Bible prophecy: is the rise of Muhammad and/or Islam foretold?

The Bible contains numerous prophetic passages concerning many important events and peoples throughout its pages. The Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman empires are just a few of the more important ones that immediately come to mind.

For a number of years now, I have asked myself this question: Does the Bible predict the rise of Muhammad and/or Islam? One would think that this massive cultural/political/religious movement, which has been inextricably linked with Christians and Jews for well over millennia now, would at the very least be mentioned in the Bible. To make a very long story ‘short’, yes, I have come to believe that it does.

In this post, I will examine one such passage: Isaiah 63:1-7:

1 Who is this who comes from Edom, With garments of glowing colors from Bozrah, This One who is majestic in His apparel, Marching in the greatness of His strength? "It is I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save."

2 Why is Your apparel red, And Your garments like the one who treads in the wine press?

3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.

4 "For the day of vengeance was in My heart, And My year of redemption has come.

5 "And I looked, and there was no one to help, And I was astonished and there was no one to uphold; So My own arm brought salvation to Me; And My wrath upheld Me.

6 "And I trod down the peoples in My anger, And made them drunk in My wrath, And I poured out their lifeblood on the earth."

7 I shall make mention of the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, the praises of the LORD, According to all that the LORD has granted us, And the great goodness toward the house of Israel, Which He has granted them according to His compassion, And according to the multitude of His lovingkindnesses. (NASB)

Though commentators traditionally apply the above to Jesus Christ, I think that Muhammad is clearly a better fit.

Muhammad was first of all an Edomite (see information below); Jesus was not.

Muhammad spent a lot of time in Bozrah during his merchant days; Jesus never went to Bozrah.

Muhammad was a military leader, hence the “red apparel”, “garments like the one who treads in the wine press”.

Muhammad for quite sometime was essentially “alone” in Mecca; he was persecuted and had his life threatened on many occasions by the Meccans. However, he later exacted vengeance on the Meccans, and “trod down the peoples in My anger”.

Muhammad constantly praised God and contrasts the blessings “granted us” with the “great goodness toward the house of Israel, Which He has granted them”.

Excursus: Edomites and Arabs

The Bible strongly implies that the descendants of Ishmael and Esau (Edomites) were closely linked through marriage/bloodlines and geography. Esau married one of Ishmael’s daughters (see Gen. 28:9; 36:3); and Ezekiel 25: 12-14 links Edom with Teman and Dedan, indicating that the descendants of Esau ranged from North Arabia (i.e. Edom/Idumea) all the way thru South Arabia (i.e. Dedan). Pslam 83:6 links the “tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites” together. Note the following comments:

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states:

We also find northern Arabian tribes mentioned among the descendants of Abraham by Keturah (Gen. 25:1-4) and Hagar (25:12-15) and among the descendants of Esau (Gen. 36). (1979 edition - Vol. 1, p. 220.)

A Baptist website has the following to say:

The descendants of Ishmael and Esau would remain closely associated throughout their history. (In Psalm 83 -- as we shall see, the descendants of Esau and those of Ishmael are found in alliance against End-Time Israel.) As God had foretold, a great people sprang from Ishmael. Today's Arabs are the family of Ishmael grown great!…Consider the additional fact that Edomites intermarried with the stocks of Ishmael and Canaan. The Edomites were descendants of Esau (who was also called Edom), the elder son of Isaac and Rebekah. Earlier, when Jacob and Esau were yet in Rebekah's womb, "the children struggled together within her" (Gen 25:22). [LINK]

Further, Arab historians in the past have usually divided the ancient Arab people into two major groups: the pure Arabs (identified with Southern Arabia); and the mixed Arabs (identified with Northern and Western Arabia)—Muhammad and his descendants are part of the mixed Arabs (see Thomas Patrick Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, pp. 18, 19.).


Looking forward to others thoughts and reflections on this passage from the Bible.


Grace and peace,

David

TurretinFan and Islam

I have recently noticed that there has been a considerable amount of internet chatter concerning Dr. Ergun Caner, President and Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary (BIO HERE).

I first became aware of this new round of assaults directed at Dr. Caner via James White’s Dividing Line program (03-02-2010). Just days before this program, James had devoted a rather large blog diatribe (HERE) at Dr. Caner. Though I certainly have no inherent problem with pointing out some of Dr. Caner’s blunders/errors concerning Islam, when done in an objective manner (and there are some interesting new details that have been brought to light), I cannot help but think that much of the ‘heat’ is of a personal nature—a Baptist ‘soap-opera’ if you will, Baptist vs. Baptist—i.e., a vendetta.

Now, after a bit of online research, I discovered (earlier today), that our old friend TurretinFan (hereafter, TF), has entered into the fray, and, interestingly enough, in defense of Dr. Caner (as it pertains to Dr. Caner’s claim to be an ex-Muslim). TF, in his 02-24-2010 thread links to a Muslim apologetic site that seems to be one of the primary sources for much of ‘fuel’ that is being utilized by Caner ‘stalkers’.

We can certainly applaud TF’s efforts to defend Dr. Caner; however, TF’s defense has some ‘problems’ that need to be corrected (IMO). In his 03-02-2010 thread TF wrote:

In one video that FxM has identified, Ergun Caner claims that both the Sunni and Shia Muslims believe that a caliph named Mahdi disappeared and is hidden somewhere, still alive. According to FxM, this is something believed only by the Shia Muslims. FxM is insistent that no devout Sunni Muslim could be unaware of this difference in belief between the Sunnis and the Shia Muslims.

Result: Again, this seems like a relatively trivial error. The main point of what Caner was talking about was the belief itself. Although he may (as far as I know, he did) erroneously attribute a Shia belief to the Sunni, this doesn't appear to be a significant error.

