Matthew Bellisario, editor of the Catholic Champion, was kind enough to bring this clip to my attention, and I'm happy to bring it to the attention of Dave Armstrong and others, who think that Francis is just business as usual for the Roman see:
Christopher Ferrara is a traditionalist Roman Catholic, to be sure, but that's kind of the point. He says: "Something is seriously wrong with this pontificate. You can't deny it any longer." (Christopher Ferrara, 11 minutes in)
"I think we just got stuck with a really, really bad decision in Pope Francis, who again I think has to rank among the very worst popes in the history of the papacy." (Michael Matt - 24:45 in)
Mr. Matt goes so far as to say that living under Francis is worse than living under Alexander VI and the (other) Borgia popes (around 26 minutes in).
-TurretinFan
Showing posts with label Dave Armstrong. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dave Armstrong. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Lent is Biblical?!
So proclaims one blog. Of course, there's no mention of Lent in Scripture. So, how could it be Biblical? The tortured reasoning is that there are "several forty day parallels in Scripture." Let's look at those parallels:
Exodus 24:18 And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.
Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Deuteronomy 9:9 When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:
Deuteronomy 9:25 Thus I fell down before the LORD forty days and forty nights, as I fell down at the first; because the LORD had said he would destroy you.
The following was curiously omitted by the author:
Deuteronomy 10:10 And I stayed in the mount, according to the first time, forty days and forty nights; and the LORD hearkened unto me at that time also, and the LORD would not destroy thee.
1 Kings 19:8 And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God.
Ezekiel 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
Oddly, the author didn't include the other synoptic accounts:
Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
Luke 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
Except for the Ezekiel reference, these are all examples of fasting for forty days. But note:
a) These are not prescriptive. There is nothing about these passages that suggests "imitate this example." Moreover, while there are three examples (Moses, Elijah, and Jesus) none is described as imitating the other.
b) These are supernatural and miraculous. No normal human being under ordinary circumstances can survive for 40 days without food and water. These are not part of some general plan of godly living.
c) These are isolated, not annual, events. Moses apparently fasted for forty days more than once, but it was an occasional, not regular fast. The others fasted for forty days once.
In short, these fasts are only similar to Lent in a very superficial way. Lent is simply dietary restrictions for forty days (not even consecutive days) and the way it is practiced in places like the U.S. and U.K., it's' not even really that.
The Ezekiel example is just a strange inclusion. For you will see that although a special diet is mentioned, it is not simply for forty days:
Ezekiel 4:1-17
b) Moreover, the whole point of the diet was to illustrate the coming siege, destruction, and dispersal of the Israelites.
c) Thus, for example, the dung-baked bread was to be dung-baked to illustrate that the Israelites were going to be eating defiled bread. The odd combination of ingredients illustrates the destruction of the usual separation that Israel had experienced. The measured food and water illustrate the times of austerity that were coming. The "eat it as barley cakes" is to show that these austere portions would be considered a blessing.
In short, the Ezekiel fast (if we can call it that) points forward to a curse from God. It is descriptive and prophetic, not prescriptive. Like the fasts, it is occasional - not annual (indeed it could not be annual on this planet).
This seems absurd, ridiculous, and frankly beneath response. Yet it is apparently being offered on Facebook (evidence) as though it were a serious defense of the practice of the Roman communion.
Of course, none of this is to suggest that fasting, in itself, is wrong. Nevertheless, Christian fasting is purposeful and, usually, secret. Jesus taught us:
Matthew 6:16-18
Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
See people with ash daubed on their face? They are not following this teaching.
-TurretinFan
Moses’ fasts on the the holy mountain (Ex 24:18; 34:28; Deut 9:9) and his intercession for Israel (Deut 9:25), Elijah’s journey to Mt. Horeb (1 Ki 19:8), Ezekiel’s lying on one side (Ezek 4:6), and Christ’s fast in the wilderness (Mt 4:2).And what to do the texts say:
Exodus 24:18 And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.
Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Deuteronomy 9:9 When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:
Deuteronomy 9:25 Thus I fell down before the LORD forty days and forty nights, as I fell down at the first; because the LORD had said he would destroy you.
The following was curiously omitted by the author:
Deuteronomy 10:10 And I stayed in the mount, according to the first time, forty days and forty nights; and the LORD hearkened unto me at that time also, and the LORD would not destroy thee.
1 Kings 19:8 And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God.
Ezekiel 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
Oddly, the author didn't include the other synoptic accounts:
Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
Luke 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
Except for the Ezekiel reference, these are all examples of fasting for forty days. But note:
a) These are not prescriptive. There is nothing about these passages that suggests "imitate this example." Moreover, while there are three examples (Moses, Elijah, and Jesus) none is described as imitating the other.
b) These are supernatural and miraculous. No normal human being under ordinary circumstances can survive for 40 days without food and water. These are not part of some general plan of godly living.
c) These are isolated, not annual, events. Moses apparently fasted for forty days more than once, but it was an occasional, not regular fast. The others fasted for forty days once.
In short, these fasts are only similar to Lent in a very superficial way. Lent is simply dietary restrictions for forty days (not even consecutive days) and the way it is practiced in places like the U.S. and U.K., it's' not even really that.
The Ezekiel example is just a strange inclusion. For you will see that although a special diet is mentioned, it is not simply for forty days:
Ezekiel 4:1-17
Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and pourtray upon it the city, even Jerusalem: and lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about. Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel.a) As you can, Ezekiel's curious diet was not for forty days, but for nearly four hundred days.
Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.
Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it. And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege.
Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof.
And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it. Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink.
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith. Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment: that they may want bread and water, and be astonied one with another, and consume away for their iniquity.
b) Moreover, the whole point of the diet was to illustrate the coming siege, destruction, and dispersal of the Israelites.
c) Thus, for example, the dung-baked bread was to be dung-baked to illustrate that the Israelites were going to be eating defiled bread. The odd combination of ingredients illustrates the destruction of the usual separation that Israel had experienced. The measured food and water illustrate the times of austerity that were coming. The "eat it as barley cakes" is to show that these austere portions would be considered a blessing.
In short, the Ezekiel fast (if we can call it that) points forward to a curse from God. It is descriptive and prophetic, not prescriptive. Like the fasts, it is occasional - not annual (indeed it could not be annual on this planet).
This seems absurd, ridiculous, and frankly beneath response. Yet it is apparently being offered on Facebook (evidence) as though it were a serious defense of the practice of the Roman communion.
Of course, none of this is to suggest that fasting, in itself, is wrong. Nevertheless, Christian fasting is purposeful and, usually, secret. Jesus taught us:
Matthew 6:16-18
Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
See people with ash daubed on their face? They are not following this teaching.
-TurretinFan
Monday, November 14, 2011
Failure to Understand both Calvinism and One's Own Doctrine ...
I saw the following comment from a lay apologist of the Roman communion recently, directed at one of my fellow Calvinists:
Moreover, as in Thomism and Molinism, in Calvinism one is not relieved of one's obligations to pray for someone or love them simply because of God's secret decree of reprobation.
The comment quoted above reflects a fundamental failure to understand Calvinism. It shows that the person does not grasp even the simple concept that, in this life, we do not know who the elect are. Just because someone is currently a Saul of Tarsus does not mean that they will not one day be a Paul the Apostle (to take an extreme example).
So, the Roman apologist has (a) identified a first set of views that his church deems acceptable, and (b) drawn unfounded conclusions from them. What should we conclude? Shall we assume he's just being silly? Probably not. The tone of this comment was harshly serious (the apologist even cursed at my fellow Calvinist in a portion of the comment that I haven't reproduced). It could be that he's just deliberately lying about Calvinism, but what purpose would that serve? We know what we believe, so we're not likely to be fooled by his mischaracterization. All that's left is that this poor soul doesn't understand.
We should pray for him, that God would open his eyes.
-TurretinFan
If I am going to hell and presdestined to do so, then you don't have to pray for me or even have any love at all, according to your warped, hideous, grotesque version of Christianity. You can even hate me.Of course, Thomism (which is supposedly acceptable within Rome's communion) and even Molinism also teach that certain people are going to hell and predestinated to do so. That's not a unique aspect of Calvinism.
If THIS is what Christianity means, I would rather be an atheist.
Moreover, as in Thomism and Molinism, in Calvinism one is not relieved of one's obligations to pray for someone or love them simply because of God's secret decree of reprobation.
The comment quoted above reflects a fundamental failure to understand Calvinism. It shows that the person does not grasp even the simple concept that, in this life, we do not know who the elect are. Just because someone is currently a Saul of Tarsus does not mean that they will not one day be a Paul the Apostle (to take an extreme example).
So, the Roman apologist has (a) identified a first set of views that his church deems acceptable, and (b) drawn unfounded conclusions from them. What should we conclude? Shall we assume he's just being silly? Probably not. The tone of this comment was harshly serious (the apologist even cursed at my fellow Calvinist in a portion of the comment that I haven't reproduced). It could be that he's just deliberately lying about Calvinism, but what purpose would that serve? We know what we believe, so we're not likely to be fooled by his mischaracterization. All that's left is that this poor soul doesn't understand.
We should pray for him, that God would open his eyes.
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Final Piece in Cochlaeus' Misquotation of Luther Puzzle
A few years ago, James Swan and I provided some documentation that a footnote provided by Steve Ray (link to discussion of "When Footnotes Attack")(additional response) was actually a false quotation, an invention of "that slanderer Cochlaeus," as Whitaker expressed it in the 16th century (link to discussion of the transmission of the spurious statement).
Cochlaeus was paraphrasing (badly) one of Luther's writings on the words "This is my body." We showed that the German does not support Cochlaeus' mistranslation.
Nevertheless, some of Steve Ray's supporters seemed to hold out hope that that Matthew Judex "official" Lutheran Latin translation of the work from 1556 might support Cochlaeus. It does not. The relevant portion in Matthew Judex' translation is this:
That is a far cry from Cochlaeus' paraphrase:
Hopefully this last piece of the jigsaw puzzle lays the matter to rest, once and for all. It is not the case that Cochlaeus simply adopted the Matthew Judex translation.
- TurretinFan
P.S. Perhaps Mr. Armstrong will now complete his post since the work is available (via Google Books), and provide a retraction/apology to Mr. Swan.
Cochlaeus was paraphrasing (badly) one of Luther's writings on the words "This is my body." We showed that the German does not support Cochlaeus' mistranslation.
Nevertheless, some of Steve Ray's supporters seemed to hold out hope that that Matthew Judex "official" Lutheran Latin translation of the work from 1556 might support Cochlaeus. It does not. The relevant portion in Matthew Judex' translation is this:
Si haec mundi machina per aliquot annos duraverit, iterum more patrum ad tollendas dissensiones humana quaerentur praesidia, constituemur qui; leges et decreta ad conciliandam et servandam in religione concordiam, quod quidem similem priori sortietur eventum.Image:
That is a far cry from Cochlaeus' paraphrase:Si diutius steterit mundus, iterum erit necessarium, ut propter diversas scripturae interptationes, quae nunc sunt, ad conservandum fidei unitatem, Conciliorum Decreta recipiamus, atquae ad ea confugiamus.Image:
Hopefully this last piece of the jigsaw puzzle lays the matter to rest, once and for all. It is not the case that Cochlaeus simply adopted the Matthew Judex translation.- TurretinFan
P.S. Perhaps Mr. Armstrong will now complete his post since the work is available (via Google Books), and provide a retraction/apology to Mr. Swan.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Defining "Christian" so as to Deceive Christians
Over in the comment box of the GreenBaggins blog, Dave Armstrong asked:
If one is going to include "heretics" who do not accept the Tridentine creed, why not accept heretics who do not accept the Nicene creed? After all, from Rome's perspective, both Arians (who reject Nicaea) and the Reformed (who reject Trent) are "outside the fold" in the same sense. Trent is not less of an ecumenical council in Romanism, nor is its authority any less.
I understand that there are Christians out there who like to use one of those creeds as being a true definition of what is involved in being a Christian. That's because they think that the essential doctrines of the faith are captured in those creeds. That's not Rome's position - Rome doesn't permit people to differ over what Trent has said: if you deny Trent, you can't reasonably call yourself a Roman Catholic.
For a Roman Catholic to select the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed as definitive of what it means to be a Christian is, at best, arbitrary. Trent and Nicaea are equally authoritative for a Romanist. Monothelitism (not condemned at Nicaea) is just dogmatically defined to be a heresy as Arianism. Iconoclasm is as strongly opposed as Monothelitism. And Trent's Canon IX on Justification defines Sola Fide to be as false as any other condemned teaching.
