The New Testament Documents Were More Foundational Than Church Infallibility

In an article in 2008, I wrote:

While heretics and the many branches of what we call orthodoxy widely agreed about scripture, there was no comparable agreement about a system of church infallibility. The Arians would reject anti-Arian councils, and the anti-Arians would reject Arian councils, but neither side would reject the gospel of Matthew or Paul's epistle to the Romans when such a document was cited against that side's position. It seems that Christians, heretics, and those who didn't even profess to be Christians accepted the foundational role of scripture in Christianity while widespread disputes over church authority went on for centuries and continue to this day. A Celsus, an Arius, or an Athanasius will be more concerned with scripture than with any other authority when discussing Christianity. That doesn't rule out the existence of some other infallible authority, but it does say something about the level of evidence for one type of authority as compared to another....

Lane alludes to another point I've made in note 29, when he comments that "But it must be remembered that Tertullian became a Montanist" and makes reference to how "the fathers could sit very loose to tradition when it suited them". In other words, as I noted in my e-mail yesterday, commitment to scripture in the patristic era was more deeply rooted and consistent than commitment to various concepts of the church and extra-Biblical tradition, as is the case in our day.

Dave Armstrong recently responded:

Oh, this is brilliant. So because people whom we all agree agree were heretics rejected orthodox councils, and because orthodox Catholicism rejected heretical councils, this supposedly proves something because both sides accepted Matthew's authenticity as inspired Scripture? But in the same period we see all kinds of anomalies in views of the canon that I noted last time: even the NT canon. It's another rhetorical dead-end for Jason....

One reason for that, I submit, is that a book can be molded in many different ways: often according to the whims of the molder, whereas live, institutional authority of human beings entails a direct accountability that will always be rejected by significant numbers. This proves nothing, however, as to the truth or falsity of either thing.

As I explained in an earlier response to Dave, to compare a church father's rejection of 3 John to rejection of the papacy, for example, is misleading. Patristic disagreements over the canon aren't as significant as patristic disagreements over church infallibility. Not only is less at stake in the canonical disagreements, but those disagreements were less widespread as well, as I mentioned in the earlier response to Dave linked above.

But the entirety of the canon doesn't need to have the sort of widespread acceptance I referred to in order for my argument to be applicable to part of the canon. Dave can't dismiss the significance of my argument by claiming that it's only applicable to a portion of the canon, particularly since the portion in question is a large majority.

I addressed the issue of hostile corroboration of the New Testament canon in an article last year. I'll repeat some of what I said there, but not all of it. And I'll be adding some comments here that I didn't include there.

Bruce Metzger wrote:

"The Gnostics acknowledged this [that Gnosticism wasn't found in the New Testament documents], but asserted that such teachings had not been communicated by the Lord to the general public, but only to his most trusted disciples....The Gnostics also produced other texts in which the apostles report what the Lord had secretly communicated to them....Alongside such 'secret' traditions the Gnostics would, naturally, also know and even utilize the books received by the Church, while interpreting them in their own special manner." (The Canon Of The New Testament [New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], pp. 77-78)

Harry Gamble writes:

"This means that what was at stake between gnostic and non-gnostic Christians was not principally which books were authoritative, but rather how the scriptures were to be rightly interpreted. In point of fact, gnostic Christians employed virtually all the books that were used in the church at large. The difference lay not in the documents, but in different hermeneutical programs." (in Lee McDonald and James Sanders, edd., The Canon Debate [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], p. 293)

As Pheme Perkins notes:

"No claim to apostolic teaching could be credible without evoking the authoritative, publicly available text." (ibid., p. 360)

Irenaeus tells us that some heretics rejected some New Testament documents (Against Heresies, 3:11:7), but that most "do certainly recognise the Scriptures; but they pervert the interpretations" (Against Heresies, 3:12:12). From what we know of the Gnostics and other early heretics, from their own writings and from sources like Irenaeus, their beliefs are contradicted by the New Testament documents. The fact that they would think they needed to accept those documents anyway, but apply implausible interpretations to them and add their own documents and alleged secret traditions, reflects well on the New Testament. Irenaeus makes much of such hostile corroboration in his treatise Against Heresies, and he was right to do so.

The significance of the Gnostics' acceptance of the documents is illustrated by the absurdity of their interpretations. Why didn't they just reject the documents instead? As Irenaeus remarks after describing some of their views, "They have now been fully exposed; and simply to exhibit their sentiments, is to obtain a victory over them." (Against Heresies, 1:31:3) The historian Philip Schaff commented:

"These heretical testimonies [in support of the fourth gospel] are almost decisive by themselves. The Gnostics would rather have rejected the fourth Gospel altogether, as Marcion actually did, from doctrinal objection. They certainly would not have received it from the Catholic church, as little as the church would have received it from the Gnostics. The concurrent reception of the Gospel by both at so early a date is conclusive evidence of its genuineness. 'The Gnostics of that date,' says Dr. Abbot, 'received it because they could not help it. They would not have admitted the authority of a book which could be reconciled with their doctrines only by the most forced interpretation, if they could have destroyed its authority by denying its genuineness. Its genuineness could then be easily ascertained. Ephesus was one of the principal cities of the Eastern world, the centre of extensive commerce, the metropolis of Asia Minor. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people were living who had known the apostle John. The question whether he, the beloved disciple, had committed to writing his recollections of his Master’s life and teaching, was one of the greatest interest. The fact of the reception of the fourth Gospel as his work at so early a date, by parties so violently opposed to each other, proves that the evidence of its genuineness was decisive. This argument is further confirmed by the use of the Gospel by the opposing parties in the later Montanistic controversy, and in the disputes about the time of celebrating Easter.'" (History Of The Christian Church, 1:12:83)

Dave Armstrong tells us that "a book can be molded in many different ways: often according to the whims of the molder, whereas live, institutional authority of human beings entails a direct accountability that will always be rejected by significant numbers". But the Gnostics could have rejected both. They had other sources to utilize, such as their own documents and alleged oral traditions from the apostles. It's not as though they were obligated to accept a mainstream Christian source of authority and chose the Biblical documents as the source they would accept. They could have rejected both the Biblical documents and Dave's concept of an infallible church. Why did they, instead, accept the former while not accepting the latter? And what infallible church teachings would they have been "directly accountable" to? As I noted in an earlier response to Dave, we have no record of any allegedly infallible pronouncements from any sources like a Roman bishop or ecumenical council during the earliest generations of church history. Speculating that groups like the Gnostics didn't accept church authority because they anticipated how it might be used against them in the future wouldn't change the fact that they corroborate the New Testament documents, but not Dave's concept of an infallible church. Arguing that they had a bad reason for not corroborating Dave's position doesn't change the fact that they didn't corroborate it, whereas they did corroborate the New Testament documents.

