Five Solas Bacon | the delicious second course | to TULIP bacon
By grace alone saved | All that justifies is faith | Canon suffices
Only Christ's Merit | None but God glory receives | (five tasty solas)
Long version:
By grace alone saved | not by merits of our own | only by mercy
A sinner made just | justified by faith in Christ | justice imputed
Canon suffices | clearly shows what is needed | Word of God alone
Only Christ's merit | not from our fellow sinners | one sole redeemer
None glory but God | All glory to our one Rock | Our foundation stone
-TurretinFan
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Supplement Response to Chris Date on Result Nouns
This post is heavily reliant (to the point that it would be plagiarism if I did not give full credit) on Adam Blauser's comment in the previous post.
First, he provided an article that states:
Notice how, in each of those instances, it doesn't seem to make much sense to say that the only or primarily result is in view. While one might think that we are talking about the results of the act of injuring occurring, it is much more rational to assume that we are talking about when the act of injuring itself took place, especially since it is connected temporally with another event, namely, the "hurting" of his forearm. The same thing can be said of the second example. "The forgery" clearly refers to the making of the false document, with no focus on the result, especially when it is coupled with a parallel reference to a process verb ("worked") and a reference to time.
His point (he used different but similar illustrations) that, even if Date were correct that "punishment" were a deverbal result noun, he would have to argue that the context favors a result interpretation, not an event/process/manner interpretation.
He goes on to state:
Recall that, above, "injury" and "forgery" are deverbal result nouns (generally speaking), yet clues from the sentence allowed us to recognize that they were being used in a "event" or "manner" sense. Likewise, when "eternal punishment" is placed in parallel with "eternal life," we are given an unmistakable clue that the "event" or "manner" sense is intended.
Thus, while my previous post sinks Mr. Date's argument, even if Mr. Date were correct about punishment being (generally speaking) a result noun, Mr. Date's argument is still sunk.
-TurretinFan
First, he provided an article that states:
Deverbal nouns that allow a result interpretation often allow an event interpretation too.He points out that words like "injury" and "forgery" are deverbal result nouns, yet one can easily think of contexts in which the focus is not on the result, but upon the action. Consider:
In order to separate the different meanings of a deverbal noun, one usually employs distributional
tests. If we assume result objects to be concrete entities then result object nouns
should be usable in complement positions of verbs which require concrete objects:
(1) a. Die F¨alschung wurde der Polzei ¨ubergeben.
‘The forgery was handed over to the police.’
b. Er ber¨uhrte versehentlich seine Verletzung.
‘He inadvertently touched his injury.’
c. Er verbarg seine neuste Erfindung im Keller.
‘He hid his newest invention in the basement.’
d. Die Beurteilung wurde ihm gestern zugesandt.
‘The assessment was sent to him yesterday.’
His back was injured during the first quarter of last night's game. During the injury, he also hurt his left forearm.Likewise:
He could have honestly worked for the money necessary to buy a house in the time the forgery took.
Notice how, in each of those instances, it doesn't seem to make much sense to say that the only or primarily result is in view. While one might think that we are talking about the results of the act of injuring occurring, it is much more rational to assume that we are talking about when the act of injuring itself took place, especially since it is connected temporally with another event, namely, the "hurting" of his forearm. The same thing can be said of the second example. "The forgery" clearly refers to the making of the false document, with no focus on the result, especially when it is coupled with a parallel reference to a process verb ("worked") and a reference to time.
His point (he used different but similar illustrations) that, even if Date were correct that "punishment" were a deverbal result noun, he would have to argue that the context favors a result interpretation, not an event/process/manner interpretation.
He goes on to state:
However, it gets even worse when he deals with the Greek and the Hebrew. From a historical linguistics perspective, the Greek term κολασις has the ending -σις, which is typical of words that are nominalized forms of actions. Consider the following:I want to underscore what I see as his most crucial point. Words can have a range of meanings, known as the "semantic range" of the word. When there is a question about which meaning of the range of meanings applies, the very best clue to that meaning is the immediate context.
ερημοω-to lay waste [to a city] ερημωσις-destruction, depopulation
κρινω-to judge κρισις-judgment
ζητεω-I seek ζητησις-investigation
ελευσομαι-I will come ελευσις-coming
πιπτω-I fall πτωσις-a fall
As can be readily seen, the meaning "the action itself as a noun" is typical of Greek nouns formed by adding the ending in -σις to the root. However, this is why historical linguistics can never settle these issues. The reason is that some of these nouns would go on to develop resultant meanings, for example, ποιησις comes from the Greek verb ποιεω which means "to do." While ποιησις *can* mean "the act of doing something" [James 1:25], most of the time, it means the result of doing something, namely, "a work."
However, in Matthew 25:46, the "result" meaning very clearly cannot be sustained, as it is put in parallel with "eternal life." Living is something that will be done eternally, and thus, why would anyone think that punishment is something that will not be done for all of eternity? Even though this is my final point, I think it is what I would want to emphasize. Meaning in language cannot be taken from historical linguistics or semantic categories. Semantic classification is, itself, subject to change by multiple factors, including context, background assumptions, etc. Thus, when we discuss the deverbal character of nouns, how they morphologically came into existence, or their meaning, we cannot simply give universal labels, but must consider how this particular term is understood in the light of the communal and authorial context of our target text. If we don't do that, we can fall badly into the fallacy of defining words by roots, and thus, a person who is feeling "awful" is "full of awe!"
Recall that, above, "injury" and "forgery" are deverbal result nouns (generally speaking), yet clues from the sentence allowed us to recognize that they were being used in a "event" or "manner" sense. Likewise, when "eternal punishment" is placed in parallel with "eternal life," we are given an unmistakable clue that the "event" or "manner" sense is intended.
Thus, while my previous post sinks Mr. Date's argument, even if Mr. Date were correct about punishment being (generally speaking) a result noun, Mr. Date's argument is still sunk.
-TurretinFan
Monday, June 18, 2012
Tobit - One Reason to Reject its Alleged Canonicity
The book of Tobit is told from a first person perspective by a man called "Tobit." The book begins: "The book of the words of Tobit, son of Tobiel, the son of Ananiel, the son of Aduel, the son of Gabael, of the seed of Asael, of the tribe of Nephthali ..." (Tobit 1:1). One reason to reject the canonicity of the book of Tobit is that Tobit seems to have a very foreshortened view of Israel's history, even when it comes to his own autobiography.
"Tobit" continues the self-description above with this: "Who in the time of Enemessar king of the Assyrians was led captive out of Thisbe, which is at the right hand of that city, which is called properly Nephthali in Galilee above Aser." (Tobit 1:2)
The very first issue is trying to identify this supposed king of the Assyrians. The Assyrians don't have one by exactly this name, but the best guess we have about who the author of Tobit was trying to identify is this event:
2 Kings 17:1-12
On the other hand, the Scriptures tell us that people of Naphtali were carried off by Tiglathpileser:
2 Kings 15:29
Notice that the captivity mentioned there includes Galilee, which is the region that Tobit claims to have haled from.
Even if we somehow blend out these seeming inconsistencies, we are left with a man who was around in the 8th century B.C.
Moreover, Tobit claims that it was in his youth that Naphtali fell out with all the tribes from worshiping God in Jerusalem.
Tobit 1:4-5
As you can see, this would imply that Tobit was about 200 years old.
But Tobit tells us his total age.
Tobit 14:1-11
Amos 1:1 1 The words of Amos, who was among the herdmen of Tekoa, which he saw concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake.
This is in a window from about 808-770 B.C. So, this window begins more than 100 years after division of the kingdoms, making it impossible for a man who was 85 to have been around at the time of the division of the kingdoms.
There are more issues with Tobit's history than this (for example, Senacharib seems to be inaccurately described), but this is one glaring issue.
-TurretinFan
"Tobit" continues the self-description above with this: "Who in the time of Enemessar king of the Assyrians was led captive out of Thisbe, which is at the right hand of that city, which is called properly Nephthali in Galilee above Aser." (Tobit 1:2)
The very first issue is trying to identify this supposed king of the Assyrians. The Assyrians don't have one by exactly this name, but the best guess we have about who the author of Tobit was trying to identify is this event:
2 Kings 17:1-12
1 In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria over Israel nine years. 2 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, but not as the kings of Israel that were before him. 3 Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents. 4 And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year: therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison.The twelfth year of Ahaz corresponds to about 728 B.C.
5 Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years. 6 In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.
7 For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God, which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods, 8 And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel, and of the kings of Israel, which they had made. 9 And the children of Israel did secretly those things that were not right against the Lord their God, and they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city. 10 And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree: 11 And there they burnt incense in all the high places, as did the heathen whom the Lord carried away before them; and wrought wicked things to provoke the Lord to anger: 12 For they served idols, whereof the Lord had said unto them, Ye shall not do this thing.
