Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Movie Review: Chinatown.




















I recently stumbled upon an old dusty manuscript that I was writing back in what seems now eternity past, when I was free of these graying hairs and I still believed in objective film criticism. Reading the manuscript I was preparing for publication, it is interesting to see how my choice in film (and music) has changed over the years and with life experience. In any event, I have flipped through some reviews that I have written and have decided to re-watch some of my favorite films (in no particular order) and write some fresh analysis of these great films (mostly for my personal enjoyment). The first paper I randomly picked was a review of Roman Polanski's 1974 film "Chinatown".

The first impression one get's is the wonderful music that acts as the backdrop for Chinatown. This is dark noir at it's finest and I agree with those who have said the greatness of a noir film is it's opening and final scenes. And then there is Jack Nicholson who is arguably one of the foremost actors of our generation. But better than just Jack, is a young Jack Nicholson who is actually rather handsome and as full of leidenschaft as ever he was. Nicholson plays J.J Gittes a philosophical private investigator who makes this dirty work look posh and sophisticated.

Chinatown turns on the charm, humor and passion of the acting of Nicholson. If there ever was a part that an actor was "born to play" Gittes by Nicholson is definately it 1. Faye Dunaway plays a woman who claims to be someone who she is not, high cheekbones and elegance in tow. Chinatown continues with more twists and turns than the one way ally's and dirty noisy back streets of the real Chinatown 2. Chinatown is a thinking man's movie, which many today would find rather slow and contrived.

"You got a nasty reputation Mr. Gittes, I like that" are the opening words (along with a facial quirk) of John Huston (who plays Noah Cross). Huston is quite easily the other acting titan of Chinatown (besides) Nicholson and perfectly plays Noah Cross, a rich, dark and disturbing figure of a man.

The scene in which Nicholson slaps around Dunaway is so raw and brutal that one can scarcely imagine something like this being shot today. The levy finally breaks and the truth comes out. An unspeakably depraved act is revealed. The final scene is set, meeting place is Chinatown.

The ending of Chinatown 3 is classic noir, bleak and devoid of any hope. "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown" are the haunting final words of an American classic, filmed in the greatest decade in film history.



______________________


1. One can hardly think of another actor of the time pulling off the comedic jokes and at the same time switching gears to the dark and melancholic underbelly of Los Angeles circa the 1930's.

2. Chinatown is an Asian part of greater L.A.

3. An ending which my wife abhors and I think is the reaction of the average person ignorant of the backdrop of the noir genre.

Matthew 16:18 and the Consensus of Scholars.













The pericope under consideration reads,

"καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης." 1.

Which is translated,

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build of me the church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." 2.

Or also translated among the popular translations,

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" 3.

The purpose of this brief article is to help put to rest the persitent argument that is still being put forward by less informed Protestant evangelicals concerning the words that are recorded by St. Matthew in Chapter 16 verse 18. Starting with the Protestant Reformation it was claimed that the words of Jesus concerning St. Peter as being the "rock" was not to be understood as the person of St. Peter but rather, strictly Peter's Messianic confession, and thus, whomever repeats this divinely given profession of faith - on such people it can be said, are the "rock" on whom the church is built 4.

However, such straining of the text is not allowed by the Greek grammar and the natural reading of the passage in context makes clear, namely that Jesus is giving a word play on St. Peter's name πετρος with the appellation that is given to him by Jesus, πετρα. St. Matthew goes to great lengths to bring out this juxtapositioning of the Aramaic original out in the Greek. That St. Matthew is manifestly claiming that the rock is the person of St. Peter is the overwhelming consensus of New Testament scholarship today 5. Virtually all the non-evangelical critical commentaries and monographs agree. Of the better in depth Protestant commentaries the majority agree, that the person of St. Peter is clearly "the rock" in the Matthean pericope. Let me cite a few examples;

· (Protestant) W. Hendriksen, (Matthew. 645-49).

· (Protestant) R.T France in the Tyndale Commentary Series, (Matthew. 254).

· (Protestant) D.A Carson in the Expositor Bible Commentary Series, (Matthew. 368).

· (Protestant) Craig Blomberg in the New American Commentary Series, (Matthew. 251-53).

· (Protestant) Leon Morris, (Matthew. 422-24).

· (Protestant) D.A Hagner in the acclaimed Word Biblical Commentary Series, (Matthew V2. 469-71).

· (Protestant) C.S Keener in his mammoth commentary on Matthew, (Matthew. 426-27).

· (Protestant) D.L Turner in the recent and massive entry in the acclaimed Baker Exegetical Commentary Series, (Matthew. 406-07).

The issue for scholarship is no longer who the words "this rock" refers to but in what sense do they refer to St. Peter? 6.



____________________


1. (Matt 16:18).
2. My own ultra literal translation for the purpose of cutting away any theological bending of the text in translation.
3. As seen in the ESV, a very good modern Evangelical translation. The RSVCE (Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition) is practically the same rendering as found in the ESV, with the differences in that "church" is capitalized "Church" to give εκκλησιαν an institutional rendering. Also αδου is correctly translated the more literal "Hades" rather than "hell". The first difference in the translation of the RSVCE is unfortunate since it can be seen as imposing a theological distinctive (C)hurch into the Greek. The second rendering of "Hades" is the better rendering since it adheres to the literal sense leaving the theological understandings of the text transparent. This is a classical instance of the irregularity of the RSVCE translation. Catholics desperately need an up to date translation of the New Testament that is essentially literal but that side steps theological impositions into the renderings.
4. See for example Calvin (Inst. 4, 6, 4) or the recent defense of this understanding by C. Caragounis, (Peter and the Rock). Other attempts at dodging the clear understanding of the text have been to argue that Jesus is here speaking of Himself soley as "the rock", (i.e, R.C.H Lenski (St. Matthew. 626). But such readings of the text are the minority reports that have been exposed as been controlled primarily by theological bias rather than clear exegesis.
5. Not to mention the unanimous interpretation of the patristic fathers, (Tertullian (Dem. C. her. 22), St. Cyprian (De unit. eccl. 4), et. al). Not to say that this was the only interpretation of the Matthean texts in the fathers but it was the majority position. Moreover, the fathers that held "the rock" as being the profession of St. Peter also held that it was the person of Peter as well. The views overlapped (in a minority of the fathers) and were not mutually exclusive.
6. Most if not all of the Protestant scholars I listed would argue that with the appellation given to St. Peter by Christ, is given with the intention for Peter to be understood in a representative fashion, "Jesus is not speaking of himself as the foundation of the church, since he describes himself as the builder. Neither is Peter's apostolic confession the foundation of the church - he, as the confessing apostle, is the foundation. And it is not Peter alone but as first among equals, since the context makes it clear that Peter is speaking for the apostles as a whole in Matt 16:16." D.L Turner (Matthew. BECNT. 407).

