Heidelberg Catechism on the Second Commandment

Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 35

Question 96. What does God require in the second commandment?

Answer: That we in no wise represent God by images, (a) nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded in his word. (b)

(a) Deut.4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Deut.4:16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, Deut.4:17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, Deut.4:18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: Deut.4:19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. Isa.40:18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him? Isa.40:19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chains. Isa.40:20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved. Isa.40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? Isa.40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: Isa.40:23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. Isa.40:24 Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble. Isa.40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. Rom.1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Rom.1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. (b) 1 Sam.15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. Deut.12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Deut.12:31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. Deut.12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. Matt.15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Question 97. Are images then not at all to be made?

Answer: God neither can, nor may be represented by any means: (a) but as to creatures; though they may be represented, yet God forbids to make, or have any resemblance of them, either in order to worship them or to serve God by them. (b)

(a) Isa.40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. (b) Exod.23:24 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images. Exod.23:25 And ye shall serve the LORD your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee. Exod.34:13 But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: Exod.34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Exod.34:17 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods. Num.33:52 Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: Deut.7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. Deut.12:3 And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Deut.16:21 Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee. 2 Kin.18:3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. 2 Kin.18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

Question 98. But may not images be tolerated in the churches, as books to the laity?

Answer: No: for we must not pretend to be wiser than God, who will have his people taught, not by dump images, (a) but by the lively preaching of his word. (b)

(a) Jer.10:8 But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities. Hab.2:18 What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols? Hab.2:19 Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it. (b) Rom.10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Rom.10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Rom.10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 2 Pet.1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 2 Tim.3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim.3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Peter Abelard on the Inerrancy of Scripture in Contradistinction to the Errancy of the Fathers

When it is clear that even the prophets and apostles themselves were not complete strangers to error, what is so surprising, then, if among such manifold writings of the Holy Fathers some things seem to be handed down or written erroneously, for the reason given above? But just as these holy ‘defendants’ should not be charged with lying if at one time or another, not from duplicity but from ignorance, they make some statements other than what the real truth would have them think; so in the same way something that is said for love while giving some instruction should not be imputed to presumption or sin, since it is well known that all things are distinguished by God according to intention, just as it is written (Matthew 6:22), "If thy eye be sound, thy whole body will be full of light." Whence also this passage St. Augustine in his treatise on Church discipline: "Have love," he says, "and do what you will." And this on the Epistle of John (In Epist. Ioan. ad Parthos, tract. V, 7) "Those who have no love are not of God. Have whatever you wish, but if love is the only thing that you do not have, then nothing avails you. If you should have nothing else, but you do have love, then you will fulfill the Law." And further (tract. VII, 8), "Therefore a single brief precept is commanded of you: Love, and do what you will." And this from the first book of On Christian Doctrine (I, xxxvi, 40), "Whoever seems in his own opinion to understand the Holy Scriptures or any part of them, such that with this understanding he does not build up that twofold love of God and of his neighbor, then he does not yet understand. But if someone has derived from there an idea such that it is useful for building up love, then although he may not have said something that the author whom he is reading is proven to have meant in that spot, still, he is not dangerously deceived nor is he lying at all. For lying involves the intent of speaking false things." And in the Against Lying (Contra Mendacium, xii, 26): "Lying is a false meaning in what is said, combined with the intent of misleading." And in the Enchiridion, chapter 23 , "No one is rationally judged to be lying when they say something false that they believe is true, because, inasmuch as one believes it, one does not deceive but is oneself deceived. Likewise, someone who holds false opinions, carelessly accepted in place of true ones, ought to be accused not of lying but of sometime rashness. On the other hand, anyone lies who says a true thing, while believing that it is false. For insofar as his intent is concerned, because he does not say what he believes, to that extent he does not speak the truth, even if what he says may actually turn out to be true. Nor is someone free from lying, if they unwittingly speak the truth, but lie insofar as their knowledge and intent." And this (Enchiridion 22): "Everyone who lies speaks in contradiction to what he believes in his mind, with the intention of deceiving." And also, in Book Two of his commentary on the Gospels (Contra Mendacium x, 24): "That Jacob managed at his mother’s bidding to seem to deceive his father; if examined carefully, is not a lie but rather a mystery. For a truthful [i.e. allegorical] meaning can in no way rightly be called a lie." Indeed in this passage the spiritual teacher only accepts as a lie a transgression which God, who is the judge of hearts and passions, weighs according to the intent of the speaker rather than according to the quality of the speech, paying attention not so much to what is done as to the spirit in which it is done. According to this, anyone is guiltless insofar as they think sincerely and without falseness and do not speak deceitfully – just as it is written (Proverbs 10:9), "He that walketh sincerely, walketh confidently." Otherwise even the Apostle Paul might be accused of lying when he follows his own judgement rather than the truth of the matter as he writes to the Romans saying (Romans 15:28), "Therefore when I have completed this, and have delivered to them the proceeds, I will set out by way of you for Spain." Thus it is one thing to lie and another to be mistaken while speaking and to stray from the truth in one’s words due to error, not to malice.

If God on occasion does allow this to happen even to the holy ones themselves, as we have said, in those situations that would cause no damage to the faith, it does not happen unproductively to those by whom everything is undertaken for the good. Even the ecclesiastical teachers themselves, diligently attentive and believing some things in their works needed correction, grant to posterity the license to emend or not to follow them; if somehow these teachers were not able to retract or correct in their works. Whence even the teacher Augustine, cited above, in Book One of his Retractions (prologus 2): "It is written," he says, "you do not avoid sin by loquacity." And also "The apostle James says (James 1:19), ‘Let every man be swift to hear but slow to speak’.’" And " (James 3:2) ‘For in many things we all offend. If anyone does not offend in word, he is a perfect man.’ I do not claim this perfection for myself even now, when I am an old man – how much less when as a young man I began to write." And in the prologue to Book Three of the On the Trinity (proem 2): "Do not defer to my writings as if they were canonical scriptures, but whatever you would find in the canonical scriptures that you did not believe, believe steadfastly. But in my writings I do not want you to accept with assurance something that you had not been taking as certain unless you now understand it as certain." And in the letters to Vincentus Victor, Book Two (De Anime et eius Origine iv, 1): "I cannot, nor should I, deny that just as I might be blamed for many things in my conduct by fair judgement without rashness, so I might be blamed for many things in my writings." And again in his letter to Vincent (Epist. 95, x, 35), "Do not desire, brother, to collect calumnies against such clear divine witnesses -– either from our writings, or from Hilary, or from Cyprian and Agrippinus, because this type of writing should be distinguished from the authority of the canon. For they are not to be read as if it were not permissible to disagree with the testimony presented in them, if in some place they should claim to know otherwise than the truth demands." And again to Fortunatianus (Epist. 148, iv, 15): "Nor ought we to regard the arguments of anyone, no matter how Catholic and well-regarded, in the way we regard the canonical scriptures, that is (with all due respect to these men) as if we were not permitted to refute or reject something that we find in their writings where their opinions differ from the established truth. I wish my readers to hold the same attitude toward my writings as I hold toward the writings of others." And again in the Response to Faustus (Contra Faustum, Book 1, Chapter xi): "We are far from saying that Paul sometimes erred and changed his opinion as he advanced. For one could say that the books we have written, not with the authority of commanding but in the exercise of utility, are not comparable to the [canonical] books." And again (Contra Faustum, XI, v): "For we are the ones of whom the Apostle said: ‘and in any point you are minded otherwise, this also God will reveal to you’ -- this type of writing of letters should be read not with a compulsion to believe but with the freedom to evaluate. However, so that the room for this freedom is not excluded, and that very healthy task of treating difficult questions and translating their language and style is not denied to later authors, the excellence of the canonical authority of the Old and New Testaments has been distinguished from that of the works of later authors. If there should be something in the Old or New Testament that seems as if it were absurd, you may not say that the author of this work did not possess the truth, but that the manuscript is corrupt, or the translator has made a mistake, or that you do not understand. But in works of later witness, contained in innumerable volumes, if perhaps some things are thought to deviate from the truth because they are not understood as they have been expressed, in these works the reader or listener has the freedom of judgement to approve what seems good or disapprove of what offends, and therefore when it comes to things of this type, unless they are supported either by sure reasoning or canonical authority, so that what is either argued or narrated there may be shown either to be entirely so or to be potentially so, if it does not seem good to someone or they do not wish to believe it, they are not reproached."

