Real Clear Theology Blog

How to Obtain Eternal Life

2009-04-12T11:50:00.000-07:00

This stark contrast bears repeating--often. And particularly on a day like Resurrection Sunday, which commemorates the single event that acts as the foundation of our faith, and apart from which our faith is futile:

Becoming a Christian According to the Bible

And after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household." And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household. (Acts 16:30-34)

Becoming a Christian According to Roman Catholicism

Becoming Catholic is one of life’s most profound and joyous experiences. Some are blessed enough to receive this great gift while they are infants, and, over time, they recognize the enormous grace that has been bestowed on them. Others enter the Catholic fold when they are older children or adults. This tract examines the joyful process by which one becomes a Catholic.

A person is brought into full communion with the Catholic Church through reception of the three sacraments of Christian initiation—baptism, confirmation, and the holy Eucharist—but the process by which one becomes a Catholic can take different forms.

A person who is baptized in the Catholic Church becomes a Catholic at that moment. One’s initiation is deepened by confirmation and the Eucharist, but one becomes a Catholic at baptism. This is true for children who are baptized Catholic (and receive the other two sacraments later) and for adults who are baptized, confirmed, and receive the Eucharist at the same time.

Those who have been validly baptized outside the Church become Catholics by making a profession of the Catholic faith and being formally received into the Church. This is normally followed immediately by confirmation and the Eucharist.

Before a person is ready to be received into the Church, whether by baptism or by profession of faith, preparation is necessary. The amount and form of this preparation depends on the individual’s circumstance. The most basic division in the kind of preparation needed is between those who are unbaptized and those who have already become Christian through baptism in another church.

For adults and children who have reached the age of reason (age seven), entrance into the Church is governed by the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA), sometimes called the Order of Christian Initiation for Adults (OCIA).

Preparation for reception into the Church begins with the inquiry stage, in which the unbaptized person begins to learn about the Catholic faith and begins to decide whether to embrace it.

The first formal step to Catholicism begins with the rite of reception into the order of catechumens, in which the unbaptized express their desire and intention to become Christians. "Catechumen" is a term the early Christians used to refer to those preparing to be baptized and become Christians.

The period of the catechumenate varies depending on how much the catechumen has learned and how ready he feels to take the step of becoming a Christian. However, the catechumenate often lasts less than a year.

The catechumenate’s purpose is to provide the catechumens with a thorough background in Christian teaching. "A thoroughly comprehensive catechesis on the truths of Catholic doctrine and moral life, aided by approved catechetical texts, is to be provided during the period of the catechumenate" (U.S. Conference of Bishops, National Statutes for the Catechumenate, Nov. 11, 1986). The catechumenate also is intended to give the catechumens the opportunity to reflect upon and become firm in their desire to become Catholic, and to show that they are ready to take this serious and joyful step (cf. Luke 14:27–33; 2 Pet. 2:20–22).

The second formal step is taken with the rite of election, in which the catechumens’ names are written in a book of those who will receive the sacraments of initiation. At the rite of election, the catechumen again expresses the desire and intention to become a Christian, and the Church judges that the catechumen is ready to take this step. Normally, the rite of election occurs on the first Sunday of Lent, the forty-day period of preparation for Easter.

After the rite of election, the candidates undergo a period of more intense reflection, purification, and enlightenment, in which they deepen their commitment to repentance and conversion. During this period the catechumens, now known as the elect, participate in several further rituals.

The three chief rituals, known as scrutinies, are normally celebrated at Mass on the third, fourth, and fifth Sundays of Lent. The scrutinies are rites for self-searching and repentance. They are meant to bring out the qualities of the catechumen’s soul, to heal those qualities which are weak or sinful, and to strengthen those that are positive and good.

During this period, the catechumens are formally presented with the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer, which they will recite on the night they are initiated.

The initiation itself usually occurs on the Easter Vigil, the evening before Easter Day. That evening a special Mass is celebrated at which the catechumens are baptized, then given confirmation, and finally receive the holy Eucharist. At this point the catechumens become Catholics and are received into full communion with the Church.

Ideally the bishop oversees the Easter Vigil service and confers confirmation upon the catechumens, but often—due to large distances or numbers of catechumens—a local parish priest will perform the rites.

The final state of Christian initiation is known as mystagogy, in which the new Christians are strengthened in the faith by further instruction and become more deeply rooted in the local Catholic community. The period of mystagogy normally lasts throughout the Easter season (the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost Sunday).

For the first year of their life as Christians, those who have been received are known as neophytes or "new Christians.

Choose which gospel you will embrace, for they are clearly not the same. Lest anyone think I have posted some "extreme" example of Rome's gospel, you can read the imprimatur and nihil obstat that endorses it here.

It would be difficult to draw a sharper contrast between the beauty and simplicity of the biblical gospel and the putrid, death-inducing "gospel" of Rome. Let this be a lesson to all. Whenever you find yourself "enthralled" by the "majesty" of an "ancient" tradition, and tempted to become part of it, be assured that man-centered false gospels of this nature can be traced back to the time of the apostles themselves--as can the corpses of the men who decided to embrace those "gospels."

ES

Bible Answer Man Broadcast

2008-08-13T20:49:00.000-07:00

Just a point of clarification. I was interviewed on the Bible Answer Man broadcast yesterday (Tuesday), but that segment was not aired till today (Wednesday). Visit Hank's site for the audio.

New Article in the Christian Research Journal

2008-08-01T07:43:00.000-07:00

The latest edition of the Christian Research Journal (Vol 31: No 3; 2008) features an article by yours truly. It appears in the Practical Hermeneutics section of the journal, and is titled "Is Mary Co-Redemptress of the World?" I'll be on the "Bible Answer Man" Aug 12 to discuss it.

Iron Sharpens Iron

2008-05-01T14:47:00.000-07:00

I'll be on Chris Arnzen's Iron Sharpen's Iron broadcast tomorrow (Friday, May 2) which airs between 3pm-4pm EST. The subject is my book on Mary. You can listen to the program here.

The Ongoing Dialogue with Ben Witherington

2008-04-29T11:22:00.000-07:00

The follow-up from my last blog entry continues here in Ben Witherington's combox.

Whatever you Bind or Loose . . .

2008-04-28T08:04:00.000-07:00

Ben Witherington's Errors on the Periphrastic Participle in Matthew 18:18

I found a link from Alpha & Omega to this article from Ben Witherington. I don't have time presently to write a full response, so here's the quick and dirty. Witherington states (in elliptical form):

One of the more interesting sayings of Jesus with equally interesting theological implications is found in Mt. 18.18--" I tell you whatever you (i.e. Peter and the gang) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." . . . If the Evangelist, and/or Jesus before him had wanted to say "whatever is bound on earth, was already bound and determined in heaven" he could certainly have done so, first in Aramaic and then in a Greek rendering of the same. The fact is that Jesus here says the opposite. . . . Now we could debate endlessly about what this refers to. In my view it has to do with decisions about community matters such as are described in vss. 16-17. The point is that there is a heavenly
ratification of such a spiritual decision on earth.

When one of his readers asked about the grammar used in this passage, Witherington responded:

Firstly, the future tenses in the second clauses in this verse are just that future tenses, they are not perfect tenses.

When another reader pointed out the obvious--namely, that the periphrastic future-perfect is employed in this passage and not merely a future tense verb--Witherington responded:

Sorry but this is not the way such conditional statements in Greek work at all. You cannot judge these things on the basis of verb tenses and participles by themselves, but in context. When a future tense is in the apodosis of a future more probably conditional statement, it always implies a future condition, NOT a perfect one. Mounce is simply wrong about this if he was referring to conditional clauses.

Sorry, but the fact that a periphrastic participle happens to appear in a conditional clause has absolutely no bearing on the meaning of the periphrastic participle (what is Witherington’s authority for this? He does not say). A future-perfect periphrastic participle means “will have been,” not simply “will.” The action of such a participle in the apodosis of a conditional statement is indeed future, but it is always a past action from the standpoint of the action in the protasis. In the present case (Matt 18:18 and Matt 16:19), the periphrastic construction means “whatever you bind/loose will have been bound/loosed in heaven.” See the NASB on Matt 16:19 and Matt 18:18, as well as the notes for those passages in the NIV, the ESV, and the NET. I would refer the reader to D. A. Carson for more information on this construction, who concludes these statements "must therefore be rendered 'shall have been bound/loosed'" (Commentary on Matthew). While he is tentative about seeing future-perfect force purely on grammatical grounds, he argues convincingly that other "paradigmatic" considerations are at work here (particularly why this grammatical construction was used over against a simpler one which is more common--especially with the luo word group). See also Mantey's comments. I also checked with Turner and BDF, and found nothing to overturn this (in fact, Turner plainly states that the periphrastic future-perfect carries the normal force of a future-perfect, and lists both Matt 16:19 and 18:18 as examples, 89). I haven’t checked Wallace yet, but since he helped with the notes on the NET I cannot imagine him saying anything different. The point is, by the time Peter et al has bound or loosed, that binding/loosing has already taken place in heaven. There are still those who dispute this understanding, of course. But my larger point is that Witherington's fiat on the periphrastic participle and this passage won't hold. The passage simply does not support Witherington’s point about human free will. But even if we grant that Witherington's understanding of the participle is an exegetical option, it is still only one option. That's a far cry from the cut and dried way Witherington has argued his case. At best, it's a poorly chosen passage if his goal is to convince us of his Arminianism.

It's That Time of Year Again

2008-04-23T14:28:00.000-07:00

It's springtime! . . .

And that can mean only one thing . . .

Yep, you guessed it . . .

Someone who is completely unqualified to do so has nevertheless taken it upon himself to write a new book or produce a new movie explaining the "REAL Jesus story."

(yawn--just wake me up when this one's over).

In the Presence of Greatness

2008-04-07T20:19:00.000-07:00

I was playing around again with the Blog Readability Test tool, and was curious to see what websites would weigh in on a "Genius" level. Interestingly . . .

American Mensa weighs in at "Genius" level

Mensa International (that second word in a title almost always means "Europe") weighs in at "Post Grad" level

Mensa of Canada weighs in at "High School" level

Chicago Areas Mensa weighs in at "Junior High School" level

. . . I take all this to mean that most Mensa organizations think more highly of themselves than they probably should.

On a similar note, the church website of a personal friend of mine--who is also a pastor--ranks on the level of "Genius." We meet for lunch once a week; I'm hoping that will eventually raise the rating of my own website.

Rate Your Website

2008-04-07T08:14:00.000-07:00

Follow the link to "The Blog Readability Test."

Not sure I agree with the results. For instance, this article receives the following rating:

. . . while this article receives this rating:

Most of the dialogue in the first article is repeated in the second (through quotations). The only difference in the two articles that I can discern is that the second article includes the signature block of a Roman Catholic apologist.

Actually, it's probably a compliment that most of the articles on this site are understandable to a high school student. There's little value (outside of massaging the egos of men) in communicating at such a sophisticated level that no one but the illuminati can understand it.

The Authority Debate: Svendsen v. Pacwa

2008-04-03T08:34:00.001-07:00

Closing Statement by Eric Svendsen

A Faux Orthodoxy

2008-04-01T06:28:00.000-07:00

. . . or, better, "A Foe Orthodoxy." From my neck of the woods . . .

"Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput Challenges CCU Students"

CCU, for those not from my neck of the woods, is "Colorado Christian University," an institution that used to be a sound evangelical voice in the world. They have purposefully watered down their statement of faith to ensure sola fide never becomes a litmus test for a true gospel: "We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential." Wow. Powerful. I wonder if anyone under the rubric of Christendom could be found who disagrees with that.

And so, CCU has invited the head Judaizer of Denver to exhort their theologically naive, unsuspecting youth . . .

"The archbishop was greeted warmly by all attending, and throughout his talk he held everyone’s quiet attention. . . . After chapel concluded, students asked the archbishop many questions on how to he felt they could best be used in today's times of so many challenging issues to Christianity."

So "Christians" (are they?) are now officially getting their guidance on how to live the Christian life from a man who embodies a gospel that condemns. Who is responsible for arranging this meeting? The article goes on to tell us . . .

"CCU President and former U. S. Senator Bill Armstrong has been aggressively bringing some of the best scholars and Christian authorities onto campus to speak to students and elevate campus commitment to open dialogue."

So, the head Judaizer of Denver now qualifies as a "Christian authority."

"When asked about the invitation to Archbishop Chaput to visit CCU, Armstrong stated, 'Archbishop Chaput embodies exactly what we want our students to hear and learn.'"

So the accountability for this shameful liaison lands squarely on the shoulders of Bill Armstrong, an extremely foolish man who naively thinks that a Judaizer embodies "exactly" what he wants Christian youth to hear and learn. Here, in his own words, is his explanation of that . . .

"He [the archbishop of Denver] believes deeply in the sanctity of life, the word in the Holy Bible, and the teachings of Jesus Christ. The mere speaking about Christian worldviews is not enough – we must live our lives to those principles and help transform the world in which we live."

He (the archbishop of Denver) also believes, O foolish CCU president, that a man is justified by the merits he earns through his own works. He also believes, O foolish CCU president, in a gospel that was specifically condemned by the Apostle Paul. He also believes, O foolish CCU president, that Mary and the saints ought to be venerated and looked upon as objects of prayer. He also believes, O foolish CCU president, that his church and pope are infallible. He also believes, O foolish CCU president, that Jesus is not the only road to salvation; that Muslims, Jews, and even good atheists are saved; that a piece of bread and a cup of wine are the objects of adoration and worship; . . . and on and on it goes.

Of course, none of those things will matter to a university that has abandoned its birthright. Even Esau recognized his error and sought his birthright back with tears. It is exceedingly doubtful that Bill Armstrong and CCU--or anyone who goes down that path--will have the biblical sense to rise even to the level of an Easu.

The Authority Debate

2008-03-29T12:51:00.000-07:00

Cross Examination: Svendsen to Pacwa
A couple of weeks ago I posted a video clip of the cross-examination segment of the Authority Debate. That video clip showed Pacwa cross-examining me. Here is the second half of that segment in which I cross-examine Pacwa:

I want you to count how many times I ask the first question (re: extra ecclesiam nulla salus). Pacwa went to great lengths to dance around the issue, and ultimately never answered my question, so I had to move on. The Roman Catholic audience mistakenly took my move to the next question as an indication that Pacwa had won the point (you'll hear the laughter; once again, from an extremely rude brood of RCs). In reality, Pacwa continuously engaged in equivocation by changing "Roman Pontiff" to "Church" each time I pushed him on it (you'll see that I catch him on this, but he still dances). Eventually, I had to drop the first issue and move to the next because I had many questions I wanted to ask him with a very limited amount of time in which to do it.

Watch also the section where I press the difference of opinion among RC scholars on the extent of biblical inerrancy. Pacwa claims there is a PBC document that clarifies the ambiguous statement in Vatican II, but he cannot name that document (a document that doesn't exist, by the way).

Next, I ask him about the practice of facing east when praying. The audience explodes when Pacwa says that his church faces east. What you may not hear (due to the wild applause) is my follow-up question of whether or not he, too, faces east, or just his congregation. He answers that he in fact does not face east, which falls under the condemnation of the tradition that I cited--he does indeed pastor a "perverted church" according to the tradition of Basil.

The Unethical Practices of GodTube

2008-03-26T11:27:00.000-07:00

I have pulled all of my debate videos from GodTube due to the forum's unethical practices. For about two weeks now antagonistic Roman Catholic posters have been posting comments on my video pages that are filled with inaccuracies and (in some cases) blatant lies. I have attempted to post responses several times during that same time period. Although the message returned when I post is that the posts have been accepted and I should be able to view it in a few minutes, the posts (strangely) never appear--even after waiting days to see them. I have contacted their tech support, and they could not explain the problem. So, I deleted the RC comments and posted a note informing posters about the problem, and redirected them to the NTRMin forum if they would like to post a comment--which note never appeared. Each time I deleted the RC posts, they would be reposted within hours, and not one of my comments made it through. Today after logging in, I found that still more RC posts had been posted, but this time there was no Delete button to delete them.

All this seems just a bit odd to me. Roman Catholics can post at will; No Protestant post can get through (I even created a separate account and attempted to post using it, but to no avail); Now, I no longer have the ability to delete Roman Catholic posts. Too odd, in my view, to be written off as a coincidence. So, I'm through with GodTube; all videos have been deleted. I'm not going to have a situation in which a Roman Catholic antagonist is freely able to slander me--on my own account!--with no means of responding and refuting that slander.

On the other hand, what else would one expect of a forum that advertises its mission in this way:

Representing Baptist, Catholic, Episcopal, Evangelical, Messianic, Methodist and all of the traditional Christian denominations, GodTube is unique in its appeal and in its mission to "Broadcast Him".

What else would one expect of a so-called "Christian forum" that places more importance and focus on hip-hop and shallow contemporary "christian music" than they do on sound exegetical Bible study (just go to their main page for proof)?

I'm certainly disappointed with their practice since it is no small task to trim, format and upload videos to their forum. But, it is what it is. You can see the debate here.

Lest We Forget the Most Basic Truths

2008-03-23T16:41:00.000-07:00

Compare the extravagance and opulence of this . . .

. . . to the words of the Apostle:

"For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now." (1 Cor 4:9-13)

Sometimes all one needs is a contrast to remind us who has rewards in heaven, and who "has their reward in full" in this life (Mark 6:2).

Responses to my Video Clip Postings on GodTube

2008-03-21T08:41:00.000-07:00

GodTube is not the most reliable system. Not only does it strain to buffer video (unlike the more robust YouTube), but its acceptance of comments in the comboxes is eradic. Over the past few days, two Roman antagonists have posted off-the-wall comments to one of my videos, and even though I have responded to those comments on three different occasions, and even though the GodTube system verified my comments were accepted, they never actually showed up. Since I'm not going to have a situation where Roman Catholics are allowed to slander me on my own space on Godtube sans my ability to post a response, I have deleted those comments and am redirecting them here and to the discussion thread on the NTRMin discussion board (there is a thread already started for the video series; post there if you want to comment). In the meantime, here is what one Roman Catholic posted before I ended up deleting it:

Yet Svedson [sic] affirms the Catholic view [of Matt 16], which is the historic view that noone [sic] denied before John Calvin. Not even Luther.

Oh really? Here' a summary of the work Bill Webster has done on this passage:

Augustine on the issue
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer." (Sermon 229). . . . "For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus" (Commentary on the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5). . . . "For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter." (The Retractations Chapter 20.1). . . . "Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee. For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’" (Sermon XXVI.1-4)

Chrysostom
"He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it" (On Matthew, Homily 82.3)

Ambrose
"He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank.This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation...Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies (Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34).

THEODORET OF CYR
"Let no one then foolishly suppose that the Christ is any other than the only begotten Son. Let us not imagine ourselves wiser than the gift of the Spirit. Let us hear the words of the great Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for ‘On this rock,’ He says, ‘I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.’ Wherefore too the wise Paul, most excellent master builder of the churches, fixed no other foundation than this. ‘I,’ he says, ‘as a wise master builder have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ How then can they think of any other foundation, when they are bidden not to fix a foundation, but to build on that which is laid? The divine writer recognises Christ as the foundation, and glories in this title." . . . . "The blessed Peter also laid this foundation, or rather the Lord Himself. For Peter having said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God;’ the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church.’ Therefore call not yourselves after men’s names, for Christ is the foundation" (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1,12). . . . Surely he is calling pious faith and true confession a ‘rock.’ For when the Lord asked his disciples who the people said he was, blessed Peter spoke up, saying ‘You are Christ, the Son of the living God.’ To which the Lord answered: ‘Truly, truly I say to you, you are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ (Commentary on Canticle of Canticles II.14) . . . "Wherefore our Lord Jesus Christ permitted the first of the apostles, whose confession He had fixed as a kind of groundwork and foundation of the Church, to waver to and fro, and to deny Him, and then raised him up again" (Theodoret, Epistle 77).

Eusebius of Caesarea
"as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’" (Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. 23).

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA
"For that reason divine Scripture says that Peter, that exceptional figure among the apostles, was called blessed. For when the Savior was in that part of Caesarea which is called Philippi, he asked who the people thought he was, or what rumor about him had been spread throughout Judea and the town bordering Judea. And in response Peter, having abandoned the childish and abused opinions of the people, wisely and expertly exclaimed: ‘You are Christ, Son of the living God.’ Now when Christ heard this true opinion of him, he repaid Peter by saying: ‘Blessed are you Simon Bar–Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ The surname, I believe, calls nothing other than the unshakable and very firm faith of the disciple ‘a rock,’ upon which the Church was founded and made firm and remains continually impregnable even with respect to the very gates of Hell. But Peter’s faith in the Son was not easily attained, nor did it flow from human apprehension; rather it was derived from the ineffable instruction from above; since God the Father clearly shows his own Son and causes a sure persuasion of him in the minds of his people. For Christ was in no way deceptive when he said, ‘Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven.’ If, therefore, blessed Peter, having confessed Christ to be the Son of the living God, are those not very wretched and abandoned who rashly rail at the will and undoubtedly true teaching of God, who drag down the one who proceeds from God’s own substance and make him a creature, who foolishly reckon the coeternal author of life to be among those things which have derived their life from another source? Are such people not at any rate very ignorant? (Dialogue on the Trinity IV, M.P.G., Vol. 75, Col. 866). . . . ."For when he wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, ‘You are Christ, Son of the living God,’ Jesus said to divine Peter: ‘You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Now by the word ‘rock’, Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple."(Commentary on Isaiah IV.2). . . . "The Church is unshaken, and ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ according to the voice of the Saviour, for it has Him for a foundation (Commentary on Zacharias).

HILARY OF POITIERS
A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only, and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles...whence I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar–Jona confessed to Him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?...And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built...that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God. . . . This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven...The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father’s revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth....Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God" (On The Trinity, Book VI.36,37; Book II.23; Book VI.20)

Jerome
"The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built...For the Church was founded upon a rock...upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name from this rock (Mt. 16.18)" (Commentary on Matthew 7.25)

EPIPHANIUS
"He confessed that ‘Christ’ is ‘the Son of the living God,’ and was told, ‘On this rock of sure faith will I build my church’—for he plainly confessed that Christ is true Son" (Books II and III, Haer. 59.7, 6-8,3)

BASIL
"Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it ‘Peter,’ perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: ‘For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ To whom be glory and power forever"

JOHN OF DAMASCUS
"This is that firm and immovable faith upon which, as upon the rock whose surname you bear, the Church is founded. Against this the gates of hell, the mouths of heretics, the machines of demons—for they will attack—will not prevail. They will take up arms but they will not conquer". . . . "This rock was Christ, the incarnate Word of God, the Lord, for Paul clearly teaches us: ‘The rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. 10:4)" (Homily on the Transfiguration, Col. 548).

Here's what one of RC's most prominent historians has to say about it:
"It does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16–19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical" (Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions, New York: Macmillan, 1966, p. 398).

Again, back to our GodTube poster:

By the way I do believe that Svedson [sic] has changed his tune on the stuff about Peter and used to use the old petros, petra arguement [sic]

It is a record of fact that I have held this same view at least since the writing of my first book, Evangelical Answers (where it appears), was first published in 1996. This poster can't seem to get anything right.

The Authority Debate: Svendsen vs. Pacwa

2008-03-21T05:49:00.000-07:00

Cross Examination; Pacwa to Svendsen
Here is the first of two cross examination clips. In this clip Mitch Pacwa cross examines me:

Some brief comments are in order:

First, Pacwa is decidely out of touch with the majority view on the so-called "canon of the Sadducees" (time marker 00:42). He still thinks the Sadducees held only to the Pentateuch, and no other books of the Bible. That view is based on an extrapulation from Matt 22:23 and Acts 23:8 (see my response at 03:50), which tell us that the Sadducees rejected belief in the resurrection, spirits and angels. But the Pentateuch is filled with references to angels (at least 28 instances). So if we conclude that the Sadducees rejected all but the Pentateuch based on the fact that they rejected a belief in the resurrection, we must on that basis conclude that they also rejected Genesis, Exodus and Numbers based on the fact that they rejected belief in angels.

Second, Pacwa appeals to the earliest extant LXX text (Codex Vaticanus) to prove that the deuterocanonicals were included as Scripture (07:50 passim). But this proves too much since the deuterocanonical set included in Codex Vaticanus differs from the official deuterocanonical set of Roman Catholicism (see my response at 09:48). Codex Vaticanus omits I and II Maccabees and includes Psalm 151, The RC canon includes the former and omits the latter. Moreover, the RC canon differs from the Eastern Orthodox canon (EO includes III Maccabees; RC omits it). This is why we must reject Roman tradition--or any tradition for that matter--as binding on the conscience of man.

Third, Pacwa seems uninformed about the list of RC theologians before Trent that rejected the deuterocanonicals as Scriptures (12:50--14:18). And to explain their rejection of the deuterocanonicals as "well, they weren't the official voice of the magisterium" explains nothing. There is no explanation of a rejection of the deuterocanonicals by faithful Roman Catholics centuries after a supposedly infallible decision had been made outside of the fact that no decision had actually been made.

Fourth, Pacwa seems unaware of the nomenclature used by both contemporary RC scholars and historical RC documents (15:30 ff), and makes some brownie points with the mostly RC audience (who ignorantly and rudely laughed and applauded at this point, in spite of the fact that they were instructed not to by the moderator). Yet, when I use words and phrases like "Rome," or "Roman church," or "Roman Pontiff," or "Roman Catholic," it is because this is the official nomenclature found in the historical documents, in the writings of the popes, and in scholarly RC writings. Pacwa seems to be unaware of this use--at least until I informed him, after the misplaced applause and after patiently waiting for him to finish his point (16:29), that I was simply using the language of pope Eugene IV.

It is this kind of thing that causes me to dislike RC audiences at events like these (I encountered a similar situation during my debate with Gerry Matatics). For them, it's all about winning a point. They are not there to be instructed by truth. Truth doesn't matter to them. They just want their hero to win--at any cost--and they don't care what rules they have to break to effect that end. The evangelicals at the debate respected the rules; the Roman Catholics blatantly disregarded them. Why? Because they are lawless. They pridefully tout their "moral superiority" with regard to abortion, birth control, etc, ad naseum; but their true character shows at these debates.

Romans 1:21-25 Alive and Well in New Delhi

2008-03-14T06:27:00.000-07:00

The Indian villagers of New Delhi, the birthplace of Hinduism, are now worshipping--as a reincarnated god--a newborn girl born with two faces. News Link

Romans 1:21-25: "For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."

Sadly, this kind of thing is not foreign to the ranks of Christendom. Witness the spectacle of hundreds, or thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics massing together to worship a piece of melba toast, or a stain on the side of a wall, or a shadow against a building, or a growth on a tree, or the lastest "apparition" that vaguely resembles the shape of what Roman Catholics have come to associate with Mary. They are no less condemned; nor are their leaders who consistently refuse to discourage such idolatry, and in the process shamefully worship and serve the creature rather than the creator. True pastors of the church are distressed by such things, and do not remain silent about them.

The Authority Debate: Svendsen vs. Pacwa

2008-03-13T08:31:00.000-07:00

Rebuttal by Eric Svendsen
This is my rebuttal of Mitch Pacwa's opening statement:

At about the 3:12 marker, I make a statement that probably should be clarified. Namely, "I will ask Mitch tonight, and we will not get, a list of infallible teachings of the church." What I should have stated is "an infallible list of infallible teachings of the church." Later in the debate Mitch cites a couple of sources that he claims provides lists of infallible church teachings. What he does not provide is an infallible list of infallible teachings. That was my fault; I should have clarified that point in the debate and did not. I pointed out on the Areopagus Forum following the debate last year that my performance in the debate evidenced a lot of rust, and this is the point I primarily had in mind. C'est la vie.

The reason the question is pertinent is because Pacwa (like all RC apologists) makes a huge deal of the fact that (from the Protestant view) there is no infallible table of contents for the canon of Scripture, which prevents the Protestant (so the argument goes) from having any confidence that he can know the parameters of the canon apart from the decision of the Roman Catholic magisterium. But if that is the case, then neither can the Roman Catholic know the parameters of church tradition, since there is no infallible list of those traditions.

The Relevant Church Pastor

2008-03-12T19:24:00.000-07:00

This is my new all-time favorite video:

The Authority Debate: Svendsen vs. Pacwa

2008-03-12T06:46:00.000-07:00

Opening Statement by Eric Svendsen
It took nearly a year to obtain the video, put it in digital form, and chop it up in segments, but it's finally finished. Here is my opening statement. I'll post various segments and offer comments on them as I go. The complete debate is available here.

The "Relevant" Church

2008-02-16T15:06:00.000-08:00

The article on the FoxNews website piqued my curiosity: Florida Pastor Issues 30-Day Sex Challenge for Congregation, part of which included the challenge "Single men and women can't have sex for 30 days." Why, I wondered, would a pastor be satified with exhorting the single people of his flock to abstain from sex for only 30 days?--as though unmarried sex, like too much caffeine or too much sugar, were nothing more than a bad habit that needs to be minimized.

Following the links took me to the website of the "Relevant Church," where I was assaulted by a suggestive image and a headline that announced the "challenge":

"30-DAY SEX CHALLENGE"

Yes, emphasis is in the original. Perusing the website quickly revealed that the advertised "challenge" was among the least of the problems of this church.

When visiting the websites of churches and other ministries, I always like to learn first about the people in charge. In this case, the "lead pastor" is Paul Wirth, a "MySpace"-type Baptist-turned-postmodernist, and apparently the founder of this "church." You can always guess where a "pastor" is coming from when he lists his favorite music as "U2, Switchfoot and Foofighters" (the goal of a shepherd of the church is to be "cool," after all), his favorite book as "Blue Like Jazz" and "Next Generation Leader" (the goal of a shepherd of the church is to be "hip" and "culturally with it," after all), and one of his three greatest wishes in life as the attainment of a beachhouse (the goal of a shepherd of the church is to attain earthly possessions and creature comforts, after all--a mindset perfectly illustrated by John Piper's "Seashell Christianity" in his Don't Waste Your Life).

What motivated Wirth to start this church? He himself tells us: "Well I love our culture and wanted to be a part of a church that had a passion to be as current as today's paper while relating the truths of the Bible to every facet of our lives. Also, it is pretty risky and I love taking risks."

Loving a "culture" is not to be equated with God's loving the "world" in John 3:16 (though I'll take bets that's how Wirth interprets that passage). It really comes much closer (and Wirth's internal pursuit of a beach house confirms this) to "loving the world" in 1 John 2:15-17 and James 4:4.

Unfortunately, a pastor who is headed down the wrong path usually does not go it alone, but takes casualties with him. Sadly, that is the case here as well. Continuing down the "staff" page, we find the same question posed to the rest of the staff--with similar aspirations:

Music and Arts (Minister):
If you could have 3 things in life:
"To truly know and understand the heart of God, An extensive car collection, Two nice houses... One in Tampa and one in Nashville."

I am positive the irony of the answer given by the "minister of music and arts" is completely lost to him. On the one hand he wants "to truly know and understand the heart of God"; well and good. On the other hand, he unflinchingly states he wants "an extensive car collection and two nice houses," completely oblivious to the fact that those two wishes stand in contradiction to each other (Jas 4:3-4). But just in case this is not clear to Wirth's staff, when one truly "knows and understands the heart of God," the last thing he'll desire is "two nice houses and an extensive car collection."

Continuing with the staff bios . . .

Growth Groups (Minister)
If you could have 3 things in life:
"Saab 9-5, better time management, water front home"

Media Outreach & NexGen (Minister)
If you could have 3 things in life:
"A beach house in Southern California, a complete understanding of who God is, be a pro surfer"

Visual Arts (Minister)
If you could have 3 things in life:
"To make a difference, the ability to not have to sleep, and a billion dollars"

Head Intern
If you could have 3 things in life:
"To be able to connect kids/students to God in ways that they can truly relate to and understand, a black Escalade with 24" rims, an endless supply of white K-Swiss classics"

"Pastor" Wirth is evidently having an influence on his flock. It's a "relevant church" alright--to the surrounding culture, perhaps. Indeed, the "church" is hardly distinguishable from the surrounding culture in its values and aspirations. It's just not "relevant" to the Word of God and the church of Jesus Christ.

And that's really the problem with the "emergent church" crowd. It tries so hard to be "relevant" to the surrounding culture (though I would argue it appeals only to the the "punk" segment and not to the "culture" per se) that it ends up prostituting itself to that culture. The sad result is, the "culture" has its way with the "church," and that "church" becomes a sort of "scrub-faced" version of the culture--the same core values (attainment of a beach house, an extensive car collection and a billion dollars; and unmarried sexual relations are just a bad habit that you should quit for 30 days), without the excessive expletives.

Maybe the next step here is to become more honest with what this movement really is and to call it what it really is--The First Church of Loving the World and All That Is In It. Then at least they'd have a Scripture passage they could attach as a tagline.

ES

And the Crunks (is that really a word?) are Starting to Come Out of the Woodwork

2008-01-07T15:40:00.000-08:00

I recently received this letter in response to my article on so-called Christian rap music:

Dr. Svendsen,

I originally was not going to send this comment do you because most of the time it's not worth trying to change a mind that is set in its ways. I hope that this will not be the case with you. Regarding your blog, "Yo , Get Crunk and Reprasent," I would like to encourage you to be more careful before passing judgments on entire genres of music. In your analysis of "Christian" Rap, you attacked the lyrics of a "Christian" group called "Organized Rhyme" somehow associated with the "Christian" Rapper "T-Bone." I was unfamiliar with this group, so I did a Google search and within 3 minutes had come across something I would have hoped you would have also come across in your preparation for this blog, but somehow did not. Wikipedia identifies "Organized Rhyme” as a “short lived Canadian hip-hop group based out of Ottawa.” I cannot find anywhere on the internet claiming this group is in any way, shape, or form “Christian”. Again, 2 minutes on Google and I discovered that the group T-Bone is referring to is called “Organized Rhyme Crew”. Clearly you have confused the two groups, an easy mistake to make. Such a mistake would normally not bother me, but this shows that you were either unable or unwilling to thoroughly research this topic before passing down judgment. I would hope that in the future you will give more care to make certain that your opinions are based on facts, especially before attacking the character of others.

Thank you,
Jeff Burns

I originally thought Jeff's letter was intended to be a sincere, helpful critique of my article--that is until I received a second letter from him shortly thereafter in which it became clear that Jeff's true intent was to get "christian rap music" off the biblical examination table. Nevertheless, what follows is the response I composed after his first letter and before I received his second:

Thanks for your letter, Jeff, and your desire to hold my feet to the flames, as it were. Let me take your letter point by point:

I originally was not going to send this comment do you because most of the time it's not worth trying to change a mind that is set in its ways. I hope that this will not be the case with you.

I’m always willing to be corrected, if I’m wrong. I don’t claim to be an expert on rap music, so I have nothing at stake in this. My expertise is in evaluating it from a biblical worldview.

