The Diversity Of Baptismal Beliefs And Practices In The Medieval Era

It's often claimed that every Christian before the Reformation believed in baptismal regeneration, that only heretics opposed it, that only an extremely small number of Christians did, or some such thing. That kind of claim simultaneously makes the concept of justification apart from baptism look weaker and baptismal regeneration look stronger.

But many people believed in justification apart from baptism prior to the Reformation, as I've documented elsewhere. And among those who assigned some type of soteriological efficacy to baptism, there was widespread disagreement about the sort of efficacy involved, and soteriological efficacy was also attributed to other rituals (or sacraments, ceremonies, or whatever you want to call them): the laying on of hands, foot washing, etc. See here for a discussion of many examples from the patristic era. So, justification apart from baptism was more widely held before the Reformation than is typically suggested, and there wasn't the sort of unified alternative to it that we're told there was. Rather, there was a wide diversity of alternatives.

Interpretations Of Interpretations

We're often told that disagreements over how to interpret scripture suggest that we should look to extrabiblical sources to interpret scripture for us. There's some validity to that notion, as long as due weight is being assigned to the evidence scripture itself provides and the extrabiblical sources are being handled appropriately. But when you get to the extrabiblical sources, such as the church fathers, you find that they sometimes seem unclear, inconsistent, or problematic in some other way. Even where there isn't a problem, or much of a problem, with those extrabiblical sources, different people interpret them differently. It's similar to the situation with scripture. And if you look to other sources, such as scholarship, to clarify the extrabiblical sources in question, you find that there sometimes are ambiguities, disagreements, etc. among those sources as well.

Circumstances like these range across a spectrum. There's less disagreement on some issues than others. But the need for going to extrabiblical sources and how much help they provide are often overestimated.

Elsewhere, I've cited G.W.H. Lampe's comments on the many ambiguities, inconsistencies, and other problems among the patristic sources concerning baptism, the laying on of hands, and other rites. Here are some of Lampe's comments on problems in later sources commenting on the fathers:

"Many modern writers have adopted the unhappy course of trying to pick out from the vast mass of patristic literature on Baptism such texts as favour their own theories. Such methods ignore the confusion to which we have just referred. The Fathers did not try to resolve this confusion as long as the rite of initiation remained one whole, comprising both Baptism and Confirmation, for so long as that state of affairs was maintained the theological difficulties remained latent. It is not therefore surprising to find that, for example, Mason and Umberg were able to discover plenty of authority for the view that the gift of the indwelling Spirit is bestowed by means of the laying on of hands, and not by water-baptism, Wirgman was no less easily able to show that the Fathers taught that the indwelling presence of the Spirit was conferred by water-baptism and that an increase of grace was given for spiritual progress by the laying on of hands, while Thornton finds it equally possible to demonstrate that in the teaching of the Fathers the indwelling of the Spirit is regarded as being withheld until Confirmation, which he associates particularly with anointing. It is also unfortunate that some important books were written on this subject before the date and authorship of some of the relevant documents had been fairly established, and that, as a result, the picture which they present of the historical development of the doctrine of Baptism and Confirmation is distorted." (The Seal Of The Spirit [Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004], 194-95)

The Suspicious Early Silence About Later Marian Dogmas

In a recent post, I discussed some of the evidence against concepts like Mary's perpetual virginity, sinlessness, and assumption. Something to keep in mind when issues like those come up is that the lack of reference to those beliefs among the earliest sources carries some evidential weight against them. Think of the writings of Luke, for example. He wrote the longest gospel we have, said the most about Mary among the earliest Christians, and gave us our earliest church history. That church history doesn't end until the early 60s. Not only does he say nothing of concepts like Mary's perpetual virginity, sinlessness, assumption, praying to individuals like Mary, venerating images of such people, etc., but he even repeatedly uses language that most naturally suggests that he opposed some of those concepts. See here for a discussion of some examples. Or see here for many other examples of early opposition to later Marian beliefs and practices. My main point here, though, is that we should keep in mind that there's a double problem for the advocate of something like a modern Roman Catholic or modern Eastern Orthodox view of Mary. There's a suspicious lack of reference to their view, a view they claim to be so important, accompanied by so many apparent contradictions of it. And that's in a context in which they claim to belong to the one true church founded by Jesus, passing on all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession throughout church history, providing unity, providing doctrinal clarity, etc.

