Recent Tim Staples Debate

I was recently sent a Catholic Answers support e-mail which highlighted a debate between Tim Staples and someone named Dr. Peter Barnes, which they refer to as Australia's "premier Protestant debater" "a pastor and an author of many books." Well, I've never heard of him... then again, he's in Australia.

This debate was on the Eucharist... because Catholic Answers explains,

Worse yet, there has been a crisis in the Catholic Church that has left many of its members with only the shakiest grasp on their faith. After decades of “Catholic-lite” religious education programs, countless Catholics have basically no understanding of the faith—including what the Church teaches about the Real Presence. Opinion polls show this. A frighteningly high number of Catholics do not believe that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. They have bought into the “just a symbol” viewpoint. Think about that. What it means is that these Catholics simply have no understanding of “the source and summit” of their faith lives. Bad catechesis and doctrine-free homilies have left them clueless about the very core of the Catholic life.They are also ripe pickings for Fundamentalists and others who deny the Real Presence.

Who needs a magisterium to protect and instruct? The world now has.... Catholic Answers! Might as well stay home or just miss that there doctrine-free homily causing so much confusion.

Well anyway. Here's the good news. You don't have to send any money to Catholic Answers to hear this debate. Dr. Peter Brown makes it available for.... free:

Part one (Brown opening statement)
Part two (the rest of the debate, not including questions from the floor)

What strikes me about this is that as far as I know, Catholic Answers has yet to offer the last debate Tim Staples did with Dr. White on purgatory. What's up with that? Catholic Answers says of Staples (in the Barnes debate):

This time someone stood up and fought back.This time that person was an expert in answering just these kind of charges, a well-trained apologist able to make the Catholic case and show precisely why the Church’s teaching on this issue is—literally—the gospel truth from the lips of the Savior himself.

I haven't had a chance to listen to Staples vs. Barnes (not sure when I will), but Mr. Staples is usually very entertaining. If any one gets a chance to listen to this, please drop me a note and let me know how it went. Also if you're interested, write Catholic Answers and ask them where the White vs. Staples Purgatory debate is.

Interesting Diagram of the Qur'an's Textual history

http://www.unchangingword.com/obj_hist_13evidence.php

Children in the Rule of St. Benedict

I recently read through the Rules of St. Benedict. Here's a sampling of medieval mores:

30.HOW CHILDREN ARE TO BE CORRECTED.
Every age and understanding ought to have a measure of government suitable to it. As often therefore as children, or those under age, commit faults, and are incapable of understanding the greatness of the punishment of excommunication, let them be punished by rigorous fasting, or sharp stripes, that so they may be corrected.


45. OF THOSE WHO COMMIT ANY FAULT IN THE ORATORY.
If any one, while reciting a psalm, responsory, antiphon, or lesson, shall make any mistake
and do not forthwith atone for it before all, let him be liable to greater punishment, as
one who will not correct by humility, what he hath done amiss through negligence. But for
such a fault, let children be beaten.

Luther:

If I say: “St. Benedict was a holy man, St. Gregory was pious and one of the elect!” it does not follow by any means that then everything they said and did was holy and good and must be accepted and taught. Do not draw such a conclusion. For they, too, were human. This text [John 2:23-24] tells us that many believed in Christ, but that nevertheless He did not trust Himself to them. Why, then, do you insist on trusting yourself to these men and following them? There is more in man than just his faith. There is the old Adam; flesh and blood still cling to us. Furthermore, the devil desires to sift man as wheat is sifted, as Christ says to St. Peter (Luke 22:31). Therefore man can indeed err and fall. Now how will you proceed? Will you condemn these men? No, I do not intend to condemn Benedict and others. But I do propose to take their books and carry them to Christ and to His Word as a criterion for comparison, to submit St. Francis’ rule to Christ’s Gospel for a judgment. If their doctrine agrees with the Gospel, I shall accept it; if not, I shall say: “You may be a holy man, but you will never subject me to your rule; for it is a human bauble. Therefore let the devil adopt it! I do not want it!” [LW 22:259]

Only Christ and the true gospel can break through the enmity

Ephesians 2:11-22

James McDonald plays the race card:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/01/elephantiasis.html

(added later: In my opinion, McDonald was also extremely wimpy, along with Driscoll, in not standing up for truth and doctrine and not confronting T. D. Jakes on the doctrine of the Trinity, in a way that clearly communicates repentance from the old heresies, the lack of confronting the heretical and sickening Word of Faith greed movement is disgusting, and the Tony Robbins/Oprah Winfrey/Joel Osteen type psycho-babel teachings. Mark Driscoll just feeding the questions to him, and Jakes just nodding at the most important one, is, in my opinion, not enough to undue years of teaching otherwise.)

There are a lot of similarities to the addendum that Frank Turk of Pyromaniacs added, written by Thabiti Anyabwile – similarities to missions work and reaching other cultures.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2012/01/24/this-black-leader-or-that-black-leader/

(I appreciate his helping us think through this.)

There are similarities in attitudes and politics, and this whole dynamic of “us vs. them”, etc. in the Muslim world, and trying to get the gospel into any new culture - when it comes from the "white missionary" - those that accept the gospel and the truth; get labeled in a similar way and there is the whole "us vs. them" mentality.

It is very difficult . . .

If we pit one group against another - “No one wins.”

