Question 5 from Affirmative

Ultimately, it is inconsequential whether the church has faithfully taught the doctrine of penal substitution or whether it has not, since we have the infallible authority of Scripture. Nevertheless, the church fathers also provide evidence that we are not the first to recognize this doctrine in Scripture. You didn’t seem to feel that my quotations from the church fathers initially provided were good enough, so I provide the following:

O Lord Jesus, who hast suffered for us, not for Yourself, who had no guilt, and endured its punishment, that you might dissolve at once the guilt and punishment.
- Augustine, Sermon 86 on the New Testament, Section 6

Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment.
- Augustine, Against Faustus, Section 4

For there is no husband that, because he is an husband, is not subject to death, or that is subject to death for any other reason but because of sin. For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon Him our punishment, and so looses our guilt.
- Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 51, Section 10

He was troubled, then, who had power to lay down His life, and had power to take it again. That mighty power is troubled, the firmness of the rock is disturbed: or is it rather our infirmity that is troubled in Him? Assuredly so: let servants believe nothing unworthy of their Lord, but recognize their own membership in their Head. He who died for us, was also Himself troubled in our place.
- Augustine, Tractate 60 (John 13:21), Section 2

He, the Saviour, suffered for man, but they despised and cast from them life, and light, and grace. All these were theirs through that Saviour Who suffered in our stead.
- Athanasius, Letter 10, Section 5

We believe therefore in one God, that is, in one First Cause, the God of the law and of the Gospel, the just and good; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, true God, that is, Image of the true God, Maker of all things seen and unseen, Son of God and only-begotten Offspring, and Eternal Word, living and self-subsistent and active. always being with the Father; and in one Holy Spirit; and in the glorious advent of the Son of God, who of the Virgin Mary took flesh, and endured sufferings and death in our stead, and came to resurrection on the third day, and was taken up to heaven; and in His glorious appearing yet to come; and in one holy Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and life eternal.
- Gregory Thaumaturgus, A Sectional Confession of Faith, Section 17

And thus, the two being created in Him, He may say suitably, 'The Lord created me.' For as by receiving our infirmities, He is said to be infirm Himself, though not Himself infirm, for He is the Power of God, and He became sin for us and a curse, though not having sinned Himself, but because He Himself bare our sins and our curse, so , by creating us in Him, let Him say, 'He created me for the works,' though not Himself a creature.
- Athanasius, Discourse II Against the Arians, Section 55 (Chapter 20)

Therefore do you also crucify sin, that you may die to sin; he who dies to sin lives to God; do you live to Him Who spared not His own Son, that in His body He might crucify our passions. For Christ died for us, that we might live in His revived Body. Therefore not our life but our guilt died in Him, "Who," it is said, "bare our sins in His own Body on the tree; that being set free from our sins we might live in righteousness, by the wound of Whose stripes we are healed." 1 Peter 2:24
- Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit: Book I, Section 109 (Chapter 9)

"Behold, it is said, I have taken away your sins." Because He had taken on Himself the sins of the people of those who believed in Him, he uses many such expressions as these: "Far from my salvation are the words of my transgressions," and "You know my foolishness, and my sins were not hid from You."
- Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John: Book II, Chapter 21

Have they read also today, "that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us"? Galatians 3:13 Was Christ a curse in His Godhead? But why He is called a curse the Apostle tells us, saying that it is written: "Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree," Galatians 3:13 that is, He Who in his flesh bore our flesh, in His body bore our infirmities and our curses, that He might crucify them; for He was not cursed Himself, but was cursed in you. So it is written elsewhere: "Who knew no sin, but was made sin for us, for He bore our sins, 2 Corinthians 5:21 that he might destroy them by the Sacrament of His Passion."
- Ambrose, On the Giving Up of the Basilicas, Section 25

You had mentioned, almost in passing, that a consequence of penal substitution is limited atonement. If you’re right, this too would make sense since Augustine taught limited atonement.

On the other hand, many who glory in the cross of Christ and do not withdraw from that same way, though ignorant of those points which are so subtlely debated, because not one little one perishes for whom He died.
- Augustine, Letter 169 (to Evodius)

In view of all this evidence, will you agree that the concept of penal substitution is not simply a doctrine discovered by the Reformers?

-TurretinFan

Question 1 from Affirmative

In your opening statement, you described the penal substitution position as: “God's Wrath (due to sin) must be legally satisfied (i.e. sin cannot go unpunished) in order for sinful man to be forgiven and justified.”

Then, in your rebuttal, you repeatedly denied that various things were expressions of God’s wrath, e.g.:

“First, Turtullian says nothing specific in terms the atonement, much less anything of Jesus undergoing the Father's wrath in place of the elect.”

Your labels seem to be just ad hoc. When I present something that would support penal substitution you claim it’s not talking about God’s wrath being appeased, but something else. I see no consistent standard being applied from your side, so that I could see how to persuade you to accept that the atonement sacrifice (Christ) does turn away God’s wrath through suffering the punishment (death).

The “positive” examples where you seemed to acknowledge wrath being implicated was regarding the Passover event, and in three places where you were asserting your own point regarding how wrath was stayed.

Regarding the Passover, your comments were inconsistent: “At the time of the Passover, God's wrath was not even on the Jews, but rather on the Egyptians:” and a bit later, “The Israelites were only actually subject to that wrath in a indirect/secondary sense, that is if they had they disobeyed the Passover requirements.” These seem to be a bit contradictory in themselves, since you first say that God’s wrath wasn’t on the Jews and then admit that it was/would be if they “disobeyed the Passover requirements.”

The other three times you seemed to positively identify wrath were these:

“The Israelites in large numbers turned to idolatry and God wrath was against them (v.3), not just the people in the tent. God sent a plague killing thousands, but because of Phinehas' zeal God's wrath against the whole Israelites was appeased and the plague stopped (i.e. not all the guilty were killed).”
“In the case of Moses making atonement in Deut 9, my opponent objects that the word “atonement” doesn't appear, only the turning away of wrath. This, to me, is weak, especially considering how much turning away God's wrath plays into atonement. In Num 25:10-13, turning away wrath is clearly equivalent to atonement.”
“In the case of Moses and Num 16:42-49, atonement and turning away wrath – by good works - is clearly stated. My opponent says this was simply God showing mercy, with no satisfaction, but that is contradicted by the plain reading of the text (eg “atonement”).”

So my question to you is to explain your definition of wrath, such that while Scripture seems to explain wrath as being expressed (among other things) by people dying (as seen in the examples the follow), somehow Jesus’ death (and the deaths of the animals sacrificed under the Old Testament administration) cannot be an expression of him bearing the penalty that God’s wrath against sin incurs. Note, this is not a question about whether or not such a view of the atonement would impact other issues of theology, or about anything except the definition of wrath within the context of this debate, from your perspective.

The Scriptural examples are these:

Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

Deuteronomy 1:34-36
34 And the LORD heard the voice of your words, and was wroth, and sware, saying, 35 Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers, 36 Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh; he shall see it, and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children, because he hath wholly followed the LORD.

Romans 1:18-32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

-TurretinFan

Phatcatholic Answers to Audience Questions

1. Dan asks:

Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems that none of the quotations you have provided would be considered, by Catholic standards, an infallible affirmation of the resolution. Nor do they seem to quote an infallible authority as a “principle that informs the practice” in support of the resolution. If that’s correct, please explain the relative weight the quotations have on this debate?

When you say, "the quotations," I'm assuming you mean the quotations from the early Church, or from more recent authors about the early Church. Now, I realize that none of the works from which these quotations were taken are "infallible", per se, but I also don't think that's anything I need to worry about. You don't need the charism of infallibility in order to make a true statement, and, infallible or not, these works show that the use of holy water against demonic activity was neither "innovative," nor was it an invention of the Middle Ages. That was my purpose for using them, and I think they serve that purpose.

I could have used infallible sources of Catholic doctrine, such as papal encyclicals or conciliar statements, but I'm afraid these hold little weight with Protestants. As such, there's no point in even bringing them in.

2. Ken asks:

How do Christians know when demonic activity is the cause of a problem?