More Pre-Reformation Disagreements Over Baptism And John 3:5

I've written a lot over the years about how diversely John 3:5 was interpreted prior to the Reformation, contrary to the popular suggestion that there was more agreement about the passage. For example, it's sometimes claimed, falsely, that everybody or almost everybody thought the passage teaches baptismal regeneration. I've discussed many examples of Christians who rejected baptismal regeneration before the Reformation, like here. Those who assigned some kind of high efficaciousness to baptism widely disagreed with each other about the sort of efficaciousness involved. Go here for a discussion of some examples. People often lowered their view of baptism in order to heighten their view of something else (prebaptismal faith, prebaptismal anointing with oil, postbaptismal anointing with oil, the laying on of hands, etc.). Such tradeoffs would inevitably affect the sort of efficaciousness assigned to baptism in an interpretation of John 3:5. Some people held a highly efficacious view of both prebaptismal faith and baptism. To the extent that they were consistent in maintaining those views, there would have to be a tradeoff. Heightening your view of prebaptismal faith lowers your view of baptism in some contexts, as I've discussed elsewhere. And there were many other issues that influenced how people understood John 3. As I've discussed elsewhere, there was widespread disagreement before the Reformation about types of baptism other than water baptism, such as baptism of desire. And there were disagreements over whether Jesus' comments in John 3:5 were in effect at the time when he spoke the words in that passage or wouldn't go into effect until later. Those who thought John 3:5 wouldn't be applicable until later disagreed over which later point in time that was.

How Diversely John 3:5 Was Interpreted Before The Reformation

The claim is often made that everybody agreed about the meaning of John 3:5 before the Reformation. Supposedly, there was universal agreement that the passage teaches baptismal regeneration.

"Simply Literal" Scripture Interpretation Long Before The Reformation

Critics of Protestantism often make much of the large amount of allegorizing in the church fathers' interpretations of scripture. But there was a lot of diversity in how scripture was interpreted, including interpretive approaches of a more literal nature, long before the Reformation. Though Jerome allegorized a lot, he acknowledged that other people in his day didn't:

"In the Scriptures, the words are not simply literal, as some think." (in Thomas Scheck, trans., St. Jerome: Commentary On Isaiah [Mahwah, New Jersey: The Newman Press, 2015], p. 938, Letter 18A:12)

You often come across comments like those in pre-Reformation sources. Whether they name who they have in mind or not, they refer to a diversity of interpretive methods and interpretations. Even among those who allegorized a lot, there was a lot of variation in terms of how they did so, the extent to which they did it, etc. There's diversity among those who interpret scripture more literally as well.

What's the significance of the extrabiblical sources?

We need to keep in mind that the significance of extrabiblical sources varies, and can vary widely, from one context to another. On a subject like eternal security, which I've been addressing a lot in recent months, we're in a context in which the Biblical sources provide us with a large amount of information. It's not as though eternal security is some minor issue that never came up or only came up on rare occasions in the Biblical record. It's not something with as little significance as what year Isaiah died or how many times Paul visited a particular city. The potential to lose justification has existed since the time of Adam and Eve, instead of being something that only came up toward the end of the Biblical era or afterward. The Bible provides us with relevant information in dozens of documents from dozens of authors over more than a thousand years. A supposed lack of clarity in one Biblical source can be resolved by consulting another passage or group of passages elsewhere in that source or by consulting one or more other Biblical sources. The nature of eternal security is such that our dependence on extrabiblical sources is much less in that context than it is on other issues.

