torsdag 2 februari 2017

Since St Francis of Sales had Real Objections to Calvinism ...

... I am glad "Geisler's" TULIP is not quite as black as those Dutch ones back in the heighday of Black Tulips and Calvinism. [Wiki is citing it after Allen, Bob. "Traditional Southern Baptists counter Calvinism". Baptist News Global. Retrieved 23 December 2014.]*

otal depravity extends to the whole person but does not destroy the image of God in fallen human beings;

Election is unconditional from the standpoint of God’s giving it and only one condition for human’s receiving it—faith;

The atonement is unlimited in its scope—Christ died for all mankind—but limited in its application to only the elect;

Grace is irresistible on the willing but does not force the unwilling;

All those who are regenerate will, by God’s grace, persevere to the end and be saved

Now, to the criticism. Some black tulip infection actually still remains, unfortunately.

That depravity extends to the whole person of the unregenerate is correct. An unregenerate person who dies still or again unredeemed will have his whole soul and whole body cast into Hell - Limbo for the infants and Down's syndromers who aren't baptised, Hell of Tortures for the ones who after the use of reason have committed mortal sins that prevent or forfeit the fruits of regeneration and not been forgiven these on the right side of the grave.

A man who blasphemed but gave alms will not have his tongue in Hell and his hand in Heaven. A man who was chaste but hated God will not have half his soul in Heaven for chastity and other half in Hell for hatred of God.

But the totality from the side of persons solidarity in being damned does not mean a totality in respect to the aspects which are there before actual damnation.

The chaste but loveless soul still alive will have his chastity (insofar as genuine) pulling him toward redemption "as much as" his hatred toward God toward damnation.

No, not as much as, since love of God is a more important virtue than chastity, sorry.

This does not mean he can be saved without grace : it means grace is building on aspects of his nature.

It is therefore not totally depraved.

Rather, when he is finally saved, if finally saved, "to whom has shall be given", what was wanting in non-mortal sins will be filled with grace. As what was wanting in repentance for former mortal sins. And, when he is damned, if he is damned, whatever was grace in him during life shall be taken away from him, since he did not use it to save his soul before dying.

That election is not given by conditions yet to be fulfilled from the side of God is certainly correct, that there are nevertheless conditions from the side of those elect to be fulfilled and faith is among them, is correct, but this is actually faith and obedience.

John 3:[16] For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. [18] He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. [20] For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. [21] But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.

So, doing truth is a condition, not separate from, but connected to faith.

Saying that faith alone is condition on part of the elect is as un-Biblical as it is heretical and condemned by Trent.

The atonement is unlimited in its scope—Christ died for all mankind—but limited in its application to only the elect.

Catholics actually agree on this one. Mgr Lefèbvre opposed the faulty translation "which is shed out for all", and kept the Latin "qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur" - "which is shed out for you and for many" for this precise reason.

"Grace is irresistible on the willing but does not force the unwilling"

Does not force the unwilling sounds like contradicting - very soundly - the substance of "irresistible grace".

It would be better of course to speak in the case of the willing of "efficacious grace". And to admit the unwilling were offered a real grace, but did not take it and so it was not efficacious.

"All those who are regenerate will, by God’s grace, persevere to the end and be saved."

Sorry, this is wrong.

The grace of regeneration can be lost. Until one dies, it can also be regained, by confession, and St Peter was asked to forgive 70 times 7. But it can be momentarily lost, and it can also be finally lost.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris III

* Added [...] after signature, as an afterthought, lest I should be misrepresenting Norman Geisler. What I have criticised is the wiki's version - and looking at the source, it seems the wiki was somewhat mangled after citing it. Hence I also added "" around "Geisler's".

fredag 23 december 2016

Barnes NOT getting around Matthew 28:20 ...

1) Makarios · 2) Once Saved, Always Saved - True for Church, Not True for All Christians Individually · 3) Protestants - Not - Getting Around Matthew 28 Last Three Verses: John Calvin's Attempt · 4) Barnes NOT getting around Matthew 28:20 ...

First, a hat tip to Armstrong for citing Barnes on Matthew 16!

Peter the “Rock”: Protestant Contra-Catholic Exegetical Bias
October 20, 2016 by Dave Armstrong

Now to Barnes.

Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter - The word “Peter,” in Greek, means “a rock.” It was given to Simon by Christ when he called him to be a disciple, John 1:42

Cephas is a Syriac word, meaning the same as Peter - a rock, or stone. The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: “Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock, denoting firmness, solidity, stability, and your confession has shown that the name is appropriate. I see that you are worthy of the name, and will be a distinguished support of my religion.”

And upon this rock … - This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word “rock” refers to Peter‘s confession, and that Jesus meant to say, upon this rock, this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety, and in such confessions shall my church stand amid the flames of persecution, the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, “Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church.” Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word “rock” refers to Peter himself.

This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. “Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.” This was accomplished. See Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: “I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church.”

Will build my church - This refers to the custom of building in Judea upon a rock or other very firm foundation. See the notes at Matthew 7:24. The word “church” literally means “those called out,” and often means an assembly or congregation. See Acts 19:32, Greek; Acts 7:38. It is applied to Christians as being “called out” from the world. It means sometimes the whole body of believers, Ephesians 1:22; 1 Corinthians 10:32. This is its meaning in this place. It means, also, a particular society of believers worshipping in one place, Acts 8:1; Acts 9:31; 1 Corinthians 1:2, etc.; sometimes, also, a society in a single house, as Romans 16:5. In common language it means the church visible - i. e., all who profess religion; or invisible, i. e., all who are real Christians, professors or not.

And the gates of hell … - Ancient cities were surrounded by walls. In the gates by which they were entered were the principal places for holding courts, transacting business, and deliberating on public matters. See the notes at Matthew 7:13. Compare the notes at Job 29:7. See also Deuteronomy 22:4; 1 Samuel 4:18; Jeremiah 36:10; Genesis 19:1; Psalm 69:12; Psalm 9:14; Proverbs 1:21. The word “gates,” therefore, is used for counsels, designs, machinations, evil purposes.

“Hell” means, here, the place of departed spirits, particularly evil spirits; and the meaning of the passage is, that all the plots, stratagems, and machinations of the enemies of the church would not be able to overcome it a promise that has been remarkably fulfilled.

Matthew 16:19

And I will give unto thee … - A key is an instrument for opening a door.

He that is in possession of it has the power of access, and has a general care of a house. Hence, in the Bible, a key is used as a symbol of superintendence an emblem of power and authority. See the Isaiah 22:22 note; Revelation 1:18; Revelation 3:7 notes. The kingdom of heaven here means, doubtless, the church on earth. See the notes at Matthew 3:2. When the Saviour says, therefore, he will give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. This was done, Matthew 18:18. The only pre-eminence, then, that Peter had was the honor of first opening the doors of the gospel to the world.

Whatsoever thou shalt bind … - The phrase “to bind” and “to loose” was often used by the Jews. It meant to prohibit and to permit. To bind a thing was to forbid it; to loose it, to allow it to be done. Thus, they said about gathering wood on the Sabbath day, “The school of Shammei binds it” - i. e., forbids it; “the school of Hillel looses it” - i. e., allows it. When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, he meant that whatsoever they forbade in the church should have divine authority; whatever they permitted, or commanded, should also have divine authority - that is, should be bound or loosed in heaven, or meet the approbation of God. They were to be guided infallibly in the organization of the church:

  • the teaching of Christ, and,
  • the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

This does not refer to persons, but to things - “whatsoever,” not whosoever. It refers to rites and ceremonies in the church. Such of the Jewish customs as they should forbid were to be forbidden, and such as they thought proper to permit were to be allowed. Such rites as they should appoint in the church were to have the force of divine authority. Accordingly, they commanded the Gentile converts to “abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” Acts 15:20; and, in general, they organized the church, and directed what was to be observed and what was to be avoided. The rules laid down by them in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, in connection with the teachings of the Saviour as recorded in the evangelists, constitute the only law binding on Christians in regard to the order of the church, and the rites and ceremonies to be observed in it.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible : Matthew 16

So, what does Barnes concede?

1) "Peter" means "rock" and "upon this rock" means "upon Peter previously called Simon Bar Jonah". 2) Church means here community of ALL faithful, so that anything pretending to be or be part of it, but not being built on Peter is not part of all faithful, especially not part of their ordinary and regular community. 3) Keys mean power to open gates, which includes-Barnes adds "is limited to" which I do not add-opening the gates of the Church to Gentiles. 4) Binding and loosing means ruling over - in this case, as per "whatever - acts, whether moral or ritual, as binding or as permissible.

What does he say to counter the Roman claim?

