Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 43

December 3, 2011

Logos Catholic Bible Software Provides Quick, Searchable Access to the Riches of Scriptural and Traditional Resources

For years I have been noting (and utilizing in my own work) the exciting potential of the Internet and particularly links-technology, for the purposes of making comprehensible in a convenient fashion, the inherent "interconnectedness" of the Catholic faith. It's all tied together, and should be understood and studied as such. But only in the last twenty years have all of these treasures been so easily accessed. On my website I have delighted in trying my best to present Catholic Christianity and help make it easier to conceptualize in its totality, by means of links and overall categorization.

Logos Catholic Bible Software now makes these tasks far easier still, since dazzling state of the art technology allows the user or researcher to search and peruse (in just seconds) many hundreds of relevant documents: theological, spiritual, historical, linguistic, magisterial, and apologetics resources. The technology combines them all together, with search and integrative capabilities not even imagined fifteen or even ten years ago, wrapped together in an intuitive and user-friendly interface.

Catholic Scholar's Library is the most extensive package available, with nearly 400 works included. It's a bit pricey, but well worth it (90% less cost than all of the same resources in hardcover and paperback), and payment plans are available. Logos offers less extensive packages, too, such as Catholic Scripture Study Library . It supplies 300 resources at about 60% of the cost of the larger program, or the smaller-yet Catholic Library Builder . Priests, Bible scholars, teachers, catechists, RCIA instructors, apologists (like myself), and indeed anyone who is interested in learning more about their faith, the Bible, and Catholic theological and spiritual tradition, will greatly benefit from these wonderful resources.

Follow the links in the previous paragraph (especially Catholic Scholar's Library ) for detailed descriptions of all the different aspects and tools: many Bible translations, commentaries, Greek and Hebrew lexicons, biblical culture and maps, ancient Jewish and Church history (e.g., the complete 38-volume set of the Church fathers), theological aids (e.g., the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas; many works by G. K. Chesterton and Cardinal Newman). Just about anything any inquirer would need to shed light on a biblical text or particular Christian doctrine or spiritual matter to be explored, is included.

Logos has provided the best electronic Bible study tools for years. Now it has, thankfully, expanded its efforts to include specifically Catholic products. Catholic Products Manager Andrew Jones gives a brief overview in the following video:

Jones sounds the same "interconnectedness" theme that I highlighted above:

The rich Catholic tradition, with its intricate interplay of Scripture, liturgy, law and theology, is profoundly suited for study on the Logos platform. . . . Catholic Scripture study requires both serious textual and historical criticism of the biblical text itself, and it requires that the insights gained from this study be situated within the Church's tradition. . . . print has required that each work be essentially isolated from all others, physically and conceptually. The digital age is changing this. Logos is extremely flexible and adaptable to many styles of Bible study, but it is especially well suited to the Catholic approach, because it allows the biblical text to be studied literally surrounded with the Tradition — really in constant dialogue with the tradition.

Amen! To get an idea of the marvelous nature of this software, note, for example, how it searches (or, more accurately, finds materials) Jones explains that "it is not a normal search engine like Google or something like that. Logos doesn't just search for keywords. Rather, we've put human intelligence into the tagging of the books. So, for example, if you search for 'Eucharist' the software will return references to the 'Lord's Supper,' 'Communion,' and so on."

It also provides the Greek or Hebrew word for any given English translation (what is called the "word wheel"), and searches that, in order to provide all the various translated words in English for each term. I have done the same thing with my Englishman's Greek Concordance for years, but it is a much more tedious and time-consuming process that is now made possible in about five seconds. One can save a lot of time and eye strain!

As a veteran of many individual word searches, both the old-fashioned way (Strong's Concordance or Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or Nave's Topical Bible), and even on faster Internet Bible sites, I can testify that this is a huge benefit. Concepts in the Bible are rarely contained in just one word: whether in English, or Hebrew and Greek. These three reference works are included in Logos Catholic Bible Software: but integrated together with many others for "super-search" capabilities. The software offers English-Greek and English-Hebrew reverse interlinear versions, synopses, parallel Gospels and harmonies, among many other tools.

I know full well, from my own personal work of thirty years of apologetics (since I have done research "the old-fashioned way" for the most part: thumbing through hundreds of books), how very useful this software is. In a large sense, those who have done theological research "the old way" probably appreciate the "new way" the most. Perhaps in a generation, the old methods will become almost obsolete.

All of the fabulous integrated search technology of Catholic Scholar's Library and other Logos packages make one appreciate all the more, the labors of the thousands of scholars throughout history. Their work is made readily available to anyone (conventional books often don't have an index, or have an inadequate index: again, I can amply testify from personal experience). The capacity for learning and spiritual growth is endless. Andrew Jones comments: "One of the things that historians do is organize vast amounts of information, hundreds or thousands of sources all focused on a single concept or event, and that is precisely what Logos does."

Catholic apologist and author Brandon Vogt, in his review, gave a great description of how it "feels" to use Logos software:

What really sets it apart, though, is that when you use the program you feel like you're working with a librarian rather than a lifeless computer program. It acquires, catalogs, and organizes your resources, and helps you, the digital patron, find the information you're looking for, quickly and easily.

Logos products are multi-platform and will work on PC and Mac (see system requirements): including an iPhone Bible app and an iPad Bible app. Video tutorials for many different aspects make learning to use this great resource fun and fairly easy.

I myself am a relative newcomer to the "scene" but recommendations of this software from prominent figures and friends of mine in the Catholic apologetics community who have been longtime users, are glowing:

Patrick Madrid: "I've been a happy and satisfied Logos customer and cheerleader for over 15 years . . . I'm very excited about Catholic base packages and whole-heartedly recommend them."

Steve Ray (user of Logos software since 1990!): "Its customer support and training are unsurpassed. . . . it has always been powerful and easy-to-use and keeps getting better. . . . As a Catholic convert I am very excited about these new resources."

Jimmy Akin: "Logos Bible Software gives you the ability to instantly and effortlessly make discoveries in the Bible that would have taken scholars endless hours of labor in the past. . . . [it includes] Church Fathers, Church councils, and the great saints and doctors of the Church. I use Logos Bible Software constantly, and I enthusiastically recommend it to others."

Mike Aquilina: "It's a respectable theological library that fits easily onto an iPad and goes everywhere you might have to go. In some ways it's better than the bookshelves of a theological library, since it's searchable."

Purchase Logos Catholic Bible Software today! You'll never regret it. For additional 15% savings, use the coupon code ADVENT at checkout.

Other Reviews:
First Things (Dr. Steve Smith)Jeff Miller (at The Curt Jester blog)
Michael Barber (Sacred Page podcast with Andrew Jones)
Taylor Marshall (includes an interview with Andrew Jones)
Thomas McDonald (at National Catholic Register)Brandon Vogt (The Thin Veil website) Dan Burke (Catholic Spiritual Direction website)

* * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 03, 2011 20:00

December 1, 2011

Blasphemy Against Creatures and Immaterial Things in Scripture (Not Just Against God) / New (?) Analogical Biblical Argument for Veneration of the Saints and Angels from the Disapproval of Blasphemy of the Same

Moses (Rembrandt)
Anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant apologist Steve Hays dogmatically (and quite erroneously) proclaimed:

His satire would only be blasphemous if it were directed at God (specifically, the one true God). It isn't possible to blaspheme mere men and women. Your complaint reflects Catholic idolatry. (11-30-11)

Holy Scripture contains the Greek words blaspheemeo [βλασφημέω](Strong's word #987), blaspheemia [βλασφημία] (#988), and blaspheemos [βλάσφημος] (#989). They are often applied to men or angels. Hence Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume) states (p. 107):

It may be directly against God . . . or angelic beings (Jude 8-10; 2 Pet. 2:10-12). . . .

Persecuting Christians is also blasphemy (1 Tim. 1:13). The community has to suffer blasphemy (Rev. 2:9; 1 Cor. 4:13; 1 Pet. 4:4). Opposition to Paul's message is necessarily blasphemy (Acts 13:45 [+ 18:6]) because it attacks its basic content.

. . . A bad action is blasphemy either because it resists God's will or beings Christianity into disrepute (1 Tim. 6:1; Jms. 2:7; Rom. 2:24; Tit. 2:5).

Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ten-volume set) elaborates:

3. But the Christian, too, is in danger of giving cause for blasphemy. Denial of Christ in persecution would be such. Hence Paul can say of his activity as a persecutor: αὐτοὺς ἠνάγκαζον βλασφημεῖν. Even in partaking of idol meats Christians in bondage could see blasphemy (1 C. 10:30), as distinct from Paul. Violation of the obligation of love even in such matters ὑμε͂ν τὸ ἀγαθόν (R. 14:16) could expose to scandal. False teaching is blasphemy when it perverts from the way of truth (2 Pt. 2:2; R. 3:8). The blasphemy does not have to find verbal expression. Any bad or unloving action can contain it, either because it resists the holy will of God or because it causes the enemies of Christianity to calumniate it (1 Tm. 6:1; Jm. 2:7; R. 2:24; Tt. 2:5). The basis is clearly set out in 2 Cl., 13, 2–4.

(Vol. 1: 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley and G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (624). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans)

Note: Steve Hays attacked the usefulness and methodology of Kittel, when I cited him. I replied with partial or fairly full scholarly support of this famous lexicon, from Helmut Koester (p. 242), E. F. Harrison (p. 57), Marvin R. Wilson (p. 7), David Hill (p. 121), Darrell L. Bock and Buist M. Fanning (p. 158), and Thomas F. Torrance (p. 333).

Likewise, The New Bible Dictionary (1962, "Blasphemy", p. 159):

God is blasphemed also in His representatives. So the word is used of Moses (Acts 6:11); Paul (Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 4:12; 10:30) . . . because these representatives embody the truth of God Himself (and our Lord in a unique way) an insulting word spoken against them and their teaching is really directed against the God in whose name they speak (so Mt. 10:10; Lk. 10:16). . . .

The term is also used, in a weaker sense, of slanderous language addressed to men (e.g. Mk. 3:28; 7:22; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; Tit. 3:2). Here the best translation is 'slander, abuse'.

Even immaterial things can be blasphemed, such as the "word of God" (Titus 2:5: "discredited" in RSV), "good" [acts] (Rom 14:16), "teaching" or "doctrine" (1 Tim 6:1), "the way of truth" (2 Pet 2:2), "matters of which they are ignorant" (2 Pet 2:12). Follow the Strong's word links for comprehensive documentation of usage.

Zondervan Dictionary of Bible Themes (#5800: "Blasphemy") also shows a wide application of blasphemy in the Bible:

God blasphemed indirectly

Rejecting his word and his servants blasphemes God Ne 9:26 See also 2Ch 36:16; Ps 107:11; Isa 5:24

Defiling sacred things blasphemes God Lev 22:1-2 See also Eze 20:27-28; 22:26; Mal 1:6-13

Despising the poor blasphemes God Pr 14:31 See also Am 2:7; Jas 2:5-7

Speaking against his people blasphemes God Zep 2:8-11; Ac 9:4-5 To persecute the church is to persecute Jesus Christ; Ac 26:9; 1Ti 1:13; Rev 2:9

Slandering celestial beings blasphemes God 2Pe 2:10-12; Jude 8-10

(M. H. Manser, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999)

Blaspheemeo (βλασφημέω) [Strong's word #987] is applied to God (or "his name" -- which, in the Hebrew mind, is the same thing) in Matt 27:39; Mk 3:29; 15:29; Lk 12:10; 22:65; 23:39; Rom 2:24; 1 Tim 6:1; Js 2:7; Rev 13:6; 16:9, 11, 21.

Blaspheemia (βλασφημία) [Strong's word #988], is applied to God in Matt 12:31; Rev 13:1,5; 17:3.

Blaspheemos (βλάσφημος) [Strong's word #989], is applied to God in Acts 6:11

Here are the relevant biblical passages (RSV):

Blasphemy Against Men, as God's Representatives
ST. PAUL
Acts 13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy, and contradicted what was spoken by Paul, and reviled him. [blaspheemeo (βλασφημέω) Strong's word #987]

Acts 18:6 And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, "Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles." [blaspheemeo (βλασφημέω) #987]

CHRISTIANS

1 Peter 4:4 They are surprised that you do not now join them in the same wild profligacy, and they abuse you; [blaspheemeo (βλασφημέω) #987]

SAINTS IN HEAVEN
Revelation 13:6 it opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. [blaspheemeo (βλασφημέω) #987]

MOSES
Acts 6:11 Then they secretly instigated men, who said, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God." [blaspheemos (βλάσφημος) Strong's word #989]

Blasphemy Against Angels, as God's Representatives

2 Peter 2:10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.
Bold and wilful, they are not afraid to revile the glorious ones, [blaspheemeo (βλασφημέω) #987]

Jude 8 Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones. [blaspheemeo (βλασφημέω) #987]

Revelation 13:6 it opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. [blaspheemeo (βλασφημέω) #987]

Blasphemy Against the Gospel and Christian Message / Teaching / The Word of God

1 Timothy 6:1 Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed. [blaspheemeo (βλασφημέω) #987]

Titus 2:5 to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited. [blaspheemeo (βλασφημέω) #987]

2 Peter 2:2 And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. [blaspheemeo (βλασφημέω) #987]

Blasphemy Against the Law

Acts 6:13 and set up false witnesses who said, "This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law; [blaspheemos (βλάσφημος) #989]

Blasphemy Against the Temple

Acts 6:13 and set up false witnesses who said, "This man never ceases to speak words against this holy place and the law; [blaspheemos (βλάσφημος) #989]

Blasphemy Against Goodness or Good Acts

Romans 14:16 So do not let your good be spoken of as evil. [blaspheemeo (βλασφημέω) #987]

2 Peter 2:12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed, reviling in matters of which they are ignorant, will be destroyed in the same destruction with them, [blaspheemeo (βλασφημέω) #987]

Jude 10 But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed. [blaspheemeo (βλασφημέω) #987]

New (?) Analogical Argument for Veneration of the Saints and Angels from the Prohibition of Blasphemy of the Same
As we have seen above, the Bible looks negatively on what it describes as "blasphemy" -- not just against God, but against holy persons or those set apart for His purposes (Moses: Acts 6:11; St. Paul: Acts 13:45; 18:6; saints in heaven: Rev 13:6; Christians in general: 1 Pet 4:4), and against angels (2 Pet 2:10; Jude 8; Rev 13:6). The same words for blasphemy are used for men, angels, and God.

This is because these men and angels serve as His messengers (2 Cor 8:23), direct representatives (Matt 10:40; Lk 10:16; Jn 13:20), ambassadors (2 Cor 5:20; Eph 6:20; Phlm 1:9), or witnesses (Jn 15:27; 19:35; 21:24; Acts 1:8; 2:32; 3:15; 10:39-41; 23:11; 1 Pet 5:1; Rev 1:2; 6:9). Indeed, Christians are even described as "fellow workers" with Him (1 Cor 3:9; 2 Cor 6:1; Phil 2:12-13). The Church is equated with Jesus Himself (both being persecuted in the same actions: Acts 26:11, 14-15), and there is also an identification of the Church "Body of Christ" with Christ Himself (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23; 5:30; Col 1:24).

The aspect of divinization, or theosis, is a biblical motif of very close identification and union with God:

Acts 17:28 for 'In him we live and move and have our being': . . .

2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:18)

Ephesians 3:19 . . . to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God.

Ephesians 4:13 . . . mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.

2 Peter 1:3-4 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, [4] by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

In other words, the key is affinity with, or closeness; proximity to God. Just as God can be blasphemed, in a lesser but still very real sense, so can His ambassadors and witnesses. There is the primary Being: God, and the secondary ones: His vessels. They reflect and represent God; therefore, as such, people can scorn and reject and blaspheme them just as they do God.

It seems to straightforwardly follow, then, by analogy, that if a rejection or blasphemy of God can be expressed via an essentially lesser but connected rejection or blasphemy of His ambassadors (the lesser vessel being in close affinity with the greater source), by the same token and principle and logic, conversely, the worship of God can be expressed via an essentially lesser but connected veneration of His ambassadors.

In this manner, the wider application of blasphemy in Scripture to creatures suggests by symmetrical analogy, a wider application of honoring: expressed in veneration of creatures, which is distinct (but not altogether disconnected) from the adoration that God alone is entitled to, as Creator. The creatures reflect the Creator like the painting reflects the painter, or moonlight, the sunlight that is the source of it.

Moreover, we see that the Bible refers blasphemy of men almost solely to the most eminent of God's followers (Paul, Moses, and perfected saints in heaven): and angels even higher in the scale of things. Thus, by analogy, the relatively greater veneration would be towards those who had attained a higher holiness and sanctity; hence in the Bible we see a differential "system" of blasphemy / veneration not unlike how the Catholic Church ranks lesser and greater saints, with the greater receiving more veneration.

Lastly, the biblical data about blasphemy of immaterial holy things (the gospel, Christian doctrine, the law, the Temple) leads to the opposite analogy of reverence of those same holy things and places ("The Holy Bible": as even Protestants call it; the Holy Land, icons, Church sanctuaries, statues representing saints, etc.). The essential and fundamental, presuppositional principles of all these things are clearly laid down in the Bible, if not explicitly in every jot and tittle.

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 01, 2011 18:26

November 29, 2011

New Low in Anti-Catholic "Humor": St. Thérèse of Lisieux as Hitler / John Bugay Tries to Justify it Based on Historic Anti-Semitism / Steve Hays' Rank Ignorance of the Biblical Scope of "Blasphemy" and Sophomoric Dismissal of Kittel's Lexicon

[IMPORTANT NOTE (REMOVAL): as of 8:20 PM, 11-30-11, after an entire day defending vociferously this outrage, Bugay removed the Hitler mustache (though nothing else in his satire), under pressure from his pastor and others. Blog regular Paul Hoffer had contacted his pastor and provided contact info. for others to do so. Bugay's explanation appears on his blog post near the top, in all italics. It does not, however, contain any direct apology to Catholics: neither for the outlandish Hitler portrayal, nor absurd defenses of it all day long on his blog and mine, nor for the numerous other mockeries and insults remaining in the post, in his combox, and my combox. It's one thing to do something (the right thing) in obedience to authorities, but begrudgingly or under protest; quite another to sincerely change one's mind and heart, with a desire to make amends. I have objected to this in my combox:

How about an apology and a retraction, and explanation, after defending it all day, putting Catholics down en masse, as if it were the strangest thing in the world that we would have the slightest objection, and all your cronies doing the same? . . . show the true fruits of repentance . . . If you had a true change of heart, and now think it was wrong and never should have been done, then by all means let us know. We would respect that.

Nevertheless, this is a big step, and a positive development, even if a reluctant one by John, and I am happy to commend and thank him for it. [second link]

Bugay had even mocked our outrage, saying it was fake: "I am amazed at the feigned outrage in the response to these images, for what is absolutely a minimal amount of photo enhancement . . ." This still remains in the post, right at the top. It's clearly an insult and shot at our honest reactions: hardly a loving attitude. I think he needs to go the whole way: not just the minimal amount to get the heat off of himself. The post continues to mock Catholics all over the place, and Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, and Blessed Pope John XXIII as well. I would contend that these things also violate the spirit of the Scripture and Francis Schaeffer quotes that he deemed sufficient to require removal of the Hitler garbage]

* * *
John Bugay posted this caricature of my blog at Cryablogue, complete with additional middle school toilet humor. It's an instant classic (in terms of documentation of anti-Catholic vitriol, contempt, and bigotry) and apparently considered funny as all get-out in these troglodyte circles. Notice how they leave Protestant C. S. Lewis unscathed (too bad he couldn't be changed into Mao or Stalin, or maybe Jerry Lewis or Jerry Lee Lewis: to follow the juvenile "humor"). Nice touch there . . .

Right-click on the photo and select "View Image" for a larger, full-screen version.

* * *
Bugay has now tried to justify his "satire":

I am amazed at the feigned outrage in the response to these images, for what is absolutely a minimal amount of photo enhancement, certainly in response to some not-so-good-natured ribbing, richly enhanced with exaggerations and enhancements of its own. (11-29-11)

Not only was there nothing excessive or wrong whatsoever in what he did, but he also has to pretend that our responses are "feigned." Then he went on (in my combox) to explain the complex ethical rationale behind his garbage:

. . . be sure you understand the symbolic meaning of the artwork in question. . . . official Rome distances itself from Roman Catholic policy toward the Jews over the centuries. And my point simply is, so long as Roman Catholics make excuses and dismiss official Roman Catholic behavior over the centuries, every single Roman Catholic -- from the least to the greatest -- is tainted by this "excused" and unconfessed official Roman sin. (11-30-11)

Asked why St. Thérèse in particular should be held up for ridicule and ludicrously portrayed as Hitler, Bugay wrote:

Merely that she is tainted by Roman escapism, the same way the rest of you are. (11-30-11)

He later watered this down (slightly):

I am not attributing any guilt to her -- but when the organization is sullied, it reflects badly on all the members. (11-30-11)

And later, in the combox below:

I suggest, in a visual way, that she, as a Roman Catholic, is tainted by (a) Rome's policy toward the Jews in the 19th century, and (b) by Rome's continuing failure to take any official responsibility at all -- shifting the blame to "her children".

I see. So "guilt by association" justifies drawing a Hitler mustache on a godly woman and a saint: implying that she has anything to do with a murderer of millions of people: one of the most wicked men to have ever lived.

I guess, then, that every Protestant today is "tainted" by the "excused" outrages and tortures and many thousands of murders / executions that have occurred under Protestant auspices: especially in England, where the Calvinists and Puritans in John's heritage flourished: producing, for example, The Westminster Confession that he and all Calvinists are so fond of. I have documented these horrors in great detail on my web page: Protestantism: Historic Persecution and Intolerance.

England, under Butcher King Henry VIII, Good Queen Bess and other monarchs was a place where a person could have his heart cut out while alive, his intestines slowly drawn out, other outrages not fit to describe in mixed company, done to him, and then arms and legs and heads cut off, simply for the "treasonous" crime of being a Catholic (remember the final scene in Braveheart?). Most folks familiar with European history know what the English did to the Irish for several centuries (I have Irish blood myself). See the gory details on the page above. Isn't it wonderful to hear both sides of the story for a change?

Bugay is fixated on the scandalous historic treatment of the Jews (which was quite as prevalent in Protestant countries: hence mostly Lutheran Germany hosted the Holocaust). I don't know anyone who would deny it. Yet why is it that he would dwell on sins of many hundreds of years ago, while there was tremendous heroism during the Nazi Holocaust within the last seventy years? It is estimated that Pope Pius XII saved some 800,000 Jews: more than any other organization. I have collected many papers about this:

Jewish Recognition of Pope Pius XII's Support
800,000 Saved by Pius XII's "Silence" (Donald DeMarco)

Hitler's Pope? (Donald Devine)
Blaming the Wartime Pope (Kenneth Woodward)
Nazi Policy and the Catholic Church (Karol Jozef Gajewski)
Pope Pius XII and the Jews (Margherita Marchione)
The Catholic Church and the Nazis (website)
Pope Pius XI [not Pius XII] and the Nazis (Jimmy Akin)
Was Christianity Responsible for the Holocaust? (Helen M. Valois)

Was Hitler a Christian? (Answers in Action)

Bugay carps in the revised version of his outrageous post:

But Roman Apologists will make every excuse to maintain Roman infallibility, while excusing 'the Church' for any and every one of its officially egregious behaviors over the centuries. Roman Catholic evasiveness is truly staggering.

Just as he lied about me recently, implying that I had never dealt with Orthodox arguments against the papacy (what a joke!); now he is doing it again (insofar as I am an apologist, and his present target): insinuating that I have never dealt with this. But I have, long since (more than three years ago):

Anti-Semitism in the Church Fathers and Historically Among Catholics: Resources and Recent Catholic "Institutional Repentance"

So much for my own "evasiveness". Does this mean I am spared from having a Hitler mustache now, because I freely admit that Catholics (like every other group of sinful human beings) have sinned terribly in the past?

Bugay also seemed at first to be ridiculously denying that in this "satire" St. Thérèse was supposed to look like Hitler (though it was always possible that he was just playing around, as he is prone to do, and as he now has confirmed):

. . . please note that it is C.S. Lewis, a famous teacher, who is threatening to crack Dave's knuckles with a ruler". Lewis is the one with the open mouth. St. Therese's mouth is obviously closed. You certainly don't know how to interpret satire.

And Paul Hoffer, how dare you accuse me of such a truly blasphemous and abominable behavior as to "draw a Hitler moustache". That's a ridiculous assertion. All that I did was to darken the shadow under her nose -- which naturally exists in the existing photo! (11-30-11)

One "Mr. Fosi" appeared to agree with the denial:

John has denied that charge, so I don't grant that he did draw a Hitler mustache on the pic. (11-30-11)

But Bugay then freely admitted it was supposed to look like Hitler. Brian wrote in the combox below:

It's bad form to draw a Hitler mustache on St. Therese.

Bugay replied:

Brian, I agree. It's bad form. I am "using an absurd example to communicate something that is absurd".

Later Bugay explained on my blog:

This was obviously a "tongue in cheek" comment: . . . There is a scholastic difference between "drawing" and using the burn tool in photoshop. But you'll just trumpet it, to be able to trumpet something. Doesn't matter if you're accurate about it.

And later at Cryablogue:

It was an attempt at humor in the midst of this discussion, an attempt to trade on the amphiboly between "drawing a moustache" and "darkening a shadow" which naturally exists using a photoshop tool. (11-30-11)

And again in my combox below:

It wasn't a "denial that it was a Hitler mustache" It was a denial of the method -- which I thought to be a trade on words which I thought could possibly lighten the mood. It was a trade on the methods "drawing" vs "using a photoshop tool".

Yes, the intention in both cases was to put a Hitler mustache there. No, I do not think anyone is a moron. Yes, it is in bad taste. No it is not blasphemy. Yes, the bad taste was intended to illustrate bad taste in other contexts, specifically those perpetrated here and in official Rome.

But despite all, Mr. Fosi was still giving the line that John had no intention to make it look like Hitler (replying to Paul):

You are still saying there is one. It looks pretty similar to the way it looks on Dave's blog header. It may be sketchy but I'm going with John's denial on this one.

Fellow anti-Catholic Mr. Fosi thought it was a denial (since he reiterated this twice); yet if we do the same thing, we don't care about truth or accuracy. Fosi can make the mistake and that's fine, because he's an anti-Catholic. But if we do (and who knows when Bugay is serious or not? His so-called "serious" work is as ridiculous as his farce), we are morons. In any event, if we take John at his present word that it is what we all thought it was (a Hitler mustache), then above he is joking around about his blasphemy, thinking it is the most lighthearted thing in the world (and Fosi was quite serious and misinterpreted what Bugay says was "obvious"). It's yet another instance of Bugay calling good evil. This is becoming a big theme with him.

Paul Hoffer has described the defamation as "blasphemous." Steve Hays (webmaster of the site where this appeared) objected, stating:

His satire would only be blasphemous if it were directed at God (specifically, the one true God). It isn't possible to blaspheme mere men and women. Your complaint reflects Catholic idolatry. (11-30-11)

In stating this, he exhibits his massive ignorance of how the Greek words blaspheemeo [βλασφημέω](Strong's word #987), blaspheemia [βλασφημία] (#988), and blaspheemos [βλάσφημος] (#989) are used in Holy Scripture. They are often applied to men or angels. Hence Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume) states (p. 107):

It may be directly against God . . . or angelic beings (Jude 8-10; 2 Pet. 2:10-12). . . .

Persecuting Christians is also blasphemy (1 Tim. 1:13). The community has to suffer blasphemy (Rev. 2:9; 1 Cor. 4:13; 1 Pet. 4:4). Opposition to Paul's message is necessarily blasphemy (Acts 13:45 [+ 18:6]) because it attacks its basic content.

. . . A bad action is blasphemy either because it resists God's will or beings Christianity into disrepute (1 Tim. 6:1; Jms. 2:7; Rom. 2:24; Tit. 2:5).

Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ten-volume set) elaborates:

3. But the Christian, too, is in danger of giving cause for blasphemy. Denial of Christ in persecution would be such. Hence Paul can say of his activity as a persecutor: αὐτοὺς ἠνάγκαζον βλασφημεῖν. Even in partaking of idol meats Christians in bondage could see blasphemy (1 C. 10:30), as distinct from Paul. Violation of the obligation of love even in such matters ὑμε͂ν τὸ ἀγαθόν (R. 14:16) could expose to scandal. False teaching is blasphemy when it perverts from the way of truth (2 Pt. 2:2; R. 3:8). The blasphemy does not have to find verbal expression. Any bad or unloving action can contain it, either because it resists the holy will of God or because it causes the enemies of Christianity to calumniate it (1 Tm. 6:1; Jm. 2:7; R. 2:24; Tt. 2:5). The basis is clearly set out in 2 Cl., 13, 2–4.

(Vol. 1: 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley and G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (624). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans)

Likewise, The New Bible Dictionary (1962, "Blasphemy", p. 159):

God is blasphemed also in His representatives. So the word is used of Moses (Acts 6:11); Paul (Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 4:12; 10:30) . . . because these representatives embody the truth of God Himself (and our Lord in a unique way) an insulting word spoken against them and their teaching is really directed against the God in whose name they speak (so Mt. 10:10; Lk. 10:16). . . .

The term is also used, in a weaker sense, of slanderous language addressed to men (e.g. Mk. 3:28; 7:22; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; Tit. 3:2). Here the best translation is 'slander, abuse'.

God blasphemed indirectly

Rejecting his word and his servants blasphemes God Ne 9:26 See also 2Ch 36:16; Ps 107:11; Isa 5:24

Defiling sacred things blasphemes God Lev 22:1-2 See also Eze 20:27-28; 22:26; Mal 1:6-13

Despising the poor blasphemes God Pr 14:31 See also Am 2:7; Jas 2:5-7

Speaking against his people blasphemes God Zep 2:8-11; Ac 9:4-5 To persecute the church is to persecute Jesus Christ; Ac 26:9; 1Ti 1:13; Rev 2:9

Slandering celestial beings blasphemes God 2Pe 2:10-12; Jude 8-10

(M. H. Manser, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999)

All of this, but Hays, Bugay, and our esteemed anti-Catholic Calvinist brethren are supposedly the masters of the Bible, and we Catholics, biblical illiterates. Hays doesn't even know the plain definition of a common biblical word. And so he says stupid, ignorant things about it. All we have to do is go to the Bible and Protestant Bible reference sources to refute him beyond all reply. Hays' answer to all this on his blog (the first sentence, within four minutes of my posting it there), was:

Needless to say, Kittel is notorious for its semantic fallacies, so Armstrong illustrates his massive ignorance of basic lexical semantics (e.g. James Barr). Put another way, Armstrong commits the word=concept fallacy. If you want to defend Kittel, that's your funeral. I'll send flowers.

BTW, this highlights one of Armstrong's chronic methodological fallacies. He will prooftext Catholic dogma by copy/pasting the occurrence of the same English word in a concordance.

I replied:

I'm happy to be in the company of hosts of Bible scholars who continue, amazingly enough, to cite Kittel, despite your searing wisdom, thus showing themselves to be miserable sufferers of (what was it?): "massive ignorance of basic lexical semantics." Right.

Helmut Koester wrote:

. . . the violent attacks of James Barr . . . are not really justifiable; decisive though they may be, his remarks are aimed at a few articles of the [TDNT] that are hardly convincing anyway . . .

(Paul and His World: Interpreting the New Testament in its Context, Fortress Press, 2007, p. 242, footnote 11)

Likewise, E. F. Harrison, editor of Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Wycliffe Bible Commentary, and many exegetical books of his own, and founding faculty member of Fuller Theological Seminary:

Almost universally, the value of this work has been cordially recognized. To be sure, it has had its critics, notably James Barr, who finds too much dependence on etymology, some unwarranted intermingling of philosophical-theological judgments with those which are linguistic, too much emphasis on words in isolation rather than consideration of the demands of context, as well as too great a readiness to move from word to concept and to put Hebrew and Greek concepts in contrast to one another. These and other objections point out dangers for those who work in the biblical languages as the basis for exegesis and biblical theology, but it is doubtful that Barr's strictures can be said to invalidate the Kittel method or render nugatory the solid results achieved by its use.

(Introduction to the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971, p. 57)

The very distinguished evangelical Bible scholar Marvin R. Wilson shows himself also to be guilty of "massive ignorance of basic lexical semantics" -- since he (oddly enough, given Hays' infallible pronouncements) offers a third critique of Barr's criticism of Kittel (after praising several aspects of it):

. . . Barr's position fails to be fully convincing. By downplaying any distinction between Greek and Hebrew manners of thinking, Barr does not take into adequate consideration such nonverbal aspects as the historical, cultural, and social-psychological setting from which the respective thought derives. Furthermore, he gives the impression that one may translate from one language to another without any major loss. This is not necessarily the case, however, for words may have a particular cultural and historical development within their own language.

(Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989, p. 7)

Frederick W. Danker notes other relevant scholarly considerations:

Editor Friedrich accepted the rebuke [from Barr] and vols. 5 (1954) through 10 (1978) reflect more acquaintance with philological realities. David Hill heeded some of Barr's admonition but tilted in the direction of TWNT in Greek Words with Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967).

(Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study, Fortress Press, revised edition of 2003, p. 121)

Darrell L. Bock and Buist M. Fanning state that Kittel, notwithstanding Barr's criticisms,:

. . . remains a gold mine of primary source information and should not be ignored.

(Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis (Crossway, 2006, p. 158)

Noted theologian Thomas F. Torrance defended Kittel's methodology and was a critic of these sorts of criticisms from Barr:

. . . Torrance regarded Barr's thinking as a kind of "linguistic formalism" or nominalism that equates reality with linguistic usage . . . Torrance himself characterized James Barr's position . . . as an "outstanding example of . . . nominalist scepticism." . . . Torrance insists, against Barr, that we must not neglect "the fundamental principle of hermeneutics advanced by the Greek Fathers that we do not subject realities to the terms referring to them., but subject terms to the realities to which they refer . . ." (Torrance, Royal Priesthood, p. x) . . . He called Barr a "brilliant philologist whose ideas cannot be ignored, although they are often rather exaggerated" (Royal Priesthood, p. x). . . . Torrance asserted that Barr's approach mistakenly "treated language independently as something having significance in itself . . . and not primarily by reference to the realities beyond which they are meant to direct us" (Royal Priesthood, p. x).

(Paul D. Molnar, Thomas F. Torrance: Theologian of the Trinity, Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2009, p. 333)

It's a nice sophistical (and altogether typical) attempt by Steve to deflect the discussion away from the biblical range of "blasphemy" onto methodological deficiencies (real or imagined) of Kittel. He can't escape his whopper, so he tries to obfuscate and get the spotlight off of his silly error and onto something else. It's classic tactics of sophistry.

If he says that Kittel defined words too rigidly (he certainly didn't here, as my citations show), then Steve simply comes in and says that the three Greek words can never possibly apply to human beings (or angels or things) in any sense of "blasphemy". So he is just as dogmatic, except it is from prior convictions that he brings to the Bible in order to eisegete it and bolster his errors of category and woodenly seeing idolatry under every rock.

True to form, Hays wrote another sophistical, obscurantist post, filled with non sequiturs, and never touching the heart of our dispute: whether blasphemy in Scripture applies to creatures and things, as well as to God. I showed that it clearly did. He can't refute that, so he switches the subject and obfuscates, like all good sophists do. Hays seems to think it is a bombshell to point out what I already did in this paper, above. So he writes:

Poor ol' Dave needs a crash course on lexical semantics. Let's give him a few pointers: . . .

3) In Biblical usage, "blasphemy" has a secular meaning, viz. slander, calumny, defamation.

4) In Biblical usage, "blasphemy" also as a religious meaning, viz. impiety, sacrilege.

I guess that's why (many hours ago, in a long day of disputes) I cited (above) the New Bible Dictionary, stating the same thing:

The term is also used, in a weaker sense, of slanderous language addressed to men (e.g. Mk. 3:28; 7:22; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; Tit. 3:2). Here the best translation is 'slander, abuse'.

What he neglects to see, however, is that blasphemy can apply to people and even objects, precisely because of their connection to God, or as His representatives. His extreme anti-Catholic Calvinist either/or mentality won't allow him to see that (he collapses it into inherent idolatry). Earlier today he denied that this was the case. But it's simply not presented that way (according to his opinion) in the Bible. Because I showed him that and he had no ready answer, he started attacking Kittel as a source (attempting to poison the well), and I had to spend time showing how his is not everyone's opinion, by any stretch. I consider what the actual linguists and Bible scholars say about it: not what an unpublished, wannabe-scholar teaching assistant like Hays dogmatically bloviates on and on about.

Bugay summarized on Cryablogue all of this sort of scholarly counter-evidence to Hays' claims:

Rhetoric, Dave. Unlike at your hovel, we have standards here.

Bugay then deleted the lengthy E. F. Harrison citation above, and turned off the comments before I could post the Danker citation. Too much refutation of Hays' inanities, I guess . . . These are the heights and absurdity that these anti-Catholics will scale, in order to avoid admitting that they were dead-wrong about the meaning and range of "blasphemy" in Holy Scripture.

* * *
It occurred to me that there is a huge double standard here in terms of what an anti-Catholic can do to a photo of a Catholic, and what a Catholic can do. Note how there are loud complaints from our anti-Catholic friends now about how our disgust at this juvenile display is altogether excessive, even "feigned" -- according to Bugay. How dare we complain that a saint (indeed one of the holiest of all time) was made to look like Hitler!!! Yet if we look at how anti-Catholics typically respond to any satire or humor, no matter how harmless, they yell and squawk louder than a stuck pig, and for precious little reason. The classic example is James White. I merely stretched a photo of him (in the late 90s), and he nearly imploded with prideful, bombastic-ego pique. Here it is. Note how terribly outrageous and disrespectful this is. Can you think of any possible thing more insulting than this?:

You would have thought the sky was falling down, according to Bishop White. And so he writes:

He has years of history in posting distorted pictures of me, cartoons, . . . In some ways it is simply pitiful, in others shameful. (7-12-07)

I had some harmless fun with other photos: making one look like a negative, another a weird yellow color, some take-offs of his stuff, etc.:

But the anti-Catholic ego can't take any of that. At the same time, White's professional caricaturist has done two satirical drawings of me, complete with many lies (one / two). Eric Svendsen (formerly very active and prominent anti-Catholic online) did a National Enquirer satire of me that had a child growing out of my chest and a supposed connection with Holocaust deniers (scroll down to bottom right). At one time an entire fake blog, supposedly my own, was put up: literally filled with slanders and mockery. That person was an anonymous coward and has never been discovered. White's artist also portrayed Patrick Madrid being stoned for idolatry. Gene Bridges, an associate of Steve Hays, had a field day, seriously comparing me to dictators like Castro and the tyrant in North Korea (complete with photographs).

All of that is fine and dandy, yet I simply stretch out a photo of James White or do other harmless, lighthearted stuff such as seen above, and he hits the roof and acts as if I have lost all credibility as an apologist altogether because I did such dastardly, wicked, utterly indefensible, unconscionable things. He can't take any criticism; he seems to have no comprehension of self-deprecating humor or laughing at oneself.

But if we object to outrageous and hyper-slanderous Hitler comparisons, Bugay condescendingly writes: "I am amazed at the feigned outrage in the response to these images, for what is absolutely a minimal amount of photo enhancement, . . ." and "You all really should be concerned about other things." There is a double standard here as wide as the Grand Canyon.

* * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 29, 2011 19:31

New Low in Anti-Catholic "Humor": St. Thérèse of Lisieux as Hitler (John Bugay on Steve Hays' Blog) / Bugay Tries to Justify it Based on Historic Anti-Semitism / Hays' Rank Ignorance of the Biblical Scope of "Blasphemy" and Dismissal of Kittel's Lexicon

John Bugay posted this caricature of my blog at Cryablogue, complete with additional middle school toilet humor. It's an instant classic (in terms of documentation of anti-Catholic vitriol, contempt, and bigotry) and apparently considered funny as all get-out in these troglodyte circles. Notice how they leave Protestant C. S. Lewis unscathed (too bad he couldn't be changed into Mao or Stalin, or maybe Jerry Lewis or Jerry Lee Lewis: to follow the juvenile "humor"). Nice touch there . . .

Right-click on the photo and select "View Image" for a larger, full-screen version.

* * *
Bugay has now tried to justify his "satire":

I am amazed at the feigned outrage in the response to these images, for what is absolutely a minimal amount of photo enhancement, certainly in response to some not-so-good-natured ribbing, richly enhanced with exaggerations and enhancements of its own. (11-29-11)

. . . be sure you understand the symbolic meaning of the artwork in question. . . . official Rome distances itself from Roman Catholic policy toward the Jews over the centuries. And my point simply is, so long as Roman Catholics make excuses and dismiss official Roman Catholic behavior over the centuries, every single Roman Catholic -- from the least to the greatest -- is tainted by this "excused" and unconfessed official Roman sin. (11-30-11)

Asked why St. Thérèse in particular should be held up for ridicule and ludicrously portrayed as Hitler, Bugay wrote:

Merely that she is tainted by Roman escapism, the same way the rest of you are. (11-30-11)

He later watered this down (slightly):

I am not attributing any guilt to her -- but when the organization is sullied, it reflects badly on all the members.(11-30-11)

And later, in the combox below:

I suggest, in a visual way, that she, as a Roman Catholic, is tainted by (a) Rome's policy toward the Jews in the 19th century, and (b) by Rome's continuing failure to take any official responsibility at all -- shifting the blame to "her children".

Jewish Recognition of Pope Pius XII's Support
800,000 Saved by Pius XII's "Silence" (Donald DeMarco)

Hitler's Pope? (Donald Devine)
Blaming the Wartime Pope (Kenneth Woodward)
Nazi Policy and the Catholic Church (Karol Jozef Gajewski)
Pope Pius XII and the Jews (Margherita Marchione)
The Catholic Church and the Nazis (website)
Pope Pius XI [not Pius XII] and the Nazis (Jimmy Akin)
Was Christianity Responsible for the Holocaust? (Helen M. Valois)

Was Hitler a Christian? (Answers in Action)

Bugay carps in the revised version of his outrageous post: "But Roman Apologists will make every excuse to maintain Roman infallibility, while excusing 'the Church' for any and every one of its officially egregious behaviors over the centuries. Roman Catholic evasiveness is truly staggering."

Just as he lied about me recently, implying that I had never dealt with Orthodox arguments against the papacy (what a joke!); now he is doing it again (insofar as I am an apologist, and his present target): insinuating that I have never dealt with this. But I have, long since (more than three years ago):

Anti-Semitism in the Church Fathers and Historically Among Catholics: Resources and Recent Catholic "Institutional Repentance"

So much for my own "evasiveness". Does this mean I am spared from having a Hitler mustache now, because I freely admit that Catholics (like every other group of sinful human beings) have sinned terribly in the past?

Bugay also seemed to ridiculously deny that in this "satire" St. Thérèse was supposed to look like Hitler (though it was always possible that he was just playing around, as he is prone to do, and as he now has confirmed):

. . . please note that it is C.S. Lewis, a famous teacher, who is threatening to crack Dave's knuckles with a ruler". Lewis is the one with the open mouth. St. Therese's mouth is obviously closed. You certainly don't know how to interpret satire.

And Paul Hoffer, how dare you accuse me of such a truly blasphemous and abominable behavior as to "draw a Hitler moustache". That's a ridiculous assertion. All that I did was to darken the shadow under her nose -- which naturally exists in the existing photo! (11-30-11)

One "Mr. Fosi" appeared to agree with the denial:

John has denied that charge, so I don't grant that he did draw a Hitler mustache on the pic. (11-30-11)

But Bugay then freely admitted it was supposed to look like Hitler. Brian wrote in the combox below:

It's bad form to draw a Hitler mustache on St. Therese.

Bugay replied:

Brian, I agree. It's bad form. I am "using an absurd example to communicate something that is absurd".

Later Bugay explained on my blog:

This was obviously a "tongue in cheek" comment: . . . There is a scholastic difference between "drawing" and using the burn tool in photoshop. But you'll just trumpet it, to be able to trumpet something. Doesn't matter if you're accurate about it.

And later at Cryablogue:

It was an attempt at humor in the midst of this discussion, an attempt to trade on the amphiboly between "drawing a moustache" and "darkening a shadow" which naturally exists using a photoshop tool. (11-30-11)

And again in my combox below:

It wasn't a "denial that it was a Hitler mustache" It was a denial of the method -- which I thought to be a trade on words which I thought could possibly lighten the mood. It was a trade on the methods "drawing" vs "using a photoshop tool".

Yes, the intention in both cases was to put a Hitler mustache there. No, I do not think anyone is a moron. Yes, it is in bad taste. No it is not blasphemy. Yes, the bad taste was intended to illustrate bad taste in other contexts, specifically those perpetrated here and in official Rome.

But Mr. Fosi was still giving the line that John had no intention to make it look like Hitler (replying to Paul):

You are still saying there is one. It looks pretty similar to the way it looks on Dave's blog header. It may be sketchy but I'm going with John's denial on this one.

His satire would only be blasphemous if it were directed at God (specifically, the one true God). It isn't possible to blaspheme mere men and women. Your complaint reflects Catholic idolatry. (11-30-11)

It may be directly against God . . . or angelic beings (Jude 8-10; 2 Pet. 2:10-12). . . .

Persecuting Christians is also blasphemy (1 Tim. 1:13). The community has to suffer blasphemy (Rev. 2:9; 1 Cor. 4:13; 1 Pet. 4:4). Opposition to Paul's message is necessarily blasphemy (Acts 13:45 [+ 18:6]) because it attacks its basic content.

. . . A bad action is blasphemy either because it resists God's will or beings Christianity into disrepute (1 Tim. 6:1; Jms. 2:7; Rom. 2:24; Tit. 2:5).

Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ten-volume set ) elaborates:

3. But the Christian, too, is in danger of giving cause for blasphemy. Denial of Christ in persecution would be such. Hence Paul can say of his activity as a persecutor: αὐτοὺς ἠνάγκαζον βλασφημεῖν. Even in partaking of idol meats Christians in bondage could see blasphemy (1 C. 10:30), as distinct from Paul. Violation of the obligation of love even in such matters ὑμε͂ν τὸ ἀγαθόν (R. 14:16) could expose to scandal. False teaching is blasphemy when it perverts from the way of truth (2 Pt. 2:2; R. 3:8). The blasphemy does not have to find verbal expression. Any bad or unloving action can contain it, either because it resists the holy will of God or because it causes the enemies of Christianity to calumniate it (1 Tm. 6:1; Jm. 2:7; R. 2:24; Tt. 2:5). The basis is clearly set out in 2 Cl., 13, 2–4.

(Vol. 1: 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley and G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (624). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans)

Likewise, The New Bible Dictionary (1962, "Blasphemy", p. 159):

God is blasphemed also in His representatives. So the word is used of Moses (Acts 6:11); Paul (Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 4:12; 10:30) . . . because these representatives embody the truth of God Himself (and our Lord in a unique way) an insulting word spoken against them and their teaching is really directed against the God in whose name they speak (so Mt. 10:10; Lk. 10:16). . . .

The term is also used, in a weaker sense, of slanderous language addressed to men (e.g. Mk. 3:28; 7:22; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; Tit. 3:2). Here the best translation is 'slander, abuse'.

God blasphemed indirectly

Rejecting his word and his servants blasphemes God Ne 9:26 See also 2Ch 36:16; Ps 107:11; Isa 5:24

Defiling sacred things blasphemes God Lev 22:1-2 See also Eze 20:27-28; 22:26; Mal 1:6-13

Despising the poor blasphemes God Pr 14:31 See also Am 2:7; Jas 2:5-7

Speaking against his people blasphemes God Zep 2:8-11; Ac 9:4-5 To persecute the church is to persecute Jesus Christ; Ac 26:9; 1Ti 1:13; Rev 2:9

Slandering celestial beings blasphemes God 2Pe 2:10-12; Jude 8-10

(M. H. Manser, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999)

All of this, but Hays, Bugay and our esteemed anti-Catholic Calvinist brethren are supposedly the masters of the Bible, and we Catholics, biblical illiterates. Hays doesn't even know the plain definition of a common biblical word. And so he says stupid, ignorant things about it. All we have to do is go to the Bible and Protestant Bible reference sources to refute him beyond all reply. Hays' answer to all this on his blog (the first sentence, within four minutes of my posting it there), was:

Needless to say, Kittel is notorious for its semantic fallacies, so Armstrong illustrates his massive ignorance of basic lexical semantics (e.g. James Barr). Put another way, Armstrong commits the word=concept fallacy. If you want to defend Kittel, that's your funeral. I'll send flowers.

BTW, this highlights one of Armstrong's chronic methodological fallacies. He will prooftext Catholic dogma by copy/pasting the occurrence of the same English word in a concordance.

I replied:

I'm happy to be in the company of hosts of Bible scholars who continue, amazingly enough, to cite Kittel, despite your searing wisdom, thus showing themselves to be miserable sufferers of (what was it?): "massive ignorance of basic lexical semantics." Right.

Helmut Koester wrote:

. . . the violent attacks of James Barr . . . are not really justifiable; decisive though they may be, his remarks are aimed at a few articles of the [TDNT] that are hardly convincing anyway . . .

(Paul and His World: Interpreting the New Testament in its Context, Fortress Press, 2007, p. 242, footnote 11)

Likewise, E. F. Harrison, editor of Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Wycliffe Bible Commentary, and many exegetical books of his own, and founding faculty member of Fuller Theological Seminary:

Almost universally, the value of this work has been cordially recognized. To be sure, it has had its critics, notably James Barr, who finds too much dependence on etymology, some unwarranted intermingling of philosophical-theological judgments with those which are linguistic, too much emphasis on words in isolation rather than consideration of the demands of context, as well as too great a readiness to move from word to concept and to put Hebrew and Greek concepts in contrast to one another. These and other objections point out dangers for those who work in the biblical languages as the basis for exegesis and biblical theology, but it is doubtful that Barr's strictures can be said to invalidate the Kittel method or render nugatory the solid results achieved by its use.

(Introduction to the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971, p. 57)

. . . Barr's position fails to be fully convincing. By downplaying any distinction between Greek and Hebrew manners of thinking, Barr does not take into adequate consideration such nonverbal aspects as the historical, cultural, and social-psychological setting from which the respective thought derives. Furthermore, he gives the impression that one may translate from one language to another without any major loss. This is not necessarily the case, however, for words may have a particular cultural and historical development within their own language.

(Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989, p. 7)

Frederick W. Danker notes other relevant scholarly considerations:

Editor Friedrich accepted the rebuke [from Barr] and vols. 5 (1954) through 10 (1978) reflect more acquaintance with philological realities. David Hill heeded some of Barr's admonition but tilted in the direction of TWNT in Greek Words with Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967).

(Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study, Fortress Press, revised edition of 2003, p. 121)

Darrell L. Bock and Buist M. Fanning state that Kittel, notwithstanding Barr's criticisms:

. . . remains a gold mine of primary source information and should not be ignored.

(Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis (Crossway, 2006, p. 158)

Noted theologian Thomas F. Torrance defended Kittel's methodology and was a critic of these sorts of criticisms from Barr:

. . . Torrance regarded Barr's thinking as a kind of "linguistic formalism" or nominalism that equates reality with linguistic usage . . . Torrance himself characterized James Barr's position . . . as an "outstanding example of . . . nominalist scepticism." . . . Torrance insists, against Barr, that we must not neglect "the fundamental principle of hermeneutics advanced by the Greek Fathers that we do not subject realities to the terms referring to them., but subject terms to the realities to which they refer . . ." (Torrance, Royal Priesthood, p. x) . . . He called Barr a "brilliant philologist whose ideas cannot be ignored, although they are often rather exaggerated" (Royal Priesthood, p. x). . . . Torrance asserted that Barr's approach mistakenly "treated language independently as something having significance in itself . . . and not primarily by reference to the realities beyond which they are meant to direct us" (Royal Priesthood, p. x).

(Paul D. Molnar, Thomas F. Torrance: Theologian of the Trinity, Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2009, p. 333)

It's a nice sophistical (and altogether typical) attempt by Steve to deflect the discussion away from the biblical range of "blasphemy" onto methodological deficiencies (real or imagined) of Kittel. He can't escape his whopper, so he tries to obfuscate and get the spotlight off of his silly error and onto something else. It's classic tactics of sophistry.

If he says that Kittel defined words too rigidly (he certainly didn't here, as my citations show), then Steve simply comes in and says that the three Greek words can never possibly apply to human beings (or angels or things) in any sense of "blasphemy". So he is just as dogmatic, except it is from prior convictions that he brings to the Bible in order to eisegete it and bolster his errors of category and woodenly seeing idolatry under every rock.

Bugay summarized on Cryablogue all of this sort of scholarly counter-evidence to Hays' claims:

Rhetoric, Dave. Unlike at your hovel, we have standards here.

Bugay then deleted the lengthy E. F. Harrison citation above, and turned off the comments before I could post the Danker citation. Too much truth and too much refutation of Hays' inanities, I guess . . . These are the heights and absurdity that these anti-Catholics will scale, in order to avoid admitting that they were dead-wrong about the meaning and range of "blasphemy" in Holy Scripture.

* * *
It occurred to me that there is a huge double standard here in terms of what an anti-Catholic can do to a photo of a Catholic, and what a Catholic can do. Note how there are loud complaints from our anti-Catholic friends now about how our disgust at this juvenile display is altogether excessive, even "feigned" -- according to Bugay. How dare we complain that a saint (indeed one of the holiest of all time) was made to look like Hitler!!! Yet if we look at how anti-Catholics typically respond to any satire or humor, no matter how harmless, they yell and squawk louder than a stuck pig, and for precious little reason. The classic example is James White. I merely stretched a photo of him (in the late 90s), and he nearly imploded with prideful, bombastic-ego pique. Here it is. Note how terribly outrageous and disrespectful this is. Can you think of any possible thing more insulting than this?:

You would have thought the sky was falling down, according to Bishop White. And so he writes:

He has years of history in posting distorted pictures of me, cartoons, . . . In some ways it is simply pitiful, in others shameful. (7-12-07)

I had some harmless fun with other photos: making one look like a negative, another a weird yellow color, some take-offs of his stuff, etc.:

But the anti-Catholic ego can't take any of that. At the same time, White's professional caricaturist has done two satirical drawings of me, complete with many lies (one / two). Eric Svendsen (formerly very active and prominent anti-Catholic online) did a National Enquirer satire of me that had a child growing out of my chest and a supposed connection with Holocaust deniers (scroll down to bottom right). At one time an entire fake blog, supposedly my own, was put up: literally filled with slanders and mockery. That person was an anonymous coward and has never been discovered. White's artist also portrayed Patrick Madrid being stoned for idolatry. Gene Bridges, an associate of Steve Hays, had a field day, seriously comparing me to dictators like Castro and the tyrant in North Korea (complete with photographs).

All of that is fine and dandy, yet I simply stretch out a photo of James White or do other harmless, lighthearted stuff such as seen above, and he hits the roof and acts as if I have lost all credibility as an apologist altogether because I did such dastardly, wicked, utterly indefensible, unconscionable things. He can't take any criticism; he has no comprehension of self-deprecating humor or laughing at oneself.

But if we object to outrageous and hyper-slanderous Hitler comparisons, Bugay condescendingly writes: "I am amazed at the feigned outrage in the response to these images, for what is absolutely a minimal amount of photo enhancement, . . ." and "You all really should be concerned about other things." There is a double standard here as wide as the Grand Canyon.

* * *

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 29, 2011 19:31

New Low in Anti-Catholic "Humor": St. Thérèse of Lisieux Visually Transformed Into Hitler (John Bugay on Steve Hays' Blog)

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 29, 2011 19:31

November 24, 2011

Anti-Catholic TAO Compares Catholics Who Want to Help Pal John Bugay During His Financial Distress, to the King of Sodom (While John is Similar to Abraham and the Prophet Elisha); His Sophistical Bible Butchery and Eisegesis Exposed

This has to do with the sordid incident described in the post, John Bugay (Presbyterian Anti-Catholic Apologist) Refuses (and Returns) Charitable Donations from Catholics for His Wife's Serious Illness, Insults Donors as "Mockers" With Nefarious Motives, Etc.

