Articuli Fidei

A series of YouTube videos 'making the rounds' on anti-Islamic sites

2012-01-26T12:26:00.000-08:00

There has been a considerable amount of internet chatter, over the last couple days, due to a series of YouTube videos that were linked to (and embedded) by at least three anti-Islamic sites:

January 24, 2012 (7:12 PM)- http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/01/does-quran-claim-that-bible-has-been.html

January 25, 2012 (7:35 AM)- http://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4953

January 25, 2012 (1:07 PM)- http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/01/quran-never-says-text-of-bible-was.html

[Link to YouTube for alternate access to the above, and the rest of the videos in the series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDSPND0suVY]

This series was uploaded to YouTube via the website: EVIDENCE FOR GOD'S UNCHANGING WORD. This site (IMHO) is by far, one of the more charitable, non-inflammatory, anti-Islamic apologetic sites I have encountered. And unlike so many other anti-Islamic apologetic sites, at least one of the main contributors, Faouzi "David" Arzouni, is actually fluent in Arabic (link to bio).

The series of videos, and related articles, on the status of the Bible in the Qur'an produced by EFGUW reflect my own position on the matter. I would urge anyone interested in this subject (including Muslims) to read through the material with an open mind, keeping in mind, there have been faithful Muslims who are in agreement with the assessment that the corruption spoken of in the Qur'an pertains to the INTERPRETATION, rather than the TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION of the Bible. (See THIS THREAD for an excellent, and balanced, book that touches on this subject.)

In addition to the status of the Bible in the Qur'an, EFGUW has also weighed in on another topic of interest to me—Surah 4.157 and the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ—Did Jesus Die on the Cross?

Readers of this blog should be aware of my keen interest in this subject. For those not familiar with my take on this very important issue, I recommend the following threads:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/12/recent-interest-in-surah-4157.html

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/12/dr-todd-lawsons-stimulating-lecture.html

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/11/does-quran-deny-crucifixion-and.html

Now, it is more than just a bit interesting that while ALL three of the above websites which linked to EFGUW series of videos on the status of the Bible in the Qur'an with glowing support, they in turn REJECT EFGUW's conclusions concerning Surah 4.157 !!! This is yet another example of inconsistency, and poor methodology, that permeates much of the Evangelical online apologetic world. The methodology (i.e. Qur'anic exegesis based on pre-polemical interpretation, showing agreement between the Bible and the Qur'an) that EFGUW employed to reach its conclusions concerning the status of the Bible in the Qur'an, is identical to the methodology they used in their interpretation of Surah 4.157.

It sure seems to me that if one is going to endorse EFGUW's reflections concerning the Bible's status in the Qur'an, they had better accept their assessment of Surah 4.157, for if one rejects the latter, the former's credibility becomes damaged beyond repair.

Grace and peace,

David

English Hexapla - a parallel New Testament published in 1841

2012-01-18T13:59:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week, I discovered an incredible (IMHO) online resource: the English Hexapla (a parallel New Testament - 1841). An excellent PDF copy is available for reading and download at:

http://www.archive.org/details/englishhexaplaex00schouoft

On page 161 of the PDF version, "THE PLAN OF THE ENGLISH HEXAPLA", is outlined—therein, it is stated that:

The name " Hexapla," signifies six-fold, or six-columned, and appropriately describes the arrangement of the Six English Versions.

And from the same page, the descriptions of the six English editions used in the English Hexapla are provided:

I. THE TRANSLATION OF WICLIF has been printed with the most scrupulous care, from a valuable manuscript in the library of His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, who has graciously permitted its use. The text of Wiclif's version, as here presented, is, in many respects, much more accurate and complete than the editions of Lewis and Baber. The present edition of this version has been minutely collated with the previously printed text, and every variation from it has been compared with the readings of twenty-one other MSS., so that not only have numerous transcriptural and typographical errors received correction, but it is believed that the genuine version of Wiclif is far more faithfully exhibited than by either of the two previous editions.

The introductory verses to the Gospel by St. Luke, which appear to be omitted in every known Wiclif MS., are supplied from a MS. in the library of Queen's College, Oxford, communicated by the kindness of Mr. Eastwick.

II. THE VERSION OF WILLIAM TYNDALE is reprinted from a copy of the edition which was revised by himself, and published in 1534 ; for the use of which the Publishers are indebted to the Trustees of the Baptist College, Bristol, where it forms part of the valuable collection of English Bibles and Testaments bequeathed by Dr. GifFord. Tyndale's " revision" has been adopted in preference to his first translation, because it far better exhibits him as a translator, and manifests the care which he took in revising what he had previously executed. The first edition, of 1526, has already been reprinted by the Publishers in 1836.

III. CRANMER'S, or "THE GREAT BIBLE VERSION" version, has been reprinted from a very fine copy of the first edition, 1539 ; also furnished by the kindness of the Trustees of the Baptist College, Bristol.

IV. THE GENEVA NEW TESTAMENT, is from a copy of the first edition, 1557. An exact reprint of tliis edition has also been prepared in a sepai-ate form, in whicii the text is printed line for line, and word for word, with the whole of the interesting marginal doctrinal notes, the prefaces and indexes, with fac-simile initial letters and other ornaments.

V. THE ANGLO-RHEMISH TRANSLATION has been reprinted from the original edition, 1582.

VI. KING JAME'S or THE AUTHORISED VERSION, is printed from a large black letter copy, of the year 1611. The Rev. John Heniy Montagu Luxmoore has obligingly allowed the use of a copy from his Library.

In addition to the online PDF version, a 'user friendly' HTML version is also available:

http://bible.zoxt.net/hex/hex.htm

For those with a lot of discretionary cash available, a hard copy may be purchased at:

http://www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/hexapla-1841.html

I sincerely hope that others will find this wonderful resource as useful as I have.

Grace and peace,

David

John 17 and Unity: valuable insights from a conservative, Baptist pastor

2012-01-06T12:14:00.000-08:00

Last week, I happened upon a website (link) providing some 35 sermons from the last two years of the "Word of Truth Conference". One of the sermons in particular caught my eye: John 17 and Unity, delivered November 10, 2010 by pastor Kent Brandenburg (link). I have done a good deal of study on this chapter, so I sincerely wondered what an independent Baptist pastor had to say. What I learned from his sermon was that he agreed with my understanding on many key points. In an effort to stimulate others into taking in the entire sermon, I shall provide a few extracts:

Beginning ff-

John 17 and unity. Anyone who wants to understand unity between Christians must consider Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17. I think this is an important point: Biblical separation and Biblical unity will mirror each other. Obviously Biblical separation will never violate Biblical unity; Biblical unity will never violate Biblical separation.

8:54 ff -

What's the unity that Jesus Christ was praying for here? All right. If we're going to understand what unity is, that unity is the unity that he wants between people, is the unity in this chapter.

12:05 ff-

The unity we desire should be the same as what the Lord Jesus Christ prayed for here...

Do you want the unity that Jesus prayed for?

What was it?

13:27 ff -

Some believe Jesus prayed only for a spiritual unity. When I read commentaries on John 17, almost every single commentary differs on what they believe Jesus was praying for here. I'm talking about, if I read 25 commentaries, I can read 25 differences on what they think Jesus was praying for here. Is the Bible something we can't understand? Is the Bible not perspicuous? And I think it kinda drives me crazy; I mean, how, how is it that we can have so many opinions about what he is praying for here? How do I know that 26, let's say I am at number 26, why is 26 right? Why are the 25 wrong, and I am right? Can you know? Because I mean as you read the commentaries there are so many different viewpoints, how could people, how could we be sure that people can even know based on that.

15:01 ff -

Some believe Jesus prayed for a spiritual unity found in their position in Christ...Ummm so he prayed only for people in Christ to have spiritual unity is what their belief is in John 17. Others assert this is a practical unity among all believers. All believers have a practical unity. Some teach that. OK. But I'm just telling you some people teach that. In order to have it they concluded a need to coalesce around a few important doctrines with which true Christians should and will agree; and the number is shrinking. The number is increasingly smaller, until you can put the doctrines on the head of a pin that you have to agree on, basically to have what the Bible teaches on unity; and really what's on the head of the pin is blurry, you can't even quite make out what, what it is.

23:44 ff -

If there's unity between all believers, I don't see it.

[End of extracts]

Amen!!!

Grace and peace,

David

4 useful, online (and free) Islamic studies resources

2011-12-21T10:37:00.000-08:00

I thought I would share the links to 4 online Islamic studies resources that I have found to be quite useful in my personal studies. The first 2 are books that I own (and now also have on my hard-drive), the latter 2 I did not have before discovering them online, but have now also found a cozy place on my hard-drive:

Martin Lings', Muhammad - His Life Based On The Earliest Sources - this is my favorite biography of Muhammad, after Guillaume's English translation of Ibn Ishaq's, Sirat Rasul Allah, under the title - The Life of Muhammad (Oxford, 1955; 10th impression 1995).

Ahamd Von Denffer's, Ulam al-Qur'an - An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an - though not as comprehensive as Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi's, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'an (1999), it is a solid treatment, especially for those who are just beginning to explore this particular subject.

al-Tirmidhi's, Jami' al-Tirmidhi - this is one of the six major Sunni Hadith collections (I personally consider it to be the third most reliable after Shahih Bukhari and Shahih Muslim).

The Qur'anic Manuscripts - a good introduction to the early history of Qur'anic manuscripts; this pdf document seems to be related to THIS online article (I recommend Muhammad Mustafa al-Azami's, The History of the Qur'anic Text (2003) to those who can afford it).

ENJOY!!!

Grace and peace,

David

Two Reformed Baptist sites that I discovered earlier today

2011-12-17T12:04:00.000-08:00

Before I delve into the topic of this thread, I would like to share my thoughts on a couple of items that are currently on my mind.

First, I would like to state that many of the threads that I post here at AF have the express purpose of presenting 'another side' to topics that I am either currently studying, or have seen being expounded (and debated) upon at other online sites.

Second, I am amazed at just how many issues are being debated over and over again, with little (usually no) sign/s of learning and/or development that should be taking place if each 'side' would seriously reflect on what their opponents have presented previously (some sites being merely monologues, allowing no dialogue at all, or only from those who already agree with what is being discussed).

Now, the above is actually more of an introduction to an upcoming thread (the Lord willing) that will discuss a prime example of an issue that is being debated repeatedly on a number of internet sites, with pretty much NO development: sola fide.

But before I jump back into the fray, I wanted to share a couple of new sites (at least to me) that I happened upon earlier today.

The first site I would like to share with my readers is:

Credo - The Magazine

The purpose of the site and magazine is summed up in the following statment:

Credo magazine is self-consciously Evangelical, Reformational, and Baptistic: Evangelical since it aims at being supremely Gospel-centered, exalting in the substitutionary death and historical resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ; Reformational as the gospel it promotes is defined by the solas of the Reformation; and while Credo magazine welcomes contributors from diverse ecclesial backgrounds, it seeks to especially celebrate those doctrines that mark the Baptist tradition. (link)

The first issue (and only issue to date), was published just last October. In addition to the magazine, the site also has a Blog, and Media page.

The second site/blog is:

The Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies

This site revolves around Historia ecclesiastica - "The Weblog of Dr. Michael A. G. Haykin".

My personal interest in this site/blog is focused on the Dr. Haykin's "Ancient Church" series (see right side bar on the sites opening page for links). I am still in the process of reading through this series; much of what I have read, has been informative.

Anyway, I sincerely hope that some of my readers will find the above sites of use in their own studies.

Grace and peace,

David

Recent interest in Surah 4.157

2011-12-15T08:03:00.000-08:00

In addition to my two threads on surah 4.157 (and the issues of the death and crucifixion of Jesus in the Qur'an- first; second), there seems of late, to have been a fair amount of interest in this particular ayah from the Qur'an. The following are a few of the examples I have recently come across on the internet:

At the website called, Antioch Believer!, Asf Aslan (the owner who resides in Antioch, Turkey, and describes himself as a "Minister of the Gospel"), posted the thread, What does the Quran say about Jesus death?, back on July 1, 2011. In that thread he wrote:

In the verse 4:157 please notice carefully, “WA lakin shubbiha lahum” means "He was made to resemble to them" or "it was made to resemble to them" or "a likeness of that was made for them" or "a similitude was made for them" -- not "someone was made to resemble him". In the sentences, "it" or "that" refers to the incident and not a person.

In fact, I don't see in Q 4:157-158 a denial of Christ's death, nor yet a denial of His crucifixion. Actually, I see a harmony between the text of that Surah, and John's gospel, when Jesus said; Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.- John 10.17-18.

After further commentary, Asf Aslan concludes his post with:

The Quran is not actually denying His crucifixion, nor yet His death. And to consider that He was raised up to life, and subsequently raised up to Allah, as is also in harmony with Bible (John 20.9-17; Acts 1.2-3, 9). Please click here for more details on Jesus death from the Quran.

On the site, A Christian Thinktank, a long, but very informative, response was given to a "truth-seeking Muslim", who had questions about the death of Jesus on the cross (SEE THIS THREAD). The entire thread is a must read (IMHO), but at the end of the post, the following summation is provided:

Ok, let’s try to summarize this data:

1. The non-controversial Qur’anic references to the death of Christ are clear in affirming a historical death.

2. Because of a perceived conflict with an interpretation of 4:157, these verses were re-interpreted (sometimes almost bizarrely).

3. Muslim and non-Muslim interpreters know that God caused Jesus to die—no human agency could take credit for it.

4. Muslim and non-Muslim scholars know that the passage is obscure and not clear enough to build such a ‘large’ doctrine on. (Some even add the phrase ‘And God knows best what happened’!)

5. Scholarly exegetes who were closer/truer to the text tended to reject/criticize the substitution legends.

6. It is frequently known that it is not the Qur’an that denies the historicity of the Cross, but rather some interpreters of the Qur’an who do so.

7. The range of interpretation of the verse by Muslims over the years shows that ‘denial of the Cross’ was not an early/reliable and consensus tradition.

8. Many (most?) modern Muslim scholars do not hold to the non-historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus.

9. There were several equally plausible ways of understanding the verse, which fit with the other Qur’anic witnesses and the witness of the prior Books.

10. The early Shi’i community explicitly accepted the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus.

11. The Qur’an itself shows that the objection that “Prophets are protected by God from such deaths” is false.

12. Several Muslim intellectuals had argued over the centuries that the substitution legends were illegitimate intrusions into the interpretation, mostly coming from the unreliable Isra ‘iliyyat (from both Jewish and Christian sources). And in some cases the alleged Islamic sources were too suspect themselves to be used for establishing proper Muslim belief.

13. Several of the most learned, respected, and submitted Islamic scholars in history rejected or criticized the substitution view.

14. The grammar of the controversial passage militates against it supporting a substitution theory.

15. Some Muslim scholars/groups held (a few still hold) that Jesus was crucified, but that only His body died—His spirit was alive to God.

16. But the understanding which makes the most sense out of the passage, the other passages on death, the repudiation of the boasts of the Jews in 4:157, their uncertainty about their success in overcoming/extinguishing a Prophet of God, and the wording about the Battle of Badr (and the passage in the Zabur 44 I cited) is that God caused Jesus to die at the hands of the Jewish enemies—for His own sovereign purposes—but that He cancelled that death and exalted/raised Jesus up to honored status as a Living Teacher, Prophet, and Judge who will come again at the end of time.

17. This latter understanding agrees with the pre-Qur’anic revelation—in conformity to the claims of the Qur’an itself that it ‘confirms’ the Hebrew Bible and New Testament (as they existed at the time of Mohammed).

From the pen of Gabriel Reynolds, the Associate Professor of Islamic Studies and Theology Director, at the University of Notre Dame, we read:

This point might be taken still further. If tafsīr indeed provides an accurate explanation of the Quran’s original, intended meaning, then nowhere should the explanation be clearer than in the case of the Crucifixion. If the Prophet Muhammad announced to his companions that Jesus never died, but rather someone who was made miraculously to look like him died in his place, i.e. if he gave a historical account of the crucifixion which fundamentally contradicts that which Jews and Christians had been reporting for hundreds of years, then certainly such a revolutionary account – if any – would be well remembered and well preserved. But, quite to the contrary, the reports of the mufassirūn are inconsistent and often contradictory. They have all of the tell-tale signs of speculative exegesis.

This strikes me as reason enough for critical scholars to read this quranic passage in light of earlier (i.e. Jewish and Christian) and not later (i.e. Islamic exegesis) literature. When the Quran is read in this light, it quickly becomes apparent that the passage on the crucifixion is fully in line with Christian anti-Jewish rhetoric. A major theme of this rhetoric, of course, is the portrayal of the Jews as prophet-killers. Accordingly the Quran, in sūrat al-nisā’ (4) 155, accuses the Jews of “murdering the prophets”. When the Quran then alludes to the crucifixion just two verses later, it means to give the cardinal example of just such a murder. (The Muslim Jesus: Dead or Alive?)

Further contributions that are germane to our topic, which are available online, include the following:

Via the Reformed site Contra Mundum: The Crucifixion of Jesus in Muslim Theology

The Answering Islam site provides M.N. Anderson's, "Strike The Truth In the Cross" (Part 4 of his, Jesus The Light And Fragrance of God) - LINK

And at the blog, Religious Roundtable, the thread: The Crucifixion and the Quran.

Anyway, thought I would share some of my recent discoveries on this important issue—ENJOY!!!

Grace and peace,

David

Dr. Todd Lawson's stimulating lecture - "Tafsir and the Meaning of the Qur'an: the Crucifixion in Muslim Thought"

2011-12-10T13:47:00.000-08:00

Back on November 21, 2009 (LINK), I introduced my readers to Dr. Todd's Lawson's ground-breaking book, The Crucifixion and the Qur'an. (I also shared a few of my own reflections on this issue in the same thread). Yesterday, I discovered that back on October 23, 2010, Dr. Lawson delivered a lecture on one of the topics in his book.

Part 1 of the lecture is below:

Todd Lawson from Ali Vural Ak Center for Global I on Vimeo.

Part 2:

Todd Lawson (Part 2) and Daniel Madigan from Ali Vural Ak Center for Global I on Vimeo.

It seems that none of my readers chose to purchase Dr. Lawson's book (at least to my knowledge); perhaps the viewing of his lecture will stimulate greater interest in this very important topic.

Grace and peace,

David

James White's (mis)use of Melito of Sardis as an early witness to the incarnation of God (the Son)

2011-12-05T15:11:00.000-08:00

I have been listening to the recent debate, "Can God Become a Man?" (10-17-11), between James White and Abdullah Kunde (full audio of the debate available HERE).

At approximately the 9:00 minute mark forward, James cites Melito of Sardis' Peri Pascha (or, Homily on the Passion) as one of "two early writers" (the other being Ignatius of Antioch), "who are both telling the same story...that the Christian consistent belief was that Jesus Christ had become incarnate".

Now before getting to the misuse of Melito by James, a little background information on the text he cites needs to be provided. This is not the first time that James invokes Melitio; I am aware of at least two other instances wherein he does so: first, in his 1998 book, The Forgotten Trinity (pp. 184, 185) ; and then shortly after, in the Christian Research Journal (21.4 - 1999) article, "Loving the Trinity" (online PDF version).

In both of the above instances, James gives his readers the same English version of sections 95-96, 104-105, from Melito's Peri Pascha; he gives no references to the text at all in the book version, and in the CRJ, he merely states in footnote #11 that what he has quoted is a "Personal translation." He gives no indication that there is a major break between sections 95-96 and 104-105, and provides no published source of the Greek text that he used for his "Personal translation." (Two editions of the Greek text, with English translation, have been published: Campbell Bonner's The Homily on the Passion by Melito Bishop of Sardis; with Some Fragments of the Apocryphal Ezekiel (1940), and Stuart G. Hall's Melito of Sardis On Pascha and Fragments (1979) - I own a copy of the latter.)

[Alternate English translations available in Richard A. Norris Jr.'s, The Christological Controversy, pp. 33-47 (1980); Gerald F. Hawthorne's in Kerux: A Journal of Biblical-Theological Preaching, 4.1 (May 1989), which was originally published, "a festschrift for Merrill C. Tenney entitled Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (1975)"; and most recently, Alistari Steward-Sykes' in On Pascha.]

Moving on to why the use of the Melito quote by James in all three of the above contexts constitutes a misuse: Melito of Sardis was a modalist. Note the following from Hall's introduction:

Doctrine of God and Christ. Bonner characterized Melito's teaching by Harnack's phrase 'naïve modalism"; i.e. Christ is equated with God with no serious consideration of the implications. Bonner refers especially to the use of the title Father in speaking of Christ, and the epigram 'God is murdered'. Attempts are made to modify this estimate, by interpreting Father as a reference to Christ's regenerating action, or emphasizing expressions which imply Christ's distinct personal pre-existence. Others defend Melito from the imputation of formal heresy. Nevertheless, Melito does attribute to Christ all the acts of God without exception; he rarely uses expressions which clearly imply a personal distinction of the Son from the Father; where the term Logos is used of Christ there is no suggestion of the Middle Platonist ideas which led Justin to think in terms of a second God; and Melito addresses his doxologies to Christ rather than distinctly to the Father. If not exactly a modalist, Melito shares the Christocentric monotheism of the Acts of John; Christ alone is God. On the doctrine of incarnation, similarly, Melito's orthodoxy has been exaggerated...The divine Lord identifies himself with suffering mankind, putting on like a garment flesh which is the subject of man's defeat by sinful passion and death. In the flesh he dies, but his dying merely releases the divine Spirit, which destroys death and raises him to life again, and with him humanity (ὁ ἄνθρωπος). (Pages xliii-xliv.)

From Melito himself we read:

8 For as a Son born,
and as a lamb led,
and as a sheep slain,
and as a man buried,
he rose from the dead as God, being by nature God and Man.

9 For he is all things:
inasmuch as he judges, Law;
inasmuch as he teaches, Word;
inasmuch as he save, Grace;
inasmuch as he as begets, Father;
inasmuch as he is begotten, Son;
inasmuch as he suffers, Sheep;
inasmuch as he is buried, Man;
inasmuch as he is raised, God.

10 This is Jesus the Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Hall, pp. 5, 7.)

The esteemed patristic scholar, Johannes Quasten, concurs with the assessments of Bonner and Hall. The following quote from volume 1 of his famous Patrology (3 volumes in all), provides Bonner's translation of the above passage, along with some of his own reflections.

The title 'Father' for Christ is unusual. It occurs in an important passage describing the various functions of Christ:

For born as a son, and led forth as a lamb, sacrificed as a sheep, buried as a man, he rose from the dead as God, being by nature God and man. Who is all things : in that he judges, Law, in that he teaches, Word in that he saves, Grace, in that he begets, Father, in that he is begotten, Son, in that he suffers, the sacrificial sheep, in that he is buried, Man, in that he arises, God. This is Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory to the ages of ages (8-10 Bonner).

This complete identification of Christ with the Godhead itself could be interpreted in favor of the monarchian modalism of a later period. If that were the case it would explain the neglect and eventual loss of Melito's works. (Johannes Quasten, Patrology - Volume 1, 1986 reprint, p. 244.)

If it is 'fair game' to cite modalists as representatives of "Christian consistent belief", why not adoptionists, or subordinationists, or Arians, or ...

Grace and peace,

David

Early Christian-Muslim dialogue

2011-12-02T11:41:00.000-08:00

In my library, I possess what seems to be a fairly rare book on Christian-Muslim dialogue, with the full title, The Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue: A Collection of Documents from the First Three Islamic Centuries (632 - 900 A.D.): Translations with Commentary.

The book was published back in 1993 by the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute (Hatfield, Pennsylvania), and was edited by N. A. Newman. (Google Books link.)

The following are the translated works included in the book (links to free online editions of the 3 largest works are included):

The Dialogue of Patriarch John I [the Jacobite (i.e. monophysite) Patriarch of Antioch] with 'Amr al-As [the Amir of the Hagarenes] (639 A.D.)

Leo III's [Byzantine Emperor] Reply to Umar II [Umayyad Caliph] (719 A.D.)

John of Damascus' "Islam" in On Heresies [chapters 100, 101] (died circa 752 A.D.)

Note: Google Books online preview of Daniel J. Sahas definitive work, John of Damascus On Islam, available here.

The Dialogue of Patriarch [Nestorian] Timothy I with Caliph [Abbassid] Mahdi (781 A.D.)

Online access: Woodbrooke Studies - volume 2; The Apology of Timothy the Patriarch before the Caliph Mahdi - Mingana

The Religious Dialogue of Jerusalem

Al-Kindi's Apology (circa 820 A.D.)

Online access: The Apology of Al Kindy - Muir

Al-Tabari's Book of Religion and Empire (circa 855 A.D.)

Online access: The Book of Religion and Empire - Mingana

Al-Jahiz's A Reply To The Christians (died 869 A.D.)

In addition to the obvious assessment that the above works provide us with a fairly good glimpse into the kind/type of dialogue that was transpiring between Christians and Muslims in the first three centuries after the rise of Islam, I would like to add the following observations: first, the majority of Christians entering into dialogue with the Muslims in this early period were deemed heretics by the 'Catholic' (Greek and Latin) branch of Christianity; second, the Muslims writers were all Sunnis; third, the level and scope of the dialogues seem somewhat 'unsophisticated' and uninformed by more modern 'standards'; and fourth, certain lines of apologetic method and argumentation on how the ongoing dialogues/debates would proceed along were established—lines, with few exceptions, that have continued down to our own day among the more popular and polemical disputants.

I would now like to expand a bit on my fourth observation. Those who are familiar with this blog are aware of importance that the development of doctrine played in the formation of Christian dogmas. They are also cognizant of the incredible diversity that existed (and continues to exist) among 'catholic/orthodox' Christians, let alone among those who came to be deemed as heretics via conciliar and imperial decrees. With this in mind, I find it quite interesting that much of the apologetic method and argumentation between Christians and Muslims has been carried on with the view that Christian dogma has virtually no diversity, and was 'fixed' long before the debates between the Christians and Muslims began. (I would also argue that the same holds true concerning the development of Muslim doctrines.)

It is my belief that this lack of acknowledgement, and discernment, concerning the development and diversity of dogma, has severely hindered constructive and fruitful dialogue between Christians and Muslims. I also believe that much of the poor apologetic method and argumentation that began in those early dialogues has continued into the 21st century—allowing, of course, that both sides have become much more 'polished' in their presentations of those methods and arguments.

Sincerely hope that this opening post will stimulate some robust and thoughtful interaction.

Grace and peace,

David

More free, online, theonomy/reconstructionism resources

2011-11-29T11:00:00.000-08:00

Back on February 15, 2011 in a thread on theonomy/reconstructionism (HERE), I provided links (first; second) to "90-plus free books and 800-plus free newsletters", on this subject.

In the Nov./Dec. 2011 issue of Faith For All Life, that I received in the mail yesterday, another free, online resource for works on theonomy/reconstructionism was brought to the attention of its readers, with the heading: "Over 60 books now available for online reading at no cost!" (page 25). Below is the link to those tomes:

Chalcedon - online books

Grace and peace,

David

An interesting book...

2011-11-09T11:04:00.000-08:00

I have been reading the above book online (via Google preview - LINK). It delves into the use of violence (and politics) on the part of Christians in positions of authority (ecclesiastical and secular) against those who differed with them doctrinally.