Regarding your blog, "Yo , Get Crunk and Reprasent," I would like to encourage you to be more careful before passing judgments on entire genres of music

I’ll go one step further; I think the entire Christian Music industry is corrupt to varying degrees, not just the rap genre. For that matter so is the Christian Book Publishing industry (but that’s another topic—or rather, one I have already addressed in the past). Both of these industries have prostituted themselves and the gospel on the bed of being “accepted” and “liked” by the world. I also think the “Christian bumper sticker and t-shirt” industry is corrupt because it trivializes the gospel. Here’s another one—the entire “church industry” is corrupt as well. Just because exceptions might be found in all of these does not mean my comments directed toward the industry as a whole are somehow misplaced—any more than the fact that 7,000 have not bowed the knee to Baal somehow disproves the prophet’s condemnation of Israel as a nation. Do you deny the subjects of this genre of music, by and large, exhibit the characteristics I outlined in my article? Do you deny that the problem is pandemic?

In your analysis of "Christian" Rap, you attacked the lyrics of a "Christian" group called "Organized Rhyme" somehow associated with the "Christian" Rapper "T-Bone." I was unfamiliar with this group, so I did a Google search and within 3 minutes had come across something I would have hoped you would have also come across in your preparation for this blog, but somehow did not. Wikipedia identifies "Organized Rhyme” as a “short lived Canadian hip-hop group based out of Ottawa. I cannot find anywhere on the internet claiming this group is in any way, shape, or form “Christian”. Again, 2 minutes on Google and I discovered that the group T-Bone is referring to is called “Organized Rhyme Crew”.

You jump too quickly here. Yes, you discovered that the group T-Bone is referring to is called the Organized Rhyme Crew, but what you fail to mention is that in the very song I posted by T-Bone, he calls his group (alternately) Organized Rhyme Crew, Organized Rhyme, Organized Rhyme bambinos, Organized Rhyme representers, Organized Rhyme (ORC), Organized Rhyme clique—and in fact the heading of this song on lyrics.com is . . . you guessed it . . . “T-Bone Organized Rhyme lyrics” (not “Organized Rhyme Crew lyrics”). And I discovered all this after only one minute on Google ; ) The evidence I was working with (and I really doubt you found something I did not) suggested it is one and the same. So, you probably should have stuck with your first instinct on this (that it was an easy mistake to make) and refrained from your further comment that I am “either unable or unwilling to thoroughly research this topic before passing down judgment.” Neither of those is true.

You may very well be correct that they are different groups. But why should a wiki article somehow have tipped me off to it? So what that the group was from Canada? How do you know the other group isn't? So what that it was a short-lived group? It still recorded songs, did it not? I didn’t claim that any of the music was recent. It still could have been the very same group since the wiki indicates that the former existed in the early nineties, and the T-Bone lyrics I posted indicates they too were around in the early nineties: “hate to hit you with a blast from the past LP without the LORD, man it wouldnt sell 3 most brothas be like, ‘man don't I know you ?’ and its true 91, 92, where were you ?, I'm bangin with the Organized Rhyme Crew” (indeed, T-Bone’s wiki article indicates he was “active” during those years). Moreover, you mentioned you found “Organized Rhyme” on the wiki, but I noticed you didn’t happen to mention that the wiki says absolutely nothing about the “Organized Rhyme Crew.” So why would I assume on the basis of the wiki that these must be two different groups? Once again, I really doubt you found anything that I did not find and consider when I researched this.

Now, was I careful in my research on this? About as careful as I care to be on a passing reference in a blog entry. This is not a book I am writing; nor is the article about the Organized Rhyme Crew. The section in which I make mention of them is very short (my research was on a far broader point), and the same points could have been made (and in fact were made) about “T-Bone” and the “Organized Rhyme Crew” (found just below the YouTube example and lyrics from Organized Rhyme). For that reason, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and remove that short portion from my article. However, as both parts to my article clearly indicate, my critique of this genre of “music” is not so much about the words (that was a very small part), but about the unchristian behaviors and attitudes of its “artists” (look at a few pictures of “T-Bone” on the Internet and see if you can find one that doesn’t portray him as a street thug—something he has proudly admitted in interviews). Just because someone happens to sprinkle a song with the words “Jesus” and “God” does not mean it magically becomes Christian music.

Now, if the intent of your letter is to rescue T-Bone (which your final statement seems to indicate; to wit: “I would hope that in the future you will give more care to make certain that your opinions are based on facts, especially before attacking the character of others”) then let me add some information about that particular rapper that reinforces my points about this culture as a whole.

“Christian rapper T-Bone wears the bling and even owns a Benz. He says it's no act, but just a part of who he is—a street dude, hip-hop personified,” announces an interview in Christianity Today. Here are a few excerpts:

CT: Now because hip-hop often has a lot to do with image and lifestyle, do you ever feel the pressure to conform to that and make that a focus in your music?

T-Bone: Here's the funny thing, there's a lot of gospel rappers where hip-hop is living out their fantasy, and they kind of dress up to be the part, ya know? I am hip-hop. Hip-hop is what I grew up around. I wear the ice. I wear the bling. I don't see anything wrong with that. When God has blessed you, why can't you get something nice? Drug dealers and pimps shouldn't be the only ones driving a Mercedes. I got a Benz. For me it's not about something that I try to be or try to conform to. I'm just who I am. I was raised in the streets, so for me I have the same dress, I have the same appeal, I talk the same way that they do. I'm a product of the streets. I'm a product of hip-hop. This is the real deal. It isn't a make-up deal for me.

In other words, T-Bone is proud to be a street thug (we’re not talking about a socio-economic group, mind you, but rather a culture that is specifically opposed to righteousness). T-Bone takes pride in its shame. To him, it’s perfectly acceptable as a “Christian” to continue presenting yourself as a street thug, pursuing riches and symbols of wealth (the “benz” and the “bling”), flaunting that wealth (“I wear the bling”), because after all if it’s a good enough goal for a drug dealer, well then it should be good enough for a Christian.

Contrary to Mr. T-Bone’s fantasy, the Christian life is not about “getting something nice” and flaunting it in street-thug fashion. But, for him, that’s “the real deal.” That’s who he is. He’s a product of that culture, as he himself admits: “It isn't a make-up deal for me.”

Even his evangelism can’t be done openly, but must be done in such a way that it “sneaks up” on people:

I don't like the label "Christian hip-hop" or "gospel hip-hop" because I feel like you alienate a lot of people. Or people have preconceived notions of what they think it is—especially with the kind of music this is. It's street music. Say you're going up to some thugs, and you say "Christian hip-hop" and think that sounds corny, ya know?

Yeah, I know. And we certainly wouldn’t want to appear "corny," or to embarrass ourselves with the gospel in front of street thugs and drug dealers by openly preaching repentance (in a biblical way, not in a punk way)--because the gospel is something to be ashamed of, after all.

If anyone doubts that the unbiblical characteristics I identified for this culture are intentional, then the following quote from T-Bone should clear it up once and for all. In the same CT interview T-Bone goes on to say:

Once I was filled with anger and madness. Now I'm full of love, peace and joy. Hip Hop is the language of the streets [anger and madness]. God is the language of love [peace and joy]. I mix the two together to see amazing results!"

In other words, the “blend” that the apostle Paul insists should not exist (“What do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?”) are intentionally mixed together in T-Bone’s music for “amazing results.”

The article goes on to mention that T-Bone’s album, Bone-A-Fide, not only sports the image of Marxist revolutionist Che Guevara (who T-Bone "respects" and even bears a tattoo of him), but includes contributions by “gangsta” rapper Mack 10. For a sample of Mack 10 lyrics see this link (viewer discretion is HIGHLY advised). Suffice it to say that the description from Sing365 seems to sum it up: "The word 'ballin' conjures up images of a world filled with life's pleasures, like big bank, dope gear, and fly women. In the thick of this lifestyle lies Mack 10, one who represents ballin' to the fullest."

I’ll post a few more lyrics by T-Bone from this album to re-emphasize the unbiblical nature of this kind of music:

I’m so dope I’m impressing myself
Challenging rappers of my status dogg is bad for your health
It’s like swallowing rat poison straight of the shelf
Or slitting your wrist then changing ya mind
But ain’t no one around to help, dudes hear spit they like holy Toledo
Cuz when it comes to this rapping, I’m the one like Neo
I’m Jackie Chan, bet a hundred grand I could take out five
of ya man’s with one wave of my hand
Your whole caravan get smacked right in front of ya fans
I’ll have screaming “No Mas” like Roberto Duran holla
They call me Boney Soprano, Young Luchiano, Bone Guevara
Raps Sammy the bull Gervano, I’m sick wit tha flow
Lyrical tactics and back flips, spitting ridiculous mathematics
Like it’s gymnastics, when I die, be sure to place in my mic in my casket
And tell the world that I was fantastic, and that’s it!
(T-Bone; Bone-A-Fide; "Y’all Can’t Win")

Where is the Christian character in this song? The song not only is completely absent of Christian character, but is in fact filled with nothing but self-glorifying, self-aggrandizing nonsense. Here is another example from that same album:

Life is good when ya blessed wit all the finer things
Got piece of mind, from the grind, plus em diamond rings!
Shake ya body like ya got the holy ghost now
Shake ya body like your shivering cuz it’s cold out
Shake ya body got the wiggle in your soul now
Shake ya body what, shake ya body what
(T-Bone; Bone-A-Fide; "Shake Ya Body")

So, the Christian life is reduced to pursuing “em diamond rings,” and the Holy Spirit is trivialized (blasphemed, really) as a personified rap dance.

May I suggest that it is a demonstration of worldly naivety (or, perhaps naïve worldliness) that the modern evangelical church--like no other generation in the history of the church--seeks to find some redeeming value in a trash heap? We may today be “innocent as doves” in regard to our outlook on these issues; but where in the world is there evidence we have remained “shrewd as snakes”?

ES

Defending the Faith Against Those Who Should Be . . . Defending the Faith

2008-01-01T08:28:00.000-08:00

I was impressed to read this entry from Steve Brown's "Old White Guy Blog" (yes, I realize I'm two months late)--not the main article itself, mind you, which is nothing more than fuzzy Emergent humanism draped in the pseudo-biblical language of "love" from someone who ought to know better, but rather the comments following the article from MikeMcK, the sole defender of a biblical view (why is it always the case?) in the midst of a sea of self-serving spiritual rebellion. It's an often-times lonely enterprise, Mike, especially in an age of increasing apostasy. Keep up the good work!

ES

Yo, Get Crunk, Part 2

2007-12-28T13:36:00.000-08:00

Several weeks ago I posted a piece on the illegitimacy of certain forms of “Christian” music, such as rap and “hard core,” and included several Youtube examples of these forms of music to illustrate the points I made against them. The occasion that prompted the post was a discussion I had with a youth pastor who attempted to defend this music as legitimate forms of Christian expression. During my conversation with the youth pastor (a thoroughly Reformed young man, I might add), he raised certain arguments in an attempt to defend that style of music against my many objections—chief of which objections was the fact that that particular “Christian expression” is in conflict with the fruits of the Spirit outlined for us in Galatians 5:22-23. When “Christian expression” resembles rather the behavior of the world—namely, outbursts of anger, arrogance, rebelliousness, boastfulness, pride, sexual innuendo, violence, self glorification, and the like—then it is de facto no longer Christian. Below I address the arguments that were raised during that discussion:

Defense #1: The behavior is part of a “stage act,” and there is a difference between real life and a stage life. As an example of this, the nude sculpture of David can be considered a legitimate form of art even though public nudity in general may be inappropriate.

Response: While certain objects may be legitimate forms of art in a secular sense, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of them as an expression of Christian principles is never a given. Each case must be evaluated in its context. David’s dance before Israel while dressed in a linen epod (2 Sam 6:14), for instance, was in a context of great humility (vv. 21-22). David was certainly in a “disrobed” state (v. 20), but was not nude. Indeed, there is nothing inherently sinful about nudity; it is entirely context specific. Adam and Eve were nude before the fall and were not ashamed; and I assume everyone is nude when showering. By contrast, it is never appropriate to be arrogant, rebellious, self glorifying, prideful, boastful, violent, or engaged in sexual innuendo with regard to women in general (as the Youtube examples in my prior articles clearly depict).

But let’s make a better comparison. Does the fact that the behavior in question is merely a “stage act” exempt a Christian from culpability for that behavior? The same argument is often used by Hollywood actors who profess Christ but who choose to take roles that depict anti-Christian behavior. Is it acceptable for a Christian actor or actress to act out an erotic scene with a fellow actor/actress on screen? It’s not real sex, after all. Is it acceptable to appear in these scenes nude, or groping another actor/actress in a sexual way, or allowing themselves to be groped?

I suspect that the defenders of “Christian” rap and hard core would hesitate to say that “stage act” is okay (though, perhaps some may). The real question is not whether this kind of behavior is acceptable to men, but whether it is pleasing to God.

Defense #2: Outbursts of anger (such as is inherent in much of this music) can be appropriate depending on the context. After all, Jesus himself displayed outbursts of anger when he overturned the tables of the money changers and drove them out of the temple with a whip (John 2:14ff).

Response: I’m not sure there is much I can say to this one except that to equate the righteous indignation of our Lord against those who would turn the holiness of “God’s house” into trivial commercialism with the senseless screaming of someone on stage who then throws his body into a mosh pit borders on blasphemy. The screaming is part of this form of “music” (if that’s what it can be called), and not a display of righteous indignation. Indeed, the trivialization and mockery of the Christian message that occurs during these concerts is, ironically enough, of the same cloth as the offense that occasioned our Lord’s anger in that episode.

Defense #3: The behavior depicted by these “musicians” is simply a way to communicate to a culture who understands that genre of music. After all, Paul became all things to all men; so why shouldn’t we adopt those forms of music and the accompanying behavior to get the Christian message to the lost?

Response: When Paul “became a Jew to the Jews and a Gentile to the Gentiles,” it is rather doubtful he adopted cultural expressions that were in conflict with principles he himself insisted elsewhere we follow as a course of life that is pleasing to God. Indeed, he specifically commands us not to adopt or continue in unbiblical practices of the pagans, who are in darkness (Eph 4:17-20), but to walk in a manner worthy of our high calling (Eph 4:1-2). When he commands us to “let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth” (Eph 4:29), he makes no exception for “cultural expression” or “contextualization.”

Defense #4: Many have been saved/blessed by this music.

Response: I confess, I’m at a loss to know why this would be viewed as a good argument by someone of the Reformed perspective. The chief end of man is not evangelism, or blessing, or edification—it is the glorification of God. As Samuel said to Saul, who thought he was doing a good thing by sparing the best of the plundered animals, “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed better than the fat of rams. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry” (1 Sam 15:22-23). The ends never justify the means. We don’t get to decide that something is good just because it gets good results. There are many who say they have been blessed by sitting under the teaching of a female pastor—something completely at odds with New Testament teaching; but hey, someone was “blessed” by it, so it must be good, right? Such rationale comes from an Arminian perspective—one that views evangelism as the highest good; not a Reformed (nay, biblical) perspective—one that views God’s glory as the highest good.

Our job as Christian leaders—and that is what youth pastors who have been entrusted with the care and nurturing of our youth are supposed to be (such as the young man I spoke with) —is not to make “better punks” of our youth. It is rather to create an environment in which our youth can pass from childhood (and all its rebelliousness and worldliness) to responsible and God-honoring adulthood. That is arguably the primary reason this music fails to qualify as “Christian” music. It promotes a “punk” culture rather than one that is biblically grounded and Christ-centered.

In the next installment I want to focus on a particular “youth pastor” (not the one in the discussion above) who promotes this sort of culture and as a result has done much damage not only to the youth of the church where he is employed, but also to the theology of that church.

There He Goes Again

2007-12-18T06:47:00.000-08:00

Just days after Mike Huckabee was on the hot seat for having the unmitigated audacity to suggest that Mormons might believe Lucifer is the sibling of Jesus (which they most certainly do, by the way), he is back on it for having the audacity to wish people a Merry Christmas and to let people know he believes in Jesus Christ.

Imagine that. A Christian minister actually mentioning the "C" word, and that somehow becomes a controvery.

The Mailbag

2007-12-04T06:14:00.000-08:00

We get our share of hate mail at NTRMin, so it's always encouraging to get email like this one:

Dr. Svendsen, I have just one word concerning your book Evangelical Answers....BRILLIANT!!! Ok, two words... Absolutely Brilliant...! Being a fairly new guy in discussion and debate with Roman Catholics on primarily U-Tube, I have most certainly been asked these very questions multiple times, usually when the RC gets tripped up and must resort to a traditional interpetation of Scripture, they generally throw out a red herring, in the form of questions you have covered in your book. I would like to thank-you brother, for helping me do theology, so I dont hurt myself..! lol. May the Lord of Glory continue to bless your ministry, and keep you razor sharp in all discernment, In His Service, Bill. Thank-you again!!!

The follow-up to Evangelical Answers is Upon This Slippery Rock, which examines and debunks the epistemological underpinnings of the roman catholic "authority" argument.

Yo, Get Crunk and Reprasent!!!

2007-12-01T07:05:00.000-08:00

Is There Really Such a Thing as Christian Rap?

Last week, through various circumstances, I found myself in conversation with someone who turns out to be a brother in the Lord and a youth pastor at an evangelical church. After he mentioned he would be playing in a Christian concert that evening the topic of conversation quickly turned to various styles of so-called Christian music on the scene today, most of which he enjoys listening to. I've always been skeptical of the contemporary Christian music industry because I have found the majority of it to be mindless drivel (embarrassingly "bubblegummy" drivel) that is theologically inept at best and blatantly heretical at worst. In the early 1980s, I remember having heard the lyrics of one song (can't even remember who sang it) that included the phrase "Jesus laid down his deity" (his interpretation of the kenosis in Philippians 2, no doubt).

More recently the introduction of new genres of "Christian music," notably hiphop/rap and "hardcore Christian rock" (which was described to me by the youth pastor as consisting mostly of screaming), have brought with them a certain amount of baggage from the world that I contend make them decidely anti-Christian in nature. Before I elaborate on that, however, it may give the reader a reference point to view the following videos. The first two are by "Christian rap artists" (the only word in that phrase that doesn't require a quotation mark is rap). The last two are from "Christian hardcore artists" (same comment applies to hardcore):

Now, my criticism of earlier forms of contemporary Christian music had to do with the questionable lyrics, and not so much the music per se. A different type of critique must apply to the videos above because, quite frankly, I can't make out what the lyrics are saying. Nor is knowing the lyrics even required in this critique. Each video above may be doing nothing more than quoting Scripture, and they would still be wrong. Why do I say this?

In my conversation with the youth pastor mentioned above, I initially asked him to convince me why I should accept the notion that these genres of music deserve the label of "Christian." When he asked for clarification I pointed out that the behavior these groups exhibit is antithetical to the fruits of the Spirit. They exhibit an "in your face" arrogance, haughtiness, rebellion, rage, anger, loudness, boisterousness, and a lack of self control. The Scriptures commend to us "peaceful and quiet lives" (1 Tim 2:2; 1 Thess 4:11), and warn us against haughtiness, pride, arrogance, anger, rage and the like: "Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice" (Eph 4:31). We are to be "self-controlled" (Titus 2:2; particularly relevant for "young men" according to 2:6, and the very quality conspicuosly absent in the "hardcore" videos), "dignified" and "worthy of respect" (obnoxiously demanding respect is not the same thing).

Now, I mentioned above that the lyrics don't really matter given the behavior is so bad. But just in case someone is under the impression that the lyrics themselves are innocuous, here is a sample from another purported "Christian Rapper" named T-Bone. Apparently he is well loved by his many fans who swear they are "blessed" by his music. Here's a sample of this great blessing:

so in this next line Mayhem bout to get for real
half a y'all is wack, no lyrical talent, you pretenders
you're wrong about the Organized Rhyme representers
the other half approach if you wish to persist in my rage
you cease to exist when I enter the stage
I'm invincible, you invisible, break you down to pure minibles
now you miserable, destroy you with no intervals
in my mind I see a lyrical beam on your head
when its time to go to the battle zone all I see is red
cause you in danger, when I come through whos stoppin me ?
A kamikaze Mobb a Deep-er, than Havoc or Prodigy, uh
well it be my turn to bust, so watch out, you know the deal
I cut MCs like Zorro, leavin faces scarred up like Seal
really tho, so peep the voice, I be the B O N E
wit the crew who hold more championships than Wayne Gretzky
(cause we be) the Organized Rhyme bambinos
bustin more rhymes than tech 9s held by Al Pachino
so watch out, we comin full force with dope production
And these lyrics so phat, sometimes I need lyposuctions
huh, I'm in the house like a kitchen, flippin lyrics sweet like honey
And I got mo raps than the mummy
steady killin the demons everyday like Chunghatti
until the day God gone beam me up like Scotty
(oh yeah) did I forget to mention
that I be keepin MCs locked up like Shawshank Redemption
huh, its just a gift, now I be passin the microphone
back to my cousin who used to sling more keys than a lock smith, ahh

As best as I can make out, the above lyrics were apparently written in response to some fellow rappers who are rivals of "T-bone" and his "homies," the Organized Rhyme Crew (you remember them; they are the ones who "lay more chicks than Mother Goose"). Once again, a lot of bitterness, rage, anger, self glorification, vengeance, violence, pride, arrogance and haughtiness; but very little by way of the fruit of the Spirit.

Next installment, we'll examine the arguments of the defenders of this kind of "music," and take a look at specific examples of "youth pastors" who not only allow this in the church, but openly promote this garbage to our youth as an acceptable form of Christian worship.

ES

Debate DVD

2007-11-30T22:34:00.000-08:00

I have finally received the DVD of my debate with Mitch Pacwa, and I have just now requested the source files so that I can begin posting clips on the blog in a running series/commentary on the highlights of that debate. Stay tuned.

ES

Ashamed of the Gospel

2007-11-27T05:55:00.000-08:00

"I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith." (Rom 1:16-17)

I saw this interview on Larry King Live when it first aired. Have you ever seen a more pathetic example of someone who names the name of Christ and is clearly ashamed of His words?

And the dance continues . . . and gets even worse:

Now compare that stumbling, bumbling unfaithful presentation of the gospel to that of the boldness and clarity of a faithful minister of the gospel. Same venue; same interviewer:

Then ask yourself to which one of these men the words of our Lord applies:

"If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38).

ES

Unbelief and Judgment

2007-11-21T06:43:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I mentioned an article by Bob Wilkin in the Grace in Focus newsletter. Zane Hodges contributed an article in that same newsletter titled, "The Sin of Unbelief," in which he argues (in a Q&A format) that no one goes to hell on the basis of his unbelief:

Question: Did Christ die for the sin of unbelief?
Answer: Of course. He died for all the sins of all mankind (1 John 2:2)

Question: Then why does God send people to hell for not believing?
Answer: He doesn't. The Bible nowhere says that.

Question: Then what does he send them to hell for?
Answer: For not having their names in the Book of Life (Rev 20:15).

Question: But isn't that because they didn't believe?
Answer: Yes. But it's still not the reason they are condemned to hell.

Question: Isn't that doubletalk?
Answer: Not at all. A cause and a reason are not the same thing. Unbelief is the cause for the unsaved not having eternal life. Not having eternal life is the reason they are condemned to hell.

Hodges goes on to explain that if someone on parole is required to be in his home by 11 PM, and violates that order by staying out till "12 PM" (by which I assume he means 12 AM), he is sent back to prison not for staying out too late, but for falling below the standard of the stipulations of his parole. Staying out too late is the "cause" of the violation, but the violation itself is the "reason" he is sent back to prison.

I'm not sure Hodges clear-cut distinction between "reason" and "cause" really works. In reality, they are both causes, but hierarchical causes: the man returns to prison because he violated his parole; and he violated his parole because he stayed out too late.

But the larger issue is a biblical one. Is it true (per Hodges) "the Bible nowhere says" a man is condemned on the basis of his unbelief? Here is Jesus Himself on the matter:

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" (John 3:18).

There's that basis for condemnation Hodges insists the Bible nowhere states. According to this verse, the reason a man stands in a state of condemnation is specifically "because he has not believed."

ES

Finally . . .

2007-11-20T09:11:00.000-08:00

Finally . . . work demands having died down a bit with the approaching holidays has at long last allowed me to ease back into posting some comments. Church commitments have also contributed to my internet absence, though that part of my busy schedule is always the most meaningful and enjoyable. Not sure to what extent I'll be posting (whether daily or weekly), but I will attempt it with some semblance of regularity.

Finally . . . I have found something with which Bob Wilkin and I can agree. I recently received the latest edition (Nov/Dec 2007) of the Grace in Focus newlsetter (a newsletter dedicated to propogating cheap-grace easy-believism); and while I normally read the articles in this newsletter while shaking my head in disgust at the tortuous exegesis that dominates the newsletter, this edition focuses instead on the post-modern epidemic among so-called "evangelical" professors vis-a-vis their lack of commitment to the ability to know truth. Not a bad article on the whole. Unfortunately it is not yet online at their website.

And finally--and perhaps most importantly--to the relief of many, you will no longer be shocked to learn, upon accessing this blog, that Harold O. J. Brown has died at age 74.

ES

Harold O.J. Brown Dies at Age 74

2007-07-09T20:27:00.000-07:00

Harold O. J. Brown died on Sunday, July 8.

Prayer Request

2007-06-17T06:20:00.000-07:00

Harold O. J. Brown, author of Heresies, is in failing health and in hospice care. Please keep him and his wife Grace in your prayers.

David Howard on Francis Beckwith's Conversion

2007-05-23T05:23:00.000-07:00

I'm a bit late to the draw on this one, but still wanted to comment. David Howard, one of the members of the ETS executive committee, has written a piece in the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, in which he states the following:

Responses to Mr. Beckwith's conversion run the gamut. A small number of evangelicals have reacted as if he committed an act of betrayal. Among many more, including us on the executive committee, the response has been one of cordial disagreement on some critical matters, accompanied by an acknowledgment that we nevertheless have much in common as fellow Christians.

This kind of statement speaks volumes about the state of the so-called evangelical leadership. Howard and the rest of the executive committee are now scrambling for answers to questions such as how the anemic and poorly worded ETS "Doctrinal Basis" can exclude a Roman Catholic, and what the real differences are between Evangelical Protestantism Roman Catholicism. They seem to be genuinely lost, as this statement from Howard well illustrates. Howard doesn't give us any evidence that he is even aware that nearly 500 years ago there was something called "the Reformation," and that the primary issues of that Reformation were the question of authority and the nature of the gospel. These have not changed. Howard muses that some evangelicals act as if Beckwith "committed an act of betrayal," insinuating that he has not. The Roman gospel, as defined by Trent, officially anathematized the gospel of Jesus Christ. Francis Beckwith has traded the sufficiency of Christ and the "once for all"-ness of His propitiatory sacrifice on the cross for an endless series of sacramental obligations and religious works he is now required to keep to "merit" his ongoing justification before God.

Has Beckwith "committed an act of betrayal"? Of course he has. The fact that this simple affirmation is now being called into question among "evangelical leaders"--something which would have been a given in evangelicalism fifty short years ago--shows just how far "evangelicalism" has strayed away from its roots. Some of us will continue our "hard-nosed" approach to all this, while Howard and the others at ETS continue to debate whether Open Theists, Mormons, and Roman Catholics are "evangelical" or "brothers."

I don't even know what "evangelical" means anymore.

Additional Reviews on the Debate

2007-05-23T04:24:00.000-07:00

Just a couple of other links (here and here, and one or two follow ups) to perspectives on my debate with Mitch Pacwa.

Post-Debate Review

2007-05-20T04:46:00.001-07:00

Get it here

Doing the Right Thing . . . But Questions Remain

2007-05-07T14:05:00.000-07:00

I have been watching from the sidelines the events regarding the recent conversion of Frank Beckwith (until now, president of the Evangelical Theological Society) to Roman Catholicism. He has, effective May 5, stepped down from his position as president of ETS, and just today has announced his resignation as a member of ETS.

. . . the right decision, both actions. I applaud him for that.

Questions remain, however, about how all this happened--though not so much for Beckwith as for ETS and the climate it has created. I think we can assume Beckwith didn't have a Damascus-road conversion to Rome. No one, except for the hopelessly impulsive, leaves a long-held theological heritage for a diametrically opposed theological heritage without engaging for many months or even years in thoughtful reflection about it--during which it must have become obvious (to him if not to others involved) that his theological allegiances had reversed. Did he have questions about where his allegiance resided when he assumed the position as president of ETS? What were the signs of his apostasy? And what measures did/does the ETS executive committee take to provide oversight over the theological musings of its president? How was Beckwith nominated, selected, and voted in given his (now well known) leanings evident in his articles, in his conversation, in his teaching?

This kind of thing is occurring with alarming regularity these days, due in large part to the post-modern, post-Christian abandonment of fidelity to truth (recall my last blog article on Timothy George). There are warning signs for this sort of thing, and they are not that difficult to detect. Do we really need to wait until someone follows through with his "exploratory" musings, all in the name of academic freedom, before we begin to call him to account?

Couldn't Resist

2007-04-21T06:20:00.000-07:00

I have refrained from blogging lately in preparation for an uncoming debate--but this article caught my attention, and I could not let it slide. The article (Evangelicals and the Mother of God) is by Timothy George, a man for whom long ago I had some respect. It is sad when formerly sound-thinking theologians, blinded by the draw of ecumenism, go down this path. As one whose doctoral thesis was on this very issue, I can say with confidence that the depth of George's knowledge of this issue rivals the depth of Jon Meacham's paltry knowledge of Christianity whenever he attempts an article about Jesus in TIME magazine.

When one begins an article with "It is time for evangelicals to recover a fully biblical appreciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary," it fast becomes clear where he is headed. George proceeds from there to make every exegetical error that characterizes Rome's view of Mary, even inexplicably conceding the Roman Catholic distinction between latria and hyperdulia--on what basis, we are never told.

In answer to the question, "Why should evangelicals participate in and celebrate the Marian moment that seems to be upon us?", George offers this answer: "Precisely because they are evangelicals, that is, gospel people and Bible people. Mary has a pivotal and irreducible place in the Bible, and evangelicals must reclaim this aspect of biblical teaching if we are to be faithful to the whole counsel of God."

George goes on to engage in the very same symbolic reading of supposedly Marian-centric OT passages that even Roman Catholic scholars have abandoned these days. In other words, George is clearly a novice in this area, and has not yet discovered that the supposedly biblical defense he gives for an exalted Mary has long ago been rejected as time-worn nonsense by his more informed Roman Catholic counterparts. Only RC polemists use these kinds of arguments anymore. But if that's the case, what business does a supposed evangelical have in resurrecting them?

George's treatment of Mary's perpetual virginity and title of theotokos is lamentable. He somehow thinks that upholding the virgin birth is equivalent to upholding continued virginity after that birth, shamelessly evoking J. Gresham Machen as someone who would support his thesis:

Though he was a straitlaced Presbyterian and could never be accused of “cozying up to Rome,” Machen rightly recognized that evangelicals had much more in common with Catholicism on this than they did with what he disdainfully called that “totally foreign religion-liberalism.” “Let it never be forgotten,” he wrote, “that the virgin birth is an integral part of the New Testament witness about Christ, and that that witness is strongest when it is taken as it stands. . . . The blessed story of the miracle in the virgin’s womb is intrinsic to the good news of the Gospel.

George's woeful ignorance on what constitutes agreement with Rome is simply stunning. Because Machen was a staunch defender of the virgin birth--something that is explicitly biblical--he somehow implicitly agreed with Rome's doctrine of Perpetual Virginity--something that is demonstrably unbiblical?

But George's ignorance does not stop there. Note well what he thinks about the Christological controversy:

The Church was right to reject Nestorius’ preferred title for Mary, Christotokos, “mother of Christ,” as an inadequate description of Mary’s role in the mystery of the Incarnation. We are not at liberty to construct a merely human Christ, cut off from the reality of his entire person.

Nestorius' alternative title, Christotokos, did not "construct a merely human Christ"; quite the opposite. The title "Christ" accounts for both the human and divine in Jesus, whereas "mother of God" does not. That George does not know this is just stunning.

George's focus in this article is on all the typical Roman Catholic polemical points (with which he substantially agrees), and he somehow ignores all the exegetical points regarding Mary's staus in the NT. Yet it remains a well known fact that whenever Jesus and Mary appear together in the NT, Jesus is at pains to distance himself from her and to put down any supposed privileges she might assume based on biological ties--indeed, going so far as to sever biological ties with her. George seems oblivious to this, which disqualifies him from speaking on the issue in the first place.

Links to Articles on the Website

2007-03-25T17:30:00.000-07:00

Since I keep getting questions about this, I will mention it here. The links to Jason Engwer's articles on this website are currently non-functional because Jason has taken down his website for the time being. You can still access his site at this link. Enter the URL: http://members.aol.com/jasonte.

Jason is posting regularly at Triablogue, so if you'd like to ask him anything you can contact him there. He also monitors our discussion forum, so if you post a specific question there, he will likely respond.

Upcoming Debate

2007-03-06T18:24:00.000-08:00

For those of you who have been wondering (and asking), I will be debating Fr. Mitch Pacwa on May 18, 2007 at the Meinders School of Business on the campus of Oklahoma City University, 2700 N. Blackwelder in Oklahoma City. The details and registration information may be found here and here. The debate, which is the 2007 Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield Memorial Lecture Series and which will go from 6:30 to 9:30pm, will ask the question, What is the final authority for the believer--the church (sola ecclesia) or the Scriptures (sola scriptura)?

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary--Redux

2007-02-01T10:38:00.000-08:00

The reformed catholic site is once again flailing over the issue of the appropriateness of Protestants adopting a belief in Mary's perpetual virginity. I had this conversation with one of them a year and a half ago.

Link 1: This deals with the supposed "catholicity" of the belief in Mary's PV, and touches on the Reformers' views (yes, more than one view) of this.

Link 2: This deals with Calvin's view on the issue, the biblical data found in Luke, and the well-debunked "vow of virginity" theory.

Link 3: This covers the scene of Mary at the cross in John 19, and the dubious value of the Protevangelium of James as reliable history.

Link 4: This is especially relevant for those confused by the grossly misinformed statement in the recent rC article that the "Woman " in Revelation 12 is Mary: "the most common opinion of the Church through the centuries has been that this is a depiction of Mary." This is most demonstrably false. Not only is the "people of God" interpretation of Rev 12 the most common--both historically and in the present day, even among Roman Catholic exegetes--it is also the only one that prevailed in the first six centuries of the church.

And, of course, all of these issues (and more) are addressed in my book, Who Is My Mother?, which can be ordered at a reduced price here.

Jonathan Prejean and the Book of Hezekiah

2007-01-21T08:00:00.000-08:00

One of the funniest aspects of the play, Fiddler on the Roof, is Tevye's (the "papa") tendency to make up statements out of whole cloth and attribute them to Scripture: "As the good book says, if you spit in the air, it lands in your face." He's finally challenged on one of these statements by Mendel, one of his friends who gather together in town along with Tevye to discuss issues:

Tevye: "As the good book says, when a poor man eats a chicken, one of them is sick."

