thus, from his birth he suffered (though he did not deserve to suffer), he was humbled (though he deserved to be exalted), and he was eventually cruelly killed (though he deserved life). These things he did to satisfy God's justice and liberate us from the deserved judgment for our sins.

7. Confusion of Nature and Person

One accusation that Mr. Dyer makes is that Calvinism confuses nature and person. Actually, though, it appears that the shoe is on the other foot. Mr. Dyer himself seems to confuse person and nature, or at least to confuse the relation of nature to person.

In particular, Mr. Dyer doesn't seem to appreciate that certain things that Christ did, he did "as man" or "with respect to his humanity." This is simply a necessary consequence of the fact that humanity can do some things that divinity cannot. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. In contrast, man is body and soul, he is finite, he had a beginning, and he can change.

This is actually an important issue, particular with respect to responding to the errors of Islam. Muslims seem to make a similar in respect to the Incarnation. They will make comments to the effect that when Jesus relieved himself, are we claiming that God was sitting on the toilet?

The answer to be given to these sorts of objections, as well as to Mr. Dyer's objections, is that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Nevertheless, Jesus was omniscient and eternal in his divinity, not in his humanity. Jesus' humanity had a beginning and Jesus' humanity changed. Jesus was born as a baby, and he grew in stature over time. God (as divine) was never a baby and never grows. Jesus, as man, was hungry and thirsty. As God, Jesus did not need anything.

Many more examples could be given. The point, however, is that although Jesus had two natures, not everything about each nature is communicable to the other nature. Thus, Jesus was conceived in his humanity, not in (or as to) his divinity. Jesus is eternally divine. Before Abraham was, Jesus was the I AM. Jesus created the world and all that is in it. But Jesus condescended to take on human nature: he became a man.

The fact that there are incommunicable aspects of Jesus' humanity does not convert Jesus' human nature into a separate person. Mr. Dyer, however, seems to think that it would - and seems to assert that it would, without providing any supporting reasoning or argumentation to demonstrate it.

Conclusion

I hope that this post answers all (or virtually all) of the points that Mr. Dyer has raised in response to my series. I trust that I have fairly characterized his criticisms, but welcome his comments (via his own blog) if I have mischaracterized them. Calvinism doesn't fall into (or logically lead to) any errors with respect to the Trinitarian relationship or the person of Jesus Christ. The reason that it does not is that it is a system of theology properly derived from Scripture, and Scripture is an infallible rule of faith (the only one we have today).

-TurretinFan

Articles by John Murray

A friend has directed me to a collection of articles from John Murray that may be found at "The Highway" - a web site that serves as something of a document repository.

• "The Atonement"
• "The Reformed Faith and Arminianism" (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3)
• "Arminianism and the Atonement"
• "Irresistible Grace"
• "Law and Grace"
• "The Covenant of Grace"
• "The Sovereignty of God"
• "Calvin on the Sovereignty of God"
• "Calvin, Dordt and Westminster on Predestination"
• "Adoption"
• "The Adamic Administration"
• "From Faith to Faith"
• "The Mode of Baptism" (PDF)
• "Pictures of Christ"
• "Definitive Sanctification"
• "The Weak and the Strong"
• "Tradition: Romish and Protestant"
• "The Fourth Commandment: According to the Westminster Standards"
• "Co-Operation Evangelism"
• "The Sanctity of Truth"
• "Calvin's Doctrine of Scripture"

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

Jay Dyer Index

This is an index post for my interactions with Mr. Jay Dyer. So far, we have only one set of interactions (based on a single initial post of his), thus there are no categories yet, except those that fall out naturally from the nature of the discussion.

Jay Dyer's Initial Post.

My Initial Responses to Jay Dyer's Post
Intro to My Response to Jay's Post
My Response to Part 1 of Jay's Post (Nestorian Accusation)
My Response to Part 2 of Jay's Post (Manichean Accusation)
My Response to Part 3 of Jay's Post (Monothelitism Accusation)
My Response to Part 4 of Jay's Post (Tri-Theism Accusation)
My Response to Part 5 of Jay's Post (Gnosticism/Iconoclasm Accusation)
My Response to Part 6 of Jay's Post (Paganism Accusation)
My Response to Part 7 of Jay's Post (Pelagianism Accusation)
My Response to Part 8 of Jay's Post (Ecclesiastical Relativism Accusation)
My Response to Part 9 of Jay's Post (Un-deification Accusation)
My Response to Part 10 of Jay's Post (Liberal Higher Critic Accusation)
My Response to Part 11 of Jay's Post (Agnosticism Accusation)
Conclusion to My Response to Jay's Post

Jay Dyer's Video Responses
Jay's Video Remarks Part 1
Jay's Video Remarks Part 2
Jay's Video Remarks Part 3