  • 1) That we claim the Church was to be built solely on Peter - which is a strawman - which is contrary to other passages of Scripture, sth which we acknowledge.

  • 2) That there is no set of successors to the end to time in this power of binding and loosing.

    "The rules laid down by them in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, in connection with the teachings of the Saviour as recorded in the evangelists, constitute the only law binding on Christians in regard to the order of the church, and the rites and ceremonies to be observed in it."

    No later binding, no later loosing allowed, then.

    This is very interesting when we go to his exposition of Matthew 28:18-20.

  • 3) Perhaps this is overreading, but since he explicitly mentions ... "This does not refer to persons, but to things - 'whatsoever,' not whosoever." ... perhaps one can infer he thought Peter and other apostles only had power over legal aspects of organisation, not over judicial aspects over persons.

    This is of course counter to the express words of Acts where St Peter is judging Ananias and Sapphira, persons, not just things, and judging favourably over Cornelius, again, over a person, not just a thing, and also is an overreading - if Barnes intended it as I suspect - of the choice of words "whatsoever".

    Elsewhere Jesus says sth about "whomsoever", namely in John 20, when He gives the apostles the keys of absolution which the Church uses in confession.

Now, I already dealt with "solely on Peter" as being a strawman, I also dealt with whatsoever and whomsoever as powers given at diverse occasions, remains the aspect of successors or no successors.

Here we go to Matthew 28:19 and 20.

Verse 19

Go ye therefore - “Because” all power is mine, go! I can defend you. The world is placed under my control. It is redeemed. It is given me in promise by my Father, as the purchase of my death. Though you are weak, yet I am strong! Though you will encounter many troubles and dangers, yet I can defend you! Though you die, yet I live, and the work shall be accomplished!

Teach all nations - The word rendered “teach,” here, is not the one that is usually so translated in the New Testament. This word properly means “to disciple, or to make disciples of.” This was to be done, however, by teaching, and by administering baptism.

All nations - This gracious commission was the foundation of their authority to go to the Gentiles. The Jews had expected that the offers of life under the Messiah would be confined to their own nation. Jesus broke down the partition wall, and commissioned his disciples to go everywhere, and bring the “world” to the knowledge of himself.

Baptizing them - as an emblem of the purifying influences of the Christian religion through the Holy Spirit, and solemnly devoting them to God.

In the name … - This phrase does not mean, here, “by the authority” of the Father, etc. To be baptized in the name of the Father, etc., is the same as to be baptized “unto” the Father; as to believe on the “name” of Christ is the same as to believe “on Christ,” John 1:12; John 2:23; John 3:18; 1 Corinthians 1:13. To be baptized “unto” anyone is publicly to receive and adopt him as a religious teacher or lawgiver; to receive his system of religion. Thus, the Jews were baptized “unto Moses,” 1 Corinthians 10:2. That is, they received the system that he taught; they acknowledged him as their lawgiver and teacher. So Paul asks 1 Corinthians 1:13, “Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” - that is, Were you devoted to Paul by this rite? Did you bind yourselves to “him,” and give yourselves away to “him,” or to God? So to be baptized in the name of the Father, or unto the Father, means publicly, by a significant rite, to receive his system of religion; to bind the soul to obey his laws; to be devoted to him; to receive, as the guide and comforter of the life, his instructions, and to trust to his promises. To be baptized unto the Son, in like manner, is to receive him as the Messiah - our Prophet, Priest, and King - to submit to his laws, and to receive him as a Saviour. To be baptized unto the Holy Spirit is to receive him publicly as the Sanctifier, Comforter, and Guide of the soul. The meaning, then, may be thus expressed: Baptizing them unto the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by a solemn profession of the only true religion, and by a solemn consecration to the service of the sacred Trinity.

The union of these three names in the form of baptism proves that the Son and Holy Spirit are equal with the Father. Nothing would be more absurd or blasphemous than to unite the name of a creature - a man or an angel - with the name of the ever-living God in this solemn rite. If Jesus was a mere man or an angel, as is held by many who deny his divinity, and if the Holy Spirit was a mere “attribute” of God, then it would have been the height of absurdity to use a form like this, or to direct the apostles to baptize people under them. How absurd would be the direction - nay, how blasphemous - to have said, “Baptize them unto God, and unto Paul, and unto the “wisdom or power” of God!” Can we believe that our Saviour would have given a direction so absurd as this? Yet, unless he himself is divine, and the Holy Spirit is divine, Jesus gave a direction substantially the same as this. The form of baptism, therefore, has been always regarded as an unbreakable argument for the doctrine of the Trinity, or that the Son and Holy Spirit are equal with the Father.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible : Matthew 28

A great plus that he refutes JW in this passage, precisely as do the Haydock commenters! Only, I can just now not find where ...