Mendel: "Where does the book say that?"

Tevye: "Well, it doesn't say that exactly, but somewhere there is something about a chicken."

Those who are only remotely familiar with Scripture engage in similar statements even today. Attributing phrases to Scripture such as "all men are created equal," "cleanliness is next to godliness," and "God helps those who help themselves," are but a few examples of the biblical literacy common to most people who call themselves Christians. I dont know how many times I have been asked by some well meaning Christian, "Doesn't the Bible say somewhere that people who have not heard the gospel will get a second chance?" When I am asked such things, I normally smile at them slyly and respond, "Yeah, I think that's somewhere in the Book of Hezekiah." After a moment of confused expressions, I clarify that there is, of course, no such book in the Bible; but if there were, I bet it would contain all those sayings.

I can only assume the Book of Hezekiah is where Jonathan Prejean gets his Christology. My final contribution to the discussion with Prejean over his neo-Platinist tendencies follows:

“Svendsen does not appear to be distinguishing between the natural and supernatural operation of Scripture. I can explain that as follows. First, I didn't say that the Apostles do not speak to us outside of their first-century Jewish context. In some sense, all historical literature speaks to people outside of the historical context, be it the works of Euripides, the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, or whatever. In that mundane sense, the Bible does speak as any historical document does. But the authoritative component of Scripture, what makes it able to speak beyond its historical confines as revelatory, i.e., its inspiration, is supernatural and not natural in quality, and this is perceived by application of the rule of faith to Scripture (Scripture being its own rule of faith in this regard would be circular; the rule of faith isn't learned FROM Scripture but used to read Scripture).”

This is just gratuitous nonsense, and Prejean should just stay out of this arena altogether. He has claimed to know what exegesis is, but he keeps proving he is clueless about it. “Mundane” words do not suddenly have a different “meaning” just because they are found to be inspired. On the contrary; it is precisely because they are inspired and therefore authoritative that we must “pay even closer attention” (Heb 2) to them and take them at face value rather than play with them as “spiritual toys” to be manipulated by those who would have them say whatever they want them to say.

“I don't say that it has no meaning, only that it was not, by and large, intentionally written to have meaning for us today. It still DOES, on account of the Holy Spirit's superintendence of what was written, but that is more a product of the supernatural operation than the intent of the authors.”

Yes, Prejean did in fact say Scripture is irrelevant and meaningless as a consideration in the present debate, and it is embarrassingly obvious that he is now backpedaling on this point. All one need do is read the previous installments to this dialogue to know this is true. Prejean writes his current point as though this discussion is about whether or not the relevance of Scripture for today is tied directly to its inspiration. He’s stating a given, and he’s doing it as a smokescreen to take the pressure off for his rather moronic comments about Scripture’s irrelevance made earlier in this discussion. His statements both then and now are akin to stating “an orange has no flavor,” and then, once challenged on the utter foolishness of that statement, making the rather silly “clarification” that what he really meant to say was “apart from the citrus and the sugars and the rest of the chemical makeup that constitutes flavor, an orange has no flavor.” The backpedaling is obvious.

“Going ‘beyond that’ and ‘posit[ing] some sort of application today’ based on the ‘inherent authority in the writer or the writings’ is not treating Scripture as a purely historical document. It's confusing the divine and human aspects of Scripture, which are perceived by different methods, rather than allowing them to persist distinctly and unconfusedly.”

All very gnostic indeed. The “human” aspect of Scripture, according to Prejean, is “mundane” and “irrelevant” for us today. It is only the “divine” aspect, whose meaning not only transcends the words of the text, but ends up being a different meaning altogether (albeit not contradictory), and is discerned only by the magisterial illuminati.

“Certainly, general principles about the human nature and the divine nature continue to apply, because those things do not change. There is much moral guidance in Scripture that is simply an accurate description of human behavior, but even an atheist can recognize that. Paul's Christological hermeneutic is far from this sort of mundane analogy based on human nature; note the explicitly Christological focus in that passage (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 10:1-6, 16-17, 26). This is hardly just "they were idolaters, and bad things happened to them, so don't be idolaters either.”

If what Prejean intends to show is that Paul read some kind of mystical reading into the OT wilderness narrative, he is off base. Paul is not reinterpreting the OT narrative; he is simply making a modern-day application of its principle. Prejean wants us to believe that what Paul is saying here is that there is a deeper “hidden” meaning in Scripture that can be discerned only through the magisterium. But this is far from what Paul is doing here, and it is simply a case of eisegesis on the part of Prejean to suggest he is. Paul is not saying that the “rock” from which the Israelites drank was Christ in an exegetical sense, or even as some “fuller” sense of Scripture (as though Christ transformed into an inanimate object). It’s a figure of speech made as an application to the Corinthians in light of the Christ event. Christ, revealed as God in the NT, was by that fact the one who nourished the Israelites in the dessert. They were “baptized” into Moses, not in a “deeper” sense, but in a symbolic sense, illustrated by their passing “through the sea.” They partook of Christ’s provision of manna and water, and also partook of idols in the golden calf event. Being laid to waste for that idolatry was the consequence of such treason. In the same way, the Corinthians were partaking of Christ in the Supper, and they were partaking in idolatry at pagan feasts. Paul’s point is that they too were in danger of God’s displeasure. But there is nothing in this passage that lends itself to the Roman version of sensus plenior. And if this is what Prejean was trying to show, there are many other NT passages that would have made his point more readily (although even those would be suspect).

“There's also no sense in trying to stretch the historical meaning of Scripture into something that it can't be. To understand the meaning of what God told us in revelation requires us to know His son; there is no substitute.”

Except for that nagging little fact that a good portion of the New Testament was written expressly to convince readers that they need to come to know God’s Son, including the Gospels of Matthew and John: “these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31). Hence, the ability to understand revelation, even as an unbeliever, is assumed throughout. The Christological reading of the OT is something that came to light after the Christ event, and it was largely based on the new revelation received by the apostles. We have no corresponding “new” revelation that would similarly “explain” the NT, or that would suggest we ought to be looking for hidden meanings. Much less do we have mandates from the apostles that we ought to be reading and understanding their instructions and teachings in ways that “twist” the words of Scripture (2 Pet 3:16).

“I certainly have no qualms about this sort of argument. Nestorius appears to have affirmed the union of divine and human in Christ, only incoherently so. But I take issues with two statements here. First, I don't think "Protestants" as a whole agree with Svendsen's defense of Nestorius. Second, I'm not docetistic; I'm theandric. It's not docetistic to say that the theandric quality of Scripture depends on both the divine and human operations, distinct and unconfused.”

It’s implicitly docetic to say that the apostles do not speak to us today; and it’s gnostic to say that the “human” aspect of Scripture carries a different meaning of Scripture than the “divine” aspect.

“Nestorianism isn't the belief that there is no union in Christ; most Nestorians affirmed that there was a union. Nestorianism is the belief that the union between the natures is constituted by something other than the person of the Word of God, and particularly, by union of operations like will or love (i.e., Nestorian-type monoenergism, aka, monothelitism). It has nothing to do with my "limited paradigm," but rather with my belief that Christ cannot be constituted by the union of the natures.”

Again, according to what? A biblical paradigm, or a neo-Platonist paradigm?

“it's Svendsen who has ventured to say that the union in Christ consists of the union between two natures, just as Nestorius speculated. I am content to affirm that Christ IS the Word of God, the same person, and to deny the speculation that appropriating a human nature changes that.”

What? Where have I ever insinuated that the immutable Word changed? I have never stated such a thing. Yet, here we have in Prejean’s solution traces of apollinarianism—Jesus wasn’t a man; he simply appropriated “human nature.”

“absent an instantiation, there are no concrete properties to be bundled into a concrete entity.”

It is entirely meaningless to use Prejean’s categories. If, as Prejean concedes, “nature” does not exist apart from “instantiation”—that is, outside of a person—then Prejean is making a distinction without a difference. A person is a person in his whole being—nature included—and is not chopped up into “instantiation” and “nature” as Prejean argues. It is meaningless to talk about “instantiations” of a thing if that thing does not exist apart from the “instantiation.” In Prejean’s incoherent philosophical speculation, 1 x 0 = 1.

But perhaps the problem is with Prejean’s use of the word “instantiation.” In its dictionary definition, “instantiation” is nothing more than an “instance” of something that is already known to exist, and “to instantiate” is to “represent by an instance,” not “to bring into existence” (as Prejean seems to be using the word). For instance, heos hou in Matt 1:25 “instantiates” the meaning “until but not after”; that is to say, the phrase in Matt 1:25 represents an instance of that underlying meaning. It doesn’t “cause” that meaning to exist. It can instantiate that meaning only because the meaning exists apart from that instance. Prejean wants to apply this word to “nature,” claiming that “person” instantiates “nature.” But this makes sense only on the ground that person is a concrete instance of nature and not something separate from nature. To say that “person” instantiates “nature,” is to say that “person” is an “instance” of nature, and therefore that person is nothing more and nothing other than an instance of nature. If that’s the case, then an instantiation of human nature must be a human person. Prejean wants to avoid this conclusion by proposing that the Word assumed human nature, but in so doing destroys the very definition of instantiation. In other words, Prejean’s view is left incoherent because it is internally inconsistent with the terms and definitions he has adopted to promote it. In any case, we have again shown the utter inadequacy of Prejean’s approach to this issue. He wants to be able to explain the inexplicable in an attempt to have a “coherent” Christology; but at the end of the day his view is shown to be nothing less than incoherent.

“The nature is given concrete existence by the person”

Then “instantiation” is the wrong word to use in this discussion. What kind of “existence” does it have outside of the “person”? A theoretical one? These are simply nonsensical human speculations that have no basis in Scripture. And the more Prejean writes on these things, the clearer that point becomes.

“The doctrine of the Incarnation is that the divine person instantiates the human nature (really and concretely).”

Really? Did Prejean find this particular explanation of the Incarnation in the book of Hezekiah, perhaps? We have already shown that “instantiation” (in its dictionary definition) simply does not support Prejean’s view. Prejean has contended that “person” is defined as “instantiation of rational nature.” If he wants to tack onto that the statement that “divine person instantiates human nature,” then the outcome cannot be “divine person” with “human nature,” but must instead be “person” with “divine nature” and “human nature.” If there is an “instance” of “human nature” in Christ, then by Prejean’s own definition it must be a “human person.” Note well Prejean’s muddled and confused explanation—“person is an instantiation of nature” (or perhaps “category of instantiation of nature,” we‘re not exactly sure), and “absent an instantiation, there are no concrete properties to be bundled into a concrete entity,” and “the nature is given concrete existence by the person,” and concludes “The doctrine of the Incarnation is that the divine person instantiates the human nature.” Now compare this to the utter simplicity of Scripture: “and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Who is the one in the discussion engaging in philosophical speculation? It is certainly not I.

“A 'person' isn't a nature; we classify persons by the instantiation from which they derive their existence.”

Here we have evidence that Prejean is teetering between two meanings of “person.” On the one hand (via his use of “instantiation,” unless he is misusing the word), he claims to maintain that “person” represents an instance of nature. This definition gives priority to nature, not person. Person is simply a concrete instance of something that is assumed to exist (that is the dictionary definition of “instantiation”), and so “person” derives its existence from “nature.” So, contrary to Prejean’s statement above, “person” IS “nature” concretely considered (or applied). On the other hand, he wants to argue that “person” somehow exists apart from nature, giving person priority. Nature in this case is the lesser thing that is considered after the fact of “person.” On this definition, “nature” derives its existence from “person.” Prejean’s view is based on an equivocation of the term “person,” and is therefore incoherent.

But regardless of which definition he really holds, we are once again compelled to ask the question, Says who? Who says “person isn't a nature” or that a person is the “instantiation from which they derive their existence”? Prejean’s neo-Platonist instructors? If “existence” is all that defines “person,” then a dog is a person, an insect is a person, and a tree is a person. But then Prejean will object, “No, what I meant is person is an instantiation of rational nature,” but that just begs the question and is nothing more than gratuitous circular reasoning. What degree of “rational” is then required? There is evidence that even apes and dolphins can respond rationally. No one can really know for certain one way or the other. Although greatly debated, even dogs have been shown to demonstrate some degree of rational behavior. Are these “persons” as well?

“The Word of God in no way depends on His human nature for His existence, so it would be wrong to say that He is a ‘human person.’”

Notice again Prejean’s biblical confusion on this point. Of course the “Word” does not require human nature for his existence. But the “Word” is Christ’s pre-incarnate designation. His post-incarnate designation is “Christ Jesus.” Contra Prejean, Christ does not and cannot “exist” apart from his humanity. His “manness,” his human existence in all its fullness, is (again, contra Prejean) absolutely required for him to be and to remain “Christ Jesus.” Prejean simply confuses pre-incarnation conditions with the incarnation itself.

“This is backward; attributes aren't gathered together into an entity; the entity instantiates them (the concrete reality is the person, not the nature).”

No; at least on the dictionary definition of “instantiation,” the concrete “instance” is the person; but the underlying “reality” is the nature.

“The instantiation of a human nature doesn't require a human person because a divine person can instantiate the human nature without depending on that nature for His existence.”

Teeter Totter, Bread and Water. Prejean would be well advised to pick a definition of “person” and go with it. He earlier argued that a person is an instance of rational nature. That is the closest Prejean comes to the actual definition of “instantiate.” Then he suggested that “instantiate” means something like “create” (“person gives concrete reality to nature”; the word does not mean that at all). From that standpoint he is now arguing that “person” is something entirely separate from “nature” and that “nature” is something entirely separate from “person,” so that there can now be an “instance” of human nature without it resulting in a “person”; that is to say, an instance of “nature” can be extracted from the very thing it is supposed to be an instance of, so that it becomes an entity in itself without consideration of “personage,” and then can be pasted onto another “person” of a completely different nature. “Person” begins as nothing more than an artifact (instance) of rational nature (in this case rational “human” nature), and ends up being something that can in fact be extracted from that instance and disposed of. This remaining “instance” of human nature (no longer a “person,” mind you, even though Person and Instance began as the very same thing) can now be repackaged and re-used by other “persons.”

This is equivocation of the worst kind. And where exactly does Prejean get this notion in the first place? Hezekiah 46:2? Reread Prejean’s statement above; the arrogance of such an assertion is staggering. On what authority does Prejean’s assertion stand outside of the word of his neo-Platonist instructors? How exactly does Prejean know things like “attributes aren't gathered together into an entity” and “the entity instantiates [the attributes]”? In Prejean’s mind, philosophy is a hard science that allows you to break down the properties of “person” and “nature” and conduct DNA analysis on them. Prejean displays a remarkable childish confidence in his position on these things—or else he has special revelation from God about them that no one else has (the book of Hezekiah, perhaps?). I’ll wager it’s the former.

“Sure. He can be a divine person instantiating the human nature. Why not?”

Why not? Because Prejean has previously defined “person” as “instantiation of rational nature,” that’s why. “Person,” therefore, is not a thing that is separate from instantiation—it is the instantiation. And if Christ instantiated human nature then it follows inextricably that Christ is a human person. Once again, Prejean begins with one definition of “person” (person is an instance of rational nature, and an instance of rational human nature is therefore a human person—what else would define us as a human person?), and then changes it to another (person can be extracted from an instance of human nature—even though “instance” and “person” were once defined as the very same thing—and the remaining “instance of human nature” can be glued onto another “person”) to suit his cause. Prejean previously denied that “person” is a thing in itself, but rather something like an artifact of “instantiation.” If that is his working definition of “person” (unless he is now going to backpedal on that as well), and if he agrees (as he has in his answers to my questionnaire regarding the proper nomenclature of a “human person” and the consequent redundancy of referring to a man as a “human person with a human nature”) that “instantiation of rational nature” = “person,” and that “instantiation of rational divine nature” = “divine person,” then it follows inextricably, by Prejean’s own reasoning, that “instantiation of rational human nature” = “human person.” To make an exception in the case of Christ is to engage in the fallacy of special pleading. Remember, it is Prejean who insisted that any view on this issue must be coherent and internally consistent. His is neither.

Further, Prejean’s insistence on making a hard and fast distinction between “person” and “nature” results in a nonsensical product. If things like “rational thought,” mind, spirit, will, knowledge, wisdom, etc.—all those things we know were “human” in Christ (“he grew in wisdom”), what is left to define “person”? This point (combined with my point about the radical natures of sin) is what has led Prejean to clarify that “person” is not a “thing” in itself but an instantiation of a thing in the first place. Now he seems to be backpedaling and re-defining "person" as a thing in itself (considered apart from the nature it instantiates) that instantiates just any nature it wants. Prejean is nothing if not slippery in his definitions; and that in itself is enough to charge his own view with incoherence.

“Is He the union or is He the Word of God? If "the man Christ Jesus" IS the Word of God, then you affirm that a divine person (the Word of God) can instantiate the human nature. I'm not asking you to say HOW a divine person can instantiate the human nature; nobody knows that. All I'm asking you to affirm is that the natures are united in the person of the Word of God. This talk of "union" is just misleading, and it's exactly the sort of wishy-washy language that Nestorius kept using. Is the union the same as the Word of God, or isn't it?"

I affirm that the man Jesus Christ is the word of God made flesh. I affirm he is one person. But that does nothing to answer the question at hand. I also have to affirm that Jesus is as much man as he is God—and if he is less than fully man, we are unredeemed and left in our sins. If Prejean wants to refer to as “nature” all the attributes that most people recognize as comprising a “person”—mind, will, intellect, soul, spirit, desire, emotion, etc.—I suppose that’s his prerogative.

“And I will say again: the adjectives put in front of "person" do not conventionally refer to the nature instantiated by that person, but to the instantiation of the nature by which that person exists.”

I maintain that if a position must degenerate to this microscopic level of distinctions, based as they are on human speculation (what Paul calls the “wisdom of this world,” 1 Cor 1), the position is typically not worth arguing.

“Of course, since I think there is no Scriptural teaching about the "sin nature" (indeed, I view it as a metaphysical absurdity) and since I have categorically denied Svendsen's assertion that person is part of nature or a category of nature, I don't think he's proved much.”

I said I would forego this point, but this is just too delicious, because it illustrates so well the sub-Christian beliefs of Jonathan Prejean. The "sin nature," according to Prejean, is a "metaphysical absurdity" (Hezekiah 46:2). Why is it, then, no one in this world can live a sinless life no matter how hard he tries? How does Prejean explain the case of Mary in his own Roman Catholic belief? How is it Mary lived a sinless life? Was it because she did not sin accidentally, or rather because she was "conceived without sin"? How is it that, once redeemed, no one in heaven will ever sin? Why do people die in this life? The sin nature that Prejean denies effects many consequences in us: it condemns us, it causes our bodies to decay and die (what Paul calls “the corruption” in Rom 8), it produces a sinful disposition (Rom 3), and it prompts us to rebel against God (Rom 1). Paul affirms that before our conversion, “we were by nature children of wrath” (Eph 2—I suppose Prejean thinks our “children of wrath” nature is a “metaphysical absurdity” as well). If we are by nature children of wrath, that speaks of a sin principle that resides within us and that results in God’s judgment (unless God just condemns us arbitrarily). Indeed, no one can read Paul’s theology of the human condition in Rom 1:10-18 apart from the principle of sin that resides in and controls every single one of us, making us “slaves to sin”:

“as it is written, ‘There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.’ ‘Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving,’ ‘The poison of asps is under their lips’; ‘Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness’; ‘Their feet are swift to shed blood, Destruction and misery are in their paths, And the path of peace have they not known.’ ‘There is no fear of God before their eyes.’”

Paul addresses this same condition in chapter 7 of the same letter:

“For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death (v. 5). . . But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. And I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive, and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me. (8-11). . . For we know that the Law is spiritual; but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin (14). . . So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me (17). . . . But if I am doing the very thing I do not wish, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me (20). I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good (21). For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? (21-23).

Here Paul clearly sees a principle of sin "at work within us"—that’s the sin nature. According to Paul, sin "indwells" us, "works in" us, is "alive" in us, is "present within" us, is a "principle" that wages war against our minds, and as a result makes us its "slave," putting us into "bondage to sin" and making us its "prisoner." According to Paul, this condition is the result of our being "sold into bondage to sin." Indeed, note well how Paul puts v. 8: "But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind." Paul does not say that coveting produced acts of sin, which is what Prejean's view requires. He says the opposite; namely, that sin produced coveting. How is that possible apart from the very "sin nature" that Prejean rejects as "metaphysically absurd" and that Paul takes pains to demonstrate is a metaphysical reality?

Prejean continues to demonstrate that he learns his "truth" from Plato, not Paul. This, as I stated above, well illustrates the sub-Christian nature of Prejean’s belief system. He denies the sin principle that Paul insists resides in us all. John himself tells us: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 Jn 1:8). John is here referring to the same “sin principle” (or sin nature) as Paul in Romans 7. This sin principle is distinguished from personal acts of sin addressed two verses later: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (v. 10). Now Prejean, I assume, affirms the latter (personal acts of sin); but he denies the former (the inherent principle of sin) As such, according to the Apostle, “the truth is not in” Jonathan Prejean. Rather, like the incipient Gnostics John battles in this letter, he “deceives” himself (the charge of Gnosticism keeps mounting against Prejean).

“First, plans, thoughts, and desires are movements of the will too. Second, you're reifying sin. Sin isn't a thing; there is no sin nature.”

Since I have already debunked Prejean’s notion of “no sin nature,” I will assume that the additional points he makes based on this mistaken notion fall to the ground as well.

I wrote:
“Yet Prejean ends up abandoning this definition when he insists on referring to Christ as a “divine person with a human nature.” In every other case, instantiation of rational human nature, according to Prejean, is the very definition of "human person"; but in the case of Christ, Prejean conceives of "person" as something in addition to the instantiation of a rational human nature--indeed, the instantiation of rational human nature in the case of Christ is left hanging in the air! That instantiation of rational human nature ends up being nothing more than . . . human nature; whereas in every other case it is a person! He has already conceded that existence is part of “nature” (at least for the divine), not part of “person.” Hence, even if this “person” has “life in himself,” that is only by virtue of his divine nature, not by virtue of his person per se. It makes no sense to refer to someone as a “divine person” who also happens to instantiate humanity.”

Prejean responded: “Svendsen has misunderstood me pretty seriously.”

No, I have not misunderstood Prejean; I have simply shown the absurdity and incoherence of his view. There is nothing coherent about a view that equivocates on the words “person” and “instantiation,” using them as synonyms at first, and treating them as separate things in the end.

“‘Person’ is whatever instantiates a rational nature, no matter whether it takes its existence from instantiating that nature or not.”

Here Prejean views “person” as a "thing" apart from nature; whereas before “person” was defined as an instance of rational nature, more along the lines of an artifact.

“Ordinarily, no nature necessarily has an instantiation; thus, a ‘human person’ does not necessarily exist, not does an ‘angelic person.’ They are created.”

Whether it necessarily exists or not is beside the point. Prejean has defined “person” as “the instantiation of rational nature.” Once the instantiation takes place, the “person” exists, whether from itself or from an external source. And so, if an instance if rational nature exists (whether from itself or not), then we must ask the question “what kind of rational nature is it?” And if we have already agreed that an instance of rational nature is a person, then once we determine that this particular “instance of rational nature” is in fact “rational human nature,” we cannot conclude that the resulting “person” is something other than a human person; for that would be akin to saying that it wasn’t really an instantiation of human nature in the first place. In that case, we end up positing that an instantiation of human nature results in a non-human instantiation: A=non-A in Prejean’s view (confirming Prejean in his Docetism). That is why Prejean’s position is incoherent. It is self-contradictory.

“The divine nature necessarily exists, but it is wrong to say that the existence is part of the divine nature (which would break the divine nature into parts). Rather, the divine nature is necessarily instantiated tri-personally; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit necessarily exist and are necessarily God.”

Yes, they necessarily exist and they are necessarily God—but not apart from their divine nature. God, apart from his nature, ceases to be God. Hence, it is simply absurd to suggest that God’s existence is not an integral part of his divine nature. Of course it is! Prejean is apparently capitalizing on my phrase “part of,” and drawing all kinds of absurd conclusions about it. “Part of” is simply another way of saying that divine nature and divine existence are mutually dependent.

“On the other hand, if the Word of God does not merely happen to instantiate the human nature (that is, accidentially) but instead essentially does so, then we have the human nature necessarily existing and the Word of God as necessarily Incarnate, which is obviously unacceptable as well.”

The problem with Prejean’s statement is that what he denies is exactly what we have. As I mentioned before, while I can agree that human nature is not essential to the existence of the Word of God, it is indeed absolutely essential to the existence of Christ Jesus. There is no “Christ Jesus” without human nature, nor biblically could there be. The Word was not Christ Jesus pre-Incarnation. Although the Word “was,” Christ Jesus “became”; hence it is biblically necessary to say that both divine nature and human nature are essential to the existence of Christ Jesus—for absent one or the other, Christ Jesus does not exist.

“Because the person of Christ is the Word of God, and the Word of God does not derive His existence from being human.”

Not quite; rather the person of Christ is the MAN Christ Jesus and the Word of God.

“The question is whether the person of Christ is constituted by the union, or whether the person of Christ is the Word of God.”

I have no problem with either statement—and just for the record, the latter statement does not necessarily preclude the former, nor are the two statements necessarily mutually exclusive. But as a biblicist, I have consciously decided not to commit to either of them because to do so is to speculate well beyond Scripture. Yet this is the very question that militates against Prejean’s claim that he isn’t attempting to figure out the divine by sheer force of intellect. It is the question that refutes his claim that he does not concern himself about “how” this union took place, only “what kind” of union it is (as though the latter can sterilely be posited apart from attempting to explain the former). The question, as I have maintained throughout, is certainly not biblically resolved in any case. Since Christ is necessarily human (without humanity there would be no “Christ,” only “Word”), and necessarily divine (without the Word there would be no Christ, only “man”), I don’t see how it can be answered apart from divine revelation; and divine revelation simply does not tell us.

It is interesting to note that even Prejean’s Eastern Orthodox friends are now entertaining the notion that Prejean’s own view is Nestorian, and that he is indeed relying on hyper-rational speculation to figure out the nature of the Incarnation. The article is actually very much on target (in spite of an expected gaffe on the part of Perry Robinson, a sniveling third-rate philosophy student, and one of his associates, both of whom seem to be extremely ill informed about what constitutes a “degree mill,” and both of whom seem to think that it is an acceptable practice to get their information from the “research” of a third-rate catholic e-pologist who has no training in theology and who possesses no advanced degree—if that is the research method taught at their institution of higher learning, then I am certain I won’t be sending my children to “Saint Louis University”). To engage the unknown and the unrevealed using Prejean’s approach—namely, “I don’t need yer stinkin’ Bible ‘cause I can just figure it all out using my own brilliance”—results in a sub-Christian (nay, un-Christian or even anti-Christian) belief system that at best undermines the authority of Scripture and at worst promotes open idolatry. Worse for me, it wastes a great deal of my energy and time—energy and time I really don’t have anymore—to continue in such dialogues. They result in nothing useful. In the end Prejean will remain a neo-Platonist/Gnostic/Docetist, and I will remain devoted to the apostle’s teaching. I assume Prejean will be responding to this; if so, he’ll have the last word on it. Prejean’s view is incoherent and relies heavily on the equivocations of terms. I’ve adequately demonstrated the deficiencies of his views and his approach. My job here is done.

I'm Rubber, You're Glue

2007-01-07T10:28:00.000-08:00

There’s barely anything worthy of response in Prejean’s recent post because there’s barely anything there of substance. Hence, since I won’t be descending into another 20-page “oh yeah? Well, same to you!” Prejean-style brawl, I’ll respond selectively. Suffice it to say that I hope his response to my former post has more substance. Prejean's comments are in quotation marks, followed by my response:

“But I don't accept that Scripture serves as a divine authority in the way that Svendsen does”

This statement keeps coming up as an excuse not to consider Scripture in all this. And that’s a big part of the problem. What Prejean means is not that he subscribes to something other than sola scriptura, but rather that he doesn’t subscribe to any kind of scriptural authority at all. He has already admitted that, for him, Scripture is irrelevant and on the same level as the Book of Mormon and the Quran.

“I don't know why affirming basic principles of logic is ‘humanistic.’”

It’s not principles of logic that are in question; it’s the notion that one can simply rationalize that which is unknowable that is in question since, quite obviously, it has not been divinely revealed. Aristotelian categories and Platonic concepts do not function as interpreters of the divine, at least not for the Christian.

“On the contrary, the fact that Chalcedon used the qualifier proves my point. You don't see the Chalcedonian Fathers saying ‘theotokos of the man Christ’; rather, they say ‘theotokos as regards his humanity.’”

If this doesn’t demonstrate Prejean’s implicit Apollinarianism (and consequential Docetism), I don’t know what does. Notice here Prejean admits he makes a distinction between that which is “man” and that which is “humanity.” Christ is the latter in Prejean’s view, but not the former, in direct contradiction to Scripture. When Chalcedon affirmed that Mary is theotokos “as regards his humanity,” I do not think they intended to deny that Mary is mother of “the man, Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5)—Prejean clearly does.

“Svendsen has proved a point against his own position here; he conceded that the Council used the stronger term rather than the weaker term. He appears to be relying on Brown's gaffe in this regard. I have no idea why Brown would have made the mistake of thinking that meter theou was somehow stronger than theotokos,”

Perhaps it’s because Brown recognizes that the “strength” of the term would depend entirely on the point being made in each case. After all, Brown did receive his Ph.D. from Harvard—the very school that Prejean believes immunizes you from mistakes so long as you maintain a 3.9 GPA. Are we to accept the word of an untrained mind, just because he happens to think he is well read” on the subject, over the opinion of one who has his Ph.D. in Historical Theology? Prejean’s arrogance is exceeded only by his self-delusion. Why would the simple fact that theotokos represents a “natural” connection and mater theou represents a “relational” connection mean that the former is “stronger” than the latter? If the point being promoted is not only that Jesus is God even in the womb (theotokos), but also that Mary enjoys a special status based on that biological relationship (mater theou), then of course the latter is “stronger” than the former since the latter assumes the former in the mind of Cyril. Prejean’s introduction of Arian definitions is nothing more than a smokescreen. Cyril was not using mater theou to promote Mary as mother of God absent from biological relations—he was using it as a stronger Marian title than theotokos. It is Prejean’s gaffe, not Brown’s.

“And as I said, there's a difference between the how and the what of an Incarnation. If I were trying to explain the former, that would be a problem. Trying to affirm the latter is simply coherent orthodoxy, and if Aristotelian concepts are useful for that affirmation, then there is nothing wrong with them.”

But Prejean is trying to explain the former, and is not merely content with affirming the latter. That’s the whole point of this debate. He isn’t content to say “the Word was with God and the Word was God,” and “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” and the Christ is simultaneously “our great God and Savior” and “the MAN, Christ Jesus.” He’s not even content to affirm a single-subject Christology, but goes well beyond that to specify that Christ is a “divine person with a human nature,” and that he specifically is not a “human person." Scripture just does not put it that way, and Prejean’s use of Aristotelian categories to “explain” it is simply not the same thing as “affirming coherent orthodoxy.” His point here is just stupidity.

Moreover, he gratuitously assumes “Aristotelian concepts are useful for that affirmation” (didn’t he chide me earlier for not calling these “Platonic concepts”?) when the usefulness of such concepts is the very thing in question. The biblical writers did not think like Aristotle or Plato. They, for the most part, were steeped in Hebrew culture and concepts taken from Scripture. That’s just the problem with Prejean. He doesn’t think like a biblical writer and is in fact ignorant of that way of thinking because he himself is not steeped in Scripture the way the biblical writers were. He simply assumes Aristotelian categories and Platonic concepts can be superimposed on a biblical paradigm when in fact they are two exceedingly different paradigms.

“The irony of Svendsen affirming someone who argued in favor of the term "theotokos" (Ibid., Lecture X, art. 19) as "the good Cyril" is delightful”

So many errors; so little time. This is a perfect example of Prejean’s inability to discuss this rationally. I did not, by my statement, grant unqualified agreement with every point of Cyril's theology—nor to the soundness of his exegesis on every belief—but only to his approach to that which is unrevealed vis-à-vis Scripture. To the extent that Cyril was inconsistent with his own stated principle, I am happy to take issue with him. And the comment “the good Cyril” was a playful jab at the approach of Cyril of Alexandria and his uncritical disciple, Jonathan Prejean. Yes, the "good" Cyril used a passing reference to theotokos (he did not “argue in favor of the term”). So what? Does Prejean imagine one cannot recognize Mary as “God bearer” (in the simple affirmation that Jesus was God even in the womb) apart from attempting to explain that Jesus is “an instantiation of rational nature” that consists of one part divine [where instantiation is defined as “person” AND nature all rolled up in one], one part human [where instantiation is not defined as “person” but rather “human nature”], all wrapped up in a divine instantiation in which this instantiation is somehow a full-fledged “man” without being a human “person”? If Prejean cannot tell the difference between these two things, then I see little basis for rational dialogue with him.

“St. Cyril's comments in the 11th and 16th lectures say exactly what I said: we affirm the distinction between nature and person, between begetting and proceeding, without knowing the actual details of these things.”

Here’s what Cyril says in his 11th lecture: “This also believe, that God has a Son: but about the manner be not curious, for by searching you will not find. Exalt not yourself, lest you fall: think upon those things only which have been commanded you. Tell me first what He is who begat, and then learn that which He begat; but if you can not conceive the nature of Him who has begotten, search not curiously into the manner of that which is begotten. For godliness it suffices you to know, as we have said, that God has One Only Son.”

Here’s what he says in his 16th lecture: “We would now say somewhat concerning the Holy Ghost; not to declare His substance with exactness, for this were impossible”

Cyril affirms the exact approach to these things that I have advanced and Prejean has denied. Indeed, I hope all Prejean’s readers will click the links he provides so that they can see for themselves the vast difference between the approach Cyril of Jerusalem takes and that of Prejean. Cyril cannot write two sentences without citing Scripture—indeed, in most cases he cannot write even one sentence apart from citing Scripture. And at every turn, Cyril directs his readers to nothing less than Scripture for proof of what he is saying. In stark contrast, Scripture, in Prejean’s view, is irrelevant and inauthoritative, not written to us, and on par with the Book of Mormon and the Quran. And yet Prejean has somehow convinced himself that he is representative of orthodoxy in this discussion. He makes the same mistake as those who errantly believe “Reformed” is defined by mindlessly advancing the idiosyncratic beliefs of Luther and Calvin rather than the principles they followed to formulate those beliefs.