Unfortunately, a number of Christians fall for this sort of sophistry. They imagine that folks like Mr. Armstrong are recognizing them as true followers of Christ by calling them a Christian. You should have seen him squirm, though, when asked the simple question of whether he equated "Christian" and "saved." (he himself documented his own numerous attempts to evade the question on his own blog - link) This confusion is exacerbated by the fact that there are many folks within the Roman Catholic Church who do actually think that non-RCs are just on different paths to heaven: RC members who essentially adopt pluralism. Those two groups read Vatican II's comments "ecumenical" comments in radically different ways.
And which group reads Vatican II correctly?
-TurretinFan
First of all, how could one who accepts the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed not be a Christian? I think that is something you should ask yourself.If those do not help clarify who is and who is not a Christian, what in the world does? This is the very purpose of creeds and confessions: to determine in a concise manner who is within and outside of the fold.One has to ask why, i.e. upon what pretense, Dave selects the creeds of those councils, and not the Tridentine creed?
If one is going to include "heretics" who do not accept the Tridentine creed, why not accept heretics who do not accept the Nicene creed? After all, from Rome's perspective, both Arians (who reject Nicaea) and the Reformed (who reject Trent) are "outside the fold" in the same sense. Trent is not less of an ecumenical council in Romanism, nor is its authority any less.
I understand that there are Christians out there who like to use one of those creeds as being a true definition of what is involved in being a Christian. That's because they think that the essential doctrines of the faith are captured in those creeds. That's not Rome's position - Rome doesn't permit people to differ over what Trent has said: if you deny Trent, you can't reasonably call yourself a Roman Catholic.
For a Roman Catholic to select the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed as definitive of what it means to be a Christian is, at best, arbitrary. Trent and Nicaea are equally authoritative for a Romanist. Monothelitism (not condemned at Nicaea) is just dogmatically defined to be a heresy as Arianism. Iconoclasm is as strongly opposed as Monothelitism. And Trent's Canon IX on Justification defines Sola Fide to be as false as any other condemned teaching.
Unfortunately, a number of Christians fall for this sort of sophistry. They imagine that folks like Mr. Armstrong are recognizing them as true followers of Christ by calling them a Christian. You should have seen him squirm, though, when asked the simple question of whether he equated "Christian" and "saved." (he himself documented his own numerous attempts to evade the question on his own blog - link) This confusion is exacerbated by the fact that there are many folks within the Roman Catholic Church who do actually think that non-RCs are just on different paths to heaven: RC members who essentially adopt pluralism. Those two groups read Vatican II's comments "ecumenical" comments in radically different ways.
And which group reads Vatican II correctly?
-TurretinFan
Friday, April 23, 2010
Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 7/25
Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 7/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
7. The U.S. Constitution might be regarded as true and wonderful and sufficient, etc. But the fact remains that this abstract belief only lasts undisturbed as long as the first instance of case law in which two parties claim divergent interpretations of the Constitution. It's the same with Protestants.
Short Rebuttal
The major error in this argument is that it assumes a bogus standard for sufficiency. The minor error is that the analogy to the U.S. Constitution is false.
Longer Rebuttal
For the Scriptures to be wonderful and sufficient, there is no requirement that they eliminate every disagreement about themselves. Such a false standard for sufficiency is strange - Dave's own church includes plenty of internal disagreement over their own standards. We don't claim that the Scripture prevents people from disagreeing - and surely disagreement is an invalid standard of measurement of the sufficiency of any standard.
As for the U.S. Constitution - it is not divinely inspired. The Holy Spirit doesn't promise to lead Americans into a proper understanding of the Constitution, but does promise to lead believers into the truth:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Likewise there is no American spirit that provides as fruit the analogous equivalent of "goodness and righteousness and truth."
Ephesians 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
Thus, while the U.S. Constitution may be as clear as men can make it, the Scriptures are a divine production - they are inspired.
- TurretinFan
Armstrong's Argument
7. The U.S. Constitution might be regarded as true and wonderful and sufficient, etc. But the fact remains that this abstract belief only lasts undisturbed as long as the first instance of case law in which two parties claim divergent interpretations of the Constitution. It's the same with Protestants.
Short Rebuttal
The major error in this argument is that it assumes a bogus standard for sufficiency. The minor error is that the analogy to the U.S. Constitution is false.
Longer Rebuttal
For the Scriptures to be wonderful and sufficient, there is no requirement that they eliminate every disagreement about themselves. Such a false standard for sufficiency is strange - Dave's own church includes plenty of internal disagreement over their own standards. We don't claim that the Scripture prevents people from disagreeing - and surely disagreement is an invalid standard of measurement of the sufficiency of any standard.
As for the U.S. Constitution - it is not divinely inspired. The Holy Spirit doesn't promise to lead Americans into a proper understanding of the Constitution, but does promise to lead believers into the truth:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Likewise there is no American spirit that provides as fruit the analogous equivalent of "goodness and righteousness and truth."
Ephesians 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
Thus, while the U.S. Constitution may be as clear as men can make it, the Scriptures are a divine production - they are inspired.
- TurretinFan
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 6/25
Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 6/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
6. Is every Christian in the world able to find enough time, and become educated enough and familiar enough with Scripture to be his own theologian? And if he consults other ones, wise enough to always get it right when he chooses?
Short Rebuttal
The most necessary things of Scripture are simple enough not to require someone to be a "theologian" per se, and the right approach is test others' teachings by Scripture rather than relying on one's own wisdom.
Longer Rebuttal
The way to avoid relying on one's own wisdom is to rely on the Scriptures:
Proverbs 3:1-7
My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: for length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: so shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
Furthermore, the Scriptures assist even the simple:
Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
That's one of the reasons that the Proverbs were written:
Proverbs 1:1-4
The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; to know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; to give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
So one does not have to be wise to nevertheless receive wisdom from Scripture. Scripture is prepared and even specifically provided to help give light to those who are not professional theologians.
- TurretinFan
Armstrong's Argument
6. Is every Christian in the world able to find enough time, and become educated enough and familiar enough with Scripture to be his own theologian? And if he consults other ones, wise enough to always get it right when he chooses?
Short Rebuttal
The most necessary things of Scripture are simple enough not to require someone to be a "theologian" per se, and the right approach is test others' teachings by Scripture rather than relying on one's own wisdom.
Longer Rebuttal
The way to avoid relying on one's own wisdom is to rely on the Scriptures:
Proverbs 3:1-7
My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: for length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: so shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
Furthermore, the Scriptures assist even the simple:
Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
That's one of the reasons that the Proverbs were written:
Proverbs 1:1-4
The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; to know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; to give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
So one does not have to be wise to nevertheless receive wisdom from Scripture. Scripture is prepared and even specifically provided to help give light to those who are not professional theologians.
- TurretinFan
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 5/25
Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 5/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
5. Since Protestants can't agree in their interpretation of Scripture, of what practical use is an infallible Bible? If the interpretation is fallible and contradictory, then -- practically speaking -- the Bible in effect is no more infallible than its differing interpretations.
Short Rebuttal
The practical use of the Bible is explained below:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Longer Rebuttal
The argument, if we can call this question an argument, seems to be trying to suggest that the appropriate test of the sufficiency of a rule of faith is if everyone agrees about it. But there is no rule of faith about which everyone agrees. To take the alternative for which Armstrong is trying to argue by tearing down Scripture, Roman Catholicism provides a rule of faith in the form her allegedly infallible teachings. Nevertheless, there are differences of opinion among Roman Catholics regarding how to interpret their rule of faith. Thus, if we accept the extremely skeptical premise of this argument, the result is agnosticism: we wouldn't be able to have any rule of faith at all, because people have differences of opinion over any given rule of faith.
- TurretinFan
Armstrong's Argument
5. Since Protestants can't agree in their interpretation of Scripture, of what practical use is an infallible Bible? If the interpretation is fallible and contradictory, then -- practically speaking -- the Bible in effect is no more infallible than its differing interpretations.
Short Rebuttal
The practical use of the Bible is explained below:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Longer Rebuttal
The argument, if we can call this question an argument, seems to be trying to suggest that the appropriate test of the sufficiency of a rule of faith is if everyone agrees about it. But there is no rule of faith about which everyone agrees. To take the alternative for which Armstrong is trying to argue by tearing down Scripture, Roman Catholicism provides a rule of faith in the form her allegedly infallible teachings. Nevertheless, there are differences of opinion among Roman Catholics regarding how to interpret their rule of faith. Thus, if we accept the extremely skeptical premise of this argument, the result is agnosticism: we wouldn't be able to have any rule of faith at all, because people have differences of opinion over any given rule of faith.
- TurretinFan
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 4/25
Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 4/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
4. I think Scripture is pretty clear (I've always found it to be so in my many biblical studies), but I also know from simple observation and knowledge of Church history that it isn't clear enough to bring men to agreement.
Short Rebuttal
The fact that the Scriptures don't bring all men to complete unanimity isn't really relevant to the issue of perspicuity.
Longer Rebuttal
In other words, the Scriptures are sufficiently clear to present the Gospel so that people can hear and believe. The fact that not all believe has nothing to do with the clarity of the message.
The Scriptures make Christ manifest, even if sinners refuse to accept what the Scriptures say:
Romans 16:25-27
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
Furthermore, there is no need for there to be complete unanimity on every teaching of Scripture. One of the joys of Scripture is that one cannot exhaust all of its treasures. The fact that, in the process of exploration, we are going to disagree with other Christians about some teaching or other is reasonable, especially since we are fallible human beings.
- TurretinFan
Armstrong's Argument
4. I think Scripture is pretty clear (I've always found it to be so in my many biblical studies), but I also know from simple observation and knowledge of Church history that it isn't clear enough to bring men to agreement.
Short Rebuttal
The fact that the Scriptures don't bring all men to complete unanimity isn't really relevant to the issue of perspicuity.
Longer Rebuttal
In other words, the Scriptures are sufficiently clear to present the Gospel so that people can hear and believe. The fact that not all believe has nothing to do with the clarity of the message.
The Scriptures make Christ manifest, even if sinners refuse to accept what the Scriptures say:
Romans 16:25-27
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: to God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
Furthermore, there is no need for there to be complete unanimity on every teaching of Scripture. One of the joys of Scripture is that one cannot exhaust all of its treasures. The fact that, in the process of exploration, we are going to disagree with other Christians about some teaching or other is reasonable, especially since we are fallible human beings.
- TurretinFan
Monday, April 19, 2010
Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 3/25
Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 3/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
3. If Protestants discount the Church's binding authority because men are sinners, then they obviously have to discount every individual's interpretation, as each person is a sinner, too!
Short Rebuttal
Yes, of course. Nevertheless, Scripture is able to speak clearly.
Longer Rebuttal
The fact that men are sinners is true. However, Scripture still speaks clearly to sinners. The Scriptures are able to make men wise unto salvation - Scripture itself says so.
- TurretinFan
Armstrong's Argument
3. If Protestants discount the Church's binding authority because men are sinners, then they obviously have to discount every individual's interpretation, as each person is a sinner, too!
Short Rebuttal
Yes, of course. Nevertheless, Scripture is able to speak clearly.
Longer Rebuttal
The fact that men are sinners is true. However, Scripture still speaks clearly to sinners. The Scriptures are able to make men wise unto salvation - Scripture itself says so.
- TurretinFan
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 2/25
Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 2/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
2. [Roman] Catholics have every confidence in Scripture. What we lack confidence in, is the ability of men to "rightly divide the word of truth."
Short Rebuttal
If they had every confidence in Scripture, they would have confidence in Scripture to communicate clearly. The point of Scripture is not to impress the possessor with the beauty of the script in which it is written, or the luxurious feel of the paper on which it is written, or even the sturdiness of its binding. The point of Scripture is to communicate to the reader.
Longer Rebuttal
This argument is a very pious-sounding argument. The argument purports to honor the Word of God while humbly disparaging man. This sort of false humility is not new. The prophet Isaiah described it long ago:
Isaiah 29:9-14
John 20:31 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.
Furthermore, we are given encouragement to read, study and meditate upon the Scriptures:
Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
Furthermore, God has given us his Holy Spirit, and one of the purposes of the Holy Spirit is to lead us into truth:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
The verse to which the argument alludes similarly undermines Roman skepticism:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The fathers of the church also recognized this. They explained:
Irenaeus:
Chrysostom:
And we could provide many more. The bottom line, however, is that the argument is an example of false humility. While lip service is paid to Scripture, it is nevertheless treated as though it cannot communicate clearly on the things necessary to salvation.
