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.

Phatcatholic Concluding Statement

Let's begin by listing the various holes and omissions that weaken tfan's defense of the negative position:

• No response to my proof that he exagerated when he said, "the passage cited by PC does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions."



• No response to my argument that the anonymity of the author of the Apostolic Constitutions does not itself discredit the statements found therein.



• Nowhere in our cross-examination did he show that the casting out of devils that Bede reports was due to the soil instead of water. Tfan asserted that they were cast out by soil, I told him why they weren't, and he simply repeated his position instead of refuting my answer.



• No response to me when I said that the way in which the water became holy was irrelevant.

We see from this that tfan has done nothing to discredit either the Apostolic Constitutions or Bede's Ecclesiastical History as witnesses from the early Church of the effectiveness of holy water against demons. Keep this in mind whenever you read from him that I didn't provide any evidence from the early Church.

The holes don't stop there:

• No Scripture passage provided that either explicitly or implicitly rejects the use of holy water against demons.



• No response to the proof I provided against his assertion that "special miracles" ceased after the Apostolic period.



• In his haste to disagree with me he contradicted himself on this point, denying that holy things can be effective against demons (here) after he had affirmed the effectivneness of soil (here).



• When I pointed out the irrelevancy of his statement, "'unclean' is simply a figure of speech for the fact that they are evil," I again received no response.



• When I showed that it could just as easily be the holiness of Jesus' name that expels demons as it could be the authority of it....you guessed it, nothing.



• When I explained the exceptions in which the devil and his demons are allowed to be in the presence of holiness, he simply called this a "fall-back position" without actually refuting it.

Note, regarding that last point, that when I said, "Demons are rightly repulsed by anything that is holy," I was speaking normatively, which is just common sense. If we tried to include every single exception whenever we spoke affirmatively, it would take us forever to actually say anything. So, my later statements regarding the examples he provided were hardly a "fall-back position" or an admission that he was right.

What these lists reveal is that tfan has not successfully defended his position on a variety of points. The few arguments that he did actually follow-up on and that I haven't responded to yet will be answered below.

From his rebuttal post:

Using Holy Water to counter demonic forces is undeniably innovative [. . .] and we have seen silence from the Early Church Fathers [. . .]

Noting that the Apostolic Constitutions and Bede's Ecclesiastical History have not been sufficiently discredited, there is also the following testimony from the early Church:

• Under the subheading "Miracles by Holy Water" we read:
  "Sts. Chrysostom, Fortunatus, Theodore, Luthbert, Hegesippus, Anno, Anselm, Bernard, Malachy, Columba, and Edmond healed many afflicted persons from evils both of soul and body" [emphasis mine]. -- Richard Brennan, LL.D, The Means of Grace: A Complete Exposition of the Seven Sacraments, Their Institution, Meaning, Requirements, Ceremonies, and Efficacy (2nd ed., Benziger Brothers, 1894, p. 367)



• "St. Achard [A.D. 687], abbot of Jumieges, in the diocese of Rouen, used to go over his abbey every night when the inmates had retired to their cells, and visit the dormitories with cross and holy water to drive away evil spirits, which often hid themselves in these places to scare the sleepers in their sleep." -- Surius, "Lives of the Saints"; as quoted in A Dictionary of Miracles: Imitative, Realistic, and Dogmatic by Ebenezer Cobham (Chatto and Windus, 1901, p. 505/605)



• "A visitor to St. Sophia in sixth-century Constantinople described water 'gurgling noisily into the air' from a bronze pipe 'with a force that banishes all evils'" [emphasis mine]. -- Ann Wroe, "Holy Water", in America Magazine



• The article on Holy Water from the New Advent Encyclopedia mentions "the Pontifical of Scrapion of Thumis, a fourth-century bishop, and likewise the 'testamentum Domini', a Syriac composition dating from the fifth to the sixth century" [emphasis mine], which contain a blessing of oil and water for the "putting to flight" of "every evil spirit." The article also mentions of a Joseph of Tiberias who blessed some water, and, pouring it on a man, healed him of his "infernal spirit."

It should be obvious by now that the use of holy water is far from "innovative", nor is it an invention of the Middle Ages.

B. Likewise, demons can be cast out by those who are not holy, for a variety of reasons. Chapter II of the Apostolic Constitutions states, “nor will those who cast demons be sanctified by the demons being made subject to them: for they only mock one another, as they do who play childish tricks for mirth, and destroy those who give heed to them.”

But that's not what that quotation means. Just because an exorcist is not sanctified by the act of expelling a demon, that doesn't mean that he was not already holy to begin with.

C. Similarly, canon 79 of the Apostolic Constitutions prohibits ordination of demoniacs, and even prohibits demoniacs from praying “with the faithful.” This would seem to be an utterly unnecessary prohibition if it was believed at that time that demons are repulsed by anything that is holy.

This is not an unnecessary prohibition. You wouldn't want someone ordained who is susceptible to possession by the devil. As for the prohibition from praying with the faithful, there are always sinners in the Church who could be negatively influenced by the demoniac, were the demon to return.

2. It has not been established that “Holy Water” is, in fact, holy.

There's holy water in Scripture (cf. Exo 23:25; Num 5:17; 19:9,13-20; 2 Ki 2:19-22). There's also the examples from the early Church that I have already provided, in which water is blessed and made holy. Water can definitely be made holy, just like oil can (cf. Exo 30:25,31; 37:29; Num 35:25; Psa 89:20).

B. The infidels and pagans also consecrate water, but it should not be deemed “Holy.” Thus, merely consecrating water is not enough to make it holy.

It is when Christians are involved.

Finally, from tfan's Conclusion:

It’s a classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy [. . .] It’s also a class example of self-reinforcement [. . .] Finally, to complete the superstitious stool, there is the leg of the statistical fallacy of filtering

There are no logical fallacies involved here. We are both operating under the assumption that if a belief and/or practice is found in the early Church, it is a valid one. That's why tfan has made that a requirement of me. I am simply fulfilling his requirement.

- Unclean Spirits: If we were trying to make unclean spirits clean, sprinkling holy water on them might make sense. But we are not, so it doesn’t. Ritual uncleanness for which the OT prescribed washing is unlike spiritual uncleanness, for which the OT prescribed sacrifice.