Hence, my original point about Cyril of Jerusalem stands: Here again is Cyril’s approach:

“But if the Lord permit, I will set it forth, according to my powers, with demonstration from the Scriptures. For when we are dealing with the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, we must not deliver anything whatsoever, without the sacred Scriptures, nor let ourselves be misled by mere probability, or by marshalling of arguments. And do not simply credit me, when I tell you these things, unless you get proof from the Holy Scriptures of the things set forth by me. For this salvation of ours by faith is not by sophistical use of words, but by proof from the sacred Scriptures (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV, Art. 17). . . . For these articles of our faith were not composed out of human opinion, but are the principle points collected out of the whole of Scripture to complete a single doctrinal formulation of the faith” (Ibid., Lecture V, Art. 12). . . . Let us be content with this knowledge [taken from Scripture] and not busy ourselves with questions about the divine nature or hypostasis. I would have spoken of that had it been contained in Scripture. Let us not venture where Scripture does not lead, for it suffices for our salvation to know that there is Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit [Ibid., Lecture XVI, Art. 24]. . . . But the Holy Spirit himself has not spoken in the Scriptures about the Son’s generation from the Father. Why then busy yourself over something that the Holy Spirit has not expressed in the Scriptures? You do not know all the Scriptures, and yet must get to know what is not in the Scriptures? (Ibid., Lecture XI, Art. 12).

Whatever “irony” Prejean thinks he has found here is a figment of his own mind. In fact, the true irony is in the closing statement of Cyril cited above: "Why then busy yourself over something that the Holy Spirit has not expressed in the Scriptures? You do not know all the Scriptures, and yet must get to know what is not in the Scriptures?" If this isn't Prejean in a nutshell, I don't know what is.

“This is so bizarre that I wonder how Svendsen could even have thought it made sense. Svendsen admits that Augustine is referring to nature in discussing humanity and divinity. But he appears to be saying that he is incapable of distinguishing between natures and union between natures (i.e., person, to which the term "Mother of God" applies).”

No, what I am saying is that Augustine does not make the fine distinctions Prejean does. He affirms Christ has a human nature and a divine nature. He does not affirm Prejean’s bizarre “divine person with a human nature,” where “person” is defined as “instantiation of rationale nature” for the divine, but where that definition is gratuitously denied for the “instantiation of rational human nature” in Christ—so that Christ is “human” (he has human nature), but is not a “man” (he has no human personality). And Prejean will never find such drivel in Augustine, which is why there is a conspicuous absence of counter examples in Prejean’s response.

I have, in fact, addressed all this already in my “Calm Before the Storm” post. In it, I pressed Prejean on his definition of “person.” Prejean defines “person” as “an instantiation of rational nature.” He seems to agree that Christ instantiates human nature (complete with a human mind, psyche, spirit, will, etc.), but then oddly contends that that this does not constitute a “human person.” Prejean has insisted I must be able to explain the inexplicable, else my view remains “incoherent.” Very well; let Prejean explain how his view is coherent; namely, how he can simultaneously hold that “person” is defined by “the instantiation of a rational nature,” but that the instantiation of rational human nature in Christ does not constitute “human person.”

“I find the idea of someone who uses the term "paradigm" in this way right before criticizing "postmodern metanarratives" amusing, but I must deny that metaphysical reality is a matter of "paradigms." Aristotelian concepts describe reality, and if the reality being described is identical in Scripture times and the present day, then there is no reason to think that an Aristotelian articulation of this reality is in any way inferior.”

Notice how gratuitously Prejean advances what he has yet to prove; namely, that the “metaphysical reality” of Plato is the same as that of the biblical writers (apparently Prejean believes in Plato’s intelligible/perceptual dualism). Can he really be so dense that he does not know that one’s preconceived notions and musings about anything—much more those things that cannot be verified (in this case the metaphysical)—constitute a paradigm? A paradigm (at least in the sense I am using it) is one’s frame of reference for the way one thinks. It is a construct for interpreting and evaluating reality. An atheist speaks and writes from a different paradigm than a theist. A Roman Catholic speaks and writes from a different paradigm than a Biblicist. Is it really beyond Prejean’s comprehension that Plato, not having been entrusted with the Divine Oracles and therefore merely “guessing” his way through these things, would have a different paradigm than one who has first-hand knowledge of God’s objective self-disclosure? It is simply absurd to think otherwise.

“No. I think it's ridiculous to think that topics not addressed explicitly by the authors of Scripture cannot be the subject of dogma . . .”

So did the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day. When you pick grain, roll it in your hands, and eat it on the Sabbath, you’re “harvesting grain” on the Sabbath, and hence you are breaking the Sabbath by doing work. When you drag a chair across the dirt floor on the Sabbath, and the legs of the chair make furrows in the ground, you are “plowing” on the Sabbath, hence breaking the Sabbath. Yep, it’s just “ridiculous” to think we can’t make dogma out of mere speculations.

“. . . or that only concepts of the 1st century authors can be used to describe the same reality that Scripture describes.”

And how would you know for sure that the concepts you adopt to describe scriptural realities accurately convey those spiritual realities, especially since you are so unfamiliar with that spiritual reality as revealed in Scripture, not to mention the limits Scripture imposes on it? The Children of Israel thought it reasonable to liken God to a calf based on the fact that God was powerful enough to rescue them from Egypt: “he must be like this calf—let’s make a golden calf in honor of Him. After all, our Egyptian upbringing has made us familiar with the concept of a ‘cow-god,’ and we’re only describing the same reality of God in terms we can understand.” The only motivation to abandon Scripture the way Prejean does is first to posit some deficiency in Scripture that forces us to use categories Scripture does not use. That is, of course, just what Prejean is suggesting; that God’s self-disclosure is deficient—a notion abhorrent to the Christian mind. Prejean’s alternative is to posit there is something magical about Platonic concepts and their ability to communicate divine realities to humanity. That is, of course, just as abhorrent to the Christian mind, and equally absurd.

“Nor does it imply that Scripture alone is adequate to do so.”

See what I mean? Says who, exactly? Yahweh? The biblical writers? Or, Jonathan Prejean’s comparable pea brain?

In response to my citation of the Scriptural warning not to “run ahead” of the apostles’ doctrine of Christ, Prejean responded:

“First, this would only prove that the method of extracting dogma from Scripture is not strictly deductive, but that is relatively obvious to anyone who rejects the formal sufficiency of Scripture, and it does not show either logical fallacy or lack of logic (induction being a form of logic as well).”

Why does Prejean think the warnings in Scripture are there? The incipient-Gnostic heretics of John’s day were making inductions of their own. They reasoned that the descending of the dove upon Christ at his baptism coupled with Christ’s statement on the cross, “Why have you forsaken me,” was proof positive that Jesus was not the “Christ come in the flesh,” but rather that Christ merely possessed Jesus for a few years on this earth and left him shortly before his death. They “extracted dogma” inductively from Scripture, and they were dead wrong in that induction. Of course those who disregard the warnings of the apostles against “running ahead” will always think those warnings apply to someone else!

“On the other hand, if I were claiming that I were inducing the conclusion from certain consistent facts (say, the presence of black canine fur around a dog bowl in Svendsen's house), then one certainly wouldn't claim that it was "sophistry of the worst kind" to arrive inductively at the conclusion that Svendsen had a black dog.”

Except that Prejean has no equivalent of “black fur” in my analogy. Or, more accurate to the situation, he may have found the black fur but missed the brown fur and the sable fur that proves my dog is black AND brown AND sable—all “dark,” mind you, but not mere “black.” Prejean thinks he has solved this, but he hasn’t. He still does not know what color my dog’s coat is—much less his eyes. At best, he has “induced” a dog by his discovery of black fur that so misrepresents my dog it must be considered a different dog altogether—not unlike his induction of the person of Christ.

“I didn't view Svendsen as a Humean skeptic, but he appears to be taking the view that nothing can be known inductively”

The very definition of an inductive argument is that the conclusion is at best “probable” based on the premises. An inductive conclusion, by definition, goes beyond the premises. How can anything be made a “dogma” that is at best “probable” and works only if the premises are accepted? That’s the primary difference between Prejean’s approach and mine. I am content with a deductive approach to divine truth, and Prejean uses an inductive approach. As an example of the former, Scripture insists there is someone called the Father who is called God; it insists there is someone called the Son/Word who is called God; it insists there is someone called the Spirit who is called God; it further places “Father,” “Son,” and “Spirit” in relationship to one another (“the word was with God”; “I will send the Spirit of truth from the Father”) so as to make each one distinct from the others. Yet those same Scriptures just as vehemently insist there is only one God. I cannot conclude there are three gods, since I am constrained by Scripture that there is only one God. I cannot conclude there is one “person” manifested in three “modes,” each at various times, since these “persons” are sometimes found together and in relationship with each other. And so, from all this I must conclude that there is one God who somehow subsists in three “persons.” I don’t try to explain the “makeup” of God or the relationship of his “persons” beyond what Scripture says about it because all explanations falter at some point (I place “person” in quotation marks not because I reject it as a functional term but because it’s precise definition is still in dispute in the present discussion; for the record, I concede the use of it here because it doesn’t present problems with Scripture).

The same is true of the union of God and man in the Incarnation. I can affirm with Scripture that Jesus Christ is the Word become flesh, that he is fully God and at the same time fully man, and that if either the former or the latter is deficient in any way he cannot act as our perfect sacrifice and high priest. Scripture says nothing beyond this. It doesn’t speculate that the “man” part of Christ is really just “human nature” and not a “real man” per se. In fact, it goes out of its way to condemn any such notion as heresy—and that heresy is particularly relevant because it is one the biblical writers themselves faced vis-à-vis incipient Gnosticism. Hence, it would not only be mere speculation but, in fact, a dangerous enterprise to suggest, as Prejean does, that the “man” part of Jesus is merely “human nature” and not really a “man” at all.

But this is precisely Prejean’s approach. He thinks he can figure all this out inductively. But the problem is precisely with the realm of inductive logic itself. For one to argue inductively, one needs some degree of certainty and universal acceptability about the premises, and a good understanding of the known parameters and conditions that may shape the outcome. This works fairly well for things in this life and in this plane of existence. For instance, if we can observe that every crow we have ever seen happens to be black, then we can safely conclude that, very probably, all crows are black. We cannot say this with absolute certainty, since there may be white crows that no one has seen; yet we may be reasonably assured that all crows are black. Or, in the field of technology, we might use the symptoms of a computer problem to inductively work our way through a problem-solving process to find not only a likely cause but a viable solution.

But in the case of the Incarnation, we’re not dealing with observable facts or commonly known conditions. In fact, the only conditions about which we may be certain are “revealed” conditions. Even in the case of the computer problem I mentioned, we may not have certainty. Say the symptom is such that when I open more than one application at a time I receive an “out of memory” error message. The problem is inductive because there are many things that could be causing the problem. And unless I have knowledge of all the conditions of the computer, as well as how all the components relate to each other, it’s not likely my guess as to what the solution might be will even be in the ballpark. Further, until I apply what I suspect is the solution, and observe first-hand that my solution has solved the problem, there is really no way to be certain that my proposed solution will even work—and in fact it is not uncommon in technology that my first “guess” at a solution to an unknown issue will fail, and that I will have to look elsewhere to solve it.

Of how much lesser value will my “guess” be when I am inductively working from the physical world and rational thought to explain the metaphysical world—a world of which I have no first-hand knowledge--particularly when there is no way to "test" my solution to ensure it "works"? No one has or can observe the dividing line between person and nature—Plato’s dividing line is a mere hypothesis, and one that has not been revealed. Is “person” really defined by God as an “instantiation of rational nature”? Perhaps; but it’s nothing more than a guess; certainly not something we can know in this life because we cannot dissect it. And even if we could reason it out to the point that we can safely define ourselves, it is simply absurd to think that we can somehow apply that same understanding to someone who is both man and God. The circumstances and conditions surrounding the Incarnation are unique in addition to being unknown. The fact that there were so many views on the exact relationship of the human and divine in Christ during the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries just proves my point that any view finally adopted is a mere theory that cannot be proved because its premises are not universally shared. Is Christ a divine person who possesses a human nature? Is he instead a divine person who cloaks himself with human flesh? Is he instead divinized flesh? Is he instead a singular “person” with a divine nature and a human nature? Is he instead a fusion of divinity and humanity? Granted, some of these theories are more easily dispatched than others on biblical grounds. Nevertheless, who could possibly know these things with any certainty? No one knows the mind of God, and he has not revealed it. No one observed the hypostatic union, and so no one can know what conditions apply in this case. Indeed, no one can claim to know with certainty any conditions of the metaphysical apart from divine revelation. And so, the various views on this that the “church” condemned as “heresies” are not only metaphysical unknowns, they are in fact unknowable in this life. How then can they be heresies? At the very least, it is the height of arrogance to make a dogma of any of these views, hence binding the conscience of man to it as some sort of shibboleth of orthodoxy.

“It was Nestorius who was not content with "the Word became flesh" but who felt the need to introduce a novel term, Christotokos, when Theotokos was both less confusing and more accurate”

How is theotokos (“God bearer”) “less confusing and more accurate” since it says nothing about Jesus’ humanity? How does that title “accurately” describe who Christ? How is christotokos (“Christ bearer”) “inaccurate” since it is more general and omits nothing? Did Mary not bear the Christ? How is it confusing? Is there some confusion in Prejean’s mind over whether Jesus is the Christ? What Prejean really objects to is biblical restraint. Christotokos is a perfectly acceptable title because it does not overemphasize one of the natures of Jesus to the detriment of the other.

“No, but I do believe that [Scripture] is a theandric document, a combination of nature and supernature, and I don't believe the natural component exhausts the supernatural meaning of Scripture, which is perceived only by the rule of faith”

The latter point, of course, is not demanded nor even suggested by the former point. That there would be some “mysterious meaning” of Scripture comprehensible only to the “illuminati,” just because it was authored by God, is not only an unjustified conclusion but a Gnostic ideal. Communication assumes the ability to understand. According to Jesus himself, God revealed his word to “babes,” not to the “wise.” The God who chose the “foolish things” of the world, and the ignoble people of the world—the fishermen, the carpenters, the common man—does not turn around and shroud his word in symbols intelligible only to a “Magisterium.” That’s a byproduct of Prejean’s catholicism, not of biblical truth.

“What do I care about your accomplishments outside of patristics? The issue is whether you are keeping up with patristics and the skills that would be relevant to that field of study.”

It was Prejean who claimed my formal training is 20-years out of date, that I don’t work in my field, and that I haven’t “kept up” with my training. But I have kept up with my field (New Testament) and have never claimed to have training in patristics. All I have claimed is that I at least have training in related disciplines—something that Prejean does not have.

“So what I would like to understand is why someone who is not "keeping up with that field" is writing articles about ‘Apollinarimonophysitism’ without bothering to get back up to speed on the subject?”

I was up to speed when I wrote my article on Apollinarimonophysitism. And what is ironic is that Prejean himself was writing about these things before he even knew of the existence of McGuckin. He produced McGuckin’s views only after he lost his debate with me. That means he himself was engaging in the very exercise for which he now chides me; namely, by his own admission he was writing about these things before he “got up to speed” on them. Prejean pretends he does not understand how someone can do that, but it is painfully obvious that he himself did that very thing before he knew of McGuckin’s existence. Now I don’t accept that McGuckin is the “controlling voice” on this issue, but Prejean obviously does. Hence, Prejean is a hypocrite.

“The notion that the Scripture could be read truly without the rule of faith to discern its spiritual content was not one that any of the Fathers held.”

Prejean betrays both his ignorance and his simplistic and pop-roman-apologetic understanding of the fathers. Prejean doesn’t read the fathers; he reads books about the fathers. What rule of faith? There was simply no such thing as Prejean’s rule of faith in the fifth century. No one believed in an infallible pope at that time. No one believed councils could not err at that time. No one believed councils were irreformable at that time. No one believed, as Prejean clearly does, that Scripture is irrelevant, not for us today, does not speak to us, and whatever other nonsense he has spouted. And if Prejean wants to pursue this point, I will be happy to bury him under a mountain of extended quotations from the fathers that will quickly cure him of his ignorance.

“They certainly didn't believe that the mundane historical content of Scripture exhausted its meaning.”

Again, who is “they”? The fathers collectively (as though they held a monolithic view on this)? If so, then Prejean is simply spouting his ignorance. He doesn’t know what the fathers believed on these things because he has never read the fathers.

“Indeed, "for Pete's sake," look at Cyril's statements about "the divine and holy mysteries." What Svendsen is doing is exactly what Cyril condemns: trying to justify the Christian faith by some mundane method rather than the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.”

What?! This is patently absurd! Prejean has this exactly backwards. It is he who is trying to justify his brand of “orthodoxy” by use of reason and platonic concepts rather than Scripture. I, in stark contrast, have constantly pointed to the Scriptures as the necessary restraint in our speculations. Who is the one justifying his faith by use of a “mundane method” here?! Who is the one justifying his faith by use of “the divine inspiration of the Scriptures”? Prejean is becoming delusional in this conversation.

As for Cyril, he goes out of his way to “prove from Scripture” the points he is making, and he interprets Scripture in the plain, usual, and ordinary sense that I would to accomplish that goal. He doesn’t always get it right; but neither does he engage in some ethereal and nebulous interpretation, comprehensible only on a higher plane, to prove his points. But more important is the point I originally made and which is completely lost on Prejean; namely, that he manifestly does not hold the same high view of Scripture as Cyril, particularly in what is required to “prove” a point of theology. Cyril takes pains to prove everything from Scripture, and makes it abundantly clear that if it cannot be proved from Scripture, then it cannot be upheld as binding. Prejean, on the other hand, blatantly rejects the relevance of Scripture in this discussion—worse, assigns it the same status as the Book of Mormon and the Quran in its ability to define orthodoxy!—and turns instead to Plato, Aristotle, and his own “brilliance” as his "spiritual guide" to the metaphysical world and the divine nature.

“The only teaching I have been arguing for from Ephesus and Chalcedon is a single subject, so either you were saying that Chalcedon "ran ahead" of the Apostles in teaching a single subject or you are simply so baffled about what it taught that you think it was teaching something beyond what it did teach.”

This is a patent lie. As I have already shown, Prejean is not content to know that Christ is a “single subject,” but must postulate precisely how that single subject comes together, and how exactly Christ is to be defined. Anyone who affirms that Christ is a “one person”—which I affirm—also affirms a single-subject Christology. But, in spite of this affirmation, Prejean continues to accuse Protestants of believing Christ is two persons. That proves he is not content with a simple affirmation that Christ is one person, but must in fact define how Christ is one person. That is exactly the area that I maintain is inexplicable in the same way the Godhead itself is inexplicable. And so, Prejean lies when he claims to be content with an affirmation that Christ is one person not two.

“But what you said here doesn't exonerate you from the charge that you deny the single subject, because explaining how isn't required in order to affirm what kind of union between the natures exists. Is this union constituted by the person of the Word of God, or isn't it?”

See what I mean? Through sheer sophistry he denies that more is required to be orthodox than a simple affirmation of single-subject Christology, and simultaneously maintains his insistence that we must affirm a specific idiosyncratic theory of just how that union takes place. What he refers to as an affirmation of the “kind of union” is precisely what I mean by “how it takes place.” The “kind” of union is just the thing that I have maintained is unknowable because, inasmuch Scripture does not reveal this information, the theory assumes knowledge of “how” that union must have taken place (viz., God the Son assumed a human nature but did not become a man per se). And if we don’t have affirmation in Scripture of the kind of union it is, nor just how that union took place, then we’re left to our own devices in figuring it out. And once we find ourselves outside the realm of divinely revealed truth, no one can affirm a “kind” of union apart from explaining (or at the very least assuming) just “how” that union took place—else there would be no reason to accept it. And that is just the predicament Prejean is in. He rejects Scripture and so must stand on his own reasoning faculties to figure out what “kind” of union takes place in Christ. But he cannot do that without first assuming the “hows” of that union, else why accept it? And if one does not accept Prejean’s underlying “hows,” there remains no basis for accepting his proposed “kind of union.”

“Given that I don't think God placed Biblical restraints on knowledge (indeed, it strikes me as a contradiction in terms), I don't think the fact that I had no need of them.”

He doesn’t place biblical restraints on knowledge; he places biblical restraints on knowledge of the divine: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law” (Deut 29:29). "So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female” (Deut 4:15-16).

“Indeed, I think there are plenty of natural limitations on my "brilliant intellect" that more than prevent me from having God "all figured out," so I can't imagine why He would be so threatened by my mind that He would need to constrain it.”

It’s not because he is “threatened” that your mind needs to be constrained by revealed truth; it’s because your mind is foolish.

“There was no period in which Arianism held sway in all the bishoprics in both East and West. "Athanasius contra mundum" is an exaggeration, as was the world "groaning to find itself Arian." You've been reading too many Protestant conspiracy theories. None of the Arian bishops had the authority to speak for the Church as a whole, and Liberius's and Hosius's signatures to the compromise formula (which was not even heterodox, only dangerously ambiguous) was obtained under duress. I could recommend some good works on the subject, including some recent monographs, but I doubt they would help you. Timothy Barnes's Athanasius and Constantius is the must-read, though.”

Once again, Prejean is held captive by highly selective scholarship. The thing that constantly escapes Prejean in his evaluation of which scholars are right and which are mistaken is that he is not qualified to make that judgment. All he can go by is what the author by whom he has most recently become convinced happens to say about the other positions. Part of the problem is that he confines much of his reading to harlequin novels about Rome. But at the end of the day, it just doesn’t matter that Liberius signed a document under duress (a true Christian dies rather than denies Christ under duress in any case—and in this case, the worse fate Liberius would have suffered was deposition). What matters is that Arianism held sway in the church, and Athanasius and his orthodox companions were effectively deposed. The Arians could claim that any voice of opposition in their day was just heterodoxy rearing its ugly head in the exact same way that the fifth-century church could say the same thing about the Nestorians, Apollinarians, and Monophysites of their own day. Prejean’s “rule of faith” is illusory, and contains so many escape hatches that it dies the death of a thousand qualifications.

“Svendsen evidently now can't even read a review reasonably. Svendsen argued that this use of phrase meant that Chalcedon was correcting Cyril; Oakes says exactly the opposite, conceding that Chalcedon considered Cyril orthodox.”

To be precise, I did not say Chalcedon corrected Cyril—although other scholars (such as Meyendorff) have said this—I specifically said Chalcedon corrected Ephesus (though, actually, I am not opposed to saying it corrected Cyril as well). And Oakes affirms this point when he states (in his correction of McGuckin) that “The decree the Eastern bishops supported dearly represented a middle passage between the extremes of Antioch and Alexandria,” and then proceeds to identify those “extremes” in terms of the dispute between the term "hypostasis" and the term "person," as well as the phrase "from two natures” and the "in two natures.” More on this momentarily.

“He merely notes that the Chalcedonian Fathers did not consider his orthodoxy exclusive of other equivalent formulations such as the ones advanced by Leo (viz., they did not see the need to correct Leo in light of Cyril). They appear to have accepted orthodox statements rather even-handedly, picking whichever one appeared most useful or clear.”

That’s not exactly what Oakes says. What he says is this: “The standard Western account of that episode claims for Rome a balance of approach lacking in the more disputatious Greek theologians, who were still too besotted by the neo-Platonic speculations common in the East.” Isn’t this exactly what I have maintained throughout this dialogue—that the fifth-century formulations were too steeped in platonic speculations to be granted the status of dogma (I seem to be more of a defender of the approach of fifth-century Rome than Prejean is on this point)? Oakes does not repudiate this account, but goes on to affirm (in correction of McGuckin) that “we know the Alexandrians themselves detected these ‘concessions’ to Antiochene theology [at Chalcedon] because Cyril's more hotheaded successors (Eutyches and Dioscorus, primarily) actively rejected the Council.” But if those who followed Cyril (who spearheaded Ephesus) rejected Chalcedon (even though they fully embraced Ephesus), then it follows necessarily that they thought Chalcedon contradicted Ephesus, and that Cyril himself was Monophysite in his Alexandrian theology. Consequently, Oakes affirms there was a difference in theology (“concessions” as he calls them); and just because the prevailing voice at Chalcedon accepted those concessions does not mean the differences aren’t real.

“That Svendsen claims support from Oakes for the proposition that Chalcedon and Ephesus conflict is objectively dishonest, although given Svendsen's rampant emotionalism, I have strong doubts as to whether he sees it.”

The reason I don’t see it is because it’s not there. Oakes affirms that Chalcedon is at least a “middle ground” or “concession” between the Alexandrians (whose view was well established at Ephesus) and the Antiochenes. And who is it that is operating on rampant emotionalism? Remember, it was Prejean who earlier chided me as being “behind the times” and too ignorant of current scholarship for mentioning that the use of the Antiochene phrase “in two natures” and the Cyrillene phrase “from two natures” was a point of dispute between the two schools. Yet Oakes affirms the very same point in his review—and Prejean just ignores it; which betrays the fact that Prejean’s true agenda in this is to apply standards of scholarship to me that he refuses to apply to patristic scholars themselves!

“It's ridiculous to think that most scholars are going to put out a statement every time that their work is refuted, and indeed, it would be obnoxious in the extreme for me to demand it of them.”

Prejean has certainly demanded it of me. I guess that makes him “obnoxious in the extreme,” but only inconsistently so.

“Indeed, the way I "do scholarship" is not to go out of the way to embarrass people I think are refuted, which would be pointless, but to allow them the dignity of silence.”

But this excuse is refuted by Prejean's actual practice many times over. Why was this courtesy of “silence” not extended to me? If Prejean came to the conclusion that I was out of touch with recent scholarship after our discussion took place (in the series posted on my blog), why did he not think it “pointless” to “go out of his way” to “embarrass” me by spamming every web board he visited about my “lack of qualifications” for nearly a two-year period after the discussion had ended? Where was the “dignity of silence” in that case? No, Mr. Prejean can’t hide behind that farce—we all know him differently. The reason he won’t write these scholars is because he knows he'll have his amateur teeth handed to him.

“Given that McGuckin gave a speech at the festschrift for Pelikan's 80th birthday, I can't imagine that Pelikan thought McGuckin had done him wrong.”

What? “Done him wrong”? Does Prejean really think all scholars must be agreed on every point of historical interpretation before one can speak at another’s festschrift? What is this point supposed to prove?

“And I repeat: your concept of Scriptual authority based solely on natural meaning lacks any perception of the supernatural meaning, meaning that it is just another document like any other uninspired document.”

Prejean clearly does not understand biblical exegesis. And he just as clearly confuses “natural reading” (communication assumes understanding of that which is communicated) with “natural meaning” (by which Prejean seems to mean “earthly understanding”), as though those things are identical. I would counsel Prejean to go and immerse himself in Scripture and learn how to do exegesis. That’s the best advice I can give him.

“Then what other person is there in Christ than the divine person? It is because you say that He is not ONLY a divine person that you err; indeed, that IS the Nestorian error. There is no way that you can say "[the divine person] is not ALL that Christ is" without also saying "there is more than one person in Christ."

Notice Prejean’s persistence in asking me to explain what I have repeatedly insisted throughout this discussion is inexplicable precisely because it is beyond human comprehension. To attempt an explanation of this is to concede a premise that I reject. It is Prejean who thinks these things can be “figured out” through reason, not I. Hence, I have no obligation to explain, only to affirm. Indeed, I have every obligation, given my premise, not to attempt an explanation! The ability to explain it is Prejean’s assumption, not mine. But since Prejean does think it can be explained, then he needs to answer the questions I posed to him in my “Calm before the Storm” post, which he has not so far done.

Silly Prejean; Truth is for Christians

2006-12-30T11:14:00.000-08:00

As promised, here is my response to Jonathan Prejean’s “Christmas Comes Early” post. Prejean's comments will appear in red, and my responses will follow in black:

“I thought Eric Svendsen had followed his usual M.O. of fleeing discussion when it actually gets to substance, then revising it long after the fact. Instead, he decided to revise history immediately after the fact after I had announced I was leaving the discussion with Steve Hays.”

My timing is dictated by responsibilities I have—not by the timing of Prejean’s rants.

“Unluckily for "Eric the Yellow," I was paying attention, so his attempt at shadow-boxing in the guise of responding to me will be exposed to the clear light of truth. And what better way to celebrate the feast of the Incarnation that to flush out a Nestorian, a sworn enemy of the Alexandrian Doctor of Christology, St. Cyril!”

“Eric the Yellow”? I realize Prejean is young; but I didn’t know he was twelve. Oh, that’s right; he’s now a sycophant of Art “Jack Chick” Sippo, and takes his cue from him. And Prejean flatters himself. He assumes I have a much higher regard for what he does and thinks than I actually do. In fact, I care very little whether Prejean was paying attention or not. His voice in this—or in anything for that matter—is so minor, it is barely worth responding to. There are not many who even read his blog; and that’s not just my opinion, it is a technical observation. In fact, good luck finding Prejean’s blog if you don’t already have it bookmarked. Even a Google search on the name of the blog or the name of the author--or both--will yield only third-party references to it, which means it simply does not draw much traffic.

“Good. You're willing to admit that you're calling me an idiot, which chews up your credibility faster than a wood chipper shreds a branch.”

And why exactly would someone lose credibility for that? Again, Prejean assumes here that I have a higher view of him than I actually do.

“Svendsen evidently doesn't realize how senseless this is. People don't reassert arguments they're embarrassed about losing. When they reassert arguments, it's because they think they already won, not because they feel the need to bolster them by reassertion.”

Again, not necessarily. Someone as disingenuous as Prejean knows that if he admits defeat, his “catholic cause” goes out the window. His M.O. is to engage in sophistry and spin the dialogue in his favor. Nothing particularly “senseless” about that, particularly when we’re dealing with someone who has demonstrated a propensity to lie.

“Also, if a person were using this tactic, the person in question would deliberately NOT link the responses, just like Svendsen didn't.”

That’s ridiculous. Of course such a person would. It would be idiotic not to, since anyone with a search engine could find the dialogue on my blog (unlike Prejean’s blog). And then such a person would engage in sophistry and spin to make it look like he is right. In fact, I’ll prove it. Just read how Prejean spins his backpedaling incident. It is indisputable that Prejean originally thought Nestorius taught Christ was two persons; and then when confronted with the evidence of patristic scholars pretended he always knew Nestorius’s view had been misunderstood.

"No one can explain" is a philosophical claim that Svenden fails to back up.”

Just because Prejean has deceived himself into thinking he can explain it, does not make it so.

“The assertion that the Scriptures only affirm what Svendsen says is question-begging both on this assertion that Scripture is an exclusive divine authority and that dogmatic propositions are extracted from Scripture based only on his exegetical method.”

It’s the only divine authority that functions as common ground in this discussion; hence, it’s the only divine authority that is worth anything in this discussion. Even the councils themselves do not claim to have additional revelation—rather, they work with their understanding of Scripture. Prejean loses this point.

“Little surprise that a Calvinist says this; my brand spanking new copy of Helm's John Calvin's Ideas says much the same thing. Calvin doesn't consider the communicatio idiomatum to refer to anything real, which is Nestorianism.”

Here’s another example of Prejean’s “dazzling” logic at work. And it’s the same “logic” that would allow me to conclude that since Prejean does not recognize the apostles can act as a rule of faith, then he doesn’t believe they are real people. And since he doesn’t believe they are real people, he’s a Docetist. Therefore, Roman Catholicism is Docetic. See how easy that was?

“And for the record, anything two conflicting propositions whose conflict can't be explained are just nonsense, which is exactly what Nestorianism was.”

Prejean's underlying humanistic rationalism betrays him. If he can’t explain it, it’s not real. He knows exactly how God is one and three at the same time. Prejean can explain that. He knows exactly how God can have no beginning—that there was never an instant when God had a first thought. He knows the mechanics of how God can be all places at all times. Prejean can explain perfectly how the hypostatic union works. He has penetrating insight into just how all those things came together. And he can do all this without Scripture! Prejean’s completely comprehensible God is, unfortunately, nothing more than an idol made in his own image. This is the same rationale Jehovah's Witnesses use to deny the Trinity.

“But of course, Svendsen is either confused or lying on this point, because Christologically, it refers to the single subject. Here's Svendsen's misunderstanding of my position. Mary's status has nothing to do with it; I want to get the Christological statement correct.”

No, he doesn’t; He wants agreement for one purpose only—so that he can push a Marian agenda. The entire dialogue began as an informal discussion on the title “mother of God,” and the Christology of the fifth century was a side point (introduced by Prejean to bolster his argument) that eventually took center stage. Prejean has either forgotten the original discussion that prompted my series, or (more likely) he is a liar.

“But his view of Cyril has been unanimously crushed by the scholarship, and that includes Catholics (Wessel, Weinandy, Keating), Orthodox (McGuckin, Gavrilyuk, Russell), and Protestants (McKinion). “

Unanimously? So, there are no other patristic scholars except the seven Prejean mentions above? Here again we are treated to Prejeans idea of “scholarship.”

“It's perfectly fine to use the term in an unqualified way; it is only if qualified that it becomes heterodox (Mary is the Mother of God as God). If Christ is truly a single divine subject, then Mother of God is the norm, and the openly heterodox statement would be "mother of a man." This is yet another demonstration of Svendsen's ignorance of the theological use of this term (his laughable statements about meter theou being the only worse howlers).

Except, of course, that the qualifier for theotokos in Chalcedon is “as regards his humanity”—the very thing Prejean has just claimed is “heterodox.”

“Except for the pesky FACT that we use the term "Mother of God" in the same way Cyril does, per every recent scholar on the point. But as usual with Svendsen, misrepresent the view, respond AS IF the misrepresentation were true, and repeat.”

And once again, Cyril’s mater theou was not used in the proclamations; so, no, theotokos means “God bearer,” not “mother of God.”

“The Platonic concepts and Aristotelian categories are simply explanatory tools (and by the way, what training does Svendsen have in philosophy to make ANY statements about Aristotelian and Platonic concepts, much less study in patristics to know how the Fathers applied them?).”

Philosophy classes were a required part of my program. One now needs an advanced degree in philosophy to know about Aristotle and Plato? To use Prejan’s own logic, since he has absolutely no training in patristics or any related discipline, what makes him qualified at all to speak on any of this? Now to the point; tools are useful only if those tools are the right tools. I can’t drive a nail with a screwdriver. I can’t rightly loosen a bolt with a hacksaw. Aristotelian categories are out of place when attempting to explain what has not been revealed to anyone.

“The Fathers deployed them to explain Scripture, not the other way around. But Svendsen doesn't know anything about the Fathers, so how would he know this? You know you've got someone when they resort to the "inexplicable to finite minds" defense. Without some sort of philosophical explanation, that means "my view is nonsense, and I hold it for no good reason."

