Dec 31, 2020

HuffPost's Cringeworthy Article Regarding Biblical Interpretation

 


Those who know me well, know that I utterly despise Huffington Post (especially the "Queer Voices" section; there is no place like that place for bias and just plain-old leftist propaganda). So when I saw that Peter Enns (who, as far as I know, denies the historicity of Adam; which is complete compromise), had written an article for them on the Bible, I thought I would give it a read, and the sort of "arguments" that are used in this article were truly horrific. It is titled "3 Ways Jesus Read the Bible That Evangelicals Are Told Not to Do". I will quote Enns' words in blue and then provide my responses in black.


For Evangelicals—and I’m among them—Jesus and the Bible are high on the priority list. Not just evangelicals but all Christians believe Jesus is the Savior, and that the Bible tells us about him. 


But watching how these two priorities come together—watching how Jesus read his Bible (the Christian Old Testament)—can create some awkward moments, because Jesus read his Bible in ways evangelicals are taught over and over again not to read it.


I am not familiar with everything that Peter Enns has claimed, written, or said. But I am not a big fan of what I do know about him (his denial of a real, literal Adam and Eve for example I am not fond of [as I mentioned above]). Jesus and the Bible is not "awkward" at all. Jesus clearly viewed the Old Testament as being inerrant and divinely inspired (Matthew 5:18; 15:3; 22:31; Mark 7:13; John 10:35). So Enns' idea is simply without warrant here. Now, what are the ways in which Jesus read the Bible that we are told "not to"?




1. Jesus didn’t stick to what “the Bible says,” but read it with a creative flare that had little if any connection to what the biblical writer actually meant to say. 

Evangelicals are told to respect the Bible by “sticking to the text” and not go beyond it. Jesus did the opposite.

For example, in the book of Exodus (chapter 3), God speaks to Moses from a burning bush. This being the first encounter, God introduces himself (verse 6): “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” In other words, “The one speaking to you, Moses, is none other than the God of your ancestors, and I’ve got a very big job for you: go down to Egypt and bring my people out of slavery.”

Enter Jesus. We find him in Luke’s Gospel (chapter 20) debating a religious party known as the Sadducees. One of their beliefs is that after you die, you’re worm food. Other Jews, including Jesus, were of the Pharisee party. They believed that God will one day raise the dead.

So to prove his point—that the Sadducees were wrong and God does indeed raise the dead—Jesus recites the verse from Exodus above, where God introduces himself to Moses.


There isn’t a “deeper meaning” to Exodus 3:6. God is just introducing himself to Moses. It’s not code for “I will raise the dead.”

What Jesus is doing here wouldn’t sit well with most Christians if, say, their pastor got up and preached like this. They’d ask him or her to try and stick to the text better and if not to start looking for another line of work.

But what Jesus does here in Luke’s Gospel, however strange it seems to us, was par for the course in early Judaism. Luke tells us some of the scribes were very impressed with Jesus’s ability to handle the Bible so well!

For Jesus, as for his fellow Jews, the Bible was ready and willing to be handled in creative ways to yield new and unexpected meanings that go far beyond what those words mean when they were first written.


Enns fails to quote the entirety of what the Lord Jesus actually said in Luke 20 regarding the resurrection of the dead as well as his citation of Exodus 3:6. I think Theophylact's commentary is helpful here:

"By using Moses (v. 23-28) they were intent on overturning the doctrine of the resurrection, but He, also by using Moses, convinces them quoting, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." What Christ means is this: God is not the God of that which is not, but of that which exists and is. For God did not say, "I was," but "I am." Even though they had died, they live in hope of resurrection." (Explanation of the Gospel According to Matthew (tr. Chrysostom Press, 1992), p. 192)


As Theophylact notes, God says "I am" rather than "I was". Enns fails to see this and thus this where the error arises. Jesus' use of Ex. 3:6 does help His case that God "is not God of the dead, but of the living" (Luke 20:37), and the similar principle taught by Christ in John 11:25. 



2. Jesus felt he could “pick and choose” what parts of the Old Testament were valid and which weren’t.

Evangelicals are taught in no uncertain terms that the Bible is a package deal. Believing what the Bible says isn’t like being on a buffet line where you “pick and choose” what you like. Yet, that’s what Jesus did.

For example, we have the famous Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel. Jesus on a mountain speaking to those gathered around him. Several times he quotes something from the Law of Moses and then contrasts what the Law says (“you have heard it said) with a teaching of his own (“but I say to you”).

We shouldn’t lose sight of the larger idea here: Jesus is acting like Moses. He is on a mountain declaring to the people what God commands of them. The “Sermon on the Mount” isn’t really a sermon at all. For one thing no one was bored listening to it. Jesus’s words were a public declaration that, now that he was here, there were going to be a few changes made.

At some points in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus simply expands what his Bible said—like murder being more than not just physical but also emotional (anger) and verbal (insults). But Jesus also claims that some parts of the Bible over and done and it’s time to head in a new direction.

Moses may have allowed for divorce for all sorts of reasons, but Jesus said divorce was only allowed in the case of unfaithfulness.

God told Moses that Israelites were to make solemn oaths to one another (sort of a binding contract), but Jesus said the true people of God shouldn’t make any oaths. “Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes or ‘No, no’; anything more than this comes from the evil one.”

God told Moses that crimes were punished an “eye for an eye” (to insure the punishment fit the crime) but Jesus said to turn the other cheek rather than seek restitution. In doing so, they would be truly following the will of God.

Jesus taught that some of what God said in the Old Testament was inadequate, and real obedience to God mean it was time to move on. If evangelical pastors or professors pulled moves like this, they’d be working second shift at Target before the week was out.



Regarding the Sermon on the Mount, Enns fails to provide a meaningful context of all of Jesus' words in that passage. Jesus says, right after the Beatitudes, that he was not "throwing out" the Law but rather fulfilling it (Matthew 5:17-20). Plus, Jesus wasn't saying "the OT said this, it is wrong, here is what I am saying to you now". That is a blatant misreading of the text. Again, the Sermon on the Mount must be read in light of everything Jesus said, not just mere snippets.


Enns essentially is implying that Jesus considered "certain parts" of the Old Testament to be invalid. It would be a sufficient rebuttal to quote, well, Jesus' words:

"If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35)

 "And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God:" (Matthew 22:31)


The Apostle Paul, also considered the OT to be inspired by God in its entirety:

"Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God." (Romans 3:2)


The verses above blow Enns' last statement in the above quoted section out of the water completely as well.


