Steve Hays and Jason Engwer vs. Dr. Charles Hodge

I finally had some ‘spare’ time this morning to browse a few blogs/websites that I have not accessed in a number weeks. A thread concerning justification at Called to Communion by Bryan Cross caught my attention. Bryan’s thread is a response to certain comments made by two anti-Catholic epologists: Steve Hays and Jason Engwer. Since I am somewhat ‘late-to-the-party’, I have been attempting to trace the original source that has spawned this new round of discussions on justification; I believe that I have done so, and shall suggest that it is this October 30, 2009 post by Jason which has initiated at least 4 subsequent threads (including Bryan’s), and well over 100 comments, on issues pertaining to the doctrine of justification. For those who may be interested, the links to the other 3 threads are as follows:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/raelian-catholicism.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/mcchurch.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-was-john-35-interpreted-prior-to.html

[If there are other pertinent threads that I have missed, I sincerely hope that readers who are aware of such will provide the link/s to them in the combox.]

Now, to Jason’s 10-30-09 comments (linked to above), from which we read:

The apostle Paul said that one error, the adding of works to the gospel, was sufficient to create a false gospel that doesn’t save. The “only thing” Paul wanted to know from the Galatians was how they received justification (Galatians 3:2). And Evangelicals and Catholics disagree about how justification is received. The difference between justification through faith alone and justification through faith and works is the difference between a true gospel and a false gospel. Catholics can be saved as individuals, but only in spite of their denomination’s false gospel. Catholics can be Christians as individuals, but Catholicism isn’t Christian by apostolic standards.

IMO, after browsing through most of the comments (but not all, my eyes get tired/sore after so much monitor reading), the above is the PRMARY ISSUE that needs to be addressed: is it true that “Catholicism isn’t Christian by apostolic standards”; does the Catholic Church teach “a false gospel”? So says Jason, and so many other anti-Catholic epologists and ‘popular’ Evangelical authors (e.g. R. C. Sproul, John MacArthur, James White). Though Bryan and other Catholic posters have been addressing some of the important aspects concerning justification, if one does not deal DIRECTLY with Jason’s charges, the outcome is going to a mixed-bag at best. So, in an attempt to deal with this issue head-on, I shall invoke the scholarship of one of the greatest Reformed minds that Christianity has yet to produce—Charles Hodge. Dr. Hodge penned the following:


Does the Church of Rome retain truth enough to save the soul ? We do not understand how it is possible for any Christian man to answer this question in the negative. They retain the doctrine of the Incarnation, which we know from the infallible word of God, is a life-giving doctrine. They retain the whole doctrine of the Trinity. They teach the doctrine of atonement far more fully and accurately than multitudes of professedly orthodox Protestants. They hold a much higher doctrine, as to the necessity of divine influence, than prevails among many whom we recognize as Christians. They believe in the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and in eternal life and judgment. These doctrines are in their creeds, and however they may be perverted and overlaid, still as general propositions they are affirmed. And it must be remembered, that it is truth presented in general propositions, and not with subtle distinctions, that saves the soul. Protestants, says Bossuet, cannot deny that we admit the fundamentals of religion. “If they will have them to consist in believing that we must adore one only God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; and that we must put our trust in God alone through his Son, who became man, was crucified, and rose again for us, they know in their conscience that we profess this doctrine ; and if they add those other doctrines which are contained in the Apostles’ Creed, they do not doubt that we receive them all without exception.” Having quoted an admission to this effect from Daille, he adds : “But though M. Daille had not granted thus much, the thing is manifest in itself; and all the world knows that we profess all those doctrines which Protestants call fundamental.” *