And I didn't just cite heretics, like the Gnostics. I also cited non-Christian sources, like the ones discussed in my article on hostile corroboration. If non-Christian sources give us corroboration of the apostolicity of documents like the gospels, whereas they don't give us such corroboration for an infallible church, much less Dave's concept of an infallible church in particular, then that adds weight to the Evangelical position. Jewish and Roman opponents of Christianity weren't interested in how they might "mold" the New Testament documents to make them seem to agree with their own beliefs. They acknowledged their disagreement with the documents and rejected their authority. When the earliest enemies of Christianity acknowledge the apostolic origins of New Testament documents and treat those documents as foundational to Christianity, whereas they show no knowledge of Dave's system of church infallibility, that's a significant contrast that favors the Evangelical position.

I also cited the example of Tertullian, who's often considered a schismatic, not a heretic. He's one of the primary ante-Nicene sources cited to support some of the concepts often associated with an infallible church, like apostolic succession. His view of the church significantly changed over time, whereas his view of the New Testament documents was more consistent. Similarly, if Catholics are going to argue that patristic opponents of the papacy, like Cyprian, were inconsistent in their view of the church (inconsistent with themselves, inconsistent with the other Christians of their day, or both), then their more consistent view of the New Testament documents is a significant contrast.

Church infallibility could be rejected for more than one reason. It might be rejected because a source (heretical, schismatic, or other) doesn't agree with what the church teaches or is expected to teach in the future. But it could also be rejected because a source doesn't think there's sufficient evidence for an infallible church. Why should we think that the former was occurring rather than the latter? What if men like Tertullian and Cyprian supported the New Testament documents more consistently than they supported Dave's view of an infallible church because they had better evidence for the former?

Dave is trying to explain why there was a wider acceptance of the New Testament documents than an infallible church, but he isn't giving us reason to conclude that there wasn't a wider acceptance of those documents. I consider Dave's explanation for the wider acceptance less likely than my explanation. But it is a fact that the New Testament documents were more widely accepted. We know that those documents were corroborated by hostile sources early and often. We don't know that about Dave's system of church infallibility. It's also advantageous to the Evangelical position when scripture is cited earlier, more explicitly, and more often and is appealed to more consistently. The New Testament itself and the earliest patristic sources explicitly refer to New Testament documents as scripture at a time when alleged references to an infallible church exist in a far more vague seed form at best. When Eusebius composed his church history near the close of the ante-Nicene era, the large majority of the text of the New Testament could be reconstructed from citations in earlier sources, and he could name every one of the twenty-seven documents as well-known and widely accepted as scripture. In contrast, neither the concept nor an exercise of papal or conciliar infallibility is to be found. Roman Catholicism claims that the papacy is the foundation of the church, and that foundation is found in only one ante-Nicene source (the Roman bishop Stephen), a source who's contradicted by other sources rather than corroborated. Dave has to appeal to an alleged seed form of church infallibility that existed in the earliest centuries, and that seed is far too vague to single out Roman Catholicism as its future development. As we'll see in some upcoming posts about issues like apostolic succession and Irenaeus' view of the church (and as we've already seen with regard to Papias and other sources), even the vague seed Dave appeals to is less than he makes it out to be. It's not even an acorn. It's more like a mustard seed that Dave is trying to mutate into an acorn to justify his oak.

Freudian slip

PAUL MCCAIN SAID:

“It has been my observation, for years, that when a person has to resort to a host of ad hominems he is fundamentally insecure about his position.”

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/02/luthers-greenhouse.html#4154349154157177725

Rev. Paul T. McCain

“As for why I will not respond to Mr. Turk’s churlish first comment in this stream, the reason is simple. I will gladly grant Mr. Turk the right to have his little temper-tantrum, but I see no point in responding to it. Let him have his little rant and let him roar. The fact that Mr. Turk got himself into such a lather…” [emphasis mine].

http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/02/who-is-getting-voted-off-the-island-its-a-secret/#comment-6071

Knowledge and self-knowledge

“And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments” (1 Jn 2:3).

If we believe in Christ, then we can also know that we believe in Christ. We can know what we believe. For faith is able to become its own object.

Not only is this possible, but it’s necessary. For unless we both could reflect on our faith, on the faith that God has given us in his Son, then we would be in no position to distinguish ourselves from unbelievers.

You can have no assurance of salvation unless you can reflect on your Christian identity. On your relationship with Christ. So the assurance of salvation inevitably demands an element of self-knowledge. To be self-aware of what we believe about another. About the Redeemer.

Although Christ is the object of saving faith, a degree of self-reflection is essential to the assurance of salvation.

"Examine yourselves!"

“Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!” (2 Cor 13:5).

“In a context that emphasizes the need for proper Christian action (12:20-21; 13:7), the most satisfactory option is to take ‘the faith’ in a broad sense as referring to Christian conduct that accords with Christian doctrine. That is, ‘being in the faith’ means continuing true to the faith in conduct as well as in belief. An emphasis on conduct is suggested by the following unqualified ‘test yourselves’ when it is read in the light of Gal 6:4, ‘let each man test his own work.’ For the Corinthian believers the main ‘work’ that would demonstrate their true ‘faith’ was obedience (cf. ‘the obedience that springs from faith,’ Rom 1:5; 16:26), obedience to Paul and to the gospel he proclaimed (2:9; 10:6),” M. J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Eerdmans 2005), 920.

"Daddy issues"

Justin Taylor plugged a post by Michael Mckinley entitled “Jesus didn’t tap.” I’ll comment on a few of his statements:

“It makes the gospel man-centered.”

That depends on what you mean. Jesus is, among other things, the great physician. He heals the sick. And, as sinners, our illness take various forms: physical, emotional, and spiritual.

God created us with various needs. It’s hardly man-centered to say the Gospel ministers to our God-given needs.

“Coming to Jesus isn't a way for you to deal with your daddy issues.”

Why not?

i) For better or worse (and it can go either way), the father/son relationship is a defining relationship in our formative years. And that’s how God made us. We’re social creatures. At various levels we’re emotionally dependent on other human beings.

In a fallen world, many men didn’t get what they needed from their own fathers. So, yes, a lot of man have unresolved “daddy issues.”