This may seem “like a relatively trivial error” to uninformed Christians, but I sincerely doubt it is “trivial” to most practicing Muslims. Dr. Caner (in the YouTube snippet) makes some significant errors:

First, Dr. Caner mentions a “Muhammad ibn Haniaf” (i.e. Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah), and claims that “he lived about 870, 880”.

Wrong: Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah died 700/701 (though the Kaysāniyya would say later that he went into ‘occultation’—i.e. hiding). [Dr. Caner is probably confusing Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah with Abu’l Qāsim Muhammad ibn Hasan (b. 868), the 12th Imam of the ‘Twelver’ Shia sect.]

Second, Dr. Caner states that he was “one of the Caliphs”.

Wrong: Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah was never a Caliph, but the Kaysāniyya, under the influence of Mukhtār ibn Abū’Ubayd ath-Thaqafī, taught that the Imamate was transferred to him after the death of the 3rd Imam Husayn.

Third, Dr. Caner said, “the Sunni and the Shia believe that the Mahdi disappeared into the caves, he did not die, he is waiting”.

Wrong: The ‘occultation’ of the Mahdi is one of the core beliefs of many of the Shia sects (most importantly, the largest Shia sect—the ‘Twelver’), but it is a doctrine repudiated by the Sunnis.


Summation: Dr. Caner certainly gets some significant details wrong; details that may undermine his credibility as an Islamic “scholar”. IMO, such errors need to be addressed, and not swept away as “relatively trivial”. However, I must point out that one should attempt to keep such corrections on an objective level, and not turn such ‘blunders’ into some sort of personal vendetta.


Grace and peace,

David

UPDDATE: Ken Temple has added additional information concerning the quote from the Caner’s Unveiling Islam that Ken and I explored, in the combox of this thread, with this NEW POST at the Beggar’s All blog.

The Eternal Generation of the Son

Ken Temple, in the COMBOX of the previous thread, raised some questions concerning the use of monogenēs (μονογενὴς) in the NT, and the related doctrine of ‘eternal generation’ (i.e. eternal begetting) as it pertains the Second Person of the Trinity.

I do not recall exactly when I first learned of the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, but it was probably during my first reading of Charles Hodge’s, Systematic Theology (circa early 1980s). It was not long after my initial exposure to this doctrine, that I ran into a robust denial of it by another Trinitarian author: Walter R. Martin. From his famous book, The Kingdom of the Cults, in his chapter on the “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower” (chapter 4, 1977 rev. ed.), we read:

Arius derived many of his ideas from his teacher, Lucian of Antioch, who in turn borrowed them from Origen, who himself introduced the term “eternal generation” or the concept that God from all eternity generates a second person like Himself, ergo the “eternal Son.” Arius of course rejected this as illogical and unreasonable, which it is, and taking the other horn of dilemma squarely between his teeth reduced the eternal Word of God to the rank of a creation! It is a significant fact, however, that in the earliest writings of the church fathers doting from the first century to the year 230 the term “eternal generation” was never used, but it has been this dogma later adopted by Roman Catholic theology, which has fed the Arian heresy through the centuries and today continues to feed the Christology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. (pp. 101, 102—1977; pp. 115, 116—1985 rev. ed.; p. 168—1997 rev., updated, expanded anniversary ed., Hank Hanegraaff, general editor; pp. 137, 138—2003 rev., updated, expanded ed., Ravi Zacharias, general editor.)

After insisting that “monogenes” must be rendered “only” or “unique” in its NT usage, Martin continues with:

The Bible clearly teaches, then, that Jesus Christ before His incarnation was the eternal Word, Wisdom, or Logos, of God…and further, that Jesus Christ is not called by Scripture the “eternal Son,” the error passed on from Origen under the title “eternal generation,” but rather He is the Living Word of God…Let us fix these things in our minds then: (a) the doctrine of “eternal generation” or the eternal Sonship of Christ, which springs from the Roman Catholic doctrine first conceived by Origen in A.D. 230, is a theory which opened the door theologically to the Arian and Sabellian heresies which today still plague the Christian Church in the realms of Christology.

(b) The Scripture nowhere calls Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God, and He is never called Son at all prior to the incarnation, except in prophetic passages in the Old Testament…

(d) Many heresies have seized upon the confusion created by the illogical “eternal Sonship” or “eternal generation” theory of Roman Catholic theology, unfortunately carried over to some aspects of Protestant theology. (pp. 102, 103—1977; pp. 116, 117—1985; pp. 169, 170—1997 rev., updated, expanded anniversary ed., Hank Hanegraaff, general editor [with minor additions and deletions]; pp. 138, 139—2003 rev., updated, expanded ed., Ravi Zacharias, general editor [with minor additions and deletions].)

One need not bring into question Walter Martin’s popularity within the Evangelical community, and his influence upon subsequent generations of believers, especially those involved in apologetics; however, theology is never a ‘popularity contest’, and I shall submit that Martin’s positions on the term “monogenes” and the doctrine of “eternal generation” must be critically examined.

First, is Martin correct concerning the use of “monogenes” in the NT; that is must be rendered either “only” or “unique”? Note the following reflections:

The Greek word μονογενής is an adjective compounded of μονος "only" and γενος "species, race, family, offspring, kind." In usage, with few exceptions it refers to an only son or daughter. When used in reference to a son, it cannot mean "one of a kind," because the parent is also of the same kind. The meaning is, the son is the only offspring of the parent, not the only existing person of his kind. And so in the Greek translation of the book of Tobit, when Raguel praises God for having mercy on δυο μονογενεις (8:17), he does not mean that his daughter Sara and Tobias were two "unique" persons; he means that they were both only-begotten children of their fathers. In Luke's Gospel, the word is used in reference to an only child in 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is said that when Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac he was offering up τον μονογενή, "his only-begotten" (11:17), because although Abraham had another son, God had said that only in Isaac shall Abraham's seed (σπερμα) be named. (Πίστει προσενήνοχεν Ἀβραὰμ τὸν Ἰσαὰκ πειραζόμενος, καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ προσέφερεν ὁ τὰς ἐπαγγελίας ἀναδεξάμενος, πρὸς ὃν ἐλαλήθη ὅτι Ἐν Ἰσαὰκ κληθήσεταί σοι σπέρμα). When the word μονογενής is used in reference to a son or daughter, it always means "only-begotten." (Michael Marlowe, “The Only Begotten Son”, online paper @ http://www.bible-researcher.com/only-begotten.html.)

