Did the Acts 15 "Council" Rely on the Exegesis of Scripture?

Jason Stewart (whose apostasy was recently discussed), has posted a fictitious (and apparently also intended as facetious) dialog under the title, "Taking a Stand on the Scriptures Against the Traditions of Men."  The title is mocking, of course.  Stewart posits a hypothetical dialog between two Judaizers in the mid-first century.  Stewart's attempt flops for a number of significant reasons, which we will investigate under several questions (I briefly examined the general question before).

I. Did the assembly in Acts 15 act on the authority of Scripture?

Stewart's dialog is more telling than he might like to admit.  He writes:

Phineas: “Well, tell me what Scripture texts they cited to prove their position.”

Malachi: “They didn’t. Not a single one. Well, not unless you count Bishop James quoting a couple of verses from Amos during his summary. But afterward I went back and looked, and that passage has nothing to do with circumcision. So I don’t know why he even referred to it.”

First, let's look at what the text of Scripture actually says:

Acts 15:13-19

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, after this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

The italicized portion is a quotation from Amos 9:11-12:

In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

First, it is telling that Stewart's characters (and presumably Stewart himself) do not know why the Scripture was quoted.  Actually "Phineas"/Stewart says:

Phineas: “I never thought I’d say this but it sounds like there’s more of the Council’s will at work here than God’s. It has all the makings of a man-made tradition imposed as God’s will. They have absolutely no scriptural basis for what they’ve done. Tacking on a Scripture verse at the end doesn’t make it all okay. In truth, this doesn’t just lack a biblical basis, it flat out contradicts the Scriptures. I’m still reeling from this news. I never thought I’d see the day.”

(emphasis added)

But isn't it absurd to suppose that the verse was just "tacked on"?  Is it just because it has a nice poetic sound to it?  Or was there a reason?  Of course, there was a reason.

James explains that Peter's testimony (and implicitly the testimony of Paul and Barnabas as well) regarding what the Holy Spirit did among the Gentiles is trustworthy, because of what the Scriptures say.  Their alleged experience is being judged by what the Scriptures say.

Stewart's claim (in the mouth of "Malachi") is that these verses have "nothing to do with circumcision." That just seems to demonstrate Stewart's lack of exegetical fortitude.  The verses do have to do with circumcision, although they don't use the word "circumcision."  How so?

These verses refer to the "heathen which are called by my name."  These are heathen people, not Jews, yet they are called by the name of the Lord.  What distinguishes heathen from Jews?  Chiefly, the visible (though obviously not prominent) mark is circumcision.  That they are referred to as heathen even while being called by the name of the Lord, demonstrates that they do not require circumcision in order to be the followers of God.

Moreover, note that God is taking credit for "doing this."  That's monergism at its finest.  James' comment, "Known unto God are all his works ..." is his acknowledgment that the prophecy of Amos has been fulfilled.  James' statement, however, is also gleaned from the prophets in that it is at least implied in the following passages:

Ecclesiastes 3:11  He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

Isaiah 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Isaiah 48:3  I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass.

James was citing Scripture as authority on this question of the circumcision.  But Amos 9:11-12 is not the only passage dealing with the future in-gathering of the Gentiles:

Isaiah 60:3  And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

Isaiah 60:5  Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.

Isaiah 60:9  Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the LORD thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee.

Jeremiah 16:19  O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

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

Isaiah 65:1  I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.

Jeremiah 3:17  At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.

Romans 9:26  And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. [Note: this one is included just to demonstrate that I'm not alone in thinking that the Old Testament said this.]

Isaiah 56:1-8
Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people. The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

Nevertheless, Amos is the most explicit in terms of describing the "heathen that are called by my name."  In short, James and more generally the assembly at Jerusalem described in Acts 15 did act on the authority of Scripture, and the relevant Scripture did answer the question, without using the word "circumcision."

II. What was the Rationale of the Assembly?

Mr. Stewart included the following exchange in his dialog:

Phineas: “So on what basis did they make the decision?! They had to give some rationale!”
Malachi: “Peter related his experiences of Gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit by faith, and then Paul and Barnabas told stories from the mission field. But at the end of the discussion it was Bishop James that said, and I’ll quote him best as I remember, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place this burden of circumcision on you Gentiles.”

It's remarkable how "Malachi"/Stewart skips merrily over the Scripture portion of the discussion.  In contrast, as noted above, James actually skips over Paul and Barnabas' accounts.  Moreover, "Malachi"/Stewart uses the word "circumcision" in his conclusion, but James does not and the whole church at Jerusalem does not.  The only time it even appears in the official letter is in the description provided by the Judaizers:

Acts 15:19-29

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote letters by them after this manner;

The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, "Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law:" to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

So, marvelously, this word that it was supposedly so important to find in Amos doesn't get mentioned in the James' conclusion or that of the official letter.  The reason, of course, is that just as I noted above, the issue was really over whether the Gentiles had to become Jews.

Recall the way that Paul put the debate in Galatians:

Galatians 2:14  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Likewise, look at the summary in Acts 21:

Act 21:20-26

And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Notice, again, the summary of what the official letter said does not even mention circumcision as such.  The question is more broadly whether they need to follow the law, that is, be and live like Jews.

As for the specific line, "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us," it seems Mr. Stewart supposes that this is a claim that the church at Jerusalem was inspired, but there are two more reasonable explanations.  First, the Scripture itself is the product of the Holy Ghost.  He inspired it, and he prophesied what would occur.  Second, and perhaps more accurately, the Holy Ghost came upon the Gentiles and give them the miraculous and extraordinary sign gifts while they were still Gentiles.  Moreover, the Holy Ghost came to Peter in a vision and informed that he was free to eat unclean meat, immediately before the group from the gentile, Cornelius, arrived.

III. What was the Tradition of Men here?

The unauthorized tradition, the tradition of men, was the tradition of the Judaizers.  Remember what the official letter said: "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, "Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law:" to whom we gave no such commandment."  This error was then corrected with Scripture.

Thus, while Stewart's dialog was mockingly titled, ironically, it was an accurate description of the case.

IV. Is the Acts 15 Assembly Normative of Anything?

A. Who constituted the assembly?

The assembly in Acts 15 was not only the apostles, but also the local elders from the Jerusalem church and the brethren there as well.  For note:

Acts 15:22-23
Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

B. What issued from the assembly and who was "bound" by it?

The assembly issued a letter that was not directed to "the whole church of Jesus Christ" but rather to a specific group of Christians in a specific geographic area, and only to the Gentile Christians of that group.  Recall:

Acts 15:23  And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

So, what came out was a letter that was written to a particular group of Gentiles living in particular geographic areas.  If this were a papal decree, it wouldn't meet the criteria for being "ex cathedra" because it not intended to bind the whole church.

C. Any appeal to their own authority?

The gist of their letter was one of disavowing the claim that they had issued a command that the Gentiles must become Jews.  "We never said that, and we're not going to" was the point of the letter.  While there is no doubt that the apostles had a lot of authority in the church, there is no appeal to, "We the united apostles have agreed ..." but rather, as noted above, the point was to disclaim the notion that anyone in Jerusalem had any such tradition on divine authority.  So, you might say that there was some appeal to authority, but there was no clear indication that the authority sprang from the fact that the meeting was an "ecumenical council" or anything of that sort.

Indeed, further to (A) above, the church of Antioch etc. did not participate in the council, which is why the church at Jerusalem sent back "chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." These were sent as witnesses, so that the people at Antioch could be sure that the apostles in Jerusalem really hadn't issued the command attributed to them by the Judaizers.

D.  Who called the assembly?

No emperor or bishop of Rome called the assembly, of course.  Instead, the folks at Antioch were so troubled by the dissension over the topic that they sent to Jerusalem, the place from which the Judaizers had come (as can be seen both in Galatians 2 and Acts 15).