That is nothing to mock or belittle. If a man suffers from “daddy issues,” that is not, of itself, something he should feel ashamed of.

For God designed men to identify, in some measure, with their fathers. If that relationship was fundamentally inadequate (for whatever reason), then that will leave a mark.

The real question is how men with “daddy issues” should deal with that issue.

ii) I also have no idea why Mckinley thinks that coming to Jesus isn’t the right way to deal with issue.

In God the Father we have the perfect exemplar of fatherhood. In Jesus, we have the perfect exemplar of manhood (in addition to his Godhood). And in the Holy Spirit we have the grace of inner renewal.

Christianity gives a man the resources to become the kind of man that he was meant to be. Where else should he turn?

“I get it, your dad didn't hug you when you were little and you want to be a different kind of man. How about you go hug your kid then?”

Of course, that misses the point. Men with unresolved “daddy issue” may lack the capacity to be good fathers in their own right. They can give what they don’t have. They can’t give what they never got.

Coming to Jesus initiates a process of healing and wholeness. It isn’t automatic. We need to use the means of grace. And it’s a lifelong process. Indeed, a process which will remain incomplete in this life.

“It discourages and mocks godly men who aren't macho. There is an undercurrent of disdain in all of this. Proponents of this testosterone Christianity can't help but take shots at guys who wear pastels and drink cappuccino.”

That’s a legitimate concern. However, it’s odd that Mckinley is tone-deaf to his own disdain and mockery in the opposite direction.

Imagine if a man with “daddy issues” read his piece. At a minimum, such a man would vow to never step inside Mckinley’s church. At a maximum, he’d be so put off by this post that he’d swear off church altogether. It confirms his worst suspicions about the welcome (or lack thereof) that he can expect to receive if he ever went to church.

Luther's greenhouse

EDWARD REISS SAID:

“Doubt is not assurance, in fact they are opposites.”

Opposites in the sense that they can’t coexist at the same time in the same individual. But a Christian can pass through different phases over the course of a lifetime.

“And when someone loses his assurance he is pointed to--himself to prove he is really elect.”

He is also pointed to the promises of God. You persistently misrepresent the Reformed position.

Why is that? Why are you unable to keep more than one idea in your head at a time?

“The promises are inoperative if we are not elect as they do not pertain to the elect--this is undisputed Calvinist doctrine.”

i) And why should the promises be operative for a reprobate? Why should the hellbound enjoy the assurance of salvation? What does that even mean?

ii) Since the promises are conditional, the promises are true for everyone. “If–then.” That relation is true for everyone.

“This means the real question is ‘am I elect?’”

No, that’s not the “real” question:

i) Since the promises are conditional, you don’t first have to determine whether or not you’re elect to see if you meet the terms of the promise.

Take: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9).

You don’t have to know anything in advance about your elect status to know if that applies to you. For faith is the gateway.

If you believe it, then it applies to you. If you don’t believe it, then it doesn’t apply to you.

In that respect, the relevance of the promises is self-fulfilling.

ii) You don’t have to know that you’re elect to be elect. And if you are elect, then you enjoy all of the spiritual blessings of the elect. So you won’t find yourself in the spiritual dilemma you pose.

Your hypothetical conundrum doesn’t take into account the grace of election. Election itself is a gracious state.

“Lutherans have real assurance because every time God says he gives us his saving grace he really means it.”

i) And what he “really means” by saving grace in Lutheranism is resistible grace. But, of course, resistible grace may or may not be saving grace. Both the heavenbound and hellbound receive the same grace in the sacraments and the words of absolution. So in what sense is that “real” assurance. Assurance of what?

“There is no ‘if I am elect’ in Lutheranism.”

Since election is a biblical doctrine, then that omission means that Lutheran theology can’t make room for the teaching of Scripture.

“Steve interestingly mentioned 'nuance' in his latest post. Well, if he wants his claims to be treated with nuance he should practice what he preaches and not make each of his new posts sound like they have no relationship to what was discussed before and force a conversation which has stretched over more than a week into an un-nuanced side show.”

I stated my position with various qualifications from the inception of this thread.

“To the point, if Steve now wants to claim that even the elect may not know they are elect…”

There is no “now”–as if I suddenly introduced a key concession or qualification that wasn’t present in my original formulation. Rather, that’s something I’ve said all along.

Why don’t you pay attention to what people actually write?

“And if even the elect cannot be 100% sure he has quite simply lost the argument.”

i) I can only lose an argument which I made in the first place. Since I never said that all of God’s elect can always be sure of their salvation, there was no argument for me to lose. You keep burning straw men. You produce a lot of smoke in the process. But clouds of smoke do not amount to a reasoned argument.

ii) And you also belabor your false dichotomy, as though it’s a choice between all of God’s elect having the assurance of salvation all of the time, or none of God’s elect having the assurance of salvation at any time.

Why do you indulge in these simplistic caricatures? It’s a testament to the strength of the Reformed position that you can’t bring yourself to engage the actually position.

“From the article Steve cites.”

I didn’t post the material by Frame. Patrick Chan did. (Not that I object.)

“If the faithful (who for Calvinists can never loose their salvation) have doubt, they do not have assurance.”

They lack assurance at the time they doubt. Take the case of David when he committed adultery and murder.

“And to regain their assurance the very confession cited by Dr. Frame says to look for inward evidence.”

Why is Reiss chronically unable to honestly represent what people say? Did Frame limit the basis of assurance to “internal evidence”? No.

“The point all along is that the Calvinist system encourages and also claims we need to look into our inner evidence to prove our election, while in Lutheranism every time we hear the Gospel and believe it we are justified.”

Why does Reiss keep burning the same straw man in defiance of explicit textual statements to the contrary? Shouldn’t there at least be a moratorium on how often he’s allowed to burn the same straw man? Can’t he at least pick on another straw man from time to time? It isn’t fair to the poor little strawman to be subjected to the same torture day after day.

“And by ‘we’ I mean everyone who believes at any time has possession of the gifts of God when he believes. Whether is believes tomorrow is tomorrow's problem.”

So the gifts of God are refundable gifts. And Lutheran assurance boils down to:

“At 12:01 PM I have the assurance of salvation–which is no assurance that at 12:02 PM I will still have the assurance of salvation. Saved today, damned tomorrow!”

Paul McCain said...

“Ed, If I were you, I would simply totally and completely ignore Hays and all such Reformed Watchbloggers.”

So why did McCain then proceed to leave several comments over at Triablogue?