R.E. Aguirre, Anno Domini MMVIII.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Fr. Neuhaus and the True Church.



Bryan Cross is currently running an excellent series on what it means to be the "True Church" as his blog site1. There he gives the link to a fascinating audio discussion hosted by Covenant Seminary2. The reason for the presentations is to give what it means to be the "True Church" from the respective positions3.

I must admit that I have heard and read Fr. Neuhaus before but the poetic defense of the authenticity of Roman Catholicism left me breathless. Let me quote the pertinent remarks in full,

"In the Creed we confess that we believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church, this is I would suggest to you in succinct form, the answer to our conference's question "what is the true church." It is not an invisible or platonic church of true believers, it is not a Gnostic church defined by raised consciousness, or heightened religious experience - it is not a theologians church of pure doctrine, it is not a punctiliar church that happens at this point in time or that point in time when certain gospel words are spoken or gospel things are done. No. The one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church is a touchable, palpable, describable, determanent, apostolically ordered community through time. It is the institutional church, institution being but a synonym for endurance through time. It is the teaching, governing, contending, and often contentious Church. Not a theory, but the thing itself. It is the Church of martyrs, confessors, doctors and saints, in communion with bishops who are in communion with one another, a communion sacramentally signed by - hand upon head, from generation to generation. It is true to say that the Church lives by gospel events in time and the ecclesial Christian would want to add it is true to say that the Church is the event of the gospel through time. The reality of the Church is an integral part of the saving gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is as definite and determanent a community through time, as is the elect people of Israel, without whom the Church is inexplicable, without whom the Church makes no sense...The Catholic Church says about itself, that it is the Church of Jesus Christ most fully and rightly ordered through time."

_______________________

1. Cross' blog (Principium Unitatis) - http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/.

2. Found at CTS website - http://www.covenantseminary.edu/resource/ResultDetailSaved.asp?a=0&b=0&t=0&f=0&keywords=true%20Church.

3. The presentations were held in 1997 and were entitled the "Francis A. Schaeffer Lectures". The contributors were, (Anglican) J.I Packer, (Eastern Orthodox) Nicholas Triantafilou, (Roman Catholic) Richard John Neuhaus, (Lutheran) Roger Pitellko, (Reformed) Douglas Kelly. An all star lineup and I was hoping for some intense constructive interaction, but the presentations were ecumenical in spirit and rather bland.

R.E. Aguirre, Feast of Corpus Christi, Anno Domini MMVIII.

Feast of Corpus Christi.



Today (the Sunday after Trinity celebration) we celebrate the Feast of Corpus Christi 1. The cynosure of the feast is the miracle that occurs in the Eucharist, when the elements of the Bread and Wine are transubstantiated (changed) to the Body and Blood of our only Savior and Redeemer, He who incarnated Himself as man to die and make salvation possible for Jew and Gentile alike, Christ Jesus our Lord.

Much Ink has been spilled over the meaning and intent of the word transubstantiated and the philosophical underpinnings of Aristotle to explain the nuance between what is actually changed and what remains in the miracle 2. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, St. Aquinas did not use Aristotelian philosophy to prove that the Eucharist could be true, but rather, used Aristotelian terminology to help explain concepts that were already well established in the living tradition of the church, namely the regula fidei. Let me give a few examples of the teachings of the earliest of the Catholic fathers. St. Justin the blessed Martyr who was beheaded for these Christian doctrines records concerning the Eucharist,

"We do not recieve these as common bread or common drink. But just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh through the Word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food which has been eucharistized by the Eucaharistic prayer from Him (that food which by change nourishes our flesh and blood) is the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus" 3.

Thus in St. Justin we see that the early Christians were handed down from the apostles themselves "...we have been taught" that the Eucharistic Bread and Blood were not to be considered "common bread or common drink"4 but corollary to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, so also the elements go through a form of incarnation themselves - through the prayer of consecration.


This view of the Eucharist is continued in early attestation, St. Ignatius on his way to be martyred by the teeth of wild animals has no time to equivocate,

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood, which is love incorruptible" 5.

Not everyday bread and wine is what the bishop in chains longed for, but the very Bread of God, the very Flesh of Jesus Christ. Understanding this Catholic interpretation is paramount for St. Ignatius, dissenting views should be shunned at all costs,

"Do not err, my brthren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist...for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" 6.

The patristic tradition can be traced down the centuries and every orthodox father is in accord with this understanding of the Eucharist. It was not until the Protestant Reformation that the regula fidei concerning this sacrament was rejected. But what was placed then as the "ancient correct view"? A unified, concrete theory of the Eucharist that no doubt the "Romanists" have bumbled as well?7 No, as any Protestant history will note, the debate among the reformers themselves, centering around the Eucharist proved to be the straw that broke the unifying camels back 8.

Luther especially felt the weight of the tradition behind the Catholic Eucharist and could not understand why the other reformers could not just submit on this point. It was as if, to everyman present at the Colloquy there was a different view on the Eucharist, fighting, bickering, arms flapping they could not agree among themselves on principle 9. Thus Luther cried out,

"Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” 10

Of course, Anglicans, Methodists, Calvinists, Baptists, Non-Denominationalists, would disagree with the Luther...

____________________

1. The feast was officially established in 1215 A.D.

2. It was the great St. Thomas Aquinas who set down the change in the elements in the Eucharist as a change in the substance of the elements while the outward appearance (accidents) remain the same.

3. (Apologia prima pro Christianis. 66, 2).

4. So much for all the views that hold the elements of the Eucharist to be nothing more than bread and wine and treat the whole event as a memorial (Zwingli and company). This view of the holy Eucharist has caused a practical degradation of the sacrament,. Grape juice and crackers are now ok to use (since the so-called Lord's Supper signifies nothing more than a memorial service). Instead of every Sunday (the practice of the early Church) the Lords Supper is now practiced once a month, and in some churches a few times a year. The logical conclusion of this type of thinking is to question why bother performing this event at all? Hence, those as the Quakers and the Jehovah's Witnesses which do away with the blessed sacrament altogather. St. Ignatius warns us in regards to this, "They (the schismatics) abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes...It is right to shun such men, and not even to speak about them, neither in public nor in private" (Epistula ad Smyrnaeos. 7, 1-2).

5. (Epistula ad Romanos. 7, 3).

