Veneration of Mary Debate - Thoughts on Reflection - Part 7

This is the seventh section of my reflections on my recent debate on the veneration of Mary with Mr. William Albrecht. This one may discuss a few different miscellaneous points as I try to round up the last of my thoughts on the debate itself.

I. No Logical Link Between Mary's Being Blessed and Mary's Being Venerated

About 4 minutes into the debate, Mr. Albrecht makes the claim that Mary is called blessed in a different degree. Mr. Albrecht refers to the beatitudes where the followers of Jesus are called blessed. Then, Mr. Albrecht says: "But there is a great variance in degree when we compare those in the beatitudes and Mary." He doesn't really go on to support this, except to note that great things were done for Mary, and (according to Albrecht) because of these great things people are supposed to honor and venerate Mary.

First, there's no real logical connection between this being a matter of degree as opposed to simply a different kind of blessing. Second, there is no real reason to go from someone simply recognizing that God has blessed Mary to a person honoring or venerating Mary.

I didn't really go after this in the debate and perhaps I ought to have spent a few seconds explaining the fact that there is no comparison of degrees and no logical link between someone being blessed by God and someone deserving (or mandating) honor and veneration of men.

II. No Logical Link Between Loving the Brethren and Venerating Mary

Another odd argument that Mr. Albrecht used was one that basically said, that because Paul tells us to serve one another in love in the Epistle to the Galatians, that consequently we should venerate Mary. There's really no logical link there. The way in which we serve one another in love is not by engaging in any sort of religious veneration, such as offering up prayer or lighting candles and incense, but by meeting their needs. But Mary has passed into glory. She no longer has needs - or at least she certainly has no needs that we on Earth can meet. I mentioned this briefly in the debate, but perhaps I should have insisted that Mr. Albrecht justify himself more fully in this regard.

III. "Continue to be Graced"

There was an odd line that Mr. Albrecht took during his cross-examination questions, in which he asked about Mary continuing to be "graced." Mary was given a great honor, namely to be the mother of the Lord. But this was not like wearing a coat made from a shiny material called "grace" or something like that. The verb employed (as we have already discussed) relates to a past event that had (at the time the statement was being made) continuing effects. The past event was the dispensation of an enormous favor to Mary, namely the conception of our Lord in her womb. That had a continuing effect at the time the angel announced her pregnancy, namely that Jesus was in her womb. Mr. Albrecht appeared to be trying to suggest that the action of receiving favor from God was a continuing action, which it is not.

Well - that's about all for miscellaneous thoughts. Next up, I'm going to review what Mr. Albrecht has to say about the debate, as he's posted a video regarding the debate.

-TurretinFan

Veneration of Mary Debate - Thoughts on Reflection 5a

One Eastern Orthodox reader (he calls himself "orthodox" - we'll just call him "O") has provided five points against part 5 of my thoughts on reflection. He may be the only one to think this way, but just in case it may be edifying to others, here are some brief responses to his points:

orthodox has left a new comment on your post "Veneration of Mary Debate - Thoughts on Reflection...":

1) O's First Point: "Lack of an imperative only helps you if you want to argue that Mary is bemoaning the fact she will be called blessed instead of rejoicing in it."

My response:

a) O seems to have forgotten that the Romanist in this debate argued the verse as an imperative, suggesting that it is a command to call Mary "blessed" - or something to that effect. That's far from the meaning of the verse as has already been demonstrated.

b) Mary is clearly happy. Why on earth O thinks that anyone would need to think otherwise is totally obscure.

c) Mary's happiness is expressed, in part, by her comment about all generations considering her happy. It's not the other way around: she's not happy because other people will consider her to be happy. What an absurd concept that would be! Yet it is, apparently, the position that O wants to take, as though Mary were not rejoicing in Christ but in other people considering Mary happy.

2) O's second point: "How can a single word μακαριοῦσιν be an idiom? Idioms are characterised by a set of words."

I answer:

Idioms don't have to be more than one word. There are lots of counter-examples. One example in English is the use of "heart" for the seat of emotions. Another, and a more germane, example of a single-word idiom is the potential one previously discussed in Luke 1:28. One idiomatic usage of χαῖρε (Chaire) is as a greeting. As previously noted, it can convey either a literal sense of "Rejoice" or it can serve in an idiomatic capacity as a greeting.

3) O's third point: "You say "Solomon's being considered blessed "by all nations" was primarily fulfilled by the respect he received from nations".... Errr, isn't respect and veneration synonyms? Isn't that the exact point?"

I answer:

What an amusing attempt to equivocate. If saying, "Wow, that king is really lucky to be so wise and rich" is veneration then I guess everybody who says "Wow, Mary was really lucky to have borne Jesus in her womb" is also venerating Mary, and we all venerate the winners of Lottery Jackpots when we call them happy too. What silliness!

While there certainly may be some semantic hopscotch that can be played among the words, people recognizing the wisdom and riches of Solomon is not religious veneration of Solomon.

4) O's fourth point: "The Magnificat is not inspired?! Wow, are we grasping at straws today. How do you know if any of Luke is inspired for that matter? So Mary botched up this one, eh?"

I answer:

a) Luke's inspiration is beyond question.

b) Not ever conversation and speech recorded in the inspired Scriptures is itself inspired. To take an obvious example, the inspired book of Job relates Satan's words to God. Nevertheless, no one in their right minds would think that Satan was inspired.

c) Why should it be shocking that Mary's monologue of happiness be uninspired? When Luke wants to tell us that Elizabeth was inspired, he does so. With Mary he makes no similar claim. And Elizabeth isn't a one-off instance for Luke: he also tells us the same thing about John the Baptist (Luke 1:15); Zacharias (Luke 1:67); the disciples at Pentecost (Acts 2:4); Peter (Luke 4:8); the disciples after Peter and John opposed the elders of Israel (Acts 4:31); Paul (Acts 9:17); and again Paul (Acts 13:9).

d) The term "botched" is so pejorative. Just because someone is not inspired and expresses their joy in hyperbolic language, we wouldn't normally say that they "botched" anything.

5) O's fifth point: "The rest of the article is straw man, since the debate was not about whether Mary is "shining little beams of blessing", but whether scripture teaches veneration of Mary. And your statement about Psalm 72:17 indicates that you just conceded this debate."

I answer:

If all that were involved in the Romanist veneration of Mary were recognizing (as Reformed believers do) that she was greatly blessed by God, then we wouldn't be having the debate in the first place. But the meaning of words is important, despite attempts by certain folks to equivocate their way to victory.

And that's also true of the term "blessed." It is important to distinguish between a view of Mary as "blessed" in the sense of irradiating a sort of spiritual energy, and Mary as "blessed" in the sense of happy, fortunate, or the like. The latter sense is Biblical, the former sense is a common (but unbiblical) superstition.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: Mr. Burgess has chimed in with similar comments. He stated:

Who inspired Mary to say what she did? Who inspired Luke to write it? Why do you deny that the statement is an imperative command from God given the (known) answers to the above questions? Why bifurcate? It's pedantically disingenuous of you.

I respond line by line:

"Who inspired Mary to say what she did?"

People speak without inspiration all the time. See the discussion above.

"Who inspired Luke to write it?"

The Holy Spirit.

"Why do you deny that the statement is an imperative command from God given the (known) answers to the above questions?"

The statement is plainly not an imperative command to anyone who can parse the Greek word used. It is a simple indicative statement declaring what will happen (perhaps, as already discussed, merely by way of hyperbole) not what should, ought, or must happen.

"Why bifurcate?"

To bifurcate is to split into two. In context, it's a little unclear what Mr. Burgess is trying to suggest. If he is noting that I have distinguished between Luke being inspired to write Scripture and the people he records not being inspired themselves, it's actually an important distinction. Otherwise, you end up with absurdities like Satan being inspired, simply because his words are recorded in Scripture.

"It's pedantically disingenuous of you."