“Hays has attempted to pounce on my posts several times over at the EVANGEL blog on First Things' site.”

McCain is a pansy who covets the freedom to fire away at other positions he while retains immunity from any return-fire.

“Calvinists finally do not have any assurance of salvation, beyond their own sensation/feeling of faith. In other words, it is finally faith in faith, not Christ, upon which they build their hope of salvation. It is really tragic and every single time I press a Calvinist on this point the same thing happens: they keep telling me that they feel they have faith, therefore, they must be part of the elect.”

If you want to see a textbook example of personal insecurity, go no further than the fact that McCain deleted his own post over at Evangel because he couldn’t defend his attack on Calvinism in the face of reasoned criticism.

McCain is a hothouse plant who wilts the moment you remove him from the climate-controlled environs of his Lutheran greenhouse.

Was George Tiller saved?

Lutherans don’t like the Reformed doctrine of assurance. In its place, they stress sacramental assurance. According to them, a sacrament is a divine promise, and God keeps his word. They also seem to define a promise in purely unconditional terms.

That raises an interesting question. Was George Tiller saved? And did he enjoy the assurance of salvation?

As some of you may remember, George Tiller was the prolific, late-term abortionist. He was also a Lutheran. When George Tiller took communion on Sunday, and his Lutheran pastor pronounced the words of absolution, was Tiller forgiven? Was Tiller entitled to the assurance of salvation?

Likewise, what about all the Lutheran Nazis in WWII? To be sure, some Lutherans resisted the Third Reich as best they could, but many of them simply followed orders.

Suppose a Lutheran S.S. officer murders a dozen Jews that week, goes to church on Sunday, murders another dozen Jews next week, goes back to church on Sunday, and so on and so forth. Is he in a state of grace?

What makes a promise promissory?

The Lutherans I’ve dealt with stress the promissory character of the gospel. I wouldn’t’ have a problem with this were it not for the fact that they define a “promise” in very eccentric terms. They act as though something can only be a promise if it’s unconditional.

Now, suppose farmer tells his 10-year-old son that if his son completes his chores, dad will take him to the zoo on Saturday.

Is that not a promise?

Suppose his son refuses to complete his chores–as a result of which his dad won’t take him to the zoo on Saturday.

Did the father break his promise? No.

"If"

Paul McCain said:

“That little word ‘if’ brings a world of doubt and grief.”

Edward Reiss said:

"The point is that there is no ‘if’ embedded in the Lutheran syllogism, where the Protestant syllogism has an ‘if’ embedded into it--do I really have faith?”

God said:

“For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you” (Mt 6:14).

“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever” (Jn 6:51).

“Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death” (Jn 8:51).

“I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture” (Jn 10:9).

“By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35).

“If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned…If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love…You are my friends if you do what I command you” (Jn 15:6,10,14).

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9).

“For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end” (Heb 3:14).

“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn 1:7).

Fort Zion

Catholicism views the church as a franchise. But let’s consider a different model of the church. We’ve all seen Westerns in with forts and outposts in the wilderness.

These were little beacons of civilization scattered across the vast frontier. Emigrants to the Old West would chart a trail which was punctuated by remote forts and outposts along the way. There they would rest for a few days or weeks. Restock exhausted supplies. Make repairs. Or even dig in for the winter–as they waited for spring before resuming their arduous journey.

And that’s the function of the church. A spiritual stockade in the midst of a fallen world–where weary pilgrims can take temporary refuge in the wilderness of sin. Individual forts and outpost may be abandoned or overrun with the passage of time. Lie in ruins.

Yesterday’s outlying settlement may become tomorrow’s metropolis. Or be deserted. Forgotten by time.

Yet their survival is not an end in itself, but only a means to an end. For we are transients in a transient world. Sojourners on a journey to the land beyond the sun.

Retroengineering Romanism

In the excerpts below, notice how Liccione retroengineers Catholicism is the same way that Darwinians retroengineer evolution.

Evolution is a "fact." Hence, there must be an evolutionary pathway from here to there. Therefore, we can postulate any just-so story to arrive at our desired destination.

And the theory is unfalsifiable because we can always introduce enough ex post facto adjustments to harmonize the evidence with the theory. Whatever zigzag direction it takes, be it backwards, forwards, or sideways, is consistent with the deposit of faith.

Far from representing the “faith once delivered,” what Liccione has given us is just a piecemeal, philosophical construct.

********************************

“It is not important to fix the precise times when one could say, from a scholarly standpoint, that the conditions had been met for such doctrines to have been infallibly taught by the OUM alone. If the doctrines in question are de fide, which they are, then something logically equivalent to them was always taught infallibly by the OUM; if that were not the case, then substantive addition to the deposit of faith would be occurring over time, which nobody is willing to allow. The ‘development’ consists in coming to see this over time, when it was not fully explicit at first to those who were in fact exercising the charism of infallibility.”

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-and-which-are-councils-and-creeds.html?showComment=1265407886661#c1414377460909122997

“As I've already implied, the entire deposit of faith has been infallibly taught by the OUM from the beginning. If the dogmatic pronouncements of the infallible ‘extraordinary’ magisterium were always necessary for the exercise of infallibility, then nothing was taught infallibly before the first ecumenical council--a consequence unacceptable for all sorts of reasons, one of which is that it is ultimately incompatible with the very idea of a ‘faith once delivered’ in its entirety. And so, e.g., the assertoric content of the confessions of faith contained in ‘the Apostles' Creed’ were infallibly taught by the OUM all along. Nobody disputes that; the question always is what the relevant affirmations mean, exactly; and such questions are settled over time by the Magisterium.”

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-and-which-are-councils-and-creeds.html?showComment=1265407973928#c4980188440678769948

The Roman diaries

“The notion that the teaching authority of the Church is infallible under some conditions is certainly a development arising from the Church's early sense of her own indefectibility.”

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-and-which-are-councils-and-creeds.html?showComment=1265407886661#c1414377460909122997

Notice how Liccione’s theory of development personifies “the Church.” He treats the church like a 2000-year-old teenager who is trying to find himself. And he treats the progress of dogma like the diaries of a moody, confused adolescent.

However, the church is not a person. It has no personal continuity–analogous to the human lifecycle. It cannot reflect on itself.

At most, later theologians can reflect on earlier theologians. But there’s no personal entity undergoing a process of self-discovery. Instead, you simply have a bunch of explorers trying to cut a path through the jungle.