What is Barnes omitting? He is omitting first part of next verse "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:" where Christ is using the same "whatsoever" as in Matthew 16:19.

Back to Barnes:

Verse 20

Lo, I am with you - That is, by my Spirit, my providence, my attending counsel and guidance. I will strengthen, assist, and direct you. This also proves that Christ is divine. If he is a mere man, or a creature, though of the highest order, how could he promise to be “with” his disciples “always,” or at all? They would be scattered far and wide. His disciples would greatly increase. If he was “with them” always, he was God; for no finite creature could thus be present with many people scattered in different parts of the world.

Unto the end of the world - The word rendered “world,” here, sometimes means “age or state” and by some it has been supposed to mean, I will be with you until the end of this “age,” or during the continuance of the Jewish state, to the destruction of Jerusalem. But as the presence of Christ was no less necessary after that than before, there seems to be no propriety in limiting the promise to his own age. It may therefore be considered as a gracious assurance that he would aid, strengthen, guide, and defend all his disciples, but more especially his ministers, to the end of time.

Here he is admitting ministers up to the end of time - rather than, as some, limiting this promise to the age up to destruction of Jerusalem (which would leave St John without this assistance when writing Apocalypse and Gospel, at least!).

But he is a little less eager to admit that the ministers are successors of precisely the eleven to which Christ adressed the words (verses 16-18a : [16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them,)

He has also omitted to comment on the fact that they are given as teachers of ALL Christian specifically moral and ritual, but by extension also explanatory doctrine. That is, that there is a Church with teaching authority extending from Apostles to us and beyond.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Victoria of Rome

tisdag 6 december 2016

Linking, on Women During Reformation

CWR : Women and the Protestant Reformation
November 30, 2016 | Amy Welborn

Luther and the Reformers went to war against the evangelical counsels as ideals and as the core of a vowed, religious life. Every woman—it was assumed—was meant for marriage, children, and homemaking.

Amazon : The Short Chronicle (The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe)
New edition Edition
by Jeanne de Jussie (Author), Carrie F. Klaus (Translator)

Not recommending the series editors' introduction, just Jeanne de Jussie's short chronicle! And, well, the volume editor's introduction is worthwhile too./HGL

söndag 20 november 2016

Catholic vs Protestant Morality, a Challenge to JPHolding

11-17-2016, 02:23 PM I posted this on a board not viewed on Theologyweb unless you log in:

Does God's Law (Both Testaments) forbid deliberate infertile sex + interest on money?

I would answer, yes it does.

Or rather, as I am Catholic, above is polite and I am by canon law bound to that answer.

Now, for the arguments.

JPHolding had a very GOOD pair of videos on why Christians do have to avoid homosexual so called marriage but don't have to avoid shrimp sandwiches.

In it he said (I don't recall on which) sth about the landlord having certain principles and tastes which could be evident from contracts, and could be used to supplement a newer and shorter lease contract. Only fault of video was saying that the older contract can still be signed.

BUT, I am not here (on this thread) to debate that fault, I am here to use that excellent point.

The "landlord" being of course allegory for the one true God who was exacting certain things from signatories of an older covenant and is now exacting at least partly other things, in detail, but essentially same thing from signatories of the newer one.

Now, deliberately making the sex act (meaning here an act which if done will procure sexual pleasure and in man ejaculation) unfertile can be done in a few ways. I am here supposing all parties agree that killing of fetus after conception is murder, so we only need to discuss what happens up to it.

  • Barrier.
  • Chemistry.
  • Interrupting sex act.
  • Chosing partner of same sex.
  • Chosing partner of different, bestial, kind.
  • Doing it yourself.

The first two are not mentioned as such.

This is where the advocates of contraception get their argument, and essentially it is a sola scriptura (and therefore heretical) argument about Christian morality. Though most adherents of sola scriptura have not made it and not agreed with it, up to 1930 Lambeth Conference.

But the argument that JPHolding made about the two testaments is not quite in as great detail fleshed out in scripture. So, perhaps at least longstanding Christians or those of Jewish descent should skip shrimp sandwich after all?

Or worship on Sabbath, extending it only to Sunday morning?