6. (Epistula ad Philadelphenes. 3, 3; 4, 1).

7. In the scientific field, whenever an established position is challenged - a working hypothesis is put in it's place, and after meticulous peer review (and only the large majority of the specialists are convinced) can the new theory be universally accepted. Is this what happened with the Protestant challenge to the Catholic Eucharist? Far from it.

8. As seen especially at the Colloquy of Marburg.

9. This is what we call the practical effects of the autonomous hermeneutic. No longer anchored in tradition, men fall into the trap of hermeneutic anarchy.

10. (Luther’s Collected Works. V7, 391).

R.E. Aguirre, Anno Domini MMVIII

Friday, May 23, 2008

A Review of Nick Needham's "Justification in the Early Church Fathers"


















This is a review of one of the entries in the book "Justification in Perspective" published by Rutherford House, 2006. The entry is entitled "Justification in the Early Church Fathers" by Nick Needham 1. The thesis of the entry, to show how the patristic fathers held a formulation of justification in a forensic sense, "to be declared righteous."

He first gives us the target group of fathers that he will be analyzing 2. Why however Needham does not follow the convention of the field of patristics and set the terminus ad quem for the West in the seventh century and the East in the eight, we are only left to wonder 3. In the next page we are given a glimpse of the perspective of Needham on the regula fidei in general and it is not exactly optimistic in terms of unanymity 4. However, this objection must deal with the reality that the fathers themselves were consolidated concerning their harmony of doctrine 5. Other scholars have come to the exact opposite conclusion concerning the patristic data (one which takes the fathers at their words) 6. Clearly then, the field of patristics is not exempt from theological bias when evaluating the sources.

We then hear this statement by Needham, "...it seems clear that there is a very prominent strand of usage in which it (justification) has a basically forensic meaning" 7. In the next few pages in his entry Needham cites various fathers which speak of justification and faith in a symbiotic relationship. All this leads to this bold assertion, "The forensic framework of this justification language is further illustrated by another strand of patristic teaching that employs the concept of imputation - reckoning or crediting something to someone's account...Justin Martyr teaches a bold doctrine of imputed righteousness" 8 (Needham then cites a litany of fathers in support).

In the section "The Christian Life: Initial Justification" Needham now moves to explain the initial event that causes justification in the minds of the fathers, "There is a strong strand of patristic teaching that ascribes initial justification to faith - either to faith in an unqualified way, or to faith in contrast with works, or even specifically to "faith alone". " 9 Needham finally admits however that in "some of the fathers" justification is a two fold process, mediated by faith and baptism 10.

Before we continue on in Needham's treatment of the fathers let us review what he has said thus far. Surely we are given a helpful overview of one aspect of the Catholic fathers but Needham's presentation is potentially misleading. The reader not trained in patristics easily comes away with the distinct idea that in the fathers we see early exponants of later Protestant soteriological schemes. But this is far from the truth and one can wonder why Needham has not painted the full picture? The fathers do not compartmentalize salvation as the later Protestants did, dissecting salvation into an ordo salutis - a specific numbered sequence that occurs in the same fashion everytime. Salvation in the fathers is more of an organic whole and does not follow a set pattern, baptism being the principle vehicle in salvation.

St. Irenaeus can say that justification is conditioned on both the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and on the fidelity of the believer,

"Those are perfect who have the Spirit of God continuing in them, and who have preserved their souls and bodies without blame, holding fast to God, that is, to faith in God, while observing justice in regard to their neighbor" 11.

And it is baptism which is the cause of spiritual regeneration, salvation and justification,

"And again, giving the disciples the power of regenerating in God, He said to them: "Go and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit...renewing them from their old ways into the newness of Christ" 12.

Clearly not faith alone. It is in baptism (which is a gift from God) that all the spiritual gifts are transmitted to the believer, enlightenment (faith), adoption (justification), regeneration, etc, says St. Clement of Alexandria,

"When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we are become immortal...This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins...an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation" 13.

Hence the instrument of justification is baptism not faith. Barnabas concurs, it is baptism that renews our souls,

"Since, then, He has renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, He has put a different stamp (baptism) upon us, so that our souls might be like the souls of children, as they would be if He were creating us anew" 14.

St. Cyprian bishop of Carthage continues the tradition,

"But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the water of re-birth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart" 15.

St. Methodius of Philippi makes the connection clear, it is because of baptism and it's efficacy that faith is even produced,

"The illuminated take on the features and the image and the manliness of Christ. The likeness of the form of the Word is stamped upon them; and it is produced in them through sure knowledge and faith. Thus, Christ is born spiritually in each one...those who are baptized in Christ become, as it were, other Christs, through a communication of the Spirit" 16.

Thus, baptism can be said is the unifying base among the fathers that imparts justification not a declarative statement of faith alone 17. Needham's claim is based I fear, not on an objective study of the patristic testimony but on theological bias that is skewing the reading of the fathers. Much more safer is the conclusion by renown Anglican (Protestant) scholar Peter Toon on this issue,

"As dogma, justification through the imputed righteousness of Christ and by faith had not been explicitly taught in the post-apostolic, pre-Luther Church. This claim may come as a surprise to some Protestants, for it has been common to assert that the doctrine of Luther was the recovery of the doctrine taught by Augustine of Hippo or by one or other of the late medieval theologians" 18.

In the same learned article Toon goes on to trace this misunderstanding of the fathers by citing the works of G.S Faber (The Primitive Doctrine of Justification 1837) and James Buchanan (The Doctrine of Justification 1867) who are often cited in Protestant polemical works to prove the seeds of Reformational doctrine in the fathers (Needham cites both works in his article freely and with approval to give weight to his argument). But surely Needham would give a balanced picture of this disputed testimony of the nineteenth century by explaining to the reader that these conclusions of Faber and Buchanan have found virtually no consensus among patristic specialists? No such luck. In fact, Needham uses them as authoritative sources to build upon his thesis. Again Toon concludes concerning this material, "A careful study of the quotations supplied by Faber and Buchanan proves only one thing – the early Fathers believed that salvation is by grace."

Toon goes on his article with masterful precision to show how St. Augustine and St. Aquinas (the two greatest thinkers of Christian history) do not hold to justification by faith alone and as a declarative, forensic pledge. Justification before Augustine Toon notes, is not precisely formulated by the fathers but rather falls under the general doctrine of deification in the regula fidei. A doctrine that is usually misunderstood by Protestants. St. Athanasius can be quoted to give a formal definition of this doctrine in his customary eloquence,

"None other, could restore a corruptible being to incorruption but the Saviour Who in the beginning made everything out of nothing. None other could re-create man according to the image, but He Who is the father's image. None other could make a mortal being immortal, but He Who is life itself, our Lord Jesus Christ" 19.