- TurretinFan
Armstrong's Argument
2. [Roman] Catholics have every confidence in Scripture. What we lack confidence in, is the ability of men to "rightly divide the word of truth."
Short Rebuttal
If they had every confidence in Scripture, they would have confidence in Scripture to communicate clearly. The point of Scripture is not to impress the possessor with the beauty of the script in which it is written, or the luxurious feel of the paper on which it is written, or even the sturdiness of its binding. The point of Scripture is to communicate to the reader.
Longer Rebuttal
This argument is a very pious-sounding argument. The argument purports to honor the Word of God while humbly disparaging man. This sort of false humility is not new. The prophet Isaiah described it long ago:
Isaiah 29:9-14
Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.The purpose of Scripture is to communicate. It is consequently written in a way that, as to the necessary things, it is clear.
And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, "Read this, I pray thee:" and he saith, "I cannot; for it is sealed:" and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, "Read this, I pray thee:" and he saith, "I am not learned."
Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
John 20:31 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.
Furthermore, we are given encouragement to read, study and meditate upon the Scriptures:
Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
Furthermore, God has given us his Holy Spirit, and one of the purposes of the Holy Spirit is to lead us into truth:
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
The verse to which the argument alludes similarly undermines Roman skepticism:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The fathers of the church also recognized this. They explained:
Irenaeus:
A sound mind, and one which does not expose its possessor to danger, and is devoted to piety and the love of truth, will eagerly meditate upon those things which God has placed within the power of mankind, and has subjected to our knowledge, and will make advancement in [acquaintance with] them, rendering the knowledge of them easy to him by means of daily study. These things are such as fall [plainly] under our observation, and are clearly and unambiguously in express terms set forth in the Sacred Scriptures.- Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:27:1
Chrysostom:
For generally the servants also have their characters formed after their master's, and are fashioned after their humors, love the same objects, which they have been taught to love, speak the same language, and engage with them in the same pursuits. If thus we regulate ourselves, and attentively study the Scriptures, in most things we shall derive instruction from them. And thus shall be able to please God, and to pass through the whole of the present life virtuously, and to attain those blessings which are promised to those that love Him, of which God grant that we may all be counted worthy, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, together with the Holy Ghost, be unto the Father, glory, power, and honor, now, and ever, through all ages. Amen.- Chrysostom, Homily 20 on Ephesians (concluding lines)
And we could provide many more. The bottom line, however, is that the argument is an example of false humility. While lip service is paid to Scripture, it is nevertheless treated as though it cannot communicate clearly on the things necessary to salvation.
- TurretinFan
Monday, March 08, 2010
Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 1/25
Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 1/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.
Armstrong's Argument
1. The Bible is only clear to the extent that various Protestant factions agree on any one of its teachings.
Short Rebuttal
The argument confuses subjective clarity for objective clarity.
Longer Rebuttal
The idea that Scripture is only clear to the extent that people agree seems to assume that the different opinions of people come from ambiguity or lack of clarity in the text of Scripture. In fact, however, sometimes the different opinions come from other sources.
For example, tradition can be a powerful influence on one's views. If someone has grown up in a community in which the Scriptures are interpreted in a particular way, that can exert an influence on the person's perception of the text. For example, people will think that Jesus was weeping over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37 because they have so often heard that, although the text doesn't actually say that.
In another example, one's sin can influence one's views. Those who insist on various forms of sexual immorality will find ways, in their own mind, to justify their behavior despite Scripture's clear prohibition of their deeds.
We could go on and on with examples, but perhaps we should simply state what Scripture says:
The light is light, even though the darkness doesn't understand it.
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
The darkness doesn't embrace the light because of sin.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Wicked men wrest both the difficult sayings of Scripture, as well as the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
One way that men obscure Scripture is through Scripture-invalidating Tradition:
Matthew 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
But in contrast, the Scriptures are clear to those who love God and seek His instruction:
Proverbs 8:9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
The fathers of the church also recognized this. They explained:
Alexander of Alexandria:
Cyril of Alexandria:
And we could provide many more. The bottom line, however, is that the argument fundamentally confuses the objective clarity of Scripture with the subjective obscurity, the latter being caused by a variety of factors, such as sin and human tradition.
- TurretinFan
Armstrong's Argument
1. The Bible is only clear to the extent that various Protestant factions agree on any one of its teachings.
Short Rebuttal
The argument confuses subjective clarity for objective clarity.
Longer Rebuttal
The idea that Scripture is only clear to the extent that people agree seems to assume that the different opinions of people come from ambiguity or lack of clarity in the text of Scripture. In fact, however, sometimes the different opinions come from other sources.
For example, tradition can be a powerful influence on one's views. If someone has grown up in a community in which the Scriptures are interpreted in a particular way, that can exert an influence on the person's perception of the text. For example, people will think that Jesus was weeping over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37 because they have so often heard that, although the text doesn't actually say that.
In another example, one's sin can influence one's views. Those who insist on various forms of sexual immorality will find ways, in their own mind, to justify their behavior despite Scripture's clear prohibition of their deeds.
We could go on and on with examples, but perhaps we should simply state what Scripture says:
The light is light, even though the darkness doesn't understand it.
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
The darkness doesn't embrace the light because of sin.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Wicked men wrest both the difficult sayings of Scripture, as well as the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
One way that men obscure Scripture is through Scripture-invalidating Tradition:
Matthew 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
But in contrast, the Scriptures are clear to those who love God and seek His instruction:
Proverbs 8:9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
The fathers of the church also recognized this. They explained:
Alexander of Alexandria:
Oh, the impious arrogance! Oh, the immeasurable madness! Oh, the vainglory befitting those that are crazed! Oh, the pride of Satan which has taken root in their unholy souls. The religious perspicuity of the ancient Scriptures caused them no shame, nor did the consentient doctrine of our colleagues concerning Christ keep in check their audacity against Him. Their impiety not even the demons will bear, who are ever on the watch for a blasphemous word uttered against the Son.- Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople, Section 10
Cyril of Alexandria:
All things are plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge, as it is written, but darksome to the foolish is even that which is exceeding easy. For the truly wise hearer shuts up the more obvious teaching in the treasury of his understanding, not admitting any delay in respect of this: but as to the things the meaning whereof is hard, he goes about with his enquiries, and does not cease asking about them; and he seems to me profitably to press on to do much the same as they say that the fleetest dogs of the chase do, who having from nature great quickness of scent, keep running round the haunts of their game.- Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 4, Chapter 2, at John 6:52-53
And we could provide many more. The bottom line, however, is that the argument fundamentally confuses the objective clarity of Scripture with the subjective obscurity, the latter being caused by a variety of factors, such as sin and human tradition.
- TurretinFan
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Cochlaeus Work On-Line
Further to my last post about the BSB digitization project, one may recall an informal debate that I conducted with Dave Armstrong last January on the issue of a spurious quotation attributed to Luther. The full work of that slanderer Cochlaeus, from which the quotation originated, has been digitized and is available freely on-line, though one will have to navigate some German menus to download it (link).
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Friday, February 27, 2009
Misquoting Athanasius
It's very popular among Rome's apologists today, to make claims that famous church fathers, those that "Protestants" would have heard of, held to the same views as Rome teaches today. Unfortunately for Catholicism, history is not her friend. So, while occasionally a church father or two will provide some seemingly helpful material for the apologist for Catholicism, these sorts of things often aren't really good enough to provide a compelling case from the best known fathers.
So some of these apologists turn to spurious works: pseudographic writings that are attributed to some father but were not actually written by him. This can happen two ways: (1) unintentionally or (2) deliberately.
The unintentional error can happen to anyone. One of the callers to the "Dividing Line" radio program recently made reference to a quotation with respect to the Johannine Comma that John Calvin had attributed to Jerome. Upon the further investigation, it appears that the author of the quotation was not Jerome himself, but a later writer using Jerome's name. Thus, the person who called unintentionally used a pseudographic writing (through simply adopting what Calvin said, but not investigating it more thoroughly).
A deliberate error is more serious. I have a particular quotation in mind, and at this point, I want to refrain from stating that Rome's apologists are deliberately quoting a pseudographic source as though it were authentic. After all, they may simply be falling into the same error that our caller fell into of using outdated or inaccurate information from a secondary source.
Nevertheless, a particular quotation allegedly from Athanasius has come to my attention. Athanasius is one of those church fathers that lots of "Protestants" have heard of and respect. It would be an interesting survey to do, but I think that among Reformed Christians especially, one would find almost no criticism or negative attitudes towards Athanasius: after all, Athanasius stood for orthodoxy against error in a Martin-Luther-esque manner - "Athanasius Contra Mundum" (Athanasius Against the World).
Athanasius was a Reformer in his day, so what a shock it would be to "Protestants" if Athanasius turned out to be Roman Catholic! And of course, unbeknown to typical "Protestants", there are a number of areas where there would be a significant difference between Athanasius doctrines or practices and those of the more Biblical churches of the Reformation. Those legitimate differences, however, are apparently not enough.
So, now we find apologists for Rome citing a spurious, pseudographic work entitled "Homily of the Papyrus of Turin." This work is not part of any standard corpus of Athanasian writings, and no scholar who deals with Athanasius has (to my knowledge) ever identified it as authentic. It is not found in any Greek manuscripts but apparently comes down to us in a single Coptic manuscript. The manuscript does have the name "Athanasius" at the top, but this is not a sufficient reason to consider it an authentic work, as anyone familiar with ancient manuscripts would be aware.
Who are the guilty parties? Well, we see Steve Ray both at his own site as well as at the Catholic Answers site and This Rock magazine, Dave Armstrong, John Salza at CAI, and if one searches the Internet one will find quite a number of lesser luminaries in the field of Roman apologetics providing the same quotations.
Why are they doing this? I would like to assume that they just don't know better. As noted above, Mr. Ray's use of this spurious, pseudographic work was published in the popular This Rock magazine in 2005, which would have given it a wide distribution. It is possible that many folks that are using this quotation simply got it from Mr. Ray, mistakenly believing that Mr. Ray carefully checks his sources.
But where did Mr. Ray get it? Mr. Ray doesn't read Coptic (as far as I know) - so how did he get an English translation of the text to present? I think the answer to that question lies in Mr. Luigi Gambero's book, "Mary and the Fathers of the Church," first published in English in 1999. At pages 106 and 107, Mr. Gambero provides two quotations from this source. Mr. Gambero himself cites to the earlier work of Louis-Théophile Lefort, in Le Muséon 71 (1958).
Scholarly citations aside from Mr. Gambero typically correctly identify the work as Pseudo-Athanasius (see, for example, Virginia Burrus' citation at p. 258 of Late Ancient Christianity or David Frankfurter's citation at p. 35 of Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt) or at least identify the work simply as "attributed to" Athanasius or other indicators of the dubious (at best) nature of the claim that Athanasius was the work's author.
What about Mr. Gambero? He provides no argument at all in favor of authenticity of the quotation. Since Mr. Gambero did not write the book in English, but instead the work was translated from the Italian original, perhaps the translator left out some indication that Mr. Gambero had originally provided. Unfortunately, where I am now, a copy of the Italian original (published in 1991 and now out of print and largely unavailable for sale in a used condition) is not within my reach. If any of my readers has a copy and would care to let me know what citation is provided by Gambero in the original, I'd be much obliged.
Assuming that the translator has done a proper job, however, we are left weighing the weight of the scholarly consensus against authenticity with an unexplained citation by Mr. Gambero to the work as though it were authentic. Furthermore, Mr. Gambero (while certainly a scholar within his field) is not entirely without bias. One web bio described him this way:
Hopefully, this article will spur Mr. Ray and others to begin publishing suitable retractions to try to undo the (we assume unintentional) errors they have been propagating. I note that I would include in that group Mr. William Albrecht who recently posted a video in which reads back from this work as though it were Athanasius (link), even mistakenly using the section title from Gambero ("In Praise of the Blessed Virgin") rather than the actual title of the work.
This is not the first time I've brought this matter to light. I had previously discussed this on my blog (link), and no one from the side of Rome has come forward to correct this mistake or justify this citation.
So here's my challenge to Albrecht, Armstrong, Catholic Answers, CAI, and Steve Ray: stop using spurious and pseudographic quotations to try to bolster your cause. We realize that this may have been an unintentional error, but you can no longer use ignorance as an excuse now that this matter has been brought to light. When Alpha and Omega Ministries discovers an error in a quotation from the church fathers, we're not afraid to fix the mistake (as demonstrated here). We're not afraid of what the Early Church Fathers actually said or didn't say, are you?