Dr. Gordon H. Clark, in a critique of J. Oliver Buswell (who rejected eternal generation, but not eternal Sonship) wrote:

…when Dr. Buswell says that the Greek fathers did not know as much Greek as we do, it must surprise the student to learn that Athanasius and a hundred Greek bishops, whose mother tongue was Greek, knew less Greek than we do, and in particular did not know that monogenes is derived from ginomai rather from gennao. Even so, the two verbs are themselves derived from an earlier common stem. At any rate, the genes in monogenes derives immediately from genos. This word as a matter of fact suggests begetting and generation, as much as if it had been derived from gennao. (The Trinity, p. 120.)

Dr. John V. Dahms, in an essay published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, states:

John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9 teach than Christ is God’s monogenēs Son. That monogenēs implies that he was begotten is the understanding of Justin Martyr Apol. 1.23 (c. A.D. 150); Dial. Trypho 105 (c. 153). Theophilus of Antioch (115-181) Theophilus to Autolycus 2.10 seems to assue such an understanding. Tertullian (c. 197-c. 225) Against Praxeas vii evidently had such an understanding. And Hilary of Poitiers On the Trinity 1.10; 6.39 (before 358) implies that the Latin Bibles with which his readers were familiar had unigenitus in John 1:14, 18. Moreover the fact that Isaac could be described as Abraham’s monogenēs son (Heb. 11:17), despite Ishmael, is not surprising. Philo had stated: “He [Abraham] had begotten no son in the truest sense but Isaac” (de Abr. 194: cf. de Sac. 43) and had even spoken of Isaac as Abraham’s “only (monos) son” (de Abr. 168: cf. de Abr. 196; Quod Deus Imm. 4). (JETS 32/4, Dec. 1989, p. 495.)

Lee Irons:

Traditionally, the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son was supported by an appeal to the five Johannine texts in which Christ is identified as monogenes (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; I Jn 4:9). As early as Jerome's Vulgate, this word was understood in the sense of "only begotten" (unigenitus), and the tradition was continued by the Authorized Version. However, most scholars of this century reject this understanding and believe, instead, that the idea behind the word is more along the lines of "only" (RSV) or "one and only" (NIV) [3]. One of the main arguments is that the -genes suffix is related to the verb ginomai rather than gennao, thus acquiring the meaning "category" or "genus."

Unfortunately, this argument requires a selective reading of the evidence. It ignores the wealth of lexemes that have the -genes suffix. After searching Thesaurus Linguae Graecae on CD-ROM (a comprehensive collection of all extant Greek literature up to the 6th century AD), my estimate is that there are approximately 120 such words in the Greek vocabulary. Of these, 30% are not listed in Liddell and Scott, but the lexicon's glosses of 55% contain such words as "born" and "produced." For example, neogenes is glossed as "newly produced," and theogenes, "born of God." A mere 11% involve meanings related to "kind" (e.g., homogenes means "of the same genus"), while the remainder of usages have miscellaneous meanings. The sheer preponderance of the evidence would indicate that monogenes in the Johannine literature could very well mean "only begotten." At least, it cannot be ruled out on the basis of etymology.

If this meaning is now considered a very live possibility, then an inspection of some of the Johannine texts will render that possibility all the more likely. In the first text monogenes is used as a substantive: "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth" (Jn 1:14). In the second text, I follow the textual variant found in the Bodmer papyrus, dated c. 200, and other ancient manuscripts: "No one has ever seen God, but the only begotten God, who is in the Father's bosom, has made him known" (v. 18). The NIV completely misses the point ("God the One and Only ... has made him known"), for it is not the fact that the Son is the only God (as opposed to another god) but the fact that he is begotten of God (and thus truly God) which enables him to make God known. On balance these passages provide strong support for the interpretation "only begotten."

Further support may be marshaled from I John 5:18, which, though it does not use the word, shows that John taught that the Son is begotten of God: "We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who is born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him." It seems reasonable to suppose that "the one who is born of God" is the Son of God. Some follow the textual variant "keeps himself" and see this as referring to the believer. However, this would lead to a redundant statement. It seems likely that John is pointing to the similarity between two sonships - that of the believer and that of Christ. Christ, of course, is the Son by nature, and we are sons by grace. But the point is that the ontological Son of God will protect the adopted sons of God from the evil one. Although it would be dangerous to make too much out of the different tenses (aspects) used, the distinction may be signaled by the fact that the believer is ho gegennemenos of God (perfect), while Christ is ho gennetheis (aorist). Be that as it may, the fact that the verb gennao is used in this context at least suggests the idea of generation. It also adds credibility to the traditional etymology of monogenes (mono + gennao) by providing at least one text where gennao is used in reference to Christ's sonship. (Lee Irons, “The Eternal Generation of the Son”, http://www.upper-register.com/papers/monogenes_print.html.)

Certainly, at the very least, one must differ with Walter Martin’s narrow position that “monogenes” in the NT must mean either “only” or “unique”; I shall let my readers decide whether or not “only-begotten” is the more accurate rendition.

Second, moving on to the doctrine of “eternal generation”, not only has this doctrine been enshrined in many Catholic creedal documents from the 4th century forward, it is also found in many of the Protestant confessions. For instance, in the Westminster Confession of Faith, we read:

In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. (Chapter 2.3.)