V. Implications for Rome's Ecclesiology?

What (as my brother, James White, recently discussed) are the implications that Mr. Stewart wants us to take away regarding his own church?  Does he want us to think that the bishops of his church are apostles and prophets with the extraordinary gifts like Peter, Paul, and others at that assembly were?  Does he want us to think that the bishops of Rome get visions like Peter received?  How is the assembly at Acts 15 supposed to "cash out" when you turn to Rome?  These are questions that it seems Mr. Stewart has not thought carefully about.  And the killer question is - why would we treat with equal or greater respect a council of men who don't have extraordinary experiences, the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, and the in-person instruction of Jesus as compared to a council of men that all those things?  There's no compelling answer that can be given. Peter and Paul had the Holy Spirit in a way that, quite obviously, no one has today.  Their extraordinary gifts testified to their authority - but what testifies to the authority of the Roman bishop?

VI. What if the Point is Just that Private Judgment is Bunk?

An alternative reading of Stewart's dialog is just as a general mockery of private judgment. At the end of the dialog, Stewart has his Judaizers saying this:

Malachi: “I know. So, what are we going to do? My heart sank the moment I heard the ruling.”
Phineas: “We must do the only thing we can do. The thing God wants us to do. We must reason with them from the Scriptures and demonstrate what the divinely inspired writings clearly teach on this matter. We have to show them they’ve made a grave error. You well know you can’t be a follower of the Lord and remain uncircumcised. This is serious. An uncircumcised person is destined for destruction. The Lord’s wrath burned against Moses’ for neglecting the covenantal sign, as I’m sure you remember.”
Malachi: “I do. What if they don’t reverse their decision? I began thinking about that possibility.”
Phineas: “I’m hopeful they’ll come around. After all, they are Jesus’ apostles, which means they learned first hand that Jesus didn’t come to abrogate the law but to fulfill it, and that our Lord himself was circumcised. They themselves bear the mark of the covenant in their bodies, after all!”
Malachi: “But let’s say they don’t agree with us? What if they don’t agree with the Scriptures?”
Phineas: “Well, then, as much as I hate to say it, we’ll have to separate from them and organize churches that are faithful to the Scriptures and our most ancient faith as it was taught by Jesus. God has spoken in the Scriptures and so we will take our stand on the Scriptures. No man or group of men has the authority to set aside what God commands in his holy Word. We have to obey God rather than men. You never know, if we do have to separate, maybe our example of faithfulness to the Word of God will bring them back to the truth.”

The focus of this dialog seems to be on trying to illustrate what Stewart sees as a Sola Scriptura mindset.  But the problem is not with the principle of Sola Scriptura, but rather with Stewart's understanding of Scripture.  We have already provided some examples of Stewart's exegetical frailty above, but there is more in this section.

The idea that "an uncircumcised person is destined for destruction" does not reflect the text of Scripture.  Recall that before Abraham's circumcision, it is written:

Genesis 15:6  And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.



Moreover, consider all those who believed from Adam, Abel, and Enoch down to the family of Abraham and Melchizedek.  They were uncircumcised, but they were not "destined for destruction."  (Oh, and don't forget about - you know -  I hate to have to even mention this - but every woman)  Stewart seems to have imposed his misunderstanding of the nature of baptism back into the Old Testament.  Circumcision, like Baptism, was not what saved anyone.  People are saved by grace through faith. Adam and Abel were saved the same way Abraham was, and we are saved the same way as well - though with clearer vision than they had.

But let's set aside Stewart's exegetical failures.  What if fundamentally people cannot understand what Scripture is saying?  Then, of course, Stewart's whole case falls apart.  After all, if people fundamentally can't understand what Scripture is saying, it is pure hubris to suppose that they understand what Stewart himself is saying.  Moreover, of course, if they can't understand what Scripture is saying, then Stewart himself (as one of "people") also cannot understand.  Moreover, to make matters worse - not only is Stewart acting as though he thinks he understands Acts 15, through his mocking dialog, he is suggesting that he thinks others may also be able to understand Acts 15.  But if private judgment is bunk - this is all a tremendous waste of time.

VII. Was a Council needed to Settle a Disagreement Between Peter, Paul, and putatively James?

This is really related to the earlier question about the impact on Stewart's ecclesiology.  Recall that, per Galatians, in this dispute at Antioch, Paul opposed Peter to his face.  Recall:

Galatians 2:11-14 

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

And:

Acts 15:1-2 

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Clearly, Peter came around to Paul's way of thinking, but they didn't just settle the matter at Antioch.  They went back to James.  When they got there, they found a "sect of the Pharisees" that taught the circumcision was required (oh, how early heresies started to creep in!), but James denied having commanded that the Gentiles must be circumcised and obey the law of Moses.

Still, at the time in Antioch, Paul withstood Peter to Peter's face.  Why couldn't Paul just obey what the "pope" said if that's what Peter was?  Moreover, why were not the folks at Antioch satisfied by Paul's authority?  The reason was James and his apparent authority, and the implicit suggestion that this was a teaching that had been handed down.

VIII. What might one to do avoid this problem?

Suppose that you were an apostle in charge of Christianity.  Seeing the problems that can arise from fake oral tradition (the Judaizers really did have contact with the apostle James). What might you do, knowing that you and the other apostles were going to die, that persecution would prevent any effective central control for a century or more, and knowing that there would be false teachers and heretics who would arise?  One approach you might take is to leave behind writings that capture the actual teachings of Jesus and the apostles, so that people could refer to them when questions arose.  In fact, this is what God provided for us, notwithstanding the mockery of Stewart and others.

- TurretinFan

Post Script

Having written the above (well, much of it - I went back and altered a few points later), I reviewed the comment box.  There, I found Stewart commenting:

Whatever old covenant texts the Council may have considered, the final rationale for the Gentile exemption is given in the bare statement: “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us…” Note well that St. James isn’t basing the Council’s decision on Amos 9:11, 12. Instead, and contrary to what one would expect if Scripture alone is the final authority, the prophet Amos is produced simply as a scriptural witness agreeing with the apostolic ruling. Mark carefully the order – the prophet agrees with the Council’s conclusion, not the other way around.

Stewart should read more carefully. James pronounces a sentence, and only after that does the assembly agree.  His reference to Scripture is part of his rationale.  What Scripture agrees with (and confirms) is the Apostles' experience, not the other way 'round.  The comment continued:

In addition, the old covenant Scriptures never give the slightest inkling that God will one day sheath the knife of circumcision. A.D. 49 is the first time this teaching is promulgated to God’s people. 

 This is simply a sad reflection on Stewart's inability to understand Amos 9:11-12, and his apparent lack of awareness regarding the other Scriptures (see the examples provided above in section I).

Stewart additionally commented:

One more thing….
How loud must the Holy Spirit increase the volume of the text before readers hear the obvious importance of St. Peter’s presence in Acts 15? His statements and reasonings dominate the chapter. St. James makes his final appeal in reference to Simon’s (Peter’s) words before citing the witness of Amos, and concluding by crafting a conciliar statement that encapsulated the Council’s mind (motivated as it was by Peter) on the matter of Gentile circumcision. St. Peter is the man at the Jerusalem Council. The ecclesial spotlight is on him.

Peter's statements/reasonings occupy five verses.  They are important, and James does mention them.  But they hardly dominate the chapter. 

What dominates the chapter is Paul.  Paul is the champion of the faith in vs. 2.  The church at Antioch (which included Peter, see Galatians 2) sends Paul and others to Jerusalem to hash it out with James (the people from whom the Judeans had come, see Galatians 2).  In verse 3, on the way to Jerusalem, Paul declares the conversion of the Gentiles and gets a great reception.  In verse 4, Paul and company (Peter or the fact that he was in Antioch and came along to Jerusalem isn't even mentioned) are received by the apostles.  After Peter makes his five-verse speech, it's not over.  Paul then gives an account of his experiences (vs. 12).  Paul makes the list of people to go back to Antioch with the news (vs. 22) and because he was already known as the champion of this position, they send men with him.  Paul gets called "beloved" in the letter (vs. 25) and Peter isn't even mentioned in the letter (except under the general grouping of "apostles").  And I could go on, but the rest of the chapter is also Paul, Paul, and more Paul.  In fact, of course, the chapter divisions are not original, and Paul dominates this whole section of Acts.

Not to mention, of course, that when it comes time to actually make a decision, while Peter is first to say something memorable (isn't he always?), James is last.  It is James whose final word becomes, in effect, the word of the whole group.  In the assembly itself, even though Peter may talk more, the focus is on James and his decision.

So, Peter doesn't dominate either the chapter or the council.  Peter is not unimportant (he's the third most important person - tied with Barnabas), but calling him "the man" just displays Stewart's prejudice to think too highly of him.

Here are Peter's statements and reasonings:

Acts 15:7-11 

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Notice that Simon ("the man") Peter doesn't mention the word circumcision.  The "yoke" he mentions is not circumcision (they and their fathers did bear that yoke) but the whole ceremonial law.  If only Stewart would pay attention to "the man" he might figure out why Amos 9:11-12 are relevant.  As Peter explains, the Gentiles were saved by faith without having been circumcised.  The evidence is the "gift of the Holy Ghost" (namely the miraculous sign gifts).  They received that, while still Gentiles.

Also, if Stewart were paying more attention to "the man" he would notice that it is "faith alone" that Peter is teaching as the instrumental means of salvation.  It's not as well developed as Paul's discussion in the epistles, but it is there nonetheless.

Furthermore, as well, "the man" that Stewart lavishes with excessive praise is teaching another important doctrine: grace alone. Notice, indeed, that Peter recognizes that it is through and not through meritorious works that both the Jews and Gentiles are saved.  The Jews could not merit salvation through works and the Gentiles cannot either.  Again, see Paul's epistles for a more full discussion.

Considering that this part of the passage "dominates" (per Stewart) one might wish that the doctrines and faith of Peter would dominate Stewart's mind - instead of encouraging him to impose the papacy anachronistically onto the passage.

As to the notion that James and Jerusalem in Acts 15 contradict the claims of Roman primacy….
St. James’ conclusion to the deliberations harmonizes naturally with his pastoral role as Bishop of Jerusalem. He is simply acting as the resident Shepherd of the city and host of the Council. And, of course, Roman primacy was years away as Peter had not yet established his See in that city.

None of this, of course, has any legitimate basis in the text (we can talk about its very questionable basis in tradition another time).  Moreover, why would the "resident Shepherd of the city" pronounce the judgment of the assembly?  Why wouldn't that be the "pope"'s role?  This isn't just an appeal to questionable traditions, it's a blindingly ad hoc appeal to them. 

Later, we find another comment from Stewart:

Can you please locate one passage or verse in the OT that indicates circumcision (an Abrahamic institution, btw) will cease as a requirement for the Lord’s people? Given the Protestant belief in the perspicuity of Scripture, I would imagine finding something will be relatively easy.

Is Stewart really this unfamiliar with the doctrine of perspicuity?  That doctrine does not say that every doctrine is plainly taught in Scripture, but only that the necessary doctrines are plainly taught.  Moreover, it is self-evidently clear that circumcision cannot be required for salvation, at least from the fact that women cannot be circumcised.  Moreover, as already abundantly explained above, Amos 9:11-12 is precisely that passage, and that's just the reason that James quoted it.

- TurretinFan

Note the Response of the Community...

That St. Joseph's has a couple of Leviticus 18:22 alumnae is not really a news story.  What is remarkable is the approbation of their story by their fellow alumni.  The school, it seems, initially tried to exclude them from a contest, "How I met my Hawkmate," but then caved.  (read more here - not for tender eyes)

There is also a remarkable story to be considered in their seared consciences as contrasted with the more tender consciences of the men in our previous story. They have pride in their sin, not shame, whilst their Colombian counterparts were absolutely overcome (in Judas-like fashion) with shame.

-TurretinFan

Lent is Biblical?!

So proclaims one blog. Of course, there's no mention of Lent in Scripture. So, how could it be Biblical? The tortured reasoning is that there are "several forty day parallels in Scripture." Let's look at those parallels:

Moses’ fasts on the the holy mountain (Ex 24:18; 34:28; Deut 9:9) and his intercession for Israel (Deut 9:25), Elijah’s journey to Mt. Horeb (1 Ki 19:8), Ezekiel’s lying on one side (Ezek 4:6), and Christ’s fast in the wilderness (Mt 4:2).

And what to do the texts say:

Exodus 24:18 And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.

Exodus 34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Deuteronomy 9:9 When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:

Deuteronomy 9:25 Thus I fell down before the LORD forty days and forty nights, as I fell down at the first; because the LORD had said he would destroy you.

The following was curiously omitted by the author:

Deuteronomy 10:10 And I stayed in the mount, according to the first time, forty days and forty nights; and the LORD hearkened unto me at that time also, and the LORD would not destroy thee.

1 Kings 19:8 And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God.

Ezekiel 4:6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

Oddly, the author didn't include the other synoptic accounts:

Mark 1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

Luke 4:2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

Except for the Ezekiel reference, these are all examples of fasting for forty days. But note:

a) These are not prescriptive. There is nothing about these passages that suggests "imitate this example." Moreover, while there are three examples (Moses, Elijah, and Jesus) none is described as imitating the other.

b) These are supernatural and miraculous. No normal human being under ordinary circumstances can survive for 40 days without food and water. These are not part of some general plan of godly living.

c) These are isolated, not annual, events. Moses apparently fasted for forty days more than once, but it was an occasional, not regular fast. The others fasted for forty days once.

In short, these fasts are only similar to Lent in a very superficial way. Lent is simply dietary restrictions for forty days (not even consecutive days) and the way it is practiced in places like the U.S. and U.K., it's' not even really that.

The Ezekiel example is just a strange inclusion. For you will see that although a special diet is mentioned, it is not simply for forty days:

Ezekiel 4:1-17

Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and pourtray upon it the city, even Jerusalem: and lay siege against it, and build a fort against it, and cast a mount against it; set the camp also against it, and set battering rams against it round about. Moreover take thou unto thee an iron pan, and set it for a wall of iron between thee and the city: and set thy face against it, and it shall be besieged, and thou shalt lay siege against it. This shall be a sign to the house of Israel.

Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

Therefore thou shalt set thy face toward the siege of Jerusalem, and thine arm shall be uncovered, and thou shalt prophesy against it. And, behold, I will lay bands upon thee, and thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another, till thou hast ended the days of thy siege.

Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof.

And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it. Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink.

And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.

And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.

Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.

Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith. Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, behold, I will break the staff of bread in Jerusalem: and they shall eat bread by weight, and with care; and they shall drink water by measure, and with astonishment: that they may want bread and water, and be astonied one with another, and consume away for their iniquity.

a) As you can, Ezekiel's curious diet was not for forty days, but for nearly four hundred days.

b) Moreover, the whole point of the diet was to illustrate the coming siege, destruction, and dispersal of the Israelites.

c) Thus, for example, the dung-baked bread was to be dung-baked to illustrate that the Israelites were going to be eating defiled bread. The odd combination of ingredients illustrates the destruction of the usual separation that Israel had experienced. The measured food and water illustrate the times of austerity that were coming. The "eat it as barley cakes" is to show that these austere portions would be considered a blessing.

In short, the Ezekiel fast (if we can call it that) points forward to a curse from God. It is descriptive and prophetic, not prescriptive. Like the fasts, it is occasional - not annual (indeed it could not be annual on this planet).

This seems absurd, ridiculous, and frankly beneath response. Yet it is apparently being offered on Facebook (evidence) as though it were a serious defense of the practice of the Roman communion.

Of course, none of this is to suggest that fasting, in itself, is wrong. Nevertheless, Christian fasting is purposeful and, usually, secret. Jesus taught us:

Matthew 6:16-18
Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.

See people with ash daubed on their face? They are not following this teaching.

-TurretinFan

This Goes Beyond Lampoon ...

I'm not sure what else to say about this story about a pair of Columbian priests (Roman communion) who made the headlines when they were discovered murdered. Martyrs, do you think? It turns out it was a murder for hire. They were the ones who hired the hitmen. There's more, but it's not for tender eyes.

-TurretinFan

Fenner on the Second Commandment

From Christs Alarm To Drowsy Saints: Or, Christs Epistle to his Churches, by William Fenner (1600-1640):

Q. 66. What art thou commanded in the second Commandment?

A. Not to serve God with will-worship, though it seem never so wise and humble, and mortifying (Colossians 2:23). To abhor all gross thoughts of God (Acts 17:29) as that he is such a one, as mens' selves do think him to be (Psalm 50:21). Not to make any Image (Deuteronomy 5:8) unless God should reveal a new Commandment, as once he did for Cherubims in the sanctuary (Exodus 25:18) and the brazen Serpent in the wilderness (Numbers 21:8) or unless it be in a civil use (Matthew 22:20). To abhor images of Idolaters, either to worship God before them (2 Chronicles 25:14) or in them, as the Jews did God in Baal (Hosea 2:16) or to be put in mind of God by them (Hosea 2:17) or being at Mass or communion of Service with them (1 Corinthians 10:21) or housing them (2 John 10) or bidding them God speed (2 John 11) or learning any of their devises or customs of them (Deuteronomy 12:30) or familiar reading their Books (Acts 19:19). Unless it be to confute them by their own writers (Acts 17:28) and to upbraid carnal Professors with their strictness in their kinds (Romans 2:14-17, &c.).

Q. 67. What else art thou commanded in the Second Commandment?

A. Not to lean to mine own knowledge (Proverbs 3:5) nor to serve God by the precepts of Men (Isaiah 29:13) nor as men bid me (Mark 7:6). Nor according to the Traditions and customs of the lives of our Fore-fathers (1 Peter 1:18). I am commanded to do, not only in matter what, but also in manner, as the Lord commandeth (Genesis 6:22). For otherwise my prayers and services that I do unto God, and all my sacrifices and oblations are no better then murder, or a Dog's neck, or Swine's blood, or Idolatry; so indeed it is, if I serve him after my own ways (Isaiah 66:3) not only sticks and stones are Idols (Leviticus 26:1) but carnal fancies, imaginations, dulness, deadness, luke-warmness; for there be idols in the heart (Ezekiel 14:3-4). Covetousness is Idolatry (Colossians 3:5). Stubbornness is as idolatry (1 Samuel 15:23). A careless Christian is an Idol, there is an idol Professor, an idol Christian, an idol Shepherd (Zechariah 11:17).

(Thanks to Matthew Lankford at the Idolatry Condemned blog for bringing this to my attention)

Vatican Politics - Not Quite the 15th and 16th Centuries But ...

There have been some interesting happenings at the Vatican (link to article). The Vatican was busy last week denying what the leaked communication implied (and who knows where the truth lies), but it will be interesting to see how this pans out in terms of who is the next pope. The article suggests that Tarcisio Bertone may be the one we should expect to succeed Benedict XVI. It would be an interesting change of pace, in terms of different personalities. One imagines he would be more willing than Benedict XVI to define the dogma of the co-redemptrix.

-TurretinFan

"Your Interpretation of" - a Common Objection Debunked

The Called to Communion clique is fond of replacing "Scripture" with "your interpretation of Scripture." This has the rhetorical effect of making the appeal to Scripture sound less authoritative. After all, "that's just your interpretation" is idiomatic of something that has little value. It's part of the culture of relativism, in which your interpretation is just as good as my interpretation is just as good as anyone else's interpretation.

Of course, Called to Communion uses this bait to try to plant the hook of "The Church's Interpretation" as a non-relativistic alternative to the sea of relativism. The sea of relativism, though, is not a true alternative. Not all interpretations are equally valid, and the fact that something is one's interpretation doesn't mean it has no validity or that it has equal validity with the interpretation of someone else.

In the case of a document, like Scripture, that has an intended meaning, the meaning is what the author intended, which is generally a single meaning - or in the case of certain genres a pair of meanings (the technique of double entendre is an example of the latter). And, of course, certain texts which employ figures of speech have multiple layers of meaning (depending on how one analyzes meaning - a topic really beyond this short article).

What makes an interpretation correct is it's correspondence to authorial intent. Things like majority vote of the people, or endorsement by the right number of credentialed and certified scholars, do not matter in this sphere. Instead, all that matters is alignment with what the author actually intended.

There are a variety of hypotheses about how we can determine what an author meant. If we assume that the book is incoherent or corrupted, so that it cannot convey its actual meaning itself, then we need to go to another source. This is what the Gnostics alleged, and what - in essence - each of Rome, Islam, and Mormonism have had to allege.

On the other hand, if we believe the book to be preserved and coherent, then the best way to determine the meaning of the book is from the book itself. If we want to know what some phrase or word means, we look to the context. When we read the Scriptures as a whole, we read them harmoniously - not discordantly. Paul's teaching of justification by faith apart from works doesn't contradict James' teaching on justification - even if the solution does not immediately smack everyone in the face with a two-by-four.

If we adopt the former hypothesis, we undermine Scriptural authority, if we adopt the latter hypothesis, we affirm Scriptural authority.

In a previous post, I made a comparison between the religion of Roman Catholicism and Islam (as well as Mormonism). The one particular comparison I made, which is significant, has to do with whether the Scriptures are themselves the rule of faith. Catholicism, like Islam and Mormonism, rejects this - along, I might add, with Gnosticism (see this more detailed discussion of Gnosticism's hermeneutic).

Islam makes the Qur'an (and the teachings and example of Mohammed) their rule, Mormonism makes the Book of Mormon, the Doctrines and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price (and the teachings of Joseph Smith and subsequent alleged apostles) their rule, while Catholicism makes the teachings of the Magisterium (the "universal and ordinary magisterium" but also and chiefly the teachings of the allegedly ecumenical councils and the allegedly ex cathedra statements of the bishops of Rome) their rule.

The analogy is very precise: these religions offer an authority that supersedes Scripture's authority. Rome doesn't call the decrees of their allegedly ecumenical councils and "ex cathedra" papal statements "scripture," but they give them superior authority to Scripture. (I should point out that the teachings of the "universal and ordinary magisterium" are also given authoritative weight. The only problem here is that it is far from clear what exactly that body of teachings is. While the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithful sometimes appeals to the UOM on certain points, they themselves are not considered infallible.)

One objection that I received in response from "Ryan" is the sort of objection promoted at the "Called to Communion" blog. The objection is as follows: "I give statements of the Magisterium and ex cathedra papal statements superior authority to MY OWN interpretation, not to Scripture itself."

It may sound nice to those in the Roman communion to say "interpretation" but what they are really saying is that it doesn't matter to them how clearly Scripture contradicts the allegedly ecumenical councils and ex cathedra papal statements, they are going to believe the magisterium. That's just saying that Scripture has no authority to them - or at least no authority in matters on which the magisterium has also spoken.

The objection continued: "What you are really saying is YOUR INTERPRETATION of Scripture is more authoritative than the Catholic Magisterium."

I answer:

a) "The Catholic Magisterium" has very rarely actually interpreted Scripture. Try to find me any whole chapter for which there is an allegedly infallible interpretation (and this supposedly after almost 2000 years of existence).

b) What I'm really saying is that Scripture itself has more authority than the Roman magisterium. After all, you have to "interpret" the magisterium just as you have to "interpret" the Scriptures. So, compare apples to apples.

c) In other words, if you insist on pedantically inserting "interpretation of" into the discussion (as the Called to Communion crowd encourages folks to do), then the comparison is between "your interpretation of Scripture" and "your interpretation of the magisterium." But really, the comparison is between the Scripture and the magisterium. The "your interpretation of" or "my interpretation of" is just a needless insertion.

d) In some cases, the insertion of "your interpretation of" next to "Scripture" but not next to "magisterium" is part of the overall campaign of trying to supersede Scripture's authority. I don't assume that was Ryan's intent. Nevertheless, the result of adding "your interpretation of" next to "X" is rhetorically speaking to make the "X" sound less authoritative. "Scripture" sounds more authoritative than "your interpretation of Scripture," as well it should!

e) In some cases, the insertion of "your interpretation of" next to "Scripture" is just wrong. For example, our rule of faith in Christianity is not "my interpretation of Scripture" (which is something changeable) but Scripture itself (which is unchangeable). Scripture (like everything else, including the magisterium's writings) must be understood to be applied. Nevertheless, it is Scripture itself that is our rule of faith.

The objection continued: "Because you believe the Bible teaches monergism, and the Catholic Church does not believe the Bible teaches monergism, you are really comparing your interpretation to the Church's interpretation, whereas I submit my own interpretive authority to the Church."

I answer:

a) As I noted above, that's just another way of saying "no matter how clearly the Scripture teaches monergism, I will follow what the magisterium says to the contrary." It's not "submitting [your] own interpretive authority to [Rome]" it's failing to do your duty of discernment, for Scripture warns you that false teachers will arise, and it warns you about this eventuality quite clearly.

b) Your church may well insist by dogma that the Bible does not teach monergism, but she does not do so by interpretation of Scripture. Look at Trent, for example. There cooperation is defined dogma, but where is any interpretation of any particular scriptures provided? So you should see that she is not so much interpreting as just insisting.

The objection continued: "You might not think baptism regenerates us, but the Church has interpreted the Bible to mean we are indeed regenerated by baptism."

I answer: I think as you look more closely, you will find that this too is a matter of insistence, not interpretation, per se.

The objection continued: "The difference is not that the Church has superseded Scripture by daring to interpret it authoritatively; the difference is that you think your interpretation is better."

I answer:

a) Actually, I think that Scripture's meaning is truth and it is objective. So, in questions of interpretation, the question is who is right, not who is "better."

b) Your church has attempted to supersede Scripture by demanding that you understand Scripture only in ways that do not contradict what you understand your church to be saying is true. In other words, your interpretation of Scripture must be submitted to your interpretation of the magisterium, or to speak normally - Scripture's authority must be submitted to that of the magisterium.

The objection concluded: "If your analogy holds, YOUR own authority has also superseded Scripture."

I answer: Unlike your church, I don't purport to be infallible. What I insist is true is always open to correction from the authority of Scripture. What your church insists is true is not open to similar correction. She feigns to speak infallibly, I do not.

-Turretinfan

Who Led Dr. Caner to Christ? Was his Grandmother involved?

We saw that a pre-9/11 poster advertising Dr. Caner as a speaker says that Dr. Caner's grandmother led him to Christ. We also see that in this video (about half way through - note the "almost in college" claim for his conversion date at the beginning) Dr. Caner says: "All it did, was take one simple grandmother, to explain to me that everything's a trinity. Space is a Trinity, Time is a Trinity."  (link to current place)(link to original source - now broken)
I don't know whether Dr. Caner's grandmother was influential in his conversion.  I don't know the truth of how he came to serve Christ - and I don't need to know that.  I wonder whether perhaps his grandmother was influential in that process, along with his classmate from high school, but I obviously have no way of knowing.  Indeed, in the video clip linked-to above, Dr. Caner does not even say that the grandmother was his grandmother, or that this explanation was provided before his conversion.  Still, it is an interesting clip.

I don't really care for the spatial and temporal analogies to the Trinity.  I don't see any need here to get into why that is, but I think it's sufficient to say I don't think the Trinity as Trinity is directly analogous to anything in nature - the Trinity is other.

-TurretinFan

More Ergun Caner stuff ... from MosesModel

MosesModel has a few more Caner-related posts.

One offers a comparison of Caner's statements regarding what is allegedly written on the wall of a mosque in Kabul.

One highlights an amusing error regarding Caner's marriage status. It also demonstrates that not every erroneous statement about Ergun Caner's biography is the fault of Ergun Caner.

Another highlights some issues with a sermon by Ergun Caner from January 1, 2012.

-TurretinFan

Caners on the John Ankerberg Show

There are a number of clips of the Caners' previous (before 2013) appearance(s) on the John Ankerberg show.  It is unclear how this appearance will compare with the 2013 appearance in terms of the Caners' biographies/autobiographies.  The following are some notes from those clips, with links to the clips.  I'm not sure how much use these are, but I offer them more or less by way of an index for interested people, since it appears quite a few people are interested in the subject.

What is Christmas time like for a Muslim?

Ankerberg's question seems to assume that the Caners both came to America, when in fact Emir was born here.  Emir does not clarify this in the clip.

Emir claims that they did not celebrate Christmas due to their father's protectiveness.

What is Salvation for a Muslim?

No biographical details.

Former Muslim Testimony

Ergun claims that they did not have close friends, even in high school.

Ergun credits Jerry Tackett with being tenacious for years.

Ergun claims that walking into a church would "defile" him.

It is interesting to hear Emir claim that the verse in the Quran that says that "they did not crucify him" says that someone took his place.  That's definitely a predominate Muslim interpretation of the verse, but it is not what the verse says.

Ergun claims that Shabir Ally would always ask in debate, "What does one man's death have to do with me?"

Former Muslim Disowned by Father

How did you survive being disowned by your father, Ankerberg asks.  Ergun talks about how his father was a hero to him.

Islam Proselytizing America

No biographical details.

What do Muslims Believe about Jesus?

No biographical details.

Leading a Muslim to Christ

Emir cites "volume 5 of the Hadith, number 266."

Muslim Belief about Grace and Unconditional Love

No biographical details.

What do Muslims Believe?

No biographical details.

What happens when a Muslim Becomes a Christian?

Ergun talks about coming forward the fourth or fifth time he had been in church, to be led to Jesus by the minister.

Emir says that Ergun was saved about a year prior to Emir.  Emir says that the same friend "along with my brother" invited Emir to church as well.  Emir claims he went forward that night and was saved.  Interestingly, at page 19 of "Unveiling Islam," the Caners had claimed that Ergun invited Emir to church after Erdem had been saved in their basement (link).

Emir claims that he and Ergun were disowned at separate times by their father.

Emir cites "Hadith, Volume 9, Number 57," but adds "of Bukhari's hadith."

Ergun claims he went to his father and told him that he believes Jesus is the Son of God.

He said that after he didn't see his father for another 17 years.

How can a Muslim know he is going to Heaven?

No biographical details.

Do Muslims have to Pay for their Own Sins?

No biographical details.

What will happen if Islam keeps Growing?

No biographical details.

What will happen if Christian keeps getting "watered down"

No biographical details.

Sharia Law

Emir claims that in Sharia if a woman is raped it is considered her fault.

Is Jihad Physical Warfare?

No biographical details.

How Many Countries have Sharia Law?

Ergun claims he does debates.

Muslim Beliefs about End-time Events

No biographical details.

Muslims and Eschatology

Ergun claims that he was taught that the Jews drink the blood of Palestinian children.

Why is Jerusalem important to Muslims?

Ergun claims he was raised to hate the Jews.

Ergun also claims he believes Jesus died so that Osama bin Ladin could be saved.

Does Islamic Eschatology Depend on Conquest of the World?

Ergun claims that his father died believing that the first gulf war didn't take place, because Islam can't lose.

Is Mohammed the Prophet that we all should Follow?

No biographical details.

Is Mohammed the Exemplar we should follow?

The Caners claim to be working on a commentary on every verse in the Koran from an Evangelical standpoint ("2.3 million words" - Ergun Caner).

What is the Influences on or of Mohammad?

Ergun treats the "Gospel of Barnabas" as being written "five centuries after any apostles have been on the planet."  (In fact, it's a 14th century forgery, more than five centuries after Mohammad)  Ergun claims that this development gives Mohammad credence.

Interestingly, Ergun suggests we should beware of a man who is the hero of every illustration, beware of a pastor who is the hero of every story.

Compare Jesus with Mohammad

No biographic details.

What about the Dark Side of Islam?

No biographic details.

Who is Allah?

Ergun refers to his and Emir's debates, and claims that they have not met one scholar who would say that Allah and Jehovah God of the Bible are the same God.

What is the plan of salvation in Islam?

No biographic details.

What about Hell in Islam?

No biographic details.

What about the Holy Spirit in Islam?

No biographic details.

Where do the five pillars of Islam come in?

No biographic details.

What is the good news Islam doesn't have?

No biographic details.

Why is it so hard for Muslim people to become Christians?

Emir notes that he and Ergun were disowned by their father.

Caners talk about their father, a devout Muslim

Ergun talks about being cut out of pictures.  Ergun claims he never got to see two sisters born or raised.

Ergun describes coming to see their dying father.

Emir talks about how he and Erdem were saved the same week and baptized the same Sunday.

Emir mentions that his mother had become a Sunni Muslim because of their father.  Emir also mentions the salvation of his grandmother, without claiming she had been a Muslim.

Emir also refers to his half-sisters as sisters.

What can happen to Muslim women who are saved?

No biographic details.

Can we reach Muslims here in America?

No biographic details, aside from mentioning international trips.

A Palestinian Arab that became a Christian

No biographical details.

Leading a Muslim to Christ

No biographical details.

-TurretinFan

Is Charity a Means to Salvation?

Does the Pope teach works salvation?  The Vatican Information Service capsulized one of his recent talks under the heading, "POPE'S LENTEN MESSAGE: CHARITY AS A MEANS TO SALVATION," but perhaps more significantly consider his own words, as provided by VIS:

All of us have received spiritual or material riches meant to be used for the fulfilment of God's plan, for the good of the Church and for our personal salvation.

(Benedict XVI via Vatican Information Service, 7 February 2012)

By contrast, we believe that salvation is entirely of the Lord.  We teach that it is all of God.  God is both the author and finisher of our salvation. 

Hebrews 12:2  Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Philippians 1:6  Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Christ is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and end:

Revelation 1:8  I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Don't get me wrong. Good works are important, as the pope quoted, the Scriptures say:

Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

Yet it is not by those works that we are saved. As it is written:

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

2 Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Amen, and praise the Lord for his mercy and grace, which endure forever.

-TurretinFan

Is Rejecting Rome the Only Protestant Unity?

Andre writes:

In my exit interview, federal vision, NPP, and NT Wright were suddenly my pastor’s best friends. He told me that he’d be comfortable if I worshipped with them but that he would worry for my soul if I joined the Catholic Church. When I heard that, I was even more comforted by my decisions. Because suspicion toward Rome seems to be the only thing uniting Protestants at this point.

First, let me tip my hat to Andre for at least going through the "exit interview" process.  While I am sure I have a lot of issues with him and his views, I am glad to see that he took the process with more seriousness than many.

That said, Andre has a warped perspective.  His former pastor would say the same thing if Andre was leaving for Islam or Mormonism, both of which claim (like Romanism) to have an authority that either de facto or de jure supercedes the Bible.  The problem is that Andre has left the visible church to join a church that rejects the gospel and has a history of persecuting those who preach the gospel.

We would and do give him the same sorts of warnings we give to those who leave for Islam or Mormonism.  The Roman magisterium is no more legitimate than Mohammed or Joseph Smith, notwithstanding their lofty claims for themselves.  We fear for the souls of those who take such actions, because they are turning their backs on the gospel, and departing from the catholic and apostolic faith.

Our warnings to those who join the federal visionist or new perspectivist groups tend to be somewhat different, mainly because their serious doctrinal errors there do not necessarily rise to the level of rejecting the gospel.  The warnings we would give in those cases would be similar to the warnings we would give to someone leaving to a Methodist or Lutheran church.

I'm not sure whether Andre understands this important distinction between the gospel and other important doctrines.  I will, however, pray for his repentance and restoration to the visible church.

-TurretinFan

Why Does the Universe Look So Old?

In human terms, of course, the universe is old.  It's thousands of years old, much older than any living human, and maybe two orders of magnitude older than a typical retiree.  It's old.  It is not, however, as old as people who adopt the presupposition of naturalism think it is.

These days they are telling us that the universe is between 13-14 Billion years old.  Even the Earth itself is between 4-5 Billion years old, they tell us.  Perhaps, on the presupposition of naturalism, that's the "right" approximate age.

That presupposition of naturalism, however, is wrong.  The Earth only appears to be as old as naturalism would suggest it is.

But why then does the Earth look so "old."  Is God lying to us by dressing the world in old clothes to deceive us about its true age?

First, God can hardly be accused of deceiving us about the world's age, when he gives us such detailed information in Genesis and Exodus that allows us to generate an approximate age of the universe.

Second, what would a "young" universe look like?  On naturalism, a 6000 year old universe would be one that is totally inhospitable to life - the same for a 6000 year old Earth.  So, one obvious answer for the reason that the Earth and Universe don't look "young" is that the Earth and Universe are here to support life.

Third, as David Gadbois has noted (see here) any conceivable universe that has the laws of conversation of mass and energy would look older than it is, because the existence of matter and/or energy would imply the indefinite past existence of matter and energy.

Fourth, this "apparent age" is subjective.  Sure, I know that "scientists" use various objective measures and perform calculations, but the notion of appearance is itself inherently subjective.  We see this subjectivity in the "increasing age of the universe" phenomenon.  Nineteenth century scientists evidently estimated the age of the world in the tens of millions to hundreds of millions of years range.  By contrast, the age of the earth is now estimated to be the billions of years, range - with no real guarantee that new theories won't bring new revisions.

In short, given propositional divine revelation, any appearance of age of the universe is hardly problematic.  Moreover, since naturalism cannot account for fully formed worlds springing into being in a moment, it is unsurprising that the universe "appears" older than it is.  When the universe had just been formed, every possible naturalistic judgment of the earth's age would necessarily suggest it was older than it actually is.  That is especially the case for an habitable world, given that both new universes and new earths (as described by the scientific theories du jour) would be completely inhospitable to human life.

-TurretinFan

Another Beckwith-like Apostasy to Rome

You may recall that some time ago, Francis Beckwith made waves by secretly rejoining the Roman communion, while continuing in his role as president of Evangelical Theological Society. Sadly, we can add to that another similar tale.