(292-304) And thus he calls the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments documents about which it is heretical to say that something in them contradicts the truth. Indeed, concerning these Scriptures he writes thus in his fourth letter to Jerome (Epist. 40, iii, 3): "In the explanation of the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians I find something that pains me deeply. For if even white lies were permitted to the Holy Scriptures, what authority would they retain? How, I pray, could this view be set forth concerning the same Scriptures by whose weight the contentious depravity of falsehood is crushed?" And again, to the same man also about Holy Scripture (Epist. 28, iii, 3): "It seems to me a most dangerous thing to allow that anything in the sacred books may be a lie, that is, that those men who preserved and wrote the Scriptures for us should have lied about anything in their books. For if a single white lie is admitted anywhere in so lofty an authority, then no particle of these books will remain which will not be explained as the idea or practice of the author’s mind, using this most dangerous example whenever anyone finds something difficult to practice or hard to believe."

St. Jerome, also, when he preferred some ecclesiastical doctors to the rest, thus counseled us that they should be read in order to judge among them rather than merely accepting them. Whence this advice of his in his letter to Laeta concerning the education of her daughter (Epist. 107, 12): "The works of Cyprian she ought always to hold in hand; the works of Athanasius and the book of Hilary to tread with an unhindered foot; let her enjoy the treatises and talents of those in whose books the piety of faith does not waver. The others she ought to read so as to judge rather than to accept." So also in speaking on Psalm 86, as if clearly offering his authority on all these writers, Jerome says (Tractatus de Ps. 86): "‘the Lord will tell, in the writings of the leaders and the princes, those who were in her [i.e. Zion]’. He did not say ‘those who are in her’ but ‘those who have been in her’. ‘Of the peoples’ is not enough, but he also says ‘of the princes’ –- and of what princes? Of ‘those who have been’. Thus you may see how the sacred Scripture is filled with holy mysteries. We read the Apostle saying (2 Corinthians 13:3), ‘Do you seek a proof of the Christ who speaks in me?’ What Paul said, Christ said (‘For he who receives you, receives me’ – Matthew 10:40) in the Scripture of the princes and ‘in the Scripture of the peoples’, which is the Scripture for all people. You may see what he says: ‘those who have been’, not ‘ those who are’, so that with the exception of the apostles whatever else is said afterwards is separate, and does not possess authority afterward. Therefore, however holy someone may be who lived after the apostles, and however well-spoken, he does not possess authority." And the same author writing to Vigilantius (Epist. 129, 11): "Whoever reads works of many treatises ought to be like a trusted moneychanger so that he rejects any coin that is false and lacks the image of Caesar and is not marked by the public mint; but the coin showing the face of Christ in the clear light he stores up in the pouch of his heart. For what ought to be pondered is not the predecided opinion of the teachers, but the logic of the teaching, as it is written (1 Thess. 5:21), ‘Test all thing; hold fast that which is good.’" However, this is said in reference to the commentators, not in reference to the canonical Scriptures, in which one should have undoubting faith. Jerome also wrote to Paulinus concerning the holy teachers in the Good Man Concerning the Good Treasure of the Heart (Epist. 58, 1, 10): "I am silent concerning the rest, both the dead and those still living, over whom others after us may judge either way."

- Peter Abelard (1079-1142), Sic et Non, Prologue, lines 249-329 (copied with permission from the linked source)

One Year Apologize ...

... the next year, refuse to accept the resignation of the bishops (link to source). No wait - that wasn't last year that he apologized, it was less than six months ago (link to source).

"You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated," he [Benedict XVI] told victims in his letter, released March 20 at the Vatican. (second source above)

Now, it appears that it is back to politics as usual. Not quite, though - "The Vatican grinds to a halt and virtually closes down for the entire month of August as the Pope departs the heat of Rome for his summer residence and his advisors enjoy the ferragosto holiday." (first source above)

And what exactly did he apologize for? He didn't admit that the Church did anything wrong, did he? It looked like he pretty much blamed the Irish, acting though it was their problem.

He did say one thing that may be coming back to him now:

"Only decisive action carried out with complete honesty and transparency will restore the respect and good will of the Irish people toward the church," he said. (second source above)

-TurretinFan

Canon Debate with William Albrecht

Yesterday, Mr. William Albrecht (Roman Catholic) and I (Reformed) debated the topic of the Canon of Scripture, specifically the question of whether the so-called Deuterocanonical books and parts of books are Scripture (link to mp3). The most interesting part of the debate, as I believe Mr. Albrecht would agree, were the four cross-examination segments immediately following the constructive speeches.

I hope to upload this to YouTube, but this is faster in the short term.

There are a number of points where I think it might be helpful to add some additional discussion, and I'll try to do that in the coming weeks, rather than wedging it all into this post.

- TurretinFan

Because Painted Images Can't Do Anything

Isaiah 41:24 Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you.

Morphology vs. Genetics vs. Evolution

Peter Pike made an interesting argument in the comment box of my previous post (link to post). The argument runs along these lines:

1) Evolutionism claims that common descent can be demonstrated via clading, where clading is broadly defined as grouping individuals in a family tree based on genetic similarity.

2) Clading is great for things like paternity testing.

3) Clading, however, is not great for predicting morphology. The Orangutan is morpholigically the most similar living animal to man, but is not genetically the most similar to man.

4) Virtually all that palentology can provide with respect to most specimens is bone morphology.

The conclusion: palentology does not support (whether or not it rebuts) the contemporary argument of evolutionism. Obviously, a good bit of the weight of the argument hangs on (3). I'm sure the typical response would be to argue that morphology is used because that's all we have. The conclusion, however, still stands. The fact that it is the best you have doesn't really mean it's enough.

- TurretinFan

Cranmer on the Second Commandment

Here are some thoughts from Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (1489 – 1556) on the second commandment:

God did also foresee, that, in the latter days, men should come, who would maintain worshipping of images, not only with painted colours, but also with painted words, saying, We kneel not to the image, but before the image. We worship not the image, but the thing which is represented by the image. We worship not the creatures, but the Creator in the creatures. And such like excuses the greatest idolaters did always pretend. But to the intent that they should not so deceive you, God oftentimes in holy Scripture calls upon you, saying, Thou shalt not make to thee any graven image or likeness of any creature. Thou shalt not kneel, nor bow thyself down to it. For what can be more contrary to the dignity of man, than that he, whom God hath made lord over all creatures, should kneel or do reverence to the image of a creature!

God hath so fashioned man, that he hath given him a body standing straight up, and a countenance to look upward into heaven. And why then should he bow himself downward to the earth, or to creatures made of earth, which are rather to be trodden under his feet, than to be worshipped of him? There is nothing more against reason, than that he who hath life, sense, and reason, should worship a thing which can neither see, feel, move, hear, nor understand. Wherefore God saith plainly, Thou shalt not worship images; that is to say, Thou shalt not gild them and set them in costly tabernacles, and deck them with coats or skirts: thou shalt not cense them, make vows or pilgrimages to them, set candles before them, and offer unto them. Thou shalt not kiss their feet, and bow down unto them.