Mother Church's amnesia

Reading through Liccione's circuitous description of his denomination's confusing process of self-discovery, he makes Mother Church sound like a patient suffering from amnesia. The poor dear is trying ever so hard to remember who she is:

**************************************

The notion that the teaching authority of the Church is infallible under some conditions is certainly a development arising from the Church's early sense of her own indefectibility. Explicit use of the term 'infallible' predates Vatican I by centuries. It appears explicitly in Thomas Aquinas: "Whoever does not adhere to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible and divine rule can affirm what is "of faith," but he does not do so "by faith" (ST IIa IIae Q5 A3 resp). Around that time, both conciliar and papal infallibility were generally affirmed by theologians, though the relationship between the two forms of infallibility, as well as both to that of the Church in general, was temporarily obscured by the scandalous papal schism of 1378-1417 and some of the claims made by the Council of Constance in the course of resolving it. By the time of the Counter-Reformation, however, conciliar and papal infallibility were being taught together by the college of bishops as a whole. That's because conciliar dogmas could not be said to be binding unless ratified by the pope, and the papacy could not function as the locus of final appeal if a pope's ex cathedra ratifications were themselves subject to reversal as false. Thus, infallibility in all three forms--that of the Church as a whole, that of general councils, and that of the pope--were infallibly taught by the OUM over time.

It is not important to fix the precise times when one could say, from a scholarly standpoint, that the conditions had been met for such doctrines to have been infallibly taught by the OUM alone. If the doctrines in question are de fide, which they are, then something logically equivalent to them was always taught infallibly by the OUM; if that were not the case, then substantive addition to the deposit of faith would be occurring over time, which nobody is willing to allow. The "development" consists in coming to see this over time, when it was not fully explicit at first to those who were in fact exercising the charism of infallibility.

Limbo is often cited as a counterexample to LG's doctrine of the IOUM. But the problem has a standard resolution favored by the Pope himself. Limbo was a theory introduced in the Middle Ages to mitigate Augustine's view that unbaptized infants went permanently to hell--albeit with the "mildest of punishments"--and St. Thomas' version of it did not take long to gain general acceptance, which persisted until Vatican II. But limbo cannot be said to be de fide, precisely because it was introduced to mitigate the consequences of an Augustinian theory that was itself not de fide: the theory that original sin is personal culpa not just reatum, which latter term is weaker, and was used by Trent. That underlying Augustinian theory has been rejected by the Church (cf. CCC 405).

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-and-which-are-councils-and-creeds.html?showComment=1265407886661#c1414377460909122997

To summarize the essential points made by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, a given doctrine D counts as having been infallibly set forth by the OUM just in case its subject matter belongs to the deposit of faith, and it has been taught by the diachronic consensus of the college from the beginning. In his Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, Ratzinger noted that such doctrines require "definitive assent" from Catholics. But of course, if we just left it up to scholars to decide when D satisfies those criteria, then requiring "definitive assent" would be meaningless; for scholars rarely agree for long if at all, and they are not the Magisterium anyhow. So the question whether D satisfies the relevant criteria, when that is a matter of dispute, ultimately must be answered by the Magisterium itself. Scholarly considerations are of course quite relevant too, but they are not in themselves decisive.

As I've already implied, the entire deposit of faith has been infallibly taught by the OUM from the beginning. If the dogmatic pronouncements of the infallible "extraordinary" magisterium were always necessary for the exercise of infallibility, then nothing was taught infallibly before the first ecumenical council--a consequence unacceptable for all sorts of reasons, one of which is that it is ultimately incompatible with the very idea of a "faith once delivered" in its entirety. And so, e.g., the assertoric content of the confessions of faith contained in "the Apostles' Creed" were infallibly taught by the OUM all along. Nobody disputes that; the question always is what the relevant affirmations mean, exactly; and such questions are settled over time by the Magisterium.

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/02/when-and-which-are-councils-and-creeds.html?showComment=1265407973928#c4980188440678769948

Baptismal heresies

One of the stock arguments for baptismal regeneration is the claim that all the church fathers who spoke to this issue taught baptismal regeneration, and there’s a standing presumption that if a church father teaches something, then he’s transmitting apostolic teaching.

Let’s take the case of Hymenaeus (1 Tim 1:19-20; 2 Tim 2:17-18). Now, he has at least as good a claim to have known the apostles as any of the apostolic fathers. Indeed, to have firsthand knowledge of their teaching. Yet he’s a NT heretic.

What is more, while his heresy has an eschatological character, a baptismal heresy was apparently the catalyst:

“Some scholars suggest that the unorthodox view of the resurrection was the result of a reconfiguration (or misunderstanding) of Pauline teaching, and this seems the more promising way to go, particularly in the context of a Pauline community. In this there are two important points of contact with the earlier Paul. First, there may be a connection of some sort between the misunderstanding of the resurrection alluded to in 1 Cor 15:12-58 and 2 Tim 2:18. The argument is that the Spirit-enthusiasm in Corinth led to the belief that the End had arrived in a much fuller sense than Paul ever meant to teach. Evidence of this ‘overrealized’ eschatology is spread throughout the letter (1 Cor 4:8) and includes the resurrection misunderstanding alluded to in 1 Cor 15–which is not a Greek denial of bodily resurrection but rather something more like the radicalization of Pauline baptismal teaching through which it could be said that in one sense the community had been ‘raised with Christ’…The second broad Pauline touchstone is the stream of teaching in which he linked baptism with a present (preliminary or anticipatory) participation in Christ’s resurrection (Rom 6:3-8; Eph 2:5; Col 2:12)…In the present passage [2 Tim 2:17-18], the likelihood that Paul’s own baptismal/resurrection teaching had been misunderstood or misused is strengthened by the focus on Jesus’ resurrection in Paul’s recitation of his gospel (2:8) and his strong affirmation of the futurity of the believer’s resurrection promise in the slightly adjusted language of Rom 6 (2:11),” P. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Eerdmans 2006), 528-29.

So this would be a case of a baptismal heresy cropping up in the NT church. And it’s easy to see how that could arise. If you have an exaggerated view of the sacraments, and if resurrection language is attributed to baptism, then it’s logical, given the (faulty) premise, to infer that baptism actually glorifies the baptismal candidate.

It’s the same hermeneutical framework which is used to justify baptism regeneration and baptismal justification. Taking these ascriptions literally. The sign does what it signifies. If baptism signifies regeneration, then it regenerates. If baptism signifies glorification, then it glorifies. In which case, the resurrection of the body occurs at the time of baptism.