On the other hand, the Scriptures tell us that people of Naphtali were carried off by Tiglathpileser:
2 Kings 15:29
In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abelbethmaachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria.(approximately 758–737 BC)
Notice that the captivity mentioned there includes Galilee, which is the region that Tobit claims to have haled from.
Even if we somehow blend out these seeming inconsistencies, we are left with a man who was around in the 8th century B.C.
Moreover, Tobit claims that it was in his youth that Naphtali fell out with all the tribes from worshiping God in Jerusalem.
Tobit 1:4-5
4 And when I was in mine own country, in the land of Israel being but young, all the tribe of Nephthali my father fell from the house of Jerusalem, which was chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, that all the tribes should sacrifice there, where the temple of the habitation of the most High was consecrated and built for all ages. 5 Now all the tribes which together revolted, and the house of my father Nephthali, sacrificed unto the heifer Baal.There are a couple of problems with this. Primarily, the problem is that this is an event that took place in the time of Rehoboam, son of Solomon. That date is roughly 961 B.C. Secondarily, the problem is that although the people of Naphtali sacrificed to the calf and to Baal, those are really two different things (as can be seen in 2 Kings 17, above).
As you can see, this would imply that Tobit was about 200 years old.
But Tobit tells us his total age.
Tobit 14:1-11
1 So Tobit made an end of praising God. 2 And he was eight and fifty years old when he lost his sight, which was restored to him after eight years: and he gave alms, and he increased in the fear of the Lord God, and praised him. 3 And when he was very aged he called his son, and the sons of his son, and said to him, My son, take thy children; for, behold, I am aged, and am ready to depart out of this life. 4 Go into Media my son, for I surely believe those things which Jonas the prophet spake of Nineve, that it shall be overthrown; and that for a time peace shall rather be in Media; and that our brethren shall lie scattered in the earth from that good land: and Jerusalem shall be desolate, and the house of God in it shall be burned, and shall be desolate for a time; 5 And that again God will have mercy on them, and bring them again into the land, where they shall build a temple, but not like to the first, until the time of that age be fulfilled; and afterward they shall return from all places of their captivity, and build up Jerusalem gloriously, and the house of God shall be built in it for ever with a glorious building, as the prophets have spoken thereof. 6 And all nations shall turn, and fear the Lord God truly, and shall bury their idols. 7 So shall all nations praise the Lord, and his people shall confess God, and the Lord shall exalt his people; and all those which love the Lord God in truth and justice shall rejoice, shewing mercy to our brethren. 8 And now, my son, depart out of Nineve, because that those things which the prophet Jonas spake shall surely come to pass. 9 But keep thou the law and the commandments, and shew thyself merciful and just, that it may go well with thee. 10 And bury me decently, and thy mother with me; but tarry no longer at Nineve. Remember, my son, how Aman handled Achiacharus that brought him up, how out of light he brought him into darkness, and how he rewarded him again: yet Achiacharus was saved, but the other had his reward: for he went down into darkness. Manasses gave alms, and escaped the snares of death which they had set for him: but Aman fell into the snare, and perished. 11 Wherefore now, my son, consider what alms doeth, and how righteousness doth deliver. When he had said these things, he gave up the ghost in the bed, being an hundred and eight and fifty years old; and he buried him honourably.So, Tobit was 158 when he died. Moreover, Tobit was only 85 when he went blind. But Tobit went blind after the captivity. Tobit 2 explains, Tobit 2:1-10:
1 Now when I was come home again, and my wife Anna was restored unto me, with my son Tobias, in the feast of Pentecost, which is the holy feast of the seven weeks, there was a good dinner prepared me, in the which I sat down to eat. 2 And when I saw abundance of meat, I said to my son, Go and bring what poor man soever thou shalt find out of our brethren, who is mindful of the Lord; and, lo, I tarry for thee. 3 But he came again, and said, Father, one of our nation is strangled, and is cast out in the marketplace. 4 Then before I had tasted of any meat, I started up, and took him up into a room until the going down of the sun. 5 Then I returned, and washed myself, and ate my meat in heaviness, 6 Remembering that prophecy of Amos, as he said, Your feasts shall be turned into mourning, and all your mirth into lamentation. 7 Therefore I wept: and after the going down of the sun I went and made a grave, and buried him. 8 But my neighbours mocked me, and said, This man is not yet afraid to be put to death for this matter: who fled away; and yet, lo, he burieth the dead again. 9 The same night also I returned from the burial, and slept by the wall of my courtyard, being polluted and my face was uncovered: 10 And I knew not that there were sparrows in the wall, and mine eyes being open, the sparrows muted warm dung into mine eyes, and a whiteness came in mine eyes: and I went to the physicians, but they helped me not: moreover Achiacharus did nourish me, until I went into Elymais.Note as well that he refers in this passage to remembering the prophecy of Amos, but Amos prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel:
Amos 1:1 1 The words of Amos, who was among the herdmen of Tekoa, which he saw concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake.
This is in a window from about 808-770 B.C. So, this window begins more than 100 years after division of the kingdoms, making it impossible for a man who was 85 to have been around at the time of the division of the kingdoms.
There are more issues with Tobit's history than this (for example, Senacharib seems to be inaccurately described), but this is one glaring issue.
-TurretinFan
Punishment is a Deverbal Manner Verb - Response to Chris Date
In his constructive speech (in a recent debate with Joshua Whipps), Mr. Date alleged that noun "punishment" is a "deverbal result noun." He stated:
Roget's Thesaurus provides the following entry for "punishment":
As you can see, most of the descriptions of "punishment" are of processes, not of results. The punishment may be the beating, whereas the hoped-for result is correction of behavior.
Thus, for example, "eternal punishment" would be similar to "eternal abuse," "eternal amercement," "eternal beating," "eternal castigation," etc. When each of those words is modified by "eternal," what is referred to is the duration of the process, not the duration of the effect. An "eternal beating," is a beating that does not have an end, in contrast to something like an "eternal scar" which would be a scar that would last forever.
So, "punishment," like "walk," is a manner noun, not a "result" noun. Mr. Date quotes from Augustine who says that people wouldn't consider capital punishment as measured primarily by its duration. This is true, but it misses the point. Capital punishment is severe regardless of its duration, because of the kind of punishment it is. But "eternal punishment" is specifically a comment on the duration of the punishment.
The lexical analysis is a little complex (see here and here), but it should be intuitive, particularly when you see the synonyms above.
Punishment describes a manner of treatment, not the result of that treatment. Thus, "punish" is more like "walk" (a manner verb) than "go" (a result verb) - it's more like "wash" (a manner verb) than "clean" (a result verb). It tells you more about the process than about the outcome. But "punish" and "punishment" are about the process.
Therefore, Mr. Date is all wet in his linguistic claim. Linguists may refer to a category of "deverbal result nouns," but Mr. Date has not identified any that treat the noun, "punishment," that way.
-TurretinFan
P.S. Incidentally, while Mr. Whipps and I advocated for the same side in our respective debates against "conditionalism" (aka annihilationism), our presentations are quite different.
Linguists call this a deverbal result noun: a noun referring to the results of its corresponding verb.He cites no authority for this contention. The noun "punishment" is a deverbal noun, but it is not a deverbal result noun (as previously discussed in the comments box here).
Roget's Thesaurus provides the following entry for "punishment":
Definition: penalty(Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third)
Synonyms: abuse, amercement, beating, castigation, chastening, chastisement, comeuppance, confiscation, correction, deprivation, disciplinary action, discipline, forfeit, forfeiture, gallows, hard work, infliction, just desserts, lumps, maltreatment, mortification, mulct, ostracism, pain, penance, proof, punitive measures, purgatory, reparation, retribution, rod, rough treatment, sanction, sequestration, short shrift, slave labor, suffering, torture, trial, unhappiness, victimization, what for
Antonyms: encouragement, exoneration, praise, protection, reward
As you can see, most of the descriptions of "punishment" are of processes, not of results. The punishment may be the beating, whereas the hoped-for result is correction of behavior.
Thus, for example, "eternal punishment" would be similar to "eternal abuse," "eternal amercement," "eternal beating," "eternal castigation," etc. When each of those words is modified by "eternal," what is referred to is the duration of the process, not the duration of the effect. An "eternal beating," is a beating that does not have an end, in contrast to something like an "eternal scar" which would be a scar that would last forever.
So, "punishment," like "walk," is a manner noun, not a "result" noun. Mr. Date quotes from Augustine who says that people wouldn't consider capital punishment as measured primarily by its duration. This is true, but it misses the point. Capital punishment is severe regardless of its duration, because of the kind of punishment it is. But "eternal punishment" is specifically a comment on the duration of the punishment.