Regarding Jesus' views on divorce, I assume Enns probably has Matthew 19:8 in mind. Jesus is not saying that Moses was wrong or anything of the kind. R.T. France's comments are helpful here:

"8 Jesus accepts that Deut 24:1-4 does in effect permit divorce, even though it does not actually say so in so many words. How then is this permission to be squared with his absolute statement that divorce should not take place? The naming of “Moses” as the one who gave permission might suggest that a contrast is being drawn with the original principle of unbroken marriage which was explicitly attributed to the Creator himself in vv. 4-5; on that understanding what Moses permitted is downgraded to a merely human deviation from the divine purpose. But that would be a very modern inference. In first-century Judaism the laws given by Moses were understood to be the laws of God; “Moses” means the Pentateuch, the God-given body of law which is Israel’s highest authority. The name “Moses” is used in v. 8 not to contrast Moses with God, but because Jesus is responding to the question of v. 7 in which Moses has already been named as the source of the Deuteronomic provision. The contrast Jesus draws is not with regard to the authorship or authority of the two Pentateuchal texts, or even simply to the order in which they were given, 2167 but with regard to their purpose. The Deuteronomic legislation is a response to human failure, an attempt to bring order to an already unideal situation caused by human “hardness of heart.” This familiar biblical term refers not so much to people’s attitude to one another (cruelty, neglect, or the like) as to their attitude to God, whose purpose and instructions they have set aside. Its classical use is with regard to Pharaoh, whose “heart was hardened” to refuse God’s call for the liberation of Israel (Exod 7:13 and a further dozen times in the Exodus narrative); it is a term for rebellion against the God to whom obedience is due. It was the fact that divorce was taking place in defiance of God’s stated intention for marriage that made it necessary for Moses to make appropriate provision. But it should never have been so. The existence of divorce legislation is a pointer not to divine approval of divorce but to human sinfulness. Was the provision of Deut 24:1-4 then a mistake? That does not follow from Jesus’ argument. It was rather a mark of divine condescension. Even after his people had rejected his design for marriage, God gave them laws to enable them to make the best of a bad job. But the Mosaic “permission” was not a statement of the way God intended things to be. For that one needs to look in Genesis at the way God had set up his pattern for human sexuality “from the beginning,” before the Fall. So the mistake in relation to Deut 24:1-4 is not that of Moses in making legislative provision for the problems which arise in a fallen world after divorce has taken place, but that of his interpreters who have taken this regrettable but necessary provision as the starting point for their ethical discussion in preference to the original purpose of God as expressed in Genesis. But if the latter is allowed its proper status, Jesus’ pronouncement of v. 6 still stands: what God has united must not be divided." (R.T. France, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Matthew)




3. Jesus read his Bible as a Jew, not an evangelical (or even a Christian). 

As much as this might not need to be said, it does. When we watch Jesus read his Bible, we are watching a Jewish man reading his Bible. His creative flare and even his “debating” with his own Bible and going in a different direction were part of what it meant to read the Bible in Jesus’s Jewish world.

That doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t revere the Bible. He did. But he revered it in Jewish ways, not evangelical ways.

And that may be the hardest lesson for evangelicals to learn, that Jesus did not agree with things about the Bible that evangelicals take for granted and consider non-negotiable—like “stick to the text” and, “God’s word is eternal and never changes.”

If evangelicals (and I am among them) pay attention to Jesus, they will learn a vital lesson: Our own Bible shows us that getting the Bible right isn’t the center of the Christian faith. Getting Jesus right is.



In the first couple or so paragraphs of this section, Peter Enns mostly just repeats the stuff he has already said in the earlier parts of his article, which I have already provided a refutation to. However, the last paragraph is interesting. I would agree that getting Jesus is right is central to Christianity, but in order to know who Jesus truly was and what he believed, we have to go to the New Testament Scriptures (in particular, the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Getting the Bible right is extremely important to the Christian faith, and is indeed central if we want to get "Jesus right". Jesus clearly viewed the OT as the inspired Word of God. And anyone who actually does a meaningful investigation into Jesus' views of the Old Testament sees this quite clearly.

The Bible is the "more sure word of prophecy" (2 Peter 1:19) that God has given us, in order that we can get Him right, despite what Enns and other people who deny inerrancy may say. 




Dec 8, 2020

Review of The Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur

 


The Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur is a book which ultimately explores the question of what following Jesus truly means, particularly against the backdrop of the “lordship salvation” controversy. MacArthur both defends lordship-salvation and at the same time, provides a thorough critique of the other position, easy-believism. MacArthur outlines in chapter 2 of the book some of the problems with what he refers to as the ‘typical gospel presentation nowadays’: “Listen to the typical gospel presentation nowadays. You will hear sinners entreated with words like, “accept Jesus Christ as personal Savior”; “ask Jesus into your heart”; “invite Christ into your life”; or “make a decision for Christ.” You may be so accustomed to hearing those phrases that it will surprise you to learn that none of them is based on biblical terminology. They are the products of a diluted gospel. It is not the gospel according to Jesus.” MacArthur most frontly critiques and refutes the idea that “conversion to Christ requires no spiritual commitment whatsoever” (pg. 38)


MacArthur clarifies that he is not in anyway whatsoever proposing the idea that works are a precondition for salvation (pg. 48 - “Works are not necessary to earn salvation”). He is simply showing that it is wrong to assume that one is a Christian simply because he/she professes it without showing any outward evidence in their lifestyle. “Not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is”, as he says. In chapter 3, Dr. MacArthur shows how Jesus’ meeting with Nicodemus in John 3 proves this point. He especially points out that Nicodemus came to Jesus with a positive word of affirmation (what might equate to today’s idea of “accepting Jesus into your heart). We might expect Jesus “to welcome Nicodemus warmly and interpret his positive response as a profession of faith, but that was not the case”(pg. 51). In this passage, Jesus treated Nicodemus as an unbeliever. Since Jesus knew the hearts of men (John 2:24), he obviously knew whether or not Nicodemus truly was one who had saving faith. MacArthur shows how John 3 demonstrates that it is possible for one to be fanatically religious, yet “no nearer the kingdom of God than a prostitute” (pg. 53) 


In chapter 4, MacArthur deals with the next chapter from John’s gospel in which the story of the woman at the well takes place. John 4 demonstrated conclusively that Jesus, rather than appealing to his listener’s misplaced interests, confronted them with their ultimate need. This story shows that Jesus demands true worship, not an empty bogus profession of faith. MacArthur notes that it is interesting that the woman’s first action after her conversion was to go and tell others about Jesus (John 4:28-30). She had a real faith. Jesus knew the woman’s sinful past, and when he invites her to “drink”, it is not leaving an excuse for continuing to live as she used to: “Jesus never sanctioned any form of cheap grace. He was not offering eternal life as an add-on to a life cluttered with unconfessed sin. It is inconceivable that He would pour someone a drink of living water without challenging and altering that individual’s sinful lifestyle. He came to save His people from their sin (cf. Matt. 1:21), not to confer immortality on people in bondage to wickedness (cf. Gen. 3:22 – 24)” (pg. 68)


Chapter 21 seemed to enforce the point (i.e. that true believers will have a dynamic faith that evidences itself in good works not an empty profession of faith) really well. MacArthur appeals to Matthew 7 to show that many people who profess to be Christians are in fact self-deceived: “Here in Matthew 7, the Lord gives us a glimpse of the coming judgment and the tragedy of those who will stand before the throne with high expectations but only a verbal profession or mere intellectual knowledge. They will protest that they did things for the Lord, but their words and their hearts are empty. Tragically, Christ will turn them away from heaven” (pg. 212). The “many” of Matthew 7 who will be “turned away from heaven” are, according to MacArthur, “religious people who have chosen the road of human achievement. They are the same ‘many’ we met in Matthew 7:13, who took the wide gate and broad way. Their plea will be the religious deeds they have done (v. 22). Paul said people like this hold “to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power” (2 Tim. 3:5). They are much like the Pharisees, obsessed with religious activity, not necessarily apostates, heretics, antichrists, atheists, or agnostics — just people trying to earn God’s favor through external works rather than living out the righteousness that is based on faith (cf. Rom. 10:5 – 10) (pg. 212).” Note especially that these people say “Lord, Lord” (thus affirming the truth of his divinity). Their faith exists only in the spoken realm, with no evidence of itself in reality. Their lifestyle is that of one who is unrepentant and self-deceived, yet they “go through the motions”, as it is often said, and might even be highly involved in churches and other religious activities, yet Jesus will say to them “I never knew you”. Notice he says that never knew them, not that he once knew them but then lost them, or that they lost their salvation somehow. They were never real believers in the first place!