So much for the idea that justification is to be anchored in a declarative faith pronouncement as the dominant motif in the patristic fathers. Toon goes on to explain St. Augustine's view on justification properly,

"To justify means to make righteous. The Latin term justificatio is postclassical, so no readily available interpretation existed. Augustine decided that justificari means “to make righteous,” thereby apparently treating -ficari as the unstressed form of facere, as in sanctificatio, vivificatio and glorificatio. He held that the sinner is actually made righteous in justification. He briefly considered and rejected the possibility that “to justify” could mean “to pronounce righteous” (Section 45)" 20.

Toon's conclusion of St. Augustines view of justification can be said to incorporate the view of the fathers before him en toto,

"It will be seen that while Augustine teaches the nonimputation of sin (= forgiveness from God) he does not teach the imputation of righteousness, as did Luther and Protestantism after him. Protestant writers from the sixteenth to the twentieth century have tried to find in Augustine the same doctrine of justification as is found in the Protestant confessions of the Reformation period. It has to be admitted that the great theologian of grace does not teach a “Protestant” doctrine of justification. In fact, Augustine never had more than a minimal knowledge of the Greek language and was therefore unable seriously to face the question of what dikaioō meant for St. Paul. Thus his legacy to the Latin West, which is still to be found in the Roman Catholic Church, is the interpretation of justification as both an event and process of making the unrighteous man into a righteous man." 21

In the final anlysis it can be said that Needham's presentation of justification in the fathers is wrongheaded at best and disingenuous at worse (Needham has gone on to write a three volume (and counting) theological history of Christianity) that we can only hope he has presented the data of the primary sources more faithfully. In treating justification in the fathers, Needham should have prefaced his quotations by the overall teaching of the fathers not to cut and paste what he deemed important to his thesis.

___________________



1. Lecturer in church history at Highland Theological College, Dingwall.

2. " ...I am limiting myself to the fathers of the first four centuries. My terminus ad quem among Eastern fathers is John Chrysostom,...and among Western fathers, Jerome," (Justification. 26). Needham does not interact with St. Augustine since he is treated by a whole entry in Justification by David Wright.

3. William Jurgen's, a world wide acknowledged authority in the field of patristics summarizes the consensus view among patristic scholars, "The Patristic age, by common agreement, ends in the West with the death of St. Isidore of Seville in the year 636 A.D., and in the East with the death of St. John Damascene in 749 A.D." (The Faith of the Early Fathers. Vol1. x).

4. A typical Protestant objection, "I am not convinced that these formed a monolith, and doubt whether the "consenus of the fathers" over that period extended much beyond the Apostle's Creed." (Justification. 27).

5. I can supply litany after litany of patristic quotations on the unanymity of doctrine that Needham claims does not exist but a few will suffice. St. Irenaeus can say, "As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Adversus haereses. 1, 10, 2). Or St. Augustine, "But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary (ecumenical) councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Ad. Januar).

6. Jurgens can say regarding the patristic testimony, "Not the least of the lessons to be learned from a work of the present kind is how marvellously the Faith is a seemless robe. Cut it hear, tear it there, excise a piece from it anywhere, and the whole of it unravels. " (The Faith of the Early Fathers. V3. ix).

7. (Justification. 28). But did not Needham just claim that there seemed to be no monolithic strands in patristic thought?

8. (Ibid. 32).

9. (Ibid. 38) and again we are given a slew of patristic quotations in support.

10. (Ibid. 41-42). Needham gives only one example of this "two fold justification", St. Basil (On the Holy Spirit. 12, 28).

11. (Adversus haereses. 5, 6, 1).


12. (Ibid. 3, 17, 1).


13. (Paidagogos. 1, 6, 26, 1-2).


14. (Epistula Barnabae. 6, 11).


15. (Ad Donatum. 4).


16. (Convivium decem virginum. 8, 8).

17. I can cite much more of the Catholic fathers on this point but the sampling I give is sufficient to demonstrate my point.

18. Which can be accessed on-line at- http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/Doctrine/justsanct1.htm.

19. (De incarnatione Dei Verbi et contra Arianos. 20). Toon goes on to explain the patristic teaching, "When the teachers of the early Church spoke of deification or divinization, there was no intention of claiming consubstantiality with God, for, in the words of the Creed, only Christ is one in substance with the Father. The idea could rather be summarized something like this: the eternal Logos became flesh and dwelt among us in order to live our life, face. our temptations, die for us and be exalted for us; as the second Adam and thus as representative man, what he did as One who possessed our human nature he actually did for all of us – especially those of the human race who by the Holy Spirit are. in union with him. Salvation is wrought by Christ for us and is achieved in us when his Spirit dwells in our hearts. The biblical basis of such teaching was anchored firmly in the Word-flesh Christology of John’s Gospel...St. Paul’s teaching concerning becoming sons of God by adoption and possessing the Spirit as the seal of sonship (Rom. 8) was also important – even more so perhaps than the famous statement of 2 Peter 1:4 that Christians are “partakers of the divine nature” (RSV)."

20. Toon goes on giving a fair presentation of justification in St. Augustine, "Justification describes the whole Christian life. It is both the initial event and the continuing process throughout life, leading to the perfect righteousness of the eternal kingdom of God. Justification is an event in and through baptism, at which time God forgives sin. Thereafter it is the internal growth of righteousness in the life of the believing sinner. In a sermon on Romans 8 Augustine said: “We have been justified; but this justice increases, as we make advance. And how it increases I will say, and so to say confer with you, that each one of you, already established in this justification, having received to wit the remission of sins by the laver of regeneration (= baptism), having received the Holy Ghost, making advancement from day to day, may see where he is, may go on, advance, and grow, till he be consummated, not so as to come to an end, but to perfection...Justification is by faith and love. While Augustine often declared that justification is by faith, he much preferred to say that justification is by faith and love, or by love alone. This is because he took faith to be the act of believing in the sense of accepting the gospel on the authority of the Church which taught it. Such faith needed love, in terms of love of God and of neighbor, so that it was not merely a dead faith or a faith such as devils possess. Augustine wrote: “By the faith of Jesus Christ – the faith, that is, which Christ has conferred upon us – we believe that from God is given to us, and will be given yet more fully, the life of righteousness.” And, “The man in whom is the faith that works through love (Gal. 5:6) begins to delight in the law of God after the inward man; and that delight is a gift not of the letter but of the Spirit.” Also, “And this is the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which charity is shed abroad in our hearts; that charity alone which is the love of God from a pure heart and a good conscience and a faith unfeigned (1 Tim. 1:5).”16 For Augustine, amor (love) is a neutral term. When directed towards God it becomes charitas (charity). True righteousness is found when amor as charitas is directed to God and neighbor.