For God saith; I am a jealous God, and will not give my honour to any creature, but will grievously punish them that break this my commandment. Yea, I will punish their children and posterity unto the third and fourth generation.

- Cranmer's Catechism, The Ten Commandments

In Whom Do You Trust? Through Whom Does your Salvation Come?

Christians are those who follow Christ, who have faith in Christ for salvation. They ascribe to him power and glory, which they do not ascribe to any creature. They have one mediator, as it is written:

1 Timothy 2:5-6
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

We have faith in God and in no other, thus we sing:;

Psalm 62:6 He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved.

And we remind ourselves this:

Psalm 62:5 My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him.

What spirit then, is behind this pen?

Great indeed is Our trust in Mary. The resplendent glory of her merits, far exceeding all the choirs of angels, elevates her to the very steps of the throne of God. Her foot has crushed the head of Satan. Set up between Christ and His Church, Mary, ever lovable and full of grace, always has delivered the Christian people from their greatest calamities and from the snares and assaults of all their enemies, ever rescuing them from ruin.

Ubi Primum, February 2, 1849, Pius IX (link to source), section 4

The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.

Ubi Primum, February 2, 1849, Pius IX (link to source), section 5

What Scripture will someone try to claim tells us to speak this way about Mary? There are many that teach us to speak this way about God, but none that teach us to make Mary a mediatrix or tell us to have faith in Mary.

I anticipate the usual responses from Rome's advocates for whom an absence of apostolicity is no obstacle. They will first assert that this encyclical is not infallible. Indeed the encyclical does not claim to be infallible: it is paving the way for an allegedly infallible proclamation that was to follow.

Accordingly, We have appointed certain priests of recognized piety and theological learning, as well as several cardinals of the Holy Roman Church who are renowned because of their ability, piety, wisdom, prudence, and knowledge of the things of God; and We have directed them to make, carefully and thoroughly, a most diligent examination into this most important matter and then provide Us with a complete report. Through such a procedure, We feel that We are following in the clearly marked footsteps of Our Predecessors and that We are emulating their example.

Ubi Primum, February 2, 1849, Pius IX (link to source), section 5

The second thing that they may wish to claim is some sort of poetic license for this bishop of Rome. But are we really to take Pius IX's words only poetically? The context of his words is the preparation for inserting the false dogma of the Immaculate Conception into the religion of Rome:

No sooner had We been elevated to the sublime Chair of the Prince of the Apostles and undertook the government of the universal Church (not, indeed, because of Our own worthiness but by the hidden designs of Divine Providence) than We had the great consolation, Venerable Brethren, in recalling that, during the pontificate of Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor of happy memory, there was in the entire Catholic world a most ardent and wondrous revival of the desire that the most holy Mother of God -- the beloved Mother of us all, the immaculate Virgin Mary -- be finally declared by a solemn definition of the Church to have been conceived without the stain of original sin. Both to Our Predecessor and to Us this most devout desire was clearly and unmistakably made manifest by the petitions of illustrious bishops, esteemed canonical chapters, and religious congregations, among whom was the renowned Order of Preachers. These appeals vied with one another in the insistent request that official permission be granted for the word Immaculate to be publicly used and be added to the sacred liturgy, particularly in the Preface of the Mass of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin. With the greatest delight, both Our Predecessor and We acceded to these requests.

Ubi Primum, February 2, 1849, Pius IX (link to source), sections 1-2

One thing is wrapped up in another - devotion to Mary is an essential component of Rome's religion, though it was not a part of the apostolic faith. But the faith of Pius IX is the one in which he was raised - which he described this way:

From our earliest years nothing has ever been closer to Our heart than devotion-filial, profound, and wholehearted-to the most blessed Virgin Mary. Always have We endeavored to do everything that would redound to the greater glory of the Blessed Virgin, promote her honor, and encourage devotion to her.

Ubi Primum, February 2, 1849, Pius IX (link to source), section 4

Ought not devotion to God to be closer than devotion to any mere creature? Ought not filial, profound, and wholehearted devotion be given to our Father in heaven? How did Jesus teach us to pray - to "Our mother, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name" or "Our Father"? Which is the prayer that has been prayed continuously for nearly 2000 years? Who on the other hand can produce for us some record of the "Hail Mary" before Nicaea? Who can show us one Western father from the first millennium who said something like "[Mary is] set up between Christ and His Church"?

And even if one could find a "Hail Mary" prayer very early, and some early person who mistakenly used the Marian axe to sever the head (Christ) from the body (His church), what of it? It is not what the apostles taught - it is not the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

It is an innovation whether it was developed in the 19th century with Pius IX, in the middle ages with St. Bernard, or even if it was developed earlier.

The bottom line, dear reader, is this: in whom do you trust? through whom does your salvation come? If it comes through Mary - if you are trusting in her like Pius IX did - you are not properly trusting in Christ, and you will face judgment on that dreadful day of the Lord.

-TurretinFan

Trouble with Clading

One of the claims of evolutionists is that we Creationists don't want to listen to the evidence, and that evolutionists do listen to the evidence. They claim that we are unreasonable in dismissing their attempt to establish common descent by simply grouping living beings with similar characteristics together.

They claim that they are not simply dogmatically asserting common descent, and that their hypothesis is falsifiable, if we find an example of something that eludes their clading - explaining similar features by common ancestry.

We point to things like octopus eyes as an example that shows that their system of clading cannot be right, since humans and octopuses do not have any alleged common ancestors that have eyes. They simply claim that this is an example of parallel evolution. By remarkable coincidence, the eye evolved by chance at least two different times.

But the absurdity can be seen to be even greater than that. Recently, it was announced that a study had determined that sea sponges share human genes - and not just one or two. The study claims that sea sponges share 70% of human genes (link to report of study).

This sort of evidence ends up getting waved away by evolutionary dogmatists. Who cares about sea sponges, chimps have 99.something % of our genes, they'll tell us. But then when you bring up articles on chimp studies that suggest that there are problems with the hypothesis that gene similarity means we are close relations to chimps (first article, second article), they tend to simply wave them off as well.

And then, of course, they'll accuse you of anti-intellectualism because you don't uncritically accept the dogma of evolutionism on faith. Oh, the irony.

- Turretinfan

Synthesizing Light and Darkness

Christopher Benson has a new post called, "The Future of the Science and Religion Debate." (link to post - not recommended) Benson argues that, "Christians can achieve a “synthetic middle ground” in the debate if they get a better handle on the vocations of science and religion and a more robust doctrine of creation." But Benson, in a quotation from Giberson, defines this synthetic middle ground as a position "where one might simultaneously embrace a science shorn of its over-reaching scientism and a faith freed from a simplistic biblical literalism."

Why on earth would I want to compromise Biblical literalism? What good is a synthesis of truth (that God created the world in six days) and error (anything else)?

According to Benson, the apparent reason would be to avoid negative perception from unbelievers: "A Pew Forum poll conducted in 2007 showed that only 25% of evangelicals believe in evolution and 10% in evolution through natural selection––a statistic that puts them at odds with the scientific consensus, reinforcing the cultural perception of Christian anti-intellectualism. The New Atheists have emerged, defining the terms of engagement in the debate on science and religion. And the Intelligent Design crowd has lost its stamina, becoming a scientific embarrassment."

Guess what, there are some other things that are contrary to the scientific consensus:

1) Noah's Flood

2) The Plagues on Egypt

3) The Crossing of the Red Sea

4) Manna from Heaven

5) The Crossing of the Jordan

6) The Battle of Jericho

...

7) The Virgin Birth

8) The Resurrection of Lazarus

9) The Resurrection of Jesus

...