This is not true. Scripture specifically said that the "water for impurity" was used "for the removal of sin" (Num 19:9).

PC says that he is not willing to take John Paul Perrin’s word for the fact that the use of holy water against demons was simply a medieval superstition. Perrin however, documented his claim with an appeal to a Roman Catholic doctor (physician) who testified to that fact.

Physicians do not have authority in theological matters.

Furthermore, we have the testimony of other Catholics, such as Erasmus (who was offered the position of cardinal by Paul III), who acknowledge that the medieval era was awash with superstitions (see, for example, “In praise of folly,” pp. 85-87 (link)). One can even find admissions of the extent of superstitions in Europe from Cardinal Newman, who was certainly accepting of a continuity of miracles (see, Lives of the English Saints, Section 3 “Hermit Saints,” p. 57 (link)).

That doesn't mean that holy water was one such superstition.

In closing, I had several quotes from the ECF’s on holy oil that I promised to provide, but the word limit confines me to this single quotation:

• "I know that a young woman of Hippo was immediately dispossessed of a devil, on anointing herself with oil, mixed with the tears of the prebsyter who had been praying for her." --St. Augustine, City of God (413-427 A.D.), Bk. 22

If there was every a doubt that holy things can be used to cast away demons, that should expel it.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

TurretinFan Conclusion to the Holy Water Debate

American baseball players are notorious for their superstitions. Some always enter the batters box the same way, and some have a “lucky” way of digging in their spikes before each pitch. We can write these superstitious traditions off, because we know that it takes strength, speed, and a good eye to be a baseball great, not drinking exactly three ounces of water before warming up with two bats of the same weight. Even if we like the superstitions, we expect baseball managers to play the numbers, not rely on talismans.

In this debate we’re posed with something similar. PhatCatholic (PC) has attempted to defend a resolution that the application of Holy Water is an effective means for stopping demonic forces. It is a superstition (or, at a minimum, PC cannot establish otherwise), and we don’t have a valid basis for accepting it.

I. Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers do not teach the resolution

PC essentially conceded this point from the start. He argues out that they do not say anything contrary either. In other words, there is no testimony from Scripture that demons laugh at holy water. There is also none that they laugh at limericks, but that would not be a valid basis for a resolution: “resolved that limericks stop demons.”

Nevertheless, PC immediately retreated to arguing that demons are “rightly repulsed” by “anything” holy.

II. But Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers do not teach that demons are “rightly repulsed” by “anything” holy

In fact, we saw examples in which Satan was not afraid to tempt Jesus, and appear among the holy angels in the presence of the Father. PC essentially admits this, and thus PC has retreated to a second fall-back position, namely that sometimes God lets demons be in the presence of something holy, and sometimes he doesn’t, holy water being in the latter category.

III. But Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers also do not say that God does not allow demons to be in the presence of holy water

In fact, there’s not even any example from the Scriptures or the Early Church Fathers from which we could infer such a thing, because neither had any concept of such a principle. PC, again, has essentially admitted this, for he turns to a third fall-back position, namely that it has supposedly worked so many times in the course of human history.

Actually, he says “Christian history,” but he might as well say “human history,” for other religions, from Judaism and Islam to Hinduism, Shamanism, and Shinto claim success in opposing demonic forces, some even with “holy water.”

But the fact that all these people succeed in opposing demonic forces, and use holy water in doing so, does not back up his claim. It’s a classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, one leg upon which (to one degree or another) superstitions are based. To put in statistical terms: correlation does not establish causality. Wearing women’s shoes is highly correlated with incurring breast cancer, but it would be invalid to conclude that the strappy sandals are the cause.

It’s also a class example of self-reinforcement: it “worked” this time, so I’ll use it next time. In fact, I’ll use it every time. And look: it keeps working. This is the “Dumbo” fallacy: I flew with the feather, so the feather must be magic. That’s a second leg upon which superstitions stand.

Finally, to complete the superstitious stool, there is the leg of the statistical fallacy of filtering. This is the fallacy where only the successes are noticed, and the failures are passed over. This is the sort of fallacy that “Friday the 13th” superstionists engage in. The day does not bring bad luck in itself, but people notice when something bad happens on that day. PC reports hundreds of alleged successes of demon opposition using holy water, but does not indicate any of the failures.

In short, PC’s attempt to harness anecdotal evidence is fallacious. But the careful reader will see that PC has backed even further away from the resolution. In his rebuttal, he finally argues that holy water, plus faith (“in the prayers of the church”) can be effective. Let’s suppose that is the case. PC acknowledged in his very first post that faith is effective at stopping demons. So, it should be no surprise that “holy water” does not destroy faith’s power. Neither does wearing a tin foil hat while we resist demons with faith in God, but that doesn’t make a tin foil hat effective.

There are a few miscellaneous things to be cleared up.

- Apostolic Canons: There is no way to definitively push the cited passage of the Apostolic canons past the 12 century, and, as already demonstrated, there is evidence suggesting insertion. PC’s comment that they were unknown to the Western Church simply means that it was someone in the Eastern Church who made the insertion. They claim to be written by Clement of Rome, and the author claims that they are a collection of the statements of the apostles. Both claims are generally recognized to be false. Furthermore, as already demonstrated, other parts of the same document undermine the idea that demons are afraid of holy things, or consecrated water, such as the prohibition on ordination of demoniacs.

- Origin of the Practice: PC talks about how the practice developed organically. I'm sure it did develop, and I'm glad he acknowledges that. It probably developed from an over-reverance of the water of baptism, and a mistaken belief in baptismal regeneration, which began quite early and quite understandably. How it developed, though, is not the issue for debate.

- Unclean Spirits: If we were trying to make unclean spirits clean, sprinkling holy water on them might make sense. But we are not, so it doesn’t. Ritual uncleanness for which the OT prescribed washing is unlike spiritual uncleanness, for which the OT prescribed sacrifice.

- Anecdotal Evidence: Alternative causality, the placebo effect, and so forth could have been explored in this debate if PhatCatholic’s main argument had been, it has worked hundreds of times. The claims that water works are not verifiable, further more it is suspect, as will be discussed below.

PC says that he is not willing to take John Paul Perrin’s word for the fact that the use of holy water against demons was simply a medieval superstition. Perrin however, documented his claim with an appeal to a Roman Catholic doctor (physician) who testified to that fact.