But, of course, Paul has to combat that fallacious inference.

Grounds of assurance

The following is from John Frame's Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (pp 218-221).

* * *
But how can we be assured that we are saved? We generally hold that only the Bible teaches absolutely certain truths. However, your name is not in the Bible, nor is mine. So on what basis can we have what the Westminster Confession calls the "infallible" assurance that our faith is true and that we belong to God?

The Confession lists three realities that our infallible assurance is founded on. These correspond to justification, sanctification, and adoption, respectively - putting these in a little different order from the order in which we studied them.

First, the Westminster Confession speaks of "the divine truth of the promises of salvation." Clearly, God promises eternal life to all who receive Christ (John 1:12; 3:15-18, 36; 5:24; 6:35, 40, 47; etc.). His promises are absolutely infallible. How can we doubt them? To be sure, the promises don't explicitly contain your name or mine. But they contain our names implicitly; that is, they apply to us.

Let me give you a similar example. When the eight commandment says, "Thou shalt not steal," it doesn't mention my name. It doesn't say that John Frame should not steal. Does that mean that I am free to take your wallet? Well, of course not. Because "Thou shalt not steal" means "Everybody should not steal" or "Nobody should steal." That includes John Frame. So, although my name is not in the test explicitly, the text applies to me, which is to say that my name is there implicitly. The same is true with the promises of salvation. God promises salvation to everybody who believes. If you believe, then that promise is yours. God promises to save you. And that promise is infallible, certain. You dare not doubt it.

Justification comes from faith, from trusting God's promises, just as Abraham did when he believed what God said, even when God's promise seemed impossible. If you believe God's promise, you are justified, and you also have a right to assurance. Believing God's promise is the instrument of justification, as I put it in chapter 15, the essence of justifying faith (Rom. 4:3, 20-21; Gal. 3:7-9). And continuing in faith brings assurance (Col. 1:23; Heb. 3:14; 6:12). This does not mean, of course, that anyone who raises his hand at an evangelistic meeting is saved. People sometimes do that hypocritically. Faith is an inward reality. But if it is there, you have a right to be assured. If you can honestly say, "I am trusting Jesus for my salvation, not my own works, not my family, not my church, but Jesus," then you can say without doubt that you are saved. And as we shall indicate in the next chapter, you cannot lose that salvation.

The second basis of assurance the Westminster Confession mentions is "the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made." This ground corresponds to the doctrine of sanctification. When we introspect in this way, we are asking if indeed the Lord is sanctifying us.

Under the first basis of assurance I mentioned God's promises. God's promises include a promise of new life, of regeneration and sanctification. God has promised to make his people holy (1 Peter 1:15-16; 2 Peter 1:4). So, as we observe what God is doing within us, as we observe our own progress in sanctification, we "make [our] calling and election sure," as Peter says (2 Peter 1:10-11).

Now, I know that self-examination can be a discouraging business. When we look at ourselves, we see continuing sin, as well as the effects of grace. So, we wonder how we can ever gain assurance by self-examination. Many say that we should not look at ourselves but that we should look beyond ourselves, outward, at the work of Christ, at his word of promise. That was what we advised under the first ground of assurance, and certainly we should not look inward without looking outward at the same time. But it is important not only to look at God's promises but also to see how God is fulfilling those promises within us. The continuing presence of sin should not discourage us, because God does not promise to make us sinlessly perfect in this life. But he does promise growth in grace, growth in holiness. When we see that, it increases our confidence that God's promises apply to us. And if we don't see that, it is a danger signal. In that case we should seriously ask ourselves if we have understood the promises of God. If we see ourselves dominated by sinful patterns, we should ask whether we have really trusted Christ as Lord and Savior.

The third ground of assurance, corresponding to the doctrine of adoption, is "the testimony of the Spirit to our adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are children of God." This confessional statement comes right out of Romans 8:16-17. This is to say that, in the end, our assurance is supernatural. Note in Romans 8 that it is not only the witness of our own Spirit but something over and above that, a witness of God's Spirit with our spirit that we are the children of God. Our scrutiny of God's promises and our own sanctification, in the end, is fallible. We make mistakes in our judgments. But the Spirit never makes a mistake. So, he persuades us that what we observe in God's Word and in our own lives is really true, really evidence of grace.

In chapters 4 and 12, I spoke of the Spirit's work in illuminating God's Word to us. I called that work existential revelation. His work in giving us assurance is no different from that. He is not whispering in our ears some new truths that are not found in the Bible. Rather, he is helping us to understand the promises of God in the Bible, to believe those promises, and to see that they apply to us.

Note the triadic structure of these three aspects of assurance, corresponding to justification, sanctification, and adoption, and therefore to God's authority, presence, and control. This suggests that these three grounds of assurance are not independent of one another but that they work together, that each requires the others. And that is indeed the way we should look at it. The Spirit's witness enables us to be sure of the promises of God and the fruits of our sanctification. The promises of the Word are the promises of the Spirit, who inspired the Word, and he continues to speak through the Word. Our sanctification helps us better to appreciate and apply the promises of God to ourselves.

Given these powerful resources, how can a Christian ever lack assurance? Yet we sometimes do seem to fluctuate between assurance and doubt. The Reformed confessions look at this problem from two perspectives. The Heidelberg Catechism (21) says that assurance is of the essence of faith: you can't really have faith without having assurance. And that is true in a way. If you believe Jesus, as I said earlier, you cannot doubt that his promises are true. And if you believe in him, you cannot doubt that those promises apply to you, because they apply to everyone who believes.

The Westminster Confession differs somewhat from the Heidelberg Catechism. It says, "This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it" (18:3). The Confession adds:

True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which woundeth the conscience and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God's withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may, in due time, be revived; and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair. (18.4)

Note the difference from the Heidelberg: the Westminster statement says that assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith as to preclude periods of doubt. The bigger picture is that if we believe in Christ, we have assurance in our heart; but that assurance can be weakened by sin of various kinds, so that our psychological feeling of assurance has its ups and downs. Assurance is logically implied in faith, but sin sometimes weakens our confidence that our faith is genuine. But God has given us adequate resources to return to a state of full assurance. He has given us his promises, his sanctifying work, and the Spirit's testimony. We have a right to assurance if we believe God's promises. When we are in doubt, we should keep coming back to those resources and to the means of grace, which we shall discuss in chapter 20: the Word, worship, prayer, and Christian fellowship.