I could list many more. The scientific consensus is that there are no miracles. It's not there are miracles only about things less amazing than creating the world in six days. It's worse than stupid to compromise the truth of Scripture for the sake of being more well-liked by unbelievers.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

-TurretinFan

Ergun Caner's So-Called Apology (Part 2)

I previously blogged on the subject of Ergun Caner's so-called apology (link to my post). Recently, someone directed me to DeMarcus Sullivan's blog post (link) on the topic. He writes:

But ladies and gentlemen, here is the official statement of apology made by Dr. Ergun Caner back in FEBRUARY when he first addressed these allegations as I mentioned in a previous post. So, for the internet blogging mob that are demanding a public apology from Dr. Caner...read it and shut up.

Keep in mind that Sullivan is a recent graduate of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, with his degree being in Theology and Apologetics, as his blogger profile proudly trumpets.

Look, however, at the shallowness of his defense of Dr. Caner! He encourages folks to "read it and shut up." We have to wonder why Sullivan thinks that Caner's so-called apology would suffice?

I. What is Denied in the so-called Apology?

The so-called Apology explicitly denies having intentionally misled anyone. Caner says specifically: "I have never intentionally misled anyone." My understanding of this is that Caner is denying that he lied to people. If he had lied to someone, he would have intentionally misled them, right? So, as I understand what Caner is saying, he did not lie.

II. What is Admitted in the so-called Apology?

The so-called Apology admits the following: "I am sure I have made many mistakes in the pulpit in the past 20-plus years, and I am sure I will make some in the future. For those times where I misspoke, said it wrong, scrambled words, or was just outright confusing, I apologize and will strive to do better."

- misspoke
- said it wrong
- scrambled words
- was just outright confusing

It also admits one other thing: "Finally, there is a legitimate complaint which I must address, namely, referencing a Muslim scholar that I have never met. Listening to the audio, I honestly have no idea who I was referencing, but it certainly could not have been the man I referenced. For this unintentional but nevertheless horrible mistake, I repent for saying his name, and I ask the forgiveness of all those who heard it. Sin is sin, and if I am dumb enough to say something like that, I should be man enough to deal with it and aim to never make such a grievous error again. This applies to any time when I wrongly used names. I shall be more careful."

- unintentional[ly] referencing a Muslims scholar that [he] never met
- saying his name
- wrongly used names
- [not being] more careful

We can see what Caner thinks he is apologizing for most clearly in his final section: "Criticism is many times helpful. In this particular instance, it has enabled me to correct the careless mistakes I addressed above. "

- careless mistakes

III. Is the Apology Accurate?

The apology makes three sentences of autobiographical claims in an opening section:

1. I was born in Sweden, with a Turkish father and our mother who was a Turkish citizen.
2. I was born and raised a Sunni Muslim, just like my brothers.
3. I was led to Christ at the Stelzer Road Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio, just like my brothers.

As to (1), I cannot confirm whether Caner's mother was a Turkish citizen. Apparently, it is presently possible for a foreign woman to gain Turkish citizenship by marrying a Turkish man (link to source - note that the same source observes that monogamy is a requirement of Turkish law). I do not know, however, whether that was possible in 1966, when Caner's parents married, nor do I know whether Caner's mother elected to be a Turkish citizen.

As to (2), aside from his brother, I am not aware of anyone who has stepped forward to confirm the idea that he was "raised a Sunni Muslim." I don't doubt that his father tried to influence him for Sunni Islam.

As to (3), in their book (Unveiling Islam, page 19) the Caner brothers state that Erdem Caner was saved "in the basement of their home." And Kregel Publications claims to have done their own investigation and somehow confirmed the facts as presented in Unveiling Islam (link to evidence). In fact, Kregel writes: "Kregel Publications has found no credible evidence that contradicts the biography as presented in Dr. Caner’s books." (source) So, if Kregel is right, then in this very apology for misstatements about his past, Dr. Caner has made another misstatement about his past. Alternatively, Kregel hasn't done a very careful investigation.

IV. Is the Apology (so-called) Enough?

If Ergun Caner lied about being born in Turkey, living in Ankara and along the Iraqi border most of his life, being trained at madrassahs in Istanbul in Cairo, coming to the United States in 1978, getting misconceptions about America by watching U.S. TV in Turkey, having a polygamist father, and so forth, then how could the apology possibly be enough?

If, on the other hand, all the untrue statements that Ergun Caner made are nothing more than times when he

• misspoke
• said it wrong
• scrambled words
• was just outright confusing

or were otherwise careless mistakes, then yes, the apology was fine and people should shut up and stop asking Dr. Caner to apologize for something he's already apologized for. There would be no reason to ask him to apologize for speaking carelessly. But are Caner's critics simply accusing him of speaking carelessly? Or are they accusing him of lying?

V. An Important Post-Script

Dr. Caner originally posted this so-called apology on his own website. He subsequently withdrew it from there. He did not explain why. Also, Dr. Caner apparently apologized (in some form) to the students of Liberty University at a meeting of "Campus Church" there.

Dr. Caner also apparently apologized to the board of Liberty University. Dr. Caner may further have apologized in private to many other people at many other times. And, of course, we don't know whether Dr. Caner has repented to God for more than what he has publicly apologized for.

Those critics who are demanding a public apology from Dr. Caner for lying, should be clear that this is what specifically they want. Not that they just want "an apology" (since "an apology" has been offered) nor even that just want a "a public apology," since Dr. Caner's so-called apology may meet that very broad description.

Instead, if the critics believe that Dr. Caner was lying, they should be asking for Dr. Caner to publicly repent of the public lies that they believe Dr. Caner has committed. Dr. Caner pointed out, in his so-called apology: "Every minister has made pulpit mistakes. Being called a “liar,” however, is a serious charge, especially when it is made by Christians. That would indicate that (1) the accusers can know the motives of the accused person’s heart, and (2) the accused person intentionally misled people."

While Dr. Caner may have bias on this matter, his analysis is correct. It is a serious charge to say that someone is lying, and one is claiming to discern the intent of the person speaking. That does not mean that we can never call people liars, but it does mean that we should be slow to assume that untrue statements are lies, particularly when an ordained man is involved. We should hold an ordained man to a higher standard of integrity, but we should also not be hasty to conclude that such a person is sinning by lying.

After all, lying is a particularly heinous sin:

1 Timothy 1:8-11
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Revelation 21:7-8
He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Revelation 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Notice that being a liar is grouped in there with sodomy, fornication with a prostitute, engaging in sorcery, and murdering. It's a very serious sin. If Dr. Ergun Caner has (or had) a problem with that sin, I would first of all encourage him to repent of that and seek the mercy of Christ, which mercy is shown toward all who repent. Secondly, if that is indeed the issue, I would encourage those who are relying on Dr. Caner's so-called apology to stop relying on it. It denies that lying took place, and consequently shows no confession of the sin of lying, or any remorse for it. If Caner wasn't lying, then many of Dr. Caner's critics owe Dr. Caner an apology.

Either way, I don't think the very shallow attempt by LBTS master of theology and apologetics, Sullivan, is helpful. Either Caner should be apologizing for lying, or his critics who have accused him of lying should be apologizing for their accusation. Either way, the answer is not to "shut up," but to move forward toward repentance and restoration.

-TurretinFan

Shoot the Messenger Tactics - Literally

I have criticized some folks who have attempted to defend Ergun Caner by attacking his critics. Sadly, yesterday I read of the story of a New Jersey man who decided to do something similar, but both literally and figuratively (link to story).

The man worked for a beer distributor, and he had been stealing and reselling beer. He went on a killing spree, for which he confessed before apparently committing suicide. In the moments after his killing spree, but before the police attempted to capture him, the man called 911 (and his mother) and tried to blame his killing spree on racial harassment. However, by remarkable coincidence, he had just been at a meeting where he was given a choice to resign or be fired based on his theft of beer, and where he had apparently signed a resignation form.