* An Exposition of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church, by the Right Rev. J. B. Bossuet, London, 1685, p. 2. On Justification, Bossuet says : “We believe, in the first place, that our sins are freely forgiven us by the divine mercy, for Christ’s sake. These are the express words of the council of Trent. . . . seeing the Scriptures explain the remission of sins, by sometimes telling us that God covers them, and sometimes that he takes them away and blots them out by the grace of his Holy Spirit, which makes us new creatures ; we believe that to form a perfect idea of the justification of a sinner, we must join together both of these expressions. For which reason we believe our sins not only to be covered, but also entirely washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ, and by the grace of regeneration ; which is so far from obscuring or lessening that idea which we ought to have of the merit of his blood, on the contrary it heightens and augments it. So that the righteousness of Christ is not only imputed but actually communicated to the faithful, by the operation of his Holy Spirit, insomuch that they are not only reputed, but rendered just by his grace.” p. 12. It is easy to see here the unhappy blending of justification and sanctification together; but it is a far better statement of the truth than is to be found in multitudes of Arminian writers ; and unspeakably better than that, which for a hundred years, was preached from the great majority of the pulpits in the Church of England. Romanists teach that Christ is the meritorious ground of our justification. Thus the council of Trent, sess. vi. c. 7, says : Meritoria (causa) est diledissimus Dei unic/enitus, qui cum csseinus inimici, per nimiam caritatem, qua dilexit nos, sua sanctissima passione in Urjno crucis, nobis justificadonem meruit. And in c 8, the council says: “Christum sanctissima sua passione in ligno crucis nobis justificationem meruisse, et pro nobis Deo Patri safisfecisse, et neminem posse essejustum, nisi cui mertta passionis Domini nostril Jcsu Christi communicantur.” In like manner, Bellarmin, de Justificatione, ii. c. 2, says : “We are justified on account of the merits of Christ ;” and in c 7, he says, “If Protestants only mean that the merits of Christ are imputed to us, because they are given to us by God, so that we can present them to the Father for our sins since Christ undertook to make satisfaction for us, and to reconcile us to God the Father, they are right.” Which is precisely what we do mean. (Charles Hodge, Discussions In Church Polity, 1876, pp. 208, 209.]

[For more insightful reflections on this important issue from Dr. Hodge, see
THIS THREAD.]

With all due respect to our epologists, I am going to side with the erudite assessments of Dr. Hodge…

Grace and peace,

David

“Sister Churches” – Unity between Catholic and Orthodox Churches

A gentleman named Edward Reiss has been making some bold assertions concerning the unity (or lack thereof) that exists between the Catholic Church and a number of the Eastern Orthodox Churches in the comment box of a recent Beggars All thread.

Edward posted the following:

David,

"You must also be aware of the RCC and EO teaching that Prots lack certain sacramental benefits to found only among those who have valid “orders”; so, I would say that obstacles do exist, but that they are not insurmountable obstacles."

To be fair, the Orthodox do not think you guys have valid orders, either. I don't want to go over this again, but your statement here seems to imply unity between the EOs and RCs which does not actually exist. (4:35 PM, DECEMBER 18, 2009.)

I took issue with his charge that “the Orthodox do not think you guys have valid orders”, providing commentary and links that questioned his position (feel free to read through the comments in the thread linked to above for full context). After 4 days of back and forth dialogue, Edward is still clinging on to his original charge as evidenced by his following comments posted yesterday afternoon:

Davis[sic] Waltz,

"Once again, EO bishops are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome, yet this very fact does not preclude those bishops from having valid succession, ordination, and sacraments."

It does by EO lights, if not by RC lights.

"Do you think that all the valid ordinations of those bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome became invalid with the excommunication of three papal legates in 1054? (Excommunications that have been rescinded.) "

They became invalid when, by EO lights, the Patriarch of Rome left the One True Church to follow his private interpretation of the Tradition. The idea that there is a valid succession not in fellowship woith the One True Church is simply not EO ecclesiology. But again, let us take this discussion out of the theoretical:Where do a simple majority of Patriarchs and/or bishops say RC orders are valid? (3:59PM, DECEMBER 22, 2009.)


Given the length of my following response to Edward, I felt it best to post it here at Articuli Fidei:


From the Vatican II document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum we read:

25. If any separated Eastern Christian should, under the guidance of the grace of the Holy Spirit, join himself to the unity of Catholics, no more should be required of him than what a bare profession of the Catholic faith demands. Eastern clerics, seeing that a valid priesthood is preserved among them, are permitted to exercise the Orders they possess on joining the unity of the Catholic Church, in accordance with the regulations established by the competent authority. (Online access HERE - bold emphasis mine.)