Jay Dyer's Written Responses
Jay's Rebuttal With Respect to Nestorianism Accusation
(Related Post by Dyer, Identified as relevant)
Jay's Posting of Athanasius against the "Nestorian-Calvinists"
Jay's Rebuttal With Respect to Manichean Accusation
"Replies to the Calvinists on Fallen Nature"
Jay's Rebuttal With Respect to Monothelitism Accusation
Jay's Rebuttal With Respect to Tritheism Accusation
Jay's Rebuttal With Respect to Gnostiticism/Iconoclasm Accusation
Jay's Rebuttal With Respect to Arianism/Paganism Accusation

Peanut Gallery (meant in the kindest way)
Comments from Michael Burgess on the Monothelite Accusation
Remarks on the Discussion - and a loaded question - from Perry Robinson
Piling On the Accusation of Pelagianism - from Perry Robinson
(Response to Perry from Nathanael Taylor)
(Initial Response to Perry from Steve Hays)
(Full Response to Perry from Steve Hays)
(Mark at the Bellarmine Theological Forum asks Mr. Robert Sungenis to Give the Dialog Coverage)
(Matthew Bellisario Claims that Dyer has Refuted me, referencing the audio from Mr. Dyer below)

General Response to Jay Dyer's Rebuttals
Follow-Up Response of February 21, 2009

Further Informal Dialog
Hodge and Alleged Reformed Denial of Nature/Grace Distinction (already addressed both in my original series (which included a quotation from Hodge on the very issue) and in my General Response at point 6a, where we discuss Mr. Dyer's treatment of nature as a thing)

Further Audio Response (around 51 minutes long) from Jay Dyer (link to post)(direct link to audio).

My Response to Mr. Dyer's Audio commentary (link).

-TurretinFan

Why You Shouldn't Read Anyone Else's Blog

(except mine of course)

If you were expecting a defense of the title of this post (or the sub-title above), you are in for a let-down. It's not serious. It's a tongue-in-cheek facetious remark aimed at scolding Mr. Nick Norelli who (in this recent post) just doesn't get it.

Mr. Norelli makes the claim that "But apparently unless one has read White’s books, listened to his debates, or researched his teaching and/or ministry over the last 20 years then they can’t truly understand the context in which he says anything." This is just silly. Mr. Norelli goes on to quote the following paragraph from Dr. White:

2) Do not expect the Golden Rule to be applied to you if you are an evangelical. If you are going to address someone like Ehrman, you better do your homework. Read his works, listen to his lectures, study his articles. If you do not, you have nothing to say. However, anyone can comment on what you say as an evangelical without worrying about anything you have ever written or taught over twenty or more years. Just remember, the context of the evangelical is irrelevant; the context of the star-level scholar is all important. Also, it is fair to assume the evangelical believer is ignorant of anything you wish to attribute to them, even if you have no idea whether they are in fact ignorant of those subjects or not.

(emphasis provided by Mr. Norelli)
For some reason, perhaps known only to God, Mr. Norelli has apparently mentally converted "not anything" into "not everything" and/or generalized his comment about people judging his scholarship into a comment about people understanding anything at all that he writes. This too is silly.

I'll put it in simple terms: "Don't say Dr. White doesn't know what he's talking about if you haven't done your homework on his background. And if you are going to say that Dr. White doesn't know what he's talking about, be prepared to back that up, because he'll call you on it."

More specifically, Dr. White has read most of what Ehrman has written, and his opinions of Ehrman's scholarship are consequently informed, even if one disagrees with them. In contrast, folks who bloviate based on a sentence or fragment thereof, taken in isolation, have an opinion that is uninformed.

-TurretinFan

Joseph and Mary's Marriage

On a recent Dividing Line there was a clip played taken from, if I recall correctly, the "Catholic Answers" show, regarding Joseph and Mary's "marriage." The caller asked (and I may be slightly paraphrasing) two questions:

1) Where in the Bible does it say that marriage is only valid when it is consummated?

2) Did Mary and Joseph have a valid marriage?

The host (well, the person providing the "Catholic Answers") answered the first question by appealing to Genesis, where it says that the "two shall be one flesh."

The host then went on to say that Joseph and Mary never became one flesh, but (and again I'm paraphrasing) that was ok because NT sacramental marriage hadn't come to be, yet. But if Genesis is the institution of the definition of marriage as valid depending on physical union, then the fact that sacramental marriage hadn't come to exist yet is irrelevant - since the question wasn't whether the marriage was sacramental, but whether it was valid.

They did have marriage before the apostles, and physical union was a normative aspect of Old Testament marriage. That's one reason that the New Testament places such great emphasis on the fact that Mary and Joseph didn't "know" each other from before Jesus was conceived until Jesus was born.

Matthew describes it as being that Mary was found to be with child of the Holy Ghost "before they [i.e. Mary and Joseph] came together" (Matthew 1:18). Of course, Catholicism today claims that Mary and Joseph never came together, but the natural sense of the text is that they did come together, just later. This is especially so when coupled with the statement, only a few verses later that Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son," rather than saying that Joseph "never knew" her.

