tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39771006510629638442024-03-18T04:47:51.283-05:00Throne, Altar, LibertyGerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.comBlogger685125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-91398642212883896352024-02-29T02:47:00.002-06:002024-02-29T22:07:20.574-06:00Captain Airhead, Would You Please Go Now?<p> Leap Day
this year is the fortieth anniversary of Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s announcement
that during a “walk in the snow” he had decided that he would step down and not
lead the Liberal Party into the next Dominion election. He had been leader of the Grits for sixteen
years since Lester Pearson stepped down in April of 1968. With the exception of the six month
premiership of Joe Clark he had been Prime Minister all that time. His was the third longest premiership in
Canadian history. The longest was that
of William Lyon Mackenzie King who had been a different kind of Liberal
leader. King, like Trudeau, had been a
traitor to Canada, her history, heritage, and traditions, but in his case it
was American-style capitalist liberalism to which he had sold us out. In the case of Pierre Trudeau it was Soviet
and Chinese Communism that was his true master. Canada’s second longest premiership was also
her first that of Sir John A. Macdonald.
Sir John had been the leader of the Fathers of Confederation and never
betrayed us. Nor did Canadians ever
grow tired of Old Tomorrow. Shortly
before his death in 1891 he won his sixth majority in that year’s Dominion
Election by campaigning for “The Old Flag, the Old Policy, the Old Leader”
against a Liberal Party that sought to move us closer economically and
culturally into the orbit of the United States. By contrast by the time Trudeau took his
famous walk Canadians had grown absolutely sick and tired of him. The Liberals were heading to defeat, Trudeau
knew it, and in the interest of preserving his legacy and what was left of his
reputation jumped off the ship before it sank.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
electorate’s having grown sick of Trudeau and his party should be regarded as
the expected outcome when a Prime Minister remains in office for a long period
of time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sir John’s enduring popularity
can be taken as the exception explainable by the fact that he was an
exceptional statesman, identified with the country he led as no other Prime
Minister could ever hope to be due to his central role in her founding, and a
personable leader to whom people could relate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>When a Sovereign, like Queen Victoria during whose reign Confederation
took place or like our late Queen Elizabeth II of Blessed Memory, has an
exceptionally long reign this is cause for celebration and rejoicing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the role of the Sovereign, after all,
to embody the principle of continuity and everything that is enduring, lasting,
and permanent in the realm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The man who
fills the Prime Minister’s office, by contrast, is very much the man of the
moment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Premierships, therefore, are
usually best kept short.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Pierre
Trudeau’s son, Captain Airhead, has been Prime Minister since 2015 and
Canadians are now far sicker of him than they ever were of his father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Personally, I had had more than enough of
him while he was still the third party leader prior to the 2015 Dominion
Election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why it took this long for the
rest of the country to catch up with me I have no idea but here we are.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is 2024 and Canadians are divided on
whether they would like Captain Airhead to follow his father’s footsteps and
take a walk in the snow, whether they would like to see him suffer the
humiliation of going down in defeat in the next Dominion Election or whether
they would like to see him brought down in an act of direct divine intervention
involving a lightning bolt that strikes the ground beneath him causing it to
open up, swallow him whole, and belch out fire and brimstone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What unites Canadians is that we all <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VxVJgUuRD8">wish that he would make like
Dr. Seuss’ Marvin K. Mooney and “please go now.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thermidor is rapidly approaching for Captain
Airhead and his version of the Liberal Party as it eventually comes for all
Jacobins.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
Canadian Robespierre seems determined, however, not to go to his inevitable
guillotine without one last stab at imposing his ghoulish and clownish version
of the Reign of Terror.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On Monday the
Liberals tabled, as they have been threatening to do since the last Dominion
Election, Bill C-63, an omnibus bill that would enhance government power in the
name of combatting “online harms.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A
note to American readers, in the Commonwealth to “table” a bill does not mean
to take it off the table, i.e., to suspend or postpone it as in the United
States, but rather to put it on the table, i.e., to introduce it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Defenders of omnibus bills regard them as
efficient time-savers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are also
convenient ways to smuggle in something objectionable that is unlikely to pass
if forced to stand on its own merits by rolling it up with something that is desirable
and difficult or impossible to oppose without making yourself look bad.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this case, the Liberals are trying to
smuggle in legislation that would allow Canadians to sue other Canadians for up
to $20 000, with the possibility of being fined another $50 000 payable to the
government thrown in on top of it, over online speech they consider to be hateful
and legislation that would make it possible for someone to receive life
imprisonment for certain “hate crimes”, by rolling it up in a bill ostensibly
about protecting children from online bullying and pornographic exploitation. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As is always the case when the Liberals
introduce legislation that has something to do with combatting hate it reads
like they interpreted George Orwell’s depiction of Big Brother in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">1984</i> as a “how-to” manual.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Nobody with
an IQ that can be expressed with a positive number could possibly be stupid
enough to think that this Prime Minister or any of his Cabinet cares about
protecting children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consider their
response to the actions taken over the last year or so by provincial premiers
such as New Brunswick’s Blaine Higgs and Alberta’s Danielle Smith to do just
that, protect children<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>from perverts in
the educational system hell-bent on robbing children of their innocence and
filling their heads with sex and smut from the earliest grades.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Captain Airhead and his corrupt cohorts
denounced and demonized these premiers’ common-sense, long overdue, efforts,
treating them not as the measures taken in defense of children and their
parents and families that they were, but as an attack on the alphabet soup
gang, one of the many groups that the Liberals and the NDP court in the hopes
that these in satisfaction over having their special interests pandered to will
overlook the progressive left’s contemptuous disregard for the common good of
the whole country and for the interests of those who don’t belong to one or
another of their special groups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Nor could
any Canadian capable of putting two and two together and who is even marginally
informed about what has been going on in this country in this decade take
seriously the Prime Minister’s posturing about hate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The leader of His Majesty’s Loyal
Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, when asked about what stance the Conservatives
would take towards this bill made the observation that Captain Airhead given
his own past is the last person who should be dictating to other Canadians
about hate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Poilievre was referring to
the blackface scandal that astonishingly failed to end Captain Airhead’s career
in 2019.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would have been more to the
point to have referenced the church burnings of 2021.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the summer of that year, as Captain
Airhead hosted conferences on the subjects of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia
that consisted of a whole lot of crying and hand-wringing and thinking out ways
to get around basic rights and freedoms so as to be able to throw in gaol
anyone who looks at a Jew or Muslim cross-eyed, Canada was in the midst of the
biggest spree of hate crimes in her history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Christian church buildings all across Canada were targeted for arson
and/or other acts of vandalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not only
did Captain Airhead fail to treat this violent and criminal display of
Christophobia as a serious problem in the same way he was treating these other
types of hatred directed towards specific religions he played a significant
role in inciting these attacks on Canada’s Christian churches by promoting a
narrative in which all allegations against Canada’s churches and her past
governors with regards to the Indian Residential Schools are accepted without
question or requirement of proof. (1)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Clearly
Captain Airhead does not give a rat’s rump about hate<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> qua</i> hate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If hatred is
directed towards people he doesn’t like, like Christians, he shrugs it off even
when it is expressed through violent, destructive, crime.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it is directed against people he likes, or,
more accurately, against groups to which he panders, he treats it as if it were
the most heinous of crimes even if it is expressed merely in words.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While I am on principle opposed to all laws against
hate since they are fundamentally unjust and by nature tyrannical (2) they are
especially bad when drawn up by someone of Captain Airhead’s ilk.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Captain
Airhead’s supposed concern about “online harms” is also a joke.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consider how he handles real world harms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His approach to the escalating problem of
substance abuse is one that seeks to minimize the harm drug abusers do to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">themselves</i> by providing them with a “safe”
supply of their poison paid for by the government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This approach is called “harms reduction” even
though when it comes to the harms that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">others</i>
suffer from drug abuse such as being violently attacked by someone one doesn’t know
from Adam because in his drug-induced mania he thinks his victim is a zombie
space alien seeking to eat his brain and lay an egg in the cavity, this
approach should be called “harms facilitation and enablement.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mercifully, there is only so much Captain
Airhead can do to promote this folly at the Dominion level and so it is only
provinces with NDP governments, like the one my province was foolish enough to
elect last year, that bear the full brunt of it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then there was his idea that the solution to
the problem of overcrowded prisons and criminal recidivism was to release those
detained for criminal offenses back into the general public as soon after their
arrest as possible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does this sound like
someone who can be trusted to pass legislation protecting people from “online
harms”?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Captain
Airhead inadvertently let slip, last week, the real reason behind this
bill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In an interview he pined for the
days when Canadians were all on the same page, got all their information from
CBC, CTV, and Global, before “conspiracy theorists” on the internet ruined
everything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was lamenting the
passing of something that never existed, of course.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People were already getting plenty of information
through alternative sources on the internet long before his premiership and the
mainstream legacy media became far more monolithic in the viewpoints it
presented during and because of his premiership.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What he was pining for, therefore, was not
really something that existed in the past, but what he has always hoped to
establish in the future – a Canada where everyone is of one opinion, namely
his.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is, after all, the same homunculus
who, back when a large segment of the country objected to him saying that they
would be required to take a foreign substance that had been inadequately tested
and whose manufacturers were protected against liability into their bodies if
they ever wanted to be integrated back into ordinary society, called them every
name in the book and questioned whether they should be tolerated in our midst.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Some have
suggested that Bill C-63 is not that bad compared with what the Liberals had
originally proposed three years ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
still, however, is a thinly-veiled attempt at thought control from a man who is
at heart a narcissistic totalitarian and whose every act as Prime Minister,
from trying to reduce the cost of health care and government benefits by
offering people assistance in killing themselves (MAID) to denying people who
having embraced one or more of the letters of the alphabet soup, had a bad trip,
the help they are seeking in getting free, deserves to be classified with the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">peccata clamantia</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It took a lot of pain and effort for this
country to finally rid herself of the evil Section 13 hate speech provision
that Captain Airhead’s father had saddled us with in the Canadian Human Rights
Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Captain Airhead must not be
allowed to get away with reversing that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is about
time that he took a walk in the snow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or
got badly trounced in a Dominion election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Or fell screaming into a portal to the netherworld that opened up
beneath his feet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any of these ways
works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The time is
come.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The time is now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just go. Go. GO!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t care how.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Captain Airhead, would you please go now?!
(3)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p>(1)</o:p></span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Anyone
who thinks the allegations were proven needs to learn the difference between
evidence and proof. Evidence is what is
brought forward to back up a claim.
Proof is what establishes the truth of a claim. That the evidence advanced for the
allegations in question simply does not add up to proof and moreover was flimsy
from the onset and has subsequently been largely debunked is an entirely valid
viewpoint the expression of which is in danger of being outlawed by the bill
under discussion. In a court of
criminal law the burden is upon the prosecutor to prove the charge(s) against
the defendant. Not merely to present
evidence but to prove the accused to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The same standard must be applied to allegations
made against historical figures and past generations. They, after all, are not present to defend
themselves against their accusers. To
fail to do so is to fail in our just duty towards those who have gone before us. The ancients had a term for this
failure. It is the vice of impiety.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;">(2)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;">The
folly of legislation against hate was best expressed by Auberon Waugh in an
article entitled “Che Guevara in the West Midlands” that was first published in
the 6 July, 1976 issue of <i>The Spectator</i>,
and later included in the collection <i>Brideshead
Benighted</i> (Toronto: Little, Brown & Company, 1986). Michael Wharton, however, writing as “Peter
Simple” was second to none, not even Waugh, in ridiculing this sort of thing.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;">(3)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Apologies
to Dr. Seuss.</span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-63703148959191665772024-02-09T04:37:00.001-06:002024-02-09T04:37:11.608-06:00One Small Step Towards Restoring Sanity<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">We are
almost a quarter of a century into the third millennium Anno Domini.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In that period the alphabet soup </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">– LGBTTQAEIOUandsometimesY -</span> gang has
grown accustomed to getting whatever it demands, no matter how ludicrous,
absurd, or even downright insane, the demand happens to be. This is true in general across the
civilization formerly known as Christendom but nowhere more so than here in the
Dominion of Canada. It has been
especially true here for the last nine years since Captain Airhead became the
creepiest little low-life sleazebag ever to disgrace the office of the first
minister of His Majesty’s government in Ottawa. Captain Airhead has aggressively promoted
the craziest, most fringe, and least defensible elements of the alphabet soup
agenda as if they were commonsensical, had the weight of universally recognized
moral truth behind them, and could be opposed only by knuckle-dragging moral reprobates. If
knuckle-dragging moral reprobation is what is required to oppose such things
then Captain Airhead ought to be leading the opposition. He was never able to add two and two
together and come up with four, however.
Just look at his budgets. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">One
consequence of Captain Airhead’s alphabet soup policies has been a sharp
decline in average intelligence in the country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We might call this the Trudeau Effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the opposite of the Flynn Effect, the
psychometric phenomenon named after James Flynn by Charles Murray and Richard
Herrnstein in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bell Curve</i> (1994)
that was the reason standardized IQ tests needed to be revised, updated, and
recalibrated periodically to prevent the average from running significantly
over 100.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Trudeau Effect is when,
due to constant government-backed gas-lighting and bullying, intelligence so
declines that people no longer understand the difference between what is true
in reality and what someone mistakenly thinks or imagines to be true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Before Captain Airhead we could say in
response to those pushing the trans part of the alphabet soup agenda that we
don’t accept that the person who thinks he is a chicken actually is a chicken,
we don’t accept that the person who thinks he is Napoleon Bonaparte actually is
who he thinks he is, and neither should we accept that the boy who thinks he is
a girl is a girl or that the girl who thinks she is a boy is a boy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Today, not only do fewer and fewer people
understand this, the aggressive promotion of the trans agenda has brought us to
the point where there is now a demand that we regard people who think they are
something other than people as being what they think or say they are.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This is why
it has been rather encouraging over the last year or so to see a growing push
back against this insanity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most
recently, Danielle Smith, the premier of Alberta, announced a new set of
policies and upcoming legislation for her province that would restrict the
genital and breast mutilation <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">sickeningly called by such deranged euphemisms
as </span>gender-reassignment
surgery or gender-affirming care to those who have reached the age of majority, ban puberty-blockers for
those under the age of 16, require that parents be notified and give their
consent when pervert teachers try to brainwash their kids into thinking they
are the opposite sex/gender, require parental consent for sex education and that all sex ed curricula be approved by the minister of education, and prevent the sort of situation that Ray Stevens
has hilariously lampooned in his new song “<span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqemlCXeW4A&pp=ygUbV2hlbiBCdWJiYSBDaGFuZ2VkIGhpcyBuYW1l">Since
Bubba Changed His Name to Charlene</a></span>”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, policies and legislation that
anyone who isn’t a total idiot, insane, under the influence of an evil spirit
or a substance that turns one’s mind to goo or both, evil on a megalomaniacal
scale, or some combination of these, could and would support.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Needless to say, both Captain Airhead and
Jimmy Dhaliwal, the supervillain who somehow broke out of the cartoon universe
and into our own and having been denied entry to India due to his connections
to the extremists who want to break that country up opted to become the leader
of the socialist party here, have been having conniptions over this. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Most news
media commentators have joined the whacko politicians like Airhead and Dhaliwal
in howling in outrage over what could be best described as the very, bare
bones, minimum of a sensible provincial policy towards alphabet soup gender
politics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This will not come as a shock
to many, I suspect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Canadian
newspapers have acted as if their role was to propagate the ideas of and
bolster support for the Liberal Party since at least the time when John Wesley
Defoe edited the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Winnipeg Free Press</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Arguably it goes back even further to when
George Brown edited the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Toronto Globe</i>,
the predecessor of today’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Globe and
Mail.</i> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That the new technological
means of mass communication seemed designed to project a distorted view of
reality that served the interests of some ideological vision of progress rather
than of truth was a critique made by such varied observers as the American
Richard M. Weaver, the French Jacques Ellul, and the Canadian Marshall
McLuhan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was radio, television, and
the motion picture industry that these men had in mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The second revolution in mass communications
technology that gave us the internet, smartphones, social media, and streaming
services has since eclipsed the first.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It has not rectified the problem those astute social critics and
technosceptics saw in the earlier mass communications media any more than Captain
Airhead’s bailout of the struggling Canadian newspapers solved the problem of
their heavy bias towards the Liberal Party but rather, in both instances, the
problem was exponentially magnified.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">John
Ibbitson wrote a piece that argued that Smith’s policies were endangering all
teenagers in Alberta. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Naturally, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Globe and Mail</i> had the poor taste to
publish <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/opinion/article-danielle-smiths-sex-ed-policy-changes-are-putting-all-alberta/">it</a></span>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
obvious reality is that no teenagers – or anybody else for that matter – are endangered
by Smith’s policies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Max Fawcett, the lead columnist for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Canada’s National Observer</i>, <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.nationalobserver.com/2024/02/06/opinion/danielle-smith-just-sold-out-lgbtq-community-whos-next">attempted
to argue</a></span> that Smith, who has long been identified with the
libertarian wing of Canadian conservatism, has betrayed her ideology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Pierre Poilievre, the current leader of
His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the Conservative Party, pointed out, however,
when he – finally – took a stand in favour what Smith was doing, prohibiting people
from making irreversible, life-altering, decisions while they are children
means protecting their right to make adult choices as adults. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">That is hardly something that could be described
as irreconcilably out of sync with libertarian ideals</span> As an indicator of just how cuckoo most of
the media reporting on this has been, Ibbitson’s and Fawcett’s are among the
saner of the anti-Smith pieces that have appeared.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Poilievre
also predicted that Captain Airhead will eventually have to back down on this
issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I certainly hope that he is
right about that and that soon we will have the pleasure of watching Captain
Airhead eat his own words.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the
meantime, it is good to see that a rational, sane, pushback against the
alphabet soup madness has finally begun.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Let us hope and pray that it continues and spreads.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-19666814347965639592024-02-02T07:10:00.000-06:002024-02-02T07:10:16.277-06:00Ordinary Authority, the Apostolic Priesthood, Orthodox Anglicanism and Women’s Ordination<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
incident of a couple of weeks ago in which Fr. Calvin Robinson, having been
invited to address the Mere Anglicanism conference hosted by an ACNA parish in
the United States on the subject of how critical theory is contrary to the
Gospel and was disinvited from the final panel because in his talk he
highlighted feminism’s role in the development of Cultural Marxism and
criticized women’s ordination, is still generating much discussion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fr. Robinson, if you are unfamiliar with
him, is an outspoken conservative Christian commentator from the United
Kingdom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was denied ordination in
the Church of England a few years ago, for his conservative views, but was
ordained a deacon in the Free Church of England (the British counterpart to the
American Reformed Episcopal Church, it separated from the Church of England in
the nineteenth century in protest over the Oxford Movement) then later a priest
in the Nordic Catholic Church (a group that left the Lutheran Church of Norway
to join the Old Catholics, i.e., the formerly Roman Catholic Churches that
rejected Vatican I).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He also had a show
on GB News until they dropped him last year in a spasm of political correctness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ACNA is the Anglican Church in North
America which was founded about fifteen years ago by parishes that separated
from the Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of
Canada (up here the parishes associated with the ACNA go by the name Anglican
Network in Canada, ANiC) over the increasing influence of the alphabet soup
lobby in the mainline bodies (as seen in same-sex blessings/marriages).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is recognized by and in full communion
with the orthodox provinces of the Anglican Communion (the Global South
provinces) although not with the Church of England, the Anglican Church of
Canada or the Episcopal Church, the three most apostate Churches within the
Anglican Communion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Parts of the ACNA
practice women’s ordination, other parts do not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The aforementioned Reformed Episcopal
Church, for example, which joined the ACNA when it was formed although it had
already been separated from the Episcopal Church for over a century, does
not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This the REC has in common with
other Anglican jurisdictions that left the Episcopal Church over its apostasy
prior to the alphabet soup crisis, such as those which left when James Parker
Dees declared the Episcopal Church apostate in 1963 over liberalism as
manifested in her refusal to discipline Bishop Pike when he abandoned the faith
entirely (the low church Anglican Orthodox Church and the high church Orthodox
Anglican Church, originally a single communion) and, rather obviously, those
who signed the St. Louis Affirmation of 1977 which declared the Episcopal
Church and the Anglican Church of Canada to have apostatized from Christ’s One
Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by introducing women’s ordination (called
the Continuing Anglican Churches or the Anglican Continuum in the stricter
sense, the broader sense of these terms also includes the REC, AOC, OAC, and
other smaller groups that left prior to St. Louis, these were intended to be a
single body by the Concerned Churchman of St. Louis who, interestingly enough,
called the body they so envisioned the Anglican Church in North America).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(1) <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ACNA calls its policy of allowing
different dioceses and parishes to have different viewpoints and practices on
the matter of women’s ordination by the expression “dual integrities”. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I don’t
have much to add to the discussion of the incident itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I rather wish to answer an argument that Dr.
Bruce Atkinson has posted in several places.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>One of those places is the comments section on <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://virtueonline.org/anglicans-clash-over-anglo-catholic-priests-disinvitation-mere-anglican-conference">Dr.
David W. Virtue’s article on the Robinson/Mere Anglicanism affair</a></span> and
it is <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&f=virtueonline&t_u=https%3A%2F%2Fvirtueonline.org%2Fanglicans-clash-over-anglo-catholic-priests-disinvitation-mere-anglican-conference&t_d=Anglicans%20Clash%20Over%20Anglo-Catholic%20Priest%27s%20Disinvitation%20from%20Mere%20Anglican%20Conference%20%7C%20VirtueOnline%20%E2%80%93%20The%20Voice%20for%20Global%20Orthodox%20Anglicanism&t_t=Anglicans%20Clash%20Over%20Anglo-Catholic%20Priest%27s%20Disinvitation%20from%20Mere%20Anglican%20Conference%20%7C%20VirtueOnline%20%E2%80%93%20The%20Voice%20for%20Global%20Orthodox%20Anglicanism&s_o=default">this
version</a></span>, should there be any differences between this and the
versions he has posted elsewhere, to which I shall be responding. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Atkinson is a psychologist and a
founding member of the ACNA.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">His first
section under the heading “On WO” reads:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">1) The New Testament
does not discuss the issue of the sacramental ordination of clergy at all,
neither male nor female. What became the tradition of clericalism (a ruling and
elite priesthood order) only developed after the Apostles had passed. The
closest the NT gets to supporting this is where Paul mentions roles of
overseer, elder, and deacon (servant) and a few times he or elders prayed and
laid hands on disciples for specific tasks. Hardly the same as what later
became the sacrament of ordination. And Jesus was against such a ruling
privileged priesthood as evidenced in Mark 10:42-44 and Matthew 23:5-12, and as
also evidenced by Peter’s view of the priesthood as being of ALL believers (1
Peter 2:4-5, 9).<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">As I have
pointed out many times in the past a case against a distinct priesthood within
the Church cannot be made from St. Peter’s remarks about the universal
priesthood of all believers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is
because there was a universal priesthood under both Covenants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the book of Exodus, the Israelites,
having been led by Moses out of Egypt, arrived at the wilderness of Sinai in
the nineteenth chapter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the beginning
of this chapter, the LORD, speaking to Moses out of the mountain, tells him to
tell the Israelites “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy
nation.” (v 6).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This clearly did not
preclude the establishment of a more specific priesthood, the Levitical
priesthood, within national Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St.
Peter, by joining the expressions “royal priesthood” and “holy nation” in 1
Peter 2:9 alludes back to this Old Testament passage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since the original did not preclude a more
specific priesthood, neither can the New Testament allusion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Especially since St. Paul speaks of his
ministerial work in terms of just such a priesthood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Romans 15:16 he writes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">That I should be the
minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">ministering</b>
the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable,
being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The word
“ministering” that is placed in bold in the above quotation is in St. Paul’s
Greek “</span>ἱερουργοῦντα” (hierourgounta).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is the present, active, participle of ἱερουργέω (hierourgeo) which
means “to officiate as a priest”, “to perform sacred rites”, “to
sacrifice”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is formed by combining
the basic Greek word for “priest” (St. Peter’s word for “priesthood” in 1 Pet.
2:9 is ἱεράτευμα, hierateuma) with the basic Greek word for “work”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the word λειτουργὸν (leitourgon)
that is behind the noun “minister” earlier in the verse has connotations of
this as well since the primary meaning of the word, “public servant” in the
civic sense, clearly does not apply here.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That this sort of language is not more widely used of the
Apostolic ministry in the New Testament is easily explainable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Old Testament priesthood was still
functioning at the time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Book of
Acts brings the history of the Church down to a few years prior to the
destruction of the Temple.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>SS Peter and
Paul were both martyred prior to that event.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Most of the New Testament was written prior to that event.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To more promiscuously refer to the ministry
of the Church as a priesthood would have invited confusion at that time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That this did not prevent St. Paul from
referring to it as such in this verse is explainable by a) the fact that his
ministry was to the Gentiles as stated in this very verse and so unlikely to be
confused with the priesthood of national Israel, and by b) the fact that this
verse comes towards the end of an epistle in which it is preceded by an
extended discussion of the differences between the two Covenants.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The very nature of the rite that the Lord commissioned the
Apostolic ministry to perform in the Church necessitates that it be thought of
as a priesthood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were three types
of sacrifices (in terms of what was to be offered) the Levitical priesthood was
commissioned to offer in the Old Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There was the offering of animals, who were killed and their blood
sprinkled, which was involved in any sacrifice having to do with sin and
guilt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These were a type of the
Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and were forever fulfilled in Christ’s
Sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then there were the
offerings of grain/flour/cakes (meat/meal/grain offerings) and of wine
(libations).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These three elements are
also featured prominently in the Passover meal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A covenant in the Old Testament would always
be sealed by a sacrifice and concluded by both parties to the covenant eating
the sacrifice together as a shared meal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Jesus Christ offered Himself as the Sacrifice that sealed and
established the Covenant of redemption from sin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In instituting the Lord’s Supper, He took
the bread and wine of the Passover, the other two elements offered by the old
priesthood in sacrifice, and pronounced them to be His Body and Blood, making a
way for God’s people to be perpetually sustained by the food of His One
Sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just as baptism replaces circumcision
as the rite of initiation under the New Covenant, so the Sacrament by which
Christ’s One Sacrifice becomes the sustenance of the believers’ spiritual life
takes the place of the sacrifices that looked forward to the One Sacrifice, and
so the ministry commissioned to administer the Sacrament is a priesthood within
the universal priesthood of the Church, as the Levitical priesthood was a
priesthood within the universal priesthood of Israel.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dr. Atkinson’s use of terms like “ruling”, “privileged” and
“elite” to describe a priesthood within the universal priesthood of the Church
is misleading.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The import of Mk
10:42-44 is not that the Church was not to have governors but that her
governors were to govern in a spirit of humility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pressed to the extreme of hyper-Protestant
anti-clericalism, Mk 10:42-44 would condemn St. Paul in defending his Apostolic
authority in the Corinthian epistles and the early chapters of Galatians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Lord clearly set His Apostles as
governors over His Church, just as clearly the need for structure and order in
the Church did not die with the Apostles nor did they let their governance end
or die with them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Already in the New
Testament we see them placing others in authority under themselves over local
Churches as elders/presbyters, and already in the New Testament we see them
commissioning others such as SS Timothy and Titus to exercise the same level of
governing authority as themselves, including the authority to ordain
elders/presbyters and deacons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The term
bishop (overseer/episkopos) would later be used as the title of the Apostles’
co-governors/successors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the New
Testament this term is used either interchangeably with elder/presbyter or more
likely for the presiding elder/presbyter in each locality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When it is first unmistakably used for the
co-governors/successors of the Apostles, in the epistles of St. Ignatius of
Antioch, the description suggests that every presiding elder/presbyter was now
what SS Timothy and Titus were in the New Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rapidity and earliness with which this
usage became universal and the fact that it first appears in the writings of
St. John’s direct disciples may indicate that St. John, the Apostle who
survived the others by decades, had merged the two offices towards the end of
his life and ministry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However that
may be, the thing traditionally designated by the term bishop, the person who
has been given the ordinary authority (vide infra for explanation of this
expression) of the Apostles to govern the Church and ordain presbyters and
deacons, is clearly already established in the New Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That the Lord’s instructions in Mk. 10:42-44
have not always been obeyed by those in authority in the Church is lamentable,
although not, given the fallenness of human nature, very surprising, but the abuse
of something does not invalidate the thing itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dr. Atkinson begins the second section of his argument by
saying:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">2) I will never ignore
clear scriptural advice; like most members and clergy in ACNA, I am generally
against women’s ordination above the level of deacon. What Paul clearly wrote
to Timothy (1 Tim 2, cf. Titus 2:3-5) is that he did not allow women to have
authority over men in his churches, but he did not condemn the practice nor was
it ever called a ‘sin’ anywhere in the NT. He also wrote elsewhere about male
headship in the family (1 Cor 11: 3-10, 1 Cor 14:33-35, Eph 5:22-23)<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If someone in a position of authority were to say “I do not
allow you to walk up to your neighbour, poke him in the eyes, tweak his nose,
and pull his beard” would you interpret this as a non-condemnation of
eye-poking, nose-tweaking and beard-pulling?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">His third section, however, begins by saying:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">3) However… the whole
counsel of God provides some mitigating circumstances.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a) The fact that Jesus
Himself elevated women (and their roles) above what was regarded as normative
in His culture (women were virtual chattel, not even to be spoken to in the
street) tells us a lot about the <b><span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">teleological
direction</span></b> we could expect to occur over time in the Kingdom of
God by the revelation of scripture made evident by the Holy Spirit. Note Paul’s
teaching in Galatians 3:24-29 where egalitarianism is taught as being part of
our freedom in Christ versus the Jewish laws and culture. Despite Paul's
admonition to Timothy about women's disqualification to have authority over
men, Paul was not shy about allowing women to lead where his own welfare (and
thus that of the gospel) was concerned (as seen in Romans 16:1-4).<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a common argument but it is no less wrong for being
common.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact that Jesus elevated
women above what was normative in Jewish, and for that matter Roman, culture
carries the exact opposite meaning to that which Dr. Atkinson attaches to it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It makes it all that much more significant
that Jesus did <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i> include a woman
among the Twelve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Had He, by treating
women as the human beings they are, intended to start the Church on a path that
would lead towards women’s ordination He would not have allowed St. Paul to
prohibit – his words to St. Timothy are stronger than a mere admonition – women
from having authority over men in that way.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">He continues:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">b) The issue of
Women’s Ordination (WO) is not at all the same as the homosexuality issue where
there are absolutely no exceptions in either Old Testament or New Testament
that this behavior is an egregious sin that will keep a person out of the
Kingdom of God (e.g., 1 Cor 6:9). Rather, <b>the role of women in God’s
kingdom on earth has clearly had some exceptions in the Bible, where women have
had authority without any divine judgment or criticism being revealed about it.
The New Testament reveals that there were women deaconesses and women prophets
in NT churches… without any criticism by Paul or other Apostles. And how far
should we generalize Peter’s point that the Church consists of the “priesthood
of ALL believers”? </b>But I must emphasize that these scriptural
exceptions to the rule (like Deborah the judge in the OT) were in fact
exceptions.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Therefore, ACNA is not
wrong to also have exceptions... but they must be kept relatively rare (to
remain exceptions) and never to be turned into a general WO rule (as TEC and
the Church of England have done).<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The issue of Women’s Ordination is related to that of the
homosexuality – actually the entire alphabet soup – issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’ll return to that momentarily.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, I would like to point out how Dr.
Atkinson seriously misinterprets the significance of the Scriptural examples of
women with authority to which he points.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>These are not exceptions to the rule.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They are rather illustrations of a different rule.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As orthodox Christians, we believe that God is working in
everything that goes on in the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We are not Deists who think that God started the world going, like
someone winding up a clock, then left it to wind down on its own accord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God brought Creation into existence ex
nihilo and apart from His sustaining its existence it would slip back into
nothingness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The tree in your front
lawn, God put there, through multiple different steps including the falling of
the seed from which it originally grew, the natural process of growth that He
put into the seed, the rain that He caused to fall, etc.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Everything that happens in nature, does so
because God is working in and through it in this way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God is not limited to working in this
way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If He had reason to do so, He
could cause a tree to appear out of nowhere in your front lawn without going
through all that preliminary motion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
He did so, this is what we would call a miracle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God does not work in this direct way unless He
has special reason to do so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His
ordinary method of producing a tree in your front laws, is through the means of
the seed, the growth, the rain, etc.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A
miracle, in which He directly acts without means, is extraordinary.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The distinction just made can also be seen in those to whom
God delegates authority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Old
Testament, God established the Levitical priesthood and the Davidic
monarchy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These were positions of authority
that were passed on through the generations in an ordinary manner (David passed
his throne to Solomon who passed it to Rehoboam, for example).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This type of authority corresponds to God’s
working ordinarily through the means of nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are other examples, however, of God
raising up individuals to positions of leadership and authority that correspond
to His working extraordinarily through miracles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The judges are examples of these.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So are the prophets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each
one was called by God as an individual and given special authority and power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since order is one of the more important
purposes of structure and ordinary authority there are rules as to how that
authority is transmitted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God is not
bound by such rules in raising people up to special authority any more than He
is bound by the laws of nature when He performs miracles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the New Testament, Jesus gave to the
Apostles both ordinary and extraordinary authority when He set them in
governance over His Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
extraordinary power, such as infallibility when teaching the faith and writing
Scripture, could not be passed on to others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The ordinary authority that they exercised in settling controversies,
ordaining presbyters and deacons, and basically governing the Church they
passed on to those such as SS Timothy and Titus who succeeded them in
governance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Paul’s instructions to
St. Timothy in regards to women belong to the rules governing ordinary
authority and its transmission.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They do
not bind God when it comes to raising up people with special or extraordinary
authority like prophets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
This distinction accounts for Deborah the judge and the prophetesses of both
Testaments. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Remember that if someone
claims to have received extraordinary authority directly from God, they are to
be tested and tried by all the tests of the prophet in both Testaments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This brings us back to the connection between the women’s
ordination issue and the alphabet soup issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If God raises up a woman as a prophetess or otherwise gives her
extraordinary authority that is one thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If the rules governing the transmission of ordinary authority in the
Church are altered to allow for women’s ordination that is something entirely
different.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When that happens it leads
to further apostasy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is what has
happened in the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Church
of England.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That this further apostasy
has taken the form of the affirmation of alphabet people, then same-sex
blessings, then outright same-sex marriage, and most recently all the garbage
that is preceded by the prefix trans is only to be expected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When you set aside the rules laid down in
Scripture for the transmission of the Apostolic ministry of the Church so as to
ordain women you do so for a reason.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In this case you do so because you think the rules of Scripture (and
tradition for that matter) are incompatible with some higher standard or ideal
you are seeking to achieve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To regard
an ideal or standard as higher than the Word of God is itself a serious
apostasy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the rule set aside is
the prohibition against women in positions of ordinary authority, the ideal
that is set above the Word of God, and thus made an idol, is the equality of
the sexes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The equality of the sexes,
when treated with this exaggerated importance, becomes the interchangeability
of the sexes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the sexes are treated
as interchangeable when it comes to the priesthood/ministry the next step will
be for them to be treated as interchangeable in other areas – such as in who
one looks for as a mate and ultimately with which sex one identifies.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course we could also back the story up and point out that
just as women’s ordination has led to the alphabet soup problems of today, so
the path to women’s ordination was one the Church set upon when it took that first
false step of breaking with the Catholic (in the Vincentian sense) consensus
against artificial contraception in Resolution 15 of the 1930 Lambeth
Conference which passed because supposedly conservative evangelicals failed to
support the conservative Anglo-Catholics in their opposition to the Resolution
(for the Biblical case against birth control, see Charles D. Provan’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Bible and Birth Control</i>, Zimmer
Printing, 1989, for an interesting discussion, albeit from a Darwinian
perspective, of why affordable, effective, contraception for females led,
counter-intuitively, to the ramping up of the feminist demand for abortion and
the skyrocketing of single-motherhood, see Dr. Lionel Tiger’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Decline of Males</i>, St. Martin’s
Press, 1999).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is, however, a topic
for another time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>(1)</o:p><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Lest you get the impression that the mainline Anglican Churches in
England, Canada, and the United States are entirely apostate, I assure you
there are orthodox parishes left in each.
On both sides of the pond, there are parishes within the mainline
Anglican Communion that indicate their adherence to the full orthodoxy affirmed
at St. Louis by affiliating with <a href="https://www.forwardinfaith.com/">Forward
in Faith</a> or <a href="https://www.fifna.org/">Forward in Faith North America</a>. In the Anglican Church of Canada there are parishes
that indicate their ACNA type orthodoxy by affiliating with the Anglican
Communion Alliance. My own parish is
one affiliated with the <a href="https://anglicancommunionalliance.ca/">Anglican
Communion Alliance</a> and personally, while I disagree with separatism as a
solution to apostasy, I could sign my full agreement with the Principles of Doctrine and Principles of
Morality sections of the <a href="https://www.traditionalanglican.ca/resources/affirm.pdf">St. Louis
Affirmation</a>. </span></p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-59284165703042341302024-01-26T07:07:00.001-06:002024-01-26T07:07:40.913-06:00The Courts<p>This week
we in the Dominion of Canada received some good news from the Federal
Court. It came about a week after we
received bad news from the Court of Appeal in Upper Canada. The good news consisted of a ruling. The bad news, by contrast, was a refusal to
rule, or even to hear a case. I take
this as further support for my long-established opinion that the courts of
Upper Canada are the most corrupt in the Dominion. Except maybe the courts of British Columbia.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The bad
news was that the Upper Canada – for those who insist upon being slaves to the
present day, the contemporary and the up-to-date, this is what you would call
Ontario – Court of Appeal had refused to hear the appeal of Jordan Peterson,
the well-known psychologist, educator, author and philosopher, in his case
against the province’s College of Psychologists, the body that issues his
professional license.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The College had
ordered him into sensitivity training because they didn’t like something he
said on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The remark had nothing to do with his professional
practice and was entirely political – he said something uncomplimentary about
Captain Airhead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That no professional licensing
board ought to be able to discipline one of its members for expressing these
sort of opinions in this way is a no-brainer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Although Peterson could have just told the College to take a hike – he has
not used his professional license in years and is not dependent upon it
financially – he opted to take them to court and fight for the principle at
stake.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anybody whose job or career requires
a professional license and who does not want the licensing board to be allowed
to act as a proxy censor for his political or ideological opponents by
blackmailing him into changing his opinions or keeping silent about them by
holding a gun to his license should be grateful that someone was willing to do
this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It should
have been an easy win for Peterson.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
College of Psychologists was 100% in the wrong and should have been slapped
down hard by the courts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead the
Divisional Court ruled in their favour.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>By refusing to hear Peterson’s appeal, the Court of Appeal has closed
the door to taking the case to a higher court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>You can only appeal rulings, not refusals to consider.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The right of a court to refuse to hear a
case is for the purpose of preventing the judicial system from being swamped by
trivial and nonsensical nuisance suits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Like the man who dreams that his neighbour’s dog has torn up his flower
bed and then repeatedly tries to sue his neighbour for damages.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This case is nothing like that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The principle at stake - that professional licensing boards must not be
allowed to serve as proxy censors for those who wish to “cancel” someone for
his opinions – is vital and fundamental.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Upper Canadian Court of Appeal, by abusing its right of refusal in
this way, has demonstrated that it is no longer worthy of possessing that right.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The good
news was that the Federal Court has ruled that Captain Airhead acted
unreasonably in invoking the Emergencies Act on Valentine’s Day in 2022.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Captain Airhead, in case you are unfamiliar
with him, is the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He has occupied the office of Prime Minister
in His Majesty’s government in Ottawa since 2015.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He resembles nothing so much as the result
of an experiment at producing a golem using bovine excrement rather than mud
and the word<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="color: #202124; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">שֶׁקֶר</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span lang="HE"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">(sheker, “lies”) rather than </span><strong><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="background: white; color: #202122; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-language: HE;">אֱמֶת</span></strong><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> (emet, “truth”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The official story, however, is that he is
the son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> <span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However he got
here, we are in the ninth year of his misgovernment and everybody is pretty much
sick of him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In 2022, we
were going into the third year of the world-wide panic over a novel respiratory
virus that proved to be more of a nasty strain of the flu than that
apocalyptic, super-plague ala Stephen King’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Stand</i> that politicians, journalists, and the legal dope-peddlers
that long ago supplanted the legitimate medical profession, claimed it to
be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By January 2022 the world was
re-opening but Captain Airhead, who in the last Dominion election had flip-flopped
and come down hard in favour of requiring people to take the experimental and
inadequately tested new vaccines that had been rushed to production, hurling
the most abusive terms in the liberal dictionary against anyone who thought
correctly that the choice to be injected with such a substance must be strictly
voluntary, doubled down and imposed new vaccine mandates as they were being
lifted in other jurisdictions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One such new mandate was on long-distance
truck drivers who haul freight across the border with the United States. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In response, these truck drivers organized
the biggest protest against heavy-handed, draconian, health protocols that Canada
had yet seen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Trucks from all over
Canada formed the Freedom Convoy that descended upon Ottawa and encamped in the
streets outside of Parliament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was an
entirely peaceful protest that posed no threat to Canada’s national security. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The protesters basically threw a long,
extended, block party in which they patriotically celebrated Canada and her
traditional basic freedoms and exercised those freedoms in ways like
associating with each other in large numbers, in person and close up that
before 2020 we all took to be our basic Common Law right but which the
politicians and health bureaucrats had been treating as crimes against humanity
for two and a half years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their demands
were quite reasonable – that the government abide by the constitutional limits
on its powers, respect our fundamental freedoms, and stop committing the actual
crime against humanity of forcing people, by denying them access to employment
and society unless they comply, to agree to be injected with a foreign
substance the safety of which they were not fully persuaded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Captain
Airhead and his cronies refused to meet with the protesters to discuss their
grievances, called them all sorts of bad names and accused them of all sorts of
other political agendas that had nothing to do with the single-issue cause that
brought them to Ottawa.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then, on 14
February, Captain Airhead announced that he was invoking the Emergencies Act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Emergencies Act is a piece of legislation
that was passed during the premiership of Brian Mulroney in 1988.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It replaced the War Measures Act that Captain
Airhead’s father had invoked to crush the FLQ in the October Crisis of 1970.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In both cases this was major overkill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Emergencies Act like the War Measures
Act gives the government extraordinary powers of detention by putting the
governed under what is essentially martial law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It came into effect immediately upon being
invoked, although both Houses were required to confirm it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When it became apparent the Senate was not
likely to do so, Captain Airhead withdrew the invocation, but by this time the
damage had been done.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The thuggish
Ottawa police, led by one Steve Bell whose actions were so disgraceful that in
my opinion the Canadian contemporary Christian artist of the same name might
want to consider changing his, with the free rein given them had charged into
the throng of protesters on horseback, trampling on some, beating others with
batons, spraying many with pepper spray and tear gas, and otherwise brutalizing
people who merely wanted the basic freedoms supposedly guaranteed to them by
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms restored.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They were arrested in droves, their vehicles were vandalized and
confiscated, and across the country the bank accounts of people who had donated
to the protest were frozen.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In
accordance with the requirements of the Emergencies Act an inquiry was called
and while Captain Airhead attempted to frame the inquiry so that the light of
its scrutiny fell upon the protesters rather than the government he led, he did
not succeed in this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>During the
proceedings, in which Captain Airhead and his ministers testified, the
government claimed that it had received expert legal advice that the
Emergencies Act was necessary and that the conditions for invoking it had been
met but when asked to share that advice hid behind the privilege of
counsel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite their not being
forthcoming with the supposed grounds of their thinking the use of the
Emergencies Act was justified, in February of 2023 Justice Paul Rouleau who
headed the inquiry declared that the findings of his commission were that the “very
high threshold” for invoking the Emergencies Act had been met.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That this was not the case was obvious to
anyone with two brain cells to rub together.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Rouleau’s ruling was widely dismissed as yet more Liberal Party
cronyism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps there is another
explanation, but in any case, even had it ruled otherwise, the Public Order
Emergency Commission was a toothless body that only had powers to investigate
and give an opinion, not to make its findings binding in any way.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Federal
Court, by contrast, is a real court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Its decisions are binding in law and affect future rulings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When, therefore, its Justice Richard Mosley
ruled that the government’s invocation of the Emergency Act “</span>does not
bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and
intelligibility – and was not justified” this ruling has much more weight and
potential consequences than had it come from Rouleau’s Public Order Emergency
Commission.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It amounts, for example, to
a ruling that Captain Airhead and his Cabinet broke the law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not just in the sense of a misdemeanour or
even a regular felony.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They broke the
law in what is arguably the worst possible way in which politicians can break
the law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Without meeting the
requirements of the safeguards placed in the Emergencies Act to prevent this
very situation, they invoked the Act in order to make use of the extraordinary powers
it grants government in situations of real emergency and did so in order to
essentially declare war on Canadians who posed no threat to national security
and who were merely, peacefully if noisily, demanding that government abide by
the constitutional limits on its powers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We all knew at the time that this is what they were doing, this is what
the testimony before the Public Order Emergency Commission indicates even if
that body ruled otherwise, and now the Federal Court has affirmed it.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The only honourable thing left for Captain Airhead now – and
for Chrystia Freeland and anyone else involved in that debacle – is to resign,
and not just resign but follow the lead of David Lametti, who had been Minister
of Justice and Attorney General at the time, and get out of politics altogether.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately, people like Captain Airhead
and Chrystia Freeland have no honour, and if they ever heard the word would
probably have a conversation that would go like this: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chrystia Freeland: “Duh, what’s honour?” <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Captain Airhead: “Duh, I don’t know, a dress?”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chrystia Freeland: “Duh, that’s sexist!”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My apologies for making Captain Airhead and Chrystia
Freeland seem more intelligent in the above than they actually are.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is difficult to invent dialogue that
reaches their level of imbecility.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So they are likely going to cling to power to the bitter
end.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fortunately, coming so soon after a
year in which what was left of their popularity rapidly swirled down the drain
and was gone, this is probably going to hasten that end.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Federal Court ruling could not have come at a better
time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Tucker Carlson, formerly of FOX
News, now with the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, came up to
Alberta this week to speak in Calgary and Edmonton.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He took our government to task for its
promotion of Christophobic hate, for its promotion of social and cultural
capital eroding mass immigration, for its insane MAID (medical assistance in
dying) program and its equally insane drug policy (harm reduction through safe
supply).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Needless to say, I have no
objections to what Carlson said on these matters and probably agree with 98% of
it if not higher.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It very much amused
me to see Captain Airhead’s remaining flunkies, such as Steven Guilbeault whose
past as an eco-nut ought to have disqualified him from his current position of
Minister of Environment, have kittens over his speeches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is almost as comical as the mainstream
media’s attempts to portray Carlson as a promoter of “white supremacy”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One can only hope they continue to lay it on
thick, because the more they do so, the less meaning that expression will have,
and the sooner the day will come when liberals will no longer be able to use it
as a stick to beat and frighten people with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Most amusing of all, however, was how Carlson packaged his appearance by
saying that he was coming to “liberate Canada” from Captain Airhead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is funny on two levels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is the level intended by Carlson, which was basically the verbal
equivalent of poking Captain Airhead in the eyes or pulling some other similar gag
from the Three Stooges.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then there is
the level unintended by Carlson – the hilarity in the very idea of an American “liberating”
Canada or anywhere else for that matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Americans believe their country to be uniquely built on liberty, and in
a way that is true, but the American concept of liberty is basically what you
get when you take the ancient heresy of Pelagianism and the Puritan version of
Calvinism and produce a Hegelian synthesis from these antitheses. This is a
pale substitute for freedom as conceived by pre-Modern orthodox Christianity,
which flourishes best under the reign of a king, like our own King Charles
III.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Freedom” as John Farthing put it “wears a
crown”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The United States was founded in revolt
against the order of Christendom, as modified in the English Reformation, and
as Loyalist Canada inherited it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As far
from our roots as we have come, I note, that eventually, our Federal Court,
ruled against the legality and constitutionality of Captain Airhead’s most
egregious overstep over the powers of his office.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Carlson’s own country, four years ago,
Donald the Orange, winning a larger number of votes than when he was first
elected president, somehow lost the election to J. Brandon Magoo, who was
unpopular even among Democrat voters - how he got the nomination is something
of a mystery, and who didn’t campaign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Magoo, who obviously belongs in a rest home somewhere, is equally
obviously the puppet of somebody else who is actually governing the United
States in line with the globalist-internationalist-high immigration-free
trade-invade-the-world-invite-the-world consensus that prevailed during the
Bush I-Clinton-Bush II-Obama administrations and against which Donald the
Orange had successfully campaigned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For
four years Americans have been kept from having any kind of serious national
discussion about the shenanigans that clearly must have taken place for Magoo
to have won that election, by the fear of reprisals from the regime.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This fear was instilled by the Magoo regime’s
successful efforts to portray the events that transpired on Capitol Hill,
Epiphany 2021 as an “insurrection” against the American order supported by the
past president.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Before being ousted
from FOX, Carlson broadcast film footage that cast serious doubt upon that
narrative of which there had already been plenty of good reasons to be suspicious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Captain Airhead in the narrative he tried to
spin about the Freedom Convoy in invoking the Emergencies Act was clearly trying
to import into Canada the narrative that has worked so well to prop up the
Magoo regime in the United States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
failed, however, to make the inquiry into the Emergencies Act a witch hunt for
his political enemies, the way the Democrats have made the inquiries into the
Capitol Hill incident a witch hunt against Donald the Orange and his supporters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The inquiry was into his actions, not those
of the Freedom Convoy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the
Commission ruled in his favour, an actual Court finally ruled his actions to be
illegal. Let us pray, for Tucker Carlson’s sake and for the sake of his country
that the lies propping up the Magoo regime will meet with a similar fate.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">God Save the King!</p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-10270904362581269752024-01-19T06:14:00.001-06:002024-01-19T06:59:09.865-06:00The Foundation of the Creed<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Creed
is Christianity’s most important statement of faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By contrast with Confessions like the
Lutheran Augsburg Confession, the Reformed Belgic Confession, or our Anglican
Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion which are lengthy statements of how the
Christian faith is understood and taught by particular communions or
denominations within Christianity, the Creed is Catholic, which means that it
is the statement of the basic faith of all Christians everywhere in all times.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the earliest centuries of Christianity
multiple different versions of it could be found in different regions of the
Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the fourth century an
Eastern version of the Creed was modified in the First Councils of Nicaea (325
AD) and Constantinople (381 AD) into the Creed that remains the most truly
ecumenical (belonging to the whole Church) to this day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What we call the Apostles’ Creed is a shorter
and simpler version that also dates from the earliest centuries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The name Apostles’ Creed comes from the
traditional account of its origin – that it was drawn up on the first
Whitsunday, the Christian Pentecost the account of which is given in Acts 2, by
the Apostles (including Matthias) themselves with each contributing one of the
twelve articles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This account is
ancient – St. Ambrose and Rufinus of Aquileia both made mention of it at the
end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth centuries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Apostles’ Creed as we know it today is
slightly modified from the version these men knew which is the Creed that was
used in baptism by the Church in Rome at least as early as the second century
in which it was quoted by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The early attestation to the traditional
account indicates that there is likely truth to it, although such truth as
there is to it must apply either to the Roman Creed as St. Irenaeus and
Tertullian knew it or perhaps more likely to an earlier version that became the
template of both the Roman Creed and the Eastern version that was adapted into
the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Religious
liberals in their efforts to purge Christianity of all that is essentially
Christian have made much out of the fact that none of the articles in the Creed
is an affirmation of the “fundamentalist” view of the Bible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is true, of course, that nothing like “and
I believe in one Holy Bible, verbally inspired by God, infallible and inerrant
in every way” can be found in the Creed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is also true, however, that it was never thought necessary to include
such an article because it is assumed as underlying every single article that
is confessed in the Creed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What
liberals dismiss as the “fundamentalist” view of the Bible is more accurately
described as the Catholic view of the Bible – that which has been held by
Christians, throughout the whole Church, in all regions and ages, since the
Apostles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Some liberals
disparage the “fundamentalist” view of the Bible as being too literalist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What is excessive literalism to a liberal is
not necessarily excessive literalism to a normal, intelligent, Christian,
however.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When Psalm 91:4 says “</span><span style="background: white;">He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his
wings shalt thou trust</span>” nobody takes this as proof of God
literally having avian characteristics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If anybody were to interpret this verse that way this would be regarded
as excessive literalism or hyper-literalism by every “fundamentalist”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When, however, the final chapters of each of
the Gospels give an account of the tomb of Jesus being found empty on the
Sunday after His Crucifixion and of His followers encountering Him in His
restored-to-life body, liberals think it excessive literalism to understand these
as historical accounts of Jesus having actually come back to life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To a liberal, any reading of these accounts
as meaning anything more than that His disciples felt Him present with them
after His Crucifixion is excessively literal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The reality, of course, is not that the “fundamentalist” interpretation is
excessively literal but that the liberal interpretation is insufficiently
literal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Catholic view of Biblical
truth is that it is more than literal, not that it is less than literal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition to the literal sense of the
Bible, there is also the typological sense (for example, Moses led Israel up to
the border of the Promised Land but could not lead them in, it was Joshua, who
had the same name as our Lord and Saviour, who brought them into the Promised
Land, illustrating that the Law cannot bring anyone to salvation, only the grace
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ can do that), the tropological sense (when a
practical moral for everyday living is illustrated from the text), and the
anagogical sense (in which truth about the eternal and the beyond is gleaned
from texts that literally pertain to the temporal and to this world, somewhat the
opposite of “immanentizing the eschaton”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In traditional hermeneutics and exegesis, however, each of these senses
rests upon the foundation that is the literal sense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Get rid of the literal sense and each other sense
collapses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, when you hear
someone explain these other senses in such a way as to disparage the literal
sense, you are not hearing the Catholic understanding of the Bible but rather
liberalism trying to pass itself off as Catholicism.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Other liberals disparage the “fundamentalist” view of the
Bible for its conviction that the Bible is inerrant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>James Barr, for example, a Scottish liberal “Biblical
scholar” who a few decades back wrote several anti-fundamentalist diatribes, maintained
that the problem with “fundamentalism” was not its literalism but its
commitment to inerrancy which led it to adopt interpretations that in his
opinion were less literal than the text warranted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Biblical
inerrancy, however, is not just a “fundamentalist” view but the Catholic view
of Christianity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Christian faith
has always rested upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, i.e., the
Old and New Testaments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The books of
the New Testament have been regarded since the earliest days of the Church as
belonging in the same category into which the Apostolic writers of the New
Testament place the books of the Old Testament, books in which God is the
Author speaking through the human writers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God does not make mistakes, the
Bible as His written Word is infallible and therefore inerrant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who like Barr claim to find mistakes
in the Bible can only do so by elevating some other source of information and
making it out to be a more reliable source than the Bible by which the
reliability of the Bible can be measured.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They purport, by measuring the
Bible against these other standards, to prove it to be less than infallible and
therefore merely a collection of human writings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their conclusion, however, is the necessary
premise for measuring the Bible against some other standard to begin with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the Bible is not merely a collection of
human writings but what the Church has always maintained it to be, the written
Word of God, there can be no more reliable standard against which to weigh
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, all other standards against
which Modern critics of the Bible purport to measure the Bible, are of admitted
human origin and fallibility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Modern
man’s attempt to debunk the infallible truth of God’s Word is just one big
ultimate example of the <i>petitio principia</i> fallacy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Catholic view of the Bible is that God spoke through the
human writers of the Old and New Testaments in such a way that the Bible is one
book with a single Author and that since that Author can make no mistakes His
book is infallible and inerrant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
is what Jesus Christ Himself claimed for the Scriptures when He declared that “scripture
cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35) and that “till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5:18),
when He answered the devil’s temptations with “it is written”, and when He rebuked
people like the Sadducees for their ignorance of the Scriptures (Matthew 22:29).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is what the Apostles claimed for the
Scriptures, (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21) including their own writings (1 Cor.