This book encourages all who profess to be Christians to “examine themselves” (2 Corinthians 13:5, 2 Peter 1:10-11) to see if they are truly Christians. Generally, those who are self-deceived have what is called a “false assurance”, usually never examining themselves.
The Gospel According to Jesus shows that the true message of Jesus was one of a call to submit to His authority and his lordship and to repent and trust in Him alone.

Dec 6, 2020

The Old Testament's Testimony to the Divinity of the Messiah

 

If Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, then by necessity, he is claiming to be God. The Holy Bible, in many places, tells us that Messiah is divine:

“Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek. But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has given birth; then the rest of his brothers shall return to the people of Israel. And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God. And they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth.” - Micah 5:1-4

“Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. As many were astonished at you— his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind— so shall he sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.” - 

‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭52:13-15‬ ‭ESV


The sort of language that the Prophet Isaiah uses here is extremely similar to language earlier in the book which ascribed to Yahweh himself!


“In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” -  ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭6:1-5‬ ‭


“The Lord is exalted, for he dwells on high; he will fill Zion with justice and righteousness,” -  ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭33:5‬ ‭ESV‬‬

The Prophet Daniel also views the Messiah, the Son of Man, as being divine:


“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” - ‭‭Daniel‬ ‭7:13-14‬ 


This figure whom Daniel speaks of has attributes that are identical to those of Yahweh (cloud rider, he receives worship, etc.) :


“And in the morning watch the Lord in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down on the Egyptian forces and threw the Egyptian forces into a panic,” - ‭‭Exodus‬ ‭14:24‬ ‭


“The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, and the Lord will by no means clear the guilty. His way is in whirlwind and storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.” - ‭‭Nahum‬ ‭1:3‬ ‭

“Sing to God, sing praises to his name; lift up a song to him who rides through the deserts; his name is the Lord; exult before him!” - ‭‭Psalm‬ ‭68:4‬ ‭


“An oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.” - ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭19:1‬ ‭ 


In the NT, the Lord Jesus claims to be the Messiah:

“The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.” - ‭‭John‬ ‭4:25-26‬ ‭


After His resurrection, he reaffirms his identity as the Messiah:


“That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them.”“And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. - ‭‭Luke‬ ‭24:13-15‬, 25-27

Islam likewise affirms that Jesus Christ is the Messiah (Surah 3:45), thus if Muslims want to be consistent, they end up having to deny their own faith's teachings about Jesus in the Qur'an. 

Thus, due to the fact that the OT says that the Messiah is Yahweh, and that Jesus explicitly claimed to be Messiah (which Muslims also believe that Jesus is the Messiah), he is thus claiming to be God in light of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Jesus as God's "servant" in Acts 3:26 - Osama Abdallah & others Refuted

 


Many Muslim apologists, in order to deny the truth of Christ's deity, will often appeal to places in the Holy Bible where it speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ as being God's "servant". Particularly, I read an article written by dawah missionary Osama Abdallah from the Answering Christianity website. If you so choose to click on the above link, please note that the article extends only for part of the page (Osama's website is extremely disorganized and usually filled with mere verbiage rather than an actual meaningful argumentation). I won't be going through everything that Osama says but I will address the main verse which he cites (i.e. Acts 3:26)However, I ended up coming across this article and I thought I would provide a thorough analysis of Acts 3:26 in which Jesus is called God's "servant".

Here is the verse from the English Standard Version of the Holy Bible:


"God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.” (Acts 2:36 ESV

It is obviously interesting that Muslims would go to this verse, since it explicitly affirms the resurrection of Christ, something which is denied by Muslims in the first place.


Here are some comparisons between the different translations of the Holy Bible on this verse:


New International Version [NIV]: "When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."

New American Standard Bible [NASB]: "For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways."

New King James Version [NKJV]: "To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”

Christian Standard Bible [CSB]: "God raised up his servant and sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your evil ways."

King James Bible [KJV]: "Unto you first God, having raised up his SON Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities."



As you can see above, the KJV is the only one that uses the word "son". In this article, I will go with the ESV and the others which use the word "servant". Does this refute the divinity of the Lord Jesus? Not in the slightest, as this article will thoroughly demonstrate. I will provide some reasons why Jesus being called God's "servant" does not refute him being God incarnate.

#1 - The word παῖς does not always refer to a mere servant. 


In Acts 3:26, the word which is translated as "servant" is the Greek word παῖς. Most Islamic polemicists will probably assume that this word refers to a mere servant and nothing else. However, that is not the way this word is meant in the New Testament. Here are some biblical examples to illustrate this:



"After the two days he departed for Galilee. (For Jesus himself had testified that a prophet has no honor in his own hometown.) So when he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, having seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the feast. For they too had gone to the feast. So he came again to Cana in Galilee, where he had made the water wine. And at Capernaum there was an official whose son (ὁ υἱὸς) was ill. When this man heard that Jesus had come from Judea to Galilee, he went to him and asked him to come down and heal his son (αὐτοῦ τὸν υἱόν), for he was at the point of death. So Jesus said to him, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.” The official said to him, “Sir, come down before my child (τὸ παιδίον μου) dies.” Jesus said to him, “Go; your son (ὁ υἱός σου) will live.” The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went on his way. As he was going down, his servants met him and told him that his son (ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ) was recovering. So he asked them the hour when he began to get better, and they said to him, “Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.” The father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, “Your son (Ὁ υἱός σου) will live.” And he himself believed, and all his household. This was now the second sign that Jesus did when he had come from Judea to Galilee." (John 4:43-54)


Here, in this story, we see that this official referred to his son using the word "pais" (the exact same word which is used in Acts 3:26!). This proves quite conclusively that this word pais can refer to one's son or child


#2- In Acts chapters 2-3 [in which 3:26 appears], Peter explicitly affirms the deity of Jesus Christ




Acts 2:33 - "Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing."