Well, I'm no expert on this matter, but Fr. Gabriele Amorth, senior exorcist for the Diocese of Rome, mentions some indicators in his book An Exorcist Tells His Story. I constructed the following list based on the chapter entitled, "The Point of Departure":

• head and stomach are most commonly effected; symptoms include:
• headaches that are severe and unresponsive to medication
• sudden inability to learn and to concentrate
• ability to speak or understand unknown languages perfectly
• ability to know the hidden and the remote
• ability to demonstrate a superhuman physical strength
• strange and violent behavior
• an aversion to the sacred
• usually prayerful people stop praying
• stop going to church and become full of rage
• suddenly blaspheme often and act violently against sacred images
• asocial behavior, such as anger against relatives or acquaintances
• many types of bizarre behavior
• As for the stomach, usually there are acute and piercing pains for which no cure can be found
• many times the patient and his relatives hear strange noises, footsteps in the hallway, doors opening and closing, objects that disappear and reappear in the most unlikely places, and banging against furniture and walls.
• possession is also evidenced by some profound answers, especially when given by children

Apparently, the official Roman Ritual for Exorcism lists several others. My understanding is that any combination of the above symptoms can be present, and not necessarily all at the same time.

For more on this, I highly suggest the book previously mentioned, as well as the follow-up, An Exorcist: More Stories.

3. Gene asks:

Much of your evidence about holy water’s efficacy relates to the use of holy water in exorcisms, but Roman Catholic exorcists seem insistent that many other aspects of the ritual are vitally important: particularly prayers and precise wordings must be used, Latin is strongly preferred, and one has to have a validly ordained priest. In fact, typically they only permit others to perform “deprecatory” exorcisms, in which one prays to God or his saints/angels for help. In view of this, is it fair to say that it takes a lot more than holy water to stop demons?

Yes, and sometimes it doesn't take holy water at all. After all, Jesus said that some demons are only cast out by prayer and fasting (cf. Mt 17:21, KJV). Sometimes it only takes an adjuration in the name of Jesus Christ, which is how it was most often done in the early Church. I never presented holy water as the panacea, or cure-all for demonic activity. My purpose was only to show that it can be effective.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Answers from TurretinFan to Audience Questions

Thanks to Stephen, Rich, and Paul for their questions. I've reproduced the Questions and placed the answers after each question. Since this is my last post of the debate, I wanted to take the opportunity to thank PhatCatholic for his kindness both in and out of the debate.

Question #1 (by Stephen):

• Is approaching some sort of middle ground not possible?
  
  If both sides acknowledge
1. that faith is the primary reason for the repulsion and expulsion of the demon (I include all evil spirits in that term), and
2. the biblical evidence shows that water does have some definite symbolic value, and
3. "God uses the things of the created order to produce supernatural effects in our lives"

then is it possible for both sides to agree on this:

• When a Catholic uses holy water in such a way, his faith empowers it, and the water acts as a visible and effective manifestation of that faith, while when a Protestant (or Catholic, for that matter) omits the water, the faith remains sufficient without the visible manifestation of it?

Response to Stephen:

Stephen, I appreciate your attempt to conciliate. I’m not sure whether “holy water” being merely a physical manifestation of faith would mesh with PhatCatholic’s arguments. It would seem to clash by evacuating any intrinsic effectiveness from holy water, and would seem to essentially acknowledge that holy water itself is ineffective at stopping demonic forces, since it would be faith operating through the water. Let’s suppose, though, that it does mesh somehow.

Nevertheless, I don’t think we’d have arrived at your suggested proposition. The reason I don’t think we’d arrive there, is that we haven’t found a reason to believe that God does actually operate that way. I think it’s fair to say that God could act that way, just as he did – in essence – bestow supernatural powers on the water of the Jordan River. But there is simply no Scriptural or even Patristic reason to suppose that God does act that way.

In other words, there’s nothing to make the two sides of the argument connect. The fact that God could act a certain way does not mean that he does. The lack of Scriptural basis is enough for me to reject the practice of Holy Water, and the lack of Patristic evidence ought to compel, I believe, modern Catholics to acknowledge that the practice is an innovation, and not an apostolic practice.

Question #2 (by Rich):

• My question has to do with your distinction of "Special Miracles". When I first read that argument in particular, my initial response was: "Is it even possible to have a non-special miracle?" The idea of an "ordinary miracle" is, I think, a bit laughable. I think this terminology is misleading, as miracles are all manifestations of the grace of God. Therefore, I don't think we can really get away with putting those cures via shadows or touching of tassels as a whole separate category. No, I think they're better branded as different manifestations of divine grace, and the lack of healing via shadows can simply be explained by the fact that the gifts of the Spirit no longer manifest themselves in that specific way. Otherwise, you seem to be guilty of the same type of fault of which you accuse PC: namely, when an act of divine grace supports your argument, it gets lumped in with the "regular miracles", and if not, then it's "special" and receives the brand "discontinued." Do you agree?
  
  (PS: If the answer to this is no, then I'd like to see the Biblical proof that "all miracles are equal, but some miracles are more equal than others.)

Response to Rich:

I was using Chrysostom’s and Scripture’s terminology when referring to “special miracles.” Acts 19:11 states: And God wrought special (Vulgate: non quaslibet; Greek: ου τας τυχουσας) miracles by the hands of Paul. So, if you need Biblical proof for the word “special” and for the application of that word to the handkerchief/apron miracles of Paul, then there you have it. I was not resting on a distinction between “special” and some other category of miracles.

One can try to explain away the absence of sensational Christian miracles as in the times of the apostles, or one can acknowledge with Chrysostom that miracle cures and the like have ceased. Frankly, that particular battle is an aside. Even if Chrysostom was grievously wrong about his history (and PhatCatholic has not offered us any reason to contradict Chyrsostom), we would not therefore conclude that “Holy Water” is effective at stopping demonic forces.

The reason I brought up Chrysostom’s testimony was to demonstrate that many superstitions arose after his day. Chrysostom is one of the three most respected teachers of the Eastern Orthodox church, and is considered a saint and doctor of the Roman Catholic church. The “New Advent” encyclopedia, for example, sates that he is: “generally considered the most prominent doctor of the Greek Church and the greatest preacher ever heard in a Christian pulpit.” (source) He died in 407, thus making him the earliest voice (aside from Scripture) heard in this debate.

Question #3 (by Paul)

• At Lv. 16 the Lord dictates the manner in which the Atonement ritual was to be performed. At Lev. 16:26 , we see that the Lord commanded the priest who made the offering of the scapegoat to Azazel to wash his garments and bathe his body in water immediately afterwards before he could enter the camp. Who was Azazel and why did God require the priest to bathe in water before he could reenter the camp?

Response to Paul:

Leviticus 16:26 (KJV) And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp.

Leviticus 16:26 (Vulgate – old and Clementine) ille vero qui dimiserit caprum emissarium lavabit vestimenta sua et corpus aqua et sic ingredietur in castra

Leviticus 16:26 (Septuagint) καὶ ὁ ἐξαποστέλλων τὸν χίμαρον τὸν διεσταλμένον εἰς ἄφεσιν πλυνεῖ τὰ ἱμάτια καὶ λούσεται τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ὕδατι καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὴν παρεμβολήν.

You’ll notice that none of the English, Latin, or Greek mention this “Azazel” that Paul mentions. Thus, the reader may think, what is Paul thinking? But in Hebrew:

Leviticus 16:26 (Masoretic) והמשׁלח את־השׂעיר לעזאזל יכבס בגדיו ורחץ את־בשׂרו במים ואחרי־כן יבוא אל־המחנה׃

… there it is “לעזאזל” plain as day!

Why the discrepancy? Azazel is the Hebrew word for scapegoat, from Az (goat) + azel (that goes). Thus, in Latin, English, and Greek it gets translated into a suitable word or phrase. William Tyndale, a Reformed Christian and martyr for the faith, invented the word “scapegoat” (a hybrid of “escape” and “goat”) specifically for this particular animal. He invented the word in the course of translating the Bible into English so as to provide the first printed English Bible.

Apparently Paul has a translation that would rather not use Tyndale’s word “scapegoat” and prefers instead “goat for Azazel,” (Darby’s) or “goat to Azazel” (New Jerusalem Bible) (cf. Nova Vulgata: “26 Ille vero, qui dimiserit caprum emissarium ad Azazel, lavabit vestimenta sua et corpus aqua et postea ingredietur in castra.” words not in previous Vulgates shown with emphasis) I’m speculating a bit about how Paul got there, but it seems a fair guess.

Paul’s taken it a step further by suggesting that the scapegoat was offered. Instead, the text states:

Leviticus 16:22 (KJV) And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

The goat was let go, it was released, in a deserted area. This symbolized the separation of the sins from the people. The sins (placed on the goats by laying hands on the goats head) were in a place where none of the people were, and consequently, God’s judgment for the guilt of those sins would not come on the people.

