Archive for March, 2010

Ergun Caner – Son of a Devout Muslim Father

March 30, 2010

Some new evidence regarding Ergun Caner’s background has come to light (link to evidence). The evidence appears to confirm the central point of my previous discussion (here) namely that Ergun Caner is a real ex-Muslim, the son of a devout Muslim father. While I do invite folks to compare the new evidence above with Caner’s own words (link to resources for this), the evidence points specifically to Ergun Caner’s father being a sufficiently devout Muslim to fight in court to have his sons raised in the “Islamic faith.”

While issues still remain regarding Ergun Caner’s apparently embellished autobiography (as variously presented), I trust that this latest evidence will help serious Muslim opponents of Caner to drop their unwarranted allegations that Ergun Caner is a “fake ex-muslim.”


Doug Wilson on Sola Fide

March 30, 2010

“I hold that a man is justified by the sole instrument of God-given faith, as that faith is placed by the grace of God in the active and passive obedience of Jesus Christ alone, He who lived and died in our stead. I maintain that the only legitimate response that a creature may have toward His God, or any words that his God speaks, whether those words are promises, laws, threats, or comforting words, is a response of sheer, unadulterated faith — faith plus nothing else. I also hold that when the response to any of the words of God is something other than this kind of faith, then that response is legal, autonomous, prideful, and damnable.” (source)

What is remarkably absent from this definition is any specific denial of justification by works.

Someone named SovereignLogos responded: “Does this mean that good works are not a legitimate response to God’s laws? Or have you redefined faith in such a way that obedient works = faith? You say “faith plus nothing else.” What other “else” could you have in mind?” (source)

Doug Wilson responded: “SL, we are still talking about justification, right? And even after justification, faith is the sole legitimate response to God’s laws. And of course such faith necessarily results in obedient works — works that are not motivated and driven by faith are actually disobedient works.” (source)

I’m not sure what to make of this. I can’t follow whether Doug Wilson knows the Reformed Shibboleths and is deliberately avoiding pronouncing them to needle the “Truly Reformed” crowd – or whether Doug Wilson is deliberately avoiding the specific question of justification by works because of some other reason – or whether Doug Wilson thinks he has addressed the issue fully with the wording he has provided.

Perhaps I’m in an overly generous mood, but unless Doug Wilson is defining “faith” in two different ways in his two comments, I don’t see how folks think he doesn’t at least profess to hold to sola fide.

Now, whether the Federal Vision stuff that he has been involved with is consistent with sola fide is a separate and important question. Nevertheless, we need to leave open the possibiltiy that Doug Wilson is simply being inconsistent by accepting those Federal Vision tenets that would contradict sola fide, given his seemingly strongly worded commitment to the doctrine above.


>John 6:44-45 – A Grammatical Note

March 28, 2010

>One of the key texts on which Arminians and Calvinists disagree is John 6:44-45. That passage states:

John 6:44-45

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με, ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, καὶ ἐγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ. ἔστι γεγραμμένον ἐν τοῖς προφήταις· καὶ ἔσονται πάντες διδακτοὶ Θεοῦ· πᾶς ὁ ἀκούσας παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ μαθὼν ἔρχεται πρὸς με.

Calvinists assert that the same group is discussed throughout. That group is the elect. The group is the group that comes, that is drawn, that will be raised up, that is taught of God, and that hears and learns. Some Arminians disagree.

For example, some Arminians try to say that one group is “taught” but only a sub-group of that “hears” and “learns.” This position is not necessarily the position of all Arminians. When Arminians argue this, however, there a clear grammatical answer.

The expression “taught of God” is expressed using a predicate adjective that we translate “taught” (διδακτοὶ) with the genitive form of God (Θεοῦ). The adjective διδακτοὶ, when referring to people, conveys that the people have received the educational effect of the teaching, much like “engraved” means that something has received the effect of the engraving, or “shattered” means that something has received the effect of the shattering.

Various forms of the word διδακτός are found in Scripture. When that word refers to things, it refers to the objects of instruction (the lessons) and when it refers to people it refers to the subjects of instruction (the students).

In the latter sense it seems to be more rarely used. In addition to this one instance in the New Testament, we find it similarly in the Greek translation of Isaiah 54:13 (διδακτοὺς θεοῦ) but also in a related form in 1 Maccabees:

1 Maccabees 4:7 (Apocrypha) And they saw the camp of the heathen, that it was strong and well harnessed, and compassed round about with horsemen; and these were expert of war.

That expression “Expert of war” is διδακτοὶ πολέμου. In the context of 1 Maccabees 4:7, it should be clear that the focus of the word is on the result in the heathen. The point isn’t that they all went to boot camp, but rather that they all were expert (as the KJV puts it). The use of “of war” πολέμου may specifically suggest that these were veterans. Their expertise was forged in the fires of armed conflict.

Another instance and even more similar reference can be found in the ancient pseudepigraphic literature called the “Psalms of Solomon”:

Psalms of Solomon 17:32 (Pseudepigrapha) And he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days, for all will be holy, and their king will be the Lord Messiah. (translation by Robert B. Wright)[FN1]

Again it should be clear from the immediate context that the idea is not simply that the king was at a school, but that he was actually educated. There is no question about whether he heard and learned, but rather it is given as a result. He did not just sit under teaching, he is taught.