-TurretinFan
Updates: 4 March 2009
1) As noted in my more recent post in response to William Albrecht's attempted defense of the spurious (or - at best - dubious) work, since the scholars I already named in the article above weren't enough for Mr. Albrecht, I've added one more, Mr. Angelo Gila. Mr. Gila is not only a doctor of theology, whose doctoral thesis was a study of the Marian writings of Severus of Gabala, but Mr. Gila is also a Servite friar - a friar in the order of the Servants of Mary - as well as a resident of the Turin area of Northern Italy (the very area where they papyrus manuscript fragments are housed). In a scholarly article published in the "Theotokos" journal, (Theotokos VIII (2000) 601-631), at page 613, Mr. Gila correctly identifies this work as Pseudo-Athanasius.
2) One kind reader has noted that Jay Dyer is another of the folks that have used this quotation (link). [Further update: 5 March 2009 - Mr. Dyer has graciously agreed to remove his reliance on that particular quotation. My hat is off to Mr. Dyer.]
3) Another kind reader has observed that it might be helpful to provide the work's number in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum. This work has been indexed and is included in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum, Volume 2, from Athanasius to Chrysostom (published 1974). At that time, the work was identified as Homilia adversus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria and was assigned the index number 2187, which is in the range of the "dubious" works for those works attributed to Athanasius.
Updates: 5 March 2009
1) Mr. Hoffer has correctly pointed out that Virginia Burrus is the editor of "Late Ancient Christianity," but that the article in question is also by David Frankfurter. This ought to have been pointed out above.
2) Other editors besides Burrus could be identified as approving of Frankfurter's identification of this work as Pseudo-Athanasius. For example, see "Envisioning Magic" edited by Peter Schäfer et al., page 126, and "Religions of Late Antiquity in Practice" edited by Richard Valantasis, page 475. In both cases, the articles in question are by David Frankfurter.
3) Probably it's worth providing an example of the entries that this work gets in a couple of lists. The Université Laval (of Quebec) provides the following entries (under the direction of René-Michel Roberge), respectively in "by the author" and "by the editor" lists of patristic works:
ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria" (coptice)
Lefort, L.-Th. * ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei
Maria" (coptice) * (introduction, apparat critique, traduction française,
repagination du papyrus, commentaire et notes) *22124 1P197 1958 PRSY (link to author index - pdf)
Lefort, L.-Th. * ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei
Maria" (coptice) * (introduction, apparat critique, traduction française,
repagination du papyrus, commentaire et notes) *22124 1P197 1958 PRSY (link to editor index - pdf)
Likewise, the Biblindex provides the entry corresponding to the Center for Patristics Analysis and Documentation (CADP) collection as follows (source):
ATHANASIVS ALEXANDRINVS ? Homliia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria 93470 CPG 2187
In both of the lists above, the "?" is the designator that the work is a dubious work, rather than being within list of authentic works (which would omit the "?"). The lists could have gone further and indicated the work as explicitly pseudographic by using the indicator "pse" - a straw that only someone desperate to continuing citing the work would grasp at.
So some of these apologists turn to spurious works: pseudographic writings that are attributed to some father but were not actually written by him. This can happen two ways: (1) unintentionally or (2) deliberately.
The unintentional error can happen to anyone. One of the callers to the "Dividing Line" radio program recently made reference to a quotation with respect to the Johannine Comma that John Calvin had attributed to Jerome. Upon the further investigation, it appears that the author of the quotation was not Jerome himself, but a later writer using Jerome's name. Thus, the person who called unintentionally used a pseudographic writing (through simply adopting what Calvin said, but not investigating it more thoroughly).
A deliberate error is more serious. I have a particular quotation in mind, and at this point, I want to refrain from stating that Rome's apologists are deliberately quoting a pseudographic source as though it were authentic. After all, they may simply be falling into the same error that our caller fell into of using outdated or inaccurate information from a secondary source.
Nevertheless, a particular quotation allegedly from Athanasius has come to my attention. Athanasius is one of those church fathers that lots of "Protestants" have heard of and respect. It would be an interesting survey to do, but I think that among Reformed Christians especially, one would find almost no criticism or negative attitudes towards Athanasius: after all, Athanasius stood for orthodoxy against error in a Martin-Luther-esque manner - "Athanasius Contra Mundum" (Athanasius Against the World).
Athanasius was a Reformer in his day, so what a shock it would be to "Protestants" if Athanasius turned out to be Roman Catholic! And of course, unbeknown to typical "Protestants", there are a number of areas where there would be a significant difference between Athanasius doctrines or practices and those of the more Biblical churches of the Reformation. Those legitimate differences, however, are apparently not enough.
So, now we find apologists for Rome citing a spurious, pseudographic work entitled "Homily of the Papyrus of Turin." This work is not part of any standard corpus of Athanasian writings, and no scholar who deals with Athanasius has (to my knowledge) ever identified it as authentic. It is not found in any Greek manuscripts but apparently comes down to us in a single Coptic manuscript. The manuscript does have the name "Athanasius" at the top, but this is not a sufficient reason to consider it an authentic work, as anyone familiar with ancient manuscripts would be aware.
Who are the guilty parties? Well, we see Steve Ray both at his own site as well as at the Catholic Answers site and This Rock magazine, Dave Armstrong, John Salza at CAI, and if one searches the Internet one will find quite a number of lesser luminaries in the field of Roman apologetics providing the same quotations.
Why are they doing this? I would like to assume that they just don't know better. As noted above, Mr. Ray's use of this spurious, pseudographic work was published in the popular This Rock magazine in 2005, which would have given it a wide distribution. It is possible that many folks that are using this quotation simply got it from Mr. Ray, mistakenly believing that Mr. Ray carefully checks his sources.
But where did Mr. Ray get it? Mr. Ray doesn't read Coptic (as far as I know) - so how did he get an English translation of the text to present? I think the answer to that question lies in Mr. Luigi Gambero's book, "Mary and the Fathers of the Church," first published in English in 1999. At pages 106 and 107, Mr. Gambero provides two quotations from this source. Mr. Gambero himself cites to the earlier work of Louis-Théophile Lefort, in Le Muséon 71 (1958).
Scholarly citations aside from Mr. Gambero typically correctly identify the work as Pseudo-Athanasius (see, for example, Virginia Burrus' citation at p. 258 of Late Ancient Christianity or David Frankfurter's citation at p. 35 of Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Antique Egypt) or at least identify the work simply as "attributed to" Athanasius or other indicators of the dubious (at best) nature of the claim that Athanasius was the work's author.
What about Mr. Gambero? He provides no argument at all in favor of authenticity of the quotation. Since Mr. Gambero did not write the book in English, but instead the work was translated from the Italian original, perhaps the translator left out some indication that Mr. Gambero had originally provided. Unfortunately, where I am now, a copy of the Italian original (published in 1991 and now out of print and largely unavailable for sale in a used condition) is not within my reach. If any of my readers has a copy and would care to let me know what citation is provided by Gambero in the original, I'd be much obliged.
Assuming that the translator has done a proper job, however, we are left weighing the weight of the scholarly consensus against authenticity with an unexplained citation by Mr. Gambero to the work as though it were authentic. Furthermore, Mr. Gambero (while certainly a scholar within his field) is not entirely without bias. One web bio described him this way:
Fr. Luigi Gambero, S.M., a Marianist priest, studied philosophy and theology at the University of Fribourg and the Lateran University in Rome. He specialized in Mariology at the Pontifical Faculty of the Marianum in Rome. He presently teaches patristics at the Marianum and at the University of Dayton.I attempted to find contact information for Mr. Gambero through the University of Dayton, but it does not appear to be available. Again, if a reader is able to get in contact with Mr. Gambero, I would be much obliged to have the opportunity to hear his own explanation for this use of a pseudographic work, which has resulted in widespread miscitation of the work in the world of modern Roman apologetics.
Hopefully, this article will spur Mr. Ray and others to begin publishing suitable retractions to try to undo the (we assume unintentional) errors they have been propagating. I note that I would include in that group Mr. William Albrecht who recently posted a video in which reads back from this work as though it were Athanasius (link), even mistakenly using the section title from Gambero ("In Praise of the Blessed Virgin") rather than the actual title of the work.
This is not the first time I've brought this matter to light. I had previously discussed this on my blog (link), and no one from the side of Rome has come forward to correct this mistake or justify this citation.
So here's my challenge to Albrecht, Armstrong, Catholic Answers, CAI, and Steve Ray: stop using spurious and pseudographic quotations to try to bolster your cause. We realize that this may have been an unintentional error, but you can no longer use ignorance as an excuse now that this matter has been brought to light. When Alpha and Omega Ministries discovers an error in a quotation from the church fathers, we're not afraid to fix the mistake (as demonstrated here). We're not afraid of what the Early Church Fathers actually said or didn't say, are you?
-TurretinFan
Updates: 4 March 2009
1) As noted in my more recent post in response to William Albrecht's attempted defense of the spurious (or - at best - dubious) work, since the scholars I already named in the article above weren't enough for Mr. Albrecht, I've added one more, Mr. Angelo Gila. Mr. Gila is not only a doctor of theology, whose doctoral thesis was a study of the Marian writings of Severus of Gabala, but Mr. Gila is also a Servite friar - a friar in the order of the Servants of Mary - as well as a resident of the Turin area of Northern Italy (the very area where they papyrus manuscript fragments are housed). In a scholarly article published in the "Theotokos" journal, (Theotokos VIII (2000) 601-631), at page 613, Mr. Gila correctly identifies this work as Pseudo-Athanasius.
2) One kind reader has noted that Jay Dyer is another of the folks that have used this quotation (link). [Further update: 5 March 2009 - Mr. Dyer has graciously agreed to remove his reliance on that particular quotation. My hat is off to Mr. Dyer.]
3) Another kind reader has observed that it might be helpful to provide the work's number in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum. This work has been indexed and is included in the Clavis Patrum Graecorum, Volume 2, from Athanasius to Chrysostom (published 1974). At that time, the work was identified as Homilia adversus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria and was assigned the index number 2187, which is in the range of the "dubious" works for those works attributed to Athanasius.
Updates: 5 March 2009
1) Mr. Hoffer has correctly pointed out that Virginia Burrus is the editor of "Late Ancient Christianity," but that the article in question is also by David Frankfurter. This ought to have been pointed out above.
2) Other editors besides Burrus could be identified as approving of Frankfurter's identification of this work as Pseudo-Athanasius. For example, see "Envisioning Magic" edited by Peter Schäfer et al., page 126, and "Religions of Late Antiquity in Practice" edited by Richard Valantasis, page 475. In both cases, the articles in question are by David Frankfurter.
3) Probably it's worth providing an example of the entries that this work gets in a couple of lists. The Université Laval (of Quebec) provides the following entries (under the direction of René-Michel Roberge), respectively in "by the author" and "by the editor" lists of patristic works:
ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria" (coptice)
Lefort, L.-Th. * ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei
Maria" (coptice) * (introduction, apparat critique, traduction française,
repagination du papyrus, commentaire et notes) *22124 1P197 1958 PRSY (link to author index - pdf)
Lefort, L.-Th. * ATHANASE ?, "Homilia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei
Maria" (coptice) * (introduction, apparat critique, traduction française,
repagination du papyrus, commentaire et notes) *22124 1P197 1958 PRSY (link to editor index - pdf)
Likewise, the Biblindex provides the entry corresponding to the Center for Patristics Analysis and Documentation (CADP) collection as follows (source):
ATHANASIVS ALEXANDRINVS ? Homliia aduersus Arium, de s. genetrice dei Maria 93470 CPG 2187
In both of the lists above, the "?" is the designator that the work is a dubious work, rather than being within list of authentic works (which would omit the "?"). The lists could have gone further and indicated the work as explicitly pseudographic by using the indicator "pse" - a straw that only someone desperate to continuing citing the work would grasp at.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Reading Material for Mr. David Armstrong
It may be that, for some reason or other, Mr. Armstrong still pops by my blog. If so, I think he'll get get a kick out of this post (link). Mr. Armstrong's policy of labeling those who say that Rome teaches another gospel "anti-Catholics," leads to a conflation between what the author of the linked article calls "good anti-catholicism" and "bad anti-catholicism." I don't agree with the article, but I think it should provide those who are quick to apply the "anti-Catholic" label with some food for thought.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Thursday, October 16, 2008
There is One Mediator and Only One Mediator
In a recent blog post (link), Dave Armstrong (a lay advocate of Catholicism) has made the remarkable argument that "there is one mediator" in 1 Timothy 2:5 does not rule out what Dave calls "mini-mediators." Dave doesn't comment on whether "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD," rules out mini-Jehovahs or whether "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, " rules out mini-Lords, mini-faiths, and mini-baptisms.