Furthermore, we have the testimony of other Catholics, such as Erasmus (who was offered the position of cardinal by Paul III), who acknowledge that the medieval era was awash with superstitions (see, for example, “In praise of folly,” pp. 85-87 (link)). One can even find admissions of the extent of superstitions in Europe from Cardinal Newman, who was certainly accepting of a continuity of miracles (see, Lives of the English Saints, Section 3 “Hermit Saints,” p. 57 (link)).

One can even see implicit testimony to that fact from the discontinuance by Catholicism of the public display of relics, from prohibitions on the sale of relics, and the like. Indeed, Trent itself ordered: “that the ordinary bishops of places shall take diligent care, and be bound to prohibit and abolish all those things which [among other things] … superstition, which is a false imitation of true piety, may have introduced.” (link)

IV. In short, the entire remaining case for the alleged effectiveness of Holy Water (unless PC provides a new argument in his conclusion) is anecdotal evidence, evidence that is suspect, because it arose in a time of superstition.

At the end of the day, we need to decide whether to accept the resolution. We don’t have any a priori reason to do so. And if we have this kind of response: “When asked which part of the ritual was most important, he said, ‘You can’t really tell what’s most important so it all becomes important. I’d be afraid to change anything. As long as I’m winning, I do everything the same’,” then we are just superstitious. (source) We are not being rational about the matter, but simply indulging in a variety of statistical fallacies. If we are doing that, we should stop. Either way, we should reject the resolution.

Thanks to PC for his participation in this debate, and I await his concluding argument.

-Turretinfan

Phatcatholic Rebuttal

I am using this rebuttal to respond to your opening statement. In that statement, you wrote the following:

There are three examples of water being used in healing, Naaman in the Jordan, the pool of Bethesda, and the healing of the blind man through the dust/spit paste and subsequent washing in the pool of Siloam. Of course, none of the water involved was consecrated water.

I think the angel consecrated the pool when he "troubled" it (cf. Jn 5:4), but by "consecrated" you probably mean "blessed by a Catholic priest." In that case, you're right, there is no such example. But, in making that statement, I think you have misunderstood my purpose in using those examples.

I wasn't trying to give evidence of something as specific as "water consecrated by a Catholic priest." I already admitted in my opening statement that an explicit example does not exist. But, I also said that without an explicit Scriptural witness (either for or against a practice) we have to work with the implicit witness and the principles that inform the practice.

These examples in Scripture of God using created things to produce supernatural effects, and particularly of His many uses of water, act as the seed from which the practice of using water organically developed. There we find the implicit witness and the principles that inform the practice.

PC makes the argument that if water cleanses, and demons are sometimes called “unclean spirits,” therefore it should be that water “can be put to good use against something as unclean as a demon.” There are a couple of problems with that, but the most obvious is that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech for the fact that they are evil.

My initial reaction was to disagree, which is why I asked for proof in my first question to you. But, now I'm not so sure that your statement really matters. You said that to call a spirit "unclean" is to say that it is evil. So what? In the Old Testament, when someone was declared "unclean" it usually wasn't because they were physically dirty. Instead, it was because they had become spiritually dirty, or unholy, or evil. Water was often used then to "cleanse" such people, or to remove the unholiness, the spiritual filth, the evil.

The same takes place in the use of holy water against demons. Water is being used to remove "unclean spirits," which are spiritual filth within a person or place. In removing these demons, holy water makes a person or place "clean" again. It removes the evil, just like it did in the Old Testament. So, the statement that an "unclean spirit" is a spirit that is evil seems to be irrelevant. I don't see how it refutes anything.

Having disposed of the first two arguments, let us turn to the third. PC argues that demons “are rightly repulsed by anything that is holy or blessed by God, and are expelled by His cleansing grace.” PC asks, “Does this really need a defense?” The answer, of course, is yes.

According to you, since demons don't immediately flee when Jesus shows up, and since Satan was able to appear before God regarding Job and before Jesus during His temptation, this must mean that Satan and his demons are impervious to holy things. But, I disagree. I think there are some times when God allows demons to be in the presence of holiness and other times when He does not.

First, we must note that the devil and his demons are entirely subject to the Power of God. Satan needed God's permission to test Job (cf. Job 1:8-12) and the demons needed His permission to enter the swine (cf. Mt 8:30-32; Mk 5:10-13; Lk 8:31-33). They can't even speak unless God allows it (cf. Mk 1:25; Lk 4:41). Similarly, the devil and his demons were able to be in God's presence only because He allowed it.

However, in other times, with other things, God does not allow it. One of those times is the application of holy water. Throughout the Bible God shows us the spiritual power that He wishes for water to have in our lives. The fact that, in hundreds of instances throughout Christian history demons are expelled and persons/places protected whenever holy water is applied, shows us that when it comes to holy water, God does not allow it. When Christians use holy water with faith in the prayers of the Church, demons flee, or, in the very least, suffer from its presence.

The name of Jesus is significant because it connotes authority. Paul had Christ’s authority, and consequently was able to command the spirits to come out, as were the other apostles. [. . .] Likewise that “in the name” refers to authority can be seen, for example, from Deuteronomy 18:5, 7, 20, and 22 and many other Old Testament texts, as well as – for example – James 5:10.

I posit that demons are expelled just as much by the holiness of the name as by its authority. After all, His name IS holy (cf. Lev 22:32; 1 Chron 16:10,35; 29:16; Psa 30:4; 33:21; 97:12; 103:1; 105:3; 106:47; 111:9; 145:21; Isa 57:15; Lk 1:49), and it is opposed to anything that is evil (cf. Lev 20:3; 22:2; Eze 20:39; 36:20-22; 39:7,25; 43:7-8; Amo 2:7). Also, there are many possible meanings for "in the name of" other than the one you provided.