Finally, let’s consider the context of the usage in Isaiah 54:13. Brenton’s translation of the Septuagint provides the following context:

Isaiah 54:11-17

11 Afflicted and outcast thou has not been comforted: behold, I will prepare carbuncle for thy stones, and sapphire for thy foundations; 12 and I will make thy buttresses jasper, and thy gates crystal, and thy border precious stones. 13 And I will cause all thy sons to be taught of God, and thy children to be in great peace. 14 And thou shalt be built in righteousness: abstain from injustice, and thou shalt not fear; and trembling shall not come nigh thee. 15 Behold, strangers shall come to thee by me, and shall sojourn with thee, and shall run to thee for refuge. 16 Behold, I have created thee, not as the coppersmith blowing coals, and bringing out a vessel fit for work; but I have created thee, not for ruin, that I should destroy thee. 17 I will not suffer any weapon formed against thee to prosper; and every voice that shall rise up against tee for judgment, thou shalt vanquish them all; and thine adversaries shall be condemned thereby. There is an inheritance to them that serve the Lord, and ye shall be righteous before me, saith the Lord.

Notice that the discussion in Isaiah 54:11-17 with respect to the people of God is essentially monergistic. The point in the passage are the good things that God is going to do to his people. The KJV translation of the Hebrew text provides the same context:

Isaiah 54:11-17

11 O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. 12 And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones. 13 And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children. 14 In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee. 15 Behold, they shall surely gather together, but not by me: whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake. 16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. 17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

Notice that God is the one making the foundations from sapphires, the windows out of agates, the gates out of carbuncles (red stones), and their borders from other precious stones. The point is not just that the children will have access to a good education, but rather that they will get the education – they will be taught. We can tell this because it is nestled between the comments about building and the comment that these God-taught children will have great peace. God will establish them and give them freedom from oppression. The only human actions are the actions of their enemies, actions that God will render fruitless.

Applying this understanding of the infrequently used word διδακτός to John 6:44-45, we see that it is mistaken to act as though “taught of God” is a broad category of which “hear and learn” are subsets. It is wrong to try to suggest that there are some people who are taught of God but who do not hear and learn.

Instead, the correct way to understand “taught” as being in parallel to “heard and learn.” They are two ways of talking about the same group. Those who are God-instructed are the same ones who hear and learn. Everyone who is taught by God (i.e. who hears and learns) comes to God (vs. 45), and only those come (vs. 44). This is similar to the discussion later in the chapter in which Jesus explains that everyone who eats of him will have eternal life (vs. 54) and only those (vs. 53).

This helps us to understand that Jesus’ discussion is about the elect specifically. That is to say, Jesus is explaining that the elect and only the elect come to the Father because the elect and only the elect are drawn of the Father, that is they are taught of God. Consequently the elect and only the elect ultimately believe savingly on the Lord Jesus Christ.

This fits within the immediate context. Jesus is responding to their disbelief about his claim to have come down from heaven. Jesus is explaining the reason for their disbelief. The point of Jesus’ response is that the Father hasn’t drawn them, he hasn’t taught them. They haven’t heard and learned from him. This fits quite well within a Calvinistic soteriology.

It doesn’t fit well within a view of Universal Prevenient Grace (UPG) and Libertarian Free Will (LFW). In such a view everyone absolutely (each and every person who has or will ever live) is given sufficient grace to believe. Then they exercise their free will either to believe or not believe. If that were the case, Jesus’ words wouldn’t make much sense. The reason wouldn’t be that God hasn’t drawn the people, or that they haven’t been taught of God. Perhaps one could try to seize on the terms “heard” and “learned” (since in some cases those terms can have more proactive senses – though there is no reason to impose such a meaning here). Nevertheless, the rest of Jesus’ explanation for why the people shouldn’t murmur would not make sense.

Thus, while the passage may not specifically use words like “election” or “predestination” the passage is a very Calvinistic passage. It helps us see that what makes the difference between faith and unbelief is not human free will, but rather is the drawing and power of God.

– TurretinFan

FN1: Wright’s is probably the leading translation of the text. However, there are a number of other translations available, which I’ve collected below. There is some question about when the text was originally written (the consensus seems to place it in the late intertestamental period). The original language of the text may have been Hebrew, but the text did not survive in Hebrew. The title of this work is found in what amounts to the table of contents of Codex Alexandrinus, although the text of the work is missing from the existing copy of the codex. Readers of this blog will be pleased to note, incidentally, that Athanasius’ letter to Marcellinus (which we discussed earlier) was included as a preface to the books of Psalms in that codex.

Here are some alternative English translations of the verse in question:

NETS: And he shall be a righteous king, taught by God, over them, and there shall be no injustice in his days in their midst, for all shall be holy, and their king the anointed of the Lord.

G. Buchanan Gray: (32) And he (shall be) a righteous king, taught of God, over them, 36 And there shall be no unrighteousness in his days in their midst, For all shall be holy and their king the anointed of the Lord.

Heerak Christian Kim translates it: And this righteous king, taught by God, shall be over them. 36 And there is not injustice in his days in the midst of them, because all are holy, and their king is the annointed of the Lord.

>Addendum to "Oral Word of God?"

March 27, 2010

>In the meanwhile of my drafting the previous response to Bellisario, Messrs. Swan and Hays have already forced Bellisario to admit that there is no new revelation. Accordingly, he has attempted to rely on a yet more flimsy branch. That flimsy branch is essentially that there are oral teachings of Jesus that were not placed into Scripture but were otherwise handed down to us via the Apostles.