When one examines the teachings of the vast majority of the greatest Trinitarian theologians down through the history of Christendom (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant), one will be hard pressed to find those who reject the eternal generation of the Second Person of the Trinity prior to the 19th century.The first major Trinitarian theologian who seems to have had doubts about the doctrine was John Calvin. The precise position of Calvin is not without controversy, but I side with B. B. Warfield who wrote:

Although he taught that the Son was begotten of the Father, and of course begotten before all time, or as we say from all eternity, he seems to have drawn back from the doctrine of "eternal generation" as it was expounded by the Nicene Fathers. They were accustomed to explain "eternal generation" (in accordance with its very nature as "eternal "), not as something which has occurred once for all at some point of time in the past - however far back in the past - but as something which is always occurring, a perpetual movement of the divine essence from the first Person to the second, always complete, never completed. Calvin seems to have found this conception difficult, if not meaningless. In the closing words of the discussion of the Trinity in the "Institutes" (I, xiii. 29, ad fin.) he classes it among the speculations which impose unnecessary burdens on the mind. "For what is the profit," he asks, "of disputing whether the Father always generates (semper generet), seeing that it is fatuous to imagine a continuous act of generating (continuus actus generandi) when it is evident that three Persons have subsisted in God from eternity?" His meaning appears to be that the act of generation must have been completed from all eternity, since its product has existed complete from all eternity, and therefore it is meaningless to speak of it as continually proceeding. If this is the meaning of his remark, it is a definite rejection of the Nicene speculation of "eternal generation." But this is very far from saying that it is a rejection of the Nicene Creed — or even of the assertion in this Creed to the effect that the Son is “God of God.” We have just seen that Calvin explicitly teaches the “eternal generation” of the Son, in the sense that He was begotten by the Father before all time. (Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield – Calvin and Calvinism, pp. 247, 248—1981 reprint; online version HERE.)

Interestingly enough, the majority of theologians who would identify themselves as “Calvinists” did not follow Calvin here, and retained the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son it its fullest sense. The earliest Calvinist I have found (being limited to works either written or translated in English) who explicitly rejected the doctrine of eternal generation seems to have been the English Independent minister Thomas Ridgely (d. 1734). Unlike Walter Martin, Ridgely, while rejecting eternal generation, did not deny the eternal Sonship of the second Person of the Trinity. The earliest theologian (and/or Biblical scholar) to have denied eternal Sonship, that I have been able to identify, was the famous British Methodist, Adam Clarke (d. 1832). After Clarke, a number of theologians/scholars began to reject not only the doctrine of eternal generation, but also eternal Sonship (though those who do so remain in the minority).

The fact that the rejection of the doctrine eternal generation is a very late development (among Trinitarians), coupled with the fact that the majority of influential theologians down through the ages to our present day retain it, does not in and of itself make Walter Martin’s position untenable; however, for one to adopt the rejection of a doctrine that has been revered and cherished by so many, for such a lengthy period, there had better be some very strong and compelling evidence for doing so. I shall let my readers decide if such evidence exists.

I would now like to provide a list of representatives [with brief selections] from both sides on the issue of the doctrine of eternal generation. One should keep in mind that not all who reject the doctrine of eternal generation also reject eternal Sonship, however all who deny eternal Sonship, deny eternal generation. (The list is not meant to be exhaustive, and is based on works I own; the list does not include Catholic, EO, or Lutheran examples, for orthodox theologians of these communions have not questioned either eternal generation, or eternal Sonship.)

Those who accept the doctrine of eternal generation:

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume 1, pp. 468-474—1981 reprint. [Reformed Presbyterian] (Note: Hodge’s position on eternal generation is not entirely clear and at times appears to be inconsistent, with some actually maintaining that he denied the doctrine; I believe that he held to the doctrine, but with reservations—B. B. Warfield is of the same opinion: “His position [Calvin] is, in a word, that of one who affirms the eternal generation of the Son…It is interesting to observe that Calvin’s attitude upon these matters is precisely repeated by Dr. Charles Hodge in his discussion in his ‘Systematic Theology.’” – op. cit. pp. 249, 250.)

“The First Person of the Trinity is Father, because He communicates the essence of the Godhead to the Second Person; and the Second Person is Son, because He derives that essence from the First Person. This is what they mean by Eternal Generation.” (p. 468)

“There are numerous passages in the Scriptures which clearly prove that our Lord is called Son, not merely because He is the image of God, or because He is the object of peculiar affection, nor because of his miraculous conception only; nor because of his exaltation, but because of the eternal relation which He sustains to the First Person of the Trinity.” (p. 472)

Though Charles Hodge was not always clear (consistent?) on this issue, his son, A. A. Hodge was crystal clear:

“The Father eternally ‘begets’ the Son, and the Spirit eternally ‘proceeds from’ the Father and the Son.” (A. A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology, p. 103—1990 reprint.)

“The peculiar personal property of the first person is expressed the title Father. As a person he is eternally the Father of his only begotten Son. The peculiar personal property of the second person is expressed the title Son. As a person he is eternally the only begotten Son of the Father, and hence the express image of his person, and the eternal Word in the beginning with God.” (A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith, p. 60—1992 reprint.)

[See also A. A. Hodges’s 10 page treatment in his Outlines of Theology, pp. 178-188—1980 reprint.]

William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, pp. 286-292—1979 reprint. [Reformed Presbyterian]

The Divine nature energizes internally from eternity to eternity in two distinct manners, and thereby is simultaneously and eternally three distinct persons: Father, son, and Holy Spirit; God Unbegotten, Begotten, and Proceeding. The Westminster Confession (II. iii.) defines this internal activity in the terms of the Athanasian creed. “In the unity of the Godhead, there are three persons of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.” (p. 286)

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Volume 12, pp. 177, 184-186, 189, 190, 193,213, 214—1976 reprint. [Reformed Congregational]

…we say not that the Son is begotten eternally out of the divine essence, but in it, not by an eternal act of the Divine Being, but of the person of the Father. (p. 177)

He who is the true, proper, only-begotten Son of God, of the living God, he is begotten of the essence of God his Father, and is his Son by virtue of that generation… (p. 184)

The same truth may have farther evidence given unto it from the consideration of what kind of Son of God Jesus Christ is. He who is such a son as equal to his father in essence and properties is a son begotten of the essence of his father. Nothing can give such an equality but a communication of essence. (p. 186)

That Christ’s filiation ariseth from his eternal generation, or he is the Son of God upon the account of his being begotten of the essence of his Father from eternity. (p. 190)

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 1, pp. 292-302—1992 English edition.