14:37, 1 Thess. 2:13-15).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is what
the Church Fathers claimed for the Scriptures beginning at the very beginning
with Clement of Rome (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">1 Clement </i>45:2-3).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the Fathers’ belief in the Bible as
the inspired and infallible Word of God is more often displayed in their usage
of the Bible as the authority for proving doctrine than in discussion of it as
a doctrine in its own right notable examples of explicit statement of this faith
include St. Irenaeus’s affirmation of the inspiration and perfection of the
Bible, (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Against Heresies</i>, 2.28:2), St.
Justin Marty’s statement of his conviction that no Scripture contradicts
another (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dialogue with Trypho</i>, 65), Origen’s
comparison of those who think there are such contradictions to those who cannot
detect the harmony in music (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Commentary
on Matthew</i>, 2), and St. Augustine’s running defense of the truth of the Scriptures
in his letters to St. Jerome include the statement with regards to the
canonical books of Scripture “Of these alone do I most firmly believe that
their authors were completely free from error” (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Letters</i>, 82).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While the Catholic (or “fundamentalist”) view of the Bible
is not explicitly affirmed as an article in the Creed this is because it is
implicit in all of the articles, each of which affirms a basic truth of the
faith that we know to be the faith the Apostles received from Christ because it
is recorded as such in the Bible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
was not left without direct allusion in the ecumenical and conciliar version of
the Creed which follows St. Paul’s declaration of the Gospel in 1 Corinthians
15 in affirming of Christ’s resurrection that it was “according to the
Scriptures” and which affirms of the Holy Ghost that He “spake by the prophets”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The verbal, plenary, inspiration, authority,
and infallibility of the Bible as God’s written Word, therefore, is the
unspoken, unwritten, article that is the very foundation of the Creed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Earlier we discussed how some liberals use the accusation of
excessive literalism in order to evade the truths of orthodox Christianity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both excessive and insufficient literalism
can lead to serious error or heresy, although in the case of liberalism its insufficient
literalism is merely a mask to hide its essential nature which is rank
infidelity or unbelief.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The articles of
the Creed are helpful in demonstrating the proper limits of literalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each of the articles is a literal truth the
denial of the literal truth of which amounts to unbelief in the Christian
faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The passages which speak these
truths are the clearest in the Scriptures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>These are the passages to which the perspicuity of the Scriptures, that
is to say their plain clarity so that laymen can understand them, so emphasized
by the Reformers and ironically illustrated by the absence of words like
perspicuity from the Bible, refer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any
attempt to use the allegorical, tropological or anagogical senses to explain
away the literal meaning of the passages in which the truths of the articles of
the Creed are found is a serious abuse of these hermeneutics for these truths
are also the truths to which these other senses of Scripture generally point in
passages that are less clear.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Affirmation of the literal truth of each and all of the articles
of the Creed, in both the Apostles’ and Nicene-Constantinopolitan versions, including
the unspoken foundational article of the inspiration and infallibility of God’s
written Word, remains the best safeguard of orthodox Christian truth against
heresy. <span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-92103163256436295132024-01-01T00:05:00.002-06:002024-01-01T13:12:28.746-06:00Hier Stehe Ich!<p> Every year since I started Throne, Altar, Liberty I have, on the kalends of January which is the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ on the Church Kalendar and New Year's Day on the civil calendar, posted an essay summarizing where I stand on matters political, religious and cultural, the subjects on which I write. It is a custom I adopted from one of my own favourite writers, the late Charley Reese of the <i>Orlando Sentinel</i>. I have often used Dr. Luther's famous "Here I Stand" as the title in one language or another. This year it is the German original. Each year it is a challenge to write this anew because, while I hope my views have matured they have remained basically the same. Each year I have to resist the temptation to just point to T. S Eliot's "Anglo-Catholic in religion, royalist in politics, classicist in literature" and say ditto. I usually do make reference to Eliot's famous self-description, which I read as a twentieth-century update of the definition of Tory that Dr. Johnson wrote for his dictionary, because it provides a handy frame on which to organize my thoughts.</p><p><br /></p><p>Before getting into my views I will provide as usual some basic background information about myself. I am a patriotic citizen of Commonwealth Realm that is the Dominion of Canada and a loyal subject of His Majesty King Charles III as I was all my life prior to his accession of his mother of Blessed Memory, our late Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth II. I love my country's traditional institutions, Loyalist history, and basically everything about Canada that the sniveling twit who currently occupies the Prime Minister's Office either wishes we would forget or is endlessly apologizing for. I have lived all my life in the province of Manitoba, where I was raised on a farm near the village of Oak River and the town of Rivers, where I studied theology for five years at what is now Providence University College - at the time it was Providence College and Theological Seminary - in Otterbourne which is a small college town south of the provincial capital, Winnipeg, where I have lived for the almost quarter of a century since.</p><p><br /></p><p>Am I, like T. S. Eliot an "Anglo-Catholic in religion"? If by Anglo-Catholic you mean holding the theology expressed in the <i>Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology</i>, the admirable collection published by John Henry Parker in the nineteenth century of the writings of the classical Anglican divines of the centuries previous including Lancelot Andrewes, the martyred King Charles I's martyred Archbishop William Laud and the other Caroline Divines, the scholarly apologist for Trinitarian orthodoxy Bishop George Bull and the Non-Juror George Hickes, I would say yes. If you mean embracing the views of the Oxford Movement I would be more hesitant. I think that the most important thing Keble, Newman, Pusey et al. got right was that the truest and most important establishment of the Church was that by Christ through His Apostles rather than establishment by the state. I have far less sympathy for the tendency that manifested itself in some, not all, of them to look Romeward, to regret the Reformation for reasons other than that all schism that harms the visible unity of the Church is regrettable, and to regard the Anglican formularies with a "this will have to do for now" type attitude. The Vincentian Canon, "that which is believed everywhere, at all times, and by all", and its tests of antiquity (does it go back to the Apostles), universality (is it held throughout the Church in all regions and ages rather than particular to one time and place), and consent (was it affirmed by the Church's leadership in a way that was subsequently received as authoritative throughout the Church) is in my view the right way of determining what is truly Catholic, not whether it has been declared dogma by the Patriarch of Rome or one of the Councils that his adherents have held since the Great Schism between East and West. I come from a family in which most of my relatives were either United Church (Presbyterian/Methodist) or Anglican, became a believer with an evangelical conversion when I was 15, was baptized by immersion in a Baptist church while a teenager and confirmed in the Anglican Church as an adult. As my theology matured I came to realize and respect the Symbols handed down from the ancient Church - the Apostles' and Nicene (Constantinopolitan) Creeds and the Athanasian Symbol - as the basic definitions of Scriptural orthodoxy, to recognize that episcopalian Church government is not adiaphora but clearly established in the New Testament (the Apostles governed the whole Church, while it was localized in Jerusalem they exercised the authority Christ gave them to establish the order of deacons, after the Church was scattered they appointed presbyters or elders over the local Churches which seems to be something they borrowed from the synagogues, and as their ministries closed they passed on to others, Scriptural examples of which include SS Timothy and Titus their government over the Church including the power to ordain the lower orders), and that the ministers of the Church are priests (St. Paul explicitly states this of himself in the Greek of Romans 15:15) charged not with offering new sacrifices but with feeding the people of God with Christ's One Sacrifice through the Sacramental medium of bread and wine. Thus I am basically a High Anglican of the pre-Oxford type, with a Lutheran soteriology, and a fundamentalist-minus-the-separatism approach to basic orthodoxy who regards every article of the ancient Symbols taken literally as fundamental and the Bible as God's written Word, by verbal, plenary inspiration, infallible and inerrant, which we are to believe and obey rather than to subject to "criticism" based on the false notion that because God used human writers to write the book of which He is the Author that it is a human book rather than a divine book. Criticism based on that false notion makes fools out of those who engage in it, whether it be the higher critics who think that the fact that Moses varied which name for God he used means that his books were slapped together by some editor after the Babylonian Captivity from previously separate sources despite the total lack of anything such as examples of these "sources" in a pre-"redaction" state of the type that would logically constitute actual evidence or the lower or textual critics who think that the most authentic text of the New Testament is not to be found in that that has been handed down in the Church as evidenced by the thousands of manuscripts she has used (these are of the Byzantine text type) but either in small handful of old manuscripts that were not in general use and were particular to one region (the Alexandrian text) or in something slapped together by text critics in the last century which can be found in no manuscript whatsoever (the eclectic text). Someone who makes the false idea that the Bible is a human book rather than God's book the basis of his study of it will end up drawing unsubstantiated conclusions about it that no competent scholar would similarly draw about actual human books and will end up sounding like a blithering idiot. So expect me to thump the Authorized (1611) Bible as I tell you that salvation is a free gift that God has given to all us sinners in Jesus Christ, that the only means whereby we can receive it is faith, that faith is formed in us by the Holy Ghost through the Gospel brought to us in the Word and Sacrament ministered to us by the Church whose Scripturally established governors under her Head, Jesus Christ, are the bishops in whose order the ordinary governing office of the Apostles has continued to this day.</p><p><br /></p><p>That I am a "royalist in politics" should already be evident from the second paragraph if it is not sufficiently evident from the title of my website. I will add here that I am also a monarchist. For some that will be a redundancy, the two terms being for them interchangeable. It is for the sake of others who distinguish between the two that I add that I am both. I am a much stronger monarchist than those Canadian conservatives are who are basically liberal democrats but who defend our monarchy because it is our tradition and make its non-interference with their real political ideal the sole basis of their argument. I have been instinctually a monarchist all my life. While C. S. Lewis famously said that monarchy is an idea easily debunked but those who debunk it impoverish and bring misery upon themselves (I am paraphrasing from memory, Lewis said it better than that) I have found as I have studied the matter over the years that monarchy is rationally defensible. Plato and Aristotle argued that the rule of true kings is the best of simple constitutions and I think their arguments still stand, just as I think that in our age the divisiveness, partisanship, and other evils that attend upon democratically elected government make an ironclad case for hereditary monarchy that makes the unifying figure at the head of the state one who does not owe his office to partisan politics. Thus I would say that we should be arguing that our monarchy is essential not that it is merely acceptable. The Canadian Tory classic by John Farthing, <i>Freedom Wears a Crown</i>, makes a strong case for monarchy's essential role in our constitution similar to that frequently made by Eugene Forsey. I am grateful to Ron Dart for drawing my attention to these men and their books years ago. I find little to admire in the Modern ideal of democracy and defend instead the institution of Parliament for while Parliament is, of course, a democratic institution it is also a traditional one, a concrete institution that predates the Modern Age and has long proven its worth, which to me outweighs all the flimsy arguments Moderns make for democracy. Ultimately, I have found a sure and certain foundation for monarchism in orthodox Christianity. God is the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the absolute Sovereign Ruler of His Creation, i.e., all other than Himself that exists. In the governance of the universe, we find the ideal form - think Plato here - of government, of which temporal earthly governments are imperfect representations and to which, the greater their conformity, the more their perfection will be. This is why the most orthodox forms of Christianity - traditional Anglicanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, traditional Roman Catholicism, and the better kind of Lutheranism - saw Christian monarchy as the highest form of earthly civilization, and the least orthodox forms that can still be seen as Christian in some recognizable sense, Puritanism and Anabaptism, are the ones that contradicted the obvious implication of the title "King of Kings" by saying "no king but King Jesus". </p><p><br /></p><p>It is in the sense of someone who holds the views expressed in the previous two paragraphs and not in the common partisan sense of the word that I call myself a Tory. The words "conservative" and "right-wing" as they are used today, even by most who self-apply them, have had their meaning defined for them by the very liberalism and the Left they purport to oppose. Liberalism is the spirit of the Modern Age. It consists of the demand for ever increasing liberty (in the sense of individual autonomy) and equality, despite the fact obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that these two cannot be maximized at the same time. The universal homogeneity that it demands would if actualized be the ultimate form of totalitarian tyranny in which freedom, the real human good and not liberalism's false ideal of liberty/individual autonomy, would be eliminated entirely. The Left also worships liberalism's false gods and historically has differed from liberalism primarily in its notion of how to achieve their goal. A century ago the Left was identified primarily with socialism, the idea that all of man's problems can be traced to economic equality arising out of the private ownership of property and are solvable by eliminating private ownership and replacing it with public ownership. From the standpoint of orthodox Christianity this is utterly repugnant because it misdiagnoses the human condition (the correct diagnosis is sin), prescribes the wrong medicine (the right medicine is the grace of God freely given to man in Jesus Christ), and is basically the second worst of the Seven Deadly Sins, Envy, disguising itself with the mask of the highest of the Christian virtues, charitable love. Today, the Left is identified primarily with an expression arising out of American racial grievance politics, "wokeness". "Wokeness" is like socialism in that it claims (generally falsely) to be the mouthpiece for the oppressed, but differs from socialism in that it it does not divide people into oppressor/oppressed by economic status (Marx's "haves" and "have nots") but by a legion of personal identities based on such things as race, sex, gender, etc. Some, such as Dr. Paul Gottfried, have argued on the basis of specific content that today's Left is something totally different from the Left of a century ago, from the standpoint of orthodox Christianity there is a discernable continuity in the Left. Whether it speaks in terms of economics or in the terms of race and sex, the Left is an entirely destructive movement, driven by hatred of civilization as it historically has existed for not living up to the false and self-contradictory ideals of liberalism, that, whenever it has succeeded in tearing something down, has never been able to build anything good let alone better on the ashes of the good if not perfect that it destroyed. The orthodox Christian must condemn this utterly because it clearly displays the spirit of Satan who operates out of the same hatred directed towards God. Therefore I describe my orthodox Christian monarchist views as Tory and reactionary (in John Lukacs' sense of the term, basically someone willing to think outside the Modern box, not by embracing the nihilism of post-Modernism but rather the good in the pre-Modern), preferring these terms over conservative which for the most part denotes a false opposition to liberalism and Left defined entirely by liberalism and the Left.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for being a "classicist in literature" I think that if we take this to mean someone who seeks to learn from Matthew Arnold's "the best that has been thought and said" this is a goal that someone with the views expressed above can recognize as most worthy to pursue with regards not just to literature and reading, but to the other elements of culture such as music and the visual arts as well. It is also a difficult one to consistently follow as many are the enticements, more so today than ever before, to distract one from the classical heights of the Great Books and the Great Tradition into the murky swamps of corporate, mass-manufactured, pop culture. I have striven to follow this goal on and off again - it makes an excellent resolution for those who do that sort of thing today - with varying degrees of success at resisting the distractions. Perversely, I have found stubborn contrariness has often been a great motivator in this regards. I read Mark Twain's remark that a "classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read" years ago and thought to myself "Sez you, Sam Clemens" and set out to read nothing but classics, persisting in this for several months. Similarly, Thomas Fleming, the former editor of <i>Chronicles Magazine</i> several times enriched my reading habits with remarks about about books nobody was familiar with today prompting a "Sez you, Tom Fleming" response. Today, as the Left in its "woke" form as described in the previous paragraph has laid siege to the Great Books and the Great Tradition it is more important than ever to reacquaint ourselves with "the best that has been thought and said". This is a far better and ultimately more effective way of resisting wokeness than generating and posting any number of anti-woke internet memes could ever be. So I resolve today once again to seek to elevate my reading, listening and viewing habits in 2024 and encourage you to do the same.</p><p><br /></p><p>Happy New Year!</p><p>God Save the King!</p><p><br /></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-38104731620690656862023-12-20T07:10:00.005-06:002023-12-20T07:15:07.367-06:00And the Word Was Made Flesh<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">St. John is
not the first of the Four Evangelists that we usually think of in association
with Christmas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is St. Matthew and
St. Luke who provide us with the narrative of our Lord’s nativity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Luke tells of the census of Caesar
Augustus that required Joseph and the Virgin Mary to journey to Bethlehem where
they found no room in the inn and so had to lodge in the stable where the Lord
Jesus was born.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Luke also tells us
of the angelic choir who appeared to the shepherds and directed them to where
they might find the newborn Messiah.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>St. Matthew tells us of the visit of the wise men from the East bringing
the gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is St. John, however, who plainly states the importance of these
events:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us</span></i><span style="background: white;"> (Jn. 1:14)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This is a
theological statement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It, and the
words which immediately follow after in which the Evangelist testifies to his
and others (SS Peter and James at the Transfiguration) having beheld the glory
of the Word, conclude the extended theological discourse about the Word that
serves as a preamble to the fourth Gospel.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">That the
celebration of the birth of our Saviour is a time for deep theological
reflection was evidently an opinion shared by the writers of the most familiar
and loved of Christmas carols.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Think of
these words from what Charles Wesley called his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Hymn for Christmas Day</i> later retitled <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Hark the Herald Angels Sing</i> by George Whitefield:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Veil'd in Flesh the
Godhead see,<br />
Hail th' incarnate Deity!<br />
Pleas'd as Man with Men t'appear,<br />
Jesus our Emmanuel here.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Since the days of Wesley and Whitefield the last two lines
have been further revised to “Pleased as Man with Men to dwell/Jesus our
Emmanuel” but the import is the same and it is also the same as that of John
1:14 – God came down and took on human flesh and dwelt among us.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Or think of the second stanza of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Adeste Fideles</i>, known in English as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">O Come, All Ye Faithful</i>, the composition of which is uncertain but
which was first published to our knowledge by John Francis Wade in the eighteenth
century (Frederick Oakeley was the translator for the English version):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Deum de Deo, lumen de
lumine<br />
Gestant puellæ viscera<br />
Deum verum, genitum non factum.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Or in English:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God of God, light of
light,<br />
Lo, he abhors not the Virgin's womb;<br />
Very God, begotten, not created.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is largely taken from the Nicene Creed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It comes from the section of the Creed that
addresses the Arian heresy that the Nicene Council was convened to deal with.
(1)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These words were put in to make it absolutely
clear that the Jesus in Whom the Church places her faith is God, co-equal and
co-eternal, with the Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The middle
line references the ancient hymn <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Te Deum
Laudamus</i> traditionally attributed to St. Ambrose of Milan.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Later in the carol we find this more direct reference to
John 1:14:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Patris aeterni Verbum
caro factum</i><i><span face=""Arial",sans-serif" lang="LA" style="background: white; color: #202122; font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: LA;">.</span></i><i><span lang="LA" style="background: white; color: #202122; mso-ansi-language: LA;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="LA" style="background: white; color: #202122; mso-ansi-language: LA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #202122; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">A literal translation would
be “The Word of the Eternal Father made flesh”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the usual English version it is rendered:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #202122; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #202122; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white; color: #202122; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This, the Incarnation, is the key theological truth of
Christmas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the Gospel message is
focused on the events of Good Friday and Easter, in which Jesus took our sins
upon Himself, paid the penalty as our Redeemer, defeated the foes who had long
held us captive – sin, the devil, death, hell – and rose triumphant over them
from the grave, none of this would have been possible without the events of
Christmas, without the Incarnation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Just as the joy of the empty tomb and the encounters with the risen Lord
could not have been had there not first been the sorrow and the suffering of
the Cross, so there could have been neither Cross nor empty tomb, had there not
first been that birth in the stable in Bethlehem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The road to Calvary – and what came after –
began at the manger.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There are some who like to tell us that “Logos” in John
1:14, and the entire Johannine preamble to which it belongs, should not have
been translated “Word” in English.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The English
word “Word”, they tell us, does not do justice to the Greek word.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While they are partly right in that the
Greek word has a lot more meaning to unpack than is suggested by its English equivalent
it is very wrong to say that any word other than “Word” could properly render
Logos in the Gospel of St. John.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To
render it otherwise, as Reason perhaps, or Logic, might bring out some of the
philosophical implications of Logos, but would lose the significance that St.
John himself attached to Logos in using it to identify Him Who became Incarnate
and was born of the Virgin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The very
first words of the preamble “En archei” are an obvious allusion to the first
words of Genesis – “in the beginning”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>After asserting of the Logos that He was with God and that He was God –
two Persons, co-equal, co-eternal – , and repeating for emphasis that He was in
the beginning with God, the very next thing St. John says of the Logos is “panta
di’ autou egeneto kai choris auto egeneto oude hen ho gegonen”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Authorized Bible faithfully and
accurately renders that as “All things were made by him, and without him was
not anything made that was made”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
too alludes to the first chapter of Genesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The first verse of Genesis says “In the beginning, God
created the heaven and the earth”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
introduces us explicitly to the Father, the God <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">with </i>Whom, the Logos/Word was in the beginning according to John
1:1.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God the Son, the Logos/Word
through Whom all things were made is implicit in the verse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy
Ghost, is introduced to us in the second verse “<span style="background: white;">And
the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters</span>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then in the third verse He Who was implicit
in the first is brought out into the open and introduced to us explicitly “And
God said, Let there be light: and there was light”. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">These words “And God said”
occur throughout the Creation account.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The sixth verse “</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">And God
said</i>, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it
divide the waters from the waters.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
ninth verse “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">And God said</i>, Let the
waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry
land appear: and it was so.” The eleventh verse “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">And God said</i>, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding
seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in
itself, upon the earth: and it was so.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Verses fourteen to fifteen “ <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">And
God said</i>, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the
day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days,
and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give
light upon the earth: and it was so.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The twentieth verse “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">And God said</i>,
Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and
fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The twenty fourth verse: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">And God said</i>, Let the earth bring forth
the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of
the earth after his kind: and it was so.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Finally the twenty-sixth verse “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">And
God said</i>, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over
the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When St. John says of the Word, “all things were made by
him, and without him was not anything made that was made”, this summarizes the
entire first chapter of Genesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God the
Father created all things by speaking them into existence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God the Son is the living Word thus spoken
through Whom the Father created all things. This is Who St. John tells us “was
made flesh and dwelt among us”. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, as usual, the translators of the
Authorized Bible got it right, and the preachers who like to think they are a
lot smarter than they actually are have it wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(2) Word, and only Word, is the right word
for Logos in the English of John 1:1-14.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The All-Powerful Word of God, Who was with God the Father
from the beginning, and sharing His divine essence is Himself God, became flesh
and dwelt among us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was, as He
Himself told Nicodemus in John 3:16, God’s gift to us – the first Christmas
gift.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
The response that this calls for from us is that of the refrain of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Adeste Fideles</i>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">O come, let us
adore Him<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">O come, let us
adore Him<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">O come, let us
adore Him<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Christ the Lord.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Merry Christmas!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> (1)</o:p><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Speaking
of the Nicene Council, the sixth century Church historian Theodorus Lector in
his </span><i style="text-indent: -18pt;">Historia Tripartita</i><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> lists the
Right Reverend Nicholas, Bishop of Myra as having been in attendance.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Yes, that is </span><i style="text-indent: -18pt;">the </i><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Saint Nicholas.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">According
to later legends, he slapped either Arius himself or one of the heresiarch’s
followers in the face at the Council.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">(2)</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Preachers
who think they are a lot smarter than they actually are tend to come out of the
woodworks at this time of the year.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">There are those who like to tell us that Jesus couldn’t have been born
in December and that the Church borrowed a pagan holiday when she made December
25</span><sup style="text-indent: -18pt;">th</sup><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> Christmas.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Hippolytus
of Rome, who died almost a century prior to the first Council of Nicaea wrote
that Jesus was born eight days before the kalends of January, and a December
birth is the implication of the account of the angel’s visit to Zechariah in
St. Luke’s Gospel.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Zechariah was of the
division of Abijah that served in the Temple during the week of Yom Kippur in
September/October.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">The sixth month of
Elizabeth’s pregnancy, therefore, would have been March/April, when the
conception of Jesus took place, making His birth in December/January.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Then there are those who claim Jeremiah 10
forbids Christmas trees.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">These might
have a point if anyone burned incense to a Christmas tree, offered it a
sacrifice, or prayed to it, but as this is not what is typically done with
Christmas trees, which are decorations not idols, these preachers merely prove
themselves to be Pharisaical clowns of the worst sort.</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><o:p></o:p></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-35459647025255169962023-12-08T04:41:00.000-06:002023-12-08T04:41:18.072-06:00Your Holiday Reading Assignment<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">At the
beginning of this, the first week in Advent, we in the Dominion of Canada were
given an early Christmas gift.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On
Monday the book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://www.amazon.ca/Grave-Error-Misled-Residential-Schools/dp/B0CP465ZPP/">Grave
Error: How the Media Misled Us (And the Truth About Residential Schools)</a> </i>was
released.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This book was co-written by C. P. Champion,
historian and editor of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dorchester
Review</i> and Tom Flanagan, historian, political scientists, and former adviser
to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It was co-published by <a href="https://www.dorchesterreview.ca/pages/dorchesterbooks">Dorchester Books</a>,
the book imprint of the semi-annual history journal that Champion edits, and by
<a href="https://tnc.news/grave-error/">True North Media</a>, the online media
company that is one of the few sources of news in our country not under the
thumb of the current Prime Minister, the evil Captain Airhead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A foreword was contributed by the Right
Honourable Baron Black of Crossharbour.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The book, from the description of it provided by its publishers,
addresses the many misconceptions, partial truths, and outright lies that a far
too large percentage of the population have accepted with regards to the Indian
Residential Schools since Canada’s corrupt and dishonourable mainstream media,
with the backing of our corrupt and dishonourable politicians and academics, turned
the announcement of the discovery of ground disturbances on the site of the
former Kamloops Residential School a couple of summers ago into a pretext for
launching a disgusting campaign of hate directed against our country, her
founders, her historical leaders, and her churches.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This is a
book notice rather than a review.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
have not had the opportunity to read the book myself, yet, having only just
learned of it this week, and am not in the habit of reviewing books that I have
not read.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am familiar with the
writers and publishers, however, and on that basis am quite confident that it
is everything it advertises itself to be and on those grounds am comfortable
with recommending it to others.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The timing
of this book’s release could not be more fortuitous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On 30 November, <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/p-e-i-councillor-suspended-fined-500-for-posting-anti-indigenous-sign/ar-AA1kNqm9?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=ACTS&cvid=e01efe1b2a3f443da98065f045756484&ei=14">the
Canadian Press reported</a> that John Robertson, a municipal counsellor in
Murray Harbour, Prince Edward Island, had been suspended for six months, fined
$500 and ordered to write a letter of apology, for displaying a sign on his own
property that said “Truth: Mass grave hoax” and “Reconciliation: Redeem Sir
John A.’s integrity”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There was nothing
wrong with that sign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the CBC and
other mainstream media outlets took the Kamloops band’s announcement that it
had discovered what it believed to be unmarked graves, a claim that as it
turned out itself exceeded what its evidentiary basis could support, and
exaggerated that into a claim of mass graves, hoax is indeed the appropriate
word to describe it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That anybody,
anywhere in this country, could be suspended from duty and fined for standing
up for the reputation of the leading Father of Confederation, our first and
greatest Prime Minister, is obscene.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This incident, however, is an indicator of something much larger that is
underway in our country. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The forces in
media, academia and government, bent on tearing apart the foundation of our
country and civilization, who have latched on to the Residential Schools
narrative as a means of accomplishing their unholy, Satan inspired, Year Zero,
Cultural Maoist ends, have grown bolder in their intolerance of any dissent
from their narrative as the flimsy from the onset evidentiary support for that
narrative has eroded away to nothing due to the efforts of researchers, such as
those associated with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy here in Winnipeg,
who have been willing to examine that evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They have weighed it in the balance over and
over again, and as with King Belshazzar in the book of Daniel, it has been
found to be wanting every time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Cultural Maoists are demanding that these researchers and everyone who repeats
their findings be silenced.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is
even a movement in Parliament to outright criminalize disagreement with the
narrative.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This is why
it is so timely that a book like this, challenging that narrative head on, has
appeared.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is also why it is
imperative that we get it into the hands of as many Canadians as possible.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Get your
copy today.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-28164301114304144692023-12-01T08:18:00.001-06:002023-12-01T08:43:43.652-06:00Sheep and Goats, Law and Gospel<p><i>When the Son of man
shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit
upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and
he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the
goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the
left. Then shall the King say unto them
on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared
for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me
meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and
ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we
thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw
we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when
saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall
answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it
unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left
hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil
and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was
thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in:
naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then
shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or
athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister
unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch
as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall
go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. </i>Matthew
25:31-46</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Parable of the Sheep and Goats occurs at the very end of
a long discussion by Jesus that is traditionally called the Olivet Discourse
after the location where it was given, the Mount of Olives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This sermon occupies two chapters in the
Gospel according to St. Matthew.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Much
more abridged versions of it can be found in the Gospels according to SS Mark
and Luke.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was given on the Tuesday
of Passion Week, that is, the Tuesday after His Triumphal Entry to Jerusalem on
Palm Sunday and prior to His Crucifixion on Good Friday.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The occasion of His giving this sermon was
His having told His disciples that not one stone would be left on another of
the Second Temple, prompting the disciples to ask Him when this would be and
when would be the time of His Coming.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Olivet Discourse as a whole has long been a
hermeneutical conundrum.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is it
eschatological, that is to say, talking about the events that will take place at
the very end of temporal history at what we after the Ascension would call the
Second Coming of Christ?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is it
historical, that is to say, discussing events that took place within the first
century, specifically when the Roman army led by Titus crushed the Jewish
rebellion and destroyed the Temple.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Much
of the language within the Sermon is apocalyptic, suggesting that it is
eschatological.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The context, however, suggests
the historical interpretation since it was certainly the events of AD 70 to
which Jesus was referring when He predicted the dismantling of the Temple. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The closest thing to a traditional consensus is to say that
the Olivet Discourse pertains to both the events of AD 70 and those that will
occur at the end of time because the disciples had, without realizing it, asked
a question about both by conflating the Destruction of the Temple that Jesus
had been talking about with His Second Coming which, of course, they would not
have conceived of as a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Second </i>Coming
at that point in time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Accepting this
consensus does not solve the interpretive problem, however, because the
question then becomes how does the Discourse pertain to the events of the first
century and those of the end of time?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Is it a matter of everything in the Discourse having a double reference,
first to the events of AD 70 and second to the events surrounding the Second
Coming?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or does part of the Discourse
refer to the Destruction of the Temple and part to the end of time?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Something in between these two seems the most likely
answer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The parts of the Discourse that
most obviously are speaking of the Destruction of the Temple could easily be
understood as having a secondary reference to the Second Coming.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are other parts of the Discourse,
however, where the reference to the end of time is quite clear but which would
require a great deal of text-torture to fit the events of AD 70.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Parable of the Sheep and Goats is one of
these parts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Parable presents us with a different sort of
interpretive conundrum. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems to be
teaching that salvation is a reward for good works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How do we reconcile this with the rest of
the New Testament that teaches that salvation is a gift and not a reward for
works?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A few observations are in order.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The first is that the Parable is about the Last
Judgement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is why works are in
focus here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Works are the subject
matter of all judgement, temporal or final.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That is the nature of judgement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>To judge is to pronounce what someone has done to be either good and
praiseworthy or bad and worthy of condemnation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The question, therefore, is not so much how
this Parable squares with the New Testament teaching of salvation by grace but
how the idea of a Last Judgement squares with the idea of salvation by
grace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Parable, as we shall see,
sheds a lot of light on the answer to this question.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The second observation is that in the Parable the works are
not what determines who is a sheep and who is a goat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is amazing how often this obvious detail
is overlooked.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Parable does not say that the Judge will
say to some people, “I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and
ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed
me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and for this reason I count you as my sheep</i>”
and that He will say to others “I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was
thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in:
naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and for this reason I count you as goats</i>”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, they are divided into sheep and goats
first, then the judgement of each takes place.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The reason that it is important to note this is because of
our third observation: the Parable does not say that the corporal works of
mercy were done only by the sheep and never by the goats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What it says is that in the Judgement the
goats will be held strictly accountable and condemned for the slightest neglect
or failure to do these works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
sheep, on the other hand, will receive a very different sort of Judgement in
which they are rewarded for the slightest example of their doing such works.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The difference in the way the two groups are judged is
precisely the difference between Law and Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Law, God establishes His standard of
righteousness, holds people strictly to account, and “whosoever shall keep the
whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (Jas. 2:10).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The goats are those who receive Judgement
according to the Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the
Judgement that those who reject the Gospel will receive.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Gospel is the Good News to people who deserve the
Judgement the goats receive, and that is all of us, that God has given us His
Only-Begotten Son to save us from our sin and the destruction it brings upon us
through His death on the Cross for our sins and His Resurrection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The salvation proclaimed in the Gospel is
free and is received by believing in the Saviour given.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To believe in the freely given Saviour and
His salvation, however, one must abandon all claim to reward based on his own
merit and pronounce himself worthy of condemnation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hence the surprise on the part of the sheep
to hear their works brought up in a commendatory way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The sheep are those who had renounced their
works, renounced the idea that they could merit any reward from God, pronounced
themselves to be unprofitable servants, and put their trust in the freely given
mercy and grace of God in Jesus Christ.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That the Judge does commend their works and speak of their
entrance into His Kingdom as a reward is itself an act of mercy and grace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their works most certainly did not merit
this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Held up to the strict scrutiny of
the Law they would merit only the condemnation the goats received.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Judge, not as Judge at His Second Coming
but as Saviour at His First Coming, had taken their sin upon Himself that He
might share His righteousness with them, and the cleansing of His blood had
removed the sin from their works, that He might now at the Last Judgement, in
an act of pure grace, commend them for the works that did not merit such
commendation and could not be so commended apart from His saving mercy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-35734507427797218342023-11-24T05:06:00.001-06:002023-11-27T22:11:26.445-06:00The Bad News and the Good News<p>There is a
common trope in which someone says “I’ve got some good news and some bad news”
and then tells both in such a way that the good news doesn’t really seem all
that good. For example, he might follow
up by presenting one piece of news which horrifies his listener who then says
something to the effect of “that’s terrible, what’s the good news” only to be
told “that was the good news!”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">God’s Word
also contains good news and bad news.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Indeed, the very name of the good news in God’s Word is good news, for
this is the meaning of the Greek word “euangelion” and the English word
“Gospel” that translates it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a much
older form of English the word good was distinguished from the word god by a
long o rather than a double o and the word spel meant tidings or news.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Good news, therefore, was Godspel, which
eventually contracted to our Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The bad news is not named bad news, but it is bad news.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By contrast with the good news and bad news
in the popular trope, however, the bad news does not detract from or overshadow
the goodness of the good news, but rather makes that goodness shine all the
brighter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is because of the bad news
that the good news is good news.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The bad
news of the Bible is called the Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Bible speaks of the Law with several different but related
meanings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Law can be a Covenant,
the Covenant God made with Israel at Mt. Sinai.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It can also be the books that contain that
Covenant and the historical narrative of its coming to be starting from the
Creation of the world and ending with the death of Moses on the eve of Israel’s
entering the Promised Land.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Used in this
sense, the Law is one of the major divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old
Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since the other parts of the
Old Testament point back to the Law in various ways its name is sometimes used
as shorthand for the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sometimes, however, the Law is used in a
more abstract sense than these.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this
sense it means God expressing Himself and relating to people in His capacity as
Sovereign Ruler over all His Creation, requiring that they do or don’t’ do
certain things, promising the reward of blessing if they obey and threating
punishment if they disobey.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
principle of the Law used in this sense is captured in Leviticus 18:4-5:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ye shall do my
judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein:
I am the LORD your God. Ye shall therefore keep my
statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them:
I am the LORD.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Law is bad news because since the Fall of Man brought
sin upon the entire human race nobody can meet the Law’s requirements.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some people think that God accepts less
than perfect performance of the righteousness He requires in the Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such people have not thought this through
very well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If someone were brought
before a human judge and charged with having brutally murdered his neighbour
and this man’s lawyer were to argue that yes, his client has committed murder
in this one instance but it needs to be weighed against all the people that he
did not kill, we would regard the judge as incompetent and unfit for his office
if he were to accept this spurious reasoning and set the defendant free.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since we expect better than that from human
judges, how much less ought we to expect that the Supreme Judge Who is perfect
in His Justice will act in this manner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Apostle James tells us:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">For whosoever shall
keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.</i> (Jas.