The lexical analysis is a little complex (see here and here), but it should be intuitive, particularly when you see the synonyms above.
Punishment describes a manner of treatment, not the result of that treatment. Thus, "punish" is more like "walk" (a manner verb) than "go" (a result verb) - it's more like "wash" (a manner verb) than "clean" (a result verb). It tells you more about the process than about the outcome. But "punish" and "punishment" are about the process.
Therefore, Mr. Date is all wet in his linguistic claim. Linguists may refer to a category of "deverbal result nouns," but Mr. Date has not identified any that treat the noun, "punishment," that way.
-TurretinFan
P.S. Incidentally, while Mr. Whipps and I advocated for the same side in our respective debates against "conditionalism" (aka annihilationism), our presentations are quite different.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
John the Baptist's Bones?
A recent press report indicates that some human bones have been dated to the 1st century. The bones were found in a bone box. Oddly, the bone box also contained some animal bones, and these bones were about 400 years older than the human bones. Who knows whose bones these are.
The article reports:
Mark 6:17-29
Thus, while it's not impossible that someone collected his head from Herodias, and then dug up his remains to keep them as relics, it seems unlikely.
The article goes on to point out the abundance of forged relics. A particularly amusing note comes from a relic of a different kind:
-TurretinFan
The article reports:
The human bones in the box included a knucklebone, a tooth, part of a cranium, a rib and an ulna, or arm bone. The researchers could only date the knucklebone, because radiocarbon dating relies on organic material, and only that bone had enough collagen for a good analysis. The researchers were able to reconstruct DNA sequences from three of the bones, however, showing them to be from the same person, likely a Middle Eastern man.Thus, this is quite unlikely to be the bones of John the Baptist.
Mark 6:17-29
For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, "It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife."There are two important things to note here. First, his head was separated from the body. The head was given to Herodias, and the corpse was taken by John's disciples. Second, notice that John's disciples buried his body. They did not maintain his body as a relic, but placed it in a tomb.
Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him; but she could not: for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.
And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee; and when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, "Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee." And he sware unto her, "Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom."
And she went forth, and said unto her mother, "What shall I ask?"
And she said, "The head of John the Baptist."
And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, "I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head of John the Baptist."
And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath's sake, and for their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her. And immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded his head to be brought: and he went and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head in a charger, and gave it to the damsel: and the damsel gave it to her mother.
And when his disciples heard of it, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb.
Thus, while it's not impossible that someone collected his head from Herodias, and then dug up his remains to keep them as relics, it seems unlikely.
The article goes on to point out the abundance of forged relics. A particularly amusing note comes from a relic of a different kind:
Even Joan of Arc has been the subject of forgery. A 2007 study found that alleged pieces of her body kept in a French church actually belonged to an Egyptian mummy.It's possible that this relic has a similar origin.
-TurretinFan
Friday, June 15, 2012
Bede - the Ark of the Covenant, a Type of Christ and the Church
As mentioned in a previous post, contrary to at least one later Pope, Bede (A.D. 672-735) identifies the Ark of the Covenant with the human nature of Jesus. The cited place I provided is not the only such place where Bede makes this identification:
Bede then goes on to explain:
Bede goes on to give a lengthy allegorical discussion of the passage regarding retrieval of the Ark, in which he consistently refers the ark to the church. For example he states the following:
Bede then goes on to explain:
-TurretinFan
And the priest who touched the ark of God with ill-advised rashness was to make expiation for the guilt of his audacity with an untimely death -- which should cause us to consider that while any offender who approaches the body of the Lord is guilty of transgression, if that person has undertaken vows as a priest he will be punished with death for taken hold of that ark (namely, the figure of the Lord's body) with less reverence than it deserves.Bede, On Eight Questions, Question 8, p. 160 in "Bede: Biblical Miscellany," Foley and Holder trs.
Bede then goes on to explain:
But according to the allegory, David signifies Christ and the ark significance the Church.Bede, On Eight Questions, Question 8, p. 160 in "Bede: Biblical Miscellany," Foley and Holder trs.
Bede goes on to give a lengthy allegorical discussion of the passage regarding retrieval of the Ark, in which he consistently refers the ark to the church. For example he states the following:
Bede then goes on to explain:
Now the three months during which the ark tarried in [Gath] are faith, hope, and charity. For just as a month is filled with days, so does each one of the virtues come to its perfection step by step. These months do not end until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.Bede, On Eight Questions, Question 8, p. 163 in "Bede: Biblical Miscellany," Foley and Holder trs.
At last, David returns to bring the ark into the city of David, because the Lord will turn the hearts of the parents to the children through the preaching of Enoch and Elijah.
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Does Rome Teach a False Gospel, Let me count the ways! (1 of ?)
I was recently asked to consider debating the topic, “That the Roman Catholic Church teaches a false gospel”. I do think that Rome teaches a false gospel, but I don't think that for just one reason. There are numerous grounds upon which we can conclude that Rome's gospel is a false gospel.
In 1301, Boniface VIII wrote Unam Sanctam in which he not only declared that there is no salvation outside the church, comparing the church to Noah's ark, but made the famous statement: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus, definimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. (full text)) The context of the statement is the subjection of the temporal power of earthly kings to the supreme authority of the pope, as well as the necessity of the "Greeks" (i.e. the Eastern Orthodox) to treat the Bishop of Rome as the supreme earthly spiritual authority.
This statement illustrates one way in which Rome's gospel is not the apostolic gospel. The apostles never taught what Boniface VIII defines here. This is not an article of faith that was taught either explicitly or implicitly by the apostles, and consequently - even on Aquinas' definition of papal power - it was not within the pope's power to define this article of faith ("And since the Church is founded on faith and the sacraments, the ministers of the Church have no power to publish new articles of faith, or to do away with those which are already published, or to institute new sacraments, or to abolish those that are instituted, for this belongs to the power of excellence, which belongs to Christ alone, Who is the foundation of the Church. ") (source and additional discussion) It is not an article of faith taught by Scripture or one to be found among the teachings of the early church. Unam Sanctam quotes Scripture, to be sure, but it does so inappropriately.
For example, Boniface VIII states:
Galatians 2:8
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
So we see from Scripture that Paul fed the Gentiles, while Peter ministered to the Jews.
Likewise, it is true that there is one shepherd, but that shepherd is not Peter, or his successors, but Christ himself. As it is written:
Psalm 23:1
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
Psalm 80:1
Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth.
Hebrews 13:20
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
Peter himself testifies:
1 Peter 2:25
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
1 Peter 5:4
And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
And, of course, Jesus himself in the context explains who the one shepherd is:
John 10:11
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
John 10:14
I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
So, Boniface VIII is right that the church is not a two-headed monster, but the one head is Christ, not Boniface VIII. Peter was not the head of the church, and there is no unique successor of Peter - rather many have succeeded Peter in feeding Christ's sheep.
Indeed, Boniface VIII himself confessed earlier in the same short work:
1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
So, the apostolic faith is that the one Lord of the church is not "in her" but over her. But if someone will insist that Boniface VIII here meant to refer to Christ, not himself, all the worse for Boniface VIII's later statements!
Boniface also attempts an allegorical exegesis:
Hebrews 2:10
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
And it is the Spirit of truth that guides us into all 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.
Moreover, Noah was not the pilot or guide of the ark, for we are told that it was an ark. It is nowhere described as having rudder or helm nor yet a keel. Thus, God alone was the guide and pilot of Noah's ark.
Thus, it is written:
Genesis 7:18
And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
Genesis 8:4
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
But Noah remained contained within the ark, so that he could not see to steer, if he had wished to:
Genesis 8:6
And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
Genesis 8:13
And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
We can easily add one final example of Boniface VIII's misuse of Scriptures in this document:
I could go on and on, but surely the point has already been made. What Boniface VIII taught as being part of the gospel ("absolutely necessary for salvation") is a false gospel.
-TurretinFan
In 1301, Boniface VIII wrote Unam Sanctam in which he not only declared that there is no salvation outside the church, comparing the church to Noah's ark, but made the famous statement: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus, definimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. (full text)) The context of the statement is the subjection of the temporal power of earthly kings to the supreme authority of the pope, as well as the necessity of the "Greeks" (i.e. the Eastern Orthodox) to treat the Bishop of Rome as the supreme earthly spiritual authority.
This statement illustrates one way in which Rome's gospel is not the apostolic gospel. The apostles never taught what Boniface VIII defines here. This is not an article of faith that was taught either explicitly or implicitly by the apostles, and consequently - even on Aquinas' definition of papal power - it was not within the pope's power to define this article of faith ("And since the Church is founded on faith and the sacraments, the ministers of the Church have no power to publish new articles of faith, or to do away with those which are already published, or to institute new sacraments, or to abolish those that are instituted, for this belongs to the power of excellence, which belongs to Christ alone, Who is the foundation of the Church. ") (source and additional discussion) It is not an article of faith taught by Scripture or one to be found among the teachings of the early church. Unam Sanctam quotes Scripture, to be sure, but it does so inappropriately.