From the “Balamand Statement” we read:

12) Because of the way in which Catholics and Orthodox once again consider each other in relationship to the mystery of the Church and discover each other once again as Sister Churches, this form of "missionary apostolate" described above, and which has been called "uniatism", can no longer be accepted either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our Churches are seeking.

13) In fact, especially since the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context it is clear that rebaptism must be avoided.

14) It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27). [The Full Text of the Balamand Statement HERE - bold emphasis mine.]


And Vlaimir Kharlamov in his important essay, “Vatican II and the Eastern Orthodox Church” (Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 38:2-3, Spring/Summer 2001, p. 186 – online version HERE) provides the following quote from the EO Synodal Theological Commission:

Vatican II called the Orthodox Church a Sister Church, thus recognizing the blessed nature of the Orthodox Church and the salvifíc nature of her sacraments. The Orthodox Church, in her turn, always recognized the validity of the sacraments of the Catholic Church. The evidence to that is the fact that the Catholic Christians are accepted into the Orthodox Church by the so-called Third Order for joining the Orthodox membership—not through Baptism, as non-Christians or sectarians, nor through Chrismation, like the Protestants, but through repentance, like schismatics. Roman Catholic clergymen are accepted in their existing orders to which they had been ordained by the Roman Catholic Church.

It is no coincidence that Old Believers, who are also in schism from the Orthodox Church are accepted back in the same manner as the Roman Catholic Christians.

This fact shows that despite serious fundamental differences on a number of doctrinal and spiritual issues between the two Churches, Roman Catholicism in the Orthodox mind and Tradition is viewed as a Christian community in schism with the Orthodox Church which nevertheless has preserved apostolic succession.

…The Balamand Document adds nothing fundamentally new, but follows in the manner of the traditional Orthodox attitude to Catholicism. At the same time, the Synodal Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church finds it important to clarify a number of the Document's affirmations, including the use of the term 'sister Churches' in the text, which was motivated by emotions rather than by dogmatic considerations. (Bold emphasis mine.)


I sincerely hope (and believe) that I have put to rest Edward's bold assertions.

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matt. 11:15)


Grace and peace,

David

James White and the Manhattan Declaration

I have not been over to James White’s AOMIN site in awhile; so, while sipping my freshly brewed (and ground) Italian roast coffee, I thought I would take a peek.

It comes as no surprise that James is using the “Manhattan Declaration” as a platform for his anti-Catholic polemics. In his 12-10-09 thread, Sproul, Colson, and You, on the Manhattan Declaration, his polemic begins with a sweeping charge leveled at Chuck Colson:

Once again we see that for Charles Colson, the gospel is no longer a part of "the faith" that he refuses to compromise. That is, "the faith" has been boiled down to a skeleton of basic beliefs (Trinity, resurrection) that can unite varied and disparate religious traditions into one big (and politically powerful) group. This Least Common Denominator (LCD) form of "Christianity" is what is needed, evidently, to "revitalize the church in America." I cannot help but shake my head in disbelief as someone promotes a gospel-less Christianity and says this is what the church needs to be "revitalized" today. But it is truly a matter for deep concern that Mr. Colson believes this document is a "form of catechism for the foundational truths of the faith." How can this gospel-less document be a catechism for anything other than cultural Christianity?

IMO, James has completely missed the nature/focus of MD: it is primarily a cultural, societal, political document; yet with that said, this does not make it “gospel-less”. Note the following from St. Paul’s pen (written under inspiration):

But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. (1 Tim. 1:8-11.)

James then made this statement:

Without the gospel, you cannot change hearts and minds.

Amen!!! But what is “the gospel”? My threads on JUSTIFICATION and SOTERIOLOGY raise some serious concerns as to whether or not James really understands what “the gospel” is.

Further, if one grants to James that his understanding of “the gospel” is without error, one then cannot ignore the many questions which have been brought to light in MATTHEW HECKEL’S ESSAY, “Is R.C. Sproul Wrong About About Luther? An Analysis of R.C. Sproul’s Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification with Respect to Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Catholic Luther Scholarship.”

