Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Dr. James White: "Theology Matters"

(video # 1) Beginning at the 14:45 mark to the end for full context and discussion - Yesterday on the Dividing Line (Dec. 16, 2014), Dr. White made an excellent point that Muslims are having a hard time explaining the difference between the theology and usage of Islamic texts (Qur'an, Ahadith, Sira (Life of the Prophet by Ibn Ishaq), Sunnah, Tarikh (History of Islam by Al Tabari), Tafsirs (commentaries)) to support their actions - of Muslims who do terrorism and acts of aggressive violence, for example,against children (Like the Pakistani Taliban attack on a school, killing 145 people, most were children) and Muslims in the west who condemn those actions. In other words, what is the difference between Jihadist Muslims who take action, and other Muslims who believe in the same sources but do not take action. (Jihadist Muslims vs. Moderate Muslims) One answer that they would probably give is that those who don't take action don't have a Caliph/Caliphate that gives them the authority to take action. The secularists and media cannnot approach Islam in a meaningful fashion.
"Fundamentally, the only real solution to all of this is called evangelism." (Dr. White, around the 45 minute mark)
"Muslims are some of the least evangelized in the world; including western Muslims, because Christians are afraid of them."
Yes!! Evangelism and the content of that evangelism - Regeneration - the message that a person must be born-again, - what Jesus said to Nicodemus - "You must be born again!"; that is, they must be changed from the inside out - John 3:1-21 - in Luke's words, "that repentance for forgiveness of sins must be proclaimed to all the nations" (Luke 24:46-47) And, that the only way a person can be born-again is by the Spirit of God acting upon their dead to God souls (Ephesians 2:1-5), giving them a new heart(Ezekiel 36:26-27), but that does not take place unless a person hears the gospel and repents and believes in Christ as Lord and Savior (Romans 10:13-15; Ephesians 1:13-14); they must understand that they are rebel sinners against God (Romans 3:9-23) with wicked hearts (Mark 7:20-23; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Jeremiah 13:23; Jeremiah 18:12; Matthew 5:21-30) and need a new heart, and repent of their sinfulness and efforts of reforming themselves and turn to Christ to save them. (Repent and believe - Mark 1:15) That "repent and believe" is equal to Sola Fide (Justification by faith alone) when one understands what true faith is - that one is justified by faith alone, but true faith does not stay alone (James 2:14-26; Ephesians 2:10; Acts 26:20) (ie, it results in good works, change, fruit, hatred of sin, growth, love for God, for other people, etc.), and true faith necessarily has to have repentance within it, because one does not truly believe in Christ unless he is turning away from his sin, sins, and sinfulness, realizing he is helpless (Romans 5:6-11) to change or reform himself by religion or rituals (Mark 7:1-23) or good works (Galatians 2:16; 1:8-9; 6:13-14; Romans 3:9-28; 4:1-16; 5:1; Philippians 3:9; Ephesians 2:8-9; John 1:12-13; 5:24; 3:16; 20:30-31; Acts 13:38-39 15:9; 16:31) and turns in heart-felt trust to Christ and His saving work in the incarnation (Hebrews 2:14-18), atonement(Romans 3:25-26; Luke 24:46-47), resurrection (Luke 24:46-47; Romans 10:9-10), and intercession at the right hand of God. (Romans 8:28-39)

Dr. White appealed to people to use 2 videos below, use these in evangelism with Muslims, to publish these 2 recent debates that are on the Alpha and Omega YouTube channel:

119 comments:

guy fawkes said...

WOW!
When not on the issue of Catholicism, White always does a great job.
He was mistaken in the Q&A though to say the "Roman Catholic Apocrypha has 13 or 14 additions." He should know, after all his debates with Catholics, the Deuterocanon is 7 books.
Too bad White can't settle on a normal body weight but always fluctuates between obese and emaciated. ( And he should lose the bow tie ).

zipper778 said...

Guy said:

"He was mistaken in the Q&A though to say the "Roman Catholic Apocrypha has 13 or 14 additions." He should know, after all his debates with Catholics, the Deuterocanon is 7 books."

White said additions, not books. From a quick search that I did, I find 11 additions in the Roman Catholic canon. So he's not that far off.

Ken said...

I think it depends on how one counts them. The additions to Daniel are 3 separate sections, but sometimes grouped a one entity. I counted 12, is that right?

1. 1 Maccabees

2. 2 Maccabees

3. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)

4. Judith

5. Tobit

6. Wisdom of Solomon

7. Baruch

8. Prayer of Azariah and song of the 3 holy children

9. Susanna

10. 2 Ezdras

11. Bell and the Dragon

12. Letter of Jeremiah

Lloyd Cadle said...

If Mr. White says that theology matters, I'm sure that he must realize that to be born again (John 3:5) takes place in Baptism.

That is the teaching of Christ and the Early Church Fathers.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
Was it you or was it White who said,

"That "repent and believe" is equal to Sola Fide (Justification by faith alone)..."?

Actually, "repent and believe"=Faith+repentance. It does not =Faith "alpne".

guy fawkes said...

OOPS! I meant "alone".

Not wanting to digress too far from the video, I do have some questions about what I see written.

" And, that the only way a person can be born-again... but that does not take place unless a person hears the gospel and repents and believes...".

So, regeneration/being born again follows upon repenting and believing after all.
I have heard so often from Calvinists that the unregenerate cannot believe and only a sovereign act of God can enable a sinner, dead in trespass and hating God, to do this.
Thanks for the clarification. It does fit better with,"you have been saved by grace THROUGH Faith..." which would place Faith first in the sequence.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
Not to take away from White's reaching out to engage Muslims, which I totally support, you must admit these particular Muslims are light wights.
I mean, "angelize"? These debates were like taking candy from a baby for White, don't you think?

Also, it is ironic to hear a Protestant castigate anyone, Muslim or not, for coming along centuries after the birth of Christianity and compiling the NT, and claiming previous centuries got it all wrong and they got it right.



Just one slight correction on something you wrote,

"one is justified by faith alone, but true faith does not stay alone (James 2:14-26;"

I don't think the word "true" belongs there. Perhaps that is your qualifying adjective added to support a particular view of justification?

Metal Minister said...

I just wanted to point out to you, and Dr. White has mentioned many times before, but "Achmedie" (sp) Muslims tend to make up a large portion of the average Muslim ffollower. It isn't that they're "light weights" but that their particular argumentation is so common that it must be addressed. Just because it's common doesn't mean it's remotely logical or fair. ;)

Ken said...

"Repent and believe" (Mark 1:15) - what I mean is that you cannot have true saving, justifying faith in Christ, without a repentance from sin and self (going my own way). In order to trust Christ as Savior and Lord, one has to change his/her mind about who He is and turn away from their own sinfulness/selfishness.

As the gospel of John does not use the use repentance (metanoia), it uses "believe" in Chirst, it must be understood that true repentance is understood within true faith; because there are many who claim they have believed, but they have not truly believed. That is what James 2:14-26 is coming against. Those that say / claim they believe, but have no changed life.

Ken said...

Lloyd,
I have done some articles on Baptismal regeneration before.


http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/08/ex-opere-operato-baptismal-regeneration.html

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/08/finally-early-church-fathers-and.html

"Between Orange and Trent" (many links on baptismal regeneration within this article)
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/between-orange-and-trent.html

Ken said...

" And, that the only way a person can be born-again... but that does not take place unless a person hears the gospel and repents and believes...".

What I meant was a person does not just become born again or regenerated apart from hearing the gospel.

So, regeneration/being born again follows upon repenting and believing after all.

I believe regeneration happens secretly within a person first, and immediately following there is repentance and faith in Christ, but they are first hearing the message and wrestling with it, thinking about it. I was not trying to give an order of "faith first, then born-again"; but I do think hearing the message comes first. God draws people internally upon hearing the gospel call externally.

I have heard so often from Calvinists that the unregenerate cannot believe and only a sovereign act of God can enable a sinner, dead in trespass and hating God, to do this.

yes ; what I have does not contradict that.

Thanks for the clarification. It does fit better with,"you have been saved by grace THROUGH Faith..." which would place Faith first in the sequence.

We cannot see inside the soul, but people usually hear the message first, wrestle with it in their heart and mind for a time period, but God is one who has to open their heart and mind on the inside, so that they can then repent and believe.

God granted repentance - 2 Tim. 2:24-26; Acts 11:18 - "God granted repentance to the Gentiles"
Acts 5:31 - "to grant repentance to Israel"

John 6:44 - no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him. . .

Ken said...

yes ; what I have written does not contradict that.

Ken said...

Guy,
Dr. White has debated probably the best Islamic apologist in the west, Shabir Ally, 6 or 7 times, I think. I counted 6 in the list of debates with him at the Alpha and Omega web-site, under "James White".
Some of those are on You Tube.

Also, Yusuf Ismael, in the second debate is not a lightweight either.

Dr. White deliberately wanted a student of the late Ahmad Deedat to debate, and using his argumentations, because Deedat was the most popular and well known and many Muslims use his arguments today; so he wanted to have a formal debate and refute those kinds of arguments.

Ken said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken said...

"It isn't that they're "light weights" but that their particular argumentation is so common that it must be addressed. Just because it's common doesn't mean it's remotely logical or fair. ;)"

Yes, "Metal Minister" is right.

The late Ahmad Deedat used "Ahmadi" Muslims arguments on the swoon theory of Jesus' crucifixion, even though he was a Sunni Muslim.

"Ahmadi" Muslims are considered heretics by Sunni Muslims, but they are very "missionary" (doing Islamic outreach - Da'wa (invitation to Islam) oriented in the west -

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
So for you, Faith is a synechdoche for believe and repent.

We say that Paul sometimes uses Faith as a synechdoche for Faith, Hope and Obedience all working in Love.

Still, he elsewhere makes a clear distinction saying that Charity is greater than Faith.

So, you do indeed qualify Faith as needing repentance. Faith w/o repentance does not justify.

Justifying Faith must have Charity. Without it, it doesn't justify.
Once justified, a person can later fall into serious sin and lose Charity/justification. But Faith usually remains and that person can repent and be restored to grace/justification. Or, he can remain in his sin and be lost.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
Many people can hear the Gospel preached.
Some will come to believe, some won't.
Why?
Are they all given the grace to repent? Does God withhold grace from some?

If God commands all people to believe yet withholds the grace necessary to do so, how can the Bible say that God wants all men to be saved?

How can God punish unbelievers if He withhold grace?
True, nobody has a right to grace but remember, nobody is guilty of a sin or crime unless they had the ability not to commit that crime or sin. The Calvinist says men are "dead" in sin and cannot but sin. How can they be held responsible.
I don't hold my cat responsible for not behaving above and beyond her cat nature.

Further, why would God be long suffering and give people time to repent if He also withholds the grace to repent?

Of course you know what I am hinting at, don't you, Ken?

Jonathan Roberts said...

Guy Fawkes,

Between Thomas Aquinas and Anselm there are answers to all of your questions!

How rich is our common catholic heritage.

guy fawkes said...

Jonathan Roberts,
Could you be more specific?

Aquinas' view are considered within the realm of orthodoxy. Calvin is a heretic. If you are interested in delving more deeply into this issue, check out Called to Communion. The ex-Calvinist writers there go into great detail explaining how Aquinas' view of grace and election are not those of Calvin.

As for Anselm, he did not believe in the Reformers' view of the Atonement. They took his theory of Satisfaction and twisted it into Penal Substitution with it concomitant error of Limited Atonement.

Yes, Catholics and Protestants have much in common. However, the Reformers stepped outside of historic ( and biblical ) Christianity with their views on freewill, election, grace, faith, justification and the nature of the Atonement.
Because they got these points wrong, they got it wrong on the Mass, the Communion of Saints, Purgatory, etc. etc. They have been unraveling more and more ever since as can be seen how the Protestants have gone way beyond their forefathers in error by denying Mary's Perpetual Virginity.
The only way to check this downwards tail-spin is to get with the visible Catholic ( big C ) Church.

guy fawkes said...

Jonathan R.

What Ken did not tell you in his write-up for the video is major.

He talked about hearing the Gospel, repenting, believing, good works, etc. etc. And, as you say, much of it can be taken in a totally Catholic sense. For instance, we Catholics believe in the absolute necessity of grace. Despite being called Pelagian or semi-such, we are not. That is a canard. Where we separate from Ken is on who is offered this grace.

You see JR, behind all of what Ken said lurs the specter of a god who does not want all men saved. This god actually wants men in hell. In order to bring about this end, he must will the means, sin. Although he commands us not to sin in the Bible, he has set up a situation that binds men into a condition that leaves them unable to do anything but sin. Then this god "justly" punishes sinful men for what they had no choice but to do due to their natures.

The worst part is the fact that although the Gospel calls all me into fellowship with God, it is just smoke. You see, JR, behind the Gospel invitation is a secret and terrible decree that voids out the call to all men.

The worst ( if anything can be worse than the other "worst" ) part of this is the warped view of Jesus.
Jesus reveals the heart of the Father in the Bible. Jesus would rather be crucified in order to save any one of us sinners from our come-uppance. That is what the Father's Heart is like. But the Calvinist Jesus is parsimonious. Although He pours out every drop of His blood so lavishly, it is only for some.
And although this Calvinist Jesus tells us sinners to love all men without exception, he doesn't practice what he preaches.

JR, the Catholic Church promotes the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. The Jesuits spread this devotion in the 1600s to save France from the terrible doctrines of Calvinism, doctrines so ironically called, "The Doctrines of Grace".

You imply that Aquinas may have agreed with Ken. Let me tell you, I have been around both Jesuits and Dominicans all my life. The Dominicans ( promoters of Aquinas ) are just as much into the Sacred Heart devotion as the Jesuits.

Please, do not try to hijack a saint into the terrible and blasphemous " Doctrines of Grace".

guy fawkes said...

JR,

On the Matthew 16 thread ken insisted that Jesus' words spoken to Peter about the Rock were really directed to each and every believer.

I wonder if ken would also say the words spoken to John in the 19th chapter of his Gospel were also directed to all believers?.

In the process of saving the world, when every act and utterance had salvific importance, Mary was made mother of all men, not just John.

Think about it JR. The God of the Bible wants all men saved. The Heart of Jesus yearns to be loved by men. He even gave us His mother from the cross to show how much He wants us in intimate relation with Himself.

God sincerely wants all men in heaven. All men. But only those who want to be there will be saved. While all men are given the grace to come, not all do.

Ken's system will respond by saying my God is impotent to save those He wants saved. He is not. While He does indeed want each and every man saved, He will not force His love on anyone who would rather be apart from Him.

Please, read up on just what Anselm and Aquinas had to say on the spiritual maternity of Mary and her intercession for sinners. You will see that these saints' view of Mary would not jive with Calvinism's Limited Atonement. From the cross, Jesus did not dole out His mother to just a few but to everyone, you, me, Ken, James White and even the Muslims he debated.
Please, actually read the thoughts of the men you refer me to.

JimBrooks1776 said...

Dr. White, are you sure Herr Fawkes isn't a spambot? Is he still serving as a useful foil? He must have three times the word count of any other author or commentator in the last three weeks. I don't know if he truly 'argues' in bad faith or if English is a second language for him, but I'd really rather not read anymore of his writing. If you took a vote, I'd say 'Aye' to kicking him off of yet another blog. Heck, he'll probably consider it a merit badge, win-win!

JimBrooks1776 said...

Oops, I should have written 'Senhor' not 'Herr'.

guy fawkes said...

JimBrooks,

And I am pleased to meet you too.

Why don't you address what I actually said?
This Protestant blog exists to defend Protestantism, expose Romish errors about Luther, poke fun at Catholic devotions etc.

Yet all you can say is you want me gone so you fellows can go back to discussing my religion and glorifying yours over mine free from any challenge.

Ken posted a long piece on your soteriology along with the White debates against some Muslims. I commented. Then Jonathan said that if I read Aquinas an Anselm, I would come to see things clearly. I challenged that.
Do you have anything to say about Ken's article? How about Anselm and Aquinas? I made some pretty serious observations/criticisms. Are you able to rebut?
Or is sending me into the outer darkness the best you can do to defend your religious views?
( So much for "always being ready to give a reason for the hope that...").

Yeah, and I would rather not read any more personal slurs against me from you and another blogger who never actually addresses Calvinist/Catholic issues. Unless you have something to say about what I have written rather than about me personally, I will henceforth scroll past you.

Ken said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken said...

Guy / Jim,
You are asking why some people respond to the gospel and why others do not respond to the gospel.

We answer that the grace of God enabled those who responded to the gospel in faith to respond to the gospel in faith.

People who don't respond to the gospel in faith don't do that because they cannot; they are unable (no one can come to Me unless the Father who send Me draws him- John 6:44) and if they die, they go to hell because of their own sin; and God justly sends them there; and He justly passed over them.

God in His justice passes over people. Romans 9:18 - "He hardens who He desires"; Romans 11:7 - "the elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened."

John 3:27

"A man can receive nothing, unless it has been granted him from heaven."

Romans 9:16
"So then, it [salvation - getting compassion and mercy - verse 15] does not depend on the man who wills or runs, but on God who has mercy."

notice it does not depend on the will of man. Because the will of man is enslaved to sin; it is in bondage. The free will is free to do what it's nature drives it to do; that is sin and be selfish and even when doing a good deed, it is for selfish reasons, until God breaks through the will and gives life and salvation and ability to repent and believe in Christ.

Romans 9:14
Is there any injustice with God? May it never be !!

Romans 9:18
so then, He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills.

God is just to pass over some in judgement, because of ther own sin; and God is loving and merciful to save some from all nations and peoples by His grace and love.

People are already condemned, because of their sin (Romans 1:18; Genesis 6:5; Mark 7:20-23) and because they have not believed in Christ.
John 3:18

If you don't like that, then you are making the same objection that the people who are questioning the apostle Paul are making. (in his teaching in Romans 9:6-23; especially Romans 9:19-23)

The apostle Paul anticipates your objection, Jim/Guy:

Romans 9:19-23

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”

20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?

21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.


No one goes to hell unjustly. God holds all people responsible and accountable for their own sins; and He sovereignly chooses who He wants to save out of their sin, people from all nations (Rev. 5:9; 7:9).

It is our responsibility to tell them to repent and believe before they die. (Acts 17:30-31; Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; Romans 15:20)

Ken said...

I don't mind answering Jim / Guy's questions, as I have time. God has caused him to keep coming here and asking questions for some reason.

God is slow to anger and very patient, so we must be also.

It is James Swan's decision if he wants to ban him for bad behavior.



But Jim/Guy,
I want to encourage you to listen to Dr. White's audio of Romans 9 explanation;

Have you ever Read Romans 9?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKJgC1_6NN0


and also read/listen/watch all of John Piper's sermons from Romans 9, 10 and 11. (granted that would take time (months maybe), but it would be well worth your time and study.

Piper, Romans 9

http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/by-scripture/romans/9

Do so with an open Bible and open heart.

They are all on the web for free.

Ken said...

Guy / Jim wrote:
How about this one,
" He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills."

You aren't making God the author of sin are you? God cannot ordain the end ( hell ) for someone without ordaining the means ( sin ).


No, because the Scripture says "He hardens whomever He wills" - Romans 9:18

You did not explain how that can even be a Bible verse.

Answer how that can even be a Bible verse, before we go on the other points.

Ken said...

Romans 9:18 - “He hardens whom He desires”

and holds them accountable. (John 3:18)

God said it, not me.

At the same time God cannot sin; God cannot do anything against His own holy and pure nature.

1 John 1:5

Titus 1:2 - "God, who cannot lie"

James 1:13-14

Habakkuk 1:13

He justly leaves some in their own sin, and all humans are responsible for their own sins.

When we say God has ordained that sin happen, it means He decided sovereignly to allow it to happen.


As Augustine said, “Man, by the wrong use of his free will, destroyed both it and himself”

Enchiridion, chapter 30

In other words,
Man, by the wrong use of his free will, destroyed his free will.

JimBrooks1776 said...

I shouldn't have asked if Dr. White thinks Senhor Fawkes is a spambot. I should have asked if he thinks Senhor Fawkes is a trollbot.

Ken said...

Guy / Jim wrote:
You are a missionary, right?

yes

Some message you must preach if say, " Hey, the good news is, Jesus may have died for you."

No; the good news presupposes the bad news that you are a sinner and one must realize their wickedness and sinful heart (Mark 7:20-23; Jer. 17:9; Genesis 6:5; Jer. 13:23; Jer. 18:12) first before they can even comprehend the good news, as good news.

The good news is that Christ died for sinners; and rose again, proving that His death was an effective atonement for sin; therefore repent and believe. You are a sinner; therefore repent of your sin and rebellion and trust in Christ alone to save you. (do not trust in Mary or your penances or rituals or works )

Ken said...

Ken: "God is just to pass over some in judgement, because of their own sin; and God is loving and merciful to save some from all nations and peoples by His grace and love."

Jim / Guy: "So, God could just as easily save all but He opts to pass over some?

God could save every single person in all of history if He wanted to. It is you who has to ask, "why do some not get saved? Why do people go to hell?

Does anyone go to hell unjustly ?

No.

Since it is not unjust; rather it is God's justice; it means that God's purpose is to show both His perfect

justice / holiness / wrath / power/ sovereignty - on vessels of wrath - Romans 9:22

and

His perfect love, mercy, grace on

vessels of mercy - Romans 9:23


Ken said...

Hey Jim Brooks,
Dr. White does not blog here; I just linked to his videos.

James Swan is the main owner of this blog.

I am one of the other bloggers. There are 2 others that are on the blogging team that I know of, but they don't post very often anymore. (Algo and Rhology)

John Bugay's older articles are here; but he blogs at Triablogue now.

Hope that clarifies.

Lloyd Cadle said...

Ken - I used to believe and teach that when I used to teach Berkhof, Calvin, Ursinus (author of the Heidelberg Catechism), Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dordt to Jr High Catechism kids.

Like St. Augustine says, God gives everyone the ability to believe but man has to cooperate with the grace given them. (Ezekiel 33:11, Hebrews 2:9, 1 Tim 2:1-6, 1 Tim 4:10, Mat 23:37, 1 John 2:2, 2 Pet 3:9, etc).

Hell was created for the Devil and his demons, not for man that God intentionally passes over.

Ken said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken said...

Guy / Jim wrote:
Ken, in your article you mentioned that we are saved by Faith. But according to your system, the only people who will be regenerated and come to Faith are those already saved in their mothers' wombs by election "before they had done anything good or bad".

You mis-understand election. No one is saved by election; election merely guarantees the results of preaching. They are not saved in their mother's womb, rather they are elected.

They get "saved" after they hear the message,

(see Ephesians 1:13-14 - after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation;
having also believed,
you were then sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise)


understand that the are rebel sinners, wicked, vile;
and repent and trust Christ to save them.

Lloyd Cadle said...

Ken -

My last sentence I forgot to put in Mat 25:41.

Ken said...

Lloyd wrote:
Ken - I used to believe and teach that when I used to teach Berkhof, Calvin, Ursinus (author of the Heidelberg Catechism), Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dordt to Jr High Catechism kids.

Interesting. But also sad that you now reject it.

Like St. Augustine says, God gives everyone the ability to believe but man has to cooperate with the grace given them.

Where does Augustine say exactly that?

The other quote from Augustine says that man lost his ability of free will by the wrong use of his free will. (Enchiridion 30)


(Ezekiel 33:11, Hebrews 2:9, 1 Tim 2:1-6, 1 Tim 4:10, Mat 23:37, 1 John 2:2, 2 Pet 3:9, etc).

Yes, I know all those verses and Rome's and Arminian theology's take on them.

Hell was created for the Devil and his demons,

true but not ONLY for them, as other verses show.

not for man that God intentionally passes over.
not true, since God sends people justly to hell for their sins.

Revelation 20:10-15 - "whoever's name was not written in the Lamb's book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

Proverbs 16:4

Romans 9:22


JimBrooks1776 said...

Ken, my apologies for addressing my earlier posts incorrectly. I'm quite surprised that the trollbot didn't jump all over my error. Did anyone else see the trollbot's comment stating that its choice of internet handle was between the two most Christ-like Catholics ever, Torquemada and Fawkes?

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

"election merely guarantees the results of preaching. They are not saved in their mother's womb, rather they are elected."

I did not mean that election is decided while in the womb. I was just appealing to the favorite "Jacob I loved/Esau I hated" passage of Calvinists. Election takes place in eternity past.

I know you are familiar with the charge that the elect were never truly lost. Before Faith, the saved are merely imputed to be lost, wouldn't you say?


Ken, who does Jesus come and die for? The elect right? Anyone else? No.

Can you really says that Jesus saves? Doesn't He just make official what was decreed already?

Then, after Jesus dies in the stead of the elect, all their sins, past present and future from Calvary forward are paid for.

Once again, the elect walking around today were never really lost as they were born post Calvary.

You really should have stuck around on CCC. Those Calvinists are much more up front that you are. They make no bones about everything being contingent on election.

One fellow has said many times that Baptism and the Eucharist pointless for the non-elect. The non-elect never get grace, according to those guys.
If you disagree, please click onto that blog and weigh in on my side there.

Everything, and I mean every single thing, hangs on election for them.
The doctrine has totally destroyed the Sacraments in their Calvinist system. Every discussion circles back upon this issue.
And their chief defense is to appeal to Augustine and Aquinas as they think that disarms the Catholics. ( They say those two saints were inconsistent in saying Baptism regenerates all who receive it and some of them fall away ).

As for hearing the message of the Gospel, let me ask you, what is the point of preaching the Gospel to the non-elect? They are not enabled to respond. As a matter of fact, they are worse off than those who never hear it as they will get a hotter place in hell for rejecting the Gospel. The guys on CCC don't wince and back of from this.

By the way, I can jerk a book off my wall and read and post some outrageous statements made by Calvin on this.
You may shrink from the doctrine's ramifications but the man your system is named after didn't. He said God puts it in the hearts of men to sin.

The utube is full of stuff on Calvinism, yes, I know. And if you notice the only explanation the Reformed spokesmen make is to castigate unregenerate man for daring question God when they should just humbly accept the awesome decrees of a sovereign God. Can the clay say to the potter...?

At the end of the day, the question you need to answer is why didn't God just cut to the chase and create men already in heaven or hell? They are spectators, not players in the whole shebang.

Just so you know, the Arminian position is not really the Arminian position. It is the Molinist position. Dirk Coornhert, Arminius' mentor, learned from the Jesuits. They should be given their due.

guy fawkes said...

JimBrooks,

Ha! You are one humorless wet blanket, aren't you?

I guess addressing the Torquemada business does have some apologetic value so I will happily address it.

Nobody, but nobody, today believes all that "Pit and the Pendulum" ant-Catholic hysteria put out to discredit the Inquisition.
Where have you been? Ever read a book? Google it.

guy fawkes said...


JB,

What could you possibly have against Guy Fawkes? That he was part of the underground and had Jesuit connections?

If yes, then you had better be against Shakespeare too as he was part of the underground resistance to tyranny too. He just didn't use a keg of gun powder. He wrote coded plays.
I don't think anybody would get the joke if I called myself William Shakespeare though. Most people know so little about the man's personal life.

Ken said...

As for hearing the message of the Gospel, let me ask you, what is the point of preaching the Gospel to the non-elect?

1. Because we are commanded to preach the gospel to everyone; and 2. we don't know who the elect are.

Knowing that a person is elect for himself/herself is only apparent after repentance and faith and growth.


They are not enabled to respond.

But we are human, and live in space and time, and many times it is a process of people wrestling with the issues of sin and the gospel and Christ, etc. Some people hear the gospel hundreds of times over several years before they actually believe. Sometimes it is much shorter.

As a missionary/ evangelist / Bible teacher, I emphasize that aspect more because I don't know who the elect are; and my experience is that Muslims need to hear the gospel 100 times or more over a period of 3-6 months to a year or 2 years before conversion.

The emphasis of the gospels and Acts is:
Repent and believe in Christ; come to Me all who are weary and heavy laden
Mark 1:15
Matthew 11:28-30
John 1:12; 3:16; 5:24; 11:25; 20:30-31
Acts 2:38; 3:19
Acts 16:31

Then, in the epistles, to encourage the believers, he says:
"chosen before the foundation of the world" Ephesians 1:4
2 Thess. 2:13
2 Timothy 1:9


As a matter of fact, they are worse off than those who never hear it as they will get a hotter place in hell for rejecting the Gospel. The guys on CCC don't wince and back of from this.

That is true. But those that never hear are lost also and we must go and preach to them and trust God to draw the elect to Himself. It is a matter of obeying God and trusting Him for the results.

But your Catholic Catechism puts people who have never heard in a saved position, and that is heresy.

# 847

And the CC also says Muslims worship the same God as Christians; also another heresy.

# 841

A real change from the previous Councils, which shows that your church is fallible and therefore, the whole thing/claim of your church falls and is defeated.

JimBrooks1776 said...

Oh, of course any and all people who don't get your funny jokes are just dumb-dumbs who don't know the real history of how innocent and Christ-like Fawkes and Torquemada were. I'm so very sorry for having doubted your motivations!

Ken said...

You really should have stuck around on CCC. Those Calvinists are much more up front that you are.

Not enough time to deal with you here, and there also; my other blog, and other responsibilities in life and work.

I think we should be careful how we talk about election with unbelievers and work patiently step by step through it when it comes up. We should emphasize the basics of the gospel with unbelievers and sin, the cross, etc.

But since you press the issue, then -

Romans 9:19-23

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”

20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?

21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory

Romans 9:19-23

Lloyd Cadle said...

Ken - St Augustine, "The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, since he completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it." De gratis et libero arbitrio 17.

Again St Augustine, "Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing." De natura et gratia, 31 (ibid.)

St Augustine taught that God offers everyone sufficient grace to be saved, but it only becomes efficacious for those that freely accept and cooperate with that grace.

St Augustine was a fourth century Catholic Bishop, a saint and doctor of the Catholic Church, not a host on the White Horse Inn.

Also, Ken you state that my above referenced verses that I'm cited are used by Rome and the Arminians. No, I used to be a children's catechism teacher in both the WELS and the LCMS, in teaching out of the Book of Concord. Lutherans use those verses against Limited (or definite atonement as defined by Michael Horton), by the Calvinists.

The Bible has to be taken as a whole....We shouldn't have our own pet passages to fit our theology.

By the way, the Bible is 100 percent a syngeristic book. (Not semi-Pelagian or Pelagian, which is heretical.)





Ken said...

Interesting testimony by a former Muslim (Nabeel Qureshi) in his book, "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus"; excerpt from Jason Engwer's article at Triablogue.

"What I needed was something that would not let me get away with my biases. I needed something that would mercilessly loop my bad arguments before my eyes, again and again and again, until I could avoid them no longer. I needed a friend, an intelligent, uncompromising, non-Muslim friend who would be willing to challenge me." (117)

David Wood provided that. Do you provide it for people in your life? Does your church provide it for people?

- Notice what Qureshi says about the importance of persistence: responding to arguments "again and again and again" (ibid.). Yet, many Christians give up easily. Once they encounter a small or moderate amount of resistance, they walk away.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/09/lessons-from-nabeel-qureshis-book.html

Shows that many Christians give up too soon on people.

That shows that evangelism is a process and we should not let the doctrine of election hinder our efforts in evangelism or prayer or fighting sin in our hearts.

2 Timothy 2:10 - "I endure all things (context: suffering, prison, etc.) for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, and with it, eternal glory."

In the process of evangelism, we don't know who the elect are; and we should keep on striving and struggling with people for a long time.

Matthew 9:36-38 - people are lost and like sheep without a shepherd. Our hearts should turn on the inside for the lost - as Francis Schaeffer said, "If you can talk about hell without moist eyes, you don't understand."

God is sovereign, the Lord of the harvest. We should pray that He would send forth laborers for the harvest.

Election causes us to make choices for holiness -
Colossians 3:12
"Therefore as those who are chosen, beloved, holy, put on a heart of compassion, humility, kindness, gentleness and patience . . .

Based on being elect, loved by God, and that He has made Christians holy / sanctified in Christ, we choose to put on those qualities . . .

Ken said...

Lloyd,
Those 2 quotes of Augustine don't contradict Calvinism at all.

They don't say that some people have some kind of previent grace (ability to respond to the gospel) and then reject the gospel.

They describe what elect / Christian people describe as their process of being converted.

I think I agree with your earlier statement about Molinism - Molinism was what the Jesuit Molina came up with to try and answer Calvinism. (Arminians who are challenged by the Bible are going toward Molinism more and more - i.e., - by William Lane Craig's teachings.

As Dr. White has shown, by William Lane Craig's explanations of Molinism - "God has been dealt with certain cards, and He has to deal with the cards he has been dealt." (from my memory, not a direct quote) Molinism seems to make God into a computer that is impersonal and that someone or something else is higher than Him. (the Card-dealer)

Ken said...

Also, Ken you state that my above referenced verses that I'm cited are used by Rome and the Arminians. No, I used to be a children's catechism teacher in both the WELS and the LCMS, in teaching out of the Book of Concord. Lutherans use those verses against Limited (or definite atonement as defined by Michael Horton), by the Calvinists.

Ok, so those verses are used by the Lutherans as well. Ok, but they are also the main verses always used by other evangelical Arminians and also by Roman Catholics.

I don't know what WELS is.

Ken said...

Ken - I used to believe and teach that when I used to teach Berkhof, Calvin, Ursinus (author of the Heidelberg Catechism), Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dordt to Jr High Catechism kids.

Lloyd,
So, were you a Lutheran at one time and a Presbyterian / Reformed also for a time?

In what order and for how long?


Jonathan Roberts said...

Guy Fawkes,

Excerpts from Aquinas' Summa (1.23.5)

"It is impossible that the whole result of predestination in general should have any cause in ourselves. For whatever is in a human being. disposing him towards salvation, is all included within the results of predestination. Even a person’s preparing himself to receive grace is the effect of predestination such preparation is impossible apart from divine assistance, as the prophet Jeremiah says: “Turn us back to You, O Lord, and we will be restored” (Lamentations 5:21). In this , as far as its results are concerned, the reason for predestination lies in the moral excellence of God. All the results of predestination are directed towards God’s moral excellence as their end, and predestination proceeds from God’s moral excellence as its first cause and principle."

And his response to the third objection:

"The reason why some souls are predestined to glory and others reprobated can be found only in the moral excellence of God. He made all things through His moral excellence, so that He might display it in all things. Now, God’s moral excellence is one and undivided in itself, but it is revealed in many different way in His creation, because created things cannot attain to the simple oneness of God. The perfection of the universe requires different grades of being, God allows some evil things, without which many good things would never happen. We must therefore consider the whole human race in the same way that we consider the whole universe. God chooses to reveal His moral excellence in human beings. He reveals it through his mercy in those whom He predestines to glory by pardoning them; in others He reprobates, He reveals His moral excellence through His justice, by punishing them. This is the general reason why God elects one part and of mankind and rejects the other…Yet why in particular He chooses these people for glory but reprobates those—there is not reason for this except His own will. As Augustine says, “Why He draws one but not another, do not seek to know, unless you wish to go astray."


And, if we want to talk Augustine, here are his comments on John 15:16--

"You did not choose Me,” Christ says, “but I chose you” (John 15:16). Such grace is beyond description. What were we, apart from Christ’s choice of us, when we were empty of love? What were we but sinful and lost? We did not lead Him to choose us by believing in Him; for if Christ chose people who already belied then we chose Him before He chose us. How then could He say, “You did not choose me,” unless His mercy came before our faith? Here is the faulty reasoning of those who say that God chose us before the creation of the world, not in order to make us good, but because He forekenew we would be good. This was not the view of Him Who said, “You did not choose Me.” We were not chose because of our goodness, for we could not be good without being chosen. Grace is no longer grace, if human goodness comes first. Listen, you ungrateful person, listen! “You did not choose me, but I chose you.” Do not say, “I am chosen because I first believed.” If you first believed, you had already chosen Him. But listen: “You did not choose Me.” And do not say, “Before I believed I was already chose on account of my good works.” What good work can come before faith, when the apostle Paul says, “Whatever is not from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23)? What then shall we say when we hear these words, “You did not choose Me”? We shall say this: We were evil, and we were chose that we might become good by grace of Him who chose us. For salvation is not by grace if our goodness came first; but it is by grace—and therefore God’s grace did not fin us good good but makes us good."

zipper778 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
guy fawkes said...

Ken,
God hardened Pharaoh's heart. That mean He let Pharaoh's will be done.

As for the Augustine quote, what about this one, " If you are not elect, pray to God that He make you so".

zipper778 said...

JR

Can you give a source for your Augustine quote? It's a great quote and I would love to look deaper into it.

Jonathan Roberts said...

Zipper,

You can read the full text here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701086.htm

GF--I'm not familiar with that quote. It certainly, on its face does seem inconsistent with the one I provided and with one of his last works, "On the Perseverance of the Saints."

Where did Augustine say this?

guy fawkes said...

Jonathan Roberts, Ken,

Your quotes from Augustine and Aquinas confirm the necessity for grace. Yes indeed.

Let me just make it black and white as to what the Church teaches. Neither Banezian nor Molinist nor any one else can deny the following without being in heresy.

1. Even before the Fall*, both Adam and the Angels needed grace to get to heaven.

2. All men fell in Adam and now need grace even more than before the Fall.
God locked up all men in trespass so He could have mercy on them all.

3. God wants all men saved. Not all men are saved.

4. Salvation is the gift of God but

5. The wages of sin is death.

The Church has left it open for discussion just so long as one stays within certain parameters.

Now, if you find some statement made by either Augustine or Aquinas, that strays outside the boundaries, you are either
A. Misreading the saint or
B. The saint was dead wrong on this point.

And they both erred in some areas. Especially Augustine. For instance. Augustine got it way wrong on the fate of unbaptized babies. And Aquinas rejected his views on this issue.
As brilliant as they both were, neither of them were Pope.

I am especially fond of the views of Fr. Wm. Most. You can google his material online. He was opposed to both Banezians and Molinists and came up with a rather ecumenical theory. ( Remember, the Pope told them both to shut up and quit calling each other heretics. A Catholic free to reject one or both theories. ).

If you really want to get into Augustine and Aquinas, I would refer you to Called to Communion. They have gone into minute detail over there and the commentary went on for years.

* We can talk about why non sinners would need grace here. Or, once again, you can go to C2C for an in depth discussion on our different definitions of "grace".

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

You know already what I am going to say about Rm 9:19-23. Paul is not talking about individual predestination to heaven or hell.

Predestination is to the Church. Election is corporate. We are elect in Christ, not to be in Christ. As long as one stays in Christ, he is elect.

Of course, if you want to say ALL MEN are elect to be in Christ but that not all men get there or remain there, then fine. But no man is made for hell or passed over before foreseen demerits.

Salvation is a gift. But the wages of sin is death. IOW, you need to earn hell. Nobody goes to hell for Original sin.

Calvin's double predestination is condemned.
And although Luther and he differed on the extent of the Atonement, they held the same view of predestination. Zwingli too. It was for this error ( and not indulgences ) that Luther was excommunicated.
Also, any theory that says sufficient grace is not sufficient, is wrong. It wouldn't be called sufficient is it weren't.

You called the Arminians "scripturally challenged".

Whoa! The Calvinist is the one who is way off on the TULIP in scripture. Especially on Limited Atonement.

Lloyd Cadle said...

Ken - I started out dispensational, and graduated from a dispensational Bible college. Towards the end of Bible College I became a Calvinist, and joined Kim Riddlebarger's Christ Reformed Church and served as a Deacon and Kim's Jr. High Catechism teacher for over three years. Kim is a great guy and I learned a ton from him. I was Dutch Reformed for 7 years, and dispensational for six years. I was a member of Kim's church for seven years.

I became Lutheran and served as an elder in the WELS and Sunday school teacher. In the LCMS, I was on the Board of Directors of a huge LCMS church and served as a Jr. High Catechism teacher.

While Lutheran (for 7 years), I started a three year study of the Orthodox and Catholic theologies, including the Early Church Fathers. I became Catholic, and as they say the rest is history.

I always tell folks that if they want to learn each tradition, there are no short cuts, you have to read and study Calvin, Luther, Berkof, all the Reformed confessions, the Book of Concord, and all of the Catholic Catechism. Every single page of each. Don't skip through them. Then move on to the best theologians each has to offer. I am pretty boring. I love dogmatics.

My brother is as much as a fanatic as I am. He is Coptic Orthodox. He visits us in the Phoenix area about twice a year and we drive our wives nuts as we can talk theology 24-7, days on end.

Even though my brother is Coptic Orthodox, he always says that no one has had or has more top notch theologians than the Catholic Church.

We kid each other that if there was no Coptic Church he would become Catholic, and if there was no Catholic Church, I would become Orthodox!

That is it in a quick nutshell.



Lloyd Cadle said...

Ken - WELS is the conservative Lutheran synod; Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. They are much more conservative than LCMS, which can be all over the place in doctrine and practice.

Lloyd Cadle said...

Ken - The St Augustine quotes that I gave you demonstrate that St Augustine was synergistic and that the Bible is a synergistic book.

Acts 7:51 teaches us that if one does not resist God and His grace, than God cooperates with His grace. This is called synergism (not semi-Pelagianism or Pelagianism, which the Catholic Church condemns).

The Bible is clearly a synergist book, read Mark:16:20. In Romans 8:28, God cooperates for good with those that love God, and are called according to His purpose.

Look at 1 Corth 3, where we are called "God's fellow workers....."

God cooperated with the Apostles in preaching, so that man could cooperate with the grace given for man to get saved.

That is what the Bible, the Early Church Fathers and the historic Christian Faith of the Catholic Church teaches us.

Ken said...

And although Luther and he differed on the extent of the Atonement, they held the same view of predestination. Zwingli too. It was for this error ( and not indulgences ) that Luther was excommunicated.

Are you sure?

Maybe James Swan knows the answer to this.

The indulgence question in 1517 led to his deeper study and growning convictions on Sola Fide, Justification by faith alone

I thought it was the content of his 3 books - written in 1520 - (and commentary on Galatians earlier)

Nobility of the German Nation
Babylonian Captivity of the Church
Freedom of the Christian

things like Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura - Scripture has a higher authority than the Pope; and, I think, because Luther called the Pope "the anti-Christ".

January 3, 1521, Pope Leo X excommunicated Martin Luther.

Luther burned it, and so that led to the heresy trial of Worms later. April of 1521

The Bondage of the Will vs. Erasmus was in 1525 -
Predestination comes out more there.

Ken said...

Lloyd:
I used to think as you do; I used to use those verses you gave against Calvinism (2 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:2; 1 Tim. 2:4; Matthew 23:37; 1 Tim. 4:10)

I use to use this verse (Acts 7:51) as one of my main verses against TULIP, especially the I (Irresistable Grace). I thought it was easy.

Act 7:51 “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.

The doctrine of irresistable grace or better, effectual grace does not contradict this verse.

The doctrine does not deny that people resist the Holy Spirit.

What the doctrine teaches ( the I in T.U.L.I.P) is that when God wants to overcome that resistance, He is able to overcome the resistance and stubbornness and cause regeneration; and that it happens in the heart/soul of the elect. (after they hear the gospel)

Ken said...

Lloyd,
Thanks for the details of your different experiences in different churches.

Very interesting; but sad.

Lloyd Cadle said...

Ken - Matt 23:37; God wanted to save them, they resisted, God will not choose to overcome their resistance and stubbornness and regenerate them.

Acts 7:51; If man does not resist God, God cooperates with His grace. God's grace can be resisted.

Mark 16:20; God cooperates with man, as man preached everywhere, while God worked with them.

1 Corth 3; God cooperates with us as we are fellow workers.....

The above referenced teach us that God's grace is synergistic, we cooperate with it, but we can resist it.

Hebrews 2:9; The atonement is not limited, He tastes death for ever man.

1 Tim 2:1-6; God wants all men to be saved, come to knowledge of truth. God will not choose to overcome their stubbornness and regenerate them.

1 Tim 4:10; God is savior of all, especially those that believe. God saves those that cooperate with his grace and believe. The atonement is not limited, but for all.

1 John 2:2; Christ is the propitiation for our sins, not only ours, but the whole world. The atonement is not limited, but for all.

2 Peter 3:9; God is long suffering, doesn't want any to perish. He wants all to come to the knowledge of the truth. The atonement is not limited. He wants all to cooperate with His grace (synergy).

The above referenced passages teach us that the Bible is a synergist book. If one does not resist God and His grace, then God cooperates with His Grace. God will not choose to overcome their resistance and stubbornness and regenerate them. The atonement is not limited.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

Luther's views on indulgences, in the beginning, were quite orthodox. If the nailing his 95 Thesis on the Wittenberg Cathedral door really happened, it was not a crime.
His Bondage of the Will was in the line of Gottschalk though. That way of thinking had been condemned well before Luther came along.

Anyway, you wrote,
" He is able to overcome the resistance and stubbornness and cause regeneration; and that it happens in the heart/soul of the elect...".

Yes, that is fine as far as it goes. It just doesn't go far enough.

Why doesn't God do this work of regeneration for all men as all men are equally lost and in need of grace?
He could if He wanted to but according to you, He doesn't want to. That's a problem as the Bible says the contrary as Lloyd's post shows.

How is it all men are in this vitiated state? Because of the Fall.
Why did God permit the Fall?
"...so He could have mercy on them ALL".

This is a major dividing line between us.
I told you yesterday how the Church combatted Calvinism/Jansenism. It was to focus on the Heart of Jesus. That is the starting point as Jesus shows us the Father.
Your system starts with a decree in eternity past. Jesus is then subordinated to that decree.

guy fawkes said...

Jonathan,
I think it was you who suggested a perusal of St. Anselm could be helpful.
Okay. Not intending to throw you a "Gotcha" Question" but to really hi-lite something important, I would direct you ( and Ken ) to a statement Anselm made once about one drop of Jesus' Blood being sufficient to Atone for the sins of all men.

So, reconcile the fact that Jesus poured out all of His Blood with Limited Atonement.
Reconcile that with Penal Substitution ( I am not changing the subject. PS and Limited Atonement go together ).

guy fawkes said...

Gentlemen,
Scanning the comments this morning, it appears that hostile tone has abated to some degree. I am good with that. I, for one, am happy not to ratchet up the heat if you guys are. That way we can actually get somewhere in arguing our positions rather than throwing little barbs at each other.

Jonathan Roberts said...

Guy Fawkes,

A couple of notes--

First, I still think that my Aquinas and Augustine quotes stand as supporting classic reformed orthodoxy.

Second, reformed christians agree with Anselm. Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all, but only efficient for some.

James Swan said...

guy fawkes said...Gentlemen,
Scanning the comments this morning, it appears that hostile tone has abated to some degree. I am good with that. I, for one, am happy not to ratchet up the heat if you guys are. That way we can actually get somewhere in arguing our positions rather than throwing little barbs at each other


Hebrews 12:14 (GFV*)
Pursue peace with all men only when they post comments you like- till then, eye for eye, tooth for a tooth.

GFV= Guy Fawkes Version




Lloyd Cadle said...

Jonathan -

Aquinas is not a Early Church Father. The era of the Early Church Fathers runs to about 636. Aquinas was a great Catholic theologian and a Doctor of the Church. A while back someone took a quote from Aquinas and totally disregarding his entire body of work, tried to say that Aquinas was sola scripture. Aquinas vehemently believed in submitting to Apostolic authority and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Same with St Augustine. He was a great Catholic Bishop of the fourth century, and a Doctor of the Catholic Church. Catholics would agree with about 90 percent of what Augustine said. Catholics love both Aquinas and Augustine. Both are quoted throughout the Catechism. Catholic radio and T.V. are always quoting Aquinas and Augustine. We have pictures of both throughout our churches. The problem that we have is where folks take the 10 percent of what Augusine and the Early Church Fathers said and run with it and try to make it support Protestant theology.

Many of the ECF's were Catholic bishops and even popes. Some of them were a part of the magisterium of their day. They were great witnesses to apostolic Tradition.

The writings of the ECF's are not inspired and do not have God as author in this way. They do not teach the truth without error. One cannot simply proof text using their writings, or treat it as if it settles all matters on an isolated basis. You have to look at the majority consensus (whole body of work) to determine their teachings. This is why we have the magisterium of the Church, to sort out disputed cases, of what authentically belongs to Sared Scripture, or Sacred Tradition.

The writings of the Early Church Fathers as a group, not just the ones that were members of the magisterium carry a very special authority. As witnesses to Sacred Tradition, their testimony is most valuable. Their unity on the majority of Catholic teachings can be considered certain.

That is why, time after time so many Lutheran, Reformed and Baptist pastors and theologians are converting to Rome.

Lloyd Cadle said...

James -

Maybe we are all headed to Promise Keepers. A huge LOL!

guy fawkes said...

Jonathan,

No. Anselm did not teach Penal Substitution.

Let me give my homespun version of Satisfaction.

If you go to London and throw an apple at the Queen, Obama has to get on the phone and do some major apologizing.

You can't. Because you are not a head of state, you can not make sufficient compensation for the insult given.

Penal Sub morphs that into something altogether different.

Besides, Christ's act of Atonement was one of sacrifice. Penal Substitution is not a sacrifice but a vicarious punishment.

Remember, the Passover Lamb was not punished. Rather, it was taken into the home and treated as a family pet for four days before being sacrificed.

The Reformers lost all concept of sacrifice as is seen by their jettisoning of the Mass.

guy fawkes said...

James,

Hello to you too.

guy fawkes said...

Jonathan,
That final comment was not meant to change the subject from Anselm to the Mass.
There is plenty online to help you understand why Anselm's view is that of a saint and Calvin's that of a heretic.

I would just say that Penal Sub plays into a bunch of concomitants errors like imputed righteousness and limited atonement. Anselm's view fits with an overall Catholic scheme. He was a priest after all.

guy fawkes said...

Jonathan,

Satisfaction is in lieu of punishment.

PS is punishment. It might be vicarious, but is just plain punishment.

When we say that Jesus's death saves or satisfies the Father, what we mean is Jesus' obedience unto death satisfies and saves.

The OT sacrifices, including the Day of Atonement scapegoat rite, never punished to victim. The victim was killed only to get the life giving blood out and to render it unusable by the man offering it.

In a system of PS, God's wrath comes downward onto the victim.

In a system of satisfactory sacrifice, the gift rises upward to God.

PS logically fits with limited atonement. That is not biblical. And it makes God to be like the priest and Levite who passed over the man in the parable.
Even without the Bible, PS is full of contradictions.
The Reformers went way beyond what Anselm or Aquinas had to say on this issue. Calvin especially. His theory of the Atonement blasphemously had Jesus go to hell and suffer the complete alienation from God that the damned experience.
PS also makes logical the error of Once Saved Always Saved too.
Jonathan, there is so much wrong with PS. St. Anselm did not teach Calvinism.

Jonathan Roberts said...

When I said the Reformed agree with Anselm, I specifically meant that as it pertains the sufficiency of the atonement.

"Sufficient for all, efficient for some."

guy fawkes said...

Jonathan,

As far as I know, it is really not clear how extensive the Atonement was, for individuals or for the human race. Aquinas clarified it as for the entire race.

Even if Anselm did limit the Atonement, that is the only place of agreement you would have with him.
On every other point he would disagree with you.

Besides, did you not also mention Aquinas? He is even further from you than Anselm as he spoke of merit.

Merit, Satisfaction, Sacrifice and Redemption/Ransom are the 4 different angles to view the Atonement.

PS is different.

Jonathan Roberts said...

Aquinas believed that predestination to salvation had nothing to do with foreseen merits. At least that is what he believed when he wrote the Summa.

Ken said...

Guy / Jim wrote:
The OT sacrifices, including the Day of Atonement scapegoat rite, never punished to victim. The victim was killed only to get the life giving blood out and to render it unusable by the man offering it.

You don't think death is punishment?

Romans 3:23 - the wages of sin is death

You don't think God's judgment is punishment?

Genesis 2:16-17 - in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die

The soul that sins, it shall die. Ezekiel 18:20

It is obvious that killing the lambs, goats, sheep, etc. was punishment for sin (sin offerings; guilt offerings); and that pointed to the Messiah to come. They took the punishment of sin in the place of the guilty humans.

The victim was killed because the wages of sin is death and the sins were transferred onto the victim; that is why they laid hands on the animals and confessed their sins onto the animal, as a symbol of transfer. Our sins were imputed onto Christ. "The blood" means the bloody violence / punishment / curse that drains life out, causes death, kills, not the liquid per say. The issue is life vs. death, not blood, as it seems you are pointing to in the RC mass as Transubstantiation, as a magical liquid which requires the person to continue to drink it, as if it gives power/life within itself. (like pagan religions)

The true meaning of the super is remembering the once for all death of Christ on the cross.

Jesus voluntarily took the punishment of sin for us, in our place.

John 10:18 - I lay My life down voluntarily, on my own authority / initiative

Galatians 3:10 - He became a curse for us.

You don't think God's curse against sin is punishment?

Isaiah 53:6 - The LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

Isaiah 53:10 - The LORD was pleased to crush Him, if He would render Himself a guilt offering.

1 Peter 2:24 - Jesus bore our sins in His body on the wood, that we might die to sin and live for righteousness, for by His wounds we are healed.

1 Peter 3:18 - Christ died for us, once for all, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God.

The bearing of sins in Isaiah 53 and the NT is a combination of both the goats in Leviticus 16 - the bloody violence of the death/sacrifice and the bearing/carring away of sins. Both concepts are combined in the Messiah.

Ken said...

along with 1 Peter 2:24 (bore our sins) and Isaiah 53:6 and 10, Hebrews 9:28 also shows that Christ bore our sins - the concepts of bearing/carring away are in Christ and fulfilling the "bearing away" and 'carrying away" of our sins in the scapegoat in Leviticus 16

so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Hebrews 9:28

Ken said...

Isaiah 53:4

and

Isaiah 53:11

also care the concept of bearing sins. (getting them and carrying them away, like the scapegoat of Levitius 16:21

Ken said...

Leviticus 16:21

Ken said...

Leviticus 16:22

“The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities . . .

The Messiah fulfilled both the slaughtered goat and the scapegoat.

guy fawkes said...

Jonathan,

You are 100% correct about Aquinas predestinating before any foreseen merits.

Unlike the Calvinists, though, for Thomas, reprobation is based on foreseen demerits.

As I said,
1.
the Catholic positions says God sincerely wants all men saved.
2.
All men are given sufficient grace.
3. All men are not saved.

The gift of God is eternal life but the wages of sin is death.

Nobody goes to hell because God wants them there. They have to EARN it.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
In response to your first post about death,
if Jesus died in your stead, why are you still going to die?

Your understanding of the OT sacrificial system could not be worse.

At no time was the goat, bull, lamb, dove, or SACK OF FLOUR ever whipped, beaten or spat upon before having its throat cut.
On the contrary. If the animal felt any pain, or even fear, the sacrifice was rendered invalid. Even today, in the preparation of kosher meat, the animal's throat must be cut with a knife so sharp he doesn't feel it .

The only time hands were laid on an animal to transfer sin is the case of the scapegoat. But remember, that goat was not sacrificed but released into the wilderness just as Barabbas was while the other, innocent victim was offered up.
The laying on of hands was to identify with the animals purity. Only perfect and unblemished lambs were considered appropriate for sacrifice.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

In your second post you stress the fact that Jesus bore our sins.

Yes, you are correct. But remember, He was priest as well as victim. The Bible speaks of the High Priest atoning for or bearing our sins. That does not mean sin was ever imputed to the priest.

Did jesus bear our iniquities? Yes but not in the way you think.
In the Incarnation Jesus took on our passable flesh. In that way He can be said to bear our iniquities,
Also,the men who witnessed Jesus suffering thought He was being crushed by the Father. He was not. Men just thought He was.

Jesus took our nature so He could suffer as our Head, not in our stead.

Of course He made an atonement that we could not make but remember, we are not let off the hook. Rather we are still called to take up our crosses and suffer with and in Him.



guy fawkes said...

Ken,

"as a magical liquid"

OUCH! I don't think I want to enter into any exchange that uses terminology like that.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

Of course the scapegoat carried away the sins of the people. But the goat was not killed,punished or sacrificed in the place of the people.
Penal Substitution means punishment.

Ken said...

Guy / Jim:

In Leviticus 16:21-22 - one goat was killed as a sin offering.

the other was let loose into the wilderness. The sins were confessed over the goat and onto that goat and transferred to that goat.

These are 2 aspects of the work of atonement on the Day of Atonement.

one aspect is the punishment / death / wages of sin is death / shedding to blood that leads to death / wrath of God / justice of God

the other is the carrying away / bearing of sins away from us / removal of sin / imputation of sins onto the victim

In Isaiah 53 - both aspects are combined into the suffering servant / Messiah - He bore our sins and He was killed in our place, for we deserved to die.

"All of us like Sheep have gone astray, each of us has gone our own way; but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." Isaiah 53:6

your view does not account for the "the LORD has caused the iniquity of us to fall on Him"
or "He became a curse for us on the cross" Galatians 3:13 or "He bore our sins in His body on the tree" 1 Peter 2:24

the people thought the LORD was punishing Him for His own sins, but He was not - He was suffering the punishment for our sins - Isaiah 53:4-6

It is not denying that the LORD was sovereignly behind the suffering (But the Son / Servant / Messiah voluntarily took the punishment for us out of His love for us - John 10:18); rather it is saying that the people wrongly thought it was for His own sins.

"Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him
,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him."

Isaiah 53:4-6

"But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,"

Isaiah 53:10

The wrath of God was absorbed, justice was satisfied, the Father was pleased

the Son voluntarily went there as a guilt offering.

Penal Substitutionary atonement is clear

"By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities."
Isaiah 53:11

justification of "the many"

bearing iniquities

"Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors."

Isaiah 53:12

Ken said...

the "bearing" / "carrying away aspect in Isaiah 53 is a further development from the "bearing" / carring away aspect in the scapegoat of Leviticus 16:21-22

Isaiah 53 combines the guilt offering / sin offering of Leviticus 5 and 6 and 16-17 and the scapegoat bearing sins aspect of Lev. 16:21-22.

In the NT (Galatians 3:13, 1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 9:28) the bearing aspect of the scapegoat / imputation of sins to the victim is seen in the one sacrifice that was offered / slain / killed.

Isaiah 53 and the NT combines both elements of the meanings of both goats from the day of atonement.


guy fawkes said...


Ken,
Here is a short piece written by my friend Nick on the Isaiah passage.

http://catholicnick.blogspot.pt/2014/03/isaiah-53-does-it-really-say-god.html

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

Galatians 3 says the one hung on a tree is considered cursed by men, It doesn't say by God.

1 Peter says Christ endured suffering for a purpose; to give us an example of how to accept our sufferings.

Hebrews 9 says Christ was sacrificed to take away sins. Absolutely. Did you think we deny it?

Ken, none of these passages support a very specific concept of just how Christ took away our sins called Penal Substitution.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

Penal Sub says Christ was considered as a sinner, the worst of sinners according to the Reformers. It says God poured out His wrath on Christ instead of the guilty elect.

Since Christ was punished in the sinner's place, the Father cannot punish the sinner again.

Because PS wipes out the punishment due the breaking of the Law, but does nothing to make the sinner righteous but only puts him at point zero, the active obedience of Christ keeping the Law is then put to the account of the sinner ( so say most Calvinists ).

This is what PS is all about. It is about imputing something not real.

This what our position is opposed to.
We do not deny Christ death was satisfactory and meritorious.

Ken said...

Guy / Jim wrote:
"Galatians 3 says the one hung on a tree is considered cursed by men, It doesn't say by God."

Really? Look again at the context.

10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”

11 Now that no one is justified by [q]the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.”

12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live [u]by them.”

13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”—

14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Context my friend; Verse 10 teaches us that it is God's curse / judgment on us because we cannot keep / obey the law and anyone who is trying to obey the law of God in order to earn points with God or get His love and acceptance is under a curse/ judgment.

Christ became the judgment / curse for us; He took the judgment/ justice / for us in our place.

nowhere does it say that Jesus was considered a curse by man, rather He took the punishment/curse / penalty for us in our place.

Lloyd Cadle said...

Ken - In just about every case where Paul uses the term "works of the law" he talking in Romans and Galatians to the Judaizers who are attempting to keep the old Cov't, the Law of the Torah, apart from faith in Christ. He even tells them in Gal 5:2-3, "Now, I Paul say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law."

You can't just bunch up all laws as "works" and treat them all the same, and throw them all out. Paul doesn't teach that. That is a new false teaching by the Reformers.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”—

If you are even hinting that Jesus was cursed by the Father, you have MAJOR problems with your understanding of the Trinity.

Jn 9:16 and Jn 10:33 and Jn 18:30 all show how the Jews, ( not God ) saw Jesus to be a sinner.

Remember, Jesus is holiness itself/Himself. At no time was the Father mistaken into thinking otherwise.

In Osee 4:8 it says, " the priests will eat the sins of the people". This means they will eat the sin OFFERINGS.
So we see, the word "sin" can mean sin offering.

We also see the word "sin" to mean the likeness of sin as in where the Bible says Jesus came in the form of our fallen or sinful nature so He could make amends for our sin.

So, your Galatians passage should be read as meaning the Jews perceived Jesus as a curse.

Jesus was never alienated from the Father nor did He ever think the Father did not love Him. Remember, the three Persons of the Trinity all share the one divine nature. We are not tritheists, Ken.

Jesus never suffered the torments of hell. Calvin made that up.
The primary torment of hell is separation from God. How was Jesus ever separated from Himself?

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

"nowhere does it say that Jesus was considered a curse by man,"

And nowhere does it say He was considered to be cursed by God.

"... we cannot keep / obey the law and anyone who is trying to obey the law of God in order to earn points with God or get His love and acceptance is under a curse/ judgment."

Ken, when I submitted Louis Marie DeMontfort as a source, you retorted that he was "nothing".
In the same way, the ravings of Luther and Calvin mean zip to me.

If nobody could keep the Law, why does the Bible speak of certain people as doing so such as Zachary and Elizabeth? The Law was keepable. Later, Peter will say it wasn't but he was speaking not of individuals but as a nation.

If the Law was not to be kept, why was it given? Only to reveal to man his need for grace and nothing else?

Who says we are not to be zealous to please God? Certainly not Jesus nor Paul.

Give me your quotes that say we are cursed for wanting to grow in the love of God.
"Earn points"? Jesus is very clear that we will be given "points" for our good works. Even a cup of water given in His name merits* points.

Jesus castigated the smug pharisees, not for feeding the widows and orphans, but for oppressing them.

* Just so you know, the wages or "earnings" of sin is death.

Merit does not mean "earn". That is why, in her documents, the Church uses the word "merit" to distinguish it from earn as one earns a wage from an employer in strict justice.
The very POINT system ( to use your word ) is a grace not owed to us. And meriting those points is the work of the Holy Spirit in us. Even wanting to merit those points is a gift from God.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

Please read Psalm 119 in order to get an accurate picture of the Law.

Of course, nobody is (initally anyway ) justified by keeping the Law. Abraham was justified long before the Law was given. The Laws purpose was not to justify.

The passage that says if one breaks one commandment, he is guilty of breaking the whole law is speaking of mortal sin.

Protestant err in not understanding the biblical distinction between mortal and venial sin.

Under the OT sacrificial system, provision was made for venial sin. The Law itself made a distinction just as Jesus would do later.
Remember, zealous Law Keepers offered sacrifice annually for the sins they had committed.

Your whole concept of the Law is not biblical.
And yes, Jesus kept every precept of the Law ( including that of honoring his mother ). But not so it could be imputed to our accounts.

Lloyd Cadle said...

Guy -

Our friend Ken is asking you to consider context. I wonder if he realizes that Paul is talking about those that are seeking salvation by keeping the Law of the Torah and not faith in Christ.

Here is another one to add to Gal 5:2-3 from Paul, Gal 6:13, "For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law (the Law of the Torah), but they desire to have you circumcised (a requirement of the Torah, not the 10 commandments, as getting circumcised is not one of the 10 commandments) that they (the Judaizers) may glory in your flesh."

In context, we have to be able to differentiate between the the laws of Scripture. None of us would want to try to keep the Law of the Torah as a way to "earn points with God or get His love and acceptance." That is the context of Paul.

guy fawkes said...

Lloyd,

Yes indeed.
And Ken should also reread Dt 21 to see that it was a covenant breaker, the worst of criminals, who was hanged/hung on a tree.
Christ was at no time considered such by His Father.

Peter. echoing Isaiah says, "by His stripes we are healed".
Absolutely.
And the Bible also says we are saved by the cross and the shed blood of Christ.

But PS says "in our stead".
We were never scheduled for scourging and crucifixion. Even if we were, it would not have atoned for sin according to the Anselmian system we talked about earlier. The crucifixion of every human being is finite and the offense against God is infinite.

Ken should forget what Calvinism teaches and focus on the Bible which says Christ tasted death on behalf ( not in the stead ) of all men.

Now, since all men are not saved, ( and all men still have to taste their own death ) the Damon and Pythias exchange Protestants read into the Bible must not be right.

guy fawkes said...

Lloyd,

One more thing, if the Law was so bad, why did Paul continue to observe certain precepts even after coming to Christ?
Remember, he circumcised Timothy. And he did not object when, at the Jerusalem Council. circumcision was abrogated but some dietary laws were left standing temporarily so as not to scandalize the Jewish Christians.

Keeping the Jewish law was not condemned for Jewish converts. Forcing Gentile converts to live as Jews was though as it implied salvation came through the law. In fact, it never had.
Jewish nationalism over the Gentiles was condemned. Jewish identity was not condemned though.

The Torah Laws were replaced by more Laws, the Law of Christ. The Sermon on the Mount shows it to be even more demanding ( Matthew 5:17 ).

Jesus did not die in our stead. He did not keep the Law in our stead.

Jesus kept the law and died as our head, not in our stead. ( Catchy, eh? I made it up myself ).

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

I see you haven't posted a comment on the topic of the Atonement for a day. Perhaps it is because you are busy with getting ready for Christmas. It wasn't until last night that I was finally able to track down some sage for turkey dressing after weeks of searching. They don't use it over here for that.

Anyway, if you have just run out of steam on this topic, maybe I can spice things up with a juicy piece of bait you will not be able to resist;

Mary participated in the Atonement.

There. I said it. I bet that piques your interest,eh?

Of course, Mary did not participate in the Atonement if you mistakenly view the Atonement as Penal Substitution. The very thought of God pouring His wrath out on her is odious.

However, if one correctly sees the Atonement from the four angles I mentioned earlier, Merit, Satisfaction, Sacrifice and Ransom/Redemption, Our Lady does indeed share in the work of Christ ( in a subordinate way I hasten to say ) in saving the world.

Okay, Ken, if that doesn't get a rise out of you, you must be dead.

zipper778 said...

I hope you have a Merry Christmas guy.

guy fawkes said...

Zipper,

Thank you.

Merry Christmas to you and your family too.
Take care.

Lloyd Cadle said...

Merry Christmas to all!

Metal Minister said...

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!

guy fawkes said...

Gang,
Now that the Christmas truce is over and hostilities are back on, I thought I would post this stuff I posted on "Proof for Rome's Mary" as it is related to what we were arguing when we left off here before the holiday.

Gen 3:15 says the same enmity between the Christ and the Serpent will exist between the Woman and the Serpent.

That enmity is not partial but 100%. So that rules out Eve, who helped the serpent seduce Adam. It rules out Israel for sure. Can it be the Church? Well, not if you remember the Church did not bring forth Christ.
Since we know the Man-Child and the Dragon of Revelation 12 are the same as the Woman's Seed and Serpent of Gen 3:15, we must conclude the Woman to be the same too, right?

Who is the Woman in both passages? Eve? Israel? The Church? can the Woman passages have polyvalent meanings?

What does Jesus call Mary in John's Gospel? At the wedding feast, it is the Woman who persuades Jesus to initiate his "hour". Jesus performed His first sign and the Apostles "began to believe". Mary already believed.

When Jesus was overthrowing Satan on Calvary, He called His mother "Woman".
Do dying men speak formally to their mothers? Do they renounce, scold or denounce them?
Was Jesus just another dying man? Or was He performing an act of infinite importance?
Did He just do make some 11th hour provisions for His mom by seeing to it that she had a care giver?

From the Annunciation to Calvary, Mary shared in her Son's mission.


Ken said...

Hi Guy / Jim !
I hope you had good Christmas! I did not have time to comment - as you mentioned, I was just too busy with family and church and travel and visiting extended family, Christmas preparations, etc.

I don't understand why you use the phrase "hostilities are back on".

I don't consider having any hostility on my part.

Looking over the comments over the past few days; I don't understand why you think you defeated me on the issue of Mary's alleged perpetual virginity. Matthew 1:18; Matthew 1:25; Matthew 12:46-47; Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3; John 7:1-10 and other passages prove that Mary was not a virgin after Jesus was born.

She was a virgin before Jesus was born. We agree on this issue and that doctrine is very important for Christianity, the Deity of Christ, the sinlessness of Christ, and why He could be the perfect spotless lamb of God for our sins.

On the issues that we agree on, we see the significance of the Christmas holiday and celebration.

Mary was a godly and holy believer; she quoted Scripture (Luke 1:46-55) and was immersed in the Bible. But she confessed her need for salvation and a Savior (from sin) - Luke 1:47.

She obeyed the Lord and submitted to the angel's announcement; but she was not sinless, nor immaculately conceived.

She was Theotokos (the one bearing God) in that she was carrying and bearing God the Son when conceived and birthed. She gave Jesus His human nature, combined with His pre-existing Divine nature, making one divine person with 2 natures.

But Luke 2:22-24 shows she needed purification from her uncleaness and it says the baby "opened her womb", so she had pain and her hymen was broken, but there is no sinfulness in that; in fact, it is normal and beautiful that she was a normal woman and delivered Jesus.

This is not hostile or "hostilities" but just "speaking the truth in love" and apologetics.

guy fawkes said...

ken,
I did have a nice Christmas. Thank you for asking. I hope you did too.

Hostilities is a joke. It was meant just to balance out the idea of a Christmas truce as was held during WW II.

The passages from Matthew you mention are based on the words "before/until".
It is important to stress Jesus had no human father so the word "before" says that and nothing more.

"Until" does not need to mean a change took place after a particular event. Remember Jerome's witty, "Helvidius did not repent until the day he died. Are we to assume he repented after he died?"

"Brothers" does not have to mean uterine brother. A perfect example is the relationship between Apostles Jude and James. The Bible describes the relationship as father to son and brother to brother.

James, Joses, Simon and Jude all had both a different father other than St. Joseph and at least two of them, Joses and James, a different mother also named Mary.

As for the "opening of the womb", it was bloodless according to the Prologue of John.

I asked James Swan something last night. I asked him about those aprons and handkerchiefs that were touched to St. Paul and then used to heal sick people in Acts.

What happened to those cloth items afterwards? They had been used by God so were they set aside and treasured from then on? Or were they used to blow noses?

Blowing noses is not a sin. Wiping sweat and grime off of a face is legitimate. Using an apron to keep one's clothes from being spattered is fine.

Please don't imply that I have ever said marital relations are sinful or base. For Catholics, spouses grow in grace with every embrace.

But after being used mightily by God, to bear the Savior of the World, who wouldn't see that Mary( and Joseph too ) had been set aside by God for Himself.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
No one has ever been able to prove what you are trying to prove. I can neutralize every passage you bring forth that implies Mary was not a life long Virgin.

But that only brings us to a stand still. Nullifying your arguments just brings us to an impasse.

I think I can do better than that.

Ken, throughout history Mary has been called the Virgin Mary or just the Virgin.

The prophecy says, " A Virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son...".


"...AND BRING FORTH...".

If the Virgin loses her virginity during birth, not to mention at a later date, what is the sign? It is lost, isn't it? There is nothing extraordinary in a woman losing her bodily integrity in childbirth.

Matthew,although writing in Hebrew, specifically chose the Greek Septuagint rendering of "Parthenos" for a reason, Ken.

At the scene of finding Jesus in the temple at 12 years of age, there are no other children mentioned.
At the cross, Jesus gives Mary to John, son of Zebedee. Why not to His "brother", Mary's supposed other son, the Apostle James?

Mary is the Woman of Gen 3:15. The prophecy says a Woman and her Seed. If not Mary, who, Ken?

That Woman, along with her Seed, shared in a common enmity with and victory over the Serpent and its seed.

If the woman went on to have other offspring by natural birth, she would not be the woman of Gen 3:15.
Any subsequent children would have been conceived with "a desire for her husband" a.k.a. concupiscence, which is a wound of Original Sin. And they would have been born with another result of Original Sin, the pangs of childbirth. The victory/enmity over the Serpent would not be the 100% victory/enmity spoken of in this passage. Rather, both enmity and victory would only be partial.

Ken said...

Guy / Jim,
I just don't have much time to keep repeating this stuff; you seem to have too much time on your hands. You have not done research on the differences between "heos" / 'εως by itself, "heos hou" / 'εως 'ου, and the other prepositional phrases (heos hotou / 'εως 'οτου ; and heos an / 'εως αν, and ἄχρι οὗ / axri hou - see 1 Cor. 15:25) and syntactical constructions - the Greek NT has many different ones, and all the examples that Roman Catholics bring to mean "until, but continuing on after that also" are NOT the heos hou / 'εως 'ου construction . They are other constructions.

The passages from Matthew you mention are based on the words "before/until".
It is important to stress Jesus had no human father so the word "before" says that and nothing more.


"before they came together" is in the context of marriage - so that means "having sexual intercourse" in marriage.

"Until" does not need to mean a change took place after a particular event.

But it does in this context. As Eric Svendsen has definitely demonstrated, "This contruction [of heos hou / 'εως 'ου] is used in Matthew 1:25 and so is of special interest here. It occurs only seventeen times in the NT, and all are temporal. Two of these have the meaning "while" (Matthew 14:22; 26:36), whereas the other 15 occurrences are instances in which the action of the main clause is limited by the action of subordinate clause and require the meaning, "until a specific time, (but not after)".
(Svendsen, Who is My Mother? page 52) On page 251 he lists all the occurrances of the heos hou / 'εως 'ου construction with the English verses typed out. It is a lot to type out, but with the verse thingy that James put in here, I can type the verse references and then you can hover over them to see:

Matthew 1:25

Matthew 13:33

Matthew 14:22 (while)

Matthew 17:9

Matthew 18:34

Matthew 26:36 (while)

Luke 13:21

Luke 15:8

Luke 22:18

Luke 24:49

John 13:38

Acts 21:26

Acts 23:12

Acts 23:14

Acts 23:21

Acts 25:21

2 Peter 1:19


You will have to go to http://biblewebapp.com/study/

or some other place to see the Greek constructions.

Svendsen also goes through all the LXX constructions; but this is enough to prove you wrong.

Ken said...

"Brothers" does not have to mean uterine brother.

Except when the context demands it.

Also, Luke calls Elizabeth a relative or cousin of Mary - sungenis = συγγενις

Luke 1:36

The Greek has words for cousin and relative.


καὶ ἰδοὺ Ἐλισάβετ ἡ συγγενίς σου καὶ αὐτὴ συνειληφυῖα υἱὸν ἐν γήρει αὐτῆς, καὶ οὗτος μὴν ἕκτος ἐστὶν αὐτῇ τῇ καλουμένῃ στείρᾳ·

"And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month" Luke 1:36


If the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" were cousins, the NT writers would have used those words.

But it would make no sense for Jesus to be making the spiritual application and saying, "My true cousins are those that do the will of God"
Matthew 12:46-50 and parallels in Luke and Mark; cf. Matthew 13:55-57

only uterine/blood brothers makes sense.

John Mark is Barnabas' cousin. Colossians 4:10
anepsios = cousin

καὶ Μᾶρκος ὁ ἀνεψιὸς Βαρναβᾶ

Mark, the cousin of Barnabas

That is an even more specific word; so the NT writers would have used those words if the passages of "brothers and sisters" of Jesus meant "cousins".

Your argument is refuted and defeated again.

Ken said...

Or were they used to blow noses?

Blowing noses is not a sin. Wiping sweat and grime off of a face is legitimate. Using an apron to keep one's clothes from being spattered is fine.

Please don't imply that I have ever said marital relations are sinful or base. For Catholics, spouses grow in grace with every embrace.

It seems that by saying that, you are actually cutting down sex within marriage because you are comparing Mary and Joseph having a normal sexual marriage after Jesus was born with using a handkerchief for wiping snot off a nose, etc.

Ken said...

Also Guy/Jim - by the illustration of using something like a handkerchief or cloth, etc. you are comparing a living being, a person, a woman, with using a tool, so that is like treating a woman as a sex object. Rather marriage is a deep unity of two persons, who unite in both soul and body and ideally mind and ideas and dreams and interests; it is a lot deeper than "using a cloth", etc. You made marriage into a mechanical object thing, by your illustrations and comparisons.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
Are you for real? Are you so shallow you missed the point of the analogy?
Do you honestly think I don't know the difference between a handkerchief and a person?
You probably do think I am that stupid. Anyone who doesn't understand why a woman who bore God in her womb would feel consecrated or set apart for God Himself is capable of any foolishness.

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

"Also, Luke calls Elizabeth a relative or cousin of Mary".

Which one is it Ken? Cousin? or relative?

I keep mentioning it and you keep ignoring it. What is the relationship between Jude and James? Brother to brother? Or father to son?

guy fawkes said...

Ken,
For the third time, I am asking you not to get on your high horse with me about marriage and the holiness of the conjugal act.
Need I remind you that your denomination permits married couples to use devices invented for use in whorehouses. ( Google the history of the condom for instance ). The Bible says to keep the marriage bed undefiled. Why don't you?
Ever hear of the Comstock Laws? They were the laws enacted by Anthony Comstock and other Protestant ministers to make so much as sending information about contraception through the U.S. Mail a crime and assault on public decency. Now every minister out there counsels prospective married couples to use what the Bible says God struck a man dead for in Gen 38:10. ( Do you Ken? You counsel young folks thinking about getting married don't you? )

My Church says using contraception can send people to hell. Yours endorses the unnatural vice. ( Luther compared it to sodomy ).

So, what was that about how superior your denomination is when it comes to the sanctity of the conjugal act?

guy fawkes said...

Ken,

So, from your impassioned response, am I to conclude that, yes, you would have blown your nose on one of those hankies used by God for a holy purpose?

guy fawkes said...

Ken

"If the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" were cousins, the NT writers would have used those words."

I don't remember saying they were cousins. If I did, let me retract. I thought I was careful to call them "kinsmen".

Ken,James the Apostle and his "brother" Simeon became Bishops of Jerusalem. Iconography depicts them as wearing the headdress of Levites. This is understandable considering the Jewish Kosher Keeping Christians of that diocese would want a Levite for their bishop.
( Josephus or some Church Father says as much but I am not about to go searching for a reference for you).

Augustine said one of David's sons married into the Levite clan. Only Levites were permitted to marry outside of their respective tribe.

This explains how it is Mary had Levite kinsmen.

To answer your confusion over the Greek and Hebrew terms for brother/cousin/kinsman, please enjoy this,
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord