DavidW on Gnosticism and Calvinism

I've been interacting some on DavidW's blogpost about his comparisons of Gnostic predestination and Calvinistic predestination.  He swears up and down that Calvinism is dressed-up Gnosticism, and I already corrected him on his point, told him:

My response is basically that you're committing a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Alot of EOC doctrines resemble Mormonism; that doesn't mean they're related. Looking at it the other way, all the ancient heretics held to doctrines that EOC would accept as well - that's what makes heretics so dangerous. They creep in, sound the same in almost everything, but secretly introduce destructive heresies, subtly, drawing away disciples after them. So this point of yours in principle proves too much. Otherwise stated, it proves nothing. 

 DavidW today laid out 5 questions on this topic he'd like me to address.  Let's see how well he did.

David,
1) No, it's not a tu quoque. I don't grant that Calvinistic predest is of Gnostic derivation, remember? Rather, I derive Calv predest from Scr, which preceded Gnosticism. So, that's wrong.

2a) "early church writer" means "someone in the early church who wrote". Nothing more or less.
The entire reason I use that term is to point out your question-begging distinction between "Church Fathers" and "heretics". You test everythg by the church; well, what if those whom you now identify as heretics had won the struggle? Then the men you now identify as CFs would be heretics, to you.
This is the problem with the Sola Ecclesia position; the only way you can judge the heretics of old to have been wrong is b/c the modern church is the group that won out, that won the power struggle. Not so for me - I can and must judge anyone and everyone and their teaching by the Word of God, which does not change.

2b) at least one early Church Father who believed in predestination

I've given you three many times - Jesus, Peter, Paul.
This business about early church writers and the dissent that existed between them is an internal critique of the EO position. It doesn't have any bearing on Sola Scriptura.

3) I've identified your arguments as committing the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (and am still waiting for a rebuttal). I can demonstrate that my doctrines are drawn from Scriptural exegesis. The ball's in your court.
You said:
If the Gnostic doctrine is not the same as the Calvinist doctrine, surely you should be able to explain how they are different.

Gosh, let's see. Oh, I know - one's Trinitarian and Christian, the other isn't. One's drawn from Scriptural exegesis, the other isn't.
From your own post:
their own selves (who are saved by nature)

Nope, saved by the grace of God. Fail #1.


Faith, then, is no longer the direct result of free choice, if it is a natural advantage.

Define "direct", "result", "free", and "choice".
Besides, Calvinism teaches that the regenerate man DOES freely choose - he chooses God b/c his nature has been changed and he's been given a new heart. Before that, he always freely chooses death and sin, b/c his nature is dead in sin and he hates God, his Enemy.
Fail #2.


Ye are originally immortal

Yet Calvinism teaches we are born dead in sin, and w/o God's intervention we will go to Hell forever.
Fail #3.


he also, similarly with Basilides, supposes a class saved by nature

It's so funny how you want to equate the Trinitarian God of the Bible with the Gnostic "nature". Why would you do that?
Fail #4.


In this way also they make a twofold distinction among souls, as to their property of good and evil

And yet the Bible teaches, and Calvinism of course affirms, that "there is no one good, no, not one." Fail #5.
(BTW, why are you citing the heretic Tertullian?)


For this reason it is that they neither regard works as necessary for themselves, nor do they observe any of the calls of duty, eluding even the necessity of martyrdom on any pretence which may suit their pleasure.

1) Calvinism teaches that God works thru means. Fail #6.
2) Calvinism teaches that man is responsible and called to "be holy as your Father in Heaven is holy". I am obligated to follow the entire law of God. Fail #7.


a rigidly deterministic scheme

Perhaps you're confusing Calvinism with HyperCalvinism? I'm pretty sure you've been corrected on that before, but you seem not to be a big fan of taking correction. Fail #8.
Now that, friends, is a lot of fail.


4) Irenaeus says They have also other modes of honouring these images... Seems like he's not a big fan of ANY honoring of images. I can certainly see where he's coming from - why not honor Christ? If you say "we already do", are you denying you could do so more? Or have you honored Him enough already? Let someone else get their snout in the trough, as it were.

Mitch Pacwa and Luther's Canon

In looking over Mitch Pacwa's upcoming Reformation video series, I came across this page from Ignatius Productions. It's a set of audio clips from Pacwa on the Reformation. Here's a short mp3 clip from Pacwa on Luther removing books from the Bible. This snippet is part of a ten minute clip by Pacwa specifically on Luther (the clip is no longer available).

Here are Pacwa's assertions:

1. For two years, Luther tried to "kick out" the book of Revelation from the New Testament.

2. In the first edition of his New Testament translation, excluded Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation

3. Luther removed these books because they contradicted the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
It is a simple historical fact that Luther’s translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521, and released a finished version in 1522. Luther therefore never tried to "kick out" books from the Bible. I'm not sure why Pacwa mentioned an alleged "two year" struggle with the book of Revelation. I'm not aware of any historical discussion in the year 1524 from Luther (or the years in between) pertinent to taking Revelation out of the his translation.

Pacwa appears to be confused by Luther's prefaces, which I've covered here. It's often the case that Roman Catholics equate Luther's questioning of the canonictiy of certain books with taking books out of his published bible. For instance, Jimmy Akin used to say Luther "cut books out of the Bible." This is a typical error made by Roman Catholics.

As to the list of books Pacwa asserts Luther tried to kick out, I know of no evidence that Luther ever had any negative criticism inclining him to "kick out" 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. I checked Luther's original prefaces from 1522, and there's not even a hint of questioning these three books. In facts, of 2 & 3 John Luther stated, "The other two Epistles are not epistles of doctrine, but examples of love and faith, and have, besides, a true apostolic spirit" [Works of Martin Luther vol. 6 (Philadelphia Edition), p.476].

On the other hand, the person that did question the authenticity of these three books was Cardinal Cajetan, one of the leading Roman Catholic scholars of Luther's day. Will this fact make it into Pacwa's Reformation video series? I doubt it.

As to Luther removing books because they contradict justification by faith alone, the only book I'm aware of that would come close to Pacwa's description is the book of James. Luther's questioning of Jude primarily has to do with its status in Church history, and it’s internal evidence as to its apostolicity. As to Revelation and Hebrews, his reasoning was similar. Luther never explicitly adds Revelation to his list of “chief books.” However, his tone of writing in the 1530-revised preface contains only a remnant of the doubt as to its canonicity.With Hebrews, Luther’s opinion fluctuated throughout his career.

Pacwa's got a few years to straighten out his facts. So far, I've found him using the following questionable or erroneous facts:

Luther killed someone in duel

Roman Catholics responding nicely to Luther were made saints

Luther plagiarized an early German Bible, simply adding what he wanted to

Luther tried to kick books out of the Bible

Luther tried kick three books out of the Bible he thought were biblical.

Luther rejected James, Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John because they contradict justification by faith alone. The truth is, Luther's opinion of James is the closest that comes to Pacwa's description.

The Balance of Apologetics and Agape Love

My friend, Mark, in the combox of my previous article on "Khoda or Allah??" (Another Mistake by Ergun Caner) asked about "The Camel Method" of Evangelizing Muslims, which is referenced in a NY times article about it and Ergun Caner.

UPDATE: Please see the updated information in the comboxes on the Camel Method. Because of this new information to me; especially the letter from Phil Parshall, and my need to read the Camel Method again; I will refrain at this time from speaking about the Camel Method and take the references to it out; but I will leave my analysis and critique of the C-5/Insiders Movement/"Common Ground" methods. I confess I was speaking out of my years of conflict/tension and confrontation with fellow missionary types on the C-5 level and the emotional tension that that caused. I apologize for including the Camel Method in with the clearly wrong C-5 level methods. But I do need to study that book again. I want to thank Erwin for coming here and commenting.

Dr. Ergun Caner and Dr. James White are right that certain kinds of missionary methods that put methodology over the Scriptures and the power of God to change people, can be deceptive to Muslims. Especially if we are not careful in our communication and exercise discernment and wisdom in how we use methodologies. For example, the C-5/ Insiders Movement / “Common Ground” teaching methods appear to affirm the Qur’an as an inspired book; and suggest that Muhammad was a true prophet from God. There is a lot of post-modern hermeneutics and American pragmatism and “emerging church” / seeker-sensitive type of philosophy and ideas that are the roots of these methods that put the methods over the power of God’s word (Hebrews 4:12), the power of the gospel (Romans 1:16), and it seems that the people who use these methods are not trusting the power of the Holy Spirit to blow where He wants and change people. (John 3:8)

The problem with these methods are that if they are actually opening up the Qur’an and studying it as if you are treating it as a Muslim would, as, “this is what God says”; it is treating it like an authoritative, “God-breathed” book – this is deceptive because the Muslim thinks you are affirming everything in it as inspired. I have had former Muslims tell me this when I quoted a verse from the Qur'an to make a point. In their contexts, you would have to respect the Qur’an, wash your hands, and put it on a stand with Muslims in order to actually “get into it” deeply with serious Muslims. If you don't say anything about the parts of it that are wrong, we can give the wrong impression to our Muslim friend.

