Part One of Thousands in Response to Steve's Rebuttal Post

Ok, I don't really intend to address all of the myriad points in my friend Steve's latest divorce-related post (link to his post).  Nor do I intend to address only one here.  I'll start at the beginning and get as far as I can in a reasonable amount of time.  Steve is a resourceful and astute thinker, so it's worth considering his points, even when my opinion is that they are in error.

Steve states: "TFan has posted a 2-part response to my discussion of divorce vis-à-vis domestic violence. In this post I’ll reply to part 1"  But actually the post to which Steve is responding is my own positive case.  It doesn't aim or claim to interact with anything Steve wrote.  Steve's wrongly framing my post.

Steve states: "Divorce is not the only thing the Lord hates. Given what God says about marriage in Eph 5 (to take one example), I’m sure that God also hates domestic violence."
a) Steve uses the term "domestic violence" without defining it.  Clearly God does not hate the corporal punishment of children, which falls within the scope of contemporary definitions of "domestic violence."  On the other hand, clearly God hates all sin, including spousal abuse (whether violent or non-violent).
b) In the context of this discussion, though, raising the fact that God hates sin that occurs within the marriage is red herring.  All parties agree to that.

Steve states: "TFan doesn’t seem to grasp the nature of case law, even though I already went over that ground."
a) Steve has leaped to a conclusion that isn't warranted.  While Steve does word it tentatively, this is supposedly the leading example of "several serious problems" in my post.
b) Steve is continuing to treat my positive post as though it were a response to him.
c) Steve's own understanding of the case law needs refinement, as we've seen in the last post and as we may see below also.
d) Whether or not I grasp the nature of the Torah is actually not the issue.  It's not about me (or Steve), it's about the truth.

Steve states: "OT case law is illustrative rather than exhaustive. It doesn’t cover every conceivable situation. Rather, when an issue arose which wasn’t specifically addressed in the Mosaic law, Jewish judges had to extrapolate from the nearest applicable law."

a) My comments don't deny that.  You don't have to think that the Torah was exhaustive in order to identify the absence of a particular concept in Hebrew law.
b) Moreover, amongst the provisions of the Torah is a provision that limited judicial legislation:

Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:32
What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Steve continues: "So TFan’s argument from silence is fallacious."
a) Steve's wrong about claiming that this in argument from silence.  My statement was: "There was no category of women divorcing their husbands."  Steve can try to claim that this is a fillable gap in the Torah that judges could extrapolate into, but he can't reasonably deny the fact that the category wasn't there. My comment is a factual observation, not an argument from silence.
b) And, of course, see Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32.  There were restraints on judicial legislation.  That's a positive argument from a written rule.

Steve continues: "Notice that TFan doesn’t even attempt to show that my explanation of case law is false. He simply ignores it."
a) Again, Steve is acting like my post was a responsive post, rather than the positive presentation that it was.
b) And, of course, not all of Steve's observations about the Torah were false.  Some of them are just irrelevant (like the fact that judges had to extrapolate in certain cases).

Steve continues: "I find it disappointing that he refuses to argue in good faith. When he raises an objection, and I present a counterargument, it’s incumbent on him to acknowledge and interact with the counterargument. For him to simply repeat the same objection, as if no response was offered, is intellectually frivolous."
a) I wasn't offering an objection in the post in question, as noted several times above.  I was making a positive case.
b) Given that Steve is clearly aware of my second post (the one that addressed his arguments), it's strange for him to act as though I didn't offer responses to his arguments.
c) I hope that Steve doesn't think that interacting with some of his arguments somehow intellectually commits me to responding to all of his arguments.  If so, he may be in for further disappointment.

Steve continues:

ii) In addition, I presented another counterargument. To quote myself:

To begin with, the complementarian position is that masculine nouns and pronouns can include women. That follows both from the conventions grammatical gender and generic masculine usage as well as the theological fact that men can function in a representative capacity for women.

For instance, the soteriological and eschatological promises (or threats) of Scripture are often addressed to male referents, yet they implicitly include women. Women as well as men can be saved or damned.

Of course, masculine language is sometimes used to single out males. But there’s no presumption to that effect. Rather, that’s context-dependent.

a) That's not a counter-argument.  It's an observation about a rule of grammar/syntax without an application of the rule to the particular case.  The fact that sometimes (or even often) a male is used as an example for both male and female is quite true.
b) A counter-argument would have a next step of showing why in a particular verse a masculine noun or pronoun must be understood generically.
c) Steve seems to be setting up a polemical idea that there is only one complementarian position.  But, of course, there are a range of complementarian positions, ranging from a highly patriarchical to highly feminist.

 Steve continues:

i) In his latest response to me, TFan blows right past that. Once again, it’s disappointing when he refuses to argue in good faith.

ii) In addition, he’s arguing like a feminist or egalitarian. “Evangelical feminists” deny generic masculine usage. They assume that all grammatically masculine usage is gender-specific and gender-exclusive. TFan seems to share the same understanding. I find it odd that he’s siding with feministic hermeneutics.

iii) Regarding Deut 24:1-4: if you read it carefully, this statute didn’t authorize men to divorce their wives.

This statute doesn’t institute, command, or condone divorce. It’s really about remarriage after divorce rather than divorce proper. It takes a certain custom for granted, then protects the divorcée against certain consequences of the customary divorce.

a) It's a little dull for Steve to continue to harp on not getting enough responsive attention from me in my positive presentation of my position.  It's worse than dull for Steve to suggest that it is somehow "bad faith" for me to offer a positive presentation, rather than a rebuttal of his views.  But, at least I'm offering one now, so hopefully he can feel less disappointed (though see above, I'm not committing to answering every comment he may ever make).
b) Whether I'm arguing "like a feminist or egalitarian" only matters if they argue wrongly.  Instead of trying to tar me with association to them, perhaps Steve can focus on the actual arguments.
c) Instead of actually engaging the argument I wrote, Steve sticks a position in my mouth that I didn't take.  I didn't assert that "all grammatically masculine usage is gender-specific and gender-exclusive."  Steve's arguing against a straw man.
d) Whether or not Deuteronomy 24:1-4 authorizes men to divorce their wives, or merely regulates that divorce is mostly immaterial.  I didn't argue that it authorizes men to divorce their wives.  I will point out that the KJV and the ESV have different interpretations of the underlying Hebrew text (they also differ on the Malachi passage I quoted in my positive presentation).
e) It's worth noting, though, that Steve's interpretation of Deuteronomy 24 differs not only from the rabbinical views but also from Jesus' view.  Jesus stated:

Matthew 19:8
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Steve continued:

iv) To take a comparison, the Mosaic law doesn’t ban prostitution across the board. Although prostitution is a sin, not all sins are crimes.

