Saturday, December 29, 2007

Phatcatholic Answer to Question #3

In your opening statement, you wrote: "Bede “the Venerable” (672-735) reports in his Ecclesiastical History of England that a bishop cured a sick woman with holy water (see here), and that devils were cast out by it (see here)."

I would respectfully submit to you that in the latter case, the devils were cast out by the use of soil, not water, according to your source, and that the water involved in conferring special powers to the soil was not consecrated water, but water that had touched a relic.

Do you concur?

Well, before we begin, here is the passage from Bede's Ecclesiastical History where he reports that demons were cast out by holy water:
"Then they poured out the water in which they had washed the bones, in a corner of the cemetery. From that time, the very earth which received that holy water, had the power of saving grace in casting out devils from the bodies of persons possessed" (see here).

Now, to respond to your first point, it is true that those possessed by evil spirits were freed when said persons came in contact with the earth where the water was poured out. BUT, it was because of the holy water that the soil had that effect. Were it not for the water the soil would have done nothing. So, it appears to me that the water is the primary agent for the casting out of the evil spirits, not the soil.

As for your second point, how the water is made holy does seem to be as important as the fact that, at the end of the day, water is being used to expel demons. This shows that the use of water to achieve that purpose is far from superstitious ("superstition" of course being the attribution of magical effect to an object or practice that actually has no such effect).

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Third C-X Question to PhatCatholic

Thanks. That greatly helps.

In your opening statement, you wrote: "Bede “the Venerable” (672-735) reports in his Ecclesiastical History of England that a bishop cured a sick woman with holy water (see here), and that devils were cast out by it (see here)."

I would respectfully submit to you that in the latter case, the devils were cast out by the use of soil, not water, according to your source, and that the water involved in conferring special powers to the soil was not consecrated water, but water that had touched a relic.

Do you concur?

-Turretinfan

Phatcatholic Answer to Question #2

Your secondary source’s quotation from the “Apostolic Constitutions” seems to be a corruption of: “vouchsafe them the laver of regeneration, and the garment of incorruption, which is the true life; and deliver them from all ungodliness, and give no place to the adversary against them; “and cleanse them from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, and dwell in them, and walk in them, by His Christ; bless their goings out and their comings in, and order their affairs for their good.” (source)

Can you provide any other citation to the Apostolic constitutions themselves?

Well, first off, here is the part in my opening statement where I quote from the Apostolic Constitutions:
For example, in the Apostolic Constitutions (400 AD), holy water is called, “a means of warding off diseases, frightening away evil spirits, a medicine for body and soul, and for purification from sins” (see here).

Now, I realize that I was using a secondary source and I apologize for that. But, I don't think that the quotation, as found in the secondary source, is a corruption like you describe it. You say it is from Book VIII, Section II. However, it appears to me that the quotation comes from Book VIII, Section IV, where we read:
XXIX. Concerning the water and the oil, I Matthias make a constitution. Let the bishop bless the water, or the oil. But if he be not there, let the presbyter bless it, the deacon standing by. But if the bishop be present, let the presbyter and deacon stand by, and let him say thus: O Lord of hosts, the God of powers, the creator of the waters, and the supplier of oil, who art compassionate, and a lover of mankind, who hast given water for drink and for cleansing, and oil to give man a cheerful and joyful countenance; do Thou now also sanctify this water and this oil through Thy Christ, in the name of him or her that has offered them, and grant them a power to restore health, to drive away diseases, to banish demons, and to disperse all snares through Christ our hope, with whom glory, honour, and worship be to Thee, and to the Holy Ghost, for ever. Amen.