Mr. Jason Stewart was an OPC pastor. According to a letter provided by his (now former) presbytery:

Whereas the date Mr. Stewart entered into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church (January 10, 2011) evidences a studied commitment to that church’s doctrine and practices while he remained a minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and

Whereas, in contravention of his ordination vows (FOG XXIII.8. (1-4)), Mr. Stewart did not disclose his change of convictions to his Presbytery until March 10, 2011, thus deceiving both the Presbytery, and the congregation of Trinity, Easton, and

Whereas Mr. Stewart has refused to be dissuaded from his course,

Therefore, in accordance with Book of Discipline V.2.b (1), Presbytery erased his name from its rolls, recorded the circumstances in its minutes, and communicated this action as a form of discipline (BOD V.2) to the congregation of Trinity, Easton with exhortation and encouragement toward a godly response to these events and to Mr. Stewart.

One wonders whether his new-found comrades at the Roman blog, Called to Communion, are aware of the facts of his conversion experience. In his account, he characterizes the events as: "Our decision to leave Presbyterianism for the Catholic Church surprised many." I'll say!

We will pray for repentance and restoration of Mr. Stewart (the erasure by Presbytery is de facto deposition and excommunication). Until that time, however, he ought to consider himself outside the visible and catholic church, and under threat of eternal judgment.

The reason for posting this point publicly, of course, is to draw attention to the issue of deception alleged by his former presbytery. I don't expect that this will matter to the Called to Communion team, but it ought to matter to seekers of truth. It helps to demonstrate the principle announced by the apostle, that they went out from us, because they were not of us. It also helps to qualify the credentials that are being used to promote his "conversion story" ("OPC Pastor ...") - yes, he managed to infiltrate the presbytery - but his manner of departure shows the sort of person he was.

-TurretinFan

Bodily Exercise Profiteth ...

Western culture is obsessed with a variety of conflicting things. One of those obsessions is health. Perhaps from good motives connected with our duty to preserve life under the sixth commandment, or perhaps from other motives, a lot of Christians in Western culture have come to think that being healthy is godly, and that being unhealthy is sinful.

We're not talking about people who get cancer - but people who eat fast food, or fatty food, or sugary food, or who smoke. These people are told that the Bible tells them to live a healthy life. So, what does Scripture actually say?

Well, Scripture does say that there is value in bodily exercise, but it calls the value "little."

1 Timothy 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

Moreover, there are general warnings in Scripture against glutton, sloth, and drunkenness. The following is a nice example of all three.

Proverbs 23:21 For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

But what are the usual prooftexts of the Christian Health movement? One is 1 Timothy 4:8, omitting the portion after "profiteth." The more popular verses, however, are the verse that says our body is a temple, and another one that describes bringing our body under submission.

Those verses, however, are being taken out of context.

1 Corinthians 6:13-20
Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

The point Paul is making is not to stay away from the doughnuts, but rather to avoid fornication. Paul is not concerned with sub-optimally healthy diet choices, but with immoral behavior.

Likewise:

1 Corinthians 9:23-27
And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: but I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

In this context, Paul is making an analogy between the preparations an athlete makes and the preparation that an evangelist makes. The expression "keep under my body, and bring it into subjection" is part of that analogy. The point is that our spiritual preparations should be as rigorous as the physical preparations of an athlete.

None of the above should be an endorsement of living in a way that takes no regard for one's health. We are to have a concern for our own life and the lives our neighbors, under the sixth commandment. That doesn't mean any particular health craze is good or right - or that trying extend our life through obsessing over diet or exercise is good or right. The point is simply that making health eating, drinking, etc. a priority is a matter of Christian liberty, not a matter of moral duty.

-TurretinFan

Maximus the Roman Catholic Confessor?

My friend James Swan posted a short article describing Maximus the Confessor's view of Rome's authority.  Matthew Bellisario at the Catholic Champion has now posted a response.

The material provided by my friend, Mr. Swan, was as follows:

7. They said to him, "And what will you do if the Romans unite with the Byzantines? For behold, yesterday there came legates of Rome and tomorrow on Sunday they will take communion with the patriarch; it will become evident to all that it was you who turned the Romans away. Doubtless with you removed, there will then be an easy union." And he said to them, "Those who are coming cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome, even if they should take communion because they have not brought a letter to the patriarch. And I am not at all convinced that the Romans will unite with them unless they confess that our Lord and God by nature both wills and works our salvation according to each of the natures from which he is, in which he is, as well as which he is." And they said, "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?" He replied, "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached"

Maximus the Confessor, Selected Writings (Paulist Press, 1985), p. 23.

Maximus, according to this material, was posed with the question about what he would do if Rome united with the Constantinople on the question of the two wills of Christ. That is to say, they asked him what he would do if Rome embraced monothelitism.

The first way that they posed the question led him to respond that if the legates of the patriarch (meaning the bishop of Rome) did not have a letter from the partriarch, even if they technically took communion with the bishop of Constantinople (as evidently was expected) that would not prove that the Partriarchite had consented to that monothelitism is either correct or acceptable.

Thus, they modified their question. As modified, Maximus could no longer escape the idea that Rome had embraced monothelitism. His response under that proposed hypothetical scenario was to maintain his current position. Even if Rome accepted monothelitism, he would not.

That position is not, in itself, Sola Scriptura. After all, Maximus does not explicitly state that the reason for his refusal to adopt Rome's position is because Scripture is a higher authority. One might infer such a position from his reference to Galatians (Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.).

Whether or not such an inference is correct, Maximus the Confessor is plainly not a Roman Catholic - willing to accept whatever position Rome adopts.

Mr. Bellisario has attempted to provide some counterpoints. He provides three quotations with the citation, "(Saint Maximus the Confessor- The opuscula fragments)." The first quotation is as follows:

All the ends of the inhabited world, and those who anywhere on earth confess the Lord with a pure and orthodox faith, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and her confession and faith as to a sun of eternal light, receiving from her the radiant beam of the patristic and holy doctrines, just as the holy six synods, inspired and sacred, purely and with all devotion set them forth, uttering most clearly the symbol of faith. For, from the time of the descent to us of the incarnate Word of God, all the Churches of the Christians everywhere have held and possess this most great Church as the sole base and foundation, since, according to the very promise of the Saviour, it will never be overpowered by the gates of hell, but rather has the keys of the orthodox faith and confession in him, and to those who approach it with reverence it opens the genuine and unique piety, but shuts and stops every heretical mouth that speaks utter wickedness. For that which the creator of everything himself, our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, established and built up - together with his disciples and apostles, and the Holy Fathers and teachers and martyrs who came after - have been consecrated by their own works and words, by their sufferings and sweat, by their labours and blood, and finally by their remarkable deaths for the sake of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of us who believe in him, they, through two words, uttered without pain or death - O the long-suffering and forbearance of God! - are eager to dissolve and to set at naught the great, all-illumining and all-praised mystery of the orthodox worship of the Christians.

It appears that this is an alternative translation of the following:

For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly to the most holy church of the Romans and its confession and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating splendor of the fathers and the sacred dogmas, just as the divinely-inspired and sacred six synods have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For ever since the incarnate word of God came down to us, all the churches of Christians everywhere have held that greatest Church there to be their sole base and foundation, since on the one hand, it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the very promise of the Savior, but holds the keys of the orthodox confession and faith in him and opens the only true and real religion to those who approach with godliness, and on the other hand, it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks unrighteousness against the Most High. For that which was founded and built by the creator and master of the universe himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, and his disciples and apostles, and following them the holy fathers and teachers and martyrs consecrated by their own words and deeds, and by their agony and sweat, suffering and bloodshed, and finally by their violent death for the catholic and apostolic Church of us who believe in him, they strive to destroy though two words [uttered] without effort and without death – O the patience and forbearance of God! –and [so seek] to annul the great ever-radiant and ever-lauded mystery of the orthodox worship of Christians.