This is, effectively, Bellisario’s last gasp in the discussion, since he cannot demonstrate the apostolicity (let alone the divine origin) of any doctrine not found in Scripture. He has no good reason for thinking that there are any such doctrines, has no positive argument to offer in defense of oral traditions, so he’s left with arguments like, “Where does Jesus say that now all of His Word would be in written form only?”

– TurretinFan

>Oral Word of God? Response to Bellisario

March 27, 2010

>Matthew Bellisario (Roman Catholic) has been trying to argue with my friend Steve Hays (Reformed) over in the comment box of Beggars All Reformation (link to comment box).

Bellisario’s argument, which seems to be a common “street” argument these days, boils down to this:

1) The Word of God was proclaimed orally at some past point;

2) You can’t prove from Scripture that this has stopped;

3) Therefore, it continues,

with at least the implied addendum:

4) And it consists of the “Sacred Tradition” of the Roman Catholic Church.

From a logical standpoint, this argument is bankrupt. Even if the first three points were fine, the fourth point would not follow. That is to say, even if the first two points proved that God’s Word continues to be proclaimed orally, it does not therefore follow that the way in which that happens is via the “Sacred Tradition” of the Roman Catholic Church. If the Roman Catholic wants to assert that the “Sacred Tradition” of the Roman Catholic Church is the continuing oral proclamation of the Word of God, the onus is on him to establish that. But Roman Catholic apologists can’t establish that. That’s why some of them feel compelled this kind of logically invalid argument.

To make matters worse, the first three points are not fine. One cannot establish that something continues from the absence of proof that it ceased. Instead, if one wants to insist that the oral proclamation of the Word of God continues, one has to demonstrate that. But Roman Catholic apologists can’t demonstrate that. That’s why some of them feel compelled this kind of logically invalid argument.

But that’s not the only problem. The statement that God’s Word was proclaimed orally is itself ambiguous and potentially equivocal. For example, whenever a Reformed minister preaches from the pulpit he is (or ought to be) proclaiming the Word of God orally. That aspect of the oral proclamation of the Word of God obviously does continue, as it should.

But there is another sense in which the Word of God was proclaimed orally. The Word of God was given to prophets. The proclaimed God’s word orally.

Hebrews 2:1-4
Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Notice how those who received the Word of God to proclaim it in a prophetic way were given the witness of God, “both with signs and wonders, and with [a variety of] miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost.” This is the consistent Biblical pattern. Moses provides the first example:

Exodus 4:1-9

And Moses answered and said, “But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, ‘The LORD hath not appeared unto thee.'”
And the LORD said unto him, “What is that in thine hand?”
And he said, “A rod.”
And he said, “Cast it on the ground.”
And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it.
And the LORD said unto Moses, “Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail,” and he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand: “that they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.” And the LORD said furthermore unto him, “Put now thine hand into thy bosom.”
And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow.
And he said, “Put thine hand into thy bosom again.”
And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh.
“And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign. And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land: and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land.”

Thus, like Moses, the apostles performed a variety of miracles that testified to the fact that they were prophets of God:

Paul raised the dead (Acts 20:9-12) and was not harmed by the bite a poisonous snake (Acts 28:3-6). Likewise Peter raised the dead (Acts 9:36-43) and his shadow cured the sick (Acts 5:15).

Popes like Benedict XVI cannot raise the dead, their shadows cure no one, and if they get bitten by a poisonous snake, they will die. They do not possess the witness of God testifying to any prophetic gift. The same has been true of the popes that preceded them.

So, this alternative sense of the “Oral Word” is also not something possessed by the Roman Pontiff, whether or not anyone else possesses it.

But there is one further weakness to Mr. Bellisario’s argument (and before he complains that the exact form of the argument is not his, I simply point out that the reader can peruse the comment box linked above to see whether or not the paraphrase of his argument is accurate). The further weakness is that Scripture itself testifies in at least three ways to the end of this extraordinary Oral Word.

1) Use of a Past Tense in Hebrews 2

In the passage from Hebrews 2, which we saw above, the author expresses the confirmation of the witnesses in the past tense (in English it past, in Greek it is aorist tense: “ἐβεβαιώθη” – confirmed). The author of Hebrews speaks of that discussion as though it were essentially a thing of the past, suggesting that the extraordinary gifts were already passing away at the time the book of Hebrews was written, during the lifetime of some of the apostles.

Notice that I say, “suggesting,” not “proving.”

2) Lack of Iterative Succession of the Gifts

Philip the Evangelist was able to perform miracles in view of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. However, as we will see in the following passage, he was unable to transfer that gift.

Acts 8:5-17

Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. And there was great joy in that city.
But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.
But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

As we see from the preceding passage, the gift of being able to lay hands on the people and have them perform miracles was something the apostles could do but that Philip could not. Thus, we can see that these extraordinary testifying gifts were passed directly from the apostles, but not iteratively by those who had received the gifts from the apostles.

Now that the apostles are all dead, and all those people whom the apostles laid hands on are dead, there are no more of these testifying gifts. While the passage doesn’t explicitly say this will happen, we may reasonably deduce it from the passage in view of the universal mortality of man.

3) Prophecy of the Cessation of the Gifts

1 Corinthians 13:8-10
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

This, of course, is the answer the question that Bellisario asks when he states, “Where did Jesus tell you that the New Testament replaced, and did away with His Oral Word?” That which is in part, the extraordinary gifts of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge have been done away. The Bible is now complete.