21. Toon then goes on to give a presentation of St. Aquinas which needless to say runs counter to Needham's position and is in line with the traditional understanding of the Catholic fathers.



Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Ecclesia Catholica and Homosexuality.

The Vatican the other day (May 20th) reaffirmed it's stance on homosexuality by stating clearly that no homosexual person can attend a Catholic seminary 1. The Catholic Church has been fearless in her convictions regarding practical issues such as abortion, contraception, homosexuality, etc, making unmistakable pronouncements of such divisive issues in a secular and relativistic world 2. It is times such as these that having a fixed and irreformable body of truth guards against the modern winds of doctrine and novel cultural morays.


The Biblical Case Against Homosexuality

From Nature.

By design, physical matter that God made He made "good"3. This is not an ontological goodness but considered good in the sense that they are all designed by God to perform specific functions in His universe 4. One of man's functions is given early in the creation account in Genesis, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it..."5. Thus, our mission is natural procreation between a man and woman (which is the only union that can procreate) 6. Homosexuality in effect cuts off our blueprint as humans and as such attracts the wrath of God.

From the Perversity of the Heart.

In many places in Scripture it is made clear that the craving for homosexuality springs from the perverse heart and debased mind of man. The story of Abraham and his dealings with the wicked inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah is well known 7.

"But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house, and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know (sexual intercourse) them." Lot went out if the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."8

Having two daughters of my own this nightmare of a situation is almost too frightening for me to imagine. But the text is clear, the depravity of the Sodomites is wide spread in that every single man (of various ages) came to rape the guests of Lot. Yawheh considered this intention, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave", a heinous sin requiring retribution 9.

Homosexuality is an abomination according to the natural grammar of the text in Leviticus,

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"10.

This understanding of homosexuality is continued on in the New Testament especially in the locus classicus, (Romans 1) where St. Paul gives us the psychological ailment behind homosexuality. Since the beginning, God has made Himself known in the created order but man represses this clear evidence and instead began to worship the created things rather than the Creator and thus fell into mass idolatry. Blinded in idolatry and unwilling to turn to the Triune God of history, God gave them up to their own devices, and they plunged deeper into darkness and sin, which translated into sexual deviance; woman exhanged the natural relation for the unnatural and men likewise now are consumed with passion for other men 11.

We have seen in this brief analysis of homosexuality in Sacred Scripture that it is contrary to the will of God since it goes against the natural course of procreation, it springs from the perversity of man's dark heart and as St. Paul holds, is due to the depraved and idolatrous mind of man that rejects God his creator 12.





_________________

1. And by inference rejects homosexuals in any of her official positions, orders and/or events.
2. In comparison to say our Anglican brothers who are bemoaning the destructive liberalism, feminism, and homosexuality that has snuck into their orders.
3. The very elements are conisdered good (Gen 1:10), the various vegetations of the world (Gen 1:12), space and the objects contained therein are good (Gen 1:18), sea creatures are good (Gen 1:20), land animals of all types are good (Gen 1:25) then mankind set in this context of God's graciousness in creation is seen as "very good" (Gen 1:31). All this is of course in vivid contrast to Gnosticism and such heresies that consider matter inherently evil.
4. Simply consider the unimaginable phenomena that is required for our planet to contain life, such as the precise distance of the moon to regulate the waves of the ocean, the distance to the sun for life giving warmth, etc.
5. (Gen 1:28).
6. The power of this argument from nature is seen in the animal kingdom who has no theological or philosophical arguments for homosexual equality. Animals even by bare instinct procreate and understand the bonds of relationships in a male and female understanding. There are no homosexual animals.
7. (Gen 18 & 19).
8. (Ibid. 19:4-8). See further the almost identical disgusting story in (Judg 19:22).
9. (Ibid. 18:20).
10. (Lev 18:22). A few chapters later we are told that homosexuality is punishable by death (Ibid 20:13).
11. St. Paul carries his refutation of homosexual deviance in (1 Cor 6:9) where he makes plain that the homosexual cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, (cf. 1 Tim 1:10).
12. The modern arguments that would have the uneducated masses believing that homosexuality is "ok" from a Biblical stand point are simply wrong and cannot be supported by the historical and exegetical method of reading Scripture. These pundints usually distort the passages in question beyond any recognition or cast doubts on the normal lexical meanings of the words in the original languages. But such tactics is not needed. The meanings are clear given their natural sense in the flow of the pericope and in the immediate context.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Some Thoughts on a Hodgepodge Mess.

This article is some brief thoughts about the excellent post over at the blog Path of Weis1. Weis remarks,

"I have been for a longtime pondering this Catholic (using the current understanding of the word) vs. Christian argument. I haven't reached many formal conclusions. The subjects are vast and time consuming... time I rarely have it seems. I have generally kept myself confined to the history of Christianity, and now I am trying to read one by one the Anti-Nicean Fathers. Prior to this I was working through a History of Christianity, but I felt as though I had gone to far in time (in the book), and that I needed to back up to actually read more exactly the documents that tell the tale. Until now, I was interested in specific points of interest. Now, I am setting out to read this large body of work. I have no idea when I will finish. I plan on when God and money allows me to purchase these writings. I will say that I have had some shift in thinking of recent. I have questioned what I have always excepted as the truth. I am willing in this journey to be proven wrong on many points. I trust God will lead me with His Holy Spirit. I rest in that, and feel no need to rush into decisions about anything. I feel as though God has given me a teachable spirit, and yet one that wants the whole truth."

If only we could all be this honest and sincere in our quest for truth! The Church is the bride of Jesus Christ, the God-man who came to die for us when we were yet sinners. The Holy Spirit is He who leads His children into all truth concerning His Church. The Father is He who draws all whom in humility and tears seek the ways of His historical Ecclesia2. The point being that the son that sincerely seeks, the Father will reveal in His appointed time and in His appointed way3. As far as studying church history one must understand and realize that every work written on the subject is biased by definition. If you read or hear an overview of Christian history from say a Calvinist standpoint - you are going to get a skewed look on the fathers and the development of doctrine4. The point here being that you must study both sides of an issue (from the primary sources) to make an intelligent decision. ANF volumes by Schaff are a surely a massive collection of patristic sources but I have found explanatory notes on occasion to be bent in a Protestant direction at times. The Catholic counter work to ANF is William Jurgen, The Faith of the Early Fathers 3 Vol which is an equal treasure trove of the primary writings of all the Catholic Fathers of the first five centuries (including the heretics). Here the fathers are allowed to talk for themselves in full context5.