I should have looked that up in the beginning, but I didn't have the time. At any rate, that is the most explicit statement I was able to find in the Apostolic Constitutions. There are two other passages (from Book VII, Section III) that I found interesting, but they aren't as important to me as the more explicit statement. They include the following:
  • "Let him be instructed why the world was made, and why man was appointed to be a citizen therein; let him also know his own nature, of what sort it is; let him be taught how God punished the wicked with water and fire, and did glorify the saints in every generation"
  • "Him, therefore, let the priest even now call upon in baptism, and let him say: Look down from heaven, and sanctify this water, and give it grace and power, that so he that is to be baptized, according to the command of Thy Christ, may be crucified with Him, and may die with Him, and may be buried with Him, and may rise with Him to the adoption which is in Him, that he may be dead to sin and live to righteousness."
I hope that answers your question.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Second C-X Question to PhatCatholic

Thanks for your reply.

Your secondary source’s quotation from the “Apostolic Constitutions” seems to be a corruption of: “vouchsafe them the laver of regeneration, and the garment of incorruption, which is the true life; and deliver them from all ungodliness, and give no place to the adversary against them; “and cleanse them from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, and dwell in them, and walk in them, by His Christ; bless their goings out and their comings in, and order their affairs for their good.” (source)

Can you provide any other citation to the Apostolic constitutions themselves?

-Turretinfan

Friday, December 28, 2007

Phatcatholic Answer to Question #1

PhatCatholic wrote: "Ultimately, to reject the effectiveness of holy water against demonic forces is not just to ignore the biblical witness, but to also essentially discredit 2,000 years of Christian witness and experience."

But, as PC admitted, there is no Scriptural example of "holy water" being effective against demonic forces, nor is there any other Christian testimony I could locate to the efficacy of "holy water" among the church fathers before the eighth century (leaving aside the “Apostolic Constitutions”). Have I missed something or is the experience and witness really not 2,000 years old?
I'd like to be able to give you more evidence from the Fathers but information on the internet is limited and the books I need won't be available to me until after the deadline for this answer. My local library at home is sorely inadequate when it comes to researching this question, but a few books are on the way.

At first I was trying to work with what little is available to me, which is why it has taken me so long to respond. But, I finally had to just accept the fact that more information on the use of holy water in the early Church will have to wait. Perhaps I can give you more information in response to a subsequent question, or in my rebuttal post.

That said, the witness of the Apostolic Constitutions shows that the practice is at least 1600 years old, and that's certainly nothing to scoff at. Also, note that, in the Catholic Church, the period of antiquity ends with St. John Damascene (d. 749 AD) in the East and with St. Gregory the Great (d AD 604) or St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636 AD) in the West. So, my citation of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of England (which he wrote in 731 AD) falls within that timeframe as well. However, my point with the statement you quoted was not to record, down to the very year, exactly how long holy water has been in use. I was simply trying to show that such use is an ancient practice and that to dismiss it is to ignore the experience and witness of hundreds (thousands?) of individuals who have seen with their own eyes the power that holy water has had over demonic forces. Is that really something you are prepared to do?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

First C-X Question to PhatCatholic

PhatCatholic wrote: "Ultimately, to reject the effectiveness of holy water against demonic forces is not just to ignore the biblical witness, but to also essentially discredit 2,000 years of Christian witness and experience."

But, as PC admitted, there is no Scriptural example of "holy water" being effective against demonic forces, nor is there any other Christian testimony I could locate to the efficacy of "holy water" among the church fathers before the eighth century (leaving aside the “Apostolic Constitutions”). Have I missed something or is the experience and witness really not 2,000 years old?

-Turretinfan

Sunday, December 23, 2007

PhatCatholic - Opening Statement

First I want to thank "tfan" for this opportunity to defend my use of holy water, as I describe it in this blog post. May our debate prove to be mutually edifying.

Now, before I begin I would like to anticipate two possible objections:

  1. "We're supposed to combat demonic forces, not by holy water, but by _____ "
  2. "There is no example in Scripture of someone using water against demonic forces"
Regarding the first objection, it is often asserted that, instead of using holy water to stop demonic forces, we should use faith, or our authority as Christians, or the name of Christ, or Scripture, or prayer. But, I agree with all of these approaches in one way or another. As such, there is no point in defending any of them. Instead, the task for anyone who objects to my use of holy water is to show that water has no effect against demonic activity (or perhaps more generally speaking, no spiritual effect).