Rather, the Mosaic law takes the status quo (i.e. social reality of prostitution) for granted, then restricts it. Jews are forbidden from being prostitutes.

Likewise, Deut 24:1-4 doesn’t legitimate the right of a husband to divorce his wife under those circumstances. Rather, it takes the status quo (i.e. customary divorce) for granted, then limits remarriage under those circumstances–apparently to limit the harm done to the divorcée, who was divorced against her will.

v) Likewise, it doesn’t address divorce in general, but a very special case.

a) Steve's comparison is largely irrelevant to the discussion.  Yes, the law only outlawed the act of serving as a prostitute (by an Israelite) and not the act of hiring a prostitute.  And yes, that does not imply that it is ok to go in unto a prostitute, or even that it is morally upright to do so.
b) Perhaps the one relevant part is that Steve is setting up one of my rebuttal points.  Specifically, just because something is a sin does not mean that the law addresses it or provides sanctions for it.  To wit, spousal abuse is a very heinous sin, but that does not mean or imply that the OT law provides a sanction for it.
c) Moreover, Steve seems to recognize that there was not to be gap-filling to address the cases of the alien prostitutes or the men who hired prostitutes.  This reinforces the need for Steve to show why gap-filling or extrapolation is justified in the particular case he has in mind.
d) Whether Deuteronomy 24:1-4 addresses divorce in general may be a disputed point, but it seems like a totally irrelevant point.

I had written:

This is important to remember when dealing with the text of Scripture. It is easy to anachronistically apply contemporary cultural norms to the text. In an age when people are redefining marriage to include reference to same sex couples, one might think that Christians would be on their guard to remember that this is not the first redefinition of marriage.

Steve responds:

That’s a nice exercise in well-poisoning. Remember, though, that the question at issue is whether wife-battery is grounds for divorce. Is that “redefining” marriage? Does TFan think wife-battery figures in the original definition of marriage, which contemporary cultural norms are trying to redefine out of marriage?

a) As noted numerous times above, my post was a positive presentation, not a rebuttal.
b) Well-poisoning is probably a better description of Steve's repeated assertions early on that he's dealing with a disputant who is not arguing in good faith or suggesting that I'm using a feminist hermeneutic.
c) And, of course, the "question at issue" for Steve is not the question at issue in the post he's responding to. He's not dealing with the positive presentation, he's treating the post as though it is responding to his position (while simultaneously complaining that it is not responding to his position).
d) Steve's question is tendentious at best.  More to the point, he's again suggesting arguments/positions as mine that I haven't made.  And he's choosing inflammatory arguments without good contextual basis.
e) To wit, in context "This is important to remember" relates to what I wrote immediately above that line, which had nothing to do with "wife-battery," as Steve ought to have picked up on.
f) And, of course, the original (Garden of Eden) definition of marriage is not obviously at issue.  At issue is the definition of marriage at the writing of the Torah.  The question is how to interpret the Torah, not what the pre-Fall ideal of marriage was.
g) Was wife-beating a cultural norm at that time?  I wonder what Steve's response on that point is.  In contemporary times it has a massive negative social stigma that it did not have in America 400 years ago.  Clearly it did not have that stigma in 7th century Arabia.  Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that 1600's colonial America or 7th century Arabia is the cultural context of the Torah.  Since Steve has raised that question, what does he think the cultural norm was, and what's his basis for thinking that?
h) But, of course, my comment (in context) was a reflection on the fact that the family was a patriarchy.  Husband and wife did not have equal rights in general - the husband was the ruler.  Today, the cultural milieu is on the feministic side of egalitarian.  In that time, the only category of divorce was of a husband putting away his wife.

Unfortunately, Steve post goes on and on (or perhaps fortunately, Steve is an excellent thinker and it's always enjoyable to read his posts, even when they are critical of what I write).  I lack the time at the present to deal with every error that he makes or to highlight the many points of agreement between us.

-TurretinFan

Responding to Steve Hays' Argument for Divorce Grounded in "Domestic Violence"

Steve Hays recently published a post (link to post) in which he argued in favor of the notion that domestic violence is a legitimate ground of divorce.  I provided some comments in the comment box of that post, which led to Steve posting two new posts addressing some of my comments (link to Steve's second post)(link to Steve's third post).

Steve's posts raise a lot of issues, no doubt.  But it seems that Steve's major argument for his position is this one:

c) There is also an argument from analogy. A battered slave could be manumitted (Exod 21:26-27). A fortiori, a battered wife can divorce her husband. What’s true in the lesser case of a slave is true in the greater case of a wife, for a wife has greater rights than a slave.

This argument is invalid.  Just because something leads to the release of slavery does not imply that it leads to the release of a marriage.  A Hebrew slave was released from bondage upon reaching a seventh year of service.  But no serious person would suggest that a Hebrew spouse was released from marriage upon reaching a seventh year.  Thus, the fact that something led to the release of a slave does not imply that the something should lead to the release of a spouse.

Likewise, it's worth noting that the provisions that warrant a divorce (adultery/fornication and actual desertion by an unbelieving spouse) are not things that warrant the release of a slave.  Indeed, it is absurd to suppose that if a slave's master commits adultery, the slave is free to leave.  Likewise, in the law Hebrews were not commanded to let unbelieving slaves go free if they wished to go free.  Furthermore, while death of a spouse liberate the other from the marriage, the death of a master does not liberate a slave.

Thus, there is no good reason to suppose that this argument from analogy is valid.  The two things are non-analogous precisely on the point that the analogy aims to press.

There are also further problems with this argument.  First, the use of the "rights" framework is anachronistic.  The Scriptures don't speak of "rights" and specifically in this instance the release of the slave was retributive justice against the master, not a "right" of the slave.

Second, it is not clear that a wife had "greater rights" than every slave in Hebrew law.  In this case, for example, if we call what the slave has a "right," the law does not provide for similar or greater rights for wives.