But some might argue that the explanation about authority does not fully explain the special miracles wrote by Paul’s hands, by which the sick were cured through aprons and handkerchiefs that had been on Paul’s body. The answer is that there were additional special miracles in the apostolic age, but those miracles had already long ceased by the time of Chrysostom (circa 347- circa 407)

I'm surprised that you're willing to become a cessationist in order to discredit the use of holy things against the devil. Unfortunately, this isn’t the place to debate cessationism, but, in my conlusion, I do plan on providing some testimony regarding the use of another holy thing against the devil: oil. Of course, we already have the paragraph from the Apostolic Constitutions, in which oil is given the power to “banish demons.” Even in Old Testament times, David was able to use his lyre to rid Saul of the evil spirit that plagued him (cf. 1 Sam 16:16,23). Such “special miracles” simply are not confined to the apostolic period.

The anecdotal evidence is less than compelling. The Apostolic Constitutions are acknowledged, even by Roman Catholic Historians, to be pseudonymous works (after all, none of the Apostles survived to the fourth century).

As I understand it, the reason it's called "The Apostolic Constitutions" is not because one or more of the apostles wrote it but because it is a collection of the traditions handed on by them. At any rate, the fact that we don't know with certainty who wrote it does not itself discredit the statements found therein.

Furthermore, the passage cited by PC does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions, and consequently may be a later medieval addition thereto.

I would like now to respond to your proof for this statement. Regarding the supposed absence of the chapter in question from "several versions", notice that New Advent's entry on the Apostolic Constitutions mentions 7 different versions:

1. a Latin version of a text found in Crete;
2. the complete Greek text of Bovius...
3. ...and that of the Jesuit Father Torres (Turrianus);
4. an early twelfth-century text in St. Petersburg;
5. an allied fourteenth-century text in Vienna;
6. and two kindred sixteenth-century texts, one in Vienna,...
7. the other in Paris

While only the last 4 are extant, it doesn't appear that any of them are the Coptic, Syriac, or Oxford manuscripts that Donaldson mentions. If that is the case, then the number of available versions is 7. Two out of 7 (or potentially 10, if we count the first three) hardly qualifies as "several versions." As for the chapter being a "later medieval addition," this too seems odd, considering that the New Advent entry says that the work "was not known in the Western Church throughout the Middle Ages."

Likewise in the cross-examination, we saw that the citation to the Venerable Bede’s work actually shows dust, not water, being used for expelling demons (and the water involved in the discussion not being water sanctified by a priest, but water that touched a relic).

All you did here was restate the sentiments of Question #3, which I answered here.

That leaves us with no testimony as to the use of holy water against demonic forces until the medieval times.

More on this in my Conclusion.

Furthermore, we have testimony that the use of holy water against demonic forces was simply medieval superstition (see John Paul Perrin, “History off the Ancient Christians” (1847), Book I, pages 33-34).

Please excuse me if I don't take his word for it.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

TurretinFan Rebuttal

Using Holy Water to counter demonic forces is undeniably innovative, (PhatCatholic admits Scriptural silence on the matter, and we have seen silence from the Early Church Fathers, to whom consecration of water for anything but baptism was apparently unknown, Leo IV not having instituted the modern practice of weekly water-blessing) but that alone would not automatically win the debate. We need to address PhatCatholic’s three arguments for efficacy.

Of PhatCatholic’s three arguments, the first two may be admitted without any effect on the debate, as already demonstrated above. It is chiefly the third item that is objectionable.

1. It has not been established that demons are actually “repulsed by anything that is holy or blessed by God.” PhatCatholic’s scriptural argument on this matter first refers to the curing of the sick by the bringing of materials that had been on Paul’s body to them.

A. Even assuming that the “evil spirits” mentioned in Acts 19:12 are demons (which is not necessarily a given), we cannot infer that demons are in fact repulsed by anything that is holy or blessed by God,” since contrariwise Satan, for example, was able to take Christ himself up to a pinnacle of the temple (Matthew 4:5 and Luke 4:9). Likewise it is not the holiness of the name “Jesus” that repulsed devils in the other passages cited by PhatCatholic, but the authority associated with the name, as already discussed above.

B. Likewise, demons can be cast out by those who are not holy, for a variety of reasons. Chapter II of the Apostolic Constitutions states, “nor will those who cast demons be sanctified by the demons being made subject to them: for they only mock one another, as they do who play childish tricks for mirth, and destroy those who give heed to them.”

C. Similarly, canon 79 of the Apostolic Constitutions prohibits ordination of demoniacs, and even prohibits demoniacs from praying “with the faithful.” This would seem to be an utterly unnecessary prohibition if it was believed at that time that demons are repulsed by anything that is holy.

2. It has not been established that “Holy Water” is, in fact, holy.

A. This is a relatively minor point, but the authority to consecrate water for anything other than baptism is simply absent from Scripture or the Early Church Fathers.

B. The infidels and pagans also consecrate water, but it should not be deemed “Holy.” Thus, merely consecrating water is not enough to make it holy.

3. If PhatCatholic is simply saying that it would be right for demons to be repulsed by holy things, then – of course – that would not meet the burden of proof. In the role of the affirmative, PhatCatholic has the burden to show that Holy Water is effective, I do not have the burden of showing that it is ineffective. I would respectfully submit that PhatCatholic has not met that burden.

-Turretinfan

TurretinFan Answer to Question #3

PhatCatholic,

You asked what proof I have that the passage you cited does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions, and may be a later medieval addition.

The proof is

1. The testimony of historian James Donaldson, who provides the following footnote for the chapter from which you quoted (it’s a short chapter, only a single paragraph):

This chapter is not found in the Coptic and Syriac. One V. [Vienna] ms. has the following note: “Matthew (probably a mistake for Matthias) taught the doctrines of Christ in Judea, and was one of the seventy disciples. After the ascension of Christ he was numbered with the twelve apostles, instead of Judas, who was the betrayer. He lies in Jerusalem.”

The absence of the chapter from the Coptic and Syriac was the “several versions” to which I was referring.

2. One reasonable inference from its absence from multiple versions is that the chapter was not in the original, but was added later.

3. This hypothesis is confirmed by the fact that the Oxford manuscript of the Apostolic constitutions begins what we label Chapter XXX with “I the same, Simon the Canaanite …” whereas Simon is the ascribed author of the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth manuscripts, which points to chapter twenty-nine being a later insertion.

