Monday, September 14, 2009

TurretinFan’s misguided polemic

Had a very busy weekend with guests (who showed up earlier than expected on Friday afternoon), and finally have some ‘free’ time for the internet. After reading through my emails, I began ‘surfing-the-web’, and eventually checked in on TurretinFan’s (hereafter, TF) website/s, where I had earlier submitted a comment. I discovered that TF has now responded to my post, but given the length of TF’s response (and his penchant for pointing out spelling errors in combox responses that cannot be corrected), I felt it best to compose my rebuttal here at AF (allowing me the opportunity to correct the “spelling, grammar, and any other errors” that TF is so fond of pointing out).

I shall reproduce my original combox response:

In my reading of Catholic literature, I have never came across any author/theologian/bishop who has denied the fact that our Lord, Jesus Christ is the “single chief Shepard” of His Church. Yet with that said, I also do not of know any Catholic author/theologian/bishop who would deny that there is one true King of God’s Kingdom; and yet, Scripture speaks of many who were anointed as kings of God’s earthly Kingdom. If the one, true, single King can (and did) appoint earthly representatives to the position of king, why is the notion that He has appointed an earthly chief shepherds such a difficult concept for you?

[For TF: “came”, should be “come”; “Shephard”, should be “Shepherd”, and “appointed an earthly chief shepherds”, should be “appointed earthly chief shepherds”.]

TF chose to create a NEW THREAD to respond to my late night musings, and began his polemic with:

I. Misdirection / Misinformation

The first stage of the comment is misdirection and/or misinformation. No one, we are told, denies that Jesus is the single chief Shepherd. Here's the problem, while there may be folks who claim that Jesus is the chief Shepherd, an official position ("official" in the sense that it is to be found in a papal encyclical, which - of course - is different from it being a de fide dogma) is that, on earth, the pope replaces Jesus…

TF then cites examples of Roman Bishops (Popes) who utilize the title “chief shepherd”. My initial thought on these quotes is: and this is a problem? My goodness, TF needs (and I mean this sincerely) to spend a bit more time in Sacred Scripture. Scripture informs us that our Lord’s “flock” will have but “one Shepherd” (John 10:16 – see also Ez. 34:23, 34); and yet, we know that Christ’s Church most certainly has more than “one Shepherd”. [The concept delineated by our Lord in John 13:20 is certainly germane to this discussion.]

Further, though Scripture informs us that there is but “one God”, and that God the Father is the “one God”, I doubt that TF will deny that Jesus is also the “one God”. (‘Complicating’ matters a bit further, Scripture also terms angels, kings, and judges “God/s”).

In the famous Shema, we read that: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah” (ASV); and yet, the angel of Jehovah is termed “Jehovah” and Jerusalem is called “Jehovah”! [See Deut 6:4; Zech. 3:1-2; Jer. 33:16.]

So, it seems to me that if one applies a bit of objectivity, one can discern that terms and phrases that appear to be ‘absolute’, in fact, have varied degrees of application.

We now proceed on to TF’s next section, II. Scriptural Confusion.

TF’s remark that, “Israel's human kings were a symbol of their rejection of God”, is perhaps the most convoluted statement of his that I have yet to read. Such a view ignores the promises given through Moses concerning the future kings (human) of Israel (see Deut. 17:14-20). And further, if “Israel's human kings were a symbol of their rejection of God”, why would God via Sacred Scripture extol a human king of Israel in such a lofty manner as we find in Psalm 45? (Which includes the title God/Elohim; for another Psalm of praise concerning a human king of Israel, see Psalm 72.)

TF’s section III. is, IMHO, not worth commenting on, so I shall move on to section IV:

IV. Confusion of ReasoningI was going to call this section "rational confusion," for the sake of parallelism, but the connotation in English would be wrong. The confusion of reasoning in this comment lies in trying to change the question from "did" to "could." Since, by now, the comment may no longer be fresh in your mind, I'll remind you what he said: "If the one, true, single King can (and did) appoint earthly representatives to the position of king, why is the notion that He has appointed an earthly chief shepherds [sic] such a difficult concept for you?"Notice how the comment seems to argue (implicitly, of course) from the idea that God could appoint a king while still being the one true King, to the idea that God did (just assumed, not demonstrated) appoint an earthly chief shepherd. From a logical standpoint, that misses the main argument by simply assuming what needs to be demonstrated. It needs to be demonstrated that God did appoint such a chief shepherd.

It is “demonstrated” in Scripture that Jesus did in fact appoint “an earthly chief shepherd”, but TF’s anti-Catholic bias seems to cloud his mind to this concept. The famous Petrine passages in the NT demonstrate that Peter was appointed the head/chief of the apostles, and as such the head/chief of our Lord’s visible Church. Some important Protestant scholars affirm this (e.g. Oscar Cullman’s, Peter), while denying Petrine succession—which, of course, is a separate issue.