And lastly, James’ statement is a bit confusing, for James is a 5-point Calvinist. Is it not the Calvinist teaching that an unregenerate heart cannot accept/respond to “the gospel”; that God regenerates the heart so that one can/will accept/embrace “the gospel”?



Grace and peace,

David

The Manhattan Declaration

Back on November 20th, 2009, an ecumenical document called the “Manhattan Declaration” was released (full text HERE). Three prominent Evangelicals (Robert George, Timothy George, and Chuck Colson) constituted the “drafting committee”; many more Evangelical and Catholic “leaders” have signed the document (HERE).

However, as with the famous “Evangelcals & Catholics Together” document (full text HERE), some Evangelicals are not ‘happy’ with the “Manhattan Declaration”, and have used the release of the document to renew the tired, old, and patently false charge, that the Catholic Church is not a Christian church. The following are but a few examples:


R. C. Sproul

Mike Horton

John MacArthur

Alistair Begg


Seems that some things just never change…


Grace and peace,

David

CHARLES HODGE: “Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church?”

An individual who posts under the name “Interlocutor”, provided a link to an interesting article/review written by the esteemed Reformed theologian, Dr. Charles Hodge (see combox of THIS THREAD). Hodge’s article/review, “Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church?”, was originally published in the April, 1846 The Princeton Review (pages 320-344 – available online HERE).

This article/review was a response to “Essays in the Presbyterian by Theophius on the question : Is Baptism in the Church of Rome valid? Nos. XL. XII.” These essays were in turn, a response to Dr. Hodge’s July, 1845 article, “Validity of Romish Baptism” (entire article has been republished in Hodge’s book, Discussions in Church Polity – Charles Scribner’s Sons: New York, 1878, pp. 191- 215, and can be accessed online HERE).

Enlisting impeccable logic and an in depth knowledge of the pertinent data (with a heavy dose of refreshing honesty), Dr. Hodge defends the position that the Church of Rome is in fact a valid Christian church (though, of course, he also argues that doctrinal errors exist in the communion). Dr. Hodge notes: “The real difficulty in the case, is that it is impossible to give any one definition of a church, except in the most general terms, which includes all the established uses of the word.” (Page 326.) He then provides four different uses/senses of the term “church”; concerning the fourth use/sense, he writes:

There is a fourth established meaning of the word church, which has more direct reference to the question before us. It often means an organized society professing the true religion, united for the purpose of worship and discipline, and subject to the same form of government and to some common tribunal. A multitude of controversies turn upon the correctness of this definition. It includes the following particulars. 1. A church is an organized society. It is thus distinguished from the casual or temporary assemblies of Christians, for the purpose of divine worship. 2. It must profess the true religion. By the true religion cannot be meant all the doctrines of the true religion, and nothing more or less. For then no human society would be a church unless perfect both in knowledge and faith. Nor can it mean all the clearly revealed and important doctrines of the Bible for then no man could ne a Christian and no body of men a church, which rejects or is ignorant of those doctrines. But it must mean the essential doctrines of the gospel, those doctrines without which no man can be saved. This is plain, because nothing can be essential, as far as truth is concerned, to a church, which is not essential to union with Christ. We are prohibited by our allegiance to the word of God from recognizing as a true Christian, any man who rejects any doctrine which the Scriptures declare to be essential to salvation; and we are bound by that allegiance not to refuse such recognition, on account of ignorance or error, to any man who professes what the Bible teaches is saving truth. It is absurd that we should make more truth essential to a visible church, than Christ has made essential to the church invisible and to salvation. This distinction between essential and unessential doctrines Protestants have always insisted upon, and Romanists and Anglicans as strenuously rejected. It is, however, so plainly recognized in Scripture, and so obviously necessary in practice, that those who reject it in terms in opposition to Protestants, are forced to admit it in reality. They make substantially the same distinction when they distinguish between matters of faith and matters of opinion, and between those truths which must be received with explicit faith i.e., known as well as believed) and those which may be received with implicit faith; i.e., received without knowledge, as a man who believes the Bible to be the word of God may be said to believe all it teaches, though it may contain many things of which he is ignorant. Romanists say that every doctrine on which the church has pronounced judgment as part of the revelation of God, is a matter of faith, and essential to the salvation of those to whom it is duly proposed. Anglicans say the same thing of those doctrines which are sustained by tradition. Here is virtually the same distinction between fundamental and other doctrines which Protestants make. The only difference is as to the criterion by which the one class is to be distinguished from the other. Romanists and Anglicans say that criterion is the judgment of the church; Protestants say it is the word of God. What the Bible declares to be essential to salvation, is essential: what it does not make absolutely necessary to be believed and professed, no man can rightfully declare to be absolutely necessary. And what is not essential to the true church, the spiritual body of Christ, or to salvation, cannot be essential to the visible church. This is really only saying that those whom Christ declares to be his people, we have no right to say are not his people. If any man thinks he has such a right, it would be well for him to take heed how he exercises it. By the true religion, therefore, which a society must profess in order to its being recognized as a church, must be meant those doctrines which are essential to salvation.
3. Such society must not only profess the true religion, but its object must be the worship of God and the exercise of discipline. A church is thus distinguished from a Bible, missionary, or any similar society of Christians.4. To constitute it a church, i.e., externally one body, it must have the same form of government and be subject to the same common tribunal. The different classes of Presbyterians in this country, though professing the same doctrines and adopting the same form of government, are not all members of the same external church, because subject to different tribunals. (Pages 328-330.)