(Opuscula 11, translation from The body in St. Maximus the Confessor: holy flesh, wholly deified by Adam G. Cooper, pp. 181-82)

The authenticity of this text is disputed (Cooper, p. 181) a fact that Mr. Bellisario fails to mention to the reader (presumably because he doesn't know). Moreover, what does the passage say that Bellisario can affirm? It says some nice things about Rome and the six synods - but wait. It refers to "six synods." People assume the means the first five major councils (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431, and Chalcedon 451), plus the 649 synod of the Lateran. But Bellisario would not consider that last one to be an ecumenical council (nor did it have the characteristics of such a council). And if it refers to the ecumenical council that addressed the monothelitism controversy, then it definitely isn't from Maximus - he didn't live to see that synod.

Moreover, nothing in the passage about indicates that Rome is characteristically unable ever to fall into error for a time. It does seem to suggest a thought that Rome will not be "overcome by the gates of Hades" (a misuse of that passage), but would it be "overcome" if for a time it fell into error?

But as Cooper suggests (p. 187), whether or not the passage is authentic we should consider Maximus' mature ecclesiology, as seen in the Disputatio Bizyae discussing with Theodosius:

What kind of believer accepts a dispensation silencing the very words which God of all ordained to be spoken by the apostles and prophets and teachers? Let us investigate, reverend master, what kind of evil this summary blindly arrives at. For if 'God appointed in the Church first apostles, then prophets, and third teachers' (1 Cor. 12:28) 'for the perfecting of the saints' (Eph. 4:12), having said in the Gospel to the apostles and through them to those after them, 'What I say to you, I say to all' (Mark 13:38), and again, 'He who receives you receives me, and he who rejects you rejects me' (Luke 10:16), it is clearly manifest that whoever does not receive the apostles and prophets and teachers, but rejects their words, rejects Christ himself.

Let us also investigate the other passage. God chose to raise up apostles and prophets and teachers for the perfecting of the saints. But in order to oppose godly religion the devil chose to raise up false apostles and false prophets and false teachers, so that the old law was opposed, as was also the evangelical law. And as far as I understand it the false apostles and false prophets and false teachers are the heretics alone, whose words and train of thought are distorted. Consequently, just as the one who receives the true apostles and prophets and teachers receives God, likewise the one who receives false apostles and false prophets and false teachers receives the devil. So the one who throws out the saints along with the cursed and impure heretics -- mark my word! -- manifestly condemns God along with the devil.

If, in that case, in racking our brains to come up with new words in our own times we find those words to have descended to this extreme evil, watch out lest we -- whilst alleging and proclaiming 'peace'-- be found to be struck ill with apostasy which the divine Apostle said beforehand would accompany the coming of the antichrist (2 Thess. 2:3-4).

I have spoken this to you, my lords, without holding back.... With these things inscribed in the tablet of my heart, are you telling me to enter into fellowship with a church in which these [other] things are proclaimed, and to have communion with those who actually expel God and, I imagine, the devil with God? May God -- who for my sake was made like me -- sin excepted -- never let this happen to me!

Notice how in this passage he makes individual conscience effectively supreme even over the apparent "apostles, prophets, and teachers" of his day - even to the point of hinting that he may be faced with the great apostasy.

The next quotation Bellisario provided was this:

"I don't have a teaching of my own, but the common one of the Catholic Church. I mean that I haven't initiated any expression at all that could be called my own teaching."

Before we continue, it's worth pointing out that it appears that Bellisario may have gleaned this and the previous quotation from Andrew Louth's article on Maximus's ecclesiology (which can be found here). In that article, it is cited as "Relatio," and is a portion of the transcript of his trial.

The point that Maximus is making here, though, is simply that he has not expounded a novel doctrine. He believes that he is just teaching what the church has universally held. His reference here to "the catholic church" is not a reference to the Roman Catholic church but to the universal church.

Likewise, Bellisario's third quotation (also found in this article) is as follows:

"No, he (The emperor is not a priest) isn't, because he neither stands beside the altar, and after the consecration of the bread elevates it with the words. Holy things for the holy, nor does he baptize, nor perform the rite of anointing, nor does he ordain and make bishops and presbyters and deacons; nor does he anoint churches, nor does he bear the symbols of the priesthood, the omophorion and the Gospel book, [as he bears the symbols] of imperial office, the crown and the purple."

(Relatio 4, as cited in the article)

This has nothing really to do with Mr. Swan's thesis. It's not clear why Bellisario thinks it's important to this topic (he makes a comment in his post that seems to try to tie this quotation to a point of contrast between Luther's liturgy and Maximus' liturgy - something rather tangential at best). Louth thought it was important because the relationship of Emperor to church was one that was going to be significant in coming centuries.

Shortly after presenting that quotation, the article from which Bellisario appears to have been drawing goes on to point out that in fact Rome did succumb to imperial pressures:

A precious document for Maximos' doctrine of the Church is the last writing we have from his hand, a short letter written on 19 April 658 to Anastasios, his disciple and spiritual child of by then forty years' standing, who was exiled apart from his master. (18) By then, Maximos and his few followers were on their own, Rome - in the person of Pope Vitalian - having succumbed to imperial pressure and entered into communion with the other patriarchal sees. In reply to the question - or taunt - 'What Church do you belong to? Constantinople? Rome? Antioch? Alexandria? Jerusalem? See, all of them are united, together with the provinces subject to them'. Maximos says he had replied, 'The God of all pronounced that the Catholic Church was the correct and saving confession of the faith in him when he called Peter blessed because of the terms in which he had made proper confession of him'. The Petrine foundation of the Church is Peter's faith, which even his successor can abandon, as Maximos had just learnt.

(18) The letter can be found in Allen-Neil, pp. 120-3

(Louth, p. 118)

What an interesting omission from Bellisaro! You see, the hypothetical posed to Maximus turned out not to be a hypothetical. Vitalian did cave to imperial pressure, and this was communicated to Maximus. His response, in his final letter, Maximus recognized that it is the confession of faith that defines the church, not the church that defines the confession of faith. And with that, Maximus cannot be said to be Roman Catholic, no matter how high an esteem he had for Rome at certain times (especially right after the synod of the Lateran of 649, when Rome had repudiated monothelitism).

I'm sure more could be said, but we'll leave it at that. Swan's thesis has been adequately demonstrated, and Bellisario's seemingly plagiarized material has been replaced into its proper context and given proper attribution.

-TurretinFan

P.S. In the comment box at Mr. Swan's blog, I provided a short walk-through of the original quotation, which it may be useful to include here:

Walk through the quotation.

1) "And what will you do if the Romans unite with the Byzantines? For behold, yesterday there came legates of Rome and tomorrow on Sunday they will take communion with the patriarch; it will become evident to all that it was you who turned the Romans away. Doubtless with you removed, there will then be an easy union."

They pose this as an argument that it is going to be just Maximus against all the major churches.

2) "Those who are coming cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome, even if they should take communion because they have not brought a letter to the patriarch. And I am not at all convinced that the Romans will unite with them unless they confess that our Lord and God by nature both wills and works our salvation according to each of the natures from which he is, in which he is, as well as which he is."

But, you see, Maximus is too clever. He points out that the mere communion of the legates is not enough to show that the Roman church is in agreement with Constantinople, because they don't bear a letter to that effect addressed to the patriarch.

3) "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?"

They set this aside, and ask what if the church of Rome does join with the other churches?


4) "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached"

Maximus refuses to assent, even under that circumstance.