Something like a universal or nearly universal absence of or opposition to eternal security among the extrabiblical sources would give us reason to reconsider our view on the subject, but any conclusion we'd reach would still have to interact with the large amount of Biblical data we have on the topic. But there isn't a universal or nearly universal absence of or opposition to eternal security among the extrabiblical sources, as I've demonstrated in my posts on the subject. Since eternal security is addressed so much in scripture and is neither universally nor almost universally absent or contradicted in the extrabiblical sources, we have a situation in which the extrabiblical sources are less significant accordingly.

Whether the topic is eternal security or something else, we need to remember what's involved when people refer to something like "the Bible" or "scripture". There's a sense in which only one source is involved, but there's also a sense in which there isn't. We could similarly refer to the church fathers collectively as "the church fathers" or refer to medieval sources collectively as "medieval sources", for example. But the Bible, like those other collections of documents, consists of many sources who wrote in many contexts. Extrabiblical sources have some value in assisting us in interpreting the Biblical documents, and some people underestimate the value of those extrabiblical sources (because of ignorance, laziness, dishonesty, or whatever other reason), but there's also a danger of overestimating them. And the level of significance they have varies from one context to another.

Biblical Interpretation In Support Of Eternal Security Before The Reformation

Over the years, as I've read pre-Reformation sources who advocated some form of eternal security, I've noticed that they often cite some of the same Biblical passages advocates of eternal security bring up today. That's significant, given how often critics of eternal security suggest that nobody believed in the concept before the Reformation, that modern interpretations of the relevant Biblical passages are novel and wouldn't have occurred to the pre-Reformation sources, etc. See, for example, my comments in the posts here and here concerning the use of 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 by proponents of eternal security more than a thousand years before the Reformation. In a previous post, I mentioned a book on Gottschalk by Victor Genke and Francis Gumerlock. When I read that book, I repeatedly came across examples of Gottschalk citing certain passages of scripture in the same way or a way significantly similar to how I and other advocates of eternal security interpret those passages (e.g., the citations of John 6:37 and 10:28-29 on page 129, the discussion of Romans 5:9 on page 63 in Gottschalk And A Medieval Predestination Controversy [Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Marquette University Press, 2010]).

Even when a particular Biblical passage isn't brought up, we have indirect evidence for how the passage was interpreted. As I've said before, if a Jehovah's Witness were to interpret a passage of scripture in a manner that contradicts the deity of Christ, we wouldn't need to have an extant document in which Athanasius comments on that passage in order to conclude that he probably didn't view the passage as the Jehovah's Witness does. Since Athanasius affirmed the deity of Christ, we would assume that he didn't interpret the passage as the Jehovah's Witness interprets it. The same principles apply to how scripture was likely interpreted by the people who held to eternal security in the pre-Reformation era.

How The Early Christians Viewed Theophanies

This is from a note on section 2:27 of Ernest Evans' edition of Tertullian's Against Marcion, found here. I haven't studied this subject much, but I think Evans' point would have some significance even if he overestimates the popularity of the view in question to some extent:

"It was almost universally held, until the end of the fourth century, that the subject of the theophanies, the speaker of divine words throughout the Old Testament, was God the Son acting as the agent or messenger of the Father: Justin, dial. 56 sqq.; Tertullian, adv. Prax. 14-16; Eusebius, H.E. i. 2; Prudentius, Apotheosis (passim)."

How did Nicodemus interpret John 3:5?