2:10)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In actuality, of course, our sin is much greater than that
of St. James’ person who has offended in only one point.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The core of the Law, as God handed it down to Israel through
Moses at Mt. Sinai, is the famous Ten Commandments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These God had written on two stone tablets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although the book of Exodus doesn’t spell
this out, tradition and reason tell us that the first four were on the one
tablet and the last six on the other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is because the first four Commandments are all about duties
directly to God, whereas the last six are about duties to God that also affect
our fellow man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here are the
Commandments as they can be found in the twentieth chapter of Exodus following
the preamble that reads “<b><sup><span style="background: white;"> </span></sup></b><span style="background: white;">I am the </span><span class="small-caps"><span face=""Segoe UI",sans-serif" style="background: white; color: black; font-variant: small-caps;">Lord</span></span><span style="background: white;"> thy
God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
bondage”</span>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">First Table<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">1.<span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Thou
shalt have no other gods before me.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">2.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Thou
shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is
in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under
the earth.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Thou shalt not bow down
thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous
God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of
them that love me, and keep my commandments.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">3.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Thou
shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for
the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">4.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> Remember
the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy
work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in
it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is
within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and
earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore
the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align: center;">Second
Table<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><o:p>5.</o:p><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> Honour
thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which
the Lord thy God giveth thee.</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">6.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Thou
shalt not kill.</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">7.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Thou
shalt not commit adultery.</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">8. </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Thou
shalt not steal.</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">9.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Thou
shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">10.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Thou
shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's
wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any
thing that is thy neighbour's.</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18pt;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While certain commandments pertain particularly to thoughts
(the tenth) and words (the ninth), the righteousness that God requires of
people consists of keeping each of these in thought, word, and deed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a point Jesus stressed in the
ethical component of His teachings over and over again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God demands of us a righteousness that is
internal as well as external.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the
Sermon on the Mount He taught that being angry with someone without a cause
violates the sixth commandment and that that lusting after a woman violates the
seventh.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Matthew 12:36 He warned “That
every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the
day of judgment”. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It has been often noted that the Ten Commandments are
overwhelmingly negative in tone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With
the exception of the last of the first table and the first of the second table
they are all prohibitions, “thou shalt nots”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Jesus, famously, summarized the Commandments, and indeed, the entire Old
Testament, in two positively worded commandments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Asked what the great commandment in the Law
was, He said “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all
thy soul, and with all thy mind.” (Matt. 22:37).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This commandment comes from Deuteronomy 6:5
where it immediately follows after the Shema, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God
is one LORD” in the preceding verse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Jesus went on to say:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">This is the first and great commandment. </span>And the
second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets.</i> (Matt. 22:38-40)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unlike the Ten Commandments as worded in Exodus, both of
these Commandments are positives, thou shalts, rather than thou shalt
nots.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The truth of what Jesus says
about all the law hanging on these can be seen in that the entire first Table
of the Ten Commandments is summed up in the first and greatest commandment and
the entire second Table is summed up in the second.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By reducing ten mostly negative
commandments to two entirely positive ones, ones that are all about love even,
Jesus does not make the Law any less bad news, however.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Note that the extent of the love required
in these commandments is specified.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We
are to love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds, in other words with all
our being.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can any of us say that we
have loved God to that extent for even a second in our entire lives?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we cannot say that then we must confess
that we have been and are in constant, unremitted, violation of the greatest of
God’s commandments our entire lives.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jesus’ two commandment summary of the Law, therefore, must
not be understood, as many unthinkingly misunderstand it, as a softening of the
message of the Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not the
Gospel that Jesus summed up in the two commandments, but the Law, the bad
news.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, stripped down to its very
essence in the two commandments, its message of bad news is more glaring, more
obvious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The message is that we must
abandon all hope that when we come to the end of our lives and stand before our
Creator and Judge to give an account that we will be able to present to Him in
our account of our lives the righteousness that He is looking for, the
righteousness that will satisfy His demands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the bad news message of
the Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The message is what it is, it
needs to be said, not because of a defect in the Law, not because God’s
standards are too high, but because of a defect in us, because we are sinful
and wicked.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The bad news of the Law is the dark background against which
the good news of the Gospel shines bright.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We turn now to that good news.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The most well-known and well-loved verse in
all the Scriptures, John 3:16, has often been called “the Gospel in a nutshell”
and deservedly so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That verse reads:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">For God so loved the
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Gospel starts with the love of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The bad news of the Law tells us that we are
sinners who cannot meet the righteous standards of our Creator.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Gospel tells us that nevertheless God
loves us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Furthermore, it tells us that
because God loves us, He acted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He gave
us a gift.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not just any gift, He gave
us that which is most precious to Him, His only-begotten Son.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not His “one and only Son” as recent
mistranslations would have it – God has plenty of children by creation and
adoption – but His only-begotten Son, His only non-created, natural Son, Who
shares His essence, and is therefore Himself God, not a different God, for God
is essentially One, but the same God as His Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When the Bible says that God gave us His only-begotten Son
this means that He sent Him into the world to be born into the human race and
become One of us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The account of how He
did so is a very familiar one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A little
over two thousand years ago the angel Gabriel was sent to a virgin named Mary
with the message that she was highly favoured by God and that the Holy Ghost
would come upon her and cause her to conceive and bear a Son Whose name was to
be Jesus and Who would be the Son of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>An angel was also sent to her fiancé Joseph to assure him that Mary had
not been unfaithful, that her child was the Son of God, and that he was to take
her as his wife and raise the child. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The couple, who were descendants of King
David, had to travel to Bethlehem due to a census ordered by Augustus Caesar
and while there, the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus in a stable, for there was
no room in the inn.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Angels appeared in
the sky nearby and announced the birth of the Messiah – the long promised
Saviour King of David’s line – to shepherds tending their flocks, who went to see
Him and found Him where the angels said they would, lying in a manger, wrapped
in swaddling clothes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Wise men from the
east, guided by a star, arrived with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh to
pay homage to Him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The story of these
events, recorded in the early chapters of the Gospels according to Saints
Matthew and Luke, has been told around the world on the anniversary of their occurrence
for two thousand years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God’s gift of
His only-begotten Son was the world’s first Christmas gift.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The purpose for which God in His love gave us His
only-begotten Son is clearly stated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That purpose was that all who believe in God’s Son would not perish but
have everlasting life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Everlasting life
here does not mean merely life that lasts forever, but life in the eternal Kingdom
of God, from which all evil is forever banished.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the opposite of what it means here to
perish, i.e., to go before God as one’s Judge, weighed down with the guilt of
all one’s sins, receive the sentence justly due those sins, and face the
eternal consequences of one’s wickedness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now, since the message of the Law, the Bible’s bad news, is
that we are all sinners who deserve to perish, how does God’s Christmas gift to
the world of His only-begotten Son effect its intended result that we, instead
of perishing, have everlasting life in His eternal kingdom?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The events we remember at Easter are needed along those we
commemorate at Christmas to complete God’s message of good news.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the fifteenth chapter of his first epistle to the
Corinthians, the Apostle Paul declared “<span style="background: white;">unto you
the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein
ye stand” (v. 1).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is that
declaration:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">For I delivered unto you first of all that which I
also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;</span>
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the
scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After
that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater
part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that,
he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was
seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.</i><span style="background: white;"> (vv. 3-8)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">The list of witnesses is the
evidence St. Paul gives for the truth of the Gospel he preached, which consists
of the events remembered on Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday – the
death of Christ for our sins, His burial, and His Resurrection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus Christ died for our sins. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He had no sins of His own.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the eternal Son of God became truly
One of us when He entered the Virgin’s womb and was born into the human race,
the Holy Ghost, the third Person of the Trinity Who worked the miracle whereby
the Son of God became Man, prevented His human nature for bearing the taint of
Adam’s Original Sin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The devil tempted
Him to sin, as St. Mark mentions in his Gospel with fuller accounts provided by
SS Matthew and Luke, but He did not succumb to the temptation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He “was in all points tempted like as we are,
yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Therefore, when He allowed Himself to be crucified that He might die a
criminal’s death, it was for our sins that He died.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Paul elsewhere says:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no
sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.</span> </i><span style="background: white;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(2 Cor. 5:21).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">St. Peter put it this way:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just
for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh,
but quickened by the Spirit:</span></i><span style="background: white;">
(1 Pet. 3:18)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Jesus, the Son of God, the
only Man Who could face the Law and meet its demands, took the guilt of our
sins upon Himself and paid for them, so that He could share His Own perfect
righteousness with us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Death having no
claim on Him other than our sins which He freely took on Himself, having paid
for our sins with His death, He defeated death and rose again from the grave,
never to die again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His eternal
resurrection life, He shares with us along with His righteousness.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">This is how in the events of
Easter weekend, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, accomplished the end for which
God had given Him to the world as the first Christmas gift.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The account of Jesus Christ, from Christmas
to Easter, is the Bible’s good news, the Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is good news because it tells us how God
in His love, has given us a Saviour Who met the need which the Bible’s bad
news, the Law, has revealed in us, our lack of righteousness due to our sin.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">The Gospel, the good news, operates
on a very different basis from the “this do, and thou shalt live” basis of the
Law, the bad news.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Gospel, in its unadulterated,
Scriptural, form does not first tell us about Jesus, then call on us to perform
some act on our part in order to benefit from Christ and His work. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Law God says “do”, in the Gospel He
says “it is finished”. The Gospel is good news to everyone who believes it for
it is to those who believe the Gospel, who believe in Jesus Christ Whom the
Gospel is all about, that the promises of the Gospel, such as that of
everlasting life in John 3:16, are addressed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Law is powerless to produce
in us the obedient righteousness it requires of us (Rom.8:3). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Gospel creates in us the very faith to
which it speaks by providing us with Someone in Whom to believe. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> Believe in Him.</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-90620886820596523122023-11-08T05:40:00.002-06:002023-11-08T05:40:31.883-06:00The False Climate Religion<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Through
science, technology, and industry we have achieved a very high standard of
living, measured in terms of material prosperity, in Western Civilization since
the beginning of the Modern Age and especially the last two centuries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Prosperity in itself is not a bad
thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have a tendency, however, in
our fallen sinfulness to respond to prosperity inappropriately.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The inappropriate way to respond to
prosperity is to look at it with self-satisfaction, thinking that it is due entirely
and only to our own effort and ingenuity, and to forget God, from Whom all
blessings flow, as the doxology says.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is a lot of sin in this attitude, especially the sin of
ingratitude.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This sin is an invitation to
God to take away His blessings and curse us instead. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is
a sin of which we have been most guilty as a civilization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That we have been so guilty and have
forgotten our God is evident in how we now refer to ourselves as Western
Civilization rather than Christendom – Christian Civilization.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The appropriate
thing for us to do would be to repent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>These familiar words were spoken by the Lord to King Solomon on the occasion
of the completion and consecration of the Temple but the message contained
within them is one that we would do well to apply to ourselves today:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">If my people, which
are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and
turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive
their sin, and will heal their land</i>. (2 Chron. 7:14)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Now, imagine
a man who in his prosperity becomes self-satisfied and forgets God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His conscience keeps nagging at him but
unwilling to humble himself, pray, seek God, and repent, he misinterprets his
guilty feelings and concludes that his prosperity is the problem and not his
ingratitude and his having forgotten God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In an attempt to assuage this misdirected guilt, he decides to sacrifice
his prosperity to an idol.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He does so,
however, in such a way, that it is his children more than himself who end up
suffering.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What ought
we to think of such a man?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does he
deserve commendation for trying to make things right, albeit in an ill-informed
and ineffective way?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or does he deserve
rebuke for piling further errors and sins upon his initial sin of forgetting
God?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">“Thou art
the man” as the prophet Nathan said to King David in 2 Samuel 12:7 after
telling a story that prompted the king to unknowingly condemn himself in the
affair of Bathsheba. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or rather, we all “art the man”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For this is precisely what we as a
civilization have done or are in the process of doing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">For
centuries, ever since the start of the Modern Age, Western Civilization has
been turning its back on its heritage from Christendom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the conversion of the Christian
civilization of Christendom into the secular civilization of the West could be
said to have been the ultimate goal of liberalism, the spirit that drove the
Modern Age, all along.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The liberal
project and the Modern Age were more or less complete with the end of the
Second World War and since that time Westerners have been abandoning the Church
and her God in droves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the same
post-World War II era we have reaped the harvest in material prosperity sown
through centuries of scientific discoveries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>These were made possible because at the dawn of Modern science people
still believed in the God Who created the world and that therefore there is
order in the world He created to be discovered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the basis of all true scientific
discovery.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Collectively,
we feel guilty for abandoning God, but we have not been willing, at least not
yet, to return to Him on a civilizational scale.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sensing that we have incurred divine
displeasure, but not willing to admit to ourselves that our apostasy from
Christianity and forgetting the True and Living God is the problem, we have
instead blamed our material prosperity and the means by which we attained
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By means, I don’t mean science,
which we have been so far unwilling to blame because we have transferred our faith
in God onto it and turned it into an idol, but rather our industry, aided and
enhanced by science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Just as we
have transferred our guilt for having forgotten God in our material prosperity
onto the industry that we put into attaining that prosperity, which so laden
with transferred guilt we usually call capitalism after the name godless left-wing
philosophers and economists gave to human industry when they bogeyfied it in
their efforts to promote their Satanic alternative, socialism, the institutionalization
of the Deadly Sin of Envy, so we have transferred the sense of impending
judgement from God for abandoning Him, onto industry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have done this by inventing the crackpot
idea that such things as burning fuels to heat our homes in winter, cook our food
and get about from place to place, and even raising livestock to feed ourselves,
are releasing too much carbon dioxide, methane, etc. into the atmosphere and
that this is leading to an impending man-made climate apocalypse in which temperatures
rise (or plummet depending on which false prophet of doom is talking), polar
ice caps melt, the coasts are inundated from rising sea levels, and extreme
weather events increase in frequency and intensity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">To prevent
this climactic apocalypse, we have convinced ourselves, we must appease the
pagan nature deities we have offended with sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We must sacrifice our efficient gasoline-powered
vehicles and agree to drive ridiculously expensive electric vehicles, even when
travelling long distance in Canada in the dead of winter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We must sacrifice heating our homes in
winter and grow accustomed to wearing enough layers to make Eskimoes look like Hawaiian
hula girls in comparison indoors all winter long.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We must sacrifice the hope of affordable
living and watch the cost of everything go up and up and up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We must sacrifice the future of the
generations who will come after us <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Those of us
who express skepticism towards all this are mocked as “science deniers” even
though this new false religion is not scientific in the slightest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Carbon dioxide, which is to plant life what
oxygen is to ours, treated as a pollutant?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The seas rising from all that floating ice melting?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You would have to have failed elementary
school science to accept this nonsense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is certainly incredible to anyone with a basic knowledge of history and
who grasps the concept of cause and effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Little Ice Age ended in the middle of the nineteenth century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When an Ice Age ends a warming period begins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is one of the causes of the boom in
human industry at the end of the Modern Age, not its effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a good thing too, for humans, animals,
plants and basically all life on earth, because live thrives more in warmer
periods than colder ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anyone who isn’t
a total airhead knows this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Speaking of
total airheads, Captain Airhead, whose premiership here in the Dominion of
Canada was already too old in the afternoon of his first day in office, has
been using that office as a pulpit to preach this false climate religion for
the duration of the time he has been in it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Recently, in response to his popularity having plunged lower than the
Judecca, he granted a three year exemption on his carbon tax for those who heat
their homes with oil, which, as it turns out, benefits Liberal voters in Atlantic
Canada and hardly anyone else.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Faced
with demands from across Canada that he grant further exemptions, he has so far
resisted, and with the help of the Lower Canadian separatists, defeated the
Conservative motion in the House, backed by the socialists, for a general home
heating exemption.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hopefully this will
speed his departure and the day we can find a better Prime Minister to lead His
Majesty’s government in Ottawa.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The point,
of course, is that by granting even that partial exemption, for nakedly
political purposes, Captain Airhead by his actions admitted what he still
denies with his words, that the world is not facing imminent destruction
because of too much carbon dioxide.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Captain
Airhead’s climate religion and its doomsday scenario have been proven false let
us turn to the words of St. Peter and hearing what the true religion has to say
about the coming judgement:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the
same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and
perdition of ungodly men.</span> But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one
thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years
as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men
count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord
will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away
with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth
also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Seeing then that all these things shall be
dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and
godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God,
wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall
melt with fervent heat?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevertheless
we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein
dwelleth righteousness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b><sup> </sup></b><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be
diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.</span></i><span style="background: white;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(2 Peter
3:7-14)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It may be
today, it may be a thousand years from now, we don’t know, but when God has
appointed it to happen, it will happen, and there is nothing we can do that
will prevent it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead of trying to
do the impossible, prevent it, we should rather prepare ourselves for it, by
doing what the Apostle recommends in the above passage, the avoidance of which
is as we have seen, the source of this false climate religion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For if we turn back in repentance to the God
we have forgotten, we can look forward to His coming again in fiery judgement with
faith and hope and peace and sing, in the words of gospel songwriter Jim Hill:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">What a day that will be</span><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="background: white;"><span jsname="YS01Ge" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">When my Jesus I shall see</span></span><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="background: white;"><span jsname="YS01Ge" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">And I look upon his face</span></span><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="background: white;"><span jsname="YS01Ge" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">The one who saved me by his grace</span></span><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="background: white;"><span jsname="YS01Ge" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">When he takes me by the hand</span></span><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="background: white;"><span jsname="YS01Ge" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">And leads me through the Promised Land</span></span><br aria-hidden="true" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="background: white;"><span jsname="YS01Ge" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">What a day, glorious day that will be</span>!</span><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-56147616286434388392023-11-03T04:34:00.002-05:002023-11-03T05:57:28.871-05:00Dr. Luther’s Trick and Treat<p> <span lang="EN-US">Or</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Sola Fide as Catholic Truth<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">We are in Allhallowtide,
the period long ago set aside by the Church for the remembrance of those who
have passed on before us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It begins on
the 31 October, All Hallows’ Eve, so called because on sacred calendars days
are counted from evening to evening, not from midnight to midnight as in
secular calendars, and 1 November is All Saints Day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All Hallows’ Eve is also the anniversary of
the beginning of the Reformation for it is on that day in 1517 that Dr. Martin
Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was a great trick on the corrupt Roman
Patriarch and those who accepted his usurped supreme jurisdiction over the
Church because the Ninety-Five Theses were a devastating critique of corrupt
practices, like the sale of indulgences, that the Roman Patriarch – at the time
it was Leo X – was using to raise funds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Soon thereafter, Dr. Luther would provide a wonderful treat for
Christian souls by hosing down the doctrine of justification, as taught by St. Paul
in the New Testament, and washing away all the mud that had accumulated to
obscure it so that it could be viewed in all its peace-and-assurance bringing
clarity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Dr. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Luther is often quoted as having said that
justification is the article on which the Church stands or falls.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you go looking through the corpus of Dr.
Luther’s works for the exact phrase you will not find it, although you will
find the idea stated in different words in multiple places, and the earliest
attribution of the saying to him is close enough to his own time that there is
no good reason to question its authenticity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Justification, in the quotation, means the doctrine of justification by
faith alone.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Roman Church
took a rather different view of the doctrine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the Council of Trent, which met from 1545 to 1563 to address the
Reformation, the Roman Church pronounced an anathema upon justification by
faith alone in the fourteenth canon of the Council’s sixth session in 1547,
although the doctrine condemned in the canon is worded in such a way as to be
unrecognizable as that which Dr. Luther and the other Reformers taught.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here are the words of the canon:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">If any one saith, that
man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly
believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but
he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution
and justification are effected; let him be anathema</i>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the doctrine condemned by this canon, the only content
identified for this faith is that one is absolved and justified.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If this were the only content of one’s
faith, the Roman Church would indeed be right in condemning the idea that such
faith by itself absolved and justified one, for that idea would amount to the
claim that one can make something be true by believing it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You find that sort of idea in a lot of
fuzzy, pop, New Age, thinking today, but you will look in vain to find it in
the writings of Dr. Luther or Zwingle or Calvin or Archbishop Cranmer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Reformation article is quite otherwise than the caricature
that is condemned in the Roman canon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the Reformation article, the Gospel is the content of saving
faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Gospel is the Good News
about everything God has done for us in Jesus Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We needed a Saviour because of our sins and
God gave us a Saviour, the Saviour He had promised from the Fall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This Saviour is God’s Only-Begotten Son,
that is to say, the Son Who is eternally begotten of God the Father, shares the
Father’s nature, and so, like the Father and the Holy Ghost, is the One True
God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God gave Him to us in the
Incarnation, in which the Son of God came down to Earth from Heaven, and took
on our nature through a miracle wrought by the Holy Ghost in which He was
conceived and born to the Virgin Mary and so became fully Man while remaining
fully God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Through this miracle, His
human nature was not tainted with sin like ours and so He lived out the
righteousness God requires of us all but which we are unable to produce because
of our sin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then, rejected by the
leadership of the people into which He had been born, He was condemned in a
mock trial, and crucified at the order of a Roman governor who knew Him to be
innocent but wished to appease the mob.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He submitted to this meekly in order that He Who had committed no sin, much less
a crime, might die the death of a criminal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Dying that death, He did what only One Who was both God and sinless Man
could do, which was take the burden of all the guilt of the sins of the entire
world upon Himself and pay for them once and for all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Having so expiated the sins of the world and remaining sinless in Himself Death had no claim on Him. He entered Death’s
Kingdom as Conqueror and rose triumphantly from the Grave before Ascending
back to the right hand of the Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>By doing all of this Jesus effected the salvation of the world on our
behalf and the benefits of that salvation are promised in the Gospel to
whosoever believes in Him.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Note how I worded that last sentence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you compare that with what the Roman canon
condemns another way in which the canon misrepresents the Reformation doctrine
should become clear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Faith’s role is
not to effect our absolution and justification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is what Jesus did in the events of the
Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our faith’s role is to receive
absolution, justification, and indeed, all of the salvation that has been given
to us freely in our Saviour Jesus.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is where the stress needs to be when talking about
faith in respect to salvation – that its role is that of the hand that receives
the free gift which God has given us in Jesus Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unless we are clear that the role of faith
in God’s plan of salvation is instrumental, and instrumental on our part – how we
receive the gift God has given – as opposed to instrumental on God’s part – how
He brings, confers, and bestows the gift of Jesus Christ and His salvation upon
us – justification by faith alone does not make sense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sola fide is in the ablative case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It does not mean just “faith alone” but “by
faith alone” and what this expression means is that it is by faith alone that
we receive the gift of salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
does not mean that faith, by itself, so pleases God that on the intrinsic
merits of faith He accepts us despite our plentiful bad works and deficiency in
good ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It does not mean that the
only thing Christianity asks of people is faith or, to put it another way, that
Christianity consists only of believing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It means that the task of faith in the order of salvation – the
receiving, on our part, of the free gift of salvation in Jesus Christ – belongs
to faith alone, and that nothing else can either substitute for faith or add to
faith in the reception of salvation. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That this is what Dr. Luther’s article of justification by faith
alone means cannot be emphasized enough.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For while the Church of Rome, in whose eyes Dr. Luther had been poking
his fingers, was the only ancient Church to pronounce a formal condemnation of
the article, none of the other ancient Churches, except our English Church
which joined the Reformation, embraced it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They regarded it as a novelty because the Fathers, doctors, and
theologians of the ancient Churches had not been in the habit of using the word
“alone” in conjunction with “faith”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Neither did St. Paul in the Bible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What was meant by Sola Fide, however, that faith is the only hand we
have with which to receive the gift of salvation, was clearly taught in other
words by St. Paul.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We shall have more
to say about that shortly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First I
wish to observe that just as the Roman Church’s formal condemnation of Sola
Fide at the Council of Trent did not condemn Sola Fide as Dr. Luther taught it,
that faith is the sole means by which we appropriate to ourselves the gift of
salvation, but a weird caricature of it in which belief creates its own
reality, so none of the reasons that the other ancient Churches gave for not
affirming it speak to what the article actually says.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Consider the objection based upon the role of baptism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the end of St. Peter’s sermon on the
first Whitsunday (the Christian Pentecost) in the second chapter of Acts, the
crowd, under heavy conviction of sin, asked the Apostles “Men and brethren,
what shall we do?” and received the answer from St. Peter “Repent, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Other passages can be pointed to that stress
the role of baptism (1 Peter 3:21, Rom. 6:3-6, Mk. 16:16).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These verses, however, do not say that the
role of baptism is the same as that of faith, that of a hand receiving a
gift.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor is that the Catholic – held
by all Christians, everywhere, at all times – understanding of the role of
baptism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Baptism is linked by the
Scriptures to three distinct aspects of salvation – regeneration or the new
birth, our sins being washed away, and our being joined in union with Jesus
Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Baptism is not how we receive these salvific
blessings, however, but the ordinary means by which God bestows them upon
us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I will try to make the distinction clearer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God has given us salvation in our Saviour
Jesus Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This took place in the
events of the Gospel, from the Incarnation to the Ascension, two millennia ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For that salvation to be ours, however, two
things must happen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>1.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God must bring the salvation He has given us
in Jesus to us. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>2.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We must appropriate it to ourselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both of these things involve the use of
means or instruments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God uses means to
bring the salvation He has given us to us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We use means to receive it to ourselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The means God uses to bring Jesus Christ and
His salvation to us are the Church and her ministries of Word and Sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The means we use to appropriate Jesus Christ
and His salvation to us is faith.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Baptism is the Sacrament that God ordinarily uses as His
means, along with the Ministry of the Word, in bringing the salvation of Jesus
Christ to us for the first time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
is why it is connected specifically to regeneration, cleansing from sin, and
union with Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These are the aspects
of salvation that are most prominent as the beginning of the Christian
life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Faith is the means by which we appropriate
this salvation to ourselves and make it truly ours.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Baptism is the means God ordinarily uses to
confer, faith is the means we always use to receive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A few words are in order here about what is meant by “ordinarily”
and “always”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It should not be
surprising that we speak of the means God uses as ordinary but the means we use
as absolute.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This merely means that God
does not limit Himself to His appointed means, the way He limits us to
ours.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What this means in practice with
regards to baptism is that someone who hears the Gospel and believes in Jesus
Christ will not be damned for lack of baptism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is why Jesus in Mark 16:16 promises salvation to those who believe
and are baptized, but pronounces damnation only on those who do not
believe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It also means, however, that
those who think this an excuse for neglecting baptism, ought to consider the
account of Naaman in 2 Kings 5, and particularly verses 10-13.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is also important to note that while God always brings
salvation, and more specifically regeneration, cleansing from sin, and union
with Christ, to us in baptism, they are not ours unless we receive them by
faith in Jesus Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the early
Church controversies arose about the efficacy of baptism administered by those
who had failed to be faithful witnesses in periods of persecution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The orthodox Fathers, in answering the
Novatians and later the Donatists, maintained soundly that the efficacy of the
sacrament does not depend on the worthiness of the minister who administers it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By the time of the Reformation, many in the
Roman Church had twisted these arguments into arguments for the mechanical
efficacy of the sacrament, that the salvation conferred through it is ours
regardless of faith on our part.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Reformers, rightly, upheld the original intent of the arguments of St.
Augustine et al., that the efficacy of the Sacraments as channels of Grace was
not overthrown by the sin of the minister, but, also rightly, rejected the
mechanical view, and emphasized that Grace conferred is not received, except by
faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only benefit that one
receives mechanically upon baptism is external, formal, membership in the
Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To truly be united to her and
her Saviour internally and spiritually requires that the Grace conferred in the
Sacrament be received by faith in Jesus Christ.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Everything just said about baptism also applies to the other
Gospel Sacrament, the Lord’s Supper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Baptism is the Sacrament through which God bestows on us the initial
Grace of regeneration, washing of sin, and union with Jesus Christ, the Lord’s
Supper is the Sacrament through which God confers the Grace that sustains the
new life in Jesus Christ, by feeding the believer with the spiritual food of
the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as broken and shed for us on the Cross in
His One True Sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As with
baptism, so with the Lord’s Supper, God uses the Sacrament as a channel to
bestow Grace apart from the worthiness of the minister, but we only receive it
by faith in Jesus Christ.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The orthodox understanding of the Sacraments as the ordinary
means of Grace along with the ministry of the Word, therefore, does not
conflict with Sola Fide.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Sacraments and faith are both instrumental means by which the gift of salvation
given to us in Jesus Christ becomes ours, but the Sacraments, or more properly
the Church in both of her ministries, is the means God has appointed for
Himself to bestow the gift upon us, and faith is the means, the only means, God
has appointed for us to receive it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another objection to Sola Fide is on the grounds of the
necessity of repentance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While some
answer this objection by pointing out that in the New Testament, at least, the
word translated by repent literally means to change your mind, something that
must necessarily occur whenever someone believes for the first time, this does
not, I think, do justice to the Scriptural teaching on repentance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Repentance is not just any change of mind but
the kind illustrated by the Prodigal Son’s coming to himself and returning to
his father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The right answer to the
objection is to say that while the necessity of repentance is certainly taught
and emphasized in the Bible this does not mean that repentance does the same
thing as faith, that it shares faith’s place in the Order of Salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Note that in the preaching of John the
Baptist, as well as St. Peter’s response to the crowd under conviction in Acts
2, repentance is linked with baptism, whereas in the passages that talk about
the beginning of Jesus’ preaching ministry repentance is linked with
faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just as repentance does not
perform the same function as baptism, neither does it perform the same role as
faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is linked to both because it
performs the essential auxiliary function of breaking down the pride and
self-righteousness which otherwise keep sinful human beings from recognizing
their need for the salvation given in Christ, conferred in baptism, and
received by faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Repentance, therefore, is not another hand
with which to receive Grace alongside faith. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It can be likened to the act of emptying the
hand that it might receive the gift.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This brings us back to the most common objection to Sola
Fide, the claim that it was novel, invented in the sixteenth century by Dr.
Luther.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is, on the surface, the
most plausible of these objections.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Those who make it appeal to both Scripture and tradition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The appeal to Scripture consists of the
argument that the expression “faith alone” appears only once in the Holy
Scriptures and that one occurrence is St. James’ denial in the twenty-fourth
verse of the second chapter of his Epistle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The appeal to tradition is basically that the Church Fathers and those
who succeeded them down to the sixteenth century did not speak of “faith alone”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first point I wish to make in response to
this objection is that the important matter is not whether the Scriptures and
Church tradition used the expression “faith alone” but whether or not the idea
behind those words is contained in the Scriptures and tradition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once again, the idea behind Sola Fide, is
that salvation is a gift that we have been given in our Saviour Jesus Christ,
and that it is only by believing in Him that we receive this gift.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It does not deny to anything else its place
in the Order of Salvation, it merely insists that the place assigned to faith
is not shared by anything else, and especially not by human works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When it is clearly understood that this is
what the expression means, this seemingly plausible objection becomes nonsense,
for this is clearly taught in the Scriptures, and is implicit in the doctrine
that salvation is a gift that God has freely given us in Jesus Christ that is very
much a part of the tradition of the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Nobody thinks Sola Gratia was a novelty invented in the sixteenth
century.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That salvation is a gift means that it cannot be by works
and works are what Sola Fide explicitly excludes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is common sense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Something that you get by working for it is
not a gift.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a wage, a payment, a
reward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You are owed it not given it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not only is it common sense, it is
Scripture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Paul spelled it out for
us explicitly in the fourth chapter of his epistle to the Romans:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Now to him that
worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that
worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is
counted for righteousness</i>. (Rom. 4:4-5)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These words make nonsense out of the claim that the only
time the Scriptures mention “faith alone” is the denial in James 2;24.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, since the “alone” in “faith alone”
means “and not by works”, Sola Fide is affirmed throughout the New
Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here are a few examples:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Knowing that a man is
not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus
Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by
the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by
the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.</i> (Gal. 2:16)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">For by grace are ye
saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of
God: Not of works, lest any man should boast</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Eph. 2:8-9)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Who hath saved us, and
called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according
to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the
world began.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(2 Tim. 1:9)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Not
by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Ghost</i>; (Tit. 3:5)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Consider that last example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Some try to explain St. Paul away by claiming that when he denied that
we are saved by works he was talking only about ceremonial works and not moral
works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 2 Timothy 1:9, however, it is clearly
“works of righteousness” that St. Paul says we are not saved by.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His entire reasoning in Romans 4 that it
cannot be by works because otherwise it would be of debt rather than Grace
would collapse if it were only ceremonial and rather than moral works that were
in view.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Once again we need to remember that Sola Fide means that
faith does not share its place in the Order of Salvation, the place of the hand
that receives the gift, with anything else.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It does not deny to anything else its proper place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is true of works as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Paul identifies for us what the proper
place of works is in regards to salvation in the verse that follows immediately
after those in the above verses from Ephesians:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">For we are his
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath
before ordained that we should walk in them.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The place of works in the Order of Salvation, is not prior
to salvation as a cause, but after salvation as an effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I recently watched a video in which a
clergyman claimed that Sola Fide was the weakest of the Reformation
doctrines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I won’t embarrass him by
naming him since he is usually much sounder than this but he spent some time
criticizing the idea that works are the evidence of faith, which he seemed to
think to be the only role available for works in the Protestant scheme.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Evidence for whom, he asked?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For us?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For God?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Neither is very satisfactory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Evidence</i>
of faith, however, is not the role assigned to works, but <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fruit </i>of salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As has
been pointed out many times in the past it is a matter of getting things in
their proper order, identifying the cause and effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We do not do good works in order to be
saved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are saved in order that we
might do good works. (1)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Aristotle in the third chapter of the second book of his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Physics</i> identified four different types
of “causes”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He explained the difference
between them with the illustration of a statue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">material
</i>cause is that from which it is made, bronze, stone, whatever.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">efficient</i>
cause is the sculptor who makes the statue from the material.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">formal</i>
cause is the idea of the statue in the sculptor’s head to which he makes the
material conform.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">final</i> cause is the purpose for which the
sculptor makes the statue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>John Calvin
in section 17 of Chapter XIV of the third book of his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Institutes of Christian Religion</i> borrows these terms and applies
them to salvation saying that the efficient cause is “the mercy and free love
of the heavenly Father towards us”, that the material cause is “Christ, with
the obedience by which he purchased righteousness for us”, and the formal cause
as “faith”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Calvin erred slightly on
this last point because he identified the formal cause with the instrumental
cause.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Aristotle did not identify the
instrumental cause in his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Physics</i> but
if he had it would have been the hammer and chisel employed by the sculptor in
his illustration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we have seen,
since salvation is a gift, there are two kinds of instrumental causes, the
instrument God uses to put the gift of salvation into our hands, the Church and
her ministries, and the hand which receives it and is therefore instrumental on
the part of the receiver, which is our faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What actually corresponds to Aristotle’s formal cause with regards to
salvation is God’s eternal design.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
is rather amusing that John Calvin of all people got that wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
Where do works fit into this?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Works share the same final cause as salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of the final cause of salvation, John Calvin
says “The Apostle, moreover, declares that the final cause is the demonstration
of the divine righteousness and the praise of his goodness.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A simpler way of putting that would be “the
glory of God”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Numerous verses could be
cited in support of the glory of God being the final cause, the end or telos,
of salvation, but since this is not really a controversial point, I will
reference only 1 Tim. 1:15-17.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus in
the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:16) and St. Peter in his first epistle
(chapter 2, verse 12) instruct their hearers/readers to do good works that
thereby men would glorify God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
tells us that the good works of the believer have the same telos as our
salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Works are not any kind of
cause of our salvation, but our salvation is the material cause of our good
works, the final cause of both being the glory of God.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">St. James does not contradict this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Earlier in the epistle, long before the
controversial passage, he asserts that salvation is a gift:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Every good gift and
every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,
with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will
begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of
his creatures.</i> (Jas. 1:17-18)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is significant that he does not say this of the salvation
and justification of which he writes in the controversial passage in his second
chapter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor does the word Grace appear
in that passage, unlike the other key terms shared by the passage and the
fourth chapter of Romans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This, and the
argument of St. Paul in Romans 4:4-5, indicates that whatever the salvation and
justification St. James was talking about is it is not salvation/justification
by Grace, justification/salvation as a gift of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. James points further to that conclusion
in the very verse that has caused so much difficulty:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and
not by faith only.</span></i><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">The word “only” there is an
adverb in Greek, modifying “justified”, not an adjective modifying “faith.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. James is saying there are two
justifications, one by faith, one by works, not that faith and works are two
causes of the same justification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St.
Paul himself seals that interpretation as the correct one when he writes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">For if Abraham were
justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.</i> (Rom.
4:2)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That is St. Paul interpreting St. James.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whatever St. James was talking about when he
said Abraham was justified by works it was not justification before God which
is a gift by Grace and therefore cannot be of works.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The only novelty in Dr. Luther’s article of justification by
faith alone, was the wording.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That salvation
is a gift that God gives us in Jesus Christ and not something we earn by our
works is the plain teaching of the New Testament and it is the teaching of
Catholic – belonging to the entire Church everywhere, at all times – tradition as
well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sola Fide, that we receive this
gift to ourselves only by the hand of faith in Jesus Christ, while not usually
expressed in Dr. Luther’s wording prior the sixteenth century, is implicit in
this Catholic doctrine of Sola Fide.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
is also required by the Catholic concept of good works as the fruit of a faith
that works by love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the works of
love are necessary, it is not the necessity of an imposed condition – do these
or salvation is invalidated – because that kind of necessity would eliminate
the distinction between the works of love and the works of the law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Works of love are works of love, because the
one who does them does them not in order to obtain God’s favour or out of the
fear that he will lose God’s favour if he does not, but because he loves
God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Love cannot be produced by the
compulsion of the Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is the
entire point of the Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus summed
up the Law in the commandments to love God and love our neighbour.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That should be regarded as the most sobering
and terrifying words that Jesus ever spoke.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They were not words of comfort.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If love of God and love of our neighbour is what the Law demands, and
these loves come with qualifications –we are to love God with all that we are,
and to love our neighbour as ourselves – then we are in constant violation of
the two greatest commandments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not one
of us has lived up to either of these for a second of our lives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The works of love that are the fruit of
salvation are the fruit of a love that God works in our hearts by His Grace,
through the means of the Gospel, which assures us that God in His love has met
the demands of the Law for us, both its demands for perfect righteousness and
its demands for just punishment of our sin, in Jesus Christ, freeing us to love
God, not because the Law demands it, but because he first loved us (1 Jn.
4:19).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ironically, that which the Roman
Council of Trent feared most in Dr. Luther’s doctrine, which, as is obvious from
their straw man caricature, was its assuring nature, is precisely what makes
Sola Fide so essential to this Catholic truth of faith working by love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is only when one is assured through faith
that he is secure in the freely given Grace of God in Jesus Christ that one is
free to love God because God is so worthy of our love rather than to try and
love God under the compulsion of the threats of the Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All of this was clearly lost on the Church of Rome at the
Council of Tent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A recent Roman
Patriarch, the late Benedict XVI, <a href="https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119.html">wrote</a>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">For this reason
Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith
in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ,
being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the
life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter
into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he
primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that
works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This displayed far more understanding than his predecessors
in the sixteenth century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such a pity
that he was forced from St. Peter’s throne and replaced with the Clown
Pretender that currently occupies it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Happy All Hallowtide<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">(1) It is
sometimes said in response to this that salvation is a process not just an
event. More elaborately put, there are
three tenses to salvation. There is
salvation past, our being brought into God’s family, united with Jesus Christ,
cleansed of past sins, justified, regenerated.
There is salvation present, in which we are progressively conformed into
the image of Christ by the sanctifying work of God and in which we are cleansed
and forgiven of our ongoing sins. There
is salvation future, in which we are perfected, and brought into the presence
of God. Sometimes this is put more
simply as salvation from the guilt of sin (past), power of sin (present), and
presence of sin (future). Or they are
just called justification, sanctification, and glorification. The more simpler the version the more
precision is sacrificed. Justification
and sanctification, at least, have past, present, and future aspects to each of
them, just as they have both positional and practical aspects, corresponding to
the two aspects of our union with Christ (positional = us in Christ, practical =
Christ in us). All of this is valid,
but what we have stressed in the main body of this essay, is true of all of
it. Salvation in all of its tenses and
aspects, is the gift of God. All of it
was accomplished for us by Jesus Christ in the events of the Gospel. It is all given to us on the basis of
Grace. The means God has appointed to bring
all of it to us is His Church and her ministries of Word and Sacrament. Faith is always the hand by which we receive
it. None of this changes from salvation
past, to salvation present, to salvation future, although the specific Sacramental
ministry God uses to bring it to us changes from the not-to-be-repeated baptism
of salvation past to the perpetual Lord’s Supper of salvation present. Those things that have auxiliary roles, like
repentance, may vary over the course of the progress of salvation present (the
specifics of what repentance calls for depend on the situation). The basics – salvation is a gift, it was
accomplished by Jesus Christ in the events of the Gospel, it is brought to us
through the ministry of the Church, we receive it by faith – never change, nor
does the fact that our good works are always the fruit of salvation – in all of
its aspects and tenses – and never the cause of it in any of its aspects or tenses. </p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-28661877422515355982023-10-27T08:25:00.001-05:002023-10-27T08:25:43.102-05:00Where the Hatred Comes From<p>Following
the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel, in which the terrorist organization not
only unleashed the predictable barrage of largely ineffective rockets on the
Jewish state, but penetrated the barrier between Gaza and Israel with a large
force that killed about 1500 people and took about 150 hostage, we were treated
to the disgusting spectacle of progressives gathering en masse in cities and
academic campuses around the West, not to protest these despicable acts, but to
cheer them on. This was immediately
denounced as a display of anti-Semitism, mostly by neoconservatives many of
whom called for such demonstrations to be banned. While I don’t have much better an opinion of
these demonstrators than the neocons have this call to criminalize the demonstrations
is extremely foolish. There is already
too much suppression of the expression of thought and opinion, we do not need
to add any more. I don’t agree that
this is an expression of anti-Semitism either.
This essay will explain why.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">A
discussion of this sort requires that we define anti-Semitism at some point so
we might as well get that out of the way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>H. L. Mencken said that “an anti-Semite is someone who dislikes the Jews
more than is absolutely necessary”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
is amusing, at least to those who do not have a politically correct pole
permanently lodged up their rectums, but not particularly helpful.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Joe Sobran said that “an anti-Semite used to
be someone who didn’t like the Jews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Now he is someone the Jews don’t like”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is more helpful as an explanation of the neoconservative use of the
term than of what it really means.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Most
people, I suspect, use it to mean any dislike of the Jews for any reason.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The late rabbinical scholar, Jacob Neusner,
objected to this promiscuous use of the term.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In an article entitled “<a href="https://chroniclesmagazine.org/correspondence/sorting-out-jew-haters/">Sorting
Out Jew-Haters</a>” that appeared in the March 1995 issue of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture</i>
he gave this account of anti-Semitism:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">According to
anti-Semitism, Jews are a separate species within humanity, peculiarly wicked,
responsible for the evil of the human condition. A political philosophy
formulated in the world of late 19th-century Germany and Austria, anti-
Semitism formed the ideological foundation of political parties and served as
the basis for public policy. It provided an account of life and how the Jews
corrupt it. It offered a history of Western civilization and how the Jews
pervert it. It formulated a theory of the world’s future and how the Jews
propose to conquer it. People make sense of the world lay appealing to
anti-Semitism, and in World War II, millions of Germans willingly gave their
lives for the realization of their country’s belief in an anti-Semitic ideal of
national life and culture.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The term,
he argued, should be reserved for Jew hatred of the type that fully meets this
description, and to apply it to lesser prejudices trivializes it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Now, you
might be thinking that what we are seeing meets Neusner’s requirements to be
called anti-Semitism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rallies that
we have been talking about, after all, are not just in support of the
Palestinian people, but of Hamas, the terrorist organization dedicated to the
elimination of Israel, and of its actions on 7 October.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why would anyone support such an
organization and such behaviour unless their mind was in the grips of the sort
of hatred described in the paragraph from Neusner’s article quoted above?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">There are a
couple of obvious problems with that way of thinking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The first
is that if these progressives, academic and otherwise, were motivated by
anti-Semitic hatred we would expect that their support for violent, murderous,
organizations and their behaviour would be limited to Hamas and other similar
groups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The progressive activist crowd has a long
history of supporting violent, murderous, groups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the post-World War II era of the last
century, for example, they supported every Communist group available from the
Stalinists to the Maoists to Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Communism killed 100 million people in the
twentieth century. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pol Pot’s group
murdered about 2 million people, a quarter of the population of Cambodia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet Noam Chomsky, the MIT linguistics
professor who became the guru of the student activist wing of the left and who
is regarded by most neoconservatives as a self-loathing Jew for his support of
the Palestinians, decades ago was defending Pol Pot and claiming that the
accounts of the “killing fields” were American propaganda.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My old friend Reaksa Himm, whose account of
seeing his family slaughtered by these brutes and being left for dead himself,
was published as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://www.amazon.ca/Tears-My-Soul-Sokreaksa-Himm/dp/0825462185">The Tears
of My Soul: He Survived Cambodia’s Killing Fields, His Family Didn’t, Could He
Forgive?</a></i> in 2003, would no doubt have a few things to say about that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then, of course, there are the countless
progressive students who thought it “cool” to wear t-shirts or put posters up
in their dorm room bearing the image of vile Communist terrorist and mass
murderer Ernesto “Che” Guevara.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, no,
this sort of stupidity on the Left, is not all about the Jews.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The second
problem is that even when progressive bile is directed towards Israel as it is
in these pro-Hamas demonstrations it is not against Jews <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">qua</i> Jews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is an
element of racial hatred in it but that racial hatred is not directed against
Jews as distinct from everyone else.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
is directed against Jews as white people. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some might object to that statement on the
grounds that not all Jews are white, Jewishness being primarily a religious
identity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Others, including some Jews
who hate whites and Christians and some whites who don’t like Jews, would make
the polar opposite objection that in their opinion no Jews are white.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These wildly differing objections aside, my statement
is nevertheless true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The hatred the
immature, idiotic, Left is displaying towards Israel is the same hatred they display
towards all Western countries, i.e. countries that lay claim to the heritage of
Greco-Roman, Christian, white European, civilization, and to the extent that there
is a racial element it is that which is on display almost ubiquitously on
university campuses in the form of the claim that “whiteness” is a cultural and
civilizational cancer that must be “abolished”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The language used against Israel is the same
language used against Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and
basically any country and society settled and built by Europeans as an
extension of Western civilization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
only difference is that in this case the settlers were Jews rather than
Christians.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is not
therefore a case of anti-Semitism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anti-Semitism
and its counterpart Zionism began around the same time in the nineteenth century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both were the result of “Enlightenment”
philosophy’s war against God, revelation, religion and faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For centuries Christians and Jews had been at
odds over a religious issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We,
rightly, believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah promised in the Old
Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They, wrongly, reject Jesus
as the Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was not an
insurmountable divide.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any Jew could
become a Christian by believing that Jesus is the Christ and being baptized
into the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The “Enlightenment”
brought about a loss of faith on both sides but this did not eliminate the
divide.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, post-Christian
Gentiles and secular Jews began to regard their division as being based on
biological racial differences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Division
on this basis is insurmountable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You
cannot change your race.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At least, you
couldn’t until the whole “I’m whatever gender, sex, race, species, I want to be”
garbage started up in the last few years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The expression of this idea of an insurmountable race divide was
anti-Semitism on the part of post-Christian Gentile Europeans and Zionism on
the part of secular Jews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the early
days of both movements they supported each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each believed that the racial differences
between Jew and Gentile prevented them from living in peace together, therefore
the solution was for them to live in peace apart.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whatever else might be said about this way
of thinking it is clear that the animosity directed towards the Jews of Israel
on the part of the pro-Hamas progressive demonstrators is not this
anti-Semitism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is based, indeed, on
the very opposite concept – that the Jews are fundamentally one with other
Western Europeans rather than being fundamentally divided from them by race or
even religion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Just in
case you mistake this as an attempt to white-wash the progressives, let me
assure you my intention is quite the reverse. The progressives’ anti-Israel
position arises out of a far more pernicious attitude than mere
anti-Semitism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It arises out of the hatred
that is at the very heart of leftism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Left is
the openly revolutionary form of liberalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Sometimes liberalism tries to hide its revolutionary nature behind a
mask of reform, of working within the institutions of civilization to
accomplish its goals, but when that mask is removed what you get is the
Left.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Left, therefore, is the true
face of liberalism, and that face is one of revolution and sedition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Liberalism is not a constructive force but a
destructive force.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In its earliest
recognizable form it began as an attack on Christendom or Christian civilization,
the heir to classical Greco-Roman civilization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its first targets were kings who are the
earthly political representatives of the King of Kings Who rules over all of
Creation, and the Church, the corporate body of Jesus Christ in which His
Incarnational presence is sacramentally continued after His Ascension to the
right hand of the Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In attacking
God’s earthly representation in this way liberalism revealed that its ultimate
hatred is of God Himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Liberalism is
essentially the earthly continuation of Satan’s revolt against God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After attacking king and Church, liberalism
launched its siege on every other tradition and institution of Christian
civilization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From what we have just
seen about liberalism’s essential nature its hatred of civilization is entirely
explicable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Liberalism hates kings
because they are the earthly representation of God’s Sovereign rule over
Creation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Liberalism hates the Church
because the Church is the earthly representation of Christ’s priestly intercession
in Heaven.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Liberalism hates
civilization because civilization is the product of man as builder and it is in
his capacity as builder that man most displays the image in which man was
created, the image of God the Creator.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">That is the
hatred that is on display whenever the progressive Left blithers on and on
about “colonialism” and “imperialism”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Man, in his fallen estate, is incapable of building a perfect
civilization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imperfect civilization,
however, is better than no civilization at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Left is no more capable of building a
perfect civilization than the builders of the past it is always decrying, sometimes
for their real sins but more often for new offences they just made up
yesterday, and the Left is not interested in trying to build a perfect
civilization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is only interested in
tearing down the civilization others have built.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It claims to be speaking out for “victims”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sometimes the “victims” are people who have
suffered actual harm in some way from civilization building.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Other times, they are merely those who have
not shared equally in the benefits of civilization with others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Either way, the Left’s idea that civilization
must be razed, its history erased, and its builders “cancelled” and defamed is
hardly the answer and in the support they are now showing for the despicable
acts of murderous terrorists they show that their motivation is not genuine
concern for those who have not fared as well from civilization as others, but a
Satanic hatred of civilization builders, for representing, even in an imperfect
way, the image of the Creator God.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">That is a
far more vile form of hatred than the extremely banal one of which the neoconservatives
are accusing them.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-67847512641384584932023-10-25T00:09:00.000-05:002023-10-25T00:09:01.361-05:00The Seed of Abraham<p>It is often
thought that the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis which cover the
primordial history of the world from Creation to the confusing of tongues and
scattering of nations at the Tower of Babel depict God in relation to the whole
of humanity but in the twelfth chapter a narrower focus on His relationship to
a single nation begins. On one level,
this is true. In the first chapter of
Genesis we read the account of God creating the universe. In the second we read the account of His
creating our first parents and placing them in the Garden of Eden. In the third we have the account of the
Temptation in the Garden and the Fall of Man.
The fourth begins with the account of Cain and Abel, then introduces
Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve, from whom the line of descent that leads
to Noah, which genealogy fills the whole of the fifth chapter, begins. The account of how God sent the Great Deluge
to destroy the primordial world for its wickedness, but preserved life, human
and animal, through Noah and the ark, then after the Flood made a covenant with
Noah and the human race that was to begin anew with him, takes up the sixth
through the ninth chapters. The tenth
contains the genealogies of Japheth, Ham, and Shem, Noah’s three sons. After the account of the scattering of the
nations, the eleventh chapter concludes by extending Shem’s genealogy down to
Terah and his family, including his son Abram.
The twelfth chapter begins with God’s call to Abram, the first stage in
the establishment of His covenant with the man whose name He would change to
Abraham. Here is the account of that
call:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Now the LORD had said
unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy
father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a
great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be
a blessing:And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth
thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. </i>(Gen. 12:1-3)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In these verses
we see that the apparent narrowing of the narrative to focus on one nation is
not the entire story.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God does indeed
promise Abram that He will “make of thee a great nation” and the narrative
relating His doing just that fills the rest of the Torah or Pentateuch.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The concluding words of the promise to
Abram, however, tell us that even here God was no less concerned with the whole
world than He was in His earlier interactions with Adam and Noah and Nimrod’s
construction crew.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">There are
some who interpret this passage so as to make everything that is promised to
“thee”, Abram, a promise that applies to the “great nation” that God will make
of Abram.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They further interpret the
passage by saying that ancient national Israel has continued in the diaspora
Jewish people to be reborn as a nation in the twentieth century, the present
national state of Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They then say
that the promise to bless whoever blesses and curse whoever curses are promises
to the Jewish people and the present state of Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Translated into contemporary geopolitics
this becomes the idea that we are required to support the state of Israel in
all her conflicts or run the risk of incurring the curse of God. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who interpret the promise this way are
obviously intent on persuading Christians to support Israel as the argument
would not work with unbelievers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is
most often heard, therefore, as part of a theological package known as “Christian
Zionism”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is my
intent in this essay to demonstrate that Christian Zionism is not compatible
with the Christian orthodoxy of the New Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, however, I wish to show how this
interpretation is not compatible with the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Old</i>
Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">One does
not have to look outside the Book of Genesis itself to make this point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Genesis makes it clear that the promises God
makes to Abram/Abraham (1) do not descend automatically to all of his physical
offspring.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Before Isaac was born to
Sarah, she had arranged for Abram, as he was at the time, to sire a son,
Ishmael, with her handmaid Hagar.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
takes place in the sixteenth chapter of Genesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the twenty-first, after Isaac’s birth,
when Sarah demands that Ishmael be driven out, God promises that of Ishmael He
will make “a nation, because he is thy seed”, but that it is Isaac who will
inherit the promises.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Later, after
Sarah dies, Abraham remarries, and his second wife Keturah bears him six sons,
but these do not co-inherit with Isaac any more than Ishmael does.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is recorded in the twenty-fifth
chapter, which also records Abraham’s death and burial, and the birth of Isaac
and Rebekah’s twin sons, Jacob and Esau.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>While they are still in the womb God tells Rebekah that they will become
two nations which will strive with each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is with the younger of the twins, Jacob, later renamed Israel, that
God makes His Covenant and to Jacob that He confirms the promises that He made
to Abraham. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Only one of
Abraham’s literal sons inherited the promises.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Only one of Isaac’s literal sons inherited the promises.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, the promises are not
automatically conferred by right of physical descent from Abraham.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not even in the Old Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The events
recorded in the remainder of the Torah/Pentateuch did not change this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Book of Exodus, four centuries after
the death of Joseph, the descendants of Israel (Jacob) had grown into an ethnos
within Egypt, but their fortune had taken a turn for the worse since the days
when Joseph was Pharaoh’s favourite and basically the Prime Minister of
Egypt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They were enslaved and cruel
measures were taken by the Egyptians to hinder their growth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then God raised up a deliverer in the person
of Moses, who had been born into the tribe of Levi but had been raised as an
adopted member of the Egyptian royal family.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>God sends Moses to speak to Pharaoh demanding the release of His people,
and ultimately provokes, through a series of increasingly intense plagues,
Pharaoh into driving the Israelites out of Egypt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>En route to the land of Canaan, promised by
God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses leads the people to Mt. Sinai, where
God enters into a covenant with them as a nation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This covenant, however, is not like the one
God made with the Patriarchs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Everything that God promised unconditionally to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
which unconditional promises we have just seen did not automatically descend to
Abraham and Isaac’s progeny by right of physical descent, were in the Mosaic
Covenant promised to Jacob’s descendants as a collective people group, a
nation, but on a very much conditional basis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The condition was that they obeyed all of God’s Commandments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If they did, they would enjoy the benefits
of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If they disobeyed, they would be punished
with the opposite of those promises.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
is why this covenant is called the Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The remainder of the Old Testament demonstrates that they were unable to
meet the requirements of the Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
is not because they were uniquely wicked.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No nation would have been able to meet those requirements.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That was not the point of the Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Law demonstrated the need for a New
Covenant that operated on a different basis from the Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That New Covenant was promised in the
prophetic writings of the Old Testament in connection with the promises that
God would send them a Saviour from the Davidic line Who, because He would
inherit David’s throne, was called the Messiah, meaning “Anointed One”, i.e. king.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The promises of the Messiah expanded on a
promise made to all of fallen mankind in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:15) and so
did not concern one nation alone.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Although
his story is told in the New Testament, John the Baptist was the last prophet
of the Old.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, that sounds weird, I
know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is helpful to remember that “Testament”
means “Covenant” and can refer either to the Old and New Covenants <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">qua</i> Covenants or to the collections of
sacred books in which these Covenants respectively predominate. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In both Testaments, in the sense of
collections of books, the historical narrative begins prior to the
establishment of the Covenant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Old
Covenant was established at Mt. Sinai but this doesn’t occur in the narrative
until the second book, Exodus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The New
Covenant was established at the Cross at the end of each of the Gospels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the earlier part of the Gospels, and the
account of John the Baptist occurs at the beginning of each, the Old Covenant
is still in effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That John the Baptist is the last prophet of
the Old Testament, meaning the last prophet filling that office in the period
before the New Covenant takes over, is what Jesus was talking about when He
said “</span>Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there
hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is
least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” and “For all the prophets and
the law prophesied until John” (Matt. 11:11, 13).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is also indicated by the fact that Jesus
waited until John the Baptist had been imprisoned before He began His public
ministry of proclaiming the “Kingdom of Heaven”, i.e., the promised Messianic
Kingdom, “is at hand”, i.e., had arrived in the Person of Him, the promised
Messiah.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is significant therefore
that John, as the last Old Testament prophet and, according to Jesus, the
fulfilment of the prophecy that ends the canonical Old Testament in Malachi 4:5-6
(2), directly addressed the idea that biological descent from Abraham conveyed
in itself the promises and blessings to Abraham when he warned the Sadducees
and Pharisees:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">And think not to say
within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you,
that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham</i>. (Matt.
3:9)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We come now to the New Testament proper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the New Testament we find the substance
of which the Old Testament was the shadow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That which was concealed in the Old Testament is revealed in the New.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The New Testament makes it very clear how
Abraham was made a blessing to all the families of the world, to whom the
promises made to Abraham descend, and how.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
In his epistle to the Churches of Galatia, the region of Asia Minor that had
been settled by the Celtic Gauls in the 3<sup>rd</sup> Century BC, St. Paul
discusses the same issue that was formally addressed by the Holy Catholic
Church in the Council of Jerusalem recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the
Book of Acts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This issue was whether or
not Gentiles, that is, non-Jews, had to become Jews, by being circumcised and
agreeing to keep the Mosaic Law with all its ceremonial restrictions, in order
to be Christians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That Gentiles could
become Christians was established when St. Peter was sent to Cornelius the
Centurion to preach the Gospel, after which he and his household believed, the
Holy Ghost came upon them, and they were baptized into the Church at St.
Peter’s command.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the ministry of SS.