TWENTY-NINTH QUESTION: THE ETERNAL GENERATION OF THE SON
Was the Son of God begotten of the Father from eternity? We affirm. (p. 292)

As all generation indicates a communication of essence on the pat of the begetter to the begotten (by which the begotten becomes like the begetter and partakes of the same nature with him), so this wonderful generation is rightly expressed as a communication of essence from the Father (by which the Son possesses indivisibly the same essence with him and is made perfectly like him.) (pp. 292, 293)

H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology, Volume 1, pp. 430-434—1940. [Nazarene]

In the Nicene statement of the monarchy, the Father is not more divine than the Son, or the Son than the Holy Spirit. But in the order of subsistence in that one essence, the Father depends upon Himself alone for His Godhead, the Son derives His Godhead from the Father (God of God Θεον εκ Θεου)…The filial relationship as Son to Father is second and therefore in this sense subordinate; but the filial essence is equal and co-ordinate with that of paternity, “the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.” Furthermore, the order is not temporal or chronological, but grounded in the three distinctions or subsistences of the one essence, and therefore real and eternal. (p. 431)

J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology, Volume 1, pp. 92, 93—1988. [Charismatic]

The property of God the Father is generation. The Father who is “unbegotten” eternally “begets” the Son. (p. 93)

Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, pp. 340, 341—1979 reprint. [Reformed Baptist]

That the Sonship of Christ is eternal, is intimated in Psalm 2:7. “This day have I begotten thee” is most naturally interpreted as the declaration of an eternal fact in the divine nature. Neither the incarnation, the baptism, the transfiguration, nor the resurrection marks the beginning of Christ’s Sonship, or constitutes him son of God. (p. 340)

John Gill, A Complete Body of Divinity, pp. 143, 144—1987 reprint. [Reformed Baptist]

The second Person, whose distinctively relative property and character is, that he is begotten, which is never said of the other two Persons, and so distinguishes him from them, and gives him the name Son…The Sonhip of Christ is an article of the greatest importance in the christian religion… (p. 143)

…that Christ is the Son of God, Acts ix. 20. 2 Cor. i. 19. and, indeed, it is the distinguishing criterion of the christian religion, and what gives it the preference to all others, and upon which all the important doctrines of it depend; even upon the Sonship of Christ as a divine person; and by generation, even eternal generation. Without this the doctrine of the Trinity can never be supported. (p. 144)

Louis Sperry Chaffer, Systematic Theology, Volume 1, pp. 313-316—1980 reprint. [Dispensationalist]

The relation of the Second Person to the First Person has from all eternity been that of a Son, and, like all else related to the Godhead, is not only eternal but is unchangeable. He did not become a Son of the Father, as some say that He did, by His incarnation, or by His resurrection, nor is He a San by mere title, nor is He temporarily assuming such a relationship that He may execute His part in the Covenant of Redemption. Of these claims, that of sonship by the incarnation has had many exponents and none more effective than Ralph Wardlaw, who made certain distinctions which others of that school of interpretation failed to note, namely that the title of Son of God is not, according to this specific belief, to signify that He is a son through the channel of His humanity alone—which idea borders on the Unitarian opinion—nor is it true that the title belongs to His Deity alone. Dr. Wardlaw claims that it belongs to the Person of Christ including His Deity and His humanity as they both resided in Him following the incarnation. This incarnation theory of sonship does not question the preexistenc of the Second Person as the Logos of God, but it does assert that the specific title Son of God does not apply to the Logos until the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures is formed by the incarnation. Theologians generally have been emphatic in their insistence that the divine sonship is from all eternity. Their belief in this matter is based upon clear Scripture evidence. He was the Only Begotten of the Father from all eternity, have no other relation to time and creation than that He is the Creator of them. (pp. 313, 314)

Various passages imply the generation of the Son,—“the only begotten of the Father”; “the only begotten Son”; “the only begotten Son of God.” On the basis of these and other terms the theological distinction is set forth to the effect that the Son is eternally generated. (p. 316)

Those who reject the doctrine of eternal generation:

Thomas Ridgely, A Body of Divinity, Volume 1, pp. 258-280—1814 American ed. [Reformed Independent]

And here we shall give a brief account of what we apprehend to be the commonly received sentiments of divines, who, in their writings, have strenuously maintained, and judiciously defended, the doctrine of the Trinity, concerning the eternal generation of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Ghost ; which I shall endeavour to do with the greatest deference to those who have treated of these subjects, as well as with the greatest impartiality ; and shall take occasion to shew how far the Arians conclude that we give up the cause to them, and yet how little reason they have to insult us upon this head.

(1.) As to the eternal generation of the Son, it is generally explained in this manner ; the Father is called, by some, the fountain of the Godhead, an expression taken from some of the fathers, who defended the Nicene faith ; but others of late, have rather chose to call the Father the fountain of the Trinity ; and he is said to be of himself; or unbegotten ; which they lay down as his distinct Personal character, from that of the Son.