A bit later he condenses this fourth use/sense down to:

Is a church an organized society professing the true religion, united for the worship of God and the exercise of discipline, and subject to the same for of government and to common tribunal? (Page 333.)

And then adds:

This definition is substantially the one given in our standards. “A particular church consists of a number of professing Christians with their offspring, voluntarily associated together for divine worship and godly living agreeably to the Holy Scriptures; and submitting to a certain form of government. (Page 333.)

Dr. Hodge continues to defend this definition under four more headings which interact with the Scriptures, and then writes:

The next step in the argument is, of course, the consideration of the question, whether the church of Rome comes within the definition, the correctness of which we have endeavored to establish? (Page 336.)

After brief examination of possible (but weak) objections he states:

The only point really open to debate is, whether the Romish church as a society professes the true religion…That by true religion in this connection, has ever been understood, and from the nature of the case must be understood, the essential doctrines of the gospel. (Page 338.)

Now to the ‘meat’ of Dr. Hodge’s defense:

That Romanists as a society profess the true religion, meaning thereby the essential doctrines of the gospel, those doctrines which if truly believed will save the soul, is, as we think, plain. 1. Because they believe the Scriptures to be the word of God. 2. They direct that the Scriptures should be understood and received as they were understood by the Christian Fathers. 3. They receive the three general creeds of the church, the Apostle’s, the Nicene, and the Athanasian, or as these are summed up in the creed of Pius V. 4. They believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. In one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried. And the third day rose again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And they believe in one catholic apostolic church. They acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, and look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

If this creed were submitted to any intelligent Christian without his knowing whence it came, could he hesitate to say that it was the creed of a Christian church? Could he deny that these are the very terms in which for ages the general faith of Christendom has been expressed? Could he, without renouncing the Bible, say that the sincere belief of these doctrines would not secure eternal life? Can any man take it upon himself in the sight of God, to assert there is not truth enough in the above summary to save the soul? (Pages 340, 341 – bold emphasis mine.)

Indeed Dr. Hodge. He finishes the article/review with:

The most common and plausible objections to the admission that the church of Rome is still a part of the visible church are the following. First, it is said that she does not profess the true religion, because though she retains the forms or propositions in which the truth is stated, she vitiates them by her explanation. To which we answer, 1. That in her general creeds, adopted and professed by the people, no explanations are given. The doctrines are asserted in the general terms, just as they were presented and professed before the Romish apostasy. 2. That the explanations, as given by the Council of Trent, are as stated by Theophilus, designedly two-sided and ambiguous; so that while one class of Romanists take them in a sense consistent with their saving efficacy, others take them in a sense which destroys their value. It is notorious that the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England are taken in a Calvinistic sense by one class of her theologians; in a semi-Pelagian sense by another class; and in a Romish sense by a third. 3. While we admit the truth of the objection as a fact, viz., that the dominant class of theologians do explain away most of the saving doctrines of her ancient creeds, yet we deny that this destroys the argument from the profession of those creeds, in proof that as a society she retains saving truth. Because it is the creeds and not the explanations, that constitute the profession of the people.