Acts 2:34-35 - "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,  until I make your enemies your footstool.' " 


Here Peter quotes from Psalm 110:1. This same OT verse used by Jesus in Mark 12:35-37: 

"And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?  David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared, 'The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.'  David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly." (Mark 12:35-37)


John MacArthur, a well-known pastor, as well as a commentator says these words regarding Jesus' use of Psalm 110:1:

"… Verse 1 proves that the messiah could not be merely a man, since David referred to him as his Lord. Jesus' simple argument was so powerful and convincing that when it became widely known after the New Testament was written, many Jews, to avoid the obvious reality, denied the historical view that Psalm 110 was messianic. Instead, it was argued that it referred to Abraham, or Melchizedek, or the intertestamental Jewish leader Judas Maccabeus. Modern liberal scholars, who deny Christ's deity and the infallibility of Scripture, have argued that David was simply mistaken in viewing the messiah as his Lord. However, all of those arguments require rejecting the revealed truth that David himself called the messiah his Lord because of revelation from the Holy SpiritFurther, God declared to David's Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies beneath your feet." Elevating the Messiah to His right hand, a reference to the divine position of power (cf. Ex. 15:6; Pss. 20:6; 44:3; 60:5; 89:13), symbolizes His being coequal with the Father in rank and authority, and essentially affirms His deity. Messiah's rule will be absolute, as God will put His enemies beneath His feet or, as Luke writes, "make [his] enemies a footstool for [his] feet" (Luke 20:43)… The Old Testament, then, reveals not only the Messiah Jesus' humanity as David's son but also His deity as David's Lord, exalted at the right hand of the Father. Here is the incomprehensible, infinite truth that Jesus is both fully God and man… The conclusion to this passage is anticlimactic and tragic. From the majestic heights of Jesus' profound wisdom and masterful exposition of Psalm 110 proving His deity, the reader is plunged into the depths of the hate-driven rejection by the nation's hardened leaders, as well as the amused apathy of the large crowd, who merely enjoyed listening to Him, but two days later would later cry for His execution. Some hated Him, others were entertained by Him. None, apparently, fell on their faces in the presence of almighty God incarnate to repent and confess Him as Lord and Savior." (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Mark 9-16, pgs. 209-213, emphasis originally added by Sam Shamoun)


Now we move on to yet more verses in Acts 2-3 which testify to the Jesus being God.

Acts 2:36 - "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”


Acts 3:13-16 - "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all."


Note several things: 

1) Jesus is called the "Author of life".

2) It is "through Jesus" that this man is healed by a miracle. 

3) Jesus is called the "Holy and Righteous One".


Conclusion


We have seen that Peter explicitly affirms that Jesus is God, in the book of Acts (and he does as well in 2 Peter 1:1). We have also shown that the word pais in the Greek language can and does refer to one's son or child (and can be a servant at the same time).

The Bible is amazingly clear that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, and thus we ought to worship Him. 

Nov 26, 2020

Joseph Fitzmeyer on Romans 5:1 ("Having Been Justified")

 


I was pointed out recently to a rather interesting comment from Roman Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmeyer in his commentary on Romans. For those of you who do not know, Romans 5:1 is often quoted by Protestants in order to support the view that justification is a once-for-all event, rather than some sort of ongoing process, as the Roman church teaches. Roman Catholic apologists have tried to get around this problem many times, however, Joseph Fitzmeyer, a Roman Catholic scholar (not an apologist), says these words when he is commenting on the phrase "having been justified" (particularly the word justified as it is used as an aorist participle):


" 'justified from faith,' expressed by the aor. pass. ptc. , which connotes the once-for-all action of Christ Jesus on behalf of humanity." (Joseph. A. Fitzmyer, Romans, [DoubleDay, 1992], p. 395)


It is unclear what Fitzmeyer means by "Christ Jesus on behalf on humanity" specifically, but the remains is that Fitzmeyer recognizes that this is a once-for-all action/event.


Rebuttals to Robert Sungenis

 



Response to Robert Sungenis on Psalm 32


Response to Robert Sungenis on Psalm 32



Earlier today, I was reading my copy of Robert Sungenis' book Not by Faith Alone. I was specifically studying Sungenis' arguments concerning the issue of imputation/infusion, and I ran across something that caught my eye. In response to James White on the subject of Psalm 32 ands its relationship to Romans 4:6-8, where it is quoted by the Apostle Paul, Sungenis writes the following:


"First, we can begin by citing the entire verse of Ps 32:1. David declares: “Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit.” Notice that in connection to being “forgiven,” “covered,” and “sin...not counted against him,” David speaks of one “in whose spirit is no deceit.” This statement is speaking of the inner quality — the spiritual essence — of the person as he is being forgiven. His spirit has no deceit. It is not merely a legal covering given to David but a restoration or recognition of his inner nature." (Not by Faith Alone, pg. 332, emphasis added)


I underlined and highlighted the above part where Sungenis appears to be citing Psalm 32:2b in defense of the Catholic view that justification is an infused righteousness rather than an imputed one.

Here is the entire portion of Psalm 32 which is quoted by Paul (including verse 2b, though that is not in Paul's citation):

" Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man against whom the LORD counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit."


Sungenis and other Roman Catholic apologists (Catholic Nick being a prime example in one of his posts on Romans 4:6-8) when discussing Psalm 32 always go to this portion of the verse to support the idea of infused righteousness rather than an imputed one. I see one major significant problem with this. When one reads the other verses from Psalm 32, it becomes quite clear what David means by "in whose spirit there is no deceit":

32:5- "I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,” and you forgave the iniquity of my sin."

Notice the language that is used here and how it clearly explains the meaning of  "no deceit". David is not "covering" his iniquity. The word for "cover" here is כָּסָה. Here is an example of how it is used in the OT:

Genesis 18:17 - "The LORD said, 'Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do,"

Note the word "hide" is used here for translating the exact same Hebrew word that is used in Psalm 32:5. Below are a list of points inferred from the text and elsewhere that explain the meaning of "no deceit"

1) David says he did "cover" (hide) his sin, but rather confessed to God (32:5)
2) In general, when you are "hiding" something from someone, you are being deceitful.


Thus, we can conclude that David was someone had "no deceit", because as the text clearly says, he was confessing his sin to God, rather than hiding his iniquity. 





Nov 23, 2020

Rebuttals to Muslim Apologists

 




Rebuttals to Ahmed Deedat

Rebuttals to the "Answering Christianity" website

Rebuttals to Hamza Myatt

Rebuttals to Ijaz Ahmad 

Rebuttals to Ibn Anwar

Rebuttals to Zakir Hussain

Rebuttals to Mohammed Hijab


Rebuttals to Zakir Hussain

 







Burying Zakir Hussain's Arguments Against the Crucifixion

Zakir Hussain Fails to Refute my Article

Rebuttals to Hamza Myatt

 





Hamza Myatt's Ignorance of Church History

Rebuttals to Ahmad Deedat

 







A Refutation of Ahmed Deedat's "Sons by the Tons" Argument


Rebuttals to the "Answering Christianity" website

 





Answering Christianity's Article "The Resurrection Hoax":  Refuted and Exposed

Was the Crucifixion a Hoax? Debunking Abdullah Smith's Ridiculous Claims

Jesus as God's "servant" in Acts 3:26 - Osama Abdallah & others Refuted

Rebuttals to Ijaz Ahmad

 





The Transmission of the Qur'an vs. the New Testament: A Response to Ijaz Ahmad

"A" Feast or "the" Feast? (A Response to Ijaz Ahmad on the textual variant in John 5:1)

Romans 6:9 Disproves the Deity of Christ? 