Instead of confessing that he was a thief who had been busted for stealing, the shooter attempted to smear those who were critical of his theft. Now, his supporters (such as his alleged "girlfriend of nine years") are suggesting that it was really supposed racial harassment that was the cause.

Furthermore, the gunman was part of a union. He had filed a complaint with the union about insufficient training (which shows he knew how to file a complaint), but according to the union he had never filed any claims for racial harassment.

Do I need to go on? The real reason for the criticism of the shooter's company is that he didn't like having to deal with the consequences of his sin. Instead, he viewed those who confronted him with his sin as basically haters who were out to get him. Sound familiar?

-TurretinFan

On God's Covenant to Save His People from Idolatry

Matthew Lankford has posted a series of videos from J. Virgil Dunbar on the topic of the unlawful use of images, "On God's Covenant to Save His People From Idolatry."

0. Introduction
Dunbar explains the general thrust of the series.

1. What does God's covenant law say about images made to represent Him?
Dunbar explains that the point of the second commandment is different from the first commandment. The second commandment is related to making images of the true God. It does not forbid images in general. Dunbar explains how God is jealous of such images.

2. How do we know that the world is not God?
Dunbar explains the error of monism and its relation to the second commandment. The second commandment is one way that we know that world is not God.

3. What symbols do you use for God?
Dunbar explains the difference between visual representation symbols and the types and symbols of the Old Testament.

4. What symbols can we use for God?
Dunbar notes that the Old Testament period has passed, but what do we have now? Dunbar explains that we have the Bible and the Sacraments.

5. What did the early church believe about images made to represent God?
Dunbar explains that the early church followed the teaching and practice of the Apostles and did not worship using images.

6. Why does the Roman Catholic Church require its people to use images to represent the Lord?
Dunbar explains that Roman Catholic teaching is a complete reversal of the Scriptural teaching on the subject.

7. What did the Reformers believe about images made to represent the Lord?
Dunbar explains that the Reformed believers did not use images to represent the Lord and considered such to be idolatry, even as early as Huss.

8. How has the Protestant Church changed, so that they now use images to represent the Lord?
Dunbar explains a variety of influences that have led to the present practice, including Dispensationalism.

9. What is the testimony of those who saw God?
Dunbar observes how men ranging from Moses to Isaiah both saw God and opposed the use of images of God.

10. On Islam punishing the image-using church
Dunbar suggests that the iconoclastic movement may be tied to Christian recognition of the judgment of God, by the sword of Islam, against those who worship God with images.

J. Virgil Dunbar's writings can be accessed here.

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

Actually Bearing False Witness

Peter Lumpkins (whose relentless "shoot the messenger" tactics have been documented here) has a new video that bears false witness against Dr. James White (link to video - obviously, not recommended).

Whatever merit or lack of merit may be attributed to the production skills used in the video, and leaving aside the mocking spirit employed in the video, the video is premised on lies. The lies include the idea that Dr. White claims that only Calvinists are Christians or that only Calvinists are elect.

Dr. White does not claim that only Calvinists are Christians. In fact, Dr. White views that position as hyper-Calvinism, and Dr. White criticizes it as an improper view.

The second lie, that Dr. White only believes that Calvinists are elect is even less intelligent than the first lie. Election is from all eternity, and people become Calvinists in time. Thus, even if Dr. White held to the position that he himself has condemned as a form of hyper-Calvinism, Dr. White would not say that if you're not Calvinist you're not elect.

When you meet someone who is not saved, you don't know whether they are elect or not. That's why we Calvinists evangelize the lost indiscriminately, preaching the gospel to all men without distinction, calling them to repent of their sins and trust in Christ.

And since I know Mr. Lumpkins will read this, I'd like to again call him personally to repent of his sins and to trust in Christ. I'm calling him to repent, not because he's not a Calvinist, but because he's a liar.

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Pray for Mr. Lumpkins.

And separately, let's help Mr. Lumpkins read John 3:16, all of the verse:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

How is God's love for the world expressed, according to the verse?

It is expressed by God giving his Son that "whosoever believeth in him" will be saved. In English, that sounds in indefinite - because we use "whosoever" to speak indefinitely. The Greek is more clear: "πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν " literally meaning all the [people] believing in him. That's the group also known as the elect. It includes those are are now believing on Christ, those who believed in Christ in prior generations, and those who will some day believe in Christ.

We don't know who they are by name - but we know that they all have this in common: faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Those are the ones whom Christ was sent to save. Whether we read the word "world" broadly as a statement about the world in general or not, the expression of God's love for the world was to send Jesus Christ to save the elect.

-TurretinFan

Ergun Caner on Issues Etc.

I've tried to go through the episodes of Issues Etc. on which Dr. Ergun Caner appeared, and tried to review them in light of statements related to Caner's autobiography and other issues that have swirled around him of late.

April 16, 2003, Hour 3 (last two-thirds, 12:00 onward) "Islamic Sects" (Todd Wilken, Interviewer)(link to wma version)

(17:31) Myself, I am Turkish, twenty generations back Muslim, you know I'm the first Christian - I converted to Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and God, you know, when I was a senior in high school.

• If Caner converted on November 4, 1982, as he has said a number of times, he was in the first half of his junior year.

(18:40) And we saw, just a few days ago, a Shi'ite imam hacked to death - actually he was an ulima, a scholar - hacked to death because he was seen to be complicitous with Saddam Hussein.

• The word "ulima" is a plural noun, not a singular noun.

(33:30) Yeah, this is difficult for me, because of course I was not born in this country. I was a m- You know, my father being a muezzin, we came to this country as Islamic missionaries, to use an Americanized term. And I began to see the panopy (?) - I began to see the landscape of Islam. I would say the vast majority of Muslims here in America - perhaps 85% are Sunni. I teach here in Texas, I will be teaching at Liberty University starting this fall. I think you will run into maybe - most - the vast majority of the Muslims you run into are Sunni, the rest are divided among Shi'ite, Suffi on the West Coast, and Nation of Islam, which I never - I never saw a Nation of Islam 'till I came to America.

• Obviously, if Caner was only a toddler when he came to America, he is using the term "we" to simply refer to his family in general. However, on other occasions he has said that his family came to build mosques. Building mosques is not quite the same thing as engaging in da`wah (the Arabic term for calling folks to Islam).
• If Caner came to America when he was a toddler, how would he even remember whether he saw a Nation of Islam member before then? This is one of those kinds of statements that is probably true (there are not a lot of Swedish Nation of Islam folks) but might still give someone a very wrong impression (much like saying, "I've never had such tasty Swedish meatballs before" when it is your first time trying the dish).

(44:55) This is something I only hear here in America. If you would have said to me when I was Muslim, and I was a Muslim until I was almost twenty, if you would have said to me when I was a Muslim that Allah and Jehovah-God of the Bible are the same god, I would have been offended. As a Christian, I find it blasphemous. There is no comparison. There is - This is only something that we learned in America, because they want us all to be religious - they want us all to be - basically - all of us are seeking the same god.

• If Caner converted on November 4, 1982, he was barely (by less than a week) 16. If he converted earlier than that, as his book Unveiling Islam, suggests, he was even younger.
• The statement about this being "only something that we learned in America" is almost certainly true (it's hard to imagine a toddler learning any significant amount) but also tends to give an impression that is wrong.