On the other hand, the Son, as to his Personality, is generally described as being from the Father, and many chose to express themselves about this mystery in these terms ; that the Father communicated the divine essence to the Son, which is the most common mode of speaking, though others think it safer to say, that he communicated the divine Personality to him ; though I cannot tell which is least exceptionable. (pp. 258, 259)

Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments, Volume 3, pp. 725, 726—1846 reprint. [Methodist]

But I believe not in an eternal sonship of generation of the Divine nature of Jesus Christ. Here I have long stood, here I now stand, and here I trust to stand in the hour of death, in the day of judgment, and to all eternity. (p. 726)

Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 27-29—1843 edition. [Presbyterian]

I do not see any evidence in the Scriptures of the doctrine of "eternal generation," and it is certain that that doctrine militates against the proper eternity of the Son of God. The natural and fair meaning of that doctrine would be, that there was a time when he had not an existence, and when he began to be, or was begotten. But the Scripture doctrine is, that he had a strict and proper eternity. I see no evidence that he was in any sense a derived being—deriving his existence and his divinity from the Father. The Fathers of the Christian church, it is believed, held that the Son of God as to his divine, as well as his human nature, was derived from the Father. Hence the Nicene creed speaks of him as " begotten of the Father before all worlds ; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made" language implying derivation in his divine nature. They held, with one voice, that he was God ; but it was in this manner. (p. 28)

J. Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, pp. 106-112—1962 one volume edition. [Reformed Presbyterian]

We have examined all the instances in which “begotten” or “born” or related words are applied to Christ, and we can say with conifidence that the Bible has nothing to say about “begetting” as an eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. (p. 111)

Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology, pp. 324-341—1998. [Reformed Presbyterian] (See also Reymond’s “Classical Christology’s Future in Systematic Theology”, in Always Reforming, ed. A.T.B. McGowan, pp. 112-123—2006.)

Bringing this chapter to a conclusion, I would contend that the three basic propositions given at the beginning of the preceding chapter are sufficient to express the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. When the church went beyond these three in its conciliar deliverances and added the two additional propositions that the Son’s essence is eternally generated by the Father and that the Spirit eternally and essentially proceeds fro the Father and the Son, I would urge that it went beyond the deliverances of Scripture and that these last two propositions should not be made elements of Trinitarian orthodoxy. (pp. 340, 341.)

Walter R. Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (referenced above). [Baptist]

Finally, there is the position/s of John MacArthur. Through much of his writing career, MacArthur rejected both eternal generation and eternal Sonship; however, sometime after 1991, he reversed his position. See his brief online essay, ”Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ”.


Well, this thread has already turned into the longest post I have yet to produce; so, I shall at this time refrain from delineating MY position, and let the readers decide for themselves which side of the issue they will embrace.


Grace and peace,

David

The original Nicene Creed and semantic confusion

As many know, the creed labeled “the Nicene Creed” that is recited by Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglicans, and many Protestant confessional churches, is actually NOT ‘the’ Nicene Creed, but rather, it is the creed promulgated at the regional council of Constantinople, convoked by emperor Theodosius in 381 A.D. (with Catholics and most confessional churches of the West adding, without ecumenical warrant, the controversial filioque). Having explored some of the historical ‘difficulties’ acknowledged and delineated by patristic scholars concerning the relationship between the original Nicene Creed and what is now ‘traditionally’ termed the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in our last two threads, I would now like explore, in greater depth, some of the controversial content of the original Nicene Creed. [Note: this new thread has been ‘inspired’, in part, by certain comments made by “Lvka” HERE, which in turn was a response to comments I had made earlier HERE.]

Countless books, essays, etc. have been written on the council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed, but I am going to focus primarily on the contributions provided by R.P.C. Hanson in his The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. [Note: quotes from this work will be from Hanson’s 1988 edition; to save space, I am providing the following links for the full English-1, English-2, and Greek and Latin texts of the NC creed.]

[02-07-10 UPDATE: Discovered an exhaustive site today that has numerous early Church texts in English, Greek and Latin HERE; link to the Nicene Creed of 325 in English, Greek and Latin HERE.]
The original NC contained: “of the substance of the Father” (deleted in the NCC of 381). Concerning this phrase, Hanson wrote:

To say that the Son was ‘of the substance’ (εκ της ουσιας) of the Father, and that he was ‘consubstantial’ with him were certainly startling innovations. Nothing comparable to this had been said in any creed or profession of faith before. Neither Alexander nor the recent Council of Antioch had described the Son’s relation to the Father by introducing ousia or its cognates. (pp. 166, 167)

Not only was the phrase, “of the substance of the Father”, deleted in the NCC of 381, but as I have already noted in my last two threads, so too were the anathemas. Concerning this additional deletion, Hanson continued with:

The other really remarkable point about N is the condemnation in the anathemas at the end of the view that the Son is ‘of another hypostasis or ousia’ from the Father. This can only have been a highly ambiguous and extremely confusing statement. By the standard of later orthodoxy, as achieved in the Creed of Constantinople of 381, it is a rankly heretical (i.e. Sabellian) proposition, because the Son must be of a different hypostasis (i.e. ‘Person’) from the Father. (p. 167)

A bit later he adds:

But we must remember that for at least the first half of the period 318-381, and in some cases considerably later, ousia and hypostasis are used as virtual synonyms, not in one sense only but in two. (p. 183) [Note: Hanson here is explicitly at odds with Lvka’s comments, linked to above.]

In my post that I linked to above, I penned:

In the later anathemas of the original N, we find that “hypostasis”/person and “ousia”/substance are treated as identical. If we allow the creed formulated at Constantinople to be a correction/clarification of N, then the omission is a ‘considerable’ one (as Tanner suggests). How so? We have later historical issues that arose which may very well be related to this omission, and the “semantic confusion” that surrounded the Nicene period (see Hanson, ch. 7, pp. 181-208).