The usual response from those of the Roman persuasion is that the Bible is not explicitly mentioned in the context of this prophecy. Instead, if the Bible is to be understood as the completion, it is merely implied. Nevertheless, even though it is only implied, it is implied by such expressions in the context as Paul’s expression: “Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?” (1 Corinthians 14:6)

Notice that the context of this prophesying and “knowledge” is revelation and doctrine. We are informed explicitly in 2 Timothy 3:16 that Scripture has as one of its purposes the revelation of doctrine (see also Proverbs 4:2). So, we may rightly conclude that God’s revelation of himself in Scripture is the completion of the revelation of doctrine that God promised, and that this explains the cessation of extraordinary gifts that we now see and that Paul had prophesied.

Of course, what makes Bellisario’s point especially absurd is that his own church acknowledges that public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. (see, for example, CCC 66)

In short, Bellisario’s informal argument is logically fallacious, it employs equivocation, and its premises are flawed. While Bellisario points to the fact that the Apostles preached the Word of God orally, he fails to see how little this proves. We readily grant that they did. Yet that does not suggest that the extraordinary gifts of prophecy granted to the Apostles and those upon whom they laid hands continued beyond the deaths of the Apostles. Moreover, it certainly doesn’t support the “Sacred Tradition” of the Roman Catholic church as being “Oral Word of God.” Support for such a position would require something more than alleged Biblical silence.

– TurretinFan

More Digitized Books

March 24, 2010

I was pleased to see that there is a digitization project underway in Switzerland. While I have not found any of the particularly rare books for which I was looking, there are a number of excellent works published in Geneva that have been digitized (link to accent). One of those books is even in English, although Latin dominates, and French takes the lion’s share of the remainder.

Thanks to Historical TheoBlogy for bringing this to my attention.

– TurretinFan

More Important than the Dead Sea Scrolls?

March 22, 2010

That’s what this article (link to article) claims about the Faddan More Psalter. The article reports that about 15 percent of the text has survived the supermillenial bog burial. I think the claim is somewhat exaggerated, though doubtless one would never have expected to find such an item in a bog, nor would one ever hope to find such an item in a bog again. The text provides a valuable early testimony to the transmission of the Latin text.

– TurretinFan

Review of "Is Rome the True Church?"

March 21, 2010

Is Rome the True Church? – a consideration of the Roman Catholic claim, by Norman Geisler and Joshua Bettancourt, explores a series of questions related to Rome’s exclusive claim to be the true church. The book explores this topic by taking out several links in the chain of alleged authority. First, the book addresses the alleged primacy of the Apostle Peter. Next, the book addresses the alleged infallibility of Peter. Finally, the book examines the idea of Apostolic Succession or inheritance of the supposed primacy and infallibility of Peter.

A Fundamental Flaw – The Gospel and Christian Orthodoxy

The introduction of the book ends on an encouraging note: “In fact, after seriously considering the relevant evidence, perhaps they will choose just to remain evangelical, if they desire to be truly ‘catholic.'” This promising beginning, however, is not fully realized. Indeed, at pages 187-88, we find the following: “Kreeft was exposed to the typical Calvinist anti-Catholicism, which holds that Catholics believe ‘another gospel.'”

The point taken by the authors seems to be summarized at page 184: “We have seen that the Roman Catholic claim to be the true church is false. The biblical, theological, and historical arguments against it are strong. Indeed, on either standard of orthodoxy Rome falls short, and on the Reformation standard of orthodoxy Roman Catholicism is a false church with significant truth in it.” Indeed, the authors even go so far as to say, “This is not to say that the Roman Catholic church has no true believers in it, nor that it has no essentially true beliefs. It has both. It is only to say that no only is its central claim to infallibility false, but so is its plan of salvation.” (p. 184)

How the authors propose to differentiate between Rome’s false plan of salvation and Rome believing in something other than “another gospel” is not at all clear.

Indeed, while the authors seem to view Rome’s plan of salvation as “false,” the authors appear to affirm Rome’s orthodoxy: “In fact, all orthodox Christians, Catholics and non-Catholics, agree with the basic doctrines affirmed in the earlier so-called ecumenical councils, such as the Trinity, virgin birth, deity of Christ, and Christ’s hypostatic union of two natures in one person.” (p. 52) However the authors then turn around and suggest that the “main concern of orthodox Christians is with attributing any divine or even ecclesiastical authority to creedal and conciliar pronouncements,” which would seem to suggest that only what the authors call the “Free Church” or Anabaptistic view is truly orthodox. Yet at still other places, the authors provide a very broad ecumenism, listing among the churches that “confess historic biblical Christianity” “Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, and others.” (p.49)

When posed with the direct question: “Is Rome a False Church?” the authors respond “This must be answered in parts and with qualifications.” (p. 180) The authors proceed to provide a mixed answer that Rome “makes some major false claims” and “If judged by the standards of the Protestant Reformation … Rome is a false church with significant truth,” even while affirming that on alternative grounds for judgment “Rome is a true church with significant error” even going so far as to assert that “Rome has ‘practical heresy,’ if not both practical and material heresy.” (pp. 180-81)

This seems like a fundamental flaw in the book, in that the book attempts to answer the question, “Is Rome the True Church?”