(48:26) Let me tell you great news, Willis, the Lutheran Hour not only here in America - but you have on your mission work, something that spreads into the middle east. And please do not think - for all those who say, "Well, we give our money and want to know, you know, is it being of any effect?" Speaking on behalf of all immigrants, I heard the gospel before I came to America. I heard it because of your transmissions, because of your work, because of the fact that you gave your money. Continue to do so, because you will never know what a profound effect it has on the lives of those -- I was in Islam! I was the son of a muezzin - the one who does the call to prayer - and yet I heard the gospel because of such moves as the Lutheran Hour and others. You got into our lives, because you got into our radios - you got into our televisions - and now, because of satellite, you have an incredible opportunity. This is a time for the church to rise up. For the Lutheran church to rise up, for the various denominations that preach Jesus Christ as the only savior to rise up. Man, this is our chance.

• If Caner came to America as a toddler, it is hard to imagine that he heard the gospel in a particularly meaningful way before then.
• There seem to be other places in Caner's speeches where he claims that everything he knew about Christianity was what he learned in his mosque. Was it that way, or was it this way, where he heard the gospel via Lutheran (or some similar) radio?

July 14, 2003, Hour 3, "Muslim Beliefs about Jesus & Christianity" (Todd Wilken, Interviewer) (link to wma version)

(10:27) Anyone reading the Koran, and I encourage Christians - to reach my people, you must read the Koran - you must, you know, get to see what the Koran is about. Anybody, reading the Koran, will run across an amazing number of allusions to Scripture. But they are not correct allusions to Scripture, they are - things are charged. For instance, Abrahim at the top of Mount Moriah (Abraham) sacrifices his son in the Koran - he sacrifices Ishma'il.

• Actually, the Koran does not name the son (link to English translations of the passage).

(11:05) But until I became a Christian, in my late teens, I thought Abraham sacrificed Ishmael, his oldest son.

• 15-16 is not really "late teens" is it?
• He may have thought that, as Muslims do teach that - but not because of what the Koran says.

(22:09) And, of course, one of the arguments we used, and the most famous one I used, in London was: "So you're telling me," I said to the imam, "You're telling me that the Old Testament was perfect and then corrupted?" "Yes." I said, "So then you tell me that the New Testament was perfect and then corrupted?" He said, "Yes." And I said, "So then why should I trust if Allah could not preserve the first two, why would he preserve the third?" And it elicited boos from the Muslims, but it's a valid point, and it won the debate for us.

• Does anyone have a recording of this supposed debate? What was the name of the Imam?
• Incidentally, that is a good question to ask your Muslim friends. I have asked a similar question before, and received not much of an answer back.
  

(23:23) They believe that all the prophets of the Old and New Testaments, some of the ones we wouldn't even consider prophets, like Barak - Deborah and Barak - not Deborah, but Barak himself. David, Noah, they believe these to be prophets.

• But Barak is not one of the 25 prophets of Islam (link to discussion - text may need to be highlighted to be read in some browsers)
• And, of course, Christians believe David, Deborah, and Noah to be prophets.

(30:44) Interviewer: Does the average Muslim know his own book -- know the Koran? And does the average Muslim know the Christian Scriptures? Caner: No, he doesn't. The average - you're talking about the average Muslim here in America, the answer of course is "no." I am the son of an ulima - that is one who is a scholar of the Koran - and that is the only explanation why we knew the Koran the way we did. Now, a Muslim may read it, but he is told that, unless he reads it in the original Arabic, he is not reading the true Koran. The equivalent of King James Only Christians - those that say there is only one version of the Scripture that is true. They say that only the Arabic is correct. Well, most Muslims don't even read the Arabic. Only 20% of the Muslim world understands Arabic. So they will read it in a language they don't understand.

• I have seen no evidence, aside from Caner's claims, that his father was one of the ulima.
• Ulima is a plural noun, not a singular noun.
• There's no evidence that Caner reads Arabic any better than the 80% that he seems to write off in his comment.

(35:30) And, from the moment we are born, there is a reckoning, that is a good and a bad. You are taught that there is a jinn - it's hard to explain what a jinn is - it is somewhat like a spirit-being, not an angel though, it's not an angel, but it's somewhat like an angel. A jinn sits on your right shoulder and a jinn sits on your left shoulder. And they write down - the one on your right shoulder all the good that you do - the one on your left shoulder writes down all the bad that you do.

• What is interesting about this clip is that here Caner seems to know the right word - jinn, as opposed to other places where he makes the serious error of referring to the jinn as the injeel (Gospel). He also seems to understand the concepts correctly, though perhaps a Muslim reader would disagree with me.
  

(37:39) And what we have in the Wahabi is the doctrine of the female jihadeen, which is - if a woman dies, she does not go to paradise for - you know the virgins who are waiting for and the pomegranates. Instead, she - if she dies as a suicide bomber - is allowed to pick who she wants to go with her to paradise.

• What Caner probably means is "mujihad" (singular) or "mujahideen" (plural). While there may be a word "jihadeen" it would not appear to fit in Caner's sentence.

November 6, 2003, Hour 2 (first half), "A U.S. News & World Report Story on Women in Islam" (Todd Wilken, Interviewer) (link to mp3 version)(link to wma version)

(2:25) We didn't know - of course, you know, I was raised Muslim and then we came to this country - We didn't know that it was oppressive. You know, we never thought, "Oh, I'm being oppressed," this is all we ever knew, was the wearing of the chador or the wearing of the niqab, or - of course - the most germane one is the burkah. But this was all we ever knew.

• The statement that he was raised as a Muslim and then came to America suggests to the average person something different than that he came to America as a toddler.
• Likewise "this was all we ever knew" tends to suggest more than the first 2-3 years of a person's life experience.

(5:52) I have lived under socialism, and fascism, and of course Islamic sharia law and in democracy and I would say, as an immigrant, this is far superior, but it is also riskier.

• Let's grant that Sweden, which is really a democracy, can count as socialism. Socialism isn't really a form of government - so the grouping is bad - but whatever.
• When did Caner supposedly live under fascism? Is he making a joke at the late Jerry Fallwell's expense? That doesn't seem to fit the context. It looks like he is claiming to have lived under a fascist regime in Turkey.
• When did Caner live under "of course" Islamic sharia law? Turkey does not have sharia law (even if he supposedly lived there). So, how is this claim to "of course" have lived under sharia law anything resembling the truth?

(7:05) It's been thirteen hundred years since Mohamed died in 632, as women have been seen as half - you know - hell is full of two-thirds women. The teachings of Mohamed about a husband being able to have four wives, and a woman being only able to have one husband at a time. This inequity continues. And its down to the core - it's endemic. My mother was one of many wives for my father - and it was just passed along culturally like this.

• Notice that in this context, Caner's oft-repeated claim that his father had "many wives" is specifically linked to polygamous practices.

(9:45) The Muslim will say, "This is the revealed will of Allah. This was received from Allah, beginning on Mohamed's fortieth birthday. ..."

• No, Islam does not claim that Mohamed's fortieth birthday was the date of the first revelation. He was - they claim - forty years old at the time, but it was not on his birthday.

(17:34) Well, when I as Muslim, we had a madrass. Madrasses are now very famous, because they are the places where the jihadeen are training. But one of the things we do in a madrass is that we learn about Christianity. If the Muslims are so adamant about their work, to try to learn about Christianity, why do we not, as Christians who have the truth, and the peace, and the grace - why do we not learn about their culture - learn about their religions - use it as a bridge to build into their lives. My mother did not hear the gospel, as much as we tried, my mother did not hear the gospel 'till nine years after my brothers and I were disowned. And thankfully, from the bottom of my heart, thankfully one woman - one Christian woman - broke through the barrier - and broke through the distrust and reached my mother for the gospel.

• "Madrass" is not the singular form of "Madrasses." Instead, Madrasah is the singular form with Madrassas as a Latinized plural (Madaris is the real plural).
• "Jihadeen" is not the right word. The right would would be "mujahideen" as noted above.
• Caner's presentation does not say that his mother was a Muslim woman reached for Christ by a Christian woman, but it certainly gives the listener that impression.

April 14, 2004, Hour 1 (1st half), "The Islamic Holy City of Najaf & Islam & Democracy" (Todd Wilken, Interviewer) (link to wma version)

(13:09) Let's just use a comparison here. I happen to be a baptist, I was saved Black Baptist, a national baptist, I am now Southern Baptist. Presbyterians and I worship differently, but I believe Presbyterians are going to heaven. They believe in Jesus Christ and so do I. In Islam it is different. In Islam, Sunni declare that Shia are Gulat - Cult. In every mosque I lived in, before I came to America, the mosque was defined by whether it was Shia or Sunni or Suffi - Suffi the third, it's a minor sect. And so, they do not believe that - Sunni do not believe that Shia are going to be in paradise, and Shia do not believe that Sunnit are going to be in paradise - at least the theologians don't.

• Jerry Tackett, who allegedly led Dr. Caner to Christ was a white guy. Of course, there could be a white guy in a black church.
• I have seen no evidence that Steltzer Road Baptist church was actually in the National Baptist conference.
• The statement about "every mosque I lived in, before I came to America" implies that Caner lived in more than one mosque before coming to America. Leaving aside the issue of people living in mosques, is there any evidence that Caner was in more than one mosque before coming to America?

June 24, 2004, Hour 3 (2nd half), "The Crusades" (Todd Wilken, Interviewer) (link to wma version)

(29:22) Interviewer: 1) The escalating violence in Iraq. As a former Muslim and as a former resident of that area of the country - of the world - how do you see that escalating violence? Caner: I see it as the natural progression. I mean, this is something that - we were just asked about this in Washington, DC, and I said, "if I was a betting man, I'm not, but if I was a betting man I would guess that there will be even more, after we made the initial exchange of power."

• Notice that the interviewer is under the impression that Caner was a resident of the Middle East, and that Caner does not do anything to say, "Well, I was born in Sweden, and raised in Ohio ..." or anything of that kind.

(41:39) We chose to convert by the sword, just like the Muslims do. Exactly like my people, like I was trained to do, as a young man. We were trained that Allah will be glorified when every country becomes an Islamic land and Sharia law holds forth. They just said this on the news, not more than an hour ago, my wife comes running down with the press report, and it says that, that you know, here the al-Zawahiri has made the statement that "we will not stop 'till the world is Islamic again." That's the way I was raised, that's my world.

• Notice Caner's claims to be involved in radical Islam. He not only claims that he was trained to convert by the sword, but even that he was raised in the way of al-Qaeda leader, al-Zawahiri.

May 3, 2005, Hour 2 (first half), "An Associated Press Story about a Muslim Convert to Christianity" (Todd Wilken, Interviewer) (link to mp3 version)(link to wma version)

• I didn't notice any particular items worthy of note in this one. I also included the link here to be fair to Caner. I'm not trying to pick on only select interviews, sermons, and lectures.

August 13, 2006, Hour 1, "Islam" (Todd Wilken, Interviewer) (link to mp3 version)

(2:16) Interviewer: If you had five minutes, alone with President Bush, to talk about Islam, what would you say to him, Dr. Caner? Caner: I would tell him that this is not political - I think that's the biggest mistake we can make, is to assume that this is a political issue. This is theological, for Muslims. This is eschatological. This is their desire. This is what we were trained from birth - that this is the holy war. And I think that the President has to be aware that this constant advice that he's receiving that this is just a political thing is just - it underestimates our enemy. It underestimates those who want to do us serious harm. I think the second thing I would tell him is that they are not terrorists, they are devout. In thirteen hundred years of history - thirteen hundred - I would ask him, "Can you name one period of time where Islam has coexisted peacefully in any country?" The answer, of course, is "no."

• Notice the claim that Caner was trained "from birth" (understandable hyperbole) for holy war. Are we really to believe that Caner was trained to do what Muslim terrorists do?

(4:45) To a Muslim, a Sunni (myself) does not consider a Shi'ite to be a good Muslim. In fact, he does not consider him to be a Muslim at all.

• That's interesting, because it appears that the Sunni Muslims who don't permit non-Muslims in Mecca do permit Shi'ite Muslims there. Also, Caner's own "Islamic Foundation" appears to have held events of some kind that were also attended by the Shi'ite family of Jamal Jivanjee (in fact, the families apparently even had dinner together).

(33:42) Jesus strapped himself to a cross, so that I wouldn't have to strap a bomb to myself.

• There does not appear to be any evidence that Ergun was in any way planning to strap himself to a bomb.

(UPDATE: the item below added thanks to Fredericka, who pointed this out in the comment box)
(42:57) There are contradictions. Of course, any man-made book will have contradictions. And so there are any number of contradictions in the Qur'an that seem to fight against each other. Surah 19 is one of them, where it talks about the birth of Mary, I mean the birth of Jesus in Mary, and it makes some amazing claims. They come from the Gospel of Barnabas, which was a book that came centuries after our Lord and the other gospels. And in those teachings they teach some things that even Muslims cannot espouse.

• Caner notes that there seems to be a relationship between the "Gospel of Barnabas" and the Koran. The relationship, however, appears to be the reverse of what Caner has stated. It's generally thought that the Gospel of Barnabas was written around the 14th century. It is a fairly obvious forgery (see the discussion at this link, for example), written - to all appearances - by a Muslim forger of European extraction (the work uses lines and thought gleaned from Dante Alegheri's Divine Comedy).

August 17, 2009 "Islamic Sects" (link to mp3)(Todd Wilken, Interviewer)

(03:24) I have on-going debates with Muslims who are from different sub-sects of Islam, and they will say, "we have never done this," or "we don't face this direction," or "our Ramadan is only thirty days" etc. And I quickly add that - you know - that Sunni Islam is, as you said, it's like - it's as divided as Christianity is, in that they have four major schools - if you will - sects. But from those four major schools, there are myriad of different denominations, if you will.

• What debates? Can Dr. Caner document the debates that were on-going in August of 2009?
• The issue of Ramadan being thirty days is not really a "sub-sect" issue. Ramadan is either 29 or 30 days long (since it is a lunar month, it can go either way).

(22:39) They are the ones who controlled Mecca, they are the largest theological school, they do most of the training for the imams who come to America, the training that takes place overseas, in places like my city, Istanbul.

• That's not exactly the same as saying "I was born in Istanbul," but it does suggest to the listener that Caner is from that city, which Caner is not (as far as we can tell).

(30:16) Catholics have Lent, Muslims have Ramadan. Catholics have the rosary, and in Islam we have "masallah" which is the - which are the beads - you count the ninety-nine names of Allah - it looks exactly like a rosary.

• I suppose that Caner means misbaha, which is one name for Muslim prayer beads.
• "Masallah" sounds like the Turkish word for "congratulations" or "cheers".
• I had previously speculated that Dr. Caner got his wrong idea that Ramadan is 40 days long from conflation with Romanism. This quotation doesn't prove that, but it does suggest that it may be the reason.

- TurretinFan

Second Incarnational Defense of Idols Rebutted

Subsequent to my last post, Frank Turk (aka Centuri0n) has submitted a new argument into the comment box of his his own post (link to post). Frank Turk argues:

One of the pillars of Tom's argumentation is that any image of Jesus is necessarily, by definition, a "false image" of Jesus. And the reason for this is that the Law in Israel says explicitly that Israel was [a] not to make graven images to worship, and [b] not to seek to represent the invisible YHVH with visible objects.

Tom's view relies heavily on continuity between Israel and the Church, and between Old Covenant and New Covenant. The problem is that, becuase of Christ as incarnation, there is a significant discontinuity between OT and NT.

There is some discontinuity and some continuity between the old and new administrations of God's grace. There is not discontinuity on this point. We see that a few ways.