Or, sola scriptura requiring each forbidden thing to be forbidden in a chapter and verse in Bible perhaps does not apply?

As Holding actually argued.

ALL of the other methods are mentioned and ALL of them in very negative terms. Of these three, two and a half are directly mentioned in Old Testament:

  • Interrupting sex act.
  • Chosing partner of same sex.
  • Chosing partner of different, bestial, kind.

The mid one is only mentioned about masculine homosexuality in Old Testament.

In St Paul we come to a verse which also condemns the feminine homosexuality, directly.

AND one, will check if same, which forbids doing it yourself.

No, different ones. First word in 1 Cor 6:10 means those who do it solo. And it is Romans 1, verses 26 and 27, which mention lesbianism before sodomy.

There is another one.

Doing it during infertile period. It is explicitly mentioned in Old Law, and St Thomas argues that if that does not hold under mortal sin in New Law, that is because girls can sometimes get pregnant while menstruating. Obviously, that implies St Thomas was living in a society where a girl marrying and begetting before her periods become really periodic, more like 12-13 than 18-20, perhaps, and St Thomas argues "it is not a mortal sin, since the period does not totally prevent the conception of children, but a venial one, since children so produced are often damaged".

He was probably thinking of babies born to 12 year old mothers who had been giving premature birth and thus given birth to babies who were weak after only 8 or 7 months, or sth. Reinterpreted in light of later gynaecology, this would imply a girl marrying very young is a venial rather than a mortal sin, considering the risks.

So, doing it during menstruation in order to avoid children might have been one of the things God detested Canaanites for.

That leaves virtually no, not even the unmentioned barrier and chemistry methods, untouched by God's wrath. And makes J. P. Holdings argument for an alternative reading about Onan very improbable, even apart from being un-Catholic.

For J. P. Holding, but NOT for me, there is another text too.

KJV 1 Cor 7:1 has "in this present concern", where my DR has "Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me:". And perhaps KJV is more literal to the Greek actual wording.

Holding takes (took?) "present concern" as meaning a starvation. I think this unlikely, since nowhere else in 1 or 2 Cor does St Paul directly refer to any, but let's suppose so.

The following part is important:

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

If Christian spouses had been allowed to use the barrier method (and yes, it existed, even if it might have been more expensive than chemicals), why would there be any economic danger in touching a woman? After all, the argument is, in Holding, though not to us Catholics, there are more mouths to feed and so it is risky during a starvation.

Well, if Christian spouses are free to use the barrier method, and Corinth was certainly not a place where it was unknown! then that would take care of it. A couple without children leaves cheaper than the two separately. So, in a starvation, if couples are free to use contraception, why not extol couples instead of discouraging them?

There are two answers to that one, one being that the "present concern" was simply a question about marriage and celibacy asked by the Corinthians (who know Jews were usually supposed to be married, but who had seen St Paul unmarried).

That one J. P. Holding unfortunately rejects, but this leaves him with the other answer, namely that Christian spouses are supposed to make children (or to try, or not to try not to) when embracing each other.

Same video also brought to my mind the question of usury. Did a google on DRBO, first four hits:

1 Leviticus 25:36
Take not usury of him nor more than thou gavest: fear thy God, that thy brother may live with thee.
2 Leviticus 25:37
Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor exact of him any increase of fruits.
3 Deuteronomy 23:19
Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury, nor corn, nor any other thing:
4 Deuteronomy 23:20
But to the stranger. To thy brother thou shalt lend that which he wanteth, without usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all thy works in the land, which thou shalt go in to possess.

First of all, is stranger anyone outside family, anyone outside alliance, or rather enemies, conversely is brother your family members, or do conational otherwise strangers also qualify, or do even not conationals qualify?

For first passage (the four hits are just two passages), the previous verse is:

[35] If thy brother be impoverished, and weak of hand, and thou receive him as a stranger and sojourner, and he live with thee,

Sounds a bit further off than just close family, right?

For second passage we have this:

[7] Thou shalt not abhor the Edomite, because he is thy brother: nor the Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land.

In other words, yes, the prohibition against taking interest (that is how usury is defined in first passage) extends even beyond the national boundaries of Israelites.

How about the New Testament?

Three hits are given.

First two are inverted as per verses, putting them right way:

  • "2") Luke 6:34
    And if you lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what thanks are to you? for sinners also lend to sinners, for to receive as much.