Brother Weis continues by saying,

"Additionally I have been reading here and there bits of info on two different theological systems. On the one hand Dispensationalism (which has a variety of forms) and also Covenant Theology. The two points of view ask interesting questions and yield even more interesting results. Both seek to be true to scripture, and yet both have some clear distinctions. It should be noted however, that people from both camps look at each other as brothers. They agree to disagree in general, and there is Christian unity. Both can worship together and enjoy fellowship with each other."

Actually from my own research on this hotly debated issue among Protestants, I get the feeling that the two systems are mutually exclusive and strong language has been used to denounce eachothers positions6.

We get another profound and humbling insight,

"My mind is swirling. I haven't had a successful string of thoughts on any of these topics for weeks. I have also found a solid resting place in the Holy Scriptures. There, in black and white I am at ease. I have recently started to read from front to back. It is good to take in in detail all the stories I have heard many times over since my youth."

These topics are not an easy problem to overcome. And yes we can take flight to the Holy Scriptures when the pressing questions become too much. On the other hand, we have the regula fidei, the interpretive tradition of the Catholic Church for 2008 years now that we can also cling too when we feel the suffocation of a myriad of systems of theology - all claiming to be the correct one.

St. Athanasius must be heard on this issue. Contra the schismatics and the heretics who contort, confuse and twist the Scriptures to their own destruction he praises those -

"But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able7. "


_____________________

1. http://pathoftheweis.blogspot.com/2008/05/hodgepodge-mess.html. A beautifully rendered blog site by George Weis. The questioning in this article is so refreshingly full of existential angst. Tim Troutman (former PCA Protestant, now Catholic) likewise has responded to Weis' post at his thoughtful blog - http://godfearin.blogspot.com/.
2. Of course I do not relegate these particular traits to each of the "persons" of the Trinity as mentioned. These traits are seen to overlap among them (for a defense of the unity of will in action among the Trinity in the regula fidei, see the Cappadocian fathers).
3. My story in many ways mirrors the quest by Weis. I was born, baptized, raised, confirmed and first-communioned as a Roman Catholic in a long line (dating back to Spain) of Catholics. However being Catholic in name only for the first couple of decades of my life - I "found" the Lord in an Evangelical church. As I matured both in age and in my study of historical theology my quest took me in Protestant circles from a free church evangelical, to a reformed Calvinist, next into the Anglican church. You can see how my development of historical theology dovetailed with my interests in my choice of ecclesiology. Now in my second half of life and through many tears, I have submitted my will to the clear and pristine voice of the Triune God in history. I now chant the ancient devotional hymns of worship in the historic Ecclesia Catholica.
4. An example of this is the lecture series on church history by the late Calvinist John Gerstner.
5. Faith of the Early Fathers is the best resource for the overall interpretation of the regula fidei of the fathers en toto in my opinion. The doctrinal index which categorizes doctrine in a systemized way would be worth the price of the three volumes alone.
6. Starting with O.T Allis Prophecy and the Church, the all out attack on Dispensationalism as a serious theological error has continued unabated. The late Presbyterian professor of church history John Gerstner also mounted a heavy critique of dispensationalism, followed by the excellent critique of dispensationalism in the mid 90's by Keith Mathison. I have seen no real responses by the dispensationalists to these in depth reformed critiques. Progressive Dispensationalism and works like it have surfaced but these are not counter works but simply spell out differences and "progressions" within the dispensational camp.
7. Epistulae pachales. 29

Friday, May 16, 2008

Scripture and Tradition, a Response to Michael Horton.

The other day I finally had a chance to finish up a book that has been sitting on my bookshelf for a while now. "Three Views on Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism" published by Zondervan, 2004. The thesis of this counterpoints work is the question, is Eastern Orthodoxy compatible with Evangelical Protestantism? Several scholars give their views from "yes", "maybe" and "no". Mike Horton well known Protestant scholar and apologist1 gives a resounding "no" to this question.

What concerns me tonight though is not his stance against the Eastern Orthodox question raised by the book - but several side issues he takes on in the book. First, his utter bias against the Roman Catholic position is made manifest in a plethora of places throughout the work. The funny thing is that Catholicism is not even the issue in debate, yet Horton finds time in place after place to throw short jabs at Catholicism2. Intertwined in Horton's argument is his section entitled, "Scripture and Tradition", it is this section that I will analyze.

Horton claims that despite the New Testament's emphasis on "apostolic ministry rather than apostolic succession of men", Irenaeus was a clear exponant not of the view that came to be common "since the fifth century" (that Scripture is to be interpreted by apostolic tradition) but that Scripture is self sufficient and the true source of authority for Irenaeus. Horton goes on to cite Irenaeus as saying that "proofs from the scriptures" are enough to refute the heretics of his day since Scripture is "the ground and pillar of our faith", "When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn around and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition." This is taken to mean by Horton that Irenaeus somehow believed in a neo-sola-Scriptura of sorts, or at the very least, that Irenaeus did not believe in the "theory" that tradition was an authorative source of faith and practice as was Scripture.

Let me start by saying that this claim is so bombastic that it hardly needs any real serious response. The first year student of patristics will cite the following texts from the great bishop of Lyons, St. Irenaeus in his magisterial Adversus haerses (where Horton lifted his citations).

"As I said before, the Church, having recieved this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul...she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same3."

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome...that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us...and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition4."

St. Irenaeus then clearly held the regula fidei of the orthodox Ecclesia Catholica concerning these subjects. The Christian faith is recieved from oral tradition and it is authoritative.

Horton in classic Protestant fashion cites a Catholic father out of context for his pretext, "...since the Scriptures are the 'ground and pillar of our faith'"5. This would seem to be the case then for the uneducated reader of Three Views, however let St. Irenaeus be heard in context and he is arguing the exact opposite of the Protestant Horton,

"We have heard the plan of our salvation from none other than those through whom the gospel came down to us. Indeed, they first preached the gospel, and afterwards, by the will of God, they handed it down to us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and the pillar of our faith6."

St. Irenaeus cannot be mistaken. The knowledge of Christ was first introduced in the regula fidei and afterwards was written down in the Scriptures. Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand. The modern dichotomy that Horton espouses is a false one.