Depiction of Roman Catholic Theology

It is clear that the authors attempted to portray Rome’s position fairly. The book relies on a variety of Roman Catholic sources from serious sources like Ludwig Ott to popular sources like Steve Ray. The presentation of Rome’s position attempted to suggest a large amount of continuity between post-Vatican II and pre-Vatican II Rome. For example, regarding Vatican II’s statement:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.

the authors seek to suggest that this is “nothing more than a restatement of baptism by intention in early Catholic proclamations.” (p. 16) This seems excessively generous. Baptism by intention, also called “baptism of desire,” has traditionally had reference to Christ and to baptism. As the phrase may suggest, it has a primary reference to those who want to be baptized by are hindered by some extraordinary obstacle.

Roman Catholic priest, Dwight Longenecker, writes that “The baptism of desire refers to those individuals with faith in Christ who would be baptized if they had the opportunity and if they truly understood what baptism means. It applies to those who, due to extraordinary circumstances, do not have access to water for baptism.” (source) Longenecker then goes on to explain that baptism of desire “may” apply to those who lack Christian faith, or who think baptism is unnecessary. Longenecker, however, is quick to note: “Even in these cases, however, it should be understood that the Church teaches that such individuals ‘may’ be saved, not that they are saved.”

Instead of being nothing more than a much older view of baptism by desire or intention, Vatican II’s comments should be viewed as the latest development or mutation of that doctrine. Vatican II’s definition appears at odds with more traditional explanations, such as that of Robert Bellarmine:

Perfect conversion and penitence is rightly called baptism of desire, and in necessity at least, it supplies for the baptism of water. It is to be noted that any conversion whatsoever cannot be called baptism of desire; but only perfect conversion, which includes true contrition and charity, and at the same time a desire or vowed intention of baptism.

– Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), On the Sacrament of Baptism, Book 1, Chapter 6

An even older version is found in Bernard of Clairvaux, who appealed to Augustine and Ambrose as precedent for his view of salvation by faith alone:

Believe me, it will be difficult to separate me from these two pillars, by which I refer to Augustine and Ambrose. I confess that with them I am either right or wrong in believing that people can be saved by faith alone and the desire to receive the sacrament, even if untimely death or some insuperable force keep them from fulfilling their pious desire

– Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), Letter 77, section 8.

But I digress. The authors of the book go to great lengths to make sure that they are providing the Roman Catholic argument before they rebut, including qualifiers that Rome’s apologists are normally quick to provide (for example, the caveat that “Not all papal statements are deemed infallible; only those made ex cathedra of doctrine or morals.” p. 94)

One place at which one might level a charge of unfairness was in a personal anecdote that Dr. Geisler provides:

I personally had a Roman Catholic teacher at a Jesuit institution I attended who was an atheist. When I asked how he could be a Catholic and an atheist, he replied: “You do not have to believe in God to be a Catholic. You just have to keep the rules of the Church.”

(p. 135)

This anecdote may accurately reflect Geisler’s experience, but it is not an official position of Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless, despite a few minor points such as an excessive willingness to treat Vatican II as continuous with previous positions and reliance on anecdotal evidence, the authors seem to have provided an accurate representation of the mainstream Roman Catholic position.

Patristic Considerations

The authors have also sought to bring in the testimony of the fathers. For example, the authors cite Cyprian of Carthage as writing, “Hence it is in vain that some who are overcome by reason oppose to us custom, as if custom were greater than truth;” (Letter 72, Section 13) and “custom without truth is the antiquity of error.” (Letter 73, Section 9) Also, in Appendix I, beginning at p. 199, the authors explore Irenaeus and the alleged authority of the church. At p. 220, the authors provide another appendix related to Irenaeus, Appendix 5: “Irenaeus on Scripture and Tradition.” While the authors appear to rely heavily on J.N.D. Kelley’s important work, Early Christian Doctrine (1960) (for example, the authors at p. 230 quote Kelly for the proposition that “Irenaeus believed that ‘Scripture and the church’s unwritten tradition are identical in content.‘”), the authors occasionally provide some of their own insights into the patristic literature. For example,

Other than a few scant references in early Fathers to the oral words of apostles confirming what is in their written word, which alone is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16; cf. 2 Pet. 1:20-21; 3:15-16), the Bible is not only the primary source of divine authority cited; it is the only source. Hence, it is not simply a matter of the primacy of Scripture but the exclusivity of Scripture as the sole written, God-breathed authority from God. Indeed, Irenaeus criticizes heretics because “they gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures.” Likewise, he condemns them because they “adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings.” In this sense, Irenaeus held to sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) – one of the great principles of the later Reformation.

(p. 224, footnotes omitted)

These appendices are worth reading for those interested in the patristic debate, in that the authors conclude:

Taken in the total context of his writing, Irenaeus favored the non-Catholic position on almost all the major areas of concern. First, he held to the Protestant canon, rejecting the Apocrypha canonized by the Catholic Council of Trent (1546). Second, he believed in sola Scriptura (see Appendix 4), the Protestant sense of both material and formal sufficiency. Third, this means Irenaeus held to the perspicuity of Scripture. Fourth, Irenaeus did not hold the Roman Catholic views of tradition as a second source of revelation. Nor did he believe tradition was divinely authoritative. Fifth, he has written nothing that supports the primacy of Peter, let alone any alleged infallibility.

(p. 231)

Medieval Connection

Likewise, the authors brought to bear medieval testimony, especially the testimony of Aquinas (at p. 198, Geisler points out his familial and educational connections with Roman Catholicism and states: “I am a follower of the great Catholic thinker Thomas Aquinas.”) One interesting quotation that the authors repeatedly reference (e.g. pp. 57 and 83) is Aquinas’ comment that “We believe the prophets and apostles because the Lord has been their witness by performing miracles. . . . And we believe the successors of the apostles only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings,” (Thomas Aquinas, On Truth, 14.10-11) which suggests a primacy of Scripture incompatible with contemporary Roman Catholicism’s claims.