The C-5 level methods of calling oneself a “Muslim” is deceptive also, especially without qualification and explanation that we actually believe in Christian submission to God. They can see through that game. The word “Muslim” means “one who has surrendered” or “one who submits”. (but it is understood in an Islamic context of “submission to Allah, and following the example of the prophet Muhammad, and following the Qur’an and the Sunna in the Hadith, and other Islamic sources, etc.) The concept of submission can be explained to Muslims in a biblical way, especially if you have a context of hospitality and love, where you can explain that the Bible speaks of submission to God’s will and we also believe in submission, that repentance and faith in Christ is true submission to God. (Mark 1:15; Luke 22:42; Romans 12:1-2; Romans 6:11-14) Muslims need to understand that we believe in repentance and that Jesus demands repentance. (Luke 13:1-5; Acts 3:19; Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8; Acts 17:30-31; Acts 26:20; Revelation 3:19) Muslims think that Christianity is "easy believe-ism", (No repentance from sin and no Lordship of Christ)- “that you just get fire insurance from hell, and live like the devil.” Many Muslims, in 26 years (10 in witnessing to Arabs, and the last 16 in witnessing to Iranians) have said to me, “We know this is true, that you get forgiveness and live like the devil, because we see the results in your sensual, sex-saturated, materialistic, selfish, rebellious, individualistic western cultures.”

Basically, there are some things in the Qur'an that are true, because they actually came from the Christians and the Bible. The things that are true in the Qur’an came from previous revelation. The problem is that Muhammad took information from the Bible and changed some of the details and most of the meaning and significance of most of the stories that the Qur’an uses from the Bible. The Bible had not been translated into Arabic yet; and the early church had left their first love (Revelation 2:4-5) and allowed the Mary cult of statues and icons and praying to her as mediator; and the church at the time of Muhammad had fallen into a works/rituals/externalist/sacerdotal controlled religion to overshadow salvation by grace alone and justification by faith alone. Muhammad and the Arabs could not see Christ, because of all the false doctrines and practices that existed at the time. Furthermore, the “Christians” closest to Arabia were mixtures of heretics and Gnostics and nominal Christians.

The biggest problem with contextualization methods like the C-5 / Insiders / Common Ground teaching is that it appears/gives the impression that it is treating the Qur'an as an inspired book. Without biblical discipleship teaching, these large numbers that people are claiming is happening in some parts of the Muslim world through these methods, will naturally create lots of syncretism and heresies. And it already has. They don't seem to be willing to teach on the Trinity or the hypostatic union/2 natures of Christ. It also angers the Muslim authorities when they find out what is going on. They know it is heresy and syncretism of mixing the two religions into something that is neither one. It gives the Muslims that impression, when you open it up and look to it for study; and if one takes too long to actually get to the Injeel (NT); then many Muslims have later said, “You did not tell us that at the beginning; you deceived us!” This has created even more anger.

Dr. White’s saying is true: “Whatever you win them with, that is what you win them to.” And his saying, "Theology matters" is true also.

The “Insider’s Movement” (C-5 level contextualization) is definitely deceptive; and suggests Muhammad may have had the NT gift of prophesy (! Can you believe this?); and it suggests and implies that the Qur’an is an inspired book. They also encourage Muslims who come to Christ to keep doing all the Islamic rituals and keep on going to the Mosque. This does not teach them salvation by Grace alone, justification by faith alone, nor the biblical doctrines of what church (ekklesia) is. They will quickly fall into the Galatian heresy of legalism and mixing works and rituals in order to “earn points with Allah”. These methods do not teach a clear repentance from the false system of works and to the Tri-une God of the Bible. Jesus said, “unless you believe that “I am”, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24) They reinterpret everything that does not agree with the NT.

These kinds of methods can be deceptive, because the missionary of this method seems to be actually opening the Qur’an on certain verses, and is not saying he disagrees with the rest of the Qur’an; he is trying to focus only on some good "bridges" in the Qur’an. They don't seem to call for repentance from the false religious system of Islam and its "faith +works" righteousness.

Generally, I agree with the principle of focusing on Jesus Christ and His character and His word in the NT and avoiding direct attacks against Muhammad. Muslims are eastern people; they will understand when you focus on Jesus and that He and His rasoolan (apostles) were the final revelation. (John 17:8; John 16:12-13; Jude 3, Hebrews 1:1-3; Ephesians 2:20; Revelation 22:18 (by principle).

When Muslims read that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey and was meek and gentle and endowed with Salvation; (Matthew 21:1-10); they immediately get the contrast with Muhammad, who rode in a horse and sword to conquer. They understand this without you having to directly point it out. I have seen this many times over the years.

Jesus was also eastern, and the Bible is an eastern book. He asked questions and many times, especially at the beginning, He spoke indirectly to the Monotheistic and zealous Jews in their context. (Later, Matthew 23 is certainly very direct.) When Jesus asked, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” (Mark 10:18), Jesus was not denying He is God, He is actually saying that He is God, because He is good, and if people recognize Him as good; then they should recognize Him as God. It was an eastern method of indirect communication. Zealous and Monotheistic Muslims can be approached in the same way to get them thinking. That is their culture. The parables of Jesus are like this. They teach a powerful truth in an indirect way in stories and illustrations. When Jesus said, “The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”, the Pharisees and scribes understood that He was claiming to be God. (Mark 2:1-12)

Having said that, I do think that the questions that David Garrison asks in the NY times article are good questions to ask Muslims. Let’s be balanced and wise and think.

I don’t see a problem with asking Muslims these questions and then getting into the Injeel (the NT), especially Luke and Matthew with them.
He [Garrison] explained that after reading the sura in which Maryam, or Mary, gives birth to Isa, a missionary might ask a Muslim, “Do you know of any other prophets born of a virgin?”
And, Dr. Garrison continued: “It says in that passage that Isa would be able to cleanse the leper, even raise the dead. At that point in the conversation with Muslims, we say, ‘Isn’t it interesting that Isa had this tremendous power that God gave to him? Even death was under his power.’
“Then you ask the question, ‘Is there any other prophet that had this kind of power?’ And in Islam, there isn’t.”

And I think that we can use some truths that are mentioned in the Qur’an about Jesus and the books before the Qur’an as starting points with Muslims. We should know that the Qur’an says these things and use them in witnessing, mentioning them, but opening up the Injeel with them. The Injeel, Islam teaches, is the revelation that was given to Jesus by Allah. Popularly understood, Muslims believe it is “the book of Jesus” and some Muslims assume that Jesus wrote it. For Christians, it is whole gospel message, summarized in I Corinthians 15:1-9, but includes all of the whole NT message; Injeel is the Arabic word for “Gospel”, which is a corrupted form of the Greek word, the shorter version, “Euangel”; from “euangellion” (The Gospel; good news). It assumes our sinfulness and condition of being under the just wrath of God (John 3:36; Romans 1:18; Ephesians 2:1-3), which is bad news. (Mark 9:48; Matthew 5:21-30)

I do think that these below are good and truthful concepts that are in the Qur’an that we can use as starting points in conversation with Muslims and getting into the Gospels with Muslims: I am not affirming the Qur’an as an inspired book; but I am saying that some of the information that Muhammad got from the Christians was true. The problem is, it got distorted and corrupted and then Muhammad re-interpreted most everything he got from the Jews and Christians.