Jesus commands Peter in the Gospel of John to “shepherd My sheep”, and Peter most certainly carries out this command of our Lord; he becomes the “chief” shepherd, among many shepherds, even though our Lord clearly states that there is only “one shepherd” over His fold (John 10:16).

Ultimately, TF’s overall polemic differs little from the Arian, Socinian, and Unitarian attacks on the doctrine of the Trinity (i.e. only God the Father is called the “one God”, hence, Jesus cannot be the “one God”), a polemic that suffers from the apparent inability to move beyond an absolute reading of certain terms and phrases found in Scripture, towards a mindset that can grasp broader concepts and applications of those terms and phrases.

Much more, of course, could be said, but I sincerely believe that I have adequately addressed TF’s polemical post.


Grace and peace,

David

8 comments:

Paul Hoffer said...

Hi David, I, too, was a bit disappointed in Mr. Fan's cursory and conclusory treatment of how the Church has historically viewed John 21:15-17. What I found truly remarkable is how he chose to attack your argument. Rather than taking the claim head-on and going to the Catholic Catechism where the issue of the pope's (and bishops in general) role as shepherd is fully discussed and annotated with biblical and conciliar citations, he cherry- picked a couple of sentences out of some papal documents and a quote from St. Bernard so he could depict Catholic doctrine in a false light. Of course, he is free to do so, but the difference between an apologist and a mere controversialist is the exercise of fairness in treating the opponent's argument.

I enjoyed your response.

God bless!

Jamie Donald said...

David,

I enjoyed your response as well. (Paul's too on his blog).

I think I'd start towards the end of TF's comments where he advances the charge of "confusion of reasoning." Clearly, TF misread - as in misunderstood - your comment/question. While you would certainly assert that God does indeed appoint an earthly chief shepherd, your question does not make this assertion. Not even by proxy as TF claims. Instead, I saw your comments as an attempt at dialog. If TF sees the possibility of an earthly chief shepherd (but not in the form of the papacy), then there is some common ground for a back-and-forth discussion (which might bring the parties closer together). If he truly denies even the possibility of an earthly chief shepherd, then knowing the actual reasons for such a denial would allow you to open up a discussion on why you disagree with him (again, with the hope of bringing the parties closer together). Or you could have decided that his position was so far removed from your own that no discussion was possible on this topic at this time. However, TF confuses the invitation to dialog with what he assumes you will later be asserting in that dialog.

I find it interesting that while TF accuses you of misdirection, a deliberate act (vs confusion which can be accidental), he truly never answers the simple question which you asked, why is the notion that He has appointed an earthly chief shepherds such a difficult concept for you? The closest he comes is to say that he doesn't like the comparison to earthly kings. But that doesn't answer the question. Instead, it deflects the discussion away from the actual question asked. Is not this a classic example of misdirection from TF himself?

However, I think that there is some merit in further discussing TF's treatment of God appointing kings for the nation of Israel. The Scriptures do record the request for a king as rejecting God, therefore committing a grave sin. But where is the sin? And exactly how do God's actions factor in?

Let's look at the request from the elders of Israel, but let us look in detail. This is a nation which had been led by the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then after a period of no leadership (slavery in Egypt) was led by Moses the Joshua. After Joshua, God raised up various judges to lead the people. And now, most recently, they have been under the guidance of Samuel. In each case, the nation followed a strong leader who was appointed by God to lead them. As David noted in his response to TF, in addition to this historical precedence, the people (in Deut 17) was authorized to request a king over them. Now factor in the fact that Samuel's sons were immoral, sought illicit gain, accepted bribes, and perverted justice (TF didn't quote this part of 1 Sam); but appeared to be the heirs to Samuel's leadership.

Jamie Donald said...

(cont)
In light of these facts, where is the rejection in asking for a King? The answer is found in God's response to Samuel, It is not you they reject, they are rejecting me as their king. As they have treated me constantly from the day I brought them up from Egypt to this day (1 Sam 8:7-8 ). Let's look at Israel's rejection of God from the day He brought them from Egypt.

Encamped on the western side of the Red Sea, they feared that Pharoah would slay them and begged to be returned to slavery. In the desert they were hungry and complained that slavery would be better than starvation. The same with thirst. As it was with the snakes which plagued them. In each case, the affliction or danger was real and the nation needed to be delivered from it. But rather than trusting God to deliver them from the hazard and/or offering prayers to God for His divine aid and assistance; they complained, quarrelled and grumbled. They sought the ultimate rejection (at the time) of God - a desire to return to that (slavery) from which He had saved them!

So it is with the request for a king. The Israelites see the real danger of corrupt leadership. But they continue their failure to trust God to deliver them from the danger. They complain and do not offer prayers to God for His deliverance. Instead, they choose to model themselves after other nations - nations which would return them to slavery - and reject God. So, just as the desire for safe passage, food, water, and healing from venonmous snakes is not sinful; the desire for a just king is also not sinful nor rebellious. Rather it is the method of asking and the absence of trust which creates the sinful state of rebellion.