  • "1") Luke 6:35
    But love ye your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing thereby: and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the sons of the Highest; for he is kind to the unthankful, and to the evil.

  • 3) Luke 11:5
    And he said to them: Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go to him at midnight, and shall say to him: Friend, lend me three loaves,

Did you get it? "for sinners also lend to sinners, for to receive as much" - hoping to recover the capital but taking no usury is not very righteous. The really righteous thing to do is to not even hope to recover the capital.

That obviously means not making moneylending your main business.

I included third hit, because here it is about lending loaves. In Deuteronomy, besides money is mentioned corn. This means that the principle also extends to consumable goods.

Corn is consumed whether you sow it or bake it. Loaves are consumed if you eat them.

The person borrowing three loaves was not expected to give back three and a half loaves or three loaves and one donut. To the Bible, this is the principle valid for money too.

So far not answered by J. P. Holding, though one of his supporters gave adverse reviews on my value on marital market, and he chimed in with that one. That is about three days he shirks debate./HGL

Arguments received in return so far (but not from Holding) include strawmen like:

What about infertile couples?

When infertility is known, abstinence is recommended, but sex in such a case is not "deliberately infertile sex" since the infertility is not by human deliberation, but by an act of God (or Providence) and can be removed by such (at least by Miracle, or by diagnosis being mistaken).

What about inflation?

Updating nominal account is NOT charging interest on real value, if strictly just an updating of it.

Also, real points:

Real Point
"thy brother" means kinsman.

Not so, see context for one OT prooftext.

Real Point
Banks charge interest and invest in stockholding.

Stockholding is different, since you take a risk of losing value if company loses value.
Real Point
Banks charge interest and invest in stockholding.

[Point not fully given yet:]
Real Point
Banks charge interest and invest in stockholding.

That bank takes interest makes it comparable to thief, you are therefore accepting stolen goods by accepting interest from bank. You should give back, not to bank but to those it took interest from, or the poor, or the Church.

torsdag 20 oktober 2016

One Popular Protestant Ecclesiology Voiced in Novel by Catholic Character

"The Church would still somehow exist in God"
on the blog G.K. Chesterton

MacIan burst out like a man driven back and explaining everything.

" ... If we all fell dead suddenly, the Church would still somehow exist in God. ... "

Without being ardent Catholics like MacIan, Pentecostals and such often resort to this sort of thing.

They are correct that the Church does not depend on its members.

But they are not correct in thinking that once upon a time every real Christian in the Catholic Church died and it was left to Apostates, who then proceeded to remake the Church.

The Church which exists in God is the Church which CANNOT cease to exist visibly.

Obviously, when Chesterton put these words in the mouth of MacIan, he was not quite a Catholic himself:

The first chapters of the book were serialized from 1905 to 1906 with the completed work published in 1909.

The conversion was finally made in 1922./HGL

fredag 14 oktober 2016

Catholic to Protestant : We Gave You the Bible, defended against Matt Slick

First question: is the Catholic Church contradicting Holy Writte when saying we have its canon from Tradition? Or is it true?

Matt Slick says nay, claiming this contradicts 1 Cor. 4:6.

How does bishop Witham with some others make out the meaning of 1 Cor. 4:6?

1 CORINTHIANS - Chapter 4 : 6 But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes: that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written.

Ver. 6. These things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself, and to Apollo. Literally, these things have I transfigured in me and Apollo, that is, I have represented the divisions and disputes among you, as if it were by your contending, whether I, or Apollo, or Cephas were the best preachers, without naming those, as I might do, who are the true causes of these divisions, by striving who should be thought men of the greatest and brightest parts.

That in us, and by our example, who have no such proud disputes, you might learn that one be not puffed up against the other, and above that which is written, against the admonitions given in the holy Scriptures of being humble: or against what I have now written to you, that we must strive for nothing, but to be the faithful ministers of God, and not seek the esteem of men. (Witham)

It is the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas and likewise of Estius, that St. Paul, Apollo, and Cephas were not the real causes of the divisions that existed amongst the new converts at Corinth, but that in making use of these names, he wished to teach them, that if it was unlawful to keep up these divisions even for the sake of the apostles, how far should they be from doing any thing of this kind for those whose authority was much less in the Church. But Calmet is of opinion, that the divisions amongst the Corinthians were certainly on account of Paul, Apollo, Cephas, and perhaps some others, whose names are not mentioned.