1. Isa (Jesus) was born of the virgin Mary. (Surah 3:45-48; 19:19-21) This is why the Jesus film was done from the Gospel according to Luke, and why it is good to start with Luke or Matthew with Muslims. They need to read the Gospels first to get the whole birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Holy Spirit uses His word. John 3:8; I Peter 1:23-25.
2. Jesus is called Al Masih many times in the Qur’an. (The Messiah)
3. Jesus was sinless. (Surah 19:19)
4. Jesus is the Son of Mary. (many times)
5. Jesus did miracles. (Healed the lame and blind, and raised the dead.)
6. Jesus is called “the Kalimat’allah” (Qur’an 4:171; “The word of God”. Kalimeh کلمه is equivalent to “logos” in John 1:1; 1:14 and I John 1:1; Revelation 19:13.) Muhammad got this information from heretical, and nominal Christians and Gnostic gospels that were mixed in with a growing cult of Mary encircling Arabia (N. Arabia, Jordan, Yemen) and Palestine/Lebanon/Syria. Islam denies that “Kalimat’allah” means the Deity of Christ in the way that John 1:1, 14 teaches, but it can be a useful phrase to use in discussing Jesus with Muslims.
7. Jesus is called “a Spirit from God” - Qur’an Surah 4:171; The concept that Jesus is a “spirit from Allah” is an important one to use to show that His divine nature is His Spirit and soul inside of Him; and He, as "spirit" (God is Spirit, John 4:24) was incarnated – He became flesh and entered into time and creation. I use Luke 1:34-35 and Hebrews 10:5 with Muslims, “A body, you have prepared for Me”, Jesus said.
8. The problem with this verse (4:171) in the Qur’an is that same verse also denies His Deity and denies the Trinity. “Say not three” -can be interpreted from a Christian point of view that we do not believe in three gods, which is what Muslims think – tri-theism. Unfortunately, Muhammad did not understand that the word Trinity is from 2 Latin words, "Trinitas – Unitas" (Theophilus of Antioch, around 180 AD, and Tertullian, around 200 AD). The “Unitas” (one, oneness, unity; see the Spanish: “Uno” – this emphasis is lost and we have to work extra hard to help Muslims understand that we do not worship three gods and that “Son of God” does not mean marriage and sex and that the Roman Catholic usage of “Mother of God” is wrong; along with the statues of Mary and prayers to Mary. ) Also, I always take the opportunity to say to Muslims that that is what the Mormons have taught in the past – that God has a body, was once a man, and had sexual relations with Mary and pro-created Jesus. I take that opportunity to call Mormonism a cult and a non-Christian religion and the Muslims usually say, “Oh, I did not know that; I though you are all Christians.”
9. The Qur’an affirms the books revealed before it as the Word of God. (Surah 2:136; 29:46; 5:46-48; 5:68)
10. The Qur’an encourages the Christians “to judge by that which Allah has revealed therein”, in the Injeel. (The Gospel) ( Surah 5:47). Dr. White uses this verse in his debates with Muslims, and missionaries have been using this verse in the same way for decades, even centuries, in order to show that the Bible at the time of Muhammad was not corrupted. So, it is not wrong to use some verses from the Qur’an, depending on what it is and how it is used.
11. One of the most powerful verses in the Qur’an to know when dealing with Muslims; “If you are in doubt about what we are revealing to you, go and ask the people of the book.” (Surah 10:94) This, along with 5:47 and other verses, show that the Bible has not been corrupted.
12. There is some kind of idea in the text of the Qur’an of a substitutionary sacrifice for sin, even though Islamic interpretation denies this. – “We have ransomed you with a mighty sacrifice.” Qur’an 37:107 See my previous article.
13. The Qur’an also affirms that Jesus’ disciples were “full of integrity”, “helpers of Allah” and honest. (Surah 3:52; 61:14) So, I believe we can use this to teach that Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul did not corrupt the gospel. (Although Muslims will reject Paul as an “apostle”; we have to show them that he was a true apostle.)
14. The Qur’an also says, “no one can change the words of God” (Surah 6:34; 6:116; 10:65; 18:27). So a good question to ask Muslims, when they say that the previous Scriptures have been corrupted, is, “How can puny, sinful man, change the eternal word of God?”

Not everyone can be a formal debater with Muslims like Dr. James White. His work in NT studies and theology is excellent. His book, The King James Only Controversy and NT textual materials are excellent, and are honest with the few textual variants that do exist; and this demonstrates that 99 % of the text we have today is the same as what was revealed originally to the prophets and apostles. No textual variant affects any major doctrine. We can be honest with our Bible manuscripts and how they came down to us in history. His material on affirming the text of the NT is crucial and some of the best, in dealing with Muslim apologists and scholars who use liberals and skeptics to attack the Bible; people like Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Robert Price (debate coming up; see www.aomin.org), and atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, and popular liberals like John Shelby Spong and Barry Lynn; and the popular level NPR shows, Bill Maher, and the Comedy Central Shows such as “The Daily Show”, and “The Colbert Report” types of attacks against the Bible.

Everyone will not be a skilled apologetics debater like Dr. White, but all Christians are to witness, and can be equipped and reach out to Muslims with respect and friendship and hospitality. Doctrinal folks like me need to be balanced. I like to call my approach, “The Balance of Apologetics and Agape”. (Jude, verse 3 along with verses 20- 23; I Peter 3:15) We must do both; be equipped in all the apologetic issues that come up with Muslims, but love and respect them as people and learn some of their culture in order to not bring unnecessary stumbling blocks in addition to the necessary stumbling block of the cross and the gospel. Be willing to meet Muslims and accept their hospitality when they invite you to their home; and have a strong cup of Turkish coffee with them; or Iranian tea; or Shish Kebab and Hummus and Pita bread with an Arab. Love them as people created in the image of God. Be the friend of sinners and tax collectors as Jesus did. (Matthew 9:9-13; Luke 5:27-32; Luke 15)If you start with hospitality (eating a meal in their home, and inviting them to your home), love and respect, you can most always create a context where you can open up the New Testament Scriptures with them.

The best chapter of Ergun and Emir Caner’s book, Unveiling Islam, is chapter 16, where they discuss reaching out to Muslims with hospitality and love and respect and cultural issues; and using some key verses from the Qur’an to know.

I also agree with Dr. Caner's point in the NY Times article that George Harrison meant “Hare Krishna” by “My Sweet Lord”, as he clearly praises and calls upon “Hare Krishna” at the end of his song. George Harrison was a Hindu. Hinduism is a false religion; paganism; polytheism. Anyone who knows George Harrison and the Beatles history, understands this.

But, I disagree with Dr. Caner when he says we cannot use the word “Allah” for the God of the Bible, for Arabs and Arabic speakers as my previous article shows.

See Again, here. Doctrinally, Allah of Islam is not the God of the Bible, but linguistically, it is the best word in Arabic to communicate “the one true creator, Sovereign God” and equivalent to Elohim in the OT and Theos in the NT for Arabic speakers.

Irony in Patristics

I haven't read a ton of patristic writing, I freely admit.  About 200+ pages starting from page 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and taking notes the whole way, so far.
But I can apply logical argumentation to common Eastern Orthodox argumentation in regard to the way they view patristic support for their position, and thus perform an internal critique of Eastern Orthodoxy.  Now, given that the Scriptures are the way they indeed are, it makes very little difference to me whether the entirety of those who identify themselves as "The Church®" over the course of history stand in opposition to what the Scripture teaches - "Let God be true and every man a liar." 

But of course, anyone who's familiar with patristic writings to a more than surface-level extent will know that the early church situation is not nearly that simple.  The questions of who was in schism from whom, who agreed with whom, who contradicted whom, who contradicted himself, who properly represented the actual position of most of the people in the church at his time, etc, are fundamental questions, and far too often our EO and RC friends simply assume that they are unimportant, assume that their church is The One True Church® and thus the default position, and any dissenter from such necessarily has all the burden of proof to defend his dissent. 
Let's take a look, for a case study, at DavidW's blog in which he likens Calvinism to Gnosticism.  I dropped by and dropped an Irenaeus quote from Jason Engwer:

"They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Against Heresies, 1:25:6) It seems likely that Irenaeus was part of the ante-Nicene consensus against the veneration of images. (source)

DavidW has responded, I replied, and DavidW once more.  I encourage you to read what he said, and here I relate my own rebuttal.

approach Orthodoxy on its own terms, free of such confutation.

Do you venerate images?  Bow down to them? 
What substantial differences can you name between EO practice and RC practice, besides that they use statues and you don't?

the book explores the supposedly iconoclastic references that Protestants cherry-pick from the Church Fathers

The existence of which is evidence in support of my position.  I don't think the early church writers had a consistent consensual position, remember?  I judge ALL THINGS by Scripture.

it's a case of looking at the Fathers on their own terms and in their fulness, as you are unwilling to do.

Hahaha, that makes me laugh, that you who ignore early church writers who dissent want to "look at the Fathers on their own terms".  Whatever, man.