4. The number of manuscripts and versions is quite small, which makes the absence from a pair of documents, and evident (or at least arguably evident) insertion in a third more significant. I should point out that I am unaware of the precise total number of manuscripts in existence. The New Advent Catholic encyclopedia claims that there are four manuscripts now in existence, but this seems to be lower than the number of manuscripts available to Donaldson in the 19th century, or possibly merely excludes the other versions as manuscripts. The oldest copy of the text (again, according to the New Advent encyclopedia) is a 12th century manuscript.

From this various testimony, I am inclined to suspect that Chapter XXIX, the one paragraph chapter to which your citation was made, was a latter (i.e. medieval) insertion, and not an original fourth or fifth century writing.

-Turretinfan

Question #3 for Turretinfan

I'm sorry for the delay in posting your third question. In your opening statement, you wrote the following:

Furthermore, the passage cited by PC does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions, and consequently may be a later medieval addition thereto.

My question to you is this:

What proof do you have that the passage I cited....

1. does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions; and
2. may be a later medieval addition?

The second part of your statement, in particular, seems to be mere conjecture on your part.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

TurretinFan Answer to Question #2

PhatCatholic, you asked for proof that special miracles had long since ceased by Chrysostom's time.

1. John Chrysostom wrote, in Homily IV on Paul's Second Epistle to the Thessalonians:

"Because if he meant to say the Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely, but plainly, that even now the grace of of the Spirit, that is the gifts, withhold [the AntiChrist]. And otherwise he ought to have come, if he was about to come when the gifts ceased: for they have long since ceased."

2. Likewise, towards the end of his ministry (circa 428), Augustine wrote:

"For those that are baptized do not now receive the Spirit on the imposition of hands, so as to speak in the tongues of all the peoples; neither are the sick healed by the shadow of the preachers of Christ falling on them as they pass; and other such things as were then done, are now manifestly ceased." (Retractions I, xiii, 7)

3. Or simply, as B.B. Warfield (died 1921) wrote in, The Cessation of Miracles,

"And so we pass on to the fourth century in an ever-increasing stream [of references to supposed miracles], but without a single writer having claimed himself to have wrought a miracle of any kind or having ascribed miracle-working to any known name in the church, and without a single instance having been recorded in detail."

4. Of course, the last item is simply an argument from silence. Nevertheless, that silence confirms the testimony of Chrysostom, who also wrote, this time in his Homily XXIX on Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians:

"This whole place [1 Corinthians 12:1-2] is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?"

Conclusion
So, we have not only the negative testimony of silence (as observed by Warfield's survey of the Early Church Fathers) but the positive testimony of Chrysostom as to the absence of the miraculous gifts.

We can connect the dots as well. The special gifts were a sign that the gifted were messengers from God and that consequently they spoke not their own words, but the words of the Most High. However, with the completion of the Bible, the need for prophets dissipated, and consequently the prophetic and accompanying sign gifts understandably passed away as well.

Thus, we rightly conclude that Chrysostom was right, and that the miraculous gifts had long since ceased.

-Turretinfan

Question #2 for Turretinfan

In your opening statement, you wrote the following:

But some might argue that the explanation about authority does not fully explain the special miracles wrote by Paul’s hands, by which the sick were cured through aprons and handkerchiefs that had been on Paul’s body. The answer is that there were additional special miracles in the apostolic age, but those miracles had already long ceased by the time of Chrysostom (circa 347- circa 407)

My question to you is this:

What proof do you have that the "special miracles" of the Apostolic age had "already long ceased" by the time of Chrysostom?

Thank you for your diligence in answering these questions.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

TurretinFan Answer to Question #1

PhatCatholic, you asked for proof that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech for the fact that the “unclean” spirit are evil. My understanding was that this was a generally understood fact, based on typology from the Old Testament ceremonial “cleanness” and “uncleanness.” Nevertheless, since you asked for demonstration, allow me to demonstrate.

We can see that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech from the facts:

1. That demons are interchangeably referred to as “evil spirits” and “unclean spirits.” For examples of “evil spirits,” see Luke 7:21, Luke 8:2, and Acts 19:12-13;
2. That sin is “spiritual uncleanness” in the historic Christian view, as evidenced even by such late medieval scholastics as Aquinas (Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 80, Article 5, Objection 3);
3. That the ancients seem to concur in this matter with Aquinas
a) Origen seems to equate, “wicked and unclean spirits” (De Principiis, Book I, Chapter V, Paragraph 2),
b) Likewise, in Homily XLIII on Matthew 12:38-39, Chrysostom refers to the same spirits as “unclean” and “evil,” see especially, section 4; and
c) Similarly, we have the testimony of Cyprian: “But if any one is moved by this, that some of those who are baptized in sickness are still tempted by unclean spirits, let him know that the obstinate wickedness of the devil prevails even up to the saving water, but that in baptism it loses all the poison of his wickedness.” (Cyprian, Epistle LXXV, Paragraph 15); or
4. That common sense tell us so – after all, cleanness’ literal sense is physical, but spirits are not physical. Therefore, we understand that “unclean” as applied to spiritual things has a figurative (not literal) sense.

Obviously one could go further and provide an exegesis as to the typological relationship between sin and uncleanness, focusing on, for example, Leviticus 14:19 and Hebrews 9:13 (see, for example, Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary entry for Hebrews 9:13), but - of course - the 500 word limit for this response would not permit a full exegesis of those and the many related texts.

-Turretinfan

Question #1 for Turretinfan

In your opening statement, you wrote the following:

PC makes the argument that if water cleanses, and demons are sometimes called “unclean spirits,” therefore it should be that water “can be put to good use against something as unclean as a demon.” There are a couple of problems with that, but the most obvious is that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech for the fact that they are evil.

My question to you is this:

What proof do you have that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech for the fact that they are evil?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

TurretinFan - Opening Statement

I stand opposed to the resolution. I see no reason from Scripture to believe that Holy Water (so-called) has any effect at all on demonic forces. Let me first address each of PhatCatholic’s (PC’s) points and then provide some counter-points.

PC provides three main points of argument.

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.

The first point is so general that I can certainly agree to it.

As to the second point, I distinguish. Water is used for physical cleansing, and consequently is used symbolically of spiritual cleansing. Thus, water was used for ritual cleansing/purification (the two being essentially interchangeable) in the Mosaic administration, as well as in the rite of Baptism in the Johanine and Apostolic administrations.