Horton would (mis)lead the readers to believe that St. Irenaeus ("in contrast to later Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox writers of the post fifth century") battles heresy from the Scriptures alone. But St. Irenaeus would disagree,

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world...men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about7."

"For all these heretics are of a much later date than are the bishops to whom the Apostles handed over the Churches;...these aforementioned heretics, because they are blind to the truth, walk in various and devious paths; and on this account the vestiges of their doctrine are scattered about without agreement or connection. The path of those however, who belong to the Church, goes around the whole world; for it has the firm tradition of the Apostles, enabling us to see that the faith of all is one and the same8."

If this is not enough St. Irenaeus continues, when there is a dispute, first the collective wisdom of the regula fidei is to be sought. Not only this, but if there never had been any Scriptures written (so much for Sola Scriptura) what would then be our recourse? St. Irenaeus answers,

"When therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth;...while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition on truth. What then? If there should be a dispute over some kind of question? What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches?9."

I can go on and on citing the great father of Lyons proving the exact opposite that Horton claims in Three Views. One can only wonder about the motives of such a blatant misrepresentation. Horton goes on in typical Protestant rhetoric,

"Councils contradict councils even in the patristic period at certain points, and it is highly suspect that the great Fathers themselves regarded their conclusions as binding for any other reason than that they were based on the direct or inferential evidence...in Scripture. Having an infallible tradition to interpret an infallible text only leaves us with deeper difficulties10."

These aguments are nothing more than misinformed smoke and mirror tactics to mislead the uninformed reader. Horton gives the standard objection of council clashes but cites no examples11. Also, the fathers far from being confused or unsure of their authority were confident of the unanymity of doctrine based around the regula fidei as being binding on every Christian. I can quote father after father on this point but simply re-read St. Irenaeus above on this issue. Horton then makes the ridiculous statement that an infallible interpreter only clouds the issue further? But on what grounds does he make this claim? Surely not on the unanymity that is the theological anarchy of Protestantism. On the contrary, having an infallible interpreter makes perfect sense to clear the difficult path that laid ahead for the infant Christian Church12. Furthermore, the reality that small dissensions in the patristic attestation13 does not speak against its overall monolithic trajection.

If this domino of specious argumentation was not enough, Horton supplies us with the standard Protestant objections that Jesus apparently was contra man made traditions and texts such as Matt 15:2 and Col 2:8 are cited. Again it is almost beyond credulity that in light of all the scientific monographs and critical commentaries on these passages (and texts speaking of the same subject) Horton would espouse this argument. Without going into the secondary literature and the Greek grammar and context of these texts (which would take this post far beyond the limits intended) it is enough to say that Christ nor St. Paul abandoned tradition. What Jesus rejects is hypocritical use of God's law and tradition not tradition itself and further St. Paul in many places speaks highly of tradition, in fact tradition is on par with Scripture (2 Thess 2:15, et al).

In the final analysis what we have here is a recent up-to-date Protestant argument for seeing Scripture as the only and final source of faith and practice. I have shown that St. Irenaeus is abused beyond comprehension in order to bolster views on him that cannot be supported by his writings. Protestant apologists then argue the regula fidei is contradictory and confused. But again the fathers deny this very point and their accord in doctrine testifies to its overall unanymity. Protestans then in vain search the Scriptures to refute tradition but Scripture itself teaches us that hand in hand walks the oral and written kergyma.

The jury has been in for a long time now concerning the historical veracity of Catholicism. Apperantly some either do not know or simply deny the plain evidence of the patristic attestation.


______________________

1. Professor of theology and apologetics at Westminister Escondido. He was one of the contributors representing Protestantism in the Catholic / Protestant audio debate (see review below).
2. So fixed is Horton on trampling the Catholic position (on a work that has nothing to do with Catholicism) that he is questioned about this fixation by the Orthodox scholars.
3. Adv haer. 1, 10, 2.
4. Ibid. 3, 3, 2.
5. Three Views. 127.
6. Adv haer. 3, 1, 1. emphasis mine.
7. Ibid. 3, 3, 1.
8. Ibid. 5, 20, 1.
9. Ibid. 3, 4, 1.
10. Three Views. 127, 128.
11. The apparent contradictions of the councils have been soundly refuted since the 16th century when these objections first arose. Any introductory work of Catholic theology exemplifies this. It is a real mystery why Horton continues with these ploys in light of the secondary literature on these subjects.
12. See the excellent discussion on the doctrine of theological infallible pronouncements by John Henry Newman in his An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
13. Such as the case with Origen, who's views earned him official condemnation of his teachings.

Monday, May 12, 2008

The Philosophy of Humanae Vitae.

Recently (May 10th) Pope Benedict XVI praised Humanae Vitae as a "brave show of courage" on the part of the Catholic Church in the midst of the 60's and the atmosphere of the "sexual revolution". On the Regulation of Birth is indeed a philosophical milestone in comparison to the cavalier attitude of most of the (non-Catholic) church at that time and extending up to today. Humanae Vitae rejected the use of contraceptives, abortion in all forms, to name but a few points on human sexuality.


The Philosophy Behind Humanae Vitae.


Foundationally, the sin of sex for simple pleasure is rejected by its author. The text in Genesis is clear,

"But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him" (38:9-10).

This text has been understood by the patristic fathers1 and the reformation fathers2 as a clear warning against the malpractices of sexual intercourse. Not that sex in itself (or the pleasure derived within it) is evil, no, on the contrary, the pleasure is sweet indeed when experienced in it's God ordained purpose, namley, the procreation of the human race in the boundaries of marriage. When the historic interpretation (regula fidei) is lost or ignored, misunderstandings have practical consequence.

Pope Benedict eloquently states as much when he says that sex divorced from it's divine assignment (procreation) is nothing more than simple carnal desire, a desire that can be as addicting as any drug. The very act of procreation demands the transmission of life by design argues Benedict, to deny this we deny the charge of God and give sex a different unintended meaning. It follows then holds Benedict, that artificial reproduction is a grave offense since it also denies the natural sexual reproduction of human life.

Stop and think about it beloved, sex for the simple pleasure of sex robs God of his natural design for sex. Sex no longer is a beautiful and pleasurable act between a husband and wife for the procreation of children. Sex now becomes a mission to arrive at ecstasy, it now matters not if your partner is of the same sex (homosexuality), if you even have a partner (masturbation), or if you do have a partner of the opposite sex, you are simply using him/her to arrive at ecstasy devoid of the responsibilty involved with children and marriage. Humanae Vitae is clear that women when seperated of this God ordained responsibility and commitment become a “mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” A tool of self gratification rather than the God ordained equal partner of man to enjoy for procreation within the boundaries of marriage.