To be pedantic is to focus on trivial details and to be disingenuous is not to be open and frank. I guess Mr. Burgess' clumsily worded criticism is intended to suggest that whether or not Mary was inspired or the word is actually imperative is simply a trifling detail, and that by focusing on trifling details I'm somehow masking my real position. Well, despite Mr. Burgess' thoughts, it's neither a trifling detail (for the reasons already explained above) nor is it an attempt to hide my position (I've been candid about the position I advocate throughout this discussion). And, of course, if Mr. Burgess himself were sincerely interested in understanding what the text of Scripture said, he would not be inclined to characterize issues of inspiration and grammar as trifling details.

-TurretinFan

Veneration of Mary Debate - Thoughts on Reflection - Part 6

This is the sixth part of some reflections on the recent debate conducted with Mr. Albrecht on the subject of the veneration of Mary. One of the topics that came up briefly in the debate was the subject of calling Mary, the mother of Jesus, "Mother of God." As I noted, such a title is not Biblical and is actually somewhat against the Biblical description of Jesus as being motherless with respect to his divinity. Connected with this, someone has recently asked me directly two questions, which help to explore this issue a bit more.

Someone asked: "Do you believe that Mary was the MOTHER OF GOD?"

I believe that Mary is the mother of Jesus, who is both God and Man, in two distinct natures and one person. Mary thus had, in her womb, the God-man and she is properly called Theotokos (the God-bearer). Mary, however, was only mother to Jesus' humanity, since only his humanity was derived from her. Thus, Mary was not the mother of the divinity of Christ, and consequently although the phrase "Mother of God" could be interpreted in an orthodox way, it is misleading title that requires clarification.

I think Theodoret put it well in his letter to Ireneaus (Letter 16 - obviously, this is not to the famous Irenaeus, but to another bishop of the same name), when he wrote:

What does it matter whether we style the holy Virgin at the same time mother of Man and mother of God, or call her mother and servant of her offspring, with the addition that she is mother of our Lord Jesus Christ as man, but His servant as God, and so at once avoid the term which is the pretext of calumny, and express the same opinion by another phrase?

It is not a Biblical term and it is not a term favored by many of the fathers before the 5th century. Thus, for example, I cannot find any place in Augustine's genuine works where the term is used, nor likewise among Origen's authentic works. It is not a term used (to my knowledge) by any of the fathers of the first three centuries, including the Apostolic fathers.

Although I have noted above that I could not find the term in any of Augustine's genuine works, I did find a single usage of it among a work of Pseudo-Augustine, De Assumptione Beatae Mariae Virginis (probably 9th century) (Augustinini ... Opera Omnia, Volume 6, 1147). It also used in other ancient forgeries, including the Apocalypse of the Virgin, the Protoevangelium of James, the Revelation of Paul, the Gospel of Nicodemus, and Pseudo-Peter-of-Alexandria.

The same person also asked: "Also, do you believe this title is appropriate to be used towards Mary?"

Hopefully the discussion above has largely answered this question. As a description of the fact that Mary bore Jesus and Jesus is divine, it is descriptive. However, it has a tendency to be understood in a very exalted way, a way designed to treat Mary as particularly special or important. It leads toward the worship of Mary, which is one reason it is inadvisable. Another reason it is inadvisable is that it suggests that Mary is the mother of the Godhead (and of both the human and divine natures of Jesus' person), and not simply of Jesus and particularly his human nature.

It is important to remember what Theodoret wisely noted, namely that with respect to Jesus' humanity, Mary was His mother, but with respect to Jesus' divinity, Mary was His handmaid by her own confession. Is the title potentially ok? I think Turretin put it well when he said:

The "Son of the living God" cannot be called the son of Mary according to that in which he is the Son of God. But because he assumed the human nature from her into unity of person, he is rightly and truly called also the son of Mary in this respect. Thus Mary can truly be called theotokos or "mother of God," if the word "God" is taken concretely for the total personality of Christ consisting of the person of the Logos (Logou) and the human nature (in which sense she is called "the mother of the Lord," Lk. 1:43), but not precisely and abstractly in respect of the deity. Thus she is called the mother of God specificatively (i.e., of him who is God), but not reduplicatively (as he is God).

Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 13:5:18 (p. 310 in the Dennison edition).

-TurretinFan

Veneration of Mary Debate - Thoughts on Reflection - Part 5

This is the fifth segment of my thoughts about the recent debate I had with Mr. William Albrecht on the subject of the veneration of Mary. In this section, I'll be discussing the issue of "all generations shall call me blessed" (Luke 1:48), which came up during the debate.

One reason that this came up was because Mr. Albrecht seemed to suggest, well, to state, that the comment about all generations calling Mary blessed was actually a command to all generations to call Mary blessed. As I brought up in the debate, it is not a command.

The wording of the KJV is a little bit ambiguous: in English "shall" can be an imperative verb or it can simply be a future indicative. However, in Greek there is no ambiguity: μακαριοῦσίν (makariousin) is a future active indicative (i.e. it describes, it does not command) verb. It means to "consider blessed" or "count as fortunate."

This, of course, leads to the second part of this post. As with the "highly favored" issue I dealt with in the previous part, there seemed to be a view either that the verb means "shall call [me] 'blessed'" as though "blessed" were a nickname, or that the verb conveys a sense that people will somehow bless Mary. Neither of these two views is right.

In fact, both miss the point of Mary's comment entirely. Mary is excited and happy. She is speaking exuberantly. There is no particular reason to read Mary's comment literally rather than hyperbolically. After all, this is a reported statement of Mary's: not commentary by the inspired author.

Furthermore, we have other similar statements in Scripture, which suggest that this Greek word is essentially conveying a Hebrew idiom:

Psalm 72:17 His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.

Malachi 3:12 And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the LORD of hosts.

And sure enough, the Greek word in the LXX translation of these verses is "μακαριοῦσιν." Psalm 72 is a Psalm for Solomon (title), it is the last of David's psalms (last verse), and it is a Messianic Psalm like so many others. The preliminary fulfillment of the Psalm was David's son, Solomon (and he was greatly blessed by God). The major fulfillment was in the Messiah, David's son, Jesus - who was also greatly blessed by God.

Solomon's being considered blessed "by all nations" was primarily fulfilled by the respect he received from nations as far away as Ethiopia. It's not really that literally every nation considered Solomon blessed, but that he was considered blessed far and wide.

But whether Mary's statement should be taken literally or not, it's worth noting that Mary's statement of praise (sometimes taken to be a song) is reported to us, but is not identified as being inspired. Elizabeth's statement is described as inspired, but not Mary's.

Nevertheless, even if we assumed that Mary was also inspired, and even assumed that she should be taken literally, the statement is simply declaring that all generations will count or consider Mary as a person who has received something good from God. She received an enormous blessing. This is certainly true.

For some reason, though, people seem to take this as though the blessing were radiation and Mary were sort of glowing with blessing, shining little beams of blessing in every direction. Nothing of the sort is suggested from the word employed. It just means something great happened to her. We consider her a happy person. That's the approximate sense conveyed.

None of that would, could, or should lead one toward a veneration of Mary, the mother and handmaiden of the Lord.

-TurretinFan

Limited Atonement - Response to OneTrueChurch

In the following video, I respond to a video from “OneTrueChurch” on the topic of Calvinism and Limited Atonement (link). OneTrueChurch calls (in the title of his video) Calvinism a “Heresy” although he does not explain why he thinks that, and picks on Limited Atonement as key to the whole issue of Calvinism (much to the chagrin of my Amyraldian listeners and readers, no doubt).

Jerome (347-420) on Matthew 20:28: He does not say that he gave his life for all, but for many, that is, for all those who would believe.

(Psuedo-?)Hilary of Arles (401-449) commenting on 1 John 2:2: When John says that Christ died for the sins of the “whole world,” what he means is that he died for the whole church.
(N.B. A friend has brought to my attention that although this text is found in the PL Supp., CCSL 108B and Clavis designate this work as spurius. I haven't had time to research the question more fully myself, but wanted to highlight this in case anyone is using these quotations.)
Augustine (354-430): Hence things that are lawful are not all good, but everything unlawful is not good. Just as everyone redeemed by Christ's blood is a human being, but human beings are not all redeemed by Christ's blood, so too everything that is unlawful is not good, but things that are not good are not all unlawful. As we learn from the testimony of the apostle, there are some things that are lawful but are not good.