The Arab – Israeli conflict has a lot of the same underlying issues and problems.

That also seems to be some of the dynamic, if the Muslim sources are totally true, and if most of the history books are not biased or uneven that say, “the Monophysites welcomed the Arab Muslims as liberators”. (There is some truth to that; but there is much that is still not said, from the persecuted minorities themselves; they are afraid to speak out over the centuries.) One Egyptian Evangelical told me in person, "There is some truth to that, but we were deceived by the Muslim invaders, and so later, after the Dhimmi system was set up, it was too late."

This “us vs. them” mentality is similar to, why, at least at the beginning of the Arab Muslim invasions, and the recorded history of this by Muslims, that the Coptic Monophysites and Jacobite-Syrian Monophysites at first welcomed the Arab Muslims as liberators from the Byzantine Chalcedonians. (policies instituted under Justinian and Hericlius, Byzantine Emperors). Later, the Coptic Church and Syrian Monophysites were so subjugated and fearful of speaking out against their Muslim conquerors – since the whole Dhimmi system prevents them from protesting without consequences, that theses churches and other groups like them, eventually dwindled down by the economic pressures and social pressures, to very small and inward communities; afraid to speak out and afraid to do any evangelism. (If they even believed in evangelism any more.) In the words of historian Edwin Yamauchi, regarding the Assyrian – Persian church (Mostly in the Mesopotamian area – today’s Iraq) – “they settled down to survival and became a privileged minority”.

The government of Iran (Persia) persecuted the Church before the Arabs came and brought Islam to Iran. The Arabs adopted this system from the Persians, which the Shahs of Persia instituted under the Sassanian Era of Zoroastrianism. The church was a persecuted minority. They became a sub-culture and a closed off community from the majority peoples.

Yamauchi notes that we see this still today among the ancient minority churches all over the Middle East and Muslim-majority countries: “The Christian [mostly Nestorian] church became a tolerated minority under the “milet” system of the Persian Empire . . . The freedom to exist was achieved at the price of excepting the Shah’s role in ratifying the choice of the head of the Church. There was no legal freedom to evangelize. Another historian, Young concludes that there were two other dangers: communalism and divisiveness. The church might be so concerned about its rights and privileges as a community instead of the duty to evangelize and so settled down to become a permanent, privileged minority. On the other hand rival claims to be head of the church might try to gain the backing of the state.”

From: Yamauchi, Edwin M. “God and the Shah: Church and State in Persia during the Parthian and Sassanian Eras”, paper delivered at the Evangelical Theological Society, November 18-20, 1993. (Cassette Tape # EV93042) (I purchased the cassette tape in 1996, and don’t know if this has been updated to a CD or MP3 or transcript.)

Only Christ can break down the enmity, hatred and suspicion and fear and judgmental reading of motives.

Ephesians 2:11-22

Addendum: It occurred to me that this relates to something I wrote in an earlier blog article last week, in the com-boxes:

What follows is an edited version of some of what I wrote in the com boxes of the blog article that "The Qur'an never says the text of the Bible was corrupted".

Let us try to break through the communication barrier, and treat Muslims as lost people who need the Lord, and who are created in the image of God, and we are to be patient and seek to "speak the truth in love.” (Ephesians 4:15; see also I Peter 2:21-24; Proverbs 15:1)



One of the greatest needs of our time in the post 9-11-01 world that we live in is for better communication between the Christians and Muslims - they - the Muslim world - are the ones who don't allow communication, debate, evangelism, freedom of thought, freedom of speech in their countries - Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Pakistan, Syria, etc. But we allow those freedoms for them in the west and the internet is one of the few places that the potential for proper communication to actually take place.

Unbelievers in general fight back naturally when confronted with the truth, true.

Someone may say, “That doesn't justify the churlish behavior of the Muslims in this comment box.” (and someone did)

You are correct - but I still do not expect them to act like Christians; and many of them, in my experience resort to anger and cursing and trickery, as did Rambo John, and Rehan Ullah at Paul Williams site; as did the Muslims who cursed nasty language at Nabil Qureshi in Detroit. 

Islam itself, in its doctrines and behaviors and sources, because it does justify anger and fighting against its enemies, honor killings, etc., feels justified in that; and many Muslims justify their own behavior as legitimate against what they perceive as enemies against Islam. 

But, if and when we do the same thing, they turn the tables as say, "Jesus says you can't do that - you are commanded to love your enemy"; but, the Muslim says," we admit that we are not commanded to love our enemies, therefore we are justified." I have seen this kind of behavior for 27 years dealing with Muslims.

 My position is to let them expose their own sinfuless, anger, cursing, revengeful spirit and let readers then see them exposed; but let us behave in a holy and godly manner and don't respond with insults or ad hominem.

We, as Christians, should be able to be able to handle hostility better than they do. We have the power of the Holy Spirit!

Paul Williams has nothing against me to promote to his Muslim brothers as any evidence of bad behavior or unfair treatment in discussion, etc. ( I hope.) All he can do is say I am a "backwards fundamentalist" and "not very scholarly". That is ok with me for now; I don't have time to read all of James D. G. Dunn; but maybe some good Evangelical scholar like D. A. Carson or Dan Wallace or has analyzed him. 

I still say that Proverbs 15:1; I Peter 2:21-24; 2 Timothy 2:24-26 and Ephesians 4:15 are to be applied for a long time before one makes the decision to shut down conversation. 

Because of the centuries of bad relations and how typical Muslim's interpret our theology through the lens of the Crusades, colonialism, conservative politics, and racism (the same way that some, like James McDonald and others, have childishly played the race card in the recent Elephant Room2 discussion.); we have to see and understand that, and be willing to persevere through it and strive for breaking through by the power of love and the gospel and by praying that God will work in hearts. Just because God is sovereign and will ultimately decide what He will use to win some, is no reason to give up too soon, or to act sinfully in anger and ad hominem attacks. 

Jesus' spirit of not fighting back; I Peter 2:21-24; all four Gospels of the life of Jesus; and His humility in riding into the Jerusalem on a donkey (and not a horse with a sword like Muhammad) - many Muslims have told that is one of the most significant things that won them over - along with a true Christian who was willing to be patient with them and not fight back against them when they were angry and unjust toward me. 

God can use pure Scripture and argumentation also; but most of the time, Muslims have come to the truth of the gospel through someone suffering unjustly in the name of Christ - it is more powerful than what they have - all they have is a human book that is not inspired and the power of force and politics and unjust war throughout the centuries. 

In contrast, we don't fight with fleshly weapons (Ephesians 6:10-20; 2 Cor. 10:3-5) - We have the truth of the Bible, the gospel, and the power of the Holy Spirit. 

Let them be shown for their sinfulness. 

We can do better, since we have the power of the Holy Spirit living within us; and our purpose is not just to win an argument, but to glorify God in all things, including how we do apologetics and argumentation.

We are called to suffer for righteousness sake -
 Matthew 5: 9-12; 1 Peter 2:21-24; 2 Timothy 3:12

Maximus the Confessor on the Authority of Rome and Galatians 1:8

Maximus Confessor held that since “will” and “activity” pertain to a nature rather than to a person, Christ therefore had a human will and a divine will. In 653 Maximus was arrested, tried for treason and then banished in 655 for not adhering to the idea that Christ has but one will. He eventually had his tongue cut out and his right hand cut off for his refusal to change his position. He died in 662 and became popularly referred to with the title “confessor.”

In the account of his trial, the Eastern authorities questioned him on what he would do if the Roman Church made any sort of agreement with the Byzantines (those who had imprisoned Maximus). Here's how it went down:

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].

Notice at the end Maximus quotes Galatians 1:8, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!" I'm not saying Maximus was a proto-Protestant, but he certainly had the right idea here about what the ultimate authority truly is.

Athanasius and the Hyper-Preterists 2

Here's another hyper-preterist Athanasius quote:

Athanasius, the "Father of Orthodoxy" (The Athanasian Creed) says that what futurists are waiting for has ALREADY OCCURRED... "The earth IS ALREADY 'filled with the knowledge of the Lord' in fulfillment of Isaiah 11:9 and Habakkuk 2:14; and DEATH IS ALREADY DESTROYED among believers in FULFILLMENT of First Corinthians 15:55" ~ Athanasius, Festal Letter (4th century AD)

Documentation
The quote above (as found on a hyper-preterist Facebook page) cites "Athanasius, Festal Letter (4th century AD)." The first problem with this reference is that there are multiple festal letters from Athanasius. The second problem is I could not locate any corroboration that the documentation to a Festal Letter is accurate.

After searching around a bit, I would posit the quote in this form is from the hyper-preterist book, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be? It occurs in the exact form in Chapter Two: If Preterism is True by David A. Green. The contents of this chapter can be found here, posted in this discussion thread by (who appears to be) the author. Mr Green states,

Despite futurist errors regarding various and major prophecy-texts, the church has been, in a very real sense, teaching preterism for nearly two thousand years now. We can find examples of preterism throughout the church fathers...

The Father of Orthodoxy himself, Athanasius (AD 293-373), is a remarkable example of this same phenomenon. We can see from the following excerpts from his On the Incarnation and his Festal Letters, that although Athanasius believed in a yet-future Second Coming and in a Resurrection of the Flesh, he also believed the following: The earth is already filled with the knowledge of the Lord (the gospel) in fulfillment of Isaiah 11:9 and Habakkuk 2:14; and Death is already destroyed among believers in fulfillment of 1 Corinthians 15:55 (O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?).

The quote is not from a Festal Letter, since Mr. Green goes on to present a section specific to the Festal Letters. In fact, the quote isn't an  Athanasius quote at all, but is rather a summary of statement Mr. Green put together from On the Incarnation and the Festal Letters as to what he think Athanasius believed. In other words, each statement represents a quote from Athanasius. Scrolling through the quotes used by Green, these were the references he gives:

"The earth is already filled with the knowledge of the Lord" is from On the Incarnation, 16:3; 40,6-7; 45, 5-6; 48,4; 50,1; 55,3

"Death is destroyed" is from On the Incarnation, 9,4; 27.1, 3-4; 29.5; 31,3; Festal Letter IV,3; VI,9; VI,10

It would certainly be time-consuming to go through each quote cited by Mr. Green.  Some of the citations say nothing more than Christ conquered death by his resurrection. Others say nothing more than the Messiah has come and the Jews are wrong to look for a future Messiah: the prophecies as to his coming have been fulfilled. One quote says nothing more than the knowledge of God pervades all of creation.

Athanasius and the Hyper-Preterists 1

Hyper-preterists typically believe that Satan has been completely defeated: "In chapter 20 [of Revelation] judgment is set, Satan is cast into the lake of fire; and Jesus takes his glorious bride unto himself! This all happened in 70 AD with the full destruction of the Theocracy of Israel, the persecuting city of Jerusalem, the Old Heavens and Earth" [source].  This is not to be confused with other millennial positions that hold Satan is bound now in such a way that while he is still troublesome, he cannot stop the spread of the gospel, and will be eventually cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10).

As with my earlier Spurgeon entries,  what I've noticed is that many of those involved with hyper-preterism appear to look for anything written by anybody and use it as proof for their position. Consider the following from Athanasius as found on a hyper-preterist blog:

More FULFILLED ESCHATOLOGY from Early Church Father, Athanasius...
"Now that THE DEVIL, that tyrant against the whole world IS SLAIN...NO MORE DOES DEATH REIGN...now that death and the kingdom of the devil IS ABOLISHED, everything is entirely filled with joy and gladness. God is no longer known ONLY IN JUDEA (Old Covenant - FS), but in ALL THE EARTH (New Covenant - FS)..."(The Festal Letters, 4:3)

It's very simple for a hyper-preterist: Athanasius is saying almost exactly what they are about the total defeat of Satan. Sure, there's probably some differences, but Athanasius is more or less saying the same thing about the defeat of Satan... or is he?

When one searches the extant writings from Athanasius, it becomes apparent rather quickly that more often than not Satan is portrayed as an active enemy of the church. For instance, "But the mind of man is prone to evil exceedingly; moreover, our adversary the devil, envying us the possession of such great blessings, goeth about seeking to snatch away the seed of the word which is sown within us"[source]. What's going on then? How can Athanasius say that Satan is slain and abolished on the one hand and then say elsewhere that he's out and about seeking to do harm?

The easy way out is to simply say Athanasius contradicted himself. This possibility of course is not out of the question. But when I look up quotes like this, I don't automatically assume that Athansius was so muddleheaded that he would posit two completely contradictory notions. It could be like Augustine or Luther that his position changed over time. It could be one of the texts in question has variants or is spurious. In this case though, I think if one follows the train of thought and allows for the use of hyperbole, the notion that Satan is defeated and that he's also still active isn't such a stretch in interpreting Athanasius.

The context of this quote can be found here. The source for the quote is a Festal letter, or more commonly known as an Easter letter. He begins by pointing out, "For although the date of this letter is later than that usual for this announcement, it should still be considered well-timed, since our enemies having been put to shame and reproved by the Church, because they persecuted us without a cause, we may now sing a festal song of praise." This notion of "defeated enemies" will find its way right up until the quote in question. He mentions Judith "when having first exercised herself in fastings and prayers, she overcame the enemies, and killed Olophernes." Then Esther: "when destruction was about to come on all her race, and the nation of Israel was ready to perish, defeated the fury of the tyrant by no other means than by fasting and prayer to God, and changed the ruin of her people into safety." And then a conclusion:

Now as those days are considered feasts for Israel, so also in old time feasts were appointed when an enemy was slain, or a conspiracy against the people broken up, and Israel delivered. Therefore blessed Moses of old time ordained the great feast of the Passover, and our celebration of it, because, namely, Pharaoh was killed, and the people were delivered from bondage. For in those times it was especially, when those who tyrannized over the people had been slain, that temporal feasts and holidays were observed in Judaea.

Feasts celebrated the defeat of enemies. Easter is a celebration feast. Christ has risen from the dead, conquering his enemies. Here is where the hyper-preterist quote occurs, which I've bolded. Athanasius states:

Now, however, that the devil, that tyrant against the whole world, is slain, we do not approach a temporal feast, my beloved, but an eternal and heavenly. Not in shadows do we shew it forth, but we come to it in truth. For they being filled with the flesh of a dumb lamb, accomplished the feast, and having anointed their door-posts with the blood, implored aid against the destroyer. But now we, eating of the Word of the Father, and having the lintels of our hearts sealed with the blood of the New Testament, acknowledge the grace given us from the Savior, who said, ‘Behold, I have given unto you to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy.’ For no more does death reign; but instead of death henceforth is life, since our Lord said, ‘I am the life;’ so that everything is filled with joy and gladness; as it is written, ‘The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice.’ For when death reigned, ‘sitting down by the rivers of Babylon, we wept,’ and mourned, because we felt the bitterness of captivity; but now that death and the kingdom of the devil is abolished, everything is entirely filled with joy and gladness. And God is no longer known only in Judaea, but in all the earth, ‘their voice hath gone forth, and the knowledge of Him hath filled all the earth.’ What follows, my beloved, is obvious; that we should approach such a feast, not with filthy raiment, but having clothed our minds with pure garments. For we need in this to put on our Lord Jesus, that we may be able to celebrate the feast with Him. Now we are clothed with Him when we love virtue, and are enemies to wickedness, when we exercise ourselves in temperance and mortify lasciviousness, when we love righteousness before iniquity, when we honor sufficiency, and have strength of mind, when we do not forget the poor, but open our doors to all men, when we assist humble-mindedness, but hate pride.

The language of Athanasius is filled with celebratory hyperbole. Satan, the enemy of Christ and the church was indeed defeated by the resurrection. The enemy was conquered and "slain." Death was also defeated because Christ rose from the dead. The irony as I see it is that hyper-preterists often attack dispensationalists for a rigid literal hermaneutic. But here with Athanasius, they do the very thing they decry. They ignore a typical use of language only meant to express a basic point about the impact and importance of Easter.

Charles Spurgeon and the Hyper-Preterists

This is a follow-up to my earlier entry, Charles Spurgeon, Full-Preterism, and Figurative Language. In that entry I discussed a Spurgeon quote I found being used by some full-preterists (henceforth referred to as "hyper-preterists"). That Spurgeon quote states:

(On the New Heavens and Earth)
"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacles, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like THE OLD HEAVENS AND EARTH to the Jewish believers, THEY HAVE PASSED AWAY, and WE NOW LIVE UNDER A NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354)."

I had thought perhaps this quote was simply a one-time oddity. I was amazed though to hear it being brought up in an old debate between hyper-preterist Don Preston and dispensationalist Tommy Ice on the Voice of Reason radio Show. Here's a brief mp3 clip of the exchange on the Spurgeon quote. You'll notice that neither men had any idea what was was being put forth by Spurgeon in the quote. How could they? Without a context, the quote can mean whatever someone wishes it to.

I also found Spurgeon being cited on a new hyper-preterist Facebook page. Another Spurgeon quote was cited inferring a future restoration of the Jews and this comment was added, "Seems strange to hear him say this after what he says about the New Heavens and Earth." So I asked what was meant by this, and if you scroll into the comments you'll notice the very same Spurgeon quote was brought forth, along with the following commentary:

Some would say that a preterist has pulled this out of it's context. The greater context they are speaking of would be his larger body of thought. The only thing bringing in his larger context is that he is simply inconsistent. So this may not be the best preterist proof text from Spurgeon. If it does anything, it simply calls into question his humanity...James - thoughts on the Spurgeon quote?

My response:

Yes, I have a few comments on that Spurgeon quote you posted from the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354. I am in no way any sort of expert on Charles Spurgeon, nor would I even go so far as to claim I've read enough of his writings to really say I'm familiar with him like I am other authors.

I noticed Frank had posted the same Spurgeon quote a few days ago . I would take a guess that Frank posted the quote simply to highlight Spurgeon's use of figurative language as a polemic against dispensational theology. If not, he can correct me. I would also guess Frank took the quote not from any sort of deep study into Spurgeon's writings, but rather snagged it off a secondary webpage (like the one on the Preterist Archive that used the same two Spurgeon quotes Frank used, documented exactly in the same way). As to your usage, it appears to me you see some sort of disconnect between the two quotes from Spurgeon. That is, in some way they contradict each other. If I've misinterpreted your intentions, my apologies. Same to Frank- If I misinterpreted you or your intentions, my apologies.

The sermon is on Isaiah 65:17-19 ("Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind"). The sermon is entitled, God Rejoicing in the New Creation (no. 2211). It can be found in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Vol. 37 beginning on page 442. Spurgeon begins:

"THIS passage, like the rest of Isaiah’s closing chapters, will have completest fulfillment in the latter days when Christ shall come, when the whole company of his elect ones shall have been gathered out from the world, when the whole creation shall have been renewed, when new heavens and a new earth shall be the product of the Savior’s power, when, for ever and for ever, perfected saints of God shall behold his face, and joy and rejoice in him" (p.442).

One can see that Spurgeon begins saying the New heavens and earth are future. He goes on to say:

"There is to be a literal new creation, but that new creation has commenced already; and I think, therefore, that even now we ought to manifest a part of the joy. If we are called upon to be glad and rejoice in the completion of the work, let us rejoice even in the commencement of it" (p. 443).
"He has commenced it thus — by putting new hearts into as many as he has called by his Spirit, regenerating them, and making them to become new creatures in Christ Jesus. These the apostle tells us are a kind of firstfruits of this now creation" (p.443).

Spurgeon then goes on to speak of how people should see God in the current world and rejoice in God as creator. Christians should most rejoice in their being a new creation. Spurgeon continues on this theme of Christians being the begining of the new creation, as people who look forward to the new creation coming in its fullness. Then comes the quote you cited. From the context, Spurgeon's figurative language is simply describing the Old Testament rituals and practices that looked forward to Christ. Since Christ has come, he's begun to usher in the new heavens and earth, beginning this work in the hearts of believers, in regeneration.
There certainly isn't any sort of disconnect between the two Spurgeon quotes you cited.

Here was the response:

Notice Chuck’s take on Rev 21:1…
(Rev 21:1 NASB) “And I saw A NEW HEAVEN AND A NEW EARTH; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is NO LONGER ANY SEA.”
"Scarcely could we rejoice at the thought of losing the glorious old ocean: the new heavens and the new earth are none the fairer to our imagination, if, indeed, LITERALLY there is to be no great and wide sea, with its gleaming waves and shelly shores. IS NOT THIS TEXT TO BE READ AS A METAPHOR, tinged with the prejudice with which the Eastern mind universally regarded the sea in the olden times? A real physical world without a sea it is mournful to imagine, it would be an iron ring without the sapphire which made it precious. THERE MUST BE A SPIRITUAL MEANING HERE. In the new dispensation THERE WILL BE no division…


…the sea separates nations and sunders peoples from each other. To John in Patmos the deep waters were like prison walls, shutting him out from his brethren and his work: there shall be no such barriers IN THE WORLD TO COME (I.E. THE NEW HEAVENS & EARTH). Leagues of rolling billows lie between us and many a kinsman whom to-night we prayerfully remember, but in THE BRIGHT WORLD (New H&E) TO WHICH WE GO there SHALL BE unbroken fellowship for all the redeemed family; IN THIS SENSE THERE SHALL BE NO MORE SEA." ~ "Morning and Evening" (1834-1892)


JAMES: Here Chuck clearly FUTURIZES the New Heaven & Earth and interprets the eradication of the sea as NON-LITERAL (Metaphor - a thing MANY if not all futurists would deplore - but which all Preterists would celebrate).The point here is Chuck’s inconsistency. He wants it both ways. Here is the initial quote again…


"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacles, or the dedication?”


An obvious reference to the Old Covenant System under Judaism. He continues…


“No, because, though these things were like THE OLD HEAVENS AND EARTH to the Jewish believers, THEY HAVE PASSED AWAY, and WE NOW LIVE UNDER A NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it."


Now here, C.H. clearly accepts a NON-LITERAL interpretation of the New H&E (not a new material creation but a new covenant) and then he proceeds to tell his congregation that they (Christians) are ALREADY (NOW) living in the New H&E!


Well which is it? Is it a FUTURE happening – a thing TO COME or is it a PAST event – a thing that came?


To hold a view that says “BOTH are true; we live in the New H&E Currently and it is also to be realized in a more fashion at a future material consummation is in my humble opinion, pure conjecture.


Mr. S’s handling the LANGUAGE and the TIMING of the New H&E in Isaiah are contradictory of his handling of IDENTICAL language in Rev 21:1. There is no SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION for holding that the Apostle John in Rev 21 was speaking of a FUTURE MATERIAL CONSTRUCT (“New H&E”) - but when Isaiah uses the IDENTICAL TERM in Ch 65:17 he is metaphorically speaking of the New Covenant in Christ - unless one is prepared to say that there are MULTIPLE New Heavens and earths.


For my money - The Hebrew Prophet Isaiah prophesied the EXACT SAME New H&E as the Hebrew Prophet John - only Isaiah said it is far off and John says it near – to arrive upon the consummation of the Old Covenant era – “end of the age” (Mt 24:3; 1 Cor 10:11; Heb 9:26).

And my response:
Thanks for your explanation. Just so I'm understanding you and we're not speaking past each other, these were my previous concerns: Mr. Loomis posted two Spurgeon quotes that appear to be contradictory according to his own writings. I don't think they are at all, and even a cursory reading of the sermons in question don't amount to "The only thing bringing in his larger context is that he is simply inconsistent."

It is my understanding that Rev. Spurgeon was a historic premillennialist. Within that view, as far as I understand it, Spurgeon's use of figurative language in the quotes cited by Mr. Loomis are consistent with historic premillennialism (for a helpful overview of that view, see: George Eldon Ladd, "Historic Premillennialism" in Robert G. Clouse, ed., The Meaning of the Millennium (WI: Intervarsity Press, 1977) pp. 17-40).

In regards to your further citations of Spurgeon, the historic premillennial view has some similarities with the amillennial paradigm of "already and not yet." While you may disagree with this paradigm (either used by amillennialists or historic premillennialists), all of the Spurgeon quotes you've posted are harmonious with it. That is, Charles Spurgeon is not being inconsistent with the historic premillennial view. Swanson's article http://www.spurgeon.org/​eschat.htm does a fine job going through the Spurgeon eschatology maze.

It appears to me your concerns are geared toward whether or not Spurgeon's historic premillennial view is a consistently biblical view. The point of Mr. Loomis appears to me to be that Spurgeon contradicted himself within his own writings. My response has been to the later and not the former. While I'm not fluent in Spurgeon's writings, I do have the desire to see the study of any person in church history as an exercise in the love of God and neighbor. How do we love our neighbor in the study of church history? There probably are many ways, but the one that applies here is in our words. If we bear false witness against our neighbor, we are not loving him. I don't think Mr. Loomis intended to say anything unloving towards Charles Spurgeon, but I certainly think Spurgeon's eschatological thought was not portrayed fairly or correctly here on this Facebook page.

The Holiness of God and Substitionary Atonement are all through the Bible

(Luther would be happy - a future blog that features his nailing of the 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door; tackles apologetic issues with Islam 5 days in a row.)

From:

Salvation in Islam by Paul Williams – Intro to his debate with Steve Latham -

http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/why-the-christian-understanding-of-salvation-is-morally-grotesque/

My response is in Blue.

Islam places great stress on God as a God of mercy and forgiveness whom the individual can approach directly without the need of any mediator or priest. God says in the Quran:

‘O My servants, who have transgressed against their souls. Do not despair of the mercy of God, for He forgives all sins, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.’

(39:53). From this understanding, which was shared by Jesus, flow certain critical observations regarding the later Christian view of the necessity of Jesus’ alleged vicarious atonement.

Jesus clearly taught about His future atonement on the cross – Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28; Luke 22:20; then after His resurrection - Luke 24:46-47. Repentance and God's mercy and forgiveness is also taught in parables - yet leaving out the exact words that you demand, is not a contradiction to the atonement. Your demand that every parable has to contain every teaching before the historical event of the cross is an unreasonable demand – it is like the same demand that Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik and many other Muslims make – that there has to be the exact words from Jesus’ mouth, “I am God; worship Me!” Who are you to demand that parables have to contain all future theological truth?

The Christian idea that guilt can be removed from a wrongdoer by someone else being punished instead is morally grotesque.

For someone who claims to be a former Christian and Evangelical – this is a very dangerous statement for your own soul. It means you never really understood your own sin nor the holiness of God; and now you trample on the grace of Christ demonstrated at the cross. Your turning from the grace and love of God and insulting that love means that you seem to be under the judgment of these verses: Hebrews 10:28-31. Your words that God's love (Romans 5:1-11) are "morally grotesque" are similar to the late atheist Christopher Hitchens' comments about it also.

Or if we say that God in the person of God the Son punished himself in order to be able to justly forgive sinners, we still have the absurdity of a moral law which God must satisfy by punishing the innocent in place of the guilty. As the medieval theologian St Anselm wrote in his work Why God Became Man (Cur Deus Homo), ‘it is a strange thing if God so delights in, or requires, the blood of the innocent, that he neither chooses, nor is able, to spare the guilty without the sacrifice of the innocent’.

I believe the basic fault of the Christian understanding of salvation is that it has no room for divine forgiveness.

God is clear that He forgives sin, based on His character and Holiness and satisfaction of His wrath, all throughout the Bible from beginning to end. You have no right to chop the Bible up and divide it and abuse it against itself.

After Adam and Eve sinned, God killed an animal to make skins for them to cover their shame and nakedness. Have you forgotten about Genesis 3? From that point on, the shedding of the blood of an innocent victim for the guilt of humans was instituted as a principle and covers the whole Bible narrative and does not have to be repeated in exact words all the time at your demand. The theme of God’s mercy and forgiveness based on the satisfaction of His holiness and justice in the substitution of an innocent victim (sheep, goats, rams, bulls, lambs, etc.) is continued in the almost sacrifice of Isaac, and the substitution of the ram in Genesis 22 (which Islam agrees with in principle in Qur’an 37:107 and has a major feast every year at the end of Hajj in order to commemorate this Scriptural event; yet distorts the meaning and significance of it; and changes some details also, teaching that it was Ishmael that was to be sacrificed. Genesis 22 is so much more older than Islam theology. Even the Qur'an actually never specifically names Ishmael in the context around the text in Surah 37:107, yet it does mention Isaac nearby); at the Passover in Exodus 12; the Levitical sacrifices (Leviticus chapters 1-7), the day of atonement in Leviticus 16-17; to the temple sacrifices in Solomon’s day (I Kings 8); to the prophesy of the Messiah to come (Daniel 9:24-27; Isaiah 53:1-12) – all point to God’s mercy and forgiveness and based on the satisfaction of His holiness and justice first.

For a forgiveness that has to be bought by the bearing of a just punishment, or the offering of a sacrifice, is not forgiveness, but merely an acknowledgement that a debt has been paid in full. The Cross is not a symbol of forgiveness at all: on the orthodox Christian view, it denotes the repayment of a debt, as the infinity of Original Sin is atoned for by the infinite sacrifice of God’s own temporary death. But what humanity really needs, as we look back over our long record of disobedience, is a model of true forgiveness by a God who does not calculate, who imposes no mean-spirited ‘economy of salvation’ worthy only of accountants and bookkeepers. As the Bible teaches: The letter killeth – the spirit giveth life.

Paul Bilal Williams calls the holiness and justice and character of the God of the Bible, “mean-spirited”! The letter of the law kills – yes – God’s holy law and judgment and holiness is going to kill you(in hell), unless you repent and receive God’s mercy and grace and love that was demonstrated at the cross in the atonement of Al Masih. The Spirit gives life = “only the Holy Spirit can change a sinful heart and give that person to power to obey the law". The attitude of the Pharisees is the Islamic way (Sharia) on this earth – heavy on force, rituals, hiding secret sins, and external punishments. Which system has more of “the letter of the law kills” ? in history and in today’s world? You misinterpret 2 Corinthians 3:6 – “servants of the new covenant” – Paul is saying the old covenant, which is the law of Moses, is total justice and holiness and does kill sinners; (which is sort of what you have in Islam with Sharia and the harsh punishments and why so many Muslims are longing to be free from the strict Sharia law societies that kill. Indeed, the law does kill. (That is why too many Muslims, not all, but way too many - just kill people whenever they feel like it - honor killings, Islamic terrorism - Islam is law with not much grace and not much love because it has no atonement or justice, as the truth does in Christ and His propitiatory atonement - Romans 3:25-26) The wages of sin is death. (Romans 6:23; cf. 3:23) But the new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Luke 22:20; Ezekiel 36:25-27) provides grace and power so that we can have forgiveness and the power of the Holy Spirit to change us so that we can actually obey the law of God, however imperfectly.

But in the authentic teaching of Jesus to be found in the synoptic gospels (that is the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke)

Interesting the inconsistency you use with the Synoptics, because they are all negative against the Pharisees, yet you affirm them (The Synoptic Gospels) when it suits your purpose. What criteria do you use for accepting the synoptics on some issues and then rejecting them on the issue of the Pharisees?

there is, in contrast, genuine divine forgiveness for those who truly repent. In the Lord’s Prayer we are taught to address God directly and to ask for forgiveness for our sins, expecting to receive this, the only condition being that we in turn forgive one another.

Of course Christians believe in repentance and God’s forgiveness, and we know about the basis for God’s forgiveness, in that He Himself first provided the sacrifice and shedding of blood of the animals to make skins for Adam and Eve. (Genesis chapter 3) It is you who are demanding exact words again in the Word of God, where God Himself clearly teaches on this issue in other places.

In Psalm 51, David’s amazing Psalm of true repentance, in verse 7, he said, “Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” What is hyssop? It is the tree branch used as a brush for applying the blood of the lambs – for example on the doorposts in Exodus 12:22. David knows that God’s mercy and forgiveness is based on the sacrificial system and the holiness and justice of God being satisfied first. But he also knows that just presenting a sacrifice in a ritual without real inward repentance and guilt and sorrow over offending God, is not right either. (Psalm 51:16; Psalm 40:6; see also Matthew 9:13 and Hosea 6:6.) The sacrifices of God are a broken and contrite heart” – Psalm 51:17 – when there is true repentance first, then one can offer sacrifices in the temple – Psalm 51: 19 – “Then, You will delight in righteous sacrifices . . . “ You use Matthew 9:13 and Hosea 6:6 and Psalm 40:6 a lot in your arguments against Christianity, but you are abusing the verses. Of course bare entering into the temple and paying money and offering a sacrifice without at the same time an inner brokenness over one’s sin and repentance is abhorrent to God, just as Pharisees hiding their secret sins in their hearts and saying ritual prayers, just as many Muslims do what the Pharisee did in Luke 18:9-14 – hiding sins while performing rituals.

There is no suggestion of the need for a mediator between ourselves and God or for an atoning death to enable God to forgive.

Not if you demand to force the words into the prayer 2000 years later, and also ignore everything else in the Bible; but the overall context of the Bible taught this, even alluded to in the prayer. The disciples of Jesus know of God’s character in the OT; and they know about the sacrificial system and God’s demand for holiness and justice. That is why the prayer starts with that, “May Your name be treated as holy” – see Leviticus 10:1-3; Deuteronomy 32:51; Numbers 20:12 and 14:11. Before asking for forgiveness, Jesus begins with God’s holy character and worship of Him and “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 1:7; 9:10; 8:13)

One of the most famous of all Jesus’ parables is found in Luke’s gospel: the so-called parable of the prodigal son. It is a story about how God treats repentant sinners. Note that the father when he sees his repentant son returning home does not say ‘Because I am a just as well as a loving father, I cannot forgive him until someone has been duly punished for his sins’, but rather he had compassion, and ran and embraced him and welcomed him home. So God does not need a sacrifice in order to forgive anyone.

Not if you demand to force your own exact words into the parable, and ignore everything else in the Bible; but the Jews of Jesus’ day know about the sacrifice of the animals to provide covering for Adam and Eve; they know about Genesis 22; they know about Exodus 12, they know about Leviticus chapters 1-7 and 16-17; they know about the sacrifices in the temple (I Kings 8), etc. It was not necessary for Jesus to repeat the principle inside a parable in order to meet your demands for exact words 2000 years later!

As the English convert from Christianity to Islam Ruqaiyyah Maqsood wrote: ‘the split-second of turning from Christianity to Islam is the realisation of the truth of the parable of the Prodigal Son. In the parables, God is loving enough to forgive directly. That was the whole glory of the Judaism which Jesus upheld.’

Another example is to be found in Luke’s story of the tax collector and the Pharisee, the tax collector standing far off would not lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner’. Jesus declared that this man went home justified before God. Jesus insisted that he came to bring sinners to a penitent acceptance of God’s mercy: ‘Go and learn what this means, he said, quoting God: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners (Matt 9.13)

You don’t know how to exegete Luke 18:9-14 properly. The spirit of Islam is more like the spirit of the Pharisee who boasts of his rituals and prayers and tithing and fasting. That is what Islam teaches – that you be good enough and clean enough by washing and saying the right words in Arabic and doing the right rituals. You are also taught to hide your sins, especially secret and shameful sins – as your own article on “Veiling sins” and the quote from the Hadith that Hamza Yusuf quoted. (still waiting for that reference, by the way.)

When the tax-collector prays, “God be merciful to me the sinner!” – the word “be merciful” can also be translated “be propitious to me”and is the same basic root as the word for atonement and propitiation – the satisfaction of the wrath/anger/justice of God against sin. The cry for mercy is based on God’s propitiation. The word is used regarding Jesus’ atoning death on the cross – Romans 3:25-26; Hebrews 2:17; I John 2:2; I John 4:10. So right there in that parable is the deeper teaching of the atonement. Also, the use of the definite article “the sinner” shows that the tax-collector recognized he is a sinner by nature and deserves death and does not deserve mercy, and is consistent with the doctrine of original sin (Romans 5:12; Psalm 51:4-5; Genesis 6:5; Ephesians 2:1-3) but he also knows that God’s mercy is based on His providing an atonement, starting in Genesis 3 onward.

I will address Paul’s other points from Matthew 18 and other issues later, Lord willing.