Likewise, the authors provide some interesting discussion of Aquinas from Roman Catholic scholar Yves Congar:

However, even given the authority of the pope, noted Roman Catholic authority Yves Congar admitted, “It is a fact that St. Thomas has not spoken of the infallibility of the papal magisterium. Moreover, he was unaware of the use of magisterium in its modern sense.” He goes on to say that it is not certain that Aquinas would even have said that the pope is without error “in his role of supreme interpreter of Christ’s teaching.”
Congar cites several texts in support of this conclusion (see On Truth 14.10-11). One reads, “The simple have implicit faith in the faith of their teachers only to the degree that these hold fast to God’s teaching. . . . Thus the knowledge of men is not the rule of faith but God’s truthfulness.” Further, Congar refers to this text: “Note, however, that where there is real danger to the faith, subjects must rebuke their superiors even publicly. On this account Paul, who was subject to Peter, publicly rebuked him when there was imminent danger of scandal in a matter of faith.”

(p. 57, footnotes omitted)

Good Arguments

There are some good arguments presented in the book in response to Rome’s claims. For example, against the claim that Christ appointed Peter to be the head apostle in Matthew 16:18, the authors provide an argument from George Salmon: “If our Lord meant all this [concerning Peter], we may ask, why did he not say it? Who found out that He meant it? The Apostles did not find out at the time; for up to the night before [Jesus’] death the dispute went on, which should be the greatest.” (Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, 334)(That excellent work may be downloaded or read at this link.)

A similarly good argument is presented (at p. 162) based on the fact that Peter and John were sent on a mission to Samaria by the other apostles at Jerusalem, as explained in Acts 8:14-17. If Peter were organizationally the chief of the apostles, it would be strange for him to be sent by them, rather than simply going and taking John with him.

Another interesting argument is a response to the argument that Peter’s primacy is established from the fact that he is the first of the apostles to see the resurrected Christ. The authors point out, however, “but the Gospels tell us that the women saw Jesus before Peter. Why then would not Rome take that as proof of the primacy of women over men?” (p. 82) The answer to their rhetorical question, of course, is that Rome’s apologists are using 1 Corinthians 15:5 as a pretext.

Another argument that was used with some success was what the authors called “The Argument from Death by Qualifications.” As the authors pointed out, “In actual practice, the attempt to keep infallibility alive by qualifying it is in effect killing it both in principle and in practice.” (p. 178) The authors explain that in principle the infallible statements have to meet very rigid criteria, resulting in very few such statements. As a practical result, such statements provide “no ongoing practical value in the life of the church.” (p. 178) To rephrase it, “by the time one adds up the non-infallible list of qualifications of what constitutes infallible statements, the doctrine of infallibility proves to be just as fallible as non-infallible statements made by opposing groups in Christendom.” (p. 148)

On the topic of apostolic succession, the authors presented an argument regarding the fact of laying on of hands. As they explain,

… one of the deacons (Philip) on whom they laid hands had the gift of both evangelism and healing (Acts 8:6), but his converts did not receive the [extraordinary gifts of the] Holy Spirit through him. Philip had to call for the apostles this act directly (Acts 8:15-18). So, “laying on of the apostles’ hands did not grant Philip any powers of apostolic succession.

(p. 151)

While the argument may suffer from not dealing directly with the issue of authority, the underlying principle that the apostles’ ability to transfer special abilities to people by the laying on of hands is shown to be non-transferable.

The authors actually go so far as to suggest that Hebrews 2 indicates that the extraordinary gifts were passing during the lifetime of the apostles.

Hebrews 2:3-4

How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

The apparent rationale in the argument is that “at the first” refers to a prior time, and “confirmed unto us” is phrased in a past (technically aorist) tense. This might be taken to suggest that the time of confirmation was already passing or already gone, as the authors assert at p. 160.

In addition to some of the valuable arguments set forth in the book, the book provides, in appendix 4, an interesting definition of Sola Scriptura. The definition is this:

Sola Scriptura in the formal sense means that the Bible alone is sufficiently clear so that no infallible magisterium of the church is necessary to interpret it.

(p. 218)

This definition is interesting in that it does not necessarily rule out an infallible magisterium, it just renders one unnecessary. Many of the Roman Catholic arguments against Sola Scriptura seem to be focused on demanding that the advocates of Sola Scriptura disprove the existence of an infallible magisterium, whereas this definition leaves such proof or disproof for a separate argument.

Weak Arguments

There are also some weak arguments presented. Regarding the “keys” mentioned in Matthew 16, and the alleged (by the Roman Catholics) link to Isaiah 22, the authors write:

In Isaiah 22:22, the “key” refers to the stewardship of the house of David that would be placed in the hands of Eliakim. It has nothing to do with Peter or the New Testament church.

(p. 81 and p. 127, exactly the same words)

This argument is weak in two ways. First, this response ignores the typology argument that Roman Catholics typically make, and which is even presented to the reader as the Roman Catholic argument at pp. 65, 67, 95, and 98. Second, this response omits the strong Biblical counter argument from the fact that the type of Eliakim is connected Scripturally with the ante-type of Jesus (not Peter), as can be seen from Revelation.