As for the second objection, let me state that I agree with it as well. It is true that there is no explicit example in Scripture of someone using holy water against demonic forces, or commending its use. I am aware of that. BUT, there are no verses that speak directly against this practice either. In situations like this when there is no explicit Scriptural witness, we have to rely on the implicit witness, as well as the principles that inform the practice in question. If the principles are biblically sound, then the practice is sound.

That said, here are the principles that inform the practice of using holy water:
  1. God uses the things of the created order to produce supernatural effects in our lives.
  2. In Scripture, water is used to cleanse, purify, and heal human beings.
  3. Demons are rightly repulsed by anything that is holy or blessed by God, and are expelled by His cleansing grace.
Now, to elaborate on each point.

1. God uses the things of the created order to produce supernatural effects in our lives

There are many examples in Scripture where Jesus and the apostles use created things to produce supernatural effects in the lives of human beings. Jesus’ garment healed the woman with the hemorrhage (cf. Mt 9:20-22), and his saliva mixed with dirt (along with water from the pool of Siloam) gave sight to the blind man (cf. Jn 9:6-7). Many were healed by being anointed with oil (cf. Mk 6:13; Jas 5:14-15; Rev 3:18), and Paul’s handkerchiefs cured disease and expelled evil spirits (cf. Acts 19:11-12). Elijah’s mantle parted the Jordan (cf. 2 Ki 2:8,14), and the bones of his apprentice, Elisha, brought a man back to life (cf. 2 Ki 13:21). Of course, the Lord wrought innumerable miracles through the rods of Moses (cf. Exo 4:2-4; 9:23; 10:13; 14:16; 17:9-11; Num 20:11) and Aaron (cf. Exo 7:10-12,20; 8:5-6,17; Num 17:8) as well.

Many other examples could be provided. The point is, God is certainly not averse to accommodating our senses and using the objects of our material world in order to have a very real impact on our lives.

2. In Scripture, water is used to cleanse, purify, and heal human beings

Believe it or not, there are examples of holy water in Scripture:
  • Exo 23:25 speaks of water that has been blessed
  • In Num 5:17, the priest uses “holy water” in the judgment of the woman
  • In Num 19:9,13-20, anyone who is unclean remains so until the “water for impurity” is sprinkled upon him
  • In 2 Ki 2:19-22, Elisha makes the water “healed” (KJV) or “purified” (NAS).
So, the idea of “holy water” and its use is not foreign to Scripture. Notice from the third passage that a person remained unclean until water was sprinkled upon him. This points to an important 3-fold purpose for water in Scripture. This is very significant, considering that demons were considered “unclean spirits” (cf. Mt 10:1; 12:43; Mk 1:23,26-27; 3:11,30; 5:2,8,13; 6:7; 7:25; 9:25; Lk 4:33,36; 6:18; 8:29; 9:42; 11:24; Acts 5:16; 8:7) and any person was unclean if possessed by one. It only makes sense that something that cleanses, purifies, and heals can be put to good use against something as unclean as a demon.

3. Demons are rightly repulsed by anything that is holy or blessed by God, and are expelled by His cleansing grace

Does this really need a defense? We’ve already seen how Paul’s handkerchiefs expelled evil spirits (cf. Acts 19:11-12). The holy name of Jesus causes them to flee (cf. Mk 9:38-41; Acts 16:18). Demons are simply repulsed by things that are holy. When water is blessed it becomes holy and thus an effective weapon against the devil.

If the biblical evidence were not enough, the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. Hundreds of saintly men and women throughout history have experienced for themselves the power of holy water against demonic forces. For example, in the Apostolic Constitutions (400 AD), holy water is called, “a means of warding off diseases, frightening away evil spirits, a medicine for body and soul, and for purification from sins” (see here). Bede “the Venerable” (672-735) reports in his Ecclesiastical History of England that a bishop cured a sick woman with holy water (see here), and that devils were cast out by it (see here). St. Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510) was relieved of a demoniacal vision and temptation by the devil once holy water was brought to her (see here). St. Teresa of Avila (1515-1582) wrote, “From long experience I have learned that there is nothing like holy water to put devils to flight and prevent them from coming back again” (see here).