For example, Boniface VIII states:
Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'The use of "feed my sheep" without specifying which sheep does not imply that Peter was to feed every sheep. As Paul writes to the Galatians:
Galatians 2:8
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
So we see from Scripture that Paul fed the Gentiles, while Peter ministered to the Jews.
Likewise, it is true that there is one shepherd, but that shepherd is not Peter, or his successors, but Christ himself. As it is written:
Psalm 23:1
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
Psalm 80:1
Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth.
Hebrews 13:20
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
Peter himself testifies:
1 Peter 2:25
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
1 Peter 5:4
And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
And, of course, Jesus himself in the context explains who the one shepherd is:
John 10:11
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
John 10:14
I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
So, Boniface VIII is right that the church is not a two-headed monster, but the one head is Christ, not Boniface VIII. Peter was not the head of the church, and there is no unique successor of Peter - rather many have succeeded Peter in feeding Christ's sheep.
Indeed, Boniface VIII himself confessed earlier in the same short work:
We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5].This ought to have informed Boniface VIII that Christ alone is the head, and he is not. But notice the strange apparent suggestion that there is one lord "in her". The "one Lord" that Paul is referring to in Ephesians 4:5 is Christ, not a lord in the church. As it is written:
1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
So, the apostolic faith is that the one Lord of the church is not "in her" but over her. But if someone will insist that Boniface VIII here meant to refer to Christ, not himself, all the worse for Boniface VIII's later statements!
Boniface also attempts an allegorical exegesis:
There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.But the captain of our salvation is not the bishop of Rome, but Christ himself:
Hebrews 2:10
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
And it is the Spirit of truth that guides us into all 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.
Moreover, Noah was not the pilot or guide of the ark, for we are told that it was an ark. It is nowhere described as having rudder or helm nor yet a keel. Thus, God alone was the guide and pilot of Noah's ark.
Thus, it is written:
Genesis 7:18
And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
Genesis 8:4
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
But Noah remained contained within the ark, so that he could not see to steer, if he had wished to:
Genesis 8:6
And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:
Genesis 8:13
And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
We can easily add one final example of Boniface VIII's misuse of Scriptures in this document:
Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15].Read the context in 1 Corinthians 2:7-16:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.So, here Paul is not describing a singular bishop of Rome, but rather he is referring to himself and the Corinthian believers. It is apparent, therefore, that Boniface VIII has wrenched this phrase about the spiritual man out of its proper context to make it refer uniquely to his office - an office that did not even exist in the time of Paul, as many of Rome's historians today acknowledge.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
I could go on and on, but surely the point has already been made. What Boniface VIII taught as being part of the gospel ("absolutely necessary for salvation") is a false gospel.
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Hoffer - Real Presence and Transubstantiation
Paul Hoffer had posted some responses in our on-going dialog regarding Augustine and transubstantiation, which included the following kind of comment:
It was gratifying, therefore, to read the following from Fr. Dwight Longenecker:
He links to a further entry, in which he provides a more detailed explanation:
As it relates to our discussion of Augustine, Mr. Hoffer's nuance is one that is interesting. It seems that Mr. Hoffer is not willing to defend the idea that Augustine held to transubstantiation, even under a different name. Thus, he seems to have conceded the major point we have consistently alleged.
On the other hand, it seems that Mr. Hoffer believes that Augustine held to the modern Roman concept of "real presence," which would require Augustine to believe that the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are all "really" present under each species (both under the species that has the appearance of bread, and under the species that has the appearance of wine diluted with water).
Augustine, we contend, held to a divine, spiritual and sacramental (in the Augustinian sense, not the modern Roman sense) presence. That kind of presence is real, yet it is not the modern Roman conception of "real presence," but rather more like one of the Reformation conceptions of real presence, as Longenecker explains above.
So, at least a minor point of disagreement remains between us, namely whether Augustine held to a full-blown conception of modern Roman "real presence," or whether Augustine merely held to something like the Reformation view of a divine, spiritual, and sacramental (in the Augustinian sense) presence.
-TurretinFan
Before we begin addressing errors and omissions specific to Turretinfan's commentary on Sermon 272, I would refer the reader to Part I where I have already addressed Mr. Fan's apparent confusion between the term of "Real Presence" and the term "transubstantiation" in my commentary on his thoughts about Letter 36.(source)
It was gratifying, therefore, to read the following from Fr. Dwight Longenecker:
The problem with this is that “the Real Presence” is a term that is also used by non-Catholics to refer to their beliefs about the Eucharist. I’ve heard Anglicans, Methodists and even a Baptist talk about “the Real Presence” at Holy Communion. They all mean something different by the same term.(source - emphasis added)
This reflects a major problem in all theological and ecumenical discussion: people use the same terminology to describe totally different beliefs. The Catholic uses the term (or should) to refer to transubstantiation. The Anglican says he believes in “the Real Presence” and may be referring to consubstantiation (the belief that Christ is “with” or “beside” the consecrated bread and wine) or receptionism (Christ is received by the individual as he receives the bread and wine by faith) The term “Real Presence” used by a Baptist or Methodist may simply mean, “I feel close to Jesus when I go to communion.”
He links to a further entry, in which he provides a more detailed explanation:
So–like Ridley and Latimer before him– he used the term ‘real presence’ to sound as close to Catholicism as possible while in fact rejecting Catholic doctrine. Pusey believed the ‘real presence’ of Christ in the sacrament was only a spiritual and sacramental presence. In this way the Victorian Anglo-Catholic actually agreed with the reformer Ridley who wrote, “The blood of Christ is in the chalice… but by grace and in a sacrament…This presence of Christ is wholly spiritual.”Mr. Hoffer has a lot more to say in the post which the first snippet referenced. In that much larger segment, Hoffer provides some discussion regarding "real presence" and "transubstantiation." But, at most, the distinction between the two within modern Roman theology is that "transubstantiation" describes the change as a change, whereas "real presence" in modern Roman theology describes the result of that change. We might add that transubstantiation implies not only the "real presence" of the body, blood, soul, and divinity after the consecration but also the "real absence" of bread at that time - but some would say that the modern Roman "real presence" view includes that aspect as well.
So why does it matter if the presence is only spiritual and sacramental? It matters because the whole work of Christ is more than spiritual. It is physical.
...
So likewise the church has always insisted–despite the difficulties– that the presence of Christ in the blessed sacrament is not simply spiritual and subjective. It is objective and corporeal. In some way it is physical. At the Fourth Lateran Council that explained that belief with the term transubstantiation. As the Oxford Dominican, Fr.Herbert McCabe has said, “Transubstantiation is not a complete explanation of the mystery, but it is the best description of what we believe happens at the consecration.”
So what should Catholics do when confronted with this confusing term ‘real presence’? First of all Catholics should realise that it is not a Catholic term at all. It’s history is mostly Anglican, and as such it was always used as a way to adroitly sidestep the troublesome doctrine of transubstantiation; and as such it is not an accurate term to describe true Catholic Eucharistic doctrine.
...
So as Catholics, we must use clear language about the sacrament. We can affirm the ‘real’ presence of Christ which non-Catholics affirm in the fellowship of the church, in the preaching of the gospel and in the celebration of the Eucharist, but we must also affirm that the fullest sense of the ‘real presence’ is that which we worship in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar.
Although Paul VI used the term ‘real presence’ in Mysterium Fidei the whole thrust of the encyclical is to support and recommend the continued use of the term ‘transubstantiation’ as the Catholic terminology. With this in mind I suggest Catholics should avoid the ambiguous term ‘real presence’ and speak boldly of transubstantiation. Instead of ‘real presence’ we should also use the terminology used in the twelfth century when the doctrine of transubstantiation was being hammered out. Then there was no talk of a vaguely spiritual ‘real presence’, instead they referred to the ‘real body and real blood of Christ.’
As it relates to our discussion of Augustine, Mr. Hoffer's nuance is one that is interesting. It seems that Mr. Hoffer is not willing to defend the idea that Augustine held to transubstantiation, even under a different name. Thus, he seems to have conceded the major point we have consistently alleged.
On the other hand, it seems that Mr. Hoffer believes that Augustine held to the modern Roman concept of "real presence," which would require Augustine to believe that the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are all "really" present under each species (both under the species that has the appearance of bread, and under the species that has the appearance of wine diluted with water).