-TurretinFan

Why Did They Burn the Reformers?

The William Tyndale web site has provided a re-print of an article by J.C. Ryle, on the topic, "Why Were Our Reformers Burned?" (link) There are a number of OCR/transcription errors in the article, but the points it makes are important, and often forgotten.

-TurretinFan

Simple Challenge for Kent Brandenburg

Mr. Brandenburg has posted an article in which he states:

Bart Ehrman, in Misquoting Jesus, had nine propositions that he developed in the course of the book. In his debate with Ehrman, James White could not challenge the assessment that he himself agreed with eight and a half of the propositions in Misquoting Jesus. The only thing they disagreed about was the interpretation of the evidence. And this is the kind of thing that is the source for non-KJS bibliology.

(source - Article titled "Brainwashed Bibliology")

Now, the last sentence of this paragraph is just wrong. It is true that Dr. White disagrees with Dr. Ehrman about the interpretation of the evidence, but that is far from the only thing that Dr. White disagrees with Dr. Ehrman about.

But here is the challenge for Mr. Brandenburg. It is a simple challenge with two parts:

1) Demonstrate that you know what the nine propositions are by listing them, and
2) Identify which, if any, of those propositions you yourself disagree with.

After all, just because Dr. Ehrman is an apostate and agnostic doesn't mean that every proposition he states is wrong. Surely you don't think that Dr. White has to defend the truth by disagreeing with true statements, do you? So identify the erroneous propositions from those nine that you believe Dr. White should have disagreed with.

-TurretinFan

Humble Epistemology

Todd Pruitt at the 1517 blog has provided some interesting thoughts on epistemology from Albert Mohler, including a catchy quotation from Gordon Clark (link):

If man can know nothing truly, man can truly know nothing. We cannot know that the Bible is the Word of God, that Christ died for our sin, or that Christ is alive today at the right hand of the Father. Unless knowledge is possible, Christianity is non-sensical, for it claims to be knowledge. What is at stake in the twentieth century is not simply a single doctrine, such as the Virgin Birth, or the existence of Hell, as important as those doctrines may be, but the whole of Christianity itself. If knowledge is not possible to man, it is worse than silly to argue points of doctrine--it is insane.

-TurretinFan

Response to Jay Dyer on Calvinism (Part 13 of 13)

This is part 13 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link).

Throughout the series, we have seen the Calvinist position explained with respect to each of the eleven accusations leveled against Calvinism, we have seen the accusation refuted in most cases (the exception being labeling us, like Moses and Gideon, as iconoclasts), and we have seen that generally the accusations lead to greater headaches for those within Catholicism.

It should be clear that the headaches for Catholicism are not strictly speaking either an inversion of the accusation (just because, for example, there was a Monothelite pope doesn't make modern Catholicism consist of Monothelitism) nor are they themselves a rebuttal of the accusations (just because Catholicism has some ideas that are similar to those of the Gnostics doesn't - as a matter of logic - tell us whether Calvinists similarly err).

I hope that I have steered clear of making the same indefensibly inflammatory comments that I have been correcting with this series. That is to say, I hope I have not only demonstrated that Mr. Dyer's comments were inflammatory and indefensible, but I hope that in the process of redirecting those accusations, I have limited myself to legitimate critiques of Catholicism, Mr. Dyer's present affiliation.

For me the bottom line is that the Doctrines of Grace, a soteriology of monergism, as summarized against the Remonstrant errors with the acronym TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints), is what the Bible teaches about salvation. It leads to the position of "compatibilism" namely that God is sovereign in ordaining everything that comes to pass even while man is responsible for what he does. Calvinism is not and does not lead to heresies, precisely because it has been properly derived from Scripture.

After all, that is the one way in which we may avoid error: careful, prayerful consideration and examination of the Bible. Careful consideration of the Bible can include asking our fellow believers for their thoughts and going to commentators (including folks like John Calvin, John Owen, and Francis Turretin) that are steeped in the Word of God. Those writings of our fellow men, however, must always be placed beneath Scripture, since they are fallible, but the Word of the LORD is infallible.

Thus, in conclusion, Calvinism is orthodox because Calvinism is Scriptural. The measuring stick of Scripture is the umpire that shows whether John Calvin or Benedict XVI is the false teacher on any given doctrine.

As Gregory of Nyssa (circa A.D. 335–395) said: "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." It is my hope that the preceding series of responses have demonstrated to you, the reader, that the vote of truth with respect to each of the issues presented is to be given to the dogmas of Calvinism because of their agreement with, and derivation from, the Holy Scriptures.

-TurretinFan

New Calvin Graphic

In honor of Calvin's 500th Birthday, Carla Rolfe has provided an exciting new Calvin graphic. If such things interest you, check it out (link)!

-TurretinFan