I hope to purchase this book soon (I am short of funds this month), but until then, I will have to settle with the online preview (fortunately, a good portion of the book is accessable).

From what I have been reading, this book seems to be an excellent companion to Ramsey MacMullen's, Voting About God (linked to, and discussed, in THIS THREAD).

Grace and peace,

David

Some reflections on Tim Kimberly's online Athanasius biography

2011-10-28T14:28:00.000-07:00

As mentioned in my 10-27-11 thread, though I thought Tim Kimberly's online essay, "Top Ten Theologians: #4 - Athanasius" (LINK) was "pretty good", I also stated that, "it has some important faults". This current thread will delve into two issues that I believe to be deficient.

First, the character of Athanasius -

Under the subheading, "Athansius' Foibles", Tim posted:

Historically, Athanasius is known for his godly life... In the early 20th century, however, many contemporary scholars portrayed Athanasius as very sinister T.D. Barnes states, “Like a modern gangster, he evoked widespread mistrust, proclaimed total innocence – and usually succeeded in evading conviction on specific charges.”

Barnes goes on to explain why most people haven’t heard of this side of him:

If the violence of Athanasius leaves fewer traces in the surviving sources…[the reason is] that he exercised power more efficiently and that he was successful in presenting himself to posterity as an innocent in power, as an honest, sincere and straightforward ‘man of God.’

Barnes makes an argument from silence. In order to survive and even win the day Athanasius surely needed to be a wise, resourceful and clever man. The fact that he ultimately bested his opponents in no way implies that he was more evil than they. [Footnotes provided in the original - excluded from the above extract; interestingly enough, Tim does not provide a footnote for the above citation in italics—the quote is from Barnes', Athanasius and Constantius, p. 33.]

There is a bit more to this 'story'. Back on July 3, 2010, I posted the following:

==Though I am a huge fan of Dr. Schaff, he has not accurately portrayed Athanasius. R.P.C. Hanson, in his massive tome, The Seach for the Christian Doctrine of God provides a much more complete, and accurate, assessment of Athanasius. Chapter 9, “The Behaviour of Athanasius”, sheds considerable ‘light’ on the darker side of Athanasius. It looks as though pretty much the entire chapter is available online via Google Books (LINK - go to pages 239-273). After providing a list of charges levied against Athanasius from various ancient sources, Hanson writes:

“It is remarkable how closely this evidence agrees with the list of Melitian charges against Athanasius given us by Sozomenus: causing divisions and disturbances in his diocese, preventing people entering churches, murders and imprisonments and undeserved beatings and woundings. Instead of ‘the tenderness which could not be loved’, the gentleness which made him…so patient and equitable as a peace-maker’, the majestic moral unity’ of his conduct and the freedom from anything ignoble in it, we find Athanasius behaving like an employer of thugs hired to intimidate his enemies. The evidence of papyrus 1914, Bell remarks, makes it certain that the charges of violent and unscrupulous behaviour in his see made Athanasius at Caesarea in 334, at Tyre in 335, at Serdica in 343 and many times thereafter were not baseless.” (Page 254)

And:

“We can now see why, for at least twenty years after 335, no Eastern bishops would communicate with Athanasius. He had been justly convicted of disgraceful behaviour in his see. His conviction had nothing to do with doctrinal issues. No church could be expected to tolerate behaviour like this on the part of one of its bishops.” (Pages 254, 255.)==

Just prior to the quote that Kimberly provided from Barnes' Athanasius and Constantius (p. 33), Barnes wrote:

Despite his protestations of innocence, Athanasius exercised power and protected his position in Alexandria by the systematic use of violence and intimidation. The papyrus of 335 documents in detail one small episode in which he coerced his opponents and used violence in an attempt to prevent them form attending a church council. That was not an isolated misdemeanor, but a typical example of the means by which bishops of Alexandria maintained their power in the Christian Roman Empire. (Ibid. pp. 32, 33.)

Barnes' "argument" (and Hanson's) is not "from silence", but rather, is based on the careful examination of the extant evidence.

Second, the complete lack of any reference to Athanasius' doctrine of deification (theosis) -

I am more than surprised that Kimberly completely ignored this very important aspect of Athansius' theology. Interestingly enough, one of the authors that he cites (and links to) had this to say:

We have stressed throughout this study that soteriology stands at the heart of Athanasius' theology. Christian soteriology is founded upon the premise that the Father created, through his Son, human beings in the image and likeness of his Son so that they might know him and share in a life of communion with him in that same Son through the divine life of the Holy Spirit...Athanasius' entire defence of the full divinity of the Son was based upon the principle that only if the Son of God were truly divine could humankind's salvation be ensured...Thus Athanasius' perception and articulation of the Trinity is wholly soteriological. (Thomas Gerard Weinandy, Athanasius: A Theological Introduction, p. 121.)

Note the following from the pen of Athanasius:

Athanasius - De Incarnation 54 For He was made man that we might be made God. (NPNF, second series, 4.65).

Athanasius - Defence of the Nicene Definition 3.14 ...the Word was made flesh in order to offer up this body for all, and that we, partaking of His Spirit, might be deified, a gift which we could not otherwise have gained than by His clothing Himself in our created body, for hence we derive our name of "men of God" and "men in Christ." But as we, by receiving the Spirit, do not lose our own proper substance, so the Lord, when made man for us, and bearing a body, was no less God; for He was not lessened by the envelopment of the body, but rather deified it and rendered it immortal. (NPNF, second series, 4.159).

Athanasius - Contra Arians 1.11.38 ...but rather He Himself has made us sons of the Father, and deified men by becoming Himself man. (NPNF, second series, 4.329).

Athanasius - Contra Arians 1.11.39 Therefore He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us...And how can there be deifying apart from the Word and before Him? (NPNF, second series, 4.329).

Athanasius - Contra Arians 1.11.45 For He who is the Son of God, became Himself the Son of Man; and, as Word, He gives from the Father, for all things which the Father does and gives, He does and supplies through Him; and as the Son of Man, He Himself is said after the manner of men to receive what proceeds from Him, because His Body is none other than His, and is a natural recipient of grace, as has been said. For He received it as far as His man’s nature was exalted; which exaltation was its being deified. But such an exaltation the Word Himself always had according to the Father’s Godhead and perfection, which was His. (NPNF, second series, 4.333).

Athanasius - Contra Arians 2.21.70 Whence the truth shews us that the Word is not of things originate, but rather Himself their Framer. For therefore did He assume the body originate and human, that having renewed it as its Framer, he might deify it in Himself, and thus might introduce us all into the kingdom of heaven after His likeness. For man had not been deified if joined to a creature, or unless the Son were very God; nor had man been brought into the Father’s presence, unless He had been His natural and true Word who had put on the body. And as we had not been delivered from sin and the curse, unless it had been by nature human flesh, which the Word put on (for we should have had nothing common with what was foreign), so also the man had not been deified, unless the Word who became flesh had been by nature from the Father and true and proper to Him. For therefore the union was of this kind, that He might unite what is man by nature to Him who is in the nature of the Godhead, and his salvation and deification might be sure. (NPNF, second series, 4.386).

Athanasius - Contra Arians 3.25.23 And the work is perfected, because men, redeemed from sin, no longer remain dead; but being deified, have in each other, by looking at Me, the bond of charity. (NPNF, second series, 4.406).

Athanasius - Contra Arians 3.25.25 ...and as we are sons and gods because of the Word in us, so we shall be in the Son and in the Father, and we shall be accounted to have become one in Son and in Father...(NPNF, second series, 4.407).

Athanasius - Contra Arians 3.26.33 ...no longer do these things touch the body, because of the Word who has come in it, but they are destroyed by him, and henceforth men no longer remain sinners and dead according to their proper affections, but having risen according to the Word's power, they abide ever immortal and incorruptible. Whence also, whereas the flesh is born of Mary Bearer of God [θεοτόκου], He Himself is said to have been born, who furnishes to others an origin of being; in order that He may transfer our origin into Himself, and we may no longer, as mere earth, return to earth, but as being knit into the Word from heaven, may be carried to heaven by Him. Therefor in like manner not without reason has He transferred to Himself the other affections of the body also; that we, no longer as being men, but as proper to the Word, may have share in eternal life. For no longer according to our former origin in Adam do we die; but henceforward our origin and all infirmity of flesh being transferred to the Word, we rise from the earth, the curse form sin being removed, because of Him who is in us, and who has become a curse for us. And with reason; for as we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened; the flesh no longer earthly, but being henceforth made Word [λογωθείσης της σαρκός - this strong term is here applied to human nature generally; it is also used to describe our Lord's flesh], by reason of God's Word who for our sake 'became flesh.' (NPNF, second series, 4.412)

Athanasius - Contra Arians 3.28.48 For now the flesh had risen and put off its mortality and been deified. (He is here speaking of Christ's flesh). (NPNF, second series, 4.420).

Athanasius - Letter 60 (Ad Adelphium) And if God sent His Son brought forth from a woman, the fact causes us no shame but contrariwise glory and great grace. For He has become Man, that He might deify us in Himself, and He has been born of a woman, and begotten of a Virgin, in order to transfer to Himself our erring generation, and that we may become henceforth a holy race, and ‘partakers of the Divine Nature,’ as blessed Peter wrote. And ‘what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.’ (NPNF, second series, 4.576)

[Note: NPNF = The Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers, (second series), 1979 Eerdmans reprint.]

I think I should end here, stating that I sincerely hope the above does not detract too much from Kimberly's ongoing series.

Grace and peace,

David

A "prophecy" (grin) from the Beachbum...

2011-10-27T01:00:00.000-07:00

I had trouble falling asleep tonight; read for a couple of hours, and then jumped online. Once on the internet, I thought I would check in on some sites that I have not looked in on for sometime. During my 'surfing', one thread in particular caught my eye, Tim Kimberly's, "Top Ten Theologians: #4 - Athanasius " (LINK). The post, for a blog contribution, is pretty good, though it has some important faults (hope to publish a post here at AF to share my thoughts on those deficiencies; perhaps tomorrow, but more likely Friday, the Lord willing).

By 'clicking' on the Tim Kimberly link, I found that the previous theologians in his top ten were: #5 - Jonathan Edwards; #6 - Thomas Aquinas; #7 - C.S. Lewis; #8 - Anselm; # 9 - Karl Barth; and # 10 - Irenaeus.

And now, the Beachbum's "prophecy": I predict that 2 of the next 3 theologians on his list will include: St. Augustine, and John Calvin.

As for the third, I suspect it will be one in the Reformed tradition...

Grace and peace,

David

An excellent, recently published, article pertaining to Islam: "The Islamic Case for Religious Liberty"

2011-10-24T13:06:00.000-07:00

Last night, I came across an article on Islam published in the new issue (November, 2011) of the journal, First Things, under the title: "The Islamic Case for Religious Liberty", by Dr. Abdullah Saeed (LINK).

I have been keenly interested in Jihad, and the related topic of religious liberty, as understood within the Islamic paradigm for sometime now, and my last two threads on Islam (link 1; link 2) touch on these issues. Dr. Saeed begins his essay with:

The words of the Qur’an and hadith contain rich resources for supporting the democratic order. If Muslims are to embrace modernity, including life in a pluralistic, democratic society, without abandoning their faith, they must take up the argument for religious liberty that is embedded in their history and that stands at the center of their most sacred texts.

Although the broad thrust of the Qur’an and hadith supports religious liberty, many parts of these texts can be, and traditionally have been, interpreted as denying it. One example is a qur’anic verse that deals with the question of the jizyah, a tax on non-Muslims: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Q 9:29). The Prophet reportedly sometimes demands the death penalty for apostasy, the most obvious example of this being the hadith “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” (Bukhari, Sahih, 9, 84, hadith 57).

These problematic texts are outweighed by the bulk of the texts and instruction provided by the two most important authorities in Islam, the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad’s actual practice. Both are remarkably supportive of the idea of individual and personal religious freedom.

I would like to urge all my readers to digest the entire article, and shall be looking forward to the reflections/thoughts of those who have taken the time to do so.

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. I would also like to recommend an older, but equally important, essay that is germane to our topic at hand: Jihad, Abrogation in the Quran & the "Verse of the Sword"

Martin Luther on the "Roman Church"

2011-10-22T01:09:00.000-07:00

Back on November 12, 2009, I posted the thread, Luther: "I honor the Roman Church". [NOTE: One will discern after reading the entire thread, that the post is more about the view of Charles Hodge on the Roman Church, rather than Luther's view.]

The following is the quote I provided from Luther:

I honor the Roman Church. She is pious, has God's Word and Baptism, and is holy. (Martin Luther, from his sermon on Matt. 21:42, D. Martin Luther’s Werke, Vol. 47.425 – also known as the Weimar edition; English trans. from What Luther Says, p. 126.)

Two days later, James Swan of the Beggars All blog, felt a need to expand on the quote, and published THIS THREAD. At first glance, it seems that the primary focus of his post is to demonstrate that, "Luther makes a distinction between the Roman church and the papal hierarchy". But at the end of the thread, he states:

Since Rome officially anathematized the Gospel at Trent, I don't consider her part of the Catholic Church. The debate on this amongst the reformed still goes on...Here would be a good example of something I part company with Luther on, and even many of my Reformed friends. I don't think the papacy can be extracted from the Church of Rome and still have the term "Church of Rome"make sense.

It seems that the focus has transitioned from what Luther actually said/penned (James' forte), to James interpretation of Trent. (See the following threads for some germane reflections on this particular issue: link 1; link 2; link 3.)

Moving forward nearly two years, James posted the following thread:

Ten Martin Luther Myths.

This thread caught my eye, and after reading his list of "ten", I added an 11th in the combox, linking back to my 11-12-11 post (link). Ken Temple then added a brief comment, and I responded; James then linked to 2 of his previous posts, to which I in turn commented on; the subsequent comments have prompted this new thread at AF.

For the record, I am specifically addressing James' following charge in greater detail:

I think the point you originally made was misleading, as was your blog post (which I responded to when you posted it, see the links I posted). Perhaps not purposefully, but misleading nonetheless.

It's not so much what you're saying, it's what you're not saying.

For clarification, you need to emphasize the distinctions Luther did. Otherwise, your blog post is simply a bit of propaganda. (link).

Though I made a sincere attempt to explain my initial post (and subsequent repost), of the Luther quote, it seems that I have hit a 'nerve' with James. The rest of this post is my attempt to address his charges/concerns. [Note: the following quotations from Luther shall be in blue; quotations from blogs in green; all other quotations in red.]

The quote I provided from Luther was meant to introduce, and augment, Dr. Charles Hodge's view that the Roman Church has remained a Christian church. It has been my experience (both online and in numerous personal interactions) that very few folk are aware of the fact that Luther, and some prominent Reformed theologians, believe/maintain that the RCC is a Christian church. I shall begin the augmentation of my original Luther quote with the following from the esteemed pen of Dr. Philip Schaff:

How far, we must ask here, did Luther recognize the dominion of the papacy as a part of the true catholic church? He did not look upon the Pope in the historical and legal light as the legitimate head of the Roman Church ; but he ought him to the end of his life as the antagonist of the gospel, as the veritable Antichrist, and the papacy as an apostasy. He could not have otherwise justified his separation, and the burning of the papal bull and law books. He assumed a position to the Pope and his church similar to that of the apostles to Caiaphas and the synagogue. Nevertheless, whether consistently or not, he never doubted the validity of the ordinances of the Roman Church, having himself been baptized, confirmed, and ordained in it, and he never dreamed of being re-baptized or re-ordained. Those millions of Protestants who seceded in the sixteenth century were of the same opinion, with the sole exception of the Anabaptists who objected to infant-baptism, partly on the ground that it was an invention of the popish Antichrist, and therefore invalid.

Nor did Luther or any of the Reformers and sensible Protestants doubt that there always were and are still many true Christians in the Roman communion, notwithstanding all her errors and corruptions, as there were true Israelites even in the darkest periods of the Jewish theocracy. In his controversy with the Anabaptists (1528), Luther makes the striking admission : "We confess that under the papacy there is much Christianity, yea, the whole Christianity, and has from thence come to us. We confess that the papacy possesses the genuine Scriptures, genuine baptism, the genuine sacrament of the altar, the genuine keys for the remission of sins, the true ministry, the true catechism, the Ten Commandments, the articles of the Creed, the Lord s Prayer. ... I say that under the Pope is the true Christendom, yea, the very élite of Christendom, and many pious and great saints."[1]

[1] "Ich sage, dass unter dem Papst die rechte Christenheit ist, ja der rechte Ausbund der Christenheit, und viel frommmer, gorsser Heiligen." (Von der Wiedertaufe, (Erl. cd. XXVI. 257 sq.) The Roman Catholic Möhler does not fail to quote this passage in his Symbolik, p. 422 sq. He says of Luther s conception of the church (p. 424), that it is not false, but only one sided (nicht falsch, obgleich einseitig). He virtually admits the Protestant distinction between the visible and the invisible church, but holds that the Catholics put the visible, church first as the basis of the invisible, while the Protestants reverse the order.

For proof he refers, strangely enough, to the very passage of Paul, 2 Thess. 2 :3, 4, from which he and other Reformers derived their chief argument that the Pope of Rome is Antichrist, "the man of sin," "the son of perdition." For Paul represents him as sitting "in the temple of God;" that is, in the true church, and not in the synagogue of Satan. As the Pope is Antichrist, he must be among Christians, and rule and tyrannize over Christians. Melanchthon, who otherwise had greater respect for the Pope and the Roman Church, repeatedly expressed the same view. Luther came nearer the true position when he said that the Roman church might be called a "holy church,'" or ex parte, with the same restriction with which Paul called the Galatian by synecdoche Christians "churches," notwithstanding their apostasy from the true gospel. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 7.529-531, Eerdmans 1980 reprint - bold emphasis mine.)

A bit earlier (1518/1519), Luther was even more conciliatory to the Pope/papacy:

LETTER TO POPE LEO X,

ACCOMPANYING THE "RESOLUTIONS" TO THE XCV THESES 1518

To the Most Blessed Father,

LEO X.

Martin Luther,

Augustinian Friar,

wisheth everlasting welfare.

I have heard evil reports about myself, most blessed Father, by which I know that certain friends have put my name in very bad odor with you and yours, saying that I have attempted to belittle the power of the keys and of the Supreme Pontiff. Therefore I am accused of heresy, apostasy, and perfidy, and am called by six hundred other names of ignominy. My ears shudder and my eyes are astounded. (Works of Martin Luther - With Introduction and Notes, 1915, vol. 1.44.)
The letter ends with:

Wherefore, most blessed Father, I cast myself at the feet of your Holiness, with all that I have and all that I am. Quicken, kill, call, recall, approve, reprove, as you will. In your voice I shall recognize the voice of Christ directing you and speaking in you. If I have deserved death, I shall not refuse to die. For the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof. He is blessed forever. Amen.

May He have you too forever in His keeping. Amen.

ANNO MDXVIII. (Ibid. p. 48 - bold emphasis mine.)

And:

[Letter] 32. To Pope Leo X - Altenburg, January 5 or 6, 1519

Draft of the letter to the Lord Pope

Most Holy Father: Necessity again forces me, the lowest of all men and dust of the earth, to address myself to Your Holiness and August Majesty. May Your Holiness therefore be most gracious and deign to lend your ears in a fatherly fashion for a short time, and willingly listen to the bleating of this, your little sheep, for you truly stand in the place of Christ.

The honorable Sir Charles Miltitz, chamber secretary to Your Holiness, has been with us. In the presence of the Most Illustrious Sovereign Frederick he very harshly accused me in the name of Your Holiness of lacking respect for and being rash toward the Roman church and Your Holiness, and demanded satisfaction for this. Hearing this, I was deeply grieved that my most loyal service has had such an unhappy outcome and that what I had undertaken—to guard the honor of the Roman church—had resulted in disgrace and was suspected of all wickedness, even so far as the head of the church was concerned. But what am I to do, Most Holy Father? I do not know what to do further: I cannot bear the power of your wrath, and I do not know of any means to escape it. The demand is made that I recant my theses. If such a revocation could accomplish what I was attempting to do with my theses, I would issue it without hesitation. Now, however, through the antagonism and pressure of enemies, my writings are spread farther than I ever had expected and are so deeply rooted in the hearts of so many people that I am not in the position to revoke them. In addition since our Germany prospers wonderfully today with men of talent, learning, and judgment, I realize that I cannot, under any circumstances, recant anything if I want to honor the Roman church—and this has to be my primary concern. Such a recanting would accomplish nothing but to defile the Roman church more and more and bring it into the mouths of the people as something that should be accused. See, Father, those whom I have opposed have inflicted this injury and virtual ignominy on the Roman church among us. With their most insipid sermons, preached in the name of Your Holiness, they have cultivated only the most shameful avarice and have substituted for sanctification the vile and abominable Egyptian scandal. And as if that had not been bad enough, they accuse me before Your Holiness—me, who opposed their tremendous monstrosities—of being the author of the temerity which is theirs.

Most Holy Father, before God and all his creation, I testify that I have never wanted, nor do I today want, to touch in any way the authority of the Roman church and of Your Holiness or demolish it by any craftiness. On the contrary I confess the authority of this church to be supreme over all, and that nothing, be it in heaven or on earth, is to be preferred to it, save the one Jesus Christ who is Lord of all—nor should Your Holiness believe the schemers who claim otherwise, plotting evil against this Martin.

Since in this case I can do only one thing, I shall most willingly promise Your Holiness that in the future I shall leave this matter of indulgences alone, and will be completely silent concerning it (if [my enemies] also stop their vain and bombastic speeches). In addition I shall publish something for the common people to make them understand that they should truly honor the Roman church, and influence them to do so. [I shall tell them] not to blame the church for the rashness of [those indulgence preachers], nor to imitate my sharp words against the Roman church, which I have used—or rather misused—against those clowns, and with which I have gone too far. Perhaps by the grace of God the discord which has arisen may finally be quieted by such an effort. I strive for only one thing: that the Roman church, our Mother, be not polluted by the filth of unsuitable avarice, and that the people be not led astray into error and taught to prefer indulgences to works of love. All the other things I consider of less importance, since they are matters of indifference. If I can do anything else, or if I discover that there is something else I can do, I will certainly be most ready to do it. (Luther's Works - Volume 48: Letters I, Gottried G. Krodel Editor and Translator, Concordia Publishing House, 1963, pp. 100-102 - bold emphasis mine.)

After the Diet of Worms, Luther changed his stance on the papacy, but not on the Roman church. Note the following (in chronological order):

C. The Cause of This Hatred and Persecution.

24. This is the first part of this Gospel and prophecy of Christ. The second part now follows, explaining how it is that such worthy people, the best, the wisest and most holy among God's children, who earnestly seek to serve and honor God, should so bitterly and mercilessly persecute Christ and his people.

"These things will they do unto yon, because they have not known the Father nor me"

25. There you have the reason. Christ tells what moves them to such hatred and persecution of Christians. It is, he says, because you preach concerning me, whom they do not know; for they jealously regard their own office of teaching and preaching In the capacity of chief-priest and scribe (and in this day of pope, bishop, etc.) repudiating all doctrine that differs from that of Moses and the Law. They rigidly follow the command of Moses in Deut 13, 6ff. How, then, shall the apostles be permitted to promulgate this utterly new doctrine concerning an unknown Messiah, one, too, whom they reject as a false prophet, yea, whom they have crucified as a deceiver and blasphemer? Who, in opposition to all recognized authority and intelligence, would acknowledge as Christ this executed victim? These so-called people of God boast to the apostles of their authority, saying, in Acts 5, 28 : ''Did we not straitly charge you not to teach in this name?"

26. That they do not know this Christ is true without a doubt. Their own confession and deeds prove it. It is plainly evident in what high esteem they hold themselves as being the people of God, who possess the Law, and the promise, the priesthood and worship of God (even as our people possess the Scriptures, baptism, the sacrament and the name of Christ) ; yet they are blind and without the true knowledge of God and of Christ, and consequently have become hardened, opposing God and his Son with their acts of ban and murder, under the very appearance and with the boast of thereby serving God. But Christ strengthens and comforts his own people that they may not fear harsh judgment, nor be intimidated by jealous authority from preaching and confession, but may say to their adversaries as the apostles answered the chiefpriests and the council at Jerusalem, in Acts 5, 29 : "We must obey God rather than men."

27. In this connection Christ fixes the standard of judgment and points out the difference between the true and the false Church. The Church is not to be judged by name and external appearance; but insight must be had and the identifying mark be forthcoming, by which the holy Church and the true people and servants of God may be recognized. Reason and human wisdom cannot furnish the necessary qualifications for the true Church. The actual test is in ascertaining who have the real knowledge of Christ and who have it not. Judgment cannot be passed in this case according to mere external appearance and name, according to the office and authority and power of the Church ; in all these externals the Jews excelled the apostles and the papacy excels us by far.

28. Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us ; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them.

29. In view of these prerogatives, they make their perverse boast against us and censure and curse us as obstinate and recreant apostates and enemies of the Church. It is unpleasant to suffer such reproach, and for this reason the devil easily terrifies the hearts of some of the ignorant and overwhelms men with the thought: Alas! the Church has pronounced the ban and it really possesses the office; this is certainly a thing not to be made light of, for Christ says in Mt 18, 18: ''What things soever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven." Therefore whom the Church excommunicates is undoubtedly also condemned by God. Most assuredly they do not excommunicate in the name of the devil, nor of the pope, but in the name of God the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, by the authority of Christ etc., embellishing the ceremony with appropriate and high-sounding and solemn words.

30. It is necessary to a thorough understanding of the matter that we understand what Christ here says concerning the two Churches : One is the Church which is not recognized by the world, but is robbed of its name and exiled ; the other, the Church that has the name and honor but persecutes the small flock of believers. Thus we have the opposing situations : The Church which is denied the name is the true Church, whilst the other is not the reality, though it may occupy the seat of authority and power, and possess and perform all the offices conceded to be offices and marks of the holy Church and yet we are obliged to suffer its ban and judgment.

31. The reason for the difference in the two Churches is contained in Christ's saying: "Because they have not known the Father nor me;" that is, the false Church regards itself as superior to the teachings of Christ, when a knowledge of Christ is the very basis of distinction between the true and false Church. It is not enough merely to have the name and the office of the Church since these could be unlawfully assumed and abused; the second commandment and the second petition of the Lord's Prayer indicate that the name of God is often abused, not hallowed but blasphemed and dishonored. Hence, we must not be too ready to endorse the declaration : I say or do this in the name of God or of Christ, and at the command and by the authority of the Church. But we should reply thus: I accept the name of God and of the Church as they are dear and precious to me ; but I do not concede to you that in this name you should prescribe and sell whatever you please.

32. Thus we say to the papists : We grant you, indeed, the name and office, and regard these as holy and precious, for the office is not yours, but has been established by Christ and given to the Church without regard for and distinction of the persons who occupy it. Therefore, whatever is exercised through this office as the institution of Christ, and in his name and that of the Church, is at all times right and proper, even though ungodly and unbelieving men may participate. We must distinguish between the office and the person exercising it, between rightful use and abuse. The name of God and of Christ is always holy in itself ; but it may be abused and blasphemed. So also, the office of the Church is holy and precious, but the person occupying it may be accursed and belong to the devil. Therefore, we cannot decide according to the office who are true or false Christians, and which is the true or false Church. (Sermons of Martin Luther, John Nicholas Lenker Editor and Translator, Baker Book House reprint, n.d., 3.264-267 - Volume 3 is a reproduction of The Precious and Sacred Writings of Martin Luther, volume 12, 1907 - bold emphasis mine.)