Augustine, we contend, held to a divine, spiritual and sacramental (in the Augustinian sense, not the modern Roman sense) presence. That kind of presence is real, yet it is not the modern Roman conception of "real presence," but rather more like one of the Reformation conceptions of real presence, as Longenecker explains above.
So, at least a minor point of disagreement remains between us, namely whether Augustine held to a full-blown conception of modern Roman "real presence," or whether Augustine merely held to something like the Reformation view of a divine, spiritual, and sacramental (in the Augustinian sense) presence.
-TurretinFan
Antonio Lombatti - the Shroud is fake and Not Unique
The Daily Mail (caution - typical racy stories in the sidebars) has posted a story mentioning that Antonio Lombatti views the Shroud of Turin as a fake, and notes that it is not unique.
Perhaps the most interesting part of that website is his bibliography on the topic, including some interesting articles. In one of them, Lombatti seems to sum up the matter well:
He said the Turin Shroud itself – showing an image of a bearded man and venerated for centuries as Christ’s burial cloth – appears to have originated in Turkey some 1,300 years after the Crucifixion.The article itself is nothing amazing, but check out Lombatti's own website which combats what he calls the problem of "fantarchaeology".
...
Lombatti, of the Università Popolare in Parma, Italy, cited work by a 19th century French historian who had studied surviving medieval documents. ‘The Turin Shroud is only one of the many burial cloths which were circulating in the Christian world during the Middle Ages. There were at least 40,’ said Lombatti.
‘Most of them were destroyed during the French Revolution. Some had images, others had blood-like stains, and others were completely white.’
Perhaps the most interesting part of that website is his bibliography on the topic, including some interesting articles. In one of them, Lombatti seems to sum up the matter well:
The behavior of professional Bible scholars on this relic has been deplorable. It's true, the Turin Shroud may be seen as a ridiculous topic to deal with. So, apart from Joe Zias, James Tabor, Rachel Hachlili, Shimon Gibson, and Levy Rahmani - experts on Second Temple Jewish burials and Early Christianity - scholars have rarely tackled the fancy claims made by the Shroud authenticity supporters. And this has left room for popular quackery both on library shelves and, above all, on the web. Lurid falsehoods and distorted reasoning have been repeated so many times that the common people and some scholars too may think they are facing the real burial cloth of Jesus. The method used by these "shroudologists" bends the mind the wrong way, an insidious and real corruption, and it has nothing to share with scholarly analysis and philological tools.(source)
The Gospels don't mention this double full-length image of Jesus left on his burial cloth. The Second Temple Jews used to bury their dead in a completely different way. There's no historical record on the relic until 1355. When it was first displayed in France, the owner, the diocese bishop and even the pope called it a «representation» of Jesus' burial shroud. Finally, when the linen of cloth was carbon 14 dated in 1988 it turned out to be from 1325 circa. So, despite the fact that the historical and scientific data do match, the Turin Shroud enthusiasts, usually pushed by their faith, couldn't stop and admit that the relic was a medieval forgery. They kept on finding all sorts of causes responsible for a wrong radiocarbon date: fire, smoke, fungi, bacteria, and even Jesus' miraculous radiation emitted during his resurrection. As you can imagine, no scientist who performs carbon dating as a profession has ever imagined questioning the validity of the medieval date of the Turin Shroud.
Despite the fact that the Vatican has never officially affirmed that the Turin Shroud is the real burial cloth of Jesus, the way it has been used and displayed inside the city cathedral has given the people just the opposite view. The Epistle to the Hebrews says that «faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen»: however, the contemporary faithful, like the illiterate folk of the middle ages, are still looking for material and visible evidence of Jesus' earthly life. And they don't seem to care if the relics are evident forgeries. Above all, they don't seem to understand that the Bible, a sacred book and divinely inspired text - as it is considered by Christians - shouldn't need to be proven historically accurate and reliable. Even if archaeologists will find the real burial cloth of Jesus, there would be no way to determine that he was the son of Yahweh or that he was raised from the dead. This is why the Turin Shroud should be placed in a museum and not inside a church.
Steve Ray's Letter Addressed
Steve Ray, pilgrimage pedlar, has posted an apparently fictional letter from "Lenny" to "Beau":
2 Timothy 3:15-17
Psalm 119:105
Psalm 119:99
John 20:31
James 1:21
John 5:39
Acts 17:11
Are the Scriptures able to make you wise unto salvation? Are they able to illuminate one and make one wise than one's teachers? Was the Bible written for the very purpose that we would read it and believe? Did Jesus himself commend people to search the Scriptures.
That's why Jesus commended the searching of Scripture, and why the Bereans were praised as "more noble," because they searched the Scriptures daily to judge the truth of the teachings of the very apostles.
In this verse, "the church," refers to the local congregation - the house of God. It's the place where Timothy is going to be behaving himself properly or not. When we expand out the context a little more:
1 Timothy 3:14-16
Notice two things: first the truth that the local church upholds and protects is the gospel, of which Paul provides a short summary; second, the letter is being written because it contains something Timothy wouldn't otherwise have, while "in the church" (in the absence of Paul's personal presence). In other words, the text doesn't affirm the sufficiency of "the church," but rather the deficiency of the church, even while affirming the purpose of the church.
When by our preaching people come out of Rome to a Reformed church, God is bringing them to the gospel. He's also bringing them to a particular church and a particular congregation - but they are converting to Christianity not to a sect.
So, it's not that we're embarrassed - it's that our focus is on presenting Christ. The gospel transcends our denominational boundaries, so that we can have unity of the gospel, even with those who are not of our particular denomination. There's no Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist "Unam Sanctam."
But is Steve Ray embarrassed to be associated with Rome? Perhaps he should be. Not just because of the scandals of the modern times, but because of the persecution of the gospel and her messengers, back when Rome had more political power. The history of the papacy is something lurid and shameful, not something to be proud of.
More than that, though, the key thing he should be ashamed of is the departure of his church from the apostolic faith found in Scripture. After all, the Scripture tells us what the Apostles taught and believed - and that doesn't match up well with what Rome practices and teaches. Rome's celibate bishops don't match up with the mostly married apostles and elders in the Bible. Rome's prayers to Mary and the saints don't find Biblical precedent. Rome's bowing down to images of men and angels is contradicted by Scripture, and we could go on and on.
More than all the scandals - which could happen to any fallible church - the most shameful thing is that Rome has departed from the gospel and declared herself to be infallible and irreformable in her dogma. That's a hardness of heart worthy of great shame.
-TurretinFan
Hi Beau, you mention “that Scripture is sufficient to teach us.” There is a problem with your statement is this; it is not in the Bible. Nowhere does it say that we should follow Scripture alone “Sola Scriptura” or that it is all sufficient. Isn’t it interesting “Sola Scriptura” (Bible alone), which is believed to be Biblical by many people is not even in the Bible!Steve Ray thinks that the idea that the Scripture is sufficient to teach us isn't found in the Bible. Remarkable, eh? Can it be that Steve Ray has never read these texts?
2 Timothy 3:15-17
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Psalm 119:105
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Psalm 119:99
I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
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.
James 1:21
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Are the Scriptures able to make you wise unto salvation? Are they able to illuminate one and make one wise than one's teachers? Was the Bible written for the very purpose that we would read it and believe? Did Jesus himself commend people to search the Scriptures.
The moment someone believes “Bible alone,” they already believe a concept not found in the Bible. And those who believe “Bible Alone” reject the authority of the Church, a concept found in the Bible. “Bible alone” is one of three pillars of the Protestant Reformation. The problem is that it is self-refuting, because the moment you believe it, you already believe something not in the Bible. And so “Sola Scriptura” crumbles under its own weight.There are churches mentioned in the Bible, and these churches do have authority. Parents are also described in the Bible, and parents have authority. Are parents infallible? No. Are church infallible? Also no. What's misleading on Steve Ray's part is to suggest that just because churches, like parents, have authority - it means that this authority can never be questioned. Steve Ray knows that there is such a thing as subordinate authority, but he pretends that there are only two categories: Roman totalitarianism and anarchy. There is a third way. The third way is that the churches have authority that is subordinate to the Word of God. They are not authorities over Scripture, they are authorities under Scripture.
That's why Jesus commended the searching of Scripture, and why the Bereans were praised as "more noble," because they searched the Scriptures daily to judge the truth of the teachings of the very apostles.
Let me relate to you a story. I was talking to a couple of people from the Milwaukee Church of Christ. He pointed out to me a verse in 2nd Timothy. “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2nd Tm 3:16). And so he said the Bible is it and I agreed the Bible is it. So he said, let’s go on. And I said fine, but before we do, I think we should also follow the Church.And we should follow our parents too! But both our parents and the church are subordinate to Scriptures. The Scriptures are the inspired word of God, parents and churches are men (humans, for those who think "men" refers exclusively to males). When there is a conflict between parents and Scripture or church and Scripture, we have to follow the Scripture. So, for example, when the Scriptures teach us that religious veneration should be reserved for God alone, and Rome demands that Mary be given the religious veneration of hyper-dulia, we have to pick what Scripture says, over what Rome says, even if Rome happens to be our church at the time.