Anglican writer C.S Lewis waxed eloquently on this issue,

"By contraception simply; they are denied existence, by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer." 3



_________________

1. "(Callistus) even permitted women, if they were unmarried and burning up at an unsuitable time of life...to take a man of their choosing as bedfellow...and to regard such a one as a husband, though not lawfully married. For this reason women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly as to expel what was being conceived...See then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time" (St. Hippolytus, Omnium hearesium refutatio. 9, 12) is but one example among the Catholic fathers.
2. Calvin is one example, "It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is doubly horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family...When a woman in some way drives away the seed out of the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime" (Comm. Gen. at loc; see further the railing against contraceptive measures by Luther in his Lectures on Genesis).
3. The Abolition of Man, 68.
___________________

"itaque fratres state et tenete traditiones quas didicistis sive per sermonem sive per epistulam nostram"

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Identity Crises in the Anglican Communion.









Cardinal Walter Kasper1 has said recently, "Ultimately it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church, where does it belong2". Does she side with the historic Ecclesia Catholica or does she side with modern Protestantism? These difficult questions and more will be addressed in the Anglican Church's "Lambeth" meeting in July3.

The Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams has invited Kasper to address the Lambeth meeting which should be very interesting when considering the remarks Cardinal Kasper has made already concerning the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Church is going through some tough times, with theological liberalism and feminism infiltrating the leadership of the church4.

It is ultimately not an easy decision for modern Anglicans to make. Since the theological creed as it were of Anglicanism "the 39 articles" makes plain, Anglicanism is by theological definition Protestant, and she subscribes to all the innovative sola's of Protestantism, (i.e, sola Scriptura, sola Fide, etc). Therefore, if one is an Anglican and intellectually consistent, he is a Protestant5.

We would argue that historic Catholicism (the regula fidei) is far different than Anglicanism as set out in the 39 articles. Ultimately the church of God on earth is providentially guided by His hand and we can only pray for our brothers and sisters facing deep crises in the Anglican Communion.



___________________________


1. President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity at the Vatican.

2. Quoted in the Catholic Herald.

3. The Lambeth conference is sort of the Anglican Church's version of Catholicism's ecumenical council's, however with many important differences. It is held every 10 years in which Anglican prelates from around the globe are called to attend.

4. Conservative Anglicans have been battling these degradations within their church. One voice of sound reason is that of Rev. Peter Toon, see further his blog- http://pbs1928.blogspot.com/.

5. What makes Anglicans different from say other Protestants such as the Presbyterians, is her fidelity to the historic liturgy and high view of patristics.



_____________________



itaque fratres state et tenete traditiones quas didicistis sive per sermonem sive per epistulam nostram

Friday, May 9, 2008

Book Review: Translating Truth.



I finally got some time to read this little book "Translating Truth, the Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation" published by Crossway (2005). It is basically five essays from five different scholars responding to and defending the essential literal (EL) translation method.

The work starts off with Wayne Grudem's1 entry, "Are only some words breathed out by God?". In this entry, Grudem makes a strong argument that the dynamic method of Biblical translation fails on the serious count of hamstringing theological exegesis from the text. Unjust omissions, wild paraphrasing, additions and the like leads to a poor at best, possibility of teaching theology from dynamic translations. Grudem presents many examples of the way dynamic theory disables the source language and in turn directly affects theology2. As far as what translations then should we follow, Grudem opts for either the ESV, NASB, NET, HCSB3.

Next up is Leland Ryken4 who debunks the "Five Myths about Essentially Literal Bible Translation". Ryken abolishes the strawman argument that claims "word worship" on the part of adherents to (EL). Secondly, Ryken displays why essentially literal method is far from "naivite" and on the contrary, the ignorance is mostly being exhibited from the dynamic camp. Thirdly, the accusation that (EL) amounts to transliteration is almost to ridiculous to merit a serious response but nonetheless Ryken exposes the specious reasoning behind this charge. Fourthly, Ryken responds to those that say (EL) method involves interpretive lexical decisions by stating the obvious, of course it does, however (EL) has a better guiding principle with fidelity to the source language rather than subjective paraphrasing. Finally, Ryken shows why (EL) is far from being "obscure and opague" but rather (EL) is transparent in it's renderings from the source language, much different than what can be said of dynamic translation which makes the source language disappear under subjective decisions.

C. John. Collins5 follows with his entry, "What the Reader wants and what the Translator can Give". In which he gives us an interesting test case on translation principles, namely the Greek text of 1 John. In contrast to (EL) which displays the repetitions and other nuances of the Greek, these important subtleties are lost in dynamic renderings.

V.S Poythress6 gives us his entry, "Truth and Fullness of Meaning" in which he gives us a historical overview of the field of linguistics and how this has influenced Eugene Nida7. Nida's model of translation theory is but one of many Poythress shows and to claim that it is the best method at the derision of (EL) is simply bombastic.

Bruce Winter8 gives us, "Revelation versus Rhetoric" a synopses showing that St. Paul consciously avoided the grand rhetorical sytle of his day for the humble words of the power of the gospel. However all sides grant this and it is not apparent how Winter ties this to translation principles.

All in all this short work (which I read in one sitting) is a strong introduction and defense of the esentially literal translation method. It exposes the fallacies that Nida and company have employed to deride the (EL) position and at the same time proves the inadequacies of dynamic translation theory.

______________________

1. Research professor of Bible and Theology at Phoenix Seminary. Sometimes considered "controversial" among conservative Protestants for his distinctive views such as the belief that charismatic gifts continue in the church today, see his The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. Grudem was also exposed as holding Trinitarian subordinationism by Kevin Giles in Jesus and the Father (which I review below).

2. One example Grudem cites is John 12:27 which reads in the (EL) ESV, "Now is my soul troubled..." the key word being the rendering of ψυχή. For no apparent reason dynamic translations (such as the CEV) decline a literal rendering of ψυχή as "soul" (as most EL translations show) and translate instead as, "Now I am deeply troubled..." a rendering that does away with Jesus' soul (and can thus bolster an Apollinarian reading of the text).

3. Grudem then gives useful insights on why he does not like the otherwise (EL) translations KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV.

4. Professor of English at Wheaton College.

5. Professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary at St. Louis.

6. Famed professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminister at Philadelphia.

7. The guru and main voice for the dynamic method of translation.

8. Warden at Tyndale House - Cambridge.

_______________________

"αμαθεστατε και κακε, αφες τον παλαιον, μη μεταποιει"