Many more examples could be provided, but you get the idea. Ultimately, to reject the effectiveness of holy water against demonic forces is not just to ignore the biblical witness, but to also essentially discredit 2,000 years of Christian witness and experience.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic
http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Announcing the Holy Water Debate

PhatCatholic (profile) has agreed to debate TurretinFan on the resolution:

RESOLVED: That the application of Holy Water is an effective means for stopping demonic forces.

PhatCatholic will take the affirmative position, and TurretinFan will take the negative position.

The agreed-upon format for the debate is:

Affirmative Constructive (1000 words)
Negative C-X (3 questions of 100 words for each question with Aff given 500 words to answer each question)
Negative Constructive (1000 words)
Affirmative C-X (3 questions of 100 words for each question with Neg given 500 words to answer each question)
Negative Rebuttal (500 words)
Affirmative Rebuttal (500 words)
Negative Conclusion (1000 words)
Affirmative Conclusion (1000 words)

No linking in arguments from elsewhere to avoid the word limit.

No comments from the audience until the conclusions are posted.

PhatCatholic can republish the debate on his own blog.

The rebuttal is a chance to briefly argue counterpoints - they could be counter-points to Answers from the Q&A or to the constructive argument.

The word count excludes quotations of Scripture. To avoid the canon argument, we'll include both the 66 books of the Protestant Bible and the additional books accepted by Trent.

The time limit for response is a week, though we will try to proceed more quickly.

We're negotiating the issue of the appropriate penalty for violating the rules.

If one of us needs to extend the word limit, the extension will be applicable to both sides.

May God give the debaters wisdom, so that the readers will be able to discern correctly whether the resolution should be affirmed or not.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Conclusion to the Sola Scriptura v. Eastern Orthodoxy Debate

Dear Readers, having read the debate, I trust you are ready to agree with the resolution that: Resolved: "It is a tradition, look no farther" is less workable as applied to the theological content of the Westminster Confession of Faith than "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."

As was established in the debate, “the Bible” is a relatively concrete, easily identifiable rule of faith, whereas “tradition” is a blurry, frequently equivocal concept. The only way to make “tradition” in the sense of a process work is by engaging in ultra-sectarianism – in which you deny the status as fully Christian, of those who disagree with you. After all, if what we should believe is only that which is received by all Christians, one has to have a way to determine who Christians are. The result is ultra-sectarian bare fideism, where one believes what he believes because he believes it. But let’s quickly hit the high points of the debate.

Scripture Beats Tradition on Ease of Identification
“Orthodox” tried to blur the edges of the Bible with some comments regarding the canonicity of Esther, the epistles of John, and the first epistle of Clement. This argument was self-defeating two ways. First, everyone knows that while the edges may be blurry, the Bible itself is a fairly stable, well-known and recognized quantity. Although some books may be more or less clearly authentic some core books (like the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah and the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy as well as at least some of Paul's epistles) are self-authenticating. Second, resort to “tradition” does not necessarily resolve the fuzziness. If one turns to “Orthodox” tradition, one gets a first list, to “Catholic” tradition – a second list, to “Ethiopic” tradition – a third list, and to “Protestant” tradition – a fourth list. Third, “the Bible says it” presumes we have a concept of what the Bible is. If we have a concept of what the Bible is, the question can readily be seen to be a red herring.

Scripture Beats Tradition on Stability
“Orthodox” did not even challenge the fact that corruption of Scripture is much more difficult than corruption of “tradition.” Furthermore, it should be clear that sectarian “tradition” is only going to be as stable as the sect is. “Orthodox” views the innovations of Rome as innovations, but fails to recognize that his own sect has innovations, such as the worship of icons. Scripture has been essentially unchanging since the final word was penned.