Jerome raises an important question here: Why does Paul call “churches” those that were not churches? For Paul, he says, is writing to the Galatians, who had been led astray and turned away from Christ and from grace to Moses and the Law. I reply: When Paul calls them the “churches of Galatia,” he is employing synecdoche, a very common practice in the Scriptures. Writing in a similar vein to the Corinthians, he congratulates them that the grace of God was given them in Christ, that is, that they were enriched in Him with all speech and all knowledge (1 Cor. 1:4–5). And yet many of them had been perverted by false apostles and did not believe in the resurrection of the dead, etc. So today we still call the Church of Rome holy and all its sees holy, even though they have been undermined and their ministers are ungodly. For God “rules in the midst of His foes” (Ps. 110:2), Antichrist “takes his seat in the temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4), and Satan is present among the sons of God (Job 1:6). Even if the church is “in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation,” as Paul says to the Philippians (2:15), and even if it is surrounded by wolves and robbers, that is, spiritual tyrants, it is still the church. Although the city of Rome is worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, nevertheless there remain in it Baptism, the Sacrament, the voice and text of the Gospel, the Sacred Scriptures, the ministries, the name of Christ, and the name of God. Whoever has these, has them; whoever does not have them, has no excuse, for the treasure is still there. Therefore the Church of Rome is holy, because it has the holy name of God, the Gospel, Baptism, etc. If these are present among a people, that people is called holy. Thus this Wittenberg of ours is a holy village, and we are truly holy, because we have been baptized, communed, taught, and called by God; we have the works of God among us, that is, the Word and the sacraments, and these make us holy.I say this in order that we may distinguish sharply between Christian holiness and other kinds of holiness. The monks called their orders holy, although they did not dare call themselves holy; but they are not holy, because, as we said above, Christian holiness is not active but passive. Therefore let no one call himself holy on the basis of his way of life or of his works—fasting, prayer, flagellation, almsgiving, or the consolation of the sad and afflicted. Otherwise the Pharisee in Luke (18:11 ff.) would be holy too. Such works, of course, are holy, and God strictly demands them of us; but they do not make us holy. You and I are holy; the church, the city, and the people are holy—not on the basis of their own holiness but on the basis of a holiness not their own, not by an active holiness, but by a passive holiness. They are holy because they possess something that is divine and holy, namely, the calling of the ministry, the Gospel, Baptism, etc., on the basis of which they are holy.

Therefore even though the Galatians had been led astray, Baptism, the Word, and the name of Christ still continued among them. Besides, there were still some good men who had not defected from Paul’s doctrine and who had a proper understanding of the Word and the sacraments, which could not be defiled by those who did rebel. For Baptism, the Gospel, etc., do not become unholy because I am defiled and unholy and have a false understanding of them. On the contrary, they remain holy and exactly what they were, regardless of whether they are among the godly or the ungodly; men can neither defile them nor hallow them. By our good or evil behavior, by our good or evil life and morals, they are defiled or hallowed in the sight of the Gentiles (Rom. 2:24) but not in the sight of God. Therefore the church is holy even where the fanatics are dominant, so long as they do not deny the Word and the sacraments; if they deny these, they are no longer the church. Wherever the substance of the Word and the sacraments abides, therefore, there the holy church is present, even though Antichrist may reign there; for he takes his seat not in a stable of fiends or in a pigpen or in a congregation of unbelievers but in the highest and holiest place possible, namely, in the temple of God (2Thess. 2:4). Thus our brief answer to this question is this: The church is universal throughout the world, wherever the Gospel of God and the sacraments are present. The Jews, the Turks, and the fanatics are not the church, because they oppose and deny these things. Now there follows the salutation. (Luther's Works - Volume 26: Lectures on Galatians 1535 - Chapters 1-4, Jaroslav Pelikan Editor and Translator, Concordia Publishing House, 1963, pp. 24-26 - bold empahsis mine.)

The dear prophets have always been plagued by the aspect and the name of the church and God’s people. For the prophets have always been contradicted with the words: “My dear friend, let them say what they please, ‘The Law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the Word from the prophet’ (Jer. 18:18). If a thousand Jeremiahs were to confront us, we have three things that cannot fail us: the priests, who teach the Law, will not teach what is wrong; the prophets, who have God’s Word, will not prophesy falsely; and the elders and the wise men—for example, the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and the king—will surely know what must be, done. At any rate, God has ordained that the priests should teach the Law, that the prophets should have the Word and revelation, and that the leaders should counsel and rule. These three things must remain as they have been given by God.” Therefore those who preached against these statements had to be damned heretics.

Behold, this could easily annoy even a stalwart Christian and cause him to say: “Where, pray, are You leading me? Am I to stand up alone and preach against Your people, Your kingdom, Your priests, and Your Word? For that, of course, is where Your name is; they have Your Law, Your temple, and both the spiritual and the worldly government, ordained by You Yourself. Who am I to oppose singlehandedly all that is God’s? I would rather say that they are right, retract my preaching, or at least keep silence.” This offended the prophets most of all; it was the strongest argument against them, just as it causes us the most trouble. Paul himself had to contend against it. Indeed, he sternly brought it to bear against himself in Rom. 9:4 and said “What am I accomplishing with my preaching? I must preach against my own people, who have God’s Law, promise, miracles, prophets, temple, and worship, and Christ Himself.” Really, only a dauntless man would not be offended by this and not be down in the mouth.

Today the pope and his crowd cry out against us that they are the church, since they have received Baptism, the Sacrament, and Holy Writ from the apostles and are their successors. They say: “Where else should God’s people be than where His name is praised, and where the successors and heirs of His apostles are to be found? Surely the Turks, the Tartars, and the heathen cannot be His people. Therefore we must be His people; otherwise it will be altogether impossible to find a people of God on earth. Consequently, he who rebels against us resists the Christian Church and Christ Himself.”

This will surely offend and repel anyone who is not armed with different weapons and different strength, who listens only to such opinions of the most eminent and influential people on earth. “You are a heretic and an apostle of the devil,” “You are preaching against God’s people and the church, yes, against God Himself.” For it is exceedingly difficult to deprive them of this argument and to talk them out of it. Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it, especially since we concede—as we must—that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s Word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them? Therefore faith, the Christian Church, Christ, and the Holy Spirit must also be found among them. What business have I, then, to preach against them as a pupil preaching against his teachers? Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: “Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the Creed: I believe in a holy Christian Church, etc.? Now I find this church in the papacy too. It follows, therefore, that if I condemn this church, I am excommunicated, rejected, and damned by God and all the saints.”

Well, what are we to do in these circumstances? In, the face of such excommunication it is difficult to remain steadfast and to preach. But if we let this intimidate us, and if we do what they want us to do—retract or cease our preaching, when we know that it is true and God’s Word—we would fare as the prophet Jeremiah did. Then God’s Word would kindle in us a fire which would melt away and burn up our hearts. no man could endure this, and I would rather die ten deaths than burden my conscience in such a way; for this would soon kill me anyhow.

But what is now our defense? And what is the ground on which we can hold our own against such offense and continue to defy those people? It is nothing else than the masterly statement St. Paul employs in Rom. 9:7: “Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants.” Not all who bear the name are Israelites; or, as the saying goes: “Not all who carry long knives are cooks.” Thus not all who lay claim to the title “church” are the church. There is often a great difference between the name and the reality. The name is general. All are called God’s people, children of Abraham, Christ’s disciples and members; but this does not mean that they all are what the name signifies. For the name “church” includes many scoundrels and rascals who refused to obey God’s Word and acted contrary to it. Yet they were called heirs and successors of the holy patriarchs, priests, and prophets. To be sure, they had God’s Law and promise, the temple, and the priesthood. In fact, they should have been God’s people; but they practiced idolatry so freely under the cloak of the name “church” that God was forced to say: “This shall no longer be My temple and priesthood. My people shall no longer be My people. But to those who are not My people it shall be said: ‘You are sons of the living God’ ” (Hos. 1:10; 2:23).

Thus we are also compelled to say: “I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy. On the other hand, I know that most of the papists are not the Christian Church, even though they give everyone the impression that they are. Today our popes, cardinals, and bishops are not God’s apostles and bishops; they are the devil’s. And their people are not God’s people; they are the devil’s. And yet some of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24. But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner.

Therefore this proud and defiant boast of theirs is far from having any validity: “We, the pope, bishops, and all who are subject to us, are the Christian Church; for we have been named for Christ and are the successors and heirs of the holy apostles and fathers. Hence we have good reason to excommunicate you who resist us and believe or teach otherwise.” Yes, dear sirs, we do not begrudge you the name, but after this let us see whether you really are and live up to what you claim to be. For to be called by a name and to be what that name implies are two different things. I would surely call myself a king or an emperor if the name alone were enough and people had to be subject to me for this reason. The proverb says that we call many a person a pious man and many a person a scoundrel and do an injustice in both cases. For it is the custom of the whole world to use beautiful names, and grand and high-sounding words when they really do not fit. If it were written on everyone’s forehead what he is, he would not keep this name very long. Therefore I say that we must maintain, and call attention to, the distinction made by St. Paul: that not all who are called God’s people or the church are God’s people or the church. From this we can gain both instruction and strength not to be offended by their ban and condemnation but to retort: “I congratulate myself if they excommunicate me; for such a ban is nothing but a misnomer, just as all their boasting and all their activity are false. Christ Himself warned me here beforehand and exhorted me not to be concerned about this.”

“Yes,” you ask, “but what do you have to say about this? After all, it was the Christian Church that excommunicated you.” I reply: “No, this it did not do; for even though it boasts of the name, this does not make it the church. What do I care if those who use nothing but the mere name excommunicate me? But if those who really are the church of Christ were to excommunicate me, I would indeed have to fall down at its feet, beg for mercy, and render implicit obedience.”

Now you ask: “But how do I know which is the true church and which is not?” Answer: “As I have said, all depends on the right knowledge of the essence of the church and on the proper differentiation between the name and the essence of the church.” Christ Himself will give this distinctive and authoritative identification in the following words: “And they will do this because they have not known the Father, nor Me” (John 16:3). With this touchstone I can easily and reliably judge who are and who are not the church. For one can see without difficulty who knows the Father and Christ and who does not know them; in fact, these people identify themselves. Here I am bringing into court the pope, his bishops, and all who call themselves the church, and asking them: “Do you also believe in Christ, that you have forgiveness of sins and salvation solely through His blood and that this faith conforms to the will of God the Father? Are you baptized; do you receive the Sacrament; and do you hope for eternal life in this faith?”

“Yes,” they say, “we surely do believe.” But in order to see whether they really believe this, I ask further: “Why, then, do you teach that we adults have long since lost Baptism and that everyone must now atone for his sins and be saved by good works?” Now they have the insolence to preach and write that Christ died and atoned only for original sin, and that we have to devise ways of atoning for our actual sins. Here we discover that they have fallen away from the faith and are leading the people away from Christ to their own works by telling them to enter a cloister or to go on a pilgrimage to Rome or to St. Iago di Compostella, to lead an austere and ascetic life, or to choose the Virgin Mary or this or that saint as intercessor, in order to be saved by this. Thus they make of Christ nothing but a stern and irate Judge who must be feared as One who wants to cast us into hell. They portray Christ seated on His judgment seat on a rainbow, with His mother Mary and John the Baptist on both sides as intercessors against His terrible wrath.

This amounts to a complete removal of Christ; it means that He is not only not known but is simply kept completely out of sight, buried, and covered with earth, in order that I may no longer see Him as the One who was born, suffered, died, and rose again for me—as the children say in the Creed—but only as the One who wants to judge me according to my life and my works, whether I have paid or atoned for sin or not. If I view Him in such a light, I cannot run to Him for help but must flee from Him and seek refuge with Mary and other saints rather than with Christ and His redemption. Behold, those are the people who want to be called the Christian Church but cast Christ completely aside. We are expected to obey them and to fear their writ of excommunication rather than Christ Himself.

Therefore let this be for you the touchstone, the rule, the plummet, and the level by which you condemn them as knowing neither Christ nor the Father and as being neither able nor willing to listen to Him. For the pope, of course, strongly resents our attacks on his own man-made doctrine of our works and deeds; he will not tolerate anyone’s preaching the pure doctrine of Christ. We, on the other hand, will not permit anyone to suppress this Christ and to replace Him with our works. Here the dispute begins. They proceed to condemn and excommunicate us in the name of the church. But we oppose this and say: “It is not the church of Christ that is taking this action; it is the bride of the devil and the mob of Antichrist. For the true church, which knows Christ, will surely not excommunicate anyone because of its Lord’s Word, since this church itself preaches, believes, and gladly hears this Word. Thus St. Paul opposes the Jews with the words: “Those who are God’s true Israel will not be hostile to me or persecute me; only those will do so who merely have the name but are not God’s true Israel.” As Christ says in John 8:42–43: “If you knew My Father, you would also understand what I say.” Although they made use of these words and names—“God the Father,” “God’s Word,” “worship and people of God”—they denied this with their deeds, as St. Paul says (2 Tim. 3:5). Consequently, the apostles simply have to hear this condemnation: “You are the devil’s preachers, not God’s; for you are preaching against the Law, against this temple and worship of God, against the holy people chosen by God and in possession of His promise.”

And then St. Paul must open his mouth again and say: “My dear sirs, one must distinguish between two different peoples of God. The one believes in the promise concerning Christ, who has now come; this is the true people and the true seed. Then there is the other people, which to be sure, is born in a natural way from Israel and is descended from the holy fathers; but they do not believe in Christ and do not want to be sanctified and saved by grace but by their own works. These are the false and apostate children. No, they are not children at all; they are enemies of God, even though they are the great majority, who are in possession of the government and have prestige, as if they alone were the true people. Therefore even if they excommunicate the others, we say to them: “To be sure, you are called God’s people, but you are not. You are renowned as being descended from the saints and as being numbered among them. Therefore you imagine that everything you do must be right. But this is far from true; for it is written (Rom. 9:7): ‘Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.’ ” Thus not all who bear the name “church” are the church. No, it is necessary to consider their beliefs and teachings. If I see that they preach and confess Christ as the One sent by God the Father to reconcile us to the Father through His death and to obtain grace for us, then we are in agreement, and I regard them as my dear brethren in Christ and as members of the Christian Church.

Yet the proclamation of this text—together with Baptism, the Sacrament of Christ, and the articles of the Creed—has remained even in the papacy, although many errors and devious paths have been introduced alongside it. Still many people have been saved on their deathbeds through this text, because they have fallen away from the other, false trust, have clung to Christ alone, and have confessed Him in faith. All errors notwithstanding, the true church has never perished. The majority, however, which boasts of the name, has forgotten Baptism, has rejected Christ, has despised God’s Word, and has replaced these with their own baubles and their self-devised worship, their saints, their idolatry, their sacrifice of the Mass, their buying and selling for all the living and the dead, yes, even for cows and oxen. They have filled everything with the pope’s stench and poison, and have suppressed the Christian doctrine with such power that no one but those to whom God gave special enlightenment and whom He tore out of error could recognize it.

Behold, here Christ wants to teach the Christians not to worry if they are excommunicated by those who are called the church and God’s people. He wants them to make sure beforehand that they are capable of distinguishing plainly and clearly between the alleged church, which boasts of the name, and the true church, which does not bear that name and yet is the true church. He wants them to hold to the true church, even though the great crowd of exalted, powerful, and holy men is opposed to it and persecutes it, just as the leaders of the people, the princes, the chief priests, the scribes, and the prophets did in Christ’s time. For Christ is not at all concerned about their condemnation of Him and His own; He keeps on overthrowing their rule and what they do, just as He will also do in the end with His present-day enemies.

In the meantime we adhere to the distinction made here by Christ and do not regard as Christendom those who do not hold truly and absolutely to what Christ taught, gave, and ordained, no matter how great, holy, and learned they may be. We tell them that they are the devil’s church. On the other hand, we want to acknowledge and honor as the true bride of Christ those who remain faithful to His pure Word and have no other comfort for their hearts than this Savior, whom they have received and confessed in Baptism and in whose name they have partaken of the Sacrament. These are the true church. It is not found in only one place, as, for example, under the pope; but it exists over the entire earth wherever Christians are found. Outwardly they may be scattered here and there, but they meet in the words of the Creed: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was born, suffered, and died for us on the cross.” In like manner, they pray: “Our Father who art in heaven.” They share the same Spirit, Word, and Sacrament. They all lead the same holy and blessed life, each one according to his calling, whether father, mother, master, servant, etc. Thus whatever we preach, believe, and live, this they all preach, believe, and live. Physically separated and scattered here and there throughout the wide world, we are nevertheless gathered and united in Christ.

Behold, this is the true catholic, universal Christian Church; it will surely not excommunicate or persecute us but will gladly accept and confirm our doctrine and regard us as dear brethren. Even if the pope excommunicates us and condemns us to hell, we can bear this joyfully and despise it. But we await the Judge from heaven, our Lord and Savior, who will separate us, comfort us, and give us the true name of the church—the name which they are now taking away from us—and will expose them publicly as the devil’s bride, forever segregated and expelled from his kingdom.

Thus the apostles, Paul and others, must declare in opposition to their Caiaphas, Annas, Ananias, and all the Jews: “Dear sirs, if you do not want to let us be apostles and preachers, and if you yourselves do not want to give God’s Word, Baptism, and the Sacrament—you for whom it is proper to do this, since you are in office and in the regular government—then we ourselves will do so among one another and pay no attention to you. Then let the Judge come and decide who have the right name and who do not.” And this is what He did. Their kingdom, land, priesthood, temple, and everything they had were torn to shreds, destroyed, and thrown on a heap, so that not one stone remained upon another (Matt. 24:2), and the people were cast out into all lands and had to wander about aimlessly without God’s Word, a priesthood, or a government. Furthermore, they disgracefully lost the title they once bore; this has been transferred to the heathen, who previously were without a title. All this was proclaimed to them by the prophets. Thus the pope now usurps the name of the church of the true worship; he wrests it from the true Christians and gives it to his godless rabble. But the situation will be reversed, and we will take back the name from them. Then they will stand condemned, and before the whole world they will be stripped, and remain stripped forever, of all the honor and glory they now want to have. (Luther's Works - Volume 24: Sermons on the Gospel of St. John - Chapters 14-16, Jaroslav Pelikan Editor, Martin H. Bertram Translator, Concordia Publishing House, 1961, pp. 303-308 - bold emphasis mine.)

I have attempted, with the above quotations, to convince James (and all others who may read this thread), that my original brief quote from Luther was any but, "misleading", rather, that it represented Luther's mature thought on the Roman church, namely, that it remained a Christian church.

Grace and peace,

David

(FYI: My dear wife has been ill this week, significantly limiting my time on the internet, and for creating this post; I am sure there are probably a few transcriptional and/or spelling errors that need to be corrected in the next couple of days—I sincerely appreciate your patience in this matter.)

A conservative, Reformed Baptist professor validates a number of my recent musings

2011-10-11T11:10:00.000-07:00

Starting with my October 7, 2010 post, "Back to the Bible" (link), I have devoted 8 important threads to the doctrine of God (link). These threads generated some 487 comments, and for the most part, a fair amount of 'heat', even though I believe that my presentations were Biblical, and had a good deal of support from the pre-Nicene Church Fathers. (For another important thread that is germane to this one, see this link.)

With that said, it is still always nice to discover scholars (who hold a high view of the Bible) that have developed similar assessments as mine; most recently, from the pen of a Reformed Baptist professor.

Back on July 13, 2011, Dr. Sam Waldron (a professor and dean at the Midwest Center for Theological Studies) began a series of posts under the title, "Who's Tampering With the Trinity?". One will discover in these contributions that Dr. Waldron holds to a number of theological positions that I have elucidated on, which include: the 'one God' of the Bible is the Father; the 'monarchy' of the Father; the eternal generation of the Son (essence and person); and the subordination of the Son to the Father. Below, I am providing links to all 11 posts:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Now, although Dr. Waldron affirms a number of positions that I embrace, I want to be clear that he goes beyond what I am willing to declare (at present) one must hold to be considered a 'true' Christian; most importantly, that he maintains homoousias must be understood as "one substance", while I believe with Eusebius (and a number of other CFs) that "same substance" is the more correct understanding.

Grace and peace,

David

Intra-paradigm disputes: two recent examples

2011-09-22T10:58:00.000-07:00

Given the content and topic of my last thread, I could not help but notice two recent online attacks directed at two prominent figures within the Evangelical paradigm: Dr. John Piper, and Dr. Pat Roberston.

The first example is a scathing critique of Dr. John Piper (a Baptist) by Dr. David Cloud (a Baptist) (1st installment; 2nd installment). Cloud's critique seems to have been primarily prompted by the following:

By his own testimony, the central principle of John Piper’s theology is “Christian Hedonism.” This is his term and he has defended it through the years against all challenges. He says it is “a philosophy that touches virtually every area of my life.” (See 1st installment.)

The second example is directed at certain comments recently made by Robertson, which came to my attention via an online Christianity Today article, with the inflammatory heading, Pat Robertson Repudiates the Gospel (published online 09-15-2011). [This article was a reproduction of a blog entry published on the same day by Dr. Russell D. Moore, under the less inflammatory Christ, the Church, and Pat Robertson.]

Since I do not consider myself an 'expert' on the overall teachings and theologies of the parties involved in the above disputes, I am going to refrain from adding my own comments, and let my readers ponder over the issues without any interference from yours truly.

Grace and peace,

David

Ken Temple on who is 'acceptable' for inclusion in his paradigm

2011-09-14T13:19:00.000-07:00

Our Reformed Baptist brother in Christ, Ken Temple, and yours truly, have been engaged in some interesting dialogue (at least to me), in the combox of my most recent, prior thread (link). I have started this new thread to address some of the issues raised by Ken, and shall now provide a few quotes for context (quotes in red shall be from Ken's posts, and quotes in blue from my posts):

David Waltz wrote:
Let me ask you a question: what if your interpretation of the NT concerning the possibility of future revelation is wrong?

This is the same kind of skepticism that Dave Armstrong and my friend Rod Bennett, based on Newman and all the RC apologists play with Protestants of "what if your interpretation is wrong?" and "how do you know for sure?" and "how do you know for sure the Early church got the canon right?" etc. etc.

I just don't find that kind of skepticism compelling or practical or healthy, given what I do know about the NT and what it is says.

That kind of doubting leads to madness; and holding your position, means you never settle on anything. (SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 9:40 am POST)

In my subsequent response to Ken, I posted the following:

==That kind of doubting leads to madness; and holding your position, means you never settle on anything.==

Me: You "doubt" that Arminians are correct, that padeo-baptism is correct, that the three-fold ministry is correct, that baptismal regeneration is correct, etc. etc. I suspect that if you and sat down together that many, many more "doubts" would be established. (SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 11:51 am POST)

Later that same day, Ken fired back with:

I am frankly amazed that you put those in house Christian issues on the same level as the doctrinal issues and difference between NON-Christian systems such as JW, Mormonism, Islam, and Bahai'ism. But all of those things are secondary issues within Protestantism and Christendom - even the different ways of interpreting those issues within RC and EO, but Protestant groups have certain takes on all those issues.

But, JW, Mormonism, Islam, and Bahai'ism are all outside of Christianity, and to keep open possibility of further revelation means re-interpreting essentials like the incarnation, atonement, Deity of Christ, Trinity, etc. That is denial essential doctrine vs. secondary, debate-able doctrines and practices.

Don't you see those are on a completely different level?

Though I think RC and EO are wrong and preach a false gospel, RC being worse than EO ( IMO); they are still better than those other 4 false religions. ( SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 1:16 pm POST)

Some issues with Ken's responses:

First, Ken likes 'labels'; as with many apologists, it is a popular tool to identify/label someone who disagrees with you with something, and/or someone, who has been stigmatized by others within your 'club'/paradigm. Unfortunately, the 'labels' utilized by Ken are woefully inaccurate.

Second, Ken ignores the considerable 'common ground' that I have with 'historic' Christianity; in fact, a good deal of my understanding of Christian doctrine has a much greater historical pedigree than Ken's views.

Third (this is the area I am going to focus on in the rest of this post), Ken minimizes the important differences that exist within his accepted 'club'/paradigm; though he has termed his view as the Reformed Evangelical Biblical view, he has on numerous occasions included conservative Arminians and Lutherans in the broader Evangelical Biblical view which is 'acceptable' to him. Basically what Ken has done is establish in his mind what 'common' doctrines must be held, and what doctrines are 'acceptable', for one to be included in his understanding of the broader context.

Now, though Ken has yet to provide an exact, precise list of the 'common' doctrines that must be adhered to, as well as those that are 'acceptable', for one to be in his 'club', I have deduced from our discussions that one of those doctrines that must be 'common' is some form of 'Trinitarianism' which includes an Athanasian/Augustinian understanding of the term homoousios. Unfortunately, scholars within his 'club'/paradigm have pointed out that, "Today most Western Christians are practical modalists" [1]. And further, Calvin's teaching of the autotheos of the Son, which has become quite 'popular' among many who identify themselves within Ken's narrower Reformed Evangelical Biblical view, has recently been associated with "tri-theism" [2]. Fact is, so many of the understandings of 'Trinitarianism' within the Evangelical Biblical view are essentially either neo-modalistic, or neo-tritheistic (depending on how on defines homoousios and "person").

Moving on to the inclusion of Arminians as 'acceptable' members within the Evangelical Biblical view, I would like to reference Dr. Michael Horton's (a scholar within the narrower Reformed Evangelical Biblical view) telling essay, Evangelical Arminians: Option or Oxymoron [3]. I would like to encourage everyone to read this entire essay (links provided in the footnote), and as an enticement, shall provide a few selections:

A number of evangelical leaders met at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School near Chicago two years ago for the purpose of defining the term "evangelical," but many left as confused concerning what that label comprehends as they were when they arrived. It is becoming increasingly difficult to say what an evangelical is and is not. Basically, American evangelicalism divides, from the mid-eighteenth century on, into two traditions: revivalistic and Reformational (as in the 16th century Reformation). While the Great Awakening in America and the Evangelical Revival in Britain were examples of the harmony between reformation and revival, these eventually became rivals as the latter developed an Arminian theology. As the Arminian branch of revivalism gained the popular advantage, evangelicalism became increasingly shaped by human-centered theology on a popular level even while its principal works of systematic theology were reformed.
However, today we see a shift even within the evangelical theological leadership. Pinnock writes, "It is my strong impression, confirmed to me even by those not pleased by it, that Augustinian thinking is losing its hold on present-day Christians." Evangelists are not the only ones preaching an Arminian gospel: "It is hard to find a Calvinist theologian willing to defend Reformed theology, including the views of both Calvin and Luther, in all its rigorous particulars now that Gordon Clark is no longer with us and John Gerstner is retired...So I do not think I stand alone." The drift is on. Pinnock insists that Augustine was shaped by Greek thinking more than scripture and the reformers simply followed his mistakes, but that was acceptable for their time: "Just as Augustine came to terms with ancient Greek thinking, so we are making peace with the culture of modernity."

The purpose of these quotes is not to focus attention on one evangelical theologian's departure from Reformation theology, but to raise the question in very practical terms, "Is it possible to be an 'evangelical Arminian'?" In this article I attempt to defend a negative answer to that important question. (Bold emphasis mine.)