I then provided a probable example from the 13th century. I would now like to suggest another—this time from the late 4th century. From Jerome’s letter to Pope Damasus we read:

Just now, I am sorry to say, those Arians, the Campenses, are trying to extort from me, a Roman Christian, their unheard-of formula of three hypostases. And this, too, after the definition of Nicaea and the decree of Alexandria, in which the West has joined. Where, I should like to know, are the apostles of these doctrines? Where is their Paul, their new doctor of the Gentiles? I ask them what three hypostases are supposed to mean. They reply three persons subsisting. I rejoin that this is my belief. They are not satisfied with the meaning, they demand the term. Surely some secret venom lurks in the words. “If any man refuse,” I cry, “to acknowledge three hypostases in the sense of three things hypostatized, that is three persons subsisting, let him be anathema.” Yet, because I do not learn their words, I am counted a heretic. “But, if any one, understanding by hypostasis essence, deny that in the three persons there is one hypostasis, he has no part in Christ.” Because this is my confession I, like you, am branded with the stigma of Sabellianism.

If you think fit enact a decree; and then I shall not hesitate to speak of three hypostases. Order a new creed to supersede the Nicene; and then, whether we are Arians or orthodox, one confession will do for us all. In the whole range of secular learning hypostasis never means anything but essence. And can any one, I ask, be so profane as to speak of three essences or substances in the Godhead?… Let us keep to one hypostasis, if such be your pleasure, and say nothing of three. It is a bad sign when those who mean the same thing use different words. Let us be satisfied with the form of creed which we have hitherto used. Or, if you think it right that I should speak of three hypostases, explaining what I mean by them, I am ready to submit. But, believe me, there is poison hidden under their honey; the angel of Satan has transformed himself into an angel of light. They give a plausible explanation of the term hypostasis; yet when I profess to hold it in the same sense they count me a heretic. Why are they so tenacious of a word? Why do they shelter themselves under ambiguous language? If their belief corresponds to their explanation of it, I do not condemn them for keeping it. On the other hand, if my belief corresponds to their expressed opinions, they should allow me to set forth their meaning in my own words. (Jerome, Letter XV.3, 4 – NPNF 6.19.)

Further examples of confusion concerning the content of N can be provided, but the above from Jerome should suffice to confirm Hanson’s cogent reflections.


Grace and peace,

David

When (and which), are councils and creeds infallible?

I begin this thread with the above provocative question/title, knowing full well that devout Catholics will answer with something like: only those councils and creeds which have been determined to be Ecumenical and Universal by the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, when speaking on “faith and morals”, are to be deemed infallible.

Lumen Gentium addresses this issue as follows:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith. The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith. (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, accessed at the Vatican website - footnote numbers removed – bold emphasis mine.)

I am going to reserve for a later post the issues concerning when can one know a teaching falls under the categories of “faith and morals”. What I would like to explore further in this thread, is whether or not the above criteria can be found in the teachings/writings of the early Church.

The renowned historian, Ramsey MacMullen, lists no less than 255 councils between the council of Nicea (325) and the council of Constantinople (553) in his book, Voting About God, and then goes to state that, “the councils over this time-span cannot have totalled less than 15,000.” (See pages 2-7.)

Now, do ANY of the councils listed by MacMullen exhibit/meet the conditions detailed in Lumen Gentium in order to qualify as Ecumenical and infallible? To my knowledge, not a single one does. But, I certainly make no claim to infallibility in these matters, and shall eagerly await others to weigh in.

Moving on, Dave Armstrong in this heartfelt post wrote:

But they are not, I submit, troubling at all! Even the source you provided verifies that. I don't see the "troubling 'cracks'" that you see. If this is the sort of thing you actually start with as a premise, and move on from there, then it is a castle made of sand. You haven't even established (by any stretch of the imagination) that this is a solid difficulty in the Catholic position.

Apart from acknowledging that doctrine does indeed develop, what I am attempting to do in this new series of threads on councils, creeds, and infallibility is look at the historic evidences and processes without ANY premise(s), save the presupposition shared by ALL the varying theological schools of thought in this period that the Sacred Scriptures were divinely inspired and infallible.

With the above in mind, I would now like to ask another question: by what means did the Christians living between 325 and 553 AD come to make their decisions about authority, councils, and doctrine?

In the previous thread, I presented some historic facts concerning the council of Constantinople in 381 and the creed that was promulgated there. I sincerely wonder what would have compelled someone living in the Western region of the Roman Empire to believe that this clearly regional council (see below) was an Ecumenical/Universal council, and that its creed was infallible?

Concerning the creed, Hanson wrote:

The alterations which may be significant are the omissions by C of ‘that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father (iii), originally in N; the new clause in C ‘and there will be no end of his kingdom’ (x); the considerable addition to the article on the Holy Spirit (xi); and the omission of N’s anathemas…The omission of ‘that is, of the substance ousia of the Father (iii) has caused much heart-searching among scholars. (R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p. 817)

And Tanner penned:

Scholars find difficulties with the creed attributed to the council of Constantinople. Some say that the council composed a new creed. But no mention is made of this creed by ancient witnesses until the council of Chalcedon; and the council of Constantinople was said simply to have endorsed the faith of Nicea, with a few additions on the holy Spirit to refute the Pneumatomachian heresy. Moreover, if the latter tradition is accepted, an explanation must be given of why the first two articles of the so-called Contantinopolitan creed differ considerably from the Nicene creed. (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Volume 1, Norman P. Tanner, S.J. editor, 1990, p. 21 – bold emphasis mine.)

As for the nature of the council itself, we read:

The Second Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, was not originally a general council. (Joseph Pohle, The Trinity, English trans. Arthur Preuss, 1912, p. 129.)

In the spring of 381 Theodosius assembled a council of 148 bishops at Constantinople, with Meletius of Antioch presiding. None who would not profess the Creed of Nicea were allowed to attend. No bishops from the west were present, nor was the Pope represented. Therefore this was not really an ecumenical council…(Warren H. Carroll, The Building of Christendom, p.62)

The Council of Constantinople owes its œcumenicity to the agreement of its doctrinal decisions with the mind of the Universal Church. In the stricter sense of the word the Council certainly was not œcumenical, for the West was unrepresented. Nicephorus distinctly states that Theodosius, as Emperor of the East, summoned only the Bishops of the East. (H.B. Swete, On The Early History Of The Doctrine Of The Holy Spirit, p. 79.)

Dr. Bryan Cross, in the combox of our previous thread, linked to a thread at De Regnis Duobus I had not read before. In that thread, I found the following POST by Andrew McCallum to be germane to our current discussion:

You almost get the impression (and I'm not finished with his essay and am hardly qualified to really deconstruct it yet) that even if there were no real "pope" in Rome for the first handful of decades, it wouldn't really matter.

Jason,

I agree that this approach does seem more plausible at least from a strictly historical standpoint. It's really stretching things to argue that Clement, etc. had the same conception of their authority as those RC bishops in let's say the High Middle Ages. But on the other hand if Newman's position is correct on development then, as you have pointed out, everything that cannot be explained by the data of history can in an ad hoc manner be relegated to development. From my perspective John's list above was relevant even if not everything was a necessary condition to justify the papacy. But if Newman is right then John's list is completely irrelevant. Any Roman Catholic dogma then is unfalsifiable. In that case we might as well all hang this up and go have another margarita or beer or wine... (Saturday, September 12, 2009, 5:56:45 AM – found on page 7 of the comments section.)

I shall end this post with a thought provoking selection from the pen of St. Augustine:

Now let the proud and swelling necks of the heretics raise themselves, if they dare, against the holy humility of this address. You mad Donatists, whom we desire earnestly to return to the peace and unity of the holy Church, that you may receive health therein, what have ye to say in answer to this? You are wont, indeed, to bring up against us the letters of Cyprian, his opinion, his Council; why do ye claim the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and reject his example when it makes for the peace of the Church? But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true; but that all the letters of bishops which have been written, or are being written, since the closing of the canon, are liable to be refuted if there be anything contained in them which strays from the truth, either by the discourse of some one who happens to be wiser in the matter than themselves, or by the weightier authority and more learned experience of other bishops, by the authority of Councils; and further, that the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid, and this without any whirlwind of sacrilegious pride, without any puffing of the neck through arrogance, without any strife of envious hatred, simply with holy humility, catholic peace, and Christain charity? (On Baptism, II.3-4 – NPNF 4.427.)


Grace and peace,

David

The Nicene Creed vs. the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed

In this new thread, I will attempt to address two issues: first, my affirmation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed; and second, one of the important reasons why I have difficulty affirming the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils.

Dave Armstrong, in his last post addressed to me (HERE), wrote:

You imply above (I think) that you accept at least some form of the Trinity. Do not any variations of the Trinity, as you see them, presuppose that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God? There may be all these fine details, as you allude to, but it is still a God in three Persons, no? The word means "Tri-unity" after all.

Until you answer these basic questions or further explain what exactly your difficulties are, I for one have no idea how to go about trying to persuade you of the truth of Catholicism or any kind of Christianity if you are now outside what I would call orthodox trinitarianism: agreed upon by all three branches of Christianity (for the most part).

Earlier, in the same thread, I posted the following (HERE):

As for the Nicene Creed, I have no problem reciting it as we speak; however, I do have reservations concerning subsequent interpretations of the NC, some of which may in fact negate the original intent of bishops who met in 325 and 381.

Now, when I referenced “the Nicene Creed”, I actually meant (following the common usage employed by pretty much everyone) the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Since this creed it considered by every scholar I have read to be Trinitarian, I am a bit puzzled as to why Dave is questioning whether or not I, “accept at least some form of the Trinity.” So, without getting into “fine details”, I would like to, yet once again, make it crystal clear that I do in fact “accept at least some form of the Trinity.”

Moving on the second issue, the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils, it is the promulgation of the two respective creeds mentioned in the title of this thread that raises one of the important reasons why I have difficulty in affirming infallibility. I will now attempt to outline the evidence(s).

Fact 1 - Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 deletes portions of the Nicene Creed of 325, even though we read from the “Definition of the faith” of the council of Chalcedon in 451 that:

…we have renewed the unerring creed of the fathers. We have proclaimed to all the creed of the 318 [i.e. Nicene Creed of 325]; and we have made our own those fathers who accepted this agreed statement of religion—the 150 who later met in great Constantinople and themselves set their seal to the same creed. (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Volume 1, Norman P. Tanner, S.J. editor, 1990, p. 83.)

Fact 2 – The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 is not “the creed of the 318” [i.e. Nicene Creed of 325].

Fact 3 – “No copy of the council’s doctrinal decisions, entitled τομος και αναθεματισμος εγγραφος (record of the tome and anathemas), has survived.” (Ibid., p. 21.)

Fact 4 – “The Second Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, was not originally a general council”. (Joseph Pohle, The Trinity, English trans. Arthur Preuss, 1912, p. 129.)

In summation, we have a creed from an “Ecumenical” council, that “was not originally a general council”, altering (by deletion) the Nicene Creed of 325; and the 4th Ecumenical council erroneously declaring that the creed promulgated at council of Constantinople in 381 was “the same creed” that was promulgated at Nicea in 325. I submit that such evidence(s) (and the above is only one such example) make the teaching of the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils untenable.

[For those who would like to explore these issues a bit more deeply, I highly recommend that you read R.P.C. Hanson’s treatment, found in his The Seach for the Christian Doctrine of God, pp. 812-820.]


Grace and peace,

David

P.S. I want all to know that this thread should not be construed as an attack directed at Dave Armstrong; for the record, I sincerely appreciate the substantial effort/work that Dave has produced since the posting of my 01-06-10 announcement, and shall be looking forward to his (and everyone else’s) comments.

A brief update...

Well, I am finally back (arrived home late last night). I have over 1,200 emails to go through, and then some 114 posts in the combox of the last thread (as well as any links provided in those posts). Once I have ‘caught up’, I will then decide the direction I shall proceed along concerning my next thread (within the context of the issue of infallibility).


Grace and peace to all,

David