Paul and Barnabas, who were sent out on their first missionary journey shortly
thereafter by the Church in Antioch, the Gentiles proved more receptive to the
Gospel than the Jews and joined the Church in droves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This led to the controversy about whether or
not these Gentile converts should be circumcised and made to follow the Mosaic
ceremonies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Council of Jerusalem after
much testimony and deliberation ruled that the answer was no and sent out a
letter to that effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Paul in his
epistle went even further than the Council and pronounced an anathema upon
those who were troubling the new Christians with their Judaizing claims. (3)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is in the third chapter of his epistle that the Apostle
incorporates into his case against the legalistic Judaizers arguments that also
decisively demolish ideas that are key to the Christian Zionist position.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here are the sixth through ninth verses of
the chapter:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Even as Abraham
believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Know ye therefore that they which are of
faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that
God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which
be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This passage begins with an allusion to Genesis 15:6, the
same verse the Apostle similarly references in the epistle to the Romans, to
make the identical point that righteousness before God, which cannot be
attained by doing the good works required by the Law for the Law demands
flawless obedience of which human sinners are incapable, is, on the basis of
Grace, that is, favour freely given, credited to those who trust God for
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That it is Jesus Christ Who made
this possible, by providing His own flawless righteousness to meet the demands
of the Law, and by paying for the sins of the world through His propitiatory
death, is spelled out shortly after this passage in verse thirteen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What makes this most relevant to our
discussion is that here St. Paul makes a point of saying that it is those who
share Abraham’s faith, and so are justified by faith like Abraham, who are the
children of Abraham, and that these come from all nations (“the heathen”, here,
like “the Gentiles”, means all the other nations of the world).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is reiterated in verse fourteen.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is at this point that St. Paul’s argument, already
devastating to the Christian Zionist position, puts the final nail in its
coffin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the fifteenth verse he says
that covenants, even if they are only between men, once confirmed are neither
added to nor annulled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then in the
sixteenth verse he says this:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Now to Abraham and his
seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of
one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">While it
might seem to some that the Apostle is taking great liberty with his text here
– there are a number of different verses this might be referencing but Gen.
17:7 is the most likely – St. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy
Ghost, provides God’s own interpretation of his earlier words.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus is the Seed of Abraham.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Paul spells it out for us in black and
white.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When, only a few verses earlier,
he said that those who are “of faith”, that is to say, who have justifying faith
like Abraham, are the children of Abraham, they are the children of Abraham because
their faith unites them to Jesus Christ, the Seed of Abraham.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is how justifying faith – or rather
saving faith, because salvation in its entirety, justification, sanctification,
glorification, positional and practical, is a gift received by faith –
works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It contributes nothing of its
own, it receives what God gives us freely, and that which God gives us freely
He gives us in Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When we receive
Him by faith, we are united with Him into a corporate body of which He is Head,
and we members.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, what He is
in Himself, the Seed of Abraham, we who believe in Him are by virtue of being
united with Him in His body.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Now, before
I proceed to the rest of the chapter, I wish to make and emphasize the point
that everything I just said is not something that is new with the New
Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nobody in the Old Testament
was saved by his works, much less by his race.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Old Testament saints were saved by the Grace of God, received
through faith, on account of the work of Jesus Christ as Saviour, just like New
Testament saints.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The difference, of
course, was that the faith of Old Testament saints looked forward to the
Saviour that had been promised but with the dawn of the New Testament saving
faith has looked back to the Saviour already given.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the case of the Old Testament saints,
salvation by Grace through faith worked through the anticipation of their union
with Christ which union was fulfilled in the establishment of the New Covenant
at the Cross and of the corporate Body of Christ on the first Whitsunday (the
Christian Pentecost) as recorded in the second chapter of the book of Acts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the Church was born, the Old Testament
saints, whom Jesus had taken to Heaven with Him after releasing them from the
Kingdom of Death (Sheol/Hades) when He entered there as conqueror in the
Harrowing of Hell, were brought fully into the union, becoming the first
members of the Church Triumphant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Again, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>even in the Old Testament, those who were the
children of Abraham in the sense acknowledged by God, were so in anticipation
of their union with the true Seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ, because they like
Abraham looked forward to Him in faith, and not because of physical descent
from Abraham.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In the
verses that follow after Galatians 3:16, St. Paul, elaborates on the
significance of this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The covenant that
God made with Abraham and his Seed, he explains, a covenant based on His own
freely given promises, i.e., Grace, precedes the Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since the earlier covenant was confirmed in
Christ, the Law which came latter cannot disannul it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Law, he explains, was a temporary
measure, a schoolmaster or tutor assigned the duty of leading the heirs of the
promise to Christ to be justified by faith, after which “we are no longer under
a schoolmaster” (v. 25).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What St.
Paul says here is the opposite of what the Plymouth Brethren/Scofield Reference
Bible/Dallas Theological Seminary school of dispensationalist theology
teaches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the theology that gave
birth to Christian Zionism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It teaches
that the present Church Age in which Jewish and Gentile believers are one in
Jesus Christ is a previously unknown parenthesis in God’s prophetic timeline
and that when the Church Age is over the Church will be removed, the Age of Law
will resume, and God will return to His real prophetic agenda which is all
about national Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Paul,
however, makes it clear that the Law is the parenthesis in God’s timeline, and
that God’s grand plan was always about His promises of blessing freely given in
Grace in Jesus Christ to all who believe, regardless of ethnicity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After telling us that with the coming of the
faith of Christ the parenthetical period of Law the tutor is over he concludes
his argument with the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">For ye are all the
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are
all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and
heirs according to the promise</i>. (vv. 26-29)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Clearly, therefore, St. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians
precludes the Christian Zionist interpretation of Genesis 12 as requiring us to
support the contemporary state of Israel in any and all conflict with her
neighbours.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This would be so even if we
were to accept what the Christian Zionists take for granted, i.e., that Jewish
identity has not changed from the New Testament to our day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We would be fools to accept any such thing,
however, because that is plainly not the case.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even in the Bible Jewish identity is not a constant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Judah was the fourth son of Jacob, whose name
became that of the tribe of his descendants from whom King David came, then
later the name of the Southern Kingdom that remained loyal to the House of
David after the schism of the Northern Kingdom which called itself after the
whole of the nation, Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Originally, the word that corresponds to our “Jew”, derived from “Judah”,
referred to the subjects of the House of David in the Kingdom of Judah, but
following the Babylonian exile it was expanded to include all ancient Israelites.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the meaning that carries over into
the New Testament where for the most part it is synonymous with Hebrew or
Israelite, although in the Gospel of John as the narrative progresses it takes
on the narrower meaning of the religious leaders in Jerusalem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Shortly after the events recorded in the book of Acts and
the writing of most of the books of the New Testament – all except those by St.
John – an event took place which had been predicted by Jesus that radically
altered the nature of Jewish identity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>To suppress a Jewish revolt, the Roman Empire sacked Jerusalem,
destroyed the Temple, dispersed the Jews, and abolished their national identity
as it was at the beginning of the first century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With the destruction of their national
identity, they were left with a religious identity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet at the same time, and for the same
reason, the religion which God had given Israel through Moses was no longer
available to them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Without the Temple,
the sacrifices could no longer be offered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Levitical priesthood ceased to be the spiritual leaders of the
people, even in the nominal sense that had lingered after the Herodian
corruption of the priesthood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
centre of Jewish worship shifted from the destroyed Temple to the synagogue and
with it the spiritual leadership of Judaism shifted from the Levitical
priesthood to the teachers of the synagogue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>These were the scribes, scholars, and lay teachers, mostly from the sect
of Second Temple Judaism known as the Pharisees, who under the title rabbi
became the new clergy of this new Judaism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The rabbis were scholars not just of the Tanakh – what we call the Old
Testament – but even more so the oral traditions that they would start to write
down as the Mishnah which along with their own commentary on it, the Gemara, forms
the Talmud.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rabbis notoriously
disagreed on almost everything, a fact to which the Talmud bears abundant
witness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On one thing, however, they
agreed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They agreed that Jesus of
Nazareth was not the Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The New Testament is absolutely clear as to what that
constitutes:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Who is a liar but he
that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the
Father and the Son</i>. (1 John 2:22)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Christian Zionists, although they usually have a very
elaborate concept of the Antichrist, shy away from applying this term to
rabbinic Judaism even though it meets the New Testament definition of the
word.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many of them have no problem
applying the label to a particular Christian bishop who, although guilty of
exceeding his jurisdiction and perverting a number of doctrines, has not yet
denied Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Note that while rabbinic Judaism most definitely is
antichrist by the scriptural definition of 1 John 2:22 this is not grounds for
harbouring hatred towards individual adherents of this religion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our attitude towards them should be one of
pity towards those bound by the shackles of false religion and of prayer that
they would be enlightened by the Holy Ghost to see in Jesus the true Christ Who
is their only salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The same
attitude, in other words, that we take towards the Mussulmen or adherents of
any other false religion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Judaism, both the Old Testament religion of Moses of which
Christianity is the true spiritual heir, and the post-Temple rabbinic religion
that also lays claim to being the heir of the Old Testament religion but which
rejects the Christ Who is the fulfilment of the Old Testament, admits
converts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While post-Temple Judaism has
not exactly been characterized by a zealous mission to convert the world,
converts have not been unknown either.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ironically,
considering the absurd claim of many Christian Zionists that the Palestinians
are the descendants of the enemies of Israel in the Old Testament, one group
that was converted to Judaism in the second century BC was the Edomites.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A few of the better known stories in the
Talmud feature Gentiles who go to Rabbis Hillel and Shammai, the two most
prominent rabbis of the early first century, challenging them with questions
and promising to convert if given a satisfactory answer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the eighth century AD the king of
Khazaria, a Turkish realm in the southern part of what is now the Ukraine,
asked Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to send representatives to explain the tenets
of their religions, and in the end, converted to Judaism and made his entire
kingdom convert with him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the
twentieth century there were a number of celebrity conversions to Judaism –
Marilyn Monroe, Ivanka Trump and Elizabeth Taylor to give just three
examples.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This places the Christian
Zionist in the absurd position of maintaining that Marilyn Monroe, in order to
marry the playwright Arthur Miller whom she divorced five years later, obtained
a God-given right to a portion of the Holy Land by converting to a religion
that meets the Scriptural definition of antichrist for rejecting God’s Son as
Christ.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">None of this means that the opposite of Christian Zionism,
the idea of those who insist that we are under some sort of obligation to
support the Palestinians are right. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
my next essay, Lord willing, I shall discuss the masses cheering on Hamas, look
at their infantile mentality, and show that it comes from a far more perverse
source than the banal “anti-Semitism” the neo-conservatives have been mindlessly
yammering about.<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> <span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p>(1)</o:p></span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;">Genesis
12:1-3 contain just the first set of these promises, to which more are added
later in the chapter in verse 7, then in verses 14-17 of the thirteenth chapter
after Abram and Lot part ways, then in the fifteenth chapter in which God formally
enters into covenant with Abram, then in the seventeenth chapter in which God
changes Abram’s name to Abraham and promises that he will be “a father of many
nations” (not just one), and that his wife Sarai, whose name is also changed to
Sarah, will give birth to an heir despite their old age, and adds circumcision
as the sacramental sign to the covenant between Him and Abraham, then again in
the twenty-second chapter after God tests Abraham’s faith in the matter of the
command to sacrifice Isaac</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;">(2)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;">John’s
own denial that he was Elijah (Jn. 1:21) does not contradict Jesus as it may
seem. John was addressing a party sent
from Jerusalem that thought of Elijah in terms of the historical personage sent
back to earth. John was right to say
that this is not who he was. Jesus’
words in Matthew 11:14, affirming that John was the fulfilment of this
prophecy, mean that this prophecy was not to be taken as literally as that.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;">(3)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;">The
epistle was clearly written in the midst of the controversy. Whether it was written before or after the
Council, which took place towards the end of the fifth decade of the first
century, cannot be determined with certainty, although the absence of reference
to the Council might be taken as indicating that the epistle was written first.</span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-41786815891453924152023-10-19T02:42:00.002-05:002023-10-19T03:15:14.242-05:00The Greatest Scam on Earth<p>As you are
all most likely aware, the Israel-Palestinian conflict has flared up
again. Like clockwork, the apologists
for both sides have come crawling out of the woodworks insisting that we all
take sides. Interestingly, this time
around the apologists on each side are taking rather the same position with
regards to the apologists of the other side that they insist the side they are
cheering for in the Middle East take towards the other side, i.e., one of
eradication and elimination. The
pro-Israel side is calling for the pro-Palestinian side to be silenced, their
protests shut down, and their views criminalized. Some on the pro-Israel side are capable of
distinguishing between being pro-Palestinian, that is to say, someone who seeks
to promote the basic human rights of the Palestinian Arab population, and being
a supporter of the murderous terrorist organization Hamas, but it seems to me
that they are outnumbered by those lacking this capacity. To be fair, this same incapacity
characterizes the other side as well.
On either side, it is most ugly in its manifestation. The pro-Israelis who fail to make the
distinction have come close to calling for all expressions of humanitarian
concern for the Palestinians to be outlawed as hate. They clearly have come dangerously unhinged
because all rational, sensible, and decent people are categorically opposed to
laws criminalizing hate<i> qua</i> hate. The other side, however, has made it
difficult not to sympathize with them to some degree in that they have been
openly cheering on the most vile and despicable sorts of behaviour on the part
of Hamas.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Two and a
half years ago, in an essay entitled “<span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-holy-land-returns-to-old-normal.html">The
Holy Land Returns to the Old Normal</a></span>” I gave an overview of the
Israel-Palestine conflict, rebutted a few common fallacies concerning it,
offered an explanation of where the insistence that we all take sides comes
from, and answered that demand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do
not intend to go over all of that material again, but I hope you will excuse my
quoting myself here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the end of the
essay I pointed out the obvious real nature of the relationship between the
Israeli government and Hamas:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">The most ill-kept secret of the Middle East is that
Likud Israeli governments and Hamas each rely upon the other to maintain their
popular support among their own people. The Palestinians
expect Hamas to keep on harassing Israel. The Israelis expect
their government to brutally punish the Palestinians. Each,
therefore, provides the other with the excuse to do what they need to do to
play to their own crowds. So we come to May of this
year. On the sixth the Palestinians hold a protest in East
Jerusalem, on the seventh the Israelis crack down and storm the al-Aqsa mosque,
on the tenth Hamas issues an ultimatum which Israel naturally ignores and the
rockets start flying, on the eleventh the Israeli Air Force begin several days
of bombing the hell out of Gaza. On the twentieth, having
given their fans the show they were looking for, Netanyahu and Hamas agree to a
ceasefire. Bada bing, bada boom, it is all over in a
fortnight, mission accomplished, everyone is happy, high fives all
around. Too bad about all the people who had to die, but
didn’t someone somewhere at sometime say something about an omelet and eggs?</span></i><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">There is no good reason to
think that any of this has changed in the present situation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the current conflagration could be
said to exemplify the point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
actions of the Israeli government and Hamas both clearly serve the interests of
the other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consider Hamas’ attack on 7
October.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On top of the usual barrage of
rockets, Hamas breached Israel’s supposedly impenetrable barrier and almost 3000
of their agents entered Israel, attacked towns, kibbutzim (collective farms),
and even a weekend music festival.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
murdered some 1500 people, and took about 150 hostages.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The murder victims and hostages were mostly
Israeli citizens, although there were a few soldiers and a number of people
from other countries who were in Israel in various capacities – workers,
students, attendees of the music festival – among both the dead and
hostages.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was far better
organized and co-ordinated than any previous Hamas attack and consequently far
more lethal but it is difficult to see how it accomplished anything for Hamas
other than the bloodshed itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It did, however, clearly serve a purpose of
Benjamin Netanyahu.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Netanyahu, who had
been ousted as Prime Minister of Israel in June of 2021, was re-elected in
December of last year on a hard-line platform and needed to at least appear to
be making good on his promises.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cracking
down on Hamas is the easiest way of doing that and by carrying out an attack of
this nature Hamas handed him an iron clad justification for doing so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On a side note, whatever else you might say
about Benjamin Netanyahu, his political longevity is something to be marvelled
at.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I fully expect that sometime down
the road we will be reading, a week or two after his funeral, that he has just
won re-election as Prime Minister of Israel in a landslide.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Now some of you might be
thinking “Aha, gotcha, there is a flaw in your argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hamas’s actions might serve Netanyahu’s
ends, but in retaliating the Israeli government will wipe them out so there is
no reciprocal benefit, it is a one-way street this time around”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This, however, very much remains to be
seen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So far, apart from the rhetoric,
Israel’s retaliatory actions have consisted of the same sort of aerial
bombardment with which they have responded to past Hamas attacks, albeit on a
larger scale.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There has been talk of an
imminent and massive ground incursion into Gaza for a week and a half now but
if it ever materializes the IDF’s overwhelming military superiority does not
guarantee Israel a quick and easy victory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Ask the Americans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israel would
be walking into the same sort of situation in which the United States found
herself entangled in Vietnam and later Afghanistan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a long term operation and the longer
it drags on the more it is to Hamas’ favour, because the longer such a conflict
stretches out, the less international public sympathy will be with Israel, and
it is in the arena of international public opinion that Hamas fights all its
true battles.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">It sounds crazy but it is
nevertheless true that every time Hamas attacks Israel it is with the intention
of provoking a retaliatory attack.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
reason this seems crazy is because Israel is so much stronger than Hamas in
terms of military might.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It conjures up
the picture of a chihuahua getting in the face of a big bruiser of a bull dog
and yipping away annoyingly until the larger dog barks or bites its head
off.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One moral of the Old Testament
account of David and Goliath, however, is that size isn’t everything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this case, Hamas wants Israel to attack
back because every time Israel does far more Palestinian civilians are killed
than Hamas agents, enabling Hamas to run to the international news media, the
General Assembly of the United Nations, the World Council of Churches,
humanitarian organizations, university professors and student activists, and
basically every group of self-important jackasses with a lot of money and power
and not enough brain cells to fill a thimble, and whine and cry about how mean
old Israel has been beating on them again, after which these groups wag their
fingers in Israel’s face saying shame on you, shame on you, and dump tons of
money in humanitarian relief into Hamas controlled Palestinian territory,
keeping Hamas solvent, and freeing up other resources with which to buy more
rockets.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">A great illustration of the
Hamas strategy can be found in the 1959 film <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Mouse That Roared</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
the movie, a small European country, the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, has built its
entire economy on a single export product, the wine Pinot Grand Fenwick.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When a California wine company produces a
cheap knockoff, and the country is threatened with insolvency, Duchess Gloriana
(Peter Sellers) and her Prime Minister, Count Mountjoy (Peter Sellers) hatch a
scheme to attack the United States, lose, and then reap the rewards of losing
to the United States, which pours plenty of money into rebuilding the countries
it has defeated in war.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So they send
the United States a declaration of war and then put their game warden, Tully (guess
who), in charge of their small army of soldiers, mail-clad and armed with bows
and arrows, and send him over.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
scheme goes awry when Tully accidentally wins the war – watch the movie to find
out how.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The point of course, is that
Hamas’ strategy is essentially that of Grand Fenwick.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a darker version that involves much
more bloodshed including the sacrifice of large numbers of their own and the
payoff is expected more from third parties than from the victorious attackee,
but it is the same basic scam.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Israel is running a big scam
too, of course.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In her case it is not
the gullible “international community” that is the mark so much as the equally
gullible United States of America. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israel, which paid for the creation of Hamas –
see my previous essay alluded to earlier – has long been the single largest recipient
of American foreign aid, in part because the various pro-Israel lobby groups in
the United States make the National Rifle Association look like rank amateurs
in comparison, but also because Israel knows how to play on the United States’
national mythology by presenting herself as the only liberal democracy in her
region, surrounded and besieged by anti-Semitic autocrats, just like those that
the United States likes to imagine herself as having single-handedly defeated
in the Second World War.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course
there is some truth in that depiction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>When did you ever hear of a successful scam that consisted completely of
falsehoods?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">This is why it is best for
the rest of the world to stay out of this conflict and refuse to give in to
this demand that we pick sides.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our involvement,
whichever side we end up supporting, however well-intentioned, ends up
facilitating the worst sort of behaviour of both sides.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">We need to stop looking at
the conflict in the Middle East through the lens of the “good guys” versus “bad
guys” dichotomy, rooted in the heresy of Mani that has permeated Western
popular culture through the pernicious influence of Hollywood movies and the
comic book industry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are no “good
guys” in this conflict although there are a lot of innocent victims, both
Israeli and Palestinian Arab.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">If someone were to point a
gun to my head and demand that I choose sides I would chose Israel, although I would
be sure to hold my nose while doing so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Israel is a legitimate state, or at least the closest thing to a
legitimate state that a modern democratic government without a king can be,
which isn’t very close.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hamas is a
criminal organization of lawless thugs and murderers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israel has spent the last three quarters of
a century trying to build up a civilized society for herself and her
people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hamas are destroyers not
builders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am a life-long Tory by
instinct and as the late Sir Roger Scruton wisely put it “Conservatism </span>starts
from a sentiment that all mature people can readily share: the sentiment that
good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I will never side with those who only ever
walk the easy path of destroying what others have labouriously built.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not Year Zero, Cultural Maoist, groups like
Black Lives Matter and Every Child Matters in North America. Not Hamas in the
Middle East.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally, while both sides
value the lives of civilians on the other side extremely cheap, there is a huge
difference in that Hamas places no higher a value on the lives of their own
civilians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, Hamas arguably
values the lives of civilian Palestinian Arabs less than Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hamas, when it attacks Israel, targets the
civilian population, but prior to 7 October, its attacks have been largely
ineffective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It fires tons of rockets
at Israel, almost all of which are taken down by the Iron Dome, and the few
that make it past are not guaranteed to hit anything or anyone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its rocket launchers, however, Hamas
deliberately places in residential neighbourhoods, mosques, hospitals, schools,
and other similar locations where a retaliatory strike to take out the rocket
launcher will have maximum civilian casualties.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The same is true of anything else Hamas has
that would be considered a legitimate military target by the rules that most
countries, nominally at least, support for the conduct of warfare.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, Israel must either stand there
and allow herself to be attacked, the sort of thing someone whose soul has been
killed and brain rotted from training in public relations and/or human
resources might recommend, (1) or take out Hamas’ attack bases and in the
process destroy the civilian and humanitarian infrastructure within which those
bases are hid and kill the countless numbers of Palestinians that Hamas uses as
human shields, handing Hamas plenty of ammunition in the form of bad press to
use against her..<span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">That having been said, the
reasons for refusing the choice, for not taking sides are solid.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is in the mutual interests of Israel and
Hamas to keep this conflict going forever, but this is not in the interests of the
civilians on both sides, nor is it in the interests of the rest of the world which
both sides expect to pay for their lethal and destructive activities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is in the best interests of everybody,
that the rest of the world refuse to be dragged into this any longer, and tell
the two sides they both need to grow up.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">I shall, Lord willing, follow
up this essay with two others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
first will demonstrate that the Christian Zionist position that we are required
by the Scriptures to take Israel’s side in Middle-East conflicts is rank
heresy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The second will look at the neoconservative
claim that the pro-Palestinian Left’s unhinged support of Hamas comes from
anti-Semitism and demonstrate that it comes from a different source. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p>(1)</o:p></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="background: white; text-indent: -18pt;">Contrary to what the Anabaptist heresy teaches, Jesus
said nothing of this sort in Matthew 5:39.
This verse is best understood as forbidding revenge rather than
self-defence but even if taken as forbidding self-defence it says nothing about
how governments, responsible for the security of those they govern, are to act,
as evident from the fact that before this section of the Sermon, Jesus gave a
disclaimer that it is not to be taken as abrogating the Law.</span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-19484163747793865192023-10-07T08:05:00.016-05:002023-10-19T03:14:45.836-05:00Manitoba is now up the Creek, Without a Paddle, in a Leaky Kinew<p> I have said
before that I think we Canadians owe our Sovereign, now His Majesty Charles
III, although when I made the remark originally it was our late Sovereign Lady
of blessed memory, Elizabeth II, an apology for the incompetent, utterly
corrupt, and insanely evil clown who, through our abuse of our voting privilege,
has been Prime Minister of this Commonwealth Realm for the last eight
years. Now I would add that the
Canadians of my province, Manitoba, owe a double apology for putting the only
politician in the Dominion worse than Captain Airhead himself into the premier’s
office, with a majority in the Legislature behind him.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">When the
evil New Democratic Party led by the execrable Wab Kinew won the provincial
election on 3 October, I was disgusted but not surprised. When Lee Harding of the Frontier Centre for
Public Policy, a local think-tank here in Winnipeg, published a piece on 29
September calling for the re-election of the Progressive Conservatives, I could
not agree with his title as much as I desired that outcome. The title was “<a href="https://fcpp.org/2023/09/29/manitoba-pcs-deserve-another-mandate/">Manitoba
PCs Deserve Another Mandate</a>”. No,
they did not. The reason for voting PC
this election was not that they deserved it but that the alternative was much,
much, worse.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">The
Progressive Conservatives, led by Brian Pallister, won the provincial election
of 2016 and governed well enough in their first term that Harding’s title would
have been true had he written his article in 2019. That year they won re-election and at the
annual New Year’s </span><span style="background: white;">Levée hosted by the
Lieutenant Governor I shook Pallister’s hand and congratulated him on his
victory. Within a few months of this,
however, Pallister’s governance went south badly and I came to loathe the
man. In July of 2021, a short time
before he resigned as PC leader and premier, I expressed this in these words:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><em>Brian
Pallister is an ignorant fool!</em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><em>He’s a
stupid, ugly, loser and he smells bad too!</em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><em>His one and
only virtue,</em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><em>I hate to
say it but it’s true,</em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><em>His one and
only virtue is –</em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><em>He’s not Wab
Kinew!</em><em><span style="font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><em><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><em><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><em><span style="font-style: normal;">It was Pallister’s
handling of the bat flu scare that had so soured me on his governance. He had imposed a particularly harsh
lockdown, had done so earlier than many other provinces, and had done so in an
arrogant, in-your-face, manner. Wab
Kinew and the NDP criticized Pallister’s handling of the pandemic, but their
criticism went entirely in the wrong direction. They criticized Pallister for not imposing
lockdowns sooner, not making them harsher, lifting them too early and this sort
of thing. They should have been
criticizing Pallister for trampling all over the most basic rights and freedoms
of Manitobans, that is to say our ancient Common Law rights and freedoms not
the useless and empty guarantees of Pierre Trudeau’s Charter, and acting like
there are no constitutional limits to the power of government in an
emergency. Their mishandling of the bat
flu panic under Pallister is the reason the PC’s don’t deserve another
mandate. Kinew’s criticism of the same,
which amounted to a demand that Pallister do more of what he was doing wrong,
is one reason why the NDP do not deserve to replace the PC’s as government and
are a much worse alternative.<o:p></o:p></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><em><span style="font-style: normal;"> </span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><em><span style="font-style: normal;">It was not the
botched job he made of the bat flu that ultimately brought about Pallister’s
resignation as PC leader and premier at the beginning of September 2021. This was 2021, and the crazy progressive
leftists who dominate so much of the Canadian mainstream media, envious as
always of their counterparts in the United States, decided that Canada needed her version of the George Floyd controversy that had been
manufactured by the BLM Movement – the movement for whom the lives of American
blacks matter the least because their target is the American police who protect
American blacks from the violent crime that costs so many blacks their lives
each year – and so jumped on the discovery of ground disturbances – and that
was all that were discovered – on the site of the Kamloops Indian Residential
School, which the band interpreted as the discovery of unmarked graves – not “mass
graves” as falsely reported – and began claiming that this “proved” the version
of the Indian Residential Schools narrative that defrocked United Church
minister and conspiracy theorist Kevin Annett has been spouting since the
1990s, i.e., that children were murdered by the thousands in the schools and buried
in secret graves. Imagine if the mainstream
media in the UK were to start reporting David Icke’s theory that the world is
controlled by reptilian shapeshifters from outer space and you will have an
approximation of the degree of departure from journalistic standards and integrity
that was involved here. Their claim has
since been thoroughly debunked, which is why leftist politicians now want to
criminalize debunking it, but it had its intended effect. That summer saw the biggest wave of hate
crimes in Canadian history as Church buildings – whether the Churches had any
connection to the residential schools or not – were burned or otherwise
vandalized all across the country. On
Dominion Day, Year Zero, Cultural Maoist terrorists, toppled the statues of
Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II on the grounds of the Manitoba
Legislature. No society can afford to
tolerate this sort of violent, seditious, assault on her history and
civilization and Brian Pallister appropriately condemned these acts. In doing so he made positive statements
about the previous generations of Canadians who settled and built the country and
who are now constantly being defamed by progressive academics and journalists,
in violation of the fifth and ninth commandments. The provincial Indian chiefs decided to take
offense at this – take offense is the operative phrase, as none was given,
Pallister had not said anything about them, negative or otherwise – and demanded
that Pallister apologize. Pallister
should have told them to go suck an egg and stood his ground. Instead, about a month later, he cravenly
gave them the apology they didn’t deserve, and in the event didn’t accept, and
shortly thereafter resigned.</span></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kelvin Goertzen took over as interim party leader and
premier until the party held its leadership vote on 30 October. Now, I am not a fan of this method of
choosing a party leader. I think that
it is far more consistent with our parliamentary form of government for the
party caucus – the party’s sitting members in the House of Commons or
provincial legislative assembly – to choose their leader, and that selling paid
memberships in the party with a vote for the leader attached smacks of the
American republican system. I also
dislike the way our elections, Dominion and provincial, are now treated by
almost everyone as if we were directly voting for the prime minister or
premier, rather than voting for our local representatives in a larger
parliamentary assembly, for the same reason.
This is a consequence of being inundated with too much American culture
in the form of television and movies.
That having been said, if the party leader is to be chosen this way, it
should at least be open and honest.
That is precisely what the vote that put Heather Stefanson in as leader
of Manitoba’s Progressive Conservatives and premier of the province was
not. Stefanson was the candidate
supported by the sitting members – had the party chosen its leader according to
my preferred method she would have still become leader. She was also, however, the candidate that
the backroom bosses of the party wanted as leader, and when they ultimately got
their way their new leader had a huge cloud of suspicion of shenanigans over
her head. Stefanson won the leadership vote
by a narrow margin – 51.1% over the 48.9% received by Shelly Glover, which looks
even narrower in total vote count – 8, 405 for Stefanson, 8, 042 for Glover. Glover, who had formerly been a member of
the House of Commons representing St. Boniface, based her campaign in part on dissatisfaction
with how Pallister, with whose government Stefanson had been associated, had
handled the bat flu. The party’s former
CFO, Ken Lee, had also sought the leadership, in his case making opposition the
Pallister lockdowns his sole issue, but his candidacy was disqualified for
reasons that never really were made clear.
This looked shady, as did the fact that over 1200 members had not
received their ballots in time to vote, and when Glover lost by such a narrow margin
- less than 400 votes - she contested the outcome, but her challenge was
quickly dismissed. This had all the
appearances of a backroom fix.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When this happened I realized that it would take a miracle
for the Progressive Conservatives to win the next election. You cannot treat your voting base this way
and expect them to turn up in sufficient numbers to support you come election
time.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It was apparent during the short election campaign, and the
longer pre-campaign leading up to it, that Stefanson’s PCs were not remotely as
committed to their winning the election as their enemies were to their being
defeated. I say enemies rather than
opponents because it is not just their rivals in the legislature that I am
talking about.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The unions have been determined to take down the PCs since
pretty much the moment Brian Pallister became premier and have really stepped
up their game in the last couple of years.
They have spent a fortune on billboard ads all over Winnipeg attacking
the PC government. Then there are the
yard signs that began popping up like mushrooms all over the place long before
the party campaign signs came out. These
couldn’t explicitly endorse candidate or party, but everyone knew what they
were getting at. The most common such
signs were from the Manitoba Nurses Union and the Manitoba Teachers Society. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Allied with these unions in their quest to bring down the
PCs and put Kinew’s NDP into government, was the media, especially the CBC,
which as Crown broadcaster by rights ought to be neutral, and the <i>Winnipeg Free Press</i>. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These media, along with the Manitoba Nurses Union and the
NDP, have been using health care as a club to bash the Progressive
Conservatives with ever since Pallister, early in his premiership, indicated
his disagreement with them that health care spending needs to keep going in one
direction only, up, converted the Emergency Rooms at Seven Oaks and Victoria
Hospitals in Winnipeg into urgent care centres, and closed the Concordia
Hospital ER refocusing the hospital to transitional care for the elderly and
those undergoing physical rehabilitation.
The PCs dropped the ball on this one.
They should have hammered back, just as hard, pointing out that the
consultant’s report on whose recommendations they did this had been commissioned
by the previous, NDP, government, and that at the same time they expanded the
capacity of the three remaining ERs – Health Sciences Centre, St. Boniface, and
Grace. They should also have emphasized
that health care has usually fared much worse under NDP governments in rural
ridings. The ER in Vita, a rural
community about an hour and a half south-east of Winnipeg, closed three years
after Greg Selinger became premier. Two
years later it was still closed, with eighteen others along with it. ERs in many other rural communities remained
open, but on a basis somewhat like a multi-point parish, with the same doctor
serving several ERs, being in the one the one day, another the next. In the
second last year of Gary Doer’s premiership, the ER in Virden, a rural
community along the TransCanada Highway near the Saskatchewan border was
temporarily closed, mercifully for only about half a year. These examples are representative, not comprehensive,
and while the rural doctor shortage is a chronic problem regardless of who is
in government, rural areas always fare worse under the NDP. Not coincidentally, these same areas rarely
if at all vote NDP. A rural ER closure,
even a temporary one, is worse than an ER closure in Winnipeg, for while there
are more people in Winnipeg, the transit time to the next ER, especially if the
ER to close is one that serviced a very large area, like the one in Vita, is
increased that much more in the country.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The media also found another club to bash the PC government with
in the Indians’ demand that the Prairie Green Landfill be searched for the
remains of two murdered women that the Winnipeg Police believe to have ended up
there. This demand was expressed in
protests, blockades, and something that is probably best described as a riot,
earlier this year. Here again,
Stefanson’s PCs shot themselves in the foot.
Not so much by refusing the demand – their grounds for doing so were
sound, and certainly not the “racism” of which idiots accuse them – but by
bringing the issue into the election campaign.
No matter how sound the case for not conducting this just under $200
million search of an area laced with toxins, there was no way Stefanson could
argue her point without appearing heartless.
It would have been better to stay silent.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, no, the Stefanson PC’s did not deserve another
mandate. The problem is that those who
won deserved it even less.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let me spell it out for you. At the moment, people all across the
Dominion of Canada are experiencing an affordability crisis. The price of food has gone through the
roof. Many Canadians are skipping
meals, many others are buying less healthy processed food than they otherwise
would, because the prices at the grocery stores are too high. At the same time rent is sky high and houses
are selling at obscene prices.
Transportation is also that much more expensive. Much of this is the direct consequence of
bad action on the part of the Dominion government. The price of gasoline has gone up
considerably due to the carbon tax, which in turn increases the price of
everything that needs to be transported using fuel. The housing shortage is a direct consequence
of Captain Airhead’s decision to use record immigration, with apologies to
Bertolt Brecht, to elect a new people.
While Captain Airhead seems to think that food prices are high because
of price fixing on the part of the big grocery chains, a notion he borrowed
from the man propping his minority government up, federal NDP leader Jimmy
Dhaliwal, the fact of the matter is that he has been spending like a drunken
sailor since he got into office. When
governments spend more than they take in in revenue, this is not a contributing
factor to inflation, it <i>is</i>
inflation. The extra they spend
increases the supply of money, the means of exchange, which decreased the value
of money per unit, and causes the price of everything else to rise relative to
it. When you spend the way Captain
Airhead did over the last few years, paying people to stay home for long
periods of time and not go to work – decreasing the production of goods and
services and thus causing their cost in currency to go up – you increase
inflation exponentially. Manitoba just
elected a premier who has the same sort of attitude towards spending as Captain
Airhead. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Last month, in the Million Person March, organized by Ottawa
Muslim activist Kamel El-Cheik, but supported by many faith groups and people
just concerned about the rights of parents, Canadians across the Dominion
expressed what polls already had indicated to be the overwhelming majority opinion
of Canadians – that schools should not be keeping parents out of the loop about
what is going on in the classroom with their kids about gender identity and
that sort of thing. While leftists have
tried to spin this as an alphabet soup issue, accusing those protesting of
various sorts of hatred and bigotry, and spinning the reasonable insistence
that teachers entrusted with the education of children report back to the
parents who so entrusted them, as “forced outing”, they are being absurd. There is a word for someone who tells kids
to keep stuff having to do with sex a secret from their parents. The policy that schools and school boards
have been following in recent years seems tailor-made to accommodate such
people. Heather Stefanson had promised
in her campaign to protect parental rights.
The promise would have been more credible had she introduced the
legislation to do so earlier when the New Brunswick and Saskatchewan
governments were doing so. However,
this much is clear, if someone wanted to protect perverts in the schools rather
than the rights of parents, he would be cheering the outcome of this election.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">The province already has a huge problem with drug abuse and related social evils. <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-drug-crisis-overdose-deaths-1.6824103#:~:text=Manitoba-,Manitoba%20chief%20medical%20examiner%20says%20drug%2Drelated%20crisis%20undeniable%2C%20as,death%20in%20Manitoba%20last%20year.">The CBC reported in April </a>that provincial Chief Medical Examiner had told them via e-mail that the number of drug-related deaths per year has "risen dramatically here in recent years" and that "the deaths are only the tip of the iceberg". 407 Manitobans died from overdoses in 2021, 372 the year previously, both record numbers. It was at least 418 in 2022. At least 228 involved fentanyl and/or related drugs. The city of Winnipeg also saw the largest jump in crime severity of any Canadian city in the same period. These two facts are not unrelated, nor is the size of the homelessness problem in Winnipeg. The left, in recent years, has been obsessed with the "harms reduction" approach to this matter, an approach that tries to lower the number of deaths due to overdose and contamination by providing a "safe" supply of drugs and "safe" places to use them. It is usually coupled with decriminalization or outright legalization of some or all narcotics. This approach is concerned more with the effects of drugs on those who (ab)use them and less or not at all with the effects of drug abuse on the surrounding community. It was tried by the NDP in Alberta in the premiership of Rachel Notley, and more dramatically in British Columbia, where the provincial NDP government introduced this approach on a provincial scale earlier at the beginning of this year, despite it having proven a failure when the city of Vancouver tried it, causing overdose deaths to rise. The NDP are incapable of learning from their mistakes on matters such as these. Expect Kinew to try and imitate BC's mistake, not avoid it and look elsewhere, like, for example, Singapore's "harm prevention" approach, for a successful model. This problem is about to get much worse in Winnipeg and Manitoba.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It will not be long before we in Manitoba rue the outcome of
this election.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">Now we owe His
Majesty a double apology, first for Captain Airhead in the Dominion Prime
Minister’s Office, now for Captain Airhead’s doppleganger in the province of Manitoba.</span>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-66888232929391506172023-10-05T06:50:00.001-05:002023-10-05T06:50:22.805-05:00Tiers of Truth: The Creed and the Reformation<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In my last
essay, I looked at how Hyper-Protestants, those who are not content merely with
opposing the errors distinctive to Rome that the Magisterial Reformers,
continental and English, rejected, but who also oppose at least in part the
Catholic tradition that belongs to all the ancient Churches and not just Rome, elevate
their position in disputes over doctrines that are at best tertiary, over both
the first rank of Christian truths – the Catholic tradition, especially the
essential core which is the faith confessed in the Creed – and the second rank,
the truths for the clarification of which, the Protestant Reformation was
fought.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this essay we shall look at
that second rank of Christian truths and see why, important as they are, they
should not be treated as on the same level or higher, than the truths of the
Creed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is
common among conservative evangelicals today to say that the Reformation was
fought over the Five Solae – Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola
Fide and Soli Deo Gloria.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In English
these are respectively Scripture Alone, Christ Alone, Faith Alone, Grace Alone,
and To God Alone be the Glory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Note
that you will find these arranged in different orders and while Sola Scriptura
is more often than not the first and Soli Deo Gloria is usually the last, there
is no correct order.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That doesn’t mean
that the order is irrelevant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
reason Sola Scriptura usually appears first is because it identifies the
authority claimed for the others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
reason Soli Deo Gloria usually appears last is because it is a conclusion that
inevitably follows from the others – if Christ is the only Saviour, and
salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, then God alone gets the glory
for it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The order of the three others
varies the most.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have placed them in
the order that I think makes the most sense as a sequence where each item
follows logically from that which preceded it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That there is no “correct” order is because it is absurd to think of a
correct order to a formulation that was thought up in the twentieth century,
and imposed upon the theology of the sixteenth century.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">That the
Five Solae are a twentieth century formulation imposed on the sixteenth century
is one reason why I do not think it is the best way of looking at the truths
the Reformers stood for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If this were
the only reason it would not be sufficient cause for looking for another
formulation since the same thing could be said of any alternative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are, however, other reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It was
Reformed theologians who came up with the Five Solae formulation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Reformed tradition already has a five
point formulation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This formulation is
the canons of the Synod of the Reformed Church that met in Dort from 1618-1619
to respond to the challenge of Arminianism, a form of theology that had
developed within the Reformed Church as a reaction against the strong
Predestinarianism of the Reformed tradition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Arminians had issued a five-point challenge to the Predestinarian
position in their Articles of Remonstrance, published in 1610 shortly after the
death of their teacher Arminius the previous year, and in the Canons of Dort
the Reformed Church responded to these Articles point by point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Canons are one of the Three Points of
Unity of the Reformed Church, are very strongly Predestinarian, and, slightly
rearranged, are familiar as the Five Points of Calvinism, the TULIP – Total
depravity (or inability), Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement (particular
redemption), Irresistible Grace (effectual calling), and the Perseverance of
the Saints.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of these, the doctrine of
Limited Atonement – that Jesus died only for those whom God had pre-selected
for final salvation and not for the whole world contradicts the plain teaching
of Scripture (1 John 2:2) and undermines the sixteenth century Reformation
understanding of the Gospel as the objective assurance of salvation to all who
believe it, an understanding retained in the Lutheran tradition, but in the
sixteenth century taught by the Reformed Reformers as well, including John
Calvin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It undermines this
understanding of the Gospel, because a message of “Good News’ that says “if you
are lucky enough to be one of those God pre-selected for salvation then Jesus
died for your sins” is considerably less assuring than “Jesus died for your
sins”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, it ultimately undermines the
Law-Gospel distinction so important to Dr. Luther and Calvin in that having
stripped the Gospel of its objective assurance, the believer must look
elsewhere for assurance that he is one of the elect, and the Dortians have
generally directed such seekers to look inward to the fruit of sanctification,
i.e., their own works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since the Five
Solae is a formulation drawn up by theologians within the Dortian tradition, influenced
by their own Five Points of Dort, it looks like an attempt, consciously or
unconsciously, to the paint the entire sixteenth century Reformation with the
brush of the Dortian Reformed tradition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Reformed tradition is but one of the three major traditions to
emerge from the Magisterial Reformation, one that was already more radical in
the sixteenth century than either Lutheranism or Anglicanism, and which became
that much more so, at least in regard to Predestinarianism with the Synod of
Dort.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a mistake, therefore, in my
opinion, to try and read the entire Reformation through a Dort-inspired lens.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is also
a red flag that the common word to all five is “sola” or “alone”. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The reason this is a red flag is that
isolating a truth from other truths is the formula for generating a
heresy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A heresy is not a simple
error.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A heresy is a truth that has
been set apart – alone – from other truths and so emphasized that other truths
end up denied.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unitarianism and
Sabellianism, for example, so separate and overemphasize the unity of God, that
they deny that God is Three in Person.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The opposite heresy of this is Tritheism, which emphasizes the unique
Personhood of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to the point of denying the unity of
God and making the Three Persons into Three Gods.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nestorianism emphasizes the distinction
between Jesus’ two natures, His being fully God and fully Man, to the extent that
it denies the unity of His Person by rejecting the Communicatio Idiomatum and
asserting that something can be true of one of His natures that is not true of
Him as a Person.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Monophysitism is the
opposite heresy that emphasizes the unity of the Person of Jesus Christ to the
point of denying the distinction between His natures and maintaining that His
humanity was swallowed up into His divinity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is the nature of heresy, getting one truth alone, so that others
are denied.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is also why the
opposite of one heresy is generally not the truth but another heresy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Someone, recognizing that one heresy has
denied an important truth, pushes back too far in asserting that truth, and in
doing so rejects and denies the truth the original heresy had overemphasized.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A careful statement of truth, like the
statement of the Hypostatic Union in the Definition of Chalcedon, avoids the
heretical pitfalls of both extremes, in the case of Chalcedon the extremes of
Nestorianism and Monophysitism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This does
not mean that the word “alone” always marks a truth that is in the process of
being isolated into a heresy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the
case of the Five Solae, each, if properly explained – and some need more
explanation than others – is sound.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
does indicate, however, that a doctrinal statement in which each article is an
“alone” statement is not the product of the same type of careful, precise, and
contextual theological thought that went into the ancient Creeds and the
Definition of Chalcedon.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Of the Five
Solae, the one that requires the least by way of explanation is Solus
Christus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus Christ is the only
Saviour.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is basically the same
thing as what St. Peter said when addressing the high priests and Sanhedrin in
Acts 4 he said “</span><span style="background: white;">Neither is there
salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among
men, whereby we must be saved.” (vs 12)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Or for that matter what the Lord Jesus Christ Himself said when He told
the Apostles after the Last Supper “</span>I am the way, the truth, and the
life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (Jn. 14:6) <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sola Fide requires Sola Gratia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sola Gratia is that salvation – the
spiritual salvation that Jesus Christ, as the only Saviour, accomplished – is
by the Grace, the freely given favour that is, of God alone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Alone in this case means as opposed to “with
the help of human works”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The principle
is spelled out in the fourth chapter of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans where
it is quite clearly, especially if the chapter is read in its own place in the
context of the linear argument the Apostle makes in this book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Now to him that worketh is the reward not
reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on
him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (vv.