Prejean just continues to dig himself deeper and deeper into heresy. Here is why Prejean’s open rejection of Scripture in these matters is so dangerous. Notice how his thinking compares to that of the Great Apostle:

“For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, in order that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.” (Rom 11:30-36)

Paul himself could not explain God’s dealings with man, that he would “shut up all men in disobedience” just so he could “show mercy to all.” Instead, he throws his hands in the air and exclaims, “Your judgments are unsearchable and your ways unfathomable!” According to Paul, “NO ONE has known the mind of the Lord.” Prejean, of course, just thinks Paul’s lack of philosophical explanation is “nonsense.” Paul admits he does not know whether he was “in the body or out of the body” when he was caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor 12). Prejean, of course, can explain all of that, and thinks Paul’s explanation of “unknowability” is mere “nonsense” and a “philosophical copout.”

And just to show that the early church followed this approach to that which had not been revealed, here is what Cyril of Jerusalem (the “good” Cyril) had to say about the matter:

“But if the Lord permit, I will set it forth, according to my powers, with demonstration from the Scriptures. For when we are dealing with the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, we must not deliver anything whatsoever, without the sacred Scriptures, nor let ourselves be misled by mere probability, or by marshalling of arguments. And do not simply credit me, when I tell you these things, unless you get proof from the Holy Scriptures of the things set forth by me. For this salvation of ours by faith is not by sophistical use of words, but by proof from the sacred Scriptures (Catechetical Lectures, Lecture IV, Art. 17). . . . For these articles of our faith were not composed out of human opinion, but are the principle points collected out of the whole of Scripture to complete a single doctrinal formulation of the faith” (Ibid., Lecture V, Art. 12). . . . Let us be content with this knowledge [taken from Scripture] and not busy ourselves with questions about the divine nature or hypostasis. I would have spoken of that had it been contained in Scripture. Let us not venture where Scripture does not lead, for it suffices for our salvation to know that there is Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. . . . But the Holy Spirit himself has not spoken in the Scriptures about the Son’s generation from the Father. Why then busy yourself over something that the Holy Spirit has not expressed in the Scriptures? You do not know all the Scriptures, and yet must get to know what is not in the Scriptures? (Ibid., Lecture XI, Art. 12).

According to Prejean, Cyril is just a blithering idiot.

“I consider the assertion that Scripture taken as a historical document doesn't teach a single-subject Christology ridiculous (John 1 alone suffices to show it, and the Arians never managed to evade the logic of that passage)”

Who denies that Christ is a single subject? Does Prejean imagine this is what I’m talking about when I say that the mechanics of how the union of God and man in Christ takes place is not something Scripture addresses? Even the Godhead is addressed as a single subject—that doesn’t explain the complexity of the Trinity. Prejean’s reticence in venturing into Scripture is now beginning to make a lot more sense.

“but even if it didn't, my view of Scriptural authority doesn't require that something be taught in Scripture as historically interpreted to be dogmatic.”

Well, I think we all know that Prejean’s view of scriptural authority doesn’t even require a Bible. He rejects the apostles’ teachings and writings, and has given them the same status as heretical religious books like the Quran and the Book of Mormon.

“Regardless, since I am talking about a single-subject Christology, which has only a very limited application to "Mary's status and role," Svendsen is yet again responding to his own misrepresentation of what I am saying.”

And Prejean’s continued mention of a “single-subject Christology,” as though own view of Christ is something other than that, is nothing less than misrepresentation of my view.

“If I were actually talking about these dogmas (Assumption, Immaculate Conception, Queen of Heaven, etc.), I would just admit that they aren't taught in Scripture viewed as a historical document. It's a unnecessary claim that I don't feel compelled to make, so it's easier just to abandon it. Nothing "terrifying" there.”

That’s not even the point. We all know that these things aren’t taught in Scripture—which is why Prejean insists on appealing to the title theototos. If we can agree that Mary is “mother of God,” then we cannot deny the privileges that attend that title (so goes the reasoning). It’s not strange at all that Prejean would focus on this issue to advance a larger agenda for Mary. It’s something that’s done all the time in RC pop-apologetics.

“Same old thing. Svendsen is talking about Mary's status; I'm talking about Christology. Yes, I think Augustine and Irenaeus both held to single-subject Christology, which is all that the title "Mother of God" means.”

No it’s not the same old thing. The Augustinian quotes I supplied show that Augustine spoke of Mary’s motherhood only in terms of his humanity, and denied it involved his divinity. That’s just what is at issue here in the proper understanding of theotokos.

I quoted Augustine:

At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity" (Tract. in Ioannem CXIX, 1)

Prejean responded:

“And when we speak with the qualification of speaking about natures, this is entirely routine. Since Svendsen evidently can't distinguish between nature and person (subject), I can see why this is confusing.”

There’s nothing even remotely present in this passage that speaks of Prejean’s distinction between “nature” and “person.” Yes, of course he’s referring to nature—but for Augustine, that’s the only meaningful way to express that union. All Augustine is interested in affirming is that Mary can be viewed as “mother of Jesus” only by virtue of his humanity, and NOT by virtue of his divinity. Hence, the title “mother of God” would simply be disallowed by Augustine in any context.

I quoted Augustine:

“Why, then, said the Son to the mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come?" Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had.”

Prejean responded:

“Of course, this is the very same misrepresentation Svendsen is making about me, to suggest that I mean "Mother of God" to refer to nature and not person. So it really just falls in with the big strategy: misrepresent, accuse based on the misinterpretation, and repeat.”

Augustine insisted, “According as He was God, he had no mother.” Prejean somehow interprets this as evidence that Augustine would have given full assent to the title “mother of God.” I’ll let the reader decide for himself whether that’s even a reasonable option.

“Svendsen's anti-intellectual bias against Aristotelian concepts doesn't mean they can't accurately explain the material content of Scripture.”

Anti-intellectual? No. Careful to make a distinction between the paradigm of the New Testament writers and the paradigm of the fifth-century writers? Yes. I’ll say this once again. Aristotelian categories are woefully inadequate to explain Scripture because they are based on different paradigms. To engage in such an activity would be equivalent to using postmodern metanarratives to accurately explain propositional truth; or to use a screwdriver to hammer a nail.

“It's the "biblically constrained" part that strikes me as ridiculous. I have absolutely no reason to think that Scriptural content is different than any other content in terms of being explained by logical concepts.”

This, again, just demonstrates Prejean’s ignorance of Scripture. “Biblically constrained” just means the Bible doesn’t address it, or addresses it in a specific but limited way. Why is that ridiculous? Is Prejean under the impression that Scripture addresses every conceivable question that might come up? And that doesn’t at all imply Scripture is illogical, or that we cannot arrive at a systematic theology of God. What is does imply is that any systematic theology must not transgress or “run ahead of” what Scripture actually affirms—because at that point it is no longer the use of logic that is at play, but logical fallacies. As an example, I can affirm that my dog has dark eyes, and that his coat is dark. If that’s all the information I provide, Prejean has no right to conclude that my dog’s eyes and coat are black. They may be; but no logic is going to figure that out. There are any number of options that could fall under the category of “dark” (brown, almond, chocolate, etc.) and it’s nothing but pure speculation to assume dark = black. Worse, it’s sophistry of the worst kind to try to claim you really are able to deduce that dark = black. That’s just what Prejean is attempting to do in terms of figuring out something about the God-Man that has not been divinely revealed. Human categories of logic cannot explain how God is both three and one, how God can have no beginning, how God is at all times everywhere present, what heaven looks like, what the makeup of the resurrection body is—and yes, how the union of God and man takes place in Christ. If Prejean doesn’t accept these categories, let him explain the “mystery” of the mass in logical terms—or is that no longer a mystery to Prejean? My goodness, even Trent recognizes this concept: “If any one say that in Divine Revelation there are contained no mysteries properly so called, but that through reason rightly developed all the dogmas of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles: let him be anathema” (Sess. III, Canons, 4. De fide et Ratione, 1). Is Prejean now beyond Trent?

“I don't think that the Scriptures are entirely incomprehensible either. However, unlike Svendsen, I think they teach a great deal that requires a complicated conceptual apparatus to understand, particularly when dealing with the nature of God and the like. Svendsen spurns investigation in these areas, dismissing them as inscrutably mysterious, which I consider contempt for the truth in Scripture.”

So, according to Prejean, no one could understand scriptural concepts of God until they were defined in the fifth century. Not that Prejean has any idea what the “truth of Scripture” is. But, here again is that “contemptuous” Trent: “If any one say that in Divine Revelation there are contained no mysteries properly so called, but that through reason rightly developed all the dogmas of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles: let him be anathema.” To Prejean, this is a “philosophical copout.”

“And as far as viewing them as "plainly written," it simply reflects Svendsen's assumption going in that they will be. To think that the Christological concepts in, e.g., the Gospel of John are as trivial and Svendsen thinks they are strikes me as an insult to the Evangelist. The Fathers exalt the hidden wisdom in Scripture; Svendsen's reductionist approach cuts all of that off as carelessly as a mower slices a blade of grass.”

Apparently Prejean has no idea that someone can “write plainly” about an incomprehensible subject. “In the beginning was the word; and the word was with God, and the word was God. . . . and the word became flesh and dwelt among us” is plainly written. From this we know that the Word was God from the beginning and that he became man. But the plainly written words do not venture into how that occurred. It is the latter that the councils tried to explain, and they did so in convoluted ways because they were not content with the simplicity of Scripture.

“Except that this view of Cyril has been shredded by the recent scholarship.”

Yes; every interpretation that conflicts with Prejean’s is always “shredded” by Prejeans selective use of scholarship.

“For purposes of legal exegesis, which is to say as a matter of authority, this is perfectly well within the discipline; it is not EISEGETICAL but EXEGETICAL. There are plenty of ways to answer Roe v. Wade and its progeny as being defective forms of legal reasoning (including natural law) without the absurd consequence of tying our hands to the historical meaning even explictly contrary to the intentions of its authors, who understood it to be the charter of a nation to be applied by later generations, not merely some mundane catalog of then-current beliefs.”

The legal analogy was an analogy only, Prejean’s long sidebar notwithstanding. I assumed Prejean was conservative, not progressive, in his reading for the Constitution. My mistake. Prejean apparently believes there is merit in reading historical documents anachronistically, and that the Constitution supports for a woman’s right to kill her infant. So be it. That method of interpretation is not one that is acceptable in biblical exegesis.

“This is one reason that Svendsen's view of textual authority looks so silly to me, and indeed, this is what most Catholics (and particularly Catholic lawyers like Karl Keating) have in mind when they critique the Protestant rule of authority as anarchic.”

Suffice it to say that it’s a good thing catholic lawyers are not in charge of Scripture.

“Legal exegesis and historical exegesis are different disciplines, and trying to use one in place of the other would be absurd (and I've yet to see even a decent philosophical argument for why historical exegesis is the right standard for Scriptural authority).”

Maybe it’s because Scripture is a historical document. Does Prejean also believe there was a special “Holy Ghost Greek” used for the New Testament?

“Likewise for exegeting Scripture as a mundane document if its revelatory purpose was not for it to be one. But Svendsen here shows no understanding that there are even different methods of exegesis.”

That’s because there aren’t “different methods of exegesis”; only varying genre of literature that need to be exegeted, and the recognition of the idiosyncratic exegetical constraints for each genre. Does Prejean look for hidden or unlikely meanings in a legal document? I doubt he’d win many cases that way (assuming he has even tried a case at all). I am no lawyer, but as a business owner I have to deal with them all the time. The law firm used by my company is very prestigious, and Prejean has no doubt heard of them. I have used them for contracts, partnership agreements, and, yes, even for patent issues (logos have to be patented). I can tell you with certainty that they do not suffer novel interpretations of law, or look for hidden meanings in documents. Things like intent, context, conditions, and wording are all important aspects when they are “exegeting” legal documents. But, perhaps Prejean can get away with allegorical interpretations of legal documents in Louisiana—or perhaps that state allows him to “add to” a legal document that’s already been signed, sealed, and delivered. In any case, whatever “method of exegesis” Prejean thinks he can get away with in legal circles doesn’t apply to biblical exegesis.

“So like I said, Svendsen doesn't want to go here, because anyone who would be so incredibly ignorant as to say that the discipline of law doesn't teach exegesis is so oblivious to reality that he doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.”

I didn’t say exegesis is not taught in law school. I said biblical exegesis is no different than the exegesis of any document of antiquity. If Prejean has training in Constitutional law, that is completely irrelevant to the point I made. He has no training in any discipline related to patristics or biblical exegesis. The latter two are related disciplines in that the patristics are early interpretations of Scripture. But I do not see how Prejean’s study in Constitutional law is relavant to any point I made. He himself admits that the two disciplines are different.

“Credibilility check again. The question is whether an irrational person can manage a 3.9 in both undergraduate and graduate education and then study at Harvard Law School and work in a field in which these sorts of exegetical skills are used every day.”

Here’s another example of Prejean’s dazzling logic. Getting a 3.9 GPA at Harvard means that you’ll always think correctly on every issue, and you’ll always be an expert at any unrelated discipline into which you venture. And that’s why all Harvard graduates who have earned a 3.9 GPA can be found fighting for Christian truth! Seems to me someone once said: “Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” Oh, silly me. I forgot; Prejean does not countenance Scripture.

“On the other hand, someone who studied the subject in what appears to be an adolescent rebellion against his Catholic parents, whose master's degree is about 20 years out of date, who got a "doctorate" at a school with zero scholarly credentials, who is a complete non-entity in reputable scholarship, and who doesn't even work in the field might have a slight accountability problem. I can't afford to let my skills slip, but Svendsen could turn into a raving lunatic and never know the difference. Think about it.”

Yes, the entire legal world is on pins and needles waiting breathlessly for Jonathan Prejean to “keep up” with his skills. Let me disabuse Prejean of his fallacious thinking. Patristics is not my field of study, and only marginally an area of interest for me. I make no apologies for not “keeping up” with that field. But I can assure Prejean there is no slouching when it comes to my field; and my “20 years out of date” masters degree has been diligently “kept up” to date. Although I do not work in the field full-time, I do work as a tutor in NT for my alma mater. And just as a reminder to Prejean; whatever he may think about my credentials, my doctoral work not only passed examination by committee, but has been endorsed by major scholars in my field, and related fields—including church history. What, in contrast, has Prejean ever published that received comparable commendations?

“No doubt the Apostles are "living" in a real sense, and the Orthodox have even tried to make authority out of this, although I am skeptical of how real such authority can be. But this is Svendsen's MO again: I said that there is no LIVING person who has such authority; he accuses me of saying that there are no PERSONS; he responds AS IF I had said what he misattributes to me.”

And so, Prejean confirms his Docetism. “The word of God is living, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword.”

“Certainly, the intellect can know things about the God that created it, but I am not denying revelation. I am saying that the way the Fathers (and I) give authority to texts is not the way Svendsen does, and Svendsen's concept of giving textual authority by sheer historical exegesis has much more in common with Muslims that Christians.”

Well, then Prejean would just be plain wrong about that, because the fathers did indeed give primacy to the text of Scripture. Note Cyril of Jerusalem’s words cited above, for pete’s sake. How can someone who claims so much knowledge about the fathers be so ignorant of what they believed about Scripture? None of them—not one—would have relegated Scripture to the status of the Quran or the Book of Mormon as Prejean has done. Prejean remains a biblical heretic.

“Except, as usual per the Svendsen M.O., this isn't what I said. What I reject is Svendsen's method of giving authority solely to what the Apostles historically meant, which is not what I believe even the Apostles had in mind for Scripture.”

Prejean has said nothing to clear him of the charge that he is, in fact, a biblical heretic by virtue of his blatant disregard for the teaching of the Apostles.

“Let's move our eye back to the ball. Svendsen is saying here that Scripture does not teach single-subject Christology, . . . “

More Prejean lies. I never said Christ is not a single subject. I said that we cannot explain how the union of God and man took place, but that we must affirm his full deity as well as his full humanity, and that anything beyond that is mere speculation.

“which is all the term "Mother of God" identifies.”

Not true; theotokos was intended to convey that Christ was deity even in the womb.

“He is also saying that all of this is shrouded in mystery and can't be parsed coherently, which is more or less an admission that he can't explain how Christianity is coherent, but he believes it anyway.”

I’ll take my chances and stick with the Scriptures on this one. If Prejean wants to boast of his brilliant intellect before God and explain to God in the judgment that he had Him all figured out and had no need of biblical constraints in this, more power to him.

“Well, Svendsen can revel in his incoherence all he likes, but I think that single-subject Christology is taught in Scripture, that it is logically necessary for the Scriptural concept of God to be coherent, and that is it both reasonable and necessary to deploy suitable philosophical concepts to explain this.”

Necessary, eh? Then I guess Christianity just did not exist until the fifth century.

“So if Svendsen affirms Nestorius's orthodoxy vis-a-vis Chalcedon, it's simply proof that he is following a discredited and dated line of reasoning that finds no support in the current state of the scholarship. And since I also happen to think that Nestorius's view entails a denial of Christ's divinity as described by Chalcedon, I have no qualms about accusing Svendsen and anyone who agrees with him of being heterodox.”

And as I’ve already demonstrated, Prejean is a Docetist, since his belief entails that he doesn’t accept the apostles as real people who can function as a rule of faith. See how easy this is?

“What is particularly important to note, though, is that Svendsen has confused the idea of Nestorius having some legitimate concern that originated in Antiochene thought with the idea that Nestorius actually articulated such a thing. Even many of the sources that concede the former reject the latter."

So, in Prejean’s view, Nestorius was condemned by Cyril and his cronies for an unarticulated belief?

“Because I have access to the works of the scholars in the field, and very little turns on the knowledge of primary languages. The scholars' arguments explain clearly what the reasoning is where they do, and the disputes are not over critical and translational issues, on which the understanding is generally unanimous. The issues under discussion here do not turn on such details.”

But they do turn on the ability to understand history, Scripture, and theology—disciplines which are lost on Prejean.

“The only presupposition I have is that we have been in the Church Age from Pentecost to the present day. I entirely reject that the Fathers thought that "The early church for them was the New Testament," because I don't think they distinguished the early Church from the one they had right in front of them, as I do not.”

Ah; I see. And so when Arianism held sway in all the bishoprics in both East and West for nearly a century, that was the “church.” In other words, the fourth-century church which rejected the divinity of Christ could not have been in error because they were indistinguishable from the first-century church.

“This is why I think historical exegesis is inapt as a standard for Biblical authority; it treats the Church as if there was a qualitative gap between the Church of the Apostles and the Church today. There are not Apostles today, but to the extent the Apostles formed a Christian community subject to certain objective norms of authority, that very same institution persists until the present day (just as the America founded with the Declaration of Independence is the same America today). What Svendsen considers "baggage," I consider a conceptual articulation of the same faith, just as I consider correct legal decisions to be conceptual articulations of the same law.”

Except for that little gaff about the fourth century Arian Catholic church.

“Whether it will meet Svendsen's standards of what counts as "exegesis" or "biblical orthodoxy" is a matter of supreme indifference to me.”

If Prejean is so indifferent to my opinion, why does he bother to right a 20-page response to it?

“Scripture doesn't say much about these subjects absent some fairly rigorous and diligent philosophical examination illuminated by natural theology.”

Here we go again with Prejean’s “wisdom that is wiser than God’s”

“By and large, the historical claims of the New Testament aren't matters of dispute; the real dispute is over the communicative content, particularly whether the Apostles were talking solely to their audience or not (and that carries tremendous significance for the method of exegesis one selects).”

I’ve addressed this point sufficiently in my previous response to Prejean. Prejean is a docetist on this point, plain and simple.

“scholarship does not consist of taking what you learned more than a decade ago in graduate school and treating it as "unassailable," nor does it mean that you can keep on talking about the scholarship when you aren't keeping current.

No; but what it does mean is that you don’t place all your eggs in one basket that has not yet been responded to by whatever you think the “old school” is.

“And Oakes says no such thing to my knowledge; he simply rejects that Chalcedon was a revision of St. Leo's work (and I happen to agree with him, contra McGuckin). But with respect to Nestorius, even Oakes can't find a cavil against McGuckin's work:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0508/reviews/oakes.html

First of all, I do not care whether you agree with him or not since your opinion on these things is completely worthless. Nevertheless, here is the text of Oakes’ review to which I referred:

“Here Cyril was certainly bolder than the Latin theologians, but the lack of theological daring in Latin Christology has somewhat slanted McGuckin's interpretation of Pope Leo I, whose famous Tome was read out before the assembled bishops at Chalcedon to unanimous acclaim: "Peter has spoken through Leo!" The standard Western account of that episode claims for Rome a balance of approach lacking in the more disputatious Greek theologians, who were still too besotted by the neo-Platonic speculations common in the East. McGuckin disagrees. He points out, rightly, that the bishops not only accepted Leo's intervention as the voice of Peter but went on to say, "So also did Cyril teach." (Cyril had died seven years before Chalcedon.) According to McGuckin, the bishops accepted Leo because, and only because, he taught the same thing as Cyril, who alone was the test for Christological orthodoxy. McGuckin also makes the much more radical claim that the decree of Chalcedon was meant as a deliberative corrective to Leo's Tome. This thesis will not stand up to scrutiny. The decree the Eastern bishops supported dearly represented a middle passage between the extremes of Antioch and Alexandria. Cyril had favored the term "hypostasis" to denote the union of divine and human in Jesus, while the Antiochenes preferred "person." Chalcedon used both terms. Similarly, Cyril generally spoke of a hypostatic union "from" two natures, whereas Leo and the Antiochenes insisted on the union taking place "in" two natures and that is the formulation Chalcedon chose. Finally, we know that the Alexandrians themselves detected these "concessions" to Antiochene theology because Cyril's more hotheaded successors (Eutyches and Dioscorus, primarily) actively rejected the Council. That rejection soon led to the Monophysite heresy, which lives on to this day in the Coptic and Ethiopian churches.”

Incidentally, notice here that Oakes countenances the difference between the Antiochene “in two natures” and the Cyrillene “from two natures”—the very phrases I used and for which Prejean accused me of “not keeping up with scholarship.” Apparently, Oakes has not been informed of Prejean’s correction.

“Professor Pelikan has gone on to his eternal reward, but Pelikan, Kelly, and McGrath are considered in the literature, as evidenced by the bibliography of the above works. To the extent that they conflict with anything I have said, they've been answered.”

In other words, Prejean has declined to petition these scholars for a correction, who surely know of McGuckin’s views by now. Which really means he doesn’t think he’ll get one. And that’s just the point of my corrective to Prejean on how to do scholarship.

“But in point of fact, Svendsen hasn't actually shown that they hold his belief, and he is wrong about it.”

Go back and re-read my series on Historical Theology, Mr. Prejean. I’m not going to do your homework for you.

“To reiterate, I don't reject the authority of Scripture; I reject the authority of those who treat it like the Qu'ran.”

Actually, Prejean does indeed reject the authority of Scripture. And it was he and no one else who relegated it to the pit of the Quran. Here are his own words on this that he is now attempting to backpedal:

“Anyway, your misunderstanding on Catholic authority is somewhat beside the point. I have nothing to hide; I have never been anything other than willing to yield the field if you want to discuss matters of Biblical exegesis, because I don't share your concept of Scriptural authority. From my perspective, it's about as interesting to me as an argument from the Book of Mormon or the Qu'ran; we might as well be reading different books.”

Prejean continues:

“And "not speculating" is no excuse when you affirm exactly what the single-subject Christology requires you to affirm. It doesn't really matter whether you that you are doing it; Nestorius himself didn't believe that he was, but his denial was incoherent and illogical.”

And, once again, using this same rationale, Prejean is a Docetist.

“Apart from Apollinaris not actually believing that (he believed that Christ was a divine person with a human body not a human nature, including a rational soul), the Chalcedonian confession of faith is that Christ is the Word of God, a divine person who assumed a human nature. This is undoubted; why Svendsen continues to deny it is beyond me.”

I do not deny that Christ is a divine person with a human nature. What I deny is that is all he is. As I already stated, he was fully a man—not merely a human nature. That’s why I insisted that both the human and the divine are bound together in Christ and constitute his person. This affirms the oneness of Christ and the full humanity of Christ, without attempting to speculate how all this tales place.

“Plenty of Protestants accept the Incarnation and divinity of Christ; the problem is that you don't (and Calvin probably didn't either).”

Yes, and once again, Prejean is a Docetist. See how easy that is?

“Your position in the "apollinarimonophysite" article is Nestorian. It's sheerly incoherent to say that Christ is not a divine person”

Stop with the lies, Mr. Prejean. I have never stated that Christ is not a divine person—I have always said that is not ALL he is. That’s why you constantly arrive at the wrong conclusions—you are incapable of getting the arguments right.

“So you admit that you don't understand the Catholic position and have no business responding to it.”

I defy anyone to find where I admitted not understanding the catholic position. Another example of Prejean’s inability to rightly understand even a contemporary statement.

The Calm Before the Storm

2006-12-29T10:22:00.000-08:00

Prejean has responded to some questions I posed to him in the comments section at Triablogue. His most recent post is much calmer than his last one (to which I have not yet responded). I still plan to post a response to that one, but this one will take priority.

This is the longest I have ever seen Svendsen stick to a point (which wasn't my point, but at least it is *A* point), so I'll have to give him credit for that. The benefit of him sticking to this point is that he has asked some questions that might actually help to illustrate why he is missing my position.

Then Prejean must have forgotten about the entire series of dialogue I have on Historical Theology posted under the “Notable Series” section of this blog.

As I said on Triablogue, if anything is true, it is that I am anti-Docetistic. I do not imagine the Apostles somehow intending to speak to me, except insofar as they accept that God will use their words through the interpretation of the faithful. With respect to their original intent, I construe it in a very narrowly and historically-bound way, without any expectation that it was meant to be viewed as directed to anything but the bare historical circumstances in front of them. That Scripture written by 1st century Jews still speaks to 21st century Christians is a matter of miracle, not design of the authors.

Prejean has engaged in doublespeak here. He begins by asserting that the apostles do not speak to him or to anyone else outside of their narrow first-century Jewish context. He ends up asserting that they do indeed speak to 21st-century Christians via a miracle. Do they speak to us or not? Which is it? And if they speak to us, even via a miracle, then (contrary to Prejean’s original statement about this in another thread) they can indeed function as a rule of faith.

However, as Steve Hays has cogently pointed out here, Prejean routinely confuses exegesis with the establishment of “dogmatic authority” and then with application (“the apostles don’t speak to me; therefore whatever they might say is irrelevant to dogmatic authority of revelation”). This confusion in turn is based on Prejean’s odd notion that if the Bible is written in the context of a different time and culture, then it has no meaning for us today (by which he apparently means it has no application today). Yet the content of Scripture is focused mostly on universal truths that transcend time and culture. The idea that man has rebelled against God, that man is desperately sinful, and that he stands in need of redemption is not something confined to the first century or to the Jewish world. The idea that Christ’s death on the cross is sacrificial and propitiatory stands universally true regardless of whether a 21-century culture recognizes that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.” Hence, the consequential statement “whoever believes is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already” is just as true and just as applicable for someone in the 21st-century Western world as it was for someone in first-century Judea. Exegesis is the method for determining what all that means in its original setting so that we can make sure we first get the meaning right and then the application right. But Prejean thinks we can bypass not only the message and the meaning, but consequently the application as well.

Prejean’s confusion on these things stems from his lumping all historical documents in the same category of intent. If we’re talking about the writings of Euripides, then, yes, we can limit the application and assume Euripides was writing to those in his own day. We can view it as a mere historical document that helps us to understand the development of Greek tragedy. We don’t have to go beyond that and posit some sort of application today (unless you are a theater major) because there is no inherent authority in the writer or the writings to justify doing so.

But Scripture is categorically different. It is revelation given by God. It is therefore not only inherently authoritative, but universally applicable. It is forward-looking by design. It is filled with prophecies and progressive revelation that culminates in God’s self-disclosure in Christ. But even when revelation ceases, it is not thereby finished speaking. It focuses its reader on the coming capitulation of all things at the eschaton; the summing up of all things in Christ and the final recompense in which all wrongs will be righted. It admonishes its reader to believe, act and think in a way that is commensurate with that event. It commends the Scriptures as fully capable of equipping the man of God for the work of the ministry, according to which that work is to “teach,” to “reprove,” to “correct,” and to “train in righteousness.” But most importantly, it expressly warns its readers that a day will come when men like Prejean will reject the “sound doctrine” of Scripture for fables and myths and “doctrines of demons.” Hence, (contra Prejean) the Scriptures themselves testify to their own eminent relevance for everyone, particularly those who are closest to the eschaton.

Yes, there are some things that no longer apply to us, such animal sacrifices. But that’s not due to a different culture or time; it’s due solely to the prophetic fulfillment of such things in the work of Christ. Yet, even in that case, general principles still apply. Paul can cite the episodes of the children of Israel in the wilderness after the exodus from Egypt and exhort the (mostly Gentile) Corinthians of the first century (several centuries removed from the Exodus), “Now these things happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved”; and he can go on to make specific applications against the Corinthians participation in pagan sacrifices. Paul makes a similar point in Rom 15:4, and specifically connects it with the timeless application of the Scriptures: “For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.”

Prejean has written his explanation in the hope of escaping the charge of docetism. Yet, in the process he has placed himself in an even worse position. The atoning sacrifice of Christ recorded in Scripture has no relevance to Prejean because, after all, the concept of atoning sacrifices is something that's confined to the 1st-century Jewish world and has no relevance to us in a 21st-century Western culture. Man’s desperate condition is not a universal truth to Prejean, but rather something confined to a specific place and specific time. Scripture has no relevance to him, and in fact (according to his own words) is no more authoritative or applicable than the Quran or the Book of Mormon. There’s no sense in trying to understand the meaning of what God has told us in his revelation because none of that was written to us. The result of Prejean’s reasoning is that we’re exempt from sin, from the need for a sacrifice, and from the command to believe in Christ; and we are immune to the consequences of ignoring these things. Not only is Prejean therefore docetic (the apostles aren’t real people who can speak to us today), but he is (by virtue of that doecetic viewpoint) Gnostic in his doctrine of sin by John’s standards (1 John 1:8-10).

And remember, according to Prejean himself, it doesn’t matter that you happen to deny such charges and actively affirm beliefs contrary to the charge (Protestants, according to Prejean, deny the Incarnation and the divinity of Christ by virtue of the their understanding of theotokos, even though they actively affirm those things). Hence, according to his own rationale, even if Prejean actively affirms the apostles are real people, he’s still a docetist by virtue of his understanding of Scripture; and even if he actively affirms the principle of sin, he’s still a gnostic denier of sin by virtue of his understanding of Scripture.

First, if your response isn't directed to dual-subject versus single-subject Christology, then you are already misconstruing the Catholic claim, because "Mother of God" is a term used to show single-subject Christology. If that's not the debate, then you aren't debating with me.

No, rather because Prejean is incapable of objective analysis he has always merely assumed I hold to his understanding of Nestorianism; namely, that Christ is two persons rather than one. I don’t hold that, and never have held it. I have always affirmed the singularity and unity of the union of man and God in Christ. I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit into Prejean’s limited paradigm, but it is a fact nevertheless. The debate, as far as I have been involved, has always been about the exact way that union occurs; not about a single subject vs. a dual subject. But this is par for the course with Prejean. When he can’t understand a view, he simply lumps it into the view that seems to him to be close to it, and then issues sweeping judgments that do not apply.

But I think you ARE debating with single-subject Christology.

See?

You say that nous (which is incidentally of Platonic origin as Apollinaris used it, not Aristotelian)

Notice the pettiness. I label nous an Aristotelian category, and Prejean responds that it is of Platonic origin, as though this is some great correction. Aristotle was a disciple of Plato, and regularly employed the term nous—and I doubt there is a great distinction in how each man uses it. I’m using “Aristotelian” as a category of terms. I have used “Platonic” interchangeably in past dialogue for these same categories.

[you say that nous] means the same thing as "person" (which isn't true of either Platonic, Aristotelian, or Neoplatonic uses of the term, but accepting your usage for the sake of argument).

That’s simply not true. I have stated that that is the Apollinarian use of the word (which Prejean may want to dispute), but that’s not thereby my definition. As I have stated elsewhere, my use of “nous,” “person,” or any other such term employed by the fifth-century debate is mere accommodation. I do not put any stock in their accuracy or authority. Biblically, nous refers to the "mind" or "intellect," and I have stated that clearly even in my earliest articles on this subject.

That would mean that two persons (the divine person and the human person) combine to form a divino-human person with both divine and human properties. That's Nestorianism.

See again? Here’s how Prejean reasons: Svendsen’s view appears to be close to Nestorianism, therefore it is Nestorianism. Aside from the fact that Nestorius used prosopon ("face") to properly describe his view (there was already a language difference between Cyril and Nestorius), whatever Prejean thinks Nestorius believed is far from my view. Once again, I have gone on record stating I reject the philosophical categories and distinctions employed in the fifth-century. They are not authoritative for me. I view them as artificial categories. They are nothing more than unbiblical (and unhelpful) categories that further confuse the simplicity of Scripture. I am coming from a biblical perspective on this issue, not a fifth-century one. I refuse to speculate on just how the union between God and man takes place because to speculate beyond what is revealed invariably results in idolatry.

I have no idea what you mean by "mere accommodation" or what "categories" you have in mind. It seems that you have no concept that could sustain any sort of coherent doctrine of the Trinity. If my concepts are inadequate, then what are your alternatives?

Biblical ones.

I wrote: Biblically speaking, the separation of these categories simply does not exist. A “person” and his “nature” are biblically inseparable, perhaps even to the point of being indistinguishable. God as a “person” cannot cease to be God in “nature” and still be God. Man as a “person” cannot cease to be man in “nature” and still be man. biblically, no “person” can have a “nature” that does not reflect his “person.”

Prejean responded:

Your position would then be that the Bible makes the Trinity impossible. Either there aren't three persons (because they all have the same nature, and nature is identical to person) or there are three gods, just as three men with the same nature are not one but three.

That’s absurd. That would be like arguing since Prejean and I both share a human nature, we must be identical in person to each other. But that’s not at all the point I was making. The members of the Godhead are distinct from one another, yet they share the same divine nature. The point I made was that a person is inseparable from his nature—that remains true of the Godhead as well. The Father is inseparable from deity; the Son is inseparable from deity; the Holy Spirit is inseparable from deity. None of the members of the Godhead can be separated from their nature—else they cease to be God. Prejean’s objection has much more to do with person and being than it does with person and nature, biblically defined. Biblically, God is God by virtue of his attributes and nature. God regularly defines himself by his abilities, his attributes, and his nature: by his immutability (“I am God; I do not change”); by his self-existence (“I am that I am”), by his eternality (“I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end”), by his love (“God is love”), etc. Jesus is the Word who was with “God” (i.e., the Father; distinguishable from him), but was himself “God” (i.e., deity).

Fortunately, this isn't true, because your logical argument for equating nature and person is nonsense.

Notice Prejean’s straw man. I did not say person and nature are to be “equated” biblically; I said they are biblically “inseparable,” perhaps to the point of “indistinguishable.” That remains a biblical fact whether Prejean recognizes it or not. As an analogy, identical twins may be “indistinguishable,” but that fact does not “equate” them or make them truly “identical.” Once we identify a specific instance of an entity that has all the attributes of a man, what is left to define that entity as a person? More on this later.

Natures don't reflect persons; persons instantiate natures. Your statements are tautologous; you are simply saying that a person that does not instantiate a nature is not a person with that nature. This is both necessarily and obviously true and has nothing to do with the point.

That’s not my point at all. I recognize that nature is the broader category and person is one instance of that category. But there’s no need for sophistry here. When I say that a man’s nature reflects his person, or that God’s nature reflects his person, I’m referring to the specific instance of that nature in the person. Hence, no “person” can have a “nature” that does not reflect his “person.” If we have all the attributes of deity bundled into a specific instance, how is that not a divine person? By the same reasoning, if we have all the attributes of humanity bundled into a specific instance, how is that not a human person? Yet there are not two persons but one.

I wrote: These texts affirm that Jesus was “a man.” Further, they affirm he was *fully* a man “in all things,” not a *partial* man, not *almost* a complete man, and not mere “flesh and blood.” Indeed, the full “manhood” of Jesus as the “last Adam” is assumed in texts such as Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Further, they assert that if he did not assume *full* humanity, then he could not have redeemed us fully—to which even the fathers testify: “What is not assumed is not redeemed” (Gregory of Nazianzus). Atonement requires that Jesus is fully man--flesh, intellect, spirit, and whatever else one may care to specify regarding that which makes a man a “man”--not simply God with a "human nature.”

Prejean responded:

Feel free to clarify if I am misinterpreting, because I am not exactly sure what you have a mind, and I don't want to misunderstand you. It appears that you are saying that Jesus was human not only in the sense of having flesh and blood, but also in the sense of having emotions and reason (although with the caveat of Hebr. 4:15, without sin). What is confusing is your conclusion "not simply God with a 'human nature.'" The definition of human nature "whatever one may care to specify regarding that which makes a man a man, including flesh, intellect, spirit, etc." To say that He has all of these things is nothing other than saying that He has a human nature. Perhaps the subsequent questions will clarify.

Here is why Prejean's distinction between “person” and “nature” confuses the issue. If he has a human body, human emotions, a human intellect, a human mind (the biblical “nous”), a human, spirit, a human soul, a human will, human understanding, human wisdom, etc., what, pray tell, is lacking for this to be a “human person”?

I wrote: It is not "human nature" that mediates for us before God, but "the man, Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5).

Prejean responded:

"The man" only requires a person with a human nature.

Prejean will later define "person" as a concrete instantiation of rational nature (an instance or gathering of the essential attributes of nature into a single entity, for which see below). Yet here he neatly sidesteps that definition by distancing the person from the nature so as to suggest that the instantiation of human nature does not require a human person. More on this in my closing remarks.

It doesn't require that there be a man, Christ Jesus, separate from the Word of God.

Except the text specifies that he is not only “man,” but "the man." Can a man be a man without being a human person? If so, how? I am not saying that the man is separate from the Word. I’m saying that Christ Jesus is the singular union of man and God. I do not purport to know how that union took place or what the exact makeup is--and I doubt anyone else can adequately explain it either. But I must affirm with Scripture that he is 100% man and 100% God.

I entirely agree with you that natures don't mediate; persons do.

And yet in this case, the “person” is “the man” Christ Jesus. If person is a concrete instantiation of nature, then how does Prejean avoid ascribing personhood to “the man” (a concrete instantiation of human nature)?

Also, I'd question your exegesis of the term "mediator" here. In context, it appears to have a "physical" meaning (in the sense of pertaining to physis, nature), affirming that there is a single person acting as a physical mediator between the two natures.

Question it all you like; but you'd be in error to do so. I affirm there is a single person acting as mediator; but “nature” is not what is in mind here so much as the need for man in his whole being to have a mediator before God.

You seem to be thinking in terms of Christ talking to Himself ("for us"), and that seems logically implausible. I don't see this passage as pertaining to his intercessory (human) role as high priest.

What? Why would you assume that on my view Christ must be talking to himself in this passage? By mere virtue of his humanity? Christ is obviously exempt from the need for mediation because he is the mediator. And he is the mediator precisely because he is both man and God. Paul is obviously referring to the rest of mankind, of which Christ became the “source of eternal life to all who obey” by virtue of that suffering and sacrifice (Heb 5:7-9), which actions make him our “high priest” by definition (Heb 5:10). If “mediator” in this passage does not refer to his intercessory work, what can it mean? Even the context makes intercession clear. Vv. 1-2, “I urge that prayers, requests, and intercessions be made for kings and all in authority”; v. 3, “God our Savior”; v. 4, “who wants all men to be saved”; v. 6, “gave Himself as a ransom for all men.”

I wrote: Atonement is possible only if one who is fully man, through perfect obedience to God, can reverse the sin brought into the world by the “man” (viz., Adam) who, using his human soul, spirit, will, intellect, etc., rebelled against God.

Prejean responded:

The idea that perfect obedience can save is Pelagian. Not even perfect obedience can earn union with God; that is beyond the capability of human nature, even for Adam, even for Christ.

Try reading Romans and Hebrews a few times and you will be quickly cured of your biblical illiteracy on this point:

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. (Heb 2:10) . . . In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. (Heb 5:7-10)

But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. . . . For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. (Rom 5:12-21)

I suggest you put down your Catholic Theology book and immerse yourself in Scripture.

I asked: Do you believe Jesus was fully human; that is to say, fully a man? Was he 100% man?

Prejean responded:

Yes, He was a person possessing the full human nature.

That’s not what I asked. What I asked is whether a concrete instantiation of rational human nature (using Prejean's conceded definition of "person") can be a “man” apart from being a human person? Prejean's answers to my later questions reveal that he believes the phrase “human person” legitimately describes an instantiation of human nature. If that’s the case, then he's dancing on this point—and I think he knows it.

I asked: Was there any part of humanity that was not “shared” by Jesus via the incarnation? In other words, if one attribute of humanity is “personhood” (and whatever that entails on your view), did Jesus assume humanity on that level?

Prejean responded:

"Personhood" is not an attribute of humanity by definition.”

Says who? Plato or Yahweh? But even by his own definition, an instantiation of rational nature is a person; and so, by that definition, the instantiation of rational human nature must be considered a human person. Yet here Prejean is arguing that I can be an instantiation of humanity without being a person? How?

"Personhood" refers to concrete individual existence of any rational nature.

I will ask the question again: Did Christ have a rational human nous (mind, intellect)? Was it a concrete individual instance of it? If so, how does Prejean avoid the notion of “human person”?

Existence is not an attribute of nature for any nature except the divine nature. The divine nature necessarily exists; nothing else does.

I agree with this point. But we’ll see whether Prejean can maintain it in light of his view.

I wrote: If the answer #2a is yes (and/or 2b no), what is included in your definition of “person” that was unimpacted by sin and does not therefore need to be redeemed in the atonement?

Prejean responded:

This is what I mean by confusing "nature" with "person." Persons are only impacted by personal sin; the "except sin" qualification in Hebr. 4 means that Christ has no personal contact with sin. "Original sin" refers to being born in a condition of privation, absent God's grace, which is solely situational and accidental, not an effect of sin on the nature per se, so Christ does not have this property either.

Prejean has not only missed the point entirely, he has also misunderstood Scripture’s teaching regarding the effects of Adam’s sin to his progeny. He would be well advised not to confuse the error-filled, semi-Pelagian Roman theology of original sin with the Scriptural teaching about the sin nature. I’ll let this point slide here (though will take it up later) since he's already conceded that everything required for the existence of a "person" is part of his definition of "nature."

Based on my answer to #3, these questions involve a category error. Person isn't an attribute of nature, so personal redemption is not a matter of the nature being redeemed. All faculties of nature are redeemed, but person is not a faculty of nature.

I will grant Prejean this point based on his definition of person.

Sin is an act of the will (and particularly, the gnomic mode of exercising the will).

Biblically, that’s the definition of rebellion, but sin comprises much more than that. A person can sin in his actions, his plans, or merely in his unacted-upon thoughts and desires. Indeed, sin resides in us because we have a sin nature. Our sin nature is such that, according to Paul, “nothing good dwells in me” and “I am in bondage to sin.” That sin, according to Paul “dwells in me” to the point of exclaiming “wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death!” That’s why Prejean’s notion of original sin is anemic. We are radically impacted by sin in our entire beings, such that even the “heart is desperately corrupt; who can understand it?” That’s why it’s important to account for these things when speaking of the redemption provided by Christ. Again, whatever was not assumed by Christ was not redeemed. That includes the entire person of a man, not merely his attributes of nature considered separately.

Having said all that, if Prejean's definition of "person" is simply the bundling together of the attributes of rational nature, then I can understand why he might exempt this from the consequences of sin. But in that case, since it is enough to say that if all the attributes of nature are impacted by sin and must be assumed to be redeemed, then it adds nothing to the equation to say that the person is also impacted by sin.

Divine nature is absolutely simple, meaning there is no existence/essence composition (to use Augustine's term, "To be ... is to be a person"). Divine nature is necessarily existent, and we know by revelation that this necessary existence involves existing tri-personally. Divine persons, therefore, necessarily exist.

Via their nature, no disagreement there. But this does not help Prejean’s case. He’s awfully vague on this point, but as near as I can tell, Prejean defines “person” as a concrete instantiation of rational nature. In other words, “human nature” is a “pool” of related attributes—including things like intellect, wisdom, spirit—and “person” is a single metaphysical “embodiment” or “clothing,” as it were, of those attributes. “Person,” therefore, acts as a sort of invisible layer that combines and contains all these attributes in a single entity.

Yet Prejean ends up abandoning this definition when he insists on referring to Christ as a “divine person with a human nature.” In every other case, instantiation of rational human nature, according to Prejean, is the very definition of "human person"; but in the case of Christ, Prejean conceives of "person" as something in addition to the instantiation of a rational human nature--indeed, the instantiation of rational human nature in the case of Christ is left hanging in the air! That instantiation of rational human nature ends up being nothing more than . . . human nature; whereas in every other case it is a person! He has already conceded that existence is part of “nature” (at least for the divine), not part of “person.” Hence, even if this “person” has “life in himself,” that is only by virtue of his divine nature, not by virtue of his person per se. It makes no sense to refer to someone as a “divine person” who also happens to instantiate humanity. If “person” is the “wrapping” around nature, then it is evident that the person of Christ wraps around two natures—divine and human. And if person is defined as an instantiation of nature, and the human nature has been instantiated in Christ, then how can a reference to “human person” be avoided? That is not to say there are two persons in Christ—only that the single person of Christ is both human and divine. And in that case the most we can affirm is that Jesus Christ instantiates both a divine nature and a human nature; that is to say, he is a person who is both human and divine—which is what I have been affirming all along. To say that he is a “divine person with a human nature” is gratuitously to change the definition of “person” midstream for the sake of salvaging a position.

I wrote: Poppycock! You were the one who raised the issue that my training included nothing in patristics, and used that as some sort of reason not to take my views seriously. I simply responded to something you wrote not only recently but dozens of times in the past on various boards. You either have a very short memory, or you are a liar.

Prejean responded:

which is a tu quoque response of the fallacious sort. I challenged your qualifications; I did not present my qualifications as any part of my basis for challenging your qualifications. You switched the issue from your qualifications to my qualifications, which was completely irrelevant to your own. It was only in response to the irrelevant question of my qualifications that I raised my own.

That’s absurd. Prejean states this as though the tu quoque fallacy is specially designed for those who happen to get in their ad hominem first, in a sort of “na, na, na, na, na . . . I beat you to the punch with an ad hominem and you are now disallowed to make the same point back.” See here for a fuller explanation of why Prejean’s appeal to tu quoque is illegitimate. The reason it is illegitimate in this case is that I did not concede I am unqualified to write on these issues. Far from it; what I said was that I have training in related disciples, and Prejean does not. That is not tu quoque. Moreover, Prejean states “I did not present my qualifications as any part of my basis for challenging your qualifications,” but that is not what I objected to. My objection was rather that Prejean runs around the internet asserting that all who disagree with him are unqualified to speak on the issue precisely because they have no training in patristics. It is not fallacious to point out the obvious; namely, that Prejean himself is even less qualified by virtue of the fact that he not only has no training in patristics, but not even in a related field. But I did not raise this as something that I believe is necessary—I raised it as something that Prejean apparently thinks is necessary. I don’t believe one must possess formal training in patristics to read historical documents. But Prejean clearly believes that is necessary for everyone else but him. I was merely pointing out Prejean’s inconsistency with his own (not my) stated standard. He clearly does not like it that his inconsistency has been exposed, so he illegitimately resorts to tu quoque.

Owen and Infant Baptism

2006-12-25T07:56:00.000-08:00

Paul Owen has responded to James White on the issue of infant baptism, and in the process has repeated nearly every error he made in his discussion with me on this issue some time ago. James doesn't need any help responding to him; but for the sake of providing clarity, all of Owen's arguments have been answered before:

Link 1 ; Link 2 ; Link 3 ; Link 4 ; Link 5 ; Link 6 ; Link 7 ; Link 8 ; Link 9 ; Link 10 ; Link 11 ; Link 12 ; Link 13 ; Link 14 ; Link 15 ; Link 16 ; Link 17 ; Link 18 ; Link 19.

ES

Jonathan Prejean's Strange Catholicism

2006-12-24T06:42:00.000-08:00

Jonathan Prejean has once again entangled himself in a discussion he could not sustain, and so, backed into a corner (as usual), decided to backpedal, restate a new position as though he's always held it, and then cut and run (see here and here). A discussion then ensued in the comments section of the latter link. I originally posted a brief comment to some claims he made about his dialogue with me, and this caught the attention of Prejean, who responded to my comments. Here is a fuller response to his starnge catholicism. Prejean's recent comments will appear in red text, followed by my response in black text. All past dialogue with Prejean will appear in block quotes, with Prejean's comments in green:

“I'd have to be an idiot to advertise my own defeat”

Well, okay, we’ll go with that explanation then.

“If I were "desperately attempting to redeem myself," then I would be trying to provoke some sort of rematch, not simply repeating what I have been saying.”

Why would you try to provoke a rematch if you know you can’t win? The only option you have at this point is the same one that all RC apologists fall back on; simply repeat the same tired arguments over and over again, in the hope that by repeating them enough times they will eventually seem to be good arguments to your target audience. It’s a technique that has been used by RC apologists since the beginning.

“Which only shows that you and Hays both follow the same pattern: misinterpret me, make statements based on your misinterpretation, and then act as if I changed my mind when you got me wrong in the first place. The funny thing is that neither of you actually show from my words where I contradicted myself; you simply assume that I said what you interpreted me to have said.”

Is that a fact? Here’s what Prejean stated in one post in our past dialogue:

“To respond to Dr. Svendsen's query of 3/14/05, I refer to my post here, which clearly points out Svendsen's Christological errors (fundamentally based on the complete inability to make a distinction between person and nature, an error that was shared by Arius and Nestorius).”

Note here that Prejean does not say, “an error that was erroneously attributed to Nestorius.” He instead says, “an error that was shared by Arius and Nestorius.” Then, in a later post, after I corrected him on his understanding of what scholars believe about Nestorius, he wrote this:

“After having read Dr. Svendsen's first couple of forays into this area, I'm going to say a couple of things strictly in the interest of saving both his time and mine. Everybody with any familiarity in the relevant history knows that it is somewhat doubtful that Nestorius was Nestorian.”

Here's how I responded at that time:

“Which will it be, Mr. Prejean? Shall we proceed with the pop-apologetic understanding of the historical events that you undoubtedly possessed before I began posting my series; or with your new understanding of historical events which, forced by my citations of Brown, you quickly acquired when you scrambled to your patristic sources looking for contradictions to my position only to find it confirmed? I am not anxious to waste my time interacting with that kind of disingenuousness on your part; the kind that strongly and consistently asserts an erroneous position about the historical events, and ridicules and derides my comparatively accurate understanding of those events in the process, only to backpeddle once the evidence comes out and then pretends the issue was never about my understanding of events to begin with.”

Anyone interested in reading the full article can access it here:

“Why would I respond to a summary? The conclusions are nothing other than what you said before.”

Precisely because it is the summary, and precisely because it ties the series together and issues conclusions that reveal the thrust of the point of the series. Since you clearly got my intent for the series wrong, it would have helped you to understand what that intent was. Here again is what I concluded:

“It is my opinion that both councils attempted to explain the inexplicable and went far a field in their dogmatic pronouncements and attendant condemnations. No one can explain the unity of the person of Christ and the relationship between his natures beyond what the Scriptures affirm because it is inexplicable beyond what the Scriptures affirm. The most we can safely affirm is that Christ is both fully God and fully man. But the moment we attempt to explain just how those two statements fit together—or worse, to go beyond that and proclaim Mary as “mother of God” is some kind of ramification of all that, or that it acts as a test of orthodoxy—we end up in error. Why? Because at that point we end up abandoning discussion on the communication of attributes in Christ and start down the path of discussing the communication of attributes in Mary. As I stated in an earlier post in this series, the term theotokos, rightly understood as a Christological affirmation, is not objectionable in itself. It becomes objectionable in the hands of RC apologists who would use it to exalt Mary’s status over against the consistent testimony of the very Scriptures to which they purport to acquiesce in the concilliar definitions of Chalcedon and Ephesus about the person and natures of Christ. Indeed, they eagerly seek to defend the Cyrilline Apollinariani-Monophysite view of Christ’s person and natures from the Scriptures--not so they can uphold the deity of Christ, but as a pretext for finding a basis for exalting Mary by somehow proving from that fact that she’s the “mother of God.” I think that much is self-evident in their writings. But in so doing, they ignore the clear statements of Jesus that such a relationship—even if true—avails nothing. Indeed, I am convinced that they would, if they thought they could get away with it, happily throw out the qualifier of the councils that Mary is theotokos only “as regards his manhood,” and that “the difference of the natures [is] by no means removed because of the union, but the property of each nature [is] preserved and coalesced in one prosopon and one hupostasis,” and use the term in an unqualified way to exalt Mary instead of Christ. After all, that is the sense in which they use the term today, completely oblivious to the fact that the title has a historical context. So are Roman Catholic apologists wrong in their views? I believe so. Are they in Christological heresy on this point? If the councils are to act as our rule of faith, I don’t see any way around it [for the sake of clarification, this is only to the extent that they follow Cyril’s view—which most of them do; this point is affirmed by many scholars, including McGrath, Brown, Pelikan and Kelly]. But Scripture is much more forgiving on this point than are the councils. If Scripture is to act as our rule of faith, I don’t see how any view that affirms the full deity and full humanity of Christ as well as the unity of his person can be labeled as heretical given the fact no one knows exactly how the person and natures of Christ relate to each other, or even whether those categories are ones the biblical writers would deem legitimate in the first place. The councils use Platonic concepts and Aristotelian categories that are foreign to Scripture; and Scripture simply does not bother to elaborate on these things, no doubt because they are inexplicable to finite minds. Hence, my major complaint on this particular issue insofar as Roman Catholic apologists are concerned is not their Apollinari-Monophysite view of Christ; it is the application they think they can make to Mary.”

As any fair reader can see, the entire point of my series was to address Prejean’s implicit Marian agenda. His charge of Nestorianism was intended solely to bring us back in line with his cyrillene Mariolatry in the hope that we would be forced logically to grant Mary all the privileges Prejean perceives accompany the title “mother of God.” I cracked his foundation, and he has been struggling ever since to overcome that crack. As a result, he has gotten stuck in the mud of Ephesus rather than proceed to his hoped-for Marian ramifications.

I wrote: “Prejean has consistently refused to address this issue from a biblical standpoint.”

Prejean responded: “And quite proudly I might add. I reject your concept of Scriptural authority, so it would be thoroughly inconsistent of me to debate you on a ground I don't recognize.”

This is what is at the core of the issue. Prejean isn’t “proud” he in incapable of exegesis—he’s embarrassed by it. Notice what he’s forced to say here—he doesn’t recognize Scripture as an authority. Yet, at least on paper, Roman Catholicism has always recognized the primacy of Scripture; and it explicitly states that it is subject to and subservient to Scripture. And notice I have not asked Prejean to adopt sola Scriptura—I’m merely asking him whether his view is biblical. But for the sake of argument, let’s not grant Scripture any authority. Let’s just take it as a historical document, the same way we take the councils as historical documents. Let’s just see if we can determine what the writers of the New Testament have to say about Mary’s status and role. Is it Prejean’s view they share, or is it mine? I think the answer in obvious, and I think Prejean knows this very well—which is why he is terrified to venture into that arena. He knows he would be quickly cured of his Mariolatry.

“You call it "speculative" sophistry; Sts. Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, Cyril, and Thomas Aquinas would have called it exegesis.”

Augustine called your cyrillene concept of the incarnation vis-à-vis Mary’s status “exegesis”? Where? Irenaeus called your cyrillene concept of the incarnation vis-à-vis Mary’s status “exegesis”? Where? Irenaeus expressly denied Mary’s perpetual virginity as well as her immaculate conception and sinlessness. Are you sure you want to go with Irenaeus’ exegesis? Augustine also denied your cyrillene understanding of Mary’s status.

Here is what Augustine said: "At that time, therefore, when about to engage in divine acts, He repelled, as one unknown, her who was the mother, not of His divinity, but of His [human] infirmity" (Tract. in Ioannem CXIX, 1).

Here is what Augustine said: "It was as if [Jesus] said [in John 2], ‘You did not give birth to my power of working miracles, it was not you who gave birth to my divinity. But you are the mother of all that is weak in me" (Tract. in Ioannem VII, 9.)

Here is what Augustine said: "Why, then, said the Son to the mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come?" Our Lord Jesus Christ was both God and man. According as He was God, He had not a mother; according as He was man, He had. She was the mother, then, of His flesh, of His humanity, of the weakness which for our sakes He took upon Him. But the miracle which He was about to do, He was about to do according to His divine nature, not according to His weakness; according to that wherein He was God not according to that wherein He was born weak. But the weakness of God is stronger than men. His mother then demanded a miracle of Him; but He, about to perform divine works, so far did not recognize a human womb; saying in effect, "That in me which works a miracle was not born of thee, thou gavest not birth to my divine nature; but because my weakness was born of thee, I will recognize thee at the time when that same weakness shall hang upon the cross." This, indeed, is the meaning of "Mine hour is not yet come." . . . How then was He both David’s son and David’s Lord? David’s son according to the flesh, David’s Lord according to His divinity; so also Mary’s son after the flesh, and Mary’s Lord after His majesty. Now as she was not the mother of His divine nature, whilst it was by His divinity the miracle she asked for would be wrought, therefore He answered her, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (Tract. in Ioannem VIII, 9).

“This just points to the fact that our concepts of Scriptural authority are fundamentally opposed to one another.”

No; what it points to is that one of us is engaging in exegesis, and the other is engaging in eisegesis. Prejean states this as though he can avoid exegesis of the documents of the fifth-century councils. Why are they any more “obvious” in meaning than the Scriptures? Both are historical writings, after all. What makes one comprehensible and the other somehow incomprehensible? The answer is, nothing. The Scriptures are just as plainly written—rather, refreshingly more plainly written—than the convoluted speculations of men too influenced by aristotelean categories to be of much help in expressing theological concepts in a biblically constrained way.

“The people on whose interpretation I am relying were hardly "Biblical neophytes." The idea that Cyril or Augustine didn't perceive the wisdom of God in Scripture is certainly a thesis that you can advance, but as between you and they, I'll take them over you.”

The problem for Prejean is that Augustine did not share Cyril’s view of this. Indeed, Cyril represents a Monophysite (or Apollinarian) school of thought on this that was rejected by many in his own day. Prejean’s attempt to pit some kind of “monolithic patristic view” over against mine fails because there was no monolithic view on this historically.

“Nothing personal. Besides, if I am a "Biblical neophyte," then that would make you a "patristic ignoramus," so I'm not really sure you want to go here.”

Yes, I do in fact want to go there, and will. I think it needs to be clarified here that Jonathan Prejean lacks requirement one to speak on these issues. He has no theological training to speak of; he has no patristic training to speak of; he has no knowledge of the primary languages to speak of. He has absolutely no training in any related discipline. Yet I am the “ignoramus,” and he styles himself as some sort of “expert.” Prejean is a lawyer. His area of specialty is patent law. While my field is not patristics, my formal training in biblical exegesis and theology required my immersion in historical texts and languages of classical antiquity. Prejean has no training in this—not even in a related discipline. He doesn’t seem to understand that whatever “exegesis” one uses to understand some historical documents (viz., the councils) is no different than that used to understand other historical documents (viz., the New Testament). One cannot appeal to the “plain teaching” of one historical document (viz., Ephesus) and at the same time arbitrarily appeal to the incomprehensibility of another (viz., the New Testament). But that’s just what Prejean does, and that’s just what makes him a biblical neophyte.

“The Fathers do plenty of exegesis, and they give plenty of explanation of their concepts of Scriptural authority. It's not my fault that you haven't read it. Someone well-versed in patristic theology would know the exegetical basis for my arguments. My apologies for assuming that you actually were a big enough boy to do your own reading, but I can't really do your homework for you.”

Once again, we have an appeal to some “monolithic” view of the fathers on this issue as though there is such a thing. And once again we have a view on this issue that is conspicuously ill-informed by Scripture.

“When I say that you are a "joke," I am speaking of your qualifications in patristic theology, which are laughable. Let's see how well your patristics bookshelf stacks up against mine.”

What is “laughable” is that these words come from the pen of a man whom I have already shown has zero qualifications to speak on this—not even in a related discipline!

“I'll take your use of the term "odd" as an admission that even you recognize it wouldn't make sense for me to advertise my own defeats.”

This is true only if we are dealing with a rational person. There’s no accounting for what some people will do to pretend and convince others that they won a debate.

“As for the appeal to my own authority, to who else's authority would I appeal? Ultimately, we all reason individually and we all give assent of the will freely; we are the ultimate arbiters of where our will is directed.”

Exactly; well, at least he doesn’t deny he is Protestant in practice.

“Nobody can represent a belief system other than his own;”

And at least we now know that we aren’t here dealing with the RC position.

“In Protestantism, of course, there are no such people. Hence, private judgment.”

I guess the apostles aren’t really people. If I were as disingenuous and desperate as Prejean, I think I might use this statement as a full-blown frontal attack on Prejean’s inherent Gnosticism: “Look everyone; Prejean doesn’t really believe the apostles are people—in his view they only ‘seemed’ to be people; hence, he is a Docetist at heart. Therefore, we may rightly reject anything further he might say.” This is just the kind of idiotic, jack-chick style rationale Prejean engages in when he accuses Protestants of denying the incarnation or the divinty of the second person of the Trinity. And it is just the kind of rationale that was turned back on him recently by James White and then by Steve Hays. He rejects the charges against him, of course, but thinks he can still level them against everyone else with impunity.

“Anyway, your misunderstanding on Catholic authority is somewhat beside the point. I have nothing to hide; I have never been anything other than willing to yield the field if you want to discuss matters of Biblical exegesis, because I don't share your concept of Scriptural authority. From my perspective, it's about as interesting to me as an argument from the Book of Mormon or the Qu'ran; we might as well be reading different books.”

Amazing. Prejean has just admitted he relegates Scripture to the status of the Book of Mormon and the Quran; and yet he can still call himself Catholic--much more, a Christian!--and insist that he shares the views of the fathers. I would contend that this hits at the very heart of the matter. Prejean will gladly throw out and nullify Scripture for the sake of his tradition (Mark 7)—something the early-church writers would not dare do. But that’s just the problem with Prejean’s position. He admits here that there is no biblical basis for his view—or at the very least that it’s not important to have a biblical basis for it. This is certainly not the official Roman Catholic view, whose practice of prooftexting these matters (although erroneously) at the very least demonstrates they think it important to have a biblical basis for the belief. Prejean admits he has no need for Scriptural support of his views; his staggering intellect can figure out the divine all by itself!

I’ll go farther here. By this statement, Prejean has just defined himself out of biblical orthodoxy. Here is how the apostle John puts it: “We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (1 Jn 4:6). Prejean has admitted he just does not care what the apostles have to say. He has admitted their voice is irrelevant to him. He has thereby placed himself in the category of “the spirit of error” and of those who are “not from God.” Hence, Prejean is a heretic, biblically defined; and as such his voice is to be utterly rejected by all truth-affirming people, irrespective of denominational affiliation—whether Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox. He has disqualified himself to speak on these matters.

But there’s an even more important point in all this. Again, I am not asking Prejean to adopt my view of Scriptural authority—I’m just asking him to show historically that those who walked with Christ on this earth and knew Mary personally affirmed Prejean’s views. He can’t do that, of course, because it is quite evident that the apostles did not share Prejean’s view on this issue. Quite the contrary; they are manifestly “Evangelical” in their view. But if that’s the case, then the councils also just as manifestly erred in their definitions because they “ran ahead” of the apostles in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9).

“I just want you to withdraw the inaccurate historical claims. There is a real historical belief system called Nestorianism, and you hold it. Perry knows it; I know it; why not just admit it? It makes no difference, and the admission doesn't even hurt you because you don't concede the authority of the councils anyway.”

First of all, I gladly affirm Nestorius as completely orthodox—and always have—as do most patristic scholars and historical theologians, including Kelly, Pelikan, McGrath, and Brown. What Prejean is really asking me to do is concede what he and his cronies inanely and absurdly think are the attendant ramifications of that view, including a denial of Christ’s divinity—something I simply do not do. It is sophistry, plain and simple, that leads Prejean to assert that his ramifications are somehow “necessary consequents” of the measured view that we risk crossing a bridge too far if we attribute “divine motherhood” to Mary by virtue of her title as theotokos. Nestorius’ burden in his proposed use of the more accurate “Christ bearer” rather than the apollinarianesque “God bearer” was to promote Christ as God-Man rather than mere God—something Cyril was just too marian-zealous to understand rightly. And just as Nestorius did not concede Cyril’s sophistry, so also I will not concede Prejean’s sophistry in this. Nestorius’ overall position, as reported by mainstream patristic scholars, was orthodox, and he was mush more biblically careful than Cyril.

“[Biblical exegesis has] been done by many Catholics before me, and whenever it is done, the Catholic gets accused of eisegesis, because we think that a number of external criteria can be used that you do not.”

Yes, like anachronistically appealing to a belief defined five hundred years after the biblical writers wrote. That’s somehow hailed as “sound exegesis. Prejean is a lawyer. Imagine if we treated the Constitution that way—that is to say, the Constitution must have intended to uphold a woman’s right to an abortion because just look at all the people who hold to that view today! Yeah—that’s a sound approach to interpreting a historical document.

“Well, sure, if the issue being judged turns on something in which knowledge of the original language is actually pertinent, but in that case, you have to be far more than simply competent in the language; you have to be a legitimate scholars of the period and that author's writings."

Since Prejean is neither, one wonders why he even attempts it.

“Contemporary Biblical scholarship isn't a passionate interest for me; I'm more interested in how Scripture has been understood over history than how it was understood at the time.”

And how does Prejean know that contemporary biblical scholarship isn’t part of that historical understanding? For all we know, we’re still in the early church age; and someone reading this dialogue ten-thousand years from now may see Ephesus as a mere blip on the radar screen of theological development. Outside of his gratuitous presup that Rome is somehow infallible, on what basis does Prejean assume otherwise? And what if even those in the fifth-century held to Prejean’s attitiude; to wit, “Contemporary Biblical scholarship isn't a passionate interest for me; I'm more interested in how Scripture has been understood over history than how it was understood at the time.” Obviously, the fifth-century church did not view itself as the “historic church.” The early church, for them, was the New Testament church. Hence, their definitions are mere commentaries and theological formulations of what they believed the New Testament teaches. To view them in the romantic way Prejean does is to miss the point that these are mere men who did their best to understand Scripture and to put down formerly unknown contrary beliefs of their day, but who could and did err—not so much in their main definitions as in the baggage they attached to those definitions.

“MY point was solely historical. In response, Eric Svendsen made a gratuitous claim that this was because I had no exegetical basis, and I'm entitled to simply deny it and demand proof, meaning he would actually have to dig into the patristic exegetical arguments and interact with them.”

Here it is clear that Prejean is confusing exegesis with argument. Cyril and the defenders of his view make arguments; but that does not necessarily translate into exegesis. One can argue about the difference between homoiousis and homoousis, and he can do so in a biblically informed way; but one cannot exegete that difference biblically, because Scripture simply does not address such a thing. One can argue whether hypostasis or person is the more appropriate term to use in reference to the union of man and God in Christ, but one cannot exegete that question biblically. One can argue whether the hypostatic union took place “from two natures” (Cyril’s view) or “in two nature” (the Antiochene view), but one cannot prove either one from Scripture. It’s based, rather, on sophist speculation.

And my assertion that Prejean has no exegetical basis for his idiosyncratic views is far from gratuitous. He has admitted he is uninterested in what Scripture has to say about this matter, and if he were familiar with the biblical exegesis employed by Cyril and company why not just cite it? Why instead does Prejean dismiss the biblical evidence as irrelevant? I suspect it is because even if he has read the biblical rationale of Cyril and company, he doesn’t really understand those arguments well enough to reproduce them—and if he does not understand them, then he cannot simply claim them as his own by proxy. The onus remains on Prejean to produce an exegetical basis for his beliefs on this if he is to remain within the bounds of biblical orthodoxy.

“As I said, I can't do homework for people; to some extent, they have to be self-motivated if they want to get involved.”

It seems this applies to everyone but Prejean.

"All questions of purely historical interest go to the truth and falsehood of the purely historical claims, so if you are interested in the truth of purely historical claims (as I am), then this would be sufficient motivation.”

If Prejean were really interested in “the truth of purely historical claims,” why does he consistently refuse to engage the “purely historical claims” of Scripture regarding this issue? After all, the New Testament is nothing if not a historical document, filled with historical claims. Why is this not “sufficient motivation” for him? Methinks he knows what he would find, and that he wouldn’t like it very much. He would then be forced to deal with the very real disparity between the teaching of Scripture and the traditions of men he has been promoting for so many years.

“But anyway, to be consistent with your reasoning, Svendsen should withdraw his arguments (including Apollinarimonophysitism), Jason Engwer should withdraw his articles as well, and James White never should have said a word about Nicaea. You say you're not a relativist, but it sure seems like you have a "goose-gander" problem here. All I want is a withdrawal of the dubious historical claims. It serves no one to have the scholarship and the historical facts being obfuscated by poor handling.”