Nov 22, 2020

Rebuttals to Roman Catholic Apologists

 


Rebuttals to Dave Armstrong

Rebuttals to Robert Sungenis

Rebuttals to Dave Armstrong


Dave Armstrong Misquotes Philip Schaff

Rebuttal to Dave Armstrong on Justification (specifically in Romans 4 and James 2) [Part 1]


St. John Chrysostom and Sola Scriptura Dave also responded to me, and I responded back: [response to Dave Armstrong's counter-reply

Some Further Comments on Sola Scriptura, John Chrysostom, and 2 Thessalonians 2:15 

A Response to Dave Armstrong on the Church Fathers (particularly St. Augustine) and Iconography

Further Response to Dave Armstrong on Iconography and the Bible








Dave Armstrong Misquotes Philip Schaff

 

A while back, Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong wrote an article on his blog in which he argues that Protestant historians hold to the view that the church fathers are "closer to Catholicism" [link]. He cites a few historians, but in this article I will simply deal with some of the citations that were from Philip Schaff, especially since I own the entirety of Schaff's History of the Christian Church on my E-Sword Bible program. 


I will be going to the page numbers which are given by Armstrong, however the editions may be different so the page numbers may or may not vary slightly, but the content of the book is still the same, which is what is more important here. 


The words of Dave Armstrong will be in red, and my responses as well as my quoted sources, will be in black.



1. Transubstantiation


"Real presence (not mere symbolism) in the Eucharist (Cross, 475-76; Kelly, 447; Pelikan, 166-67, 236-37; Schaff, III: 492, 500)."


When I read the entirety of the sections (of which there are two) relating to the subject of the Eucharist from Schaff, I began to understand why Mr. Armstrong did not include pgs. 493-499 in his citation. When one reads what Schaff says there, Armstrong's argument collapses. 

Below, I have provided the entirety from Philip Schaff on the subject of the Eucharist (Volume 3, Chapter 7, 95). It spans a few pages, but I have put emphasis on the parts the Dave Armstrong has obviously ignored:


"The Eucharist is both a sacrament wherein God conveys to us a certain blessing, and a sacrifice which man offers to God. As a sacrament, or the communion, it stands at the head of all sacred rites; as a sacrifice it stands alone. The celebration of it under this twofold character forms the holy of holies of the Christian cultus in the ancient church, and in the greater part of Christendom at this day.

We consider first the doctrine of the Eucharist as a sacrament, then the doctrine of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and finally the celebration of the eucharistic communion and eucharistic sacrifice.

The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy and ecclesiastical action till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century; whereas since then this feast of the Saviour’s dying love has been the innocent cause of the most bitter disputes, especially in the age of the Reformation, between Papists and Protestants, and among Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists. Hence the doctrine of the ancient church on this point lacks the clearness and definiteness which the Nicene dogma of the Trinity, the Chalcedonian Christology, and the Augustinian anthropology and soteriology acquired from the controversies preceding them. In the doctrine of baptism also we have a much better right to speak of a consensus patrum, than in the doctrine of the holy Supper.

In general, this period, following the representatives of the mystic theory in the previous one, was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim. But the kind and mode of this presence are not yet particularly defined, and admit very different views: Christ may be conceived as really present either in and with the elements (consubstantiation, impanation), or under the illusive appearance of the changed elements (transubstantiation), or only dynamically and spiritually.

In the previous period we distinguish three views: the mystic view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus; the symbolical view of Tertullian and Cyprian; and the allegorical or spiritualistic view of Clement of Alexandria and Origen. In the present the first view, which best answered the mystic and superstitious tendency of the time, preponderated, but the second also was represented by considerable authorities.

I. The realistic and mystic view is represented by several fathers and the early liturgies, whose testimony we shall further cite below. They speak in enthusiastic and extravagant terms of the sacrament and sacrifice of the altar. They teach a real presence of the body and blood of Christ, which is included in the very idea of a real sacrifice, and they see in the mystical union of it with the sensible elements a sort of repetition of the incarnation of the Logos. With the act of consecration a change accordingly takes place in the elements, whereby they become vehicles and organs of the life of Christ, although by no means necessarily changed into another substance. (pgs. 491-493)


Notice that Schaff uses the language of "by no means necessarily changed into another substance". This utterly contradicts Armstrong's view, since as a Catholic, he believes that the substance of the bread and wine is changed:


"But in the Eucharist - a supernatural transformation - substantial change occurs without accidental alteration. Thus, the properties of bread and wine continue after consecration, but their essence and substance cease to exist, replaced by the substance of the true and actual Body and Blood of Christ. It is this disjunction from the natural laws of physics which causes many to stumble (see John 6:60-69)." (Dave Armstrong, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, pg. 81)

Again, in both author, note the language of "substantial change" and "change of substance" and things like that. 


We continue with the quote from Schaff:


"To denote this change very strong expressions are used, like μεταβολή, μεταβάλλειν, μεταβάλλεσθαι, μεταστοιξειοῦσθαι, μεταποιεῖσθαι, mutatio, translatio, transfiguratio, transformatio; illustrated by the miraculous transformation of water into wine, the assimilation of food, and the pervasive power of leaven.

Cyril of Jerusalem goes farther in this direction than any of the fathers. He plainly teaches some sort of supernatural connection between the body of Christ and the elements, though not necessarily a transubstantiation of the latter. Let us hear the principal passages. “Then follows,” he says in describing the celebration of the Eucharist, “the invocation of God, for the sending of his Spirit to make the bread the body of Christ, the wine the blood of Christ. For what the Holy Ghost touches is sanctified and transformed.” “Under the type of the bread is given to thee the body, under the type of the wine is given to thee the blood, that thou mayest be a partaker of the body and blood of Christ, and be of one body and blood with him.” “After the invocation of the Holy Ghost the bread of the Eucharist is no longer bread, but the body of Christ.” “Consider, therefore, the bread and the wine not as empty elements, for they are, according to the declaration of the Lord, the body and blood of Christ.” In support of this change Cyril refers at one time to the wedding feast at Cana, which indicates, the Roman theory of change of substance; but at another to the consecration of the chrism, wherein the substance is unchanged. He was not clear and consistent with himself. His opinion probably was, that the eucharistic elements lost by consecration not so much their earthly substance, as their earthly purpose.

Gregory of Nyssa, though in general a very faithful disciple of the spiritualistic Origen, is on this point entirely realistic. He calls the Eucharist a food of immortality, and speaks of a miraculous transformation of the nature of the elements into the glorified body of Christ by virtue of the priestly blessing.

Chrysostom likewise, though only incidentally in his homilies, and not in the strain of sober logic and theology, but of glowing rhetoric, speaks several times of a union of our whole nature with the body of Christ in the Eucharist, and even of a manducatio oralis.

Of the Latin fathers, Hilary, Ambrose, and Gaudentius († 410) come nearest to the later dogma of transubstantiation. The latter says: “The Creator and Lord of nature, who produces bread from the earth, prepares out of bread his own body, makes of wine his own blood.”