Steve tried to argue that wives did have greater rights because they had higher social status.  But actually, social status is something of a fluid concept.  For example, in second temple Judaism, the temple apparently included a "court of the women," between the court of the Gentiles and the court of the men.  Thus, at least in the temple, a male Hebrew slave would have higher social status - he could get closer to the symbol of the presence of God than she could.  Of course, I recognize that in other aspects the social status of a wife was higher - in the home, the slaves would be expected to generally obey the wife.

Moreover, higher social status is not convertible into greater "rights."  Whether one characterizes the mechanisms of Hebrew law in terms of "rights," "legal protections," "privileges," or "prerogatives," there was not some kind of general pattern of providing those with higher social status greater rights, protections, privileges, etc.  Indeed, the law called for a general principle of equality despite social status differences:

Leviticus 19:15
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
Deuteronomy 1:17
Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

There's another problem with Steve's analogy, which we could call the "two dimensional" problem.  Let's suppose that married women were of higher social rank than male slaves.  That's one dimension.  At the same time, though, marriage is a more binding bond than slavery.  "They twain shall be one flesh" is a bond that is greater than the highest degree of binding in slavery, the ear bored slave who wishes to serve his master perpetually (Exodus 21:6). Husbands have a duty to sacrifice themselves for their wives in a way that no master is called upon to act toward a slave.  That's another dimension.

So, even if wives have greater rights than male slaves, the bonds of marriage are stronger.  So, Steve's argument doesn't establish what he wants it to, for at least that further reason.  It's not really a proper a fortiori argument.

And the problems don't stop there.  It is not mere battery of a slave that gives the slave freedom.  The slave gets freedom in the case of significant permanent physical injury.  Specifically, the slave gets his freedom for the loss of an eye or a tooth.

Exodus 21:26-27
And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.

But Steve's move in his argument is from permanent physical injury to mere battery.  That's a move from greater injury to lesser injury.  Even if permanent physical injury could justify breaking the marriage bond, Steve would still need to find some justification for something less than permanent physical injury breaking the marriage bond.

There's an even more fundamental framing problem with Steve's argument.  Why focus on a wife?  If a wife has high social status, surely in Hebrew law a husband has even higher social status.  And surely a free husband would have higher social status than a female slave.

But, of course, a "battered husband" isn't nearly sympathetic enough for Steve's argument.  Moreover, if "social status" were a determiner of degree of divorce rights, Steve's argument would imply that men in general should have more divorce rights than women, and that rich men should have more divorce rights than poor men.  But one cannot imagine Steve seriously advocating such an absurd position.  Therefore, Steve's argument should be rejected, to avoid the reduction to absurdity.

Although there are these plethora of problems with Steve's argument, Steve may point out that I've addressed his third argument, argument c, but not his first two arguments, arguments a and b.  So, let's briefly address them.

Steve argues:

a) Domestic violence is a travesty of what marriage represents, in terms of companionship as well as the emblematic significance of marriage (i.e. to illustrate God’s devotion to the redeemed). It’s the antithesis of how marriage is supposed to function (e.g. Eph 5:22-33).

b) Breach of covenant can nullify a covenant if one party fails to honor the terms of the covenant. And this isn’t the case of a spouse who makes a good faith effort, but falls short due to sin. Rather, this is acting in bad faith.

Let's take for granted that "domestic violence is a travesty of what marriage represents," as to the two aspects identified.  Let's even assume that it is the "antithesis of how marriage is supposed to function."  However, even if those statements are true, they fall short of justifying "domestic violence" as a ground of divorce.  These would just be legitimate complaints about sin, or arguments that this sin is severe ("travesty" has that connotation).  So, this is the weakest of Steve's three arguments.  He doesn't even include a step in the argument that leads to a conclusion in the form of "and thus divorce is justified based on domestic violence."

Steve's second argument also has problems.  One problem is the idea that marriage is a covenant.  While it is popular these days to speak of marriage covenants or "covenantal marriage," these are not Biblical descriptions of the marriage between a man and a woman.   Nevertheless, Malachi and Jeremiah both intermix covenantal language with the description of marriage:

Jeremiah 31:32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Malachi 2:10-16Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.
And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
Yet ye say, Wherefore?
Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit.
And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed.
Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

My own view is that this is a blending of various aspects of God's relationship with Israel - they were in a covenant with him, and their relationship to him was also illustrated as a marriage (usually with God as the husband, although note that he's the bride in one part of Malachi's argument).  Nevertheless, to avoid being contentious, let us assume that on some level or other a marriage is a covenant.

Steve's argument refers to the "terms of the covenant."  That would be fine if Steve could point us to terms of the covenant that support his position.  The problem is that there aren't any such terms of the covenant for Steve to point to.  Rather, if any, the terms of the covenant are those specified in my previous post, namely that the parties must not engage in adultery/fornication.

Furthermore, a spouse who makes a "good faith effort" but falls into the sin of adultery doesn't get a pass. So, "good faith effort" isn't really the Biblical standard.  Granted that it is more heinous when a person does not make a good faith effort at their marriage than when they do make such an effort, but that effort is not the measure of the marriage bond.

Likewise, there can be all kinds of bad faith.  A husband can, in bad faith, wear his shoes in bed, knowing that his wife hates the fact that it muddies the sheets.  He might even do this because he's a mean person, and not for any even remotely legitimate reason.  But one would be hard pressed to argue that if he does that once, she's free to divorce and remarry - or even that she would be free to divorce and remarry if he often did it.

Of course, one difference between making the house a pig sty and physical abuse is the severity of the absence of love of neighbor that the man is exhibiting.  Indeed, there can be many violations of a husband's duties to his wife or a wife's duties to her husband.  In a sense any violation of any of the duties is "breaking the covenant."

Presumably, though, Steve would argue that divorce is justified only when those violations are sufficiently severe.  The muddy sheets is not severe enough but "domestic violence" is severe enough.  But why does Steve get to decide what is severe enough?  After all, the Bible identifies adultery/fornication as the only example of what's ordinarily severe enough (with desertion by an unbelieving spouse being an exclusion).

Indeed, Jesus' way of describing the grounds of divorce is exclusive, not illustrative.  Jesus doesn't say "unless it be for something like adultery" but rather limits it to sexual sin ("except it be for adultery"). So, while a heinous sin like spousal abuse may in a sense "break covenant" does not mean that it rises to the level where Biblical divorce is the solution.

-TurretinFan

Understanding Divorce from a Biblical Perspective

The Lord hates divorce. That was one of the messages of the prophet of Malachi.

Malachi 2:16
For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.