The “goat for Azazel,” aka the scapegoat, was a symbol or “type” of Christ, who was carried outside the city walls of Jerusalem to bear our sins in our place. It is he who bore our judgment in our place. Our sins were laid upon him. He is our scapegoat, and is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament sacrifices.

The man who led the goat into the wilderness was simply “a fit man” (see vs. 21). One might expect the man to be a priest, but there was no Mosaic requirement that he be a priest.

Scripture does not explicitly give a reason, in this instance, for why the man must wash. It seems reasonable to infer from the remainder of the Old Testament system that the reason for the washing was to symbolize ceremonially uncleanness of the man because of his contact with the sin-bearing scapegoat. That uncleanness, the guilt of sin, needed to stay outside the camp so that the camp would be clean in God’s sight. So, before the man returned to the camp, he had to wash himself and his clothes.

Audience Questions for Turretinfan

First, I want to apologize for the delay in giving you your questions. I knew I was supposed to post them yesterday, but I got busy and then I forgot all about it. I give you my word that I didn't read any of the questions you posted for me before I wrote this.

That said, I'm afraid that none of these questions are short and sweet, but here ya go:

Question #1 (by Stephen):

• Is approaching some sort of middle ground not possible?
  
  If both sides acknowledge
  1. that faith is the primary reason for the repulsion and expulsion of the demon (I include all evil spirits in that term), and
  2. the biblical evidence shows that water does have some definite symbolic value, and
  3. "God uses the things of the created order to produce supernatural effects in our lives"
  then is it possible for both sides to agree on this:
  • When a Catholic uses holy water in such a way, his faith empowers it, and the water acts as a visible and effective manifestation of that faith, while when a Protestant (or Catholic, for that matter) omits the water, the faith remains sufficient without the visible manifestation of it?

Question #2 (by Rich):

• My question has to do with your distinction of "Special Miracles". When I first read that argument in particular, my initial response was: "Is it even possible to have a non-special miracle?" The idea of an "ordinary miracle" is, I think, a bit laughable. I think this terminology is misleading, as miracles are all manifestations of the grace of God. Therefore, I don't think we can really get away with putting those cures via shadows or touching of tassels as a whole separate category. No, I think they're better branded as different manifestations of divine grace, and the lack of healing via shadows can simply be explained by the fact that the gifts of the Spirit no longer manifest themselves in that specific way. Otherwise, you seem to be guilty of the same type of fault of which you accuse PC: namely, when an act of divine grace supports your argument, it gets lumped in with the "regular miracles", and if not, then it's "special" and receives the brand "discontinued." Do you agree?
  
  (PS: If the answer to this is no, then I'd like to see the Biblical proof that "all miracles are equal, but some miracles are more equal than others.)

Question #3 (by Paul)

• At Lv. 16 the Lord dictates the manner in which the Atonement ritual was to be performed. At Lev. 16:26 , we see that the Lord commanded the priest who made the offering of the scapegoat to Azazel to wash his garments and bathe his body in water immediately afterwards before he could enter the camp. Who was Azazel and why did God require the priest to bathe in water before he could reenter the camp?

With some of these it's a little hard to pick out what the question is, but I didn't really know the best way to revise them so I just gave you the whole thing and you can respond to it in the best way you see fit. I hope that's ok.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Audience Questions for PhatCatholic

1. Dan asks:

Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems that none of the quotations you have provided would be considered, by Catholic standards, an infallible affirmation of the resolution. Nor do they seem to quote an infallible authority as a “principle that informs the practice” in support of the resolution. If that’s correct, please explain the relative weight the quotations have on this debate?

2. Ken asks:

How do Christians know when demonic activity is the cause of a problem?

3. Gene asks:

Much of your evidence about holy water’s efficacy relates to the use of holy water in exorcisms, but Roman Catholic exorcists seem insistent that many other aspects of the ritual are vitally important: particularly prayers and precise wordings must be used, Latin is strongly preferred, and one has to have a validly ordained priest. In fact, typically they only permit others to perform “deprecatory” exorcisms, in which one prays to God or his saints/angels for help. In view of this, is it fair to say that it takes a lot more than holy water to stop demons?

Call for Audience Questions

I realize some audience members have submitted questions either at my blog or backchannel to me by email. If there are any further questions that people desire to ask, they need to be submitted by the end of the day on January 31, 2008.

There is a word limit on the questions (100 words), and it would be preferable if the question was clearly directed to either PhatCatholic or TurretinFan.

If you'd like, you can submit the questions via the comments box for this post, although I will end up posting any questions in a new post.

As previously agreed, if the number of questions exceeds 5, PC will pick 3 and TF will pick 2 of the questions to be answered.

Orthodox - Rebuttal to List One

Reformed Christians would side procedurally with Basil’s opponents here, and agree with them that the Christian practice is to provide written proof

Francis lectures Basil that the "Christian practice" is to provide written proof. Okay Francis, provide us with the written proof of sola scriptura. Oh, but Francis already conceded that the apostles neither taught nor practiced sola scriptura. Thus Francis cannot practice what he preaches.

since anyone can wave their hands and claim “unwritten tradition” as the support for their position.

Anyone can claim something in writing as authoritative as well I guess.

But claiming it and having the church believe it are very different matters.

a) Reformed Christians would point out how Gnostic-sounding this is. Secret mysteries hidden from the multitude and not given to the commoners are standard Gnostic fare.

Francis has already been refuted on this. Basil's example of a "secret" is part of the baptism service - something that is no secret at all for those in the church.

From an Orthodox point of view, all of protestantism "sounds" gnostic, in its pure emphasis on head knowledge.

Colossians 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints

Yes, to his saints.

Now, recall that Basil made analogy to debtors demanding written proof. It’s interesting that Basil should make this particular analogy. Perhaps in the time and place when Basil was writing, proof of debt was admitted based on oral testimony. In many places, however, that is no longer the case. Because it is so easy for creditors to fabricate oral testimony, many places have a “statute of frauds” that prevents the enforcement of debts contracted orally if the amount is large. And the same principle should be applied to these alleged traditions. Where there is no writing, there is abundant room for fabrication and mere allegations. Writings settle the matter.

Firstly, Francis' 21st century thoughts on what "settles the matter", is not a good argument for antiquity. Secondly, there is only room for fabrication where there are no witnesses. But where the witness is the whole church, this argument disappears. Thirdly, writings can be forged just as easily as oral stories. The only thing that stops written forgeries is the exact same thing that stops oral forgeries: the tradition and collective memory of the church. If you can't trust that, then you can't trust claims about who wrote scripture.

Every argument that works against oral tradition, works equally against written tradition. There is no escaping this fact.

We Reformed Christians would note that this “unbroken of sequence of memory” was a weak argument in Basil’s day (particularly considering that he himself noted a variety of practice). It’s much weaker today, so many more generations having elapsed. Human memories are fallible.

Again, if the unbroken sequence of memory is to be doubted, then so is the tradition about who wrote what book of scripture and whether it is authoritative or apostolic or not. There are no eyewitnesses to who wrote any of scripture. Even if you had the eyewitness, who are they that you should trust them? Maybe the eyewitness was the forger. All you have is the memory of those passing on an oral tradition much much later.

And just as Basil argues, if you're going to accept some things based on the oral tradition, why not the others? Basil's arguments are very cogent and applicable today.

I answer: The rebuttal is that Lucian simply does not understand Gnosticism. Certainly Gnosticism did produce writings. Those writings, however, were largely guarded from the outside world.

Francis has not answered Lucian's question and shown what the distinctive of gnosticism is
"Gnosis (γνῶσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'Gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on knowledge in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to mystical or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine. "

Gnosticism isn't merely knowing some secret someone else doesn't. It is about claiming a personal mystical experience. Kind of like how Francis claims that a personal experience of God is how we find out what the canon of scripture is. THAT is an experience that Gnosticism would relate to. Unless you have this personal mystical experience, you can't know what God's word is. From this launching pad of a personal revelation of what is from God, was launched all the other Gnostic writings. After all, if you yourself receive the revelation of what is from God, there is nothing in the way of adding all sorts of other writings.

There always have been and always will be fighting and divisions among Christians, until we are glorified in heaven.

And these divisions "Show who is approved" by God (1Cor. 11:19). So how has, oh say the dispute between baptists and presbyterians over baptism shown who is approved? It hasn't.