But closely as these and similar expressions verge upon the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, they seem to contain at most a dynamic, not a substantial, change of the elements into the body and the blood of Christ. For, in the first place, it must be remembered there is a great difference between the half-poetic, enthusiastic, glowing language of devotion, in which the fathers, and especially the liturgies, speak of the eucharistic sacrifice, and the clear, calm, and cool language of logic and doctrinal definition. In the second place, the same fathers apply the same or quite similar terms to the baptismal water and the chrism of confirmation, without intending to teach a proper change of the substance of these material elements into the Holy Ghost. On the other hand, they not rarely use, concerning the bread and wine, τύπος, ἀντίτυπα, figura, signum, and like expressions, which denote rather a symbolical than a metabolical relation of them to the body and blood of the Lord. Finally, the favorite comparison of the mysterious transformation with the incarnation of the Logos, which, in fact, was not an annihilation of the human nature, but an assumption of it into unity with the divine, is of itself in favor of the continuance of the substance of the elements; else it would abet the Eutychian heresy.

II. The symbolical view, though on a realistic basis, is represented first by Eusebius, who calls the Supper a commemoration of Christ by the symbols of his body and blood, and takes the flesh and blood of Christ in the sixth chapter of John to mean the words of Christ, which are spirit and life, the true food of the soul, to believers. Here appears the influence of his venerated Origen, whose views in regard to the sacramental aspect of the Eucharist he substantially repeats.

But it is striking that even Athanasius, “the father of orthodoxy,” recognized only a spiritual participation, a self-communication of the nourishing divine virtue of the Logos, in the symbols of the bread and wine, and incidentally evinces a doctrine of the Eucharist wholly foreign to the Catholic, and very like the older Alexandrian or Origenistic, and the Calvinistic, though by no means identical with the latter. By the flesh and blood in the mysterious discourse of Jesus in the sixth chapter of John, which he refers to the Lord’s Supper, he understands not the earthly, human, but the heavenly, divine manifestation of Jesus, a spiritual nutriment coming down from above, which the Logos through the Holy Ghost communicates to believers (but not to a Judas, nor to the unbelieving). With this view accords his extending of the participation of the eucharistic food to believers in heaven, and even to the angels, who, on account of their incorporeal nature, are incapable of a corporeal participation of Christ.

Gregory Nazianzen sees in the Eucharist a type of the incarnation, and calls the consecrated elements SYMBOLS and ANTITYPES of the great mysteries, but ascribes to them a saving virtue.

St. Basil, likewise, in explaining the words of Christ, “I live by the Father” (Joh_6:57), against, the Arians who inferred from it that Christ was a creature, incidentally gives a spiritual meaning to the fruition of the eucharistic elements. “We eat the flesh of Christ,” he says, “and drink His blood, if we, through His incarnation and human life, become partakers of the Logos and of wisdom.”

Macarius the Elder, a gifted representative of the earlier Greek mysticism († 390), belongs to the same Symbolical school; he calls bread and wine the antitype of the body and blood of Christ, and seems to know only a spiritual eating of the flesh of the Lord.

Theodoret, who was acknowledged orthodox by the council of Chalcedon, teaches indeed a transformation (μεταβάλλειν) of the eucharistic elements by virtue of the priestly consecration, and an adoration of them, which certainly sounds quite Romish, but in the same connection expressly rejects the idea of an absorption of the elements in the body of the Lord, as an error akin to the Monophysite. “The mystical emblems of the body and blood of Christ,” says he, “continue in their original essence and form, they are visible and tangible as they were before [the consecration]; but the contemplation of the spirit and of faith sees in them that which they have become, and they are adored also as that which they are to believers.”

Similar language occurs in an epistle to the monk Caesarius ascribed to Chrysostom, but perhaps not genuine; in Ephraim of Antioch, cited by Photius; and even in the Roman bishop Gelasius at the end of the fifth century (492-496).

The latter says expressly, in his work against Eutyches and Nestorius: “The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine-nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries.”

It is remarkable that Augustine, in other respects so decidedly catholic in the doctrine of the church and of baptism, and in the cardinal points of the Latin orthodoxy, follows the older African theologians, Tertullian and Cyprian, in a symbolical theory of the Supper, which however includes a real spiritual participation of the Lord by faith, and in this respect stands nearest to the Calvinistic or Orthodox Reformed doctrine, while in minor points he differs from it as much as from transubstantiation and consubstantiation. He was the first to make a clear distinction between the outward sign and the inward grace, which are equally essential to the conception of the sacrament. He maintains the figurative character of the words of institution, and of the discourse of Jesus, on the eating and drinking of his flesh and blood in the sixth chapter of John; with Tertullian, he calls the bread and wine “figurae” “or “signa corporis et sanguinis Christi” (but certainly not mere figures), and insists on a distinction between “that which is visibly received in the sacrament, and that which is spiritually eaten and drunk,” or between a carnal, visible manducation of the sacrament, and a spiritual eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking of his blood. The latter he limits to the elect and the believing, though, in opposition to the subjectivism of the Donatists, he asserts that the sacrament (in its 

objective import) is the body of Christ even for unworthy receivers. He says of Judas, that he only ate the bread of the Lord, while the other apostles “ate the Lord who was the bread.” In another place: The sacramentum “is given to some unto life, to others unto destruction;” but the res sacramenti, i.e., “the thing itself of which it is the sacramentum, is given to every one who is partaker of it, unto life.” “He who does not abide in Christ, undoubtedly neither eats His flesh nor drinks His blood, though he eats and drinks the sacramentum (i.e., the outward sign) of so great a thing to his condemnation.” Augustine at all events lays chief stress on the spiritual participation. “Why preparest thou the teeth and the belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” He claims for the sacrament religious reverence, but not a superstitious dread, as if it were a miracle of magical effect. He also expressly rejects the hypothesis of the ubiquity of Christ’s body, which had already come into use in support of the materializing view, and has since been further developed by Lutheran divines in support of the theory of consubstantiation. “The body with which Christ rose,” says he, “He took to heaven, which must be in a place .... We must guard against such a conception of His divinity as destroys the reality of His flesh. For when the flesh of the Lord was upon earth, it was certainly not in heaven; and now that it is in heaven, it is not upon earth.” “I believe that the body of the Lord is in heaven, as it was upon earth when he ascended to heaven.” Yet this great church teacher at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper. He says of the martyrs: “They have drunk the blood of Christ, and have shed their own blood for Christ.” He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements.

Augustine’s pupil, Facundus, taught that the sacramental bread “is not properly the body of Christ, but contains the mystery of the body.” Fulgentius of Ruspe held the same symbolical view; and even at a much later period we can trace it through the mighty influence of Augustine’s writings in Isidore of Sevilla, Beda Venerabilis, among the divines of the Carolingian age, in Ratramnus, and Berengar of Tours, until it broke forth in a modified form with greater force than ever in the sixteenth century, and took permanent foothold in the Reformed churches.

Pope Leo I. is sometimes likewise numbered with the symbolists, but without good reason. He calls the communion a “spiritual food,” as Athanasius had done before, but supposes a sort of assimilation of the flesh and blood of Christ by the believing participation. “What we believe, that we receive with the mouth .... The participation of the body and blood of Christ causes that we pass into that which we receive, and bear Christ in us in Spirit and body.” Voluntary abstinence from the wine in the Supper was as yet considered by this pope a sin.