So, naturally, I also hate divorce - and you should too. Before we get further, though, it is perhaps important to provide a little background into what divorce is, in Biblical terms.

From a Biblical standpoint, a divorce is the husband putting away the wife. The classical passage is this:

Deuteronomy 24:1-4
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

There is no similar provision for wives in the Old Testament law. A wife could not decide that her husband was unclean and write him a bill of divorcement and put it in his hand and send him out of her house. There was no category of women divorcing their husbands.

This is important to remember when dealing with the text of Scripture. It is easy to anachronistically apply contemporary cultural norms to the text. In an age when people are redefining marriage to include reference to same sex couples, one might think that Christians would be on their guard to remember that this is not the first redefinition of marriage.

There is some question about whether women ever divorced their husbands even in the NT era. There is no discussion about wives writing writs of divorcement for their husbands, and yet the discussion of marriage relationships is sometimes balanced (see Mark 10:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 7).

Regardless of what the practice may or may not have been, the "bill of divorcement" passage was inauthentically interpreted by the Jewish leaders, and this wrong interpretation was corrected by Jesus:

Matthew 5:31-32It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matthew 19:3-10The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"
And he answered and said unto them, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
They say unto him, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"
He saith unto them, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
Mark 10:2-12And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?" tempting him.
And he answered and said unto them, "What did Moses command you?"
And they said, "Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away."
And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
Luke 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Jesus' argument relies on the authority of the institution of marriage:

Genesis 2:22-24And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

The apparent rabbinical view was that the "uncleanness" mentioned was anything that the husband found undesirable. Jesus, however, tightly confined the exception to adultery/fornication. Recall that the law had taught:

Deuteronomy 22:13-21If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, and give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: and the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; and, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; and they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Likewise the law had taught:

Numbers 5:11-31
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner; and the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled: then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord: and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water: and the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: but if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband: then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell; and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water: and he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the Lord, and offer it upon the altar: and the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled; or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.
Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.

So, what the law says is that there is one legitimate ground of divorce, and that is fornication/adultery (see Jesus' own interpretation of Deuteronomy above).  Moreover, it was not supposed to be the mere suspicion of that fornication/adultery (for mere suspicion there was a remedy in Numbers 5).

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul describes marriage and provides for the case of a believing spouse married to an unbelieving spouse.  Jesus and Paul command:

1 Corinthians 7:10-16And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, "Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

So, Paul announces the general rule that husbands and wives should stay together and if, despite this command, they separate they should only remain unmarried or be reconciled to their spouse.

Paul then turns to the specific case of unbelief.  Husbands are not to divorce their wives and women are not to leave their husbands over disbelief.  However, if an unbelieving spouse desires to break the marriage, the believing spouse is allowed to permit this.

This provides a second exception to the general rule.  The general rule is "no divorce," and the two exceptions are a breaking off of the marriage by an unbeliever and adultery/fornication.  For those of us who are Presbyterian, our confession of faith also affirms this (Westminster Confession of Faith 24:5&6).

There are no other grounds for divorce authorized in Scripture.  So, it gives me great sorrow to read Christian brethren promoting the idea of divorce in other cases.

For example, I recently read a Christian brother's blog, in which he tried to argue that "domestic violence" is a legitimate ground of divorce.  The Scriptures don't teach this, and our confession doesn't recognize this ground.

In anticipation of the inevitable, let me affirm that husbands ought to love their wives as Christ loved the church.  That's a husband's moral obligation.  On the other hand, two wrongs don't make a right.  Just because a husband sins against his wife doesn't justify her in having put asunder what God joined together.  There might be a reason for her to leave her husband for the preservation of life or for a husband to leave for the preservation of his life.  But even in those cases, the Scriptures do not authorize a divorce - the parties in such a situation are not free to remarry.

Your reaction may be that of the disciples, namely that if marriage is that permanent, it is good not to marry.  And if so, at least it is good that you see how serious marriage is. God hates divorce, and we ought to as well.

-TurretinFan

P.S. It might be interesting to get into the question of whether women should be permitted to divorce their husbands at all (given that the law does not provide for it), but that question goes beyond the scope of this post.

William Lane Craig - If God's Just a Player, Who is the House?

William Lane Craig wrote:

God doesn’t create such a choice for Himself. The counterfactuals of creaturely freedom which confront Him are outside His control. He has to play with the hand He has been dealt.

(source)

One of the objections to Molinism is precisely that it reduces God to playing the cards he has been dealt, rather than being the dealer. But then who is the dealer? The creature? And we're back to the grounding objection (link to discussion of grounding objection).

-TurretinFan

The Memorization of the Koran Argument

One of the more interesting arguments I've heard recently in favor of the idea that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved is the argument that people have memorized the whole Qur'an, and that this has been done for many generations. Thus, even if all the physical Qur'ans were destroyed, the Qur'an would still be perfectly preserved.

This argument apparently has some intuitive appeal. There is something of a problem with this argument. Consider the counter-example of the memorization of the canon of Scripture.

It's quite common in Christian schools (I have not done any formal study of this, but I believe it is quite common) for children to memorize the canon list of all the books of the Bible. Thus, numerous children can recite the books of the Bible, beginning from Genesis and ending at Revelation, sixty-six books in all.

This fact, however, does not mean that there have never been any canon questions or canon disputes. The practice of having children memorize the canon list is not something that started with the apostles. Thus, we cannot argue that it would have been impossible for anyone to add or subtract a book, because "every child knows that there are sixty-six books, and that they are called Genesis ... Revelation."

The same problem exists for Qur'an memorization. In order for this argument to have weight, someone needs to show that there was an early, widespread practice of memorizing the entire Qur'an.

On the contrary, the records we have suggest that the early memorizers of the Qur'an did not memorize it in its entirety, but rather in parts. For example:

'Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost.

(context and citation can be found here).

If there were many people who had the Qur'an entirely memorized in that time, it would seem impossible that "a large part of the Qur'an may be lost." Therefore, assuming the testimony we quoted above is accurate, there were not many (if any) people who had the Qur'an entirely memorized in that time. Thus, the argument from Koranic memorization fails.

-TurretinFan

If you are looking for a speaker at a reasonable cost ...

I think it is safe to say that Carl Trueman charges significantly less than $10,000 per speaking engagement (see his discussion here). Incidentally, it is sad to see the scandal surrounding Dinesh D'Souza. I have no idea what the whole story is, but it is sad to hear about his family situation.