As I mentioned in a recent post, one of the problems with baptismal justification, such as the view of it advocated by Tertullian, is that it involves so much discontinuity. It's common to allege that baptismal justification didn't go into effect until after Jesus' resurrection, for example. So, even though Abraham is repeatedly cited as the primary example of how people are justified after the time of Jesus' resurrection (much like Jesus' appeal to Abraham prior to the resurrection), we're supposed to believe that we're now justified in a way that has less continuity with Abraham's justification, since baptism is now the normative context in which justification occurs. And even though John's gospel is structured in such a way as to highlight Jesus' pre-resurrection soteriology and associate it with how people who read John's gospel can be justified, we're supposed to think baptism has been added as a requirement since the time Jesus made those statements John highlights. (For a discussion of the relevant material in John, see the section of the post here on John's gospel, for example. And there are other relevant posts in our archives.) If baptism didn't become justificatory until after Jesus' resurrection, then there's a higher degree of discontinuity with multiple types of baptism practiced in the Christian movement prior to that time, namely the baptisms of John and Jesus discussed in John 3:22-4:2. We're told that Cornelius' justification prior to baptism in Acts 10 is an exception to the rule. But it's continuous with how people were justified prior to that time. And what occurred in Acts 10 is referred to as if it's normative in 11:17-18 and 15:7-11 (in the context of how people are justified, not some other context, like whether speaking in tongues is normative). Furthermore, other passages, like Acts 19:2 and Galatians 3:2, seem to likewise treat a scenario like that of Cornelius as normative. The "hearing with faith" of Galatians 3:2 sounds strikingly similar to Cornelius' justification as he heard the gospel proclaimed and believed what he was hearing. What's described in Galatians 3:2 sounds more like Cornelius' situation than a baptismal context. (For a response to the common suggestion that Galatians 3:27 warrants including baptism earlier in the passage, see here.) And if the Galatians were justified as Cornelius was, then Paul's appeal to Abraham and Genesis 15:6 just afterward makes more sense accordingly. And so on. I'm just citing several examples here among others that could be discussed. Justification through faith alone, apart from baptism, involves more continuity and makes more sense of the evidence as a whole.

What I want to focus on in this post, though, is a particular aspect of that evidence. John 3:5 is often cited in support of baptismal justification. And it's often noted, in response, that Jesus speaks of how people are (not will be) born again and criticizes Nicodemus for not understanding what he (Jesus) was referring to in the passage, which makes more sense if the reference to water was about an Old Testament theme rather than about baptism and an aspect of baptism that wouldn't go into effect until after the resurrection of Jesus. But notice, also, that the timing of John 3:5 provides a lot of opportunity for interpretation of Jesus' comments there, regardless of whether the interpretations were correct. (Nicodemus would have interpreted what Jesus said, and other people may have been interpreting it as well, depending on whether others were told about the conversation and/or that portion of it prior to Jesus' resurrection.) We're often told that nobody interpreted John 3:5 as anything other than a reference to baptismal justification prior to the Reformation. I've demonstrated elsewhere, such as here and here, that that claim is false as it pertains to the post-apostolic era. But notice how problematic the claim is even by the standards of the people making the claim.

If baptismal justification didn't go into effect until after Jesus' resurrection, and John 3:5 is immediately followed by references to multiple types of baptism that weren't justificatory (John 3:22-4:2), why think Nicodemus and anybody else who was interpreting John 3:5 at the time would have been interpreting it as a reference to baptismal justification? In other words, it seems that the earliest interpretation of John 3:5 was likely one that didn't involve baptismal justification, even by the standards of the people advocating the baptismal justification view of the passage.

You could get around part of the force of this argument I'm making by proposing that Nicodemus was agnostic about the meaning of the passage, that he interpreted John 3:5 as a reference to baptismal justification, but didn't expect it to go into effect until sometime in the future, or something like that. But that wouldn't change the fact that the evidence as a whole, as outlined above, suggests that it's more likely that Jesus' comments wouldn't have been taken as a reference to baptismal justification at the time. Even under a scenario in which Nicodemus (and whoever else) was agnostic about the meaning of the passage, agnosticism is significantly different than the sort of clarity advocates of baptismal justification often suggest. So, all of this is further evidence against the notion that there was universal agreement about interpreting John 3:5 as a reference to baptismal justification prior to the Reformation.

Are Gnostic and pagan documents part of Roman Catholic tradition?

In the mid 1990s, I met a man online named John Wallace who impressed upon me the value of hostile corroboration. He made good use of the corroboration of Christianity that we have from ancient non-Christian sources. I also read some material in Philip Schaff's church history that left an impression on me in that context. A series I wrote on the canon of scripture several years ago has a segment about hostile corroboration of the New Testament canon, and it concludes with a quote from the material in Schaff's church history I just referred to. Ever since I came across Wallace and Schaff's work, I've given a lot of attention to hostile corroboration as a line of evidence. You can find many traces of it in my work over the years.