He became a little irritated with me and he said, we just went through this and you agreed the Bible is it. And so I asked him what he thought the pillar and foundation of truth was. He said, the Bible! I informed him, he was incorrect because the Bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth; “You should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD, the pillar and foundation of truth.Steve Ray's "gotcha" moment with the person who didn't know this particular verse is pretty trivial. After all, "the church" in that verse doesn't mean "a hierarchy," it means a local congregation. Look at the context:
1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
In this verse, "the church," refers to the local congregation - the house of God. It's the place where Timothy is going to be behaving himself properly or not. When we expand out the context a little more:
1 Timothy 3:14-16
These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Notice two things: first the truth that the local church upholds and protects is the gospel, of which Paul provides a short summary; second, the letter is being written because it contains something Timothy wouldn't otherwise have, while "in the church" (in the absence of Paul's personal presence). In other words, the text doesn't affirm the sufficiency of "the church," but rather the deficiency of the church, even while affirming the purpose of the church.
I wasn’t being disingenuous when I said the Bible is it. I believe this totally so long as we believe it (the Bible) totally. And the Bible tells us to listen to the Church so it must be included in order to follow the whole Bible. This is the 2nd reason “Sola Scriptura” is wrong, it ignores all the passages that give the Church real authority.It's disingenuous to say that the position of "Sola Scriptura" ignores verses that deal with church authority. None of those verses say or even suggest that the churches wield an infallible authority.
Again your statement “that Scripture is sufficient to teach us” is not Biblical. However, had you included the Church in your statement it would have been correct. The concept of “Sola Scriptura” is a Protestant understanding but it is rejected by many Protestants today because it is not Biblical.Steve Ray is putting himself in a corner. Scripture never says that the church is sufficient, nor that "the church" has to be added to Scripture in order for Scripture to be sufficient. "Protestants" may reject Scripture's sufficiency, but not for lack of clear Scriptural teaching. Moreover, are "Protestants" really able to read and understand Scripture? If Steve Ray says "yes," then he's conceded the key point of our contention, which is that people can read and understand Scripture and judge whether Rome is teaching the apostolic faith. If he denies that "Protestants" can read and understand Scripture, then why is he appealing to their interpretation of it?
By the way what church do you belong to? Is it 7th day Baptist or Adventist or say Pentecostal? Usually it’s like pulling teeth to get an Evangelical to say the name of their Church and where they are coming from. I get the impression that they are embarrassed. They make less than complimentary statements about the Catholic Church all the while they are reluctant to mention where they are coming from. And I might add, there are Evangelicals who are not into the Catholic bashing business. Some of them are my friends.Steve Ray does not seem to get that Evangelicals are not, for the most part, ultra-sectarians like he is. They are about bringing people to Christ and the gospel, whereas Steve Ray is about bringing people to Rome.
When by our preaching people come out of Rome to a Reformed church, God is bringing them to the gospel. He's also bringing them to a particular church and a particular congregation - but they are converting to Christianity not to a sect.
So, it's not that we're embarrassed - it's that our focus is on presenting Christ. The gospel transcends our denominational boundaries, so that we can have unity of the gospel, even with those who are not of our particular denomination. There's no Presbyterian or Reformed Baptist "Unam Sanctam."
But is Steve Ray embarrassed to be associated with Rome? Perhaps he should be. Not just because of the scandals of the modern times, but because of the persecution of the gospel and her messengers, back when Rome had more political power. The history of the papacy is something lurid and shameful, not something to be proud of.
More than that, though, the key thing he should be ashamed of is the departure of his church from the apostolic faith found in Scripture. After all, the Scripture tells us what the Apostles taught and believed - and that doesn't match up well with what Rome practices and teaches. Rome's celibate bishops don't match up with the mostly married apostles and elders in the Bible. Rome's prayers to Mary and the saints don't find Biblical precedent. Rome's bowing down to images of men and angels is contradicted by Scripture, and we could go on and on.
More than all the scandals - which could happen to any fallible church - the most shameful thing is that Rome has departed from the gospel and declared herself to be infallible and irreformable in her dogma. That's a hardness of heart worthy of great shame.
-TurretinFan
Monday, June 11, 2012
Still Trading on the Legend of Loreto
You may recall my friend, Dr. James White, mention the superstitious legend of Loreto a few times in the past (blog example, discussing Keating's use of the legend). In this bizarre legend, angels lift up Mary's house and transport it to Loreto, Italy. In the version at the link, they stop along the way in Trsat, Croatia.
Rome is still trading on these myths. For example, Vatican Information Service, 11 June 2012 reports:
-TurretinFan
Rome is still trading on these myths. For example, Vatican Information Service, 11 June 2012 reports:
Participants in the fifteenth World Seminar for Catholic Civil Aviation Chaplains and Chaplaincy Members were received this morning in audience by the Holy Father. Their patron, the Pope recalled, is Our Lady of Loreto who is also the patron saint of all air travellers, in accordance with the tradition that attributes to the angels the transportation of Mary’s house from Nazareth to Loreto, Italy.So, note that this usage of falsehoods is not limited to lay apologist groups, but goes all the way to the top of the RCC. At least today's bishop of Rome is careful to word the matter in a way that is not, itself, false. Yes, a tradition attributes what he says it attributes. On the other hand, it didn't happen as the tradition alleges. But that doesn't stop the pope from trading on the legend.
-TurretinFan
Friday, June 08, 2012
Answering Krayon and other Magic Practitioners
Lee Carroll and several others have been promoting something called "Krayon," via a series of books and other media. There is even a website. What is Krayon? There are two options: it is either a hoax, or it is a spirit being channeled, which is what it purports to be.
Krayon (or Carroll, if this is just a hoax) has created a system that is a mixture of science fiction, new age concepts, and Biblical concepts. It is possible that people who hear the Biblical ideas and themes may think there is a ring of truth in what Krayon teaches.
If this is you, beware! Scripture has very explicit teaching that channeling is evil. In the Scriptures, this practice is referred to as having a "familiar spirit." It is condemned either explicitly or implicitly in the following:
Leviticus 19:31
Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 20:6
And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.
Leviticus 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
Deuteronomy 18:11
Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
1 Samuel 28:3
Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land.
1 Samuel 28:7-9
Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor. And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?
2 Kings 21:6
And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
2 Kings 23:24
Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD.
1 Chronicles 10:13
So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;
2 Chronicles 33:6
And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
Isaiah 8:19
And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
Isaiah 19:3
And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.
Isaiah 29:4
And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.
As you can see from the context, the condemnation of channeling is not limited that, but is one of a variety of magical practices that are condemned. Other related condemnations include:
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Deuteronomy 18:10
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
1 Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
2 Kings 9:22
And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace, Jehu? And he answered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?
Micah 5:12
And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thine hand; and thou shalt have no more soothsayers:
Nahum 3:4
Because of the multitude of the whoredoms of the wellfavoured harlot, the mistress of witchcrafts, that selleth nations through her whoredoms, and families through her witchcrafts.
Galatians 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Krayon claims that, in essence, the world is coming to an end in 2012. You do not need to fear this spirit, real or hoaxed. No one knows when the world will end - certainly not a channeled spirit or a man pretending to channel a spirit.
-TurretinFan
Krayon (or Carroll, if this is just a hoax) has created a system that is a mixture of science fiction, new age concepts, and Biblical concepts. It is possible that people who hear the Biblical ideas and themes may think there is a ring of truth in what Krayon teaches.
If this is you, beware! Scripture has very explicit teaching that channeling is evil. In the Scriptures, this practice is referred to as having a "familiar spirit." It is condemned either explicitly or implicitly in the following:
Leviticus 19:31
Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 20:6
And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.
Leviticus 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
Deuteronomy 18:11
Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
1 Samuel 28:3
Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him, and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those that had familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land.
1 Samuel 28:7-9
Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor. And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die?
2 Kings 21:6
And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
2 Kings 23:24
Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD.
1 Chronicles 10:13
So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;
2 Chronicles 33:6
And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
Isaiah 8:19
And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
Isaiah 19:3
And the spirit of Egypt shall fail in the midst thereof; and I will destroy the counsel thereof: and they shall seek to the idols, and to the charmers, and to them that have familiar spirits, and to the wizards.
Isaiah 29:4
And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.
As you can see from the context, the condemnation of channeling is not limited that, but is one of a variety of magical practices that are condemned. Other related condemnations include:
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Deuteronomy 18:10
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
1 Samuel 15:23
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
2 Kings 9:22
And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace, Jehu? And he answered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?
Micah 5:12
And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thine hand; and thou shalt have no more soothsayers:
Nahum 3:4
Because of the multitude of the whoredoms of the wellfavoured harlot, the mistress of witchcrafts, that selleth nations through her whoredoms, and families through her witchcrafts.
Galatians 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Krayon claims that, in essence, the world is coming to an end in 2012. You do not need to fear this spirit, real or hoaxed. No one knows when the world will end - certainly not a channeled spirit or a man pretending to channel a spirit.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, June 07, 2012
Gates of Hell in the Deuterocanon
In a previous post, I explained from the Scriptures why the "gates of hell shall not prevail" in Matthew 16:18 refers to the fact that the church, i.e. all believers, will be raised to eternal life. In hindsight, I probably should have pointed out that this interpretation is also supported in the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom.
Wisdom 16:13
For thou hast power of life and death: thou leadest to the gates of hell, and bringest up again.
It has nothing to do with an institutional church weathering the storms of heresies, although a lot of people have mistakenly treated it that way.
-TurretinFan
Wisdom 16:13
For thou hast power of life and death: thou leadest to the gates of hell, and bringest up again.
It has nothing to do with an institutional church weathering the storms of heresies, although a lot of people have mistakenly treated it that way.
-TurretinFan
Bede - the Ark of the Covenant, a Type of Christ
In general, the ceremonial law and its appointments all pointed to Christ and his work. Some of the early church fathers appreciated this more than others. On the other hand, Rome has tried to argue that some aspects pointed toward - you guessed it - Mary. For example, Munificentissimus Deus (Pius XII, 1950, defining the Bodily Assumption) repeatedly identifies the ark as a type of Mary (although, interestingly, Ineffabilis Deus by Pius IX in 1854 does not make this identification while defining the immaculate conception).
But what does Bede (A.D. 672-735) have to say. He declare the ark of the covenant to be a type of Christ:
Bede's analysis is certainly not the only patristic comment on the matter, but it is a very reasonable analysis, and at least fits well with the overall typology. By contrast, replacing Christ with Mary - as in Munificentissimus Deus, introduces a number of significant problems.
-TurretinFan
But what does Bede (A.D. 672-735) have to say. He declare the ark of the covenant to be a type of Christ:
Likewise, the ark, which has been brought into the holy of holies, is a type of the humanity assumed by Christ and led within the veil of the heavenly court, while the ark's carrying-poles prefigure the preachers of the Word through whom [Christ] became known to the world. A golden urn containing manna was in the ark because all the fullness of divinity dwells bodily [Colossians 2:9] in the human Christ. In the ark also was Aaron's branch which had flowered again after having been cut down because the power to sentence everyone belongs to him whose sentence was seen to have been removed in suffering's humiliation. The tablets of the covenant were also there, for in it are hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge [Colossians 2:3]. Poles were fixed to the art for carrying it, because teachers who once laboured in Christ's Word now rejoice in the present vision of his glory. For what one of these [preachers] said about himself - I desire to die and be with Christ [Philippians 1:23- he surely meant to be understood of all who share in his work.Bede, Thirty Questions on the Book of Kings, Question 14, pp. 111-12 in "Bede: Biblical Miscellany," Foley and Holder trs.
Bede's analysis is certainly not the only patristic comment on the matter, but it is a very reasonable analysis, and at least fits well with the overall typology. By contrast, replacing Christ with Mary - as in Munificentissimus Deus, introduces a number of significant problems.
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Debate Challenge for "Called to Communion" Team
Dr. James White has offered a debate challenge to the Roman communion group at the "Called to Communion" blog (mp3, you can start around 6 minutes, if you just want to hear the challenge in context).
-TurretinFan
I am laying out an open challenge to any of the people at Called to Confusion: 2013 - let's set up a debate. I'll take on ten of you at once, if you'd like. I don't care. If you want to roll through the whole group, I don't care. 1, 2, 3, 10, doesn't matter. You simply defend the following words, ok? You defend these words:I would second Dr. White's challenge and his comments. I did a debate with William Albrecht on the Assumption of Mary, and in the course of the debate, it became readily apparent just how frail the Scriptural and patristic argument for Rome's position is (link to mp3). So, if any of Rome's apologists, either from CtC or elsewhere would prefer to Skype debate me, I'm willing to offer the same challenge.
... a truth which is founded on the Sacred Scriptures, has been fixed deeply in the minds of the faithful in Christ, has been approved by ecclesiastical worship even from the earliest times, is quite in harmony with other revealed truths, and has been splendidly explained and declared by the zeal, knowledge, and wisdom of the theologians."(full text at #2332)
To what do we refer? Those are words from the definition of the bodily assumption of Mary, which actually began:
Since, then, the universal Church, in which the Spirit of Truth flourishes, who infallibly directs it to achieve a knowledge of revealed truths, has through the course of the ages repeatedly manifested its own faith; and since the bishops of the whole world with almost unanimous consent request that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven be defined as a dogma of the divine and Catholic faithand then you have that following description. So will you defend the idea that the bodily assumption of Mary is a truth which is founded on the sacred scriptures? Secondly, that it has been approved by ecclesiastical worship even from the earliest times? So, will you defend the idea that the bodily assumption of Mary is founded on the Sacred Scriptures and was a part of the teaching of the ancient church in the earliest times? Now, I know factually beyond any doubt that that is a lie. It is untrue. There is not any reason on this planet to believe that, other than you have already accepted the authority claims of the bishop of Rome. Period. End of discussion.
-TurretinFan
Monday, June 04, 2012
Reciprocal Links and the Future of this Blog
I really appreciate the many readers of this blog, both friendly and unfriendly, in agreement and out of agreement, foreign and domestic. A lot of you have kindly put me in a blog roll or otherwise posted a link to my blog on your site. I have tried to reciprocate with a link back in the sidebar of my main page. If you have linked to me, and you haven't received a link bank, please let me know.
I am not sure what the future holds for this blog. I plan to continue blogging to the glory of God, the edification of the saints, and the evangelisation of the unbelieving. I also plan to continue debating, whenever the opportunity arises. I plan to remain pseudonymous for the time being, although I'm constantly aware of the fact that my pseudonymity is something that is mostly out of my hands.
I would love to hear from readers of this blog regarding their, i.e. your, thoughts for the future of this blog.
I am not sure what the future holds for this blog. I plan to continue blogging to the glory of God, the edification of the saints, and the evangelisation of the unbelieving. I also plan to continue debating, whenever the opportunity arises. I plan to remain pseudonymous for the time being, although I'm constantly aware of the fact that my pseudonymity is something that is mostly out of my hands.
I would love to hear from readers of this blog regarding their, i.e. your, thoughts for the future of this blog.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Magisterium of Rome vs. Magisterium of One
Taylor Marshall, of the Roman communion, has a post up in which he tells us that the "the proper name of the Holy Ghost is "Gift." He is the personified donation of the Father and the Son."
Someone in the comment box, using the nick "Kepha," pointed out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually has a section on this. I reproduce the section below:
Taylor quotes Aquinas and Augustine. Whether he understands them is a point I won't explore. Nevertheless, whether or not they agree with the point he's trying to make, shouldn't the CCC trump anything that the fathers or schoolmen have to save about the subject?
-TurretinFan
H.T. to Steve Hays
-TurretinFan
Someone in the comment box, using the nick "Kepha," pointed out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church actually has a section on this. I reproduce the section below:
II. THE NAME, TITLES, AND SYMBOLS OF THE HOLY SPIRITCute, eh? "Gift" doesn't even make the list of titles. Moreover, as another of the commenters noted, "personified donation" does sound rather modalistic.
The proper name of the Holy Spirit
691 "Holy Spirit" is the proper name of the one whom we adore and glorify with the Father and the Son. The Church has received this name from the Lord and professes it in the Baptism of her new children.16
The term "Spirit" translates the Hebrew word ruah, which, in its primary sense, means breath, air, wind. Jesus indeed uses the sensory image of the wind to suggest to Nicodemus the transcendent newness of him who is personally God's breath, the divine Spirit.17 On the other hand, "Spirit" and "Holy" are divine attributes common to the three divine persons. By joining the two terms, Scripture, liturgy, and theological language designate the inexpressible person of the Holy Spirit, without any possible equivocation with other uses of the terms "spirit" and "holy."