Lucian is referring to Islam which was founded around 150 years before the council of 754. That’s not “about the time” in any normal way of speaking.

But the Muslims icon smashing of churches started 3 years before the iconoclastic controversy.

The Jewish synagogues where the very early church would have met were not – from the historical records we have – icon-clad.

Umm, has Francis read Exodus lately?

Ex. 25:18 “You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat."

What is Francis' reference that the early synagogues had no icons?

Those who have done the research have concluded that "the early synagogues were embellished by paintings and mosaics".

TurretinFan - Rebuttals to List Two

Rebuttals to List Two

1. Godith’s comment regarding Presbyterians and images

Orthodox seems to be poorly versed in Presbyterian history. In any event, there is a world of difference between “Orthodoxy”’s use of icons and the modern (liberal) Presbyterians use of stained glass.

Orthodox follow up remark that the use of religious images is “all about interpretation” is rather facile. It’s perfectly clear that representations of God were forbidden in the Old Testament, and it is also perfectly clear that the prohibition was continued in the New Testament, despite the incarnation. The fact that people disagree is not a rebuttal to the clarity of the text, it's a testimony to the stubbornness of idolaters.

2. Jeff’s Question regarding the formal sufficiency of Scripture

Orthodox seems to have missed the question entirely on this one. Orthodox doesn’t address the question at all. Instead, Orthodox notes that Abraham had enough without Scripture. It’s too bad Orthodox didn’t take a crack at the actual question, which was a good one.

3. EM’s question regarding Orthodox’s alleged admission of a practice of believer’s baptism

I agree that EM misread Orthodox’s comment.

However, Orthodox also wrote: “Of course from my point of view, having two sola scripturalists fighting it out over infant baptism, is a help to my argument that it is ‘unworkable.’ Thanks for the help.” This is a rather untenable line of reasoning, since non-sola scripturalists fight things out among themselves as well. Indeed, Roman Catholics baptize infants differently than the Eastern Orthodox do.

4. Rhology’s question regarding the 7^th EC and whether it interacted with the Scriptural prohibitions on veneration and prayer to images

Orthodox responded: “Of course, we don't pray to images, we pray to Christ represented in the image.”

This is the claim of the Eastern Orthodox – and yet all that is represented is Christ’s humanity (it’s impossible to represent God), which is why the council of 754 decried the iconophiles as incarnation-deniers. Furthermore, the icons are actually prayed to, and venerated with various forms of worship including kissing, elevation, and so forth. Abundant superstitions surround the icons, even to the point of claiming that there are icons that exude holy oil, that cure sickness, and so forth.

Orthodox added: “If you use one of those video phones, do you talk to the phone, or do you talk to the person shown?”

The analogy would hold if the icons were actually capable of transmitting messages to the pictured people. They cannot, of course, which is why video phones are cool gadgets, while icons are superstitious nonsense.

Orthodox wrote: “It should be noted again that the iconoclasts were not against prayer to saints, veneration of saints, or veneration of holy items. That was not a matter that anyone disputed.”

There are many claims about what they were for and/or against. On the other hand, the iconophiles destroyed as much of the iconoclasts writings as possible, so unless we find a cache of hidden iconoclastic writings (besides the Bible), we may have trouble accurately presenting their position. In any event, the iconoclasts were chiefly opposed to the use of icons of Christ, as are we.

Orthodox wrote: “The most famous discussion of the issues contemporary with the 7th council, is of course the apology of St John of Damascus. This is, as one would imagine, full of discussion of the Holy Scripture as it applies to the topic of icons.”

This is Orthodox’s long way of answering: “no, the Seventh Council did not interact with Scripture.”

Orthodox also wrote: “This debate came out of a comment of John Chrysostom. Nobody in antiquity was a bigger proponent of reading the scriptures than he. Nobody knew the scriptures better than he. And yet he was an iconodule.”

I’m tired of this slander against John Chrysostom. “Orthodox” had his chance to try to demonstrate that John Chrysostom was an iconodule, and he came up empty, go back to his post (“Protestant Revision of History”) and check for yourself. None of those quotations (even if they were authentic, which itself is an open question) have John Chrysostom offering dulia to an icon.

5. Saint and Sinner’s comments quoting various historical demonstrations of the absence of icons in the early church, even from sources that might be expected to assert the presence of such icons

Orthodox wrote: “The first epistemological principle is that the Church preserves the true faith. A couple of quotes can't sway one from this.”

This is a great example of why the epistemology doesn’t work. It claims to be supported by the evidence, and to be based in objective evidence, but when the evidence turns out to be against it, it reduces to bare fideism: faith in the church.

Orthodox wrote: “Even a protestant must hold this principle. Think of the alternative, if the faith isn't preserved. Maybe scripture isn't preserved, either in its text or in its canon.”

Non sequitur. One can hold to the providential preservation of Scripture, without holding to the maintenance of error free Orthodoxy or Orthopraxy, just as one can hold to the providential preservation of a nation’s constitution, without holding to a view in the maintenance of laws consistent with that constitution.

Orthodox wrote: “What if we take (a) skepticism in the Church preserving the true faith, and combine it with (b) an early church quotation and (c) some silence in the historical record and perhaps (d) some conspiracy theories? What do we get? You get exactly what Basil was talking about shaking down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground.”

Basil was fond of bolstering his arguments with swelling words, and “Orthodox” seems mistakenly to have bought into the rhetoric. Basil’s point, furthermore, was not about the four-part combination Orthodox presents, but simply about what Basil felt was an unreasonable demand for written proof in a particular case. Nevertheless, it was a demand that Basil conceded to, and a demand that Basil attempted to meet by presenting Scripture.

Orthodox wrote: “No rule of faith can stand this radical skepticism, whether it be the canonicity of 2 Peter, 1 John, Revelation or the Pauline epistles, or the originality of the trinitarian formula, or anything else. If lack of clear evidence in the earliest strata is a problem, what of 2 Peter which doesn't appear in the extent evidence until AD 200 ? On the other hand, we have hard archiological evidence of icons in Christian churches and baptistries from AD 240. Are we going to quibble over 40 years? And there are frescos in the catacombs from the mid 2nd century too.”

Strong historical evidence that icons were a development, not an original practice, from sources that would be expected to favor icons as original, if that were the case, is hardly “radical skepticism.” Orthodox’s “hard [archaeological] evidence” is laughable: the “Dura-Europos” series worth reading more about, but the town is the exception, not the rule (see here, for example, http://www.janus.umd.edu/May2001/Stephanos/01.html). Finally, of course, while the house-churches may have been highly decorated, one doesn’t find icons of Christ, the icon that really stirs controversy. See more below about the alleged “frescos” in the “catacombs.”

But that won’t faze “Orthodox.” After all, the historical investigation is all a pretext, for it does not matter in the least what historical investigation shows: if it differs from what his church currently teaches, it must be wrong.

Orthodox continued: “As to these specific quotes, Minucius Felix actually lays out the Orthodox doctrine of icons nicely. The doctrine about icons isn't purely about painted pieces of wood, it is much wider. Everything can be an icon. All sorts of things in every day life are considered to be physical reminders or representations of spiritual realities. A priest for example is an icon of Christ (which is one reason he wears a beard, as Christ did). Christ was an icon of God (Heb 1:3, 2Cor 4:4, Col 1:15). Man is an icon of God (Ge 1:26, 1Cor 11:7). Christians are icons of Christ (1 Cor 15:49, Ro 8:29).”

All of those points are really red herrings. The iconoclasts were quick to point out that there was a primary icon of Christ already in the church: the Eucharist! That’s why a painted image was redundant, unnecessary, and unauthorized, in contrast to the authorized icon of the bread and wine. Oh yes, they are physical reminders, but they are not likenesses, just as the pascal lamb was a physical reminder, but not a likeness.

Orthodox continued: “So Felix says: "Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched." So when Felix sees a cross, or when he sees a man with arms outstretched, what he really sees is a crucifix. Even if Felix doesn't have more sophisticated painted icons, he is looking at the world in an orthodox fashion. He sees the image of spiritual realities sanctified in ordinary symbols and images. Whether he has actually solidified the image into wood and paint, hardly makes any theological difference.”

Surely anyone will recognize that this claim is preposterous? Hardly makes any theological difference? The primary purpose of calling the so-called Seventh Ecumenical Council was to overthrow the ecumenical council of the previous generation, so that wood and paint could be reintroduced! Hardly any difference? Bah.

Orthodox continued: “Now if, per chance, Christians of that era didn't have images as we now know them, what of it? What if Christians in that particular place and time didn't have painted temples and altars and painted images either because of persecution, or some other reason. What of it. The Orthodox world view is still evident in Felix's thinking. He is venerating the crucifix he sees in everyday things, the Christ with his arms outstretched.”

What of it? “Orthodox” thinks that we can acknowledge that icons were an innovation, and that the legend of the icon-made-without-hands is a superstitious lie, and yet it makes no difference? Surely “Orthodox” should reconsider. After all, if icons were innovated, what else in the liturgy was innovated, and the sweater unravels until we see that “Orthodoxy” is wearing the Emporer’s clothes.

Orthodox wrote: “Still, I don't see the need to assume Felix's experience is standard for all Christians. That they lacked temples then due to the circumstances of persecution doesn't stop even baptists from having temples. And again, as we saw in the debate, Presbyterians have icons, and they have a lot of them. Where is the controversy? Does Francis wish to excommunicate his fellow Westminster Confession following Presbyterians?”

The claim that “Presbyterians have icons, and they have a lot of them,” is the sort of bogus historical claim that gets folks into trouble. Surely some liberal Presbyterians have abandoned the Westminster Standards view on representations of Christ, but it is abundantly clear that the historical Presbyterian churches all uniformly rejected visual representations of Christ for use in worship. While some theologically liberal Presbyterian churches may have incorporated representations of Christ in stained glass (mostly starting towards the beginning of the 20th century), even they did not incorporate those images into worship, venerate those images, or treat those images anything like the way that Catholicism and “Orthodoxy” treat icons.

Orthodox: “Concerning Epiphanius, the church has long felt this work to be spurious, at least since the time of the 7th council. (See John of Damascus' apology) How reasonable this is, I don't know. Long have debates raged about the authenticity of documents, both the canonical books, and others, both in antiquity and today. While nobody is completely off the hook from making their own assessment of such things, I personally want to give the church the benefit of the doubt when the authenticity has been questioned.”

See above. The issue, of course, is not whether the work is spurious (i.e. whether it has been ascribed to its true author), but whether it is ancient. It clearly is ancient. That has never been questioned, and given John of Damscus’ apology, how could it be questioned?

Orthodox wrote: “Concerning Origen, who comments on Christians AND Jews "avoiding images" and "not praying to them". Origen lived in Alexandria till the mid third century, 254 AD. On the other hand, as was mentioned in the debate, we have Christian icons in Alexandrian catacombs from the mid third century depicting Mary with Christ child. And Dura-Europos, also from the mid third century, not too far from Origen, contained many images in both Jewish and Christian temples.”

This is an example of historical revisionism. A single image tentatively dated to the mid-third century in an underground catacomb (during a time when Christians were not persecuted), and whose identification with Mary depends on an inscription that is “Hagia Maria” not “Theotokos” or “Christokos” or the “Virgin Mary” or anything like that, becomes “Christian icons in Alexandrian catacombs.” The painting is a straw that a desperate mind will grasp.

Orthodox wrote: “So the question is whether Origen draws the distinction that modern Orthodox do, between pagans, having images as deities, and praying TO blocks of wood, compared to the Jewish and Christians who also have images, but images of things real, the saviour, the saints. Well it seems reasonable to me that we should not try and make the fathers and archeology contradict each other. Obviously the Jews did NOT avoid images, as we see in both Exodus itself which commands images, or the factual evidence of Jewish synagogues from the period Origen was alive. As we know, Origen knew Hebrew better than anyone of the period. So do we assume Origen was completely ignorant of the Jews, or do we assume he distinguishes between the false deities in the images as used by pagans and images as used by Christians?”

Again, “Orthodox” revises the historical record. The “house-synagogue” at Dura-Europos is unique (not “synagogues”) and the fact that it contains any representations at all was unprecedented and was unexpected by archaeologists.

The better way of interpreting the evidence is that the town of Dura-Europos was an exception rather than the rule.

Orthodox wrote: “I know which way I want to go. And again, if real Christians "avoid images", as claimed, when is Francis going to disown Presbyterianism?”

Unlike “Orthodox” I don’t have to label everyone that errors in doctrine and practice (from my point of view) as not a “real Christian.” I have been clear that those Presbyterians that have strayed into the use of representations of Christ have strayed from Scripture and from the Westminster Standards.

6. Saint and Sinner noted that “Orthodox” in his “Show us the Canon” post had quoted from liberal and historical-critical writers.

Orthodox responded: “So a liberal or historical-critical scholar is basically someone who disagrees with you? So which of those was Jerome when he said that 2 John was not written by the apostle? Which of those was the Syrian church that didn't accept these books? Which of these was the Ethiopian church that had 1 Clement as scripture? Which of those was Athanasius who didn't have Esther as scripture?”

This abuse is unjustified. S&S provided an accurate characterization of the writers who were referenced, and probably a description that the writers themselves would not disagree with. The alleged mistakes of those that have gone before are a red herring, since they were not the ones cited.

Orthodox continued: “If one of these references can demonstrate that a book is God-breathed scripture, get back to me. In the mean time, I define liberals and historical-critical scholars are those who doubt the orthodox christian faith.”

That’s by no means a standard definition, or even a useful definition. Good scholarship has little to do with one’s religious beliefs.

7. L P Cruz noted that because tradition is self-correcting it is therefore fallible, and if fallible it is not inspired.

Orthodox’s response that tradition “is self-correcting in the sense that it can correct ambiguities,” is obviously a hasty retreat. The logical conclusion, though, is quite interesting: self-correcting tradition is really ever-growing tradition. You see, tradition in this generation can “correct” ambiguities from previous generations. Thus, tradition keeps building on itself. This is a totally different model from tradition that is handed down from the apostles.

So this hasty back-pedaling shows that the term “tradition” is being used equivocally. We can see that again when we look at the application of Vincent’s canon. How can the application of such a canon “correct ambiguities”? Of course, it cannot. In fact, any ambiguities in the generations of the fathers automatically prevent Vincent’s canon from being helpful. So we can see that the two (or more) kinds of tradition are not just equivocal, but they are at each other’s throats!

8. Benjamin asked to hear more about the three Johns and noted that one of his New Testament professors swears by 1 Clement’s canonical status.

Orthodox replied: “Benjamin, you are a presbyterian, and your professor says that 1 Clement is canonical scripture? All I can say is thanks for the help showing that sola scriptura doesn't work.”

This is a very odd statement, not only because many seminaries employ theological liberals, but because the Ethopians (who also swear by 1 Clement’s canonical status) are not Sola Scriptura folks.

9. Albert asked: “Can you tell us the doctrinal content of "traditions" in the context of Paul's Epistle? Thanks.”

Unfortunately, Orthodox failed to answer this question meaningfully. Instead, Orthodox wrote: “Traditions for Paul is everything taught by Jesus and the apostles whether in writing or by word of mouth. If you want to know what the full content of the apostolic tradition is, come and see Orthodoxy.”

On the contrary, if Paul were to walk into a modern Orthodox church, he’d think he had found himself in a Greek temple: gold everywhere, incense burning, candles burning, highly vested priests muttering, and so forth. When he realized that it was supposed to be a church, he’d be scandalized, and would not hesitate to tell folks what he thought.

And, of course, the bottom line is that “Orthodox” cannot tell you what the doctrinal content of the “traditions” mentioned in Paul’s Epistle was, except for those actually mentioned in the epistle. Whatever they were, though, they were not the ambiguity-correcting sifting process that “Orthodox” also likes to call “tradition,” and they were not the churches of Paul’s day always getting things right and never straying from the truth.

Orthodox - Answers to List Three

I Cor. 11:19--For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

A fitting Reformation Day (almost) posting.

I can do no better than quote Barnes commentary on 1 Cor 11:19. Those who create disputes in the church where previously there was none, show themselves not approved by God.

"The effect of divisions and separations would be to show who were the friends of order, and peace, and truth. It seems to have been assumed by Paul, that they who made divisions could not be regarded as the friends of order and truth; or that their course could not be approved by God. The effect of these divisions would be to show who they were. So in all divisions, and all splitting into factions, where the great truths of Christianity are held, and where the corruption of the mass does not require separation, such divisions show who are the restless, ambitious, and dissatisfied spirits; who they are that are indisposed to follow the things that make for peace, and the laws of Christ enjoining union; and who they are who are gentle and peaceful, and disposed to pursue the way of truth, and love, and order, without contentions and strifes. This is the effect of schisms in the church; and the whole strain of the argument of Paul is, to reprove and condemn such schisms, and to hold up the authors of them to reproof and condemnation. "

Basically, tradition lead to spiritual dyslexia, whereby the person reading the Scriptures is unable to see the text as it actually is.

The text "as it actually is" can withstand a variety of interpretations, as Vincent explained.

should we revise our bibles so as to add the heretical creeds of men with the same unscriptual acceptance of unfounded traditions that should be accpted because a majority claims it is truth or should we stick to scripture alone?


A false dichotomy. Heretical creeds and unfounded traditions vs scripture alone. Scripture itself is a tradition whose knowledge is based on "majority claims" as you put it.


By the way,would we be wrong in doing so?

Well for a start, without the extra-scriptural traditions, you have no canon of scripture.

For another, as Vincent explained, everybody has a different interpretation of scripture.

Orthodox - Answers to List Two

You may find it interesting that many reformed churches are going over to images and using them in various ways

Going over? You make it sound like a new thing, but there are tons of old Anglican, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches with stained glass icons.

would you have God lessen the commandments simply because people break them?

The same book of Exodus that says to have no graven image also says to put images of the Cherubim in the temple. The same man who wrote the book carried around a staff with a snake's head. It's all about interpretation. In any case, when you start keeping the Saturday Sabbath as the law commands, get back to me.

Do you believe that Holy Scripture contains all the doctrines we must believe to be saved or do you believe we must know and believe other doctrines outside of and distinct from the bible to be saved?

Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. And he didn't even have Holy Scripture.

I don't think that means we ought not follow Holy Scripture.

You just admitted that the church practiced beleiver's baptism up to the second century.

No I didn't. The point was that even protestants such as Francis would admit that many of these things were in place in the 2nd century.

Of course from my point of view, having two sola scripturalists fighting it out over infant baptism, is a help to my argument that it is "unworkable". Thanks for the help.

On this post, I'd like to know if Orthodox knows whether the 7th Council interacted with Scriptural psgs that would seem to proscribe the veneration of and prayer to images.

Of course, we don't pray to images, we pray to Christ represented in the image. If you use one of those video phones, do you talk to the phone, or do you talk to the person shown? It should be noted again that the iconoclasts were not against prayer to saints, veneration of saints, or veneration of holy items. That was not a matter that anyone disputed.

The most famous discussion of the issues contemporary with the 7th council, is of course the apology of St John of Damascus. This is, as one would imagine, full of discussion of the Holy Scripture as it applies to the topic of icons.

This debate came out of a comment of John Chrysostom. Nobody in antiquity was a bigger proponent of reading the scriptures than he. Nobody knew the scriptures better than he. And yet he was an iconodule.

Saint and Sinner quotes some apparently iconoclastic people from the early church

The first epistemological principle is that the Church preserves the true faith. A couple of quotes can't sway one from this.

Even a protestant must hold this principle. Think of the alternative, if the faith isn't preserved. Maybe scripture isn't preserved, either in its text or in its canon.

What if we take (a) skepticism in the Church preserving the true faith, and combine it with (b) an early church quotation and (c) some silence in the historical record and perhaps (d) some conspiracy theories? What do we get?

You get exactly what Basil was talking about shaking down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground.

No rule of faith can stand this radical skepticism, whether it be the canonicity of 2 Peter, 1 John, Revelation or the Pauline epistles, or the originality of the trinitarian formula, or anything else. If lack of clear evidence in the earliest strata is a problem, what of 2 Peter which doesn't appear in the extent evidence until AD 200 ? On the other hand, we have hard archiological evidence of icons in Christian churches and baptistries from AD 240. Are we going to quibble over 40 years? And there are frescos in the catacombs from the mid 2nd century too.

As to these specific quotes, Minucius Felix actually lays out the Orthodox doctrine of icons nicely. The doctrine about icons isn't purely about painted pieces of wood, it is much wider. Everything can be an icon. All sorts of things in every day life are considered to be physical reminders or representations of spiritual realities. A priest for example is an icon of Christ (which is one reason he wears a beard, as Christ did). Christ was an icon of God (Heb 1:3, 2Cor 4:4, Col 1:15). Man is an icon of God (Ge 1:26, 1Cor 11:7). Christians are icons of Christ (1 Cor 15:49, Ro 8:29).

So Felix says: "Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched."

So when Felix sees a cross, or when he sees a man with arms outstretched, what he really sees is a crucifix. Even if Felix doesn't have more sophisticated painted icons, he is looking at the world in an orthodox fashion. He sees the image of spiritual realities sanctified in ordinary symbols and images. Whether he has actually solidified the image into wood and paint, hardly makes any theological difference.

Now if, per chance, Christians of that era didn't have images as we now know them, what of it? What if Christians in that particular place and time didn't have painted temples and altars and painted images either because of persecution, or some other reason. What of it. The Orthodox world view is still evident in Felix's thinking. He is venerating the crucifix he sees in everyday things, the Christ with his arms outstretched.

Still, I don't see the need to assume Felix's experience is standard for all Christians. That they lacked temples then due to the circumstances of persecution doesn't stop even baptists from having temples. And again, as we saw in the debate, Presbyterians have icons, and they have a lot of them. Where is the controversy? Does Francis wish to excommunicate his fellow Westminster Confession following Presbyterians?

Concerning Epiphanius, the church has long felt this work to be spurious, at least since the time of the 7th council. (See John of Damascus' apology) How reasonable this is, I don't know. Long have debates raged about the authenticity of documents, both the canonical books, and others, both in antiquity and today. While nobody is completely off the hook from making their own assessment of such things, I personally want to give the church the benefit of the doubt when the authenticity has been questioned.

Concerning Origen, who comments on Christians AND Jews "avoiding images" and "not praying to them". Origen lived in Alexandria till the mid third century, 254 AD. On the other hand, as was mentioned in the debate, we have Christian icons in Alexandrian catacombs from the mid third century depicting Mary with Christ child. And Dura-Europos, also from the mid third century, not too far from Origen, contained many images in both Jewish and Christian temples.

So the question is whether Origen draws the distinction that modern Orthodox do, between pagans, having images as deities, and praying TO blocks of wood, compared to the Jewish and Christians who also have images, but images of things real, the saviour, the saints. Well it seems reasonable to me that we should not try and make the fathers and archeology contradict each other. Obviously the Jews did NOT avoid images, as we see in both Exodus itself which commands images, or the factual evidence of Jewish synagogues from the period Origen was alive. As we know, Origen knew Hebrew better than anyone of the period. So do we assume Origen was completely ignorant of the Jews, or do we assume he distinguishes between the false deities in the images as used by pagans and images as used by Christians?

I know which way I want to go. And again, if real Christians "avoid images", as claimed, when is Francis going to disown Presbyterianism?

You seem to only be reading commentaries written by liberals or other historical-critical scholars. Perhaps you should read conservative works as well to see how we address those problems.

So a liberal or historical-critical scholar is basically someone who disagrees with you? So which of those was Jerome when he said that 2 John was not written by the apostle? Which of those was the Syrian church that didn't accept these books? Which of these was the Ethiopian church that had 1 Clement as scripture? Which of those was Athanasius who didn't have Esther as scripture?

If one of these references can demonstrate that a book is God-breathed scripture, get back to me. In the mean time, I define liberals and historical-critical scholars are those who doubt the orthodox christian faith.

Tradition is self correcting and thus fallible, if it is fallible it is not inspired.

This was already addressed in a follow up to Francis. It is self-correcting in the sense that it can correct ambiguities.

Fascinating stuff. I would like to hear a more thorough examination of the the three Johns. One of my New Testament professors swears by 1 Clement's canonical status.

Benjamin, you are a presbyterian, and your professor says that 1 Clement is canonical scripture?

All I can say is thanks for the help showing that sola scriptura doesn't work.

Can you tell us the doctrinal content of "traditions" in the context of Paul's Epistle? Thanks.

Traditions for Paul is everything taught by Jesus and the apostles whether in writing or by word of mouth. If you want to know what the full content of the apostolic tradition is, come and see Orthodoxy.

TurretinFan - Answers to List Three

Answers to List Number 3

1. Dead Men Hold No Debates

Godith pointed out:
I Cor. 11:19--
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Godith makes an excellent point, and this verse should have been included in the original post. While heresy is itself a bad thing, it is a fact of life for true churches that they will have to deal with heresy from time to time.

2. Is Basil the Great Your Father?

Lucian asserted: “Yes, he is.” One wonders whether Lucian would have agreed with Basil about the procedure of not resting on tradition alone.

3. Is Athenasius [sic – as originally posted] your Father?

Lucian corrected the present author’s spelling of Athanasius’ name. Thanks Lucian.

4. No Strength in Numbers

Lucian provided the following list of alleged membership numbers:
Catholics are 1.2 Billion.
Protestants are 600 Million.
Orthodox are 250 Million.
Monophysites are 60 Million.

I don’t think that those numbers significantly affect the point of the post.

5. Moderator Note: Audience Comments
One anonymous commenter asserted that “this is a very disorganized debate”
Sadly, this is somewhat true. There is a roadmap post that tries to organize things, as well as a “sorting it out” sidebar. The ultimate solution would be to customize blogger a lot more than it currently is designed to be customized.

6. Moderator Note: Audience Comments

EgoMakarios wrote:

Basically, tradition lead to spiritual dyslexia, whereby the person reading the Scriptures is unable to see the text as it actually is. The Catholic reading in Matthew 1:25 that Joseph didn't know Mary "till she brought forth her firstborn son" reads in place of that "ever." The Protestant reading Colossians 2:12 that you are buried with Christ in baptism "in which you are also raised with Him" sees instead "in which is a mere symbol or prior spiritual resurrection." The paedobaptist reading the next portion of that same verse, that it is "by faith in the operation of God" reads instead "without faith in the operation of God." Their traditions blind them to what Scripture really says. Tradition causes spiritual dyslexia whereby they do not any longer see the words that appear in Scripture but rather see the words that would appear if their tradition were not a lie from Satan.

Actually, as much as I disagree with EM about some of the examples he provided, his basic point is correct. Our traditions (whether we make them a binding authority, as “Orthodox” does and as the RCC does; or whether we simply make them a assistant authority, as most of the rest of us do) can sometimes blind us, particularly if we are unaware that something is part of our tradition. You’d be surprised, perhaps, how many people are shocked to discover that there is no apple mentioned in the account of the fall of man.

7. Moderator Note: Audience Comments
Rhology commented: “Audience questions - good call.”

Thanks, Rhology!

8. Moderator Note: Audience Questions Closing
Manuel Culwell wrote: “should we revise our bibles so as to add the heretical creeds of men with the same unscriptual acceptance of unfounded traditions that should be accpted because a majority claims it is truth or should we stick to scripture alone? By the way,would we be wrong in doing so?”

a) No, we should not revise our Bibles to include creeds, heretical or not.
b) Majority is not the way to determine the truth, but the only time that kind of assertion has been made more or less explicit in this debate was in “Orthodox”’s discussion of the Great Schism: even Vincent’s near unanimity is not just a simple majority rule. As a practical matter, it seems that “Orthodox” and the commenter “Lucian” want to make acceptance of representations of God in worship a matter of majority rule, but Scripture stands in opposition.
c) Of course we would be wrong in doing so, because we are not divinely inspired to write Scripture.

TurretinFan - Answers to List One

Answers to List One - Questions for TurretinFan

1. Tradition and Basil

Jeff asked: “If you had the chance to respond to the Basil citations, what would you say? Or, what is the Protestant understanding here?”

Quotation 1:
"The one aim of the whole band of opponents and enemies of “sound doctrine”is to shake down the foundation of the faith of Christ by levelling apostolic tradition with the ground, and utterly destroying it. So like the debtors, — of course bona fide debtors. — they clamour for written proof, and reject as worthless the unwritten tradition of the Fathers." Basil the Great, Chapter X, Oration on the Holy Spirit,

Response:
Reformed Christians would side procedurally with Basil’s opponents here, and agree with them that the Christian practice is to provide written proof, since anyone can wave their hands and claim “unwritten tradition” as the support for their position. Basil makes fun of them by comparing them to debtors who come to court demanding that their creditors produce proof that the money is owed. We’ll see later whether Basil considers these folks Christians or not.

Quotation 2:
"In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity." Chapter XXVII, ibid

Response:
a) Reformed Christians would point out how Gnostic-sounding this is. Secret mysteries hidden from the multitude and not given to the commoners are standard Gnostic fare.

b) Furthermore, Scripture clearly contradicts Basil here, for Scripture clearly indicates that the apostles’ doctrines were preached openly. John’s writings are particularly strong as an antidote to Gnosticism. Or simply consider:

Colossians 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Acts 26:26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.

Hebrews 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

c) We would also note with a wry smile that if Basil were right, it would be impossible to use Vincent’s canon, unless the Apostles and Fathers simply did not do a very good job of keeping these secrets.

Quotation 3
"Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on “the mystery of godliness is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers; — which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches; — a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?" ibid

We Reformed Christians would note that it is interesting that Basil takes for granted that his opponents the alleged “whole band of opponents and enemies of sound doctrine” (from quotation 1 above) would agree with the confession of faith. In other words, these are not outsiders, but Christians with whom Basil is battling. Basil seems to think that his opponents’ resistance to the use of one particular preposition rather than another is senseless, to paraphrase: “Can’t they just accept that the different preposition has been used everywhere throughout Christendom (even in churches that have generally remained faithful) even if it is not from Scripture? But if the insist on using the exact words of Scripture, where will they find the whole confession of faith, or the details of various items of liturgy?” In other words, Basil is accusing his opponents of stretching the matter beyond its breaking point. If you are going to deny Basil the use of a preposition because a different preposition is used in Scripture, will you deny yourself words like Trinity, which are also not found ippisimus verbis in Scripture?

We would also note that it is interesting that the writings of Basil’s opponents have not been preserved, except in this way, by Basil’s own writings being preserved. It’s one of the problems of trying to make an historical investigation: sometimes only one half a controversy has been preserved.

Finally, we would note that this controversy between Basil and the other Christians of his day is something like the filioque controversy with respect to which the Greeks and Romans officially split. Of course, by that time, the parties were much further removed from the apostles, and so both sides could easily wave their hands and assert unbroken tradition going back to the fathers and apostles, while accusing the other side of improperly innovating or rejecting the apostolic tradition.

Quotation 4:
"Is answer to the objection that the doxology in the form “with the Spirit” has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” it is said, “that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;” and “Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.” One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If, as in a Court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our acquittal? I think so; for “at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established.” And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us? For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with a hoary antiquity. I will therefore give you a list of the supporters of the word (and the time too must be taken into account in relation to what passes unquestioned). For it did not originate with us. How could it? We, in comparison with the time during which this word has been in vogue, are, to use the words of Job, “but of yesterday.” I myself, if I must speak of what concerns me individually, cherish this phrase as a legacy left me by my fathers. It was delivered to me by one who spent a long life in the service of God, and by him I was both baptized, and admitted to the ministry of the church. While examining, so far as I could, if any of the blessed men of old used the words to which objection is now made, I found many worthy of credit both on account of their early date, and also a characteristic in which they are unlike the men of today — because of the exactness of their knowledge. Of these some coupled the word in the doxology by the preposition, others by the conjunction, but were in no case supposed to be acting divergently, — at least so far as the right sense of true religion is concerned." - Chapter XXIX ibid

Notice the camel’s nose argument: if this is the only unwritten thing that we accept as apostolic, throw it out: but if there are a host of such things, then you cannot kick this one out.

More relevantly to the topic, however, here Basil starts to point toward something similar to what Vincent is getting at, though clearly it is not quite the same thing. Basil says he surveyed all his spiritual predecessors and found that some used the preposition and some used the conjunction. He argues that he did not invent the preposition, and he claims that the preposition had apostolic authority. It’s Basil’s claim that in earlier generations both forms were used, and no one accused those using the preposition of heresy, so it must be ok, and not cause a loss of sense. It’s an intuitive argument, even if it lacks binding authority.

Basil makes reference to the court of law, but Basil’s analogy is a bit off. Yes, oral testimony is permitted in many things: but not as to the content of the law itself. That is to say, the law is written and speaks for itself. Witnesses are called as to factual matters: did the man kill the other? or is that Mr. Smith’s horse? Witnesses are not called as to legal matters.

Now, recall that Basil made analogy to debtors demanding written proof. It’s interesting that Basil should make this particular analogy. Perhaps in the time and place when Basil was writing, proof of debt was admitted based on oral testimony. In many places, however, that is no longer the case. Because it is so easy for creditors to fabricate oral testimony, many places have a “statute of frauds” that prevents the enforcement of debts contracted orally if the amount is large. And the same principle should be applied to these alleged traditions. Where there is no writing, there is abundant room for fabrication and mere allegations. Writings settle the matter.

Quotation 5:
"Had I not so done, it would truly have been terrible that the blasphemers of the Spirit should so easily be emboldened in their attack upon true religion, and that we, with so mighty an ally and supporter at our side, should shrink from the service of that doctrine, which by the tradition of the Fathers has been preserved by an unbroken sequence of memory to our own day." Chapter XXX ibid

We Reformed Christians would note that this “unbroken of sequence of memory” was a weak argument in Basil’s day (particularly considering that he himself noted a variety of practice). It’s much weaker today, so many more generations having elapsed. Human memories are fallible. If, perhaps, all Christians everywhere held to something we could say that it cannot be that we all have got it wrong, but Basil’s opponents’ easy answer is: then why is not in our memories? If the answer is that they are not part of elite initiated spiritual class, the “Gnostic” shoe fits Basil on this point.

But recall “Orthodox”’s solution: just deny the full Christianity of those outside your group.

2. Is Athanasius your Father?
Lucian had two comments which amounted to the same thing: Lucian questioned that the Gnostics alleged an unwritten Apostolic tradition (based on the dozens of Gnostic Apocryphal works).

I answer: The rebuttal is that Lucian simply does not understand Gnosticism. Certainly Gnosticism did produce writings. Those writings, however, were largely guarded from the outside world. Much of what we know about Gnostic writings comes from recovery of secret stashes of Gnostic writings, and the writings of a few early fathers against Gnosticism.

In some (perhaps most) cases, the Gnostics invented these writings (such as the apocryphal gospels and epistles) long after the Apostles had died. They tried to answer Christian objections to the sudden appearance of these works by alleging that they had been transmitted orally in secret.


3. Chained to a Wall
Lucian quoted my words: “the historic Christian approach, as evidenced by the Bereans in Scripture.”

Lucian responded: “YET, according to Your own belief, You perpetually deny what You just now affirmed (You rather think that the historic Christian consensus, "unfortunately", didn't follow the example and teachings of Scripture). -- Why are You self-conflicting here?”

I answer: The problem here is an inability on Lucian’s part to read carefully. For some reason when Lucian hears the words “historic Christian” he starts imagining the propaganda put forth by Rome and others about Christianity having a single homogeneous view of doctrine through all the ages.

In fact, the historic Christian approach is to compare doctrine to Scripture. Do Christians always get it right? Of course we do not. We are human, after all. What do we see when we turn to most of the Fathers and early Christian writers? We seem the immersed in Scripture, and we see them developing their doctrines and correcting the doctrines of others from there. We see Christians challenging other Christians to prove things from Scripture. Sometimes we see misinterpretations, but that is to be expected because humans are involved.

We don’t accept Lucian’s imagined “historic Christian consensus.” There always have been and always will be fighting and divisions among Christians, until we are glorified in heaven.

Furthermore, we acknowledge that not all Christians have consistently followed the practice of according Scripture primacy. Because we do not imagine a fairytale castle of “historic Christian consensus” we can comfortably admit that a few “fathers” or even many “fathers” disagreed.

4. Mockery of Spirit’s Testimony a Red Herring
Lucian quoted my words: “It feels like persuasion, conviction of fact.”

Lucian asked: “Have You been reading much of Malcolm X lately, ... or ?”

I answer: I’ve never read the man and from the reviews I’ve seen I have no plans to do so. It was a silly question, and it got an appropriate answer.

5. The Council of 754
Lucian commented: “Anyone can call himself anything: that's not a problem, believe me. The problem is if there're also people to bear witness to the truth of those sayings, for anyone who testifies of himself is a liar. The Fathers are (by definition) the masculine element of the equation: they "give" of themselves the "seed" of God's Word (Matthew 13; Mark 4; Luke 8). The Church is the feminine element: she "receives". -- have their [rejected] teachings been "received" by the people of God, the pillar and foundation of all truth?”

I answer: Your metaphor is contra-Scriptural. The Scriptural metaphor is that Christ is the groom and the church (all Christians) is the bride. He is the vine, we are the branches. He is the shepherd we are the sheep. There is a sense in which the elders (all elders, not just those of yesteryear) are shepherds as well. Like Peter, they are under-shepherds of Christ and feed the flock on His behalf. But they do not offer themselves, but Christ to the people. They do not give of themselves, and their gospel is not their own.

The truth is objective, not subjective. Whether the truth is received or rejected is important only to the status of the subject. The stone that the builders rejected has become the head cornerstone. The Jewish nation was the church of God until Pentecost, and yet clearly the truth of Gospel was in now way dependent on the acceptance of the truth by the people of Israel. The nation of Israel was condemned for its unbelief, and such is the fate of all bodies of men who reject the truth, whether they call themselves Christian or not. As Lucian correctly noted, “anyone can call himself anything.” Indeed, Jesus Himself cautioned that there will be many who will say “Lord, Lord,” but will not enter into heaven.

Lucian continued: “Apropos corruption of dogma via foreign, pagan influences: guess what foreign, pagan religion appeared on the face of the earth about the time the iconoclasts had their way with the Orthodox?”

Lucian is referring to Islam which was founded around 150 years before the council of 754. That’s not “about the time” in any normal way of speaking. Furthermore, the original iconophiles (who persecuted the iconoclasts and burnt the historical documentation against icons) tended to accuse the iconoclasts of being Judaizers, not Muslims. Historical revisionism, it seems, is favored not only by the iconophiles but their spiritual descendents.

Lucian quoted my words: “We've already established the relative paucity of early priests and doctors affirming the use of icons in worship”

Lucian responded: “Why? ... has anyone by any chance denied icons? ONE example?”

I answer: It’s vain to look for rejection of the practice before the practice existed, except among the works of the prophets. You will find it there in John’s epistles.

Lucian also quoted my words: “(you could only identify a small handful of alleged teachers of the doctrine, while you acknowledge that there were dozens of doctors and thousands upon thousands of priests).”

Lucian asked: “So? Name at least ONE that said anything to the contrary.”

I answer: Lucian seems to miss the point. Let’s be clear. Vincent’s canon does not call for acceptance of doctrines that simply lacked debate in the early church. Vincent’s canon calls for acceptance of doctrines that were believed by all or nearly all of the folks in the early church.

Let me illustrate with a reduction to absurdity:

Suppose we dug up the library of an obscure and long-perished monastery in some desert region and found 100 witnesses (apparently from various writers – some bearing the names of “fathers” of the church – collected in a small library) testifying to a view that Mary’s mother was immaculately conceived and bodily assumed, and also testifying that when Jesus spoke he frequently lisped. We cannot find any early fathers who contradict either of those views.

Do we therefore automatically accept those writings as presenting the correct view? Of course we would not. Would such documents pass Vincent’s test? Of course they would not. Vincent’s test is not about finding uncontradicted views, but about finding the unanimous or nearly unanimous views. Twenty-five (even if that number were accurate, which it is not – and even if we could be sure of the authenticity of the writings, which we cannot) is not nearly unanimous.

Lucian continued: “Christ Himself said: if these will shut up, the stones will speak for them: name to me at least ONE un-decorated, un-icon-clad Church building found among the ruins of ancient Christian cities. -- doesn't common-semse tell You that all these "thousands upon thousands" of priests had to serve SOMEWHERE (I mean, they're priests, right?) -- so why weren't they shocked and horrified by the presence of "all za colours" on the Church-walls?”

I answer:

a) It’s pretty well known that church buildings were a later development of Christianity. You cannot very conveniently have church buildings when you are under intense persecution. The Jewish synagogues where the very early church would have met were not – from the historical records we have – icon-clad. The pagan temples, however, were.

b) It’s fairly obvious that only the temple-like buildings are going to survive in ruins for extended periods of time. In other words, an undecorated wooden hall is not going to be a recognizable church after 100 years of lying in ruins. Thus, the analysis employs the statistical fallacy of filtering.

c) There are not a particularly large number of ruined ancient churches to analyze.

d) The ruined ancient churches we can analyze are mostly post 7th EC anyhow.

Lucian concluded: “P.S.: passages from works directed against paganism don't particularilly impress us. Try something else for a change... OK?”

I answer: You engage in the practice of pagans, worshipping idols, so you should expect to hear from the passages of works that are directed to your pagan practices.