Naturally, he also doesn't comment on whether "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble," rules out mini-Gods. I suppose that he might be excused from these oversights with respect to other uses of "one" in Scripture except that the verse in question does not say only "there is one mediator" but also "there is one God" - in fact the quotation, "There is one mediator," requires one to omit "One God, and" in the usual translation of the text:
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Dave also doesn't comment on the fact that the term "mediator" is only ever used of Jesus in the New Testament (see post-script below for more discussion on this). That's true whether we speak of the English word for mediator in KJV, the Latin word for mediator in the Vulgate, or the Greek word for mediator in the original. Instead of dealing with these troubling details, Dave waves his hand and claims that Scriptures teach the concept of mini-mediators. Of course, it doesn't take a genius to guess that Dave cannot find the term "mini-mediator" in Scripture either. Instead, he declares that:
1) When Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 9:22 of "by all means sav[ing] some" - that means Paul is a "mini-mediator";
2) When Paul speaks in 1 Timothy 4:16 of "sav[ing] both yourself and your hearers" - that means Timothy is going to be a "mini-mediator";
3) When Paul speaks in Philippians 2:12-13 of "work[ing] out your own salvation" - that means the Philippians are going to be "mini-mediators";
4) When Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 4:15 of "all things [being] for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God" - that means that Paul is a "mini-mediator";
5) When Paul speaks in Ephesians 3:2 of "the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward" - that means Paul is a "mini-mediator";
6) When Paul speaks in Ephesians 4:29 of the words from the Ephesians mouths "minister[ing] grace unto the hearers" - that means the Ephesians will be "mini-mediators";
7) When Peter speaks in 1 Peter 4:8-10 of "good stewards of the manifold grace of God" - that means that the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia are going to be "mini-mediators";
8) When John speaks in Revelation 1:4-5 of "the seven spirits who are before his throne" - that means that angels are going to be "mini-mediators";
9) Whenever Paul or anyone else uses the phrase "grace to you" or the like - that means that the person using the phrase is acting as a "mini-mediator."
There a number of significant problems with Dave's methodology. For one thing, Dave more or less simply assumes in each case that the activity involved is somehow a "mini" form of what Christ does as mediator. Another problem is that in order for Dave's overall argument to work, Dave essentially has to reduce Jesus' mediatorial role to that of being a grace conduit, with God (the Father) being the source and believers (or all men - one is not really sure whether Dave applies a "prevenient grace" concept here) being the recipients. There are other problems to be sure. For example, the idea that the "seven spirits who are before [God's] throne" are consequently to be implicated in mediation is particularly far-fetched. But the two I've identified above may be viewed as the primary problems.
What is the cause of Dave's problems in this regard? Dave simply doesn't seem to understand the role of the mediator. The mediator is not simply a grace conduit. The mediator is the person who reconciles two. As Scripture says,
Galatians 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
The mediator stands between two parties and reconciles them together. Thus, for example, the LXX uses this same word for mediator in Job 9:33, where the text says:
Job 9:33 Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, [that] might lay his hand upon us both. (KJV)
Job 9:33 "There is no umpire between us, Who may lay his hand upon us both. (NASB)
Jesus is that one person who reconciles God and man. Jesus does that job and does it completely, leaving no room for a "mini-mediator." Part of that role, moreover, is the role of being the sole object of faith. That's how Galatians connects Jesus' role as mediator to the relation between God and man:
Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
It is by faith in the mediator that we obtain the blessing. There is no mention in Scripture of salvation by faith in any lesser or "mini" mediator - but only by faith in Christ. There is no salvation by faith in the church, in the saints, or in Mary: there is only one mediator: Jesus Christ. The same point is being made in 1 Timothy 2, in which what is well pleasing to God is that men believe on his son - the one mediator between God and man.
But an even stronger point is made in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In chapter 8, Christ is portrayed as performing the mediatorial role by serving as the high priest of the "better covenant" - by which it is meant that he is the one who offers up the sacrifice to God. After all, it is the sacrifice that reconciles us to God. Hebrews 12 makes the same connection, but more loosely.
It is, however, in Hebrews 9 that we find the clear exposition of what it means for Christ to be the mediator:
Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Christ's role as mediator is a priestly role. He is the sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and he is the priest that offers the sacrifice. He is the Lamb and the one who offers the Lamb. He offers it specifically for "they which are called," and do so that they will receive the promise of heaven. Christ mediates the new covenant. He is the one mediator of it.
Paul explicitly disclaims any such role:
1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Furthermore, though he Paul would like to take on such a role, he implicitly acknowledges that he cannot:
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Similarly, Moses' attempt to be the mediator between God and Israel was rejected by God:
Exodus 32:31-33
31And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. 33And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
Furthermore, the epistle to the Hebrews explains that such a role is an impossibility:
Hebrews 10:9-14
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Notice the key here: by one offering Christ has once for all sanctified and perfected us. There is no room for mini-mediators, because this mediator has done it all. It is finished. There is nothing left to mediate: God's wrath against us is appeased in Christ, and consequently we have no need of a further mediator, whether "mini-" or "co-" as some advocates of Catholicism have attempted to suggest.
This is the understanding of Christ's mediatorial role that is missing from Dave's post - that leads to his confused claims that somehow these instrumental means whereby men are saved (such as the preaching of the Gospel in items (1), (2), and (4)-(7) above) are the role of the mediator.
Instead, Dave's concept of mediation is asking God for more grace for people (in an interesting, but largely irrelevant tangent, Dave seems to be under the misapprehension that the Protestant Reformed position on the definition of "grace" is the main view out there). Of course, that is not what Jesus does as mediator of the new covenant, as we have discussed above.
The actions of believers in wishing grace of God on others, or in seeking to bring that about by preaching the gospel or by repentance, faith, and new obedience are in an entirely different category. The mediating of Christ is done: He has sat down at the right hand of God:
Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
As it is sung:
Psalm 110
A Psalm of David
1 The Lord did say unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand,
Until I make thy foes a stool,
whereon thy feet may stand.
2 The Lord shall out of Zion send
the rod of thy great pow'r:
In midst of all thine enemies
be thou the governor.
3 A willing people in thy day
of pow'r shall come to thee,
In holy beauties from morn's womb;
thy youth like dew shall be.
4 The Lord himself hath made an oath,
and will repent him never,
Of th' order of Melchisedec
thou art a priest for ever.
5 The glorious and mighty Lord,
that sits at thy right hand,
Shall, in his day of wrath, strike through
kings that do him withstand.
6 He shall among the heathen judge,
he shall with bodies dead
The places fill: o'er many lands
he wound shall ev'ry head.
7 The brook that runneth in the way
with drink shall him supply;
And, for this cause, in triumph he
shall lift his head on high.
No, Jesus is not simply the central distribution point of "grace" (the view of grace in Catholicism, of course, being different from that in Biblical theology) as Dave seems to think ("Jesus is ultimately the mediator of grace. It all comes through Him. But He also clearly uses human beings to distribute the grace, as these passages establish beyond any doubt.") but Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
What's being described there is not Jesus' role as example (though he is an example) or his role as preacher (though he is a preacher) but instead Jesus' role the one who obtains a heavenly place for his people.
John 14:1-4
1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
The persevering reader who has made it this far may be interested in reading more about the implications of Jesus' having prepared mansions for us, which I've discussed in a previous article (link).
Perhaps someone will ask - do not we ourselves intercede to God for our fellow believers and for the lost? In doing so, are we not in some sense mediators? I cannot think of a better response than that given by Charles Hodge (link to selection from Hodge). The short answer is - no, we are not. We simply intercede in the sense of praying for the person. We are not mediators - we do not reconcile God to man.
In summary, recall that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:19-20 We are not mini-mediators, but spokesmen: declaring the good news so that men who were spiritually dead may live. 1 Peter 4:6
-TurretinFan
P.S. One kind reader has noted that some people believe that the term for mediator in English, Latin, and Greek is used in Galatians 3:19-20 and refers in that place to Moses. While I would disagree that the term used there refers to Moses, it is mostly a moot point, since (if it refers to Moses) it would relate to Moses' role as law-giver. Furthermore, if it were the case that the mediator in verses 19-20 were Moses, the context ("herefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ" vs. 24) would lead us to recognize that Moses foreshadowed Christ (cf. Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.) the one mediator of the New Covenant. Nevertheless, since verse 19 refers to "angels" (plural), it seems better to refer the term "mediator" in verse 19 either directly to the promised Messaiah or to the Messiah as portrayed by the Old Testament priesthood.
Naturally, he also doesn't comment on whether "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble," rules out mini-Gods. I suppose that he might be excused from these oversights with respect to other uses of "one" in Scripture except that the verse in question does not say only "there is one mediator" but also "there is one God" - in fact the quotation, "There is one mediator," requires one to omit "One God, and" in the usual translation of the text:
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Dave also doesn't comment on the fact that the term "mediator" is only ever used of Jesus in the New Testament (see post-script below for more discussion on this). That's true whether we speak of the English word for mediator in KJV, the Latin word for mediator in the Vulgate, or the Greek word for mediator in the original. Instead of dealing with these troubling details, Dave waves his hand and claims that Scriptures teach the concept of mini-mediators. Of course, it doesn't take a genius to guess that Dave cannot find the term "mini-mediator" in Scripture either. Instead, he declares that:
1) When Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 9:22 of "by all means sav[ing] some" - that means Paul is a "mini-mediator";
2) When Paul speaks in 1 Timothy 4:16 of "sav[ing] both yourself and your hearers" - that means Timothy is going to be a "mini-mediator";
3) When Paul speaks in Philippians 2:12-13 of "work[ing] out your own salvation" - that means the Philippians are going to be "mini-mediators";
4) When Paul speaks in 2 Corinthians 4:15 of "all things [being] for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God" - that means that Paul is a "mini-mediator";
5) When Paul speaks in Ephesians 3:2 of "the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward" - that means Paul is a "mini-mediator";
6) When Paul speaks in Ephesians 4:29 of the words from the Ephesians mouths "minister[ing] grace unto the hearers" - that means the Ephesians will be "mini-mediators";
7) When Peter speaks in 1 Peter 4:8-10 of "good stewards of the manifold grace of God" - that means that the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia are going to be "mini-mediators";
8) When John speaks in Revelation 1:4-5 of "the seven spirits who are before his throne" - that means that angels are going to be "mini-mediators";
9) Whenever Paul or anyone else uses the phrase "grace to you" or the like - that means that the person using the phrase is acting as a "mini-mediator."
There a number of significant problems with Dave's methodology. For one thing, Dave more or less simply assumes in each case that the activity involved is somehow a "mini" form of what Christ does as mediator. Another problem is that in order for Dave's overall argument to work, Dave essentially has to reduce Jesus' mediatorial role to that of being a grace conduit, with God (the Father) being the source and believers (or all men - one is not really sure whether Dave applies a "prevenient grace" concept here) being the recipients. There are other problems to be sure. For example, the idea that the "seven spirits who are before [God's] throne" are consequently to be implicated in mediation is particularly far-fetched. But the two I've identified above may be viewed as the primary problems.
What is the cause of Dave's problems in this regard? Dave simply doesn't seem to understand the role of the mediator. The mediator is not simply a grace conduit. The mediator is the person who reconciles two. As Scripture says,
Galatians 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
The mediator stands between two parties and reconciles them together. Thus, for example, the LXX uses this same word for mediator in Job 9:33, where the text says:
Job 9:33 Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, [that] might lay his hand upon us both. (KJV)
Job 9:33 "There is no umpire between us, Who may lay his hand upon us both. (NASB)
Jesus is that one person who reconciles God and man. Jesus does that job and does it completely, leaving no room for a "mini-mediator." Part of that role, moreover, is the role of being the sole object of faith. That's how Galatians connects Jesus' role as mediator to the relation between God and man:
Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
It is by faith in the mediator that we obtain the blessing. There is no mention in Scripture of salvation by faith in any lesser or "mini" mediator - but only by faith in Christ. There is no salvation by faith in the church, in the saints, or in Mary: there is only one mediator: Jesus Christ. The same point is being made in 1 Timothy 2, in which what is well pleasing to God is that men believe on his son - the one mediator between God and man.