III. The old liturgies, whose testimony on this point is as important as that of the church fathers, presuppose the actual presence of Christ in the Supper, but speak throughout in the stately language of sentiment, and nowhere attempt an explanation of the nature and mode of this presence, and of its relation to the still visible forms of bread and wine. They use concerning the consecrated elements such terms as: The holy body, The dear blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ, The sanctified oblation, The heavenly, spotless, glorious, awful, divine gifts, The awful, unbloody, holy sacrifice, etc. In the act of consecration the liturgies pray for the sending down of the Holy Ghost, that he may “sanctify and perfect” the bread and wine, or that he may sanctify and make “them the body and blood of Christ, or bless and make.”

IV. As to the adoration of the consecrated elements: This follows with logical necessity from the doctrine of transubstantiation, and is the sure touchstone of it. No trace of such adoration appears, however, in the ancient liturgies, and the whole patristic literature yields only four passages from which this practice can be inferred; plainly showing that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not yet fixed in the consciousness of the church.

Chrysostom says: “The wise men adored Christ in the manger; we see him not in the manger, but on the altar, and should pay him still greater homage.” Theodoret, in the passage already cited, likewise uses the term προσκύνεῖν, but at the same time expressly asserts the continuance of the substance of the elements. Ambrose speaks once of the flesh of Christ “which we to-day adore in the mysteries,” and Augustine, of an adoration preceding the participation of the flesh of Christ.

In all these passages we must, no doubt, take the term προσκυνεῖν and adorare in the wider sense, and distinguish the bowing of the knee, which was so frequent, especially in the East, as a mere mark of respect, from proper adoration. The old liturgies contain no direction for any such act of adoration as became prevalent in the Latin church, with the elevation of the host, after the triumph of the doctrine of transubstantiation in the twelfth century." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume III, pg. 491-502, emphasis added)


2. The Papacy


Among the great bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, the Roman bishop combined all the conditions for a primacy, which, from a purely honorary distinction, gradually became the basis of a supremacy of jurisdiction. The same propension to monarchical unity, which created out of the episcopate a centre, first for each congregation, then for each diocese, pressed on towards a visible centre for the whole church. Primacy and episcopacy grew together. In the present period we already find the faint beginnings of the papacy, in both its good and its evil features; and with them, too, the first examples of earnest protest against the abuse of its power. In the Nicene age the bishop of Jerusalem was made an honorary patriarch in view of the antiquity of that church, though his diocese was limited; and from the middle of the fourth century the new patriarch of Constantinople or New Rome, arose to the primacy among the eastern patriarchs, and became a formidable rival of the bishop of old Rome.

The Roman church claims not only human but divine right for the papacy, and traces its institution directly to Christ, when he assigned to Peter an eminent position in the work of founding his church, against which even the gates of hades shall never prevail. This claim implies several assumptions, viz. (1) that Peter by our Lord’s appointment had not simply a primacy of personal excellency, or of honor and dignity (which must be conceded to him), but also a supremacy of jurisdiction over the other apostles (which is contradicted by the fact that Peter himself never claimed it, and that Paul maintained a position of perfect independence, and even openly rebuked him at Antioch, Gal_2:11); (2) that the privileges of this primacy and supremacy are not personal only (as the peculiar gifts of Paul or John undoubtedly were), but official, hereditary and transferable; (3) that they were actually transferred by Peter, not upon the bishop of Jerusalem, or Antioch (where Peter certainly was), but upon the bishop of Rome; (4) that Peter was not only at Rome (which is very probable after 63, though not as certain as Paul’s presence and martyrdom in Rome), but acted there as bishop till his martyrdom, and appointed a successor (of which there is not the slightest historical evidence); and (5) that the bishops of Rome, as successors of Peter, have always enjoyed and exercised an universal jurisdiction over the Christian church (which is not the case as a matter of fact, and still less as a matter of conceded right).

Leaving a full discussion of most of these points to polemical theology, we are here concerned with the papacy as a growth of history, and have to examine the causes which have gradually raised it to its towering eminence among the governing institutions of the world.

The historical influences which favored the ascendency of the Roman see were:

(1) The high antiquity of the Roman church, which had been honored even by Paul with the most important doctrinal epistle of the New Testament. It was properly the only apostolic mother-church in the West, and was thus looked upon from the first by the churches of Italy, Gaul, and Spain, with peculiar reverence.

(2) The labors, martyrdom, and burial at Rome of Peter and Paul, the two leading apostles. The whole Roman congregation passed through the fearful ordeal of martyrdom during the Neronian persecution, but must soon afterwards have been reorganized, with a halo of glory arising from the graves of the victims.

(3) The political pre-eminence of that metropolis of the world, which was destined to rule the European races with the sceptre of the cross, as she had formerly ruled them with the sword.

(4) The executive wisdom and the catholic orthodox instinct of the Roman church, which made themselves felt in this period in the three controversies on the time of Easter, the penitential discipline, and the validity of heretical baptism.

To these may be added, as secondary causes, her firmness under persecutions, and her benevolent care for suffering brethren even in distant places, as celebrated by Dionysius of Corinth (180), and by Eusebius.

From the time of St. Paul’s Epistle (58), when he bestowed high praise on the earlier Roman converts, to the episcopate of Victor at the close of the second century, and the unfavorable account by Hippolytus of Pope Zephyrinus and Pope Callistus, we have no express and direct information about the internal state of the Roman church. But incidentally it is more frequently mentioned than any other. Owing to its metropolitan position, it naturally grew in importance and influence with the spread of the Christian religion in the empire. Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese.

Clement of Rome

The first example of the exercise of a sort of papal authority is found towards the close of the first century in the letter of the Roman bishop Clement (d. 102) to the bereaved and distracted church of Corinth. This epistle, full of beautiful exhortations to harmony, love, and humility, was sent, as the very address shows, not in the bishop’s own name, which is not mentioned at all, but in that of the Roman congregation, which speaks always in the first person plural. It was a service of love, proffered by one church to another in time of need. Similar letters of instruction, warning and comfort were written to other congregations by Ignatius, Polycarp, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus. Nevertheless it can hardly be denied that the document reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome. The hierarchical spirit arose from the domineering spirit of the Roman church, rather than the Roman bishop or the presbyters who were simply the organs of the people. But a century later the bishop of Rome was substituted for the church of Rome, when Victor in his own name excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor for a trifling difference of ritual. From this hierarchical assumption there was only one step towards the papal absolutism of a Leo and Hildebrand, and this found its ultimate doctrinal climax in the Vatican dogma of papal infallibility.

Ignatius

Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Romans (even in the Syriac recension), applies to that congregation a number of high-sounding titles, and describes her as “presiding in the place of the region of the Romans,” and as “taking the lead in charity.” This is meant as a commendation of her practical benevolence for which she was famous. Dionysius of Corinth in his letter to Soter of Rome testifies to it as saying: “This practice has prevailed with you from the very beginning, to do good to all the brethren in every way, and to send contributions to many churches in every city.” The Roman church was no doubt more wealthy than any other, and the liberal use of her means must have greatly increased her influence. Beyond this, Ignatius cannot be quoted as a witness for papal claims. He says not a word of the primacy, nor does he even mention Clement or any other bishop of Rome. The church alone is addressed throughout. He still had a lively sense of the difference between a bishop and an apostle. “I do not command you,” he writes to the Romans, “as if I were Peter or Paul; they were apostles.”