4-5)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God’s saving favour is freely
given to those who don’t deserve it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
is not a reward to be earned but a free gift.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is stressed repeatedly in the Pauline epistles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is only when this is first grasped that
Sola Fide makes sense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If God’s saving Grace is a gift freely given
in Jesus Christ to those who do not deserve it (none of us deserve it – Rom
3:23) then how do those who do not deserve it and cannot earn it receive
it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By faith is the answer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Faith alone” means that faith is the sole
means appointed to the sinner to appropriate the freely given Grace of
God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not an ontological statement
about faith existing apart from repentance, Christian love, and the works
Christian love produces in the heart and life of the believer nor is it a
statement that faith is the “whole duty of man” or any such nonsense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While Sola Fide requires Sola Gratia and follows from Sola
Gratia, and Sola Gratia follows from Solus Christus in that if Jesus, the
Saviour God has given us, is the only Saviour, then salvation is a free gift by
His Grace, Sola Fide then leads back to Solus Christus, for faith needs an
object and that object is Jesus Christ the only Saviour.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Solus Christus in turn requires Sola Fide
for if Jesus is our only Saviour and if He does all the saving without our
assistance, the only thing left to us is to trust Him.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">By contrast, Sola Scriptura requires the most by way of
explanation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If not carefully explained
it can become the source of all sorts of bad doctrine and practice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Sola is the problem here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does it mean that the Scriptures are the
only one of something like how Solus Christus means Jesus is the only Saviour?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or does it mean that something is to be done
by the Scriptures alone, like how Sola Fide means that the free gift of
salvation is to be received by faith alone?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If it means that the Scriptures are the only one of something then what
is that something?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does it mean that
the Scriptures are the only authority binding on Christians?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that is what it means it contradicts
those very same Scriptures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does it
mean that the Scriptures as the written Word of God are the only earthly
authority vested with infallibility?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This, I think, is much closer to the thinking of the Reformers, but let
us consider the other possible interpretation of Sola.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it means that something is to be done by
the Scriptures alone, what is that something?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The answer that jumps to mind is prove and establish true doctrine but
this raises yet another question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Who
is to prove and establish true doctrine by the Scriptures alone?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Church or the private individual.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For Dr. Luther and the other sixteenth century
Magisterial Reformers, the answer to this would have been the Church as the
community of faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the more radical
Reformers – the continental Anabaptists, the English Puritans, the separatists
and sectarians of various shades – the answer was the private individual.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we take the idea that the Scriptures as the written Word
of God are the only earthly authority that is infallible and the idea that the
Church, not the private individual, is to prove and establish true doctrine by
the Scriptures alone, these ideas together are a good picture of what the
Reformers thought with regards to the Scriptures and what they were fighting
for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Personally, I don’t think the
language of “Sola” or “Alone” is necessary to convey these ideas and that
speaking of Scriptural Primacy or Supremacy accomplishes the job much better
and without lending itself to the private interpretation view that gives birth
to heresies, schisms, and enthusiasm of all sorts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Someone might object to this characterization of the Reformation
position by claiming that Dr. Luther taught private interpretation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not accurate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not entirely, at any rate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Luther certainly did not practice
private interpretation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He did not
ignore what previous generations of Christians going back to the Church Fathers
had to say when interpreting the Bible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Nor did he throw out the teaching authority of the Church and discard
the Ecumenical Councils.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Lutheran
confessions contained in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Book of
Concord</i> are evidence of that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What
Dr. Luther did not admit to Church tradition, the Church Fathers, and the
magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) was a) infallibility and b)
an authority over the Scriptures to impose a meaning upon them other than what
is there in the text.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He did not admit
either of these things to the individual Christian either.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was fighting the false teachings of a
Patriarch of Rome that had usurped jurisdictional authority over the entire
Church, magisterial authority over the Scriptures themselves, and was already
heading in the direction of Vatican I in which he would claim
infallibility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He knew that granting
this same usurped authority to each individual Christian, thus in effect making
each Christian his own pope, would multiply the problem not rectify it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>.Now, some apologists for the Roman Church
might jump in here and say “Ha, gotcha, Luther said exactly that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He said ‘<span style="background: white;">In
these matters of faith, to be sure, each Christian is for himself pope and
church’”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a quote that
regularly pops up among Roman apologists when addressing Sola Scriptura but
that was not what Dr. Luther was talking about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These words originally appeared in the
context of an extended discussion “Concerning Faith and Works” that appears in
his Commentary on the Psalms, under Psalm XIV verse 1, in which Dr. Luther was
talking about faith in Christ as opposed to faith in external ceremonies
(formalism) and urging those who trusted in the outward works of ceremonies to
cast such misplaced faith off.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this
context, these words do not mean that each Christian is “pope and church” when
it comes to deciding what the Scriptures mean, but that when it comes to
placing faith in Christ rather than externals, he, the Christian, should not
wait approval from the Church hierarchy. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">In other places Dr. Luther
sometimes appears to affirm something like private interpretation when talking
about the universal priesthood of all believers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Western Church by the sixteenth
century, an unhealthy gap between the clergy and the laity had developed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was widely thought, although not
necessarily officially taught, that the priesthood and the laity were
ontologically different classes within the Church, that the priesthood was
assigned the active role of interpreting the Scriptures and sanctifying the
people, especially through offering the Eucharistic sacrifice, and that the
laity were assigned the passive role of believing whatever the priests told
them and being sanctified by the Eucharistic sacrifice whether they partook of
it Sacramentally or not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Luther,
rightly opposed this sort of thing, but in doing so, he incorrectly inferred
from the universal priesthood of all members of the Church taught in the New
Testament that Christ had not appointed a specific priesthood to lead His
Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The inference is illogical – in
the Old Covenant, all members of national Israel were said to be priests, but
God also gave the nation the Levitical priesthood under the Aaronic high
priesthood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That the same was not true
of the Church under the New Covenant, Dr. Luther and the other Reformers –
except the English Reformers, and the Scandinavian Lutherans who departed from
Dr. Luther in retaining the priesthood – argued on the basis of Christ having
offered once and for all the one true Sacrifice, leaving the Church with only
Christ’s High Priesthood and the universal priesthood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This contradicts what the Apostle Paul said
of his own ministry in Rom. 15:16.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
word translated “ministering” in this verse means “doing the work of a
sacrificing priest”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the truth in
the Reformation position was that Jesus by dying on the Cross for our sins and
offering His blood in the Holy of Holies of the Heavenly Tabernacle once and
for all accomplished the true Sacrifice to which the Old Testament slaying of
animals on the altar and sprinkling their blood in the Holy of Holies pointed and
any claim that a Christian priesthood is doing these things or anything
analogous to them would indeed be blasphemous, the Reformers pressed the point
way too far, because Jesus Christ’s One Sacrifice is clearly depicted in the
New Testament as the food that sustains the everlasting spiritual life of the
believer, and the Apostolic ministry as commissioned to make that Sacrifice
available to believers through the means of the Sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Apostolic ministry of the Church is,
therefore, very much a “Christian priesthood”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Of course, feeding the flock with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ’s
One Sacrifice is not something that can be done by the priests for the people
without the people participating in the Sacrament and under the New Covenant,
the substance of which the Old Covenant was the shadow, the Apostolic
priesthood is not there to do everything for the people, but to lead the people
in being the “royal priesthood” that they are in Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the teaching ministry of the priesthood,
which the Reformers rightly thought had come to be neglected in the period
leading up to the Reformation, the priests teach the Word to the flock, so that
the flock can in turn teach the Word to others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is in this sense, of the flock passing on
what they have learned and teaching others, that Dr. Luther sometimes uses
language similar to that of private interpretation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That he did not mean that each individual
Christian can and should decide for himself what the Bible means, disregarding
what the Christian community, the Church, in all previous generations have
thought it means, is evident in his vehement rejection of those who thought
just that in his own day – the Anabaptists.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Again, “Scriptura Suprema” or
“Prima Scriptura” better express the Reformers’ position than Sola
Scriptura.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Reformers’ point was not
to deny any authority to tradition or the Church but that these authorities are
not higher than that of the Scriptures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Scriptures’ authority must necessarily be the highest due to the
difference in kind between Scriptural authority and the authority of tradition
and the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Scriptures are the
inspired, written, Word of God, which never changes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Tradition, by contrast, is always changing, growing,
and adapting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This does not mean the
inflexible Scriptures and flexible tradition are opposed to each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each has the qualities best suited to its
own kind of authority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Being “written
in stone” – literally in the case of the Ten Commandments – is the quality
needed in an infallible, highest authority that has the final say over lower
authorities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not so desirable a
quality in other types of authority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is illustrated in the Scriptures themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The inflexibility of the Law of the Medes
and Persians proved to be a roadblock to stopping the plot of Haman when it was
uncovered in the book of Esther, although, thanks to the ingenuity of Mordecai,
it was not an insurmountable roadblock.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Michael Oakeshott, speaking of the “Rationalist”, the person who has
rejected all knowledge as knowledge except technical knowledge and replaced
tradition with ideology, writes “And by some strange self-deception, he
attributes to tradition (which, of course, is pre-eminently fluid) the rigidity
and fixity of character which in fact belongs to ideological politics” (the
title essay of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Rationalism in Politics
and Other Essays</i>, 1962).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oakeshott,
of course, was talking about political tradition rather than religious
tradition, but fluidity is the nature of both types of tradition – I remember
seeing a placard in the narthex of a Church in Toronto once that read
“tradition is a moving target” – and this is tradition’s strength.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Tradition is an ongoing conversation between
man who changes in his ever changing circumstances on the one hand and God Who
never changes on the other hand, if it is religious tradition, the permanent
things that reflect His character in the order of Creation – Goodness, Beauty,
Truth – if is cultural or political tradition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Tradition, therefore, needs to be fluid for the conversation not to
become stagnant – reducing tradition to a rigid ideology is a bad thing – but
it also needs an anchor to hold it to that which is immutable and good, and in
the case of the Christian religious tradition this is the supreme authority of
the infallible, written Word of God.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Soli Deo Gloria – to God
alone be the glory – is in itself, a pretty straightforward and unobjectionable
concept but it can be and has been taken to some strange extremes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the context of the Five Solae it clearly
means that God deserves all the credit for salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As is evident from the arguments of those
whose Nestorian claims I answered in my last two essays, some seem to take it
to mean that nobody else should get any honour of any type for anything
whatsoever, with one person thinking that the appropriate way to avoid giving
Mary the kind of honour and glory due only to God, is to heap mud on her.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This, of course, is antiscriptural.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God will not share the honour and glory due
to Him alone with anyone else, but is constantly bestowing other types of
honour and glory on people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Another way in which Soli Deo
Gloria is taken to an absurd extreme is in the reasoning behind Dortian Predestinarianism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Remember what we have already said with
regards to Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, and Sola Fide, the trio of mutually
interdependent affirmations regarding the freeness of the gift of
salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus Christ is the only
Saviour, He saves on the basis of freely given Grace and not on the basis of
reward for works, and the only means whereby we receive this freely given Grace
is faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Faith, as the means of
receiving Grace, is distinguished from the means by which God brings the Grace
that Christ obtained for us to us to be received.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The means by which God communicates Grace
are two – the Word and the Sacraments – although both Word and Sacrament are
forms of the Gospel, the message of the Good News of God’s gift to us in Jesus
Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God is the one Who communicates
Grace to us through these means.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Faith,
as the means by which we receive that Grace, is like a hand receiving a
physical gift.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Under normal
circumstances, nobody would think that someone’s stretching out his hand to
receive a gift means that he deserves a share in the credit given to the giver
for giving him the gift.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, under
normal circumstances one would suspect anyone who suggested such a thing of
being an idiot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With regards to the
gift of salvation, however, some think it appropriate to say that if the gift
were given to all, with us left responsible to receive it by our faith, then
this would mean that we get a share of God’s glory and credit and that this is
unacceptable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, let us humour such
people, shall we, and consider the nature of the hand that receives the gift of
salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is faith – believing
something, trusting Someone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With
physical gifts and literal hands, the recipient makes a conscious act to
stretch out the hand and take the gift.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is an act of the will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
is not the case with faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nobody
decides to believe anything, nobody decides to trust anyone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I believe that Sir John A. Macdonald was the
first Prime Minister of Canada.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is
not because I chose to believe this when I could have just as easily decided to
believe that Timothy Eaton was the first Prime Minister of Canada.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I believe it because it was communicated to
me by credible – literally “believable” from Latin credo, credere “to believe”
– sources.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I trust the mechanic who
changes the oil in my car.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t do
this because I choose to trust my mechanic when I could just as easily have
trusted Ronald McDonald to do the job.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I do this because my mechanic has proven himself to be trustworthy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is how faith works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although the person with the faith is the
one who does the believing or trusting in the active voice, faith is more
fundamentally the passive result of the demonstrable credibility of the
proposition believed, the person trusted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What must be worded in the active voice when expressing the faith of a
believer as a verb, is the passive of the act of “persuading” or “convincing”
on the part of the object of faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So
then, salvation is a gift, those who are saved don’t contribute to it but
receive it, and the means by which they receive it is faith which even in other
contexts doesn’t come from the person believing/trusting but from the
persuading/convincing of the one believed/trusted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even this is not enough to secure Soli Deo
Gloria for some people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To these,
unless you also say that the Gospel that God has given to all the world
contains insufficient power in itself to bring anyone to faith but that God
must also add to the Gospel a special work of irresistible grace that He gives
only to a select few that He has chosen arbitrarily from eternity past, you
have not sufficiently guarded the glory of God from being shared with the
creature.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">This sort of theology is the
result, not only of taking the truth of Soli Deo Gloria to an unhealthy
extreme, but of taking the Sovereignty of God to an unhealthy extreme as
well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, it often seems as if they
think that the Sovereignty of God cannot be taken too far, but it most
certainly can.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consider what it is that
is diminished or denied when the Sovereignty of God is taught in this way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God as conceived in the theology of Dort may
be bigger than how He is conceived in other theologies in terms of His
Sovereignty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He seems a lot smaller,
however, in this theology by contrast with other theologies, in terms of His
Love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which, His Love or His
Sovereignty, does God so stress in the New Testament that He self-identifies
with it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not a hard
question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The answer can be found twice in
the fourth chapter of 1 John, in the eighth and the sixteenth verse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The answer is, of course, His Love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dortian theologians go to great lengths to
twist the Scriptures so as to make God’s Love less extensive than a plain
reading of the text would suggest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St.
John, after declaring “God is love” in the first of the just-mentioned verses,
writes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In this was manifested
the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the
world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God,
but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins</i>.
(vv. 9-10)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Dortian points to the words “toward us” and “that we
might live” and “he loved us” and “propitiation for our sins” to limit the
object of God’s love to us, believers, God’s elect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Earlier in the epistle St. John had written:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">And he is the
propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the
whole world.</i> (1 Jn. 2:2)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even here the Dortians try to avoid the obvious, that God’s
Love extends not just to us, His Church, but to the whole world, that God
provided a propitiatory Sacrifice in Christ for everybody.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To so stress God’s Sovereignty that you diminish His Love in
this way does make your God bigger than other peoples’ God, or to put it more
accurately, does not make God in your conception of Him bigger than in other
people’s conceptions of Him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It makes
your conception of God smaller, much, much, smaller.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What is the term again for when someone stresses one truth
to the point of denying another that is equally or in this case more important?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It starts with the letter h, I believe.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is no need for this sort of thinking to defend the
glory of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Monergism, that God is
the sole Actor in salvation, does not require double predestination, a limited
Atonement, or irresistible Grace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Lutheranism is monergistic without any of these things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Lutheran theology, God is the sole Actor
in salvation, and faith like the salvation it receives is a gift God gives man,
but God gives saving faith to man through the resistible intermediate means of
the Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, the Grace that
produces the saving faith that receives Grace, is given to everybody in the
Gospel, but it can be resisted and rejected, and man in his fallen estate is
inclined by Original Sin to resist and reject.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If someone comes to saving faith it is because this universal,
resistible, Grace has prevailed, and it is entirely God’s work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If someone ultimately fails to come to saving
faith, it is entirely on him, it is not due to any insufficiency in the Grace
given by God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You can trace God’s work
in those who believe back to eternity past and call it Election and
Predestination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You cannot do the same
for those who do not believe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again,
their failure to believe is entirely on them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is a sound way of looking at monergism and predestination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the Lutheran way of understanding
these matters but it is consistent with our Anglican Articles of Religion as
well and, for what it is worth, it is my own understanding of how this works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, it is the only form of monergism
consistent with the distinction between Law and Gospel, and the Reformation
doctrine of the Gospel as objective assurance of salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Law describes for us the righteousness
that God requires of us as His creatures and subjects and in so doing convicts
us of our sin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is because of our sin
that we need saving.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Gospel tells
us that God has given us the salvation we need freely in Jesus Christ and
promises us that it is certain in Christ to all who believe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Gospel meets the need of those convicted
of sin by the Law, whether unbelievers needing to receive salvation, or
believers needing to be assured of their salvation in Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It directs both to look outside themselves
and find what they need in Jesus Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That Dortian predestinarian theology compromises that is evident in how
quickly the Calvinist tradition departed from Calvin and began directing
Christians looking for assurance of salvation to the fruit of sanctification in
their own lives, blurring the Law/Gospel distinction.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So then, having sifted the grain of Reformation truth from
the chaff of post-Reformation Reformed theology that often obscures it, the
question remains as to whether this grain – the Scriptures as the supreme,
final, infallible authority that keeps tradition and the Church accountable, salvation
as the free gift which God has given us in His Son, Our only Saviour, Jesus Christ,
which we receive by the means of faith, and the Gospel, in both its forms, Word
and Sacrament, as the message that brings that salvation to us and assures us
of it, as distinct from the Law – is on the same level of Christian truth as
the Articles of the Creed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed adapted by the universal,
undivided, Church in the first two Ecumenical Councils, as translated by Thomas
Cranmer for the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Book of Common Prayer</i>,
with the spelling updated:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible, and invisible:</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="background: white;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
only begotten Son of God, Begotten of his Father before all Worlds, <God of
God>, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten not made, Being of one
substance with the Father, By whom all things were made: Who for us men, and
for our Salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the holy Ghost of
the Virgin Mary, And was made man, And was crucified also for us under Pontius
Pilate. He suffered and was buried, And the third day he rose again according
to the Scriptures, And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of
the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the
dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end.</span></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;" />
<span style="background: white;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The
Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father (and the Son), who with
the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the
prophets. And I believe one </span></span></i><span style="background: white;">[Holy]<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> Catholic and Apostolic Church. I
acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of Sins, And I look for the
Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the world to come. Amen</i>.</span>
(1)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Those who would place the
Reformation truths on the same level as those of this Creed, or even set them
higher so as to write out of Christianity altogether the Church of Rome which
confesses this Creed – and the Definition of Chalcedon and the Athanasian
Symbol – and to assign it a place among the pagans or, more absurdly, identify
it with the antichrist of eschatology (2),<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>are in effect saying is that it is less important to believe the truths
of the Creed and trust the Saviour confessed in the Creed than it is to have a
correct understanding of how the truths of the Creed fit into the order of
salvation, the nature of their salvific benefits, and the mechanics of how one
comes to believe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I trust that you can
see how ridiculous that is.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">It is even more ludicrous
when the broader historical perspective is taken into consideration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reformation soteriology depends upon an
understanding of Christ’s saving work on the Cross that emphasizes the penal
substitution aspect of the Atonement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Eastern Orthodox Church, which continues to place its emphasis where
the Fathers of the first millennium did, on Christ as Victor (over Satan, sin,
death, and Hell) in the Atonement, would point out how the emphasis on penal
substitution in the Reformation understanding of the Atonement came about through
theological development within the Roman Church after the Schism (St. Anselm of
Canterbury in the eleventh century, St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth, the
Reformation in the sixteenth).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Protestant soteriology, from the Eastern perspective, is dependent upon
the Roman Catholic understanding of the Atonement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">I will conclude by showing
just how narrow the disagreement between Roman and Protestant soteriology
actually is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let us leave aside popular
folk theology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Confessional Protestants
would not want their soteriology defined by those who think that one goes to
heaven by saying the sinner’s prayer once, neither should Roman soteriology be
defined by those who think that outward adherence to the Church will mechanically
convey salvation upon them even if they have to suffer thousands of years in
Purgatory first.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consider the following
soteriological statements:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Salvation is a gift of God.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Jesus Christ is the Saviour
Who accomplished salvation by dying for us on the Cross.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Salvation includes both
justification, which makes us righteous, and sanctification, which makes us
holy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Both justification and
sanctification have positional and practical aspects.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Positional justification and sanctification
are God’s regarding us as righteous and set apart for Himself (holy).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Practical justification and sanctification
are God’s making us righteous and holy in a way that is visible to others in
our works. (3)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Justification and
sanctification, in both their positional and practical aspects, are effected
through our union with Jesus Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Christians are united to Jesus Christ in His body the Church of which He
is the Head.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Through this union, His
death is our death, cancelling our sin debt as fully paid, and His
righteousness is our righteousness, making us righteous and holy <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">in Him</i> in God’s eyes, and through this
same union, His resurrection life is our new life, and He indwells us through
the Holy Ghost to make His righteousness and holiness a lived reality in our
lives.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Are these statements of Roman or Protestant soteriology?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">They are statements that both sides affirm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Where they differ is that Roman Church makes
ongoing and final positional justification dependent upon the outworking of
practical justification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both assert
that practical justification occurs in all who receive positional
justification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rome sees practical
justification as contributing to positional justification after initial
justification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We see this as an error
because practical justification is never completed in this life, the fruits of
practical justification are therefore never perfect, and neither is therefore
worthy of contributing to our standing before God, which is perfect from the
moment we are joined to Christ, because it is our standing in Him.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is this difference sufficient to justify writing a Church
that confesses Jesus Christ in the faith confessed in the Nicene Creed out of
Christianity?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Those who would say yes would maintain that the Roman Church
has fallen into the error of Galatianism upon which St. Paul pronounced
anathema in the Bible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Galatianism was
the error of the false teachers that had come to the Church in Galatia and told
this primarily Gentile Church that they needed to become Jews – specifically to
be circumcised and keep the ceremonial parts of the Mosaic Law – in order to be
(ultimately) saved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While Rome’s error bears
some similarity to this – and Rome’s foolish decision to anathematize the
Protestant position in the Council of Trent invites this retaliatory accusation
– there are also huge differences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
works, as the outcome of practical justification, that they see as contributing
to ongoing and final justification, are not the ceremonial works of the Mosaic
Law, but moral works of benevolence to others produced by the Christian love
that the Holy Ghost works in the Christian’s heart through faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Think of the sort of works brought up in the
Parable of the Sheep and Goats in the Olivet Discourse in St. Matthew’s
Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think that Rome is wrong to
say that these contribute to the positional righteousness that is already perfect
in Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t think that they are
so wrong as to fall under St. Paul’s anathema in Galatians, however.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That neither side should have been so quick to issue the
kind of condemnations each leveled against the other seems the only reasonable
conclusion from the fact that the New Testament contains both the epistle of
Romans and the epistle of James.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
the two epistles don’t contradict each other, all orthodox Christians must
accept.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The question is one of how we
understand them to relate to each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Roman position is what you get when you say that St. James
interprets St. Paul.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Protestant
position is what you get when you say that St. Paul interprets St. James.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Although one of our great orthodox Churchman, George Bull,
the seventeenth century Bishop of St. David’s, argued the opposite in his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">Harmonia
Apostolica</span></i><span style="background: white;">, I think that St. Paul as
the interpreter of St. James is the obviously correct position.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Jacobean epistle is widely thought to
have been the first book of the New Testament to have been written – Bishop Bull
disagreed with this - and to have been composed very early.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Romans, although it appears first in the
Pauline corpus in the usual order of publication in the New Testament, was the
last of St. Paul’s epistles other than the Prison and Pastoral Epistles to be
written.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was composed while St. Paul
was about to set out on the journey to Jerusalem that led to his arrest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This would be in the late ‘50s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While many of the same words – save,
justify, faith, works – are found in both Romans 4 and James 2, one prominent
word from Romans 4 is conspicuously missing in James 2.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That word is Grace. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That would suggest that St. James is not
talking about justification by Grace, a conclusion that is supported by the
fact that the word translated “only” in our Authorized Bible in the twenty
fourth verse of James 2 is an adverb not an adjective, modifying “justified”
not “faith”, and so the verse is talking about two justifications, one by faith
and another by works, and not a single justification by both faith and works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally, St. Paul includes a verse in Romans
4, the second verse of the chapter, that can be read as an affirmation and
explanation of James.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No verse
similarly explaining Romans can be found in St. James’ epistle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Romans 4:2 is St. Paul explaining St.
James, then St. James is not talking about justification by Grace before God
when he says that there is a justification by works as well as a justification
by faith.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">The Protestant view of
justification – actually of salvation, for all of salvation, justification,
sanctification, glorification, is a gift, given to us in Jesus Christ, brought
to us in the Gospel, Word and Sacrament, and received by us by faith, with
works coming out of salvation as its fruit, not contributing to it – is then
the Scriptural and correct one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is
not grounds to exclude ancient Churches that confess Jesus Christ in the
articles of the Nicene Creed from Christianity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As the Irish Anglican, Edmund Burke, put it
in his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Reflections on the Revolution in
France</i>:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Violently condemning
neither the Greek nor the Armenian, nor, since heats are subsided, the Roman
system of religion, we prefer the Protestant: not because we think it has less
of the Christian religion in it, but because, in our judgment, it has more. We
are Protestants, not from indifference, but from zeal.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">The disagreement between
Protestantism and Rome is a disagreement about the relationship between faith
and works, the Creed is the faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
truths in the Creed, remain the core of the first tier of Christian truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Reformation truths are important, but
secondary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Making them out to be as
important as the truths of the Creed is the first step down the dangerous path
of Hyper-Protestantism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">The best answer to Rome on
the matter of salvation and justification was given by Archbishop Laud in his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Relation of the Conference Between William
Laud, Late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Mr. Fisher the Jesuit, By the
Command of King James<span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i>The Anglican
primate of the reign of Charles I quoted Roman apologist Cardinal Bellarmine as
having written “that in regard of the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and
of the danger of vainglory, </span><i style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">tutissimum est</i><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">, it is safest to repose our whole trust in the
mercy and goodness of God</span>” and commenting on these words said:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">And surely, if there be one safer way than another, as
he confesses there is, he is no wise man, that in a matter of so great moment
will not betake himself to the safest way. And therefore even you yourselves in
the point of condignity of merit, though you write it and preach it
boisterously to the people, yet you are content to die, renouncing the
condignity of all your own merits, and trust to Christ’s. Now surely, if you
will not venture to die as you live, live and believe in time as you mean to
die.</span><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>(1)</o:p><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">The
words in <> were part of the Greek of the original Nicene Creed but were
left out of the Greek of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan, the words in ()
translate the Latin filioque that is not in the Greek original and which is not
accepted by the Eastern Church, and the word in [] was left out of the English
for some reason, although it appears in both the Greek and Latin versions.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">In the form published by the Councils, the
confession was plural “we believe” but in liturgical use has been singular “I
believe” even in the Greek , until in our own day liturgical revisionists
decided to pluralize it again.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">(2)<span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">St.
John writes “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is
antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” (1 Jn. 2:22).</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Again he writes “And every spirit that
confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this
is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and
even now already is it in the world.” (1 Jn. 4:3).</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">You cannot deny that Jesus is the Christ or
that Jesus Christ is come of the flesh and confess the Nicene Creed, the
Apostles’ Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, and the Athanasian Symbol.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">St. Paul writes “Wherefore I give you to
understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:
and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” (1 Cor.
12:3)</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Nobody, therefore, who claims to
accept the Bible as the sole, infallible, authority, has any business to accuse
the Roman Church or her Patriarch, of being “the antichrist”.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">It does not matter that the Protestant
Reformers used this language.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">They were
wrong.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">As Protestants we have not
replaced the error of papal infallibility with the error of the infallibility
of the Reformers.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">The Roman Church is a
Christian Church that has erred, and the Roman Patriarch is a usurper of
universal jurisdiction, which is a serious enough offense without bringing in
accusations that are clearly unscriptural.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">No, the Roman Patriarch’s usurpation does not make him “the man of sin”
that St. Paul talks about II Thessalonians 2:3-10.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">The Roman Patriarch has not declared himself
to be God – not even when he falsely declared himself infallible in Vatican I. </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Nor, if John 5:43 is as it is widely
understood to be, a reference to the Man of Sin, has he been received as
Messiah by those who reject Jesus Christ as Messiah.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Indeed, it is ludicrous to suggest that
someone who confesses Jesus as Christ, and who leads a Church that confesses
Jesus as Christ, would himself be accepted as Christ by those who reject Jesus
as Christ.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Note that those who reject
Jesus as their Messiah are not usually very fond of the Patriarch of Rome.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">(3)</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Theologians,
both Roman Catholic and Protestant, often use justification to mean the
positional standing of the Christian and sanctification to mean the ongoing practical
work of transformation in the Christian life.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">My wording in the text of this essay, is more precisely accurate.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">Righteousness and holiness are not the same
thing.</span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">There are positional and
practical aspects to both justification and sanctification.</span></p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-91969242625422045442023-09-29T07:01:00.001-05:002023-09-29T07:01:40.474-05:00Against the Extreme Ecclesiastical Provincialism of Hyper-Protestantism<p> <span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-heretical-pitfalls-of-hyper.html">In
my last essay</a> I made use of the following syllogism to demonstrate that one
cannot logically object to the expression </span>Θεοτόκος (Theotokos) or
“Mother of God” for the Virgin Mary without either denying the deity of Jesus
Christ or denying that Mary is the Mother of Jesus (by saying, for example,
that she is the mother of only one of His natures rather than of Jesus as a
Person, which is the heresy of Nestorianism):</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Premise A: Jesus is
God.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Premise B: Mary is
the Mother of Jesus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Therefore:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Conclusion (C):
Mary is the Mother of God.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">One
Hyper-Protestant took exception to this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Posting as “Anonymous” he lumped me in with “filthy papists” (I recognize
neither the Patriarch of Rome’s claim to universal jurisdiction over the entire
Church, not his claim from Vatican I on to infallibility) and described my
syllogism as “anti-trinitarian”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
proved to be deliciously ironic in that he then offered up the following two
alternative syllogisms:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">The Father is God and not born of Mary so Mary is not
the "Mother of God." The Holy Spirit is God and not born of Mary so
it is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to call her "Mother of
God." </span></i><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Now, these
are not proper syllogisms in form, of course.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Both attempt to draw their conclusion from a single compound premise and
the second introduces a concept into the conclusion “blasphemy against the Holy
Ghost” that is not present in the premise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is what “Anonymous”’ first syllogism would look like cleaned up:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Premise A:
The Father is God.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Premise B.
Mary is not the mother of the Father.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Therefore:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Conclusion (C):<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mary is not the Mother of God.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Substitute
“The Holy Spirit” for “The Father” as the Middle term in both Premises and you
have the cleaned up version of his second syllogism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Can you see
why these syllogisms are invalid?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">For either
of these syllogisms to be valid, that is, for the conclusion to necessarily
follow from the premises, the Major Term, “God” would have to be a closed set,
including only the Middle Term of the syllogism (“The Father” in the case of
the first syllogism, “The Holy Spirit” in the case of the second
syllogism).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet this is precisely what a
Trinitarian cannot claim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Father is
God, yes, but not to the exclusion of either The Son or The Holy Ghost.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The same is true, mutatis mutandis, of the
other Persons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God is One in Being, but
Three in Person.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Anonymous”’
syllogisms require God to be One in Person as well as Being.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is Unitarianism not Trinitarianism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or, since he made the same argument with
both the Father and the Holy Spirit, it is the heresy of Sabellianism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">By
contrast, in my original syllogism both the Minor Term (Mary) and the Middle
Term (Jesus) are as individual Persons closed sets, but there is no need for
the Major Term (God) to be similarly closed, for the conclusion to necessarily
follow from the Premises.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My syllogism
allows for the Trinity, it is “Anonymous”’ syllogisms which do not, and which
are therefore the anti-Trinitarian syllogisms.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Of course,
considering that “Anonymous”’ post consists almost entirely of bitter, acidic,
vitriol it is clear that he was writing from a standpoint of high emotion
rather than reason.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Later in the
comments, however, Jason Anderson, who like “Anonymous” defends the Nestorian
position, responded to my remarks in the essay about the implications of his
claim that Jesus “disowned” Mary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr.
Anderson had made this claim originally in the comments on an earlier essay “<a href="https://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.com/2023/08/be-protestant-but-not-nut.html">Be
a Protestant BUT NOT A NUT!</a>”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
claim, obviously, is an attempt to get as far from Rome as possible on the subject
of Mary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like the base Nestorian
position, however, it has Christological implications, in this case that Jesus
broke the fifth commandment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr.
Anderson’s response to my pointing this out is more level-headed than “Anonymous”’
comments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is it more rational however?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">He begins
by saying:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">What does "they
went out to lay hold on him" mean if not "kidnapping"? If they
were cops it might mean "arrest" but being private citizens it means
"kidnapping." <o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Note that
his question is written from the position that his interpretation of these
words of St. Mark’s is the default correct one unless some other interpretation
is proven, a rather bold position to take with regards to an interpretation
that is novel with him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Especially
since it involves a concept that would have been nonsensical to anyone in the
first century – the idea of someone being “kidnapped” by his own people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not a nonsensical concept to us,
because in our day where liberal, individualistic, rights is a concept that is
almost universally taken as axiomatic, and family break-ups are common, one
parent kidnapping a child from the other parent to whom the court has awarded
custody is, sadly, not unknown.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the
first century nobody believed in liberal, individualistic, rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What was universal then was the idea that
the family had authority – almost absolute authority – over its members.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The idea that a family detaining one of its
own constituted a “kidnapping” was completely foreign to that world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, for that matter, was the form of law
enforcement Mr. Anderson suggests as the alternate possibility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since the explanation given in the text is
that they thought He was “beside himself”, i.e. had become mentally disturbed,
the correct interpretation is that they, based on an erroneous presumption,
were doing what was expected of the family of someone who had become mentally
unstable, as evinced elsewhere in the Gospel narratives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In my essay, I described this as a “misguided
intervention”, but I at least acknowledged the anachronism of using “the
parlance of our day” in such a way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Certainly the description is accurate if anachronistic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The family was doing what society expected
of them under such circumstances and doing so out of love for Him, to keep Him
safe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That they were mistaken in
thinking Him to be “beside himself” does not change this into a “kidnapping”
and it is obscene to suggest that it could justify breaking the fifth
commandment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Mr.
Anderson goes on to say:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">Now whatever other construction you try to put on it
is the same as how pastors frequently claim calling your mother "woman"
was magically respectful in that one society and time despite never being so
anywhere or time else.</span><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Here Mr.
Anderson has compounded the error of his first two sentences with a basic inductive
error that anyone who has ever studied philosophy or logic could identify after
their first class.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In his time and in
his culture, calling your mother “woman” is disrespectful, so he extrapolates this
onto all other cultures in all other societies and times – for he has not
investigated every single culture, in every single society, in all times, to
support his claim, I guarantee you that – to dismiss those who say that “woman”
was not a disrespectful form of address in the first century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One does not have to go outside of the text
of the Gospel of John to show that the pastors he so dismisses are right and
that there is no magic involved. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">γύναι, the vocative form of the Greek word for “woman”, is
used as a common form of address throughout the Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition to Mary in the second and
nineteenth chapters, Jesus addresses the Samaritan Woman this way in the fourth
chapter when telling her that the time is coming that those who worship the
Father will do so neither in the Samaritan mountain nor Jerusalem, address the
woman taken in adultery when asking her where the accusers He had just rescued
her from were in the Pericope de Altera at the beginning of the eighth chapter,
and Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection in the twentieth chapter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no hint of disrespect in any of
these passages.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the last mentioned,
the vocative is joined to the question “why weepest thou?” which, if the form
of address was disrespectful, would be absolutely bizarre, as the question and the
moment are ones of tender kindness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Note that only a couple of verses earlier, the angels at the empty tomb
address her in the same way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly this address was both a) common and
c) not perceived as disrespectful, within the context of the Gospel according
to St. John.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Luke provides
additional confirmation of this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus
addresses the woman He heals from an eighteen year infirmity in the synagogue
on the Sabbath this way in the thirteenth chapter of St. Luke’s Gospel, and the
Canaanite woman who asked Him to cast the demon out of her daughter in the
fifteenth chapter of St. Matthew.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Note
with regards to the latter, that this address is not part of the earlier
portion of the conversation, but when Jesus is praising her faith and granting
her request in the twenty-eight verse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For the record, γυνή is the basic Greek word for “woman” and “wife”, and
in the vocative, was used as a term of affection rather than disrespect,
comparable to “Ma’am” and in some cases even “My Lady” in English.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>William Barclay in his commentary on St. John’s
Gospel writes:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">The word </span>Woman (gynai</i><em><span style="background: white; color: #686868; font-family: "Georgia",serif; font-size: 14.5pt; font-style: normal; line-height: 107%;">)</span></em><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"> is also misleading. It sounds to us very rough and
abrupt. But it is the same word as Jesus used on the Cross to address Mary as
he left her to the care of John </span>(<a href="https://biblia.com/bible/rsvce/John%2019.26"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">John 19:26</span></a>)<span style="background: white;">. In Homer it is the title by which Odysseus addresses
Penelope, his well-loved wife. It is the title by which Augustus, the Roman
Emperor, addressed Cleopatara, the famous Egyptian queen. So far from being a
rough and discourteous way of address, it was a title of respect. We have no
way of speaking in English which exactly renders it; but it is better to
translate it </span></span>Lady <span style="background: white;">which
gives at least the courtesy in it</span>.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To the examples of classical literature he cites might be
added Euripides’ <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Medea</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is how Creon addresses the title
character, while trying to soften the blow of her exile, following Jason’s
betrayal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the first example
Liddell & Scott give of the affectionate use of the term.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Does Mr. Anderson have anything more to back up his claim
that Jesus “disowned” His Mother other than the vile accusation that she was “abusive”?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No, not really.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
rest of his response is an entertainingly arrogant form of the Argumentum ex
Silentio.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is the first part of
it:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">If he did not disown
her, why is she never mentioned by Paul? Not by name, only as "made of a
woman"---again that word woman not mother. To Paul she is just a
"woman" as to Jesus she is just a "woman." Paul doesn't
speak of any "Mother of God." It proves she was disowned. <o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So,
according to Mr. Anderson, if St. Paul never mentioned Mary, the first
explanation to come to mind is that Jesus disowned her.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would have thought that a more rational
explanation was that St. Paul in his epistles was addressing specific
situations in the Churches to which he was writing and explaining specific
doctrines of the faith rather than trying to be comprehensive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then, however, I am not trying to take a
position as far removed from Rome’s as possible and then impose that position
on the text of the Bible whether it supports it or not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Anderson is mistaken in saying “Paul
doesn’t speak of any ‘Mother of God.’”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>St. Paul says that Jesus was “made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4), which points
to His having a Mother.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Paul says
that Jesus is God (Titus 2:13 among many other verses).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore St. Paul speaks of a Mother of
God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is comical that he writes “It
proves she was disowned”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His Argumentum
ex Silentio is not even evidence, much less proof.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor does it become any stronger when he
compounds it by adding SS Peter, John, James and Jude.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Indeed, he
would have been wiser to have left St. John out of it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He writes “</span><span style="background: white;">Nor Peter or John (and she is called John's mother, but even he doesn't
assert that she is ‘Mother of God’) nor Jude nor James</span>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A) Everyone who asserts that Jesus is God,
asserts that Mary is the Mother of God by doing so, for Mary is the Mother of
Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. John asserts that Jesus is
God in the very first verse of his Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>B) The passage in which Jesus tells Mary to behold her son in St. John,
and St. John to behold his mother in Mary, far from being the disowning that
only a most reprobate mind would see in it, is the demonstration of filial
affection and care that is universally, even by Hyper-Protestants other than
Mr. Anderson, seen to be, C) It is by no means established fact that St. John
was silent about Mary outside of his Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>St. John is acknowledged, by conservatives at any rate, to be the author
of the Book of Revelation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the
twelfth chapter of this book a woman is mentioned who gives birth to a male
child:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all
nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his
throne.</span></i><span style="background: white;"> (v. 5)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">There is no significant
disagreement as to who this child was/is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Who the woman is,
however, is hotly contested.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There have
been multiple candidates put forward but the ones that deserve serious
consideration can be reduced to four – Mary, Eve, national Israel and spiritual
Israel (the Church).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mary is an obvious
candidate because she literally gave birth to Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I will defer Eve until later.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Israel is a candidate because of the
description of the woman in the first verse (the sun, moon, twelve stars
alluding to Joseph’s dreams in Genesis) and because of the reference back to
Isaiah’s “unto us a child is born” sign, which reasoning can be used for Israel
either in the sense of the nation (not the state that goes by that name today
but the ethnicity), or in the sense of the Congregation of the Lord, which is
in the New Testament the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Hyper-Protestants like Mr. Anderson will detest the thought that Mary is
in view here, especially since this chapter if referring to her completely
undermines the foundation of their complaints against most of the honours Rome
has bestowed upon her including the title “Queen of Heaven” (the first verse of the
chapter depicts the woman as wearing a crown in Heaven) but it is impossible to
rule her out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The biggest argument
against viewing the woman as the Church, spiritual Israel, is that Jesus built
the Church but here the woman gives birth to Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not a fatal argument in that while
the Church in the New Testament began at Pentecost the Old Testament Church –
the spiritual Congregation of the Lord within national Israel – was folded up
into her at Pentecost, and so there is a continuity there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Understanding her to be national Israel
would seem to commit one to a dispensationalist view of Revelation, or at least
something very close to it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The best interpretation
is that the woman is a compound symbol.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>She is indeed Mary, the literal Mother of Jesus, but not merely in her
own person but as the symbolic representative of Israel, certainly in the
spiritual sense – note how believers are described as “the remnant of her seed”
in the seventeenth verse – and perhaps in the national sense as well, and as
the New Eve who gave birth to the New Adam. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This last image, Mary as the New Eve, is
strongly suggested in the chapter in which Satan appears as the dragon who is “that
old serpent”, i.e., the one that deceived the original Eve, and makes war
against the woman and her “seed”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Now, the concept of Mary as
the New Eve was spelled out in so many words very early in Church history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It first appears in Justin Martyr’s
writings, specifically his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dialogue With
Trypho</i> which dates to the middle of the second century (this is also our
oldest source identifying St. John the Apostle as the John who wrote Revelation).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is then expounded upon at length in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Adversus Haereses</i>, written two to three
decades later by St. Irenaeus, a second generation disciple of St. John (his
teacher was St. Polycarp, who was taught directly by the Apostle).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is significant that this connects the
concept to those most directly influenced by St. John, with whom the Blessed
Virgin lived out the rest of her life as he himself records, and the author of
Revelation in which this image so strikingly appears.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is next found in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">De Carne Christi</i>, written in the early third century by Tertullian.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">It is also however suggested
by the very wording that Mr. Anderson finds so disparaging.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is the very first Messianic prophecy in
the Old Testament: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise
his heel</span></i><span style="background: white;">. (Gen. 3:15)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Note that this verse speaks
merely of “the woman”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a
double reference here, obviously, to Eve, who is named later in the chapter (v.
20), and to Mary who actually gives birth to the seed that bruises the serpent’s
head.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When St. Paul, whose epistles spell
out the concept of Jesus Christ as the New Adam (Rom. 5, 1 Cor. 15), describes
Jesus as “made of woman” in Galatians 4:4, this is an allusion to this prophecy,
and not the dismissal of her importance that Mr. Anderson assumes it to be.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Perhaps you
are wondering why I have wasted so much time and space answering this sort of
thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is to once again show that
Hyper-Protestantism is a dangerous path to tread.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Hyper-Protestantism,
remember, is the form of Protestantism that is not content to disagree with the
Roman Catholic Church merely on the matters that led to the Reformation (Rome’s
rejection of the supremacy of Scriptural authority over the authority of Church
and tradition and her rejection of the assurance of salvation in the Gospel to
all who believe leading her to compromise the freeness of salvation as the gift
of God to man in Jesus Christ) or even on these and the claims of the Roman
Patriarchy that were disputed in the Great Schism (mainly Rome’s claim to
universal jurisdiction, despite this being denied by the canons of the
Ecumenical Councils) all of which have to do with errors and claims made by
Rome specifically and relatively late in Church history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hyper-Protestantism opposes and rejects, at
least in part, what is truly Catholic, as well as what is distinctly
Roman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That which is Catholic is that
which belongs to the entire Church, everywhere she has been found, from
Apostolic times to the present day as opposed to what is distinctive of the
Church in one specific place, or one specific time. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Doctrinally,
the most important part of what is Catholic is the Creed, the original version
of which most likely was drafted by the Apostles themselves, which underwent
regional variation as the Gospel spread, with one such regional version, the
Roman Baptismal Symbol, evolving into what is now called the Apostles’ Creed,
and another regional version being modified by the first two Ecumenical
Councils, into what is now called the Nicene Creed, more properly the
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and which is the most widely used and accepted
confessional statement in Christianity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Creed is the essential Christian faith. All
ancient Churches confess the Creed. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Next
to the Creed in importance is the Definition of Chalcedon, which clarifies the doctrine
of the One Person and Two Natures of Jesus Christ – that He is fully God,
co-equal with the Father and Holy Spirit, and fully Man, with the same nature
as us, except no sin, that these two Natures remain distinct, but are
permanently united in His One Person so that what is true of Him in either of
His Natures is true of Him in His Person.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While some ancient Churches
dissent from the Definition of Chalcedon, they do not seem to teach what is
condemned by Chalcedon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The heresies
condemned at Chalcedon are Nestorianism, which separates Jesus’ natures from
His Person, and Monophysitism, which teaches that Jesus’ human nature was
swallowed up into His divine nature so that Jesus is fully God but not fully
Man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Non-Chalcedonian Churches,
such as the Coptic and Armenian, do not accept the “two natures’ language of
Chalcedon, but do teach that Jesus was fully God and fully Man and call their
position “Miaphysitism” rather than Monophysitism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All ancient Churches therefore, even the
ones that don’t accept the Definition of Chalcedon, reject the heresies
condemned at Chalcedon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are other
doctrines and practices that are Catholic in that they have been taught and
practiced in all the ancient Churches since the earliest times but they are of
varying degrees of lesser importance to the truths in the Creed and the
Definition of Chalcedon.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Roman
Catholic Church, that is to say, the portion of the Church that recognizes the
jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Rome, claims to be the Catholic Church
confessed in the Creed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All Protestants
reject that claim, as, of course, do the Eastern Orthodox, and the other
ancient Churches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A Protestant,
therefore, should never refer to the Roman Catholic Church as the Catholic
Church without the Roman, or refer to members of her Communion as “Catholics”,
for this concedes the claim which we contest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Roman Catholic Church is a particular Church – like the Church of
Corinth or the Church of Galatia mentioned in the New Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, you could say that she is a very
large version of the Church of Rome that is mentioned in the New
Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She is not the whole Church,
however.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A Protestant must insist on
this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A Hyper-Protestant will either
call her the Catholic Church and her members Catholics, thus accepting Rome’s
claim while rejecting that which is Catholic, or alternately and inconsistently
deny her claim to be Catholic at all even in the sense of being a particular
Church within the Catholic Church by accusing her of teaching things that would
place her at odds with the Nicene Creed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rome does not claim to teach
these things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rome confesses the Creed
and the Definition of Chalcedon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Hyper-Protestants maintain, on the basis of some Roman practices they
object to – in some cases the objections are justified, in some cases not –
that these other things are what Rome really teaches and what the members of
her Communion really believe, even though they say they don’t teach and believe
those things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is, of course, a
form of the fallacy of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ignoratio elenchi</i>,
and it is also a violation of any number of Scriptural commandments, including
the eighth of the Ten.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>None of the doctrines that ordinary
Protestants contended with Rome over in the Reformation touched on the truths
in the Creed or the Chalcedonian Definition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Catholic
doctrines, those held by all ancient Churches, everywhere, since ancient times,
are the first tier of Christian truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Within
this first tier, the core truths are those confessed in the Creed and the
Chalcedonian Definition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ordinary
Protestants, or better, orthodox Protestants, do not contest Catholic
doctrines. The doctrines emphasized in the Reformation – the primary of
Scriptural authority over ecclesiastical authority and tradition, the freeness
of salvation as a gift, and the assurance of salvation in the Gospel – belong
to a second tier of Christian truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Now, some of these may be more important than some doctrines of the
first tier outside of the core faith in one sense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The freeness of salvation, for example, is
more important than anything that might be believed universally throughout the
Churches about angels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ranking of
the two tiers is based on that which is common to all (Catholic) being
generally more important than that which is particular to the part (Protestant,
Roman, etc.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The essence of the faith, remember, belongs to
that core part of the Catholic tier.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hyper-Protestants tend to major on differences
with Rome that are of lesser importance than the core doctrines of the
Reformation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This would make them third
tier at best.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet Hyper-Protestants use
Rome’s differences from themselves on these points to deny Rome, which
confesses the first tier of Christian truth, a place within Christianity at
all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In doing so, they often compromise
their own adherence to the first tier of Christian truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The error of Hyper-Protestantism could be
described, therefore, as an extreme form of ecclesiastical provincialism.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The matter
discussed in my last essay and in the first section of this one illustrates
this point. There is a huge difference between Protestantism and
Hyper-Protestantism when it comes to their disagreement with Rome over the
Virgin Mary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Reformation, the
dispute between Rome and the Magisterial Reformers, both continental and
English, was almost entirely a dispute over practice rather than doctrine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Reformers all thought that the cult of
the Blessed Virgin, like that of the saints in general, had been taken to
idolatrous excess in the late Medieval Roman Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They reformed this in the Churches they
led, usually by eliminating the cult altogether, but they did not take a hard
stand against the doctrines Rome taught regarding Mary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">These are
called the Marian Dogmas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are
four of them, all of which were taught by Rome at the time of the Reformation,
two of which did not become dogma – doctrine officially binding on members of a
Communion, in this case the Roman – until long after the Reformation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Marian Dogmas are that Mary is the
Mother of God (Theotokos), her Perpetual Virginity, her Immaculate Conception,
and her Bodily Assumption.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first
two of these are truly Catholic, having been held by the entire Church since
the earliest centuries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first,
moreover, is integral to sound Christology, and cannot be denied without either
denying the deity of Jesus Christ or separating His deity from His Person, both
soul-damning heresies, and so the first Marian Dogma is not only Catholic, but
belongs to “the faith once delivered unto the saints”, that core element of the
first tier of Christian truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
cannot be said of the other three, even the other truly Catholic doctrine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Immaculate Conception – this means the
idea that Mary herself was protected from the taint of Original Sin in her
conception, do not confuse it with either the Miraculous Conception or Virgin
Birth of Jesus - was declared dogma by the Roman Church in 1854, and the Bodily
Assumption in 1950, less than a century ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Neither can be said to be truly Catholic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Eastern Church, although she teaches
that Mary was kept by grace from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">personal
</i>sin, rejects the Immaculate Conception (that she was kept from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Original</i> Sin) and while the Eastern
Church does teach a form of Assumption (that Mary was taken bodily into heaven)
in her theology, which emphasizes the Dormition (literally “falling asleep”
i.e., in death) of the Theotokos, the Assumption is understood as a
resurrection rather than a rapture, to borrow a concept from dispensationalist
eschatology, whereas the Roman dogma is worded in such a way as to allow for
the latter possibility and perhaps suggest it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Hyper-Protestants reject the last three of these, usually claiming
not only that they cannot be proved from Scripture but that they are disproved
by Scripture, and, as we have seen, many Hyper-Protestants reject the first
one, that one cannot reject without embracing Christological heresy of one sort
or another, as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a
remarkable contrast with the Protestant Reformers who believed, almost
unanimously, in the first two, the truly Catholic ones, and in some cases held
to all four.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
Lutheran Reformers, following Dr. Luther’s lead, were the strongest proponents
of the Marian doctrines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mary as the
Mother of God and her Perpetual Virginity are both affirmed in the Lutheran
Confessions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An argument for Mary’s
being the Mother of God is even placed in the Formula of Concord (Epitome
VIII.xii, Solid Declaration VIII.xxiv), while her Perpetual Virginity is
affirmed by the use of “Ever Virgin” in the Smacald Articles I.iv.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Luther also taught a form of the
Immaculate Conception in which Mary’s physical conception was normal but her
ensoulment was miraculously protected so that the effects of Original Sin
touched only her body and not her soul.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
English Reformers were usually as conservative as the Lutherans if not more so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this case, they – Cranmer, Latimer,
Ridley, Coverdale, Jewel, et al. -<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>all
personally affirmed their strong belief in the first two Marian doctrines, the
genuinely Catholic ones, but did not make them binding on the Church of
England, except in that the orthodoxy of the Creed and Chalcedon is binding,
which brings the first Marian doctrine along with it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Interestingly, William Perkins, the
Elizabethan era clergyman who is generally regarded as a moderate member of the
Puritan party – the original Hyper-Protestants – was a strong defender of the
Catholic Marian doctrines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even more
interesting was the situation with the non-Lutheran Continental Reformers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On many issues, John Calvin was closer to
Dr. Luther and hence “more Catholic” than the other leaders of the Reformed
tradition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When it comes to Mary,
however, Calvin was the odd man out in the other direction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Zwingli, Bullinger, even Calvin’s own
protégé Beza, all affirmed in the strongest possible terms the Catholic Marian
doctrines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Perpetual Virginity made
it into the Reformed Confessions, albeit in Bullinger’s Second Helvetic
Confession (XI.iii) rather than any of the Three Points of Unity, and was later
defended by the Calvinist scholastic Francis Turretin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Calvin himself, however, was equivocal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the Mother of God, he defended the
theological soundness of the title but disapproved of its common use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Regarding the Perpetual Virginity, he
maintained that it cannot be proven either way, although his specific
refutation of Helvidius’ claims that it can be disproven by the Gospel of
Matthew and his commentary on St. John’s Gospel to the effect that those
identified as the brethren of Jesus were His cousins, strongly suggests he
personally held to it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Clearly, in
their belief that antidicomarianism is the only true Protestant position and
that anyone who accepts any of the Marian dogmas, even the one you cannot
reject and consistently hold to the Hypostatic Union, is a closet “papist”, the
Hyper-Protestants are out to lunch way off in left field on some other planet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More importantly to the point at hand,
however, is the fact that with the exception of Mary’s being the Mother of God,
none of these doctrines belongs to the essence of the faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That essence, again, is the Creed, the basic
confession of the truths all Christians believe, the formal expression or
Symbol of “the faith”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mary’s being the
Mother of God belongs to the essence of the faith, because it is primarily a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Christological </i>doctrine, and only
secondarily about Mary. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is in the
Creed because Jesus having been “born of the Virgin Mary” is part of the Creed
as is His being “God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God…being of One
Substance with the Father”, making Mary’s being the Mother of God, that is, of
Jesus Christ Who is God, part of the Creed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>None of the other Marian
doctrines can be found in the Creed, even in its expansion into the Athanasian
Symbol that guards against every possible way of misconstruing the Trinity and
brings the clarifying affirmations of Chalcedon into it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Only
one other of these doctrines, the Perpetual Virginity, belongs to the first
tier of Christian truth – that which is Catholic in that it is held by all
ancient Churches, everywhere, from the most ancient times. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The other two are neither first tier, nor are
they, in either their affirmation or rejection, second tier, that is to say,
belonging to the key truths of the Reformation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These are third tier doctrines at best, which
Hyper-Protestants, who in their rejection of these doctrines often go so far as
to place themselves in serious doctrinal heresy by also rejecting the one that
belongs to the Creedal essence of the first tier, elevate to a level of undue
importance by writing people who sincerely confess the Creed out of the Church
and out of Christianity, dismissing them as pagans or worse, for affirming
these lesser doctrines that the Hyper-Protestants deny.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">You have
probably noticed that I have not directly addressed in this essay the question
of what the Scriptures have to say, one way or another, about the Perpetual
Virginity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I shall address that, Lord willing, in a
future essay, although not necessarily my next one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All I will say about it here is that doctrines
that are truly Catholic – held by the ancient Churches since ancient times – are
not of the essence of the faith unless they are also tenets of the Creed, but
should be presumed true unless proven otherwise from Scripture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the orthodox Protestant position. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hyper Protestantism reverses the onus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have also not addressed in this essay the
position of those who would write the Roman Church and others which confess the
Creed out of Christianity for disagreeing with the Protestant position on what
I have called the second tier of Christian truth, the core doctrines of the
Reformation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This too, Lord willing, I
shall address in a future essay.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Suffice it to say for now, that the core
soteriological disagreement between the Reformers and Rome, boils down to the
question of whether St. James interprets St. Paul (in Romans) or the other way
around, that the evidence suggests, conclusively in my opinion, that it is St.