Secondly, it is objected that Rome Professes fundamental errors. To this we answer, 1. That we acknowledge that the teaching of many of her most authoritative authors is fatally erroneous. 2. That the decisions of the Council of Trent, as understood by one class of Romish theologians, are not less at variance with the truth; but not as they are in fact explained by another class of her doctors. 3. That these decisions and explanations are not incorporated into the creed professed by the people. 4. That the profession of fundamental error by a society retains with such error the essential truths of religion. The Jewish church at the time of Christ, by her officers, in the synagogues and in the sanhedrim [sic], and by all her great parties professed fundamental error justification by the law, for example; and yet retained its being as a church, in the bosom of which the elect of God still lived.

Thirdly, Rome is idolatrous, and therefore in no sense a church. To this we answer, 1. That the practice of the great body of the church of Rome is beyond doubt idolatrous. 2. That the avowed principles of the majority of her teachers are also justly liable to the same charge. 3. That the principles of another class of her doctors, who say they worship neither the images themselves, nor through them, but simply in the presence of them, are not idolatrous in the ordinary meaning of the term. 4. That it is not necessary that every man should be, in the fatal sense of that word, an idolater in order to remain in that church; otherwise there could be not true children of God within its pale. But the contrary is, as a fact, on all hands conceded. 5. We know that the Jewish church, though often overrun with idolatry, never ceased to exist.

Fourthly, it is objected that the people of God are commanded to come out of the church of Rome, which would not be the case were she still a part of the visible church. To this we answer, that the people of God are commanded to come out of every church which either professes error, or which imposes any terms of communion which hurt an enlightened conscience. The non-conformists in the time of Charles II, were bound to leave the church of England, and yet did not thereby assert that it was no longer a church.

Fifthly, it is said we give up too much to the papists if we admit Romanists to be in the church. To this we answer, Every false position is a weak position. The cause of truth. The cause of truth suffers in no way more than from identifying it with error, which is always done when its friends advocate it on false principles. When one says, we favor intemperance, unless we say that the use of intoxicating liquors is sinful; another, that we favor slavery, unless we say slaveholding is a sin; and a third, that we favor popery unless we say the church of Rome is no church, they all, as it seems to us, make the same mistake, and greatly injure the cause in which they are engaged. They dive the adversary an advantage over them, and they fail to enlist the strength of their own side. Men who are anxious to promote temperance, cannot join societies which avow principles which they believe to be untrue; and men who believe popery to be the greatest modern enemy of the gospel, cannot co-operate in measures of opposition to that growing evil, which are founded on the denial of what appear to be important scriptural principles. It is a great mistake to suppose popery is aided by admitting what truth it does include. What gives it its power, what constitutes its peculiarly dangerous character, is that it is not pure infidelity; it is not the entire rejection of the gospel, but truth surrounded with enticing and destructive error. Poison by itself is not so seductive, and therefore not so dangerous, as when mixed with food. We do not believe that those of our brethren from whom we are so unfortunate as to differ on this subject, have a deeper impression than we have either of the destructive character of the errors of popery, or of the danger to which religion and liberty are exposed from its progress. We believe it to be by far the most dangerous forms of delusion and error that has ever arisen in the Christian world, and all the more dangerous from its having arisen and established itself in the church, or temple of God. (Pages 341-344 – bold emphasis mine.)

Dr. Hodge’s last (the 5th) analysis of possible objections is the certainly the harshest; and yet, his criticisms of “popery” only serve to strengthen his overall premise that the Church of Rome is a true Christian church. (And I do wonder if his assessment of the papacy would have been as severe if he had lived in our post-Vatican II era.)

In conclusion, though I certainly differ with our esteemed Reformed author over doctrinal items that he would term “non-essentials”, as well as much of his criticisms concerning the papacy, when it comes to the defense of his basic premise (i.e. that the Church of Rome is a valid Christian church), I find little that I could argue against.