Revelation 3:7-8

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

Since Revelation is still a part of the New Testament, and since the Scriptures of the New Testament are undoubtedly for the New Testament church, the argument that the verse “has nothing to do with Peter or the New Testament church” seems to be only partially true. The verse does have nothing to do with Peter, but it does have to do with Jesus and with the New Testament church in consequence of its connection with Jesus.

This facile dismissal of the argument from Isaiah 22:22 is sadly reflective of the practical canon of the authors. As can be seen from Scripture index, at p. 233 and following, while most of the New Testament receives some treatment (1-2 Thessalonians are curiously omitted, and Jude is also omitted from the index), there is a dearth of references to the Old Testament Scriptures: the references consist of references to three passages from Exodus, two from Isaiah (including the one mentioned above), and general references to the books of Jeremiah and Daniel. The seeming reason is a failure to appreciate that not only the New Testament but also the Old Testament Scriptures are for the New Testament church, although the emphasis of the Roman Catholic arguments from New Testament Scriptures is also undoubtedly a factor in the relatively high amount of New Testament usage. Contrast this, however, with Irenaeus who “cites freely from every major section of the Old Testament and from most of the books,” as the authors report at p. 227.

Another argument that could have been improved is the argument related to the Roman Catholic allegation that “Christ changed Peter’s name from Simon to Cephas” (p. 94, discussion continued to p. 95). I’ve discussed this at greater length (link), but the short answer is that Cephas or Peter was not a substitute for Simon, it was a surname. Thus, we find the expression “Simon Peter” twenty times in the Authorized Version (once in Matthew, once in Luke, once in 2 Peter, and the remainder of the times in John).

With that in mind, Origen’s argument makes much more sense than the Roman Catholic argument:

But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,” [Matthew 16:18] hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”? [Matthew 16:18] Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, “I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” [Matthew 16:19] be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” [Matthew 16:19] etc.; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” [John 20:22] etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God;” but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this “with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord” [2 Corinthians 3:18] they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, “Lord Jesus,” and to Him, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” [Matthew 16:16] And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of “rock” who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, [1 Corinthians 10:4] that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom. [1 Corinthians 1:30] And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, “You are Peter,” etc., down to the words, “prevail against it.”

– Origen (circa A.D. 185–254), Commentary on Matthew, Book XII, Chapter 11

In responding to a Roman Catholic argument alleging that denials of ecclesiastical infallibility are self-defeating, the authors provided several good arguments, but one argument that seems to be mostly an argument that would be accepted by “Protestants.” (pp. 138-39) The good arguments are first that the Roman Catholic argument confuses the issues of determination and discovery. God, as author, determines the meaning of Scripture. Man, as reader, merely discovers the meaning of Scripture. This argument connects with an intuitive argument that correct discovery of God’s meaning in Scripture does not require infallibility any more than discovering the speed limit requires infallibility. Another argument, however, is one that I can not highly recommend:

Indeed, all other major sections of Christendom have come to the same basic understanding on the essential doctines of the faith they all hold in common. If all these essentials of the faith – including the Trinity, virgin birth, deity of Christ, his atoning death, bodily resurrection, bodily ascension, and second coming – can be be known by non-Catholics without an infallible magisterium, then it is proof positive that an infallible magisterium is not needed to come to a sufficient and saving knowledge of the common essentials of the Christian faith.

(p. 139)

However, Roman Catholicism doesn’t recognize those things as more essential than Purgatory, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, and Papal Infallibity, at least not in any official way. While Vatican II indicates that those “separated brethren” outside the walls of Rome may be saved, it also indicates that even Muslims (who deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, his atoning death, and bodily resurrection) may be saved. The “mere Christianity” position that the authors are advocating is, then, more a matter of their own “Protestant” view of what constitutes the essentials of the faith, rather than the Roman Catholic position, which makes many more things essential.

This same view is reflected in a few other arguments in the book, such as:

[responding to the charge that Sola Scriptura undermines pastoral authority and discipline] … even with its claim of an infallible pope, Rome is guilty of the very thing it is claiming about Protestants. Orthodox Protestants, all of whom hold to all the essentials of the faith, were not in charge when Rome’s allegedly infallible pope could not stop the greatest schism in the history of the church, that between the Eastern and Western churches (AD 1054).

(p. 147)

It’s important to note that while many Evangelicals may believe that the essential doctrines of the faith are captured in the Nicene Creed or the Apostles’ Creed, the Roman Catholic church requires assent of the faithful to a much larger group of doctrines.

Formal and Personal Considerations

The book seems to get a little tedious at points. The reason for the tedium is that there seems to be a significant amount of repetition. For example, one finds substantial repetition at pages 79, 126, and 163, including a pair of longer than average footnotes. While the repetition may serve some sort of legitimate purpose (perhaps it allows the book to be divided into a number of smaller self-contained books at a later date), it seems mostly to serve to puff up the length of the book without adding any depth.

As well, one notices a significant fraction of the footnotes are to Geisler’s own previous work, especially his book with Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (it may be noted that the single blurb on the reverse cover of the book is from MacKenzie). It may be, in view of the significant apparent amount of overlap that one would be better served by simply reading the early work by Geisler.

One additional personal note exists with respect to this book. Apparently shortly after the publication of the work, Geisler’s co-author, Joshua M. Betancourt, announced his conversion to Roman Catholicism from Anglicanism. It is not clear what prompted Mr. Betancourt’s move. Considering that the book is so wishy-washy on Rome’s status as orthodox Christianity (or not) and whether or not Rome’s gospel is the gospel of Christ or another gospel, this sort of move (while sad) cannot be said to be shocking.