Chrysostom (349-407) on Hebrews 9:28. “So Christ was once offered.”: By whom offered? evidently by Himself. Here he says that He is not Priest only, but Victim also, and what is sacrificed. On this account are [the words] “was offered.” “Was once offered” (he says) “to bear the sins of many.” Why “of many,” and not “of all”? Because not all believed, For He died indeed for all, that is His part: for that death was a counterbalance against the destruction of all men. But He did not bear the sins of all men, because they were not willing.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Hebrews 9:27-28: As it is appointed for each human being to die once, and the one who accepts death’s decree no longer sins but awaits the examination of what was done in life, so Christ the Lord, after being offered once for us and taking up our sins, will come to us again, with sin no longer in force, that is, with sin no longer occupying a place as far as human beings are concerned. He said himself, remember, when he still had a mortal body, “He committed no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth.” It should be noted, of course, that he bore the sins of many, not of all: not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only.

Bede (672/673-735) commenting on 1 John 2:1: The Lord intercedes for us not by words but by his dying compassion, because he took upon himself the sins which he was unwilling to condemn his elect for.

Bede (672/673-735) commenting on 1 John 2:2: In his humanity Christ pleads for our sins before the Father, but in his divinity he has propitiated them for us with the Father. Furthermore, he has not done this only for those who were alive at the time of his death, but also for the whole church which is scattered over the full compass of the world, and it will be valid for everyone, from the very first among the elect until the last one who will be born at the end of time. This verse is therefore a rebuke to the Donatists, who thought that the true church was to be found only in Africa. The Lord pleads for the sins of the whole world, because the church which he has bought with his blood exists in every corner of the globe.

After dealing with the patristic evidence, I dealt with a logical critique of some of the objections to limited atonement. One of the objections is that Limited Atonement means that there is no chance for some people to be saved. I noted, however, that if we believe that God knows the future, he already knows who will be saved and who won’t be saved. Even if this is just simple prediction (it is not, of course, but even if it were) then it would be the case that it would be an infallible prediction. There is no chance that if God has foreseen you will be saved that something else will happen and likewise if God has foreseen that you will be lost.

Likewise, if God is said to “want to save everyone” then the question is, why doesn’t he? Cannot God save whom he wants to save by his grace?

We noticed that the only way out of these logical critiques is to blaspheme either the omniscience of God (by suggesting that God doesn’t know the future) or the omnipotence of God (by suggesting that God cannot get what he wants).

We concluded, therefore, that not only is the Calvinistic doctrine of Limited Atonement an historical doctrine of Christianity and the Biblical truth, it is an inescapable matter of logic reasoning from the nature of God himself.

-TurretinFan

Veneration of Mary Debate - Thoughts on Reflection - Part 4

This is the fourth part of a series of some reflections of mine on a recent debate with Mr. William Albrecht on the veneration of Mary. The issue I'd like to deal with in this post is the issue of Mary's being highly favored. This is an issue I would have liked to have addressed more fully during the debate.

There was some back-and-forth on the issue of the properly translation of the term κεχαριτωμένη (kecharitomeneh). Mr. Albrecht himself gave several renderings of it in his opening statement, I went with the KJV's rendering of it in my opening statement and criticized the Vulgate's mistranslation of the term. Then, later in the debate, Mr. Albrecht argued that the Vulgate's mistranslation is actually acceptable.

Here are some (But certainly not all) translations that are out there (words have been adjusted to their American spellings):

"highly favored" - American Standard Version, King James Version, Revised Version, Webster's Bible, International Standard Version, New International Version, 21st Century King James Version, Today's New International Version, World English Bible, Third Millenium Bible,

"favored one" - English Majority Text Version, English Standard Version, John Nelson Darby Bible, New Testament in Modern Speech, Young's Literal Translation, New American Standard Bible, Amplified Bible (primary reading), Rotherham, New English Translation, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version,

"highly favored one" - New King James Version

"favored by the Lord" - God's Word to the Nations Bible

"favored woman" - New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible

"who enjoy God's favour" - Jerusalem Bible

"freely beloved" - Bishops' Bible, Geneva Bible

"truly blessed" - Contemporary English Version

"full of grace" - Douay-Rheims Bible, Murdock's Translation of the Peshitta, Younan's Translation of the Peshitta

"[one] having been bestowed grace [or, shown kindness]!" - Analytical-Literal Translation

"to whom special grace has been given" - Bible in Basic English

"one having received grace!" - Literal Translation of the Holy Bible

"one receiving grace" - Modern King James Version

"The Lord ... has greatly blessed you" - Good News Bible

"The Lord has given you special favor" - New International Reader's Version

"You're beautiful with God's beauty, Beautiful inside and out!" - The Message

"The Lord has blessed you" (or possibly omitted) - New Century Version

(apparently omitted) - Worldwide English (New Testament)

What should be taken away from all of this? The only versions that translate the word as "full of grace" are those that are based on the Vulgate, either directly or by way of the Peshitta. None of the English translations that are based on the Greek come close to "full of grace" because that's simply not what is being conveyed by the participle.

Instead, the sense of the participle is that some special favor or blessing has been shown to Mary. In this case, the special favor or blessing is that Jesus is in her womb. Furthermore, this is not a favor that is deserved, it is a gracious favor. It is not as though Mary somehow was more holy than other women, and consequently obtained this blessing by merit, but instead it was according to the grace of God.

The mistranslation "full of grace" as well as several confused comments by Mr. Albrecht during the debate treat Mary as though she were an urn into which some stuff called "grace" had been poured. That's not what the text is conveying at all. Instead, it is simply indicating that something wonderful had happened to Mary, a great blessing had been given to her by God.

This is reflected in virtually all of the major English translations, as I've outlined above. Furthermore, as was mentioned during the debate, the verb is a perfect passive participle. That means that the participle is conveying information about a past act (in this case the conception of Jesus in Mary's womb) with continuing effects (her pregnancy).

Of course, after nine months, Jesus emerged from Mary's womb. At that point, the act of bearing Jesus in her womb was over. Mary continued to have an important role in Jesus' upbringing (breast-feeding and so forth), but eventually even that ceased as Jesus was weaned and grew from being a boy to a man.

So, as an historical matter, it will always be the case that Mary was the Theotokos - the God-bearer - the one who had in her womb the second person of the Trinity. It was truly an amazing and unforgettable experience.

But it is not as though grace was a powder that was sprinkled on Mary or that grace was in an IV drip that was given to Mary. It wasn't a golden dress she wore. Such an idea of κεχαριτωμένη (kecharitomeneh) misses the point.

Mary was highly favored. Mary was given an enormous privilege. Mary was given a tremendous blessing, she got to be the womb from which our Savior sprung. Children are always a gift from God, but this child was a more wonderful gift than any other woman has ever received from God.

Thus we should understand κεχαριτωμένη (kecharitomeneh) - not as suggesting that Mary was an urn full of grace, or a vending machine loaded up with grace, but as a woman who was given an amazing gift from God.

-TurretinFan

Veneration of Mary Debate - Thoughts on Reflection - Part 3

This is the third part of a series of some reflections of mine on a recent debate with Mr. William Albrecht on the veneration of Mary (Part 1)(Part 2). Those posts dealt with whether "having been highly favored" is a title and whether the concept of veneration of Mary can be justified based on her being Jesus' mother. In this post I'll deal with an interesting theme I only brushed on briefly during the debate.

Early in the debate, Mr. Albrecht argues for the perspicuity of Scripture on this topic. He states: "Today I will make an attempt to come to the Scriptures as one who merely picks up the Bible and reads it and attempts to understand its plain meaning. ... We will see that no matter what denomination you come from you can see the plain truth of Mary in Scripture."

I was instantly reminded of what a Reformed apologist wrote hundreds of years ago in relation to those papists with whom he was dealing in the 16th century.
William Whitaker (1547-1595):

Indeed all the papists in their books, when they seek to prove any thing, boast everywhere that they can bring arguments against us from the most luminous, plain, clear and manifest testimonies of Scripture . . . For in every dispute their common phrases are,"”This is clear,"”This is plain,"”This is manifest in the scriptures, and such like. Surely when they speak thus, they ignorantly and unawares confess the perspicuity of the scriptures even in the greatest questions and controversies.