So, no, this socalled "unfortunate psychological effect" of the Catholic claim is not there. It is not unfortunate, it is not contradicted by the Bible.

First of all,
Matt Slick
the Roman Catholic Church was not really around as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church.

The approach makes the argument that what is specific to the Roman Catholic Church is efficient organisation.

In fact, there are some "do it yourself" moments in Catholicism, as Billot discussed about the Nestorius affair, which I was just watching in Father Cekada's video.

Pope Fictions 1: Nestorian Story Time
Rev. Anthony Cekada

You hear your bishop utter heresy, you stop attending his Masses or even all Masses of priests depending on him, even before you get a confirmation from Rome it is heresy. Such "do it yourself" defense of doctrine is part of the Catholic "organisation".

The Christian church was under persecution,


and official church gatherings were very risky in the Roman Empire due to the persecution.

Well, that is more like an argument against Greek Orthodox ecclesiology! It was easier for weighty matters to be brought before the one pope in Rome in presence of some few of his trusted men and that by two delegates from each bishop concerned, than for the bishop(s) concerned to invite all neighbouring ones for a council, in the areas where the persecution was serious.

Catholicism, as an organization with a central figure located in Rome,

Catholic hierarchy was headed by the Pope. One of the very early ones was at least acting as patriarch, probably as Pope over Corinth. Papal series from Sts Peter and Paul was the cornerstone of orthodoxy to St Irenaeus. St Ignatius of Antioch - ALSO a successor of St Peter (who had been in Antioch between Jerusalem and Rome, as a residing bishop even) showed clear deference to the Romans.

did not occur for quite some time in spite of its claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.

And we are supposed to take the word of a Protestant for it?

Matt Slick
the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it.

How do you recognise a thing without establishing it? If you as a state officially recognise today that "all men are created free and equal" you are establishing a precedent for tomorrow someone wanting to abolish slavery.

This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition.

So far, so good.

And how does she - supposedly - do this without also establishing what she has recognised?

In other words, it discovers what is already authentic.

The claim "the Catholic Church gave us and you the Bible" does not mean the Church enjoyed creativity and liberty in deciding what books to include. It means the Church enjoyed ACCESS to God's authentification.

An access not directly enjoyed by for instance each individual Christian. But the Christian enjoys this access THROUGH the Church.

Back when I was a non-denominational and unbaptised believer, at the start I had access to a Swedish Bible of the 1917 translation promoted by the Swedish Church. It was a 66 book one.

Later I got a Catholic Bible in German (easy enough in Vienna) which included Maccabees and stuff in OT.

As individual believer, how should I know whether Maccabees was part or not? Personally, I didn't doubt it. If you like, "my inner light" led me right. Or my childlike taste in matters of faith. In that case whoever is guided by his inner light to exclude II Maccabees, his inner light leads him wrong.

So, though the inner light led me right for the moment, I have no difficulty in seeing how inner light is a very erratic criterium per se. Unless complemented by a higher one.

Therefore, the Church needs more than just the inner light of each believer.

The Church needs to be able to voice a COMMON decision, and that means some-ONE has to be able to VOICE the decision of the Church.

Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me . . . " (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired, and it follows the word.

Correct. Precisely what we claim the Catholic Church DID and the Protestant "churches" did NOT.

It does not add to it

We claim very seriously the Catholic Church has not added to it.

as the Roman Catholic Church has done.

We claim very seriously, this is a false and baseless accusation.

Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.

Rather, YOU are not, as you follow people who for personal preference cut out books they had received by the Church previous to them.

The phrase "the Catholic Church gave the Protestants the Bible" is at LEAST true in the very obvious and immediate sense that it was in Catholic Church buildings and monasteries that Martin Luther, Huldrich Zwingli and his associate Oecolampadius, the less mainstream-Protestant reformers Sozzini and Münzer, and the later ones Calvin and Knox, Farel, Bucer, Cranmer, Tyndale, Petri brothers, Agricola, Tausen, Melanchthon had first found their Bibles.

As I had first found mine in the Swedish Church, basically, though circulating outside it.

Difference, I exchanged to a version existing before me, they made a new version not existing before them.

I ceased to take the Bible from their successors and took it from the Church they had got it from.

Matt Slick
the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed.

Equivocation. You are taking "not the Catholic Church" as being sufficiently meaningful in the sense of "work done before apostles". But the Catholic Church is built on Patriarchs and Prophets, Apostles and Gospellers, with Christ Himself as corner stone. It reaches back to before Christ came in the flesh.