But an even stronger point is made in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In chapter 8, Christ is portrayed as performing the mediatorial role by serving as the high priest of the "better covenant" - by which it is meant that he is the one who offers up the sacrifice to God. After all, it is the sacrifice that reconciles us to God. Hebrews 12 makes the same connection, but more loosely.
It is, however, in Hebrews 9 that we find the clear exposition of what it means for Christ to be the mediator:
Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Christ's role as mediator is a priestly role. He is the sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and he is the priest that offers the sacrifice. He is the Lamb and the one who offers the Lamb. He offers it specifically for "they which are called," and do so that they will receive the promise of heaven. Christ mediates the new covenant. He is the one mediator of it.
Paul explicitly disclaims any such role:
1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Furthermore, though he Paul would like to take on such a role, he implicitly acknowledges that he cannot:
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Similarly, Moses' attempt to be the mediator between God and Israel was rejected by God:
Exodus 32:31-33
31And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. 33And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.
Furthermore, the epistle to the Hebrews explains that such a role is an impossibility:
Hebrews 10:9-14
9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Notice the key here: by one offering Christ has once for all sanctified and perfected us. There is no room for mini-mediators, because this mediator has done it all. It is finished. There is nothing left to mediate: God's wrath against us is appeased in Christ, and consequently we have no need of a further mediator, whether "mini-" or "co-" as some advocates of Catholicism have attempted to suggest.
This is the understanding of Christ's mediatorial role that is missing from Dave's post - that leads to his confused claims that somehow these instrumental means whereby men are saved (such as the preaching of the Gospel in items (1), (2), and (4)-(7) above) are the role of the mediator.
Instead, Dave's concept of mediation is asking God for more grace for people (in an interesting, but largely irrelevant tangent, Dave seems to be under the misapprehension that the Protestant Reformed position on the definition of "grace" is the main view out there). Of course, that is not what Jesus does as mediator of the new covenant, as we have discussed above.
The actions of believers in wishing grace of God on others, or in seeking to bring that about by preaching the gospel or by repentance, faith, and new obedience are in an entirely different category. The mediating of Christ is done: He has sat down at the right hand of God:
Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
As it is sung:
Psalm 110
A Psalm of David
1 The Lord did say unto my Lord,
Sit thou at my right hand,
Until I make thy foes a stool,
whereon thy feet may stand.
2 The Lord shall out of Zion send
the rod of thy great pow'r:
In midst of all thine enemies
be thou the governor.
3 A willing people in thy day
of pow'r shall come to thee,
In holy beauties from morn's womb;
thy youth like dew shall be.
4 The Lord himself hath made an oath,
and will repent him never,
Of th' order of Melchisedec
thou art a priest for ever.
5 The glorious and mighty Lord,
that sits at thy right hand,
Shall, in his day of wrath, strike through
kings that do him withstand.
6 He shall among the heathen judge,
he shall with bodies dead
The places fill: o'er many lands
he wound shall ev'ry head.
7 The brook that runneth in the way
with drink shall him supply;
And, for this cause, in triumph he
shall lift his head on high.
No, Jesus is not simply the central distribution point of "grace" (the view of grace in Catholicism, of course, being different from that in Biblical theology) as Dave seems to think ("Jesus is ultimately the mediator of grace. It all comes through Him. But He also clearly uses human beings to distribute the grace, as these passages establish beyond any doubt.") but Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
What's being described there is not Jesus' role as example (though he is an example) or his role as preacher (though he is a preacher) but instead Jesus' role the one who obtains a heavenly place for his people.
John 14:1-4
1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. 4And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
The persevering reader who has made it this far may be interested in reading more about the implications of Jesus' having prepared mansions for us, which I've discussed in a previous article (link).
Perhaps someone will ask - do not we ourselves intercede to God for our fellow believers and for the lost? In doing so, are we not in some sense mediators? I cannot think of a better response than that given by Charles Hodge (link to selection from Hodge). The short answer is - no, we are not. We simply intercede in the sense of praying for the person. We are not mediators - we do not reconcile God to man.
In summary, recall that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:19-20 We are not mini-mediators, but spokesmen: declaring the good news so that men who were spiritually dead may live. 1 Peter 4:6
-TurretinFan
P.S. One kind reader has noted that some people believe that the term for mediator in English, Latin, and Greek is used in Galatians 3:19-20 and refers in that place to Moses. While I would disagree that the term used there refers to Moses, it is mostly a moot point, since (if it refers to Moses) it would relate to Moses' role as law-giver. Furthermore, if it were the case that the mediator in verses 19-20 were Moses, the context ("herefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ" vs. 24) would lead us to recognize that Moses foreshadowed Christ (cf. Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.) the one mediator of the New Covenant. Nevertheless, since verse 19 refers to "angels" (plural), it seems better to refer the term "mediator" in verse 19 either directly to the promised Messaiah or to the Messiah as portrayed by the Old Testament priesthood.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Rebuttals to Armstrong's Ten-Step Program Against Sola Scriptura
Today, someone directed me to an article by Dave Armstrong entitled: "A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura." (link to article)
I'll provide his points, and the brief rebuttal:
1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible
The briefest rebuttal is to simply respond: yes, it is taught in the Bible. Mr. Armstrong should be aware of the Scriptural basis for Sola Scriptura. In fact, as we'll see later on, Mr. Armstrong even takes time to respond to one of the Scriptural arguments for Sola Scriptura.
2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also
The briefest rebuttal is to answer that "Word of God" refers to any word spoken by God. Whether communicated by pen of a Scripture writer or by the mouth of a prophet, such a word from God is the word of God. On the other hand, we don't just go around accepting people's claims to be prophets, and to speak the word of God. Indeed, Scripture commands us to examine those who claim to speak for God. Scripture even commends those who used Scripture to investigate the teachings of the apostles themselves.
3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word
The briefest rebuttal is to agree. After all, there is a sense in which Scriptures are tradition. On the other hand, the opponents of Sola Scriptura use the term "Tradition" in an equivocal way: to refer not only to the things handed down to us by the apostles (i.e. Scriptures) but also to refer to the traditions of men that have been accreted to them. "Traditions" may not be a dirty word, but "traditions of men" has been given a bad reputation by Jesus himself, who noted that it was the way the Pharisees (like the church of Rome) made the Word of God (meaning Scripture) of none effect.
4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
The briefest rebuttal here is to point out that the statement is untrue.
Mr. Armstrong provides four supposed examples:
a) Matthew 2:23 states, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
Mr. Armstrong assumes that this is not a reference to Scripture, but to an unwritten prophecy. Of course, even if it were the case that it were an unwritten prophecy, that would not be equivalent to "accept[ing] non-biblical oral and written traditions." Instead, it would simply demonstrate that the prophecy recorded here in Scripture (not previously) was a true one.
What Mr. Armstrong overlooks, however, is that this is a fulfillment of Isaiah 11:1 "and there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch (Netzer) shall grow out of his roots." (It should be noted that Jerome endorsed our view of Matthew 2:23 - not Mr. Armstorng's view.) Moreover, because to be a Nazarene was to be considered contemptible, it is also a fulfillment of the prophecies about the contempt that would be laid on him: that he should be "despised and rejected of men" (Isaiah 53:2-3), "a worm, and no man" (Psalm 22:6-7), and "an alien to his brethren" (Psalm 69:7-8).
In fact, tradition confirms this (there's that dirty word, Tradition), for Gill testifies that the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions specifically identify Isaiah as the prophet.
b. Mr. Armstrong argues that the reference to "Moses' seat" in Matthew 23:2–3 is a reference to something from oral tradition.
In fact, however, it is just an idiom that refers to them having a legislative authority that is from God, like when Jesus said to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's," and as when Paul said that "the powers that be are ordained by God." And yet, when those in Moses' seat tried to stop the preaching of the Gospel, the apostles openly opposed their human traditions, and declared that it was better to follow God than man.
c. Mr. Armstrong claims that 1 Corinthians 10:4 refers to a rock that followed the Israelites in the wilderness, and claims that this is recorded only in extra-scriptural tradition.
Leaving aside the issue of the conflicting extra-scriptural traditions, and leaving aside the legitimate issue of whether verse is referring to the water from the rock following them through the wilderness (as hinted in Deuteronomy 8:15), Paul is himself inspired to make a historical declaration about the rock. There is no reason to suppose that Paul accepted one or another tradition about the rock in the wilderness independent of his own inspiration. Thus, even if this were not a reference simply to the fact that God repeatedly brought them water from stone, both at Horeb (Exodus 17:6) and also at Kadesh (Numbers 20:8).
d. 2 Timothy 3:8 refers to Jannes and Jambres, but the Old Testament does not mention those names
It is true that the Old Testament does not mention those names. Again, though, this falls into the area of Paul by inspiration making a declaration of an historical fact. What we learn from external literature is that the names Jannes and Jambres refer to the Egyptian magicians that opposed Moses before Pharaoh. That event is recorded in the Old Testament, though the names were not recorded.
The fallacy behind the argument from items (c) and (d), is that if Paul endorses an extrascriptural account as historical, he is consequently "accepting non-biblical oral and written tradition." The problem with such an argument should be self-evident.
5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem
The rebuttal is that the authority that the Council of Jerusalem exercised was: "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;" (Acts 15:29) If the decisions of other councils were inspired, they would likewise have the authority of the Holy Spirit.
6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition
The refutation here is the repeated statements of Jesus rejecting the traditions of the Jews. Yes, they had traditions: and they were not good traditions.
7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura
The refutation here is multi-part:
a) the Jews were criticized for their failure to follow Scriptures - that is an argument against copying them;
b) the Jews were not supposed to follow Scripture alone because they had, for much of their history, prophets;
c) obviously, the claim of Sola Scriptura is a claim that becomes relevant when Scripture is complete; and
d) as noted above, the Bereans were commended for using the Scriptures as a rule of faith to investigate the teachings of the apostles (which, while not strictly an application of Sola Scriptura, is an application of private judgment to Scriptures).
8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"
Notice that now Mr. Armstrong recognizes the fact that Sola Scriptura is proved from Scripture. He attempts to respond from Ephesians 4, where Paul writes (verses 11-15): "11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till 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: 14That 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; 15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:"
The argument here seems to be that in Mr. Armstrong's opinion, this is parallel to:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
but in Dave's view the former passage mentions the non-scriptural sources for making a believer "perfect" and the latter passage mentions the scriptural sources for making the believer "perfect."
The refutation should be readily apparent: "apostles ... prophets ... evangelists" are three categories of folks among whom there was inspiration, by which they provided: Scripture. The role of the rest was to proclaim that same message. There is, thus, not a contrasting parallel, but rather the former passage shows the means for the propagation of the Word of God, whereas the latter passage points directly to the Word of God itself. Furthermore, it is only Scripture that is described as "given by inspiration of God."
9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding
Mr. Armstrong presents two arguments in this regard:
a) Mr. Armstrong relies on 2 Thesalonisans 3:14 "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed."
This selection is devastating to Mr. Armstrong's position. First, "this epistle" is 2 Thessalonians, which is Scripture. Second, "this epistle" is particularly called out, and not "everything we've ever said." Third, "this epistle" is used as a rule of faith. Fourth, "any man" (not only "laity" or only those outside the churches) are to be judged by this rule. Fifth, and finally, all the "ye brethren" (2 Thessalonians 3:13) are to be doing this judging, which requires them to interpret the epistle and apply to the "any man" that they may encounter.
In short, this selection is a proof of Sola Scriptura, not the other way 'round.
b) Mr. Armstrong relies on Romans 16:17, which states: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
This verse is less specific: it doesn't explicitly say "learned in this epistle," though like the verse in 2 Thessalonians, it comes at the end of the epistle (which would make such an interpretation reasonable). Otherwise, it has all the same hallmarks as the other verse: the "brethren" are the ones to be judging their fellow men by some form of doctrinal standard.
Indeed, if we look at the subsequent context, we find Paul explaining only a few verses later:
Romans 16:25-27
25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 27To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
Notice how the various things being referenced are the revelation of God, and how Scriptures are specifically mentioned. There's nothing "casual" about Paul's commands here. He is inspired and he relies on that authority.
10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position
The refutation here is two-fold.
1) Calling the position circular is not supported. Scripture is our rule of faith. The claim is "circular," only in the sense that Scripture itself teaches (and clearly teaches) that Scripture is authoritative. See the discussion of 2 Thessalonians, above.
2) A rule faith requires application. Fallible human beings make application of the rule of faith that is Scripture, but that does not take away from Scripture's authority. As commanded by Scripture, we compare doctrines of men to the Scriptures to verify or condemn them. If that's "circular" to Mr. Armstrong, then so be it.
-TurretinFan
I'll provide his points, and the brief rebuttal:
1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible
The briefest rebuttal is to simply respond: yes, it is taught in the Bible. Mr. Armstrong should be aware of the Scriptural basis for Sola Scriptura. In fact, as we'll see later on, Mr. Armstrong even takes time to respond to one of the Scriptural arguments for Sola Scriptura.
2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also
The briefest rebuttal is to answer that "Word of God" refers to any word spoken by God. Whether communicated by pen of a Scripture writer or by the mouth of a prophet, such a word from God is the word of God. On the other hand, we don't just go around accepting people's claims to be prophets, and to speak the word of God. Indeed, Scripture commands us to examine those who claim to speak for God. Scripture even commends those who used Scripture to investigate the teachings of the apostles themselves.
3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word
The briefest rebuttal is to agree. After all, there is a sense in which Scriptures are tradition. On the other hand, the opponents of Sola Scriptura use the term "Tradition" in an equivocal way: to refer not only to the things handed down to us by the apostles (i.e. Scriptures) but also to refer to the traditions of men that have been accreted to them. "Traditions" may not be a dirty word, but "traditions of men" has been given a bad reputation by Jesus himself, who noted that it was the way the Pharisees (like the church of Rome) made the Word of God (meaning Scripture) of none effect.
4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
The briefest rebuttal here is to point out that the statement is untrue.
Mr. Armstrong provides four supposed examples:
a) Matthew 2:23 states, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
Mr. Armstrong assumes that this is not a reference to Scripture, but to an unwritten prophecy. Of course, even if it were the case that it were an unwritten prophecy, that would not be equivalent to "accept[ing] non-biblical oral and written traditions." Instead, it would simply demonstrate that the prophecy recorded here in Scripture (not previously) was a true one.
What Mr. Armstrong overlooks, however, is that this is a fulfillment of Isaiah 11:1 "and there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch (Netzer) shall grow out of his roots." (It should be noted that Jerome endorsed our view of Matthew 2:23 - not Mr. Armstorng's view.) Moreover, because to be a Nazarene was to be considered contemptible, it is also a fulfillment of the prophecies about the contempt that would be laid on him: that he should be "despised and rejected of men" (Isaiah 53:2-3), "a worm, and no man" (Psalm 22:6-7), and "an alien to his brethren" (Psalm 69:7-8).
In fact, tradition confirms this (there's that dirty word, Tradition), for Gill testifies that the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions specifically identify Isaiah as the prophet.
b. Mr. Armstrong argues that the reference to "Moses' seat" in Matthew 23:2–3 is a reference to something from oral tradition.
In fact, however, it is just an idiom that refers to them having a legislative authority that is from God, like when Jesus said to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's," and as when Paul said that "the powers that be are ordained by God." And yet, when those in Moses' seat tried to stop the preaching of the Gospel, the apostles openly opposed their human traditions, and declared that it was better to follow God than man.
c. Mr. Armstrong claims that 1 Corinthians 10:4 refers to a rock that followed the Israelites in the wilderness, and claims that this is recorded only in extra-scriptural tradition.
Leaving aside the issue of the conflicting extra-scriptural traditions, and leaving aside the legitimate issue of whether verse is referring to the water from the rock following them through the wilderness (as hinted in Deuteronomy 8:15), Paul is himself inspired to make a historical declaration about the rock. There is no reason to suppose that Paul accepted one or another tradition about the rock in the wilderness independent of his own inspiration. Thus, even if this were not a reference simply to the fact that God repeatedly brought them water from stone, both at Horeb (Exodus 17:6) and also at Kadesh (Numbers 20:8).
d. 2 Timothy 3:8 refers to Jannes and Jambres, but the Old Testament does not mention those names
It is true that the Old Testament does not mention those names. Again, though, this falls into the area of Paul by inspiration making a declaration of an historical fact. What we learn from external literature is that the names Jannes and Jambres refer to the Egyptian magicians that opposed Moses before Pharaoh. That event is recorded in the Old Testament, though the names were not recorded.
The fallacy behind the argument from items (c) and (d), is that if Paul endorses an extrascriptural account as historical, he is consequently "accepting non-biblical oral and written tradition." The problem with such an argument should be self-evident.
5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem
The rebuttal is that the authority that the Council of Jerusalem exercised was: "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;" (Acts 15:29) If the decisions of other councils were inspired, they would likewise have the authority of the Holy Spirit.
6. Pharisees, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition
The refutation here is the repeated statements of Jesus rejecting the traditions of the Jews. Yes, they had traditions: and they were not good traditions.
7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura
The refutation here is multi-part:
a) the Jews were criticized for their failure to follow Scriptures - that is an argument against copying them;
b) the Jews were not supposed to follow Scripture alone because they had, for much of their history, prophets;
c) obviously, the claim of Sola Scriptura is a claim that becomes relevant when Scripture is complete; and
d) as noted above, the Bereans were commended for using the Scriptures as a rule of faith to investigate the teachings of the apostles (which, while not strictly an application of Sola Scriptura, is an application of private judgment to Scriptures).
8. Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant "Proof Text"
Notice that now Mr. Armstrong recognizes the fact that Sola Scriptura is proved from Scripture. He attempts to respond from Ephesians 4, where Paul writes (verses 11-15): "11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till 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: 14That 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; 15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:"
The argument here seems to be that in Mr. Armstrong's opinion, this is parallel to:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
but in Dave's view the former passage mentions the non-scriptural sources for making a believer "perfect" and the latter passage mentions the scriptural sources for making the believer "perfect."
The refutation should be readily apparent: "apostles ... prophets ... evangelists" are three categories of folks among whom there was inspiration, by which they provided: Scripture. The role of the rest was to proclaim that same message. There is, thus, not a contrasting parallel, but rather the former passage shows the means for the propagation of the Word of God, whereas the latter passage points directly to the Word of God itself. Furthermore, it is only Scripture that is described as "given by inspiration of God."
9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding
Mr. Armstrong presents two arguments in this regard:
a) Mr. Armstrong relies on 2 Thesalonisans 3:14 "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed."
This selection is devastating to Mr. Armstrong's position. First, "this epistle" is 2 Thessalonians, which is Scripture. Second, "this epistle" is particularly called out, and not "everything we've ever said." Third, "this epistle" is used as a rule of faith. Fourth, "any man" (not only "laity" or only those outside the churches) are to be judged by this rule. Fifth, and finally, all the "ye brethren" (2 Thessalonians 3:13) are to be doing this judging, which requires them to interpret the epistle and apply to the "any man" that they may encounter.
In short, this selection is a proof of Sola Scriptura, not the other way 'round.
b) Mr. Armstrong relies on Romans 16:17, which states: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
This verse is less specific: it doesn't explicitly say "learned in this epistle," though like the verse in 2 Thessalonians, it comes at the end of the epistle (which would make such an interpretation reasonable). Otherwise, it has all the same hallmarks as the other verse: the "brethren" are the ones to be judging their fellow men by some form of doctrinal standard.
Indeed, if we look at the subsequent context, we find Paul explaining only a few verses later:
Romans 16:25-27
25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: 27To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.
Notice how the various things being referenced are the revelation of God, and how Scriptures are specifically mentioned. There's nothing "casual" about Paul's commands here. He is inspired and he relies on that authority.
10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position
The refutation here is two-fold.
1) Calling the position circular is not supported. Scripture is our rule of faith. The claim is "circular," only in the sense that Scripture itself teaches (and clearly teaches) that Scripture is authoritative. See the discussion of 2 Thessalonians, above.
2) A rule faith requires application. Fallible human beings make application of the rule of faith that is Scripture, but that does not take away from Scripture's authority. As commanded by Scripture, we compare doctrines of men to the Scriptures to verify or condemn them. If that's "circular" to Mr. Armstrong, then so be it.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Biblical Evidence for the Veneration of Relics Ignored?
Previously, I discussed (and rebutted) the claim that the Scriptural discussion of the transport of Joseph's bones from Egypt to Canaan was evidence of the veneration of relics in the Old Testament (link). Now, I turn to a second favorite passage that relic-venerators tend to appeal to, as allegedly supporting their position. That passage is the discussion of the resuscitation of a man who touched Elisha's bones.
The Scripture in question is as follows:
2 Kings 13:20-21
20And Elisha died, and they buried him. And the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year. 21And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.
The point of this passage would seem to be an indication of the extreme poverty of the prophet, as well as a testimony to the reality of his divine appointment as a prophet.
1) Note that they buried Elisha. They did not place his bones in a synagogue or in the temple to be venerated.
2) Note that they buried Elisha in a place of the dead. This is confirmed by the fact that men who were burying a man (who is so unimportant as not even to be named in Scripture) found Elisha's sepulcher at hand. Thus, it appears that Elisha's sepulcher was not in a place of great importance, but in a place of the dead.
3) Note that Elisha's sepulchre was open. If it had been a closed sepulchre, it would not have been convenient to dump a body into it. An open sepulchre was an unpleasant and foul thing, even though it had an important purpose. In fact, the Psalmist uses it to provide a negative picture of the sinful man's mouth:
Psalm 5:9 For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.
Notice the comparison there. An open sepulchre, as you can see, has the advantage of not smelling so bad at the mouth of the sepulchre, but inside is death: a carcase. We can deduce that these open sepulchres were either deep (to accomplish this smell prevention issue), and consequently the prophet Jeremiah likens the quiver of mighty men to an open sepulchre:
Jeremiah 5:16 Their quiver is as an open sepulchre, they are all mighty men.
Or possibly the idea is that open sepulchres were in essence mass graves: which would also make sense both in the context of 2 Kings 13 and Jeremiah 5 (although I am inclined to the former view).
Some have suggested that an open sepulchre is basically a crevasse in the earth, a deep, naturally occurring pit into which a body could basically be dumped, thereby saving cost in terms of the time spent having to dig up the earth for burial. This would make sense as well - the idea being in Jeremiah 5 that the mighty men have a basically limitless supply of arrows.
4) The sepulchre was not a rock-face sepulchre, like that in which Jesus was buried. Recall that the man was not simply tossed or placed into the sepulchre, but lowered into the open sepulchre. This "lowered" suggests that the sepulchre opened upward rather than laterally. Again, this confirms that Elijah was not buried in some elaborate tomb designed to honor him, but rather in a low-cost alternative.
Analysis of Verse with Respect to Veneration Hypothesis
With the analysis above in mind, we should examine the verse in view of the hypothesis that it has something to do with venerating relics. Frankly, of course, there is no hint of veneration. Indeed, the idea of placing (even carefully) an apparently dead body on top of Elisha's would seem to show the opposite of veneration for him (dead bodies were unclean).
One might argue that the knowledge that it was the place where Elisha was buried shows some amount of honor, but it is the sort of bare honor that demonstrates that Elisha was at least not buried in an unmarked grave (as contrasted, for example, with the Muslims' practices).
Rather than being used specifically for the purposes of showing veneration, some might argue this as showing the supernatural effects associated with the corpses of holy men.
Leaving aside the issue of whether Elisha was particularly holy, it is interesting to note that the passage does not explicitly say that the man about to be buried was dead. It says he revived, which is ambiguous (both in the original Hebrew and in our English translation) as to whether the man came to life or simply recovered from a state of apparent death (presumably folks wouldn't bury an apparently alive person).
Either way, it is reasonable to infer that one of the reasons for the mention of the revival was to highlight this as a sort of posthumous miracle of Elisha. It is a reasonable inference, but not a necessary one. Regardless of whether it is a correct inference, all that it demonstrates is that God chose to testify to Elisha's gifts in this particular way at this particular time.
In other words, we would have no logical or proper ground to infer a general principle from this isolated and Scripturally unexplained occurrence. It certainly does not teach the veneration of relics, nor does it provide a rational basis for endorsing the superstitious legends that have sprung up around various relics, within churches that engage in relic veneration.