(A Disputation on Holy Scripture Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: The University Press, reprinted 1849), p. 401.)

As I pointed out in the debate, it is interesting how - when they are not dealing with the topic of Sola Scriptura, even those who deny Sola Scriptura recognize that it is perspicuous on many subjects. But it also important to recognize that just because Scripture is clear doesn't mean that there will never be any disagreements about what it says. As the same apologist pointed out:

For there is nothing in Scripture so plain that some men have not doubted it; as, that God is Almighty, that he created heaven and earth, that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, conceived of the Holy Ghost, and so forth: these are indeed plainly and openly set down in Scripture, and yet there are controversies about them. Things therefore are not presently obscure, concerning which there are many controversies; because these so manifold disputes arise rather from the perversity and curiosity of the human mind, than from any real obscurity. The apostle says that the minds of infidels are blinded by the devil, lest they should see that brilliant light and acquiesce in it: which is most true of our adversaries.

Id. at pp. 388-389.

However, as expected, Mr. Albrecht opened his closing argument, "I think that anyone who comes to the Scriptures without any preconceived notions or biases will find that ..." suggesting again that the Scriptures can clearly provide teaching on the subject.

It is a strange approach to the issue, and I think I adequately demonstrated that one cannot get veneration of Mary from the Scripture. In fact, to the contrary, Jesus disclaimed any special place of honor for Mary, making her and his brethren of only equal importance to all believers.

-TurretinFan

Veneration of Mary Debate - Thoughts on Reflection - Part 2

Not every point that Mr. Albrecht raised during the debate was as unusual as his "titular form" argument addressed in my previous comment (link). For example, Mr. Albrecht made at least some oblique reference to one typical argument that we hear from Roman Catholics: the argument that Jesus honored his mother consistent with Jewish law.

As a preliminary matter I'm always puzzled when people suggest that honoring one's parents is somehow distinctly Jewish. The fifth commandment, "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee," (repeated and amplified at Deuteronomy 5:16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee; that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.) is part of God's moral law: it is not just relevant to the Jews but to all humans. Indeed, Paul specifically repeats this law in Ephesians 6:2 ("Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;").

But yes, Jesus did honour his mother. This kind of honour, however, has nothing to do with religious veneration. Even if it could be said to be a form of veneration more broadly defined, familial honor (the honor due to one's parents) is distinct from religious veneration.

What is especially interesting is that Mr. Albrecht had claimed he was just going to repeat what the Bible has to say ("My goal is to simply see what the Bible says about the blessed virgin Mary, and to repeat it.") Nevertheless, within 20 seconds Mr. Albrecht is appealing to something that is only implicit from the text of Scripture.

Now, to be sure, Jesus did perfectly obey the moral law. Nevertheless, we don't actually have much Scriptural discussion of Jesus honoring his mother, aside from his making provision for her welfare (by requesting that John treat her as his mother) while Jesus was on the cross. Certainly, of course, it is not disputed that Jesus did honor her as a son should honor his mother, but this did not involve any "veneration" at least not in the sense relevant to a debate between Reformed Christians and Roman Catholics.

More to the point, the duty of honoring one's father and one's mother does not extend to religiously venerating them. Such is the error of the pagans. It is particularly famous among the Japanese who give religious veneration to their ancestors within the Shinto religion.

Instead, the duties of children to their parents are duties of love, respect, obedience, and (when appropriate) care. This is a moral duty, but it is not a religious duty. It is part of the general provision of the second table of the law, that we love our neighbours as ourselves. One's parents are a special case of that law of love, with heightened duties and more serious consequences for disobedience.

Of course, the bottom line is that Jesus did obey his mother and cared for her needs via his beloved disciple, John. On the other hand, that was not religious veneration. The idea of God incarnate giving religious veneration to a mere human like Mary would be a truly remarkable, if not absolutely shocking, claim to make.

Related to this claim was a claim of transference: Jesus honored his mother, therefore we should honor Mary, because she is also our mother. Albrecht phrases it this way: "We come to the question whether it is the Christian's duty to honor his mother, Mary."

However, Scripture does not call Mary our mother and does not suggest she is our mother. As I noted in the debate, the only thing described as the mother of us all is the heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26).

There are really two ways to attempt to justify this claim. One was used by Albrecht during the debate, and the other was not. The one used by Albrecht during the debate was an appeal to Jesus' dying comment to John "Behold thy mother."

However, as we brought out during the debate, this was a command that was made uniquely to John. John's reaction to this command by which he was essentially adopted as a son of Mary (or Mary was adopted as his mother, depending on how you look at it), is seen in the Scriptures: "And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." (John 19:27)

John took care of Mary as though Mary were his own mother - but the command was uniquely to John. Notice that it does not say that "And from that hour all the disciples took turns having Mary over" but "And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home."

There is another argument out there, which is that we become united to Christ and therefore we have a mother-son (or at least something like a mother-in-law) relationship with Mary via our union with Christ. Of course, Scriptures nowhere suggest that Jesus' biological connections are to be attributed to us via our union with Him. Furthermore, Jesus' own appointment of John to be Mary's son seems to be substitutionary: i.e. as though Jesus was appointing John as Mary's son in place of Jesus.

Even if, however, through our union with Christ or even through the command to John, we were to treat Mary as though she were our own mother, we are not to give religious veneration to our parents, so it would not follow that we should give honor equivalent to veneration to Mary even if Mary were our mother.

-TurretinFan

Bellisario Providing Example of Mistakes to Avoid

How not to argue for Roman Catholicism - an example from Mr. Matthew Bellisario (link). Here are a few tips to avoid Mr. Bellisario's mistakes (with a video presentation of the 10 points below):

10) If you're going to cite statistics, don't cite statistics that actually show Roman Catholic sexual abuse at about twice the rate once one adjusts for the size of the population generating the abuse cases.

9) If you're going to argue that celibacy is not imposed on the priesthood, don't make your leading argument that no one is forced to be a priest.

8) Don't reveal your ignorance of Reformed churches by suggesting that their "clergy" are self-appointed.

7) Don't ignore common sense, which tells you that people who are forbidden the option of marriage are more likely to have their sexual desire burst forth in some inappropriate way.

6) If you're going to quote Paul's writings about celibacy, remember that he actually confirms what we already know from common sense, namely that not everyone has the gift of celibacy, and that the result of not marrying for such people is that they burn with lust.

5) If you are going to pick a fight with someone on the issue of clerical celibacy and sexual abuse, find one of the many folks who assert that there is a connection, rather than one who asserts that there may be.

4) If someone points out that one cause of sexual abuse is clerical celibacy, don't assume that this means that the critic thinks that marriage fixes all sexual deviancy.

3) If someone points out that one cause of sexual abuse is clerical celibacy, don't assume that this means that the critic thinks that it is celibacy itself (rather than an absence of the gift of celibacy) that causes this problem.

2) If you are going to bring up the issue of sexual deviance, don't forget that prohibiting marriage for priests is intuitively a way to statistically increase your chances of attracting closeted homosexuals.

1) Recognize that sexual abuse is a scandal, not something to be treated frivolously with cartoon clowns and empty-headed rhetoric. Take the matter seriously, it's a serious matter.

-TurretinFan

Veneration of Mary Debate - Thoughts on Reflection - Part 1

There were a few issues that arose during the Veneration of Mary Debate that I thought could use a little attention. Also, I see that Mr. Albrecht has posted some thoughts of his own regarding the debate (although I haven't yet listened to his thoughts ... I'll save that for a later segment).

One issue that arose during the debate was whether the term for "highly favoured" is in the "titular form." This issue came up only briefly in the debate. I would have liked to explore it a bit more, but it is clearly not central to the thesis. In other words, even if Albrecht's seemingly creative position were correct, it wouldn't really affect the fact that Scripture does not teach the veneration of Mary.

But why is Albrecht's position absurd? There is nothing especially "titular" about the word. The word is just a plain old perfect, passive participle.

There is nothing grammatically special about the term that makes it a title. I asked Mr. Albrecht during the debate whether he had considered the use of the term in Ephesians 1:6 and then asked him why he did not consider it a title there. This was not a question that I asked for my own information, but to determine whether this argument was Mr. Albrecht's own, or whether it had been fed to him from outside. His response seemed somewhat faltering, but perhaps it was just because the question caught him off guard.