Listen to me very carefully, Mr. Prejean. Scholarship does not consist of ignoring the established, published, and unrecanted views of the heavy hitters in favor of a decidedly partisan work (from what I’ve read of McGuckin, he has a vested interest in exonerating Cyril) that coincidentally—surprise!—happens to support your idiosyncratic views on this. Even Edward Oakes, who is otherwise sympathetic to McGuckin’s thesis, rejects the notion that Ephesus (Cyril) and Chalcedon (Antioch) are in agreement. There’s just too much evidence to the contrary. Hence, he affirms what modern patristic scholarship has always affirmed; namely, that Ephesus is pro-Cyril and Chalcedon is pro-Antioch. Indeed, he goes on to affirm that Cyril’s successors, detecting the pro-Antiochene theology of Chaldedon, rejected the council altogether and became Monophysites—and this is in spite of hs familiarity with the dazzling “unassailable” brilliance of McGuckin’s work!

Here’s what might convince me of your position, Mr. Prejean: Write to the Kelly’s, the Pelikan’s, the McGrath’s, and the Brown’s of the world to correct their “obfuscation” and “poor handling” of historical facts. Once you do this, and once you secure from them letters of repentance indicating they have recanted their published views, then I will happily do the same. As it stands, yours is nothing more than a “my scholars vs. yours” argument.

And then keep in mind that even if you were able to accomplish all this, it proves nothing in regard to my own views. If Protestantism is Nestorian, it is on the Kelly-Pelikan-McGrath-Brown understanding of what Nestorius affirmed—all of whom affirm the orthodoxy of that position—not your understanding of it. If your understanding of the views of Nestorius wins the day, your charge is still unfounded since I do not subscribe--nor have I ever subscribed--to what you think Nestorius believed. Hence, whether your view on the history or mine ends up being right has absolutely no bearing on your false charges of Nestorianism. No Evangelical I know believes Christ was two persons (nor, according to most scholars, did Nestorius himself believe that). Rather, most (like me) simply prefer not to speculate about how the union between God and man takes place in Christ beyond what the Scriptures affirm, because these are areas that are simply unknowable in this life. So you’re left explaining how one is “unorthodox” who refuses to go beyond Scripture in his affirmations about the unknowable. In the meantime, you’ve defined yourself entirely out of the biblical definition of “Christian” by placing the authority and relevance of Scripture on par with the Quran.

“If I think a Catholic is making a dubious historical argument, then I certainly will address that. I do it all the time.”

Except that Prejean is completely blind to his own “dubious historical arguments,” such as that Protestants deny the incarnation and divinity of Christ. No responsible patristic scholar would ever make that connection. Yet Prejean clearly does. Doesn’t integrity mean anything to Prejean?

“I've found that most objections of this sort misunderstand the Catholic claim being made. In other words, the Protestants thinks the Catholic is making a certain sort of claim, but the Catholic isn't.”

Well now, isn’t this familiar? Now substitute every instance of “Catholic” for “Protestant,” and vice versa, and you have Prejean in a nutshell—a eminently appropriate place for someone like Prejean.

Iron Sharpens Iron

2006-12-19T09:25:00.000-08:00

I'm scheduled to appear on the "Iron Sharpens Iron" radio broadcast tomorrow (Dec 20) at 3pm to 4pm EST to talk about my book on Mary, the mother of Jesus. The program will air on WNYG-1440AM Radio in New York, and can be accessed via the Internet here. Technical difficulties prevent calls from listeners, but I've been assured I will be invited back when listener calls are enabled.

ES

Responses to Paul Owen’s Four Points

2006-12-03T11:01:00.000-08:00

Paul Owen has offered his comments on my recent blog entry about Denver Seminary. In it he imagines I have “launched a scathing attack” upon the seminary, and laments that my post “illustrates all that is wrong with ill-informed evangelical anti-Catholic apologetics.” Before getting into the detail of his “four points,” I must clear up Owen’s confusion about my intent. I have not “launched a scathing attack” against Denver Seminary. I have merely put to voice the very real concern many (including myself and including some very concerned alumni and even faculty members of the seminary, both current and former) have over the seminary’s recent rapprochement toward religious movements that were once firmly considered heretical. Owen’s naïve and uninformed assessment of the situation is typically Owenian, and may safely be written off as such. However, for the sake of those who are unfamiliar with Owen's devices, here is my response to Owen’s "four points”:

1. There is no denying that the seminary’s name change is in accordance with the dubious rapprochement to which I alluded in my opening paragraph. If others are reticent to make that connection, I am not. The reason for the “swipe” at the NAE should be evident. The NAE is the evangelical equivalent to the United Nations—as an organization, it is meaningless, irrelevant, and completely anemic; and its statement of faith (which was the target of my mention of the NAE in the first place) is purposely vague. It is governed by Evangelicals of questionable doctrinal heritage, and maintains absolutely no connection to historical Evangelical concerns. It is noteworthy that one of the commenters on Owen’s post seems naively to think that the NAE somehow operates as the designated accountability structure for Evangelical belief, and chides me for criticizing it--which is especially ironic for that particular commenter, who regularly dispenses with all doctrinal authority and accountability, save his own opinion and that of a highly fringe movement in the Presbyterian church.

2. The distinction Owen makes about what the Denver Seminary article says regarding modern critics of Rome and what I said about Reformation critics of Rome is entirely moot. Those criticisms are, at a fundamental level, the same criticisms; and whatever the article implies about modern Evangelicals “misunderstanding the official Roman Catholic documents on justification by faith” applies equally to the Reformers. As a Tractarian, Owen hates the Reformers; but as a pandering prophet, he will never admit to that hate. He will instead vent his frustration vicariously by acerbically attacking those who share identical assumptions as the Reformers about apologists of the Roman religion. Whereas the Reformers uniformly spoke of the “antichrist” nature of the “papists,” Owen refers to them as “our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters,” and launches into a seething rage against modern defenders of the Reformed position on this. He hates Luther, Calvin and Cranmer, but he will never express that publicly.

3. The “well known canons” that Owen claims I “trotted out” are well known for a very good reason: They are the coup de grace against rapprochement with the “Romanists” precisely because these canons remain the “official” and unretracted Roman position on this issue. In true Tractarian form, Owen naively imagines “these canons allow more room for nuance than Svendsen is apparently able to grasp” (and, by extension, the Reformers themselves!). Yes, when one is looking for it, one can find room for agreement in all kinds of “official documents,” including the Jehovah’s Witness belief in the “unity of God,” and the Mormon belief in “progressive deification” and “many gods”—after all, like phrases can be found in the Bible, can they not? The problem is, Owen’s postmodern “nuancing” is, as always with him, nothing more than historical revisionism.

4. The “root of the problem” is not with those “who think that their ministry is to warn others in the body of Christ to flee the latest virus which has infected the Church”; the root of the problem is rather with those who, following the wisdom of this world and rejecting the wisdom of God, willfully ignore the biblical injunctions to “contend earnestly for the once-for-all-time-delivered-to-the-saints faith” (Jude 3), reject Paul’s injunction to “conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ . . . standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel” (Phil 1:27), and instead embrace as “brothers” those whom Paul insists are “accursed of God” (Gal 1:8-9). Unfortunately, Owen is the epitome of those the NT writers refer to as “shipwrecked in regard to the faith”; and as I have pointed out in past blog entries, his voice in this is not that of a faithful shepherd; it is instead the howl of the wolf from which the sheep will rightly flee.

ES

"Returning to His Roots"

2006-11-14T12:52:00.001-08:00

DENVER SEMINARY PROVIDED A WELCOME ATMOSPHERE FOR RECENT GRAD’S FERVENT RETURN TO CATHOLIC FAITH

If you think the subtitle above the graphic is my own invention (sardonically stated), you're wrong--it's part of the headline of an article that appears in the Fall 2006 (vol 2, no 3) edition of Denver Seminary Magazine. Denver Seminary, formally known as "Denver Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary" (monikers the seminary proudly bore as recently as forty years ago, but would certainly disavow today), used to be a sound, reliable evangelical institution that stood for and upheld truth. It now boasts, "Although the Seminary has roots in the Conservative Baptist denomination, since its beginning, Denver Seminary has been broadly evangelical and has served students from many denominations and backgrounds. " In other words, we're embarrassed to have so narrowly defined ourselves, and our current-day glory is in our shame--and we have demonstrated that by proudly extending the right hand of fellowship to adherents and defenders of a false gospel!"

That the seminary has disavowed its roots is obvious enough from the differences between the CBA Statement of Faith (their originating organization), and Denver Seminary's preferred adherence to the comparatively anemic NAE Statement of Faith (that stalwart institution that selected Ted Haggard as its leader). But it is even more obvious from the recent article referenced above, in which former "evangelical" Matt Boettger is championed for his decision to return to Rome. The article approvingly states:

A May 2006 graduate of Denver Seminary, Matt’s not giving himself much downtime. Having completed a Master’s degree in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in New Testament, he’s ready to tackle his next goal: earning a Ph.D. He one day hopes to teach New Testament at a Catholic University. Catholic? Yes, because Matt is a Bible-believing Christian who also happens to be Catholic.

The article continues:

He experienced a season of rebellion while he was anundergraduate at the University of Nebraska. His junior year, he rediscovered Christ through his involvement with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. This was his introduction to “evangelicalism” and while he plunged head first into this new life, two years later he was drawn back to Catholicism. . . . After this fervent study of his Catholic roots, he concluded that he wanted to return to the Catholic church.

But the most revealing part of the article comes when Boettger is asked to define the similarities between Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism:

"We both believe in a great personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and we both believe that obedience to Christ as Lord is very important. Evangelicals and Catholics both believe that all of our good works flow from faith. We can start there. Both are convicted of the fact that no good work can come outside of the context of the grace of God.” He added, “If these similarities come as a shock, then it may be due to a significant misunderstanding of the Catholic doctrine of justification by many non-Catholics and Catholics alike."

Yes, the separation is always due to a simple "misunderstanding" of the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification, isn't it? Martin Luther, John Calvin, and all the rest of the Reformers just did not understand that Rome really teaches justification by faith alone. And the framers of the council of Trent just did not understand what the Reformers' big objection was when they defined their doctrine of justification. It was all a big misunderstanding, and the Reformation was completely unnecessary!

. . . And gullible. misinformed "Evangelicals," like those at Denver Seminary, will always fall for that line.

The article continues:

In spite of these similarities, Boettger shared that in conversations with Evangelicals—including those within the Seminary community—few can correctly articulate Catholic theology as it is understood by the Catholic Church, and such misunderstandings make finding common ground difficult. . . . Boettger believes that the division is due to misunderstanding. “There’s no reason to have the big chasm between the two of us,” he said.“There really are two theological grids by which we interpret Scripture, but if Evangelicals would try to understand the Catholic faith as expressed by the official documents, I really believe we would be much closer than we are now,” he explains. “The majority of tension is because of misrepresentation. If only we’d be willing to try and understand each other.” [italics mine]

For the sake of both Boettger and the gullible Evangelicals at Denver Seminary, here are the "official documents" that define Roman Catholic belief on this issue (from Trent's Sixth Session):

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

As with Paul and the Galatian chuches, one can forgive the sheep who are led astray by error. They merely need exhortation and correction back to the truth of the gospel. But one can hardly forgive the willful ignorance of those who position themselves as representing the evangelical faith when they gleefully embrace a system of justification against which Paul issued the harshest of condemnations:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:6-9)

HT: Pastor Jim Brooks (www.crossroadsbiblechurch.org)

New Resource Page Added

2006-11-10T07:19:00.000-08:00

Our Research Tools page, which has been blank for the past year, is now rebuilt and contains several tools for Bible study. If you are currently viewing the NTRMin site, just click the link at the left to access it. If you're reading this blog sans NTRMin, click the here instead. We will be constantly revising and updating this page. If you would like to submit a site for consideration (keeping in mind this is not a reciprocating links offer), email us at webmaster@ntrmin.org.

John MacArthur Interviewed on Albert Mohler

2006-11-01T21:49:00.000-08:00

If only more evangelical pastors were faithful ministers of the gospel instead of pandering prophets. John spoke at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His two addresses can be found here.

Paul Owen: Tractarian, not Reformed

2006-10-16T08:15:00.000-07:00

I will offer a final response to Paul Owen's confusion on Scripture, Authority, and the views of the Reformers. Owen's statements are in block quotations. I have left all other quotations from writers in regular paragraph format but in quotation marks.

Svendsen is correct in noticing that I do not list the heirs of the Radical Reformation among the congregations of Christ’s visible Catholic Church on earth. Svendsen and his evangelical brethren do indeed have a noble tradition of their own, stemming backwards in time to Smith Wigglesworth, Billy Sunday and Charles Finney, and further still to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Fausto Socinus, Michael Servetus, Caspar Schwenckfeld, Menno Simons, Conrad Grebel, Balthasar Hubmaier and the Zwickau Prophets, and yet beyond to the Montanists, Novatians, Donatists and various Gnostic sects of the early centuries of the Church. But it is a trajectory of figures and movements of varying doctrinal orthodoxy outside the Catholic Church (though of course containing many faithful believers in Jesus within their ranks).

This statement, as much as any other he has issued, succinctly summarizes both Owen’s ignorance of Evangelicalism and its beliefs, and his willful downplaying of his own questionable orthodoxy. I am not an Anabaptist (at least not in its formal sense); and to pile on a mixture of evangelicals and heretical figures in the same list is a gross, gross distortion of what Evangelicalism is. The figures Owen has listed here have no affiliation to each other. Why does he add these (Joseph Smith? Mormonism more approximates Owen's view of authority than my own) while neglecting the more important forerunners—Spurgeon, Edwards, Bunyan, and the like? He apparently (and quite erroneously) thinks “Evangelical” is some kind of “catch-all” phrase that includes everyone not associated with a mainline reformed church. And why does he neglect to mention here that as an anglo-catholic, his forerunners are not Cranmer and Bucer (much less Calvin and Luther), but men like Pusey, Keble and Newman?

Has Owen never read a document like the London Baptist Confession, which outlines in detail orthodox Baptist belief (over against the heretics he has listed)? It is nearly identical in content to the WCF. As difficult as it may be for Owen to conceive of such a thing, there are organized evangelical churches outside the fold of his narrow and idiosyncratic notion of what constitutes a “church,” who uphold orthodoxy more vigorously and repudiate heterodoxy more fervently than he does, and they have been there since the days of the Reformation. In fact the framers of the LBC specifically repudiated the beliefs many of the figures mentioned by Owen above, and I defy Owen or anyone else to find fault with any part of this confession (aside from the normal idiosyncratic convictions). Having 32 articles (or 52 in the case of the 1644 edition) it is just as comprehensive and just as committed to orthodoxy as any Reformed confession of its day, including the Anglicanism that Owen pretends to hold.

The only real difference between us is that I can actually assent to the main tenets of all these confessions, even though the framers of those confessions hold no special authority over me (the confessions, as always, are authoritative insofar as they align with Scripture). By contrast, in spite of Owen’s feigned submission to Anglican authority, he manifestly does not believe in many of the articles of his own religion. I have already cited the relevant portions of the Thirty-nine Articles that Owen could never sign as a statement of faith. Why? Because as a Tractarian (not Reformed as he claims to be) he simply does not believe them. He does not believe of Scripture that “whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” He does not believe that “the visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men.” He does not believe that “things ordained by [ecumenical councils] as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority.” He does not believe that “the Romish doctrine concerning Pugatory, Pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saint, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God.” He does not believe that it is a “thing plainly repugnant to the word of God and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer in the Church, or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understood of the people.” He does not believe that Rome’s sacraments are partly a result of “the corrupt following of the Apostles.” He does not believe that Transubstantiation “is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.” He does not believe that “the sacrifices of Masses” are “blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” As a Tractarian, he is far too busy courting Rome to take the stanch position the Articles take. Indeed, as a Tractarian his primary goal is to show compatibility between Trent and the 39 Articles and to downplay any differences. As such, he is no heir of the Reformation, but rather of the Oxford movement and such stalwart “Reformers” as John Henry Cardinal Newman, Eddy Pusey, and Johnny Keble.

Martin Luther did not exalt his private judgment above the authority of the Church. He was merely echoing a widespread pastoral consensus as to the need for ecclesiastical reform that had been building within the Church for centuries. He is not a prototype of the modern evangelical Bible-onlyist.

No, of course not; here are Luther's own words:

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”

No “Bible-onlyism” there, right? Nor can we detect “individualism” or subjectivism” here, can we? And Luther clearly defers to the authority of councils here, doesn’t he; and he does not dare rely on his own contrary understanding of what Scripture teaches, does he? Luther’s Reformation, you see, was done with the pre-consent of his bishop and pope. As it turns out, there was just a huge misunderstanding about that. The pope sent out a mail blast to all the faithful telling them that the coffers were “prime for donation,” and the ink on the page smeared a bit, making it difficult to read. Luther thought it read “time for reformation,” and the rest is history. So you see, Luther didn’t operate on private judgment at all; and the “true heirs” of the Reformation recognize that it was really just much ado about nothing. And as for all those historic differences; well, they were all just silly misunderstandings—semantic, nothing more. In fact, there really aren’t any differences between “true” Protestants and Roman Catholics at all!

I believe Owen has actually convinced himself that his anglo-catholicism is somehow representative of the Reformed. To say it is not is to engage in an understatement.

He believed the proper solution to the Church’s ills was to call a general Church council (in which the Protestants would be included) to resolve the dispute (see the opening comments on this matter in the Smalcald Articles for just one illustration), not simply to go with J. Vernon McGee “back to the Bible.” On Luther’s views, see D.H. Williams, Evangelicals and Tradition, pp. 73-74, 121.

Fine and dandy; who isn’t for general councils in which hope is held out that the other side will be convinced of your arguments so as to preserve unity in the church? That should always be the first step in reformation to prevent splitting a church wide open. But apparently the Roman Catholic side had other ideas. And lest it be assumed that Luther’s goal for such a council was that he might be instructed by the church’s authority through the Roman catholic bishops, we should let him explain it:

“But to return to the subject. I verily desire to see a truly Christian Council [assembled some time], in order that many matters and persons might be helped. Not that we need It, for our churches are now, through God's grace, so enlightened and equipped with the pure Word and right use of the Sacraments, with knowledge of the various callings and of right works, that we on our part ask for no Council, and on such points have nothing better to hope or expect from a Council. But we see in the bishoprics everywhere so many parishes vacant and desolate that one's heart would break, and yet neither the bishops nor canons care how the poor people live or die, for whom nevertheless Christ has died, and who are not permitted to hear Him speak with them as the true Shepherd with His sheep. This causes me to shudder and fear that at some time He may send a council of angels upon Germany utterly destroying us, like Sodom and Gomorrah, because we so wantonly mock Him with the Council.”

Luther's goal for this council was to have the opportunity to reform his superiors; not so that he himself might be convinced of their position. This was not an "ecumentical council" he had in mind, but a debate so that his ideas might win the day.

Svendsen apparently cannot see that his solo Scriptura method is not the view which the Reformers held to.

Cute phrase, but entirely meaningless. There is simply no such thing as “solo scriptura” over against sola scriptura (at least not in the present case). Either one holds to sola scriptura in a responsible way (i.e., in a way that is informed by the larger Christian community), or one does not. In the latter case, sola scriptura is still active; it’s just misinformed. In the former case, one must then decide what constitutes the “Christian community.” For Luther, Owen argues, it was the creeds and councils. Fine; I often refer to those as well when speaking to Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who think the church ceased to exist for 1800 years. As I have mentioned before, I am in fundamental agreement with the conclusions of the creeds and early councils (not necessarily their rationale, language, or side points), and accept them as part of that larger Christian community—but only as a part. The Christian community extends well beyond those councils, both before and after, and I prefer to look at the whole rather than a mere part. At the same time it absolutely excludes those who are wolves among sheep and shepherds who feed only themselves.

Sola Scriptura was not intended by the Reformers to replace the authority of Church Creeds and Councils, though of course Scripture was the supreme and final authority

Here is the precise point at which Owen’s view of this fails on an epistemological level. He wants to argue—simultaneously, no less—that “the authority of Church Creeds and Councils” reigns supreme over the individual, AND that Scripture is “the supreme and final authority.” But how would the latter point ever prevail within the context of a corrupt church, or councils and creeds that are in error? For Martin Luther, a mere individual, the issue was his own understanding of Scripture over against that of the entire Roman Catholic magisterium. If Owen wants to argue, “no, he looked to the creeds and councils,” it changes nothing since it is evident that Luther still exercised his own private judgment and understanding of creeds and councils over against that of the entire Roman Catholic magisterium. There’s simply no way around this. Owen wants to articulate a principle of sola scriptura that is operative for the church but not for the individual. The problem is, Luther appealed to this principle as an individual and against the established church! Hence, Owen’s version of sola scriptura is not only epistemologically impossible, but is in fact a historical novum. All the Reformers, without exception, acted as individuals and trusted their own understanding of Scripture, creeds and councils over against the understanding of the governing church of their day.

Scripture was the supreme and final authority (a view which has always been well-represented even among Roman Catholic theologians).

Notice Owen’s persistent and irresistible Tractarian tendency to sneak Roman Catholic theologians into the camp of the Reformers’ view of Scripture, as though there is no difference between what the Reformers believed about Scripture and what Roman Catholics believe(d). This is classic Tractarian revisionism, not Reformed history.

My appeal to the consensus of the first five centuries is not arbitrary. It was standard among all of the Reformational theologians (like Jewel, Calvin, Bullinger, and Luther)

Standard what? Certainly not the regula fidei, for that category is reserved for “sola Scripture.” If by “standard” Owen intends something like “the Reformers believed that the creeds and councils restate the teaching of Scripture” then fine. If instead he means the Reformers believed that the councils and creeds define orthodoxy and act in addition to Scripture as some separate but unifed regula fidei, then he is sadly mistaken and is engaging in still more revisionism of the Reformers.

From the time of Gregory onwards, it was understood that the first four councils (those of the first five centuries) held pride of place in establishing the foundational boundaries of Christian doctrine. St. Gregory said: “I confess that I receive and revere, as the four books of the Gospel so also the four Councils . . . These with full devotion I embrace, and adhere to with most entire approval; since on them, as on a four-square stone, rises the structure of the holy faith; and whosoever, of whatever life and behavior he may be, holds not fast to their solidity, even though he is seen to be a stone, yet he lies outside the building

Yada, yada, yada. Fine and dandy for “St.” Gregory. Where is a statement from the Reformers that mirrors this sentiment? Here is what Luther says:

“Years ago all the pope's pronouncements were called Christian truth and articles of faith, yet this was simply based on man. And then it happened that people sank into the abyss and lost everything that pertains to the Word of God and Christ. Therefore, we must now declare: 'Pope, council, and doctors, we will not believe you; but we will believe in the Divine Word."

"When anything contrary to Scripture is decreed in a council, we ought to believe Scripture rather than the council. Scripture is our court of appeal and bulwark; with it we can resist even an angel from heaven - as St. Paul commands in Galatians 1(:8) - let alone a pope and a council."

"[As regards the church fathers] I do not reject them. But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred"

"A Christian soon smells from afar which is God's and which is human teaching. He sees from afar that the schismatic spirits are speaking their own human mind and opinion. They cannot escape me, Dr. Luther. I can soon judge and say whether their doctrine is of God or of man; for I am doing the will of God, who sent Christ. I have given ear to none but God's Word, and say: 'Dear Lord Christ, I want to be thy pupil, and I believe thy Word. I will close my eyes and surrender to thy Word.' Thus He makes me a free nobleman, yes, a fine doctor and teacher, who is captive to the Word of God, and is able to judge the errors and the faith of the pope, Turks, Jews and Sacramentarians. They must fall, and I tread them underfoot. I have become a doctor and a judge who judges correctly."

As one observer notes: “Luther did believe that much of the conciliar decisions did contain truth, but only in so far as they correspond with the written Word,” and “Luther did indeed accept the creeds, not because the councils of the Church had accepted them, but because he believed they conformed to the teaching of Scripture.” This is very much the Evangelical view of creed, councils, and Scripture, and very far from Owen’s view.

Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are not two religions (as is the case with Anabaptism). It is one thing to say that the Roman Catholic Church needs reform (the Protestant view); it is another thing to say that the Roman Catholic Church needs to be replaced (the Radical Reformation view).

And this is the just kind of misunderstanding for which Owen is notorious. Take for example Owen’s stance on the Reformer’s view of Rome. He goes to great lengths to show that Luther and Calvin still considered the RCC a legitimate church, and on that basis promotes the pope, the RC bishops, and RC priests as brothers in Christ with whom he has some minor disagreements. But the statements from the Reformers that Owen typically cites do not make that point. They are usually sacrament-based statements, not “Christian-brother” based. In other words, for Calvin and Luther the nature of the sacraments forces them to accept RC baptism as valid, even if the minister of that baptism is anti-Christ himself. To be sure, their views on the sacraments would disagree with mine and most of Evangelicalism on that score. But neither Luther nor Calvin took the further step that Owen takes by regarding the pope as a brother in Christ. Far from it; the Reformers uniformly viewed the pope as the anti-Christ. They were much more Evangelical in this regard. This embarrasses Owen immensely, who (as a Tractarian) would rather just downplay those statements, or eliminate them from consideration altogether. But the reason we cannot eliminate them or even downplay them is because they weigh heavily in our understanding of just what the Reformers intended by other statements they make regarding the “papists.” Hence, if some statements of the reformers seem to lend legitimacy to the Roman Catholic Church (such as the baptism statements), we need ever to keep in mind that the Reformers do not intend to imply what Owen and his ilk want to milk out of these statements—namely, that the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformed Church are one, and there’s really only a dime’s difference between them.

And if Owen really believed what he wrote here, he’d be Roman Catholic. The very fact that he attends an Anglican church and abstains from a Roman Catholic mass indicates clearly that he has indeed “replaced” Rome with Anglicanism. To argue otherwise is to engage in ridiculous double speak.

I am not going to keep vainly repeating myself on the matter of the Articles of Religion (articles 8 and 21). Article 8 (and the Book of Common Prayer in general) gives pride of place to certain Creeds, but nobody in their right mind thinks this means that the Creeds and statements of the early Ecumenical Councils somehow lack binding authority.

At least no one of Owen’s anglo-catholic heritage, whose express purpose it is to promote the authority of creeds and councils. Owen’s “explanation” is baffling. Here again is Article 21: “Wherefore things ordained by [General Councils] as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.”

Here is Owen: “nobody in their right mind thinks this means that the . . . statements of the early Ecumenical Councils somehow lack binding authority.”

Here is Article 21: “Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority.”

Owen: “nobody in their right mind thinks this means that the . . . statements of the early Ecumenical Councils somehow lack binding authority.”

Art. 21: “Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority”

Get it? It is only revisionistic tractarian sophistry that can make article 21 mean the opposite of what it plainly states.

Yes, general councils may err, and many have erred; but general councils is a broad category which embraces more than just the early Catholic Councils. Nowhere will one find in the Anglican sources a claim that Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus or Chalcedon did in fact err in matters pertaining to God (i.e., doctrine as opposed to discipline). Svendsen is so out on a limb with this claim that I am just not going to spend any more time talking about it.

Here again is a case of Owen not reading carefully what I said, nor what Article 21 is asserting. I have not contended that Article 21 teaches that the Nicene council erred in its definitions. I have contended only that Article 21 states that the councils, conducted by mere men, are prone to error, not that they have in fact erred. Because they are prone to err, they “have neither strength nor authority” in matters of definitions necessary to salvation. We may very well conclude they are right—but only because we can see for ourselves that they affirm the teaching of Scripture. That is what Article 21 is getting at.

Finally, Svendsen just does not understand why we need to maintain the supreme human authority (even if supposedly subordinate to God’s word) of Ecumenical councils. He does not understand this because he does not understand the nature of the Church, nor sadly, of the orthodox Christian faith itself. The Church is a visible society on earth, the community of God’s kingdom among his people. We are the eschatological commonwealth of Israel (Eph. 2:12-13). Because Svendsen simply sees the Church as the collective number of the elect, gathered into local congregations, the idea of an authoritative Catholic Church council simply makes no sense to him.

Owen has already been corrected on this point by one of the contributors on his blog (Peter Escalante), who chimed in on his article and had this to say:

“Your points on catholic continuity are well taken, but when you say of Svendsen that he “simply sees the Church as the collective number of the elect, gathered into local congregations”, it is very difficult for me to see how this differs from the essential points of the Reformers’ doctrine of the church. You may think that they were wrong, of course, but they pretty expressly denied that any of the qualities which were essential to, and definitive of, the invisible church, could be essentially predicated of the visible churches, which latter stand to the former as sign (admittedly, a very robust kind of sign). By the way, this is Hooker’s doctrine of the church as well. Where the folks you’re arguing against, insofar as I understand your representation of their ideas, would differ from Hooker and the Reformers, is not in the central points I just mentioned, but in denying that the true visible church has any real continuity through time, or any ability to authoritatively witness to and pass on true understanding of God’s Word through historically continuous media. But one can affirm these latter points completely, without giving up at all the Reformers’ doctrine of the Church, which makes a strong distinction between the invisibility of the church and its invisibility, and denies that the essential predicates of the invisible church are essential predicates of the visible church. Hooker’s whole argument against the separatists-in whose lineage you situate Svendsen- turns precisely on this point.”

As for the biblical reference Owen cites to support his contention that the church “is a visible society on earth, the community of God’s kingdom among his people [and] the commonwealth of Israel,” if he is somehow under the illusion that Eph. 2:12-13 is a proof text for his view, then let me disabuse him of that. This passage has nothing to do with whether or not “visible church” is to be identified with "invisible church." Paul’s point in this passage is simply that whereas God once worked exclusively with Israel, he has now included the Gentiles as a target of his grace and grafted the two peoples into one in Christ. If Owen thinks this means unbelievers and apostates are included in that grafting then he is sorely mistaken. Nothing could be further from Paul’s mind. Indeed I do see the invisible church as the collective number of the elect; but with the Reformers I also view congregations that faithfully proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ as manifestations of the visible church. It is not necessary that each member of the visible church be converted for that church to be a legitimate church—only that the gospel and truth are faithfully proclaimed. If Owen thinks differently, shame on him; he has no fellowship with the Reformers on that point. As Calvin once put it: “it is certain that there is no Church where lying and falsehood have usurped the ascendancy.” As for my not understanding the concept of a “catholic church council,” Owen is as badly misinformed on that as he is about almost every other view I hold.

Comprehensive Response to Owen

2006-10-13T08:04:00.000-07:00

Taken from the comments section of the previous post:

I do have to say that your post strikes me as overstated. I haven't been receiving some devastating correction at the Reformed Catholicism site. Peter has taken issue with me on several points of minor detail. So what? I've enjoyed the discussion and have a lot I can learn from the likes of himself, William Tighe, Jeffrey Steel, and others. They've forgotten more about the details of historical theology than I will ever hope to know. Thank God for them.

Here is what I wrote: “Presently, I'm just enjoying the responses he's getting from Peter Escalante and Jason Loh (who has also posted a very nice comment on one of the installments to my Cranmer series), both of whom are much more traditional Reformed Anglicans, and both of whom (but especially Escalante) have corrected Owen on his Anglo-Catholic revisionism of Reformation Anglicanism. . . . Cranmer and Owen are miles apart in their view of the church, Scripture, Rome, and authority, in spite of Owen's insistence to the contrary.”

Where exactly is the overstatement? When Owen can cite with approval Trent’s statement regarding Transubstantiation (see his latest article on the Eucharist)--and not some mere side point, but the primary definition of Transubstantiation itself!--is it not self-evident that he and Cranmer (and the Reformation Anglicans) are miles apart? Here is the relevant portion on this issue from the Anglican Thirty-Nine articles:

"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthrows the nature of a Sacrament, and has given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped" (Article 28).

Owen praises and commends Trent (not only here, but in many other places as well); Historic Anglicanism denounce it as “repugnant.” Owen has demonstrated time and again that his view and presentation of the Anglican Reformers is pure revisionism. Where is the overstatement? Owen continues:

As to my being unable to sustain a discussion on the exegetical sorts of questions, I think we both know that is not the case.

Actually, I “know” nothing of the kind. It is a fact that Owen did not bother to engage (exegetically or otherwise) the texts I maintain are contrary to his assertions. Whether he is able to do so, I suppose, remains to be seen. The fact of the matter is, he has thus far shown himself unable to sustain a discussion on it. Where, again, is the overstatement? Owen continues:

I don't know why you would want to give that impression. I think our past discussions have demonstrated that your attempt to get around the plain sense of the NT witness on baptism doesn't hold water (!)

I have provided all links to that discussion in two separate posts below. I’m confident that anyone who reads that discussion from beginning to end will conclude that Owen must have a different dialogue in mind.

the issue of the nature of the gospel remains clear. I don't have to follow your meandering path through a bunch of tangential passages in order to sustain my basic premise.

Hence, my contention that Owen is unable to sustain a discussion on this point is vindicated. Until Owen accounts for my “meandering path through a bunch of tangential passages,” he has not dealt exegetically with this issue. Owen continues:

Nowhere in the NT does Paul define the gospel in such a way as to include the means whereby justification is appropriated.

As usual, mere assertion with no attempt to prove. I have already shown that Paul does indeed include this, as do the other NT writers.

Never does he say that the good news is that justification is received by faith alone, and not faith plus works of merit.

Poppycock! I have shown otherwise.

All that Paul says is that the Good News is that Christ has died and rose from the grave for our justification. God in Christ has done something for us that the Law could not accomplish. THAT is the good news!

Again, poppycock. I have shown that what is included in “the gospel” depends entirely on the context of the passage in which the phrase or concept occurs. Sometimes it is limited to Christ’s death and resurrection; other times it is solely the appropriation of the benefits of that death and resurrection (the latter is merely assumed); still other times it refers to the judgment to come for those who refuse it; sometimes it is a combination of these; and sometimes it is all inclusive. Owen is simply being careless and tendentious in his presentation of this; and his refusal to deal exegetically with this issue is still more proof of that.

The human obligation now is to respond to that good news with faith, and receive the benefits of justification in baptism. In light of that basic fact, you are the one who has some explaining to do, not me.

The human obligation, contrary to Owen’s assertion, is part and parcel of “the gospel” of the New Testament. That is, in fact, the very apex of the gospel in the NT. It is not a mere "add on" as Owen thinks. I'm very sorry if that complicates things for Owen's revisionistic "new perspective" view of the NT and its background. But it is a fact nevertheless.

Upcoming Blog Entries

2006-10-11T13:50:00.000-07:00

I'll be waiting until the weekend to post a response to Paul Owen's latest reply. Presently, I'm just enjoying the responses he's getting from Peter Escalante and Jason Loh (who has also posted a very nice comment on one of the installments to my Cranmer series), both of whom are much more traditional Reformed Anglicans, and both of whom (but especially Escalante) have corrected Owen on his Anglo-Catholic revisionism of Reformation Anglicanism. In any case, it's interesting to see the various points of views about what Anglicanism really is; and it has also become clear that if anyone has misunderstood Cranmer, it is Owen. Cranmer and Owen are miles apart in their view of the church, Scripture, Rome, and authority, in spite of Owen's insistence to the contrary.

I can't add anything of value to their points on the history, but I will continue to comment on the biblical and epistemological points Owen raised in his original article but has not been able to sustain in dialogue. This has been my burden all along, and I'm still not satisfied Owen has understood just where his his self-defeating premise falls to the ground.

Oh, and yes, I plan to continue the series in Philippians at some point soon as well.

ES

Cranmer Vindicated: Another Response to Owen

2006-10-09T07:52:00.000-07:00

I'm milking this graphic for all its worth. Paul Owen has once again responded to my series on this (for which, see directly below). His points will be in block quotes, followed in each case by my response:

1. Somehow, Svendsen has gotten the idea that article 8 of the Articles of Religion is meant to exclude the Catholic Councils of the first five centuries (including the Nicene and Niceno-Constantinopolitan creeds, and the Christological definitions of Chalcedon and Ephesus) from being viewed as binding and authoritative. It goes without saying that a rejection of these Councils is by no means implied by the wording of article 8, nor is it implied by the wording of article 21 (since it obviously does not attribute error to all general councils). Such a radical position was unheard of among the Reformers, all of whom assumed the authoritative and binding nature of these early Councils and their statements.

First of all, I did not claim that these Articles exclude the creeds. Owen is simply shifting the ground of his argument here in his confusion of creeds and councils. There are many more injunctions and “binding commands” in councils than in the creeds they produced. One can reasonably concede the authority and binding nature of the statements of the creeds insofar as they are summary statements of Scripture (in which case that authority is derived from Scripture) without thereby accepting the authority of the council that composed it., since once one accepts the council itself as authoritative, then all the points of the council are thereby binding and not merely the creeds. Owen originally stated that the councils themselves have binding authority, and then affirmed he does indeed believe the “doctrinal statements” of the councils (distinguished here from the statements of the creeds) have the same authority as the creeds. Once again, the Articles deny this authority, with one exception: “unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.” No one can disagree with this, of course; but then it becomes a matter of whether the other statements are indeed taken from Holy Scripture. In the case of the creeds, they most certainly are derived from Scriptures; but the same cannot be said of many of the other statements made or implied by these councils.

Moreover, recall that Owen originally affirmed that seven creeds (i.e., councils) have binding authority. Here are his words:

The boundaries of the Christian faith are entirely contained in the Bible, and are defined in the Ecumenical Creeds of the early Church. The first four Creeds mark out the limits of the Faith; the fifth and sixth Creeds rule out Nestorian and Monothelite interpretations of the Faith; the seventh Council applies orthodox Christology to a dispute over the use of images in worship.

But clearly the Articles affirm only three; and now that I have raised this point, Owen seems to have capitulated to it. He now states he affirms “one Bible, two testaments, three Creeds, four Councils, five centuries of foundational Tradition.” But “four councils” is a bit misleading since they act merely as the framework for the three creeds. And “five centuries is also a bit misleading since they act as a time marker for when those councils met. In other words, the Owen intends to view these things as separate authorities (“I subscribe to three creeds AND to four councils AND to five centuries of church teaching”), whereas the originally intended meaning is much more likely to be inclusive (“I subscribe to three creeds which are contained within four councils, which are contained within five centuries of the church”). This is easily demonstrated simply by comparing these statements to what the same summary states about Scripture (“one Bible, two Testaments”). The intent of this statement is certainly not “I believe in one Bible AND two Testaments,” but rather “I believe in one Bible comprised of two Testaments.” The entire statement likely means something like, “I believe in one bible, comprised of two Testaments, reliably summarized in three creeds, which were hammered out in four councils, which were held within the first five centuries.”

What other explanation can account for Article XXI’s comparatively negative statement regarding “General Councils”? Owen has stated (in his previous response) that he does not believe the first four councils are to be included in the scope of Article XXI:

I do believe that some councils which have been lawfully called by princes (the so-called general councils) have erred (so art. 21 in the 39 Articles of Religion). I do not believe that this applies to any of the first four Ecumenical Councils which outline the boundaries of the Christian faith. Nor did any of the Reformers (excluding the Radicals) attribute error to those first four councils.

In fact, at least some Anglican scholars do not share Owen’s view that XXI omits the first four councils; others view XXI solely as a response to Trent. There is no unanimous view on which councils are envisaged here. But the fact remains that if the first four councils are not here included, then where is their binding authority included in the Articles? If they are to be excluded from the warning in XXI, and they are not included in the binding authority of VIII, where are they? Here are the Articles in question:

Article VIII: "The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’ Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture."

Article XXI: "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God), they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture."

It is not difficult to see how Article VIII, which is clearly intended to commend the three creeds as faithful expressions of the key teachings of Scripture and therefore binding on the conscience of the believer, combined with Article XXI, which is just as clearly intended to disallow “General Councils” this same authority—and this coupled with the fact that no other Article commends any council in any way (though there is ample opportunity to do so)—supports my contention that the Articles envisage Scripture and the three creeds as marking out the boundaries of the Christian faith. If the framers of the Articles viewed the General Councils themselves as a binding authority, why didn’t they just say so? If they viewed something beyond the Scriptures and the three creeds as binding, did they just forget to include it here? What explains the fact that not only is there a complete absence of any statement in the Articles that would suggest the binding nature of ecumenical councils, but there is a specific warning against viewing them as binding in matters of “things necessary to salvation”? The Articles do add one exception clause to this: “unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.” But this is a qualification that no Evangelical would reject.

I am simply going to assert this, because it is frankly common knowledge, and I would simply encourage Svendsen to investigate this issue more thoroughly. Statements affirming the authority of such Catholic Councils (those of the first five centuries) can be found in the Anglican Homilies (referred to in article 35),

There are twenty-one homilies, and each one is quite extensive. Perhaps Owen can pare down which specific statement(s) in which specific homilies he has in mind here.

Strangely, Svendsen insists that Church councils cannot be binding upon ”the believer’s conscience,” as though the Anglican divines of the 16th century were Baptists, in direct contradiction of article 34 which says: “Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be openly rebuked.”

Not strange at all, since these are apples and oranges. Not only is there a different “doctrinal content” involved, but also a different sense of “binding.” Articles VIII and XXI refer to Theological doctrine, while Article XXXIV (cited by Owen above) refer to “customs” of the church, to wit: “traditions and ceremonies [that are not necessary to] be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners.” The same article continues: “Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.” Clearly this cannot refer to something like the creeds or the doctrinal teaching of Scripture. In fact, scholars believe this Article was written expressly to counter Trent and the spread of the Roman church which was attempting to “bind” local Anglican churches to its own “customs and traditions” (so Wilson and Templeton).

Moreover, when Article VIII insists that the three creeds “ought thoroughly to be received and believed,” and Article VIII insists that “things ordained by [General Councils] . . . have neither strength nor authority,” it is explicitly referring to beliefs that are or are not “necessary to salvation.” Whereas Article XXXIV just as clearly refers instead to “binding” in the sense of a local church custom, which would not necessarily be binding on someone not a part of that particular national church, which may have a different custom. The binding authority in this case has nothing to do with those things that are necessary for salvation.

2. On the gospel, despite his lengthy homiletical excursion, Svendsen is unable to produce a single text in the writings of Paul which defines the gospel itself as the means whereby a sinner appropriates justification, or that maintains that justification is by faith, rather than by faith PLUS works.

My goodness, did he even read my response? I cited a plethora of instances that demonstrate these very points. Instead of responding to them, Owen gratuitously asserts they are not there. Here they are again.

Instead, what one will always find, is that Paul insists on justification by faith, and not justification by works (or sometimes “works of the Law”). I would agree that justification by works, or justification by the Law, as opposed to justification by faith in Christ, would undermine the gospel. . . . I have written an article which is due to be published sometime next year in the Journal of Biblical Literature (on the subject of the phrase “works of the Law” in Paul), in which I argue this case in detail.

Owen persists in his idiosyncratic view that the Galatian Judaizers thought they could somehow be justified by God by works apart from believing in God, but fails to explain why a Jewish atheist would desire to be justified by God in the first place. I look forward to reading Owen’s article in JBL, as well as the ensuing responses.

3. As for the sacrament of baptism, I am more than happy to have readers look back over Svendsen’s attempt to deny that baptism “saves” (1 Peter 3:21), to deny that baptism washes away sins (Acts 22:16), and to deny that baptism along with repentance is necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts
2:38).

Please do; here again are the links for the interested reader: Link 1 ; Link 2 ; Link 3 ; Link 4 ; Link 5 ; Link 6 ; Link 7 ; Link 8 ; Link 9 ; Link 10 ; Link 11 ; Link 12 ; Link 13 ; Link 14 ; Link 15 ; Link 16 ; Link 17 ; Link 18 ; Link 19

4. I am sorry that Svendsen (despite having a Ph.D.) does not understand what it means to have one’s soul nourished through the bread and wine of the Eucharist; and I am sorry he does not understand what it means to feed on Jesus’ body and blood unto eternal life. He sounds frighteningly similar to those described in John
6:52 and 60ff. That perhaps is the saddest testimony to the effect of evangelical religion which this exchange has offered thus.

I understand fully the meaning of Jesus’ words in John 6. That has never been an issue. What is at issue is Owen’s understanding of them. Again, he doesn’t bother to attempt an explanation; just gratuitously asserts his position. What is gratuitously asserted, I suppose, may be gratuitously denied.

Cranmer Revisited: A Response to Owen

2006-10-07T07:33:00.000-07:00

As expected, Paul Owen has responded to my post here. His points will be in block quotes, followed in each case by my response:

1. By “the Church” I do not only mean the medieval and Reformation church. I mean the one, holy, Catholic Church, which has existed since the Day of Pentecost, and continues through today. This Church includes the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Old Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Continental Reformed Catholic (Presbyterian and Lutheran) churches, as well as the faithful believers within the various congregations of Anabaptists (the Baptists, Pentecostals, Mennonites, etc.). I realize that the Church existed in ancient times, and continues to exist today. I also realize that every age of the Church has witnessed a mixture of truth and error. This has nothing to do with the simple fact that the Bible belongs to the Church, not to me or any individual.

Where has Owen given us any evidence that he takes into serious consideration the decisions, beliefs, and cautions of the latter groups he mentions? All we ever read from him is how the “catholics” (however he defines this) are right and the evangelicals and “Baptists” are therefore wrong. How has he demonstrated that these latter groups are part of this “catholic consensus” he promotes? And notice how he puts it; the “church” includes the denominations of “Roman Catholic, Anglican, Old Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Continental Reformed Catholic (Presbyterian and Lutheran,” but only “faithful believers within the various congregations of Anabaptists (the Baptists, Pentecostals, Mennonites.”

The same observation may be made of conservative brands of Presbyterianism. Owen has gone on record chiding these groups and issuing epithets toward them (they are in reality Gnostic Baptists), but I have seen nothing that indicates he has given them due consideration in determining Christian belief. Where has Owen praised any of these groups in the way he, with regularity, praises Roman Catholicism; and where has he commended them as a representative of the regula fide?

I’m sticking to my guns on this one. Owen’s “church” is manifestly the medieval church through the Reformation—or more specifically, the medieval church and the reformation. These are the only sources he cites as having authority. But not all of the Reformation, of course, since he rejects the view of and attitude toward Rome and the Papacy held by the earliest Reformers. And he clearly does not share the same definition of the regula fide as his predecessors inasmuch as he places much more confidence in the councils and teachings of non-reformation groups than they did.

2. I do not believe that each successive manifestation of the Church is called to “cast away” man-made traditions, nor do I believe this is what the Reformers taught. Svendsen is assuming a Radical Reformation paradigm here.

That depends entirely on who we envision doing the calling—the Reformers or God through the Scriptures? Error can creep in during a single generation (Jude 4). If this could happen when the apostles were still on the scene, then “casting away” errors when they creep in is absolutely necessary in every generation of the church to prevent those errors from growing into something that is then held by subsequent generations of the church as some “great tradition.” That is the precedent set for us in the OT via the prophets, and it is just what we are commanded to do by both Jesus and the NT apostles.

The Reformers saw themselves as living in a unique time, when in essence, the lawful courts of the Church had become so corrupt through the illegitimate attribution of autonomous power to the papacy and attendant Magisterium that radical measures had to be taken by faithful pastors of God’s flock.

And who made the decision that those “lawful courts” had become corrupt? Owen, I presume, would commend Luther as that person—or he may now defer to another Reformer; it matters not, each one worked as an individual in this, not as a collective body. Imagine that; a single individual sitting in judgment on the entire church and calling it corrupt. So here is Owen’s principle for reform: If one is living in the sixteenth century, and he suspects the church of the past century has become increasingly corrupted, all he need do is compare his church to the church of the fifth century, and he may objectively and without danger of subjectivism denounce the current church as an error-filled institution that needs to be reformed, create a new denomination based on his personal understanding of Scripture (sola scriptura—where did that source enter the picture? I thought conformity to the fifth-century church was all that was necessary), and be hailed by the “reformed catholics” as a great man. But if one is living in the modern era and he suspects the church of the past century has become increasingly corrupted, and he compares this church to the church of the first century, he is immediately denounced as a Gnostic who is operating on the principles of individualism and subjectivism. One apparently can’t go wrong if he individually decides to look to and adhere to four ecumenical councils (except, of course, that the church Luther and the rest of the Reformers opposed also held to these councils unwaveringly—again, why the need for a Reformation?), but if that same individual looks to Scripture instead; well, he’s just being subjective and individualistic.

Unfortunately for Owen, the matters brought up by the Reformers had little if anything to do with the fifth-century church. Sola fide and sola scriptura were not products of the ecumenical councils—nor were any of the points in his “95 thesis.” So if the “boundaries of the Christian faith” had been defined in the first five centuries of the church, and the Reformers simply wanted the church to return to those boundaries, then where does sola fide and sola scriptura come into play here? The reformation, on that thinking, was completely unwarranted, and Paul Owen should now abandon the schismatic Anglican church he has joined and return to Rome.

Moreover, what makes Owen think the same (or similar) situation that resulted in the Reformation does not prevail to an even greater degree now? In fact, I maintain the situation is just as urgent now as it ever was. It does not take long at all for the seeds of man-made tradition to sprout, and the crawling vines to choke the life out of truth. In the OT, it happened within a generation of Moses and Joshua. Why should we be so surprised that it might have happened to the church just as quickly? How long had the traditions opposed eventually by Luther been allowed to germinate and grow before formal opposition took place? Why the need for the precursor in men like Hus and Wycliffe? Would Owen like to suggest that the Reformers thought men like Wycliffe and Hus were also out of line to attempt reformation in their own day?

They believed that they lived in a unique time, which called for unusual circumstances. They most certainly did not see the need for every generation to undergo such a purging, but rather saw themselves as calling the Church back to the period of pure Catholicity–the first five centuries, when the boundaries of the Faith were defined and clarified.

So . . . now that we in the twenty-first century live in an age of “pure doctrine,” we can forgo any thought that the church might need again to be reformed? And why the arbitrary criteria of the first five centuries? Was that just pulled out of a hat? And who decides that’s “pure doctrine”? Those who agree with it? Those who fall in line because they aren’t capable of evaluating it? Since when did that become the standard of truth? Where has that been revealed by God? To what did the prophets in the OT turn when they wanted to establish the “boundaries of the faith”? Was it the first five centuries of Jewish thought after Moses passed away? If so, they would have been dead wrong. It is extremely telling that the Scriptures do not act as the “boundaries of the faith” for this group.

3. I do not believe that any of the beliefs which were consensual and characteristic of the Church of the first five centuries (the period of anonical definition and Creedal orthodoxy) can be shown to be at odds with the New Testament witness.

How about Arianism, which (with the exception of Athanasius and one or two lesser bishops) prevailed unanimously among the bishops in both east and west for an entire century before finally being put down? How about the exaggerated views of Mary, such as her exalted status, her perpetual virginity, or her sinlessness? I realize that Owen subscribes to at least the status and PV of Mary based on the testimony of the medieval church; but that just serves to illustrate my point about how error-filled traditions that are completely at odds with the NT witness can creep in unchallenged. What about the “conversion theory” of the Eucharist? A magisterial priesthood? Granted, some of these things were not “officially” defined until later. But the fact that they were prevailing beliefs before the end of the fifth century should sufficiently demonstrate the absurdity of the notion there was “pure doctrine” to be had in that day.

These early Fathers did not operate on a model that would allow doctrines to be defined without accountability to Scripture. The later two-source theory of revelation was not characteristic of this period. (See Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, pp. 19-48, for discussion.)

Then why does Owen insist we look to non-Scriptural authorities to define our own beliefs rather than to the Scriptures themselves?

4. I do believe that some councils which have been lawfully called by princes (the so-called general councils) have erred (so art. 21 in the 39 Articles of Religion). I do not believe that this applies to any of the first four Ecumenical Councils which outline the boundaries of the Christian faith. Nor did any of the Reformers (excluding the Radicals) attribute error to those first four councils.

Once again, if these councils acted as the “boundaries of the Christian faith,” and the sixteenth-century Roman church fully adhered to them (which it did), then what was the need for a Reformation? It is evident by this statement of Owen and other statements like it that he just does not share the same mindset of the early Reformers. I suspect that if Owen had lived in the sixteenth century, he would have opposed the Reformation. How could it be otherwise, given the principle on which he claims to operate?

Even in early Anglicanism; why did the framers of the Thirty-Nine articles disavow as unreliable the same councils Owen now upholds as the regula fide? Why did they insist that only three creeds be held up as reliably representing the teachings of Scripture? Owen persists in being out of step with the Articles of his own denomination, even if individuals of subsequent generations (such as Lancelot Andrewes) add “our councils”to it.

I would also agree that any human council is in principle capable of error, but I do not believe a principle of infallibility is necessary in this connection. It is only necessary that Ecumenical Councils be acknowledged as the highest human court of appeal, much as the Supreme Court functions today.

And why is that arbitrarily necessary? On what basis exactly? Do we find anything like that in Scripture pertaining to post-revelation generations of the people of God? Do we not find rather that these “highest courts of appeal” are routinely in error? It is one thing to compare the conclusions of these councils to Scripture and conclude they were right on many important things based on the fact they were simply affirming the teaching of Scripture. It is quite another thing to uphold their decisions as somehow “authoritative.” Says who exactly? One can be right without being authoritative. What Owen consistently misses in this discussion is a modicum of proof that we are obliged to view these councils as authoritative. He simply assumes and asserts; nothing more.

5. I am not being subjective in determining what my authority will be. I am subject to the same authority which Rome and the Greeks are subject to–the consensus of the undivided Church.

And the consensus of the undivided fourth-century church was that Jesus is not God. And since the church did not officially divide until centuries later, why are we stopping at the fifth century? And, again, who says we are subject to the consensus of the “undivided church”? The very fact that subsequent manifestations of the church can disagree with those decisions proves that it was neither a “consensus” nor an “undivided church” that made that decision. Indeed, if that same principle were applied to the consensus of the “undivided church” of the fourth century, we’d all be Arians today! The moment says, “yes, but the church in the next generation corrected that decision,” one has immediately forfeited his prerogative to argue that subsequent generations of the church are not allowed to call into question any consensus belief of the church of the first five centuries.

I am subjective in determining which church I will attend, but I do not attribute to the Anglican Church any right to define the boundaries of the Faith outside of the context of the undivided Church.

But if this is true, then nothing the Anglicans defined in their Thirty-Nine Articles can be considered significant enough to bind the conscience of the believer. And if it’s not significant enough to do that, the Anglican opposition to Rome was completely unwarranted, and Owen should just return to Rome. It was an unnecessary schism in the first place; so, in the interest of “catholicity,” why be a party to perpetuating it?

And most importantly, I do not claim the right to interpret the Bible for myself outside of that consensus. That is the difference between Anglicanism and Bible-onlyism.

And how, pray tell, did “Anglicanism” ever arrive at the notion that the three creeds represent the teaching of Scripture, but that councils have erred, without interpreting the Bible as individuals and apart from those same creeds and councils? Any denomination that makes a decision about which councils and creeds are right and which are wrong stands in judgment over those councils and creeds to make that decision, and must evaluate them by Scripture alone—they certainly cannot use those same councils and creeds as guides to help them make that decision! The distinction that Owen has made between the way the first Anglicans operated and the way “Bible-onlyists” operate is as absurd as it is impossible.

6. Notice that Svendsen insists that he does not hold to solo Scriptura because unlike “Joe Sixpack,” he and other evangelicals “look to each other” for the authentic interpretation. That sort of makes my point. Svendsen does not feel that the modern evangelical church should be held accountable to any outside standard, whether it be the teachings of the Reformers, or the early Catholic Church consensus first five centuries) which the Reformers appealed to and assumed as a given.

I had a feeling that statement would be misunderstood. In reality, I view the Reformers and the early church as helpful guides in interpretation. But I hold their conclusions loosely and compare them with my own generation of scholars (along with my own understanding of Scripture) because they, too, are subject to error. There are some conclusions they have made that I agree with because they are clearly supported by Scripture. Others of there conclusions I am more tentative about, and some I reject as absolutely foreign to Scripture. The difference between Own and me is that he views these entities as the regula fide, whereas I do not.

7. With regard to the papacy, Svendsen (like others I have seen) continues to ignore the fact that my quote to the effect that we are all “still under the papacy” comes directly out of Luther’s 1528 tract “Concerning Rebaptism” (a polemic against the Anabaptists who threw the Catholic Church out with the bath water).

I’m unconcerned about where it might originate. It was (and is) promoted by Owen, and that’s really all that matters to me in the context of this discussion.

8. The reason that the Anglican Church feels free to reject Rome’s list of sacraments is because there was no defined number of sacraments in the consensus of the first five centuries. The precise number of sacraments was not systematized until the time of Peter Lombard (12th century). Thus, there is room for a variety of interpretations of Holy Scripture on this point. Neither Rome nor Canterbury is heretical. The same principle applies to the Roman doctrines outlined in article 22 of the Articles of Religion.

Why is it the more I read Owen’s explanation, the less he sounds like Cranmer and the other Reformers? After denouncing Roman Catholic doctrine, and just before he was burned at the stake, Cranmer is recorded as having made this statement: “And as for the Pope, I refuse him, as Christ's enemy and Antichrist, with all his false doctrine." Cranmer went to the stake for his belief that Rome’s sacraments are heretical. Owen, on the other hand, won’t even acknowledge that Rome is heretical, but instead insists “there is room” for Rome’s view of the sacraments.

9. On the distinction between Creeds and Councils, while the Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are given a special place in the Anglican Way, so also are the doctrinal judgments (which I loosely called “creeds”) of the first four Ecumenical Councils (contained in the Nicene Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Christological definitions outlined by Chalcedon and Ephesus). The standard Anglican summary is: one Bible, two testaments, three Creeds, four Councils, five centuries of foundational Tradition.

Though, of course, not the first Anglican summary, which casts doubt on the reliability of the councils and accepts only the three creeds as reliably affirming biblical truth.

Owen, it seems, has no formal objection to “Bible-onlyism,” as he puts it, because he allows it in the case of the Reformers. He will object that they did not subscribe to “Bible-onlyism” since they also affirmed that the ecumenical councils faithfully reiterated biblical teaching. To which I respond, In order for those Reformers to determine that the councils are faithful to biblical teaching, they must first compare the teachings of those councils with Scripture and render a judgment—which they most certainly did. They rendered a similar judgment against Rome on a number of other issues (sola fide, for one) completely irrespective of those councils, which did not address those issues in any case. Hence, it is entirely inescapable that the Reformers operated on the “subjective and individualistic” principle of “bible-onlyism.”

Hence, Owen does not object to the principle when used by the Reformers—he simply objects to the continuing use of it. Yet he cannot articulate a good, coherent reason for that objection. He has argued “the Reformers saw themselves as living in a unique time.” But so what? How is the way one views himself ever the standard of what principle of authority the Christian can legitimately adopt? If Owen had argued, “I believe it was a movement of God that does not apply to every generation; I can’t prove it from Scripture or reason; I just believe it,” at least there would be coherence to the argument, even if he has to admit subjectivity in his decision to believe it. But Owen has made his case as though it can be proved on objective grounds. It can’t; and Owen has done a good job of illustrating why.

Owen's Eight Theses, Part II

2006-10-05T21:13:00.000-07:00

Continuing in our response to Paul Owen’s Eight Theses. Once again, Owen’s statements will be in block quotation, followed by my response.

2. The boundaries of the Christian faith are entirely contained in the Bible, and are defined in the Ecumenical Creeds of the early Church. The first four Creeds mark out the limits of the Faith; the fifth and sixth Creeds rule out Nestorian and Monothelite interpretations of the Faith; the seventh Council applies orthodox Christology to a dispute over the use of images in worship.

This, again, is at odds with the Thirty-Nine Articles of Owen’s denomination, which states that only “three creeds” outline essential beliefs for the Christian, and that nothing beyond these beliefs can be binding on the believer’s conscience; namely, “Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed.” These “ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.” But of ecumenical councils, the Articles (specifically Article XXI as we have already seen) have this to say:

“General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of God, they may err and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.”

3. The Old Testament Apocryphal books are useful for the promotion of piety in the Church, but are not to be looked to as a Rule of Faith for establishing doctrine.

Since I agree with this point there is no need to comment.

4. The “gospel” is a statement of the good news concerning what has been accomplished for the world through the Passion and the Glory of Christ. It is not to be identified with any particular interpretation of the mechanism whereby the good news is appropriated by believers. Justification by faith alone is a Protestant phrase which was intended to distinguish one interpretation of the meaning of justification from an understanding of the position of Roman Catholicism in the 16th century. Justification by faith alone is not the gospel; in fact, it is not even a part of the gospel, because the content of the gospel is what God has done for us through Christ, not what I must do to receive the benefit.

This is, at best, grossly overstated. The meaning of “gospel” in the New Testament, and all that meaning entails, depends entirely on the context of the passage in which the word occurs. On occasion, it is indeed limited to what Owen suggests above. But that is certainly not all it refers to. And to state categorically that it never refers to the appropriation of the benefits of Christ’s death to the individual is demonstrably wrong. First of all, an issue like this cannot be decided based merely on a bare lexical search of the noun euangelion (“gospel”). The verbal form euangelizo (“to proclaim the good news”) must also be taken into account. For instance, in Acts 14:15 Paul and Barnabas tell the people of Lystra: “We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God.” Here the content of the “gospel” is personal appropriation of the death and resurrection of Christ; namely, to turn away from idols and toward God. Similarly, in Rom 10:15 Paul, quoting Isa 52:7 (“How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news”--euangelizo), connects it directly with the act of believing with the heart and confessing with the mouth that Jesus is Lord (10:9-10). Indeed, this is the very “word of faith” Paul “preached” (10:8); namely, “Whoever will call upon the name of the LORD will be saved” (10:13). The very reason evangelists are sent out, according to Paul, is so that individuals can “call on his name and believe” (10:14-15). Far from Owen’s assertion, the act of believing and being saved is very much at the heart of the gospel--in fact, it is its goal.

The remote context in which both words are found must also be considered. According to Acts 15, a controversy had arisen over just how a man is justified before God (viz., whether or not one must be circumcised to be saved). It is in this context that Peter insists the “message of the gospel” was preached to the Gentiles through his own lips. Peter is here referring to the incident recorded in Acts 10 in which he as a Jewish believer had to be convinced by a vision from God that the Gentiles were to be included in God’s plan of salvation. Once he arrives at the house of Cornelius, the “message of the gospel” Peter proclaims to those in Cornelius’ household does indeed include the fact that Christ died and was raised on the third day, but it doesn’t stop there. It also includes the appropriation of that death and resurrection: “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (10:43).

In Acts 16:10, Paul concluded from a vision that God had called him to Macedonia “to preach the gospel to them.” Upon arriving in Macedonia, we find that one of the occasions in which Paul “preaches the gospel” is to the Philippian jailor, in which case the “gospel” is summed up in the simple command, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household” (Acts 16:31).

When speaking to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20, Paul explicitly states that the ministry he has received from the Lord is “to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:25). Here the content of the “gospel” cannot be limited to the death and resurrection of Christ because it is described as the gospel of grace. The modifier implies that the appropriation of the benefits of Christ's death to individuals is in mind, and not merely a set of historical facts that have been accomplished.

But perhaps the most explicit statement on this score is found in Romans. In Rom 1:15, Paul says to the Romans, “That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.” Paul does just this very thing in the ensuing chapters of this letter. Hence, in the broader context of the book of Romans, particularly in chapters 3 and 4, the gospel does indeed include appropriation by faith to the individual: “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (3:22). Indeed, “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. . . . For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "But the righteous by faith shall live" (1:16-17). The “gospel,” according to Paul, starts with the “wrath of God” against all mankind (1:18-32), moves to the attendant rendering of all without excuse and the consequent condemnation of all (2:1---3:18), concludes that the law has shut up all in sin and confined all under condemnation and that no one stands right before God no matter what they do (3:19-20), then culminates in the work of God in Christ in propitiating that wrath and providing atonement, and a clear proclamation of of just how that atonement is applied to the individual (3:21-31)—“righteousness through faith for all those who believe” (v. 22), “for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (v. 28), “since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one” (v. 30).

For Paul, the proclamation of the work of God in Christ on the cross is inseparable from the proclamation of how it is applied to the individual--together, they make up the "good news." Hence Paul spends an entire chapter (4) elaborating on that application by appealing to the example of Abraham’s individual justification before God—indeed, not only to the example, but to the “mechanics” of justification (something Owen expressly denies). It is by faith and it excludes works (4:2-5)—that’s justification by faith alone. Any covenant work (in the case of Abraham, circumcision) is something that occurs after justification has taken place and is, for Paul, a sign and seal of something that takes place prior to that sign. That is the "mechanism" of the gospel that Owen denies is there.

Paul sums all this up in 5:1: “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is, in fact, just what the gospel is—the good news that we can have peace with God (cessation of hostilities) through faith in Christ, based entirely on the work of Christ. That is just how Peter characterizes it in Acts 10: "The word which [God] sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace (euangelizo eirenen) through Jesus Christ" (10:34-36; see also Eph 2:17 where Paul uses the same phrase).

In addition to this, Paul is concerned not to “empty the gospel of Christ of its power”; namely, “the power of God” to save us (1 Cor 1:17-18). If the gospel does not include appropriation of the benefits of Christ's death, what exactly is the “power” to which Paul refers? And what exactly does it mean to “hinder the gospel” in 1 Cor 9:12 if not to rob it of its opportunity to convert souls? When Paul proclaims that he does “all things for the sake of the gospel that [he] might become a fellow partaker of it” (1 Cor 9:20), it comes right on the heals of (and is in fact the summation of) his principle of “winning souls” in vv. 19-22, according to which he becomes a Jew to “win” Jews, becomes a Gentile to “win” Gentiles, becomes weak to “win the weak.” It is with this in mind that Paul proclaims he does “all things for the sake of the gospel.” In other words, “winning the weak,” and every soul he can for that matter, is not only included in Paul’s gospel, but is the direct outworking and the very goal of the gospel. Even in 1 Cor 15:1ff, where Paul identifies the elements of his “gospel” (Christ died for our sins, was buried, was raised on the third day, and was witnessed among men, vv. 3-5), the stated goal of all this is “by which you are saved” (v. 2).

Moreover, Paul emphasizes appropriation of the benefits of Christ's death in his phrase “the gospel of your salvation” (Eph 1:13), and characterizes it as something in which one actively participates (Phil 1:5). That “gospel” is further said to include as part of its content “the hope that is laid out for you” (Col 1:5). Again, appropriation of the benefits of the work of Christ is in mind here, not bare historic facts. Later on, Paul speaks of “those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thes 1:8; cf. 1 Pet 4:17). What exactly is there to “obey” in the gospel if not the command to repent and believe, which is nothing less than appropriation to individuals? Hence, appropriation is part and parcel of the gospel.

Owen continues:

Galatians 1:6-9 does not turn justification by “faith alone” into a statement of the gospel, for Paul’s Judaizing opponents at Galatia did not deny justification by faith “alone.” They denied to faith any role in justification whatsoever, and insisted that it was through the Law, and not through the death of Christ, that justification was received (Gal. 2:16, 21). To deny that Christ has died for our justification would in fact be a denial of the gospel, but no orthodox Christian denies that.

Owen states this as though it is fact, when in fact no NT scholar I'm aware of holds it. I have addressed Owen’s reconstruction of the problem in Galatian vis-à-vis the Judaizers in the past, and will refer the reader there (the links I provide below will introduce it). More to the point, the “gospel” is nothing in Galatians if it is not precisely the mechanics of how a man is justified before God based on Christ's death—something that Owen has denied. Paul takes pains throughout this letter to insist that a man is justified before God by faith apart from works. It is this that he refers to as “the gospel which was preached by me” (1:11). The “different gospel” (1:6) is the addition of works (in this case circumcision) as a prerequisite to justification—which is really not “good news” at all, but is in fact a “distortion” of the gospel (1:7). The true gospel, the one the Galatians first received, is “that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, [and therefore] even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified” (2:16). Of those who would distort this, Paul insists he did not yield to their distortion “for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.”

Hence, to state, as Owen’s does, that (1) the gospel does not include anything about how a man is justified before God, (2) that the gospel does not specify the mechanics of that justification insofar as it is by faith alone to the exclusion of works, (3) that personal appropriation by faith is not part of the gospel, and (4) that Galatians has nothing to say about these questions is unequivocally false.

Owen continues:

5. Baptism by water is ordinarily necessary for salvation (John 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21). It both conveys and attests to our regeneration and forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4; Tit. 3:5). It is a sign of our spiritual renewal, and a reminder of God’s promises to all who belong to his family (Acts 2:39). It is the eschatological sign of the Abrahamic covenant which has been effectually ratified through Christ’s blood (Col. 2:11-12). Therefore, the sacrament of baptism should not be denied to the children of Church members (Acts 16:15, 31-33).

I have fully answered this point in a previous I had with Dr. Owen on this very issue. Here are the links:

Link 1 ; Link 2 ; Link 3 ; Link 4 ; Link 5 ; Link 6 ; Link 7 ; Link 8 ; Link 9 ; Link 10 ; Link 11 ; Link 12 ; Link 13 ; Link 14 ; Link 15 ; Link 16 ; Link 17 ; Link 18 ; Link 19

Owen continues:

6. The Eucharist is a covenant meal which is celebrated by members of Christ’s Church in remembrance of the benefits which were secured through the Passion of our Lord (1 Cor. 11:23-26). When the bread and wine are consumed through the mouth, with faith expressed in the heart, the souls of the faithful are nourished by the body and blood of Jesus unto eternal life (John 6:27-29, 35, 53-58).

I confess, I do not know just what this means. Statements like this are usually left vague for a reason. What does “nourished” mean? What does “unto eternal life” mean? Does the “soul of the faithful” forfeit eternal life if he does not partake for whatever reason? Is participation in the Lord’s Table necessary to be saved? Unless and until Owen clarifies what he means by these things, I can neither agree nor disagree with them. As for Owen’s points 7 and 8, I’m not sure my disagreement with him on those points (if there is one) is passionate enough to spend time examining them. I’ll settle for the points I’ve already addressed.