The Old Testament was produced by the predecessor of the Christian Church which was the Jewish Church, with High Priests between Aaron and Kaiaphas.

But that old Jewish Church is the same, ontologically, as the Christian Church.

In fact, if the Jewish Church ever divided into two, either one or other faction was not just "unfriendly" by not keeping company, but WRONG by no longer obeying the common authority.

So, either Jesus or Kaiaphas broke that unity. If Kaiaphas did it, one cannot appeal to his successors, the successors of his apostasy, nor to the Rabbis for the Old Testament : the first Christian Church already had it.

And faithfully transmitted it.

1517 in West Europe, between Protestants and Catholics, certainly Catholics had the immensely better claim to be continuing this Church.

And in fact, the Reformers were not appealing to Patriarchs of Constantinople or Iasi or Moscow for a shorter OT canon, but to non-Christian rabbis.

Who said the non-Christian rabbis were any longer in any position to know what the Bible was?

If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, then how can they rightfully claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible?

By being the legitimate successor AND fulfiller of the Jewish Church, established by Moses with High Priests ranging from Aaron to Kaiaphas.

It didn't, so it cannot make that claim.

She did in this indirect manner (if you call a reference to its OT pre-existence indirect, when apostles were of Jewish Church) and that is why she can make the claim.

The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired.

Individually or by collective decision? If by collective, by hierarchic or by huge assemblies (hint : huge assemblies were dangerous in the Roman Empire before Constantine, as you mentioned yourself).

If either way by a collective decision, where were the true followers simply KEEPING the canon already given in 1517?

Among Catholics? Among Churches of Constantinople and Iasi (which have both books of Maccabees, and even a III and a IV)? Among Church of Moscow? It has a First Esra, to which our First Esra or Esra is their Second Esra.

Prot RC RsO
- - I Esra
Esra I EsraII Esra
Nehemia II EsraIII Esra

Among Nestorians? I thought they had a book of Barch that even we lack.

Or Copts? They have another book of Baruch than even we lack.

Prot RC Nest Copt
- (I) Baruch ? ?
- - II Baruch -
- - - III Baruch
- - - (Eth.) Henoch

So, for the 66 books, the only two options are, either they got it from pure non-hierarchical inspiration without any known precedent or they were mixing the Christian canon's new testament with the canon of the rabbis.

Either way, the Reformers were not taking the Word of God from any previous Church of God existing before them.

The Rabbinic Judaism is not legitimate heir, more like a fossil, of Jewish Church as extant between Aaron and Kaiaphas.

And an inner light, why did the Holy Ghost wait to 1500's?

Matt Slick
when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit.


There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic.

To themselves no, but the rest of the Church needed at least to be notified.

And the notification to be ratified as really coming from an apostle and not from a fraud.

Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church.

The RC claim of having given the Church (and the parallel claims of GkO, RmO, RsO, Nest, Copt, Arm Churches) the canon is NOT a claim about a "later group of men".

It is directly a claim about the Apostles and about what MS called "a later group of men" NOT being really later, but reaching back to precisely these, since being the Church Christ founded on them.

To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself that worked through the Apostles.

No, for the Church does NOT claim to have inspired the Scriptures and does NOT claim any power of adding new books to it.

At utmost, she could ratify books claimed by Copts or Nestorians, by Orthodox bodies and Armenians as original part of OT canon despite these not having been recognised by councils of the real Church after the schism.

But she cannot add any new ones, and never did claim any such power.

Matt Slick
the Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

Very accurate reason why:

  • final redaction of Genesis was by Moses and not by any previous patriarchs who redacted parts of it
  • certain OT books, like the 4 books of Kings (or "book of Samuel" and "book of Kings" as the Jews say) or Paralipomenon or Psalms having a collective and usually (except most individual Psalms) anonymous authorship
  • either Christians or Jews needed to have the right canon from start of division AND the one who are the right Church of God needed to be the one having that
  • Reformers were in a worse position than the Catholic Church.

The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.

This contradicts the very point made by the quote. 2 Peter 1:20-21. Unless by "carrying authenticity in themselves" you mean one which can be recognised and definitely so by - precisely the Church. Or unless by "give authenticity" you were to mean anything other than "give voice to recognising authenticity".

And that is all the Catholic Church claims to do or rather to have done and to continue to do in the matter.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Callixtus I, Pope and Martyr