We later read:

The heart of the Reformation debate was, Who saves whom? Does God save sinners? Or do we save ourselves with God's help? The Roman Catholic Church was confused on that question throughout the Middle Ages, sharply divided at the time of the Reformation, but finally determined by the Council of Trent in the mid-sixteenth century that the second answer was better. God's grace is the source, but human cooperation with that grace is what makes God's saving will effective. Thus, God justifies us by making us better and that involves our own participation.

The orthodox Protestants were not over-reacting, therefore, when they regarded the Arminian denials as no different from the positions of Trent, which had declared the evangelicals "anathema." It would have been bigoted for them, therefore, to regard Trent's position as unorthodox if they were unwilling to say the same of a similar "Protestant" deviation.

And towards the end, Dr. Horton does offer some hope to Arminians, Roman Catholics, and "others":

Having said that, it is equally important to realize that this is not a matter of bigotry or denominational pride. We will see non-evangelicals in heaven. As I reflect on views that I used to hold, it is sobering to say the least and it reminds me that the chances are pretty good that I have a good distance to go yet. While we must believe certain essential truths in order to be saved, we are not saved by the amount of doctrine that we know. There will doubtless be Roman Catholics, Arminians, and others in Paradise who were saved by God's grace even if they, like me, did not understand or appreciate that grace as much as they should have. Nevertheless, if we are going to still use "evangelical" as a noun to define a body of Christians holding to a certain set of convictions, it is high time we got clear on these matters. An evangelical cannot be an Arminian any more than an evangelical can be a Roman Catholic. The distinctives of evangelicalism were denied by Rome at the Council of Trent, by the Remonstrants in 1610, were confused and challenged by John Wesley in the eighteenth century, and have become either ignored or denied in contemporary "evangelicalism."

I shall end this post with my summation of Ken's minimizing intra-paradigm tendencies: IMHO they are highly subjective, and at times, inaccurate.

Grace and peace,

David

Notes:

[1] Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity, 2004, p. 3.

[2] Laurent Cleenewerck, His Broken Body, 2007, p. 324. (See also THIS THREAD, for some further reflections.)

[3] Links to Dr. Horton's essay: Reformation Online; Modern Reformation.

Eusebius of Caesarea - Catholic bishop and "the Father of Church History"

2011-08-30T16:35:00.000-07:00

Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260 - ca. 339/340), is known to many as "the Father of Church History". His famous Ecclesiastical History, or History of the Church, consists of ten "books", with the last being completed in 323 AD.

Eusebius was a student of the Christian scholar Pamphilus (ca. 240 - 309), who was a disciple of the Origen (ca. 185 - ca. 254). So committed was Eusebius to his teacher Pamphilus, that he added Pamphili ("the son of Pamphilus") to his name. In addition to being a prolific writer on apologetics, history, and theology, he was also elected/ordained bishop of Caesarea (ca. 313/314), and faithfully served in that office until his death.

Though I am quite sure that many are familiar with Eusebius' above mentioned history, I suspect few have read a number of this other important works. In addition to his history, I have provided links to some (but not all) of his other extant works below:

The Ecclesiastical History, or History of the Church -

NPNF – 2nd series, vol. 1, Arthur Cushman McGiffert

alternate

Loeb -vol. 1, Kirsopp Lake, 1926

Loeb - vol. 2, Kirsopp Lake, 1926

Christian Frederic Crusé, 1856

alternate

Christian Frederic Crusé, 1850

Christian Frederic Crusé, 1842

alternate

Greek ecclesiastical historians – vol. 2, 1843

The Life of Constantine -

Ernest Cushing Richardson, pp. 405ff.

Greek ecclesiastical historians – vol. 1, 1843

Demonstratio Evangelica (Proof of the Gospel) -

Vol. 1, W.J. Ferrar, 1920

Vol. 2, W.J. Ferrar, 1920

alternate - 1

alternate - 2

Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel) -

Vol. 1, E.H. Gifford, 1903

Vol. 2, E.H. Gifford, 1903

alternate - 1

alternate - 2

alternate - 3

alternate - 4

alternate - 5

alternate - 6

alternate - 7

Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, on the Theophana or divine manifestation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ

Samuel Lee, 1843

History of the Martyrs in Palestine, discovered in a very ancient Syriac manuscript -

William Cureton, 1861

alternate

For those who read Greek, J.P. Migne, in his famous Patralogia Graeca, devoted 6 massive volumes to the writings of Eusebius:

Migne PG 19

Migne PG 20

Migne PG 21

Migne PG 22

Migne PG 23

Migne PG 24

I would also like to recommend the following work:

Eusebiana : essays on the Ecclesiastical history of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea - by Hugh Jackson Lawlor

ENJOY!!!

Grace and peace,

David

The Creed of Ariminum; or, Maximinus' (a homoian bishop) "statement of faith".

2011-08-18T13:19:00.000-07:00

In the combox of this recent thread, our Reformed brother in Christ asked: what is the formal definition of the "homoian" group?

This question was formed with the context of my objection to the Homoian bishop Maximinus being termed "an Arian" in mind. Maximinus was asked by Augustine, in their somewhat famous debate in 427/428 at Hippo to, "state for me your faith concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"; to which Maximinus replied, "If you ask for my faith, I hold that faith which was not only stated, but was also ratified at Ariminum by the signatures of three hundred and thirty bishops." [See, John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J., Debate With Maximinus (New York: New City Press, 1995), p. 188.]

The following is the an English translation of so-called creed of Ariminum, that was:

...drawn up at Sermium, but had been kept concealed, as we have before observed, until their present publication of it at Ariminum. It has been translated from the Latin into Greek, and follows :

'The catholic faith was expounded at Sirmium in presence of our lord Constantius, in the consulateof the most illustrious Flavius Eusebius, and Hypatius, on the twenty-third of May.

'We believe in one only and true God, the Father Almighty, the Creator and Framer of all things: and in one only-begotten Son of God, before all ages, before all beginning, before all conceivable time, and before all comprehensible thought, begotten without passion: by whom the ages were framed, and all things made: who was begotten as the only-begotten of the Father, only of only, God of God, like to the Father who begat him, according to the Scriptures: whose generation no one knows, but the Father only who begat him. We know that this his only-begotten Son came down from the heavens by his Father’s consent for the putting away of sin, was born of the Virgin Mary, conversed with his disciples, and fulfilled every dispensation according to the Father’s will: was crucified and died, and descended into the lower parts of the earth, and disposed matters there; at the sight of whom the (door-keepers of Hades trembled) : having arisen on the third day, he again conversed with his disciples, and after forty days were completed he ascended into the heavens, and is seated at the Father’s right hand; and at the last day he will come in his Father’s glory to render to every one according to his works. [We believe] also in the Holy Spirit, whom the only-begotten Son of God Jesus Christ himself promised to send to the human race as the Comforter, according to that which is written : "I go away to my Father, and will ask him, and he will send you another Comforter, the Spirit of truth. He shall receive of mine, and shall teach you, and bring all things to your remembrance." As for the term “substance,” which was used by our fathers for the sake of greater simplicity, but not being understood by the people has caused offense on account of the fact that the Scriptures do not contain it, it seemed desirable that it should be wholly abolished, and that in future no mention should be made of substance in reference to God, since the divine Scriptures have nowhere spoken concerning the substance of the Father and the Son. But we say that the Son is in all things like the Father, as the Holy Scriptures affirm and teach.' (Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus, revised with notes by A. C. Zenos, D.D., based on E. Walford's trans., in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, gen. editors Schaff and Wace, Eerdmans 1976 reprint, 2.61, 62.)

[Alternate English translation and Greek text: J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 2nd edition, 1960, pp. 289, 290; see also the translation of Athanasius' de Synodis 8, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, gen. editors Schaff and Wace, Eerdmans 1978 reprint, 4.454, as well as Migne's PG 67.305.]

Grace and peace,

David

TurretinFan vs. Mark Shea: inaccuracies and misnomers - part 2

2011-08-16T12:45:00.000-07:00

In this second installment, I continue my reflections on TurretinFan's (hereafter, TF) recent thread, Nicaea Was Local Council, Arianism Not Settled Controversy, Implies Shea .

TF posted:

Shea again: "He regards himself as bound by the teaching and discipline of the synod whose jurisdiction is over his local geographic region, and the person he is writing to likewise feels bound by his local synod."

Maximinus was the Arian bishop of Hippo (see Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature). Augustine was the orthodox ("catholic" but not "Catholic") bishop of Hippo, as everyone knows. Even if the two councils mentioned were "local" councils, or even regional councils, both Augustine and Maximinus were in the same locale and region. Thus, this is the sort of impossible explanation for Augustine's words that can only come out of gross ignorance of the people involved in the dispute.

In part 1, I demonstrated that Maximinus was not an Arian, but rather a homoian, and that homoian Christian bishops condemned Arianism. TF then states that, "Augustine was the orthodox ("catholic" but not "Catholic") bishop of Hippo, as everyone knows". Once again, TF is anachronistically portraying this historical period, for 'orthodoxy' was anything but a settled issue. (As for Augustine being "catholic" but not "Catholic", I will deal with this silliness in a subsequent post.) He then gives one a misleading impression with his statement that, "both Augustine and Maximinus were in the same locale and region"—fact is, Maximinus had just arrived in Hippo with, "Count Sigiswulf (Segisvultus), a Goth," who in 427, "led a Roman army to Africa in order to suppress the rebellion of Bonifacius" [see John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J., Debate With Maximinus, Introduction (New York: New City Press, 1995), p. 175.]—his ordination, and conciliar loyalty, had NOTHING to do with the Hippo locale/region. Yet once again, though neither Shea, nor TF have a good grasp of the historical landscape of this period, Shea is the more accurate.

TF:

Shea again: "With Augustine’s particular question the issue is this, lacking a verdict from the Church universal, and faced with differing rulings from different local councils, he is attempting to come to concensus [sic] by appeal to Scripture, since it is an authority appealed to by both him and his correspondent."

This is basically the same debunked theory we've already addressed above.

The only point that TF has "debunked" is that neither of the two councils being discussed were "local", the rest of his musings do not fit the facts. FACT #1: no council and/or creed up to this period was recognized as universally binding; FACT #2: if any council up to the date of the debate between Augustine and Maxinimus (427/428) had any semblance of a claim to universal authority it was the dual councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, which were convoked by emperor Constantius II in 359. These two parallel councils were really essentially one council held in two different geographical locations for the sake of logistics. The estimates of the number of bishops that attended range between 550+ and 750+, which means that this dual council was significantly larger than council of Nicaea held in 325. Not only the size, but also the geographical and theological representation was considerably more significant—Augustine was engaging in a bit of 'damage control' when he demanded that competing councils be left out of the equation.

Yet there is even more to the story...the famous quote from Augustine concerning the authority councils (see part 1 for full context) is a bit misleading, for it gives the impression that Maximinus gave the council of Ariminum the same kind of authority that was later given to councils that were accepted as Catholic and Ecumenical. Here, again, is what Augustine, wrote AFTER the debate (from TF's quote):

I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicaea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicaea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witnesses for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason. [John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J., Answer to Maximinus, Book II, XIV - On the Sameness of Substance in the Trinity, Section 3 (New York: New City Press, 1995), p. 282.]

Compare the above with what Augustine and Maximinus actually said during their debate:

Maximinus said: "...if you ask questions, I will answer on the points where I can. If you say something reasonable, I shall have to agree. If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. but those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts" (Mt. 15:9).

2. Augustine said, "If I wanted to reply to all these items, I too would seem to be trying to avoid the point at issue. Hence, in order that we may quickly come to the point, state for me your faith concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Maximinus answered, "If you ask for my faith, I hold that faith which was not only stated, but was also ratified a Ariminum by the signatures of three hundred and thirty bishops."

3. Augustine said, "I have already said this, but I repeat it, because you have refused to answer: State for me your faith concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Maximinus answered, "Since I have not refused to answer, why am I accused by Your Holiness as though I made no response."

4. Augustine said, "I said that you refused to answer, because when I asked you to tell me your faith concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit—and I ask this now too—you did not tell me your faith, but mentioned the council of Ariminum. I want to know your faith, what you believe, what you think concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. If you are willing, I will listen to what you say. Do not send me to those writings. They are not now at hand, nor I am bound by their authority. State what you believe concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

Maximinus answered, "I wanted the decree of the Council of Ariminum to be present, not to excuse myself, but to show the authority of those fathers who handed on to us in accord with the divine scriptures the faith they learned from the divine scriptures." [John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J., Debate With Maximinus (New York: New City Press, 1995), pp. 188-189.]

Now, Maximinus does not attempt to 'bind' Augustine to "the decree of the Council of Ariminum" (as if the decree is accepted by all Christians), instead he is merely attempting 'shorten' his response to Augustine's question, directing him to a document that clearly states his position; adding that his appeal to the decree which he believes faithfully represents his views is, "to show the authority of those fathers who handed on to us in accord with the divine scriptures the faith they learned from the divine scriptures." In other words, not only does the decree represent Maximinus position, but it does so based on the authority of "the divine scriptures".

To sum up, apart from incorrectly terming the councils of Arminum (359) and Nicaea (325) as "local", Shea's assessment that, "What Augustine is doing is appealing to a common authority in a dispute where the Church Universal has not yet arrived at a consensus", is quite accurate, whilst TF's overall critique is significantly flawed.

Grace and peace,

David

TurretinFan vs. Mark Shea: inaccuracies and misnomers - part 1

2011-08-12T13:35:00.000-07:00

On August 8th, 2011, the secretive, anti-Catholic, fellow who debates and writes under the psuedonym "TurretinFan" (hereafter, TF), posted a thread titled, "Nicaea Was Local Council, Arianism Not Settled Controversy, Implies Shea", on two separate websites: his own blog, Thoughts of Francis Turretin, and at James White's AOMIN blog .

The thread is a polemical piece directed at comments made by the Catholic apologist Mark Shea (link to Mark Shea's comments).

Apart from correcting Shea's obvious error of terming the councils of Nicaea (325) and Ariminum (359) as "local", the rest of TF's post is riddled with inaccuracies and misnomers. Citations from TF's post will be in red, my responses in black, and other cited references in blue. TF opens his post with:

I admit that I've never had a high view of Mark Shea's scholarship, yet a mixture of surprise and amusement washed over me as I took in Shea's breathtakingly ignorant response to a reader's question regarding Augustine and Sola Scriptura. A reader had pointed out to Shea that Augustine, in responding to the Arian heretic Maximinus, had sounded exactly like a Sola Scriptura Christian.

TF has established the tone for his thread. The following is the "reader's question regarding Augustine and Sola Scriptura", and the quote from which "the reader" formed his question for Mark Shea:

Apparently St. Augustine made this statement:

“I ought not to adduce the Council of Nice, nor ought you to adduce the Council of Ariminum, for I am not bound by the authority of the one, nor are you bound by the authority of the other. Let the question be determined by the authority of the Scriptures…”

It really does sound like he is preaching sola-scriptura there.

Now, we know he also made famous statements such as “I would not believe the Gospel if the Catholic Church did not tell me it was true”, so overall that is clearly not the case, but do you happen to know if there is more to his statement? Was his theology still evolving, etc? I cannot find a serious Catholic commentary on this quote anywhere online or in any of my books.

The quote that "the reader" provides for Shea is from Augustine's, Contra Maximinum Arianum ("Against Maximinus, an Arian"). "The reader" obtained the quote via a "challenge from one of the forum members", who appears to have linked "the reader" to the Fundamental Baptist Institute's online rendition of J.A. Wylie's, The Papacy; Its History Dogmas, Genius, and Prospects: Being The Evangelical Alliance First Prize Essay On Popery, Book II, Chapter VII - "Infallibility" (FBI incorrectly titles the book, History of the Papacy, and "the reader" incorrectly links to chapter XVII instead of VII—corrected link—a pdf version of the 1867 4th edition of the book is available HERE).

Now, "the reader's" quote is partial; the following is Wylie's actual quote from Augustine:

"I ought not to adduce the Council of Nice," says St. Augustine, "nor ought you to adduce the Council of Ariminum, for I am not bound by the authority of the one, nor are you bound by the authority of the other. Let the question be determined by the authority of the Scriptures, which are witnesses peculiar to neither of us, but common to both." (Page 252 in the pdf version linked to above.)

[Note: Wylie incorrectly attributes the above quote to Augustine's "De Unitate, c. xvi", instead of his Contra Maximinum Arianum.]

Having 'cleaned up' some of the germane sources, I shall now return to TF's post; he continued with an expanded citation of the above mentioned passage from Augustine's Contra Maximinum Arianum; however, interestingly enough, he did not use the same source that "the reader" supplied, opting instead, for the following from a different translator:

Augustine (354-430 AD):

The Father and the Son are, then, of one and the same substance. This is the meaning of that “homoousios” that was confirmed against the Arian heretics in the Council of Nicaea by the Catholic fathers with the authority of the truth and the truth of authority. Afterward, in the Council of Ariminum it was understood less than it should have been because of the novelty of the word, even though the ancient faith had given rise to it. There the impiety of the heretics under the heretical Emperor Constantius tried to weaken its force, when many were deceived by the fraudulence of a few. But not long after that, the freedom of the Catholic faith prevailed, and after the meaning of the word was understood as it should be, that “homoousios” was defended far and wide by the soundness of the Catholic faith. After all, what does “homoousios” mean but “of one and the same substance”? What does “homoousios” mean, I ask, but the Father and I are one (Jn 10:30)? I should not, however, introduce the Council of Nicaea to prejudice the case in my favor, nor should you introduce the Council of Ariminum that way. I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicaea. By the authority of the scriptures that are not the property of anyone, but the common witnesses for both of us, let position do battle with position, case with case, reason with reason.

JohnE.[sic] Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J., Answer to Maximinus, Book II, XIV - On the Sameness of Substance in the Trinity, Section 3 (New York: New City Press, 1995), p. 282.

NOTE: the above quote is actually from pages 281-282.

[BTW, this particular passage from Augustine is quite popular among anti-Catholic polemicists; in addition to Wylie, others that have cited it include John Calvin, John Jewel, William Goode, Michael Hobart Seymour, William Preston, and George Salmon.]

TF continues with:

Shea responded: "What Augustine is doing is appealing to a common authority in a dispute where the Church Universal has not yet arrived at a consensus."

Perhaps a little background would be helpful here. Maximinus was an Arian. The question was whether the Father and the Son are consubstantial. This is a matter that was directly addressed by the Council of Nicaea. We can agree with Shea in a limited way, namely that the Council of Nicaea was not ecumenical in the sense of speaking for every person who professed to be a part of the Christian faith: after all, it condemned the Arians. By that standard, there have not been any ecumenical councils, ever. If that's Shea's position, he's at loggerheads with Rome.

Judging Nicaea by modern Roman standards, though, Nicaea did not just "arrive at a consensus" but actually defined dogma that must be accepted de fide. That's obviously not how Augustine judged Nicaea, but that's because Augustine didn't share the epistemology of modern Rome.

Strictly speaking, TF's "little background" is deficient, for it fails to accurately portray the historical context of Augustine's statement. The period between the council of Nicaea in 325 and Augustine's Contra Maximinum Arianum (427/428) was one of the most contested in the history of the Christian Church; more than 130 councils were convened! (Consult Ramsay MacMullen's, Voting About God, pp. 3, 4 for the names and dates of the councils—see this thread for information about the book).

Concerning this turbulent period, Shea is certainly correct when he states that, "the Church Universal has not yet arrived at a consensus". Directly related to this historical fact is nature and role of the various councils that were held during this period; the understanding that some councils were "ecumenical", that the "ecumenical" councils were infallible when teaching on faith and morals, and needed to be accepted de fide, was a much later doctrinal development. As such, to write that, "Augustine didn't share the epistemology of modern Rome", concerning nature and role of councils convened in 4th and early 5th centuries, is to state the obvious. IMO, TF is pretty much wasting our time here, for even Shea is in agreement with him on this point!

[FYI: I have devoted 4 previous threads (which includes the above mentioned post) to the issue of councils, and they can be accessed via this link.]

Moving on, TF's statement that, "Maximinus was an Arian", is, at best, breathtakingly simplistic. An Arian is one who adheres to the basic theology of Arius—did Maximinus endorse Arius' basic theology? No, he did not. In fact, he emphatically denied THE defining doctrine of Arius, the doctrine that the Son of God was created ex nihilo; note the following:

The part of Arius' doctrine which most shocked and disturbed his contemporaries was his statement that the Father made the Son ' out of non-existence' (ἐκ οὐκ ὄντων). (R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p. 24.)

This particular view of Arius [i.e. creation of the Son of God ex nihilo] has never been supplied with a convincing antecedent. It has always been an erratic boulder in his doctrine, preventing that doctrine being easily fitted into any known system...(Ibid., p. 88)

Before getting to Maximinus' theology, I think it would be prudent to supply a little background. Shortly after the council of Nicaea (325), the ordained bishops of the Christian Church at large split into 4 distinct factions; modern patristic scholars have termed those 4 factions as: 1.) the homoousians, those who accepted the Nicene Creed; 2.) the homoiousians, those who replaced homoousios (same being/essence/substance) with homoiousios (like being/essence/substance); 3.) the homoians, those who rejected the terms homoousios and homoiousios as being un-Biblical, and embraced the view that the Son of God was homoiōs (like, similar, in the same way) with respect to God the Father; and 4.) the 'Neo-Arians', sometimes termed the anhomoians (see Hanson, Search, p. 598 for the reason why many modern patristic scholars prefer the name 'Neo-Arian' over others).

Of the 4 factions, only the 'Neo-Arians' accepted Arius' most basic tenant that the Son of God was created ex nihilo, with the other 3 emphatically rejecting this doctrine.

Now, Maximinus was a staunch homoian, his theology being essentially that of the creed universally adopted by Christian Church at a council convened in 360 AD at Constantinople, which creed was a slight revision of so-called "Dated Creed" that was adopted in 359 AD via the convocation of a general council by emperor Constantius II, which convened at two separate locations: Ariminium (now Rimini) and Seleucia.

Commenting on this creed of 360 AD, the esteemed patristic scholar, J.N.D. Kelly wrote:

Arianism, it will be appreciated, is really a misnomer, for the creed asserts none of the articles of the old heresy [i.e. Arius/Arianism] and explicitly condemns Anomoeanism [i.e. 'Neo-Arianism']. (Early Christian Creeds, 2nd edition, 1960, p. 294.)

So, is it accurate to call Maximinus an Arian? With all due respect to the scholars that do attribute the label "Arian" to Maximinus, to do so is, IMO, a "misnomer", for Maximinus emphatically denied (as did all homoians) the most basic tenant of Arian theology: the creation of the Son of God ex nihilo. To call Maximinus an Arian would be analogous to calling someone who emphatically rejects TULIP a Calvinist!

So much more to cover, but given the length of this post, I think it best to do so in a subsequent thread.

Grace and peace,

David

New book of interest: The Bible Made Impossible

2011-08-04T12:04:00.000-07:00

It is extremely rare for me to recommend a book that I have yet to read, but I am going to venture into such rarity, concerning the above book (link to purchasing options). I have done so, based on the following three online reviews:

Dr. Peter Enns – “Have Evangelicals Made the Bible Impossible?

Dr. Tim Henderson – “Christian Smith: The Crumbling Foundation of Biblicism (Part 1)”

Kevin DeYoung – “Christian Smith Makes the Bible Impossible”

The first two reviews are favorable, whilst the third is hostile. Having not yet read the book myself, I am unable at this time to assess the reviews; however, I did find the following from Dr. Enns review to be cogent:

Smith’s central contention is that “pervasive interpretive pluralism” renders moot evangelical presumptions of the nature and authority of Scripture.

The above seems to duplicate the insightful reflections of Dr. A.N.S. Lane on this subject. I have provided the following from his pen on the right side-bar of this blog for over three years now:

It was this belief in the clarity of Scripture that made the early disputes between Protestants so fierce. This theory seemed plausible while the majority of Protestants held to Lutheran or Calvinist orthodoxy but the seventeenth century saw the beginning of the erosion of these monopolies. But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that ‘the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.’ By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45 – bold emphasis mine - LINK)

I have ordered this book, and hope to post some further reflections once I have read it (the Lord willing).

Grace and peace,

David

Dr. Dale Tuggy vs. Steve Hays

2011-07-07T13:57:00.000-07:00

It seems that my self-imposed, two month hiatus from the internet (apart from emails and sports) has come to an end—I am replacing my 'cloistered', 8-10 hours of intense off-line reading/study, with my more customary 4 hours.

My entry back into cyberspace began with a look at the Beggars All blog (see the previous thread here at AF). Yesterday, I peeked in on the Triablogue blog, and immediately noticed a large number of threads (authored by Steve Hays), dedicated to a specific individual named Dale Tuggy. The name sounded familiar, but for awhile, I could not pinpoint where I had come across the name (I later realized that back in January 2011, I had read Dale's essay, "The Trinitarian Dilemma", published in The Trinity - East/West Dialogue, 2003—I had purchased the book in January 2011 for Dr. Alfeyev's essay, "The Trinitarian Teaching of St. Gregory of Nazianzen").

It seems that Steve has developed an obsession, he has devoted no less than 23 threads (between June 10 - July 7), to Dr. Tuggy; here are the threads in chronological order:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/arianism-redux.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/revealing-and-being.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/no-one-who-denies-son-has-father.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/foolish-nonsense.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/and-word-was-god.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/king-is-dead-long-live-king.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/defining-identity.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-god.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/blessed-quaternity.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/does-trinity-contradict-monotheism.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/unitarian-apostates.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/name-above-every-name.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/unitarian-conundrum.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/blasphemy-and-exaltation.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/tuggys-intellectual-shortcuts.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/tuggys-pseudo-logic.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/isaian-monotheism.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/unitarianisms.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/infernex.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/unitarian-dress-code.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/tuggys-shellgame.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/identity-and-counting.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/our-lord-jesus-christ-glory.html

Dr. Tuggy has produced the following related threads at his blog:

http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2739

http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2802

http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2837

http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2856

http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2872

Seems that a lot has transpired on this topic (i.e. the doctrine/nature of the Christian God) during my hiatus...

I would now like to go back to Steve's first thread (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/arianism-redux.html), and provide a few of my own reflections. Steve wrote:

Dale Tuggy wrote the entry on the Trinity for the Stanford encylopedia. That's unfortunately inasmuch as Tuggy is an anti-Trinitarian.

In the combox, Dr. Tuggy denies the charge that he is "an anti-Trinitarian" (LINK), clarifying why he believes the charge to be false:

First, I wouldn't call myself an anti-trinitarian. I'm not from any such denomination or group, and I think believers ought to believe what seems true to them, and that they have the right to speculate. Thus, I would not break fellowship with someone, or accuse them of misc. bad stuff because they accept some Trinity theory or other. I am certainly a non-trinitarian, i.e. a small-u unitarian. I've been dragged there by the texts, and by the desperate problem faced by every Trinity theory out there.

I think one can see that Steve's charge is false—one can be a non-Trinitarian, without being an anti-Trinitarian—but no apology and/or acknowledgment is offered by Steve.

[FYI: Dr. Tuggy's entry on the Trinity in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy can be accessed online HERE.]