Oral Tradition is No Longer Necessary
“Orthodox” made a red herring from the obvious fact that while we had prophets (i.e. during the time when Scripture was being written) Scripture was not the only source of the infallible Word of God. However, “Orthodox” did not question the fact oral tradition is unnecessary. Once the Scripture has been published widely, the need to rely on oral reports of its content disappears.

Oral Tradition not Really What Orthodox Had in Mind
We discovered in the debate that oral traditions from the apostles is not really what “Orthodox” had in mind. He is not talking about the “by word” of Paul’s “by word or letter.” “Orthodox” was not talking about apostlic tradition at all, though that is what Chrysostom was talking about. Why not? Because, by now, it is impossible to identify with any certain “oral traditions” from the apostles. The only things we know they taught are those things found in the Scriptures. But in abandoning “oral tradition” in favor of a process of “sifting,” “Orthodox” failed to defend his side of the resolution.

Some Tradition is Opposed to the Bible

“Orthodox” really did not enjoy being forced to address the clear contradiction between “Orthodoxy”’s practice of worshipping icons of Christ, and the ten commandments’ prohibition on graphical purported likenesses of God. Again, “Orthodox” tried to make the issue fuzzy, but ended up contradicting himself.

Some Tradition is Opposed to Other Tradition

Finally, we found that Tradition, unlike the Bible, is not internally consistent. On the particular topic of making and worshipping icons of Christ, we discovered that before any so-called ecumenical council of Orthodoxy affirmed the use of icons of Christ, an ecumenical council of Orthodoxy rejected the use of icons of Christ. Furthermore, we learned that the historical record shows that the early Christians did not have icons of Christ, and that the use of such icons was a later development.

Tradition Actually Supports Sola Scriptura
If we consider the writings of the Fathers to be “tradition,” we found various of the writings of the fathers supporting the use of the rule that “The Bible says it … that settles it.” John Chrysostom’s own testimony in that regard went unchallenged throughout the debate.

Cross-Examination
Although he tries to spin things a bit differently, Orthodox is stuck with the fact that for as long as there have been Scriptures, they have been the standard of comparison. From the time of Moses onward, every prophet/apostle/etc. who claimed to have a word from God was judged by the written word of God. That is to say, it was not enough to claim that something was a “tradition,” but rather it was necessary to judge tradition by the Word of God, most particularly by the written word of God. The Bereans were commended for doing so.

Let’s examine the cross examination in detail.
First, Orthodox asked about the transition from more than Scripture to Scripture alone. As I pointed out, one cannot use what one doesn’t have. When prophecy ceased, the church had only Scripture to rely upon for authoritative revelation.

My first question to Orthodox was to question whether tradition was really self-correcting. Orthodox explained that “[tradition] can clarify what might seem otherwise ambiguous.” This kind of “tradition” is not apostolic, because it cannot be. It is a process of accretion, not a product handed down.

Second, Orthodox asked me whether I thought the tradition (now referring to the result of the process of accretion) was more or less clear than Scripture on various issues. His point was to assert that EOC was more clear than Scripture. My response demonstrated that trying to be certain about the EOC position on things was rather challenging. After all, they have dogmatically defined very few things.

My second question to Orthodox was to question his equivocation over the word “tradition” as a product (a body of knowledge handed down from the apostles) or a process (like the accretive process discussed above). Orthodox didn’t answer clearly.

Third, Orthodox asked about the canonicity of a few “close call” books. I explained why we accept them as canonical, namely by faith in their author, the Holy Spirit.

My third question to Orthodox was to question the sufficiency of the “it is tradition” maxim. Orthodox admitted that he had to add, “my church’s” to the maxim to make it work.

Fourth, Orthodox ironically questioned the “Semper Reformanda” (always reforming) maxim as being in conflict with church discipline. Aside from the obvious point that Semper Reformanda was not one of the watchwords of the Reformation, the answer was that the highest standard is Scripture, not the say-so of the church or of the individual member of the church.