In short, we can reject the theory that 2 Kings 13:20-21 in any way supports relic veneration or the churches that practice such activity. You might think, based on the explanation above, that no one would attempt to use such a clearly unhelpful passage as 2 Kings 13:20-21, but - in fact - we see such happening in papist apologetics (Dave Armstrong, for example, falsely claims that "In the Old Law we read of the veneration of the Jews for the bones of Joseph (Exodus 13:19; Joshua 24:32), and of the prophet Eliseus [Elisha] ...." (quoting with approval from Bertrand Conway) link; See also Steve Ray relying on Joseph and Elisha, Ron aka "Saint under Construction" similarly relying on Joseph and Elisha, and this anonymous article that has received Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur which relies on Elisha while wisely omitting reference to Joseph)
May the God of the Living keep us from this,
-TurretinFan
The Scripture in question is as follows:
2 Kings 13:20-21
20And Elisha died, and they buried him. And the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year. 21And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.
The point of this passage would seem to be an indication of the extreme poverty of the prophet, as well as a testimony to the reality of his divine appointment as a prophet.
1) Note that they buried Elisha. They did not place his bones in a synagogue or in the temple to be venerated.
2) Note that they buried Elisha in a place of the dead. This is confirmed by the fact that men who were burying a man (who is so unimportant as not even to be named in Scripture) found Elisha's sepulcher at hand. Thus, it appears that Elisha's sepulcher was not in a place of great importance, but in a place of the dead.
3) Note that Elisha's sepulchre was open. If it had been a closed sepulchre, it would not have been convenient to dump a body into it. An open sepulchre was an unpleasant and foul thing, even though it had an important purpose. In fact, the Psalmist uses it to provide a negative picture of the sinful man's mouth:
Psalm 5:9 For there is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulchre; they flatter with their tongue.
Notice the comparison there. An open sepulchre, as you can see, has the advantage of not smelling so bad at the mouth of the sepulchre, but inside is death: a carcase. We can deduce that these open sepulchres were either deep (to accomplish this smell prevention issue), and consequently the prophet Jeremiah likens the quiver of mighty men to an open sepulchre:
Jeremiah 5:16 Their quiver is as an open sepulchre, they are all mighty men.
Or possibly the idea is that open sepulchres were in essence mass graves: which would also make sense both in the context of 2 Kings 13 and Jeremiah 5 (although I am inclined to the former view).
Some have suggested that an open sepulchre is basically a crevasse in the earth, a deep, naturally occurring pit into which a body could basically be dumped, thereby saving cost in terms of the time spent having to dig up the earth for burial. This would make sense as well - the idea being in Jeremiah 5 that the mighty men have a basically limitless supply of arrows.
4) The sepulchre was not a rock-face sepulchre, like that in which Jesus was buried. Recall that the man was not simply tossed or placed into the sepulchre, but lowered into the open sepulchre. This "lowered" suggests that the sepulchre opened upward rather than laterally. Again, this confirms that Elijah was not buried in some elaborate tomb designed to honor him, but rather in a low-cost alternative.
Analysis of Verse with Respect to Veneration Hypothesis
With the analysis above in mind, we should examine the verse in view of the hypothesis that it has something to do with venerating relics. Frankly, of course, there is no hint of veneration. Indeed, the idea of placing (even carefully) an apparently dead body on top of Elisha's would seem to show the opposite of veneration for him (dead bodies were unclean).
One might argue that the knowledge that it was the place where Elisha was buried shows some amount of honor, but it is the sort of bare honor that demonstrates that Elisha was at least not buried in an unmarked grave (as contrasted, for example, with the Muslims' practices).
Rather than being used specifically for the purposes of showing veneration, some might argue this as showing the supernatural effects associated with the corpses of holy men.
Leaving aside the issue of whether Elisha was particularly holy, it is interesting to note that the passage does not explicitly say that the man about to be buried was dead. It says he revived, which is ambiguous (both in the original Hebrew and in our English translation) as to whether the man came to life or simply recovered from a state of apparent death (presumably folks wouldn't bury an apparently alive person).
Either way, it is reasonable to infer that one of the reasons for the mention of the revival was to highlight this as a sort of posthumous miracle of Elisha. It is a reasonable inference, but not a necessary one. Regardless of whether it is a correct inference, all that it demonstrates is that God chose to testify to Elisha's gifts in this particular way at this particular time.
In other words, we would have no logical or proper ground to infer a general principle from this isolated and Scripturally unexplained occurrence. It certainly does not teach the veneration of relics, nor does it provide a rational basis for endorsing the superstitious legends that have sprung up around various relics, within churches that engage in relic veneration.
In short, we can reject the theory that 2 Kings 13:20-21 in any way supports relic veneration or the churches that practice such activity. You might think, based on the explanation above, that no one would attempt to use such a clearly unhelpful passage as 2 Kings 13:20-21, but - in fact - we see such happening in papist apologetics (Dave Armstrong, for example, falsely claims that "In the Old Law we read of the veneration of the Jews for the bones of Joseph (Exodus 13:19; Joshua 24:32), and of the prophet Eliseus [Elisha] ...." (quoting with approval from Bertrand Conway) link; See also Steve Ray relying on Joseph and Elisha, Ron aka "Saint under Construction" similarly relying on Joseph and Elisha, and this anonymous article that has received Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur which relies on Elisha while wisely omitting reference to Joseph)
May the God of the Living keep us from this,
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Biblical Evidence for Indulgences?
Dave Armstrong (DA), a lay apologist for Rome, asserts that there is "explicit biblical [sic] evidence for all the essential notions behind indulgences" (link to source of discussion) (link to quotation).
1) How does DA pick the "essential notions behind"?
DA is not very clear in this regard. It is as though he picks them out of a hat. This is not surprising, since the doctrine of Indulgences is not a Biblical doctrine. Thus, if one is going to be limited in how one picks doctrines that are to be called the "essential notions behind."
Of course, given that the doctrine of Indulgences is not itself a Biblical doctrine, one might think that DA would look for essential notions permitting uninspired men to innovate doctrines not taught by the apostles. DA, however, does not do this, as we see when we turn to:
2) What are the "essential notions behind"?
Apparently, the two "essential notions" that DA thinks are behind indulgences are absolution and church jurisdiction. But are these enough to address the essence of indulgences? Surely not.
Before we get to the issue of jurisdiction over penance/indulgences and forgiveness, there is the more fundamental issue of whether a proper category of temporal punishment of sin exists. This category does not have a reason for existence until the doctrine of Purgatory develops, because it is principally Purgatory for which indulgences become of value.
That is to say, the concept of earthly penance is not enough to justify the doctrine of Indulgences, which is based on the concept of temporal punishment for sins. Prior to the development of Purgatory and the concept of temporal punishment for sins, the concept of earthly penance can be viewed simply as a test of sincerity, as discipline (as distinct from punishment) for sins, or both.
Of course, Scripture nowhere makes the eternal/temporal punishment distinction. Christ's righteousness, suffering, and death are attributed to the believer in justification. Thus, as Paul says:
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
But even if the alleged "essential notions" are not enough to justify the doctrine of Indulgences, let us address the next question:
3) Do DA's claims have support for what they assert?
DA claims that he has provided support for "priestly absolution" and "the power to impose penance ... and to grant indulgences." But, in fact, such concepts are not discussed in the passages he relies upon.
Instead, DA attempts to read his church's doctrines into three texts of Scripture:
A) Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
B) Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
C) John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
The first two passages (A and B) speak of the so-called power of the keys - of binding and loosing. But look at what is said: not what is bound on earth will be bound on earth or what is bound on earth will be bound in purgatory -- but rather what is bound on earth shall be bound in heaven.
Furthermore, the two passages (A and B) make no distinction between temporal and eternal punishments. In fact, though they mention earth and heaven they basically place an equals sign between them, such that what is true on earth is true in heaven. Thus, they actually undermine the underlying essential notion that there is a difference between temporal punishment for sins and eternal punishment for sins.
Likewise the third passage (C) makes no distinction between temporal and eternal punishment for sin, simply treating sin as sin. Thus, again, the essential notions behind Indulgences are not supported but undermined.
Furthermore, contrary to DA's claims, the passages do not describe "priestly absolution. " There is no discussion of priests performing the various binding/loosing remitting/retaining mentioned in the three passages.
It should be noted that the concept of a New Testament priesthood as separate from the "laity" is not a Scriptural concept. Nevertheless, there is nothing "explicit" (recall that was DA's claim) in the text that limits the binding/loosing or remitting/retaining to even the category of ordained ministers, other elders, or deacons. In fact, there is no explicit limitation at all.
Now, DA may want to counter that in the text only certain people are addressed and thus implicitly the binding/loosing and remitting/retaining is limited. One problem is that if one wishes to make that argument, one has to be prepared for the fact that there is nothing in the passage provided to avoid taking that implicit limit to its logical conclusion, namely that it was limited to only those people in particular to whom it was given.
Finally, naturally, the explanation of what the binding/loosing remitting/retaining constitutes is simply not explict in the passage (contrary to DA's broad assertions). In fact, in the case of binding/loosing, the passage is not even explicit that the binding/loosing has to do with sin.
In fact, with respect to the first two passages (A and B) there is a reasonable argument to be made that the reference could be to revelation - such that those with the power of the key to bind and loose may have the ability to keep heavenly information secret or reveal it.
The most obvious counter-argument to such a response is that these are the keys of the kingdom of heaven, i.e. that reference is being made to entry into the kingdom of heaven - i.e. to salvation. If this is the case, though, the verse cannot have any relation to Indulgences - which do not provide salvation.
After a brief quotation from Karl Adam (which provides some similar assertions to those of DA without any Biblical evidence), DA quotes from 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 and 2:6-8 and 10-11 and provides the following commentary:
St. Paul in his commands and exhortations to the Corinthians is in entire agreement with the Catholic tenets of penance and indulgences. He binds in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 and looses in 2 Corinthians 2:6-7,10, acting as a type of papal figure in 2 Corinthians 2:10, much like St. Peter among the Apostles. He forgives, and bids the Corinthian elders to forgive also, even though the offense was not committed against them personally. Clearly, both parties are acting as God's representatives in the matter of the forgiveness of sins and the remission of sin's temporal penalties (an indulgence). In this as in all other doctrinal matters, the Catholic Church is grounded in the Bible, takes seriously all that it teaches, and grapples with all the implications and deepest wellsprings of Truth to be found within the pages of God's Holy Scriptures.
Counting the errors in this paragraph is somewhat laborious, but perhaps it will be edifying:
1) The idea that the cited passages are "in entire agreement with the Catholic tenets of penance and indulgences," is really a red herring. Even supposing that were true, it would only be relevant if those passages were raised as an objection to such doctrines.
2) DA comment that, "He binds in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5," is not supported by Paul using the word for "bind" in that passage. Furthermore, Paul doesn't impose penance on the man, he excommunicates him.
3) DA states: "looses in 2 Corinthians 2:6-7,10," but that is also not supported by Paul using the word for "loose" in that passage. Furthermore, Paul speaks only of forgiveness and not excuse from the suffering of temporal punishments, as in the doctrine of Indulgences.
4) DA states: "acting as a type of papal figure in 2 Corinthians 2:10," but if there is an resemblance between Paul's activity and the supposed activity of a pope, Paul is engaging in the activity - not foreshadowing it.
5) DA states: "much like St. Peter among the Apostles," but there is no suggestion in the text to support an analogy of "Paul is to the Corinthians as Peter is to the other Apostles."
6) DA states, "He forgives, and bids the Corinthian elders to forgive also, even though the offense was not committed against them personally," but the text does not say that they offense was not committed against them personally.
7) DA states: "Clearly, both parties are acting as God's representatives in the matter of the forgiveness of sins and the remission of sin's temporal penalties (an indulgence)," but actually, as noted above, only the forgiveness of sins is mentioned, not the "remission of sin's temporal penalties."
8) DA finally states: "In this as in all other doctrinal matters, the Catholic Church is grounded in the Bible, takes seriously all that it teaches, and grapples with all the implications and deepest wellsprings of Truth to be found within the pages of God's Holy Scriptures." But, in fact DA's comment is misleading on several levels. The teaching of Catholicism is grounded on the authority of the Vatican, not on the authority of the Scripture. It is not a doctrine "grounded in" or otherwise derived from the Bible. It is the not the result of infallible exegesis - in fact it doesn't even claim to be! (i.e. that's not the Vatican's claim) It is not the result of battling with Scripture, as suggested by DA's comment, or - at best - there is absolutely no historical record of such grappling taking place.
Although Dave goes on to quote from a Cardinal of his church, the bulk of the remainder of Dave's article is really related to penance - which DA admits has "developed" over time (though some of the footnotes mention indulgences and their Medieval abuse).
In conclusion, we may safely continue to view Indulgences as not Biblically evidenced, despite Mr. Armstrong's boldly titled blog post.
Thanks be to the God who Justifies,
-TurretinFan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