Paul who interprets St. James, but that either way, the Protestant Reformers were
not guilty of the antinomianism Rome accused them of, nor was Rome entirely
guilty of the Galatianism the Reformers accused her of, that Rome went too far
in anathematizing the Protestant position in the Council of Trent, and the
Reformers went too far in applying the term Antichrist to a Church that, in
error though it be, confesses Jesus as Christ and Lord.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-81309733347253456192023-09-20T06:11:00.001-05:002023-09-22T06:17:26.405-05:00The Heretical Pitfalls of Hyper-Protestantism<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">One of the
interesting things about Hyper-Protestantism, which is distinguished from the
Protestantism of the Magisterial Reformation by its opposition to and rejection
of what is Catholic, that is to say, belonging to the faith, religion, tradition,
and practice held since the earliest centuries by all the ancient Churches
descended organically from the Church of Jerusalem, rather than merely the
errors distinctive to the Roman Church that sparked the Reformation, is its
obsession with Marian doctrine. Hyper-Protestants often act as if
they thought Rome's teaching with regards to Mary is her most serious error
rather than the soteriological issues at the heart of the Reformation.
At some point in the future I plan, if the Lord so wills, to show how the
English and Lutheran Reformers and even John Calvin held certain Marian
doctrines that would be considered "popish" by
Hyper-Protestants. For </span>today,<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"> however, I wish to explore how this obsession with contradicting
everything Rome - and in many cases all the ancient Churches - says about Mary often
leads them into serious Christological heresy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">One person who
commented on my earlier essay "<a href="https://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.com/2023/08/be-protestant-but-not-nut.html">Be
a Protestant - BUT NOT A NUT!"</a> insisted that the ancient Church was
wrong in condemning Nestorianism as a heresy. Nestorianism was
condemned in the Third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus, which took
place in 431 AD. Nestorius was the Archbishop of Constantinople at
the time. While this See had not yet been made a Patriarchate -
that would come twenty years later when St. Anatolius held the office - it had
been given the second place of honour after Rome by canon of the Second
Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 381 AD and was en route to
becoming the fifth See of the ancient Pentarchy. Nestorius, in
other words, was in a very influential position, making error on his part all
the more serious.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">The controversy
began with the use of the term </span><span style="background: white;">Θεοτόκος</span>
(<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Theotokos) as an honourific
title for the Virgin Mary. Theotokos is Greek for
"God-bearer". In English it is generally rendered as
"Mother of God". The controversy over the title was older
than Nestorius and Nestorius entered the controversy with the intention of
being a peacemaker. He proposed that the Virgin Mary be called the
Christokos ("Christ-bearer"). Unfortunately for him, this
was one of those cases where the compromise fell on ground belonging to one of
the two sides (think of the </span>Sunday<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"> School/Bible camp skit in which various people walk along a fence,
with God and Satan each calling them to come over to their side, some choosing
God, some Satan, until the last person, indecisively sits on the fence, only to
be claimed by Satan, the owner of the fence). By proposing the alternative
title, Nestorius sided with those who rejected Theotokos, and as a consequence
became forever associated with their ideas. Those ideas included a
serious Christological error.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Consider the
following syllogism: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Premise A: Jesus is
God.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Premise B: Mary is
the Mother of Jesus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Therefore:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Conclusion (C):
Mary is the Mother of God.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">This is a valid
syllogism, meaning that if the premises are true the conclusion must be true as
well, and so the conclusion cannot be rejected on the grounds of logical
invalidity. Those who reject the conclusion, therefore, must argue
against the truth of either the Major or the Minor Premise. They
generally do not want to argue against the Major Premise by denying the deity
of Jesus Christ. Therefore they try to argue against the Minor
Premise, that Mary is the Mother of Jesus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Now, obviously they
try to do so in a more subtle way than by an outright denial that would make
them sound completely stupid. What they try to do is to separate
Jesus' human nature from His Person. "Mary is the mother only
of Jesus' human nature" they say. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Do you see what
they have done there?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">In saying that Mary
is the mother only of Jesus human nature they want you to think of His human
nature in opposition to His divine nature. That way they can come
across as standing up for the truth against some unnamed heresy that says that
Jesus got His divine nature from His human mother. There is a
reason, however, that this heresy is unnamed. Nobody has ever taught
it. Nobody who calls Mary the Theotokos or the Mother of God thinks
these terms mean that Mary was prior to God, that Jesus derives His deity from
her, that she is the Mother of the Father or the Holy Ghost or any other such
stupid things that opponents of these terms read into them.
Unnecessarily guarding against an error that nobody teaches is an easy
way of falling into error yourself. This is exactly what has
happened here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">In actuality, when
they say that Mary is the mother only of Jesus' human nature, this is not as
opposed to her being the mother of His divine nature, but as opposed to her
being the Mother of Jesus the Person. Mother is a relational
term. It denotes how one person relates to another.
This is its primary use and meaning, and any implications it may have
about the "nature" of either mother or child are entirely secondary.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">By the reasoning
the opponents of Theotokos use they should also be claiming that God the Father
is not the Father of Jesus but only of His divine nature. They do
not usually say this, however, because the huge flaw in the argument is a bit
more obvious when worded this way.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">With other human
beings a mother and father each contribute half of the genes their child
inherits. Each could, therefore, be said to contribute half of the
child's nature, at least in its physical aspects - I don't wish to get into the
ancient theological debate between Tertullian's traducianism and St. Jerome's
creationism (of each individual's soul not of the world), now, maybe some other
time. We would never say, however, that someone's father is not
that person's father but only the father of half of his genes, nor would we say
such a thing, mutatis mutandis, about his mother. A father is the
father of his son as a whole person, not just the part of his son he
contributed. A mother is the mother of her daughter as a whole
person, not just the part she contributed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Now with Jesus we
do not have a case of His Father contributing half of His genetic material and
His Mother contributing the other half.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Jesus is One Person, with Two Natures, Fully God and Fully Man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His divine nature comes entirely from His
Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His human nature comes from His
Mother.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This, however, does not mean
that what we have just said about a father being the father of his child as a
whole person, and a mother being the mother of her child as a whole person,
rather than each being merely the father and mother of what they have
contributed to their child does not apply with regards to Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who claim otherwise, seem to think it
is sufficient to point to Jesus’ uniqueness as the Only Person born of a
Virgin, or the Only Person with two natures, divine and human, and say see,
Mary is mother only of His human nature not of Him as a Person, as if such a
conclusion somehow inevitably followed from these observations. This is not,
however, a conclusion that logically, inevitably, or naturally follows from
Jesus’ being unique in these ways.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">One objection that
was raised that requires an answer is the following from someone posting under
the name “Jason Anderson”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He writes:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">How can a mother of a pre-existent being be the mother
of the personality that always existed? She can't.</span></i><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Jesus was, of course, pre-existent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, He is eternal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He had no beginning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There never was a moment before He
existed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The problem with drawing Mr. Anderson’s
conclusion from this is that if his reasoning were sound it would also work
against God being the Father of Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If Someone Who is pre-existent, Someone Who is eternal, Someone to Whom
there is no “before”, cannot have a Mother, neither can He have a Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God the Father, however, is the Father of
Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Furthermore, He is the Father of
Jesus not merely by adoption, as the Adoptionist heresy would have, much less
the Father of Jesus by creation, since Jesus is uncreated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus is the “Only-Begotten” Son of the
Father, that is to say, the natural Son of the Father, the Son Who has the same
nature as His Father which He gets from His Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since both Father and Son are co-eternal,
this does not mean the Father is temporally prior to the Son.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Theologically we refer to the way Jesus is
begotten of the Father as “Eternal Generation”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unlike with a human father and a human son,
the begetting or generation is not a moment in time to which there was a before
when only the father and not the son existed, but is the eternal relationship
between Father and Son.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Now, before you raise the
objection that Jesus’ relationship with Mary is not like this, that it had a
beginning in time, that Jesus is eternal and Mary a created being, allow me to
say that my argument is not that Jesus’ relationship to His Mother is identical
to His relationship with His Father, obviously it is not, but rather my
argument is that if a pre-existent, indeed, eternal Person can have a Father in
this one way, eternal generation, then it is possible for the same
pre-existent, eternal Person to have a Mother in another way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That way, of course, is by Incarnation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus, the eternal Son of God, became Man by
taking human nature and permanently uniting it to His Own eternal divine
nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He did so, not by entering
someone and taking possession of their body, but through the miraculous
conception wrought by the Holy Ghost.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>As St. Ambrose - and later John Francis Wade - put it, He “abhorred not
the Virgin’s womb”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He entered this
world as Man, in other words, by being born into it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By doing so, He Who was and is eternal,
gained a Mother.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Mother-Son
relationship here is unique in that the Son existed before the Mother, not in
that the Mother is Mother only of one of her Son’s natures rather than of her
Son Himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first uniqueness, the
one that is actually true of Jesus’ relationship with the Virgin Mary, is a
mystery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The second is an absolute
absurdity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">In addition to the
thought-provoking question just addressed, Mr. Anderson provides us with a
further illustration of the extremes to which the fanatical, anti-Catholicism
of the Hyper-Protestant can take one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
claims that Jesus “disowned” Mary three times.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, before looking at the
passages he points to in order to back up this claim and seeing how he twists
these Scriptures I am going to point out the gross Christological and
Soteriological heresy he has committed by making this claim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus is both God and Man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Man, He is Perfect Man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He is the Second Adam, Who succeeded where
the first Adam failed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He “was in all
points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His sinlessness is essential to His being
our Saviour.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“For he hath made him to
be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God
in him.</span>” (2 Cor. 5:21)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“For
Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might
bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit”
(1 Pet. 3:18).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Jesus disowned Mary,
however, He broke the Fifth Commandment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That would mean that He was not without sin, and could not be our
Saviour.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Anderson, by taking his anti-Catholic
fanaticism so far as to try to throw dirt on Mary because Rome gives her too
much honour ended up throwing dirt on Jesus and committing soul-damning heresy
in the process.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">His attempt to back up this
claim from Scripture demonstrates his “exegesis” – it is really eisegesis, the
reading into a text of ideas that are not there – to be as bad as his
theology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The three occasions are the
Wedding at Cana in the second chapter of St. John’s Gospel, the account of
Jesus’ identification of those who do the will of God as His mother and
brethren at the end of the third chapter of St. Mark’s Gospel, and when He
passed Mary into St. John’s care on the Cross in the nineteenth chapter of St.
John’s Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In his interpretation
of the second of these, the one from St. Mark’s Gospel, Mr. Anderson attempts
to guard against the obvious conclusion of his claim by providing a “justification”
of Jesus’ “disowning” His Mother.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even if, however, we accepted his interpretation
of these events, it would not work as such a justification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of the examples of these supposed
disownings took place prior to the events of Mark 3.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Wedding at Cana took place before Jesus
began His public ministry after the arrest of John the Baptist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The events at the end of Mark 3 take place
after the ordination and first commissioning of the Twelve Apostles earlier in
that chapter which took place after His public ministry was underway.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">There is no disowning in any
of these passages.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus’ words at the
end of Mark 3 are for the sake of the multitude He was addressing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He doesn’t say anything, positive or
negative, about His biological relatives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He asks who His mother and brethren are, then answers by pointing to His
disciples, and saying that these are His mother and brethren, and that whoever
does the will of God is His brother, sister, and mother.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is an ecclesiological statement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Church is the family of God is what He
is saying here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Anderson bases his
interpretation of this on the fact that the occasion of Jesus’ saying this was
His Mother and brethren having come and sent for Him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Earlier in the chapter, in verse 21, we read
that “when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they
said, He is beside himself” and while this might be referring to the people of
Nazareth in general it is not unreasonable to see the visit of Mary and His
brethren as the unfolding of this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
that is the case, however, most reasonable people would look at this and in the
parlance of our day call it a misguided intervention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No such action was needed, but it was done
out of love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Anderson, however,
calls it a “kidnapping plot” and a “gubpowder (sic) plot”, “treachery” and an “</span>attempt
to be Judas before the time of Judas”, basically <span style="background: white;">a
violent criminal conspiracy against Jesus, that would justify His disowning
them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This, however, comes from his own
twisted mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not there in the
text.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Nor is there a disowning of
Mary in the second chapter of St. John’s Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The words that Mr. Anderson takes as a
disowning, the English of which can unfortunately come across as rude even
though it is not so in the original, are in the original Greek: </span>Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, γύναι.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A word for word literal rendition of this is
“What to me and to you, woman?” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>John
Calvin took this to be a rebuke, but does not go so far as to read a disowning
into it like Mr. Anderson does.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He said
that it has the same force as the Latin <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Quid
tibi mecum</i>, which, while not entirely wrong, is not the whole story.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is in fact a common idiom in Greek and
Hebrew – it occurs several times in the Old Testament - as well as Latin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Calvin likely had in mind the version of it
that appears a couple of times in Plautus’ <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Menaechmi.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i>This is the play that inspired
Shakespeare’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Comedy of Errors</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is about twins and mistaken
identities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The idiom, with the additional
words <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">est rei</i> (Latin is not quite as
economical with its words as Greek) has the meaning of “what business have I got
with you?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the second scene of the
third act it is spoken by the one Menaechmus to Peniculus who had addressed him
thinking he was speaking to the Menaechmus he knew, the twin of the other. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This illustrates the sort of situation, or at
least a farcical version of the sort of situation, in which this idiom is used
as a rebuke.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a rebuke, it is
generally addressed to someone who you don’t know or don’t know very well who
has been unduly intrusive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This doesn’t
fit the context of John 2 at all, making it really strange that John Calvin
seemed to think this was the use in play here. The meaning that does fit here
is “what does that have to do with me?” and in fact in this case it means “What
does that have to do with us?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Spoken
in response to Mary’s having told Him that the wedding party had run out of
wine, it means “why is that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">our</i>
concern?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They were not, in other words,
the hosts of the event, and were not responsible for the wine supply.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Note that neither this point, nor His hour
not yet having come – a reference to His public ministry not having started yet
– prevent Him from actually rectifying the situation, nor do they prevent Mary
from understanding that He would do so as evinced by her instructions to the
servants in the following verse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both
her and His actions would be inexplicably odd if His words had the meaning Mr. Anderson
reads into them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for the final reference from the nineteenth chapter of
St. John’s Gospel, Mr. Anderson’s interpretation of the passage is literally
the opposite of how it has been universally understood, that is to say, as the
loving expression of a dying Son concerned that His Mother be provided for and
asking a trusted and beloved friend to take care of her for Him. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The universal understanding is the correct
one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The language used is the language of
adoption, not the language of disowning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is Mr. Anderson: “<span style="background: white;">and at the cross in John "man behold THY mother,
woman behold THY son" (i.e. you can have her if you want her, I disown her
for a 3rd time)</span>”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here by contrast is John Calvin: “The
Evangelist here mentions incidentally, that while Christ obeyed God the Father,
he did not fail to perform the duty which he owed, as a son, towards his mother…
Yet, if we attend to the time and place when these things happened, Christ's
affection for his mother was worthy of admiration.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Calvin’s is a far less tortured and much
more natural reading of this text.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An
even more natural reading is to emphasize the affection over the duty. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is one thing to say that we should not give to the
Blessed Virgin Mary the honour and worship due only to her Son Jesus Christ
Who, with the Father and Holy Ghost, is God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>All orthodox Christians should be able to agree on this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even the Romanists are not likely to
disagree with it as worded, even if we Protestants suspect their practice to
sometimes be in violation of it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is
another thing to hate Rome so much as to take the furthest possible position
from hers, even if it means disagreeing not just with Rome but with all the
ancient Churches, rejecting the right judgement of the universal Church that
Nestorius had committed heresy, and twisting and torturing the Scriptures
beyond recognition, in support of a claim, that Jesus disowned His Mother, that
contains within itself a blasphemous imputation of sin, specifically the
violation of the Fifth Commandment, to the sinless Saviour of the world and is
thus a worse heresy than that of Nestorius, who not wanting to ascribe too much
honour to the Blessed Virgin ended up dividing the Person of her Son, Who in<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His One Person is both fully God and fully Man.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is okay to be a Protestant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When Rome says or does something that goes
against what the Scriptures teach, as faithful and orthodox Churches everywhere
have understood them to teach since the days of the Church Fathers, then you
can and should follow Scripture first, and the universal tradition second,
rather than Rome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The path of Hyper-Protestantism,
however, is one which if followed, leads into pits of error worse than the
errors of Rome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is best to avoid it
at all costs. <o:p></o:p></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-28170993517997792092023-09-13T08:16:00.001-05:002023-09-13T22:48:58.860-05:00Religion and Politics<p> <b><span lang="EN-US">Worship on Earth as it is Where?</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Church
is the society of faith that Jesus Christ founded through His Apostles on the
first Whitsunday (the Christian Pentecost, the successor to Succoth the Jewish
Pentecost) when in accordance with His promise given on the eve of the events
through which He established the New Covenant that would become the basis of
that society, the Father sent down the Holy Ghost upon His disciples, uniting
them into one body, with Christ as the head.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Into this one organic body, was joined the Old Testament Church, the
Congregation of the Lord within national Israel, whose faith looked forward to
the coming of Jesus Christ and who were taken by Him, from Hades, the Kingdom
of Death, in His Triumphant descent there after His Crucifixion, and brought by
Him into Heaven when He ascended back there after His Resurrection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Church does many things when she meets
as a community but first and foremost among them she worships her God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this, the Church on earth, or the Church
Militant as she is called, unites with the Church in Heaven, also known as the
Church Triumphant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Throughout her
history those who have led, organized, and structured her corporate worship
have been guided by the principle that our worship on Earth should resemble
than in Heaven.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a Scriptural
principle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Book of Hebrews
discusses at length how the elaborate religious system given to national Israel
in the Mosaic Covenant was patterned on Heavenly worship, the Earthly
Tabernacle (the tent that was the antecedent of the Temple in the days when
Israel was wandering in the wilderness before entering the Promised Land), for
example, was patterned on the Heavenly Tabernacle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, Hebrews uses language strongly
suggestive of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave to describe the relationship between
the Earthly Tabernacle and the Heavenly Tabernacle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since Hebrews also uses this kind of
language to describe the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New the
only reasonable conclusion is that if the worship of the Old Testament Church
was to be patterned after worship in Heaven, how much more ought the worship of
the New Testament Church to be patterned after the same.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now the Bible gives us a few glimpses of
worship in Heaven.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These are generally
found in visions in the prophetic and apocalyptic literature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The sixth chapter of Isaiah is the classic
Old Testament example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The vision of
St. John in the fourth and fifth chapters of Revelation is the classic New
Testament example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In these chapters we
find a lot of praying, a lot of singing, a lot of incense, an altar and a lot
of kneeling.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Scriptural depiction
of worship, in other words, is quite “High Church”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, since the book of Hebrews tells us
that Jesus, in His role of High Priest, entered the Heavenly Holy of Holies
with His blood, which unlike that of the Old Testament bulls and goats
effectively purges of sin and the New Testament elsewhere tells us that Jesus
on the eve of His Crucifixion commissioned the Lord’s Supper to be celebrated
in His Church until His Second Coming, which was practiced daily in the first
Church in Jerusalem and which is Sacramentally united with Jesus’ offering of
Himself, the way the pre-Reformation Churches – not just the Roman, but the
Greek, Coptic, Armenian, Assyrian and other ancient Churches as well – made
this the central focus of their corporate worship is also very Scriptural.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In the Reformation, Rome’s abuses with
regards to the Sacrament and her neglect of the preaching ministry, led many of
the Reformers to de-emphasize the Sacrament and make the sermon the central
focus of their corporate worship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
more extreme wing of the Reformation confused the New Testament ideas of a
preaching ministry <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">in</i> the Church,
which is a didactic ministry, teaching the faithful, with that of evangelistic
preaching, which is the Church’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">external
</i>ministry of proclaiming the Gospel to the world, and worse, developed
unhealthy ideas about the preaching ministry, such as that the Word is inert
and lifeless unless it is explained in a sermon, which are susceptible to the
same charges of idolatry that the Reformers themselves made against Rome’s late
Medieval views of the Sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More
to my point, however, the glimpses the Scriptures provide us of worship in
Heaven do not mention a Heavenly pulpit, and, indeed, the closest thing to a
sermon in Heaven I can think of in the Bible, is the reference to the
everlasting Gospel in Revelation 14:6.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The same verse, however, specifies that while the angel carrying it is
flying in the midst of Heaven, it is to be preached “unto them that dwell on
the earth”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Curiously, the Bible does
make mention of a sermon that was preached to an otherworldly
congregation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Peter, in the
nineteenth verse of the third chapter of his first Catholic Epistle, talks
about how Jesus “went and preached unto the spirits in prison”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is, of course, a lot of debate about
what St. Peter meant by this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did he
mean that Jesus preached the liberty He had just purchased them to the Old
Testament saints when He descended into Hades?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Or that He preached to those who would be left in the Kingdom of Death
when He took His saints with Him to Heaven?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If the latter, as the verses following might suggest, to what end?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We cannot answer these questions dogmatically,
interesting though the long-standing discussion of them be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My point, with regards to sermon-centric
worship, is best expressed in another question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whoever thought that worship on Earth as it
is in Hell was a good idea?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The State?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I prefer
the term Tory to the term conservative as a description of my political views,
even if that always requires an explanation that I do not mean “big-C party
Conservative” by the term, but Tory as Dr. Johnson defined it in his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dictionary</i>, a pre-Burke conservative if
you will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Today, the word conservative
in its small-c sense, is mostly understood in its American sense, which is
basically the older, nineteenth-century kind of liberal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t disassociate myself from this out of
a preference for the newer, twentieth and twenty-first century types of
liberalism over the older.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Quite the
contrary, the older type of liberalism is far to be preferred over the
newer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I disassociate myself from it
because the older type of conservatism, the British Toryism in which Canada’s
original conservatism has its roots, is to be preferred over either type of
liberalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Some explain the difference
between a Tory and an American type conservative by saying that the Tory has a
high view of the state, the American conservative a low view of the state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While this is not entirely wrong – Dr.
Johnson’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dictionary </i>mentioned
earlier defines a Tory as “One who adheres to the antient constitution of the
state, and the apostolical hierarchy of the Church of England, opposed to a
whig” – it can be very misleading, because “the state” has several different
connotations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The basic error of
liberalism – classical liberalism – pertains to human freedom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Classical liberalism was the theory that
man’s natural condition is to be an individual, autonomous with no social
connections to others, that this natural condition is what it means to be free,
that society and the state were organized by individuals on a voluntary
contractual basis in order to mutually protect their individual freedom, and
that when society and the state fail to do this individuals have the right and
responsibility to replace them with ones that do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Liberalism was wrong about each and every
one of these points, failing to see that man’s natural is social not individual
– an individual outside of society is not a human being in his natural
condition – that society and the state are extensions of the family, the basic
natural social unit, rather than extensions of the marketplace based on the
model of a commercial enterprise, and that attempts to replace old states and
societies with new ones, almost always result in tyranny rather than greater
freedom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Nor did the liberals
understand how their view of things depersonalizes people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“The individual” is not Bob or Joe or Mary
or Sam or Sally or Anne or Herschel or Marcus or George or Bill or Leroy or
Susie, each a person on his own earthly pilgrimage, distinct but not
disconnected from others, but a faceless, nameless, carbon copy of everyone
else, identifiable only by the rights and freedoms that he shares equally with
each other individual, in other words, a number.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When our primary term for speaking about
government is the abstract notion of “the state” this tends to depersonalize
government in the same way liberal autonomous individualism depersonalizes
people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In twentieth century
liberalism, which envisioned a larger role for government than the earlier
classical liberalism, and in that offshoot of liberalism that has gone by the
name “the Left” or “progressivism”, “the state” is very impersonal, a faceless
bureaucracy which views those it governs as numbers rather than people, a
collective but a collective of autonomous individuals rather than an organic
society/community.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would say that the
traditional Tory view of “the state” in this sense of the word is even lower
than that of an American style, classical liberal, neoconservative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">What the Tory does have a high view of is
government in the sense of traditional, time-proven, concrete governing
institutions, particularly the monarchy and Parliament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Note that Dr. Johnson spoke not of “One who
adheres to the state” but “One who adheres to the antient constitution of the
state”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What monarchy and Parliament,
which complement each other, have in common, is that they are both very
personal ways of thinking about government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The king reigns as father/patriarch over his kingdom(s), an extension of
his family, as his governing office is an extension of the family as the model
of society and state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Parliament is the
where the representatives of the governed meet to have their say in the laws
under which they live and how their taxes are spent. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The conversation between these two personal
governing institutions has contributed greatly to the most worthy
accomplishments of our civilization, and both have long proven their worth, so
it is of these that I prefer to say that I as a Tory have a high view, rather
than the impersonal state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have a
higher view of the monarchy than of Parliament, and not merely because those
who currently occupy the seats of Parliament leave much to be desired, but for
the very Tory reason that if the Church should be worshipping on Earth as in
Heaven, government ought to be modelled after the Heavenly pattern as
well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God is the King of Kings, and
governs the universe without the aid of elected representatives. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Monarchy is the essential form of
government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Parliament accommodates the
model to our human condition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Capitalism or Socialism?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">There is a
popular notion that unless one has no opinion on economics at all one must be either
a capitalist or a socialist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who
have studied economic theory will point out that that this is a little like the
dilemma posed in the question “Did you walk to work or take a bagged lunch?” –
a capitalist, in the terms of economic theory, is someone who owns and lives
off of capital, whereas a socialist is someone who believes in the idea of
socialism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since, however, for most
people, the term capitalist now means “someone who believes in capitalism” we
will move on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A more nuanced version of
the popular nation postulates a spectrum with capitalism, in the sense of pure
laissez-faire with no government involvement in the market whatsoever as the
right pole, and pure socialism, where the government not only controls but owns
everything, as the left pole, with most people falling somewhere between and being
identified as capitalists or socialists depending upon the pole to which they
are the closest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The terms “left” and “right”
in popular North American usage have been strongly shaped by this concept even
though their original usage in Europe was quite different – the “left” were the
supporters of the French Revolution, which, although it was the template of all
subsequent Communist revolutions, was not a socialist undertaking per se, and
the “right” were the Roman Catholic royalists, the continental equivalent of
the English Tories.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To complicate
matters there is the expression “far right” which is usually used to suggest
the idea of Nazism, which makes no sense with either the old continental
European or the new North American usage, although the less commonly used “far
left” for Communists makes sense with both.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The conservatives who think civilization began with the dawn of Modern
liberalism and have little interest in conserving anything other than classical
liberalism tend to accept this idea of a socialist-capitalist, left-right,
economic spectrum and to identify as capitalists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This makes sense because it is liberalism
they are trying to conserve and the Adam Smith-David Ricardo-Frédéric Bastiat
theory of laissez-faire that we commonly identify as capitalism is more
properly called economic liberalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">With us Tories it is a bit more complicated and this has led, in my
country, the Dominion of Canada, to the idea held by some that classical conservatives
or Tories, unlike American neoconservatives, are closer to socialism than to
capitalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To come to this conclusion, however, one
must accept the American notion of a socialist-capitalist economic spectrum and
the idea contained within it that any move away from laissez-faire is a move in
the direction of socialism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That idea
is nonsense and does tremendous violence to the historical meaning of the word
socialism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Historically, several
different socialist movements, popped up at about the same time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What they all had in common was a) the idea
that the private ownership of property, meaning capital, any form of wealth that
generates an income for its owner by producing something that can be sold in
the market is the source of all social evils because it divides society into
classes, some of which own property, others of which must sell their labour to
the propertied classes in order to make a living, and b) the idea that the
remedy is some sort of collective ownership of property.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Marxist version of socialism, this
collective ownership was conceived of as by the state, after it had been seized
in violent revolution by the proletariat (factory workers).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other versions of socialism, such as that
of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the state was viewed as unnecessary – Proudhon, as
well as being a socialist, was the first anarchist - and collective ownership
was conceived of more in terms of workers’ co-operatives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Socialism, in both its diagnosis of the cause
of social ills and in its proposed remedy, is fundamentally at odds with orthodox
Christianity, which tells us that sin, the condition of the human heart as the
result of the Fall of Man is the cause of social ills, and that the only remedy
for sin is the grace of God, obtained for mankind by Jesus Christ through His
Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection, and brought to mankind by His Church
in its two-fold Gospel Ministry of Word and Sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From the perspective of orthodox
Christianity, socialism, therefore, is an attempt to bypass the Cross and to
regain Paradise through human political and social endeavours.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even worse than that it is Envy, the second
worst of the Seven Deadly Sins, made to wear the mask of Charity, the highest
of the Theological Virtues, and institutionalized.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is therefore utterly condemned by
orthodox Christianity and Toryism, the political expression of orthodox
Christianity, in its rejection of laissez-faire liberalism does not step in the
direction of socialism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even when
Toryism supports state social programs for the relief of poverty, unemployment,
and the like, as it did under Disraeli in the United Kingdom in the Victorian
era and as it historically did in Canada, it was not for socialist reasons, not
because it believed that inequality was the cause of all social ills and wealth
redistribution society’s panacea, but for counter-socialism reasons, because it
did not want poverty, unemployment, etc. to because the opportunity for
recruitment to the cause of socialism which it correctly saw as a destructive
force that unchained leads to greater misery, especially for those whom it
claims to want to help.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The main way in
which Toryism has historically envisioned a larger economic role for government
than laissez-faire liberalism has been that the Tory recognizes the genuine
economic interests of the entire realm, such as the need for domestic
production of essential goods so as to not be dependent upon external supplies
that may be cut off in an emergency, along with the economic interests of local
communities, families, and individuals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Adam Smith argued that individuals are the most competent people to look
out for their own economic interests rather than governments, especially
distant ones, and Toryism doesn’t dispute this as a general principle –
obviously there are exceptions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather
it agrees with this principle and adds that families are the most competent at
looking out for their interests as families, and communities for their
interests at communities – this is what the idea of subsidiarity, rooted in
Christian social theory, is all about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Toryism doesn’t accept Smith’s claim that individuals looking out for
their own interests will automatically result in these other interests taking
care of themselves, much less those of the entire realm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The government, although incompetent at
making economic decisions for individuals <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">qua</i>
individuals, or families <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">qua</i>
families, communities <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">qua </i>communities,
for that matter, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>is generally as an
institution, the best suited for making economic decisions for the realm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This is compromised, of course, if the
person selected to lead His Majesty’s government as Prime Minister is an incompetent
dolt, imbecile, and moron.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
government of Sir John A. Macdonald, protecting fledgling Canadian industries
with tariffs while investing heavily in the production of the railroad that
would facilitate east-west commerce, uniting Canada and preventing her from
being swallowed up piecemeal by her neighbor to the south is an example of government
making the best sort of economic decisions for the realm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately, His Majesty’s government is
currently led by the classic example of the other kind of Prime Minister.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Which Branch of the Modern Tree?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Not so long
ago, when the fashionable, progressive, forward-thinking, and up-to-date began
to tell us that boys or men who thought they were girls or women and girls or
women who thought they were boys or men should be treated as if they were what
they thought and said they were instead of what they actually were in reality,
rather than indulge this nonsense we ought instead to have treated those making
this absurd suggestion the way we had hitherto treated those who thought they
were something other than what they were, that is to say, called those fellows
in the white uniforms with the butterfly nets to come and take them away that
they might have a nice long rest in a place where they would be no harm to
themselves or others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead we left
them among the general populace where they proceeded to wreak maximum
harm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It had seemed, at one time, that
this madness had peaked when people started introducing themselves by their
“preferred pronouns” rather than their names but, as is usual when one makes
the mistake of thinking things can’t get any worse, they did.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The past few years have seen a major
backlash finally starting to take shape against the aggressive promotion of
this gender craziness in the schools, and no, I don’t mean the post-secondary
institutions that have long been home to every wacky fad under the sun, I am
talking about elementary schools.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
seems that teachers, with the backing of school board administrators, have
taken to treating every instance in which a boy says that he is a girl, or a
girl says that she is a boy, as a serious case of gender dysphoria rather than the
passing phase it would otherwise be in most cases and responded with “gender
affirmation” which is a euphemism for indulging and encouraging gender
confusion – and forcing everyone else in the classroom to go along with it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To top it off, they have been keeping all of
this secret from the parents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The state of California in the United States
has just taken this to the next level, as a bill has passed in its legislative
assembly that would essentially make “gender affirmation” a requirement for
parents to retain custody of their children. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is worth bringing up at this point that there
is a very similar and closely related euphemism to “gender affirmation” and
that is “gender affirming care”, which refers to using hormones and surgery to
make someone who thinks they are of the other sex physically resemble that
sex.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The same lunatics that I have been
talking about, think it appropriate to offer this “care” to prepubescent
children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In every single instance
where this is done – every single instance – it is a case of child abuse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Period!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It is this aggressive war on the
sexual innocence of childhood and the rights and authority of parents that has sparked
the backlash on the part of parents who have had enough and are fighting back.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some jurisdictions, like the state of
Florida in the United States, and the provinces of New Brunswick and
Saskatchewan here in Canada, have responded by requiring schools to notify
parents when this sort of thing is going on. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The government in my own province of Manitoba
has promised to do this if they are re-elected next month.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That,
I would say, is the very least they ought to do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think that teachers that twist the minds
of young kids in this way ought to be severely punished – a case can be made
for bringing back the stocks and/or public flogging to do this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The progressives, including both Captain
Airhead, Prime Minister of Canada, and J. Brandon Magoo, President of the
United States, have denounced the policy of informing parents as if it were
placing kids in mortal danger.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Progressive spin-doctors have even coined a new expression “forced
outing” with which to vilify the sensible idea that teachers should not be
allowed to continue to get away with this ultra-creepy business of sexualizing
little kids and encouraging them to keep it a secret from their parents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Those whose conservatism seeks primarily or
solely to conserve the older stage of the Modern liberal tradition tend to view
this sort of progressive cultural extremism as a form of Marxism or Communism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is truth in this perspective in that
sort of thinking among progressives in academe that leads them to embrace such
nonsense can be traced back to academic Marxism’s post-World War I reinvention
of itself along cultural rather than economic lines, albeit through the detour
of a few prominent post-World War II thinkers who were heirs of Marx only in
the sense of following in his footsteps as intellectual revolutionaries rather
than that of having derived their ideas from his in any substantial way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The phenomenon itself – the idea that one has
the right to self-identify as a “gender” other than one’s biological sex, to
expect or even demand that others acknowledge this self-identification and
affirm it to be true, and even to force reality itself in the form of one’s
biological sex to bend to this self-identification – does not come from Marx,
and those countries that had the misfortune of having been taken over by
regimes dedicated to his evil ideas seem to have been partly compensated for
this by being inoculated against this sort of thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the autonomous individual of Locke,
Mill, and the other classical liberals taken to the nth degree and it is the
countries where liberalism has had the most influence that have proven the most
vulnerable to this gender insanity.<o:p></o:p></span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-38023221352928467182023-09-01T06:52:00.001-05:002023-09-01T06:52:17.439-05:00The Mysterious Sacrifice and the Sacrificial Mystery<p> If Adam had not
sinned would God the Son have still become Incarnate as a Man?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Note that the
question as worded pertains to the Incarnation not the Atonement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Many would say that
there is no way of knowing the answer to this question, and they have a good
point. What Luis de Molina, the sixteenth century Spanish Jesuit
who is best known for trying to harmonize a strong Augustinian view of
predestination with free will, called "Middle Knowledge", the
knowledge of counterfactuals, what would have been under different
circumstances, properly belongs to God alone. For many Protestants
however, without having considered the question per se, the default answer
would likely be "no" because in their theology the Atonement was the
end of the Incarnation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you remove
the need for the Atonement you remove the need for the Incarnation.
For earlier theologians who seriously considered the matter, this was not
the case. John Duns Scotus, a Scottish Franciscan friar of the
thirteenth-fourteenth centuries, and one of the most important Medieval
theologians even if Modern thinkers scoffed at him - the word dunce, which was
the name of those conical caps teachers made disobedient and obtuse students
wear back when teachers were concerned with imparting learning and had not yet
realized their calling to convince girls that they are boys and boys that they
are girls, was derived from his name - argued that the answer was “yes”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He argued this in both his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ordinatio</i>, the published collection of the
lectures he gave in Oxford on Peter Lombard’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sentences</i>, and his </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Reportatio
Parisiensis</i>, which contain similar lectures delivered at the University of
Paris.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was also a common although
not universal<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"> view among the theologians
of the Eastern Church.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">That this would be
the case - the "yes" answer being common in the East - is
understandable when we consider one of the major differences in Eastern and
Western theology, that which has to do with the antelapsarian state of
man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>John Calvin, in the second book of
his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Institutes of the Christian Religion</i>,
chapter two, section four, says of the consequences of the Fall upon the
freedom of man’s will that “although the Greek Fathers, above others, and especially
Chrysostom, have exceeded due bounds in extolling the power of the human will,
yet all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating,
and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their
writings.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Augustine was, of course,
the leading doctor of the Western Church. Countless Reformed
theologians since have assumed without looking into it that the East is
Pelagian or semi-Pelagian but that is not the case and that is not really what
Calvin said. Pelagianism was a heresy that East and West joined in
condemning, but which was a heresy that arose in the West and which has
perennially plagued the West not the East. The East-West difference
is that the East does not have as exalted a view of the pre-Fall state.
Man was created in the image and likeness of God, the Orthodox say, and they distinguish
between the two, identifying the image of God with man’s reason,
responsibility, and the like, and the likeness with moral excellence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Fall affected the likeness of God in
man, but prior to the Fall that likeness was not yet perfect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Man was created innocent, that is to say,
without moral flaw, but was to grow to perfection, which is another way of
saying maturity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was to grow in the
likeness of God until he was as like God in righteousness and holiness as a
creature can be. The East calls this theosis and sees the Fall as
an interruption of the process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
liken it to a child stumbling as he takes his first steps.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While
this sounds to Western ears like downplaying the Fall, this is because the West
has followed St. Augustine in regarding man’s antelapsarian state as one of
moral perfection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The East regards the
Fall as seriously as does the West, and insists contra Pelagius that apart from
the Grace of God as given through Jesus Christ there can be no salvation, but
they see the end of salvation as the completion of the interrupted theosis
rather than the restoration of the status quo ante. Given that framework,
it is to be expected that a “yes” answer to the question would come more
naturally to Eastern theologians than to Western theologians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">I do not bring this
up to argue that the East is right rather than the West. I think
that we are better off for listening to orthodox theologians from all the
ancient Christian traditions rather than just our own, but replacing a Western
provincialism with a reverse provincialism in which the East is always right is
not an improvement, I bring it up because there are parallels
in the preceding discussion with the one that is about to follow with a new
question:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">If Adam had not
sinned would there still have been sacrifices?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Here too, although
this question is as much about what might have been as the first, those who
would be inclined to answer the first question with "no" are likely
to answer "no" again. In this case, however, we might
expect a better argued reason for the answer. Sacrifices, the argument
goes, began after the Fall and pointed to the Ultimate Sacrifice of Jesus
Christ. God gave Adam and Eve skin coats to cover them as the first
picture of the necessity of the shedding of the blood of the Son of God to
atone for sin. Their sons offered sacrifices, showing the
practice was established that far back, and while it got corrupted by paganism,
God gave a pure sacrificial system to the Israelites in the Old Covenant, to
point them towards Jesus Christ, Whose True Sacrifice brought other sacrifices
to an end. Since the whole point of this was that Jesus Christ's death
atoned for man's sin, in the absence of sin there would have been no need for
any of this.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">The problem with
this reasoning is not so much with what it positively affirms but with what it
leaves out. The Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, speak of
sacrifices other than sacrifices that a) involve death, and b) are offered on
account of sin or trespass, voluntary or otherwise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The hidden assumption in the argument
outlined in the previous paragraph is that in verses that speak of non-physical
sacrifices, "sacrifice" is used in a metaphorical sense, with
blood/death sacrifices being the literal thing that gives the metaphorical its
meaning. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even the physical
sacrifices of the Levitical sacrificial system that God gave to the Israelites
as part of the Mosaic Covenant, however, contain sacrifices that don’t fit the
model of death and blood, prefiguring Calvary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There were the sin offerings and the trespass offerings to be made when
one had unknowingly sinned, the difference between the two basically being that
the one was for when no restitution was possible and the other for when it was.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were the daily burnt offerings and
sacrifices, which had reference to sin in a more general sense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then there were the peace offerings which,
while not entirely unrelated to sin, were more about thanksgiving and
fellowship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The focus was on the positive
not the negative and this was even more the case with the sacrifices that were
offered in commemoration of events, or to mark the beginning of the month, or
to consecrate something or another.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not
all of the offerings involved animals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There were also grain offerings – sometimes in the form of flour, sometimes
in the form of roasted grains, sometimes in the form of cakes, in each case
mixed with oil, and except for the cakes with frankincense as well – and there
were wine offerings or libations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Sometimes these were offered with an animal sacrifice, sometimes they
were offered on their own. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
there were other types of sacrifices, even among the physical sacrifices of the
Levitical system, then perhaps the non-physical sacrifices are not metaphorical
after all. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps there is a
deeper, more essential, meaning to the concept of sacrifice that might actually
be easier to see in these other sacrifices where it is not overshadowed by the
thought of man's sin and the need to atone for it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that is the case, this might be,
depending upon what that deeper meaning turns out to be, a good case for the
“yes” answer to our question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">It is worth noting
here that the word “sacrifice” does not appear in the Authorized Bible until
the thirty-first chapter of Genesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is the word </span>זֶבַח<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">
(zebach) which is most often rendered “sacrifice” and which is the word behind
most appearances of “sacrifice” in the Authorized Old Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here it is used of the sacrifice that Jacob
offered when he and his uncle Laban had made a covenant between themselves
before going their separate ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now,
if you are familiar with the Old Testament or even just the most basic episodes
in its narrative history you are probably saying that this cannot be right,
because sacrifices appear much earlier.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What about Cain and Abel?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;">Yes, the account of
Cain and Abel in the fourth chapter of Genesis does indeed depict sacrifices,
but it does not use the basic word for sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What Cain and Abel each brought to the Lord
is called in the Authorized Bible an “offering” and this is a translation of
the Hebrew </span>מִנְחָה (mincha) that is actually more common than the word
rendered “sacrifice” being rendered “offering” two more times than the total of
all uses of זֶבַח.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">זֶבַח is a noun derived from a verb meaning “to kill” or “to
slaughter”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>מִנְחָה, however, is derived
from a verb meaning “to bestow” or “to give”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Interestingly, although the Hebrew uses מִנְחָה consistently for both
Can and Abel’s offerings, the translators who produced the Septuagint opted to
use different words.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cain’s offering is
described as a θυσία (thusia) which is the word one would expect had זֶבַח<span style="mso-fareast-language: EN-CA;"> been used as it means </span>“sacrifice”
whereas Abel’s is called by the plural of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>δῶρον (doron) which is the basic Greek word for “gift” and so a more
literal translation of the Hebrew word.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What makes this an even stranger translation choice is that one would
expect the reverse since Cain’s offering was of the “fruit of the ground” and
Abel’s was of the “firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps by using the word one would have
expected of Abel’s animal sacrifice for Can’s grain offering the LXX
translators wished to emphasize the difference in the nature of the gifts as an
explanation of why the one was rejected and the other accepted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If so they anticipated an interpretation,
i.e., that not being an animal sacrifice it could not prefigure Christ’s
Atonement, that is very popular in Christian pulpits but which makes little
sense given that grain offerings were later established in the Mosaic Covenant
and that the text itself offers the explanation that Abel brought the
“firstlings” of his flock and “of the fat thereof”, that is to say the very
best, but uses no such language of Cain’s offering.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cain’s offence, then, was most likely that
of Malachi 1:7:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ye offer polluted
bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye
say, The table of the Lord is contemptible.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That the first account of sacrifice in the Bible uses the
word for “offering” rather than the word derived from the verb for killing is,
I think, very instructive as to the basic, essential, nature of sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Later in Genesis, when Jacob is
contemplating how his brother will receive him upon his return, he uses this
same word for the extravagant gift he prepares in the hopes of appeasing Esau
should he still be miffed over the whole stolen birthright/blessing thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here the word is translated “present” in the
Authorized Bible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even later in Genesis
it is the word used of the tribute that Jacob orders his sons to bring to
Pharaoh’s Prime Minister, who they do not yet know is their brother Joseph, on
their second trip to Egypt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here too it
is rendered “present” which is the second most common translation of the word.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the recipient is another human being
rather than God “present” or “gift” is used, almost always with the sense of
“tribute”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This would appear to be the
basic idea behind an offering or sacrifice to God as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the tribute that human beings as His
subjects, owe to the King of Kings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Such an understanding rather clinches the case for a “yes”
answer to our question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For human
beings were always subjects of their Creator, the King of Kings, and as such
would always have owed Him tribute whether they had fallen from His favour through
sin or no.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even if one were to argue
that had man remained in his primordial, antelapsarian, condition he would have
had nothing to bring to God of the fruits of his labour, not even grain
offerings, because having to work the land was part of the curse and he would
still have been in the Garden, they would have been expected to bring the
sacrifice (θυσία) of Hebrews 13:15: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise
to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.</span></i><span style="background: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">In this verse we come at last
to my point in raising these questions of what would have been.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If sacrifice is in its truest essence human
beings bringing to God, the King of Kings, the tribute we owe Him as His subjects
and which would have been required of us even if we had not sinned, and if,
therefore, the idea of a propitiatory offering reconciling us to the God we
have offended as sinners, prefigured in the blood sacrifices of the Old
Testament and ultimately fulfilled in the Crucifixion, is the form that
sacrifice took after the Fall due to the sinfulness of man, we would expect
that after Jesus Christ fulfilled the propitiatory aspect of sacrifice once and
for all, its essence would remain in Christian worship, and that is exactly
what this verse, near the end of the epistle which most clearly spells out how
the death of Jesus Christ has satisfied the need for sacrifice <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">for sin</i>, says.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">By His death on the Cross,
Jesus Christ did what the bulls and goats, sacrificed on the altar of the
Tabernacle and Temple, looking forwards to Him, could never do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He took away the sin of the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, His Sacrifice was the Sacrifice
that established the New Covenant foretold in the Old.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With the change in Covenant came a change in
priesthood and rite.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These changes
reflect the fact that in the events of the Gospel, everything the Old Covenant
looked forward to has been fulfilled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Under the Old Covenant the rite of entry and the outward sign of
membership in the Covenant people was Circumcision.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While not a sacrifice per se, Circumcision
involved the shedding of blood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With
the establishment of Christ’s New Covenant, all ceremonial requirements for
shedding blood came to an end having been fulfilled with the shedding of His
blood on the Cross.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So Circumcision was
replaced with Baptism, which does not involve the shedding of blood, and which
is a more perfect rite of entrance in that it can be administered to everyone,
male and female alike, as is entirely appropriate for a Covenant which, unlike
the Old Covenant that was national, is Catholic, for people of every kindred,
tribe, and nation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Where Baptism most
resembles the rite that was its equivalent in the Old Covenant is that it is
administered once and does not need to be repeated.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Other than Circumcision, the
most important part of the ceremonial aspect of the Old Covenant was the
sacrifices that the Levitical priesthood offered at the Tabernacle/Temple.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These did have to repeated, some daily,
others, such as those assigned to the Feast Days and the Day of Atonement,
annually.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just as Baptism is the more
perfect replacement for Circumcision, so under the New Covenant there is a more
perfect ceremonial replacement for the Old Testament sacrifices, and that is
the Sacrament that we variously call the Lord’s Supper or Lord’s Table, Holy
Communion – this word means fellowship or sharing, and the Eucharist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This last is the Greek word for
thanksgiving, the verbal form of which is used by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11
for the thanks given by the Lord in the institution of the Sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although a different word, the verb that is
usually translated “confess”, is used for giving thanks in Hebrews 13:15, it is
not improbable that this verse contributed to the rite replacing the Levitical
sacrifices being named “Thanksgiving” from the earliest days (it is so named in
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Didache</i>, an early instruction
manual in right living, liturgy, and Church structure which was thought lost
until rediscovered around the middle of the nineteenth century, and which after
the discovery of similar Jewish manuals among the Qumran scrolls has usually
been dated to the first century).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Using the word “sacrifice” in
the context of discussing the Eucharist sends a certain type of Protestant into
hysterical fits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is, perhaps,
understandable considering the state of the Sacrament in the West on the eve of
the Reformation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Masses were said
around the clock, often with no laity present or expected to be present.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the laity were present they seldom took
Communion and when they did receive it was only the host, the cup being
withheld from them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead of being
encouraged to receive the Sacrament, the people were encouraged to gaze at it
in adoration from afar.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The underlying
theological problem behind all this was the idea that in the Mass Christ’s
Sacrifice was repeated and so each Mass was a sacrifice in itself that was
offered up by the priest, and which conferred its benefits regardless of
whether the beneficiaries were present or not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This, at least, is how the Roman late Medieval theology on the matter
was understood at the popular level.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To
what extent the popular theology reflected the official teaching of the Roman
Church at the time is debatable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Thomas Aquinas addressed the question of
whether Christ is sacrificed in the Sacrament in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Summa Theologiae</i>, Third Part, Question 83, Article 1.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He argues in the affirmative, but his main
argument in the Respondeo, an argument that he borrows from St. Augustine, is
that just as we point to a picture and say that this is Cicero or Sallust, so
we say that the Sacrament, the depiction of Christ’s One Sacrifice, is that Sacrifice,
which was an argument that Zwingli could have endorsed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, St. Thomas Aquinas represented the
Medieval theology of Rome prior to Trent at its best, in its most scholarly
form, which differed both from the popular theology and the dogmas coming out
of the Roman See.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That people could pay
a price to have a Mass said in order to reduce their own temporal debt for sin
or knock time off of Purgatory for someone else, suggests that the Patriarch of
Rome and his subordinates cannot be wholly absolved of blame for what was going
on at the popular level.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact that
they cleaned up some of the abuses and clarified their official doctrine in the
Council of Trent (1545-1563) demonstrates that they recognized this as well,
even if they were not willing to publicly admit their wrong doing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was to this sort of thinking and the bad practices
it produced, that the Reformers reacted. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Or maybe they
overreacted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The abuses described in the previous
paragraph were distinctly Roman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Eastern Church never withheld the wine from the laity, encouraged them to adore
the host from afar rather than receive it, or sold private Masses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These abuses, therefore, are Roman rather
than Catholic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Eastern Church did
and does, however, regard the Eucharist as a sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since the Church Fathers going back to St.
Ignatius, the Patriarch of Antioch who was martyred early in the second century
and who had been taught by St. John the Apostle himself, spoke of the Eucharist
as a sacrifice, the idea that the Eucharist is a sacrifice is a Catholic one
and not merely a Roman one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Reformers,
therefore, should have been very careful in approaching this, not to condemn
what was Catholic along with what was Roman, unless they had solid Scriptural
grounds to do so. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly, they were
on solid Scriptural ground in objecting to any teaching that suggested that the
Eucharist was <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">another </i>sacrifice of
the same type as Christ’s One Sacrifice, or that in the Eucharist Christ’s
Sacrifice was <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">repeated</i>, or that the
Eucharist <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">adds</i> to what Jesus
accomplished on the Cross. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These,
however, are not Catholic ideas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
might be Roman or have been Roman at one point in time, but they were never
taught by the Eastern Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Eastern Church, however, did and does teach that the Eucharist is a
propitiatory sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How they can
teach that and not teach these other things, I will explain momentarily.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">First note that the
Reformers, in reacting to Rome, rejected that idea common to the Eastern and
Roman Churches, that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They would allow for it being a sacrifice
only in the sense of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Calvin’s discussion of this can be found in
chapter XVII of the fourth book of his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Institutes</i>,
the second part of the chapter beginning at section ten being most relevant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the tenth section he acknowledges that
the ancients spoke of the Eucharist as a sacrifice but says that they meant it
merely in the sense of a commemoration of Christ’s Sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As his argument proceeds, he acknowledges that
there are other sacrifices than the kind that involve death, although he
describes those who raise the point as “quarrelsome” and says that he does not
see the “rational ground” on which they “extend” the term to these other rites
(section thirteen).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly, the kind of
argument made at the beginning of this essay that sacrifice, in its essential
meaning, is tribute offered to the King of Kings, with the idea of death and
blood being external to the essence and a consequence of the Fall, would be
lost on Calvin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since his mind was
shaped by training in law, he should not be too harshly blamed for this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He argues that as a sacrifice, the Eucharist
belongs to a class that includes all duties of charity and piety rather than
being unique, (section sixteen), and that in particular it is a sacrifice of
praise, prayer, and thanksgiving (section seventeen).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His point in all of this is to so separate
the Roman “Mass” from the Lord’s Supper as to make them two different things
altogether than the one a corrupted version of the other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Amusingly, considering his opposition to
“superstition”, by this he succeeded in creating a new superstition, the
aversion to the very word “Mass” found among certain Protestants who seem to
think that all of popery is smuggled in by the use of this word which simply
means a service in which the Eucharist is celebrated. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">In the Eastern Church, such a
service is commonly called the Divine Liturgy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Eastern Church, as mentioned, regards
the Sacrament celebrated in the Divine Liturgy as a propitiatory
sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They do not, however, regard
it as being another propitiatory sacrifice adding that of Jesus Christ, or a
repetition of Christ’s Sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
is because they regard it as being the One Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware,
writing under his pre-monastic name Timothy, explains:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white;">The Eucharist is not a bare commemoration nor an
imaginary representation of Christ’s sacrifice, but the true sacrifice itself;
yet on the other hand it is not a new sacrifice, nor a repetition of the
sacrifice on Calvary, since the Lamb was sacrificed ‘once only, for all
time’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The events of Christ’s sacrifice
– the Incarnation, the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the
Ascension – are not repeated in the Eucharist, but they are <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">made present</b>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘During the Liturgy, through its divine
power, we are projected to the point where eternity cuts across time, and at
this point we become true contemporaries with the events which we commemorate.’
‘All the holy suppers of the Church are nothing else than one eternal and
unique Supper, that of Christ in the Upper Room.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The same divine act both takes place at a
specific moment in history, and is offered always in the sacrament.’</span></i><span style="background: white;"> (Timothy Ware, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Orthodox Church</i>, 1963, rev. 1993, 2015 edition, pp. 279-280, bold
representing italics in original, citations in text from P. Evdokimov, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">L’Orthodoxie</i>, p. 241 and 208
respectively)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">The Eastern Church had to
clarify her views on this much earlier than the Roman Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One notable example took place about a
century after the mutual excommunications of the Patriarchs of Rome and
Constantinople in the Schism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span>Lukas
Chrysoberges, the newly installed Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, was
barely in office in 1156 when a controversy arose due to the teaching of <span style="background: white;">Soterichos Panteugenos, who had been chosen for the
next Patriarch of Antioch but had not yet been enthroned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Panteugenos taught that Jesus had offered
His Sacrifice only to the Father and not to the entire Holy Trinity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was denounced as heretical, and
Chrysoberges was asked to preside over the Synod of Blachernae that Emperor
Manuel I Komnemnos called to meet in said quarter of Constantinople in 1157 to
decide the matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The main issue was
the one just mentioned but Panteugenos had also taught that the Eucharist was
merely a figurative commemoration of Christ’s Sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His teachings were condemned and his
selection for the See of Antioch was nullified, although he was persuaded to
recant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most significantly for our
purposes here, the Eastern Church declared in the council that the Eucharist
was not just a figurative commemoration, but the One Sacrifice of Jesus Christ
and to make the identification clear it was emphasized that it was not another
sacrifice, not a repeat of the sacrifice, but the One Sacrifice made present in
a sacramental fashion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Having had to
clarify her understanding of the Eucharist so soon after breaking fellowship
with Rome, she was clear on there being no repetition of or addition to the One
Sacrifice<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>in a way that Rome was not,
and so did not go down the same path as Rome.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Although the Eastern
understanding excludes the ideas that were most objectionable to the Reformers
in the idea of the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice, the ideas of adding
to or repeating the One Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and was not coupled with the
corrupt practices of withholding the wine, encouraging the faithful to gaze
from afar rather than receive, charging for private Masses, etc., it likely
would not have met with a good reception among the continental Reformers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Luther logically ought not to have had
any problem with it considering his overall conservatism and especially his
strong view of the Real Presence which prevented him from reaching accord with
the Swiss Reformers in the Marburg Colloquy of 1529.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It does not make much logical sense to
insist on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood in the elements of the
Sacrament without accepting the Real Presence of the One Sacrifice in the
Sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Calvin, who already had a
low view of the Eastern tradition because of the differences between the Greek
Fathers and St. Augustine, and who held a considerably less literal view of the
Real Presence than Dr. Luther, would not likely have viewed the Eastern
position as much less objectionable than Rome’s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The real question, however, from the
starting point of the primacy and supremacy of Scripture, which both Dr. Luther
and Calvin affirmed, is what the Bible teaches concerning the relationship
between the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of Holy Communion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">Jesus Christ’s Sacrifice on
the Cross was the One Sacrifice that effectually removed the sin of the world
and accomplished salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was also
a Sacrifice that established a Covenant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the words of Institution in Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20,
and 1 Corinthians 11:25, Jesus pronounced over the cup of the Eucharist that it
was the “new testament” in His blood, i.e., the New Covenant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Understanding that Christ’s Sacrifice was a
Covenant Sacrifice as well as the Sacrifice that accomplished the salvation of
the world is essential to understanding what the Lord’s Supper is all
about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Important information about this
can be gleaned by looking at the establishment of the Old Covenant.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white;">The Old Covenant was
established at Mt. Sinai, where Moses led the Israelites after their flight
from Egypt in the book of Exodus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
formal establishment of the Covenant takes place in the twenty-fourth chapter,
where the LORD summons Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of
Israel to worship (v. 1), allowing only Moses to come near Him (v. 2), Moses
tells the people all the words of the Lord and they promise to keep all of them
(v. 3), Moses records everything and rises early in the morning, builds an
altar, and erects twelve pillars for the twelve tribes (v. 4), they offer burnt
offerings and peace offerings of oxen (v. 5), Moses puts half the blood in
basins and sprinkles half on the altar (v. 6), the book of the Covenant is read
to the people and they again promise to do all that is contained in it (v. 7)
after which Moses sprinkles the people with blood and tells them to behold the
blood of the Covenant which the Lord has made with them (v. 8), then all those
who had been summoned go up the mountain where they see God and “eat and drink”
(vv. 9-11).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this formal
establishment of the Covenant we see a) the sacrifices, i.e., the actual
killing of the victims b) the act of sanctification by the sprinkling of the
blood, and c) the representatives of the people eating and drinking in the
presence of the Other Party to the Covenant, i.e., God. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first two of these, the killing of the
victim on the altar and the sprinkling of the blood, are the key components of
sacrifices that are offered on account of sin and which prefigure the Sacrifice
of Jesus Christ. Think especially of the procedure on the Day of
Atonement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The killing on the altar
prefigures the death of Christ on the Cross on Calvary, and the sprinkling of
whatever needs to be sanctified, such as the Holy of Holies, with the blood
prefigures Jesus Christ’s entry into the Heavenly Tabernacle with His Own Blood
as High Priest after the order of Melchizedek which is discussed at length in
the book of Hebrews.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The part where the parties of the Covenant eat
and drink together is the standard conclusion of the making of a Covenant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was seen earlier in the Pentateuch in the
passage that contains the first use of the principle word for sacrifice where
after Jacob and Laban have come to their agreement “</span>Jacob offered
sacrifice upon the mount, and called his brethren to eat bread: and they did
eat bread, and tarried all night in the mount.” (Gen. 31:54).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, it is seen even earlier than that
where Melchizedek, the priest of Salem alluded to in the references to Jesus
Christ as a priest after the order of Melchizedek, brings out bread and wine to
Abram and his confederates and to those they just liberated from the eastern
confederacy after the rebellion of the cities of the plain in the fourteenth
chapter of Genesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this passage,
the making of a Covenant is implied by the circumstances, only the final meal
is explicitly mentioned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Note the close
resemblance between that meal and a Eucharist.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Having looked at the formal establishment of the Old
Covenant we need now to back up in the book of Exodus to look at the event
which more than anything else in the Old Testament prefigures Jesus Christ and
the redemption He accomplished on the Cross.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>God’s deliverance of Israel from literal slavery in Egypt, prefigures
His delivering His people of every nation from slavery to sin through Jesus
Christ’s death on the Cross.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is
why Christ’s work on the Cross is called “redemption”, a word that literally
means purchasing someone out of slavery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>God’s challenge to Pharaoh through Moses culminated in the plague of the
firstborn, in which the Angel of Death visited all the firstborn in Egypt, from
Pharaoh’s household down,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Israelites were delivered from this plague in a manner that they would
commemorate forever in the Passover.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
was on the anniversary of the Passover that Jesus was crucified.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Exodus 12, God gave Moses the
instructions regarding the Passover.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They were to choose a spotless lamb per household on the tenth of the
month.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the fourteenth of the month,
the lamb would be killed before the assembly of the entire congregation of
Israel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This foreshadows the death of
Christ on the Cross.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then they were to
take the blood and strike it on the two side posts and the upper post of the
main entrance to the house.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This, which
incidentally or not requires making a cross shaped motion, foreshadows Christ’s
entry into the heavenly Holy of Holies with His blood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then, finally, they were to eat the
Passover:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">And they shall eat the
flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter
herbs they shall eat it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Eat not of it
raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs,
and with the purtenance thereof. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until
the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn
with fire.</i> (vv. 8-10)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So covenants were formally established with sacrifices after
which there was a shared meal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
implication that the sacrifice itself became the meal is made explicit in the
account of the Passover.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do I really
need to state the obvious by saying that the Lord’s Supper, which was
instituted on the occasion of a Passover meal, is to Christ’s One Sacrifice
what that meal was to the Passover sacrifice or that Christ’s One Sacrifice
being a Covenant Sacrifice, the Lord’s Supper is the Covenant meal?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now ordinarily Covenant meals were eaten once on the occasion
of the establishment of the Covenant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Passover meal was repeated in a commemorative way once a year on the
anniversary of the original event.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Lord’s Supper, however, was to be eaten over and over again on a regular
basis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From the account of the first
Church in Jerusalem in its early days we learn that at first the Lord’s Supper
was celebrated on a daily basis (Acts 2:42, 46).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Note
the juxtaposition in the second of these verses of the believers’ continuing in
the Temple of the Old Covenant, which was still standing at the time, and their
“breaking bread”, i.e., in the Lord’s Supper, in the houses where they met as
the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here the two systems
temporarily overlap, but with Christ’s death having accomplished what the old
sacrifices of bulls and goats could only point to, the old system was already
essentially dead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What remained for
believers was to eat and drink of that One Sacrifice in the manner of which
Christ prescribed, through the means of bread and wine. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Lord’s Supper took the place in the
religion of the New Covenant that the sacrifices occupied under the Old
Covenant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is hardly a coincidence
that bread and wine, in addition to being important elements of the Passover
meal, were the non-animal offerings required by the Mosaic Law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is another reason, however, why the
meal in which the Sacrifice of the New Covenant is eaten by the faithful, is to
be repeated and far more often than the commemoration of the Passover.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The New Covenant is the Covenant of everlasting life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Man had lived under the dominion of Death
since the Fall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Son of God, by
becoming Man, living the righteous life as Man that God required, taking the
sins of fallen man upon Himself and submitting to Death, defeating Death in the
process, smashing the gates of Death’s kingdom Hell, then rising Immortal from
the grave and ascending back to the right hand of the Father, obtained
everlasting life for us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is offered
to us freely in Him to be received by faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This new life, everlasting life,
is like the old physical life in that it begins with a birth and is sustained
by food and drink.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Entry into
everlasting life is described as a new or spiritual birth by Jesus Christ in
His interview with Nicodemus in the third chapter of St. John’s Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the sixth chapter of the same Gospel in
an extended discourse which takes place in the synagogue of Capernaum on the
day after the feeding of the five thousand He describes Himself as the Bread of
Life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the course of this discourse He
talks about how it is God’s will that He, Jesus, preserve all those whom He has
been given, believers, in everlasting life. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, when at the end of the discourse He
says that one must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to have everlasting life,
it is apparent that He is talking about the means through which He accomplishes
this preservation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Everlasting life is
received in the new birth, and nourished and sustained by the food that is His
Flesh and Blood. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In both chapters faith
is identified as the means by which we personally appropriate the Grace of
everlasting life both as the initial new birth and the sustaining food and drink.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both chapters also identify the means by
which God confers the Grace upon us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God
confers the Grace of the new birth through the Sacrament of Baptism (Jn. 3:5,
cf. 1:33), and the Grace of the sustaining of that life through the Body and
Blood of Jesus Christ, i.e., the Sacrament of the Eucharist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no contradiction between the
Sacraments conferring Grace and faith receiving it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The New Covenant is not between God and each
individual believer on a one-on-one basis as the evangelical expression “a
personal relationship with Jesus Christ” which is found nowhere in the
Scriptures would suggest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The New
Covenant is between God and the community of faith established by said
Covenant, the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The new life is the life of Jesus Christ
Himself and we share in it through union with Him which union also united us
with other believers in the New Covenant community that is His Body, the
Church. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Gospel Sacraments of Baptism
and the Lord’s Supper are both the external sign and seal of the new birth and
the sustaining of the new life with the food and drink of the Body and Blood of
Jesus Christ and the means through which that union is established and God
brings these gifts to his people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
is not a mechanical operation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nobody
receives the Grace conferred through the Sacraments except through the
appointed means of appropriation, which is faith in Jesus Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since, however, the Sacraments occupy the
same spot in the Ordu Salutis as the preaching of the Gospel, the means through
which God works as opposed to the means through which we appropriate, they,
like preaching, work towards forming and sustaining in the believer, the faith
by which the believer receives the Grace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unlike the more fanatical types of Protestants who tended
towards schism and separatism, Dr. Luther had a good understanding of this. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>John Calvin’s understanding of it was not
quite as good as Dr. Luther’s but it was passable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See his refutation of the idea that the
Sacraments are only outer signs in the thirteenth section of chapter XIV of the
fourth book of his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Institutes</i> and
also note that Calvin begins this chapter by saying that the Sacraments are
“Akin to the preaching of the gospel”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is strange therefore, that they allowed their reaction against the
errors and abuses of Rome, to blind their eyes to the obvious reference to the
Lord’s Supper in the fifty-first to fifty-eight verses of the sixth chapter of
the Gospel according to St. John, and in the larger discourse in which they are
found.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Calvin wrote of it that “this
discourse does not relate to the Lord’s Supper” (Calvin’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Commentary </i>on John 6:53).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Commenting
on the words “And I will raise him up at the last day” in the next verse,
Calvin compounds his error by saying:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">From these words, it
plainly appears that the whole of this passage is improperly explained, as
applied to the Lord’s Supper. For if it were true that all who present
themselves at the holy table of the Lord are made partakers of his flesh and
blood, all will, in like manner, obtain life; but we know that there
are many who partake of it to their condemnation. And indeed it would have been
foolish and unreasonable to discourse about the Lord’s Supper, before he had
instituted it. It is certain, then, that he now speaks of the perpetual and
ordinary manner of eating the flesh of Christ, which is done by faith only.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This reasoning is entirely specious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It confuses the means of Grace, that is to
say, the intermediate means God has established to bring the Grace obtained by
Jesus Christ for sinful man on the Cross <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">to</i>
sinful man, with the means assigned to sinful man to appropriate said Grace to
himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Faith is the only means of
appropriating Grace, this is what we mean when we speak of “faith alone”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The means of Grace in the sense of the means
through which God works to bring Grace to people include the preaching of His
Word, in both its aspects of Law, which works repentance by opening man’s eyes
to his need of Grace, and Gospel which proclaims that Grace, and the
Sacraments, of which the Eucharist is one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Only those who make use of the means of appropriating Grace, faith,
actually receive the Grace conferred in either Word or Sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>John Calvin understood how this works, so it
is inexcusable that he pretended he did not here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is also inexcusable that he argued the
Lord’s Supper cannot be referred to here because it would be “foolish and
unreasonable” to talk about the Sacrament before instituting it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is St. John’s Gospel he was commenting
on, a Gospel written by an Evangelist who more than once quotes the Lord as
saying something and commenting that nobody understood it until much later
(2:22 for example and 12:16). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lest I be accused of misrepresenting the Reformer, he does
go on immediately after what I just quoted to say:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">And yet, at the same
time, I acknowledge that there is nothing said here that is not figuratively
represented, and actually bestowed on believers, in the Lord’s Supper; and
Christ even intended that the holy Supper should be, as it were, a seal and
confirmation of this sermon. </i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If it is “actually bestowed on believers” in the Lord’s
Supper, as Calvin here affirms, there is no good reason for him to think the
passage does not make reference to the Lord’s Supper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since
Sacraments don’t work mechanically and Grace is not received apart from faith
it is quite silly not to see the Lord’s Supper in these verses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the Lord’s Supper were not intended and
reception of the Lord by faith was all that was being discussed here, then why
after talking for quite some time about His being the true Bread of Life, does
Jesus all of a sudden introduce the idea of drinking His blood?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What Calvin thinks is being stated in this
passage without direct reference to the Lord’s Supper, would have been conveyed
without the reference to drinking His blood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That the Lord would needlessly complicate a metaphor in such a way as to
make it sound like He is talking about the Sacrament He would later establish
without actually talking about it is a truly incredible interpretation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So the Scriptures teach that the Lord’s Supper is a) the
meal in which the Sacrifice establishing the New Covenant is eaten and b) the
Sacramental means by which the new life is sustained by the spiritual food of
the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This harmonizes very well with the understanding that the Eucharist is a
sacrifice, even a propitiatory one, but not in its own right, not by repeating
or adding to what Jesus Christ did, but because the One Sacrifice of Jesus
Christ, the only Sacrifice that is truly propitiatory, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>is Sacramentally present in it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since this view harmonizes with the
Scriptures, we have good cause to call it the true Catholic understanding,
passed down from the Patristic era, preserved fairly well in the Eastern
tradition, and distorted, although not necessarily obliterated, in the Roman
tradition after the Schism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While our Articles of Religion cannot be said to
enthusiastically embrace this view, neither do they disallow it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our English Reformers were generally more
conservative than any of the continental Reformers and it shows here too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Articles XXVIII to XXXI treat of the Lord’s
Supper and the various controversies pertaining to it in the Reformation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We will not dwell on Article XXIX which
reiterates the assertion in Article XXVIII that faith is the means of receiving
Christ in the Sacrament by declaring the necessary flipside to that that the
wicked do not receive Christ and Article XXX prohibits the withholding of the
cup, with no exception for when a pandemic is underway.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Article
XXXI is most relevant to our discussion here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It reads:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Offering of Christ
once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all
the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other
satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in
the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick
and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and
dangerous deceits.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The “Wherefore” which starts the second sentence in this
ties the condemnation of “the sacrifices of Masses” as “blasphemous fables, and
dangerous deceits” to what was said in the previous sentence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any idea of a Mass as a sacrifice that in
its own right does what the Offering of Christ did, repeats it or adds to it in
any way, deserves such condemnation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
idea that that the Eucharist is a sacrifice because that One Offering of Christ
is Sacramentally present in it is not condemned in these words.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Which brings us to the subject of the Real Presence that is
treated earlier under Article XXVIII.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It affirms the Sacramental nature of the Lord’s Supper and the Real
Presence right at the beginning:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Supper of the Lord
is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves
one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death:
insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same,
the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the
Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It then addresses the Roman doctrine of
Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Transubstantiation
is not the same thing as the Real Presence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Real Presence was affirmed everywhere in the Church from the
Patristic era to the Reformation and is truly Catholic rather than merely
Roman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Transubstantiation is a late
Roman doctrine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is how Rome
attempted to explain the Real Presence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>At this point it is worth noting that one of the big differences between
the Western and Eastern traditions is that the Eastern tradition is far more comfortable
in leaving things as mysteries without a rational or scientific explanation for
them than ours is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is something for
which the East is right to criticize us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Some things should be left as mysteries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is one of them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rome, not content to leave the Real Presence
unexplained, came up with Transubstantiation, the idea that in the consecration
of the Eucharist the bread and wine go away, leaving only their appearances behind,
and are replaced by the Body and Blood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Reformers, rejecting this explanation, repeated the basic mistake of
the Romanists of seeking to explain what did not need to be explained.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Luther, the strongest defender of the
Real Presence among the Reformers, came up with an explanation that pressed to
its logical conclusion means that Jesus is present in the bread and wine – and in
the altar, the pew, the walls of the Church building, and the tree on the front
lawn – with the only thing special about the bread and wine being that in the
Eucharist attention is drawn to the Presence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Zwingli, who saw the Sacrament as being merely a figurative
commemoration, argued that Jesus is spiritually present.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That Jesus is spiritually present is true,
of course, but it is rather strange to maintain that this is what Jesus meant
when He said “this is My Body”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>John
Calvin, who saw the Sacrament as being more than a figurative commemoration,
but held a view of the Real Presence that only he could distinguish from
Zwingli’s, came up with arguments against Dr. Luther’s understanding that
pressed to their logical conclusion amount to gross heresy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While Jesus as God is omnipresent, he
argued, His physical body can only be present in one place at a time, and is in
Heaven.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore it cannot be present
in the Sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This reasoning
overlooks the fact that Heaven, in this sense of the word, is outside of space and
time, which are dimensions of Creation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There might be something in God’s eternal presence outside of Creation
that corresponds to them, but the point is that Heaven is not a “place” in the
sense it would have to be for Calvin’s reasoning to work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It also tends to Nestorianism, by dividing
Jesus’ deity from His humanity, as Dr. Luther did not hesitate to point out. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In each of these explanations, Rome’s mistake
of not being willing to let a mystery be a mystery, a far more fundamental
mistake than Transubstantiation itself, was repeated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of Transubstantiation our Article goes on to say:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Transubstantiation (or
the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord,
cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of
Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to
many superstitions.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The statement that it “overthroweth the nature of a
Sacrament” is an allusion to St. Augustine’s explanation of the Sacraments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Augustine said that a Sacrament was an “outward
and visible sign of an internal and invisible Grace”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These two components, the outward sign and
the inward Grace, were necessary for there to be a Sacrament, which both
signified the inner Grace and effectively conveyed it to the recipient.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The combination was accomplished by adding
the Word to a physical element turning the latter into a “visible Word” and a
conduit of Grace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Transubstantiation overthrows by eliminating,
through explaining away, the physical elements, the bread and wine. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The error in Transubstantiation is not that
it affirms the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, but that in trying to
explain the Real Presence it teaches the Real Absence of the bread and
wine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1 Corinthians 11, St. Paul,
after giving an account of the Institution of the Eucharist, (vv. 23-25),
speaks of the consecrated elements both as “bread” and “the cup” (v. 26-28) and
“the body and blood of the Lord” (v. 27) The orthodox position is to affirm
that the elements are both at the same time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The bread and wine do not cease to be bread and wine when they become
the Body and Blood of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is
no need to explain this with some clever philosophical theory about the
substance being switched out under cover the accidents or to postulate there
being two substances or some such thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The bread is the Body.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only
explanation given and the only explanation necessary is because the Word
through which the world was spoken into existence declared it be so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When the Article goes on to affirm that the Body of Christ
is “given, taken, and eaten…only after an heavenly and spiritual manner” this
should be understood as the brilliant non-explanation that it is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The adverbs that suggest a Calvinist or even
Zwinglian understanding are removed from the Body one degree and applied only
to the manner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This allows for more
wiggle room in interpretation, which was Archbishop Parker’s purpose for
putting this in when he revised Archbishop Cranmer’s version of the Article
into its final form.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was done to
avoid committing the Anglican Church to either side in the increasingly
contentious debate between the German and Swiss sides of the Reformation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While this could be seen as a political
decision it was also providential in that it prevented the Anglican Church from
either throwing the baby of the Real Presence out with the bathwater of
Transubstantiation or adopting a rationalist explanation of what is best left a
mystery.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This also providentially prevented our Church from
repudiating the Catholic view that Christ’s One True Sacrifice is Sacramentally
present in the Eucharist in our repudiation of Rome’s twisted version of this
for, as much as the Lutherans and Calvinists deny it, the presence of Christ’s
Sacrifice in the Sacrament necessarily follows from the Real Presence of the
Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, for the broken Body and shed Blood of
Christ are the Sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have not
gone out of our way to openly declare this Catholic view, mind you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But then we have not shied away from the
word “Sacrifice” in reference to the Lord’s Supper either, albeit in language
that would have been acceptable to John Calvin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We included the Prayer of Oblation in every
edition of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Book of Common Prayer</i>,
albeit in different places (end of Prayer of Consecration in the 1549 original
and American editions, after Communion in 1552 and all subsequent Church of England
editions, part in the one place and part in the other in the Canadian edition),
which speaks of our “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” and offering “ourselves,
our souls, and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy and living sacrifice”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Book
of Common Prayer</i>, which traditionally has been even more definitive of
Anglicanism than the Articles of Religion (which are printed in it), includes
stronger affirmations of the Real Presence than that which appears in Article
XVIII, including when immediately prior to the Words of Institution the priest
prays that “Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant
that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son
our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and
passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood” and when in the
Prayer of Humble Access we ask “Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, So to eat
the Flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, And to drink his Blood, That our sinful
bodies may be made clean by his Body, And our souls washed through his most
precious Blood.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the BCP Catechism, furthermore,
the Answer to what the inner Grace of the Lord’s Supper is reads “The Body and
Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful
in the Lord’s Supper”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Prayer
Book, therefore, we have preserved a stronger affirmation of the Real Presence
of the Body and Blood, which necessarily brings the Catholic view of the Real
Presence of the One Sacrifice in the Sacrament along with it, which is good,
because this view affirms the Biblical image of the Lord’s Supper as the meal
in which the Sacrifice of the New Covenant is eaten, nourishing and sustaining
the faithful in the new and everlasting life of Jesus Christ.<o:p></o:p></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-30959167319761484642023-08-25T04:12:00.001-05:002023-08-25T04:12:15.558-05:001595 – Anglicanism at a Crossroads<p>In my last
essay I demonstrated that contrary to the view sometimes put forth by
overzealous Low Churchmen of a Reformed-in-the-continental-sense bent that our
English branch of Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church affirms her
Protestantism in a Calvinist as opposed to Lutheran way in her reformed
Confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1571, these instead are
worded in such a way as to side with neither Wittenberg nor Geneva absolutely on
the controversies between the two with the result that while on the matter of
the Real Presence in the Lord’s Supper they lean towards Calvin without
excluding Luther, on the matter of Predestination they lean towards Luther without
excluding Calvin. On several other matters
– prioritizing the truths confessed in the Catholic Creeds over other
doctrines, retaining the Apostolic episcopacy rather than adopting a presbyterian
government (some Lutherans, such as the Swedish, are like us in this regards,
others, such as the German, who were unable to retain the episcopacy, did not
adopt the Genevan model), the normative principle (what is not forbidden by
Scripture is permitted) over the regulative principle (what is not commanded by
Scripture is forbidden) – Anglicanism, as confessed in the Articles is far
closer to the Lutheranism than to Calvinism.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">An
interesting response to this came in an online Anglican group.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The matter of the Lambeth Articles of 1495
was raised and the person who brought it up seemed to think that this document
invalidated my entire argument by providing an official Anglican declaration
that Article XVII (On Predestination and Election) is to be understood in the
most Calvinist way possible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What made
this response so interesting was that the answer to it was so obvious – the
Lambeth Articles are not official Anglican doctrine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They were denied royal assent twice, first
by Queen Elizabeth I, then by King James I at the Hampton Court Conference of
1604. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thank God for the divine right
of kings!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was not a matter of the
monarchs refusing out of personal theological prejudice to allow the Church to
teach what she wanted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the same time
as the events leading to the drafting of the Lambeth Articles the first volumes
of a lengthy treatise defending the Elizabethan Religious Settlement against
the arguments of Calvinists who wished to overthrow said Settlement and
introduce something more radical and less Catholic appeared in print.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The way in which this treatise was
subsequently embraced by Anglicans of every party demonstrates that Queen
Elizabeth and King James knew what they were doing in not allowing a narrower,
much more rigid, interpretation of the difficult doctrine of predestination
than that which appears in Article XVII to be imposed on the English Church.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The wisdom
of the royal judgement in not allowing the Lambeth Articles to become the
official doctrine of the Church will become all the more apparent as we look at
the history of how this would-be addendum to the Articles of Religion came to
be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Lambeth
Articles indirectly testify to the fact that Article XVII of the Thirty-Nine
Articles does not require those who affirm or subscribe to it to accept the
interpretation of predestination that is taught in the Lambeth Articles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it did, there would have been no need for
strict Calvinists to draw up the Lambeth Articles and try to make them
enforceable upon the clergy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Most
Reverend Matthew Parker had been chosen to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury
upon the accession of Elizabeth I in 1559 and he was consecrated and installed
in that office in December of that year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Contrary to lies spread by the Jesuits, this was done properly by four
bishops at Lambeth Palace, preserving the Apostolic succession, not in some
untoward way in the Nag’s Head Tavern.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor are the arguments against the legitimacy
of his Apostolic succession raised by Roman Patriarch Leo XIII in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Apostolicae Curae</i> (1896) valid but that
is a subject for another time. One of his first accomplishments was the
revision of the Forty-Two Articles, written by his predecessor Thomas Cranmer
and briefly made the official doctrine of the Church of England in 1552 at the
very end of the reign of Edward VI.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>These were revised into Thirty-Nine Articles in the Convocation of 1563,
with much of the work of revision being done by Parker himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While a couple of changes had to be made
before the Articles received royal assent in 1571 for the most part the Thirty-Nine
Articles were what they would ultimately be in 1563.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The following year John Calvin died.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">John
Calvin’s death removed what had up to then been the chief restraint preventing
the Genevan school from running to seed on the doctrine of predestination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems strange to think of it that way
today, when Calvin’s name is virtually synonymous with predestination, but
compared to those who came after him he was quite moderate on the topic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like Dr. Luther, he was strongly influenced
by St. Augustine of Hippo, who in the early fifth century led the orthodox
Church in condemning the heresy of Pelagianism (the denial of Original Sin and
assertion that the human will unassisted by God’s grace can move towards God).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In defending Augustinian orthodoxy, at least
as he understood it, in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">On the Bondage of
the Will</i> (1525) his answer to Erasmus, Dr. Luther had taken a strong view
of predestination that was very similar to that of Calvin’s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It did not have as important a place in his
theology as it did in Calvin’s, however, just as in Calvin’s theology
predestination was not near as important is it would become among Calvin’s
followers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While later in his life Dr.
Luther continued to regard <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">On the Bondage
of the Will</i> as his favourite of his own writings, he clearly saw the danger
of fixating on the doctrine, especially if it is considered apart from Jesus
Christ and the Gospel, and warned against this danger, reminding people of the
difference between what God has revealed to us and what He has kept hidden, and
that it is inadvisable to focus on and speculate about the hidden things (he
argued this at length and in several places in his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Lectures on Genesis</i>).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
the larger Lutheran tradition predestination and election are affirmed only of
those who will ultimately be saved, there is no teaching of reprobation to
damnation. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus is proclaimed as having
died for all, with the Grace He obtained for all on the Cross brought to man in
the two forms of the Gospel, Word and Sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Faith, the sole means of receiving the Grace
so brought to man, is itself formed in the human heart by the Grace contained
in the Gospel, again Word and Sacrament, without any contribution from our own
will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Grace in the Gospel is
sufficient to produce saving faith in all, but resistible, so that salvation is
entirely of God, damnation entirely of man.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Dr. Luther and his tradition took care that the doctrine of
predestination not be taught in such a way as to either undermine the assurance
of the Gospel or encourage licentious behaviour.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In John
Calvin’s writings, while predestination has a larger role than in Dr. Luther’s,
it is by no means the doctrine to which all other truths must be subordinated
that it often seems to be in the teachings of many of his followers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In his
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Institutes of the Christian Religion</i>,
he devotes four chapters to it, towards the end of the third (out of four)
volume. The third volume is about salvation, following after the first, which
is about God the Creator, and the second, which is about God the Redeemer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He turns to election in this volume, only
after extensively covering Grace, Faith, Regeneration, Justification, Assurance,
the Christian Life, and Christian Liberty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is very much a subordinate doctrine, that he derives from the sovereignty,
omnipotence, and omniscience of God, but without the puerile manner in which
some who bear his name today taunt those who do not believe exactly the way
they do with the accusation that they preach too small a God, then wonder why
nobody else is impressed with their “my God is bigger than your God” type
arguments that sound like nothing so much as a boy in the schoolyard telling
his playmates “my dad can beat up your dad”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He expresses the same concerns about the abuse of the doctrine as Luther
and from his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Institutes</i> it appears
that his pastoral counsel to someone troubled by an undue fixation on
predestination was almost identical to Luther’s, that is, look to Christ as
revealed in the Gospel, not to the hidden councils of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Later Calvinists had trouble doing this because
of their doctrine that Jesus died only for the elect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The closest Calvin came to teaching this
doctrine was in his remarks on 1 John 2.2 in his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Commentary on the Catholic Epistles</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That was published in 1531.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Commentary
on the Gospel of John</i>, published two years later, his remarks on the most
beloved and comforting words in all of Scripture, the familiar sixteenth verse
of the third chapter, exclude all possibility of a Limited Atonement
interpretation: “And he has employed the universal term <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">whosoever</i>, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life,
and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Such is also the import of the term <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">World</i>,
which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the world</i> that is worthy of the favour
of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he
invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else
than an entrance into life”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Article
XVII, both as Cranmer had originally written it in the Forty-Two Articles, and
in the slightly edited form in which it stands in the Thirty-Nine Articles,
speaks of predestination only in reference to the saved not the lost.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this, it affirms what the larger Lutheran
tradition affirms, without affirming what appeared to have been Dr. Luther’s
position in 1525 but what the Lutheran tradition and possibly Dr. Luther
himself in his later years moved away from, and what the Lutheran tradition
would explicitly reject in the Formula of Concord six years after the Thirty-Nine
Articles were adopted by the Church of England, that is double
predestination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Double predestination
is rejected in paragraphs three and four of Article XI of the Formula of
Concord, the only Article in all of the Lutheran Confessions on the subject of
Election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no Article on election or
predestination in the Geneva Confession of 1536, or the Gallican (French)
Confession of 1559, the only Confessions written in whole or in part by John
Calvin himself. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It appears in the
Second Helvetic Confession, however which was written by Heinrich Bullinger,
Zwingli’s successor, shortly before Calvin’s death, and published shortly
after. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Three Forms of Unity of the
Reformed Church, the Heidelberg Catechism written by Ursinus in the same year
that Parker was revising the Articles of Religion makes no mention of
predestination, unsurprisingly perhaps in that it is a Catechism, that is to
say, intended to be introductory and basic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the other two, however, Article XVI of the Belgic Confession (1561)
is on Election, with the weak form of the doctrine of reprobation affirmed and
the Canons of Dort (1619) are entirely in defense of the doctrine of Double
Predestination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This shows how the
doctrine became much more important in the Calvinist tradition as it developed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
Anglican Article XVII neither affirms reprobation like the Calvinist tradition,
nor positively rejects it like the Lutheran tradition in the Formula of
Concord. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What it does affirm about
predestination is much more Lutheran than Calvinist though.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The second paragraph begins by saying that
it is a comfort for the godly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This,
however, is only true if we heed the advice of the final paragraph.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here, Parker’s revision of Cranmer’s
original, was perhaps unfortunate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Cranmer wrote “</span>Furthermore, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">although
the Decrees of predestination are unknown unto us</i>, we must receive God’s
promises in such wise as they are generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture,
and in our doings, that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly
declared unto us in the word of God.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The italicized portion was removed in the Thirty-Nine Articles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is stronger in the original wording, but
the meaning still stands in the revised version, and it is identical to the
advice given by Dr. Luther in his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Lectures
on Genesis</i>, that we should not concern ourselves with what God has not
revealed to us, His secret counsels from all eternity, but with what God has
revealed to us in the Gospel.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cranmer in 1553 and Parker ten years later could not have
known the direction that the Reformed tradition would take after Calvin’s
death, but they seem, like Dr. Luther, to have recognized that predestination
is a doctrine that can easily take someone who runs with it into any number of
ditches, and to have written Article XVII to guard against this
possibility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Most Reverend and
Right Honourable John Whitgift would have been well-advised to follow the lead
of these his predecessors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He seems to
have attempted to do so at first but in 1595 committed the blunder of signing
off on a document that, had it received final approval, would have imposed an
interpretation of predestination on Article XVII that was more extreme than
could be found in any then-extent Calvinist Confession.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ironically, his intent in so doing was to
restore peace to the campus of Cambridge University, where he himself had been
a professor earlier in his career at the beginning of the Elizabethan Age.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The man who had upset the peace at Cambridge was William
Barrett, who was the chaplain of Caius College at Cambridge University.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On 29 April, 1595, Barrett gave a sermon
from the pulpit of St. Mary’s Church, in the course of which he blasted the
Calvinist doctrine of predestination and asserted that predestination and
reprobation were based on human holiness and sin respectively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The main target of his attack, however, was
the more basic doctrine of assurance of salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He denounced as arrogance, the confident
assurance of one’s salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
raised a ruckus and he was immediately brought before the Vice-Chancellor of
the University, who chewed him out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Unrepentant, the heads of the various colleges were brought in, and they
joined in denouncing him, so he was forced to make a retraction on 10 May.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He came across as somewhat less than sincere
in his retraction which did not satisfy the academic authorities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a matter of fact the heads of the colleges
went to the Vice-Chancellor demanding his expulsion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At this point the affair was brought by both
sides to the attention of Archbishop Whitgift who asked Hadrian Saravia, a
prebendary at Gloucester Cathedral and a member of Cambridge’s rival Oxford
University, and Lancelot Andrewes who was his personal chaplain at the time,
for their opinions on the matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their
opinion was that while Barrett wasn’t entirely in the right, the Cambridge
authorities had gone too far in forcing that retraction on him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Archbishop, satisfied with this opinion,
sent a message to the Cambridge authorities dressing them down and reminding
them that they could discipline a chaplain for speaking against the Articles of
Religion but not for speaking against whatever was currently in vogue in
Geneva.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He then made the grave mistake
of assigning further investigation to William Whitaker, Regius Professor of
Divinity at Cambridge.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
This was a mistake because Whitaker was the man against whom Barrett’s sermon
had been directed in the first place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Whitaker had himself given a sermon on 27 February against “those who
assert universal grace” by which he meant Peter Baro, who was Lady Margaret
Professor of Divinity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Baro was
originally from France, like Calvin he had studied law and then he went to
Geneva to study theology under Calvin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He was ordained into the ministry by the Reformer himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the Huguenots (French Calvinists) faced
persecution in France in the 1570s, he fled to England where he was appointed
to one of what were then the only two endowed professorships of divinity at
Cambridge, which he had held for twenty one years at the time this controversy
broke out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the meantime, like Beza’s
student Arminius, he had moved away from the strict view of predestination that
Beza had been working to make stricter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Whitaker had held the other endowed professorship in divinity for almost
as long, having been appointed to the post in 1580.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He had also been appointed Master of St.