My fourth question asked Orthodox to justify the use of icons in worship using the Canon of Vincent. Orthodox provided a variety of quotations, but virtually none were addressed to the use of icons in worship. We could easily see that there was no way for Orthodox to establish that the use of icons was the “universal” practice of the ancient church, and even trying was exhausting. Thus, clearly “it is tradition” with Vincent’s canon as to what constitutes tradition is unworkable.

Fifth, Orthodox asked – in essence – what doctrines should force someone to change churches. As I explained, it depends. The gospel cannot be compromised. That much is clear.
My fifth question to Orthodox asked Orthodox to tell who it was that the golden calf was alleged to represent. Orthodox tried to side-step the issue, because it was fairly clear from Aaron’s words that the calf was supposed to represent the Lord.

Sixth, Orthodox asked me to pass judgment on four churches that I never attended, and about which the historical records are incomplete. I respectfully declined for those churches for which I did not have enough information.

My sixth question addressed the unworkability of Vincent’s canon, by specifically asking how many fathers and priests of the ancient church there were, so as to better gauge the minimal number of quotations provided by Orthodox in support of icons. Orthodox’s answer was that there were dozens of fathers and probably thousands of priests.
Orthodox also asked what it felt like to be persuaded of the truth of something by the Holy Spirit. The answer, of course, is that is practically impossible to describe, but that it is a sense of firm conviction.

Next, I asked how Vincent’s canon could be applied to the council of 754, at which 300 bishops condemned icons, prior to the so-called 7th ecumenical council. Orthodox appealed to silence in the testimony of the early church, and then argued that the result that his whole church was in error from the 8th century to now was simply unacceptable.

Orthodox next asked whether Luther or Westminster was right on the issue of polygamy, and I answered him clearly from Scripture.

I asked Orthodox about his claim to strength in numbers, based on his earlier assertion that his church was right because it was the larger chunk of the Great Schism, and because of his assertion that 300 million people’s opinions were stronger than mine. Orthodox admitted that the number of people actually made no difference to him.

Orthodox next asked what alternatives there were to “the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church.” The answer, which was blindingly obvious was Scripture itself.

Tired of Orthodox’s meandering evasive answers, I asked Orthodox a multiple choice question about how Athanasius used the word “tradition,” to see whether Athanasius used it to refer to a process or product (the correct answer, of course, being a product). Orthodox couldn’t give a straight answer, but ended up constructing his own four-part definition of Athanasius’ meaning based on his own personal opinion and at variance with that of the most noted patristic scholar.

Orthodox next asked a loaded question about what I could prove or not with respect to Jesus’ condemnation of the “traditions” of the Pharisees. I explained what Jesus meant, and pointed out that Athanasius said more or less the same thing as I did.

Still hopeful that Orthodox could answer a multiple choice question, I quoted Basil the Great and asked whether Basil adhered, on the particular issue in question, to the maxim “it is tradition, seek no farther” (the correct answer being “no, he did not.”). Orthodox was unable to give a straight answer.

Finally, Orthodox asked whether tradition gives stability and sola scriptura leads to debates and innovation. I negated Orthodox’s implicit assertion and gave historical and logical explanations for my negation.

Likewise, for my final question, I gave the multiple choice format one last shot. Orthodox still felt compelled to give a lengthy answer, but at least Orthodox admitted that: “All things are clear and open that are in divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain.” This was really the final blow against Orthodox’s position, for it makes Scripture much more workable than even Vincent’s canon.

In short, and in conclusion, “the Bible says it” is the only workable way to avoid ultra-sectarianism. Ultra-sectarianism is what “Orthodox” practices, where he uses the “consent of the faithful” as a basis for doctrine, but then excludes from his count everyone who disagrees with him! And here’s where ultra-sectarianism will get you (link)

It will get you this type of unity (link 1) (link 2).

Finally, for additional reading, allow me to recommend:

A. A. Hodge

B. B. Warfield

Matatics vs. White Debate on Sola Scriptura

Steve Hays (warning, pdf file)

As well as the following, also from Hay: (First Half) and (Second Half) (plus another one)

James Swan

Thanks be to God, who has not left us with the tradition of men, but given us the unchanging Word of God,

-Turretinfan