Irenaeus

Irenaeus calls Rome the greatest, the oldest(?) church, acknowledged by all, founded by the two most illustrious apostles, Peter and Paul, the church, with which, on account of her more important precedence, all Christendom must agree, or (according to another interpretation) to which (as the metropolis of the world) all other churches must resort. The “more important precedence” places her above the other apostolic churches, to which likewise a precedence is allowed.

This is surely to be understood, however, as a precedence only of honor, not of jurisdiction. For when Pope Victor, about the year 190, in hierarchical arrogance and intolerance, broke fellowship with the churches of Asia Minor, for no other reason but because they adhered to their tradition concerning the celebration of Easter, the same Irenaeus, though agreeing with him on the disputed point itself, rebuked him very emphatically as a troubler of the peace of the church, and declared himself against a forced uniformity in such unessential matters. Nor did the Asiatic churches allow themselves to be intimidated by the dictation of Victor. They answered the Roman tradition with that of their own sedes apostolicae. The difference continued until the council at Nicaea at last settled the controversy in favor of the Roman practice, but even long afterwards the old British churches differed from the Roman practice in the Easter observance to the time of Gregory I.

Hippolytus

The celebrated Hippolytus, in the beginning of the third century, was a decided antagonist of the Roman bishops, Zephyrinus and Callistus, both for doctrinal and disciplinary reasons. Nevertheless we learn from his work called Philosophumena, that at that time the Roman bishop already claimed an absolute power within his own jurisdiction; and that Callistus, to the great grief of part of the presbytery, laid down the principle, that a bishop can never be deposed or compelled to resign by the presbytery, even though he have committed a mortal sin.

Tertullian

Tertullian points the heretics to the apostolic mother churches, as the chief repositories of pure doctrine; and among these gives especial prominence to that of Rome, where Peter was crucified, Paul beheaded, and John immersed unhurt in boiling oil(?) and then banished to the island. Yet the same father became afterwards an opponent of Rome. He attacked its loose penitential discipline, and called the Roman bishop (probably Zephyrinus), in irony and mockery, “pontifex maximus” and “episcopus episcoporum.”

Cyprian

Cyprian is clearest, both in his advocacy of the fundamental idea of the papacy, and in his protest against the mode of its application in a given case. Starting from the superiority of Peter, upon whom the Lord built his church, and to whom he intrusted the feeding of his sheep, in order to represent thereby the unity in the college of the apostles, Cyprian transferred the same superiority to the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter, and accordingly called the Roman church the chair of Peter, and the fountain of priestly unity, the root, also, and mother of the catholic church. But on the other side, he asserts with equal energy the equality and relative independence of the bishops, as successors of the apostles, who had all an equally direct appointment from Christ. In his correspondence he uniformly addresses the Roman bishop as “brother” and “colleague,” conscious of his own equal dignity and authority. And in the controversy about heretical baptism, he opposes Pope Stephen with almost Protestant independence, accusing him of error and abuse of his power, and calling a tradition without truth an old error. Of this protest he never retracted a word.

Firmilian

Still more sharp and unsparing was the Cappadocian bishop, Firmilian, a disciple of Origen, on the bishop of Rome, while likewise implying a certain acknowledgment of his primacy. Firmilian charges him with folly, and with acting unworthily of his position; because, as the successor of Peter, he ought rather to further the unity of the church than to destroy it, and ought to abide on the rock foundation instead of laying a new one by recognizing heretical baptism. Perhaps the bitterness of Firmilian was due partly to his friendship and veneration for Origen, who had been condemned by a council at Rome.

Nevertheless, on this question of baptism, also, as on those of Easter, and of penance, the Roman church came out victorious in the end." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume II. pg. 155-62)


3. Baptismal Regeneration


Baptismal regeneration (forgiveness of sins) (Kelly, 207-211; Pelikan, 290-92; Schaff, II: 253-54).


"This ordinance was regarded in the ancient church as the sacrament of the new birth or regeneration, and as the solemn rite of initiation into the Christian Church, admitting to all her benefits and committing to all her obligations. It was supposed to be preceded, in the case of adults, by instruction on the part of the church, and by repentance and faith (i.e. conversion) on the part of the candidate, and to complete and seal the spiritual process of regeneration, the old man being buried, and the new man arising from the watery grave. Its effect consists in the forgiveness of sins and the communication of the Holy Spirit. Justin calls baptism “the water-bath for the forgiveness of sins and regeneration,” and “the bath of conversion and the knowledge of God.” It is often called also illumination, spiritual circumcision, anointing, sealing, gift of grace, symbol of redemption, death of sins, etc. Tertullian describes its effect thus: “When the soul comes to faith, and becomes transformed through regeneration by water and power from above, it discovers, after the veil of the old corruption is taken away, its whole light. It is received into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit; and the soul, which unites itself to the Holy Spirit, is followed by the body.” He already leans towards the notion of a magical operation of the baptismal water. Yet the subjective condition of repentance and faith was universally required. Baptism was not only an act of God, but at the same time the most solemn surrender of man to God, a vow for life and death, to live henceforth only to Christ and his people. The keeping of this vow was the condition of continuance in the church; the breaking of it must be followed either by repentance or excommunication.

From Joh_3:5 and Mar_16:16, Tertullian and other fathers argued the necessity of baptism to salvation. Clement of Alexandria supposed, with the Roman Hermas and others, that even the saints of the Old Testament were baptized in Hades by Christ or the apostles. But exception was made in favor of the bloody baptism of martyrdom as compensating the want of baptism with water; and this would lead to the evangelical principle, that not the omission, but only the contempt of the sacrament is damning.

The effect of baptism, however, was thought to extend only to sins committed before receiving it. Hence the frequent postponement of the sacrament, which Tertullian very earnestly recommends, though he censures it when accompanied with moral levity and presumption. Many, like Constantine the Great, put it off to the bed of sickness and of death. They preferred the risk of dying unbaptized to that of forfeiting forever the baptismal grace. Death-bed baptisms were then what death-bed repentances are now.

But then the question arose, how the forgiveness of sins committed after baptism could be obtained? This is the starting point of the Roman doctrine of the sacrament of penance. Tertullian and Cyprian were the first to suggest that satisfaction must be made for such sins by self-imposed penitential exercises and good works, such as prayers and almsgiving. Tertullian held seven gross sins, which he denoted mortal sins, to be unpardonable after baptism, and to be left to the uncovenanted mercies of God; but the Catholic church took a milder view, and even received back the adulterers and apostates on their public repentance." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume II, pg. 253-54)



The other citations I may cover in the future, due to the fact that some of them are longer than the others. 











Eutyches and the Double Consubstantiality of Christ

  During the Home Synod of Constantinople, Eutyches was summoned multiple times to appear before the assembly of bishops. On one such instan...