I often think of that line of evidence when I see Catholics and Orthodox claim that Protestants are relying on Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox tradition when we accept our canon of scripture, interpret it in light of ancient sources, or some such thing. They act as though anything outside of scripture should be equated with Catholic or Orthodox tradition. I know that hostile corroboration has long been a large part of what shapes my views on matters like the canon of scripture and scripture interpretation. When Bible translators make judgments about how to render the Biblical text, Biblical commentators decide how to best interpret certain Biblical passages, and so forth, they rely partly on information they're getting from Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Trypho, Celsus, Porphyry, archeological artifacts, and other ancient non-Christian sources. And something like a New Testament manuscript or a catacomb inscription isn't always accompanied by an extensive statement of faith on the part of the individual(s) who produced the manuscript or inscription. Think of the absurdity of suggesting that everything from Josephus to Celsus to an ancient New Testament manuscript from a largely unknown source is equivalent to Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition.

But many Protestants are taken in by that sort of argumentation. And many Catholics and Orthodox think they're arguing well when they utilize such poor arguments. That's largely because we're such a secular, trivial culture that doesn't think and talk about issues like these nearly enough.

If a Catholic or Orthodox just wants to argue that part of what Protestants are relying on is Catholic or Orthodox tradition, then that qualifier should be added upfront rather than later in the discussion. And they should justify their claim about partial dependence on their tradition and explain why that partial dependence allegedly is problematic. A Protestant doesn't have to accept, and shouldn't accept, the assumption that all or even most of the church fathers or other early Christians were Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. And even if they had been Catholic or Orthodox, Catholics and Orthodox often depend on information they get from Protestant or other non-Catholic or non-Orthodox archeologists, historians, Bible translators, patristic scholars, etc. So what? All of us make our historical judgments, including judgments about matters like religion and morals, on the basis of testimony or other evidence from sources outside our church, denomination, or ecclesiastical movement. Again, so what?

An Unanswered Question

In the comments on my initial post, I posed a question that has not been answered yet.  It’s not overly surprising given that really none of my posts have been answered yet at all by those who made the charges against Wood, Malone, and McCray (although I’m grateful for the readers of Triablogue who have discussed them nonetheless), but I wanted to highlight this particular question because I think it is important in determining consistency, which is not only important but also is a primary focus of those who have been attacking the videos.

My specific question was this: 

…have you ever watched a movie or TV show where a character was murdered in the show? Murder is sick and perverted. Was the movie or TV show sick and perverted because it happened to one of the characters? I mean, I'm not talking about gorey [sic] movies. Think about John Wayne westerns where the bad guy kills someone which is why John Wayne has to go after him.

Is that immoral? Or do you give it a pass. Because it seems to me that murder is actually a sin…

When a murder is staged for a play, movie, or television show, we do not condemn that as sin, because it’s obvious that the actual actions that are being done are not, themselves, sinful.  For example, pulling the trigger of a prop gun aimed at another person, having a blank go off, and even simulating blood on a person’s shirt, are all actions that are not sinful.  But these non-sinful actions are metaphorical representations of an actual sinful action.  They do not somehow take on sinfulness simply because the actual action would have been sinful, because no one committed the actual action.

If we do not condemn videos that show murders, or theft (such as a bank heist), or even movies that contain jaywalking (for we are supposed to obey non-sinful laws) then what is the basis by which we condemn Wood’s videos?  Again, the two videos that are getting the most flak over are the urination video and the breastfeeding video.  But the actual actions that they did are as follows: in the first case, they squeezed apple juice through a squeeze bottle.  In the second, they drank cow’s milk while sitting in front of a fully clothed woman.  Clearly, neither of those actions are sinful themselves.

But equally clearly, those actions are representing other actions, which some people might claim are sinful (I still have not seen any actual evidence that they are sinful, but that’s a different topic).  The actors are simulating urine and breast milk respectively.  Yet if simulating a murder does not make an action immoral, then why would simulating urine or breast milk make an action immoral, even if the urine and breast milk were actually sinful in and of themselves?

But I’m actually going to up the ante a bit.  What is the most grievous sin you can imagine?  And yes, it’s okay to put on your Sunday school caps, because the answer is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.  So, I ask: is it sinful for movies like the Jesus movie, or the Passion of the Christ, to depict the crucifixion of Jesus Christ on the cross?  The perfect, unblemished Lamb of God being put to death at the hands of sinful man—there is no greater sin possible!  If simulating that does not transfer guilt onto the actor, then what would?

Consistency demands an answer here.  If you oppose Wood’s video, do you also oppose every single form of media that depicts sinful actions?  If we go to your DVD collection, are we going to find movies with any violence in them, including minor violence (after all, it is sinful to unjustly strike another person)?  Will we find books on your shelf that have characters who lie?  Will we find video games with characters who are evil in them, even if just the ones that kidnapped the princess who’s at the end of the level?

Are you consistent?  Do you condemn all those things?  Do they offend you, or is it only your brother in the Lord who you feel offense toward? 

Are you consistent with your judgment or not?

What Constitutes "Crude Joking"?

One of the passages that was used to critique Wood, Malone, and McCray is Ephesians 5:4, which reads “Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.” From the responses to Wood that I’ve seen, this verse has been applied specifically to two videos.  First is his video on the proper way to urinate in Islam, and secondly on the infamous breastfeeding video.  But does this passage address either of those?

One big problem that I have seen is that very few people are taking the time to actually define what “crude joking” would entail.  Dr. White used the definition of “vulgar speech, and indecent talk” when discussing it in his second video (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hSIA0hzMwk&feature=youtu.be&t=58m35s).  The problem is that this simply moves the question back a step: What constitutes “vulgar speech” or “indecent talk”?  Unfortunately, Dr. White does not go into details on this.  Instead, he transitions immediately into the pragmatism discussion and takes for granted that everyone agrees with him what is vulgar and what is indecent.

Here’s the problem.  Is the vulgar defined culturally, or is it defined Biblically?  Is indecency defined culturally or Biblically?  I would argue that it cannot be defined culturally, and here’s proof: I do not find any of the videos to be vulgar or indecent.  I do not say this to be polemical, I say this because it’s my honest assessment.  Can you prove me wrong?

If you just assert, “Well, to me they are vulgar”, then I’m going to continue to assert, “To me, they are not.”  Who wins this?  Why should I subject my standards to your opinion?

So clearly we need an objective arbiter here, and that is Scripture.  So let me ask the question that matters: Would the Bible find these videos to be vulgar or indecent?

Let us consider the first one, the urination video.  1 Kings 18:27 answers this plainly: “And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, ‘Cry aloud, for he is a god.  Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.’”  Note the key bolded words.  Elijah mocked using bathroom humor about bodily functions.  In fact, the expressions being used there is actually more vulgar than is typically translated.  So I do not think the urination video would be considered “vulgar speech” or “indecent talk” even when used in mockery, under Biblical standards.

But what of the breastfeeding video?  Well, let us actually dig into this and ask why this video would be offensive.  Is it immoral to breastfeed?  Clearly not.  Children do it all the time.  Ah, but perhaps it is immoral for adult men to breastfeed.  Except there is no prohibition against it in the Scripture.

In fact, the Bible has no problem referencing breasts.  Look at Proverbs 5:19 (“Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight”).  More than that, consider Isaiah 66:10-11: “Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice with her in joy, all you who mourn over her; that you may nurse and be satisfied from her consoling breast; that you may drink deeply with delight from her glorious abundance.”

In light of this, how can one be Biblically consistent in claiming that the two most objected-to videos Wood has produced are vulgar or indecent, when the Bible uses the same language?

Consistency is important, and it goes both ways.  Please, show me from the Scripture (allowing Scripture to define its terms) where the videos actually violate the precepts we find there.  If you want to be consistent, please show me the exact link to morality that your moral compass has, so we can see whether or not the offense you see comes from your culture or from the Bible itself.  Absent this, we are imposing extra-biblical rules and regulations upon fellow believers.  And that, my brothers and sisters, violates Romans 14:4.

My Take on White v. Wood

Note: There has been an addendum added to this post at the end.

I’ve been discussing the White/Wood Controversy on Facebook, and one of my friends mentioned he thought it would be a good idea to write something more in depth about it.  Before beginning, I want to give a little bit of background.

In the early part of the 2000s, I was a channel regular at #Prosapologian, James White’s IRC.  In fact, for some time I was an Op there, and it’s even where I got my website name of CalvinDude, since that was my chat handle there.  White very definitely blessed me with his ministry through some formative parts of my life.  It was through White that I was first introduced to presuppositionalism, and in fact I believe it was after one of his Dividing Line broadcasts that I heard of, so sought out and listened to, the Bahnsen/Stein debate on the Existence of God and later picked up Bahnsen’s book, Always Ready: Directions For Defending the Faith.

There were really only two topics that White and I ever disagreed on in the channel.  The first was paedobaptism (since White is a Reformed Baptist and I am a Presbyterian).  The second, ironically enough, has some bearing on the current dispute because it was about what type of language is permissible for Christians to use.  To his credit, White has remained consistent on that from the time we had our discussion up until today.  But then, so have I, so fundamentally we’re still going to disagree on that part.  That said, I have continued to follow White off and on and watch several of his Dividing Line episodes each year (I sadly lack the time to watch all of them).

It is also through White that I first heard about David Wood.  And soon after, Wood debated John Loftus who, back when I was first contributing to Triablogue, was a frequent foil.  It was also around this time that Wood was unjustly arrested in Dearborn at the Arab Festival, along with Nabeel Qureshi and others, which introduced me to the full ministry of Acts 17 Apologetics.

In short, then, I’ve followed White for about 15 years now, and I’ve followed Wood for about 8.  I’ve learned a lot from both of them and believe both are genuine brothers in the LORD.  But when it comes to the controversy, I do have to say that I very strongly believe the evidence backs David Wood.  This isn’t to say that White’s objections have no merit, nor that they do not need to be responded to.  In fact, I applaud White for two things in his critique: one, for wanting to remain Biblically consistent; and two, for his intense desire for the Gospel to be proclaimed.  The disagreement I have is that I believe that Wood satisfies both of those requirements, whereas White clearly does not believe that to be the case.

Fortunatianus' Commentary On The Gospels

There have been some media stories lately about the recent discovery and English translation of a fourth-century patristic work that was previously lost. For the background, see my Facebook post here. Having read the English translation, I want to expand upon that post. All numbers that follow in parentheses will be references to page numbers in the English translation just linked.

The media and the document's English translator, Hugh Houghton, have given a lot of attention to the highly allegorical nature of Fortunatianus' interpretation of the gospels. The allegorical approach supplemented a grammatical/historical one rather than replacing it. See, for example, Fortunatianus' comments affirming the historicity of the magi giving gifts to Jesus (18), the miracles Jesus performed (65), the miraculous events around the time of Jesus' death (95), etc. He harmonizes Jesus' genealogies (6-7). He refers to how Matthew, as an evangelist, "is not permitted to lie or deceive" (10). He tells us that John received "careful guidance" from the Holy Spirit when writing and "knew all secrets" (100-101). Fortunatianus sometimes tells us that an alleged allegory in scripture is referring to something supernatural, like the virgin birth (80), or is referring to something else that critics of Christianity often reject, so how can such allegorizing be equated to a rejection of such beliefs? And so on. Ironically, some of the places where Fortunatianus is most explicit in affirming the historicity of the gospels are when writing about accounts whose historicity surely would be rejected by people in the media and elsewhere who are appealing to his allegorizing. But since he is so allegorical in his interpretation, another point ought to be made on that subject.

The allegorizing discredits itself. It sinks from its own dead weight. If you want to see how superior grammatical/historical interpretation is and the unverifiable and dangerous nature of allegorical interpretation, read a work like Fortunatianus' commentary. Here are a few examples:

My advice to young pastors

Give a pastor a commentary and you feed him for a day; teach a pastor linguistics and you feed him for a lifetime.