Steve then proceeds to throw a number of other baseless assertions at Dr. Tuggy throughout his opening post, and Dr. Tuggy responds to those charges in the combox. One of those assertions in particular stood out to me:

ii) There's no reason to equate Yahweh with God the Father. That's highly anachronistic.

Wow, I mean WOW; IMO, Steve needs to read the Bible a bit more. Note the following:

Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me. (John 8:41, 42 - ASV)

For those Jews contesting with Jesus in the above passage, who were they referring to as "one Father, even God"? Clearly, they were referring to Yahweh/Jehovah.

The concept of Yahweh/Jehovah as Father (i.e. the Fatherhood of God) to His chosen people was clearly taught in the OT (e.g. Is. 63:16; 64:8; Hos. 1:10)—equating God the Father with Yahweh is certainly not "anachronistic".

[For some extended reflections from my pen on this issue, see the following thread: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/10/back-to-bible.html.]

I would like to wrap up this opening post by pointing out that Steve's thread title, Arianism redux, is seriously flawed, for neither Dr. Tuggy nor Dr. Samuel Clarke (the two individuals he specifically castigates therein) are Arian; but then, those familiar with Steve's polemic are cognizant that he does not let facts get in the way of his caustic and skewed polemics.

Grace and peace,

David

Does the Roman Catholic Church teach either Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism? - When facts and objectivity take a 'backseat' to polemics

2011-06-29T15:42:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned in my last post, "I have been in one of my intense reading modes", but I am a big fan of tennis, as such, I have been 'multi-tasking' during this 2011 Wimbledon season. Today was the men's quarterfinals and of the four gents I had hoped would advance into the semis, only one did so (Andy Murray). I was a bit 'bummed' by the other outcomes, and not in much of a mood to continue today's studies, so I thought I would check in on some of the apologetics sites that have been of interest to me. Those familiar with my blog are aware of my past interest in the Beggars All blog, especially those threads that reflect on Catholicism. With the departure of John Bugay, the number of anti-Catholic threads at BA seemed to have dropped off the high level of intensity that persisted during John's presence as a "contributor", but the month of June has seen a significant upturn in polemical threads directed at Catholicism (many, but certainly not all, revolve around the Vulgate version of the Bible). I went back through the new threads posted at BA over the last three weeks and counted no less than 19 threads devoted to one aspect or another of BA's negative stance on Catholicism; of those 19 threads 2 in particular caught my attention: Orange and Trent and In Catholic theological anthropology, human nature is not selfish or sinful; human nature is good.

These two threads touch on an issue that I have spent of good deal of time researching: whether or not the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. doctrine delineated in the accepted Catholic councils) is either Pelagian or semi-Pelagian.

In the Orange and Trent thread penned by Ken Temple, we read:

“Semi-Pelagianism condemned at Orange in 529 AD, but reaffirmed at Trent” (1545-1563) (Basically, the essence of statements by Bavinck, Berkouwer, and Sproul; see below)

Ken then links to two "articles that focus on the beneficial canons of the Council of Orange that Protestant Reformers also emphasized in their battles against the false doctrines of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism and how the Council of Trent is contradictory to much of the council of Orange."

It seems that Ken has pretty much relied on the conclusions drawn by the above two articles, along with those of R. C. Sproul; unfortunately, many of those conclusions are fundamentally flawed. I am going to focus on Sproul in this thread, for I have read a good deal of Sproul's treatments on this subject, and have already touched on some of his skewed assessments here at AF. Once again from Orange and Trent we read:

Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, by R. C. Sproul. Baker, 1995.

In chapter 7, entitled “Merit and Grace”, R. C. Sproul discusses the issues of merit and grace, Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, the Council of Orange in 529 AD and the council of Trent (1545-1463), which seems to affirm semi-Pelagianism.

“Rome has repeatedly been accused of condemning semi-Pelagianism at Orange [in 529 AD] but embracing it anew at Trent. Herman Bavinck held that “although semi-Pelagianism had been condemned by Rome, it reappeared in a ‘roundabout way’”. G. C. Berkouwer observed:

“Between Orange and Trent lies a long process of development, namely, scholasticism, with its elaboration of the doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works, and the Roman system of penitence . . .”

Bavinck and Berkouwer are cited by Sproul in Faith Alone, pages 140-141.

I touched on Sproul's Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification in my thread, An Evangelical Critique of R. C. Sproul's "Faith alone", but address the issue of semi-Pelagianism more directly the thread, Why terminology is important, which interacts with Sroul's subsequent book, Willing to Believe (1997). [BTW, Sproul has certainly misread Berkouwer concerning his reflections on Trent and its relationship to Orange and semi-Pelagianism; hope to post a thread on this in the near future.]

I do not wish to duplicate the entire thread here, so I shall focus on but one of Sproul's faulty assessments; Sproul penned (provided in the above thread):

The classic issue between Augustinian theology and all forms of semi-Pelagianism focuses on one aspect of the order of salvation (ordo salutis): What is the relationship between regeneration and faith? Is regeneration a monergistic or synergistic work? Must a person first exercise faith in order to be born again? Or must rebirth occur before a person is able to exercise faith? Another way to state the question is this: Is the grace of regeneration operative or cooperative?

Dr. Sproul is just plain wrong here, and I clearly pointed this out in the same thread:

...a careful reading of the historical context of the birth of semi-Pelagianism reveals a much different landscape. And what is disconcerting to me, is that Sproul, in his Willing To Believe, has obviously read the history behind the emergence of semi-Pelgaianism, as well as the early Church’s reaction to it. Sproul in pages 69-76 gives a brief, but for the most part, accurate portrayal of the rise of semi-Pelagianism, citing three esteemed authorities, whose primary discipline is that of Christian history: Philip Schaff, Adolf von Harnack and Reinhold Seeberg. Yet amazingly, Sproul, in spite of the very quotes he provides from these scholars, misses THE KEY INGREDIENT which distinguishes semi-Pelagianism from all forms of Augustinianism! That KEY INGREDIENT is this:

Semi-Pelaganianism teaches that an individual apart from grace can accept the offer of salvation, and that once accepted one then cooperates with the grace that God gives. In other words, semi-Pelagianism denies the necessity of grace for one to believe/accept the gospel.

While Pelagianism denies that ANY grace in necessary for salvation (both before and after the acceptance of the Gospel), semi-Pelgainism only denies that grace is necessary for one to accept the gospel.

Note the following:

SEMI-PELAGIANISM. The doctrines on human nature upheld in the 4th and 5th cents. by a group of theologians who, while not denying the necessity of *Grace for salvation, maintained that the first steps towards the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and Grace supervened only later. (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed. 1974 - 1985 reprint, p. 1258.)

SEMI-PELAGIANISM. Doctrines, upheld during the period from 427 to 529, that rejected the extreme views of Pelagius and of Augustine in regards to the priority of divine grace and human will in the initial work of salvation...

Cassian [one of the early leaders of semi-Pelagianism] taught that though a sickness is inherited through Adam's sin, human free will has not been entirely obliterated. Divine grace is indispensable for salvation, but does not necessarily need to precede a free human choice, because, despite the weakness of human volition, the will takes the initiative toward God [apart from supernatural grace]. (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 1984, p. 1000.)

Sproul in Willing to Believe even quotes the following from Dr. Philip Schaff (History of the Christian Church) which affirms the above:

In opposition to both systems he taught that the divine image and human freedom were not annihilated, but only weakened, by the fall; in other words, that man is sick, but not dead, that he cannot indeed help himself, but that he can desire the help of a physician, and either accept or refuse it when offered, and that he must cooperate with the grace of God in his salvation. The question, which of the two factors has the initiative, he answers, altogether empirically, to this effect: that sometimes, and indeed usually, the human will, as in the cases of the Prodigal Son, Zacchaeus, the Penitent Thief, and Cornelius, determines itself to conversion; sometimes grace anticipates it, and, as with Matthew and Paul, draws the resisting will—yet, even in this case, without constraint—to God. Here, therefore, the gratia praeveniens is manifestly overlooked. (Sproul, Willing, p. 74; Schaff, History, 3.861)

How Dr. Sproul could miss THE key distinguishing feature after citing the above is quite baffling to me. That Ken and so many others mistakenly attribute the charge of semi-Pelagianism to the Roman Catholic Church, seemingly relying on such flawed assessments, comes as no surprise to me.

Grace and peace,

David

Göbekli Tepe: the world's first temple?

2011-05-23T12:23:00.000-07:00

To those who may be wondering why I have not posted a new thread here at AF in a little over a month now, I have been in one of my intense reading modes; and when I have not been reading, I have stepped up my work-out schedule, leaving little time for the internet, other than checking my emails. In an email I received yesterday, a topic totally new to me was brought to my attention: the Göbekli Tepe archeological site in southeastern Turkey. I was linked to the June 2011 National Geographic online entry, "Göbekli Tepe" (HERE), which inspired me to put down my books, and engage in a bit more online research.

I found the Smithsonian.com contribution, "Gobekli Tepe: the world's first temple?", to be of value, and worth the time it took to read (LINK).

I also enjoyed the following YouTube video:

Anyway, wanted to take a brief break away from my studies, and share this fascinating information (IMHO) with others...

Grace and peace,

David

Assisting John Bugay - part 2: helping John keep track of his falsehoods (or, perhaps, acute memory loss)

2011-04-11T09:12:00.000-07:00

John Bugay's ongoing campaign/obsession (7 new threads over 12 days 7th; 6th; 5th; 4th;3rd; 2nd; 1st) to misrepresent, slander and smear yours truly (in his attempt defend his use of Peter Lampe for his much larger anti-Catholic campaign/obsession), has taken a darker side: the use of falsehoods. In this thread I will document two recent examples.

FALSEHOOD #1: John Bugay posted/wrote the following on April 2, 2001 - 4:25 AM:

I’ll say in response to this, other than David having called Lampe a “liberal,” (and having loosely associated him with Harnack), David himself doesn’t state what Lampe’s “presuppositions” are. Assigning “guilt-by-association” is not the same thing as stating what someone’s presupposition is. As I’ve said, he is more than welcome to point these out so that I may then reject them, but no such thing is forthcoming. (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/ever-seeing-but-never-perceiving.html)

John had to of known that his charge was utterly false, because just the day before (April 01, 2011 - 3:21 AM) he posted/wrote:

Into this mix, David Waltz wants to inject the illegitimate method of “smear by association” and suggest that “Lampe’s presuppositions caused him to misunderstand that world.” And in an effort to try to somehow to “prove” this, Waltz, in his most recent post, takes a long selection from the writings of the most well-known of the German liberals, Adolph von Harnack, and says, “Lampe and Von Harnack both believe the Pastorals were not written by Paul. Therefore, their work is flawed in exactly the same way.” Here is his “analysis”:

Enter Dr. Peter Lampe and John Bugay: A careful reading of Dr. Lampe demonstrates that he sides with Dr. Aland and the modern higher critical school in accepting the following presuppositions: first, the Pastorals were not written by Paul, and were composed at a much a later date; second, the original Christian ministry consisted of "charismatic offices"; third the "Catholic" concept of the ministry did not have apostolic warrant, and was an evolutionary development that took place at different times in different geographical areas, with the churches at Rome being one of the last regions to fully endorse the "Catholic" development. John accepts the last of these presuppositions, seemingly ignoring the fact that it is built upon the foundation of the other presuppositions, which John rejects. I have gone on record as maintaining that John is being inconsistent, and none of my continuing research into this important issue suggests otherwise.

“Take my word for it,” he says. This is the sum total of David Waltz’s analysis.

He doesn’t prove that Lampe has these presuppositions. He doesn’t describe how and why these alleged presuppositions exist within Lampe’s work. He doesn’t describe the historical situation and say, “this begins here, that begins there”. David Waltz simply makes some loose assumptions, he declares “guilt by association,” and then he wants to go and take a nap or something. (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/bauer-thesis.html) [Bold emphasis mine.]

And on March 30, 2001 - 5:45 AM, he posted/wrote:

After providing a series of links to my various blog posts responding to him (and which I have supplemented here), here, unvarnished, is his devastating criticism:

I do not believe that John has adequately addressed the most pressing issue—which I have mentioned on more than one occasion—here it is again:

The premise/presuppostion [sic] that archeology and secular history must take precedence over Biblical historicity.

This is the method that is foundational for Lampe (and so many other liberal scholars), and he applies it not only to Biblical historicity, but also to the history provided in the writings of early “Catholic” bishops and authors. (http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/03/closer-look-at-david-waltzs-objections.html)

So, as one can clearly see, John provided in two prior posts the very presuppositions he spoke of being absent in his charge that, David himself doesn’t state what Lampe’s “presuppositions” are. My oh my!!!

FALSEHOOD #2: In the body of John's April 01, 2011 - 3:21 AM post we read:

Into this mix, David Waltz wants to inject the illegitimate method of “smear by association” and suggest that “Lampe’s presuppositions caused him to misunderstand that world.” And in an effort to try to somehow to “prove” this, Waltz, in his most recent post, takes a long selection from the writings of the most well-known of the German liberals, Adolph von Harnack, and says, “Lampe and Von[sic] Harnack both believe the Pastorals were not written by Paul. Therefore, their work is flawed in exactly the same way.”

Notice that John attributes to me ("David Waltz...says"), using quotation marks, the following:

“Lampe’s presuppositions caused him to misunderstand that world.”

“Lampe and Von[sic] Harnack both believe the Pastorals were not written by Paul. Therefore, their work is flawed in exactly the same way.”

The above "quotes" are not my words at all. John is trying to 'pull a fast one' on his readers, via a falsehood: he is attributing to me what are actually his own personal assessments—assessments that miss the mark by a 'country mile.'

IMO, this post has given us an important glimpse into the mind and character of John Bugay; I shall let the readers discern for themselves the implications therein.

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. I noticed the following at the end of John's latest (7th) post directed at me:

This is going to be my last response to David Waltz at Beggars All.

Given John's obsessive behavior, it will be interesting to see if the above holds true.

Assisting John Bugay – part 1

2011-04-01T13:41:00.000-07:00

Earlier today (LINK), I briefly commented on the bulk of John Bugay’s early morning post (LINK); a post that struck me as little more than a rant. I pointed out a number of John’s errors; some of those errors seem to flow from either a neglect to read the material he was commenting on, or a lack of comprehension of the material. I would like to assist John here, and walk him through some of those errors. In John’s thread, he reposted the following from my March 31st post (LINK):

Enter Dr. Peter Lampe and John Bugay: A careful reading of Dr. Lampe demonstrates that he sides with Dr. Aland and the modern higher critical school in accepting the following presuppositions: first, the Pastorals were not written by Paul, and were composed at a much a later date; second, the original Christian ministry consisted of "charismatic offices"; third the "Catholic" concept of the ministry did not have apostolic warrant, and was an evolutionary development that took place at different times in different geographical areas, with the churches at Rome being one of the last regions to fully endorse the "Catholic" development. John accepts the last of these presuppositions, seemingly ignoring the fact that it is built upon the foundation of the other presuppositions, which John rejects. I have gone on record as maintaining that John is being inconsistent, and none of my continuing research into this important issue suggests otherwise.

He then wrote:

“Take my word for it,” he says. This is the sum total of David Waltz’s analysis.

He doesn’t prove that Lampe has these presuppositions. He doesn’t describe how and why these alleged presuppositions exist within Lampe’s work.

As I said, I am going to assist John, and walk him through the material that clearly refutes his allegation.

Lampe’s first presupposition: the Pastorals were not written by Paul, and were composed at a much a later date

The Pastoral letters presuppose Aquila and Prisca still to be in Ephesus (2 Tim 4:19) while Paul is already in Rome. This is one of the historical inconsistencies found in the Pastorals…

For example, when Paul moved from Ephesus to Macedonia, by no means did Timothy remain behind in Ephesus, as 1 Tim 1:3 supposes: Acts 19:22; 20:1-4; 2 Cor 1:1; Rom 16:21…

How did the author come to the mistake regarding Aquila and Prisca?…

Conclusion: In a seach for appropriate names to create a literary fiction based in Ephesus, the prominent names of Aquila and Prisca could not miss falling into the hands of the deutero-Pauline author. (Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 2003, pp. 158, 159.)

The following study will also consider Acts and the deutero-Pauline letters Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and 1 and 2 Peter. (Peter Lampe and Ulich Luz, "Post-Pauline Christianity and Pagan Society", in Christian Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times, ed. Jürgen Becker, p. 243)

John, the Pastorals are composed of 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, which Lampe describes as deutero-Pauline letters – homework for you: look up the meaning of deutero-Pauline letters, and then get back to me.

Lampe’s second presupposition: the original Christian ministry consisted of "charismatic offices"

The writer of Revelation nonchalantly ignored the hierarchical structures that had also emerged in the Christian congregation by the end of the first century [as witnessed by the Pastorals]. Prophecy was the only church office he wanted to acknowledge in the earthly Christian congregation (cf. 10:7; 11:18; 19:10; 22:6, 16). (Peter Lampe, “Early Christian House Churches: A Constructivist Approach”, in Early Christian Families in Context, ed. David L. Balch, Carolyn Osiek, p. 82.)

The household rules of the New Testament are often named as chief witnesses when one wants to describe how post-Pauline Christianity adapted to the world in a "civilized" way. The are often considered the prime example of how in post-Pauline times Christian ethics became conformed to the world and conservative and how the original "revolutionary" impetus of Gal. 3:28 ("there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female") was lost. In what ways do the household rules represent assimiltion to the world? They do indeed adapt to prevailing pagan structures of oikos. The respect the power or the paterfamilias and demand the submission of wife, children, and slaves to this rule, the call to obedience and the readiness to suffer can even be christologically motivated (1 Peter 2:18-23). (Peter Lampe and Ulich Luz, "Post-Pauline Christianity and Pagan Society", in Christian Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times, ed. Jürgen Becker, p. 272)

Also the structure of offices that emerges in post-Pauline Christianity has been frequently seen as an "assimilation" to the social forms of the world. (Peter Lampe and Ulich Luz, "Post-Pauline Christianity and Pagan Society", in Christian Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times, ed. Jürgen Becker,p. 272)

John, how can you fail to comprehend that Lampe sees the offices described in the Pastorals as being non-apostolic in nature? (Unlike the offices described by Paul in 1 Cor. which Lampe does accept as Pauline, and hence, apostolic.)

Lampe’s third presupposition: the "Catholic" concept of the ministry did not have apostolic warrant, and was an evolutionary development that took place at different times in different geographical areas, with the churches at Rome being one of the last regions to fully endorse the "Catholic" development.

Now, Lampe believes the hierarchical structures (i.e. offices) that emerged in post-Pauline Christianity, did so by the end of the first century (see above), and he also adds:

The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor was the first who, after faint-herated attempts by Eleutherus, Soter, and Anicetus energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy… (Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 2003, p. 397)

Seriously John, don’t you think that you misspoke? How can you not see that I have accurately portrayed Lampe on these three issues?

Grace and peace,

David

John Bugay's recent rant

2011-04-01T06:51:00.000-07:00

I suspect that this thread will bore many readers, but please forgive me for taking up cyberspace, for I think it prudent to respond to John Bugay's early morning diatribe...

It took John less than 20 hours to type up a response (LINK ) to my March 31st post (LINK). IMHO, John should really think about taking a bit more time digesting and reflecting upon the material that he critiques. I am going to repost the bulk of John's diatribe in red (I see no need to reproduce the video, and his comments on it); my reflections on his diatribe will be in black.

In a way, David Waltz is playing Costello to my Abbott. Except, I’ve always laid all my cards (and definitions) on the table.

This is quite simply false; I shall provide two recent examples that demonstrate this: first, John has failed to give us his definitive definition of the term "liberal" which he has used in a good number of contexts; and second, John described Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as, "a full-blown pantheist", but never really tells us exactly what he means by this (instead, he provides a few quotes out of context, and then gives Michael Horton's highly debatable definition).

He said in his most recent post:

John (and others), continues to ignore the fact that presuppositions have serious implications concerning one's assessment of raw data that can legitimately be interpreted in more than one sense, and there is no question in my mind that this is especially true when one attempts to determine the form/type of ministry that Jesus' apostles had intended/instructed to be functioning after their departure into heaven. And further, it is one's view of the Christian ministry which constitutes one of the preeminent factors in determining the very nature of the Church founded by Jesus and His apostles.

David muddles things, and he does so pretty badly. I do not “ignore the fact that presuppositions have serious implications.” There are presuppositions all over the place. Some people try to slip in presuppositions without us knowing it. That’s where these folks find me so frustrating. I isolate Rome’s presuppositions, and I say, “let’s start without these.” That’s the main thing I try to do.

Yet another prime example of John's penchant for double-standards, he isolates Rome’s presuppositions, and asks us to start without these; but then, he refuses to isolate HIS presuppositions, and Dr. Lampe's presuppositions, and start without these.

David is not even talking about the right set of presuppositions.

A purely subjective assertion with no proof.

My goal all along, and I’ve stated this many times, is “to understand what [the early church] knew, and when they knew it.” Direct question for David Waltz: Have you ever seen this in any of my blog posts?

Here is yet another example of where John has failed to give us a definition: exactly what does John mean by the early church? Does John realize that a number of the scholars that he cites in his posts believe that it is impossible to speak of 'a church', but rather, that one must speak of 'churches'?

The effort to “understand what they knew and when they knew it” is an effort to exclude all presuppositions about what the early church believed. It is an effort to create a “presupposition-less” understanding of what the early church believed.

I sincerely believe that John is either being grossly naive here, or dishonest with us—it is impossible to approach what the 'early church' believed without presuppositions.

Now, to be sure, nature abhors a vacuum, and trying to create a “presupposition-less” understanding, is to try to create a kind of vacuum.

Finally some sound thoughts John's from pen.

If the early church truly believed certain things, I want to understand what those were. But if they did not believe things, then to suggest that they did, in any way, would be equally wrong. And as I’ve stated many times, it is necessary to exclude one particular, pernicious modern-day Roman belief as a presupposition of what the early church believed:

God the Father passed His authority on to Jesus (cf. Matthew 28:18 ), Who passed it on to the apostles (cf. Luke 10:16 and Matthew 28:19 ), who passed it on to their successors.

This is not something that the early church believed. And if you think they did, in this presupposition-less world, it is up to you to show where they believed it.

First, it is certainly not a presupposition-less world that we are dealing with; and second, John has yet to interact with 'conservative' Anglican and Catholic scholars who defend the conception of the 'early church' he cited above.

This statement is a conception of authority that Roman Catholics today believe, and at every occasion, they try to say, “It was this way with the early church, too, they just didn’t know it.” Now, that is the unstated presupposition that Roman Catholics, especially the Called to Communion sort, try to impress upon us. They just simply assume that’s the case.

I am not here to defend the folk at Called to Communion, I am here to defend what I have written.

In any discussion of “church history,” you have to understand, as Turretin says,

Thus this day the Romanists (although they are anything but the true church of Christ) still boast of their having alone the name of church and do not blush to display the standard of that which they oppose. In this manner, hiding themselves under the specious title of the antiquity and infallibility of the Catholic church, they think they can, as with one blow, beat down and settle the controversy waged against them concerning the various most destructive errors introduced into the heavenly doctrine (Turretin, Vol 3 pg 2).

What has the above quote to do about what the 'early church' believed, and what I have written on this matter—can you spell 'red-herring'?

And what is “the controversy waged against them”? In Turretin’s day, it was the Protestant Reformation. And what did the Reformation say? It said, repeatedly, “Roman authority is not God-given authority.” “Roman authority is not God-given authority.”

Yawn...can we get back on track...

I ask them to show where this authority came from; the most that I get in response is a variation of the “authority” quote above. They can’t prove it from the records. Instead, they have to come up with nonsensical explanations such as, “they believed it ‘implicitly,’ they just didn’t know it. It took ‘further reflection’. What did Newman say? “No doctrine is articulated until it is opposed.” That’s just a nonsensical way to look at things, and it did not in any way correspond with the historical facts on the ground.

John, have you lost your mind...can you prove to me what you think the 'early church' believed? And perhaps more importantly, do you honestly believe that the Reformed paradigm is devoid of significant development?

If you look at the actual historical events, you’ll see raw power struggles and a Roman authority that was determined to assert itself at every turn.

Yawn...

The thing that I am most trying to do is to provide a positive picture of what the world was like in the days of the early church. Lampe is not the only writer I’ve cited. I’ve been citing from F.F. Bruce and Roger Beckwith - not liberals at all, to be sure - and many others as well. I do this because, when you try to understand what the church, as a whole really believed (in various places and at various times), you first have to understand the world as it existed in those times and places. What it was really like.

You are limiting yourself here; try reading Aland, Barker, Dunn, Hanson, Kümmel, Küng, Segal, and then get back to me.

Lampe is one of those historians who genuinely succeeds in reconstructing that ancient world, its ancient beliefs. To do so, he has done actual historical work – “historical-critical” work.

William Dever, Mark Smith, Othmar Keel, Christoph Uehlinger, and a consensus of modern day OT/Ancient Near East scholars have done the same with the OT period; yet in another thread, you explicitly rejected the bulk of their assessments—I sense yet one more double-standard at work here.

These historians (Bruce and Beckwith and Lampe and others) go to those places, and cite not just religious documents, but all documents – they check the archaeology for what the land structure was like, what the topography was like. Where the rich people lived, where the poor people lived. Where they worshiped. What they worshipped. The kinds of building structures they worshipped in. The kinds of authority structures that were existent in the ancient world. Where these folks died and were buried. And they create a picture of that ancient world that is more complete, more complex in all of its interactions, than anything else that any writer in the 12th or 15th or 17th or 19th centuries can imagine. They don’t take a video camera back there, but the work that is produced is probably as close as we will come to that ideal.

You make it sound as if there are no 'gaps' in the historical record and that a unified theory exists among NT scholars as to the precise nature and theology of the early church/churches...I don't buy it John, I am just too well read on this issue to do so.

Into this mix, David Waltz wants to inject the illegitimate method of “smear by association” and suggest that “Lampe’s presuppositions caused him to misunderstand that world.”

Your charge of “smear by association” is false and misleading; all I have done is provide areas of agreement between scholars who are dealing with the same genre.

And in an effort to try to somehow to “prove” this, Waltz, in his most recent post, takes a long selection from the writings of the most well-known of the German liberals, Adolph von Harnack, and says, “Lampe and Von Harnack both believe the Pastorals were not written by Paul. Therefore, their work is flawed in exactly the same way.”

Once again, false and misleading; I do not, nor have I said, that their work is flawed in exactly the same way; your putting, “Lampe and Von Harnack both believe the Pastorals were not written by Paul. Therefore, their work is flawed in exactly the same way.”, in quotation marks and ascribing it to my pen is dishonest, and misleading. Further, it sure sounds like you are trying to smear Dr. Harnack!!! (Ooops...I forgot, it is OK for you to smear...)

Here is his “analysis”:

Enter Dr. Peter Lampe and John Bugay: A careful reading of Dr. Lampe demonstrates that he sides with Dr. Aland and the modern higher critical school in accepting the following presuppositions: first, the Pastorals were not written by Paul, and were composed at a much a later date; second, the original Christian ministry consisted of "charismatic offices"; third the "Catholic" concept of the ministry did not have apostolic warrant, and was an evolutionary development that took place at different times in different geographical areas, with the churches at Rome being one of the last regions to fully endorse the "Catholic" development. John accepts the last of these presuppositions, seemingly ignoring the fact that it is built upon the foundation of the other presuppositions, which John rejects. I have gone on record as maintaining that John is being inconsistent, and none of my continuing research into this important issue suggests otherwise.

“Take my word for it,” he says. This is the sum total of David Waltz’s analysis.

I am not asking anyone to, “Take my word for it,”; in previous posts I have already provided quotes from Dr. Lampe that clearly support my first two statements, and the third is supported by the entire tone of his work on this issue—and you charge me with a deficiency in my ability to comprehend what I read—my goodness!!!

He doesn’t prove that Lampe has these presuppositions. He doesn’t describe how and why these alleged presuppositions exist within Lampe’s work.

False; now I know for sure that you have not carefully read what I written.

He doesn’t describe the historical situation and say, “this begins here, that begins there”. David Waltz simply makes some loose assumptions, he declares “guilt by association,” and then he wants to go and take a nap or something.

ROFL

This is not an analysis. It is a smear tactic. Pure and simple.

John, you are the grandmaster of smear tactic; it will take me a lifetime to even approach your level of expertise...

If Waltz ever wanted me to take him seriously, he would have dived into Peter Lampe’s work and show, not some kind of implied “guilt-by-association,” but rather, thought-by-thought, how Lampe’s portrayal of historical facts somehow becomes corrupted.

I do not contest any of the historical facts that Dr. Lampe portrays, what I contest is his theories.

But Waltz does not do that. He is not capable of doing such a thing.

Nice smear John...I am now going to return back to reality...

Grace and peace,

David

John Bugay, Dr. Peter Lampe, and the early ministry of the Christian Church

2011-03-31T08:53:00.000-07:00

John Bugay in three recent threads at the Beggars All blog (first; second; third), has been attempting to defend his particular view of the early ministry of the Christian Church, and his use of liberal/revisionist scholars such as Dr. Peter Lampe in doing so. I have shed some light on this issue in previous threads here at AF (LINK), and shall now add to those contributions.

John (and others), continues to ignore the fact that presuppositions have serious implications concerning one's assessment of raw data that can legitimately be interpreted in more than one sense, and there is no question in my mind that this is especially true when one attempts to determine the form/type of ministry that Jesus' apostles had intended/instructed to be functioning after their departure into heaven. And further, it is one's view of the Christian ministry which constitutes one of the preeminent factors in determining the very nature of the Church founded by Jesus and His apostles.

Prior to the Reformation, apart from small, heretical sects, there was little doubt in the minds of Catholic Christians (Western/Latin and Eastern/Greek) just what type of church and ministry was instituted by the apostles—it was a visible society of believers/disciples (and their children), with a structured leadership (i.e. apostles/'bishops', elders/presbyters, and deacons). But the Reformation brought many novel concepts into play, including a new concept of what "the Church" is, and the type of ministry instituted by the apostles of Jesus—the church was no longer primarily conceived of as a visible society, "outside of which there is no salvation", but rather the concept of an "invisible church", was introduced, pushing the visibility of the church into obscurity. Concerning this 16th century innovation, Dr. Herman Bavinck wrote:

Not until the sixteenth century was a fundamentally different concept of the church posited by the Reformation as an alternative to that of Rome...The church was not simply a congregation of the predestined, nor of such people who conducted their lives in keeping with a few rules from the Sermon on the Mount. But it was a congregation of believers, of people who through faith had had received the forgiveness of sins and hence were all children of God, prophets, and priests. For that reason it naturally had an invisible and a visible side. According to Seeberg, this distinction was first made not by Zwingli but by Luther. (Reformed Dogmatics, 4.287 - bold emphasis mine.)

The Anglican scholar, A. J. Mason, in his essay, "Conceptions of the Church in Early Times", confirms Dr. Bavinck's assessment:

The Church was the visible organization which bears that name.

We must proceed to ask whether the fellowship thus denoted was the historical—the ' empiric '—body which passes under the name, or whether it is an ideal quantity, whose very existence is known only by faith. In this enquiry the modern scholar is aided by a very remarkable work. The publication in 1892 of Rudolf Sohm's Kirchenrecht may be said to mark an epoch in the study of the doctrine of the Church. The theory set forth in it has not been left uncriticized, but on certain points the assertions of Sohm will hardly be called in question again. In this work and its sequel Sohm has shewn clearly that the distinction between the Church as a religious conception and the Church as a concrete institution—a distinction upon which he himself insists with vehemence—was wholly unknown to the Christians of early times...The notion of an invisible Church of the Predestinate, Sohm says, came into men's minds before many centuries after Christ had elapsed. Augustine, Wiclif entertained it. But Luther was the first to whom the contrast between the two things became a religious certainty. No one before Luther had been able to emancipate himself in conscience from the visible Church. (Essays On The Early History of The Church and The Ministry, ed. H.B. Swete, pp. 9, 10.)

The concept of the Church as being primarily a visible society was (and still is) rejected by most of Protestant Christendom, being replaced by the notion that the Church is essentially an "invisible", "spiritual" entity. This 16th century concept of the Christian church not only dominates most 'conservative' scholarship on this issue, but it is also one of the fundamental presuppositions of modern higher critical scholarship, which, applies this presupposition not only to their conceptions and theories of the post-Biblical church/churches, but also to the New Testament period itself. One early representatives of the modern higher critical school summed up this, and some of the other presuppositions, that are not to be questioned:

IN no other department of Church history is the opposition between the ecclesiastical and the historical stand point so great as in that dealing with the earliest constitution of the Church and the history of ecclesiastical law. According to Catholic doctrine Christ founded the Church, placed Peter at its head, associated with Peter a governing body of apostles, who were to be succeeded by the monarchical episcopate just as the primacy was to devolve upon the successors of Peter, and established the distinction between clergy and laity as fundamental. In addition, all the rest of the constitution of the Church as it exists to-day is carried back to Christ Himself, and the only points about which there is a minor controversy are : how much He commanded directly during His earthly life ; how much He ordained as the Exalted Lord in the forty days of His intercourse with the disciples ; how much the apostles added subsequently, led by His Spirit; and what less important and alterable additions have been made in the course of the history of the Church. In any case He founded the Church as a visible kingdom (regnum externum), equipped with a vast jurisdiction, which has its root in the power of binding and loosing, and both pope and clergy derive their authority from Him. He entrusted the Church with the right and duty of universal missionary activity, and thereby gave to her the ends of the earth for her possession, and He granted infallibility to her and to her decrees by promising that through His spirit He would be with her all the days. The Church is thus set over against the secular kingdoms of the present and the future as a kingdom of a unique kind (regnum sui generis), it is true, but yet as a kingdom in face of which the sovereign rights that still belong to the earthly kingdoms can have only the most restricted scope and in all “mixed cases” must yield to the decision of the Church. But, according to the old Protestant doctrine also, the Church is a deliberate and direct foundation of Christ, and although the Catholic conception is radically corrected by the doctrine that the Church is “a congregation of faithful men” (societas fidelium) based on the Word of God, yet in Calvinism and parts of Lutheranism considerable theocratic and clerical elements, although latent, are not entirely absent.

Both views have the whole historical development of the apostolic and post-apostolic age against them, and besides, they stand or fall with the question of the authenticity of a few New Testament passages (especially in the Gospel of Matthew). If we put these aside—and by all the rules of historical criticism we are compelled to do so—then every direct external bond between Jesus and the “Church” and its developing orders is severed. There remains the inner spiritual bond, even if Jesus neither founded nor even intended the Church. (Adolf von Harnack, Constitution and Law of the Church In the First Two Centuries, 1910 English ed., trans. F.L. Pogson, pp. 1-4).

To sum up, the idea that Jesus and His apostles, "founded the Church as a visible kingdom", must be rejected; such a concept did not exist in the minds of either Jesus, nor his apostles. Biblical texts which seem to support "the Catholic conception", cannot be apostolic (i.e. written by one of Jesus apostles), and hence, texts like the Pastorals, 1 and 2 Peter, etc. are essentially 'forgeries', not written by any of the apostles, and belong to a later period than any texts deemed to be written by one of the apostles. One of the greatest Biblical textual scholars of our modern era, Kurt Aland, fully embraces these assessments of the modern higher critical school, and adds yet another presupposition to the mix:

If we attempt to summarize the internal development of Christianity in the early centuries, we discover a decisive turning point in the second half of the second century. The second century is not only a watershed, but her there is also something decisive for the development of the Christian church. In a manner of speaking, what comes before the end of the second century can be called the "prehistoric" age of Christianity. Up until the middle of the second century, and even later, Christians did not live in and for the present, but they lived in and for the future; and this was in such a way that the future flowed into the present, that future and present became one—a future which obviously stood under the sign of the Lord's presence. It was the confident expectation of the first generations that the end of the world was not only near, but that it had already come. It was the definite conviction not only of Paul, but of all Christians of that time, that they themselves would experience the return of the Lord. (A History of Christianity, vol. 1, p. 87).

Dr. Aland then goes on to comment on the authorship and dates of the NT corpus, rejecting apostolic authorship for the Pastorals, and most of the other NT texts. All this helps to form his theory (accepted by the vast majority of critical scholars) that the original Christian ministry consisted of "charismatic offices" and that these "offices" were "gradually" replaced by the offices of presbyters, bishops and deacons—"In place of these charismatic offices, what gradually enters is presbyters, bishops and deacons."

Enter Dr. Peter Lampe and John Bugay: A careful reading of Dr. Lampe demonstrates that he sides with Dr. Aland and the modern higher critical school in accepting the following presuppositions: first, the Pastorals were not written by Paul, and were composed at a much a later date; second, the original Christian ministry consisted of "charismatic offices"; third the "Catholic" concept of the ministry did not have apostolic warrant, and was an evolutionary development that took place at different times in different geographical areas, with the churches at Rome being one of the last regions to fully endorse the "Catholic" development. John accepts the last of these presuppositions, seemingly ignoring the fact that it is built upon the foundation of the other presuppositions, which John rejects. I have gone on record as maintaining that John is being inconsistent, and none of my continuing research into this important issue suggests otherwise.

Grace and peace,

David

P.S. I was in a bit of a hurry to publish this post, and have not fully edited the grammar, spelling and other possible typos; expect some editing after my coffee and breakfast.

Google's infamous 'spam filter' in a new thread at Beggars All

2011-03-31T05:26:00.000-07:00

Over at the Beggars All blog, I have been attempting to respond to certain allegations that have been directed towards me by John Bugay, Tim Enloe, and others in THIS THREAD. Unfortunately, some my responses have been getting caught in Google's infamous 'spam filter', and it seems that only James Swan (who is not participating in thread) has the ability to restore those posts that have been deleted, making it quite difficult to carry on a cohesive discussion. I am currently working on a thread that will attempt address a number of the recent issues that have been raised by John Bugay, but for now, would like repost one of my deleted responses. Yesterday, in response to a post by Tim Enloe (LINK) I penned the following:

Hi Tim,

Thanks for responding; you wrote:

>>I don't reject the entire body of a man's work because of his "presuppositions" - another scare word, by the way, that frequently is used by many people as a substitute for real, reflective thought.>>

Me: Nor do I, but presuppositions become extremely important when the evidence being weighed can legitimately be interpreted (without violence) more than one way. For instance, I mentioned the Pastoral Epistles, because the authorship (and related dating) of these epistles are extremely important in determining just what type of ministry (or lack thereof) the apostles meant to leave behind. Early missteps and judgments will severely hinder later assessments.

>>One has to weigh scholarly arguments, not merely count them or demonstrate proficiency in typing by reproducing them because they happen to jive with one's own preexisting views (one's "presuppositions," if you will).>>

Me: Amen!

>>It's not proper to reject the whole of a book because a "Liberal" wrote it, or to accept the whole of a book because a "Conservative" wrote it. These are relative terms. WHAT is the "conservative" conserving? WHAT is the "liberal" liberating?>>

Me: Agreed.

>>There is enormous sloppiness in online apologetics discussions caused by simplistic, moralizing, approaches to scholarly works. I've noticed this for years: there is this love/hate relationship amongst amateur apologists regarding scholarly works. If the works support the "conservative" views, they are lauded to the skies. If the works injure the "conservative" views, they are condemned, and anyone who uses them in any fashion is swept up in a big net of condemnation.>>

Me: Once again, I agree.

>>You're not as bad as some folks in this respect, but frankly, you are bad enough. Just the mere fact that you ask me whether I agree with Lampe's conclusions about the pastorals just because I (may) think he's right about some other areas of history…>>

Me: Once again I brought up the Pastorals because one’s conclusions about these epistles (and others) directly determines the type of trajectory one will proceed along concerning the type of ministry instituted by the Apostles. I found a good deal of Lampe’s research to be interesting and informative, but remain convinced that the bulk of his work does not directly address the foundational issues at stake.

>>… begs for me to ask you: Do you exercise discernment when you read scholarly works? Do you weigh scholarly arguments, or just count and reproduce them? Weighing arguments is not easy, nor is it an exact science. It takes patience and discernment to wade through a body of scholarship, and alas, online apologetics warriors have little of either.>>

Me: I believe that I sincerely try to do so Tim. You mentioned Frank (kepha) earlier, have you so soon forgotten the ‘heat’ I received from his pen during our discussions on subordinationism and development concerning my willingness to challenge the ‘conservative’ take on the pre-Nicenes? (And it was not just Frank, but a number of posters here at BA have taken me to task because I do weigh scholarly arguments.)

Grace and peace,

David

"The Lutheran Landslide" - recent conversions of Lutherans into the Catholic Church

2011-03-20T13:10:00.000-07:00

I have followed with a good deal of interest the numerous conversions of Evangelical and/or Reformed pastors and seminarians, over the course of the last couple of decades, into the Roman Catholic Church. In addition to the notable conversions of Dr. Scott Hahn (see his Rome Sweet Home) and Dr. Francis Beckwith (see his Return to Rome), a number of other conversions have been related in Patrick Madrid's, Surprised By Truth (now three volumes), and at the Called To Communion website.

Unknown to me, that is until yesterday (with the exceptions of Richard John Neuhaus and Robert Wilken), are the numerous conversions of Lutherans into the Roman Catholic Church. I learned of these conversions via an article posted last Friday at the National Catholic Register website (LINK). From that entry by Tim Drake we read:

One of the most under-reported religious stories of the past decade has been the movement of Lutherans across the Tiber.

What first began with prominent Lutherans, such as Richard John Neuhaus (1990) and Robert Wilken (1994), coming into the Catholic Church, has become more of a landslide that could culminate in a larger body of Lutherans coming into the collectively.

In 2000, former Canadian Lutheran Bishop Joseph Jacobson came into the Church.

“No other Church really can duplicate what Jesus gave,” Jacobson told the Western Catholic Reporter in 2006.

In 2003, Leonard Klein, a prominent Lutheran and the former editor of Lutheran Forum and Forum Letter came into the Church. Today, both Jacobson and Klein are Catholic priests.

Over the past several years, an increasing number of Lutheran theologians have joined the Church’s ranks, some of whom now teach at Catholic colleges and universities. They include, but are not limited to: Paul Quist (2005), Richard Ballard (2006), Paul Abbe (2006), Thomas McMichael, Mickey Mattox, David Fagerberg, Bruce Marshall, Reinhard Hutter, Philip Max Johnson, and most recently, Dr. Michael Root (2010).

“The Lutheran church has been my intellectual and spiritual home for forty years,” wrote Dr. Root. “But we are not masters of our convictions. A risk of ecumenical study is that one will come to find another tradition compelling in a way that leads to a deep change in mind and heart. Over the last year or so, it has become clear to me, not without struggle, that I have become a Catholic in my mind and heart in ways that no longer permit me to present myself as a Lutheran theologian with honesty and integrity. This move is less a matter of decision than of discernment.”

And a bit later:

Now, it appears that a larger Lutheran body will be joining the Church. Father Christopher Phillips, writing at the Anglo-Catholic blog, reports that the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church (ALCC) clergy and parishes will be entering into the U.S. ordinariate being created for those Anglicans desiring to enter the Church.

According to the blog, the ALCC sent a letter to Walter Cardinal Kasper, on May 13, 2009, stating that it “desires to undo the mistakes of Father Martin Luther, and return to the One, Holy, and True Catholic Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ through the Blessed Saint Peter.” That letter was sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Very interesting...

Grace and peace,

David

Dr. Michael Heiser: “Another Bart-Sequitur”—authorship and “pseudonymity” concerning the New Testament

2011-02-24T10:06:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite Evangelical scholars, Dr. Michael Heiser, has recently commented (LINK) on Bart Ehrman’s new book, Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, which, of course, delves into the issue of “pseudonymity” concerning certain books/epistles of the New Testament canon.

Though I own, and have read, eight of Ehrman’s books, I have not yet read this new one (I usually wait until the paperback edition is released). With that said, I cannot at this time fully endorse Dr. Heiser’s reflections; however, given his past contributions, I have little reason to doubt that his assessment of Ehrman’s new book is anything less than accurate.

In addition to his own thoughts, Dr. Heiser links to a number of other important contributions by scholars that include Ben Witherington III and Donald Guthrie—hope everyone will take the time to check the material provided in all the links, I am sure you will agree that it is worth the effort.

Grace and peace,

David

The secretive "TurretinFan" continues his censorship tactics

2011-02-17T17:37:00.001-08:00

Against what may have been my better judgment (based on previous combox encounters with the secretive, paranoid, gent who goes by the name "TurretinFan"), I decided to respond to the following post penned by the anti-Catholic, Reformed "pastor", David King, in the combox of the Februray 15, 2001 thread at the Thoughts of Fancis Turretin blog:

...yet not demonstrate how the early Church was "Protestant" in the way Mathison suggests.

I am going to address this one point because it is such an utter distortion of what Dr. Mathison has actually said and argued. I hope that maybe our Romanist poster will actually get this, though I doubt he is capable of it.

Protestants do not argue that the early church was Protestant, and Dr. Mathison never argued that. What he has argued (and convincingly so) is that the ancient church was not a bunch of Romanists, and that the ancient church certainly didn't hold to the modern day dogmas of papal primacy or papal infallibility. Now, I understand that this goes right over the head of the average wanna-be Roman apologist, but we have to keep saying it whether they ever understand it or not. The early church was catholic, not a bunch of Romanists as Romanists contend. Now I understand that Romanists want to be called "catholics," but that is simply wishful thinking. The church of Rome has departed from the catholic faith, especially so having dogmatized so many "articles of faith" that are uncatholic, ahistorical, and unbiblical. It's a pretty convenient contention to assert, "one must be in communion with the bishop of Rome" in order to be "catholic." But that is not the spirit of catholicism. It is the spirit of Diotrephes "who loves to have the preeminence" ( 3 John 9). That is what Dr. Mathison has argued. Now, we understand you can't see it, but we are always happy to restate it for you over and over. :) (Wednesday, February 16, 2011 6:00:00 PM )

The above post is so typical of David King's caustic, polemical, ad hominem style; I responded with:

>>Protestants do not argue that the early church was Protestant, and Dr. Mathison never argued that. What he has argued (and convincingly so) is that the ancient church was not a bunch of Romanists, and that the ancient church certainly didn't hold to the modern day dogmas of papal primacy or papal infallibility.>>

Me: But it has certainly become vogue among a number of anti-Roman Catholic apologists to argue that certain Protestant doctrines were held by the "early church" (contra a consensus of prominent Protestant patristic scholars).

>>Now, I understand that this goes right over the head of the average wanna-be Roman apologist, but we have to keep saying it whether they ever understand it or not. The early church was catholic, not a bunch of Romanists as Romanists contend.>>

Me: Perhaps some "Romanists", but certainly not all Roman Catholic patristic scholars; fact is, a good number of Roman Catholic patristic scholars acknowledge doctrinal development.

>>Now I understand that Romanists want to be called "catholics," but that is simply wishful thinking.>>

Me: ROFL

>>The church of Rome has departed from the catholic faith, especially so having dogmatized so many "articles of faith" that are uncatholic, ahistorical, and unbiblical.>>

Me: Are you a Socinian? (hyperbole); I know that you are not, but you do argue like one (historically speaking).

Grace and peace,

David (Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:04:00 AM )

[Note: See these 3 threads for important material on why found King’s statement about the RCC not being “catholic” humorous; and this thread for supportive data concerning my Socinian comment.]

David King then posted:

Me: Are you a Socinian? (hyperbole); I know that you are not, but you do argue like one (historically speaking).

Let's see, Mr. Waltz, you profess to have been a Jehovah's Witness, an evangelical, a member of the Roman communion which you said you left some months back, and now who knows what you profess to be. And you want to ask me about being a Socinian? Apparently you don't realize that's a glass house you've built for yourself - be careful with those rocks. :) (Thursday, February 17, 2011 2:09:00 PM )

And in response to one of "TurretinFan's" ill-conceived comments, I wrote:

>>Whether or not the method of argumentation with respect to history is similar doesn't turn this into a valid criticism. After all, the Socinians were not rejected on account of their method of argument but on account of their false doctrines.>>

It painfully obvious that you have not read the arguments that were put forth in the 16th century to curtail the Socinian threat, for one of the primary 'weapons' employed was an attack on their "method of argument". (Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:20:00 PM )

Now, the above are the posts that have remained undeleted by "TurretinFan". The following are my posts that were deleted:

1.) >>Let's see, Mr. Waltz, you profess to have been a Jehovah's Witness, an evangelical, a member of the Roman communion which you said you left some months back, and now who knows what you profess to be. And you want to ask me about being a Socinian? Apparently you don't realize that's a glass house you've built for yourself - be careful with those rocks. :)>>

Interesting comments for sure! Let's see, perhaps you would have me to have remained a JW (the faith God providentially ordained that I was to be born into); or perhaps you would have me to have remained Reformed (not strictly evangelical) after learning of the scandalous schisms that plagued (and continue to plague) the English speaking Reformed paradigm; or perhaps you would have me to have remained Roman Catholic, after years of in depth study lead me to the conclusion that I could no longer affirm an infallible magisterium; or perhaps you would have me to start my own church, as did the co-author/publisher (engineer by trade) of the 3 volume work you helped to produce...hmmm...yes, very interesting...

2.) >>I'm not going to comment on the allegation of contradicting a consensus of "prominent Protestant patristic scholars.">>

A wise choice, for my statement was NOT a mere "allegation", but rather, a fact.

The fathers of the church spoke as they did because they regarded themselves as interpreters of the Scriptures. Therefore they are not to be made a substitute for the Scriptures; nor can the Scriptures be understood apart from the authoritative interpretation which tradition places upon them...if tradition is primitive, Protestant theology must admit that ‘Scripture alone’ requires redefinition. (Jaroslav Pelikan, Obedient Rebels, Harper & Row: New York, N. Y., 1964, p. 180 – bold emphasis mine.)

The divine Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to human writings; and the oral tradition or living faith of the catholic church from the apostles down, as opposed tothe varying opinions of heretical sects—together form one infallible source and rule of faith. Both are vehicles of the same substance: the saving revelation of God in Christ; with this difference in form and office, that the church tradition determines the canon, furnishes the key and true interpretation of the Scriptures, and guards them against heretical abuse. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1981 ed., vol. 3, p. 606 – bold emphasis mine.)

Several publications by evangelicals have argued that the doctrine of sola scriptura was practiced, though implicitly, in the hermeneutical thinking of the early church. Such an argument is using a very specific agenda for the reappropriation of the early church: reading the ancient Fathers through the leans of post-Reformational Protestantism…Scripture can never stand completely independent of the ancient consensus of the church’s teaching without serious hermeneutical difficulties…the real question, as the patristic age discovered, is, Which tradition will we use to interpret the Bible? (D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism, pp. 229, 234 – bold emphasis mine.)

Perhaps the most important aspect of the rule of faith is that it gives us what the Church conceived to be ‘the main body of truth’ (to use Irenaeus’ phrase). The Scriptures are, after all, a body of documents testifying to God’s activity towards men in Christ. They are not a rule of faith, nor a list of doctrines, nor a manual of the articles of a Christian man’s belief. In the rule of faith we have a key to what the Church thought the Scriptures came to, where it was, so to speak, that their weight fell, what was their drift. This interpretation of their drift was itself tradition, a way of handling the Scriptures, a way of living in them and being exposed to their effect, which, while not an original part of the Christian Gospel, not itself the paradosis par excellence, had been developed from the Gospel itself, from its heart, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as an essential part of the existence of the Christian faith in history…We cannot recognize the rule of faith as original tradition, going back by oral continuity independently of Scripture to Christ and his apostles. But we can recognize it as the tradition in which the Church was interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and as such claim it as an essential ingredient of historical Christianity. (R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition In The Early Church, pp. 128, 129 – bold emphasis mine.)

The first clear attitude to emerge on the relation between Scripture, tradition and the church was the coincidence view: that the teaching of the church, Scripture and tradition coincide. Apostolic tradition is authoritative but does not differ in content from the Scriptures. The teaching of the church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition. The classical embodiment of the coincidence view is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian.

These both reject the Gnostic claims to a secret tradition supplementing Scripture. Apostolic tradition does not add to Scripture but is evidence of how it is correctly to be interpreted. This tradition is found in those churches which were founded by the apostles, who taught men whose successors teach today. These apostolic churches agree as to the content of the Christian message, in marked contrast to the variations among the heretics. It is important to note that it is the church which is the custodian of Scripture and tradition and which has the authentic apostolic message. There was no question of appealing to Scripture or tradition against the church. This is partly because the apostolic tradition was found in the church but not just for this reason: the Holy Spirit preserves the church from error and leads her into the truth. The real concern of Irenaeus and Tertullian was not with the relation between Scripture and tradition but with the identity of ecclesiastical with apostolic teaching. Any exposition of their teaching on Scripture and tradition which fails to show this is to that extent defective. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 39, 40 – bold emphasis mine.)

The ‘ancillary view’ is Lane’s term for the sixteenth-century Protestant view, in which tradition functions as an aid, but not a norm, for the interpretation of Scripture…In spite of claims to the contrary, the Reformers did not return to the ‘coincidence view’…The Reformation posited a degree of discontinuity in church history… (Richard Bauckham, “Tradition In Relation To Scripture and Reason”, in Scripture, Tradition, and Reason, ed. Drewery & Bauckham, p. 122.)

As I said earlier, I had some reservations about commenting on "TurretinFan's" blog, fearing that he would delete posts that he perceives to be 'damaging' to his anti-Catholic cause. Maybe I should have listened to my inner voice; but then, if I had said nothing, the 'silliness' would have gone unchallenged...

Grace and peace,

David

Jehovah's Witnesses the fastest growing denomination in the United States

2011-02-17T15:15:00.000-08:00

In the following segment from the ABC World News, that first aired on February 16, 2011, it was reported that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the fastest growing denomination in America:

In the related online ABC World News article, "Membership of Pentecostal Church, Jehovah's Witnesses Up, Protestant Down" we read:

The Jehovah's Witnesses, known for their door-to-door preaching, had the largest growth of any single denomination. They believe secular society is corrupt, and that Armageddon is imminent. Famous members include Venus and Serena Williams. Membership shot up 4.37 percent in a year. (link)

And from the website of the National Council of Churches, we get the following statistics:

Total church membership reported in the 2011 Yearbook is 145,838,339 members, down 1.05 percent over 2010.

The top 25 churches reported in the 2011 Yearbook are in order of size:

1. The Catholic Church, 68,503,456 members, up .57 percent.
2. Southern Baptist Convention,16,160,088 members, down.42 percent.
3. The United Methodist Church, 7,774,931 members, down1.01 percent.
4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6,058,907 members, up 1.42 percent.
5. The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members, no membership updates reported.
6. National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc, 5,000,000 members, no membership updates reported.
7. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 4,542,868 members, down1.96 percent.
8. National Baptist Convention of America, Inc., 3,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
9. Assemblies of God, 2,914,669 members, up .52 percent.
10. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 2,770,730 members, down 2.61 percent.
11. African Methodist Episcopal Church, 2,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
11. National Missionary Baptist Convention of America, 2,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
13. The Lutheran Church-- Missouri Synod (LCMS), 2,312,111 members, down 1.08 percent.
14. The Episcopal Church, 2,006,343 members, down 2.48 percent.
15. Churches of Christ, 1,639,495 members, no membership updates reported.
16. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, 1,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
17. Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc., 1,500,000 members, no membership updates reported.
18. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, 1,400,000 members, members, no membership updates reported.
19. American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., 1,310,505 members, down 1.55 percent.
20. Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1,162,686 members, up 4.37 percent.
21. United Church of Christ, 1,080,199 members, down 2.83 percent.
22. Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), 1,076,254 members, up .38 percent.
23. Christian Churches and Churches of Christ , 1,071,616 members, no membership updates reported.
24. Seventh-Day Adventist Church. 1,043,606 members, up 4.31 percent.
25. Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc. 1,010,000 members, down 59.60 percent (due in part to a new methodology of counting members). (link)

The total for the Jehovah's Witnesses is a bit misleading, for they are the sole denomination that I know of which only counts ACTIVE members in their membership total. A more accurate comparison with the other denominations would be the attendance numbers of their yearly "Memorial Service", which for the United States in 2010 was 2,485,231. (Full, worldwide statistics available online HERE.)

I find these statistics quite interesting, and given some recent cryptic comments made by the American Reformed "pastor" David King (link to post) in the combox of THIS RECENT THREAD at the blog of the secretive, post-deleting, gent who goes by the name "Turretinfan", thought-provoking.

[FYI - I see that "Turretinfan" has yet again deleted a number of my responses in the above mentioned thread; seems I need to reproduce those posts here at AF in a new thread.]

Grace and peace,

David

The Failure of the American Baptist Culture and 89 other 'politically incorrect' books online for FREE!!!

2011-02-15T13:38:00.000-08:00

In the combox of the An Enlightened Lecture - Lesley Hazleton: On reading the Koran thread, Ken Temple shared some of his personal views on the issue of the church and state (link). His comments brought back to mind a number of books I read back in the mid-late 80s and early 90s that delved deeply into this issue. Ken's Baptist worldview brought to the fore one book in particular, The Failure of the American Baptist Culture (edited by James Jordan, published 1982). A Google search revealed that this book is available online for free:

LINK TO - The Failure of the American Baptist Culture

But this is merely the 'tip-of-the-iceberg', for an additional 89 books (and 800+ issues of newsletters) on this and related topics are also available for FREE:

http://www.commentary.net/freebooks/; How To Use This Site

It is my hope that every Baptist and/or Evangelical in America, who takes the Bible seriously, will read The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, and follow this book up with Dr. Bahnsen's, By This Standard, and then Dr. North's, Political Polytheism—this trio of books provides a devastating critique of the Anabaptist/Baptist tradition that began back in the 16th century, and has come to dominant the mindset of American evangelicalism.

Grace and peace,

David

Is Evangelicalism 'failing'...less than 1% of young adults in America hold to a Biblical Worldview

2011-02-14T13:15:00.000-08:00

Earlier today, I was watching an episode of Frank Turek's "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist", that I had recorded earlier. During his lecture he mentioned that "75% of America's young adults were leaving the church" (i.e. Christian church/churches). This came as a bit of a shock to me, so afterwards, I checked in on Frank's website, CrossExamined.org, which has a promotional video that touches on this issue, and the following links:

1.) "The Christian Post" article, "Survey: Less Than 1 Percent of Young Adults Hold Biblical Worldview".

2.) The "USA Today" article, "Young adults aren't sticking with church".

Once again, I am shocked by these figures; may God's grace help our youth and young adults!!!

Grace and peace,

David

An Enlightened Lecture - Lesley Hazleton: On reading the Koran

2011-02-11T11:34:00.000-08:00

Alternate viewing option (click on link below):

http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazelton_on_reading_the_koran.html

Enjoy !!!

Grace and peace,

David

"The Monarchy": God the Father or the Essence/Godhead?

2011-01-26T11:38:00.000-08:00

This current post is the third in a 'series' of threads (first; second) which explores the issue of "the one true God", as delineated in the Bible, and the subsequent 'development' and understanding of this concept in the writings of the post-Biblical Church Fathers.

In the prior two threads, I have presented evidence that the Bible makes some important distinctions between the One who called ό θεός and the one called θεός; between the ό θεός who begets, and the μονογενής θεός who is begotten; between the one termed "τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ" (John 5:44) and "τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν" (John 17:3), and the one He sends. I also pointed out that only one person in the Bible is declared to be the "εἷς θεὸς" (and it is not Jesus).

The above mentioned threads prompted 183 responses in the comboxes, including some informative posts from a couple of our Eastern Orthodox brothers who presented, and defended, the 'traditional' EO concept/definition that God the Father is "the one God"—a teaching which is also termed 'the monarchy of the Father'. Links to contemporary EO theologians (e.g. Behr and Hopko) who embrace this view were provided. My own personal studies (prior and subsequent) add other EO scholars who support this motif—e.g. Boris Bobrinskoy, The Mystery of the Trinity (pp. 264-268); Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology (p. 46 ) and The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (p.58); Anthony Meredith, The Cappadocians (p. 106); John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (p. 183); Athanasius Yevtich (Atanasije Jevtich), "Between the "Niceneans' and 'Easterners': The 'Catholic' Confession of St. Basil" in Christ - The Alpha and Omega (pp, 171-173); John D. Zizioulas, Being As Communion (pp. 40, 41) and Communion and Otherness (p. 134).

However, it was brought to my attention by Iohannes/John (via a link [tinyurl.com/2calggz] he provided in THIS POST), that not all EO scholars/theologians are convinced the concept of "the monarchy" has God the Father in mind, but rather, as with most Latin/Western theologians, it is the One divine essence/nature (sometimes termed the 'Godhead' [θεότης]) that is the reference point. Nicholas Loudovikos, in his The Heythrop Journal essay, "Person Instead of Grace and Dictated Otherness: John Zizioulas' Final Theological Position", critiques a number of Dr. Zizioulas' 'positions', including "the traditional Eastern doctrine of the monarchy of the Father". (Page 5 - bold emphasis mine.) Note the following:

John Zizioulas' Trinitarian theology is based on the traditional Eastern doctrine of the monarchy of the Father. He attributes this doctrine mainly to the Cappadocians and Maximus the Confessor, and this of course is true. It is not always easy, however, to agree with his understanding of their texts.

For Zizioulas the Father is the one God of the Creed. Once again the discussion is about freedom that can be assured only if the Father 'as a person and not substance' (p. 121) (in Zizioulas' vocabulary this always opposes nature/necessity to person/freedom, even in God) makes a 'personal rather than ousianic' (p. 120) constitution of the two other hypostases. The two characteristics of Zizioulas' Triadology are therefore: first, its (rather) non-ousianic character, and second, the rejection of any element of reciprocity. As we shall see, the Cappadocians as well as Maximus never supported such views. (Pages 5, 6.)

Dr. Loudovikos goes on to build a solid case that John Zizioulas (and so many other EO scholars/theologinas), has misread the Cappadocian Fathers concerning the issue of "the monarchy". This is a very important charge, for 'the traditional' reading the Cappadocians on this issue of "the monarchy" has been one of the key components for the "the traditional Eastern doctrine of the monarchy of the Father."

In the combox of the Is "the one God" of the Bible the Trinity, or God the Father? thread, Iohannes/John and I delved into St. Basil's "classic statement" (Sermon 24.3) on "the monarchy". Our research uncovered the possibility of two legitimate readings/translations of the passage; one reading supports "the traditional Eastern doctrine of the monarchy of the Father", the other does not. Prior to my subsequent research efforts, I leaned toward the former position; however, after a considerable amount study and reflection, I am now rethinking that assessment. The following selection, with surrounding context, is Dr. Loudovvikos' reading/translation of the passage:

Basil has no difficulty connecting monarchy with the unity of substance, as a careful reading of his On the Holy Spirit, 45, demonstrates. Basil makes a distinction concerning the Trinity between the specificity of hypostases and the monarchy; he connects the persons with the former and the common substance/nature (το κοινόν της) which he also calls 'communion of deity' (κοινωνία της θεότητος) with the latter. More explicitly, in his Sermon 24 (par. 3) to forestall any identification of the monarchy with just one person (the Father) who might act independently, he writes: 'there is one God who is the Father; there is also one God who is the Son, but there are not two Gods, because there is an identity between the Father and the Son. Because there is not another deity in the Father, and another in the Son nor another substance (physis) in either of them'. (Pages 7, 8.)

Dr. Loudovvikos' essay provides a number of brief citations from the writings of the three Cappadocian Fathers that provide a broader context for determining which reading/translation of Sermon 24.3 is the more accurate. I would like to build upon his foundation; first from Basil:

...they ought to confess that the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, as they have been taught by the divine words, and by those who have understood them in their highest sense. Against those who cast it in out teeth that we are Tritheists, let it be answered that we confess one God not in number but in nature. (Letter 8.2 - NPNF 8.116.)

And from Gregory "the Theologian" Nazianzen (Nazinanus):

The three most ancient opinions concerning God are Anarchia (ἀναρχία), Polyarchia (πολυαρχία), and Monarchia (μοναρχία). The first two are the sport of the children of Hellas, and may they continue to be so. For Anarchy is a thing without order ; and the Rule of Many is factious, and thus anarchical, and thus disorderly. For both these tend to the same thing, namely disorder ; and this to dissolution, for disorder is the first step to dissolution.

But Monarchy (μοναρχία) is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a Monarchy (μοναρχία) that is not limited to one Person (πρόσωπον), for it is possible for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality ; but one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity―a thing which is impossible to the created nature―so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence (οủσία). Therefore Unity having from all eternity arrived by motion at Duality, found its rest in Trinity. This is what we mean by Father and Son and Holy Ghost. (Orations, 29.2 , The third theological oration - NPNF 7.301)

What is our quarrel and dispute with both? To us there is One God (εἷς θεός), for the Godhead is One (μία θεότης), and all that proceedeth from Him is referred to One, though we believe in Three Persons. For one is not more and another less God ; nor is One before and another after ; nor are They divided in will or parted in power ; nor can you find here any of the qualities of divisible things ; but the Godhead (θεότης) is, to speak concisely, undivided in separate Persons ; and there is one mingling of Light, as it were of three suns joined, to each other. When then we look at the Godhead (θεότητα), or the First Cause (πρώτην αἰτίαν), or the Monarchia (μοναρχίαν), that which we conceive is One ; but when we look at the Persons in Whom the Godhead (θεότης) dwells, and at Those Who timelessly and with equal glory have their Being (ὄντα) from the First Cause (πρώτης αἰτίας) there are Three Whom we worship. (Orations, 31.14 , The fifth theological oration - NPNF 7.322)

Concerning the above passages from Gregory, Loudovikos wrote:

...the only definition of monarchy [from the Cappadocians] must be that of Gregory Nazianzen: 'Monarchy that cannot be limited to one person, for it is possible for unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; but one which is constituted by equality of nature, and agreement of opinion, and identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to one, something that is impossible to happen in the created nature; so that though numerically distinct there is no division of ousia'. (Page 8.)

I do not think I would go as far as endorsing Loudovikos' assertion that the above is, "the only definition of monarchy", that should be considered; but I will say, from my readings of the Cappadocians, it is certainly the most direct, and clearest definition.

Another EO scholar, Hegumen Hilarion Alfeyev, in his essay"The Trinitarian Teaching of St. Gregory of Nazianzen" (in The Trinity - East/West Dialogue, pp. 107-130), concurs with Loudovikos' assessment:

As we have seen, the idea of God's monarchy was fundamental to both Sabellius and Arius; the notion of the Son's co-eternity with the Father was rejected by Arius precisely because he perceived in it a breach of the principle of the Father's monarchy. For Arius, those who insist on the eternal begetting of the Son introduce 'two unbegotten origins.' Gregory opposed this understanding of monarchy and claimed that the term is not related to the Hypostasis of the Father, but to the Godhead as such, i.e. to the three Hypostases together. In other words, Gregory did not associate the idea of monarchy with the Father but with the unity of the Godhead. (Page 113 - bold emphasis mine.)

[NOTE: Interestingly enough, Alfeyev's translation of Basil's Sermon 24.3a seems to support "the traditional Eastern doctrine of the monarchy of the Father"; however, he concludes that, "according to Cappadocian theology, ideas of the primal cause and of the monarchy were connected." As such, Alfeyev suggests that one must make a distinction between the "ideas of the primal cause and of the monarchy", even though they are in a certain sense "connected".]

I could supply a number of other passages from the Cappadocians which strongly suggest that they identified "the monarchy", "unity", "One God" (εἷς θεός), etc. with the one "essence" (οủσία) and/or the Godhead (θεότης), and not with the person of the Father, but I believe the above has established issue adequately enough.

Now, I do not wish to give the impression that the Cappadocians did not place a certain emphasis on the priority of the Father as the 'source', 'fount' of divinity—for they all in fact did so (but then, even Augustine spoke in such language)—the point I want to highlight is that they did not seem to ever explicitly uphold "the traditional Eastern doctrine of the monarchy of the Father."

So, as I reach the end of this current post, I am left asking myself: why have so many Eastern Orthodox scholars/theologians read/understood the Cappadocians in a manner that seems at odds with the broader context of their writings?

Grace and peace,

David

The Ehrman Project

2011-01-20T18:06:00.000-08:00

I have been working on a new thread that explores the use and meaning of the term “monarchy”, as it relates to God and the Godhead, in the Church Fathers of the 4th century (especially the Cappadocians). I had thought I would have the post up by Tuesday, but recent studies have exposed, what appears to me, to be a contradiction among the post-Nicene Eastern/Greek fathers. Anyway, while researching this issue, I came across an unrelated online resource that I wanted to share with my readers:

Ehrman Project.com

Back to my research—I hope to have my new thread up soon, but it may be as late as Monday.

Grace and peace,

David

John Bugay and 'revisionist historian' Eamon Duffy

2011-01-06T13:22:00.000-08:00

While researching a topic that was totally unrelated (i.e. autotheos), I happened upon some "notes" from a Reformed gent named Guy Davies which he wrote down during a lecture/paper delivered by Garry Williams: 'The English Reformation Today: Revise, Reverse or Revert?' (LINK). The following is from Guy's "notes":

Revisionists historians such as Eamon Duffy and Christopher Haigh wish to overturn the traditional Protestant view of the English Reformation. Some Evangelicals seem to want to reverse the Reformation for the sake of unity with Rome. Protestants might wish that we could revert to English Reformation, but that is not without its problems.

John Bugay (a contributor at the Beggars All blog) has been invoking Eamon Duffy (along with other liberal/revisionist historians like Peter Lampe—see my threads displayed HERE for some of my musings on liberal/revisionist historians) as a representative of "honest" scholarship (LINK TO BA LABEL - EAMON DUFFY) for sometime now; and earlier today, did so yet again IN THIS BA THREAD.

I have cautioned John about using liberal/revisionist historians like Duffy and Lampe in the AF threads linked to above (and in a number of combox posts)—but alas, my reflections have pretty much fallen on 'deaf ears' (I suspect because I am not Reformed)—perhaps John will give some thought to Garry Williams' reservations...

Grace and peace,

David

Is "the one God" of the Bible the Trinity, or God the Father?

2011-01-06T10:22:00.000-08:00

In the recent Articuli Fidei thread, The Trinity: a 'clear; Biblical teaching, or a post-Biblical development?, one of the tributaries that the combox headed down was a robust discussion concerning the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Posts and links concerning the reflections of three modern era EO theologians (Behr, Hopko, and Myendorff) were provided and discussed; however, much remains in this genre (IMHO), and I would like to continue the dialogue in this new thread, beginning with the following from the pen of Iohannes/John, which he posted back on January 3, 2011:

Since the discussion here is going in different directions, would you prefer to make your next comment into a new post? I'd be very interested in your take on Meyendorff. His use of agency language, by the way, is very similar to Hopko's, who quotes S. Ireneaus on the Word and Spirit as the Father's hands.

Blessings in Christ,

John

PS the full text of Meyendorff is accessible here.

The above post followed selections provided by John and myself from the book, Byzantine Theology - Historical Trends & Doctrinal Themes (Dr. John Meyendorff, 1974, 1979 - LINK TO ONLINE EXCEPTS). To provide context for my upcoming comments on Meyendorff (as requested by John), I would first, like to once again, produce those selections:

==...from Fr. John Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology, p 183.

By accepting Nicaea, the Cappadocian Fathers eliminated the ontological subordinationism of Origen and Arius, but they preserved indeed together with their understanding of hypostatic life, a Biblical and Orthodox subordinationism, maintaining the personal identity of the Father as the ultimate origin of all divine being and action.==

And:

==...the incarnate Logos and the Holy Spirit are met and experienced first as divine agents of salvation, and only then are they discovered to be essentially one God. It is well known that, during the theological debates of the fourth century, the Cappadocian Fathers were accused of tritheism, so that Gregory of Nyssa was even obliged to issue his famous apologetic treatise proving that "there are not three gods." It remains debatable, however, whether he succeeded in proving his point philosophically. The doctrine of the three hypostases, adopted by the Cappadocian Fathers to designate the three divine Persons had definite Plotinian and Origenistic associations, which normally implied substantial differentiation.==(John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology - Historical Trends & Doctrinal Themes, 1983 reprint, pp. 180, 181.)

A bit later:

==The Latin West adopted a different approach to Trinitarian theology, and the contrast has been well expressed by Théodore de Régnon: "Latin philosophy considers the nature in itself first and proceeds to the agent; Greek philosophy considers the agent first and passes through it to find the nature. The Latins think of personality as a mode of nature, the Greeks think of nature as the content of the person."==(Ibid. p. 181.)

The above selections point to one of the primary distinctions between the Augustinian/Latin/Western (ALW) understanding of the Trinity and that of the Byzantine/Greek/Eastern (BGE) churches: the former places an emphasis on the one divine nature, while the latter on the agent/person. This emphasis has led to a finer distinction, namely, that the ALW view understands the phrase "the one God" with reference to the Trinity and/or divine essence, while in the BGE view, it is God the Father alone who "the one God".

Fr. Thomas Hopko in his podcast, "The Holy Trinity" (LINK) made the above distinction quite clear; at the 12:40ff mark he said:

The one God is NOT the Holy Trinity...The one God is God the Father.

Now, contrast Fr. Hopko with the following that Ken Temple (a Reformed Baptist) recently wrote:

The only God is the Trinity, the One God in nature/substance/essence, who has always existed in eternity past, three persons in a perfect love relationship.(LINK)

It sure seems to this beachbum that the supposed adherent of sola scriptura is relying much more on tradition here than our Eastern Orthodox father...

Grace and peace,

David

Bountiful gifts from John Piper via Ken Temple and his unexpected agent: yours truly

2010-12-24T12:00:00.000-08:00

Our Reformed brother in Christ, Ken Temple, recommended an online resource (John Piper's, "Contending For Our All"), in one of his recent posts (here). He did not provide a link to the book due to the quirkiness of Blogger's combox, so I went to Piper's Desiring God website earlier this morning to obtain the url and provide it for Ken (and others). I have linked to this site for quite sometime now under the "EVANGELICAL AND GENERAL CHRISTIAN LINKS" label on the right side bar; however, I have not visited the site for a number of months—to my surprise, I discovered that well over a dozen of Piper's books are now available in pdf format for FREE!!! Being the bibliophile that I am, I have been downloading books like crazy, and I thought I would share these 'gifts' with all. ENJOY!!!

Link to Desiring God Online Books

Grace and peace,

David

The Trinity: a 'clear' Biblical teaching, or a post-Biblical development?

2010-12-22T15:25:00.000-08:00

In the combox of our previous thread, Lvka (an Eastern Orthodox brother in Christ), articulated some of the distinctions between the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Trinity and those generally held by Augustinian/Western Trinitarians (link to Lvka's post). Lvka's reflections brought back to mind Fr. Boris Bobrinskoy's detailed book on the Trinity: The Mystery of the Trinity. Fr. Bobrinskoy is an ordained Orthodox priest, and the Dean and Professor of Dogmatic Thelogy at St. Sergius Institute, Paris (see Orthodox Wiki bio). The following is my response to Lvka; I am utilizing it as an introduction to the theme of this thread:

==Good morning Lvka,

Thanks much for your informative reply—an excellent summation of the post-Palamas EO view. Now, I would like to let Fr. Boris Bobrinskoy (Dean and Professor of Dogmatic Theology at St. Sergius Institute) 'fill in', so to speak, the development/progression of the doctrine of the Trinity in EO thought/history. (All the following quotations will be from his The Mystery of the Trinity, English trans. by Anthony P. Gythiel, SVS Press, 1999.)

Fr. Bobrinskoy begins his reflections on the development/progression of the doctrine of the Trinity with what he terms "the ecclesial explanation of the trinitarian dogma". (MT, p. 6.) He then writes:

"To study the progression of trinitarian revelation, there is the classical method, the so-called chronological and doctrinal method:

1. Form the first foreshadowings, the first Old Testament intimations, to the fullness of the New Testament;

2. Inside the New Testament itself, through the pedagogy of Jesus, His words and deeds, from Galilee to the Passion; then in the testimonies that follow;

3. Finally, from the post-apostolic writings to the earliest ecumenical councils.

Actually, the evolution of trinitarian dogma does not end at the Second Ecumenical Council, but continues through what is sometimes called the "christological period" (which extends to about the eighth century, and is characterized by the proclamation of the mystery of Christ in all its aspects), through the "pneumatological period" (which continues to about the fourteenth century, and culminates in the synthesis made by St Gregory Palamas. It particularly emphasizes the integration of the human being into the mystery of Christ through the grace of the Holy Spirit), and is, in our day, catching a second breath in what is called "the era of the Church." The theological progression cannot be doubted, though it is not brought about according to a linear scheme, but with strong movements, underground advances, times of regression, even of crisis." (MT, pp. 6-7.)

And a bit later:

"A living theology cannot be severed from the living environment that forms the body of the Church, where the Spirit of knowledge and of truth breathes. A theological reading of Scripture cannot be made outside the great Tradition which, generation after generation, searches the Bible in order to discover within it the presence of Christ, and in Him, the face of the Father." (MT, p. 7.)

He then provides the following quote from St. Gregory Nazianzen ("On The Holy Spirit"):

"'The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun’s light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated.' (MT, p. 8 - St Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio XXXI [Theologica V] 26, PG 36:161. Tr Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2ns ser., vol. 7, p. 326.)"

Fr. Bobrinskoy then adds:

"This is an exception text because it accept a dogmatic progression not only from the Old Testament to the New, but from the New Testament to the Church. Here St Gregory Nazianzen differs from St. Basil who applied the principle of tradition and antiquity much more stringently. Certainly, Gregory Nazianzen could, in the dialectic of his argumentation, legitimately see a dogmatic innovation in the profession of the divinity of the Spirit, for such divinity is not clearly stated in Scripture. In the New Testament, it is merely intimated through the revelation of the Son,; and, in the Old, through the revelation of the fatherhood of God." (MT, p. 8.)

Me: I think it is safe to say that Fr. Bobrinskoy believes that the continued work of the Holy Spirit in the Church is necessary for one to arrive at a correct understanding of the Godhead and the doctrine of the Trinity. After a workout and lunch, I plan to type up a new thread, reproducing the material in this post, and adding some more reflections on this issue.== [See THIS AF THREAD for an earlier treatment on the development of doctrine in Gregory Nazianzen.]

Fr. Bobrinskoy is yet one more Trinitarian scholar who acknowledges that the doctrine of the Trinity is far from being an explicit teaching of the Bible. Bobrinskoy, like so many Catholic scholars (and a few Anglican), points to the need of the Holy Spirit working through the Church to make clear/explicit, what is only implicit in the Scriptures (their understanding, of course). Even a few Protestant scholars have admitted that the doctrine of the Trinity is found wanting in the Bible—note the following selections:

The Trinity. The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. "The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence and therefore in an equal sense God himself. And the other express declaration is also lacking, that God is God thus and only thus, i.e. as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These two express declarations, which go beyond the witness of the Bible, are the twofold content of the Church doctrine of the Trinity" (Karl Barth, CD, I, 1, 437). It also lacks such terms as trinity (Lat. trinitas which was coined by Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 3; 11; 12 etc.) and homoousios which featured in the Creed of Nicea (325) to denote ttha Chirst was of the same substance of the Father (cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 1968, 113, 233-7). (J. Schneider, "God", in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2, p. 84.)

Part of the problem for the ordinary Christian may be that in its debates and struggles, the ancient church was forced to use extrabiblical terms to defend biblical concepts...Biblical language could not resolve the issue, for the conflict was over the meaning of biblical language in the first place. (Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity, pp. 1, 2.)

Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the *canon...While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do. (Daniel N. Schowalter, "Trinity", in The Oxford Companion To The Bible, p. 782.)

In all of these elements of revelation, of course, Scripture has not yet provided us with a fully developed trinitarian dogma…Scripture contains all the data from which theology has constructed the dogma of the Trinity. Philosophy did not need to add anything essential to that dogma: even the Logos doctrine is part of the New Testament. It all only had to wait for a time when the power of Christian reason would be sufficiently developed to enter into the holy mystery that presents itself here. (Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 2, trans. John Vriend, pp. 279, 280.)

Though all of above scholars certainly believe that 'basic elements' for the development of the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the Bible, a question which should be asked by everyone that embraces sola scriptura (and in so doing, rejects rejects any authorative, infallible 'rule of faith' outside of the Bible), is: were those 'basic elements' correctly developed by the Church? This, IMHO, is a crucial question, for if one is truly 'honest' with the Biblical data, and the subsequent developments of theology and christlogical, one will acknowledge with Dr. Raymond Brown that:

...in no NT passage, not even in Matt. 28:19 (“Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”) is there precision about three divine Persons, co-equal but distinct, and one divine Nature—the core dogma of the Trinity. Greek philosophy, sharpened by continuing theological disputes in the church from the 2nd to the 5th centuries, contributed to the classical formulation of the dogma…If ‘tradition’ implies that first-century Christianity already understood three coequal but distinct divine Persons and one divine Nature but had not developed the precise terminology, I would dissent. Neither the terminology nor the basic ideas had reached clarity in the first century; problems and disputes were required before the clarity came…Precisely because the “Trinitarian” line of development was not the only line of thought detectable in the NT, one must posit the guidance of the Spirit and intuition of faith as the church came to its decision. (Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Exegesis & Church Doctrine, 1985, pp. 31-33.)

The older, but respected, Cyclopedia of Biblical and Ecclesiastical Literature, concurs with Dr. Raymond:

The first class of texts, [i.e. triadic] taken by itself, proves only that there are three separate subjects named, and that there is a difference between them; that the Father in certain respects differs from the son, etc.; but it does not prove, by itself, that all three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor...

Matt. xxviii, 18-20. This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity. (Vol. X, p. 552.)

I shall end this opening post with a recommendation to those who have not read the threads here at AF listed under the label, Subordinationism (especially this older thread), to do so.

Grace and peace,

David

Sproul's Tabletalk: "The Deity of Christ & the Church"

2010-12-15T13:04:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I received in the mail the latest edition of R.C. Sproul's/Ligonier Ministries', Tabletalk (a "devotional magazine" - Jan. 2011/vol. 35.1). In this thread, I would like to examine the essay penned by Dr. Robert A. Peterson: "The Deity of Christ & the Church" (pp. 74, 75). This essay 'caught my eye', for in it's introduction, two verses from the OT that I have recently discussed (Pss. 45:5-7 and 110:1 - see the following threads: ONE; TWO; THREE), are listed as "seed form" proof texts for "the deity of Christ". Another item in the introduction which drew my attention was Dr. Peterson's assertion that, "There is no more important biblical truth for the life and health of the church than the deity of Christ." The following is the entire introduction:

There is no more important biblical truth for the life and health of the church than the deity of Christ. Although this truth exists in seed form in the Old Testament (Pss. 45:5-7; 110:1; Isa. 9:6; Dan. 7:13-14), it comes to full flower in the New Testament. I marshal five arguments for the deity of Christ. (P. 74)

An 'interesting' introduction for sure! Though I am quite certain that Dr. Peterson is sincere in his bold assertion that, "There is no more important biblical truth for the life and health of the church than the deity of Christ", the Bible, Jesus, Paul, Lutherans, and other EVs suggest otherwise. Now, if "the deity of Christ" is the most important Biblical truth, one would expect to find it's teaching on the lips of Jesus Christ—i.e. that our Lord would not only have CLEARLY/EXPLICITLY taught such a doctrine, but would have EMPHASIZED it—however, when one reads the words of Jesus as recorded in the NT, the doctrine is found wanting. Instead of teaching (let alone emphasizing) his "deity" (in the sense Dr. Peterson advocates), Jesus taught the monotheism of the Shema, and in a number of discourses, clearly distanced himself from "the Father" who is "the one true God". Dr. Scot McKnight pointed out in the beginning of his Christianity Today article, "Jesus vs. Paul" (Dec. 2010/vol. 54.12 - pp. 24-29) that, "Many biblical scholars and lay Christians have noted that Jesus preached almost exclusively about the kingdom of heaven" (p. 25). And let us not forget that Lutherans (and many EVs) advance the dictum that, “justification by faith alone is ‘the article upon which the church stands or falls (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae)’”. (See THIS THREAD for some important historical information on this quite famous dictum.) As for the apostle Paul, a number of NT scholars are quite adamant that Paul never called Jesus "God" (see THIS THREAD, and THIS ONE, especially the combox, for some discussion on this issue). In a 'nutshell', I think it is safe to point out that Dr. Peterson's assertion is highly subjective, and may in fact be inaccurate.

Moving on, Dr. Peterson's first of "five arguments for the deity of Christ", is as follows:

Jesus is identified with God. Recent scholarship has taught us to argue for Christ's deity based on the way that the early Christians identified Jesus unambiguously with the one God of Israel (1 Cor. 8:5-6). (P. 74)

I sincerely wonder what Dr. Peterson is referring to when he mentions "recent scholarship"; fact is, a substantial portion of "recent scholarship" has taken the exact opposite position—i.e. Jesus did NOT identify himself as/with the one God of Israel, but rather, as the agent/representative of the one God of Israel. Further (and this importantly) the OT texts cited in Dr. Peterson's introduction, are not some "seed form" for identifying the future promised Messiah as/with the one God of Israel, but rather, they clearly identify this eschatological figure as God's agent/representative.

As for his statement that, "the early Christians identified Jesus unambiguously with the one God of Israel", the text he lists for support, 1 Cor. 8:5-6, does NOT assert what he claims; rather the text CEARLY identifies "one God of Israel" with the Father, NOT with Jesus. Now, I am quite aware that some Evangelical scholars have suggested that 1 Cor. 8:6 is an "expansion", "splitting", and/or "Christianizing" of the shema (e.g. Bauckham, de Lacey, Wright)—however, other scholars are not as convinced. For instance, Dr. James F. McGrath wrote:

In this chapter, we will look at evidence that challenges the idea that Jesus has here [1 Cor. 8:6] been included inside rather than alongside the Shema. The main difficulty with the view that Paul has "split the Shema" to produce a "Christological monotheism (whatever that might mean) is that it does not do justice to the nature of the Shema itself." (The One True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context, p. 40.)

And then, a bit later:

Theoretically, he [Paul] could have written, "There is one God: the Father, from whom are all things, and the Son, through whom are all things." This would have emphasized the oneness of God while including Jesus clearly within that one God. Instead, Paul uses a statement about one God, which itself is sufficient to reiterate the point off the Shema, and then goes further to talk about "one Lord." When the oneness of God is coupled with another assertion of oneness in this way, we must look carefully to determine whether we are indeed dealing with a splitting of the Shema that is without parallel, or an addition of a second clause alongside the Shema, which is not in fact unparalleled in Jewish literature. (Ibid.)

Interestingly enough, James D.G. Dunn, who once held to the "expansion", "splitting", and/or "Christianizing" of the shema in 1 Cor. 8:6, later adopted McGrath's view, adding: "if anything the fuller confession of 8:6 could be said to be a more natural outworking of the primary conviction that 'the Lord (God) had said to the Lord (Christ), "Sit at my right hand..."' (Ps. 110:1)." (Did the First Christians Worship Jesus, p. 109.)

I could add so much more, but I do not want my opening post to get to cumbersome—I shall end here by making an assertion of my own:

Dr. Peterson is taking the highly developed theological system that he embraces, and reads it back into texts that predate his system by centuries, while ignoring how much of the important terminology of those texts was being used in their original context.

Grace and peace,

David

"In Essentials, Unity; in Non-essentials, Liberty; in All Things, Charity"

2010-12-09T14:31:00.000-08:00

An email that I received on Tuesday (12-07-10), brought back to the fore the oft quoted phrase: "in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity". Many who have quoted this phrase have attributed its first usage to Augustine; however, a number of scholars have established that this quote did not originate with Augustine; rather, it is "the product of an irenic Lutheran theologian and pastor living in Augsburg during the early seventeenth century with the name of Peter Meiderlin." (See Rollman's online esaay, "IN ESSENTIALS UNITY".)

In order to understand the intent and meaning of the statement, one needs to examine the original historical context which prompted the phrase from Peter Meiderlin's pen. Hans Rollman provides a concise, and excellent summation:

Meiderlin lived in a very troubled time, a time exposed to the ravages of the Thirty Years War and one of much strife between Lutherans and Calvinists as well as a period of internal discord within Lutheranism itself. In this so-called "Confessional Age," the Lutheran movement became a battleground for competing political forces such as the territories of Saxony and the Palatinate. But especially vexing for the soul of the religious reform movement were the numerous doctrinal disputes which in part had their origin in the theological differences of the Reformation leaders themselves. In the period after Luther's death, there emerged an intense competition as to who represented the Lutheran theological heritage most authentically. An attempt to forge an authoritative doctrinal norm binding for everyone produced the Formula of Concord (1577) but resulted also in much cantankerousness about the legitimacy of the formula. The period that followed has also been termed the age of "Lutheran Orthodoxy," in which theologians increasingly would use scholastic philosophical means to define more specifically their Bible-oriented faith, which became tied to the emerging Lutheran confessional norms. A new wave of theological disputes spread through the protestant universities during the early 1600's which cannot be detailed here sufficiently but is documented and studied amply in a protestant doctrinal history such as the one by Otto Ritschl. ("In Essentials Unity".)

A bit later, Rollman furnishes a more 'personal' aspect to the impetus behind the phrase:

Peter Meiderlin's argument for peace in the church starts out with a story about a dream he had. In it he encounters a devout Christian theologian in a white robe sitting at a table and reading the Scriptures. All of a sudden Christ appears to him as the victor over death and devil and warns him of an impending danger and admonishes him to be very vigilant. Then Christ vanishes and the Devil appears in the form of a blinding light, moonlight to be exact, and claims to have been sent on a mission from God. He states that in this final age the Church needs to be protected from all heresy and apostasy of any kind and God's elect have the duty to safeguard and keep pure the doctrinal truths they inherited. The devil then alleges that God has authorized him to found a new order of these doctrinally pure elect, some sort of a doctrinal heritage coven. Those who join will bind themselves to an oath of strictest observance to these doctrines. The devil then extends to our devout theologian the invitation to join this militant fellowship for his own eternal welfare. Our theologian thinks about what he has just heard and decides to bring it in prayer before God, upon which the devil immediately vanishes and Christ reappears. Christ tenderly raises the trembling Christian up, comforts him most kindly, and before he departs admonishes him to remain loyal only to the Word of God in simplicity and humility of heart. For Meldenius, this dream depicted in a powerful way the state of his own church, and the resultant admonition is his own contribution on how to keep the peace. (Ibid.)

[I would like to recommend to all, that they read Rollman's entire essay, and then add the following online treatment: A common quotation from "Augustine"?.]

Now, back to Tuesday's email. The author of the email was David Cloud, an independent Baptist author, lecturer, minister. The email that I received was also published online at Cloud's "Way of Life Literature" website (HERE). Cloud, as so many Protestants of the period delineated above by Hollman, does not like Meiderlin's now famous phrase; from his email/online essay, we read:

The modern evangelical philosophy is often stated by the dictum, “In essentials unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things charity.”

Though commonly attributed to Augustine, it was actually first stated by the 17th-century Lutheran Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin).

It became the rallying cry of the Moravians, who did many good things but retained such Roman heresies as infant baptism and a priesthood and promoted unity above the absolute truth of God’s Word.

It was adopted by the Fundamentalist movement of the first half of the 20th century. As a movement Fundamentalism focused on unity around “the fundamentals of the faith” while downplaying the “minor issues.” The objective was to create the largest possible united front against theological modernism.

This dictum has also been an integral philosophy of New Evangelicalism. They might stand for ten or twenty or thirty “cardinals,” but they refuse to make an issue of the WHOLE counsel of God. Particularly when it comes to one’s associations, they believe that there are “non-essentials” that should not get in the way of unity.

Many Independent Baptists are buying into this error.

And a bit later:

There is no support in the Bible for the “in essentials liberty” doctrine. The Lord Jesus Christ commanded His disciples to teach converts “to observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mat. 28:20).

The Apostle Paul reminded the elders at Ephesus that the reason he was free from the blood of all men was that he had preached the WHOLE counsel of God (Acts 20:27). The more plainly you preach the whole counsel of God, the less likely it will be that you will join hands in ministry with those who hold different doctrine.

Paul instructed Timothy to keep the truth “without SPOT, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6:14). A spot is a small, seemingly insignificant thing. That particular epistle contains commandments about such things as the woman’s role in ministry, which is widely considered a “non-essential” today. Paul taught Timothy to have an entirely different approach toward such teachings.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2 Paul said to the church at Corinth, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in ALL things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” This passage deals with hair length and the Lord’s Supper, which are widely considered to be “non-essentials” today, yet Paul praised the church for remembering him in all things.

We know that not all doctrine has the same significance and weight, but none of it is “non-essential” in any sense.

I challenge anyone to show me where the Scripture encourages the believer to treat some doctrine as “non-essential” or to “stand for the cardinal truths and downplay the peripherals.”

Some try to use Romans 14 to support this philosophy, but Romans 14 does not say that some Bible doctrine is non-essential. It says that we are to allow one another liberty in matters in which the Bible is silent! The examples that Paul gave were eating meat and keeping of holy days. Those are things that the New Testament faith is silent about. There is no doctrine of diet in the New Testament, so it is a matter of Christian liberty.

This reminds us that the only true “non-essential” is a personal opinion not based solidly upon Scripture.

Jude instructed every believer to “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). As Jude didn’t delineate what part of the faith is to be defended, the obvious meaning is that whatever aspect of the faith is under attack at a particular time, God’s people should rally to its defense rather than pretend that it is a “non-essential.”

Since the Bible doesn’t identify a “non-essential” doctrine, who is to say what this might be?

The fact is that once one adopts the “non-essentials” philosophy, his list of “non-essentials” tends to grow as time passes and as his associations broaden.

Cloud's appraisal of Meiderlin's dictum sure seems to be a more consistent, and 'honest,' take when addressing the Protestant movement as a whole. Many anti-Catholic apologists invoke Meiderlin's phrase when dealing with the RC and EO churches, but the so-called "unity in essentials" remains, at least to the mind of this beachbum, quite nebulus in nature, if not mere empty words. Right or wrong, Cloud's thoughts on this matter are a 'breath of fresh air', an 'in your face', non-compromising stance that exposes the "unity in essentials" myth.

Grace and peace,

David

Islam: Threat or Not?

2010-11-30T10:03:00.000-08:00

Last week, I discovered that a debate between a personal friend of mine (Dr. Daniel Peterson) and the controversial author/lecturer Robert Spencer is available online via YouTube. The debate, though somewhat brief by debate 'standards', is an excellent introduction into some of the more delicate issues involving Islam. I think most viewers will enjoy this debate, and I am looking forward to dialogue with those who take the time to view it.

Grace and peace,

David

TurretinFan on "Formal Insufficiency"

2010-11-19T10:49:00.000-08:00

I have not looked in on TurretinFan's (hereafter, TF) blog for a number of weeks now, but a couple of recent posts by Colin Smith concerning Cornelius Van Til and the Trinity (FIRST; SECOND) at the AOMIN blog, brought back to mind an older post of mine that touched on Van Til's controversial doctrine of the Trinity, while sharing a few of my reflections on a debate between TF and William Albrecht (LINK to the thread: Is God a being or a person?). I went back and read anew the thread, added another update, linking to Colin's new posts, and then headed over to TF's blog, reading his most recent contribution: Formal Insufficiency - An Insult to Jesus—the rest of this post will assess TF's musings.

[TF] Those Roman Catholics who think that the Scriptures are an insufficient rule of faith and life - that the Scriptures are not clear enough to stand sola Scriptura as the way by which we know God: please consider that the Gospels give us verbatim teachings of Jesus himself in his own words.

TF doesn't actually believe that ALL Scripture is clear, rather, I suspect he believes what the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches on the matter:

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. (ONLINE TEXT - bold emphasis mine.)

Now, for the record, I have requested from TF (on at least two occasions) a list of "those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation", a list he refused to give me—I make the request again—hopefully this time TF will provide this very important list.

[TF] It's bad enough that you are not satisfied by the Holy Spirit's teaching through the entirety of the Inspired Holy Scripture, but that may be less self-evidently divine. In other words, while you are to blame for not being satisfied with the divine teachings of the law, the prophets, the evangelists, and the apostles, we can understand that perhaps you do not understand that the Bible is the Holy Spirit speaking to us through men.

Is TF truly "satisfied by the Holy Spirit's teaching through the entirety of the Inspired Holy Scripture"? TF under his "About Me" states that he is "Reformed" and "Ecclesiastically Presbyterian", which probably means that he subscribes to the Westminster Standards. IMO, it is equivocal to berate another for not being "satisfied by the Holy Spirit's teaching through the entirety of the Inspired Holy Scripture", while belonging to a denomination that requires its members to subscribe to extra-Biblical confessions and catechisms.

[TF] But are you going to seriously say that Jesus' preaching, recorded in the Gospels, is not clear enough for people to read it, understand it, and trust in Christ alone for salvation? Is God's own word, not spoken through prophets under inspiration but spoken directly by the God-man Himself not clear enough?

Obviously not for those who belong to confessional denominations.

[TF] Don't you think that's a little insulting?

I would not say that the view which TF is attacking is "insulting", rather, I would say it accurately reflects the doctrinal and theological battles/developments, and the proliferation of denominations and sects, during the nearly two thousand years of Christian history.

Grace and peace,

David

Is Ratzinger/Benedict XVI a pantheist?

2010-11-18T12:19:00.000-08:00

John Bugay at the Beggars All blog has followed up his assertion that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, "is functionally a pantheist", with no less than THREE subsequent threads (FIRST; SECOND; THIRD) wherein he attempts to bolster his claim, and in doing so, moves beyond his initial charge, boldly stating that, "Ratzinger is pretty much a full-blown pantheist".

I originally thought that John's initial charge was merely an off-handed remark, that he didn't actually believe that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was REALLY a pantheist; however, his subsequent threads and combox posts, clearly demonstrate that I was wrong—John Bugay ACTUALLY believes that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI IS A PANTHEIST!!!

Amazing, I really mean AMAZING. Though I by no means consider myself a scholar of Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's thought/theology, I have read a substantial amount of his published works in English, including eleven of his books that I own, and a number of his books and essays that are available online; I am left stunned that John actually believes that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is a pantheist—the evidence CLEARLY repudiates such a view. The rest of this thread will be devoted to the evidence itself, and shall come under three categories: first, what pantheism actually is; second, Ratzinger's thought on theology proper; and third, the anthropology and soteriology of historical Catholic theology, which Ratzinger/Benedict XVI embraces. I believe once the evidence has been read, one will conclude with me that John has clearly misunderstood all three.

PANTHEISM -

Pantheism comes from two Greek words, pan (all) and theism (God) meaning "all is God" or "God is all." It is the belief that all things contain divinity and that God is the sum of all things. Pantheism is the view that God is everything and everyone - and consequently that everyone and everything is God.

Pantheism is the presupposition behind many cults and false religions, for example Hinduism and Buddhism to an extent, the various unity and unification cults, mother nature worshippers, etc. (THEOPEDIA)

Pantheism (πᾶν, all; θεός, god), the view according to which God and the world are one...

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.—The Church has repeatedly condemned the errors of pantheism. Among the propositions censured in the Syllabus of Piur IX is that which declares: "There is no supreme, all-wise and all-provident Divine Being distinct from the universe; God is one with nature and therefore subject to change; He becomes God in man and the world; all things are God and have His substance; God is identical with the world, spirit with matter, necessity with freedom, truth with falsity, good with evil, justice with injustice" ... (The Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11, pp. 447, 448)

All pantheisms are actually forms of monism, not pluralism. They hold that reality is ultimately one, not many. More precisely, the many exist in the one rather than the one in the many. In other words, pantheists believe that God encompasses all there is...

There are several distinctive elements involved in pantheism. Each may be seen in contrast to theism.

The nature of God. God is non-personal. Personality, consciousness, knowledge, and so forth, are lower levels of manifestation. The highest level is beyond personality. It consists of absolute simplicity.

The nature of creation. Creation is not ex nihilo, as in theism; it is ex Deo (out of God). There is only one "substance" in the universe and everything is an emanation of it.

Relation of God and the world. In contrast to theism which holds that God is beyond the universe and separate from it, the pantheist believes that God and the universe are one. God is the All and the All is God. some pantheists speak of the world as an illusion. In this sense the world is not God; it is nothing. But whatever reality exists in the universe is the reality of God.

Evil is not real. In the stricter forms of pantheism, evil is a mere illusion, an error of mortal mind. Evil seems to be real, but it is not. It is due to the deception of our senses; it is a result of thinking partially rather than wholistically about reality. The Whole is actually good; it only seems evil if one is looking at a part separate from the Whole. (Norman L. Geisler and Paul d. Feinberg, Introduction To Philosophy, pp. 277-280.)

[As we shall shortly see, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, in his own words, clearly denies the "several distinctive elements involved in pantheism" delineated above.]

Ratzinger/Benedict XVI -

I believe in God, the Almighty, the Father, the Creator. This statement, with which Christians have been confessing their faith in God for almost two thousand years, is the product of a still older history. Behind it stands Israel's daily confession of faith, the Christian form of which represents: "Hear, O Israel, Yahweh, thy God, is an only God". (Introduction To Christianity, trans. J. R. Foster, Ignatius Press, 1990 ed., p. 73.)

El [God] is regarded not only as the sustainer of personality, as father, creator of creatures, the wise, the king; he is seen also and above all things as the highest God of all, as the greatest power of all, as he who stands above all else. (Ibid., p. 83.)

...Christian belief in God means that things are the being-thought of a creative consciousness, of a creative freedom, and that the creative consciousness that bears up all things has released what has been thought into the freedom of its own, independent existence. It goes beyond any mere idealism. While the latter, as we have just established, explains everything real as the content of a single consciousness, in the Christian view what supports it all is a creative freedom of its own being, so that on the one hand it is the being-thought of a consciousness and yet on the other true self-being.

This also clarifies the root of the conception of creation: the model from which creation must be understood is not the craftsman, but the creative mind, creative thinking. At the same time it becomes evident that the idea of freedom is the characteristic mark of the Christian belief in God as opposed to any kind of monism. At the beginning of all being it puts not just some kind of consciousness but a creative freedom which creates further freedoms. To this extent one could very well describe Christianity as a philosophy of freedom. For Christianity, the explanation of reality as a whole is not an all-embracing consciousness or one single materiality; on the contrary, at the summit stands a freedom that thinks and, thinking, creates freedoms, thus freedom is the structural form of all being. (Ibid., p. 110)

2. THE PERSONAL GOD

If the Christian belief in God is first of all an option in favour of the primacy of the logos, faith in the pre-existing, world-supporting reality of the creative meaning, it is at the same time, as belief in the personal nature of that meaning, the belief that the original thought, whose being-thought is represented by the world, is not an anonymous, neutral consciousness but freedom, creative love, a person. Accordingly, if the Christian option for the logos, means an option for a personal, creative meaning, then it is at the same time an option for the primacy of the particular as against the universal. (Ibid., p. 111)

...the wording of the dogma [i.e. the Trinity] was to all intents and purposes settled. It expresses the perception that God as substance, as "being", is absolutely one. (Ibid., p. 131)

Catholic anthropology and soteriology -

"And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one" ( John 17:22 - NASB)

...so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. (Romans 12:5 - NASB)

For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust. (2 Peter 1:4 - NASB)

God, says St. Peter "has given us most great and precious promises that by these you may be made partarkers of the Divine nature" (2 Pet. i. 4). Startling as the words are, the teaching which we have already considered will have prepared us for them. They signify that the sonship conferred on us through Jesus Christ raises us so far above our creaturely condition, that by it we partake in the life which is proper to the Three Divine Persons in virtue of Their nature. The passage does not stand altogether alone. When our Lord prays to His Father on behalf of the apostles and all who through their word should believe in Him, “that they all many be one, as Thou, Father in Me and I in Thee, that they may be made perfect in one” (John xvii. 22, 23), His words can hardly signify less than this. If our union with God is comparable to that which unites the Father and the Son, it can only be a union bases on a share in the Divine life...The fathers of the Church from the earliest times with one consent take the apostle’s words in their literal sense. There is no question of any figurative interpretation. They do not hesitate to speak of the “deification” of man. By grace, they tell us, men become gods. (G.H. Joyce, S.J., The Catholic Doctrine of Grace, London: 1920, pp. 34, 35

If man is to be reunited to God as his Father, God Himself must raise him up again to His side...God must again draw man up to His bosom as His child, regenerate him to new divine life, and again clothe him with the garment of His children, the splendor of His own nature and glory...this transformation of the will is essentially bound up with the inner elevation of our entire being by the grace of divine sonship and participation in the divine nature...The children of God participate as such in the divine holiness of their Father, in His very nature. (Matthis J. Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, B. Herder Book Co.: St. Loius, pp. 615, 616, 617, 619, German first ed. 1865; English ed. 1946, translated from the 1941 German ed.)

…we must bear in mind that grace is really and formally a participation in the divine nature precisely in so far as it is divine, a participation in the Deity, in that which makes God God, in His intimate Life…Grace is a mysterious participation in this essence, which surpasses all natural knowledge…Grace makes us participate really and formally in this Deity, in this eminent and intimate life of God, because grace is in us the radical principle of essentially divine operating that will ultimately consist in seeing God immediately, as He sees Himself, and in loving Him as He loves Himself. Grace is the seed of glory. In order to know its essence intimately, we must first have seen the divine essence of which grace is the participation. (Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Christian Perfection and Contemplation, St. Louis and London: B. Herder Book Co., 1937 – reprinted by Tan Books and Publishers, 2003, pp. 55, 56.)

The Church prays in the Offertory of the Holy Mass : “Grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His divinity, who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity.” Similarly in the Preface of the Feast of Christ’s Ascension into Heaven : “He was assumed into Heaven in order that we might be partakers in His divinity.” Cf. D 1021.

According to 2 Peter 1, 4 the Christian is elevated to participation in the Divine nature...Again, the scriptural texts which represent justification as generation or birth from God (John 1, 12 et seq. ; 3, 5 ; 1 John 3, 1. 9 ; Tit. 3. 5 ; James 1, 18 ; 1 Peter 1, 23), indirectly teach the participation of man in the Divine nature, as generation consists in the communication of the nature of the generator to the generated.

From the scriptural texts cited, and from others (Ps. 81, 1. 6 ; John 10, 34 et seq.), the Fathers derived the teaching of the deification of man by grace (θείωσις, deificatio). It is a firm conviction of the Fathers that God became man so that man might become God, that is, defied. (Dr. Lugwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 256 - German ed. 1952; English 1955.)

This is the central truth of all Christian soteriology that finds an organic unity with the revealed reality of the God-Man. God became man that man could truly participate in the life of God—so that, indeed, in a certain sense, he could become God. The Fathers of the Church had a clear consciousness of this fact. It is sufficient to recall St. Irenaeus who, in his exhortations to imitate Christ, the only sure teacher, declared: “Through the immense love he bore, he became what we are, thereby affording us the opportunity of becoming what he is.” (John Paul II, Jesus, Son and Savior, 1996, p. 215 - General audience address September 2, 1987.)

As an “I”, man is indeed an end, but the whole tendency of his being and of his own existence shows him also to be a creation belonging to a “super–I” that does not blot him out but encompasses him; only such an association can bring out the form of the future man, in which humanity will achieve complete fulfillment of itself. (Introduction To Christianity, trans. J. R. Foster, Ignatius Press, 1990 ed., p. 179)

Faith sees in Jesus the man in whom – on the biological plane – the next evolutionary leap, as it were, has been accomplished; the man in whom the breakthrough out of the limited scope of humanity, out of its monadic enclosure, has occurred; the man in whom personalization and socialization no longer exclude each other but support each other; the man in whom perfect unity – “The body of Christ”, says St. Paul, and even more pointedly “You are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3.28) – and perfect individuality are one; the man in whom humanity comes into contact with its future and in the highest extent itself becomes its future, because through him it makes contact with God himself, shares in him and thus realizes its most intrinsic possibility. From here onwards faith in Christ will see the beginning of a movement in which dismembered humanity is gathered together more and more into the being of one single Adam, one single body – the man to come. It will see in him the movement to that future of man in which he is completely “socialized”, incorporated in one single being, but in such a way that the separate individual is not extinguished but brought completely to himself. (Ibid., p. 179)

[NOTE: All bold emphasis in the quotations is mine.]

Summation -

Ratzinger/Benedict XVI clearly denies the "several distinctive elements involved in pantheism", affirming instead the personal nature of God, the "absolute" oneness of God in His being, and the Creator/creature distinction. Further, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's anthropology and soteriology lies within the bounds of the Catholic tradition, and Scripture itself. The charge that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is a pantheist is without merit.

Grace and peace,

David