The facts of the matter are easily summarized:

1. John Bugay's wife Bethany is suffering from an early manifestation of leukemia.

2. John has openly solicited funds on the Internet, explaining that his family's income has been reduced by some 40% as a result of her illness. Others (such as TAO himself) have advertised this, in order to solicit more contributions.

3. I posted on my blog, John's PayPal address that he provided, in order to raise more funds for his family. I also cross-posted it on my Facebook page (over 3300 friends) and Twitter account (some 725 followers at the time),

4. I explained that I could particularly relate to his wife's plight since my brother Gerry (died in 1998) suffered from leukemia, and I was, in fact, his bone marrow donor.

5. Fellow apologist Devin Rose (as we later learned) sent an undisclosed amount to John and his wife. I had planned on sending $50, and only mentioned it because (as I stated):

If someone is trying to raise money and asking others to contribute, then it is reasonable to expect them to join in as well. And that is the reason I mention this (along with the pathetic response from John Bugay); otherwise I would have done it without at least revealing the amount.

6. John Bugay refused and returned Devin's donation and asked me to take down the links to his PayPal account, attacking our motivations, writing:

In the meantime, please take down the link to our PayPal account. One donation has come in from this bunch of mockers, and I've returned it. And I will return other donations if I can identify them from you or yours as well. . . .

Dave, I'm sorry about the loss of your brother, and the other tragedies in your family. But rather than allow such tragedies to exhort you to humility, your whole enterprise may be summed up with this verse: "God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get." I want to remain as far away from you as possible.

7. When pressed in a combox on my site, Bugay claimed that he did receive donations from Catholics: just not particularly wicked ones like myself and Devin Rose, or (by strong implication) anyone who follows my blog, or my writings in general:

I do "gratefully accept donations for behalf of my sick wife". Including from Roman Catholics. My sole issue is the vehicle here, and the ("not humble") boasting herewith. Dave Armstrong is going to boast. He will either be able to say, "Ha, look at how great I am, I gave John Bugay my last $50.00", or he will say, "The nerve, I offered to give John Bugay my last $50.00, and he turned it down". Either way he is going to boast. At least this way, I am not sullied by his boasting, and nor am I beholden to him in any way.

8. Accordingly, John went on to insult my entire readership in numerous ways, which I documented as a prime example of how an anti-Catholic Calvinist (not all Calvinists!) exercises his faith, with wicked judgments of the interior motivations of others, including (oftentimes, generally speaking) determinations that someone is unregenerate (hence, totally depraved, in Calvinist theology), or not among the elect (a presumption condemned by John Calvin himself). He described my readers (that's you!) in the following ways: "rogue's gallery," [hanging out on my blog is] "a sure sign of bad character," "bottom feeders . . . who can't deal with the truth," "mockers" [several times], "those of you with the seared consciences." The latter is an extreme judgment itself, drawn (presumably) from 1 Timothy 4:1-2.

9. John made sweeping apologies when pressed (though they barely seemed even serious, given the manner in which he presented them), but later said that he retracted nothing, and wouldn't specify exactly what he was apologizing for, when I pressed him. He also refused to identify those that he thought had "seared consciences" when urged repeatedly to do so by Sean Patrick and myself. At that point I shut down the combox, because John was clearly playing and not being straightforward in his interactions with us. He wanted to make sweeping judgments, but lacked the courage of his convictions to apply them to individuals by name, or explain the rationale for the slanders. He proceeded to put up a post in order to continue the insults and aspersions on all of us, over on his own blog, Cryablogue.

Now, lo and behold, today I discovered a post (11-24-11) by the notorious anti-Catholic "Turretinfan" (always affectionately referred to on this blog as "TAO": The Anonymous One). Its title is referring to John Bugay: "Comparing My Brother to Abraham and Elisha." This is an altogether pathetic exercise in torturing the Bible into supposedly offering support for John's abominable, indefensible behavior. Here it is in its entirety (bolding his own, except for the Scripture passages, which I bolded):

One of my brethren recently has been criticized by a number of people because he did not accept one or more gifts [1]. There is a lot more that could be said about people whose pride is offended when their gifts are refused [2], but my brother's own attitude was the thing that caught my eye. It reminded me of this:

Genesis 14:22-24

And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion. [3]

I suppose I could have thought instead of another gift refusal:

2 Kings 5:15-16 & 26-27
And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant. But he said, As the LORD liveth, before whom I stand, I will receive none. And he urged him to take it; but he refused.
...
And he said unto him, Went not mine heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? Is it a time to receive money, and to receive garments, and oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and maidservants? The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow. [4]

Is my brother Abraham or Elisha? Obviously not. [5] His circumstances differ, as do the circumstances of his refusal. [6] That said, I think that only a Biblically illiterate person could think that there cannot be good reasons for refusing gifts. [7]

I shall comment on portions preceded by the bracketed (and blue) numbers:

[1] It was not solely a criticism that he refused a gift, as if no one can ever do such a thing for any reason, but rather, it also concerned the outrageous accusations and rationale that accompanied his refusal, and the extreme lack of charity and judgmentalism exhibited therein. By his presenting it the way he does, TAO eliminates one of the important considerations. But he has little concern for being fair to us, of course. His enterprise is determined to tear us down, no matter what is true or right. For the anti-Catholic, after all, Catholics must always be wrong, if they disagree with an anti-Catholic. It can't possibly be otherwise.

[2] This is, of course, a slanderous exercise in mind-reading. It has nothing to do with "pride" whatsoever, anymore than it had to do with an alleged "boastful" spirit of yours truly. It was an act of charity, for the reasons explained: my own experience with my brother, leading to special empathy; and Devin Rose's sincere desire to help. The refusal to accept these donations amounted to calling good, evil. Devin explained why he did it:

But know that I did not make it in mockery or cunning. We happen to have enough right now to help others with, and that includes Catholics, Protestants, non-Christians, whoever is in need. So I donated a small amount to help y'all. I understand that you think Catholicism is evil and so you didn't accept it. God bless.

My good friend Paul Hoffer provided an excellent response to this madness in the combox of TAO's post (TAO "edited" it, but thankfully, more than enough remains to amply make the point):

Mr. Fan, cherry picking biblical verses to justify churlish behavior is beneath you. Abraham did not take anything from the king of Sodom as a reward because the previous chapter (13:2) showed that Abraham's material wealth came from God's blessing upon him not due to the beneficence of others. Elisha refused the proffered gift from Naaman because he wanted to demonstrate that God's grace is not something that can be bought. Mr. Bugay refused the kindness out of sinful pride, no more, no less. Thank goodness the Blessed Virgin Mary did not refuse the Gift God gave her.

TAO, utterly blind to the faults of his good buddy and comrade-in-arms, simply projected the faults he exhibits in droves, to Paul: "I see you continue to attribute the worst of motives to your theological adversaries. If you could read minds, your expression of your opinions here might have some weight. Since, of course, you don't, these sorts of posts by you just serve as a memorial to your character." Paul replied again:

I do not pretend to read minds. That said, I have no problem calling a spade a spade when such is obvious. Mr. Bugay's conduct was uncharitable-pure and simple. In the examples from Scripture that you gave, the offer of gifts were turned down, not because of some sort of discerning of the motives of the offeror but because the offerees were concerned that acceptance would have diminished the grace of God. Mr. Bugay did not state that as a concern. Rather, he argued that acceptance of the gifts would give his donors some sort of edge over him rather than attribute to them the possibility that the gifts were made out of kindness. Considering that he rejected gifts that were not meant for him, but for his wife, demonstrates an unchristian sort of selfishness, not towards his donors necessarily, but certainly towards his wife.

Let's take this a bit further, even if the donors had "bragged" about their donations, how does that affect Mr. Bugay? Doe the acceptance of money that was offered without strings give a donor some sort of shamanistic power over the donee? Of course not.

And what does the Scripture say on the matter? Does not Our Lord tell us at Luke 18:9-14 that if one give gifts and exalt himself for doing so, that Our Father in Heaven will cause that one to be humbled? Being gracious and generous when we are able to do so does not give us bragging or boasting rights since all things in truth come from a generous and loving God. The Word of God makes it clear that all that we have comes from God and we are only stewards of those gifts. It would be to the donor's shame, and not to the detriment of the donee if the donor were so crass to brag or boast about re-gifting something that Our Father in Heaven gave us in the first place.

I hope Mr. Bugay will change his mind and his heart and allow anyone who wishes to give to do so.

God bless!

[3] Comparing Catholics (or at least yours truly and my readers) to the king of Sodom, is (according to the warped sense in which TAO intended it) its own refutation. Note how this freely presupposes that we are utterly wicked and only deserving of God's judgment, just like Sodom and Gomorrah. Our acts of charity towards Protestants (even anti-Catholic ones who despise what we believe and detest us personally) are supposedly the equivalent of the king of Sodom offering a gift (for this is the analogy he attempts to draw).

But it's a false analogy, in any event, not applicable at all to the present scenario, even considered apart from the hostile anti-Catholic baggage eisegetically attached to it. As Paul Hoffer noted, Abraham had means already, as a wealthy man ("very rich": Gen 13:2).

Secondly, Abraham explains the refusal himself: so that no one would think that the king had made him rich, rather than God (Gen 12:2). That has nothing to do with John or his situation. It is no analogy whatever. John needs money to pay his bills at present. It's not at all like Abraham. Much as TAO would like to think, John is not nearly in the class of Abraham ("I knew Abraham. Abraham was a friend of mine. And John [half-smile], you are no Abraham"), let alone the prophet Elisha, even though TAO thinks both are quite apt comparisons. And yet we are the ones accused of massive spiritual pride and boastfulness . . .

Thirdly, it clearly is not a refusal in principle from Abraham: to not accept anything whatever from a wicked king -- not in its totality; otherwise, he would have absolutely refused any gift. But he did not do so, since he accepted food and other provisions for the men who accompanied him. This means that the analogy, insofar as it was a wicked man (us evil Catholics) trying to help the righteous man (the godly anti-Catholic Calvinists like John and TAO who so readily exhibit God's love), fails completely, since in order for it to hold, it would have to be total refusal in principle, based on the source (and Abraham's refusal as not that): based on the fact of the giver's wickedness (which was not the rationale Abraham himself provided).

Fourthly, there appears to have been a prior oath involved, on Abraham's part (which would be central in his refusal). The Eerdmans Bible Commentary explains:

His oath was probably sworn before Melchizedek. Vassals were customarily allowed to retain the spoil of battles fought for their suzerains, but it was the latter's prerogative to stipulate this in their treaties. The king of Sodom apparently sought to assume that role but Abraham rejected the relationship. Vassal treaties prohibited subordination to any other royal benefactors. Rejection of the king of Sodom's proposal was the consistent negative counterpart to Abram's positive oath of allegiance to Yahweh as his covenant Lord.

This, too, obviously has nothing to do with John's situation. He took no oath to refuse any assistance from Catholics. He has even stated now that he would accept money from Catholics: just not utterly wicked, boastful, arrogant ones like me and Devin Rose.

Therefore, it is a clear case of "Bible butchery" and eisegesis: for which TAO is frequently notorious. He assumes that he is such a profound exegete, yet he misses the very simplest and most important elements of the passage that he co-opts for infamous use: for a lost cause: justifying John Bugay's outrageous behavior. It's an absolutely classic, textbook example of how the Bible can be abused for just about any unjust or unworthy cause.

[4] The attempted analogy of Naaman the Syrian leper to John's situation fails for similar reasons: as completely inapplicable and irrelevant. First of all, Elisha the prophet bore Naaman no discernible ill will (as John does towards myself, and my readers). After all, he was the willing instrument of a miraculous cure of his leprosy (2 Kings 5:10, 14). If Elisha were "against" the man altogether he certainly would not have healed him, since we see that he caused his own unfaithful servant Gehazi to be afflicted with leprosy (5:26-27). Thus, it follows that he didn't reject his offer simply because he was an evil, wicked man.

Secondly, obviously TAO attributes to me and to my readers a deliberately low, ignominious status: equivalent to this person who was the captain of the army of Syria: Israel's sworn enemy. But of course, only a biblically illiterate person (to borrow TAO's phraseology) would be unaware that the northern kingdom of Israel (where Elisha preached), rebelled against King David's kingdom of Judah, and had uniformly wicked kings and was unfaithful to God's law from the start and in perpetuity. It was God's will, in fact, that Syria win in battle with Israel:

2 Kings 5:1 (RSV, as throughout) Na'aman, commander of the army of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master and in high favor, because by him the LORD had given victory to Syria. He was a mighty man of valor, but he was a leper.

Thus Naaman was not altogether wicked, and is not presented as such. He is presented as a man with pride and flaws, but not as utterly depraved.

Thirdly, the refusal was not an absolute matter of principle, just as in Abraham's case (where he accepted gifts for his colleagues). Elisha, too, accepted gifts on occasion, as we see in the previous chapter:

2 Kings 4:42 A man came from Ba'al-shal'ishah, bringing the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of grain in his sack. And Eli'sha said, "Give to the men, that they may eat."

Ba'al-shal'ishah may have even been a heathen center, connected with Baal (as the name implies); the text doesn't say (and Bible dictionaries offer little aid to learn anything further about it). But in any event, Elisha was not totally opposed to gifts, and his refusal is not said to be simply because it came from a foreigner and past military enemy.

Fourthly, the refusal in this particular instance was similar to Abraham's (and thus also has no analogy to John Bugay's situation whatever). The Eerdmans Bible Commentary states:

In a world of false prophets and wonder-workers, the true prophet of Yahweh could not afford to give the impression that he was living off his office, that he was prophesying for a morsel of bread or anything else. Neither could he give any indication that he was responsible for the ability to heal; this was the work of the Lord.

The renowned Jamieson, Fausset, Brown commentary concurs:

After the miraculous cure, Naaman returned to Elisha, to whom he acknowledged his full belief in the sole supremacy of the God of Israel and offered him a liberal reward. But to show that he was not actuated by the mercenary motives of the heathen priests and prophets, Elisha, though he accepted presents on other occasions ( 2 Kings 4:42 ), respectfully but firmly declined them on this, being desirous that the Syrians should see the piety of God's servants, and their superiority to all worldly and selfish motives in promoting the honor of God and the interests of true religion.

St. Paul reflects this same thinking, in refusing to give any impression that he was preaching for money (1 Cor 9:18: "that in my preaching I may make the gospel free of charge, not making full use of my right in the gospel"). But that was his choice and "reward": not an obligation for all, since he mentions his "right" and since, in the same passage, he makes an extended case for the just remuneration of workers in the kingdom of God (1 Cor 9:4-14).

Likewise, our Lord, in sending out His disciples to preach, tells them to take nothing (Mk 6:8; Lk 9:3), but does not require them to refuse offerings (implied in Lk 9:4, since they are staying at a house and obviously have to eat). Indeed Christ and His disciples were aided in tangible ways, as Scripture reports:

Luke 8:1, 3 Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, . . . [3] and Joan'na, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.

Clearly, none of this has any relation whatsoever to John Bugay's financial situation. If God were providing his needs without the necessity to ask for help, he obviously wouldn't be soliciting online for funds. Therefore, his needs aren't met, and his refusal to accept our aid was not because of some high principle, as with Elisha, but due to his personal contempt of us and detestation for what he falsely, vainly believes to be our nefarious motives (which likely flow, I contend, from various false principles of the anti-Catholic distortion of Calvinism: itself wracked with many serious false teachings). Thus, there is no analogy here whatever.

[5] Then why entitle the paper, "Comparing My Brother to Abraham and Elisha" in the first place? Aren't titles supposed to directly represent the main theme in a paper? This is typical in anti-Catholic analyses also: talking out of both sides of one's mouth. TAO doesn't want to compare John Bugay to Abraham and Elisha, yet he does. He draws elaborate analogies (including charitably comparing Catholics to the king of Sodom), then partially renounces them later to cover his butt (to use a colloquialism). He's like the corrupt politician who will say one thing here and another contradictory utterance there, so he can cite his own words to either end later, according to expedience and cynical opportunity.

[6] They sure do: so much so that there is no analogy whatever, and TAO's attempt utterly fails, as just shown. These passage plainly have no bearing on the case at hand, and do not justify Bugay's outrageously uncharitable response and his classifying good acts and intentions as evil. Bugay fails a fundamental test of a mature Christian believer:

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Hebrews 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.

And for my part, I am following the Pauline injunction:

Romans 14:16 So do not let your good be spoken of as evil.

[7] There are conceivable legitimate reasons (based on the Bible), speaking generally; of course. I deny that the present scenario is one of them, and I strongly deny that the Bible passages produced provide any analogy or rationale whatsoever for John's indefensible behavior.

What else is new in anti-Catholic eisegesis: enlisted for the noble cause of slandering Catholic brethren in Christ and justifying indefensible uncharitable wickedness on their part: to actually mock and slander and dispute outright, the motivations of people who simply want to help a person experiencing financial troubles brought on by his wife's leukemia? And all of this in the name of Christ?! Heaven forbid! If I didn't speak out vociferously against such despicable outrages of behavior I would be lax in my duty as a Christian apologist and teacher.

This is not Christian behavior; it's not right, and is in itself evil: ultimately orchestrated and cheered on by the devil himself. That doesn't make the persons doing and saying these things demons or utterly evil. I am simply referring to the wickedness of these particular acts. Unlike anti-Catholic Calvinists and their false doctrines of total depravity and a "sin nature," Catholics have no difficulty in distinguishing a person from good or bad acts that the person commits.

* * *
Here is TAO's entire reply (he doesn't get it, as always):

I see that a certain lay apologist (apparently eager to debate me) has posted a 3800+ word response to the brief article above. Ultimately, it seems he is forced to concede the point that there can be good reasons for refusing gifts. So, given that he concedes that point, it seems unnecessary for me to provide further reply.

Yes; it always takes far more words to refute lies and eisegesis: a lot more to refute any falsehood or lousy piece of logic than the relatively little amount of ink that it takes to spew them out. Someone could say, "you abuse your wife, cheat on your income taxes, and torture cats." That's exactly twelve words. But how many words does anyone think would be required to adequately refute all that?

It's the same here. TAO is a very clever sophist, who uses all sorts of argumentative techniques. He universally fails when dealing with Catholicism, but it still takes considerable work to expose his various polemical and rhetorical tactics. This was also an argument from analogy, which is more complex than many forms of argumentation in the first place. Unlike TAO, I actually did some in-depth, serious analysis of the biblical texts that he trotted out and eisegeted. That takes some ink, too.

So let TAO carp about word counts, and his "pupil" Bugay bellyache about how fast (four hours is hardly "lightning speed") and how much I write, and about cutting-and-pasting. That's fine. For my part, I will make reasoned arguments . . . Whether these guys grasp my reasoning or not is not my concern. I know they almost always won't, but they're not my intended audience, anyway.

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 24, 2011 12:38

November 23, 2011

St. Francis de Sales' Argument Against Total Depravity and for the Indefectibility of the Church, from the Psalms

God Judges Sodom and Gomorrah

Psalm 14:2-3 (RSV)
The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. [3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one. [cf. Ps 53:1-3; 143:2; Is 64:6-7; Rom 3:10-12]

Who knows not the complaint of David . . . — and who knows not on the other hand that there were many good people in his day? [see Ps 7:10; 11:2, 5, 7; 15:2-5; 18:23, 25-26; 24:4; 31:18; 32:11; 33:1; 34:17, 21; 36:10; 37:14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 28-32, 37, 39; 52:6; 55:22; 58:10-11; 64:4, 10; 68:3; 73:1; 75:10; 84:11; 92:12; 94:15; 97:11; 101:6; 107:42; 111:1; 112:2, 4-9; 118:20; 119:1, 10; 125:3-4; 140:13; 141:5; 142:7: "upright," "good," "righteous," "blameless," "pure"] These forms of speech are frequent, but we must not draw a particular conclusion about each individual. Further, — such things do not prove that faith had failed in the Church, nor that the Church was dead: for it does not follow that if a body is everywhere diseased it is therefore dead. Thus, without doubt, are to be understood all similar things which are found in the threats and rebukes of the Prophets.

(The Catholic Controversy, 61-62)

I added the additional scriptural proofs in brackets and blue color, to bolster what St. Francis assumed as self-evident. Likewise, Isaiah states: "all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment . . . There is no one that calls upon thy name," (Is 64:6-7), yet makes frequent reference to the righteous, just as in the Psalms (1:17; 3:10; 26:7; 33:15; 38:3; 51:7; 56:1; 57:1-2, 12; 64:5). Isaiah 64:6-7 is typical Hebrew hyperbole. But Protestants, and especially Calvinists with their unbiblical notion of total depravity (not understanding the literary genre) interpret it and similar passages literally. In context, clearly it is not intended to be so. In the passage immediately before (Is 64:5), the prophet states: "Thou meetest him that joyfully works righteousness."

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 23, 2011 11:24

November 21, 2011

Reply to Lutheran Nathan Rinne: Comparative Ecclesiology, "Lutheran" Church Fathers? / The Old Testament Religious System Was Ultimately Indefectible Like the Church, But With Less Divinely-Provided Power and Promises

A 1520 Treatise by Martin Luther

Nathan is a friendly Lutheran theological adversary. We previously engaged in the following exchanges:

Brief Exchange With Lutheran Nathan Rinne on Luther's Revolt and Fundamental Differences of Perspective Regarding the So-Called Protestant "Reformation"

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part One: Introductory

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part Two: Church Fathers + Sola Scriptura

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part Three: Soteriology and Miscellany

Dialogue on Lutheranism and Catholicism, Part Four: Rule of Faith, the Fathers, and Ecclesiology

Reply to Lutheran Nathan Rinne: Exegetical Exposition on Whether the "Leaven" of the Pharisees is Hypocrisy or Doctrinal Falsehood

Nathan's latest reply -- one portion of which I am now responding to --, is entitled, Round 2 with RC apologist Dave Armstrong: the unattractive body of Christ. His words will be in blue. I will be changing what I regard as excessive bolding in Nathan's replies (harsh on the eyes) to italics.

On 28 November 2011, I revised some portions below due to a slight change in my thinking. Before, I contended that the old covenant system was defectible, whereas the new covenant Church was indefectible. Now -- after seeing several arguments for indefectibility in the Old Testament in St. Francis de Sales' book, The Catholic Controversy, -- in the course of working on my latest book, I have come to the position (more amenable to my understanding of development of doctrine) of indefectibility also being present in the old covenant (in a way more than just a "remnant"), yet in a far less profound and sweeping sense than in the new (due to the appearance of Jesus and the universal indwelling of the Holy Spirit among Christians).

In order to ease confusion (for Nathan has now replied to this paper), revised sections have been color-coded in green, and omitted sections indicated by bracketed ellipses: "[ . . . ]". An additional section of arguments from St. Francis de Sales will be added after the final set of five asterisks. This won't be in green, since it is entirely new, as noted here, and is a straight addition, rather than revision of existing material.

* * * * *
. . . I drew the conclusion that persons can hold a legitimate, authoritative office in the Church by God's will and yet teach falsely.
Yes, they certainly can. A bishop can teach wrong things; even be a heretic. There were hundreds of Arian and Monophysite bishops. A council can teach wrongly: the Robber Council of 449 is an example. Even, in our view, popes can both teach heresy and personally be heretics. We only think that if he attempts to proclaim a heresy as binding on the faithful, that God would prevent it. He is infallible under certain carefully defined circumstances. The ecumenical council is infallible if it proclaims, in legion with the pope, some teaching as binding and obligatory.

The problem with your view is that it proves too much: it takes out biblical requirements of indefectibility and the universal casual assumption in the New Testament that there is one doctrinal truth and one faith: not competing sectarian visions. The two aspects have to be balanced. We believe that our position on it incorporates all the relevant realities: human frailty and fallibility (which needs no proof!), and the other non-optional consideration of divine infallibility and guidance of the Church through God the Holy Spirit (John 14-16).

You say you believe in the indefectibility of the Church, too, but I retort that in order to do so, you have to change the definition of Church as always historically understood in apostolic and patristic and medieval Catholic Christianity. Thus, you have difficulties in ecclesiology. Protestantism is always, always , internally incoherent and self-contradictory in the final analysis. There is no way out of it. You have to either forsake history or logic or consistent biblical exegesis at some point in order to hold any form of Protestantism.

I hate to put it in such crass terms, but that is what I sincerely believe, with all due respect to my brothers and sisters, whom I highly respect and esteem on an individual level, and to you (whose apologetic and analytical abilities I do respect). Lutheranism has, I think, less internal difficulties than any other Protestant view, save Anglo-Catholicism, but there are still severe difficulties, unable to be resolved. We'll get to those, the longer we interact. :-) I've already debated many of them with other Lutherans.

There is no hostility here! Just a desire for the truth . . .
Whatever I said to elicit this reply from you, it was (I know for sure) referring to hostile premises or opposing ideas, not personal hostility. There is (quite refreshingly) none of that from you, and none from my end, either: just a great theological conversation: a thing that ought to be possible for any and all Christians to do, but alas, it is sadly rare.

(is what I said above regarding Jesus' seemingly contradictory stance towards the Pharisees as teachers of truth not interesting, and worthy of more thorough reflection?) . . . I simply wanted him to acknowledge "Jesus' seemingly contradictory stance towards the Pharisees as teachers of the truth" (which yes, could have implications depending on how one views God working in the Church). . . . If he does not find the following response to his objections convincing at all, I would, first of all, like him to tell me why it has nothing to do with his failure to thoughtfully and carefully deal with (and produce an adequate explanation of) these simple and clear Biblical facts. Because, you see, I think these facts of Scripture are lynch-pins to the whole of the case I have against him and the particular church of which he is a part.

It was quite worthy of response, which is why I devoted my last reply to it, with lots of substance for you to grapple with. I was delighted at the opportunity to strengthen the Catholic case on a key issue (as you say). I have proposed a way to resolve the seeming contradiction (that I don't -- like you -- believe is really there). Now, your task is to propose a better solution, taking into account the relevant passages that I brought to bear. I found the entire topic a fascinating one to ponder. I think my explanation was quite thoughtful and careful and adequate. Now I hope you will grant me the same courtesy and not pass over my counter-argument. Then this dialogue can get very interesting indeed, and constructive, too.

OK, here's my recap of the things he is talking about. He says Irenaeus was a Roman Catholic because he believed in "episcopacy, apostolic succession, apostles' choosing of bishops to succeed them, Roman primacy, the papacy", etc. I don't deny that Irenaeus believed these things, but essentially ask "can any of this be proven from the Scriptures?" (it seems to me that they certainly cannot).

It seems to me that they certainly can be so proven or strongly indicated at the very least (excepting Roman primacy, which is a post-biblical development, but clearly apostolic, starting right with St. Clement of Rome). I give much biblical argumentation for all the other elements on my Church and Papacy web pages. Apostolic succession is very straightforward, as seen particularly in the replacement of Judas with Matthias. Judas is even called a bishop! So it's all right there: an apostle being replaced, and bishops as successors to the apostles.

What St. Irenaeus believed (agree or disagree with him), on the other hand, is a matter of historical record. I backed up my contentions about his beliefs from Protestant historians. It's not rocket science. He was a thoroughgoing Catholic, and believed exactly what we would expect, in a Catholic outlook, at that point of time and development in the history of Church doctrine: not some kind of proto-Lutheran. What Protestants try to do is special plead and make out that the fathers were closer to their beliefs than ours, and it just isn't the case. It's a losing battle; a hopeless cause; fails miserably every time: even with good ol' St. Augustine: every Protestant's favorite Church father (who believed, e.g., in all seven Catholic sacraments). You can't make a square peg fit into a round hole.

Further, I ask this because the Roman Catholic Church says that if these things aren't believed, my particular church (LC-MS) is placing itself outside of the Church and salvation, which to me seems to me quite radical.
This is far more complex than you make out. We believe that Protestants are part of the Church in an imperfect manner, and that they can indeed be saved, since they have the true sacrament of baptism and believe many things in common with us. This was highly stressed at Vatican II and many ecumenical papal encyclicals and other papal statements since. If one knows for sure that the Catholic Church is the one true Church in its fullness: unique and set up by God, and rejects it, then we'd say they cannot be saved. God meets people where they are at. People who have never even heard of Jesus or the gospel can possibly be saved (Romans 2). We say that Protestants are simply wrong with regard to all these things you mention, which are strongly supported in the Bible itself, except for Roman primacy, which is secondary to the papacy, anyway, which is indicated by St. Peter's leadership and many things said about him in the Bible.

What is "radical" are many statements about the Catholic Church made in the Book of Concord (following Luther's anti-Catholic nonsense and hogwash), such as that we are the seat of antichrist, that we worship Baal in the Mass, and are rank idolaters and semi-Pelagians, etc. There are a host of falsehoods there. Example:

Apology of the Augsburg Confession [1531], Article XXIV: The Mass

Carnal men cannot stand it when only the sacrifice of Christ is honored as a propitiation. For they do not understand the righteousness of faith but give equal honor to other sacrifices and services. A false idea clung to the wicked priests in Judah, and in Israel the worship of Baal continued; yet the church of God was there, condemning wicked services. So in the papal realm the worship of Baal clings -- namely, the abuse of the Mass . . . And it seems that this worship of Baal will endure together with the papal realm until Christ comes to judge and by the glory of his coming destroys the kingdom of Antichrist. Meanwhile all those who truly believe the Gospel should reject those wicked services invented against God's command to obscure the glory of Christ and the righteousness of faith.

(The Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore Tappert, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House / Muhlenberg Press, 1959, p. 268)

In addition to Irenaeus' beliefs mentioned above, he also believed that all the things that the Apostles orally passed on to their successors (i.e. the "Apostolic deposit", the "Rule of Faith") were in "agreement with the Scriptures" (his actual words).

Yes, so do I; so do all orthodox Catholics. That proves nothing with regard to our dispute about sola Scriptura. Protestants have the most extraordinarily difficult time grasping this. You seem to think it is some big "score" for your side, when the fact of the matter is that we are entirely in agreement, so that it is useless for you to point this out at all. It's like saying, "we believe that the sun goes up!" There is no need to state the obvious that all agree upon. All this shows is that, apparently, you think for some reason that Catholics would deny that our doctrines are in complete harmony with Holy Scripture. Else, why bring it up at all?

Therefore, if these things Irenaeus mentions cannot be found in the Scriptures, either explicitly or implicitly, how should we react to such beliefs (given his other stated beliefs)?

You should reject them (so should I). I strongly deny that they are not found there.

I suggest that Jerome, writing in the 4th c., gives us a good clue about what is really happening here: things like distinctions between bishops and presbyters are by human, not divine rite. They are arrangements that pastors, working together and led by the Holy Spirit, came up with in their times to effectively order the Church for the sake of order, love, and unity. To say that this is a matter that determines whether a particular church is "truly Church" seems very wrong, to say the least.
The distinctions are clearly laid out in Scripture itself. I go through them, particularly, in my paper, The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church, which is part of my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism .

I suggest that had Ireneaus actually had to think about these things (in his context he didn't) he would side with my particular church, not Rome.
I suggest that he wouldn't have. All the many novel and heretical things that Luther introduced would have been foreign to his very categories of thought.

. . . even a great like Saint Augustine talked about how he, in his conflicts with the heretics, consistently came across fathers who had spoken carelessly, or not as circumspectly as they should have – and he tried to cover their errors. For example, before Pelagius, many fathers had spoken quite loosely about free will, not seeing original sin as the horrible contagion that it was. It was only after this error drove Augustine back to the Scriptures that he was able to look upon the writings of the Fathers – with new eyes – and to see how badly they had erred.

That's all quite true. Original sin developed slowly. True doctrine is always clarified in disputes with heretics. Cardinal Newman noted that there was more of a consensus in the fathers for purgatory than for original sin. This poses no difficulty for our position. Christology, after all, developed slowly, too (for at least another two hundred years after Augustine, working through the natures and wills of Christ. So did the canon of Scripture and Mariology and the communion of saints. Protestants arbitrarily cherry-pick some things (canon -- minus the deuterocanon -- original sin, Christology), and reject others (Mariology, intercession and invocation and veneration of saints, purgatory), but all of these developed slowly for hundreds of years. Lutheranism developed so extremely slowly that it took almost 1500 years to appear at all. :-)

Therefore, like Noah's children covered him in his nakedness, Augustine covered their errors as much as he could while at the same time trying not to being dishonest about what they had actually said. The Lutherans were simply following in Augustine's train.
You guys rejected some of his (and Luther's) more extreme predestinarian views just as we did. But he was not a Calvinist, either, despite what the Calvinists vainly try to argue. Luther was more of a Calvinist than Augustine ever was, in terms of predestination and free will.

. . . sometimes the church only gradually comes to realize that some of the doctrines it would never have thought to wonder about (i.e. is this doctrine really important or not), it does come to wonder about when people begin to misuse it in some way – and then it can [quite readily] be determined to be essential or non-essential.

I agree, excepting those doctrines which are essential but which Lutherans (along with many other Protestants) wrongly deny are essential. Doctrines develop, but if they are part of the apostolic deposit, they can never be "demoted" to non-essential or optional status.

I hope this makes it more clear why, when it comes to the Rule of Faith and the development of doctrine, that it is not always useful to simply focus on the quotations of the fathers. You see, I submit that there are other concrete facts that are even more important – that trump whatever this or that father may have said (I am not saying that they are not important!). These facts suggest a different story, an alternative narrative to the one that Dave has.

It all depends on what one wants to talk about. The historical and biblical arguments in favor of doctrines are distinct. Chemnitz (the original impetus for our discussions) talked about Church fathers, so I did, too, because he stated many factual errors in that regard. For the Protestant, they can always ditch what any father says, or what all (or nearly all) of them hold in consensus, if they wish, because for them there is no infallible authority except Scripture.

Now, above, you have said that the promises made to the New Testament Church are of a fundamentally different nature than those made to the Assembly of the Israelites. To say the least, that is far from obvious.
What is so difficult to grasp about my statement, "The Old Testament proto-Church did not have the Holy Spirit and express promises from God that it would be protected and never defect"? This is rather straightforward and plain. The Holy Spirit was only given to select individuals in the old covenant: but now to every baptized Christian and in greater measure to Church leaders. There are promises of indefectibility, too (that I have collected), that go even further than what was present in kernel form in the old covenant. For example:

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

This is the Church: Jesus' Church, headed by Peter and his successors the popes: not just a tiny remnant. What remains constant in the old covenant is God's mercy towards his always-straying children, and holding to His covenants despite their rebelliousness. Hence we have the notion of remnant that you often bring up. But that is distinct from institutional indefectibility (that is also present in the old covenant, though less dramatically than in the new). That is simply a few followers who remain true, whereas in the new covenant, the positive promise is that the truth and the apostolic deposit (of which it is Guardian) will never depart from the Church. It would be like the two or three high level pro-life Democrats that still exist as a tiny remnant of what once was. That's your remnant idea. In our view (to follow the analogy) the entire party (in its platform) remains on the right path, and isn't reduced to just a few people of a once-great corporate assembly.

The Church is also obviously after Jesus, and He is with us as well, which makes it doctrinally protected all the more (Matthew 28:20: "I am with you always, to the close of the age"). It's quite ironic that Protestants accuse us of being stuck in Pharisaical legalism and works-righteousness, yet in the present discussion you are maintaining that the new covenant is not all that different from the old, and I am maintaining that it is quite far beyond the old, and that Catholicism is the fullness of the development of a Church and the new covenant and Christian post-pentecostal age (developed from the previous old covenant system). You're defending the virtual identity of the old system with the Christian one in the sense of ecclesiology; I am saying that the new covenant "new wineskins" are far more advanced.

I think the default conclusion of any reader of the Bible as a whole will be that we are dealing with continuity here,. . .
[ . . . ] Let me be more specific: I think (with you) that there is continuity (I believe in development of doctrine), but I think it is a huge leap from the OT assembly to the NT Church because of the elements I have been discussing. Insofar as there is consistent continuity, the analogy is far more towards the Catholic Church rather than to Lutheranism.

The stronger nature of institutional indefectibility is the striking development in ecclesiology after Jesus. Previous to that time, the Bible was regarded as an unchanging truth, but not assemblies of men, so much. Rather, infallibility was isolated, in the form of prophets, who brought God's message in a profound way. They are analogous in some important ways to popes, whereas Lutherans have no such authority figures anymore and go back to infallible and/or binding books alone, as in the old covenant: Bible, Book of Concord.

and I think that you need to demonstrate that the promises to the New Testament church suggest more discontinuity with the Old Testament Church than they do continuity (or at least define well the difference in continuity).

[ . . . ] I don't think it is more discontinuity than continuity (according to development of doctrine), but I hold that the protections of infallibility and indefectibility in the new covenant, in the (institutional, historical, hierarchical, visible) Catholic Church, are more extraordinary and wide-ranging than in the old covenant.

I go by Romans 1, which talks about going from faith to faith, from first to last. The Bible is fundamentally the story of God calling His people and giving them promises by His Spirit to keep them strong in the faith.

I don't disagree with any of that. It is neither here nor there in relation to our particular dispute at present. I would simply say again, that Protestants have less faith than Catholics, because we believe that God can preserve institutions (His Church) as well as Bibles and individuals. That takes more faith. We have that; you do not, because you deny the very possibility. I think Protestantism suffers greatly from that deficiency because it tends to a-historicism, anti-institutionalism, and excessive individualism: all things that run counter to the biblical worldview.

If the institution of religious leadership even in the old covenant was indefectible, so that there was never a time that Israel lacked true, obedient leaders altogether (more on that below, near the end), how much more so should we expect this to be the case in the new covenant?

Note that the Church (or Assembly) of the Old Testament also had specific promises about the temple that "God wills to dwell there forever" (also see Deut. 16:2; 2 Chron. 6:2; Neh. 1:9; Isa. 31:9; Isa. 59:21 ; Jer. 31:36-37, 40, etc.).

God in fact didn't dwell in the temple forever, and the temple (three different buildings) was destroyed three times: by the Babylonians and the Romans twice [ . . . ]. In the old covenant, God's presence also appears to be far more conditioned upon obedience. For example:

Ezekiel 13:8 Therefore thus says the Lord God: "Because you have uttered delusions and seen lies, therefore behold, I am against you, says the Lord GOD".

Malachi 3:7 From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts.

That's not the case in the new covenant, with all the promises of the gates of hell not prevailing against the Church and His presence in Christians in perpetuity. The Bible actually describes God and the "glory of the Lord" or the shekinah presence departing from the temple, prior to its destruction:

Ezekiel 8:6 And he said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel are committing here, to drive me far from my sanctuary? But you will see still greater abominations."

Ezekiel 11:23 And the glory of the LORD went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city. (cf. 9:3; 10:4, 18-19)

Getting back to your prooftexts, God is said to dwell in Jerusalem forever (1 Chr 23:25) but that is not the temple, and hence, not an institution analogous to the Church. Deut 16:2 says God will dwell at a certain "place," but it doesn't say it will be forever. Solomon says in another of your texts, "I have built thee an exalted house, a place for thee to dwell in for ever" (2 Chr 6:2), but this doesn't prove that God always will do so. Ezekiel 8:6 and 11:23 show that He did not in fact always dwell there, and three destroyed temples make that obvious, anyway, I should think. Right now a mosque stands where the temple stood, so if God is still there "forever" it is in the shrine of a false religion.

Nehemiah 1:9 proves my point (thanks!): God's presence is directly dependent on obedience: "if you return to me and keep my commandments . . ." Therefore it is not [ . . . ] unconditional as the new covenant indefectibility of the Church is. Isaiah 31:9 doesn't mention the temple at all. Isaiah 59:21 is better, but it is still conditional on behavior, as seen in the preceding verse: "to those in Jacob who turn from transgression." [ . . . ]

Jeremiah 31:36-37 is in the context of the announcement of the new covenant (31:31-34). This in and of itself proves that the new covenant is vastly superior to (though a development of) the old, because it foretells the indwelling (31:33), and God can be with His people forever precisely because He forgives their sin once and for all (31:34). The indwelling in turn is made possible by the sacrifice of Christ (Jn 14:16-20; 15:26; 16:7, 13). Jeremiah 31:40 is not about the temple. [ . . . ]

And note especially Leviticus 24 [should be 26]: 11 I will make my dwelling among you, and my soul shall not abhor you. 12 And I will walk among you and will be your God, and you shall be my people." That seems pretty firm and unconditional taken by itself, but of course we know that we need to take these words in the context of the whole narrative, including the other words that were spoken to them as well.

This is yet another conditional promise, so it is not a full analogy to the more advanced indefectibility of the Catholic Church: "If you walk in my statutes and observe my commandments and do them, then. . ." (Lev 26:3-4a). Then 26:14 states: "if you will not hearken to me, and will not do all these commandments,. . ." followed by a horrible list of judgments (26:16-43). So this is a stranger "prooftext" for you to cite.

What you don't seem to realize is that this is not the case in the new covenant and Church Age. The promises are unconditional. God will do what He promises regarding protection of the Church and her doctrine: "the powers of death shall not prevail against" the Church (Matt 16:18); period. It's not based on obedience. God brings it to pass. End of story. "I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matt 28:20); no conditions again. It's an absolute statement. God wills and declares and promises it, so it will happen, and cannot not happen.

Peter falters and denies Christ three times, but after he is filled with the Holy Spirit it is a different story. Jesus prays for him in a special way because he is the leader of the Church: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32); and indeed it doesn't, after Pentecost. This is a type and shadow of papal infallibility, as is being given the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:19): only given to Peter; and all the implications of that (rightly understood, in light of its OT precursors). All of this goes to show that your attempted analogy between old covenant disobedience and unfaithfulness and the Church (because of the greater protection of and promises to the Church), doesn't fly. [ . . . ]

We know later on in the story, Jeremiah reproaches those who appeal to the promises about the temple of the Lord ("the temple of the Lord! The temple of the Lord!") for "trusting the words of a liar" (Jer. 7:8) As Gerhard says: "Promises only pertain to those who allow the Word of God to rule them, who look to the Law and the testimony [Isaiah 8:20]; and who teach, judge and act according to the norm of the divine Word (161, On the Church)".
Yes; that is exactly right with regard to the old covenant, but not the new covenant, with regard to promises made about the Church and its guardianship of truth and the one true faith: "the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15). God Himself protects the doctrine of the Church from being corrupted. This is the entire point. If it were left up to men, this wouldn't happen, but when God wants something done (in this case, preservation of true doctrine and theology and moral teaching), it is done. Gerhard, I guess, doesn't know that things have been greatly strengthened with the new covenant. If you follow his line of reasoning, you'll be wrong, too, and miss the glorious truths that the New Testament is teaching on this score.

So, due to the widespread corruption in His Church in the O.T., did the Lord forsake His people and abandon his heritage (see Psalm 94:14)? Did the gates of hell prevail against the Old Testament Church – was God not with them [even until the end of the age…]? Things got pretty rough, but persons like Mary, Simeon, Anna, Zechariah, Elizabeth and Nathaniel would suggest that the gates of hell did not prevail and God did not leave them or forsake them – He preserved His remnant through those who were faithful
He remained with the remnant of the faithful, [ . . . ] and also with a select few of the leaders: the priests and Levites and the scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees. [ . . . ] But you have to redefine the Church in order to maintain your "new covenant remnant" view: as if the Church could be reduced to a few people here and there, like the survivors of a nuclear war, or the last dinosaur before extinction set in. This is not New Testament language regarding the Church. The Church is present even in the churches of Revelation that Jesus rebukes for many serious sins.

For example, the "church of Pergamum" (Rev 2:12) -- note how Jesus Himself still calls it a church -- , has members that even hold to false doctrine ("you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, . . . you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicola'itans" -- 2:14-15). This goes against your contention that those who have false doctrine immediately lose the title of "church". Jesus Himself refutes you. It couldn't be any clearer.

But now, given that Hebrews tells us that God has always gathered an Assembly for Himself by causing people to look in faith to the Promised Messiah (Hebrews 11) – even through horrendous persecutions where God, though fully faithful, seemed to have abandoned His people – what justification do you have for suggesting that the Church has fundamentally changed?

Hebrews 11 is about individuals of great faith, not (technically) the old covenant religious system. Moses (of those listed) was a religious leader. [ . . . ] One might argue that he taught falsely in a sense, by implying that he could perform miracles by his own power, not God's: "Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?" (Num 20:10). God had told him to merely speak to the rock (20:8), but he struck it twice (20:11), leading God to rebuke him: "you did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the people" (20:12). For this reason, both he and Aaron were not allowed to enter the Promised Land (20:12; Dt 34:4). But this is much more so a moral lapse than a false teaching, thus, there remains an analogy to the indefectibility of the Church.[ . . . ]

The prophets are the most analogous to the infallibility of popes, as I have argued twice in my papers (one / two), and will again in my new book against sola Scriptura. But they were not part of the religious system; they were outside of it: usually rebuking the corrupt people in it. The difference in the new covenant is that God promises to protect the institutional system of the Church from error ("it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" -- Acts 15:28: the Jerusalem Council). The Church is a far more spiritually advanced entity.

…those who persecuted Micah, Elijah, and Jeremiah, for example, could have said (and in some cases did say) similar things. [as were said by the Church to Luther]

That's correct. But they didn't have the promise of Christ of indefectibility, whereas the Catholic Church, an institution with an unbroken history and succession back to the apostles and Christ, did have that. Nor was Luther a prophet, as those men were.

I had challenged you, stating:

Show me in the Bible where there is ever such a thing as a mere layperson disagreeing doctrinally with a leader in the Church based on Bible reading and thereby being justified in his dissent and schism by that method? I say it isn't there.

But here I need only point out how John the Baptist and our Lord Himself were not formally recognized or ordained by the religious hierarchy of the N.T. Church, as the Pharisees, who served on the council, were. The hierarchy even asked John by what right he said the things he did.
This doesn't overcome my argument and position because this is not yet the Church. There was no Church till Pentecost, after the death of both John and Jesus and the coming of the Holy Spirit. Jesus couldn't be "ordained" by the "N.T. Church" because it didn't yet exist. Therefore, this proves nothing. They were rejected by the old covenant religious system [ . . . ].

And now that I have established an alternative narrative account that I do not think you can deny, . . .
Surprise! I eagerly look forward to your answers to all the material I have come up with.

* * *

In fact, the Bible predicts that in the Last Days, the church will not look glorious at all, but will be beleagered on all sides… (see Matthew 24:24, Luke 18:8, 2 Thes 2:3-4).

Matthew 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

Individuals will be led astray in great numbers (sounds like today!). This says nothing about the institutional Church, or magisterium, and so is irrelevant to the question of indefectibility, which has to do with the Church, not individual Christians.

Luke 18:8 I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?

Ditto. Widespread apostasy of men doesn't prove that the Church has forsaken and failed in her God-given and divinely-guided mission. The text simply doesn't say that.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, [4] who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

This is closer to what you need to show but still doesn't by any means prove defectibility. It's somewhat like the times when popes were held prisoner, or the horrors of the French Revolution or the English so-called "Reformation" with its wholesale butcheries (ripping people' hearts out of their bodies, etc., simply for being Catholics) and Leninist-like repression. The Church didn't cease to exist because this was the case, and strong-arm tactics used to suppress the head of the Church, or the entire institutional Church, as the case may be. Peter and Paul (and St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher) were martyred; the Church still existed. The structure (and the truth and apostolic deposit preserved in the Church) didn't go into oblivion because of any persecution. The same will apply during the Last Days, no matter how bad it gets.

The seven churches of Revelation are again illustrative. Jesus (unlike the thrust of the "Reformers") still calls them "churches" no matter how many sins He condemned in them. They didn't lose or forfeit the category. And there is indication that at least some of these local churches will persevere through the last days; for example, the church in Philadelphia:

Revelation 3:10 Because you have kept my word of patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial which is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell upon the earth.

When He says "you" He is writing to the church, not one person.

. . . it's just that such a Church can be a lot smaller than you might think.
It may be very small in the end, but it is still there, preserving the truth. That's the promise: essence and unbroken continuity, not size or appearance or influence or popular acclaim. But your champion Gerhard (as you cite him) wants to play games and equivocate: "It is one thing to say simply that the church is visible; it is another to say that it is visible to the world" (186). Right.

This reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses ludicrous claim (made in desperation after false prophecies) that Jesus did return in 1914, but invisibly, not visibly. Likewise, for Gerhard, the Church will always be visible, but alas, not to the world. I trust that his other arguments are more impressive than this one. But in any event, it's an absolutely classic case study of saying the right words (indefectibility, visible Church), but redefining them according to one's own fancies, over against traditional Catholic use. This is the trademark of heterodoxy and liberalism at all times. Rather than admit that things have essentially changed, it prefers word games and equivocations.

that said, I would add that God certainly intends for His Church to be visible and discernible before the world, for He desires all persons to be saved.

Good; so even you disagree with Gerhard. You're right. Welcome to Catholic ecclesiology, in this respect.

In any case, it seems to me that the major difference between you and I is that you start thing from the get go wanting certainty.

It's not a matter of what I (or anyone else) want or don't want, but of what the New Testament everywhere casually assumes without argument, about the Church's possession of the fullness of apostolic truth and doctrine. Belief that all this is so uncertain is one of the negative fruits of the relentless sectarianism of Protestantism. Because they can't agree with each other, they start to pretend that Scripture sanctions their disagreements as of relatively little importance. This is sheer nonsense. The New Testament knows nothing of the "healthy diversity" of mutually contradictory doctrines. Falsehood is from the devil, period. Where logical contradiction exists, falsehood also must be present.

[Nathan has replied. I declined to counter-reply, for (mostly time-management) reasons explained on his site, but would like to engage in various other debates with him in the future]
* * * * *
Here are the biblical arguments from St. Francis de Sales' book, The Catholic Controversy , that caused me to revise my position on the indefectibility of the old covenant institutional religious system (passages: RSV; all comments are his own, except for a few of my bracketed interjections):

Exodus 32:26 then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, "Who is on the LORD's side? Come to me." And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him.

Did not Aaron the High Priest adore the golden calf with all his people? [Protestant argument for complete defectibility] Answer: Aaron was not as yet High Priest, nor head of the people, but became so afterwards. And it is not true that all the people worshipped idols: — for were not the children of Levi men of God, who joined themselves to Moses? (pp. 60-61)

2 Chronicles 15:3 For a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law;

Elijah lamented that he was alone in Israel (1 Ki 19:14) ["I, even I only, am left"]. Answer: Elijah was not the only good man in Israel, for there were seven thousand men who had not given themselves up to idolatry [1 Ki 19:18: "I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Ba'al"], and what the Prophet says here is only to express better the justice of his complaint. It is not true again that if all Israel had failed, the Church would have thereby ceased to exist, for Israel was not the whole Church. Indeed it was already separated therefrom by the schism of Jeroboam; and the kingdom of Judah was the better and principal part; and it is Israel, not Judah, of which Azarias predicted that it should be without priest and sacrifice. (p. 61)

Isaiah 1:4-6 Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the LORD, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged. [5] Why will you still be smitten, that you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. [6] From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, . . .

. . . these are forms of speaking, and of vehemently detesting the vice of a people. And although the Prophets, pastors and preachers use these general modes of expression, we are not to understand them of each particular person, but only of a large proportion; as appears by the example of Elijah who complained that he was alone, notwithstanding that there were yet seven thousand faithful. [1 Ki 19:14, 18] S. Paul complains to the Philippians (2:21) that all seek their own interest and advantage; still at the end of the Epistle he acknowledges that there were many good people with him and with them. [4:10, 14-18] (p. 61)
[see also my related paper, St. Francis de Sales' Argument Against Total Depravity and for the Indefectibility of the Church, from the Psalms]

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 21, 2011 23:23

November 20, 2011

John Bugay Goes After the Early Papacy: A Documentary Account

See his attempts in written form . . . but we have made it easy for time-starved readers, encapsulating his momentous efforts into one compelling visual:

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 20, 2011 21:01

How Anti-Catholics "Argue": Example #4625: John Bugay Resurrects Luther's Excrement Fetish in His Rush to Insult Myself and My Readers

From the combox discussion under the recent post, John Bugay (Presbyterian Anti-Catholic Apologist) Refuses (and Returns) Charitable Donations from Catholics for His Wife's Serious Illness, Insults Donors as "Mockers" With Nefarious Motives, Etc.
* * *
At length, Bugay, having run out of colorful metaphors (not to mention rational arguments), went right to middle school toilet humor:

As it is, interacting with you is as distasteful as stepping in a dog turd -- I don't want to deal with a dog turd either.

Isn't that wonderfully charitable? He went on:

. . . interacting with you is like stepping in a dog turd. 'Nuff said.

Well, it wasn't "'nuff said". He had more "manure metaphors":

. . . I think I have come up with a very fine metaphor: dealing with you is like stepping in dog poop. I don't know why it's like that. But that's precisely what it's like talking to you. You're a force of doggie nature.

Thus, Bugay exercises his manifestly profound Christian charity by making the fine-tuned distinction that dealing with me is like stepping in dog poop, rather than calling me dog poop. This proves, I guess, that he thinks I am regenerated (the very thing that he refused to answer when I inquired of him in the same combox). See the related paper: Has Martin Luther's "Snow-Covered Dunghill" Mystery-Legend Been Solved?!

Not content with sending insults my way; John proceeded to trash my entire readership as well. In the post I had already noted how he characterized them (you) as "mockers" ("In the meantime, please take down the link to our PayPal account. One donation has come in from this bunch of mockers, and I've returned it"). He also denied the Christian genuineness of their acts of charity ("Brent, you'll have a hard time convincing me that anything coming from this group is Christian"). Then in the combox discussion he added four more insults (I'll keep y'all posted on any more that come in as the story develops):

. . . you've got a rogue's gallery full of readers here who take your grand-standing word for things and thus miss out on huge swaths of reality in the process.

Hanging out here is a sure sign of bad character.

. . . you've got a lot of bottom feeders around here, who can't deal with the truth.

You've got to pick some marginal personal item and let the mockers go to town on that.

. . . the snippets are for the individuals here who still have consciences -- unlike those of you with the seared consciences . . . [in the combox below]

Note that John's reference to "seared consciences" of folks here refers to the following Bible passage:

1 Timothy 4:1-2 (RSV) Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, [2] through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared,

This is what John thinks of some of my readers (and likely myself, as the "ringleader": leading all of you astray) . . . He probably won't have the guts to name persons he places in this category; just as he was too much of a coward to state outright that I am supposedly unregenerate. But the insinuation is very clear. Those of us in this category, according to John, follow demons and the devil and are obviously no Christians.

Look at the bright side. It could be a lot worse . . . Personally, I think it's kind o' catchy: my readers can have the nickname of "catfish" just like the old pitcher on the Oakland A's!

On the other hand, it ought to be realized that a "bottom feeder" is an organism that usually eats you-know-what. Many of them are detritivores: the diet of which is described as "decomposing plant and animal parts as well as organic fecal matter".

Therefore, Bugay takes Luther's fecal obsession a step further: all he said about me was that interacting with me was like stepping in poop. But my readers are even an even lower species of scum of the earth than I am: y'all actually eat poop, according to John Bugay . . . How wonderfully edifying . . . altogether typical of the scatological rhetoric of anti-Catholics, though, following Luther in this regard:

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/54/1063/320/luthart11.jpg

Birth and Origin of the Pope; one of a series of eight pieces of "art" commissioned by Martin Luther, by the artist Lucas Cranach, for Luther's work Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil (March 1545). Luther told Cranach what to depict, and wrote a rhyming verse for each plate.

Protestant scholar Mark U. Edwards (Luther's Last Battles: Politics and Polemics, 1531-1546; Ithaca, New York and London: Cornell University Press, 1983) wrote, describing this travesty:

[It] shows the Pope and three cardinals being expelled from the anus of a female devil while three furies are nursing and caring for three infant popes . . . a graphic echo of Luther's assertion in his treatise that the pope had been born from the devil's behind.

***

View more on Dave Armstrong's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 20, 2011 21:01

← Previous 1 2 … 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 … 66 67 Next →

Dave Armstrong's Blog

Dave Armstrong's profile
20 followers

Dave Armstrong isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.