At page 84, there is a very unfortunate typo in which “Ott says clearly” should be “Tertullian says clearly” for a matter that Ott omits.

At page 111, term 4 of the argument states “But we do not know the truth of Scripture” although it ought to state “But we do know the truth of Scripture.”

At page 152, due to a misplaced quotation mark, the text as written has Clement calling himself “The disciple of the Apostles, St. Clement of Rome” – the quotation mark before “The disciple” should be moved to just before “In countries and towns … .”

At page 154, I’m not sure whether this is properly a typographic error, but the claim that Justin Martyr “was not a contemporary to anyone who was contemporary with the apostles,” seems like an unlikely claim. It is believed that the apostle John lived into the 90’s A.D., that he was a disciple of John and that he died around A.D. 155, only a decade before Justin Martyr’s death. A better claim is that Justin Martyr was not a contemporary with any of the apostles.


Is Rome the True Church? may be asking the wrong question, but nevertheless answers the question in a systematic negative way. Many of the arguments employed against Rome’s exclusive claim are valid arguments that ought to persuade the reader that Rome’s claims are in error. There are a few weak arguments in the book, some of which can be bolstered by reference to further arguments. While the book may not excel other available responses to Roman Catholicism, it may at least provide the beginning of a discussion on Rome’s claims and the flaws, both Scriptural, logical, and historical in those claims.

– TurretinFan

Hypercalvinism contrasted with Calvinism

March 19, 2010

I was grateful to read an interesting post from Dr. James Galyon on the subject of Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism (link to post). I’m not saying I agree with every aspect of the definitions he provides, but his underlying point – namely that the counter-indication of Hyper-Calvinism is active evangelism is spot-on.


The Apology of Claudius of Turin and His Commentary on Galatians

March 18, 2010

I have previously remarked how the icon-favoring council of 787 overthrew the precedent of the similarly sized council of 754, which condemned as idolatry the worshiping of God by images. Some folks have tried to suggest that the iconoclastic controversy was exclusively an Eastern issue. Some have even gone so far as to try to suggest that there was a Muslim and/or Jewish influence at play. Nevertheless, we ought to note that there was at least some Western opposition to the council. Not only was the council of 787 rejected by the regional Council of Frankfurt of 794, but it was also rejected by Claudius of Turin (flourished 810 – 827, bishop of Turin from 817 to his death).

Claudius not only spoke and wrote against such images, he tore them down. He himself states:

It came to pass that, after I was compelled to undertake the burden of the pastoral office I came to the city of Turin in Italy, sent by Louis, that pious prince and son of the Lord’s holy Catholic church. I found all the churches filled with sordid images, which are anathematized and contrary to true teaching. Since everyone was honoring them, I undertook their destruction singlehandedly. Then everyone opened their mouths to curse me and, had the Lord not helped me, they would have swallowed me alive. . .

– Claudius of Turin (flourished 810 – 827), Apology (source of translation)

Here is an alternative translation of the same passage:

For which reason, of course, it came to pass that as soon as I was constrained to assume the burden of pastoral duty and to come to Italy to the city of Turin, sent thither by our pious prince Louis, the son of the Lord’s holy catholic church, I found all the churches filled, in defiance of the precept of Truth, with those sluttish abominations – images. Since everyone was worshiping them, I undertook singlehanded to destroy them. Everyone thereupon opened his mouth to curse me, and had not God come to my aid, they would no doubt have swallowed me alive.

– Claudius of Turin (flourished 810 – 827), Defense and Reply to Abbot Theodemir (Translation by Allen Cabaniss in Early Medieval Theology volume IX of the Library of Christian Classics, p. 242)

On a seemingly unrelated note, it is interesting to read what Claudius has to say about the atonement:

His anger did not blaze carnally for a carnal observance and sustain the penalty set for those who did not keep it, but that believers might be in themselves entirely free from fear of such penalty, to which applies what he now added as follows: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having been made a curse for us, since it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.'” A man’s death belongs to the nature of penalty for sin; wherefore it is also called sin. Not that a man sins when he dies, but that it is because of sin that he dies. In other words, the tongue properly so designated is that fleshly part which moves between the teeth and under the palate, yet that also is called a tongue which results because of the tongue, as the Greek tongue or the Latin tongue. Moreover, that member of the body which we use for work is designated the hand, but in Scripture that is called a hand which is brought about by the hand. We say, “His hand is stretched forth … His hand is observed by him … I hold your hand,” all referring to the hand as a part of a human being. Now I do not deem writing a part of a human being, yet it also is called a hand because it is done by the hand. So not only is that great evil which is worthy of punishment, sin itself, called sin, but also death, which comes because of sins. Christ did not commit that sin which renders one liable to death, but for us he underwent that other, namely, death itself which was inflicted upon human nature by sin. That which hung on the tree was cursed by Moses. There death was condemned to reign longer and was cursed to die. Wherefore by such “sin” of Christ our sin was condemned that we might be set free, that we might remain no longer condemned by the rule of sin.

– Claudius of Turin (flourished 810 – 827), Commentary on Galatians, at Galatians 3:16 (Translation by Allen Cabaniss in Early Medieval Theology volume IX of the Library of Christian Classics, p. 229-30)

Notice that Claudius’ comments are more or less specifically affirming a penal substitution view of the atonement. Admittedly, he does not provide a fully developed explanation of the atonement here, but the portion he does provide is explicitly one of penal substitution.

– TurretinFan

%d bloggers like this: