Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics

Only Christ and the true gospel can break through the enmity

2012-02-01T12:52:00.016-05:00

Ephesians 2:11-22

James McDonald plays the race card:

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

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

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

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

(I appreciate his helping us think through this.)

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

It is very difficult . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ephesians 2:11-22

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are correct - but I still do not expect them to act like Christians; and many of them, in my experience resort to anger and cursing and trickery, as did Rambo John, and Rehan Ullah at Paul Williams site; as did the Muslims who cursed nasty language at Nabil Qureshi in Detroit.   Islam itself, in its doctrines and behaviors and sources, because it does justify anger and fighting against its enemies, honor killings, etc., feels justified in that; and many Muslims justify their own behavior as legitimate against what they perceive as enemies against Islam.   But, if and when we do the same thing, they turn the tables as say, "Jesus says you can't do that - you are commanded to love your enemy"; but, the Muslim says," we admit that we are not commanded to love our enemies, therefore we are justified." I have seen this kind of behavior for 27 years dealing with Muslims.   My position is to let them expose their own sinfuless, anger, cursing, revengeful spirit and let readers then see them exposed; but let us behave in a holy and godly manner and don't respond with insults or ad hominem.

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

Paul Williams has nothing against me to promote to his Muslim brothers as any evidence of bad behavior or unfair treatment in discussion, etc. ( I hope.) All he can do is say I am a "backwards fundamentalist" and "not very scholarly". That is ok with me for now; I don't have time to read all of James D. G. Dunn; but maybe some good Evangelical scholar like D. A. Carson or Dan Wallace or has analyzed him.   I still say that Proverbs 15:1; I Peter 2:21-24; 2 Timothy 2:24-26 and Ephesians 4:15 are to be applied for a long time before one makes the decision to shut down conversation.   Because of the centuries of bad relations and how typical Muslim's interpret our theology through the lens of the Crusades, colonialism, conservative politics, and racism (the same way that some, like James McDonald and others, have childishly played the race card in the recent Elephant Room2 discussion.); we have to see and understand that, and be willing to persevere through it and strive for breaking through by the power of love and the gospel and by praying that God will work in hearts. Just because God is sovereign and will ultimately decide what He will use to win some, is no reason to give up too soon, or to act sinfully in anger and ad hominem attacks.   Jesus' spirit of not fighting back; I Peter 2:21-24; all four Gospels of the life of Jesus; and His humility in riding into the Jerusalem on a donkey (and not a horse with a sword like Muhammad) - many Muslims have told that is one of the most significant things that won them over - along with a true Christian who was willing to be patient with them and not fight back against them when they were angry and unjust toward me.   God can use pure Scripture and argumentation also; but most of the time, Muslims have come to the truth of the gospel through someone suffering unjustly in the name of Christ - it is more powerful than what they have - all they have is a human book that is not inspired and the power of force and politics and unjust war throughout the centuries.   In contrast, we don't fight with fleshly weapons (Ephesians 6:10-20; 2 Cor. 10:3-5) - We have the truth of the Bible, the gospel, and the power of the Holy Spirit.   Let them be shown for their sinfulness.   We can do better, since we have the power of the Holy Spirit living within us; and our purpose is not just to win an argument, but to glorify God in all things, including how we do apologetics and argumentation.

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

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

2012-01-31T16:31:00.000-05:00

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

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

7. They said to him, "And what will you do if the Romans unite with the Byzantines? For behold, yesterday there came legates of Rome and tomorrow on Sunday they will take communion with the patriarch; it will become evident to all that it was you who turned the Romans away. Doubtless with you removed, there will then be an easy union." And he said to them, "Those who are coming cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome, even if they should take communion because they have not brought a letter to the patriarch. And I am not at all convinced that the Romans will unite with them unless they confess that our Lord and God by nature both wills and works our salvation according to each of the natures from which he is, in which he is, as well as which he is." And they said, "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?" He replied, "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached" [Maximus the Confessor, Selected Writings (Paulist Press, 1985), p 23].

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

Athanasius and the Hyper-Preterists 2

2012-01-30T19:12:00.000-05:00

Here's another hyper-preterist Athanasius quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Athanasius and the Hyper-Preterists 1

2012-01-30T00:00:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles Spurgeon and the Hyper-Preterists

2012-01-29T14:46:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

My response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here was the response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012-01-27T12:22:00.016-05:00

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

From:

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

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

My response is in Blue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muslims are taught to not confess their sins, but to hide them

2012-01-26T11:34:00.010-05:00

http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/380/

Paul Williams wrote: (quoting Hamza Yusuf)

We must remember that if a person has done wrong his spiritual path is not severed. There is recourse. One seeks repentance with God. One should not confess or broadcast what one has done. If God has veiled one’s wrongdoing, do not tear the veil down.

There is a hadith in which a man came to the Prophet (upon whom be peace) and said “I committed a sin,” and he meant adultery. “So punish me.” But the Prophet (pbuh) turned and walked away. The man pursued the Prophet (pbuh) and told him again that he wanted to be punished for his sin. The Prophet (pbuh) finally looked at him and asked him if he made ablution and prayed. He was telling him that Islam purifies. The Prophet (pbuh) said, “Whoever does indecency, let him veil his acts with the veiling of God and let him make repentance.” He also said, “Whoever comes to our faces and admits them, then we will punish them.”

As of January 26, 2012, I am still waiting for the Hadith reference on this. (see the combox, as of Jan. 26)

This, the cultural tendency for Muslims to hide their sins, because of Islam and the external honor is more important than internal change and humility and confession of sins; is something I have noticed in 27 years of dealing with Muslims in evangelism, church planting, and discipling new believers. Muslim culture seems to teach Muslims to cover and hide their sins. This Hadith reference seems to confirm this for me as to where it comes from. But it would be nice to get the exact reference.

In contrast, Christians are taught to confess their sins to God – I John 1:9, Psalm 51:1 ff, 32:1 ff, 38:1 ff; James 5:16, Proverbs 28:13

If one has sinned against a person, they must go to them and confess their wrongdoing and make restitution (for example, pay back what was stolen, etc.) and seek reconciliation if possible. (James 5:16; Matthew 5:23-26; Matthew 18:15-20)

Yes, formal Islam does teach somewhere else that they must confess their sins to Allah; but it seems to be a general cultural tendency for Muslims to hide their embarrassing sins, and this Hadith seems to give foundation for that cultural norm. It is a human trait in other cultures also to hide one’s sin, just look at how Bill Clinton lied about his adultery and sex with Monica Lewinsky. So, I am not saying that other cultures don’t naturally hide their sins; I am just saying that Islam seems to provide religious justification for it, whereas Christianity does not.

The Bible teaches more clearly than Islam that the problems with the world are the human hearts of men, pride, selfishness, anger, lust, deception, jealousy, greed, hatred – the inner hidden motives and attitudes are the problem. Islam emphasizes the external rules and rituals and obeying authorities in society, but not the sinful attitudes in the heart. Islam’s Sharia (law) emphasizes externals and obedience and has harsh punishments and executions for certain sins. The problem with adultery is internal lust, not women not covering up enough. Granted the west has violated biblical norms of modesty and has gone too far the other way. You cannot clean your heart of pride and lust and anger and hatred by washing your hands or face or feet before you pray and then reciting a memorized prayer. God sees the heart, and the God of the Bible diagnoses the problems with the world more accurately than Islam does. Islam talks about internal sins, but not very much; it is not an emphasis. Islam takes a human trait of pride and honor and embarrassment over sin, shame (see Genesis 3 – the response of Adam and Eve to their sin, guilt, and shame) and takes that human tendency and institutionalizes covering up the problems and not dealing with internal sins. Islam lessens and denigrates the holiness of God, and makes light of it, when it boasts that man can clean up his life and work and do rituals correctly and somehow make themselves acceptable to God.

That is one reason why Sufism had to arise; because they recognized that external religion that emphasized cleaning the outside creates hypocrisy and dead rituals and internal corruption.

But there is no power of the Holy Spirit on the inside in the heart in the Islamic religion to change people’s nature. Sinners need a new heart, not a new set of rules and rituals to follow, thinking they can earn their way to get God’s acceptance, which is the height and depth of pride. (Ezekiel 36:26; John 3:1-8; Ephesians 2:1-10)

Isaiah 64:6

Romans 3:9-23

Diagnosis of Man’s problem in the hearts – internal root sins.

Matthew 23:25-26

Matthew 5:22-26

Matthew 5:28

Mark 7:20-23

Genesis 6:5

Jeremiah 17:9

Proverbs 4:23

I Samuel 16:7

The whole eastern and Muslim "honor and shame" cultural tendency comes from evil human arrogance and pride deep in the heart.

"whoever is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord" - Proverbs 16:5

The Qur'an never says the text of the Bible was corrupted

2012-01-25T13:07:00.007-05:00

HT: David Wood at www.answeringMuslims.com. Others are embedding this also, I have noticed. It seemed good to me also to spread the word here.

Since by God's Providence this seems to be "Islam week"; here is another post on Islam, an excellent presentation by a former Muslim.

A good example of communication with Muslims from within their own worldview.

"Istaqfr'allah" استغفر الله = "God forbid!" or "May God forgive you!"

We have the word "lafz" لفظ in Farsi also, which indicates the "word" or text has not been changed. And we have the word "ma'ani" معنی also in Farsi which means "meaning". Some Christians and Jews changed the "meanings" of the text/word, by their wrong oral interpretations ("with their tongues" - Qur'an 3:78) but the text has not been changed or corrupted or lost.

He uses the exact same main verses that I would use to show that the Qur'an does not say that the text of the Bible was corrupted. (Surah Al Ma'ida 5:47; 5:68; Yunus 10:94; 10:64 - "There is not changing the words of Allah")

Here he quotes a lot of famous and early Muslims, to confirm this truth. Ibn Abbas, the cousin and one of the companions of Muhammad, Ibn Kathir, Imam Al Razi, Al Tabari (the historian of Islam), even Ibn Taymiyya. He says that the idea that the Bible was corrupt was started by Ibn Khazem (died in 1064 AD), which is way after the foundational period of Islam.

Interaction with Abdullah Kunde

2012-01-24T09:16:00.006-05:00

Interaction with Abdullah Kunde on the Incarnation and his debate with Dr. White:

This was in the comboxes at Paul Bilal Williams Blog, whom I have mentioned before, who is a British convert to Islam, and claims to be a former Evangelical.

Abdullah Kunde’s demeanor is very good; Paul’s is most of the time; when he sticks to issues and arguments, and Eric Fadli’s is generally O.K.

The same cannot be said about particularly two other Muslims, “Rambo John” and “Rehan Ullah”, who are full of anger and hate and dirty mouths. Islam gives them great power of moral behavior, right?

http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/can-god-become-a-man-james-white-vs-abdullah-kunde/

Getting back to the subject of the incarnation –

Abdullah Kunde wrote:

I said Divine = independent, unique, unlike anything else, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc

Yes, we also believe that of the Divine Nature of Jesus.

Created (human) = dependent, similar (to other humans), ignorant, powerless

The human nature of Jesus came into existence in the womb of Mary, and has those qualities, yes.

These attributes are mutually exclusive.

But since Jesus has both a fully Divine Nature and a fully Human Nature (He got tired, He ate, He drank; He slept; He cried; -since He has both in one person, it is not a mutually exclusive concept.

One cannot have a ‘square-circle’.

True; but if the Word of God ceased to be the Word/eternal Son/divine, and changed into only a human, then that would be true, and your argument would have merit; but that is not what the Bible says, nor what Christians believe. So it is not a “square -circle”.

Likewise, one cannot be independent-dependent or all-knowing-ignorant. These statements are meaningless.

but if the independent chooses to temporarily lay aside His independence and live as a dependent for 33 years, there is nothing contradictory or meaningless about that; and if the All knowing chooses voluntarily to temporarily be not all-knowing – He knew a lot of things, He was not totally ignorant. Anyway, by choosing voluntary for 33 years to not use His divine attributes (Philippians 2:5-8), but doing miracles and knowing the secret hearts of people (John 2:23-25), then raising Himself from the dead (John 2:19-22; John 10:18), and being restored to that glory He had with the Father in all eternity past, (John 17:5), then it is not a contradictory thing or meaningless statement, as you say.

akunde said, on January 6, 2012 at 4:25 am

The conversation has degraded a bit,

[ that was a massive understatement! At least another Muslim named Erik Fadli tried to warn Rehan Ullah and Rambo John about their rude behavior, but they did not listen to him at all.]

but I’ll respond to the question I was asked prior.

…but if the independent chooses to temporarily lay aside His independence and live as a dependent for 33 years, there is nothing contradictory or meaningless about that; and if the All knowing chooses voluntarily to temporarily be not all-knowing – He knew a lot of things, He was not totally ignorant. Anyway, by choosing voluntary for 33 years to not use His divine attributes (Philippians 2:5-8), but doing miracles and knowing the secret hearts of people (John 2:23-25), then raising Himself from the dead (John 2:19-22; John 10:18), and being restored to that glory He had with the Father in all eternity past, (John 17:5), then it is not a contradictory thing or meaningless statement, as you say…

Well, it is meaningless, you’re still maintaining that two contradictory things can exist at the same time.

Your get out clause is to attempt to suggest that the Divine could ‘not use His attributes’ and the re-use them later (at a whim).

When He isn’t using them, where do they go? How does he reacquire them?

Precisely what attributes can He choose to not use? Existence? You’ve already said He can give up life, knowledge, power, uniqueness. Why not existence?

The bottom line is there is no genuine basis for these ideas, beyond trying to reconcile contradictory Biblical statements.

Thank you Abdullah for good conversation and good demeanor –

 Abdullah Kunde wrote:

 Well, it is meaningless, you’re still maintaining that two contradictory things can exist at the same time. 

Christians throughout history have read and meditated on all of those verses I cited above and have found profound meaning and awe in them; that God (the Word of God from eternity; the eternal Son of God) humbled Himself and came down and was willing to become flesh (human) and live for 33 years among us, be subjected to hunger, thirst, temptation (Matthew 4:1-11, but not sin, Hebrews 4:15); mockery, rejection, suffering, pain, and torture and death. It is amazing love. It is not contradictory to me at all, and many others. I understand that you think it is contradictory. The redemption/ransom at the cross is both amazing love for sinners – that Jesus would allow Himself to be killed by sinners; and the redemption/ransom at the cross is also amazing justice against sin. God showed His full justice and His full wrath. If you study and meditate on all the verses above, including Genesis 22, Hebrews 2:14-18 – and here; and why He had to become human, in order to save us; and that Yahya called Jesus the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world – John 1:29 and see His love for all the nations, tribes, languages, and peoples – Revelation 5:9 – how His holy blood bought redemption and was a ransom for all nations – and that it was fulfillment of the foreshadowing and prophesy of Genesis 22, which the Qur’an 37:107 alludes to and retains an aspect of the substitutional atonement of the innocent (the ram/lamb/sheep) for the guilty humans (symbolized in Abraham’s son); hopefully you could see that this is not meaningless nor contradictory, but an amazing wonder of God’s justice and love accomplished at the same time.  

Your get out clause is to attempt to suggest that the Divine could ‘not use His attributes’ and the re-use them later (at a whim). When He isn’t using them, where do they go?  

They are not some kind of substance or thing like glue or water or air. Philippians 2:5-8 explains it well enough; that we can grasp this idea by faith as God’s nature cannot be destroyed or cease to exist.  How does he "reacquire" them?  [ I don't agree with that particular terminology, but for the sake of argument . . . ] In the resurrection and the glorification of Jesus – explained by all the verses put together – also John 17:5 is clear. Jesus was made alive by the Spirit – I Peter 3:18. He also raised Himself up from the dead, as we have given the verses before. (John 2:19-22; 10:18) Many other verses say that God the Father raised Him up from the dead. All three persons of the Trinity were involved in the resurrection. 

Precisely what attributes can He choose to not use? Existence?  

No; we accept John 10:18 and John 2:19-22 (and every other Bible passage that relates to this issue) as inspired words and truth, so we don’t struggle with God’s ability to do this whole thing that we are talking about. (Both incarnation and redemption at the cross and resurrection)  Also, even all other human beings cannot give up existence. Our souls continue on after death. Don’t you believe that? Doesn’t Islam teach that souls continue and will be re-constituted with their bodies for the day of resurrection and face the judgment Day and that the wicked suffer for eternity in hell; and the righteous go in paradise / heaven?  

[Addendum: Indeed, soon after I wrote the above, Paul Williams then posted this article, which illustrates that Muslims believe about the day of resurrection where all human beings will stand before God and give an account for their lives - judgment day. This is one of the six articles/pillars of faith/believe in Islam, that is obligatory for Muslims to believe in. ]

You’ve already said He can give up life, knowledge, power, uniqueness. Why not existence? 

already answered above.

 The bottom line is there is no genuine basis for these ideas, beyond trying to reconcile contradictory Biblical statements. 

Faith and the power of Jesus to open minds/hearts ( see Luke 24:45; John 6:44; Acts 16:14) is the victory that reconciles this amazing mystery. Keep on meditating on large portions of the Injeel (the NT) and ask Jesus Al Masih to reveal Himself to you. Ask the one whom you read about as you read the gospels and epistles of the NT and see His character and sinlessness and love and high teachings to reveal Himself.  

Thanks again for proper attitude in discussion, both you, Abdullah and Paul – I pray for you both.   

I sincerely wish peace to you both (and to all Muslims) – the peace that only Jesus Al Masih can give.

John 14:27

Romans 5:1-11

A Muslim agrees with the Greek of John 1:1, that the orthodox/Traditional interpretation is the right one

2012-01-23T00:01:00.009-05:00

A Muslim confesses that the Orthodox / Traditional Interpretation of John 1:1 is the correct meaning of the Greek text. (That Arian and Jehovah's Witnesses' treatment of this text is wrong.)

Now, this Muslim, Paul Williams, does not believe that John 1:1 is "God-breathed" or inspired, or that the apostle John actually wrote the Gospel of John, and he does not believed it is truth, but he does admit that the traditional /orthodox interpretation is the right one of the intention of the Greek text; and that is a great start in communication.

Since very few Muslims bother to learn New Testament Greek, it is refreshing to find one who says he knows Koine Greek, and claims to have even memorized John 1:1-18 in the original. That is quite remarkable and a real breakthrough. One of the things that probably facilitated this is that this person claims to have been a Christian before, and converted to Islam a few years ago. (His name is Paul Bilal Williams, a British convert to Islam, who is the Director of the Muslim Debate Initiative. The Muslim Debate Initiative is a team of Muslim Debaters including Abdullah Al Andalousi, Sammy Zaatari, and Abdullah Kunde)

From the combox discussion and back and forth with several Muslims, including Abdullah Kunde, and Paul Bilal Williams, in a Muslim’s article about the Debate on the Incarnation between Abdullah Kunde and Dr. James White:

Notice the “exemplary behavior” of 2 particular Muslims, one who goes by “Rambo John” and another who is named, “Rehan Ullah”.

http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/can-god-become-a-man-james-white-vs-abdullah-kunde/

Dr. White mentioned on a recent Dividing Line about Shabir Ally being motivated by Dr. White’s challenges to him to study NT Greek again. I remember that at the time I watched that particular debate. That is very refreshing to learn that Shabir is willing to do that. Hopefully, he will be able to them correct all the mistakes of Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik’s butchering of John 1:1 from their approval of Jehovah’s Witnesses kind of treatment of that and other verses.

Paul Bilal Williams says he can read the Greek New Testament and admits that the Arian and Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of John 1:1 is wrong.

Paul wrote:

“I find it somewhat curious that you feel yourself competent to judge a scholarly translation from the quranic Arabic but do not read Arabic yourself as you have confessed!

[ I admitted I don't know Arabic, but I do know Farsi, and can recognize all the Arabic words in the Qur'an that have come into the Farsi language. ]

At least when I write about the NT I can read the original!”

Paul Bilal Williams wrote: 

“Just look at parts of the King James Old Testament – it is often unreadable because it sticks too closely to the original.”

My Response: No. It is difficult today because we don’t speak that way in English anymore. But there are more “word for word” translations in modern English, like the New American Standard version, the English Standard Version, and the New King James, and the NIV is a good translation also (the old one, not the “gender neural ones”; the NIV is a more dynamic equivalent translation, although it leaves out the connector “gar” (for) γαρ too many times, among other issues. But all of those translations are fine and good translations of the Bible in English.

If you can read Greek, then do you really understand John 1:1; and since you claim to read Greek and understand it, can you explain the significance of the word order, the Predicate nominative issue, and why the Jehovah’s Witnesses translation of John 1:1 is wrong?

Paul Williams said, on January 11, 2012 at 7:38 pm

“if you can read Greek, then do you really understand John 1:1; and since you claim to read Greek and understand it, can you explain the significance of the word order, the Predicate nominative issue, and why the Jehovah’s Witnesses translation of John 1:1 is wrong?”

Claim? Lol. I know the prologue of John 1 in Greek by heart and Yes, I do understand 1:1 and Yes, the JW translation is wrong and Yes, I accept the traditional translation of the verse:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So what?

My response:

Very good Paul; I commend you for that – Mash’allah!

Explanation of "Mash'allah!" ماشاءالله [“Mash’allah” is said in a positive way in all Muslim cultures for encouragement for something well done or well said. In Iranian culture is the equivalent of “bravo” or “way to go!” or “good for you!”. It literally means, “Whatever Allah wills”. The meaning is like, “God has willed you to do good or give a right answer.”

Here is an online explanation from a Muslim:

" "Mash'allah" literally means 'Whatever Allah (God) wills'. It is often used in occasions where there is surprise in someones' good deeds or achievements. For example people say Mashallah when someone does very well in their exams.” ]

 I am glad you recognize that the JW translation and interpretation is wrong of John 1:1.  You know all of John 1:1-18 by heart in Greek? حافظه ؟ (Hafezeh) – by memory?  If so; very good. Double Mash’allah ! 

I wrote this little article a while back:

"Greek Grammar Points to Sola Scriptura"

If one only has a beginning knowledge of Greek, it is very dangerous. The grammar and Greek syntax of John 1:1 determines the right theology. The doctrine of the Deity of Christ and the eternality of the Son is based on Scripture, not the Council of Nicaea. The Council of Nicaea is based on Scripture, and derives secondary authority from the only infallible authority – the Scriptures.  Another Roman Catholic, “Nick the Catholic” also has an article with a title that claims that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were right about John 1:1. “JWs are correct about John 1:1; Jesus is not God” ( !!!)  Then he clarifies later from his controversial, heretical, and inflammatory title. He says they were right if they mean “the Father is not Jesus”; ie the same person; but they are not right in that the JWs deny that Jesus is God or Deity.  The predicate nominative issue is the key interpretive issue, more important than the definite article issue.

 and the Word was God.  

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

 And God was the Word.  

Daniel Wallace has a good word on this issue:  “We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.”

Two questions, both of them of theological import, should come to mind:

1) Why was θεὸς (Theos) thrown forward? And

2) why does it lack the article?

In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word ( Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism [Modalism]; the word order is against Arianism.

 To state it another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:

 καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς = “and the Word was the God” ( ie, the Father, Sabellianism, [or Modalism])

 καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς = “and the Word was a god” (Arianism) [also Jehovah’s Witness theology] 

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος “and the Word was God” (orthodoxy) [sound, Biblical doctrine) 

Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But He is not the first person of the Trinity. [the Son is not the Father] All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. “  Basics of Biblical Greek, William D. Mounce, Zondervan, 1993, p. 28-29. (Quoting Daniel Wallace) 

So, here we have the principle of Sola Scriptura as the basis for all sound doctrine and theology. The first four Ecumenical councils were right, only because they got the Bible right. We don’t need Popes or any idea of an “infallible church council”. The Scriptures themselves teach us sound doctrine, and the good and right decisions in the Ecumenical councils derive their rightness from Scripture itself. Only Scripture is infallible. Here we see the Greek grammar and syntax teaching us the distinction between nature and person. God revealed the doctrine of the Trinity based on the Scriptures alone; Sola Scriptura stands.  

Charles Spurgeon, Full-Preterism, and Figurative Language

2012-01-20T00:36:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine who is a full-preterist quoted the following from Charles Spurgeon:

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

This quote can be found on a couple of eschatology related websites. I would take a guess this quote was taken from the Preterist Archive: C.H. Spurgeon. Those involved with Preterism appear to look for anything written by anybody in regard to A.D. 70 and the fall of Jerusalem (simply skim through the pages at the Preterist Archive). The Preterist Archive (now partial preterist) takes this quote without explaining the context. On the other hand, I would assume my full-preterist friend is highlighting Spurgeon's use of figurative language as a polemic against dispensational theology.

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

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

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

There is to be a literal new creation, but that new creation has commenced already; and I think, therefore, that even now we ought to manifest a part of the joy. If we are called upon to be glad and rejoice in the completion of the work, let us rejoice even in the commencement of it (p. 443).

He has commenced it thus — by putting new hearts into as many as he has called by his Spirit, regenerating them, and making them to become new creatures in Christ Jesus. These the apostle tells us are a kind of firstfruits of this now creation (p.443).

Spurgeon then goes on to speak of how people should see God in the current world and rejoice in God as creator. Christians should most rejoice in their being a new creation:

The eye that can see the new nature is an eye that grace has given, and newly opened to new light. The heart that can rejoice in the new creation is a heart that is itself renewed, or else it would not comprehend spiritual things, and could not rejoice in them. I invite you, therefore, dear friends — you that see, and know, and somewhat appreciate the new creation in its beginnings — to joy, and to rejoice in it to-night. It is a delightful thing that God should make a tree, and bid it come forth in the springtide with all its budding verdure. It is a far better thing that God should take a poor thorny heart like yours and mine, and transform it till it becomes like the fir-tree or the pine-tree to his praise. (p.446).

Spurgeon continues on this theme of christians being the begining of the new creation, as people who look forward to the new creation coming in its fullness. Then comes the first quote cited:

As an instance of the expulsive power of a new delight, we all know how the memory of the old dispensation is gone from us. Brethren, did any one of you ever weep because you did not sit at the Passover? Did you ever regret the Paschal lamb? Oh, never, because you have fed on Christ! Was there ever man that knows his Lord that ever did lament that he had not the
sign of the old Abrahamic covenant in his flesh? Nay, he gladly dispenses with the rites of the old covenant, since he has the fullness of their meaning in his Lord. The believer is circumcised in Christ, buried in Christ, risen in Christ, and in Christ exalted to the heavenly places. Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, or any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacles, or the
dedication? No, because, though those were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone; and we do not remember it (p.448).

From the context, Spurgeon's "figurative language" is simply describing the Old Testament rituals and practices that looked forward to Christ. Since Christ has come, he's begun to usher in the new heavens and earth, beginning this work in the hearts of believers. He continues:

Now, I want you to feel just the same with regard to all your former life as you now feel towards that old dispensation. The world is dead to you, and you to the world. Carnal customs and attractions are for you abolished, even as the ancient sacrifices are abolished. What were your sins? They are blotted out: the depths have covered them: you shall see them again no more for ever. Seek not after them as though you had a lingering esteem for them. Let them not come to mind, except to excite you to repentance. What were your pleasures when you lived in sin? Forget them. They were very vapid, deceptive, destructive evils. You have a higher pleasure now which enchants your soul. What have been the sorrows of your past life, especially your sorrows while coming to Christ? You need not remember them; but, like the woman who remembereth no more her travail for the joy that a man is born into the world, so your birth into the new creation causes you to forget all the sufferings of your spirit in coming there. “Old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new!” I would to God that the joy of the new creation would so fill us right up to the brim that we should not imaging any other joy. This puts out all other joy as the sun hides all the stars. Let all go; let all go: rolled up as the heavens and the earth are to be, like vestures all outworn, let all of my past life be laid aside. Now put I on my new dress of sparkling joy and delight in the new things, for has not Christ made all things new to me? A new song is in my mouth, even praise to him for evermore; a new law is in my heart; and a new service engages all my powers (pp. 448-449).

Another Gem from Catholic Answers: Mary's Assumption

2012-01-19T15:32:00.001-05:00

I find these sort of discussions fascinating:

Mary's Assumption

"I was watching a video that Steve Ray produced about a quick run through Jerusalem and he showed the church where the BVM died and was assumed into Heaven. What got me thinking is this, why did the BVM needed to die in order to be assumed? Elijah didn't die when he was taken up in the chariot. Also, I know that based on Tradition, it is said that the BVM didnt suffer the pangs of child birth because she was immaculately conceived and therefore was not subject to the effects of sin, but, if this is part of the Tradition, why did she have to die in order to be assumed into Heaven?"

-snip-

"it is not defined dogma that she did die, and I have seen this video several times and don't think he said definitely that she died. There is a long tradition in the Eastern Church in fact that she fell asleep, the Dormition."

-snip-

"The Church does NOT teach that Mary died before being assumed. Catholics are free to believe she died first or did not die first."

-snip-

"This falls under Common Teaching [Sententia Communis. This means Common Teaching is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by thelogians generally."

-snip-

"The document that pronounced the dogma of the Assumption is called Munificentissimus Deus. The specific paragraph containing the definition, remains open to whether or not Mary did or did not have a temporal death."

-snip-

"...I always thought that Mary was assumed with out dying, especially when I compared Elijah's assumption with that of Mary."

-snip-

"It was not necessary that Mary die. She chose to out of the imitation of Jesus."

-snip-

"There is a Scripture, and I hope that someone who knows where this is in Scripture will respond to this thread, that it has been appointed unto all men that they are to die once..."

-snip-

"Hebrews 9:27 (Douay Rheims) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment"

-snip-

"And this is a good example of exactly the kind of problem there is with proof-texting...the context of that Scripture has nothing to do with the context of our thread here."

-snip-

"That is one acceptable intrepretation. However the other intepretation is also acceptable as well."

Mary, Destroyer of Heresies

2012-01-18T15:15:00.000-05:00

Ah, all this time I thought it was the recent batch of Roman apologists destroying heresy and protecting the infallible magisterium. But I was wrong:

Mary, Destroyer of Heresies

Overview of Luther on the Clarity / Obscurity of Scripture by William Whitaker

2012-01-18T06:41:00.000-05:00

The following is an overview by William Whitaker of a section of Luther's argumentation from The Bondage of the Will. This passage is from William Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture.

Luther, in his assertion of the articles condemned, by Leo X., in the preface, says that the scripture is its own most plain, easy, and certain interpreter, proving, judging, and illustrating all things. This is said by him most truly, if it be candidly understood. The same author, in his book of the Slavery of the Will against the Diatribe of Erasmus, writes almost in the beginning, that in the scriptures there is nothing abstruse, nothing obscure, but that all things are plain. And because this may seem a paradox, he afterwards explains himself thus: he confesses that many places of scripture are obscure, that there are many words and sentences shrouded in difficulty, but he affirms nevertheless that no dogma is obscure; as, for instance, that God is one and three, that Christ hath suffered, and will reign for ever, and so forth. All which is perfectly true: for although there is much obscurity in many words and passages, yet all the articles of faith are plain. Stapleton, Lib. x. cap. 3, interprets these words of Luther, as if he said, that all the difficulty of scripture arose from ignorance of grammar and figures; and he objects to us Origen and Jerome, who certainly were exquisitely skilled in grammar and rhetoric, and yet confess themselves that they were ignorant of many things, and may have erred in many places. We answer, that what he blames in Luther is most true, if it be rightly understood: for he who can always arrive at the grammatical sense of scripture, will, beyond all doubt, best explain and interpret the scriptures. But hitherto no one hath been able to do this every where and in all places. Certainly the grammatical meaning of scripture, as it is ever the best and truest, so is it sometimes the hardest to be found; so that it is no wonder that Origen and Jerome himself, although both of them most skilful grammarians, may have erred in the interpretation of scripture. Luther adds besides, that the things themselves are manifest in scripture; and that therefore we need not be put to much trouble, if the words be sometimes in many places less manifest. His words are these: "The things themselves are in light; we need not care, therefore, though some signs of the things be in darkness 1." But some persons complain greatly of the obscurity of the things also, so that this distinction of Luther's between the things and the signs of the things may seem to be idle. Luther answers that this occurs, not from the obscurity and difficulty of the things themselves, but from our blindness and ignorance. And this he very properly confirms by the testimony of Paul, 2 Cor. iii. 14, 15, 16, where Paul says that "the vail is placed upon the hearts of the Jews until this very day, which vail is done away in Christ;" and from 2 Cor. iv. 3, where the same apostle says, "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them which are lost:" and he illustrates the same thing by the similitude of the sun and the day, both of which, although very clear in themselves, are invisible to the blind. "There is nothing," says he, "brighter than the sun and the day: but the blind man cannot even see the sun, and there are some also who flee the light 2." Stapleton endeavours to take this answer from him. He says that Luther, in this way, condemns all the fathers, and so all antiquity, of error and blindness. But I answer, that Luther is speaking of things, that is of the nature of the doctrine and of the articles of the christian religion: the truth of which (though not of all, yet of those which are necessary to salvation), it is manifest from their writings, was thoroughly seen by the fathers. He is not speaking of the several words and passages wherein they might sometimes easily err, without, nevertheless, in the least incurring the blame of blindness on that account.

But Erasmus, in his Diatribe, contends that even some dogmas are obscure, as the doctrine of the Trinity, of the distinction of Persons, of sin against the Holy Ghost, and such like; and to this sense he tortures that passage which is contained in Rom. xi. 33, where Paul says that the "judgments of God are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out." Luther answers, that these doctrines are indeed obscure in themselves; but that they are plain so far forth as they are proposed in scripture, if we will be content with that knowledge which God hath propounded and conceded to his church in the scripture, and not search into every thing more curiously than becomes us. But as to the passage from Paul, he answers, that indeed the things of God are obscure, but that the things of scripture are clear; that the judgments of God concerning the number of the elect, the day and hour of the judgment, and such-like, are unknown and inscrutable; but that those things which God hath revealed in his word are by no means inscrutable to us; and that Paul in that place spoke of the things of God, not of the things of scripture. Furthermore he says, that the reason why so many dispute about the things of scripture is to be found in the perversity and depraved desires of men, especially the sophists and schoolmen, who, not content with the simplicity of scripture, have rendered every thing obscure and intricate by their traps and devices; but that the scripture must not be falsely blamed on account of men's abuse of it. Luther uses another distinction also in that place. He says that the perspicuity or obscurity of scripture is either internal or external; the internal is that of the heart itself, the external is in the words. If we speak of the internal obscurity or perspicuity of scripture, he says that not even one jot is in this way clear in the scripture without the internal light of the Holy Spirit; for that all things in this view and respect are obscure to the fleshly understanding of men, according to that which is said in Ps. xiv.: "The fool hath said in his heart, that there is no God." But if we understand the external clearness or obscurity of scripture, he says that all doctrines are in this way clear, and brought to light in the ministry of the word. And this distinction is very necessary: for although, in the external way, we perfectly hold all the doctrines of religion, we yet understand nothing internally to salvation, nor have learned any dogma aright, without the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

Assuredly, this is the difference between theology and philosophy: since it is only the external light of nature that is required to learn thoroughly the arts of philosophy; but to understand theology aright, there is need of the internal light of the Holy Spirit, because the things of faith are not subject to the teaching of mere human reason. We may, in a certain manner, be acquainted with the doctrines of scripture, and obtain an historical faith by the ministry of the word, so as to know all the articles of faith, and deem them to be true, and all without the inward light of the Spirit, as many impious men and devils do; but we cannot have the irXtipocpop'iat that is, a certain, solid, and saving knowledge, without the Holy Spirit internally illuminating our minds. And this internal clearness it is, which wholly flows from the Holy Ghost. Other arts serve our purpose when only externally understood; but this is of no avail unless understood internally. Meanwhile Luther was far from such madness as to say, that there was nothing difficult in scripture, or that it did not need an interpretation. Yea, on the contrary, in the preface to his Commentary upon the Psalms, he acknowledges that there are many obscurities and difficulties in the scripture, which God hath left us, as if on purpose to keep us constantly scholars in the school of the Holy Spirit. And in the same place he affirms, that a man must be impudent who would say that he understood even any one book thoroughly: and the same hath ever been the opinion of us all.

The state of the question, therefore, is not really such as the papists would have it appear; but our fundamental principles are these: First, that the scriptures are sufficiently clear to admit of their being read by the people and the unlearned with some fruit and utility. Secondly, that all things necessary to salvation are propounded in plain words in the scriptures. Meanwhile, we concede that there are many obscure places, and that the scriptures need explication; and that, on this account, God's ministers are to be listened to when they expound the word of God, and the men best skilled in scripture are to be consulted. So far concerning the state of the question.

[1 Nihil refert, si res sit in luce, an aliquod ejus signum sit in tenebris.— Opp. Witeberg. T. n. p. 459. 2.]

[2 Eadem temeritate solem obscurumque diem culparet, qui ipse sibi oculos velaret.—Ibid. p. 460.]

Which Jerome is the Real Jerome?

2012-01-17T00:00:00.000-05:00

Jerome as Cited by the Reformers
Recently I posted remarks from Luther and Calvin on Jerome's view on the term "bishop" as it relates to the primacy of the Roman church. Both Luther and Calvin cite Jerome as holding the terms "bishop" and "presbyter" were synonymous. Luther and Calvin admit Jerome held that among the bishops in the early church one was picked as a type of leader in a particular location. The Reformers highlight the fact (particularly Luther) that for Jerome, Rome's bishop does not hold supremacy over the other bishops in other locations. Luther: "Indeed [Jerome] says that the bishop of Gubbio, a small town not far from Rome, is equal to the bishop of Rome himself." Calvin: "For from the corrupted signification of the word this evil has resulted, that, as if all the presbyters were not colleagues, called to the same office, one of them, under the pretext of a new appellation, usurped dominion over the others." Luther was so convinced of the importance of Jerome's view that he actually republished a letter from Jerome. For the Reformers, Jerome's words stood as a testimony that the claims of Roman Papal rule over the universal church were fraudulent.

Jerome as Cited by Modern Roman Catholic Apologists
I searched around a bit to see how some of Rome's modern apologists have understood Jerome's statements from the two sources Luther and Calvin utilized (this isn't any sort of comprehensive investigation, but represents what I tracked down in about thirty minutes, I'm sure many other snippets could be brought forth).

One blogger refers to Calvin's citation of Jerome as an attempt to make Jerome hold "some sort of proto-Baptist or proto-Presbyterian in ecclesiology." Rather than exegete the statements in question, other statements from Jerome are put forth showing Jerome gave Rome preeminence and accepted Rome's decisions as authoritative. Calvin's view of Jerome is said to be "a half-truth or a selective truth" and "a little better than a falsehood." Calvin's understanding of Jerome is ultimately said to be the result of espousing sola scriptura: anyone holding to sola scriptua must come up with ways to deny the Roman church as having binding final authority over all of Christendom, even reinterpreting Church fathers like Jerome. The "other" Jerome being put forth by Rome's apologists is based on letters Jerome wrote to Pope Damasus. Jerome is cited as follows:

1. Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, “woven from the top throughout,” since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover “the sealed fountain” and “the garden inclosed,” I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for “the pearl of great price.” “Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed corn is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. In the West the Sun of righteousness is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, has once more set his throne above the stars. . . .

2. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. . . . He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.

(Letter XV. To Pope Damasus; NPNF 2, Vol. VI)

The untiring foe follows me closely, and the assaults that I suffer in the desert are severer than ever. For the Arian frenzy raves, and the powers of the world support it. The church is rent into three factions, and each of these is eager to seize me for its own. The influence of the monks is of long standing, and it is directed against me. I meantime keep crying: “He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me.” Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus all profess to cleave to you, and I could believe the assertion if it were made by one of them only. As it is, either two of them or else all three are guilty of falsehood. Therefore I implore your blessedness, by our Lord’s cross and passion, those necessary glories of our faith, as you hold an apostolic office, to give an apostolic decision. Only tell me by letter with whom I am to communicate in Syria, . . .

(Letter XVI. To Pope Damasus, 2; NPNF 2, Vol. VI)

From a forum posting comes an alleged excerpt from Robert Sungenis (which certainly sounds like Mr. Sungenis... I was unable though to locate the source):

St. Jerome (342-420 A.D.) "Wherever a bishop may be whether at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Thanis, he is of the same worth...for all of them are the successors of the apostles." R. Sungenis: This is the best quote they could find to deny the papacy?! Not only does it not deny the papacy, it actually supports it, since it makes it quite clear that the bishops are successers of the Apostles! Yet Horton and White have gone on record denying that there is a succession from the Apostles. And notice that Jerome makes no statement against the papacy itself. How could he? His letters and books are filled with allegiance and obedience to the papacy! This again just shows the desperation of Horton and White. If they were smart, they would stop basing their critiques of the Catholic Church on the Fathers, for every time they make such attempts, they only show us how faithful the Fathers were to the Catholic Church. Until if and when Horton or White finds a statement in any Church Father which says: "I deny the papacy," or "I deny that the pope is the successor of Peter and that he has full reign over the Church," or something to that effect, then they simply don't have a leg to stand on, and they only show how shoddy their scholarship really is.

Often it seems the quotes cited by Luther and Calvin are passed over by Rome's modern apologists in favor of presenting snippets from Jerome's letters to Damasus or other selections. Quotes from Jerome identifying Peter as "the rock" or head of the Roman church appear to be enough for Rome's modern apologists. For instance, in their web page Origins of Peter as Pope, Catholic Answers provides two quotes from Jerome. The first quote presents Peter as leading the Apostles. The underlying assumption implied is that Peter is head of the entire church. This is then supported by a snippet from letter XV :

"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Patrick Madrid cites Jerome calling Rome "the See of Peter" (Epistle 15, to Pope Damasus).

Steve Ray cites letter XV and XVI and states:

Mark Bonocore says "Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the "chair of Peter" and the "Apostolic chair," and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1)." He also cites Jerome stating, "'But,' you [Jovinian] will say, 'it was on Peter that the Church was founded' [Matt. 16:18]. Well... one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [AD 393])".

The Dilemma
The dilemma is obvious. On the one hand, Protestant-cited-Jerome speaks of an equality among bishops in different locations. On the other hand, Roman-Catholic-cited-Jerome speaks of Roman authority in some sense.

I think it's fairly clear from Jerome's writings that he did identify the pope in Rome with the chair of Peter, and at times also referred to Peter as the rock upon which the church is built. For Jerome, the bishop in Rome was certainly the successor of Peter. But elsewhere Jerome also identifies Christ as the rock upon which the church was built. William Webster points out:

Jerome states that while Christ is the ultimate foundation of the Church, the other apostles share this status with him in a secondary sense- the Church is built upon their teaching. He states that all the apostles are what Peter was. They have all been given the keys and the all share equal authority. All lawful bishops are successors of the apostles. The Church is built upon Peter, it is built upon the apostles. While the bishop of Rome does sit upon the chair of Peter, this is not an exclusive possession of the bishop of Rome, as we saw in the use of this term by Cyprian and Opatus of Milevis:

"This mountain is in the house of the Lord, which the prophet sighs after, saying, 'One thing I have asked of the Lord, this will I seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life,' (Ps. xxvii.4), and concerning which Paul writes to Timothy, 'But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' (1 Tim. iii.15). This house is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, as imitators of Christ. Of this house, Jerusalem, the Psalmist cries out saying, 'They that trust in the Lord shall be as Mount Sion; he shall not be moved for ever that dwelleth in Jerusalem. Mountains are round about it; and the Lord is round about His people' (Ps. cxxiv.1). Whence also upon one of the mountains Christ founds the Church, and says to him, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." [Commentary on Isaiah ii.2. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Comentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), p. 111-112].

" 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church.' Just as Christ himself gave light to the apostles, in order that they might be called the light of the world, so other names were derived from the Lord: for example, Simon, who believed in the rock, Christ, was given the name 'Peter.' And in accordance with the metaphor of the rock, Jesus rightly said to him: 'I shall build my Church upon you. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'" [Commentary on Matthew III, 16:18, M.P.L., Vol. 26, Col. 121-122].

"'Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.'...For if those who are no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God's household have been built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ himself being the cornerstone-in whom the whole building has been joined together into a temple holy in the Lord, in whom the Ephesians are built into a temple of God in the spirit: if this is so, then there is one God of one building and temple which is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Now if a universal building is joined together and is growing into a temple holy in the Lord, then we must strive with every effort to become the sorts of stones about which it is written: 'holy stones are rolled upon the earth.'"[on Ephesians II.20, M.P.L., Vol. 26, Col. 506-507]

"Though, he says, the Lord had with Him the apostles Peter and John; and they saw Him transfigured on the mount, and upon them the foundation of the Church is placed..."[Commentary on Galatians I.11. Cited by J. Waterworth S.J., A Commentary (London: Thomas Richardson, 1871), pp. 116-117]

Source: William Webster The Matthew 16 Controversy (Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 1999), pp. 69-70.

The paradigm Webster puts forth harmonizes Jerome's letters quite easily. It can consistently and harmoniously interpret any of the "Roman Catholic" Jerome quotes and the "Protestant" Jerome quotes. This of course means that Luther and Calvin did not misquote Jerome. Consider the following comments:

J. N. D. Kelly: Particularly interesting is his view that in the apostolic age the terms ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ were synonymous, each church being governed by a committee of coequal presbyters. The emergence of the episcopate proper, he argues (much to the embarrassment of Catholics down the centuries), was due, not to any ordinance of the Lord, but to ecclesiastical custom, with the object of excluding divisions. J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), p. 147

Philip Schaff: [Jerome] recognizes in the Roman bishop the successor of Peter, but advocates elsewhere the equal rights of the bishops, and in fact derives even the episcopal office, not from direct divine institution, but from the usage of the church and from the presidency in the presbyterium. He can therefore be cited as a witness, at most, for a primacy of honor, not for a supremacy of jurisdiction. [Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol. 3 (Massachusetts: Hendrikson Publishers, Inc., 2002), p. 305]

Vatican encourages a recovery of 'apologetics'

2012-01-16T06:46:00.002-05:00

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1200163.htm

"Over the past 50 years, apologetics lost its general appeal because 'it was considered proselytism,' an aggressive attempt to win converts that was replaced by ecumenical dialogue, he said. It didn't help that many Catholics started seeing all religions as equally valid paths to salvation, so they thought it was best to encourage people to live their own faith as best they could without trying to encourage them to consider Christianity."

-snip-

The need for articulate Catholics who could remain calm under fire became evident after a 2009 formal debate in England in which Hitchens and the actor Stephen Fry faced off against Nigerian Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja and Ann Widdecombe, a Catholic member of Parliament. The crowd clearly was on the side of Hitchens and Fry, who argued against the motion that "the Catholic Church is a force for good."

Jerome On the Equality of Bishops... According to Calvin

2012-01-15T08:14:00.001-05:00

It wasn't only Luther appealing to Jerome that "bishop" and "presbyter" were synonymous. John Calvin held that in the early church all those entrusted with teaching were called "presbyters." Among the presbyters one was chosen to be "bishop" in order to maintain order (Institutes IV, 4:2). Calvin explains, and appeals to Jerome:

All those to whom the office of teaching was enjoined they called “presbyters.” In each city these chose one of their number to whom they specially gave the title “bishop” in order that dissensions might not arise (as commonly happens) from equality of rank. Still, the bishop was not so much higher in honor and dignity as to have lordship over his colleagues. But the same functions that the consul has in the senate—to report on business, to request opinions, to preside over others in counseling,admonishing, and exhorting, to govern the whole action by his authority,and to carry out what was decreed by common decision—the bishop carried out in the assembly of presbyters.

And the ancients themselves admit that this was introduced by human agreement to meet the need of the times. “Thus Jerome, commenting on the letter to Titus, says: “Bishop and presbyter are one and the same. And before, by the devil’s prompting, dissensions arose in religion and it was said among the people, ‘I am of Paul, I of Cephas’ 1 Corinthians 1:12; [cf. chapter 3:4], churches were governed by the common counsel of presbyters.” Afterward, to remove seeds of dissensions, all oversight was committed to one person. Just as the presbyters, therefore, know that they are, according to the custom of the church, subject to him who presides, so the bishops recognize that they are superior to the presbyters more according to the custom of the church than by the Lord’s actual arrangement, and that they ought to govern the church in cooperation with them.* Jerome, however, tells us in another place what an ancient arrangement it was. For he says that at Alexandria from the time of the Evangelist Mark to that of Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters always elected one of their number and set him in a higher rank, calling him “bishop.”**

*Ignatius, Letters, Magnesians 6; Trallians 3 (LCL Apostolic Fathers I.200-202, 214 f.);Cyprian, Letters 14. 4; 19; 34. 4 (CSEL 3. 2. 512, 526, 570; tr. ANF [letters 5, 13, 18, respectively] V. 283, 293, 297); Statuta ecclesia antiqua, canons 22, 23 (Mansi III. 953; on this document, see H. Leclercq, in Hefele-Leclercq II. 1. 108-120); Jerome, Commentary on Titus, chapter 1 (MPL 26. 562 f.).

**Jerome, Letters cxlvi, 1 (CSEL 56. 310; MPL 22. 1193; tr. NPNF 2 ser. VI. 288).

Calvin uses the same two Jerome sources Luther did. Like Luther, he brings this use of Jerome up throughout his writings.

Commenting on Philippians 1:1 (overseers [traditionally bishops] and deacons) Calvin says:

Bishops. He names the pastors separately, for the sake of honor. We may, however, infer from this, that the name of bishop is common to all the ministers of the Word, inasmuch as he assigns several bishops to one Church. The titles, therefore, of bishop and pastor, are synonymous. And this is one of the passages which Jerome quotes for proving this in his epistle to Evagrius, and in his exposition of the Epistle to Titus. Afterwards there crept in the custom of applying the name of bishop exclusively to the person whom the presbyters in each church appointed over their company. It originated, however, in a human custom, and rests on no Scripture authority. I acknowledge, indeed, that, as the minds and manners of men are, there cannot be order maintained among the ministers of the word, without one presiding over the others. I speak of particular bodies, not of whole provinces, much less of the whole world. Now, although we must not contend for words, it were at the same time better for us in speaking to follow the Holy Spirit, the author of tongues, than to change for the worse forms of speech which are dictated to us by Him. For from the corrupted signification of the word this evil has resulted, that, as if all the presbyters were not colleagues, called to the same office, one of them, under the pretext of a new appellation, usurped dominion over the others.

Commenting on 1 Timothy 1:7 (For a bishop ought to be blameless, as a governor of the house of God):

This passage plainly shows that there is no distinction between a presbyter and a bishop; for he now calls indiscriminately, by the latter name, those whom he formerly he employs both names in the same sense, without any distinction; as Jerome has remarked, both in his Commentary on this passage, and in his Epistle to Evagrius. And hence we may perceive how much greater deference has been paid to the opinions of men than ought to have been paid to them; for the language of the Holy Spirit, has been set aside, and the custom introduced by the arbitrary will of man has prevailed. For my own part, I do not find fault with the custom which has existed from the very beginning of the Church, that each assembly of bishops shall have one moderator; but that the name of office which God has given to all, shall be conveyed to one alone, and that all the rest shall be deprived of it, is both unreason able and absurd. Besides, to pervert the language of the Holy Spirit — in such a manner that the same words shall have a different meaning from what he intended — is excessive and profane hardihood.

Responses to Luther and Calvin?
I have located some responses to this use of Jerome by the early Reformers. The responses that I've come across put forth another Jerome which looked to Rome as the preeminent church and the authority and preeminence of the Roman pope to settle disputes. I hope to get to this later this week.

Jerome On the Word "Pope" and the Equality of Bishops...According to Luther

2012-01-14T00:37:00.004-05:00

In 1538 Luther republished Letter 146 of Jerome (to Evagrius) along with a preface. This is found in the recent volume of Luther's Works (60). In this letter, Jerome argues "bishop" and "presbyter" were synonymous. In the early church it wasn't the case that bishops held more power than presbyters. The editors of LW point out, "The emergence of a distinction of superiority of bishops over presbyters was not scriptural, but rather the product of tradition, arising, as Jerome argues, to remedy schism and to provide order in the church" (p. 203).

Luther was fond of this letter in his battle against the papacy because Jerome also notes the equality of bishops, as opposed to Rome claiming her bishop is superior and is so by divine right. In his preface to Jerome's letter, Luther states:

Rather, all bishops were equal among themselves. And again, the bishops themselves were the same as presbyters. Indeed [Jerome] says that the bishop of Gubbio, a small town not far from Rome, is equal to the bishop of Rome himself. Oh, how great a heretic he would be, if this holy man were alive today! It is amazing that thousands do not condemn him to the lowest hell, together with all his writings! (p. 206).

Then Luther comments on the word "pope"-

And the word "pope" was the common title of bishops. Thus St. Jerome calls St. Augustine "most holy pope."* And they called Cyprian "pope in the Church of Carthage."** Hence it is evident that the entire papal hierarchy is a matter of the doctrines of men [Matt. 15:9], or, more correctly, of demons [1 Tim. 4:1], introduced through lying hypocrites. "All are equal in merit and priesthood," says Jerome. "It is the power of riches and the lowliness of poverty that make a bishop either higher or lower" (p. 206).

*Jerome, Epistolae 102, 103, 105, 112, 115, 134, 141 and 142 to Augustine (PL 22:830, 831, 834, 916, 935, 1161, 1179, 1180; CSEL 56:261-262, 290). In the early church "pope" was used as a title of respect that could be given to any bishop; only later did it become a title exclusive to the bishop of Rome
**For Cyprian addressed as "pope," see the letter to him from the Roman church, Epistola 30 (PL 4:303; ANF 5:308); cf. Epistola 2 (PL 4:224; ANF 5:280); Epistola 16 (PL 4:269; ANF 5:296).

Luther appears to be quoting the following from Jerome:

It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.

Besides this text, Luther also appealed to Jerome's Commentary on the epistle to Titus 1:5, 6, 7
Commentariorum in epistolam ad Titum), Titus 1:7 (MPL 26, 562): “The presbyter is the same as the bishop.… the bishops should have known that they were greater according to custom rather than according to the truth of the Lord’s ordinance.” Luther used this very thing in the Leipzig debate against Eck, as described by W.H.T. Dau :

[Eck's] remark that at Rome and at the Seat of Peter originated sacerdotal unity, I grant quite freely, with reference to the Western Church. But in reality the Roman Church sprang from the Church at Jerusalem, and this latter is properly the mother of all churches. But the inference which he draws is worthless: since sacerdotal unity has its origin in the Roman Church, therefore that Church is the head and first mistress over all; with his logic he might establish beyond question that Jerusalem is the head and lord over all churches. His last authority, Jerome, even if he were altogether reliable, has not been correctly quoted by our excellent Doctor; he intends to prove that the monarchical power of the Roman Church exists by divine right and has been instituted by Christ. Jerome's words do not say this. His remark: "There would be as many schisms in the Church as there are bishops, unless some extraordinary power eminent over all others were given him," means: Let us assume that this could be done by human, right, all the rest of the believers giving their consent. For I myself do not deny that if the believers throughout the world were to agree, on a first and supreme pontiff at Rome, Paris, Magdeburg, or anywhere else, this person ought to be regarded as the highest monarch out of respect for the entire Church of believers who are thus agreed. But this has never happened, nor is it happening now, nor will it ever happen; for down to our times the Greek Church has given no such consent, and yet has not been regarded as heretical. That this is Jerome's meaning I prove from his epistle to Evagrius, where he says: "Wherever there may be a bishop, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Thanae, his worth and episcopal office is the same. The influence of wealth and the humiliation of poverty may make one sublime, the other lowly; nevertheless all are successors of the apostles." We find the epistle cited in Decretals that are not worthless, in the 93d distinction. In his commentary on Titus the same author says: "The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and ere by the devil's prompting there came to be competition in religious affairs and people were saying, 'I am of Paul, I of Cephas,' the churches were governed by a joint council of the presbyters. Afterwards, when each presbyter thought that those who had been baptized by him belonged to him, the rule was made for the whole circuit that one presbyter should be chosen to be above the rest." And citing Scripture-proof, he says toward the end: "Accordingly, as the presbyters knew that by a custom of the Church they were subject to the person that was placed over them, so the bishops knew that they were above the presbyters in consequence of a custom rather than of any arrangement of true overlordship." The Doctor's remark, that Jerome had referred to the Supreme Pontiff at Rome when he said: "I am speaking with the successor of the fisherman and disciple of Christ, and I am an associate of his happiness, that is, of the Seat of Peter; I know that the Church is built on that Rock," is irrelevant. It does not follow that because I associate with this particular church, therefore it is the first. It does not follow that because this church is built upon the Rock, therefore it alone is thus built up. Add to this the decree of the African council in the 99th distinction, chap. 1: "The bishop of the first seat shall not be called the prince of .priests nor the supreme priest, nor by any similar title, but only the bishop of the first seat. Nor shall the Bishop of Rome be called the universal pontiff." Now, if the monarchy of the Roman Pontiff exists by divine right, all these statements would be heresy, which it would rash to assert. To conclude, let us hear our Lord Himself, who says Luke 22: "There was also a strife among them which of them should be accounted the greatest. And He said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger."

Luther's use of Jerome would eventually find its way into the Smalcald Artilces (now part of the Book of Concord):

Consequently the church cannot be better governed and maintained than by having all of us live under one head, Christ, and by having all the bishops equal in office (however they may differ in gifts) and diligently joined together in unity of doctrine, faith, sacraments, prayer, works of love, etc. So St. Jerome writes that the priests of Alexandria governed the churches together and in common. The apostles did the same, and after them all the bishops throughout Christendom, until the pope raised his head over them all.

Luther appears to be quoting from memory here, combining letter 146 and the Titus commentary.

Addendum
A helpful overview of Jerome's view of th papacy was put together by William Webster The Matthew 16 Controversy (Battle Ground: Christian Resources, 1999). There, Webster begins with this statement from Jerome:

Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this I know, is the rock on which the church is built! (p.68).

One would think this quote ends all dispute as to Jerome's view (see the quote in action on the CTC blog). Webster though goes through a number of quotes from Jerome, pointing out that indeed, Jerome saw that the bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter. But, for Jerome, Christ is the ultimate foundation of the Church, and the other apostles share this with him in a secondary sense (p.69). All the apostles have the keys and equal authority. Many of the quotes from Jerome utilized by Webster are on his web page The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18. The same Jerome letter used by Luther is also used by Webster:

When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves...For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africac and Persia, India and the East all worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more of a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles(p.71).

Luther: "We must concede to the Papists that we have no knowledge of the scriptures apart from them"

2012-01-13T06:36:00.002-05:00

Ryan asks:

Hi James. I thought you might be interested in attempting to track down the following alleged Luther quote in its context: ‎"We must concede to the Papists that we have no knowledge of the scriptures apart from them."

This quote is probably a version of something I tracked down many years ago (2006). It was the main subject of this blog entry: Luther: The Infallible Church Declared The Contents of Scripture? If it's the same quote, it's usually cited as "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists--that with them is the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

The citation is from Luther’s Sermons on John 16 [LW 24] (not a commentary, as is often asserted by Roman Catholics using the quote). Luther preached on John 14-16 after March 14, 1537, finishing in either June or July of 1537. The sermons were taken down and edited by Caspar Cruciger. Luther actually credits Cruciger for writing the book. In other words, Luther didn’t sit down and write an exegetical commentary on John. Rather, this quote was the result of preaching, and someone else writing it down the way he heard it.

In my old entry on this quote I've presented the context, so there's no need to re-post it all again. Is Luther conceding an infallible church gave us the canon? Absolutely not. Is Luther saying an infallible extra-biblical tradition produced the Canon? No. Luther is simply saying that he learned about the Scriptures, Baptism, and the Pulpit, etc. from the church of his day, in the same way the Prophets were born into a society in which the religious structure of their day was functioning, and gave the Old Testament people a religious context to live in.

The "Official" Roman Catholic Philosophy?

2012-01-10T06:34:00.002-05:00

It's been months (or perhaps a year or two?) since I've had any interactions with the person behind the Catholic Champion blog. I visit the Catholic Champion occasionally. Two recent posts deserve mentioning:

A Warning to Those Who Oppose Saint Thomas and Scholasticism: In this entry, a few quotes from Pius X are brought up in which he asserts "We will and ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences" and "those are to be disapproved as of Modernist tendencies who exalt positive theology in such a way as to seem to despise the scholastic."

The real gem though is the post Contradictions? You Decide... This post contains dueling quotes from various popes on scholastic philosophy. for instance:

Pope Pius X wrote: "The chief doctrines of St. Thomas' philosophy cannot be regarded as mere opinions—which anyone might discuss pro and con, but rather as a foundation on which all science of both natural and divine things rests. If they are taken away, or perverted in any way, then this necessarily follows: that the students of sacred studies will not perceive even the meaning of those words whereby the divinely revealed dogmas are uttered by the teaching of the Church."

Compare to:

Joseph Ratzinger: "To free itself from the constraining fetters of Roman Scholastic Theology represents a duty upon which, in my humble opinion, the possibility of the survival of Catholicism seems to depend."

These Catholic Champion entries are some of the best Roman Catholic blog posts I've read in quite a while. Kudos to the Catholic Champion!

Addendum: The Catholic Champion needs to update their "Cool Catholic blogs" side bar list, and weed out those who have left the cool Roman Catholic church.

Luther lied when he said of Tetzel: "He sold grace for money at the highest price"?

2012-01-09T11:21:00.004-05:00

In my recent look at Tetzel's alleged "as the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs", I came across some other interesting related tidbits. I found a blogger asserting, "Luther lied when he said of Tetzel in a 1541 pamphlet: 'He sold grace for money at the highest price.' " The blogger cites "Luther, Hartmann Grisar, S.J., translated by E.M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: 1914-1915, 6 volumes; taken from vol. 1: 342-344" as the background source for this assertion. This assertion appears to be based on Grisar's statement on page 342:

In his pamphlet of 1541 Luther says : "He sold grace for money at the highest price he could." He then instances six "horrible, dreadful articles " which the avaricious monk had preached.

As I looked through pages 342-344, I didn't find Grisar saying Luther lied about Tetzel selling "grace for money at the highest price." Rather, Grisar goes on to expound on six articles Luther brought up in that 1541 writing, and goes through some of the legends surrounding Tetzel. Grisar is more concerned with noting that Tetzel held that those purchasing indulgences must also be contrite. That is, the indulgence had at least one string attached (more on this below, see addendum)*. That indulgences were sold by Tetzel is not disputed by Grisar, nor does Grisar tackle any sort of "lie" about grace being sold for money.

What exactly did Luther state in 1541? He didn't exactly say Tetzel "sold grace for money at the highest price he could." Rather, Luther stated Tetzel was "selling grace for money as dearly or as cheaply as he could, to the best of his ability":

It happened, in the year 1517, that a preaching monk called John Tetzel, a great ranter, made his appearance... This same Tetzel now went around with indulgences, selling grace for money as dearly or as cheaply as he could, to the best of his ability. At that time I was a preacher here in the monastery, and a fledgling doctor fervent and enthusiastic for Holy Scripture. [LW 41:231]

Grisar doesn't dispute this statement. He simply mentions what Luther stated in 1541. shortly after this, Grisar approvingly quotes a Dominican contemporary of Tetzel, Johann Lindner, criticizing the methods Tetzel used:

His teaching found favour with many; but he devised unheard-of ways of raising money, was far too liberal in conferring offices, put up far too many public crosses [as a sign of the Indulgence-preaching] in towns and villages, which caused scandal and bred complaints among the people and brought the spiritual treasury into disrepute" (Grisar, 343).

Tetzel did in fact have a financial interest in selling indulgences. Heinrich Boehmer explains :

In other respects also, Tetzel must have possessed all the characteristics which help to influence the masses. "Physically, he was a large, strong man, eloquent and very bold of speech, sufficiently educated, and his mode of life so-so," that is, neither too strict nor too lax. When he had finished his sermon, he would himself usually go to the indulgence chest and buy a certificate for his father or some other dead person, and when the money tinkled in the chest, he would cry out, "Now I am sure of his salvation; now I need pray for him no longer." In this way he stirred up the people, "especially the sentimental matrons," so that they too came to the chest and bought certificates. In fact, such power did he wield over the masses that on one occasion in Annaberg, Saxony, he prevailed upon the miners who had treated with disrespect the relics of the wandering monks of St. Anthony to follow the Anthonins in a crowd a distance of three miles to do penance for their offense. This he accomplished by threatening that all the mines would cease operations. He was always quick to utter threats. Whoever challenged his authority was immediately discomfited and reminded that he was also an inquisitor. Thus he always knew how to silence all critics, including the clerics who had been injured by the indulgence.

Apparently the unusual talent of this member of the Dominican Monastery of St. Paul in Leipzig for the business of selling indulgences was not discovered until quite late by his superiors. It was not until 1504 that he entered upon this career. After this time he was almost constantly active as an indulgence preacher. In the course of years on his journeys throughout Germany he also acquired a wide commercial experience, which later proved exceedingly useful to his employers. For example, when he could not get rid of his wares at the price demanded, he would immediately have the indulgence cross taken down again. Then after a time he would return and sell the indulgences at a substantially lower price. But he was also quite conscious of his own worth. "I am well known in Italy, in many other kingdoms, and in all Germany," he wrote on January 24, 1517, to a critic who had presumed to remark that he was not a doctor but only an ordinary begging monk. "I have showered my knowledge of theology and canon law upon mans German universities and no one has ever treated me with contempt. On the contrary, every one of them, as long as ten years ago, begged me most urgently to take my degree of doctor of theology with them. If I had wanted to, I could have been a doctor before you had ever seen even the outside of a Corpus Juris Civilis and Canonici."

Just because Tetzel thought so highly of himself, he was by no means inclined to sell himself too cheaply. For instance, for his co-operation in the Mainz indulgence enterprise he demanded eighty guldens monthly in cash, besides free transportation and free maintenance for himself and his companions and ten guldens extra for his servant, Veit. Thus this servant received in cash twenty guldens more a yew than the highest official of the wealthy town of Leipzig! Any for handling the external details of the holy trade he also demanded large sums of the Fuggers, who had financed the venture and allowed the retail sale of the holy wares to he taken care of by their agents. It is very doubtful whether he was always wholly conscientious in handling the large sums of money that passed through his hands [Heinrich Boehmer, Road to Reformation (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1946). pp. 181-182].

Martin Brecht notes:

Certainly many more historical testimonies could be added. Suffice it to say that Luther did not lie in 1541 about Tetzel's "selling grace for money as dearly or as cheaply as he could, to the best of his ability." Luther may have erred in other regards to Tetzel, but he certainly did not in regard to Tetzel's ability to sell indulgences and make a living off of it. One may try to quibble that an indulgence is not the selling of grace. However, if, as the Catholic Encyclopedia asserts, "An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive", I don't know how one can think of an indulgence as anything other than obtaining grace.

*Addendum

The Church as a matter of fact did distinguish theoretically between the purchase of an indulgence and the absolution as declared by the priest in Confession. The latter could be an absolution from culpability, or of the punishments exacted by the Church, or of the divine punishments for sin in time and eternity. But because this absolution was often granted by priests who accompanied the indulgence-vendors, and thus occurred at the same time when a purchase of indulgence was made; and because from the end of the 14th century the indulgences were also called indulgences for punishment and culpability (poena et culpa) and praised as an atonement of man with God, it can be readily understood that the common people generally were of the opinion that on these occasions they had the opportunity, not only to receive indulgence for punishments, but also for culpability. For the common man did not know that theoretically the Church had bound together freeing from culpability with Confession and Absolution; he could only form his judgment according to what he saw. What he really saw was something that savored strongly of the open marketplace, a business where Confession played a very much subordinated role, especially since attritio was considered enough. Although Tetzel, who was commissioned for his special trade, and of whom Paulus treats in a monogravure (1889), later after his acquittal, taught that the indulgences "served solely in the case of punishment of sins that had been repented of and confessed," yet his instructions read, outside of indulgence for punishment of sin, of the plenaria omnium peccatorum remissio, and without repenting one could buy an indulgence upon the presentation of which any promiscuously chosen priest was forced once during lifetime and in the hour of death to grant to the professor a general absolution. [source]

A Visit to Catholic Answers Forum Part #8

2012-01-08T21:22:00.013-05:00

St. Irenaeus believe in Sola Scriptura... Not so Fast my Friend

Back in July, somebody tried to tell me that St. Irenaeus held to the teaching of Sola Scriptura ; so I typed up an email to defend St. Ireneaus beliefs and showing he was far from believing in Sola Scriptura. I would like to share this with everyone. I would like to thank Robert Sungenis and all of his collaborators that put together an extensive study on Sola Scriptura, Not by Scripture Alone.

My friend said to me Irenaeus mainly mean Scripture when he used the word tradition by quoting Against Heresies 3:2:2. This is not true. When he used Tradition, he mean the whole deposit of faith in both written and unwritten form. If you read the whole quote, St. Irenaeus means more than Scripture because he said the traditions are preserved by the presbyters (not by Scripture). In addition, Irenaeus made a distinction between Scripture and Traditions in the last sentence.

"But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition."

Here is another quote from him that clearly shows that at times he made a distinction between Scripture and Traditions.

For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against Heresies 3:4:1)

You can also see in that quote is that Irenaeus believe that it is the Church that carries the entire deposit of the NT teachings from the apostles. You can see it clearer from what he wrote in the first half of the paragraph I just quoted.

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth."

Even the title of the chapter is, The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.

I totally agree that Scripture is the pillar and foundation of faith (as well as other Catholics), but Irenaeus beilieve you must have the correct interpretation of Scripture in order to know its true meaning.

True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]. (ibid. 4:33:8)

The only way- Irenaeus believe- to hold to the true teachings that came from the apostles and get the true meaning of Scripture is if you are in the Church because the presbyters are the successors of the apostles and guards the deposit of faith.

"Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question othe knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequnce is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist...It behooves us to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but flee to the Church, and be brout up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures. For the Church as been planted as a garden in the world: therefore says the Spirit of God, "Thou mayest freely eat from every tree of the garden," that is, Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord; but ye shall not eat with an uplifted mind, nor touch any heretical discord. (ibid. 5:20:2)

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church- those who, as I have shown, posess the succession form the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. (ibid. 4:26:2) (the title of this chapter is The reasure hid in the Scriptures is Christ; the true exposition of the Scriptures is to be found in the Church alone)

And then shall every word also seem consistent to him, if he for his part diligentlyread the Scriptures in company with those who are presbyters in the Church, among whom is the apostlic doctrine, as I have pointed out. (ibid. 4:32:1) (the title of this chapter is That one God was the author of both Testaments, is confirmed by the authority of a presbyter who had been taught by the apostles)

These quotes from Irenaeus are very Catholic. He don't show he believe that people should follow Scripture alone or Scripture is the ultimate authority. He believe people should follow Scripture and Church authority because the full deposit of truth is in the Church. Even Phillip Shaff (Protestant in the nineteenth century put together the volume set of the Church Fathers writing) agree with me consernig the Church Fathers

The church view respection the sources of Christian theology and the rule of faith and practice remains as it was in the previous period, except that it is furthe rdeveloped in particulars. The divine Scriptures of Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; and the oral tradition or living faith of the catholic church (he is not talking about the Roman Catholic Church of course) from the apostles down, as posed to the varying opinions of the heretical sects- together form the one infallible source and rule of faith. Both are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the key to true interpretation of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse.(History of the Christian Church pg 248-249; I believe it is in volume one)

There is a lot I can go through, but I'll end this with two more beliefs from Irenaeus that are in line with Catholic teaching. If anyone hold to Sola Scriptura and believe Irenaeus (and other Church Fathers) hold to it as well, you must believe Irenaeus got these beliefs from Scripture alone.

Apostolic succuesion and Primacy of Roman Church:

...[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of succession of bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on acconut of its pre-eminent authority, that is the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (ibid. 3:3:2)

Baptism:

“And dipped himself,” says [the Scripture], “seven times in Jordan.” It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Fragment 34)

From William Webster:

Irenaeus and Apostolic Tradition

"Irenaeus speaks often of tradition in his writings. He constantly referred to an apostolic tradition handed down to the Church which he called the canon of truth or the rule of faith. One of the most frequently quoted passages used to substantiate his belief and teaching of tradition is the following:"

As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine] just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world. But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shineth everywhere, and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth. Nor will any one of the rulers in the Churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these (for no one is greater than the Master); nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition. For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it...But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.

ANF, Vol. I, Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.10.2.

"It is not uncommon in Roman Catholic apologetic literature to see this particular passage quoted as confirmation of their concept of tradition. For example, under the heading of Sacred Tradition is a True Source of Revelation, listed in the Doctrinal Index of his book, The Faith of the Early Fathers, William Jurgens cites it to support this point of view. Roman Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, in Not By Scripture Alone, also gives the above quote and then makes this comment:"

Obviously, Irenaeus believes not only in Scripture, but in thetradition that originates from the apostles. Moreover, Irenaeus also believes in the perpetuation of that tradition through the unbroken succession of presbyters (bishops and priests) in the Churches. How can Irenaeus be teaching that the oral tradition of the apostles was retired if he believes that the presbyters preserve it by means of successive generations...Catholics and Protestants accept as fact that after the first century God ceased the charism of divine inspiration. Hence Irenaeus is not saying that the preservation and perpetuation of the apostles’ oral tradition was retired, but only that the charism of inspiration had ceased. If anything, Irenaeus is assuring us that responsible and qualified men had systematically preserved the apostles’ orally inspired messages. Thus we have further proof of an unwritten Tradition that existed alongside the written Scripture in the life of the Church.

Not By Scripture Alone, pp. 296–297.

"Clearly, then, Roman Catholics employ the teaching of Irenaeus to support their own doctrine of tradition—doctrine which they claim is handed down orally from the apostles and is independent of Scripture. This position, however, is untenable when the teaching of Irenaeus is interpreted in context. The above quote (by Sungenis) is taken out of context. This quote is preceded by a lengthy statement defining what Irenaeus meant by tradition. That passage reads:"

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess’ to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send ‘spiritual wickednesses,’ and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

ANF, Vol. I, Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.10.1.

"Note that according to Irenaeus, the Church has received what he callsthis faith from the apostles and their disciples. He then goes on to give the doctrinal content of this faith which are primarily the cardinal truths of the Creed. And this faith, and the content as he has defined it, is equated with what he calls the tradition. He puts it this way:"

The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith...For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world...For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.

ANF, Vol. I, Irenaeus, Against Heresies I.10.1; I.10.2; I.10.1.

"So, tradition, as defined by Irenaeus, is equivalent to the faith handed down from the apostles, which he often refers to as ‘the rule of faith.’ This rule has a very specific content, all of which is contained in Scripture. He makes no mention of other and purely oral doctrines that are essential for the faith.

(Irenaeus gives two other summaries of the faith: To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendor, shall come in glory, the Savior of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed (Ibid., Against Heresies III.4.2).
For to him all things are consistent: he has a full faith in one God Almighty, of whom are all things; and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom are all things, and in the dispensations connected with Him, by means of which the Son of God became man; and a firm belief in the Spirit of God, who furnishes us with a knowledge of the truth, and has set forth the dispensations of the Father and the Son, in virtue of which He dwells with every generation of men, according to the will of the Father (Ibid., Against Heresies 4.33.7).)

Every doctrine of the rule is derived from Scripture. Tradition, therefore, is the rule of faith expressly taught in Scripture. We have already seen that Irenaeus believed that what was initially taught orally by the apostles was later committed to Scripture, and that it was through Scripture that the apostolic tradition was transmitted to the Church. In other words, the apostolic teaching did not remain oral in nature. It was inscripturated. Thus, the content of the apostolic tradition preserved and preached (orally) in the Churches by the presbyters is identical in content with the teaching of Scripture. Tradition is verified by Scripture; they are one and the same. Contrary to Sungenis’ assertion, there is no other body of doctrine, oral in nature and independent of Scripture. The tradition of the Church is simply that teaching which is grounded upon and derived from Scripture. According to Irenaeus, apostolic tradition reaches us by two means: Scripture and the preaching and teaching of the Church, preserved in purity by the succession of her bishops. Did Irenaeus believe this rendered Scripture insufficient? By no means, because oral proclamation of the truth is simply the public proclamation of the teaching of Scripture. It is Scriptural truth presented orally, just as the present day preacher preaches a message derived from Scripture.Â He is passing on truth orally. He is ‘'traditioning,’ that is, handing on truth. But the actual content of that teaching is the same as that which is found in Scripture."

Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. Vol. 2 pp 26-29.

William Webster.

Did Tetzel Really Say "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs"?

2012-01-07T23:32:00.005-05:00

As the story is usually told, one of the main arch villians of the Protestant Reformation was Johann Tetzel, papal seller of indulgences. It was he who played a key role in provoking Luther in regard to the 95 Theses. I recently came across a few items from Roman Catholics defending the memory of Tetzel. Here's a recent comment from the Catholic Answers forum:

"This reminds me how there is no primary source for Luther's accusation that Johann Tetzel said "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs." It is pure hearsay that everyone seems to accept as fact" [source].

It is usually taken at absolute fact that Tetzel often used this jingle while preaching his indulgence sermons. It may be surprising to find out that attributing this exact jingle to Tetzel isn't as easy as one may think. Roman Catholics have a valid gripe if they question if Tetzel was the originator of the jingle "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul out of purgatory springs" (Sobald der Pfennig im Kasten klingt, die Selle aus dem Fegfeuer springt). Sometimes Protestants think this phrase was unique to Tetzel, sort of like the way the phrase "your best life now" is attached to Joel Osteen. There is no evidence I know of that Tetzel came up with this jingle.

The main reason why there's a dispute over whether or not Tetzel actually used the jingle is because it does not appear in his extant written sermons. Heinrich Boehmer points out the news of Tetzel's indulgence sermons being preached in the district of Magdeburg provoked Luther, but there are no precise records of what Tetzel preached in that area. That is, no one wrote his sermons down. His extant "model sermons which he wrote for his subordinates about the same time", while including the sentiment of the jingle, do not use the jingle. Whose phrase is it? Certainly there's no question it was used during the early sixteenth-century. It was popular enough that it made its way into Luther's Ninety-five Theses:

27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory. 28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone (LW 31:27).

I've never read anything suggesting Luther simply made the phrase up. No, the jingle certainly had a life of its own, and provoked the Augustinian monk to write against it. Luther appears to have come across it by those who reported back indulgence sermons they had heard. Luther writing to Cardinal Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz said:

Under your most distinguished name, papal indulgences are offered all across the land for the construction of St. Peter. Now, I do not so much complain about the quacking of the preachers, which I haven’t heard; but I bewail the gross misunderstanding among the people which comes from these preachers and which they spread everywhere among common men. Evidently the poor souls believe that when they have bought indulgence letters they are then assured of their salvation. They are likewise convinced that souls escape from purgatory as soon as they have placed a contribution into the chest (LW 48:45, cf. LW 60:172).

This phrase may actually be traced back to a much earlier date. Martin Brecht notes the University of Paris complained about this popular jingle as early as 1482 (Martin Luther, His Road to Reformation, 1483-1521, pp. 182-183), but doesn't provide any helpful documentation. Heinrich Boehmer notes the idea behind this phrase wasn't anything new when Tetzel came on the scene:

"Even the much-discussed sentences concerning the automatic effect of the indulgence for the dead- which were later compressed intohe famous rhyme, 'So soon as coin in coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs'- were not in substance new, but merely an apt practical application of the commonly accepted doctrine, as it had been publically set forth, for example, only a few years before by Luther's fellow-Augustinian, John Jenser of Paltz in his Coelifodina" (Road to Reformation (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1946), p. 180).

But while Tetzel may not have coined the phrase, he certainly taught it's sentiment. Even Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar (who defends Tetzel) reluctantly admits it:

The saying about the money in the coffer cannot, indeed, be traced to Tetzel's own lips, yet in his sermons he advocated a certain opinion held by some Schoolmen (though in no sense a doctrine of the Church), viz. that an indulgence gained for the departed was at once and infallibly applied to this or that soul for whom it was destined.(Luther 1, p. 343).

Grisar cites Cardinal Cajetan as a "great theologian" against Tetzel's teaching on this (also claiming Tetzel "was no great theologian"). Grisar though admits "the more highly placed Indulgence Commissaries did not scruple, in their official proclamations, to set forth as certain this doubtful scholastic opinion" (p. 344). Roman Catholic historians defending Tetzel place the blame for Tetzel's doctrinal error on "vague scholastic opinion." this sort of apologetic though downplays the fact that during this time period there was no official doctrine or dogma as to the effect of the indulgence upon those in Purgatory.

While Grisar denies Tetzel used the jingle, There may be some proof that he may indeed have uttered something like it. Schaff notes,

Mathesius and Johann Hess, two contemporary witnesses, ascribe this sentence (with slight verbal modifications) to Tetzel himself. Luther mentions it in Theses 27 and 28, and in his book Wider Huns Wurst (Erl. ed. XXVL 51).

There's also the testimony of a contemporary, Prierias:

"...an indulgence for the dead could be had, for 'as soon as the money clinked in the bottom of
the chest, the souls of the deceased friends forthwith went into Heaven,' was, according to Prierias, actually preached as 'mera et catholica Veritas'" [source].

According to Brecht, Tetzel "was in complete command of the indulgence propaganda, as his preserved indulgence sermons indicate. 'Here is Rome,' he proclaimed very directly, and by no means incorrectly. People should not let the salvation offered by the indulgence escape them. 'Have mercy upon your dead parents.' 'Whoever has an indulgence has salvation; anything else is of no avail.' " (Brecht, pp. 182-183).

Addendum 1: The Commission of Indulgences can be found here.

Addendum 2: Tetzel's Sermons

EXTRACT FROM SERMON GIVEN BY TETZEL TO PAROCHIAL CLERGY AS PATTERN FOR INDULGENCE PREACHING

From the Latin. Gieseler: Ecclesiastical History, Vol. V., pp. 225-26.

The Elector of Mainz undertook, for one-half the proceeds, the sale of indulgences in his own vast archiepiscopal provinces.Mainz and Magdeburg. The Instructio Summaria, issued to his sub-commissioners, sets forth with exactness the nature and extent of the indulgence, together with the necessity for contrition and confession and other spiritual preparations, without which the indulgence is valueless. The subcommissioners appealed in turn to the parochial priests, and there are extant portions of another Instructio Summaria, issued by John Tetzel to the priests of his territory, exhorting them to prepare the minds of their parishioners for indulgences; and with these instructions he sent them pattern sermons, of which the following is an example:

You may obtain letters of safe conduct from the vicar of our Lord Jesus Christ, by means of which you are able to liberate your soul from the hands of the enemy, and convey it by means of contrition and confession, safe and secure from all pains of Purgatory, into the happy kingdom. For know, that in these letters are stamped and engraven all the merits of Christ's passion there laid bare. Consider, that for each and every mortal sin it is necessary to undergo seven years of penitence after confession and contrition, either in this life or in Purgatory.

How many mortal sins are committed in a day, how many in a week, how many in a month, how many in a year, how many in the whole extent of life! They are well-nigh numberless, and those that commit them must needs suffer endless punishment in the burning pains of Purgatory.

But with these confessional letters you will be able at any time in life to obtain full indulgence for all penalties imposed upon you, in all cases except the four reserved to the Apostolic See. Thence throughout your whole life, whenever you wish to make confession, you may receive the same remission, except in cases reserved to the Pope, and afterwards, at the hour of death, a full indulgence as to all penalties and sins, and your share of all spiritual blessings that exist in the church militant and all its members.

Do you not know that when it is necessary for anyone to go to Rome, or undertake any other dangerous journey, he takes his money to a broker and gives a certain per cent—five or six or ten—in order that at Rome or elsewhere he may receive again his funds intact, by means of the letters of this same broker? Are you not willing, then, for the fourth part of a florin, to obtain these letters, by virtue of which you may bring, not your money, but your divine and immortal soul, safe and sound into the land of Paradise?

Addendum 3
"There is little doubt that Tetzel's preaching was well summed up in the phrase, 'a coin in the box opens heaven to your soul,' and there is no doubt either that the deal between Albrecht and the Curia as well as the lively trade in indulgences would have been condemned as the worst type of simony in the early Church" [Joseph Lortz, The Reformation, a Problem for Today (Maryland: The Newman Press, 1964), p. 79].

Some Interaction with some Muslims online

2012-01-06T15:21:00.013-05:00

See the back and forth discussion in the comboxes:

1. On the Debate on the Incarnation between James White and Abdullah Kunde:

http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/can-god-become-a-man-james-white-vs-abdullah-kunde/

2. Debate between a Muslim (Paul Bilal Williams) and a Christian (Steve Latham) on Salvation. See also part 1 to get the full impact of the debate. Part 2 below, with discussion in the com boxes. Sam Shamoun has responded to some of Paul Williams points here. There is more to come, and I am hoping to also have some more response to Paul W. also; that I hope to write in a separate article.

http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/my-salvation-in-christianity-and-islam-debate-part-2/

3. On the Claim that the Islamic wars against the Byzantines (and Persians, though the article focuses on the Byzantine Empire) from around 632 AD onward was just and right and a kind of “war against terror”.

http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/a-7th-century-war-on-terror-3/

4. On the Khalifah (office of succession to Muhammad, that was abolished in 1924 by Mustapha Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey) and Muslims desire to restore the Khalifah:

http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/khilafah-tree/

5. An interesting Calligraphy designed to point to the Oneness of Allah (in Arabic, "The One" is "Al-Wahid" = واحد - الواحد without the definite article in Arabic. We have this word in Farsi without the definite article, and use it for "God is one".) Using the Arabic letter “waw” = و , it is interesting that it turned out to be made up of three of these Arabic letters designed in a circle, which looks like a rounded off, circular triangle. The word "oneness" - Towhid, توحید ، comes from واحد ، Wahed.

http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/the-one/

Addendum:

Debate: The Bible is the Word of God: Rhology vs. Saaib Ahmad

Rhology's Opening Statement:

http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2012/01/bible-is-word-of-god-debate-my-opening.html

Saaib Ahmad's Opening Statement:

http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/search/label/Formal%20Debate%20With%20Saaib%20Ahmed

The Argumentation for Mary's Perpetual Virginity by Epiphanius

2012-01-05T11:40:00.000-05:00

Originally posted on the aomin blog, 9/04/08

Many Roman Catholic websites will refer to the early church father Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403) as a source to substantiate early traditions concerning Marian doctrines. For instance, on Mary's perpetual virginity, This Rock Magazine, December 1991 and This Rock Magazine, February 2002 use him as historical support. Recently I posted an argument for Mary's perpetual virginity from Epiphanius. I'd like to share a few more of his arguments in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity. While it may be true that a particular church father held a Marian view similar to what Rome teaches today, Catholic apologists rarely explain the reasoning or differences between the current view and the ancient view. The argumentation used by ancient writers rarely matters for Catholic apologists. It cannot be denied that Epiphanius believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, but would the modern Catholic apologist grant the validity of Epiphanius's argumentation?

Epiphanius states, "For I have heard from someone that certain persons are venturing to say that [Mary] had marital relations after the Savior's birth. And I am not surprised. The ignorance of persons who do not know the sacred scriptures well and have not consulted histories, always turn them to one thing after another, and distracts anyone who wants to track down something about the truth out of his own head." Well so far, these words could be from a host on Catholic Answers Live. Let's take a look at the argumentation used and see how Biblical it is. Below are six arguments from Epiphanius in support of Mary's perpetual virginity.

Argument #1- Mary's title is "Virgin"

6.1 Why this ill will? Why so much impudence? Isn't Mary's very name (i.e. "Virgin") a testimony, you troublemaker? Doesn't it convince you? Who, and in which generation, has ever dared to say St. Mary's name and not add "Virgin" at once when asked? The marks of excellence show from the titles of honour themselves. (2) For the righteous received the honors of their titles appropriately for them and as it became them. "friend of God" was added to the name, "Abraham," and will not be detached from it. The title, "Israel," was added to "Jacob" and will not be changed. The title "Boanerges," or "sons of thunder," was given to the apostles and will not be discarded. And St. Mary was given the title, "Virgin," and it will not be altered, for the holy woman remained undefiled. Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 78. Against Antidicomarians, 15,4 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 604-605.

Argument #2- Mary wasn't entrusted to Joseph for marriage

7.2 To begin with, when it fell to the Virgin's lot to be entrusted to Joseph she was not entrusted to him for marriage, since he was a widower. (3)He was called her husband because of the Law, but it plainly follows from the Jewish tradition that the Virgin was not entrusted to him for matrimony (Ibid.p. 605).

8.2 So we are told in the Gospel, for it says, "Mary, his espoused wife;" it didn't say, "married wife" (Ibid. p. 606).

Argument #3- Joseph was to old to have children with Mary

7.5 For how could such an old man who had lost his first wife so many years before, take a virgin for a wife? (Ibid.).

8.4 In the first place, the course of nature entirely confutes them. An old man of over eighty did not take a virgin as a sexual partner to begin with; she was committed to his protection. (Ibid., p. 606).

8.5 If even today (many of the faithful) strive to remain virgin, pure and continent in his name, wasn't Joseph more faithful? And Mary herself, "who," as scripture says, "pondered all things in her heart?" After a dispensation of that sort, as such greatness and importance (how could it not be wrong) for an elderly man to have relations once more, with a pure and honored virgin, a vessel which had contained the Uncontainable and had received such a mystery of a heavenly sign and man's salvation? (Ibid., p. 607).

10.5 But nowhere have we heard that Joseph fathered (more) sons. Indeed, he did not live many years after his return from Egypt, for it was the Savior's forth year, while Joseph was over eighty-four when he arrived from Egypt. And Joseph survived for another eight years; and Jesus in his twelfth year, as it says in the Gospel according to Luke, he was sought for on their journey to Jerusalem, when he could not be found on the road (Ibid., p. 608).

20.3 For even if it was expected that the Virgin would have relations with Joseph, an impossibility because of his age, the holy scriptures show us in advance, and confirms our notion, (to) convince (us) that, although the thing is possible despite the sacred childbirth, no man(may) ever again approach the Virgin for sexual relations- convincing us in the same way in which the angel convinced Joseph that his suspicion was unfounded (Ibid., p. 616).

Argument #4- The "brothers of Jesus" are children from Joseph's first wife

7.5 Joseph was the brother of Cleopas but the son of Jacob surnamed Panther; both of these brothers were the sons of the man surnamed Panther. (6) Joseph took his first wife from the tribe of Judah and she bore him six children in all, four boys and two girls, as the Gospels according to Mark and John have made clear [Mark 6:3; John 19:25] (Ibid. p. 605).

Argument #5- Mary's alleged other children are not named in the Bible

9.1 Where can I not find proof that the Virgin remained pure? For a starter, let them show me that Mary bore children after the savior's birth! Let these designers and reciters of deceit and mischief make the names up and give them! But they can't show them because she was still a virgin and perish the thought, had no sexual relations! (Ibid., p. 607).

Argument #6- Interpretation of "and he knew her not"

17.7b "And he knew her not." For how could he know that a woman would receive so much grace? Or how could he know that (the Virgin) would be so highly glorified? (8) He knew that she was a woman by her appearance, and her womanliness by her sex, and knew that her mother was Ann and her father Joachim, that she was related to Elizabeth, that she was of the house and lineage of David. But he did not know that anyone on earth, especially a woman, would be honored with such glory. (9) He did not know how wondrous she was until he had seen "that which was born of her." But when she gave birth he also knew the honor God had done her, for it was she who had been told, "Hail, thou art highly favored, the Lord is with thee" (Ibid. p. 614).

In all of these arguments, one is hard pressed to find Biblical support. Some of the argumentation is very similar to material found in the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal source. Epiphanius doesn't argue that the brothers of Jesus are cousins, as most of the current pop-apologists do. Rather, his view is that these are children from Joseph's previous marriage. This would be a minority view among Roman Catholics today. Epiphanius states that incorrect views on Mary's virginity stem from ignorance of the sacred scriptures. I would not deny Epiphanius knew scripture, I would though argue his incorrect views on Mary are the result of poor exegesis and tradition being foisted onto the Biblical text, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

Lessons on Cut and Paste

2012-01-04T00:00:00.005-05:00

It's the Internet, the modern-day wild west. We all cut and paste. I recently learned a lesson about cutting and pasting that I'd like to share, lest any of you get caught in one of my future traps.

Well, let me back up a bit. A few months ago a Roman Catholic over on the CARM boards dialoging with me and a few others cited the following quote:

“According to his (Luther’s) knowledge of early Christian literature, there was a sizeable gap in time between the writers of the New Testament and the earliest Church Fathers. Luther regarded Tertullian, who died in 230, as the earliest writer in the church after the apostles…..he apparently did not know the writers who later acquired the title “apostolic fathers”. He was therefore, able to invoke the historical and chronological argument in a form no longer available to theologians of the twentieth century.” Pelikan, “Luther the Expositor”, pg 84

Now it is entirely possible the person citing this quote actually has Luther The Expositor (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959) by Jaroslav Pelikan. That is within the realm of possibility. Let me point out also the guy using this quote has made a number of comments on how awful my research is (that's putting his insults mildly). Here's the kicker: he probably took this quote from one of my writings. (see footnote 27). The quote he used is exactly as I posted it, and upon checking, my reference should have been to not only page 84, but page 83 as well, as that is where the quote begins. What are the possibilities the guy read this book and cited the quote in the same wrong way I did? I guess it's possible, but it certainly would seem more likely he lifted the quote from my paper, or from someone else who read and cited my paper. If I'm correct, the irony in that the guy who despises my research is using it anyway, and he probably isn't really reading some of the secondary sources he's citing.

Now fast forward. A few weeks ago I nailed Real Catholic TV misusing a 1532 Luther quote. In order to put up the context of the 1532 Luther quote, I had to scan the pages in. If the text was already somewhere on the Internet, I couldn't find it. Scanning is a hassle. I hate messing up the spines of my books.

A Roman Catholic blogger decided to help Real Catholic TV against my blog post. He eventually posted the same exact 1532 quote I earlier did, with the same exact documentation, directing his blog entry specifically to me. He prefaced the quote with "As for the 1532 sermon, here is the context of that statement..." After citing the quote he stated, "So, there you have the context of the 1532 sermon, which I do not doubt you have already, but now all those reading along have it too." Why would I need the same exact citation quoted back to me? Odd, but I gave the guy the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he did indeed have the same exact book, cited the same exact quote, and documented the quote the same exact way.

I then asked a question based on some other lines and pages from the same 1532 sermon. It became obvious from the responses given that the person didn't have the book being cited. In fact, he couldn't even name the sermon in question. Eventually, he conceded somewhat that the quote may have been taken from my blog, and revised his entry to reflect my blog as the possible source.

Based on these two experiences, I've come up with a possible solution to find out if people are really doing their own research when they challenge me, or if they're simply taking what I post, re-posting it, and then having me respond back to my own research. My opponents are clever: I do all the grunt work, and then this or that opponent comes along, re-posts it, spins it a particular way, and then has me respond back to my own time and effort.

This is what I'm thinking of doing. I'm thinking of encoding slight tactical errors from now on in anything I cite from my own readings so as to avoid anyone else forgetting where they took the material they claim to have, and to have read. It won't be any serious sort of error. Perhaps it will simply be an extra comma. I'm posting this simply as a warning. If you take material off my blog and try to pass it off as your own research, you will find yourself in an embarrassing situation.

Keep this in mind as well. Shame on you if you don't check my stuff before you use it. I am not infallible, I do make errors (as shown above with the citation of Pelikan). Why not simply check my work before you use it? How do you know I've cited something correctly? How do you know the next line I didn't quote in a document that I did quote doesn't refute my point? I can appreciate that someone trusts the posts I put together, but as the text on my sidebar warns,

He that has ever so little examined the citations of writers cannot doubt how little credit the quotations deserve when the originals are wanting.

Addendum
For what it's worth, I do try to document when I take stuff from other websites (I've never been good with documenting images, as this blog post proves). I can't say I've always been consistent on this. But I plan on being more diligent myself in making sure I give credit where it's due. A simple "hat tip" to someone isn't a bad thing.

Why do we have a hymn of heretic Martin Luther (“A Mighty Fortress”) in our Catholic hymnal?

2012-01-03T06:52:00.001-05:00

From Roman Catholic apologist Mark Shea's blog:

...."We have the hymn presumably because the people who compiled the hymnal think it’s a good hymn–which it is. The Church has always had the habit of taking the best of whatever we humans come up with and pressing it into the worship of God. It has never been afraid to borrow from Protestants..."

And tho this world, with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed
His truth to triumph thru us.
The prince of darkness grim --
We tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure,
For lo! his doom is sure --
One little word shall fell him.

I find the irony here being that Luther spent the majority of his life arguing Satan controlled the papacy.

From a commenter on Mark Shea's blog:

"Speaking of theologically dubious things, when one looks at A Mighty Fortress as it is written by Luther, you see a hymn about how Christ is our defense (fortress) against the powers of sin, death, and the devil. Yet the version of A Mighty Fortress in my Catholic hymnal has thoroughly cleansed this underlining thematic material. No mention of sin or the diabolical. That is, the hymn is much more properly Catholic in its original Lutheran version, and dubiously so in the watered down ‘Catholic’ version that made the hymnal in my parish. Weird, no?"

No, that makes sense to me.

Addendum
This is an interesting link: "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God": Hymns As Poetry

The Doctrine of the Roman Church and of the Roman Pontiff is a Rule of Faith above Scripture?

2012-01-02T01:00:00.000-05:00

In the recent edition of Luther's works (vol. 60) I came across the following statement from Luther's Preface to Johann Kymaeus, An Ancient Christian Council, Held in Gangra in Paphlagonia [ca. 340], Against the Sublime (So-Called) Sanctity of the Monks and Anabaptists (1537):

But I do praise the most holy Papists for their ability to rage so steadfastly and constantly against the Spirit of God. When such testimonies of the genuine councils and fathers are cited, they do not care about them at all, but let out their mighty fart against it: "The pope is above all councils and is unable to err—moreover, he is above the entirety of holy Christendom throughout the world " And so that he need endure no equal, but he may instead exalt himself even above God, he bellows in his Decretum, the chapter Cuncta: (15) `All Christendom throughout the world knows that the Holy Scripture receives its authority or power from the Roman see." Yes, indeed, Luther says, all Christendom throughout the world knows it: hellfire [be] upon your head, your throne, and your idol, the devil! [LW 60:137]

I wondered if Luther perhaps exaggerated, was being sarcastic, or simply misquoted the source he refers to when he wrote "All Christendom throughout the world knows that the Holy Scripture receives its authority or power from the Roman see." LW 60 gives this accompanying footnote. It first states,

(15) Decretum C. 9 q. 3 c. 17 reads: "The whole church throughout the world knows that the Roman church has the right to judge concerning all matters [de omnibus], and that no one is permitted to pass judgment on her verdict" (Friedberg 1:611).

"Decretum" refers to Decretum Magistri Gratiani:

The Decretum of Gratian, a Benedictine canonist at the law school of the University of Bologna. It originated in ca. 1140 and represents the first part of Roman Catholic canon law (CIC 1), accepted as such by Pope Gregory IX (1228–1241) in 1234, whose Decretalium became the second part of canon law (CIC 2). Luther studied it during his stay in Erfurt and in preparation for the Leipzig Debate in 1519 [LW 41:20, fn 19].

"C. 9 q. 3 c. 17" can be found here:

C. XVII. De eodem.
Idem omnibus Episcopis.
Cuncta per mundum nouit ecclesia, quod sacrosancta Romana ecclesia fas de omnibus habet iudicandi, neque cuiquam de eius liceat iudicare iudicio. Siquidem ad illam de qualibet mundi parte appellandum est: ab illa autem nemo est appellare permissus. §. 1. Sed nec illa preterimus, quod apostolica sedes sine ulla precedente sinodo et soluendi quos sinodus iniqua
dampnauerat, et dampnandi, nulla existente sinodo, quos oportuit habuerit facultatem, et hoc nimirum pro suo principatu, quem B. Petrus apostolus Domini uoce et tenuit semper et tenebit.

One will note C. 9 q. 3 c. 17 does not say "All Christendom throughout the world knows that the Holy Scripture receives its authority or power from the Roman see." If taken as a literal citation, Luther misquoted the Decretum. On the other hand, it does say "all matters", and that would indeed cover Luther's interpretation. Why would Luther present such an interpretation of this text? The LW 60 footnote goes on to say:

The specific application to Scripture, claiming that "the doctrine of the Roman church and of the Roman pontiff [is] a rule of faith.. . from which even holy Scripture draws or has drawn its power;' was made by the papal theologian Sylvester Prierias; see Peter Fabisch and Erwin Iserloh; eds., Dokumente zur Causa Lutheri (1517-1521), 2 vols. (Munster: Aschendorff, 1988-91), 1:55; see Luther, preface, notes, and afterword to Prierias, Response (1520), WA 6:341 (LW 71); cf. Why the Books of the Pope and His Disciples Were Burned (1520), LW 31:392.

As I understand it, what the footnote here says is that the application of this statement was made by one of Luther's papal opponents, Sylvester Prierias. Prierias was not simply the equivalent of today's Roman Catholic bloggers. "Sylvester Prierias (1456–1523), a Dominican priest and professor, was the pope s counselor in matters of faith. He had been influential in securing the condemnation of Reuchlin and had been commissioned to examine Luther’s writings" (LW 44:118 fn.8).

Prierias was one of Luther's earliest opponents. Since he was Master of the Sacred Palace, he was asked to assess the Ninety-five Theses. He composed his response in three days (ironically, this quick response is not unlike the careless speed of some of Rome's blogging apologists). Some speculate his fast response was due to his considering Luther a nuisance, a distraction from his work on his commentary of selections of Thomistic texts. His twenty-seven page response was entitled In presumptuosas Martini Luther conclusiones de potesate pape dialogus (1518), popularly referred to as the Dialogus. In this work, Prierias made four points and a conclusion:

1. Essentially the universal church is the assembly in divine worship of all who believe in Christ. The true universal church virtually is the Roman Church, the head of all churches, and the sovereign pontiff. The Roman Church is represented by the College of Cardinals; however, virtually it is the pope who is the head of the Church, though in another manner than Christ.

2. As the universal church cannot err when it decides on faith and morals, so also a true council cannot err if it does its best to know the truth, at least not in the end result—and that I understand under the inclusion of the head. For even a council can initially be mistaken so long as the investigation of the truth is still in process; indeed a council has sometimes erred: nevertheless it finally knows the truth through the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, the Roman Church and the pope cannot err when he in his capacity as pope comes to a decision, i.e., when he comes to a decision in consequence of his office and thereby does his best to know the truth.

3. He who does not hold the teaching of the Roman Church and the Pope as an infallible rule of faith, from which even Holy Scripture draws its power and authority, he is a heretic.

4. The Roman Church can establish something with regard to faith and ethics not only through word but also through act. And there is no difference therein, except that the word is more suitable for this than the act. In this same sense custom acquires the power of law, for the will of a prince expresses itself in acts which he allows or puts into effect. And it follows that as he is a heretic who wrongly interprets Scripture, so also is he a heretic who wrongly interprets the teaching and acts of the Church in so far as they relate to faith and ethics.

Corollary: He who says in regard to indulgences that the Roman Church cannot do what she has actually done is a heretic (Michael Tavuzzi, Prierias (Durham: Duke University Press, 1997, p.111).

There has been considerable scholarly debate as to the competence of these points against Luther, particularly statement three (For an overview of this scholarly debate see the work cited above, Michael Tavuzzi, Prierias (Durham: Duke University Press, 1997, pp.104-115). What I can't discern from my cursory investigation is whether or not Prierias based statement three on Decretum C. 9 q. 3 c. 17. If he did, then Luther may have had this in mind in his comment above (or perhaps one of Rome's other apologists made this connection for him?). Regardless of whether or not Luther's interpretation of "de omnibus" is warranted, the selection from Prierias certainly shows what sort of argumentation Luther was up against from Rome's apologists (for a detailed account see David V.N. Bagchi, Luther's Earliest Opponents (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991).

A Visit to Catholic Answers Forum Part #7

2012-01-01T23:08:00.005-05:00

Here is another excerpt from a visit to C.A.F.

Re: Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura...

May 9, '11, 4:56 pm

Algo1

Banned

Join Date: January 30, 2010

Posts: 277

Religion: Protestant

Re: Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricFilmer

Algo, unless I am mistaken, I believe the material you posted originated from the below people. Of course, as guanophore pointed out, it is your responsibility to give proper references to your sources.

St. Thomas Aquinas:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_...rt/Question_30

St. Ambrose:
http://christianbookshelf.org/ambros..._father_is.htm

St. Victor of Lerins:
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/lerins16.html

At this point I think I need to reiterate the challenge I set before you, and maybe to give it a bit more clarification.

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity teaches the following:

There is one God who exists in the perfect unity of three divine persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Divinity does not exist apart from these specific divine persons, therefore in the one God there are three and only three persons, no more, no less. The substantial nature of divinity shared by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is exactly the same, which means each person is the Eternal Living God. Despite this perfect unity, each divine person is fully distinct from the others. In light of all this, it is taught that the Father is the Son and is the Holy Spirit, but at the same time the Father is not the Son and is not the Holy Spirit. This same formula is used for each person (i.e., the Son is the Father, the Son is not the Father, etc.).

In terms of the ramifications of this teaching for a Christian…

It is permissible for a Christian to focus his prayer on the Holy Spirit and to worship the Holy Spirit as a person (and therefore not simply understood as a manifestation of God's power) and moreover as a person distinct from the Father and the Son, but nonetheless their full equals.

As far as I am concerned, Scripture alone is not sufficient to express what is taught in the abovered text, and therefore is not sufficient to allow the act of worship described in the above purple text. To fully express the above definition of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity to the extent that makes the act of worshiping the Holy Spirit (as described) permissible, one needs Sacred Tradition. At best, the Bible implies the Holy Trinity, but such implications cannot support the full weight and ramifications of what is found in the above red & purple text.

Moreover, in declaring "Scripture alone" to be insufficient in attempting to teach the fullness of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, I do not simply state my opinion. To back this up, I point out that if the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity could be sufficiently demonstrated from Scripture alone then the following heresies would not have gotten any traction (i.e., they each contradict one or more points in the above text in red):

Macedonianism: The Holy Spirit does .shared between the Father and the Son was “similar” but not the “same.”

Monarchianism: God exists as only one person.

Adoptionism (a.k.a., Dynamic Monarchianism): Jesus is simply a man who, during his earthly life, was empowered by God and, in a manner-of-speaking, became God. Therefore, Christ is not eternal.

Modalism (a.k.a., Sabellianism): God exists as only one person, but acts in three “modes”: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Arianism: The Son is not the Eternal Living God, but is rather an entity subordinate to the Father.

Ebionitism: Jesus is the Messiah but not God. He is understood as a righteous man selected by God to be a messianic prophet.

Nestorianism: Jesus was born simply as a man but was later filled with the divine logos and therefore can be considered a kind of incarnation of the Holy Spirit.

(Continued in my next post)

Very good,
Ambrose use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

Thomas Aquinas use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

Vincent of Lerins use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

And one more from Basil's use of Scripture (alone) to prove the Trinity.

Your initial rejection to my paraphrasing of the above cited ECFs was in essence a rejection of what these 'catholic' writers have defended from Scripture (alone).
I paraphrased the arguments of the fathers from Scripture (alone) because I agree with them.
I omitted the citations because I am willing to own the arguments - the arguments stand on their two legs, even without the weight of the fathers

This debate is conducted by a Trinitarian using "Scripture Alone" against a Oneness Pentecostal. He proves definitively that the Trinity can be defended from Scripture Alone.

I would respond to your two definitions defining The Trinity and describing Prayer and Worship above but I'm not sure where you got them.

Regarding the Comma Johanneum.
If you want to reject the Comma, that's fine, but Clementine's Vuglate includes it. As did the Douay Rheims. In other words your communion considered it Scripture for centuries.

diagram:

Each of the three sides represents a foundational truth. When any one of

these truths is denied, the other two sides form an arrow that point to the resultant error.

James R. White. Forgotten Trinity, The (p. 30). Kindle Edition.

Luther: There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads

2012-01-01T11:37:00.002-05:00

I received a mention over on the Catholic Answers "Non-Catholic Religions" forum recently: Luther - as many sects as heads? One my older blog entries from 2006 was cited: The Evils of Private Interpretation: "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads". In that entry I documented my trouble trying to track down a primary source for a polemical Luther quote. In 2007 I revisited this same obscure quote: Luther: Sola Scriptura Had a "Devastating Effect"? Then in 2010 I did Luther: There are nowadays almost as many sects and creeds as there are heads.

I was surprised to see that one of the folks over on the Catholic Answers board actually located a primary source for this quote: WA 18, 547. This type of thing wasn't that easy to do back in 2006. It was the Catholic Encyclopedia which eventually gave me enough clues to find some of the document the quote was taken from. Unfortunately, the Catholic Encyclopedia was a product of its time and its references are to sources available around one hundred years ago (or older). The Internet being the amazing thing it is, some of the older references to this quote are also now available. The Catholic Encyclopedia cites De Wette, op. cit., III, 61 as does Father Patrick O'Hare, The Facts About Luther). Hartmann Grisar cites Erl. ed 53, p. 342. Fortunately, The Letter of doctor Martin to the Christians of Antwerp (1525) is scheduled to be translated into English in a forthcoming volume of Luther's Works.

Not much has changed over the years. I did a brief search to see how this quote was doing bouncing around cyber space. On the Catholic Debate Forum the quote is used to show the following:

Luther realized and lamented on the errors he had caused, from time to time. But he turns back and moves on with a vengence. He jumped the fence often and what was truth one day was lies the next. He had wanted to repress "theological arrogance" but ironically his actions ushered in as bad or worse and Luther says so. [source]

Orthodoxoutreach.net uses the quote to show that Luther "wrote of the result" of the "Protestant theory of Sola Scriptura." This convert story From Protestant Pentecostal to Catholic uses the quote to show "Luther quickly saw the devastating effect his action had wrought." This blogger thinks the quote shows Luther "was in agony over Protestant Sectarianism." And not be forgotten, Steve Ray pumped out the quote again in his 2009 "Why I'm Catholic." While searching around, I came upon this Catholic Answers discussion from 2009 in which I participated and the quote came up. I have no recollection of this discussion, but it was entertaining nonetheless.

In my earlier blog entries (noted above) I documented the lengthy search I had to do scouring Roman Catholic materials looking for the context of this quote. Steve Ray appears to be one of the main culprits, using the quote to claim Luther saw the devastating effect of sola scriptura. However if you read the extant English context I provided, Luther does not blame sola scriptura at all, but rather Satan. The letter was written to warn Antwerp of radical leaders and groups during the peasant uprising. The peasants had sporadic outbursts of violence previous to their great uprising in the spring of 1525. Luther was very aware of the peasant situation. He had personally visited some of the peasants and was almost killed by them. Charismatic radical leaders spurred them on, using religion as part of the motivation to violently revolt against the establishment. Luther was aware of these charismatic peasant leaders, and wrote against them, and also to warn Antwerp.

The new volume of Luther's Works (vol. 60) actually provides an answer from Luther on the basic charges against him as found in the above links. Luther's Preface to Urbanus Rhegius, Refutation of the Confession of the New Valentinians and Donatists at Munster to the Christians at Osnabruck in Westphalia (1535) addresses the charges that Luther was responsible for the Anabaptist radicals. Luther puts forth the popular charge that "these sects and tumult" come from the teaching of the Lutherans:

So, because many sectarians have come from Luther's teaching (as they say), Luther's teaching must be of the devil. [But] John himself says: "They are from among us, but not of our own" [1 John 2:19]. Judas came from among Christ's disciples. Therefore, Christ is a devil. And if they wanted to take themselves by their own nose, what has come from the pope? Read the histories regarding what they themselves (not to mention their disciples)did with the emperors themselves, etc.

It is obvious that no heretic has ever come from among the heathen they have all come from the holy Christian Church. Therefore, the Church would have to be of the devil too. Now it has been of benefit to the holy Church that she confesses that those who have come out of her are heretics, condemns them, and does not maintain fellowship with them. [But] it must do us Lutherans no good that we, too, make our own confession and (condemn all the sects (though they themselves deny that they have come from us) better than [the Papists] could do it themselves. [LW 60:88]

Luther goes on to point out the Bible itself was blamed when heretics used it: "A spider sucks poison out of the lovely rose, yet the little bee finds nothing bust honey in it. Can the rose help it that its sweet honey becomes the spider's poison?" Far from blaming sola scriptura for radicals and heretics, in his letter to Antwerp of 1525 Luther rightly blames the correct culprit: "The devil seeing that this sort of disturbance could not last, has devised a new one; and begins to rage in his members, I mean in the ungodly, through whom he makes his way in all sorts of chimerical follies and extravagant doctrines."

If Roman Catholics (and others) want to use this quote from 1525 correctly, they should at least admit Luther was not lamenting sola scriptura. Lamenting over radicals using the Bible incorrectly and the basic principle that the Bible is the sole and sufficient infallible authority for the man of God are two different things.

Luther: Sermons on the Gospels for the Sundays and principal festivals of the church year

2012-01-01T01:39:00.000-05:00

In the latest edition of Luther's Works, a footnote mentions an earlier English translation of Luther's House Postil: Matthias Loy, ed., Sermons on the Gospels for the Sundays and Principal Festivals of the Church Year by Dr. Martin Luther, 2 vols. (Rock Island, Il: Augustana Book Concern, 1871). Google Books makes these available:

Volume 1

Volume 2

This is an interesting find, because this translation of the House Postil is different than the popular English version readily available as part of The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther (volumes 5-7) republished by Baker Books. The sermons contained in the House Postil were given by Luther to select guests and family members. Two specific individuals recorded these sermons: Georg Rorer and Veit Dietrich. The House Postil that is part of The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther uses Rorer's version as the basis for their translation. The two volumes by Matthias Loy linked above use Dietrich's version. These two older volumes of Dietrich's version don't have all the material contained in the later volumes based on Rorer's version. Ironically, I found these older volumes in 2010 and had forgotten about them.

Veit Dietrich and Georg Roerer both made stenographic notes of these house postils, transcribing them later into finished form. Luther, at this time in his life, regularly spoke from an outline that had been carefully thought through ahead of time, in order to get hold of the Konzept, or chief point(s) he wanted to make, as he himself explained concerning his preaching. Thus, homiletically his style might be described as combining expository with topical, the chief point or conceptual thread coming really from God himself through the text of Scripture. Apparently, he was a deliberate speaker who spoke slowly and distinctly, a characteristic which would have allowed time for an expert note-taker to do his recording. Thus through these two faithful scribes, two versions of Luther's house postils have come down to us. In general, they may be said to complement each other, rather than being duplicates in carbon copy sort of manner; but efforts to collate them or to try to extract the "authentic version" out of them have usually foundered. The result is that they stand side by side, in tandem, as parallel versions..." [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 5 (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 2000) p. 14].