There are three examples of water being used in healing, Naaman in the Jordan, the pool of Bethesda, and the healing of the blind man through the dust/spit paste and subsequent washing in the pool of Siloam. Of course, none of the water involved was consecrated water.

PC makes the argument that if water cleanses, and demons are sometimes called “unclean spirits,” therefore it should be that water “can be put to good use against something as unclean as a demon.” There are a couple of problems with that, but the most obvious is that “unclean” is simply a figure of speech for the fact that they are evil.

Having disposed of the first two arguments, let us turn to the third. PC argues that demons “are rightly repulsed by anything that is holy or blessed by God, and are expelled by His cleansing grace.” PC asks, “Does this really need a defense?” The answer, of course, is yes.

After all, the Devil tempted Christ, and there is no one more holy or blessed by God than the Son of God. This, of course, was immediately after his baptism by John (see Mark 1:9-13). Yet, it seems that Christ’s holiness did not immediately or necessarily repulse the devil. Likewise, we read in Job that the devil even appeared before the Father in heaven, among the holy angels, to give an account of his doings (see Job 1:6-7 and 2:1-2). Furthermore, even when demons were confronted with Jesus presence or name they did not necessarily immediately flee (see Matthew 8:29 and Acts 19:15) and the same for Paul (Acts 16:16-17 and Acts 19:15).

Counter-Points

1. Exorcism is Through Authority not Repulsion
How then do we explain Acts 19:11-12 (where aprons and handkerchiefs from Paul’s body expelled evil spirits), Mark 9:38 (where someone was casting out demons “in [Jesus’] name”) and Acts 16:18 (where Paul casts out demons “in the name of Jesus Christ”)? The name of Jesus is significant because it connotes authority. Paul had Christ’s authority, and consequently was able to command the spirits to come out, as were the other apostles.

Indeed, it was in recognition of this way in which demons are cast out that the slander against Jesus arose that he cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils (see Matthew 9:34 and 12:24, and Mark 3:22).

Likewise that “in the name” refers to authority can be seen, for example, from Deuteronomy 18:5, 7, 20, and 22 and many other Old Testament texts, as well as – for example – James 5:10.
2. Special Miracles
But some might argue that the explanation about authority does not fully explain the special miracles wrote by Paul’s hands, by which the sick were cured through aprons and handkerchiefs that had been on Paul’s body. The answer is that there were additional special miracles in the apostolic age, but those miracles had already long ceased by the time of Chrysostom (circa 347- circa 407), who is considered one of the hierarchs of Eastern Orthodoxy and a saint and doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, having a feast day on September 13 (Homily IV on 2 Thessalonians).

3. Anecdotal Evidence
The anecdotal evidence is less than compelling. The Apostolic Constitutions are acknowledged, even by Roman Catholic Historians, to be pseudonymous works (after all, none of the Apostles survived to the fourth century). Furthermore, the passage cited by PC does not appear in several versions of the Apostolic Constitutions, and consequently may be a later medieval addition thereto. Likewise in the cross-examination, we saw that the citation to the Venerable Bede’s work actually shows dust, not water, being used for expelling demons (and the water involved in the discussion not being water sanctified by a priest, but water that touched a relic). That leaves us with no testimony as to the use of holy water against demonic forces until the medieval times. Furthermore, we have testimony that the use of holy water against demonic forces was simply medieval superstition (see John Paul Perrin, “History off the Ancient Christians” (1847), Book I, pages 33-34).

Conclusion
There is simply no mention of the practice of using holy water against demonic forces in either Scripture or the early fathers. It is a superstition based on the mistaken assumption that water consecrated by Catholic priests is “holy,” it is not. The concept of “holy water” is a medieval innovation. It is also based on the mistaken assumption that demons are repulsed or afraid of holy things. They are not. Satan even goes about disguised as an angel of light. They must, however, submit to the authority of God, which is why Michael invoked the Lord’s authority in his argument with the Devil (see Jude 9). Furthermore, we may have boldness against the devils, for we are promised that if we resist them, they will flee from us (see James 4:7). Thus, we need not be afraid, and resort to talismans or the like to protect us from the power of the devil.

-Turretinfan

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

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

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

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.

• cleansing: cf. Lev 14:8-9,50-52; 15:5-27; 17:15; Num 8:7; 19:12,18-19; 2 Ki 5:12; Psa 51:7; Ezek 16:4; 36:25; Eph 5:26; Heb 10:22
• purifying: cf. Exo 29:4; 40:12,30-32; Lev 11:32; 16:4,24,26,28; 22:6; Num 19:7-8; 31:23; Deut 23:10-11; 1 Ki 18:33-34; Jn 2:6; Heb 9:19
• healing: cf. 2 Ki 5:14; Isa 35:5-7; Jn 5:4 (KJV); 9:6-7.

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

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.

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

Orthodox - Conclusion

The Cross Examination

I think a careful reader of this debate would note that Francis has not provided much in the way of substantive answers to any of my questions.

In round 1, Francis acknowledged that early churches, lacking scripture to support uniquely Christian teachings, used the oral tradition as their rule of faith. The apostles neither practiced sola scriptura (since the full Christian teaching is not in the OT) nor did they teach it as they built the early church (lacking scripture to support the unique Christian teachings). So I asked Francis who authorised and orchestrated a cutover to sola scriptura. He didn't give any answer. He mentioned the Bereans from Acts 17, but of course that is a distraction. Nobody can seriously claim that the Bereans found the full Christian teaching in the OT. An OT-only sola scriptura community would not be Christian. Francis attempted to equivocate between scripture having "the highest place" with sola scriptura. The two are not interchangable. In fact, the church never cutover to sola scriptura, which is unsurprising since Francis acknowledged the apostles never taught it. About all Francis can say is that the Church supposedly ought to have cutover because extra-scriptural traditions are unreliable. However I showed that there are many extra-scriptural traditions dating from as early as the 1st century, which remain in Orthodoxy today.

In round 2 I asked Francis if tradition of the Orthodox Church was really less clear than scripture. Francis tried to make out that Orthodox tradition was not clear because (a) Orthodoxy does not have "dogmatic definitions" and (b) All you know is what your local priest teaches, you can't tell what Orthodoxy teaches. Of course, Francis is fudging because he knows full well the tradition of Orthodoxy is clear, as Orthodoxy defines its own terms. We don't have dogmatic definitions, and we do know what all the Orthodox churches teach. Nobody is wandering around in Orthodoxy confused about the teaching on infant baptism for example. Amusingly, a protestant wrote in to criticise Francis that his view on baptism was unscriptural. I think anyone who honestly looks at the situation can see that Orthodoxy's teachings on most of the issues protestants divide over, are clearer than the bible by itself. If it were not so, Presbyterians would not feel the need to clarify things with the Westminster Confession.

In round 3 I asked Francis to show me how to know what is scripture. His answer was that the "ultimate subjective epistemological basis is the persuasion of the Holy Spirit". It doesn't take much reflection to realise that a rule of faith can't work in the church, if the church has no way to resolve which of different people's "persuasions" are part of the rule of faith. And we found this is no theoretical problem when one of our Presbyterian listeners wrote in to tell us that his theological professor thinks 1 Clement is scripture. At least for Orthodox, 1 Clement is a venerable part of Holy Tradition. It's a valuable part of tradition, no matter its exact status. From Francis' point of view, it's either the perfect word of God, or worthless as as to being part of the rule of faith. You see, to be black and white about what is authoritative, requires a black and white list of what is authoritative. It's a bit like saying the Pope is infallible, without being able to infallibly say when. If I say that I feel the canons of the seven ecumenical councils are inspired by God, Francis really can't respond, because his epistemological basis provides no ability to do so. On the other hand, if I say that I don't have an inspired insight of what is scripture, again, Francis can't help me. He can just list the whole range of opinions throughout history and add his two cents to the pot.

Francis wants fudge and say that at least "everyone reading this has a pretty clear concept of the bible". From my point of view, testing what he calls the "fuzzy edges" is a good test for his entire system. But is it pretty clear? To say that everyone is pretty clear is in effect a statement about tradition! The only time Francis got a little bit of certainty was when he hopped out of his boat into mine and appealed in effect to the Vincentian canon.

In round 4 I asked how it could be that a few people in 1646 got it all right, where the church had always failed previously. Or alternatively, if they made mistakes in 1646, how the reformation is going to correct it. Francis tells us that it is God's will "for the churches to keep splitting, both sides seeking to glorify God in the truth." Francis seems to be having a bet each way. On the one hand he holds to a confession of faith made in 1646, and on the other hand is happy for churches to keep splitting looking for the truth. Either situation is odd on its face, either that a few men in 1646 got it right, where the church failed for 1600 years, or that God has no higher plan than for men to go from church to church like a boat tossed on the waves, looking for some people who believe their interpretation of the truth.

In round 5 I asked how the scriptures work as a rule of faith in the church, when unlike tradition, there is no principle of community agreement. When the community disagrees, should one leave? Should one start a new church? If so, on what issues? Well Francis ended up saying that only the "gospel" was a necessary reason for leaving, by which he seems to mean justification by faith. He also offered the opinion that he couldn't say that the Orthodox church was apostate. Logically then, if Francis found himself in the Orthodox Church, either by birth, or because his congregation decided to become Orthodox, he could make a valid decision to stay. Apparently then, valid churches don't necessarily use sola scriptura.

In round 6 Francis told us essentially, that he isn't really sure if the Fathers taught the gospel, and he isn't really sure if the Orthodox Church teaches the gospel. I suspect that Francis' idea of teaching the gospel is limited to a very narrow subset of the NT teaching, expressed in the distinctive protestant manner. I think if I asked Francis if the Gospel of Matthew teaches the gospel, he's have to double check himself to see if it was there. Chrysostom wrote commentaries on the Gospels, and Francis isn't sure if he taught the Gospel! Either the Gospels aren't a very good source for the gospel, or else the best minds of the early church were incredibly stupid, or else the protestant idea of "the gospel" is a very myopic one.

In round 7 I asked Francis about a very real issue facing the protestant church in Africa - polygamy, in light of the Anglican church's finding that polygamy is "approved" in the OT and "not forbidden" in the NT. Francis criticised the interpretation of those supporting polygamy. But did he supply the reader with a single verse against polygamy? No he did not. He failed to practice what he preaches in providing a scriptural commandment, clear or otherwise, against polygamy. I could have substituted many other issues for polygamy, but this example clearly shows how Francis has a tradition as a rule of faith.

In round 8 I wanted to get the discussion out of the world of theory, and into the world of reality. Since I haven't received any personal revelation of what list of books is scripture and since I am honest enough to admit my uncertainty about how I would interpret scripture if I was completely to ignore any and all traditions, what am I supposed to do? Francis gives me no reason or method to enter the world of protestantism. As far as I know, all protestants have (or at least may have) the wrong canon of scripture. All of them have or may have the wrong interpretation on one or many issues. And I don't claim to be able to resolve what millions of protestants have failed at: finding the correct interpretation of scripture apart from tradition. I don't claim there is a clear guideline in scripture for example on whether children ought be baptised. I could just as easily put together a good argument one way or the other. And of course, Francis, having failed to provide the scripture that teaches sola scriptura, doesn't give me the verse to support a move in any shape or form.

Francis claims I have exchanged truth for certainty. At worst I have traded uncertainty for false certainty, since I've been given no method to solve the uncertainties that his own system creates. Frankly, false certainty is more pleasurable than true uncertainty. True uncertainty is a commodity available everywhere.

Francis' argument is the equivilent of an agnostic asking me to exchange my faith in something supposedly uncertain, for his lack of certainty. No thanks. Offer me something tangible. Don't ask me to jump into the pool of ignorance with you where there is no sure scripture, no sure word of God, no sure understanding and no sure church. I'll stay up here on the dry land until you can do better than just claim your guidance of the Spirit is better than anyone elses.

In round 9 I made the observation that the Mt 15/ Mk 7 protestant hobby horse, doesn't comment on oral vs written (or oral vs scriptural) sources of authority. What it comments on is "the word of God" vs "traditions of men", never equating the former with scripture, nor equating the latter with non-scripture. I also showed, using scripture that the "Word of God" is usually oral tradition. Since Orthodox consider Holy Tradition to be "the word of God", and since we consider sola scriptura, and other protestant beliefs as "the traditions of men", I asked Francis to prove that an Orthodox interpretation was wrong. Namely that traditions not accepted by the people of God, but only by a small portion (e.g. "the traditions of the elders, Mt 15:2) are the "traditions of men", and the traditions accepted, e.g. the γραφή, the writings or oral traditions accepted by the people of God are, "the word of God", inspired by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Since the passage never mentions scripture, Francis was stumped, and could do nothing but repeat his own tradition concerning the episode, a tradition that ironically we consider to be a tradition of men.

In round 10 I wanted to again get away from theory and ask why sola scriptura doesn't seem to be working in the churches that ascribe to it. Remembering that the thesis is that sola scriptura is workable, as in practical and feasible. Anyone who wants to trace the path of the great reformation churches: Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Presbyterianism over 500 years and compare it to the Orthodox church would note that most of the former would be unrecognizable to their predecessors. Those who would be recognizable would be those in a minority who have an almost Orthodox mindset in keeping to traditions. Francis' response was that sola scriptura churches are stable in that they hold to the things that are "clear". But the one thing that isn't clear, is what the set of clear things are. Francis is on record saying that the bible is "clear" concerning icons depicting the Lord. But Anglicans, Lutherans and Presbyterians aren't clear. Francis wants to label dissenters as modern liberals. To me it looks like just labeling anyone who disagrees with you as a liberal, since the oldest presbyterian churches that I've seen have stained glass icons of the Lord. If it's true that Presbyterians have changed on this, then I fail to see how it helps the cause that sola scriptura is a workable rule of faith.

Francis uncharitably suggested that the reason Orthodoxy doesn't change is because it is a "cemetery". It's pretty easy to think there is something fundamentally wrong with people who don't worship like you do. It's a part of human nature. But if Orthodoxy was a cemetary, then there wouldn't be orthodox debating with Francis to begin with. You wouldn't have had millions dying for the faith under communism. And you wouldn't have Francis himself praising the Christian stance taken by the Moscow Patriarch.

Icons

Too much of the debate was taken up discussing icons. Supposedly Orthodox are superstitious. From our point of view, protestants are superstitious, as evidenced by Francis' warning about viewing a web site with a picture of Christ. I mean, I've seen copies of Foxes' book of Martyrs from the 1800s that start with a nice big colour plate of Jesus on the opening page.

Francis claimed that it "is perfectly clear that representations of God were forbidden in the Old Testament". Just like many other issues, Francis confuses his own tradition with what is "perfectly clear". The only thing clear is that some images were forbidden, and other images were not only permitted, but commanded. Which is which, is certainly not clear at all. Certainly not on a sola scriptura basis. The golden calf was not permitted. The Cherubim were commanded. How it applies outside of these is not specified, which is the whole reason sola scriptura doesn't work. I can tell you that I think only pagan idols are banned, and images of heavenly beings are explicitly allowed in the example of the Cherubim. Francis has a different view. Francis argues that Dura-Europos is the exception not the rule. But he shows no evidence. Of course, since Dura-Europos is the only one surviving from the era, it's the only sample we have, and it comes up contrary to Francis' thesis. Scholars disagree with Francis' theory. How "clear" is scripture, if Jews, ancient and modern, Orthodox, Catholics, Non-Chacedonions, Ethiopians, Anglicans, Presbyterians (supposedly more recent ones), Lutherans, all can't see what Francis sees? He never did tell us if he would have taken a photo of Christ if he had the chance. There is superstition for you.

Do any icons exude holy oil, or cause miracles? Or are they a superstition as Francis contends? Let me guess. Francis has done nearly zero investigation of such things, but he assumes it is a superstition.

Yes, Christianity is a very "superstitious" religion:

2Kings 13:21 As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a marauding band; and they cast the man into the grave of Elisha. And when the man touched the bones of Elisha he revived and stood up on his feet.

Acts 19:11 And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.

Acts 5:15 they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any one of them.

Oddly, Francis would believe such things without question if its in the bible. But if it happens in real life, it's a superstition. Well Francis, if a-priori rejection of miracles is your style, may I suggest that Christianity is not the religion for you.

Lastly, Francis is shocked that I would call Chrysostom an iconodule. Many many things Chrysostom wrote, wouldn't make much sense apart from icons. e.g. "The image of what is invisible, were it also invisible, would cease to be an image. An image, as far as it is an image, should be kept inviolably by us, owing to the likeness it represents." But we have eyewitnesses. Chrysostom's biographer wrote: "Blessed John loved the epistles of St Paul exceedingly. . . . He had an image of the apostle in a place where he was wont to retire now and then on account of his physical weakness, for he outdid nature in watchings and vigils. As he read through St Paul's epistles, he had the image before him, and spoke to the apostle as if he had been present, praising him, and directing all his thoughts to him."

Conclusion

Sola Scriptura cannot tell you what scripture is. If you are unable to figure out what scripture means (which even Francis must admit applies to most people), sola scriptura cannot help you.

Sola scriptura in no way has unity as a goal, and thus surprise, surprise does not achieve it.

Scripture never says that sola scriptura is the rule of faith, thus it violates its own precept. All the early Fathers believed there was an extra-scriptural apostolic tradition, and they could discern what it was. Francis' attempt to make Basil into a sola scripturalist, failed.

The Sola Scriptura churches are in large part falling apart. As observed by an ex-Lutheran, ex-Presbyterian, the problem is genetic. Sola Scriptura is about individualism. Every man decides for himself what scripture is. Every man is free to ignore the world when deciding what scripture means. Every man decides for himself how to apply it to himself. If an elder directs you otherwise, church hopping is a legitimate search for the interpretation you agree with. Supposedly sola scriptura is the appropriate rule of faith for the church. But the very nature of the doctrine ignores the church, and therefore cannot work for the church. It can work for "me and my bible under a tree", but not much else.

Francis has not shown that the apostles taught sola scriptura, and in fact admitted that they didn't teach it, nor practice it. Nor could they have.

On the other side of the coin, Francis has done nothing to demonstrate that tradition is not "working" in the Orthodox Church. His main attempt to do otherwise, was to lecture us on his tradition concerning icons, and complain that nobody else, other than apparently a tiny sect within the tiny sect of Presbyterianism sees scripture with the clarity he supposedly does. That in itself shows what is "working".