Postscript: Let us hope, and pray, that the hosts of internet anti-Catholic adherents/writers actually take the time to read Dr. Hodge’s informative and reasoned contribution.


Grace and peace,

David

Big Storm, and a minor blog change

Well, yet another big storm hit our little coastal community Sunday morning (started around midnight). Plenty of high winds (94 mph according to a friend who has a wind gauge/ 85 mph according to a Seattle news station), and plenty of rain. Power went out at 3:30 AM, and did not come back on until late Sunday evening. Spent most of today of cleaning up; but on the whole, the storm was not nearly as bad as the ’07 one. Nice to be back online…

NOTICE: Due to recent spam popping up in some of the comboxes, I have decided to suspend anonymous posting (Rory, you are just going to have to bite the bullet and get a Google account!!! [grin]).


Grace and peace,

David

P.S. Almost forgot to mention, an Oregon team is going to the Rose Bowl!!!

Does the Qur’an deny the crucifixion and physical death of Jesus?

A new thread at Catholic Answers, Why Islam denies the crucifixion of Christ, has brought to mind an outstanding book that I have recently read: Todd Lawson’s, The Crucifixion and the Qur'an. I purchased this book because of a keen interest I have had on this topic since the mid-90s.

There is no question the vast majority of present-day Muslims take the position that the Qur’an denies the crucifixion of Jesus Christ (based solely on an interpretation of verse 4.157 that is highly suspect). However, my own personal studies into this issue revealed some very interesting, and important, details few Muslims (let alone Christians) seem to be aware of, namely that the Qur’an itself does not actually deny the crucifixion of Jesus, and that the supposed Qur’anic denial was a post Qur’an/Muhammad development. The following selections I complied during my research contain some of the important data that led me to view the ‘traditional’ interpretation with suspicion:

Islamic scholar, Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub wrote:

The Quran...does not deny the death of Christ. Rather it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus the messenger of God. The death of Christ is asserted several times and in various contexts, see for example S. 3:55; 5:117; 19:33. (“Towards an Islamic Christology II”, The Muslim World, Vol. LXX, April 1980, #2, p. 106.)

Another Islamic scholar, Neal Robinson, gleaned the following data from the Rasā’l (‘Epistles’) of the Ikhwan al-Safa (Brethren of Purity):

Jesus’ humanity (nāsut) was crucified and his hands were nailed to the cross. He was left there all day, given vinegar to drink, and pierced with a lance. He was taken down from the cross, wrapped in a shroud and laid in the tomb. Three days later he appeared to the disciples and was recognized by them. When the news spread that he had not been killed, the Jews opened up the tomb but did not find his mortal remains (nāsut). (Christ In Islam and Christianity, pp. 56, 57.)

Abu Ya’qub Ishaq al-Sijistani wrote:

Without doubt murder and crucifixion were inflicted upon his body. The pronoun (hu) since it appeared at the end of the words ‘murdered him’ ‘qataluhu’, or crucified him is a pointing letter to the spirit (huwiyya) of Jesus. So in this exists the evidence he who suffered death and crucifixion was not the spirit (huwiyya) of Jesus. (Kitab Ithbat al-Nubuwat, Al-Matb’aa al-Kathulikiah, Bierut, Lebanon, 1966, p. 185.)

And:

Cross is the name for the piece of wood on which a man is crucified so that the whole population may see him, and what is crucified on it is a dead body...The wood Jesus was crucified on was provided for this purpose by a group other than his own and these people were the ones who crucified him on it openly and manifestly. (The Wellsprings of Wisdom, edited by Paul E. Walker, 1994, pp. 93-94.)


My studies, along with the fact certain verses in the Qur’an affirm Jesus’ death (e.g. 3.55; 5.117; 19.33), convinced me that something was seriously defective with the ‘traditional’ understanding of Jesus’ crucifixion held to by most Muslims. I occasionally shared my research on some message boards in the past, but for the most part, did not make much of an issue out of it. However, after reading Dr. Lawson’s exhaustive book, I am now FULLY convinced that my earlier research was spot-on; as such, I will, in all likelihood, be a bit more forward with my conclusions concerning this important issue in the future.


Grace and peace,

David