Lying lips

Lutheran epologist Edward Reiss continues his campaign of disinformation. What’s so odd about this is that all my replies are in the public domain, so nothing could be simpler than to compare his misrepresentations with what I actually said.

“Steve claimed the elect will have subjective assurance--as he stated there is a promise--and the WCF does not say that there is such a promise by the cunning use of the word ‘may’, as is shown in my citation above.”

Was that my claim? No. I never made a blanket claim that the elect “will” have subjective assurance. My claim was always more qualified than that. That’s in the public record.

This is one of Reiss’s standard tactics. I present a carefully qualified statement. Reiss replies by crudely paraphrasing my statement, minus the qualifications. He then proceeds to burn the straw man that he’s erected.

He does the same thing with the Westminster Confession. The WCF presents a painstakingly nuanced statement of Christian assurance. Reiss strips away key distinctions, then proceeds to burn the straw man he erected.

As I explained in my last reply to Reiss, the use of the word “may” is perfectly compatible with a promise in case the promise is conditional. Such a promise must be personally appropriated. As such, some individuals may enjoy the promised assurance while others may not inasmuch as not every interested party complies with the terms of the promise. Notice that Reiss offers no counterargument.

Moreover, the Confession cites the “promises of salvation” as one basis for the assurance of salvation. Therefore, that connection is explicit in the Confession. And Reiss is the one who is making the Confessional his frame of reference in this discussion.

If Reiss imagines that “may” is incompatible with “promises of salvation,” then the onus lies on him to explain why the Westminster Divines would endorse.

“Apparently for Steve, an elect person who has no light still has assurance, which is frankly bizarre.”

Is that what I said? No. Can he quote me on that? No.

And notice the bait-and-switch. Whether it’s possible for one of the elect to lack the assurance of salvation is a separate issue from whether it’s possible for one of the elect to have the assurance of salvation.

These are not the same questions. Moreover, Reiss is setting up a false dichotomy, as if we must either say that all the elect always enjoy the assurance of salvation or else none of the elect ever enjoy the assurance of salvation. But the Westminster Confession, from which he’s quoting, clearly rejects that antithesis.

“He also claims the document does not say the elect should look to themselves for their assurance--despite the fact the confession states just that as I cited above.”

Is that what I actually said? No. Let’s compare his attribution with what a really said:

“Moreover, the chapter doesn’t say they receive assurance by ‘looking within themselves,’ simpliciter. Rather, it gives three grounds for assurance: ‘founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit’…Does the Confession reduce the grounds of assurance to ‘looking within yourself?’ No. It also mentions the ‘promises of salvation.’ That’s external to the believer, not internal to the believer.”

So notice that I made a carefully qualified statement. The Confession doesn’t “reduce” the grounds of assurance to ‘looking within yourself.’ The Confession doesn’t say they receive assurance by looking within themselves, “simpliciter.” Rather, it gives three grounds, including the “external” basis of divine promise.

I also pointed out that the ordinary means of grace, which the Confession refers the believer to, are external to the believer.

So how does Reiss respond? With his simplistic, utterly dishonest representation of what I actually said.

“The confession I cited plainly says the elect may experience a loss of assurance, which directly contradicts Steve's claims.”

“Directly contradicts” my claims? Here is what I said in response to Reiss in my previous reply:

I quoted his statement: “Calvinist assurance: You are assured of eternal salvation and under no circumstances will you lose it.” To which I replied:

That confuses two distinct issues:

i) Under no circumstances can the elect/regenerate lose their salvation.

ii) Under no circumstances can the elect/regenerate lose their assurance of salvation.

But (i) is true whereas (ii) is false.

Notice in my reply to him that I said it was possible for the elect to lose the assurance of salvation.

And that, in turn, referred back to my earlier reply. So I specifically statement, two posts ago, that it’s possible for one of the elect to lose his assurance. And I reiterated that same position verbatim in my previous reply to Reiss.

Yet Reiss continues to attribute to me the polar opposite of what I said. It would take a very sharp scalpel to peel away all the layers of falsehood that Reiss is piling on.

On councils and scriptures

One of the stock objections to sola Scriptura is that Biblical teaching is subject to interpretation. Therefore, over and above Scripture itself, we requires an authoritative interpretation of Scripture actually teaches. Hence, the necessity of infallible teaching organs like ecumenical councils. Ironically, Catholic epologist Jonathan Prejean sabotages that argument by citing a truly embarrassing counterexample:

"It seems to me that if you really wanted to go after the infallibility of Nicaea, then you could point out that many of the 318 (or so) bishops who voted FOR the Council later ended up espousing an Arian interpretation, which is exactly what they thought they were supporting when they agreed to the words (or at least, they supported them only with mental reservations to placate the Emperor). Rather than simply pointing out the change in creeds, you could point out that bishops freely present at the ecumenical council had their own position later treated as an authority to contradict that same position!"

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/02/nicene-creed-vs-niceno.html?showComment=1265337269747#c2362481468123042769

Rightly using the ordinary means of grace

Edward Reiss: “What did I lie about? Apparently I set up a ‘dichotomy’ because subjective assurance is a guarantee.”

i) This is so confused. Assurance is a psychological state. So, by definition, the sense of assurance is subjective.

ii) That’s not the issue. The issue is whether the basis of assurance is subjective. In addition, whether the basis of assurance are purely subjective, purely objective, or a combination of both subjective and objective factors.

“From the WCF. Notice the bolded parts. The word ‘may’ appears in section I, while Steve says there is such a promise in Calvinism. This means that not all will, but some may receive assurance by looking within themselves. As I have said a few times, I don;t know why this is even controversial, this self examination to prove to one's self one is elect is baked right into Calvinism. But the writers of the WCF disagree with Steve, so I suppose the writers of the WCF lie about Calvinism, too.”

Does Reiss suffer from a mental block? How did he possibly get that from the passage he quoted?

i) To begin with, the fact that not everyone appropriates a promise doesn’t negate the promise. Doesn’t Reiss know the difference between a conditional promise and an unconditional promise?

ii) Moreover, the chapter doesn’t say they receive assurance by “looking within themselves,” simpliciter. Rather, it gives three grounds for assurance: “founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit.”

Why does Reiss feel the need to dissemble about what the Confession explicitly states? Does the Confession reduce the grounds of assurance to “looking within yourself?” No. It also mentions the “promises of salvation.” That’s external to the believer, not internal to the believer.

iii) Furthermore, there’s an obvious difference between what grounds a state of mind and conscious awareness of such grounds. It’s quite possible to have a certain mental state without having any consciousness of what grounds that mental state. Doesn’t Reiss know the difference?

iv) Apropos (iii), the Confession doesn’t say that every Christian must be aware of what grounds the assurance of salvation to have the assurance of salvation. Rather, it’s dealing with cases in which, for whatever reason, a Christian lacks the assurance of salvation.

“Also see the bolded part of section II. Notice there is ‘inward evidence’. Now, inward evidence is by definition not ‘extra nos’, outside of us. So once again the Calvinist is pointed to himself for assurance he is one of the elect.”

So, once again Reiss misrepresents the Confession by isolating the internal grounds from the external grounds. He can’t bring himself to honestly state or summarize what the Confession actually states. Instead, we’re always treated to his deceptive half-quotes and deceptive summaries. Why does he feel it necessary to indulge in blatant falsehoods about Calvinism?

“Notice the bolded part of section III. The Christian is called to make his election sure to himself by dilligence. And how does one know one is diligent? By looking for the ‘inward evidence’ plus the outward works of a true believer.”

i) Did you catch that? “Plus outward works.” So it’s not reducible to subjective grounds.

ii) Moreover, the ordinary means of grace are external to the practioner. When the Confession, in the very passage he quotes, refers the reader to “right use of the ordinary means,” that’s not the same thing as “inward evidence.” Why can’t Reiss even register these elementary distinctions?

“What about his contention that there is a difference between th eelect and the non-elect? Please see the bolded part of section IV. Since the subjective assurance may be revived, by definition the subjective assurance was lost. I didn't make any of this up, I just read the Calvinist confessional documents. Steve Hays seems to argue by vigorous assertion, along with taking what his opponent says and extrapolating it to a point his opponent never meant”

i) To begin with, Reiss says that “subjective assurance” may be “lost,” as if that somehow disproves what I said. Really? What did I say in my previous reply to him, to which he is allegedly responding?

I quoted his statement: “Calvinist assurance: You are assured of eternal salvation and under no circumstances will you lose it.” To which I replied:

That confuses two distinct issues:

i) Under no circumstances can the elect/regenerate lose their salvation.

ii) Under no circumstances can the elect/regenerate lose their assurance of salvation.

But (i) is true whereas (ii) is false.

Notice in my reply to him that I said it was possible for the elect to lose the assurance of salvation.

So why does Reiss act as if he’s disproven my contention when he says that assurance can be lost? What was he thinking?

ii) In addition, how does the fact that, in some cases, the elect can lose the assurance of salvation, become equivalent to “self-deception”? By what fallacious logic does Reiss draw that inference?

The lack or loss of a given belief is not equivalent to misbelief. To say I don’t entertain a certain belief doesn’t mean I thereby entertain a false belief.

Doesn’t Reiss know the difference? Is he even trying?

iii) Moreover, in one of the very passages he quoted, the Confession specifically limits delusive assurance to “hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions.” So it’s only the reprobate, not the elect, who are liable to delusive assurance.

Reiss seems to be too blinded by his reflexive hostility towards Reformed theology to even make sense of the passages he cites to prove his point.

28 Weeks Later

“Perhaps if Steve wiped the foam off his monitor before posting…”

http://upstatelutheran.blogspot.com/2010/02/on-lying-about-calvinism.html

To begin with, I always wear a breath mask when I’m blogging to prevent the build-up of bloody spittle on the computer screen.

Second, I should warn Mr. Reiss that scurrilous comments about the lifestyle of zombies is actionable hate-speech. Unless he retracts his offensive remarks and issues a public apology, I’ll have no choice but to report his transgression to the Zombie Anti-Defamation League.

Finally, I’d also warn Mr. Reiss that it’s always highly imprudent to get on the wrong side of a zombie. We take derogatory remarks about our diet, dental hygiene, or other alternative lifestyle choices quite personally.

If he imagines that he can makes such offensive statements with impunity, I’d suggest that he rent a copy of 28 Weeks Later. Albany will never be the same.

Out of our census

Over at the CADRE, Layman recently blogged on an essay by Stanley Porter concerning the census of Quirinius. So that inspired me to read the same essay.

Porter’s essay is too long and close-packed to manually transcribe. In this post I’ll confine myself quoting Porter’s conclusion along with a prefatory observation of my own.

Reading through Porter’s essay makes one aware of how foolhardy it is to attack the accuracy of Luke. For one thing, as we might antecedently surmise, and as the essay confirms, bureaucratic policies are often convoluted, and Roman bureaucracy was no exception. So we should expect a lot of local variation, given the overlapping jurisdictions. And we should also expect variations over time.

In addition, we’re dependent on whatever trace evidence happens to survive. And that barely scratches the surface. As more evidence comes in, the picture changes. The picture becomes more complicated. The Lucan account acquires a wide range of hitherto unsuspected, partial parallels.

We’re confronted with the bewildering intricacy of our sources. And we’d expect bureaucratic policies in the Roman empire to be bewildering in their variety, complexity, and arbitrary requirements. The more we knew about the period, the more we’d find ourselves wandering in a maze of minutiae.

Nothing could be more shortsighted than for an outsider from the 21C to make sweeping, self-confident pronouncements about a situation from the distant past of which he has absolutely no firsthand acquaintance.

Imagine the same thing in reverse: if a man from the 1C were suddenly transported to the 21C, and handed an IRS form to fill out. Just consider how much background knowledge he would need to make heads or tails of the document. It would be utterly unintelligible to him.

“The growing amount of evidence indicates that there were many common features between censuses and property returns throughout the Roman empire, including Egypt and Arabia, both close by Palestine. The Egyptian census documents, because of their relative plenty, have been determinative in most discussions. However, there is small but significant evidence concerning how censuses and property returns were conducted outside of Egypt as well, besides the fact that they did not follow the same time-frame. The result is that the account in Luke seems to have many, if not most, of the features one would expect in a census return, as Palme and even Rosen have shown. However, as Rosen has also shown, there may be some other features of the Lukan account, such as the trip to Bethlehem, that are better explained in terms of some of the peculiarities of the property returns…Both Palme and Rosen have shown that the parallels between the Lukan account and the censuses of Egypt and the property returns of Arabia are too many to ignore, and indicate that a plausible historical account is being given by Luke…The grammatical arguments are likewise not decisive, but there is still plausibility for Lk 2:2 referring to the census being before Quirinius became governor,” S. Porter, “The Reasons for the Lukan Census,” A. Christophersen et al. eds. Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World (Sheffield 2002), 187-88.