3. How do they know Epiphanius' letter is a forgery?
Answers.

The very existence of ppl who'd like to forge such a letter shows that there did exist such an iconoclastic strain of tradition.  Which, again, is my position.

The iconoclasts of the 8th century picked up their iconoclasm from the Muslims.

Even Muslims get stuff right, you know.  I sorta picked mine up from the OT Jews.

You ASSERT that Tertullian doesn't represent early opinion. Prove it.
Professor Jeffrey Macdonald, a professor of early Christian history

OK, I listened to it, thank you. 
Macdonald:  "He's not technically a Church Father" - begging the very question at hand.  Who decided that?  Why isn't whoever decided that himself in schism, himself unreliable with respect to what is authoritative and normative in church history?
"He wrote a lot" - yup.  And yet you judge him wrong on many counts.  How is that any diff than what I do with what you claim about CFs that you DO agree with?  Why do you get to disagree with an early church writer and I don't?
"He did not remain in the Orthodox Church" - so he schismed?  So he was Protestant before there were Protestants? 
"Gnostics wanted Christians to live under extra rules" - that's very interesting. You mean like necessitating works like baptism on top of faith for salvation from sin?
"most of the CFs tried to work thru Greek philosophy, that meant to Tatian's crew that they were apostatising" - doesn't sound like there's a ton of unity and agreement in the early church, now was there?  There sure seems to be a big diff in the way you EOx talk to Protestants and the way you talk to each other.  Kinda like how Yasser Arafat would say "Peace, peace" in English to the Western goober politicians, then go say "War, war" in Arabic to his own ppl (though obviously less violently).
"Tertullian is not reflecting the reality of early Christianity, he's reflecting a particular position" - What a dumb thing to say!  Of COURSE he was reflecting a particular position.  EVERY writer "reflects a particular position".  Sheesh.

Now, around minute 48-49, Macdonald has a very interesting extended quotation:

"The church has a tradition that the married women did this, and the girls, I guess, they didn't wear veils.  So he makes the statement:  'Whatever favors the opposition to truth is heresy, even if it's ancient custom'.  And he says that in a number of places where he's contrasting the tradition of the church, he rejects the tradition of the church, in favor of the prophecies of the women.  And it stuck in my mind b/c Cyprian, who comes after him in Carthage, makes almost the same statements; for Cyprian, to him he's not a Montanist, but he always refers, Tertullian for him is the only church father b/c he wrote in Latin, and he refers to Tertullian as 'a master', but he makes that statement in regard to the rebaptism, b/c the church was not rebaptising people from heretical groups but was receiving them by chrismation and Cyprian says 'well, ancient custom is just ancient error', you know, so it's this ultimately, the church disagreed with Cyprian on that and have the canons and everything, but this attitude of rejection of the church tradition.  And we will say that OK, not everything that every early Christian ever did is necessarily Gospel, but the consensus of the church and the tradition of the church's practice is part of what Irenaeus is referring to, when he says 'What's to separate us from the Gnostics, who make up their errors?  Each Gnostic is just making stuff up.  That our teachings go back and are continuous back to Christ' and that's what distinguishes the church from a heretical group.  For Tertullian and later Cyprian, they both say 'no, that the church's practice is no indication of what is true,' particularly Tertullian.  And of course, he's coming at it from the idea that these Montanist teachers were in fact revelations of the Holy Spirit."

There is a lot to catch there, but notice how Macdonald says Saint Cyprian treated Tertullian, a guy who was headed to heresy according to the EOC.
Notice how Macdonald even characterises Cyprian's view that Tertullian was the only church father.
Notice how these two early witnesses seem to be treating "church tradition" just like I do - easily prone to error, and in the case of the doctrine under dispute, just a mistaken tradition that got accepted by enough people, handed down enough, and eventually crystallised into unshakable "Sacred Tradition".  And yet these two men disparage it as merely "ancient error".  So what is the EO antidote to this problem?  More appeals to more so-called Sacred Tradition?  As if that's not the very problem at hand?  Why not appeal to what God has said?  Oh no, they've got more important things!  Like preserving their Sola Ecclesia presuppositions, their pet authority. 

Questioner - "It's not like he did a flipflop." 

"That's not surprising.  Alot of his writings, when he's writing against the church he's also contradicting his own early writings, when he was in the church...Tertullian sort of took exception with the decision of the Roman church and ultimately decided, even in his pre-Montanist writings, you start seeing, not the earliest ones, but the period about 204 on, he starts adopting Montanist ideas and then 207 he leaves..."

So...Tertullian takes exception to what a bishop (the one in Rome) defined.  And yet 1800 years later, the Reformed are roundly criticised for following his example.  (Macdonald clarifies that this dissent by Tertullian took place in 197, BTW.)
And I have said in the past that a strong case can be made that church fathers contradict themselves in their own writings over the course of time.  Of course, I catch flak for that kind of statement from RCs and EOdox, but I bet Macdonald won't catch any.  Oh no, b/c he's one of the boys. 

DavidW continues:

Historians don't have polling data; we work with what we have

And then you assume that's what the early church believed.  So you DON'T have any polling data, yet you take ~50 writers who wrote variegated things on a wide variety of topics with some disagreement between them and frequent disagreement between writings from any one of them over the course of his life, and from THAT you decide what the early church believed?  No, you decide after the fact. That's always been my point.  You, the modern EOC, decide which views out of the sparse info that you have from the past you're going to follow.  Sola Ecclesia.
Pardon me, but I don't want to follow such circular self-referential reasoning, such begging of the very question at hand.  I follow what God has most surely said - the Scripture. 

Okay: I say that aliens came to earth, enslaved all people, and set up a kingdom that was only finally overthrown in the 6th century by St. Justinian the Emperor. It's okay, though, lack of documentary evidence doesn't mean it's not true

You're exactly right - that doesn't mean it's not true.  ANYthing could conceivably be true; that's the problem of induction at work (since you mentioned logic).  You have faith on the modern EOC's interp of archaeology and historical data, despite when we show you that your view of history is flawed. You are a humanist at the core.  I have faith in God's Holy Word. 

Right -- he was a heretic. He did become a Montanist, you know?

Yes, I know that, and you're begging the question to claim that joining a Montanist sect means that he was necessarily wrong or out of step with the church.  Prove that most ppl weren't in fact part of the Montanists.  Polling data. 

Irenaeus is not talking about my position because my position is the same as Irenaeus' and I sincerely doubt that Irenaeus is calling his own position Gnostic.

Wow.  That was a naked assertion of epic proportion.  How about you actually deal with what he said?

Did Luther Plagiarize His Translation of the Bible?

In looking over Mitch Pacwa's upcoming Reformation video series, I came across this page from Ignatius Productions. It's a set of audio clips from Pacwa on the Reformation. Here's a two minute Pacwa mp3 snippet on Luther adding the word "alone" to Romans 3. I've dealt with the "alone" charge here and here, so there's no reason to reinvent the wheel.

Pacwa says when Luther translated the Bible, he was simply using an already existing German translation of the Bible which he worked with and altered. One can't help then but conclude according to Pacwa, Luther didn't really translate the Bible, but rather revised a pre-existing translation. Attaching this to Luther's rendering of Romans 3:28, Pacwa basically indicts Luther of simply putting a word in an already existing translation. It was an alteration of Romans 3, not a translation.

There is indeed some interesting facts here. Philip Schaff addresses this controversy. After discussing pre-Reformation German Translations of the Bible, Schaff states:

Luther could not be ignorant of this mediaeval version. He made judicious use of it, as he did also of old German and Latin hymns. Without such aid he could hardly have finished his New Testament in the short space of three months.(8) But this fact does not diminish his merit in the least; for his version was made from the original Hebrew and Greek, and was so far superior in every respect that the older version entirely disappeared. It is to all intents a new work.

(8) Luther's use of the older German version was formerly ignored or denied, but has been proved by Professor Krafft of Bonn (1883). He adds, however, very justly (l.c. p. 19): "Es gereicht Luther zum grössten Verdienst, dass er auf den griechischen Grundtext zurückgegangen, den deutschen Wortschatz zunächst im N. T. wesentlich berichtigt, dann aber auch mit seiner Genialität bedeutend vermehrt hat."

So what's going on here? Both Pacwa and Schaff make the same point, but slightly spun different ways. For Pacwa, Luther simply altered an already existing translation. For Schaff, Luther did use the original Greek and Hebrew, but did use the older translation in order to finish his translation quicker.

This questioned was tackled head on by Johann Michael Reu, who was one of the foremost experts on the production of Luther's Bible. In his book Thirty Five Years of Luther Research. He explains it was actually a Lutheran who made the first helpful evaluation of pre-Reformation Bibles, W. Walther. From this study, Krafft contended that Luther had indeed used an earlier Bible as a translation source. This tidbit was then picked up by others, like Vedder, and expressed as:

"This version was certainly in the possession of Luther, and was as certainly used by him in the preparation of his version. This fact, once entirely unsuspected, and then hotly denied, has been proved to a demonstration by the "deadly parallel." It appears from a verse-by verse comparison that this old German Bible was in fact so industriously used by Luther, that the only accurate description of Luther's version is to call it a careful revision of the older text. Just as the English Bible is the result of successive revisions, from the days of Wiclif to our own, so that our text has a demonstrable historic continuity, so the German Bible is the product of revision. This is not to detract in the least from the glory of Luther or to diminish the value of his version—it is merely to define with accuracy what he accomplished, and to distinguish his real achievement from the semi-legendary tales of Lutheran literature."

"It would be difficult in any case to believe that a complete translation of the entire New Testament could have been made by a man of Luther's limited attainment in Greek, and with the imperfect apparatus that he possessed in the short space of ten weeks. . . . Any minister to-day who has had a Greek course of a college and seminary is a far better scholar than Luther. Let such a man, if he thinks Luther's achievement possible, attempt the accurate translation of a single chapter of the New Testament—such a translation as he would be willing to print under his own name—and multiply the time consumed by the 260 chapters. He will be speedily convinced that the feat attributed to Luther is an impossible one."[source]

Reu counters:

"Walther shows how just in all those places, where the use of the mediaeval Bible through Luther must have shown itself, granted that Luther used it at all,—for example, in difficult passages,—that just there entirely different translations are to be found, different not only as to the words used, but also as to the method of translation in respect to style as well as to syntax. Parallels only show themselves there where the renderings—especially in the historical books—might, because of their nature, be alike, without being copied. If Luther really was acquainted with the Bible of the Middle Ages, he did not use it. During the first phase of his translation work, and the one that gave the work its characteristics, he was not acquainted with it, as we can state with a reasonable degree of definiteness. Only later he became acquainted with it, and then, as we can see now, in his revisions and corrections he occasionally supplanted his own word with one from it."

"And just this we pronounce childish argumentation [Vedder]. We could call attention to the fact that R. P. Olivetan completed his French translation of the entire Bible, printed 1536, in one year; that Luther finished his writing against Sylvester Prierias, that in Walch's edition fills 80 columns, in two days; that Luther was in fact a linguistic genius; that an educated man in the thirties acquires a dead language much faster and more thoroughly than a youth from 16 to 20, and this all the more, the dearer and more valuable, yes, even decisive for his whole life, the contents of a book written in that language is to him; that Luther since 1519 had been a careful reader of Homer, writing many marginal notes into the copy which Melanchthon had presented to him (this copy is extant at London, cf. Pr. Smith, Notes from English libraries, Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 32, pp. 111-115; compare also: O. G. Schmidt, Luther's Bekanntschaft mit den alten Klassikern, 1883). We also could emphasize the important fact that Luther for more than ten years was well versed in the contents of the New Testament through the Vulgata. But aside from this we would like to ask Vedder whether he has forgotten that Luther, as can be proved, since 1516 used the Greek original in the preparation of his lectures, and certainly not seldom also when he prepared his sermons, and that it more and more became the foundation for his whole theological work; that he, before his stay at the Wartburg, had treated the Epistle to the Romans, Hebrews, Galatians, perhaps also the Epistle to Titus and the first to the Corinthians in lectures, the Epistle to the Galatians beside this also in a voluminous commentary; in short, that Luther lived and moved in the New Testament, and, finally, that the printing of his translation had not begun for two months after his return from the Wartburg, and that it was not completed before six months had passed? During this time he, together with Melanchthon and other occasional helpers, once more revised the whole in a most painstaking manner."

Does Reu set the record straight? I'd have to see what analysis has been done since Reu. Reu does admit Luther used it, but not to the extent expressed by Vedder and Krafft.

Another mistake by Ergun Caner

خدا (Khoda) or الله (Allah) ??

Ergun Caner and Emir Caner’s Unveiling Islam, in the chapter on Allah (chapter 6 – “Allah: Names of Terror and Names of Glory” pp. 102-119, Kregel Publishers, 1st edition 2002), on page 106 they wrote:

“Many Arabic speaking Christians use the Persian term khudu for God, rather than cause confusion by calling Allah by the name God.”

This is wrong, Arabic speaking Christians do not use the Farsi/Persian word for God, “Khoda”. (or “Khuda”)

See the Wikipedia article on Khoda/Khuda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khuda

Ergun Caner, also said in an interview documented below:

“Muslims who become Christians who speak Arabic, they don't even use the word Allah. When they speak of God, they call him 'Khoda,' a Persian word, because we are so terrified of confusing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with Allah, the false god that we served as Muslims.”

See the documentation below at Dr. White’s website:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3801

This is just not true, Arabs or Arabic speaking former Muslims, who become Christians, have no problem with the word “Allah” for Elohim in OT and Theos in the NT. (There may be individual exceptions to this; but generally; they still love their own language.) In fact the Bible in Arabic has translated Elohim in the OT and Theos in the NT as “Allah”. The word means “The God”, meaning, the one true creator, Sovereign, Almighty, Invisible God who is eternal. The word is related to the Aramaic and Hebrew words El, Eloha, alaha, etc. In refuting the controversial "Moon-god" theory of Allah, some excellent scholarship has been done in showing that the Arabic word Allah came from Aramaic and the Peshitta (Syriac) translation of the Bible. (see -
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/alaha.html and
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Sources/alaha2.html

The El, Elohim, Eloha, alaha, Allah word-group denotes Power, Sovereignty, and Monotheism; these are the emphases of this word. Now, I agree with the Caners that the doctrine of who Allah is in Islam is wrong, incomplete, and not the God of the Bible, because Allah is defined as “not Trinitarian”, and cannot have within the Trinity ( Latin: Tri-Unitas, "three in one"), an eternal, Spiritual Father and Son relationship. (see Surah 112 of the Qur’an) When Christians speak of The Father and the Son, we are referring to a spiritual relationship from all eternity, not physical. Muslims understand the word "Father" and "Son" to automatically mean that there was a mother and a physical, sexual relationship. (Qur'an 6:101/102) The Roman Catholics and Orthodox churches who call Mary, "The Mother of the God" and pray to her and have statues of her in worship contexts also confirm this misunderstanding in their minds. Jesus had no human father. Mary, His mother, was a virgin. Muslims also believe this. This is why giving a Muslim the gospels of Matthew and Luke are a good place to start, because they believe in the virgin birth of Al Masih. (Qur'an, Surah 19:19-21; 3:45-48) Luke 1:34-35 tells us "for this reason" He will be called the Son of God - because of the power of the Most High, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Christians always understood the Father and Son relationship within the Trinity as spiritual, not physical. Islam rejects the Deity of Christ, and for Muslims “Holy Spirit” means an angel; so the god of Islam is not the God of the Bible doctrinally. However, linguistically, the best word in Arabic for “the one true creator God who is eternal and Sovereign and invisible”; is Allah.

What Caner is confusing is the fact that Persians (Iranians) are not Arabs, and they have their own language which is not Arabic, and their language is called Farsi or Persian. The Persians, from the word “Pars” are a Jephethite (Europeans, Indians (India), Kurds and Iranians are from Japheth) people, not Semitic. Farsi in its pure form, is actually closer to Latin, German, and English, than Arabic. But after the Islamic conquests of Persia, today Farsi has 40 % Arabic words and phrases in it, and the Arabs changed their script to the Arabic script, although Iranians had to add letters because there are four sounds that Iranians have that Arabs do not have. ( P, G, jh, ch ) [The Arabs also have sounds/letters that the Iranians don't make either, so it works both ways.] The Arabs could not pronounce “p” when they attacked Persia (Iran) in Jihad and conquered and converted the Iranians to Islam. That is why “Pars” became “Fars” and “Parsi” became “Farsi”. It took about 3 centuries to fully subjugate them and change their Zoroastrian religion to Islam. Most of the Zoroastrians who kept their religion fled to India. Today Mumbai has more Zoroastrians than their original homeland, Iran (Persia).

Iranians don’t like the Arabs. Remember the Iran – Iraq war from 1980-1988? Deep historical and ethnic tensions were underlying that conflict. Sadaam Hussein and Ayatollah Khomeini exchanged curses at one another. Khomeini considered Sadaam not a true Muslim [which is true, Saddam Hussein was a very secular/Stalinist Muslim; the Baath party has that as its basic philosophy of mixing Stalinism and Islam] and eventually S. Hussein attacked Iran. Remember even centuries before that the Babylonian vs. Persia history? Iranians, Farsi speakers use “Khoda” for God, even Iranian Muslims use “Khoda” mostly because that is their language.

Iranians who have turned from Islam and repented of their sin and trusted Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord use the word “Khoda” and they do indeed have a problem with “Allah”, but Arabs do not have a problem with the word, “Allah”. Arabic speaking Christians use the word “Allah”.

Iranian former Muslims still use “Allah” in compound phrases like “Inshallah” ("If God wills"; which means “I hope so”, in every day speech) and “Al Hamdolellah” (Praise God) and “Allah O Akbar” (God is great).

Modern Turks also do not like the word “Allah” as much, either, as they have their own Turkish word for God, “Tanri”. The letter “i” should be without a dot over it, as it is a special letter sound in Turkish, but my key board won’t let me do that right now. (I don’t have Turkish software.) The Turks are not Arabs either. So, Iranians, Turks, Kurds, Arabs are mostly Muslims religiously, however, they each have their own ethnicity and language that is different from one another.

Many Iranians today are disillusioned with Islam. But, strong Iranian Muslims use "Allah", but usually they are those that are very, very strong. (Those that follow the philosophy and Twelver Shiite Islam of Ayatollah Khomeini (the founder of the Islamic Regime in Iran and who died in 1989) and the current Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i and President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad.) Most Iranians I know do not like the term "Allah" because it reminds them of the Arab invasions and force and Jihad under Khalif Omar, starting around 633-651 AD and beyond and the current Islamic Regime, started by Khomeini in 1979.

The Caners seem to be confusing their facts. What I think they mean is that Persian Iranian Muslims who come to Christ do not use Allah anymore at all, or very rarely, but they use Khoda. But even non-Christian (nominal Muslims) Persians prefer “Khoda” to “Allah” anyway. Even strong Iranian Muslims probably use “Khoda” more than Allah, just because it is their language. It is an ethnic, language issue.

“Allah” reminds Iranians of Omar, the Arabs, Jihad, force, and the harsh Khomeini regime. Some Iranians have a celebration where they make a puppet (effigy) of Omar and stick fire crackers in his mouth and blow him up and cut him up into pieces. They hate Omar because he attacked Iran in Islamic Jihad and forced the Iranian people to become Muslims. This is also part of the Shiite vs. Sunni hatred from the Iranian side. A Persian Shah by decree decided the Iranians would be Shiites (around the time of the Reformation in Europe) because they did not want to be like the Sunni Arabs and Ottoman Turks. But Southern Iraqi Shiites are ethnic Arabs.

In conclusion, in witnessing to Muslims, we have to start at a place that they can understand us. As Dr. White says in his debates with Muslims, “We both believe that God can communicate.” We both believe in Monotheism, that there is only one Sovereign, Invisible, Creator, eternal God. The Almighty has communicated through prophets, apostles, books; that is, revelation. Also, language is very important, Bible translation is necessary, and communicating the gospel into the heart languages of Muslims, so that they can understand what we are saying, is part of the missionary task. It is ok to use “Allah” for God for Arab Muslims, and other Muslims for whom that is the best word that communicates the one eternal creator, Sovereign God. Other Muslims, prefer their own language, and they prefer the word for God in their mother tongue. From there, we must give the Muslims the Gospel (Injeel) in their own language and encourage them to read the gospels first and let the Holy Spirit work on their hearts to see Al Masih (The Messiah) in the Scriptures.

Mitch Pacwa's Series on the Reformation, Continued

Here's another troubling factoid to go along with my recent post on Mitch Pacwa's upcoming Reformation video series. Pacwa was recently on Catholic Answers to discuss the project. He's looking to do a ten part series on the Reformation from a Roman Catholic perspective.

In this mp3 clip, Pacwa describes the hostile rhetoric and dialog that both sides used toward each other. He goes on to point out that there were Roman Catholic apologists that responded to Luther, minus the abusive rhetoric, and these men went on to become saints. They responded to Luther with respect, not vitriol. Pacwa says this contributed to making them saints.

As I work through the list of Romanist-apologist contemporaries of Luther in my own mind, this list of those not responding with abusive rhetoric, or even mildly abusive rhetoric is quite small. At this point, I can only think of Cajetan, but even then, I'd have to go back and check further. This Cajetan is on the list of saints, but isn't the one who interacted with Luther (I have to thank the Beggars All troll for catching that, I earlier thought the saint was Thomas de Vio Cajetan).

So exactly whom is Mitch Pacwa referring to? Saint Erasmus? Saint Cochlaeus? Saint Eck? Saint Wimpina? Saint Tetzel? Saint Prierias? Saint Alveld? Someone with more time on their hands can search the list of saints.

I'm having doubts as to how fair and balanced Pacwa's series is going to be.

Benedict XVI: There will be novelties and renewal in all the periods of history

Here's some excerpts from a recent from a recent Zenit article. Indeed, I agree with Ratzinger, there will be periods of renewal. I can think of a particular period of church history in which the church was unshackled from grave errors, unfortunately, the Roman sect chose to anathematize the Gospel, and thus cut herself off from the church.

I found the word "novelties" quite interesting as well. Romanistas argue sola fide was a novelty. Here, Ratzinger explains that there will indeed be positive novelties in church history. Why is sola fide not such? Because Rome says so.

The Holy Father centered on Bonaventure's teaching regarding history, which arose in response to a misunderstanding spreading among the Franciscans of his time.

Bonaventure's assertion, which the Pope explained, was that the works of Christ do not go backward or fail, but progress.

The Church is not immobile, Benedict XVI said, fixed in the past such that novelties can not arise in her.

"St. Bonaventure formulates explicitly the idea of progress, and this is a novelty in comparison with the Fathers of the Church and a great part of his contemporaries," the Pope explained. "For St. Bonaventure, Christ is no longer, as he was for the Fathers of the Church, the end, but the center of history; history does not end with Christ, but a new period begins."

One consequence of this regards the understanding of the Fathers of the Church.

"Prevailing up to that moment was the idea that the Fathers of the Church were at the absolute summit of theology, all the following generations could only be their disciples," the Holy Father noted. "Even St. Bonaventure recognizes the Fathers as teachers for ever, but the phenomenon of St. Francis gave him the certainty that the richness of the word of Christ is inexhaustible and that also new lights can appear in the new generations.

"The uniqueness of Christ also guarantees novelties and renewal in all the periods of history."

See also, this link:

"For St. Bonaventure, Christ is no longer, as he was for the Fathers of the Church, the end, but the center of history; history does not end with Christ, but a new period begins. Another consequence is the following: prevailing up to that moment was the idea that the Fathers of the Church were at the absolute summit of theology, all the following generations could only be their disciples. Even St. Bonaventure recognizes the Fathers as teachers for ever, but the phenomenon of St. Francis gave him the certainty that the richness of the word of Christ is inexhaustible and that also new lights can appear in the new generations. The uniqueness of Christ also guarantees novelties and renewal in all the periods of history."

"At this point perhaps it is useful to say that also today there are views according to which the whole history of the Church in the second millennium is a permanent decline; some see the decline already immediately after the New Testament. In reality, "opera Christi non deficiunt, sed proficiunt," the works of Christ do not go backward, but progress. What would the Church be without the new spirituality of the Cistercians, of the Franciscans and Dominicans, of the spirituality of St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, and so on? This affirmation is also valid today: "Opera Christi non deficiunt, sed proficiunt," they go forward."

More discussion of the title of "heretic" for early writers

My opponent in my recently-concluded debate on Sola Scriptura, DavidW, has had some interesting things to say afterwards, and it has provoked some (what I hope are) helpful thoughts, which I'd like to share here.

I thought I'd sort of broken his spirit and will to debate any more, but it doesn't appear that is completely true, so oh well.
(That's mostly a joke, about me breaking his spirit, just FYI.)

OK, so DavidW likes to assert that I hold to some kind of great apostasy in the early church not long after the apostles died, and that I think the early church 'fathers' were heretics. I wrote this post to correct him, and then Viisaus made some very good comments in the combox and PilgrimsArbour a good one as well.
DavidW lastly left a thought-provoking comment, trying to bring the discussion to a concrete level and then accusing me of "distorting and ignoring the evidence and the historical facts".
So, here is my answer.

But were they points of controversy with respect to what the biblical position actually is? Was the biblical position represented? That's the big question.
As we've discussed numerous times before, I don't grant that "Augustinianism" didn't exist before Augustine. Paul, Peter, and Jesus all taught what I teach today with respect to soteriology, predestination, hamartiology, etc. But at least some of it was forgotten by at least some people in the early church. Since this is a difficult thing for you to remember, apparently, please note that "some" does not mean "all". Got that?

Now, as for your three:
1) A. So they were proto-monophysites, is what you're saying. That's a problem. (For you.)
B. I don't know why you think that I think that a sacramental understanding of the Eucharist is heresy. Do you think I consider Presbyterians or Lutherans heretical?
C. You know, there's plenty of reason not to grant that point to you at all. But even if I did grant it, I'd have to ask whether the writers whose writings are still extant ever wrestled with the issue as it is defined biblically. Did he have an opportunity to be corrected by someone correctly interpreting the Scripture? Remember how I made resistance to correction a big deal in the post?
D. To say nothing of the question-begging nature of such appeals to "the early church" on your part, as if you knew anything about said early church masses beyond what a handful of people said that they themselves believed and, less commonly, said what others of their time believed. If you want to substantiate your claims that "the early church" believed what you believe, show me the polling data.

2) James White has admitted that all of the Fathers held to Baptismal Regeneration

I'd like to see that quote, actually.
And obviously Clement of Rome didn't, as he held to sola fide. Further, there's reason to think that Mathetes, Polycarp, and Tertullian didn't hold to such.
It occurs to me that quoting these early writers against your assertion that they "all... held to Baptismal Regen" actually weakens my point in the post, though it's worth it as it is just one more example of how wrecked and untenable your "early church consensus" position is.

3) Not holding to Calvinistic predestination is not heresy.

OK, moving on:

and you still claim that Calvinism isn't Gnosticism?

Yes, I still claim that it is not, unless you're willing to claim that EOdoxy is Muslim, since both hold to monotheism, prophets and supernatural revelation, angels, etc. Just waiting for some non-fallacious inferences from you. Apparently I'll be waiting a while.


which would be that you are condemning yourself, your Scriptures, and the Apostles in the process?

The idea that you or I could "condemn" the Scripture or Apostles is laughable.
This further begs the question at hand, both that the early extant church writings do in fact represent unbroken and uncorrupted DOCTRINAL transmission from the apostles, and that the Scripture does a worse job than those other writings of teaching us apostolic doctrine.


The Fathers of the early Church largely sorted the Apostolic from the apocryphal in their collation of the New Testament by deciding based on whether or not it agreed with their Faith.

1) Taken in isolation, that's certainly quite commendable. Reminds me of some town in Acts 17 that begins with "Bere" and ends in "a".
2) This raises an interesting point.
Let's say I grant that the extant early church writings express more or less EO doctrine.
Given other facts, such as that the Scripture is God-inspired and sufficiently clear to communicate what it intends to communicate, and that the Scr does not teach more or less EO doctrine on these points of contention between us, I don't see why I wouldn't be fully justified in positing with certainty either that either the entire church of the time was in serious, serious error or that these men didn't properly represent the beliefs of the church at large. In the absence of any data to the contrary (such as polling data from the laity and other church leaders from the time periods in question which I've repeatedly requested and you've repeatedly been unable to provide), my position has logical consistency in affirming the latter.
Yes, I know you'd dispute the statements about the Scripture, but as we've seen over and over again, your position just can't get there, sorry. And I think you know that, which is why you slip in these little jabs at Scr's reliability, whether in affirming its errancy when you want to, or in moving away from it towards early church writers, or in doubting its clarity and ability to communicate sufficiently. Or I could be wrong; as we saw in our debate, your exegesis of most every Scr text you tried to deal with was horrific, so I guess that could be it too.


They did not have access to the same historical and archaeological methods as we do, and so this was the rule of which they made use.

1) And so much the worse for them. I thought you'd want to make arguments that help your position...
2) Though my own arguments for the Canon to which I subscribe are primarily theological.


If the Faith of the early Church was as deeply flawed as you allege that it is, your New Testament is also apparently deeply flawed.

Back to the old myth that I hold to some universal apostasy after the 1st century.


Error does not produce truth.

This is equivocation between the TEACHING and the TEACHER. We need to be more careful than that.

Let's Make Up Rules and then Apply Them 500 Years Later

Here's a primitive outline, thrown together in about 2 minutes, of typical rule inventing of a Romanista soldier as compared to Romanist Worldview Headquarters. The following is based on an argument against my position on Luther and the canon.

Romanist Worldview Headquarters: Trent infallibly declared the contents of the Canon. Previous to that, there was freedom to express opinions on canonicty. See, we're not so bad. Previous to infallible declaration, enjoy your speculations.

Romanista response: Luther taught sola fide, which is a false gospel, so he was a heretic, and wasn't allowed like Cajetan the freedom to express an opinion on the canon.

Romanist Worldview Headquarters: Justification was defined at Trent, so Luther can't be chastised for sola fide.

Romanista response: C'mon, Luther was declared a heretic, so he didn't have any right at all.

Romanist Worldview Headquarters: Romanism never condemned Luther by name at Trent, and no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound.

Romanista response: Luther is still a heretic, and took books out of the Bible.

Romanist Worldview Headquarters: We don't have a rule that says heretics should be chastised for doctrines not yet infallibly defined, or that we can take a later rule and apply it to them to declare their opinion heresy.

Romanista response: I don't care, I'm protecting you, so stop giving me a hard time. Don't you remember Exsurge Domine?

Romanist Worldview Headquarters: Was Exsurge Domine an infallible document?

Romanista response: Well no... but... Luther took books out of the Bible! Do something about it!

Romanist Worldview Headquarters: Would you like a rule that says: Luther was a heretic, and even if he did what our leading sixteenth century Romanista Cajetan did, Cajetan was OK, and Luther was not?

Romanista response: Yes! Perfect! Please, declare that rule!

Romanist Worldview Headquarters: Our infallible council meets on and off and every few hundred years. If you can wait, maybe we'll put something together.


Update: Here's another 2 minutes of thoughts on this issue:

As far as I can recall, none of the Reformers are named in Trent's infallible declaration.

It was Hubert Jedin, the German Catholic historian from the Universities of Breslau and Bonn, a specialist on the history of the Council of Trent that pointed out Roman Catholicism never condemned Luther by name at Trent, and that no official judgment on Luther exists by which a loyal Catholic is bound.

This makes the "What to do with Luther" rather interesting from a Roman Catholic perspective. Gregory Sobolewski has compiled quite a book addressing this issue: Martin Luther: Roman Catholic Prophet (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001). Sobolewski traces more recent Roman Catholic scholarship and their positive attitudes toward Luther. It was interesting to read how many Roman Catholic scholars don't think Luther was a heretic. Some go as far to point out how spiritual and necessary Luther was to the Roman church.

It's true Trent didn't declare Luther a heretic in their statement. However, in 1564 the Tridentine Index of Books condemned Luther's writings. Here's the closest you get to the goods on Luther. Still, this doesn't help the Romanista that tries to argue Luther's can't comment on the canon while Cajetan and Erasmus can. Why Romanistas try to make up there own rules is just another example of how people reason from their heart, not history, or even consistently with their own worldview.

Jared Wicks: Luther and His Spiritual Legacy

I recently picked up a copy of Jared Wicks, Luther and His Spiritual Legacy (Delaware: Michael Glazier Inc., 1983). Wicks is a Roman Catholic scholar, and I've referred to him before. The book came with this little insert:



Well, of course Michael Glazier could probably care less what I think, and I'm about twenty seven years late with a review. However, when I read a helpful Roman Catholic book written with fairness and insight, I think it's worth mentioning. If you think that Roman Catholics are Reformation-clueless, and only rely on 100 - 200 year old secondary sources, you should know that Roman Catholic scholarship tends to be light years away from the books like these written by Catholic laymen.

Wicks has read Luther extensively, quoting primary sources accurately. In most cases, he refers to the English edition of Luther's Works, otherwise it's Weimar. Helpful also are the bibliographies throughout the book, and also extensively at the end. For each topic Wicks covers, he makes sure to send you off in the right direction for more information. The book is short, under 200 pages, and the seven chapters are spaced nicely. Used copies can be found here (the copies listed will probably change week to week). The magic of the Internet never ceases- I found the entire book in PDF format:

Title, Contents, Foreword
Ch. 1 - Images of Luther
Ch. 2 - The Eve of the Reformation
Ch. 3 - Luther’s Life and Career to 1512
Ch. 4 - Luther’s Theology of the Cross, 1513-1518
Ch. 5 - Luther’s Reformation Decisions, 1518-25
Ch. 6 - Luther’s Later Life and Works, 1526-46
Ch. 7 - Luther’s Mature Spiritual Teaching
General Bibliography and Index

The chapters don't need to be read in order. Each is sufficient in itself. Chapter one is a helpful overview of interpreters of Luther. He focuses primarily on Roman Catholic interpretations, tracing the trend from destructive criticism to the kinder evaluations that began in the twentieth century. Cochlaeus, Bellarmine, Janssen, Denifle, Grisar: these are Roman Catholic authors from the destructive period, and oddly enough, their works are easy enough to find on the Internet. Merkle, Lortz, Iserloh, Pesch, these are but a few of recent Roman Catholic scholars. Their works are not as easy to find on the Internet. Whatever progress they made in scholarship hasn't quite filtered down to the Internet layman level.

Wicks presents his image of Luther, and these are motivated by his ecumenical leanings:

Luther can be a forceful teacher of lived religion. He can be a resource for the enrichment of personal spirituality for members of all Christian confessions. In many of Luther's works, one does not have to read far before touching on the subject of conversion from proud self-reliance to trusting acceptance of God's grace. Luther's accounts of conversion bear numerous marks of their own time, as accounts written between 1509 and 1546…. One thinks here of Luther's The Freedom of a Christian, of his exposition of the Miserere (Psalm 51), and of his preface to the Epistle to the Romans.” (p. 26).

"Luther can lead the spiritually dedicated person to the retrieval of easily forgotten central truths. Like Ignatius, Luther is skeptical about enthusiastic claims of having the Spirit. Luther leads the believer back to the word of Scripture, to baptism, and to the words of absolution and eucharistic institution. There faith can take hold of reliable communications from God. Above all, Luther sought to help people be struck personally by the word and work of Christ. Both Ignatius and Luther teach that Christmas is a time to marvel that God became man for me and for my salvation." (p. 26)

"As one reads the Gospels and prays over them along lines suggested by Luther, a leitmotif will inevitably be the line, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners" (Matthew 9:13). Luther is a dedicated foe of any proud satisfaction over having arrived spiritually at a point of rest. Penance for him is a lifelong concern, which is as well the message of the annual observance of Lent in the church year." (p.26)

“…[C]ertain concerns of contemporary theology especially in Catholic circles, suggest that Luther can provide enrichment. For instance, he insisted on occasion on integrating experience into his interpretation of Scripture and his teaching of Christian truth. This gave many of his expositions, especially on sin and grace, a tone of profound, even anguished, feeling. For him, sin and guilt were terrifying, grace and union with Christ liberating and filled with delight. Faith, for Luther, brings an experience of strength and courage become imperturbable and of trust and joy deep in the heart. In Luther's day, academic theology in the universities had long been divorced from the Christian insights of the monastic and mystical traditions. Luther was one who brought the academic, that is, systematic and exegetical, concerns into renewed connection with Christian experience.” (p.26)

“Christology is clearly the place of the central theological ferment of our day. Catholic theologians are producing a host of new presentations of the person, message, and meaning of Christ the Lord. Luther can serve here as a forceful reminder that soteriology, the doctrine of Christ's saving work, is the center of all Christian words and teaching. Faith, for Luther, focuses sharply on the redemptive mystery, on Jesus' life and death for us and for our salvation…. For Luther, the cross of Christ is the most illuminating revelation of God. The heart of the Father is shown us in his Son, and faith in the Father is always through the Son. Focused as he is on salvation, Luther stresses how Christ brings grace and forgiveness to the fearful and saddened hearts of sinners. Luther does offer a relational Christology closely based on Scripture.” (pp. 27-28)

“Another concern of contemporary theology is biblical hermeneutics. One senses an increasing dissatisfaction with contributions to theological work by the practice of the critical-historical method on Scripture. Biblical scholarship at times uses methods that atomize the texts into tiny particles. Other analyses so stress the special individuality of a particular biblical author as to leave us no single message from the New Testament. Another kind of interpretation seems needed, that goes beyond the initial phase of work with the text. Above all, a method is needed which does not lose sight of the perspective arising from the faith which prompts us to pick up the Bible in the first place. Now Luther did practice theological and religious interpretation of Scripture. Taking his stand on Paul's form of the Gospel of grace, Luther moved out confidently to point out what was going on in the prayers, narratives, and sermons recorded throughout the Bible. His Old Testament interpretations focus on faith and the trials besetting the lives of God's servants. Luther explains the Psalms as Christian prayer. He comes to the gospel narratives quite aware of the mission of Christ to bring salvation to sinners. Thus Luther provides a model of interpretation of the biblical text that is focused on the religious core of revelation.”(pp. 28-29).

But for Wicks, there's also negative aspects of Luther. He lists three central points of doctrine that he finds erroneous:

“Luther's doctrine of conversion did resolutely exclude the free assent of compliance by which the human person ratifies and appropriates the grace of God. This assent, the Catholic tradition rightly holds, could be dissent or refusal in a given case. A mystery of freedom, human freedom, penetrates conversion under grace. But Luther projected a mystical passivity into this area.” (p. 29)

"Second, there are Luther's polemics against the sacrifice of the mass. History shows the many reasons why a reform movement had to take up the mass in the sixteenth century. Protestant reformers did do away with abuses connected with stipends, the vast number of masses without the people, lay passivity or attention to other devotions during mass, withholding the chalice, celebration in a tongue alien to many, and neglect of preaching at mass. But Luther went on to teach a purely receptive posture of faith in the central moment of worship. Receptivity is right, but Luther's exclusion is not right. Eucharist is a prayer of praise and dedication addressed to the Father in the Holy Spirit. It is intrinsic to the action to give all honor and glory to the Father through, with, and in Christ. A sacrificial movement of self-offering by the church is essential here. Luther's passion to display the grace of God in the Supper led to an exclusion of this movement toward God by the community united with Christ.”(pp. 28-29)

"Lastly, and most fundamentally, Luther believed that Scripture had a power of self-interpretation based on the content of its central message. Luther felt that the norms for understanding all biblical texts arose from the Pauline gospel. Sacra Scriptura sui ipsius interpres is the basic Reformation tenet asserting this self-interpreting power. There is, of course, more than a grain of truth here, but alone the tenet does not suffice. Scripture does provide important motifs and assertions that should inform interpretive work. But still the Bible only comes to us because it was made canonical by the church, and this Bible is first of all an element in the life of this church. Ultimately, an adequate interpretation, the stimulus of developing Christian doctrine, arises out of the interplay of the biblical message and this church." (p 30).

Despite these criticisms, it's refreshing to read them rather than personal attack or pseudo- psychological evaluations. Wicks is Roman Catholic, and he's not giving away the store. Wicks is ecumenical, but not to the point of denying central aspects of Romanism.

The chapter entitled "On the Eve of the Reformation" (chapter 2) is probably the most dry, Yet given that this topic is prone to different interpretation (i.e., Janssen vs. Lortz), Wicks does a fair job explaining the tensions and problems that gave birth to the Reformation.

The mid chapters in the book are brief historical sketches of Luther's career. The earlier chapters show how fluent Wicks is with Luther's earlier writings. He traces Luther's unfolding understanding of grace and justification, particularly from his early lectures on the Psalms and Romans . The later chapters skip through the bulk of Luther's career, minus the typical Roman Catholic invective. For instance, his review of the Peasant's Revolt is fair and balanced. When describing Luther's translation of the New Testament, Wicks calls it a "linguistic masterpiece filled with the uncanny power of God's living word" (p.97). He doesn't waste time with silly arguments about adding words to Romans 3, or destroying the canon.

The most significant chapter is Ch. 7 - Luther’s Mature Spiritual Teaching. Here, Wicks describes the insight Luther made as a theologian. It's really a chapter explaining what Luther meant by sola fide. Any Roman Catholic wishing to go beyond the simple basics or slogan shouting will find a helpful overview here. Sola fide isn't the license to sin it's regularly made out to be.

Other writings from Jared Wicks can be found here.