Now that we know where the sin resides, the second consideration is how do God's actions factor in? TF would have us believe that the king was appointed merely to remind the nation that they had rejected God in asking for the king in the first place. Certainly, the curse which Samuel recites in the 2nd half of 1 Sam 8 supports this thought. But a deeper analysis suggests this might not be the case.

Looking at the other times when Israel grumbled, we see that God still provided for their (very real) needs. We have a merciful God and His mercy is abundant! Not only did God meet their needs, but it can be shown that He exceeded them. More than safe passage, their enemy - Pharoah's army - was completely destroyed. In the desert we find that not only is their hunger satisfied, but that the manna they ate was Christ Himself (John 6) - unbeknownst to them, a very intimate Communion with the Lord. If we were to apply TF's analysis here, we'd find a rather large problem. If the king is God's response to the need for a good leader, but requested in a spirit of rebellion, is a symbol of that rebellion; then would not Christ - the manna, God's response to the need for food even though requested in a spirit of rebellion - become merely a symbol of Israel's rebellion and not the Savior of the world?

But just as in the desert, God meets and exceeds the needs of the nation when He gives them a king. TF fails to note that those who asked for a king couldn't possibly see the king as a symbol of their rebellion. Under Saul, David, and Solomon the nation prospered. They would have seen these kings (inspite of their missteps) as a blessing from God. David was called a man after God's own heart. Solomon was blessed with Wisdom from God Himself. And as David Waltz points out, the Scriptures themselve heap praise upon the kings.

It is only after continued rebellion even under a king that God finally gives His people what they had asked for all along. He delivers them back into slavery under Babylon. Now the curse uttered by Samuel, as they live under a king who is not of their own, comes true. And for a very long time God is silent in response to their pleas.

I hope this provides some counterbalance to TF's own misdirection - while David's original question to him remains unanswered.

David Waltz said...

Hi Paul,

So good to see back again; your contributions are insightful and always welcome. You wrote:

>>I, too, was a bit disappointed in Mr. Fan's cursory and conclusory treatment of how the Church has historically viewed John 21:15-17.>>

Me: Agreed.

>>What I found truly remarkable is how he chose to attack your argument. Rather than taking the claim head-on and going to the Catholic Catechism where the issue of the pope's (and bishops in general) role as shepherd is fully discussed and annotated with biblical and conciliar citations, he cherry- picked a couple of sentences out of some papal documents and a quote from St. Bernard so he could depict Catholic doctrine in a false light. Of course, he is free to do so, but the difference between an apologist and a mere controversialist is the exercise of fairness in treating the opponent's argument.>>

Me: It is unfortunate when apologists/controversialists create ‘straw men’ arguments to further their agenda (i.e. paint the Catholic Church in the darkest of light). Rather than presenting the full-picture, there is the tendency (as you pointed out) to “cherry-pick” Catholic documents, which almost always presents a distorted picture of what the Church actually teaches. Even more troubling to me is the prevalent attitude among so many apologists/controversialists that they have a better grasp of Catholic dogma/teachings than our own scholars!


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Jamie,

Just finished reading your posts (actually 1 post in two installments)—excellent work—not much to add, just some minor points: first, as you pointed out, my initial comments in the post I submitted at TF’s website were indeed, “an attempt at dialog”. Second, your commentary on human kingship in Israel was spot-on. I find it difficult to understand how a Calvinist could fail to grasp that human kingship was integral part of God’s plan in the earthly manifestation of His kingdom—especially in light of the fact that the office of king was an essential aspect of the future Messiah!

Once again, thanks much for your comments (sincerely hope that TF drops in and reads them).


Grace and peace,

David

Jeffrey Pinyan said...

This comment is very late, but only because I only just saw this post.

If you're going to take a one-shepherd-only approach, it's time for you to stop using the word 'pastor'. It's the Latin word for 'shepherd', and it's obviously an affront to the Chief Shepherd!

What else would you call a man whom Christ sets over His flock? Surely not a 'hireling'! (cf. John 10:12) Although, to be honest, some pastors act that way.

You know what you would call them? Poimen in Greek, pastor in Latin, "shepherd" in English. A form of the same Greek word -- poimenas -- is used in Ephesians 4:11.

Jesus ordained some in His Church as "shepherds"/"pastors". Let Jesus have the last word here, okay? ;)

Jeffrey Pinyan said...

I suppose I should add one clarifying point:

Jesus clearly gave Peter the charge to govern His (Christ's) whole flock. That makes Peter at least a stand-in for Christ, the Chief Shepherd.

David Waltz said...

Hi Jeffrey,

You wrote:

>>Jesus clearly gave Peter the charge to govern His (Christ's) whole flock. That makes Peter at least a stand-in for Christ, the Chief Shepherd.>>

Indeed, and IMHO, it brings into question the motive/s of those who deny such a clear charge…


Grace and peace,

David