For Those in the Roman Communion Who Want to Own Ryan but not Biden...

Consider that the corpulent Cardinal Dolan is willing to publicly call both Paul Ryan and Joe Biden "Catholics" in his speech (about one minute, twenty seconds into his remarks) at the Al Smith dinner. The easily offended might want to stop just after that bit, though, and before his joke involving Benedict XVI.

It was nice to see him identify Mormons separately from "Protestants." However, Cardinal Dolan then shortly afterward suggested that both Obama and Romney have a "love of God and country." Which god exactly do either of those men love?

Dolan went on to identify something he called the "five finger gospel." It's a handy mneumonic for "You (1) do (2) it (3) to (4) me (5)." On the other hand (UPDATE: no pun intended), that's not the gospel - that's the law.

Here Cardinal Dolan's remarks:


You can also find Romney's remarks here (link) and Obama's remarks here (link). Personally, I thought Romney's jokes were more funny, though for some reason he felt it necessary to make about three references to the fact that he totally abstains from alcohol.

- TurretinFan

Why Don't These Arguments Persuade All the Atheists?

William Lane Craig gave an amusing but persuasive lecture in which he "Eastwooded" Richard Dawkins (embedded below). The argument rehashed arguments for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument and the ontological argument.

Some of these, like the cosmological argument, are so airtight that one really wonders how some atheists continue to reject them. One possibility is that the arguments are too strong. Atheists think it can't be that easy, and that they must be being tricked. There must, they think, be some flaw in the argument that just has not yet been appreciated.

I would add that those arguments are valuable, but they are not enough. Acknowledging that God exists and created the world is not enough to escape God's wrath. One must repent of one's sins and trust in the Son of God for salvation from sin.

Craig's good, but incomplete, presentation is embedded below:

-TurretinFan

For those in the Roman Communion Who Think There is Only One Church ...

Consider Bendict XVI's remarks as reported today by the Vatican Information Service (emphasis mine):

The problem Europe has in finding its own identity consists, I believe, in the fact that in Europe today we see two souls: one is abstract anti-historical reason, which seeks to dominate all else because it considers itself above all cultures; it is like a reason which has finally discovered itself and intends to liberate itself from all traditions and cultural values in favour of an abstract rationality. Strasburg’s first verdict on the crucifix was an example of such abstract reason which seeks emancipation from all traditions, even from history itself. Yet we cannot live like that and, moreover, even "pure reason" is conditioned by a certain historical context, and only in that context can it exist. We could call Europe's other soul the Christian one. It is a soul open to all that is reasonable, a soul which itself created the audaciousness of reason and the freedom of critical reasoning, but which remains anchored to the roots from which this Europe was born, the roots which created the continent's fundamental values and great institutions, in the vision of the Christian faith. As you said, this soul has to find a shared expression in ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Churches.

I have noticed that some folks in the Roman communion have seemingly scrupled over calling the Reformed churches "Churches," opting instead for weird-sounding alternatives like "faith communities."

While I wouldn't hope that Benedict XVI's statement signals a reversal of his view that Rome is the one true church, perhaps his broader use of the term to encompass Orthodox and "Protestant" churches is something that his servants can bring themselves to adopt.

-TurretinFan

Reepicheep - Clark and Van Til

Over at Reepicheep, it was nice to see images of the cover pages of a couple of Van Til's books demonstrating that Van Til viewed Clark as a brother in Christ, notwithstanding their significant theological differences (link to post). That does not, of course, make right the mistreatment Clark received previously, but it was encouraging nonetheless.

-TurretinFan

"The Real Catholics" - R. Scott Clark and Perkins

R. Scott Clark has posted a series (so far two, I'm not sure if more are in the works) drawn from the works of William Perkins (1558–1602) discussing what constitutes true Catholicity. (part 1)(part 2)

In general, both Clark's and Perkins' comments are excellent. Clark notes, "Vatican II changed none of the doctrines against which the Reformation reacted." I would caveat that with "almost none" or "none of the major." Of course, on these points, a "conservative" Roman Catholic might argue that the points of change were never doctrinal issues, despite the fact that things like the use of Latin to the exclusion of the common tongue, forced celibacy of deacons, and rigid rules for orders were defended by Rome's advocates on doctrinal grounds.

And Rome has worsened her doctrines in several ways, in addition to what Clark mentions, Rome has subsequently made the Bodily Assumption and Papal infallibility dogma. Moreover, the exclusivity of Rome has certainly be downplayed to the point where inclusivism is rampant throughout the Roman hierarchy.

Clark states: "Perkins was concerned about a false ecumenism then and we have just as much right to be concerned about it now." Just as much, and perhaps even more. Rome is approaching ecumenism more winsomely today than she did back when she was having the Reformers imprisoned and burnt at the stake.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: Part 3 is up (link).

Dr. Adam Francisco - Understanding Islam

Modern Reformation has posted a couple of videos from Dr. Adam Francisco on "Understanding Islam." (Part 1)(Part 2). It is fairly rudimentary material, but it may be a useful introduction for folks who think they probably have a good sense of what Islam is, from watching the news.

-TurretinFan

Does the Bible Have a Rule about That?

Mob rule brings out the worst in Americans every four years.  Sadly, that's also true of Christians.  At this time of year, especially every four years, we get all sorts of appeals from our friends and brethren who are eager to have us join and/or financially support their mob, which will hopefully outnumber, outspend or otherwise defeat some one or more of the other mobs.

Some of these Christian friends and brethren will attempt to bolster their persuasive argument with appeals to Scripture.  And, of course, it is true that the Scriptures are our rule not only of faith, but also of life.  The Bible is not just a book that describes "religious things."  The Scriptures do speak to issues of how countries are to be governed, and they do address many issues that are  highly politicized.  It's good and proper for Christians to appeal to Scripture to decide legislative and political questions.  Those who suggest that the Bible is silent about such issues are wrong (and they are outside the boundaries of the Reformed confessions as well).

That said, just because the Bible has many things to say about legislation, politics, and so on, does not mean that the Bible speaks to every issue with the same level of clarity and does not mean that the Bible answers every question we may have.  As others have pointed out, while the Bible speaks to all of life, the Bible does not provide the order of steps needed to rebuild a motorcycle engine.

So, when we are confronted with appeals to Scripture on these questions or any question where people are telling us that there is a divine rule, one question we should ask ourselves is "Does the Bible have a rule about that?"  If the Bible does not have a rule, then we have Christian liberty to act within the broader and more general rules that the Scriptures provide.

So, for example, if someone claims that we must not vote for a Mormon or must not vote for someone who holds to black liberation theology, we may reply that the Bible has no such rule.  I would probably disagree with aspects of what John MacArthur says (see what he says here), but he's right in saying that to an extent the question of selecting an elected official is a question of selecting an employee to perform a job.

Everything being equal, we would prefer to select a pair of employees that includes at least one Christian over pairs that respectively include a former Muslim and a liberal Roman Catholic or a Mormon and a conservative Roman Catholic.  But not everything is equal.

The point of this post is not actually to persuade you, the reader, to join the mob I would like you to join.  My goal is to encourage you to think clearly about the question of elections, to set aside scruples that lack actual Biblical basis, but to do so without forgetting that our acts as citizens must be in accordance with the rule of faith and  life, the Holy Scriptures.

May the best mob win, but God's purposes will be accomplished regardless of men's machinations - political or otherwise.

-TurretinFan

Response to "The Quick and Easy Guide to God"

The "quick and easy guide to God," is an image that has been circulating on the Internet in the form of a flow-chart.  The flow chart begins with the premise "evil exists."

I suppose that one easy way to address this chart is to point out that "evil" doesn't exist.  "Evil" is an abstract idea.  Moreover, "evil" is defined negatively by reference to "good."  Asking if concrete examples of "evil" exist is like asking if shadows exist.  Well, there are shadows, and we can talk about them, but they are really an absence of light.  In much the same way, physical evils are really absences of physical perfections and moral evils are any absence of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God.

But let's say that for the sake of argument, we grant that there is some sense in which "evil exists."

The next step of the chart asks, "Can God prevent Evil?"  The answer to that question, of course, is only "yes."  As the chart indicates, if you can  God cannot prevent evil, then you have denied that God is omnipotent (all-powerful).

The next step of the chart asks, "Does God know about all the Evil?"  The answer to that question, as well, as a firm "yes," because (as the chart indicates) if the answer were "no," it would imply that God is not omniscient (all-knowing).

The next step of the chart asks, "Does God want to prevent Evil?" The answer that question is, "no."  If the answer were "yes," the options one would be left with would be that either God is internally conflicted (he wants to prevent it, but he also doesn't want to prevent it), which would be denial of God's simplicity.

The chart objects to the answer, "no," alleging that "Then God is not good/ God is not loving."  But this does not follow.  It is not necessary that a good or loving God would want to prevent every Evil.

A good and loving God can have a good and loving reason for allowing evil.  Allowing evil to exist for a greater purpose is a rather obvious and example of how this may be the case.

We can stop the analysis right there, as we have found an important flaw in the flowchart.

-TurretinFan

What Else Has Been Destroyed?

According to the linked news report, the papers that the pope's butler leaked were papers that the pope had personally indicated as being papers to be destroyed.    This reminds us of the similar case of Archbishop Dziwsz refusing to follow John Paul II's request that his personal papers be destroyed after his death.

Given that we see evidence of at least the two most recent popes attempting to have documentation of their papacy destroyed, one really has to wonder, what else has been destroyed by popes over the years?

Zealous "conservative" RCs have a very rose-colored picture of the papacy.  But the reality is that it is institutionalized corruption.  We have the butler and the archbishop to thank for two peeks into the machinations that go on behind the curtain, but does anyone doubt that this is but the tip of the iceberg?

-TurretinFan

In Whom Is His Trust?

Today, the Vatican Information Service reports:

Benedict XVI today made a pastoral visit to Loreto, Italy, where he entrusted to the Blessed Virgin - venerated in the famous Marian shrine there - two impending ecclesial events: the Synod of Bishops on new evangelisation which is to run from 7 to 28 October, and the Year of Faith which will begin on 11 October. The Holy Father's visit today was also intended to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of Blessed Pope John XXIII's pilgrimage to Loreto during which, on the eve of the inauguration of Vatican II, he entrusted the Council to the Virgin.

This is Mariolatry, not Christianity. In Christianity, our trust is in the Lord:

Matthew 12:14-21
Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; and charged them that they should not make him known: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust."

2 Samuel 22:3
The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

Job 13:15
Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him.

Psalm 2:12
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Psalm 5:11
But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee.

Psalm 9:10
And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.

Psalm 20:7
Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.

Psalm 33:21
For our heart shall rejoice in him, because we have trusted in his holy name.

I suppose that there are those who will read the verses above and say that in Roman theology, they don't just trust in Mary but in God also.  But in Christianity, we are specifically forbidden to trust in mere humans:

Psalm 118:9
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

Psalm 146:3
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

2 Corinthians 1:9
But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead:

Moreover, our God is our only rock:

Psalm 62:2
He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.

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

Consequently, we are to entirely trust in God:

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

But let us pray for those who unwittingly follow the Roman religion, the disciples of a New Testament era Shemaiah:

Jeremiah 29:31
Send to all them of the captivity, saying, Thus saith the LORD concerning Shemaiah the Nehelamite; Because that Shemaiah hath prophesied unto you, and I sent him not, and he caused you to trust in a lie:

We may conclude thus:

Psalm 25:2
O my God, I trust in thee: let me not be ashamed, let not mine enemies triumph over me.

Amen.

-TurretinFan

The "One Visible Church" Argument - Response to Bryan Cross

The "Called to Communion" blog has posted a roundup of their previous posts that allegedly provide a positive case for the papacy. Within that round-up, the leading section is entitled, “Christ founded a visible Church and Magisterium.” The first post of that section is entitled, “That Christ founded a visible Church.” The first argument of that post is entitled, “The Body of Christ is a Visible Unity.” Since this is the first of the first of the first of their supposedly positive case for the papacy, let's examine the flaws in their argument.

CtC argues that (1) "One reason Christ came into the world is to build His Church, that through and in His Church men might ultimately come to eternal life, that is, to the beatific vision of the Triune God."

a) Eternal life and the beatific vision are two distinct things. True Christians have eternal life now, but they do not yet possess the beatific vision. This error in CtC's argument does not really affect its main point, so let's leave it to one side.

b) The purpose of "the Church" is to proclaim the Gospel, but also to provide for the communal worship of God and to build up the flock of God. In other words, the Church has multiple purposes. One purpose of the church is to be the "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). While salvation is ordinarily within and through the evangelical work of the Church, salvation comes to all those who trust in Christ ("For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 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? 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!" Romans 10:13-15). More certainly could be said on this point, but since these issues in CtC's argument do not directly affect its main point, we will also leave them to one side.

c) We agree with CtC's statement that "one reason Christ came into the world is to build his Church," and we agree that Matthew 16:18 (which they cite) supports this point. We would note that in context, what defines the church is the confession of faith "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." (Matthew 16:16) In other words, it is by believing the gospel. We see this same short form of the gospel message in a number of places.

i) It is the accusation that Jesus admits to in his trial:

Matthew 26:63-64But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

ii) It is the beginning of the gospel according to Mark:

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

iii) It is the testimony of the demons:

Luke 4:41
And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.

iv) It is Peter's confession in John 6:

John 6:61-69
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, "Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, "Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Then said Jesus unto the twelve, "Will ye also go away?"
Then Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."

(Side note: note that it is the words of eternal life, not the "church of eternal life" - the church proclaims the gospel, but the church is not the gospel - the gospel is the gospel)

v) It is Martha's Confession in John 11:

John 11:23-27
Jesus saith unto her, "Thy brother shall rise again."
Martha saith unto him, "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day."
Jesus said unto her, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"
She saith unto him, "Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world."

vi) It is the reason John's Gospel was inscripturated with its particular contents:

John 20:30-31
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

vii) It is the Ethiopian Eunuch's Confession:

Acts 8:30-37
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, "Understandest thou what thou readest?"
And he said, "How can I, except some man should guide me?" And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
The place of the scripture which he read was this, "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: in his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth."
And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, "I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?"
Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?"
And Philip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."
And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

viii) It is the gospel that Saul preached from the very beginning:

Acts 9:17-20
And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, "Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

ix) And it is one way that Paul defines the church:

1 Corinthians 1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

x) And (of course) the confession of Peter in Matthew 16:

Matthew 16:15-18
He saith unto them, "But whom say ye that I am?"
And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

(We have seen elsewhere (part 1, part 2) that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" means that the people will be raised from the dead and experience eternal life.)

So, yes - Christ came to build his church - and his church is built through a proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, that says he is the Son of the living God. But this church is defined by the confession of faith.

CtC next argues (2) that "In the New Testament we find different terms used to show distinct aspects of the Church. One such term is “the Body of Christ”."

a) The terms used are not necessarily used to "show distinct aspects," but ...
b) There are various terms used, and one such term is "the Body of Christ."

CtC next argues (3) that "In these passages [Romans 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-31; Colossians 1:18,24; Ephesians 1:22, 4:15-16, 5:23] St. Paul teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ is a unity; it is one Body. God has composed it so that there would be no division in it."

a) Paul does teach that all believers are "one body":

Romans 12:3-5
For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
1 Corinthians 10:15-18
I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
1 Corinthians 12:3-14
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.

(it is interesting to note that the CtC guys skipped over 1 Corinthians 10, quoted Romans 12 without quoting verse 3, and quoted 1 Corinthians 12 without quoting the preceding context)

b) But note that Paul's definition of that unity relates to faith, the operation of the Spirit, and relying on the sacrifice of Christ. It's not clear that the CtC guys have appreciated this.

c) The statement, "God has composed it so that there would be no division in it," does not seem possibly supportable as it stands. Look at the part of 1 Corinthians 12 that the CtC guys failed to quote. The unity that the body has is not one that eliminates divisions, but one that transcends divisions. Thus, the text states:

• there are diversities of gifts
• there are differences of administrations
• there are diversities of operations

Yet there is still a unity because there is

• the same Spirit
• the same Lord
• the same God

(a nice Trinitarian allusion).

c) Indeed, it is not intrinsic that there are no divisions, because one of the messages of Paul to the Corinthians is one to overcome existing divisions:

1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1 Corinthians 3:3
For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1 Corinthians 11:18
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

In other words, even with a unity of fellowship in the same assembly there were divisions.

d) If we simply understand CtC's argument as being that it is aspirational there not be divisions, even then it is important to distinguish. There are divisions that serve an important purpose

1 Corinthians 10:20
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
2 Corinthians 6:14
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
Ephesians 5:11
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Galatians 1:8-9
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

and divisions that are a result of sin

James 4:1 
From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

See also, 1 Corinthians 3:3 (above).

So, there is a sense in which the statement is correct, and a sense in which it inaccurate, and it is important to distinguish between the two.

CtC next states: "Yet, in another sense, the Body is a plurality, because it has many members."

The body is composed of a plurality. It is, however, a fallacy to ascribe to the whole the quality of the parts simply by virtue of composition.

CtC continues:

And yet the members are joined together in one and the same Body. Each of the members of the Body has a different place and function in the Body. They do not all have the same function or role. Some are apostles, some are prophets, some are teachers, etc., each according to his gifts. And St. Paul teaches that some gifts are greater than others, even while each member is dependent on the others. This mutual dependency is true not only of the hands and feet, but even of the Head; the Head cannot say to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’

Much of this statement is correct.

CtC then states, however:

In this way, the Body is hierarchically organized, each of the subordinate functions contributing to the unified activity of the whole Body. If the Body were not hierarchically organized, there would be many different activities, but not one unified activity. There would be many different individuals, and not one Body.

a) The text does not describe a hierarchical organization of people, but of gifts. Moreover, that hierarchy is this:

1 Corinthians 12:27-31
Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

But that's not where Paul stops, even if that's where the chapter stops, in chapter 13 Paul goes on to explain that the greatest gift is the gift of Love or "Charity" as it termed in the KJV:

1 Corinthians 13:1-3
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

b) There can be a unified activity without a hierarchy.

Proverbs 30:27 The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands;

Even today, the mechanism that allows periodical cicadas to arise as a brood is not fully understood. Nevertheless, it is possible to have unified activity without a hierarchy.

c) More significantly, there is no need for a multi-layer hierarchy.

Proverbs 6:6-8
Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.

d) The hierarchy of gifts does not correspond to a hierarchy of people. That's true of the early church (Philip had seven daughters who prophesied, but they were not hierarchically above the brethren who did not prophesy). That's also true of modern Rome (people who supposedly are wonderworkers in Rome's communion often have no or very low ecclesiastical rank, while many of the popes are not thought to perform any miracles at all).

e) Furthermore, the analogy of the body does not lend itself well to the "hierarchy" theme. While the head is over the rest of the body (as governor), the feet are not over the hands, nor are the ears over the legs. There is no hierarchy among the members of the body, aside from the head ruling all.

The CtC argument continues:

At the top of the hierarchy is Christ, the Head of the Body. The Head and members together form one Body, with one shared divine life. The life of a body is its soul, in which all the members of the body are made to be alive and to share in the same life of the body. So likewise, the Life of the Body of Christ is the Holy Spirit, who is the Soul of the Church.

There's nothing especially objectionable about this, although it will become significant a little later in the argument.

CtC continues:

This is why St. Paul says that by one Spirit the Corinthian believers were baptized into one Body and all made to drink of that one Spirit. This incorporation into Christ’s Mystical Body is what is meant by union with Christ.

a) It should be readily apparent that union is a state, not an action. So, "incorporation into Christ's Mystical Body" is not union.

b) Scripture talks about the "unity of the Spirit" and the "unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God."

Ephesians 4:3
Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Ephesians 4:13
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

These references actually show two important aspects of the kind of unity envisioned by Paul. The first is that the unity exists, whether in peace or out of peace. We are to endeavour to keep it in the bond of peace, but the issue is one of peace.

Look at those passages in their full context:

Ephesians 4:3-16
Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Notice that in this context, the "unity of the faith" is something associated with an aspirational goal - something into which we are growing, not something intrinsic and inherent.

CtC continued:

When St. Paul says, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me,” (Gal. 2:20) this should not be understood in an individualistic ‘me-and-Jesus’ sense, but as referring to our union with Christ in His Mystical Body, the Church. Our union with Christ is accomplished through our incorporation into His Mystical Body, the Church, which is composed of many members. Likewise, when St. Paul says in Galatians 3:27-28 that those who have been baptized into Christ are all one in Christ, he is referring to believers being incorporated into the unity of Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church.

a) One interesting thing is that unlike circumcision, which leaves a generally unseen mark, baptism leaves no visible mark at all.

b) Also note that the RCs hold that the baptisms of heretics and schismatics are valid.

c) Thus, the thing that unites believers into the body is - in this argument - a sign that leaves no mark and results in a unity that transcends denominational divisions.

d) And, it's worth pointing out - the verses quoted don't say that it is the baptism that accomplishes the unity or union.

Galatians 3:22-29
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

As can be seen in the passage, it is faith that is key. Baptism is a sign of what is accomplished by faith. Thus, for example, Abraham was saved without baptism, but not without faith.

CtC continued:

Concerning that union, St. Augustine wrote:

Let us rejoice and give thanks that we have become not only Christians, but Christ. Do you understand, brothers, the grace of Christ our Head? Wonder at it, rejoice: we have become Christ. For if He is the Head, we are the members; He and we form the whole man . . . the fullness of Christ, therefore; the head and the members. What is the head and the members? Christ and the Church.”7

Notice the strong language that St. Augustine uses. Because of our union with Christ the Head in His Mystical Body, we are not only Christians, but, in a true sense, Christ. How is that possible? Because the members and Head form one “whole man.” Of that “whole man” St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:

The Head and members are as one mystical person [quasi una persona mystica] and therefore Christ’s satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as being His members.

St. Augustine and St. Thomas both maintained that through baptism we are incorporated into Christ’s Mystical Body, and that this union is not extrinsic, but intrinsic.

These quotations from Augustine and Aquinas seem essentially redundant to the argument.  Whether or not Augustine and/or Aquinas agreed with what Scripture teaches is not really of central importance.  Moreover, the quotations provided don't actually address the question of whether it is baptism or faith that unites us to Christ.

The idea that "we are Christ" doesn't add much to the discussion, except to emphasize the fact that the unity of the body of Christ is unity with the head.

The CtC argument continued: "Through baptism we are incorporated into a unity greater than ourselves, and so become one with the Head and other members, yet without losing our individual identity."

As noted above, Christians are united to Christ by saving faith. That said, yes, they become one without losing their individual identity.

Then CtC continued:

This unity of the Mystical Body is a visible unity, precisely because it is the unity of a Body. Bodies are visible and hierarchically organized, not invisible. Because the Church is a Body, the Church is essentially visible. The visibility of the Body is not reducible to the visibility of certain of its members; the Church per se is visible, just as your body per se is visible. Because the Church is a Body, “it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses.” In order to understand how the Body is visible, we need to consider the ways in which a living body is unified.

a) Bodies can be invisible.  Recall that Jesus made himself invisible to the Jews on at least one occasion:

John 8:53-59
"Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?"
Jesus answered, "If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."
Then said the Jews unto him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?"
Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Jesus' body did not cease to be a body, just because it ceased being visible.  Moreover, Jesus physical body is not currently visible, but that does not mean it is not a true body.

b) Moreover, according to the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, Christ's body is present without being visible (instead the accidents of bread and wine are visible).  Thus, it cannot be (within Roman doctrine) necessary for a body to be visible in order to be a body.  Indeed, the body of Christ in the Eucharist is not something "perceptible to the senses," according to the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation.

c) Furthermore, Christ himself is not visibly present and he is the head.  Thus, either the body does not essentially require visible unity or there is no body.  But there is a body, therefore, the body does not essentially require visible unity.

d) Additionally, this is an argument from an extension of an analogy.  In other words, visibility was not an aspect of the Biblical analogy to the body.  Reference to visibility is an extension of the analogy.  There is not, however, any warrant for this extension of the analogy.  If making unwarranted extensions to analogies is legitimate, there are almost no limits.  The only way to avoid giving the Scriptures of nose wax is to require that any applications of analogies have warrant.  There is no warrant for this extension.

Conclusion

The above argument demonstrates that CtC's supposed positive argument for the papacy cannot stand.  There are more points of argument in the linked post, but these points of arguments are premised on the points analyzed above.  Since the points analyzed above fail, it is not necessary to continue analyzing the further arguments that hang from the failed argument.  We may, at some point, come back and examine some of the remaining arguments presented, but doing so is outside the scope of this particular post.

Rather, here we have seen that the entire post from CtC hinges on an unwarranted extension of an analogy.  Moreover, this unwarranted extension of the analogy actually comes back to bite CtC, because maintaining CtC's position regarding the essence of "body" requires giving up transubstantiation.  Finally, this unwarranted extension of the analogy cannot be right, because Christ is the head of the Body and Christ is not presently visible to us.

- TurretinFan