I. Old Testament Prophecy

Micah 5:13 Thy graven images also will I cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee; and thou shalt no more worship the work of thine hands.

Micah points forward to the coming time, and specifically identifies the issue of idols as one of the points of continuity/reform to God's word.

II. End-Times Prophecy

Revelation 9:20-21
And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

The use of idols is listed among the things that the wicked do, among the serious crimes like murder, sorcery, fornication, and theft.

III. Paul's Ministry

Acts 17:24-31
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

This is part of Paul's famous sermon on Mar's hill. Notice that there is a discontinuity - the Gentiles are now called to serve God, whereas before only the Jews were called. All men every where are commanded to repent. But Paul does not say "Jesus doesn't look like that, he looks like this (holding up a little icon or statue)." No, Paul specifically teaches the Greeks that God is not worshiped with the works of man's hands, nor is he properly represented even by such elevated metals as gold and silver.

IV. Paul's Epistles

1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Notice that while Paul acknowledges Jesus as Lord, without a doubt, he still refers to his King as invisible. Paul did not have a flannel-graph Jesus that he carried around with him. He preached Jesus, not pictures. Before I get too much more into Paul's epistles, let me provide some more of Frank Turk's argument. He writes:

Consider it:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. [NASB]

Right? Heb 1:1-4, with a special emphasis on this phrase: "He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature". That Greek word under "exact representation" ("χαρακτήρ"), ironically, is a word used to describe the engraving in a coin -- it is specifically an engraving term.

This speaks to us about the nature of the incarnation, doesn't it? Somehow, because Jesus was exactly like God, there's a discontinuity between the OT demand that there are no created images which can represent God and the NT fact that Jesus, conceived in Mary's womb as a man in the form of a servant, is actually God.

Let me provide the KJV for the passage that Frank Turk quoted:

Hebrews 1:1-4
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

What does it mean that Jesus is "the express image of his person" (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ) It means that Jesus is God. It means that Jesus and the Father are of one and the same divine being. It does not mean that Jesus is a picture of what God looks like. Jesus flesh and blood, his humanity, is not a representation of God, nor was that the intent. Jesus took on flesh, not to represent God, but - as a man - to represent men!

Yes, there was a discontinuity, God became flesh and dwelt among us. But there was not a discontinuity with respect to make representations of God.

Thus, for example, we see Paul use a similar expression in Colossians.

Colossians 1:12-17 ... giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Notice that here it calls Jesus the "image of the invisible God" (εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου) that first word in the Greek is the root for our word "icon." It would be absurd to read that literally, as though Jesus were a literal icon of something that is invisible. What it means instead is that Jesus is God. He is of the same substance with the Father.

Notice how in both the Colossians passage and the Hebrews passage, this likeness to the Father is contextually connected with power: "upholding all things by the word of his power" and "by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Going back to Hebrews, we see that the author of Hebrews recognizes the invisibility of God, but provides this interesting metaphorical language:

Hebrews 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

How is it that we see our invisible God? It's not by painting pictures - it's by faith. It's trusting in the promises of God like Moses and the other witnesses of Hebrews 11.

Furthermore, in what should be a very interesting twist for Frank Turk, we see that the Scriptures teach that we can see the invisible things of God through the visible creation.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Of course, we are not seeing the power and Godhead of God itself, we're seeing their effects in the Creation. We're seeing what God made, and consequently seeing Him through that - not a purported similitude, but an illustration and demonstration of His power.

- TurretinFan

Tim Guthrie - Highly Offended at Being Wrongly Linked to Ergun Caner

According to Tim Guthrie: "never before tonight has a Christian or lost person so misrepresented and bore false witness" (source).

The charge? Dr. White allegedly inappropriately linked Guthrie and Caner.

This website (link to website) as of July 30, 2010, has the following list of board members:

Board Members

* Dr. Robert Stewart ([removed e-mail address to avoid spammers])
* James Walker
* Ergun Caner
* Tim Guthrie
* Jerry Holbrook
* Bob Anderson
* Jeff McLean
* Alice Pitchford
* Laura Arnn
* David Henke

But there is no wrath in Tim Guthrie's post against the website for placing him and Caner next to one another. All of Guthrie's fury is directed against Dr. White for jumping to the conclusion that Guthrie and Caner serve on the board together.

Guthrie, in a fit of indignation, went so far as to make the absolutely ludicrous claim: "Mr. White fabricated the whole connection thing."

Really? Did Dr. White hack the Watchmen website so that Guthrie's name spuriously appeared next to Dr. Caner's? If Guthrie is going to be upset at someone for linking him to Dr. Caner, he should be upset with the Watchman organization.

- TurretinFan

UPDATE: Dr. White's hacking skillz update:

Apparently, to create this massive fiction that Tim Guthrie was on the board of Watchman with Ergun Caner, Dr. White not only hacked the current page, but also managed to go back in time and hack the pages for the last few years:

2008 Archive page

2007 Archive page

2006 Archive page

First Archive page I could find showing Guthrie and Caner as on the board at Watchman

Smoke and Fire Icons?

During the recent discussion on images of God, I have heard a couple of folks suggest that God portrayed himself as being a pillar of cloud and fire.

A more careful reading of the text shows that while the pillar of cloud/fire was a sign of the presence of God, it was not supposed to represent God. Instead God was "in" the pillar:

Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

It was something that God provided to the people of Israel:

Exodus 13:22 He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people.

Psa 105:39 He spread a cloud for a covering; and fire to give light in the night.

When God stirred up the Egyptians he is described as doing so "through the pillar," as though God were within the pillar, hidden.

Exodus 14:24 And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians,

As an aside, we may note that the same distinction exists with respect to the burning bush. The angel of the Lord was not the burning bush, but spoke out of it.

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

When the tabernacle was built, this special manifestation of God's presence was placed on the tabernacle itself:

Numbers 9:15-16
And on the day that the tabernacle was reared up the cloud covered the tabernacle, namely, the tent of the testimony: and at even there was upon the tabernacle as it were the appearance of fire, until the morning. So it was alway: the cloud covered it by day, and the appearance of fire by night.

Exodus 40:38 For the cloud of the LORD was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.

And when God led the people he led them with the pillar:

Deuteronomy 1:33 Who went in the way before you, to search you out a place to pitch your tents in, in fire by night, to shew you by what way ye should go, and in a cloud by day.

Psalm 78:14 In the daytime also he led them with a cloud, and all the night with a light of fire.

Nehemiah 9:19 Yet thou in thy manifold mercies forsookest them not in the wilderness: the pillar of the cloud departed not from them by day, to lead them in the way; neither the pillar of fire by night, to shew them light, and the way wherein they should go.

The pillar of fire and smoke became a renowned sign among the Canaanites, much like the story of the Exodus.

Numbers 14:14 And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night.

It's worth noting that when God specifically disclaims the fire as a similitude of himself (as if the distinctions we had drawn above were not enough):

Deuteronomy 4:12 And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.

And likewise, by connection with the other manifestations (by connection) we can infer that they were also not intended as similitudes:

Deuteronomy 5:22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

That ought to pretty much close the case against the pillar and cloud being representations of God. Since the pillar of cloud and fire are not representations of God, Christian artists should not feel concerned about drawing the imagined pillar.

As an interesting aside, the pillar of cloud and fire makes one additional appearance in the Old Testament. Pointing toward the new covenant, Isaiah describes this sign of God's presence as being upon every dwelling place of mount Zion (i.e. the individual believers and their households), and the assemblies (congregations or churches).

Isaiah 4:5 And the LORD will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defence.

There is not, of course, a literal smoke and cloud pillar that goes up from our houses and churches, but God is present invisibly with us. If we wish to be wise we will worship God not with the works of men's hands, but in Spirit and Truth, as it is written:

John 4:23-24
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

-TurretinFan