The question could have lead him to several arguments in favor of it being a title in Luke 1:28. I'll address those below, before I turn to the reasons to reject such a conclusion.

The very first reason that the use in Ephesians 1:6 cannot be a title is that it is not a participle. It is an indicative verb. This is quite basic Greek grammar. I'm not sure whether the question rattled Mr. Albrecht or whether he simply didn't know why the term couldn't be a title in the only other instance it is used. One would think that if Mr. Albrecht came up with the "titular usage" argument he would at least understand that strongest reason for making that argument - and the fact that the verb is a participle is the strongest reason.

Had we gotten more of a clear answer from Mr. Albrecht in that regard, we could then have explored what I hinted at during the debate, namely that just because a participle is used doesn't mean that participle is being used as a title. I also hinted at some ways in which a title could not have been indicated, such using a capital letter (since Greek was all capitals at the time).

There is a secondary argument for it being a title, namely that it follows immediately after the word translated "Hail." This is perhaps an even better positive argument that the term is a title. The reason it is a better argument is that the term translated "Hail" can be used in connection with a greeting that includes a title. Thus, for example, we see the following greetings involving the word translated "Hail" plus a title:

Matthew 26:49 And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.

Matthew 27:29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!

Mark 15:18 And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!

John 19:3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.

In each case, the word following "Hail" is a title of sorts: Master, King, or Rabbi. But, unlike the situation with Mary, the title is a noun, not a participle.

Furthermore, although this term for "Hail" is not used simply as a command to rejoice in the NT, it is used that way in the LXX. In Proverbs 24:19 and Hosea 9:1 the command is negative. In Joel 2:21, Zephaniah 3:14, Zechariah 9:9, and Lamentations 4:21 the command is positive.

So, there is an interesting preliminary question about whether the translation should be "Hail" "Greetings" or the like (as the KJV and many other translations including the Vulgate have it) or as "Rejoice!" (which is found in very few translations). A compromise would be "Cheers!" which makes it a greeting while preserving the literal sense of the word (although it is a little odd for an English-speaker as a greeting).

The context does suggest that the word is being used as a greeting (as in the other cases that it is used as a greeting in the New Testament), although the context does not contradict a usage as "Rejoice!" In fact, perhaps both are intended: as a greeting and as a command to rejoice.

The greeting or command to rejoice (or both) is followed in the text by the following items about Mary, which show why she should rejoice (which she does in verse 47, using a different Greek word for rejoice):

1) having been highly favored (perfect passive participle)
2) the Lord is with you (singular)
3) having been blessed (perfect passive participle)
4) you (nominative)
5) among women.

It's worth noting that items 3-5 are not found in the critical text. Nevertheless, items 3-5 highlight an additional item grammatically that supports the idea that the participle is serving as a title: in the second instance, "having been blessed" is accompanied by the nominative pronoun "you," which provides a subject for the participle; in the first instance, however, "having been highly favored" has no explicit nominative pronoun.

But here are some problems:

1) If the participle was supposed to serve as a title, one would expect an article to accompany the participle. As, for example, the titles in the examples above have an article. In fact, however, there is no article.

2) It is possible for the pronoun to be implied (it is already clear from the context and the fact that the participle is singular and feminine). In general when (as here) the participle is being used as an adjective it is not necessary for it to be accompanied by the pronoun. Thus, the absence of a nominative pronoun is not particularly problematic.

3) If the participle was supposed to be a title, we would expect ancient translations to reflect translation as a title. Likewise, if the traditional view were that the participle was a title, one would expect to see this reflected in the traditional translations. However, neither the ancient nor the traditional translations render it as a title, but instead attempt to literally translate its sense.

4) If the traditional view were that the participle was a title, one would expect that the "Ave Maria" would not have the noun "Maria" which is inserted in the prayer between "Ave" ("Hail") and "plena gratia" ("full of grace," the attempted - though mistaken - literal translation of the word in the Vulgate).

5) If the traditional view were that the participle was a title, we'd expect to see some evidence of this in the writings of the early to later medieval period, once veneration of Mary had taken widespread root. However, there does not appear to be any such evidence (I leave this a bit open, since there may be evidence of which I'm simply unaware - the same qualification applies to item 7, below).

6) If grammatically the participle were a title, we'd expect it to be translated with a capital letter and to be represented with a capital letter in critical Greek texts. Although, as noted above, the ancient texts would have been all capitals, the modern critical Greek texts employ capitals selectively, including for showing things like titles.

7) If grammatically the participle were a title, we'd expect to find evidence of this in at least a few Greek grammars and/or analytical lexicons. Such evidence, however, is absent.

That's the conclusion for now to my additional thoughts on the issue of the word for "having been highly favored" being in the "titular form," which we can clearly see it is not. I plan to have a few other comments about the debate, in due course.

-TurretinFan

American Government Destroying Bibles

This is so sad (link).

Why Dr. White Dominated the Barker-White Debate

Introduction

I have listened to the Barker-White debate of last Thursday twice (an mp3 of the debate can be obtained here). Many things could be said about the debate. I have a few quick thoughts on why Dr. White dominated the debate:

1) Dr. White presented a Biblical case.

This is the primary reason that Dr. White dominated. Dr. White properly identified God as the God who has revealed himself in Scripture, the God who created the visible world (with a cellular energy transfer process as an example), and the God through whom alone knowledge is possible.

Dr. White did not rely on an evidentialist approach or a philosophically rationalist approach that tries to borrow a secular platform to argue for God's existence. In this, in my opinion, Dr. White was dramatically superior to many of those who have tried to argue from probabilities or from clever philosophical syllogisms.

2) Dr. White was Prepared

Dr. White had done his homework on Barker. In fact, those of us who had listened to the Dividing Line webcast for the past few weeks were not surprised by anything that Barker said in his opening speech, and there really wasn't much more that he said in other parts of his speech that were surprising.

This preparedness gave Dr. White a clear edge, since he was able to anticipate several of Barker's arguments in his own opening statement. Additionally, Dr. White was even able to anticipate Barker's follow-up questions during the cross-examination section.

Barker did not appear to be similarly prepared. Barker ended up having to waste time during the cross-examination section finding out preliminary facts about Dr. White, such as whether Dr. White accepts the hypothesis of evolution and whether God could be said to be behind the swine flu outbreak.

Likewise, because Barker was not familiar with Dr. White's background, he confused evidence of God with evidence for God. Dr. White noted evidence of God in the evidence, but did not try to prove the God of Scripture from the evidence.

3) Dr. White Avoided Landmines

Dr. White avoided ad hominem arguments, except where the matter was relevant. For example, Dr. White did not argue that atheists were statistically more immoral than theists, did not try to make the argument that being an atheist makes you a Stalin, or any similar argument. Instead, Dr. White wisely stuck to pointing out the fact that atheistic morality is simply an unwarranted borrowing by atheists from the Christian worldview.

Dr. White did, at one point, note that Barker's education to be a pastor was (to quote Barker's own words) little more than a "glorified Sunday school," but he did this only because it had become relevant in view of Barker's suggestion that as a preacher he had been unaware of the most notorious textual critical issue that exists in the Bible. Although Barker may not have known about it, it wasn't because Christians hide this issue, but only because Barker's familiarity with Christianity wasn't very deep. Dr. White was quick to point out that Barker is an exceptionally intelligent man (in the top few tenths of a percent of the population), and Dr. White made it clear that he was not arguing that Barker was lacking intelligence.

4) Dr. White Linked To Other Debates/Discussions

Dr. White provided a significant numbers of connections to other debates and discussions, both to debates that Barker had done and debates that Dr. White has done. These connections demonstrated the fact that Dr. White was aiming for consistency: not only in his own presentation, but in insisting that his opponent be consistent as well. These connections permitted Dr. White to focus on the important issues that had been raised in other contexts, even when Barker may not have raised them as clearly in this particular debate.

Conclusion

On the whole, I think Dr. White did a great job. Obviously, being a Christian and a member of his blogging team, I'm liable to bias. Nevertheless, I trust that the listener will agree with me and that has been the case with many of those with whom I have chatted about this debate. He presented the consistent message of the Bible and contrasted it with the inconsistent message of atheism.

-TurretinFan

Avoiding Landmines in Roman Catholic Apologetics

Introduction

One branch of Apologetics deals with responses to the challenges to the faith brought by Catholicism. Since one apologist for Catholicism has recently posted a list of unsound arguments that are sometimes used by those defending Catholicism, I thought I'd post a similar list that at least identifies some areas of caution for Reformed apologists addressing Rome.

1. Eschatological Identifications

Yes, it may well be that Rome should be identified with the Whore of Babylon and that the Pope is the Antichrist. Our doctrinal standards (at least those of us that hold to the same 17th century standards as they were drafted) do identify the Pope as the Antichrist, and there are good reasons for adopting this view.

Nevertheless, these arguments don't really deal with the central issue of the gospel itself. Any argument that the Pope is the Antichrist or that Rome is the Whore require one to address the issue of whether Pope preaches the gospel or not. If he does, then clearly he is not the Antichrist nor is Rome the Whore.

Furthermore, of course, outwardly at least John Paul II and the Benedict XVI (the two most prominent popes in the minds of folks these days) were relatively decent human beings. They were not like the late medieval popes. Therefore, people have a harder emotional time dealing with arguments that seem almost ad hominem (though, of course, the argument is about the office), when the popes are outwardly moral.

Also, people have tons of trouble with the fact that "anti" in "Antichrist" is a Greek root, not a Latin root, and means "substitute" or "vicar" not "opponent" as such. That, coupled with the general difficulty associated with divining the sense of prophecy caution against using the antichristian nature of the papacy (or similar eschatological issues) as a primary argument against Catholicism. It is something better left for situations where a belligerent Romanist insists on hashing it out.

2. Sexual Abuse Allegations

Yes, sexual abuse may be a real problem in Catholicism. It may even be the necessary and natural outworking of the celibate priesthood that Rome imposes. Nevertheless, again, it is not the central issue. There are occasionally good, Christian men who fall into sin. Recall David's terrible sin with Bathsheba.

There may even be a place for noting the widespread nature of the sexual abuse problem when Roman Catholics place the character of their bishopric into issue. Nevertheless, in general, the fact that there is sexual abuse in Catholicism is simply a reason not to make your son an altar boy or your daughter a nun, not a reason to repent and trust in Christ alone for salvation.

It's not a central issue, and it shouldn't be your primary argument against Catholicism. It should be something you should bring up with reluctance, and something that you should place in perspective.

3. Dates on Doctrines

Yes, doctrines within Roman Catholicism are not static and modern Catholicism's beliefs do not much resemble the beliefs taught in the Bible or believed in the early church. Nevertheless, be careful about trying to assign dates to particular doctrines.

For example, it is frequent to see on various websites a list of doctrines and dates. The dates are when the doctrine was supposedly invented. The idea is to press home to the Roman Catholic the fact that his church has made up a lot of stuff as it went along.

There are usually a few problems with these lists. Sometimes the lists are actually not what you think they are. For example, sometimes the lists are when the doctrines were defined not when they were innovated. That's an important difference. For example, in the case of transubstantiation, we may have a doctrine that is innovated in perhaps the 11th century and then defined in the 12th century (don't rely on those dates, please - they are very approximate and just intended to illustrate the general point).

A more dramatic example is the Apocrypha. The dogmatic definition that requires Roman Catholics to accept the Apocrypha comes from Trent in the 16th century, but one can find many older writers (perhaps even a millennium before) who seemingly accept the Apocrypha as inspired.

It's important to remember that a lot of things in Catholicism were the result of a gradual development over a long period of time. As such, pinning specific dates on doctrines is liable to error and can place one in an embarrassing position.

4. "The" Roman Catholic Position

Yes, there is sometimes a single Roman Catholic position on something. For example, in theory the canons of the council of Trent are "the" Roman Catholic position on Justification (and several other topics). Very often, however, there are a myriad of positions on a particular topic within Roman Catholicism. Despite all of their myths and propaganda regarding the need for unity, Roman Catholicism has an amazing amount of diversity of views on subjects that would cause denominational splits within typical "Protestant" denominations.

So be careful. Just because you yourself were a Roman Catholic doesn't guarantee that what you were taught is going to match what a Roman Catholic from Timbuktu was taught. Just because your friend who is a Roman Catholic said that Roman Catholics believe "x" doesn't make that the only view.

As a result, either deal with the declarations of the specific person you're talking to, or qualify your statements with references to sources. For example, if you want to address liberal Catholicism, identify who your source for "the Roman Catholic view" is. Likewise, if you want to go with the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" (a fairly official document) cite it as your source.

Be careful, recognizing that your Roman Catholic friend or acquaintance may be more or less familiar with his religion than you are. There are many times that I encounter Roman Catholics who either were badly catechized or simply not good learners, who have no idea what the official positions of Roman Catholicism (as expressed through the various available mechanisms) are. Other times you may discover that your friend is a canon lawyer who can explain the ins and outs of very arcane matters of church law that would be beyond the ken of the typical parish priest.

And if you got "the Roman Catholic Position" from one of Jack Chick's tracts, double-check it. Maybe he got it right, maybe he got it wrong, but quoting him as your source is not going to be very compelling for the Roman Catholic to whom you are speaking. Do a little more research and find a more detailed explanation of the issue.

5. Martyrologies

Yes, everyone that is involved in apologetics with Roman Catholicism should obtain and carefully read Foxe's Book of Martyrs (link) and there may be other similarly edifying histories. However, again, the fact that Rome has slain Christians is not the primary argument against Rome. The Reformers themselves executed folks for religious crimes (such as blasphemy) and so did those Jews who followed the Mosaic law.

The question largely is whether Rome teaches the gospel or not. If Rome does, then many of those whom she persecuted in the middle ages were not Christians. More importantly, perhaps, Rome's inquisition did not target only Christians but also blasphemers, witches, Muslims, and Jews. The fact that Christians were persecuted by Rome is not in itself a primary argument for someone to become a Christian since Rome also persecuted witches.

6. Arguments You Don't Understand

There are lots of good, Scriptural arguments against Roman Catholicism. If you don't understand them, though, you have no business using them. I'll list a few:

a) "One Mediator"

If you cannot answer the objection that Christians ask each other to pray for another, you shouldn't be using the "One Mediator" argument. The argument itself is perfectly fine, and it is clear that Catholicism is against Scripture on this matter. You, however, need to carefully understand what it means to be a mediator as well as how the Roman Catholic appeals to Mary, Angels, and the Saints violate the Scriptures.

b) "Call No Man Father"

If you cannot answer the objection that Christians call their birth fathers "father," you shouldn't be using the "Call No Man Father" argument. The argument itself is a perfectly fine one against the use of the title "Father" for every priest, but only if you understand the relationship between the injunction and the Roman Catholic usage of the term "Father" as a title.

c) "Petra not Petros"

If you cannot answer the objection that the Aramaic would not have any distinction between the two terms, you shouldn't be using the "Petra not Petros" argument. The argument itself is an acceptable argument, particularly if it is reinforced with more direct grammatical arguments (for example, Petra not se). Furthermore, the objection from a speculative Aramaic source (whether from a claim that conversation was in Aramaic, or from a claim that the evangelic text was originally written in that tongue) can be easily identified as nothing more than baseless speculation. However, one has to be aware of the typical counter-arguments and why those counter-arguments miss the point.

7. Scriptures You Don't Understand

This is perhaps a variation on (6). The point here is that you need to know the Scriptures yourself before you can instruct someone else. You need to be familiar with the Word of God if you want to lead someone else to Christ by it.

I don't say this to discourage young or immature believers, but to encourage you to grow in faith and in the knowledge of the Lord. The Bible describes the Christian apologist as being armed for battle with the "whole armour of God." In that armour, the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God.

If you were going to go to battle these days, you'd hit the target range and make sure you could hit the target from at least point-blank range. In the days of swords, you'd want to hone your skills whether with stylized sports like fencing or with more practical and direct martial training.

The same is true of the spiritual warfare that we fight. Christian apologists against every false gospel must be prepared and thoroughly.

8. Falsehood

Be scrupulously honest. Not all our opponents are honest opponents. Still, we are called to be truthful in all our dealings. The fact that the other side is not (or we think they are not) does not justify untruthful or inaccurate claims from us.

9. Arrogance

Avoid arrogance. If you make a mistake, don't be afraid to admit that you erred and to correct your mistake. This will, of course, damage the patina of perfection that you had going for you, but it is the better course of action.

I'm not saying you have to grovel, but simply admit your mistakes and move on. Learn from the experience, and remember that you are merely a human being who can and does err. Maybe your honesty will win over your opponent, maybe it will lead him to mock you. You cannot control that, but you can maintain your own integrity by correcting your mistakes.

10. Church History

The history of Christianity is not simple. Roman Catholicism certainly sometimes tries to portray it as simple. Sometimes apologists who deal with Roman Catholics try to portray it in simple but opposite terms. Don't fall into that error.

I'm not suggesting we cannot argue from church history. Rather, I am suggesting that one should approach church history with caution, as well as with a mind that church history is not our rule of faith: scripture is.

There are certain general statements that can be made about church history. As with most ares of history, however, there are numerous complexities. This is illustrated by several points:

a) Diversity Amongst the Church Fathers

On a lot of topics there was immense diversity both among the early Christian writers in general and even among those that are viewed as "church fathers." If you say, "No one ever believed 'x'" - you may quickly find yourself facing some obscure quotation from a "saint" that you never heard of before.

b) Development of Individual Fathers

Like all Christians should, many of the church fathers grew in their knowledge of God throughout their life. Accordingly, one sees some fathers (Augustine is a notable example) retracting explicitly or implicitly positions that they had held earlier in life.

As with many of us, the battles they faced inform and alter their perspective. We are much more cautious talking about the atonement in view of the Remonstrant controversy now than the Reformers were before then. The same is true of the caution that various major controversies provoked during church history.

c) Paucity of Data

There is a scarcity of patristic data, even though the works of the Greek and Latin fathers can fill almost 400 volumes in Migne's patrology. Many fathers have left only a few works behind. Other fathers have left many works behind, but have also been subjected to forgery by pseudonymous urchins, which have attempted to promote their own works under the name of a more famous writer.

Furthermore, even where the works are genuine there is often suspicion or even proof that the works have been subject to interpolation by later authors. Ignatius' works are famous in this regard, but others are not immune from this problem.

Oftentimes as well, there is a gigantic gap in the textual transmission of these early Christian writers with the earliest copy of a given work sometimes being a full millennium after the death of the author. These gaps in the transmission make tracking down the original text much more difficult.

Finally, of course, there are numerous writers whose works have been lost for a variety of reasons. For example, works that spoke out against the idolatry of icons were intentionally destroyed in the 8th century. Likewise, most of Nestorius' works have been similar lost. We also see Jerome's opponents on a variety of topics represented only in the extant works of Jerome, with their own works being lost in time.

11. False Ecumenism

For whatever reason, some folks seem to think that they will be in a better position to witness to Roman Catholics if they tell the Roman Catholics that they accept them as Christian brethren. This is just bad thinking.

If you think Roman Catholics are your Christian brethren, why are you witnessing to them? Why are you bringing them the gospel if you think they already have it? I understand that such an ecumenical statement may help lower defenses, but it really is inconsistent with your evangelical purpose.

After all, the only folks that need a physician are those who are sick. If you go around telling people that they are well, they're not going to be offended by you, but they're also not going to seek a doctor.

That's not to say that everyone who is currently affiliated with the Roman Catholic church is consequently unsaved. After all, as I've noted above, there is great diversity within Catholicism, and it is possible for those within Catholicism to read the Scripture and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ alone for salvation.

That gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, however, is not the message of Catholicism. It should not, therefore, be one's default position that those within Catholicism have the gospel, and it is foolish (on our part) and dangerous (to their souls) for us to treat Roman Catholic apologists as though they were our brethren: in defending the gospel of Rome against the gospel of Christ they are giving strong contrary evidence of grace in their heart.

A friend of mine put it this way, with which I agree:

Our regard, generally speaking, of the lost condition of Romanists is (contrary to their complaints) a judgment of charity, because it exhibits a concern for their never-dying souls, and should always be kept in mind in dealing with them. This regard for their lost condition is not because we bear them animosity, but because we care for their souls.

Conclusion

We must be ready always to give an answer (to every man that asks us) a reason of the hope that is in us. We must do so with meekness and fear, having a good conscience. We must arm ourselves with truth, with righteousness, with the gospel of peace, with the shield of faith, and the sword of the Spirit: the Word of God.

We must always pray, both for the salvation of the lost and for strength in the battle for ourselves. Pray also for us, brethren, who are actively engaged in boldly proclaiming the gospel to those who need to hear it. If Paul needed prayer to boldly proclaim the gospel, we certainly need it as well.

-TurretinFan

Response to Challenge to Calvinists

Jamsco at The Responsible Puppet has a challenge for Calvinists: "Show me any passage in the bible [sic] that says that God allowed or permitted something to happen." (source)

Answer:

Two immediately come to mind.

Job 1: God permitted Satan to variously hurt Job in his possessions, servants, and children but without touching Job himself.

Job 2: God permitted Satan to hurt Job so long as Satan did not take Job's life.

-TurretinFan

Strawbridge vs. White Debate on Baptism - Some Caveats

Coram Deo at Defending Contending (link) has a post discussing the issue of infant baptism and the new covenant and promoting a debate between Dr. James White and Greg Strawbridge on the topic of infant baptism.

He writes:

Yet precisely WHAT does Christ mediate to those who are baptized as infants and grow to adulthood, but who never come to faith in Him? Listen to the debate below to hear the shocking response to this question by infant baptism apologist Dr. Gregg Strawbridge, editor of “The Case for Covenental Infant Baptism”.

I think it is worth noting that Strawbridge doesn't represent the Reformed (Westminster/Savoy/Dordt/Helvetican) position on the topic. Instead, he represents the view of those within the Federal Vision movement.

While Strawbridge is a legitimate target as representative of the Federal Vision, as to the Reformed (Westminster/Savoy/Dordt/Helvetican) position, Strawbridge is a straw man: he does not represent the historic Reformed (Westminster/Savoy/Dordt/Helvetican) position on the subject.

Why my "(Westminster/Savoy/Dordt/Helvetican)"? Because, of course, it's normal also to include other groups as Reformed, such as Reformed Baptists. That group (Reformed Baptists) was already represented in the debate by my friend Dr. James White (with whom, as everyone knows, I disagree amicably on this subject).

While I think Dr. White did a great job in the debate, and while it may be edifying to hear the debate, I hope people will not listen to it thinking that Strawbridge represents the Reformed (Westminster/Savoy/Dordt/Helvetican) side. Personally, I would like to see Dr. White debate Strawbridge on the issue of justification, since that seems to be a more central problem with the Federal Vision movement.

With all those caveats, for those interested in the debate: (part 1) (part 2)

-TurretinFan

The Weakest Argument Against the Spiritual Presence

I recently received the pleasure of a comment from someone who has been following this blog for a long time, a reader who uses the handle "Orthodox" ("O" for short). O doesn't necessarily represent Eastern Orthodoxy, but he does provide comments against the Reformed position.

O writes: "In too many places to list, Augustine says that the Eucharist IS Christ's body and becomes Christ's body. He doesn't say it becomes Christ's spirit."

Agreed, both as to Augustine saying that (though certainly not in too many places to list) and as to that being what happens. The Eucharist IS Christ's body and blood, and the bread, by being consecrated for the particular purpose, becomes Christ's body, while the cup (or more specifically its contents) become the blood of Christ.

They are not and do not become Christ's spirit and Augustine does not say so (which poses interesting problems for transubstantiation, but since Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't teach transubstantiation, that's not necessarily a problem for O).

Nevertheless, Christ is spiritually (or mystically, if you prefer) present in the sacrament. We don't derive this from the words of institution (this is my body etc.) but from other parts of Scripture. This spiritual presence does not imply any physical change in the elements, nor does it imply that Christ's spirit is somehow contained within the elements. When we feed on Christ (and we do) in the sacrament, it is not through the act of grinding our teeth and digesting the physical substances, but by faith.

O continued: "What would Augustine have to say to convince you, that is the question I have to ask. Anything that could be said in favor of our position, he did say."

As noted previously, there is no particular reason that the Eastern Orthodox view of the mystical presence needs to be set against the Reformed view (and Augustine's view) of the spiritual presence. What Augustine would NOT say if he held to transubstantiation were things like: "Christ deprived them of his bodily presence."

Positively, there are any number of ways that Augustine could have indicated that he meant that Christ was present in more than just a spiritual (or mystical) sense. He did not express himself in those terms, but instead made fairly clear comments to the contrary.

O concluded: "You say the argument is about bodily presence versus spiritual presence. Fine, Augustine says it is Christ's body, so you lose, end of discussion."

This is what I call the "weakest argument against the spiritual presence." As I have noted over and over again, even someone who views the sacrament is merely symbolic could use those expressions.

Even those who hold to a bare symbolic view of the Eucharist affirm that the bread is the body of Christ and the cup is his blood: they simply understand those terms analogically. Perhaps an illustration would help:

Imagine boys playing capture the flag in the woods: there are two teams, the red team and the blue team. The boys from the red team huddle around in a small circle, while their leader draws a map in the dust. "This rock," says the leader, "is Blue's camp. "And this stick," he continued, carefully placing a slender branch next to the rock, "is the creek."

Now, who in their right mind would think that the leader meant that the rock was transubstantiated into the Blue team's base, and who would think that the leader transmogrified the stick into a creek? No one would think that. Everyone would correctly understand that a symbolic sense is intended by the expression "This rock is Blue's camp" and "this stick is the creek." But for some reason (tradition!) people have trouble recognizing the obvious fact that "this is my body" and "this is my blood" were similar statements that shouldn't be understood transubstantially but according to their most obvious sense: representatively and analogically.

-TurretinFan

Watson on Man's Heart

"The heart is a jewel that God lays claim to, and it is kept for Him." (For the whole message - click here).

-TurretinFan

Responses to Audience Questions About the Substitionary Atonement Debate

I've received a couple of comments on the Substitutionary Atonement debate. One of the commenters was someone using the nick "Michael". Michael asked:

1) What do you mean by "wrath of God?" Is it the same thing as Godforsakenness or is there a distinction? Has there ever been a case or will there ever be a case of a person who has been regenerated and justified experiencing the wrath of God?

I answer:

I believe that when Scripture speaks of the wrath of God being upon Christ and upon the reprobate it is intended to convey that judgment is coming against them. That judgment took the form of an horrible and excruciatingly painful death for Christ, and the form of eternal torment in hell for the reprobate: for all those who do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and him alone, for salvation.

But those who are regenerated and justified will also be glorified, as the Scriptures teach. Therefore, the wrath of God will not come upon them, although it was hanging over them before they were converted.

2)Nick cited a number of Reformed authors. Do you agree or disagree with their statements?

I answer:

I don't agree that Nick's quotations accurately represent the teachings of all of the Reformed authors that he quoted. This is something I want to address at greater length in the future. I think Nick's fundamental objection seems to be that he doesn't see how the Father could have wrath toward the Son: but the Father quite clearly gave over the Son to die for the elect. On any analogical level, mere wrath is less than giving someone over to death. So, Nick's objection is rather irrational, because he objects to the gnat while swallowing the camel.

3) Do you believe Nick gave an accurate presentation of the Catholic position on the atonement?

I answer:

I assume you mean the Roman Catholic position. There is no "universal" (Catholic) teaching among the Christian church on this doctrine, since Christians can (and do) disagree with each other over doctrines that are not fundamental to the faith (and understanding the atonement in a very detailed way is not fundamental).

Nick didn't really provide any support for the "Catholicity" (in either sense, i.e. as being Roman Catholic or as being universal) of his position, he just asserted it. That was one of my criticism of Nick's presentation: he provided no coherent, cogent alternative.

Nick did seem to argue for a pure commercial satisfaction view. Whether that it is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, I leave for others to say. I cannot recall (offhand) any "infallible" teaching in Catholicism that would necessitate that, while I can think of fallible teachings within Catholicism (especially at the liberal end of Catholicism's spectrum) that would contradict that (link).

Nick's position certainly is not the position of the early church, as was demonstrated over and over again in the debate. In fact, the Reformers may have explained the doctrine in ways that are more clear than many of the medieval predecessors, but the basic doctrine that Christ's death was to satisfy God's justice on behalf of sinners is found not only in the medieval writers but in the early writers of Christianity.

-TurretinFan

Veneration of Mary Debate with William Albrecht (aka GNRHead)

This is a debate that was conducted on 25 April 2009 between TurretinFan and William Albrecht (aka GNRHead) on the topic of the Veneration of Mary and its Biblical Support (or lack thereof).

At some later point I would like to provide some further comments on this debate. For now, however, here it is for your listening pleasure. It is in five parts on YouTube, but hopefully the "playlist" feature will permit you to play them sequentially.

UPDATE: Lane has posted the entire debate as a single YouTube video here (link).

Paradoxes and the Christian Faith

Those following the Reformed blogosphere have no doubt witnessed occasional fireworks over the issue of paradox between my brethren who prefer the philosophy of Gordon Clark (whose most prominent disciple was John Robbins) and those who prefer the philosophy of Cornelius Van Til (whose most prominent disciple was Greg Bahnsen). As one might expect from fireworks, a great deal both of heat and light have been generated, and the occasional spectator has been injured or at least annoyed by some of the falling ash.

What is the primary issue? The primary issues seems to be over the issue of "paradox." There are places in Van Til's writings where it seems he simply loves paradoxes, whereas Clark is firmly opposed to paradoxes.

How can the two sides disagree? One area where the two sides disagree is over the semantic range of "paradox." If one reads Clark, one may get the distinct impression that Clark views "paradox" as only referring to real logical contradictions, whereas those who follow Van Til seem to think that Van Til is using "paradox" to refer only to apparent contradictions.

But is that all? No. Of course, that is not all. Clark more or less explicitly eschews the idea of paradox, where as Van Til (and/or his followers) seem to embrace it. Clark's followers view the followers of Van Til as irrational, and the view from the opposite direction is of Clark as excessively dependent on human reason.

What are the impacts? Clark and Van Til appear to differ in their understanding of the knowability of God. Van Til, for example, appears to permit there to be "paradoxes" that cannot be resolved with the human mind, but which can be resolved with the divine mind, because men and God think in qualitatively different ways. Clark would reject this, suggesting that any apparent paradoxes are more likely due to error, a lack of human effort, or a lack of revelation to provide the resolution.

To me the approach of Van Til sounds as though it magnifies God (by describing his knowledge as qualitatively different from ours) but it seems to contradict the Scriptural testimony that suggests that God wishes to communicate clearly truth to human beings. If what we know is not qualitatively the same as what God knows, how can anything we know truly be said to be "truth"?

I realize that perhaps this is only an apparent contradiction. However, for us to function, I think Clark's model is more reasonable: do not posit that there are irresolvable "paradoxes" because this may amount simply to throwing up one's hands when faced with a challenging problem. We should not welcome "paradox" but rather be concerned by apparent contradictions, because apparent contradictions may be actual contradictions, in which case at least one thing we previously held was false.

For Christians in particular, the lesson is that we should search the Scriptures diligently to confirm doctrines. If the Scriptures contradict the doctrines we hold, we must be careful not to simply wave our hands and call this a "paradox." Rather we need to carefully investigate whether or not the Scripture really contradicts our doctrine (in which case, our doctrine must change) or whether the initially perceived contradiction was simply apparent.

I have tried to be fair both to Clark and Van Til in the preceding paragraphs. Nevertheless, I welcome those of their contemporary disciples who would wish to disabuse me of my perceptions, should I be in error. I suppose I would consider myself a student of Clark's to a greater extent than Van Til (having read more books by the former than the latter), and I do not mean to write off everything good that Van Til may have had to say about other subjects by this criticism on the issue of paradox and the difference (alleged to exist) between the quality of man's knowledge and of God's.

-TurretinFan