Titles of the Holy Spirit
692 When he proclaims and promises the coming of the Holy Spirit, Jesus calls him the "Paraclete," literally, "he who is called to one's side," ad-vocatus.18 "Paraclete" is commonly translated by "consoler," and Jesus is the first consoler.19 The Lord also called the Holy Spirit "the Spirit of truth."20
693 Besides the proper name of "Holy Spirit," which is most frequently used in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, we also find in St. Paul the titles: the Spirit of the promise,21 the Spirit of adoption,22 the Spirit of Christ,23 the Spirit of the Lord,24 and the Spirit of God25 - and, in St. Peter, the Spirit of glory.26
Taylor quotes Aquinas and Augustine. Whether he understands them is a point I won't explore. Nevertheless, whether or not they agree with the point he's trying to make, shouldn't the CCC trump anything that the fathers or schoolmen have to save about the subject?
-TurretinFan
H.T. to Steve Hays
-TurretinFan
Why I'm Against the 150 Mile Fence Suggestion
The Scriptures tell us how various family relations crimes should be punished (all verse references are to Leviticus 20):
Cursing Mother or Father - Death (9)
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Adulterer and Adulteress - Death (10)
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Incest with Father's Wife - Death (11)
And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Incest with Daughter in Law - Death (12)
And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
Male Homosexuality - Death (13)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Incest with Step-Daughter, Daughter, or Mother-in-Law - Death by Fire (14)
And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
Male or Female Bestiality - Death (15-16)
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Incest with Sister or Half-Sister - God Will Punish (17)
And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Sex During a Woman's Period - God Will Punish (18)
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
Incest with Aunt - God Will Punish (19-20)
And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
Incest with Sister-in-Law - God Will Punish (21)
And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
Summary
Yes, male homosexuality is set forth as being a capital crime, like a number of family relations crimes. In terms of the sentence given it, it is more heinous in God's sight than certain kinds of incest and period violation. But for those of you who like to beat up on homosexuals, note that it is not the most heinous. The most heinous is taking both a woman and her mother. There, the punishment is not just death, but death by fire.
So, no. The appropriate Biblical teaching regarding how to deal with these family crimes is not internment in a prison camp.
On the other hand, if you want to rush to impose the Biblical sentence of death, keep in mind that for consistency you must be ready to hand out death sentences for bestiality, all adulterers, and most types of incest. You also can't include lesbians in your plan. While Scripture certainly does teach that lesbianism is a sin, the code doesn't provide for lesbianism to be punished.
Cursing Mother or Father - Death (9)
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Adulterer and Adulteress - Death (10)
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Incest with Father's Wife - Death (11)
And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Incest with Daughter in Law - Death (12)
And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
Male Homosexuality - Death (13)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Incest with Step-Daughter, Daughter, or Mother-in-Law - Death by Fire (14)
And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.
Male or Female Bestiality - Death (15-16)
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Incest with Sister or Half-Sister - God Will Punish (17)
And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.
Sex During a Woman's Period - God Will Punish (18)
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
Incest with Aunt - God Will Punish (19-20)
And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.
Incest with Sister-in-Law - God Will Punish (21)
And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.
Summary
Yes, male homosexuality is set forth as being a capital crime, like a number of family relations crimes. In terms of the sentence given it, it is more heinous in God's sight than certain kinds of incest and period violation. But for those of you who like to beat up on homosexuals, note that it is not the most heinous. The most heinous is taking both a woman and her mother. There, the punishment is not just death, but death by fire.
So, no. The appropriate Biblical teaching regarding how to deal with these family crimes is not internment in a prison camp.
On the other hand, if you want to rush to impose the Biblical sentence of death, keep in mind that for consistency you must be ready to hand out death sentences for bestiality, all adulterers, and most types of incest. You also can't include lesbians in your plan. While Scripture certainly does teach that lesbianism is a sin, the code doesn't provide for lesbianism to be punished.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Frank Turek on Same Sex Marriage
Marcus McElhaney has posted a video series from Frank Turek providing arguments about and against same sex marriage. I don't fully agree with Turek's approach of saying that we shouldn't bring the Bible into the discussion, but the arguments he uses mostly seem like pretty strong arguments. Check it out at this link.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Post-Modern Roman Catholicism - Guest Post by Adam Blauser
Recently, in the comment box on this blog, a member of the Roman communion provided the following comment:
Again and again, why does Roman Catholicism pull out the arguments of Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish, when postmodernism destroys Roman Catholicism too? What is the assumption behind this statement: that the only thing that factors into the interpretation of a text is the interpreter. If I allow for the author and his intention to play a role in interpretation, then it is easy to see who has the authority to determine the correct interpretation of the Bible-the authors of the Bible. Correct interpretation, then, is more of an ethical issue. The interpreter has an obligation to "not bear false witness" against the author of the text, and accurately represent what he is saying. If that is the case, then the issue of interpretation is actually an argument against Roman Catholicism, because, once you impose traditions upon the text, you are changing the world of the author, and thus, not accurately representing the world he has constructed accurately.
More than that, destroying the author as a reference point leads to total and complete postmodernism. For example, why do you accept Rome as the infallible interpreter of scripture and history? Eastern Orthodoxy also makes the same claim, as does Syrian Orthodoxy. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses make the same claim. Before you go running off to history, let us also remember that these groups claim the right to infallibly interpret history too, just like Rome does. So, who has the authority to decide which group has the authority to infallibly interpret history and scripture? It becomes totally dependent upon which group you are a part of as to what the correct interpretation of both history and scripture is. Hence, it is relative to community. That is utter and complete postmodernism.
Not only that, but if you need an "infallible interpreter" to know which interpretations of a text are correct, then how do we know what the correct interpretations of the Egyptian Book of the Dead are? Scholars disagree. How do we know what the correct interpretation of the Baal epic is? Scholars disagree. How do we know what the correct interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is? Scholars disagree. The point is, there is no text upon which there is not disagreement as to the correct interpretation. However, where is the infallible magisterium of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Book of the Dead says. Where is the infallible magisterium of the Baal epic? Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Baal epic says. Where is the infallible magisterium of the Gilgamesh Epic? Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Epic of Gilgamesh says. Such results in utter destruction of all of our knowledge of what written texts say.
The real problem here is that the church is finite. Not only can other groups claim the authority to infallibly interpret both history and tradition, but, because of the finitude of all of these groups including Rome, the issue can never be settled. Not only that, Rome cannot explain why, in the instance of other texts, we can come to the correct interpretation despite differences of opinion. All of these things relate to the limited and finite nature of the church. I really wish Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would consider these things before they go making this argument again and again. A limited, finite church is a poor base for meaning in language.
Again and again. Who has the authority in Protestantism to determine the correct interpretation of the Bible?. No one.Adam Blauser has provided a thorough response, namely:
Again and again, why does Roman Catholicism pull out the arguments of Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish, when postmodernism destroys Roman Catholicism too? What is the assumption behind this statement: that the only thing that factors into the interpretation of a text is the interpreter. If I allow for the author and his intention to play a role in interpretation, then it is easy to see who has the authority to determine the correct interpretation of the Bible-the authors of the Bible. Correct interpretation, then, is more of an ethical issue. The interpreter has an obligation to "not bear false witness" against the author of the text, and accurately represent what he is saying. If that is the case, then the issue of interpretation is actually an argument against Roman Catholicism, because, once you impose traditions upon the text, you are changing the world of the author, and thus, not accurately representing the world he has constructed accurately.
More than that, destroying the author as a reference point leads to total and complete postmodernism. For example, why do you accept Rome as the infallible interpreter of scripture and history? Eastern Orthodoxy also makes the same claim, as does Syrian Orthodoxy. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses make the same claim. Before you go running off to history, let us also remember that these groups claim the right to infallibly interpret history too, just like Rome does. So, who has the authority to decide which group has the authority to infallibly interpret history and scripture? It becomes totally dependent upon which group you are a part of as to what the correct interpretation of both history and scripture is. Hence, it is relative to community. That is utter and complete postmodernism.
Not only that, but if you need an "infallible interpreter" to know which interpretations of a text are correct, then how do we know what the correct interpretations of the Egyptian Book of the Dead are? Scholars disagree. How do we know what the correct interpretation of the Baal epic is? Scholars disagree. How do we know what the correct interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is? Scholars disagree. The point is, there is no text upon which there is not disagreement as to the correct interpretation. However, where is the infallible magisterium of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Book of the Dead says. Where is the infallible magisterium of the Baal epic? Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Baal epic says. Where is the infallible magisterium of the Gilgamesh Epic? Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Epic of Gilgamesh says. Such results in utter destruction of all of our knowledge of what written texts say.
The real problem here is that the church is finite. Not only can other groups claim the authority to infallibly interpret both history and tradition, but, because of the finitude of all of these groups including Rome, the issue can never be settled. Not only that, Rome cannot explain why, in the instance of other texts, we can come to the correct interpretation despite differences of opinion. All of these things relate to the limited and finite nature of the church. I really wish Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would consider these things before they go making this argument again and again. A limited, finite church is a poor base for meaning in language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