John’s College in 1586, and about the time Archbishop Whitgift asked him to
look into the Barrett case, was made a canon of Canterbury.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He very much seemed to be a man on the rise
at the time of this controversy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
part this was due to his scholarly achievements. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His scholarship was acknowledged, even by
Cardinal Bellarmine against whom his magnus opus, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Disputations on Holy Scripture</i>, was written, to be second to none.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The other part was due to his being protégé
of both Whitgift and Lord Burghley (William Cecil – Elizabeth I’s Lord High
Treasurer, spymaster, most trusted adviser, and basically, although the office
was not yet created, Prime Minister).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He was also, however, the most extreme Calvinist among the Church of
England’s clergy at the time, outside of the Puritan faction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Needless to say, the theological differences
between the Regius and the Lady Margaret Professors of Divinity, had led to the
formation of bitterly rival factions in the school of divinity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whitaker accepted the task of investigating
Barrett from Whitgift but, although he himself had been the target of Barrett’s
sermon, it was not Barrett he was interested in so much as Baro.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Whitaker gave Barrett a questionnaire full of questions
designed to elicit answers from the man which would enable Whitaker to accuse
him to Whitgift, not just of Arminianism, a word that had barely made it to the
English shore at this point in time, but of the far more serious charge of
popery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Usually Calvinist accusations of
popery against those who did not agree with their view of predestination were
nonsensical slurs but in this case it seems to have been justified.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After these events he left England and joined
the Roman Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whitaker sent
Barrett’s answers, with his own commentary, to the Archbishop and then, in
September, the Vice-Chancellor and college heads wrote to Whitgift asking for a
final ruling, and permission to discipline Barrett.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whitgift, wanting neither to let Barrett off
on the points where he seemed to be supporting Romanism nor to force him to
agree with the entire recantation that the Cambridge authorities had drawn up,
asked Barrett to give an account before him at Lambeth Palace in November.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
other members of the tribunal were Richard Fletcher, Bishop of London, and
Richard Vaughan, who had been chosen as the next Bishop of Bangor but would not
be consecrated and installed until the following year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whitaker and Humphrey Tyndall, the President
of Queen’s College and Dean of Ely, were sent along as the representatives of
the Cambridge authorities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The matter
of Barrett was fairly easily disposed of – he agreed to another
recantation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then Whitaker handed the
Archbishop a set of nine Articles, clarifying in the sense of significantly
narrowing, the Church’s position on predestination, and asked him to make it
binding on the clergy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This would have
opened the door to his having Baro ejected from his seat at Cambridge.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Whitgift, after consulting with the Archbishop of York, made
with the other bishops on the tribunal a few revisions to the Articles and then
signed them on 20 November.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One
consequence of this has been that Archbishop Whitgift, the staunch
anti-Puritan, has ever since had a reputation for being a far stricter
Calvinist than he actually was.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here
are the Articles in the form in which they were signed:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God
from eternity hath predestinated certain men unto life; certain men he hath
reprobated.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
moving or efficient cause of predestination unto life is not the foresight of
faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in the
person predestinated, but only the good will and pleasure of God.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">There
is predetermined a certain number of the predestinate, which can neither be
augmented nor diminished.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Those
who are not predestinated to salvation shall be necessarily damned for their
sins.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A true,
living, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying [sanctifying],
is not extinguished, falleth not away; it vanisheth not away in the elect,
either finally or totally.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A man
truly faithful, that is, such a one who is endued with a justifying faith, is
certain, with the full assurance of faith, of the remission of his sins and of
his everlasting salvation by Christ.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Saving
grace is not given, is not granted, is not communicated to all men, by which
they may be saved if they will.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">8.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">No man
can come unto Christ unless it shall be given unto him, and unless the Father
shall draw him; and all men are not drawn by the Father, that they may come to
the Son.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">9.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span></i><!--[endif]--><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">It is
not in the will or power of every one to be saved.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Whitaker returned to Cambridge to prepare for the
prosecution of Baro.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He caught a cold
on the way home, however, which developed into a fever, and two weeks after the
publication of he Lambeth Articles he died.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Before he died he met with his other patron, Lord Burghley, who among
his many other duties was Chancellor of the University, and discussed the
matter, most likely expecting Cecil’s support.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Lord High Treasurer, however, recognized immediately the threat to
the peace of realm and Church that the “Lambeth Articles” posed and went
directly to Queen Elizabeth with the news that Whitgift had essentially held an
unofficial Convocation behind her back in which he had added to the Articles of
Religion in such a way as to force a narrow interpretation of a contentious
point on them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Queen Elizabeth summoned
Whitgift to appear before her and her Privy Council to answer for this illegal
behaviour, for which he could do nothing but apologize and beg her pardon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whitgift received her pardon – but the
Lambeth Articles were vetoed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Baro was allowed to finish his term and retire
peacefully, and the queen appointed John Overall to the Regius Professorship
vacated by the death of Whitaker.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Overall was a young clergyman, born the year of the queen’s accession, and
ordained only four years prior to his appointment to Cambridge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Later he would work with Lancelot Andrewes
on the translation of the Authorized Bible, a few years after which he was
consecrated Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield before being translated the very
end of his career and life to the See of Norwich.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was already known to be a moderate on the
matter of predestination in 1595, however, and it was for this that he was
chosen as the replacement of Whitaker.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The Lambeth
Articles, although originally drafted to narrow Anglican orthodoxy to a
strictly Calvinist position on predestination, in the modified form in which
Whitgift signed them, still left room for non-Calvinist interpretations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The second Article, while affirming “the
good will and pleasure of God” as the sole cause of predestination to life,
makes no such statement about reprobation and, indeed, the fourth Article by
asserting that those not predestinated to life will be damned “for their sins”
places the cause of their damnation, and hence their “reprobation”, in
themselves rather than God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ninth
Article, of course, can be affirmed by any Augustinian, for not only is it true
that “it is not in the will or power of every one to be saved” it is actually
“not in the will or power of any one to be saved” because salvation does not
come from the will or power of the one saved but from God Who does the
saving.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“With man it is impossible, but
not with God, because all things are possible with God” as our Lord put
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>None of the Lambeth Articles asserts
the most problematic of the doctrines that would be adopted by the Synod of
Dort in response to the Arminian Articles of Remonstrance in 1619, the
anti-Scriptural and blasphemous doctrine of Limited Atonement, that Jesus died
only for the elect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is why the
fifth Article can assert “</span>A man truly faithful, that is, such a one who
is endued with a justifying faith, is certain, with the full assurance of
faith, of the remission of his sins and of his everlasting salvation by Christ.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This assertion is inconsistent with the idea
that Jesus died only for he elect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Justifying faith is faith in Jesus Christ as He is revealed in the
Gospel.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Gospel is not a revelation
of what God has done in secret, into which category fall election and
predestination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a revelation of
what God has done for mankind out in the open for everyone to see, by the
giving of His Son Jesus Christ, Who made Atonement for dying for the sins of
the world, then rose again from the dead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The difference between “historical faith”, which does not justify or
save and “saving faith” or “justifying faith” is that the person with
“historical faith” sees in the Gospel only events that are some place, some
time, distant and unconnected to himself, while the person with justifying
faith sees in the Gospel the message that “Jesus died for me” which information
is absent from the Gospel if Jesus died only for the elect, and indeed, if
Jesus dies only for the elect, the information about whether Jesus died for any
particular individual will not be available this side of the Last Judgement, so
what is asserted in the fifth Lambeth Article is utterly impossible if Jesus
died only for the elect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed,
assurance is difficult to square with the concept of double
predestination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The early Dr. Luther
managed to do so, as did John Calvin, but this was because both men recognized
that it was unwise to dwell on what God has not revealed, His secret counsels,
but must direct our faith towards what God has revealed in Jesus Christ. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One who did not follow them in this was William
Perkins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perkins was born in the last
year of the reign of Mary, studied at Cambridge University, and remained a
fellow of Christ’s College at Cambridge until the year before the controversy
that produced the Lambeth Articles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
was a Puritan, considered a moderate in that he was neither a separatist nor a
rebel, but was very severe in his Calvinism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He died almost twenty years before Limited Atonement was formulated but
he accepted Theodore Beza’s supralapsarianism, the form of extreme Calvinism
that started the chain of events that led to Dort.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He developed the doctrine of “experimental
predestination” for when his obsessive preaching on predestination caused
people to ask the question “am I one of the elect”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this he advised people to make use of a
practical syllogism – everyone who believes is a child of God, I believe,
therefore I am a child of God – that separated assurance from the direct look
of faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Worse, he told them to look
for evidence for the second premise, if they doubted their faith was the saving
kind, by looking inward for the fruit of sanctification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This didn’t work out too well in his case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His biographer Thomas Fuller records that he
died “in the conflict of a troubled conscience”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perkins’ writings were more influential than
any other Puritan of the Elizabethan Age on subsequent generations of Puritans
and this problem of dying in the conflict of a troubled conscience recurred
over and over again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were also
cases of people living in the conflict of a troubled conscience because of this
doctrine and being driven mad by it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>William Cowper, the Olney poet and hymn writer, is a classic example of
this, although to be fair, the evidence suggests that given his extremely
melancholic temperament he might have ended up the same way no matter what doctrine
he had been taught. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The example of Perkins, and the subsequent generations of
Puritans who followed him in this, if not in his moderation with regards to
making further reforms to the Church, demonstrates how an overemphasis on
predestination undermines in practice the assurance of salvation that it is
supposed to bolster.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For a good example
of how the doctrine can be taught without having this negative effect see the
second to last chapter in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Getting Into
The Theology of Concord</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(1977) by
Robert D. Preus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The book is a
commentary on the Lutheran Confessions and under the heading “Predestination
and the Election of Grace” Preus, who was president of Concordia Theological
Seminary at the time, explained that it was a doctrine that was only to be
introduced after one had already been assured of salvation through faith in the
revealed Gospel, in order “to give him even greater certainty and assurance of
God’s grace”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Preus recounted his own
professor’s explanation of predestination as meaning merely “everything God has
done in time to save us and make us His children and preserve us in the faith,
He determined in Christ to do for us in eternity.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Understood this way, the doctrine is not the
threatening source of uncertainty that it has been when overemphasized as it
has been in much of the Calvinist tradition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the Canons of Dort (1619) Perkins’ view of assurance replaced that of
Calvin (found in Article XI of the Geneva Confession of 1536, Articles XVIII,
XIX, XX and XXII of the Gallican Confession of 1559, and the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Institutes of the Christian Religion</i>,
Book III, chapter xxiv, paragraph 5) as the official Calvinist doctrine in the
twelfth article under the first head (Divine Election and Reprobation – in
Dort, the points are ordered ULTIP rather than TULIP):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Assurance of their
eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due
time, though by various stages and in differing measure. Such assurance comes
not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">but by noticing within themselves</b>, with
spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out
in God’s Word—such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly
sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Lambeth Articles were brought to the Synod of Dort and
read out in the deliberation there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Although they affirm a strong view of assurance of salvation, and the
occasion of their drafting was Barrett’s sermon attacking assurance – Saravia
and Andrewes advised Whitgift that Barrett had only denied the impossibility of
those justified by faith falling from grace, asserted by Calvinism but not in
the Articles of Religion, rather than their present assurance of forgiveness
and justification, while his accusers maintained he had denied both -<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>they can therefore be regarded as a step in
the direction in which Calvinism was moving, away from the solely outward look
to the objective truth of the Gospel of Lutheranism and early Calvinism to the
inward look of Puritanism/Dort.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is
therefore, most merciful indeed, that by the grace of God, Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth I prevented them from becoming an official addendum to the Articles
of Religion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Those who wish it were otherwise often claim that the
Lambeth Articles represented a consensus of the leading clergy of the Church of
England at the time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is hardly the
case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Archbishop Whitgift was by no
means as harsh a predestinarian as his signature on these Articles might
suggest to some.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is now time to
consider another protégé of Whitgift’s who the year before this controversy had
published the first four volumes in a defense of the Elizabethan Settlement
against those who wished to reshape the Church entirely in the image of Geneva,
a defense that gained such wide acceptance that Anglicans of all parties would
in the future claim its author as one of their own.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Richard Hooker was born five years before the accession of
Elizabeth I and through the patronage of John Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury and
author of an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Apology</i> which defended
the reformed Church of England against Romanist attacks on the grounds of
arguments drawn from the Church Fathers, studied at Corpus Christi College in
Oxford.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He became a fellow of the
College in 1577 and was ordained a priest two years later.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1585, Elizabeth I, on the advice of
Archbishop Whitgift appointed him Master of the Temple, an unusual title for
the senior priest of an unusual Church, the Temple Church, which ministers to
the Inner and Middle Temple Inns of Court, in what was originally the headquarters
of the Knights Templar.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Reader of
the Temple, that is to say, the assistant clergy, was at the time, Walter
Travers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hooker and Travers were kin by
marriage – Travers’ brother was married to Hooker’s sister, the relationship
between the two clergy is usually, if not entirely accurately, described as
that of cousins-in-law – but in very different places theologically.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Travers was a Calvinist of the type who
thought that every Church everywhere needed to resemble in theology, practice,
and order the Church in Geneva, in other words, a Puritan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He had been ordained in Antwerp by Thomas
Cartwright, who unlike his contemporary William Perkins was not a moderate, as
evidenced by a) his ordaining someone without the episcopal authority to do so,
and b) his doing so abroad where he was living in semi-exile (he returned the
same year Hooker was appointed Master).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Indeed, his Puritanism was so extreme that even Edmund Grindal, the most
Puritan-friendly of the Elizabethan Archbishops of Canterbury, denounced him as
a nut.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Archbishop Whitgift, correctly
insisted that Travers needed to be re-ordained, but Travers refused.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He then wondered why the queen passed him
over for the senior position at the Church and gave it instead to his in-law
who already had something of a reputation as an opponent of Puritanism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why, indeed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The arrangement at the Temple was that the Master, Hooker,
would preach in the morning, and the Reader, Travers would preach in the
afternoon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Travers’ sermon would take the
form of a rebuttal of the sermon given in the morning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While this would have been inappropriate
anywhere else, it does seem sort of fitting in a parish where the congregation
was made up mostly of lawyers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed,
they managed to carry on in this way without it disturbing their personal
friendship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then, a year later,
Archbishop Whitgift finally had enough and ordered Travers to cease and desist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Travers appealed this decision to the Privy
Council and as part of his appeal accused Whitgift’s protégé, his own cousin,
Hooker of heresy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
The basis of the accusation was a series of three sermons on the book of
Habakkuk that Hooker had delivered in March of either 1585 or 1586 – there is
conflicting evidence as to which year – that he later published as a pamphlet
under the title “A Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and How the
Foundation of Faith is Overthrown”. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
these sermons, Hooker articulated the doctrine of justification by faith on the
basis of Christ’s merits alone and identified several errors of the Church of
Rome in relation to this subject.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
distinguished between justification and sanctification, and defended the
Protestant position that the former, the righteousness of Christ imputed to the
believer, is not based upon the latter, the righteousness that manifests itself
in the believer as faith works through love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The faith that justifies, however, is faith in Jesus Christ, not faith
in the doctrine of sola fide, and since the Roman Church confesses faith in
Jesus Christ as expressed in the orthodox Creed, neither that faith nor the
justification that comes through it is necessarily overthrown by the errors of
Rome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was this last point that
twisted Travers’ knickers in a knot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
translates into the idea that somebody is not necessarily going to Hell just
because they are a member of the Roman Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>To the twisted and paranoid mind of the Puritan that was tantamount to
saying the Reformation was a mistake and we should all bow before the Roman
Patriarch.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Archbishop Whitgift, although unwilling to openly endorse
the idea that not everyone in the Roman Church is lost, tacitly did so by
sticking to his guns on Travers, and not disciplining Hooker.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this he was supported by the Privy
Council which removed Travers from the position of Reader altogether.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hooker continued as Master of Temple until
1591 when, seeking a less public position so as devote time to writing his
treatise, he became rector of the small country parish of St. Andrew’s in the
village of Boscombe, again through the patronage of the Archbishop.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first four volumes of his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Of The Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie</i>
were published about a year before the controversy in Cambridge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Eventually the work would include four other
volumes, bringing the total to eight.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hooker’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Lawes</i> are
best thought of as being to Puritanism, what his first patron, Jewel’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Apology</i> was to the Church of Rome, that
is to say, an answer to their attacks on the Church of England and the status
quo of the same that had been established in the Elizabethan Settlement that
employed the language of the attackers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Jewel had defended the orthodoxy and Catholicity of the Church of
England, including her Protestant positions, with citations from the Church
Fathers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hooker defended the Anglican
Church from the very Scriptures the Puritans claimed as their sole authority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While Hooker also appeals to tradition and
reason, these are very much subordinate lower rungs on his hierarchy of
authority with Scripture clearly at the top.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Hooker uses tradition and reason very effectively in support of his main
argument which over and over again is that the Scriptures do not support the
radical changes the Puritans were demanding because the Scriptures do not say
what the Puritans think and claim they say. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Lawes</i> are not
an eight volume takedown of the doctrine of predestination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not the Puritans’ soteriology that is
Hooker’s focus but their ideas concerning Church Government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This ought to be evident from the title of
the work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ecclesiastical Politie
(Polity) means Church Government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is
not William Perkins whom Hooker is concerned with so much as Thomas Cartwright,
the arch-presbyterian mentor of his relative Travers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Specifically, it is the Puritan claim that
the Scriptures contain not merely everything necessary for salvation, as
Article VI declares, everything necessary to answer any question that might
arise, including the one true model of Church government and organization (the
Genevan, even though this could be found nowhere on earth before the sixteenth
century) and a complete set of instructions as to what can be done in Christian
worship to which nothing can be added that is not sinful, idolatrous, and
blasphemous, that he systematically dismantles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He patiently makes his case, first laying
the foundation with a discussion of the nature of laws in general in the first
volume, which leads into a refutation of specific Puritan claims that occupies
the rest of the first four books, the ones published before 1595.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the fifth book, published in 1597, which
is as long as the first four combined, as he examines Scripture readings,
sermons, music, Sacraments, liturgy and basically everything that is today
summed up in the word “worship” and demonstrates through an extended defence of
the normative principle that the established Anglican way of doing these things
is not contrary to Scripture, he begins to segue from answering the claims of
the Puritans into setting forth the positive case for the status quo of the
Elizabethan Settlement of Religion that will occupy the remainder of the work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In making that case, while he rests
ultimately upon the authority of Scripture, he does not do so in the same
manner as his opponents, he does not mirror their attitude of thinking there is
only one way of doing everything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Instead, having shown that episcopal polity, liturgical worship, royal
patronage, etc., not to be in violation of Scripture but to be positively
beneficial, he argues that all these should be retained unless their opponents
can meet the burden of proof in arguing for their elimination, which they have
failed to do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Although it was the Puritans’ demand for changes in the
structure, organization, and practices of the Church that Hooker answered in
his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Lawes </i>rather than their narrow
doctrine of predestination, the basic conservatism of his arguments provided
the Church with an alternative path to that which Whitaker wished her to take
with the Lambeth Articles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just as the
Puritans insisted that there was only acceptable form of Christian worship, the
Genevan, the stricter school of Calvinists, Puritan or not, insisted that there
was only one way of understanding the doctrine of predestination, that which
they attempted to impose on the Church in the Lambeth Articles, and which would
eventually narrow further in the continental Reformed tradition into that
espoused at Dort.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Articles of
Religion, to which clergy of the Church were required to subscribe, affirm
predestination, but only in a more general way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They do not exclude an Anglican clergyman
from holding to the narrower view of Whitaker’s Articles, but neither do they
require it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There was no need to impose
a narrower view.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Predestination is
mentioned in the Scriptures, but only on a few occasions, and not in such a way
as to justify the claim that only the strict Calvinist interpretation is
acceptable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the book of Romans, for
example, St. Paul brings it up in precisely the way Dr. Preus talked
about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First he shows that all people,
Jew and Gentile alike, have sinned and therefore cannot be justified before God
by their own works, then he talks about how God has justified by His Grace
those who believe in Jesus on account of the redemption He accomplished by His
propitiatory death.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Having established that
believers have peace with God through their Saviour Jesus Christ, he urges them
to live righteously because through their union with Christ in baptism, they
died to sin with Him in His death, and now live to God and righteousness in the
newness of His resurrection life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
leads into an acknowledgement of the ongoing struggle with sin, which the Law
is powerless to assist the believer in, which is followed immediately by the
encouragement that the Holy Ghost provides what the Law cannot, and it is only
then, in this context that predestination is raised to strengthen this
assurance and encouragement, by telling the Roman believers that what God is
doing in them He will see through to completion because He planned it from
before the world and that no power exists that break our union with Jesus
Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The idea of predestination, in this context,
should not give rise to speculation about God arbitrarily deciding so-and-so
will be saved and so-and-so will be damned, and the language that some might
take in this sense in the following chapters is clearly talking about the
present state of nations, Jews and Gentiles, rather than the final destiny of
individuals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, as if to avoid
dogmatic speculation about the nature of predestination, the Apostle places
foreknowledge before predestination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This does not have to be taken in the Arminian way – I do not understand
it that way myself – but it is a good reason to be careful in flinging the word
“heresy” around about views other than strict Calvinist double
predestination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Heresy is a departure
from the basic truths of the faith, primarily those confessed in the ancient
and universal Creed, and these are truths that are clear and open revelation in
Scripture, central to the message of Scripture, and not things that get a mention
in Scripture but with the details left to the unrevealed secret things of God,
into which it is unwise to pry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Therefore, from Hooker’s basic conservative principles, we can deduce
that it was very wise indeed of Elizabeth I, to not allow a narrow formulation
of the doctrine of predestination to become official doctrine in the
Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In taking the path represented
by Richard Hooker, rather than that represented by the Lambeth Articles,
Anglicanism made the right choice at the crossroads of 1595.<span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-147958357015311702023-08-18T07:10:00.008-05:002023-08-18T07:44:32.798-05:00An English Rose not a Dutch TULIP<p>The Church
of England and the other national Churches descended from her is a Reformed
Catholic Church. From the English
Reformation on Anglicans have disagreed among themselves as to which word
should be stressed. High Churchmen stress
the Catholic, Low Churchmen stress the Reformed. I am a High Churchman and stress the
Catholicity of the Anglican Church. By
this I do not mean that I stress what the Anglican Church has in common with
the Roman Church, but what the Anglican Church shares with all the Churches
organically descended from the first Church in Jerusalem - the Catholic faith confessed
in the ancient Creeds especially the Nicene-Constantinopolitan, the Apostolic
government and priesthood, the Gospel Sacraments, liturgical worship, and the
doctrines, practices, customs and traditions that are the heritage of all
Christians in all Churches. Now
Anglican High Churchmanship underwent a change in the nineteenth century due to
the Oxford or Tractarian Movement of the 1830s. The pre-Tractarian High Churchmen generally
called themselves “Orthodox”, did not regard the English Reformation as a
regrettable mistake, had no problem identifying as Protestant as well as
Catholic, and had little to no interest in reintroducing practices jettisoned
in the English Reformation, let alone new ones that Rome had introduced in the
Council of Trent. After the Oxford
Movement many High Churchmen preferred the term "Anglo-Catholic", saw the
English Reformation as something to be regretted, avoided the term Protestant,
and introduced liturgical reforms based on Rome’s Tridentine model. Although my own High Churchmanship is far
closer to that of the older pre-Tractarian model, I don’t agree with the
judgement that a certain school of Low Churchmen have been making as of late
that the Oxford Movement was a disastrous betrayal of Anglicanism. I think that despite a tendency among some
of the Tractarians to embrace as Catholic what was merely Roman, the reverse
error of the Hyper-Protestants who reject as Roman what is truly Catholic, the
Oxford Movement was overall more for the good than otherwise.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In saying
that the Anglican Church is Reformed Catholic I do not mean that it is a
compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism, a middle ground that is neither
the one nor the other, which is the image that the familiar expression <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">via media</i> unfortunately tends to conjure
up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Anglican tradition is both
fully Protestant and fully Catholic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
is however a via media within both Protestantism and Catholicism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Anglican expression of Catholicism is not
entirely that of the Roman Church nor that of the Eastern Orthodox but is
somewhere between the two.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our
Episcopal hierarchical structure is closer to that of the Eastern Orthodox, for
example, but we confess the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed with the f<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ilioque</i> clause.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a via media within Protestantism, it is
often said that Anglicanism is a via media between Wittenberg and Geneva,
meaning between the Lutheran and Calvinist expressions of Protestantism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t think anybody would be foolish
enough to think us closer to Zurich.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br />
That brings me to the topic of this essay, which is another claim made by the
same school of Low Churchmen referred to in the first paragraph.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In my last essay which was on the topic of
Hyper-Protestantism I addressed certain similarities between this school and
the Hyper-Protestants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here I wish to
address their claim that true Anglicanism is not just Protestant generally, but
Reformed in the sense of the specific form of Protestant theology that the word
Reformed denotes in denominational titles such as Dutch Reformed or Reformed
Baptist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That type of theology is often
called Calvinist, although this is misleading, and it is usually contrasted
with Arminianism, which is even more misleading, and most misleading of all it
is claimed that Arminianism is a close relative of Romanism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why these things are misleading will become
clear when I give some background history to Reformed theology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, however, I clarify that what I will
be arguing against is the claim that the Articles of Religion, which in their
final form were adopted by the Church of England in 1571 as part of the
Elizabethan Settlement, are distinctly Calvinist, not as opposed to Arminianism
which did not exist in 1571, but as opposed to Lutheranism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While this claim has some validity when it
comes to the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, it is completely false when it
comes to soteriology which is where our focus will be, and is utterly laughable
when it comes to any other topic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Thomas
Cranmer, who was consecrated and installed as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1533
during the reign of Henry VIII was the principal leader of the English
Reformation until the reign of Mary in which he was removed from office and
executed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An even more conservative
Reformer than Dr. Luther, at the beginning of the English Reformation he was a
Christian humanist of the same type as Erasmus and his reforms took the
Patristic period rather than what was going on in continental Protestantism as
their model.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Over the course of his
career he became more influenced by the continental Protestants, at first the
German Lutherans, then towards the end of his life, the Calvinists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When, after the brief interruption of the
English Reformation during the reign of Mary, Elizabeth I acceded the throne,
the English Reformation took an even more conservative turn.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1559 she ordered the Black Rubric excised
from the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Book of Common Prayer</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This had been inserted into the Order for
Holy Communion in the second Edwardian Prayer Book (1552) as an attempt at
compromise between Scottish Calvinist Reformer John Knox’s argument that
Communion should be received sitting and Cranmer’s conservative defence of
kneeling, but it ended up more radical than either Cranmer or Knox, by
asserting the Zwinglian view of the Sacrament (mere memorialism).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When it was eventually re-inserted into the
Prayer Book it was in the Restoration edition (1662) and with the Zwinglian
language excised.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1563, Archbishop
Matthew Parker led Convocation in revising the Forty-Two Articles of Religion
that Cranmer had drafted towards the end of Edward’s reign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After a few more tweaks they become the Thirty-Nine
Articles of 1571.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Article on the
Lord’s Supper excludes both the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation and
Zwinglian memorialism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While what it
affirms sounds closer to Calvin’s view than any other continental Reformer, it
needs to be compared with how the same Article read in the Forty-Two
Articles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Language that specifically
excluded the Lutheran view was omitted from the final version.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That language reads:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Forasmuch as the truth
of man’s nature requires that the body of one and the self-same man cannot be
at one time in diverse places, but must needs be in some one certain place, the
body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and diverse places. Because
(as Holy Scripture does teach) Christ was taken up into heaven, and there shall
continue unto the end of the world, a faithful man ought not, either to believe
or openly to confess the real and bodily presence (as they term it) of Christ’s
flesh and blood in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">These words
explicitly state the Calvinist position and include the reasoning that is the
basis of the Lutheran accusation that Calvinists are crypto-Nestorians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They were excised from the final version
that became cemented as the official Anglican doctrine in the Elizabethan
Settlement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In their place was put the
following:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Body of Christ is
given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual
manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the
Supper is Faith.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The result
was that in the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article XXVIII <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(it was Article XXIX in the Forty-Two
Articles) either a) affirmed a milder, more watered down, version of the
Calvinist doctrine or b) was deliberately made ambiguous enough to allow for
both Lutheran and Calvinist interpretations and exclude only the Roman and
Zwinglian.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The overall tenour of the
Elizabethan Settlement, which was to minimize divisive stances so as to
maintain peace in the realm and Church, and the fact that if Parker et al.
wished the Article to endorse the Calvinist position over the Lutheran they
could have left it unedited, suggests that b) is the correct understanding
here.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">It was
during the reign of Elizabeth that a decidedly Calvinist element arose in the
English Church that called for reforms that greatly exceeded those of the
Settlement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These are historically
remembered as the Puritans and towards the end of Elizabeth’s reign Richard
Hooker provided an Anglican answer to their arguments, especially as expressed
by Thomas Cartwright, in his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Lawes of
Ecclesiastical Politie.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the
Jacobean and Carolinian reigns, the next generation of Puritans became more extreme
both in their Calvinism and their demands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They accused Orthodox Churchmen like Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, who oversaw
the translation of the Authorized Bible in King James I’s reign, and Archbishop
of Canterbury William Laud, of Arminianism for opposing their excessive
preaching of predestination although it is highly unlikely that either man, both
of whom tended to ignore contemporary theologians of narrow schools in favour
of the Church fathers, was influenced much or at all by Jacob Arminius and his
followers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They also accused the same
of being closet papists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here we see
the first instance of this Calvinist linking of Arminianism with Romanism that
has resurfaced in the contemporary school that I am addressing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The second accusation was also ludicrous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Andrewes, in his responses to Cardinal
Bellarmine, and Laud in his published Conversation with the Jesuit Fischer,
were the closest thing the Church of England had to the scholastics who had
arisen in the Lutheran and Reformed Churches (think Johann Gerhard and Martin
Chemnitz for the Lutherans, Zacharias Ursinus and Francis Turretin for the
Reformed) to answer the new arguments from a new generation of Roman apologists
such as said Cardinal Bellarmine who were armed with the re-articulation of
Roman doctrine that had come out of the Council of Trent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At any rate, the Puritans became so extreme
that they, having taken control of Parliament, fought a civil war against King
Charles I, captured, illegally tried, and murdered him, then established an
interregnum under the protectorate of the tyrannical Oliver Cromwell who in his
quest to rob the English people of all joy cancelled Christmas and Easter, shut
down the theatres, outlawed games, sports, and other amusements outside of
religious services on Sundays (the only day of the week people weren’t
working), stripped the Churches of artwork and organs, imposed a legalism that
out-Phariseed the Pharisees, and basically did everything in his power to prove
H. L. Mencken right when he defined Puritanism as “the haunting fear that
someone, somewhere, may be happy”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Their revolt against their king would become the inspiration towards the
end of the next century of the French Revolution which in turn became the model
for all subsequent Communist revolutions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Since the Puritanical party in Parliament became the Whigs after the Restoration
and Puritanism in North America developed into the Yankee culture of New
England, Puritanism can be said to be the source of the major evils of the
Modern Age – liberalism, Americanism, and Communism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whether consciously or not, the Puritan
revolt against King Charles I was itself modelled after an earlier such
revolt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Dr. Johnson put it “the
first Whig was the devil”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">After the
Restoration, which was when the British, sick to death of Puritanism, restored
Charles II to his rightful throne, and restored the Church of England to the
pre-Puritan status quo, the Puritan Calvinists divided among themselves into
the Nonconformists, those unwilling to accept the restored Church of England
who left and formed schismatic sects, and those for whom the restored Church of
England was acceptable, who became the first Low Churchmen or as they were
called at the time, Evangelicals (this was one of the first, if not the first,
use of this term with a narrower sense than “Protestant”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the eighteenth century, Arminian Low
Churchmen first began to appear due to the influence of John Wesley, and these
introduced a new emphasis on experience into Evangelicalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The embrace of strict, academic, Reformed
theology by many evangelicals in the Twentieth Century is, perhaps, a reaction
to what became an over-emphasis on experience in the revivalist heritage of
evangelicalism, and what we are seeing in this new school of Low Church
Calvinism may be the Anglican expression of this phenomenon.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Their claim
that Anglicanism in her Articles of Religion is specifically Reformed in the
sense of Calvinist is not born out by an examination of the Articles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is also rather anachronistic because what
they mean by Reformed theology or Calvinism had not yet been formulated in the
way we know it today at the time the Articles received royal assent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This may seem a strange thing to say, since
John Calvin died in 1564, but what is called Calvinism today was formulated
over sixty years after his death in response to a dissenting movement that had
arisen within the Reformed tradition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Theodore Beza, Calvin’s prize pupil and his successor in Geneva, had
articulated a version of the doctrine of predestination that anyone with an ounce
of humanity had to reject.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Impiously
inquiring into the secret counsels of God, which is arrogant and forbidden to
humanity, he had come up with the doctrine of supralapsarianism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is a big word that basically means that
God first chose people to damn to hell, then decided to let them fall into sin
so He would have grounds to damn them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In 1582 – eleven years after the Articles of Religion – a Dutch Reformed
student by the name of Jakob Hermanszoon, better known by the Latin version of
his name Jacob Arminius, came to Geneva to study under Beza.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Later that decade he was ordained a pastor
in Amsterdam and was asked by the Ecclesiastical Council there to defend Beza’s
doctrine of supralapsarianism against Dirck Coornhert who had rejected it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Arminius attempted to do this but found that
he could not honestly do so and began to develop a modified form of Reformed
theology that emphasized free will rather than predestination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He died in 1609 and the following year, the
year before the Authorized Bible was published in England, his followers
published <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Five Articles of
Remonstrance</i>, stating their views on election, predestination, and free
will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1618, the Dutch Reformed
Church convened the Synod of Dort to answer this document and the following
year published its Canons, of which there were five, one for each Article of
Remonstrance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These have ever since been
called the Five Points of Calvinism and are usually placed in a slightly
different order than they appear in the Canons of Dort so as to make the acronym
TULIP – Total Depravity (or Inability), Unconditional Election, Limited
Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Just in
case you failed to pick up on that, the five points regarded as definitive of
Calvinism today, were formulated in 1618-1619 in response to Arminianism,
itself a response to supralapsarianism, a doctrine first taught by Calvin’s
successor rather than Calvin himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Arminianism,
therefore, rather than being a “sister of Romanism”, is most closely related
within the various schools of Christian theology, to Calvinism itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Calvinism versus Arminianism, is an
in-the-family dispute within the Reformed branch of Protestantism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Calvinism and Arminianism disagree on all
five points – that is kind of the point – although in other areas, they are
closer to each other, than to any other form of Christianity, including the
other Protestant traditions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The five
points also separate Calvinism from the other Protestant traditions.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Before
looking at our Anglican Articles note how Lutheranism and Calvinism, agree and
disagree on these matters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lutheranism
and Calvinism are both monergistic (salvation is entirely the work of God not a
cooperative effort between God and the one being saved) and Augustinian, and so
both can affirm the first point of Calvinism at least if it is understood as
the Augustinian concept of Original Sin, that the Fall so affected human
nature as to make man utterly helpless in the matter of his own salvation and
dependent utterly on the Grace of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Calvinists sometimes elaborate this in ways other Christians cannot
affirm, such as claiming that the Image of God was wiped out by Original
Sin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lutherans can also affirm
unconditional election, but they reject double predestination which includes
the concept of reprobation (predestination to hell) which Calvinism affirms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So there is agreement between Lutheranism
and Calvinism on one and a half points of Calvinism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the other points there is disagreement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lutherans most definitely do not believe in
Limited Atonement – it conflicts with their understanding of the Gospel as a
proclamation of Objective Justification accomplished for all human beings in
Christ, that each human being must receive by faith for it to be validated as
his own Subjective Justification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor do
they believe in Irresistible Grace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God’s
will, when worked through His Own power directly, is irresistible, but when God
works through intermediate means, other wills can resist His own.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the case of salvation, the salvation God
accomplished for the world in Jesus Christ is brought to individuals through the
intermediate means of the Gospel, which in both forms, Word and Sacrament, has
in itself sufficient Grace to produce faith in the human heart, but because
that Grace is conveyed through intermediate means, it is resistible rather than
irresistible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If someone believes it is
entirely due to the Grace in the Gospel, he adds nothing of his own to it, if
someone remains in unbelief, this is entirely due to his own resistance, and
there is no answer, no simple one at any rate, to the question of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">cur alii, alii non</i> (why some, not
others).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On Perseverance both Lutherans
and Calvinists affirm that the elect will persevere to the end and receive
final salvation, but Calvinists combine this with the concept of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">perpetual justification</i> – that after one
is initially justified, this justification persists and is not lost through
subsequent sin, a doctrine that among Baptists and Plymouth Brethren is often affirmed
without Perseverance – and Lutherans do not, teaching that someone who commits
Mortal Sin after initial justification loses it until he repents and is forgiven.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So where do
our Articles stand on all of this?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Well,
unsurprisingly the only points directly addressed are the first two, on which
Lutherans and Calvinists mostly agree.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Articles IX and X, “Of Original or Birth Sin” and “Of Free-Will”
respectively, affirm the Augustinian view of these things against the Pelagian.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Article XVII is entitled “Of Predestination
and Election”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here it is in its entirety:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Predestination to Life
is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world
were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver
from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind,
and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.
Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called
according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through
Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by
adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ:
they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain
to everlasting felicity.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">As the godly
consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet,
pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in
themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the
flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and
heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their
faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth
fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons,
lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the
sentence of God’s Predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the
Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most
unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Furthermore, we must
receive God’ s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in
holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which
we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Note there
is no affirmation of Reprobation in this Article.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lutherans as well as Calvinists can confess
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the second paragraph can
almost be taken as an affirmation of the Lutheran understanding of the doctrine
against the Calvinist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Compare what it
says about the doctrine being a comfort for the godly and not something to be
excessively and indiscriminately preached because it can have a deleterious
effect on the ungodly with Article XI of the Formula of Concord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Paragraph 89 of the Solid Declaration of
that Article reads:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Moreover, this
doctrine gives no one a cause either for despondency or for a shameless,
dissolute life, namely, when men are taught that they must seek eternal
election in Christ and His holy Gospel, as in the Book of Life, which excludes
no penitent sinner, but beckons and calls all the poor, heavy-laden, and
troubled sinners [who are disturbed by the sense of God’s wrath], to repentance
and the knowledge of their sins and to faith in Christ, and promises the Holy
Ghost for purification and renewal, 90 and thus gives the most enduring
consolation to all troubled, afflicted men, that they know that their salvation
is not placed in their own hands,-for otherwise they would lose it much more
easily than was the case with Adam and Eve in paradise, yea, every hour and
moment,-but in the gracious election of God, which He has revealed to us in
Christ, out of whose hand no man shall pluck us, John 10:28; 2 Tim. 2:19. <o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption), the idea that
Jesus died only for the elect is not affirmed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, and
indeed, Limited Atonement contradicts both Articles II and XXXI.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Article II, which is about the “Word or Son
of God, which was made very Man” ends with the affirmation that He “truly
suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to
be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of
men” and Article XXXI, “Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross”
reads:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Offering of Christ
once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">for all the sins of the whole world, both
original and actual</b>; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that
alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said,
that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission
of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is no affirmation of Irresistible Grace (or Effectual
Calling for Calvinists who are allergic to TULIPs) in the Articles and it is
not consistent with the language used of the Sacraments in Article XXV:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sacraments ordained of
Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather
they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God’s good
will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only
quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Remember, Grace that is conveyed through intermediate means
is Grace that can be resisted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now,
for the final petal in the TULIP, let us turn to Article XVI “Of Sin After
Baptism”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This Article reads:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Not every deadly sin
willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and
unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as
fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may
depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may
arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned, which
say, they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of
forgiveness to such as truly repent</i>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The language here strongly suggests the Lutheran position
without explicitly affirming it against the Calvinist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Note the words “deadly sin willingly
committed after Baptism”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the
concept of Mortal Sin as it is understood in Lutheran theology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Calvinist theology does not allow for a concept
of Mortal Sin which is probably why the expression is avoided.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The possibility of departing from grace is
affirmed, although in such a way that it is only the heresy of those who say
that once you become a Christian you cannot sin again that can be definitely
said<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>to be denied here rather than the
Calvinist doctrine of perpetual justification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What is most strongly affirmed, that repentance and forgiveness are
available to those who sin after Baptism, is believed by all orthodox
Christians, and what is condemned, earthly sinless perfectionism and the
unavailability of forgiveness, are ideas asserted only by the looniest of
wing-nuts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Overall, the Article reads
as a statement of the Lutheran view, worded carefully so as not to offend
Calvinists.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From what we have just seen, those who would say that the
Articles of Religion are Reformed in the sense of Calvinist as opposed to
Lutheran, are clearly in the wrong when it comes to soteriology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Articles lean Lutheran, but in such a
way as to not exclude Calvinists. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the
Lord’s Supper, they lean Calvinist, but in such a way as to not exclude
Lutherans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On Church government they
are clearly not Calvinist – they affirm the Episcopal government shared by
every Church everywhere before the sixteenth century, retained by the Anglican
Church and by some Lutherans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the
very matter of deciding what from the pre-Reformation tradition can be retained
and what must be jettisoned they affirm in Article XX the normative principle
which they share with the Lutheran Augsburg Confession rather than the regulative
principle of the Calvinists and Anabaptists.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Those Low Churchmen who think the only true Anglicans are Five
Point Calvinists clearly haven’t got a clue what they are talking about.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-31991443293662785852023-08-11T06:09:00.002-05:002023-08-11T06:09:57.040-05:00Be a Protestant BUT NOT A NUT!<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I have
borrowed the title of this essay, mutatis mutandis, from that of the fourth
chapter in Dr. John R. Rice’s book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">I Am a
Fundamentalist</i> (1975).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Rice
wrote that book in the midst of the “second-degree separation” controversy that
was dividing fundamentalist against fundamentalist in the 1970s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was his answer to those fundamentalists who
were on the side of “second-degree separation”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The chapter in question addresses the issue
of riding hobby-horses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To give an
example, he wrote "Some people are strong against apostasy and modernism,
but they think a man a modernist if he gives a Christmas present or sends a
Christmas greeting card, or observes Easter Sunday and preaches on the
resurrection”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I know just such a nut,
although he probably considers himself a charismatic rather than a
fundamentalist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another example was
“There are others who think one is a modernist if he doesn’t drink carrot
juice, eat whole wheat bread and wheat germ, if he doesn’t abstain from pork
and coffee”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Personally, I’d be more
inclined to think someone a modernist if he <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">did</i>
those things, rather than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">didn’t</i> do
them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At any rate, I describe my
position as orthodox rather than fundamentalist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Doctrinally, the ancient Creeds are the
litmus test of orthodoxy, rather than a list of five fundamentals drawn up in
the last century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since all the
fundamentals of fundamentalism are included in the Creeds, <a href="https://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.com/2014/12/orthodoxy-is-more-than-fundamentalism.html">orthodoxy
can be said to be more than fundamentalism, not less</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With
regards to practice, the biggest distinction between orthodoxy and
fundamentalism is that orthodoxy rejects the idea of withdrawing from the
Church because of error, doctrinal or moral, which idea is historically
associated with the heresies of Novatianism and Donatism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In orthodoxy, separation from heresy and
apostasy takes the form of excommunicating the heretics and apostates and the
right way of dealing with institutional error is that of a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1V0pKyioag">reconquista</a> rather than
an exodus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That having been said, I
think the distinction Dr. Rice made between his brand of fundamentalism – I
would say that if all fundamentalist Baptists were like him it would be a much
better movement except that the biggest problem with Baptist fundamentalism is
that most fundamental Baptist preachers are would-be John R. Rices who are pale
imitations at best - <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>almost caricatures
– and the kooks, can be applied to Protestants and Hyper-Protestants.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">On the one
hand there is Protestantism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the
other hand there is Hyper-Protestantism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Protestantism is good.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Hyper-Protestantism is bad.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
word “Catholic” is a useful shibboleth for distinguishing between a Protestant
and a Hyper-Protestant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Catholic” is a
bad word to the Hyper-Protestant who uses it to mean everything he thinks
Protestantism opposes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The English and
Lutheran Reformers never used “Catholic” in this way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They referred to the errors against which
they “protested” as “Romish” or “popish” to indicate that these were recent
errors and errors which belonged to a particular Church, the Church governed by
the Patriarch of Rome, rather than the Catholic Church, the whole of the
Christian Church including all Churches governed by Apostolic bishops.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the Patriarch of Rome’s claim to
have the supreme governorship over the entire Church, a claim rejected by the
Churches under the other Patriarchs since Patristic days, is one of the errors
of Rome against which the Reformers protested.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Calling the Roman Church the Catholic Church is tantamount to accepting
that error.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some Protestants today have
fallen into the habit of using Catholic for the Roman Church and its members,
not out of Hyper-Protestantism but out of the idea that it is respectful to
call people what they call themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is the same flawed reasoning that some use to justify using a
person’s stated preference in pronouns rather than those which correspond to
that person’s biological sex.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In both
cases truth is what one ends up sacrificing in the name of being polite.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Protestants who use Catholic to mean “Roman
Catholic” for this reason can usually be distinguished from Hyper-Protestants
in that they do not speak the word as if it were a swear word in the way
Hyper-Protestants do.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Catholic,
an intensified compound version of the Greek word for “whole” has been used
since at least the beginning of the second century when St. Ignatius of Antioch
used it in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, to mean the Church in its entirety,
the Church everywhere as opposed to the Church in just one location, the Church
in Rome, for example, or the Church in Smyrna.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Catholic faith is the faith confessed by all orthodox Christians, in
all orthodox Churches, everywhere, the faith confessed in the Creed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed has the
best right to be called the Catholic Creed in that it was accepted by all the ancient
Churches before there was any break in fellowship between them and is still
accepted by them today, the dispute over the wording that divided East from
West notwithstanding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This Creed was
developed by the first two Ecumenical Councils – Councils to which the
government of the entire Church, everywhere was invited to participate – in the
fourth century, taking an earlier, local form of the Creed, as its
template.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The shorter but similarly
worded Apostles’ Creed, developed out of the form of the Creed used by the
Church in Rome in baptisms at least as early as the second century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The similarity between the two suggests that
the forms out of which both were developed were themselves versions of an
earlier template that most likely goes back to the Apostles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hints of such a form that pre-dated the
writing of the New Testament are dropped from time to time by St. Paul in his
epistles and this would explain the antiquity of the origin story from which
the Apostles’ Creed derives its name, the origin story being basically true,
but referring to the earliest form of the Creed, from which multiple local
versions were derived, two of which eventually became the Apostles’ and
Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creeds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the
fifth century, after the third Ecumenical Council but before the fourth, in the
period when the fellowship of the ancient Churches was first broken, St.
Vincent, a monk in Lerins Abbey on one of the islands of the same name off the
coast of the French Riviera, wrote his <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Commonitorium
</i>under the pseudonym “Peregrinus” in which he explored the question of how
to distinguish true Catholic doctrine from heresy, famously stating that in the
Catholic Church care must be taken to “hold that faith which has been believed
everywhere, always, and by all”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He is
often said to have proposed three tests of Catholicity, but in actuality he
proposed four.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first test is that
the doctrine must be derived from the Holy Scriptures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This first Catholic principle of St. Vincent
is identical to the first principle of Protestantism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The other three tests pertain to the
interpretation of Scripture and they are universality (an interpretation is not
Catholic if it is only found in one region of the Church), antiquity (an
interpretation is not Catholic if it does not go back to the earliest centuries
of the Church but is instead of late origin and contained within a particular
timespan rather than being taught in all times of the Church) and consent
(formal acknowledgement by the authorities of the Church, preferably at the
Ecumenical level).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">None of the
doctrines that the early Reformers, English and Lutheran, protested against in
the teachings of the Church of Rome are affirmed as articles of faith in the
Creed, Apostles’ or Nicene-Constantinopolitan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>With one possible exception, none of the practices of the Roman Church
that these Reformers objected to can withstand the Vincentian tests.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">We shall
return to that possible exception momentarily.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>First I wish to observe that Hyper-Protestantism gets the word
Protestant as wrong as it gets the word Catholic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most Hyper-Protestants use the word
Protestant as if the word were synonymous with “Calvinist”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is true even of many Hyper-Protestants
who would object to being called Calvinists themselves on the grounds that they
are Arminians. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Arminianism is to
Calvinism what heresy is to orthodox Christianity in general, a defective form.
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, what I am calling
Calvinism here is not actually Calvinism in the sense of “the teachings of John
Calvin”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>John Calvin himself was closer
to Lutheranism than to what has been called Calvinism since the seventeenth
century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Luther would not
appreciate hearing that not only because he regarded Calvin’s view of the
Eucharist as rank heresy but also because he objected to a movement being named
after him in the first place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Calvin,
however, as is clear from his writings, was Lutheran in his views of the extent
of the Atonement and assurance of salvation, rather than Calvinist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>John Calvin was to Lutheranism, what Jacob
Arminius and his followers were to Calvinism, which ought to be called either
Bezism or Dortism, after its true fathers, Theodore Beza and the Reformed Synod
of Dort.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Protestant, however, is the
general term for all the Christians who threw off the usurped supremacy of the
Patriarch of Rome in the sixteenth century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the best sense of the word, it is defined only by the doctrines that
set the earliest and most conservative of the Reformers apart from Rome rather
than by doctrines distinctive of any of the more specific traditions that
emerged from the Reformation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we
have to define Protestantism by the doctrines of a specific tradition,
Lutheranism has a better claim to being that tradition than Calvinism, being
the original Protestant tradition of which John Calvin’s Calvinism was a
deviation, from which deviation Theodore Beza and the Synod of Dort further
deviated with their “Calvinism”, of which Arminianism is a yet further
deviation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
doctrines of the general Reformation, that is to say what the Reformers
positively affirmed rather than merely what they denied in Rome’s teachings,
are today commonly summed up in the five solae – sola Scriptura, sola gratia,
sola fide, solus Christus, soli Deo Gloria. This is not the best formulation,
in my opinion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It does not date to the
Reformation itself, but only to the last century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a Calvinist formulation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of the most important teachings of the
Reformers is missing from it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sola
Scriptura can be easily misinterpreted to mean something that Dr. Luther and
the English Reformers would have found abhorrent, i.e., the idea that the Bible
can and should be privately interpreted in isolation from tradition and the
Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The other solas can be summed
up in a single doctrine – the freeness of salvation as the gift of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If I were to come up with a formula
summarizing the doctrines of the general Reformation it would be:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
supremacy of Scripture as the written Word of God<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
freeness of salvation as the gift of God<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">-<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
Gospel is the assurance of salvation to all who believe it<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The last of
these was absolutely essential to the Reformation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was the search for such that led Dr.
Luther to the Pauline epistles on justification and to oppose the
carrot-on-a-stick approach coupled with the outright sale of salvation to which
Rome had stooped at that point in time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>John Calvin was as one with Dr. Luther on this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who would later call themselves
“Calvinists” were and are not in accord with either Luther or Calvin but
actually offend against this truth worse than Rome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In their theology the Gospel cannot assure
anyone of salvation because Jesus came only to save a handful of pre-selected
individuals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nobody can really know
that he is among the chosen few.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
must constantly look for evidence of his regeneration in his own works, but can
draw no lasting comfort, because if he falls away it will demonstrate he was
not really regenerate, which remains a possibility until the very end of his
life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consider what such “Calvinists”
as John Piper and John F. MacArthur Jr. have to say about assurance of
salvation today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both take the position
that the Gospel cannot fully assure those who believe it of their own salvation
because they must prove their faith to be real to themselves by finding
evidence of it in their works, a position explicitly condemned by both Dr.
Luther and John Calvin, and solidly rejected in the Lutheran tradition to this
day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>MacArthur, who has been unsound on
all sorts of other matters, including at one point a key element of Nicene
Christology, wrote not one, not two, but three books arguing this point,
proving only that he wouldn’t be able to tell the Law from the Gospel if the
difference between the two were to take anthropomorphic form and walk up and
smack him upside the head.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Piper is
more subtle, like the serpent in the Garden.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He merely slips nuggets of the faith-based-on-works error such as “assurance
is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">partially</i> based on objective
evidences for Christian truth” into <a href="https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/helping-people-have-the-assurance-of-salvation">presentations</a>
that contain a lot of sounder statements.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Reformation truth is that while faith is accompanied by the
repentance that the Law works in us by convicting us of our sin and by the
works that spring from the Christian love worked in us by the love of God
received through faith, these accompanying things are not part of the basis of
faith which rests on nothing but the Gospel, the objective message that Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, has saved all who believe in Him by dying for their
sins on the Cross and rising from the dead, which message is proclaimed both in
Word and Sacrament, and that the faith that rests on that objective Truth is
itself the subjective experience of assurance of salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The subjective experience, faith which is
assurance (Heb. 11:1), must rest entirely on the solid rock of what is
objective, the Gospel, for if it rests partly on that solid rock, and partly on
grounds that are themselves subjective, our experiences and works, it will be
most unstable indeed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Hyper-Protestant Puritanism, that in addition to being regicidal, tyrannical,
and opposed to all joy, defected from Calvin’s teachings in precisely this way,
and one of its fruit, alongside the evils of the Modern Age – liberalism,
Communism, and Americanism – was a psychologically, emotionally, and
spiritually crippling dearth of assurance and plague of despair.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Nothing in
these basic truths of the Reformation conflicts with anything in the Creed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor
do they conflict with the teachings, practices, and forms of worship common to
all the ancient Churches, i.e., the Catholic tradition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
place Protestantism in opposition to such late Medieval Roman doctrines as
human merit, supererogatory works (the idea that someone other than Jesus can
do works over and above what is required of him and so contribute to someone
else’s salvation), and the whole general impression Rome was giving that
salvation was a reward for dotting all your is and crossing all your ts, but
not with the Catholic faith held throughout the Church everywhere, in all ages,
since the Apostles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Basic
Protestantism, therefore, is in conflict with Romanism not Catholicism, and
since the Catholic faith of the Creed is the basic Christian faith, to be a
good Protestant, one must first be a Catholic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The essential distinction between Hyper-Protestantism and Protestantism is
that Hyper-Protestantism opposes what is Catholic and not merely Roman.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I do not
mean that Hyper-Protestantism rejects the Creed, necessarily, although
Hyper-Protestants generally do not hold to the necessity of organizational and
organic continuity with the Apostolic Church in Jerusalem, making it rather
difficult for them to confess the ninth Article about the “Holy Catholick
Church”, at least with a sense that would have been recognized by any Christian
anywhere prior to the Reformation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What
I mean is that Hyper-Protestants reject the Catholic tradition wholesale except
for elements that they cannot deny are Scriptural.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there is a traditional practice of the
Roman Church that the Hyper-Protestant cannot find a Scriptural text that says
you must do it this way, the Hyper-Protestant will say that you must not do it
that way, even if there is no Scriptural text forbidding it, and every other
ancient Church does it that way, not just the Roman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is called the regulative principle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although it appears in most of the important
Calvinist confessions, it was actually far more typical of Zwingli’s approach
than of Calvin’s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, while Zwingli
had already been practicing it in Zurich for about half a decade before the
rise of Anabaptism, the movement of Continental Hyper-Protestant schismatics
who took their cue from Zwingli rather than Luther and Calvin but whose
radicalism brought about a break with all of the Magisterial Reformers
including Zwingli himself, it was the Anabaptists who first articulated it as a
stated principle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was Conrad Grebel,
the founder of the Swiss Brethren, an Anabaptist sect who raised it in arguing
for the Anabaptist position on baptism, the argument going that because there
is no specific command to baptize infants in the New Testament it must
therefore be prohibited.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Grebel pointed
to Tertullian, the second to third century apologist, as having taught the
regulative principle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since it only
appeared in Tertullian’s writings after he joined the ultra-rigid Montanists
towards the end of his life, this was not exactly a good argument for the
principle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Especially since it is impossible
to reconcile that principle with the doctrine of Christian liberty taught by
St. Paul in his epistles.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The
opposite of the regulative principle it the normative principle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In its simplest, this is the idea that if
the Scripture does not forbid you to do something, you are permitted to do
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is obviously no conflict
between this principle and the Pauline doctrine of Christian liberty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It can, however, depending upon how it is interpreted
in its implications, conflict with the Pauline doctrine of orderly worship and
conduct in the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One version of
the normative principle, primarily associated with evangelical and especially
charismatic worship in the twentieth century, is the idea of eliminating all or
almost all formal structure and allowing everyone from the preacher to those
providing the music to the congregants in the pew to each do his own thing as
he thinks the Holy Ghost is leading.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This sounds like a recipe of chaos and in some instances this is exactly
what it produces.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More often, however,
the result in practice is that the worship service ends up resembling a
performance at a theatre, an evening in a night club, or some other secular
activity that in no way resembles a Church service.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">By contrast
there is the version of the normative principle employed by Dr. Luther and the
English Reformers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this version, the
normative principle was applied to the pre-Reformation tradition of the Church
and whatever in that tradition was not found to be prohibited by Scripture or
to otherwise contradict Scripture was maintained.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is what is most consistent with both
the Pauline doctrine of Christian liberty and the Pauline doctrine of orderly
worship and conduct. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion">Anglican
Church’s Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion</a></span> (1571) it is spelled out
in Article XX “Of the Authority of the Church” which reads:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Church hath power
to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">And yet it is not lawful for the Church to
ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word</b> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">written</b>, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it
be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a
keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same,
so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for
necessity of Salvation.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the Lutheran <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Book
of Concord</i> it is found in Lutheranism’s <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://bookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession/">Augsburg Confession</a></span>
(1530) in Article XV “Of Ecclesiastical Usages” in the first section of the
Article:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Of Usages in the
Church they teach that those ought to be observed which may be observed without
sin, and which are profitable unto tranquillity and good order in the Church,
as particular holy days, festivals, and the like</i>. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Put into practice, the result was that those things which
the Anglican Church and the Lutherans rejected were Roman, that is to say,
distinctive of the Roman Church after the Great Schism and often quite later
than that, whereas those things which were retained were Catholic, that is,
common to all the ancient Church – the Church of Rome, the other four ancient
Patriarchates in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and even the Assyrian and
Oriental Orthodox Churches the fellowship of which with the larger Church was
broken beginning in the fifth century AD.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the Lutheran and Anglican traditions, Protestantism is a Reformed
Catholicism, not the wholesale rejection of Catholicism except for everything
that cannot be jettisoned on account of its being undeniably Scriptural that is
Hyper-Protestantism.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the Anglican Church there are those who bristle at the
thought of our Church being Catholic, despite Catholic being used in only a
positive sense in all of the Anglican formularies, including the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Book of Common Prayer</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do not say that these are Hyper-Protestants,
although they have several of the traits of Hyper-Protestantism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They often try to claim that the Articles of
Religion can only be read rightly in accordance with as Calvinist
interpretation as possible, despite the fact that when the Articles touch on
issues where there is a difference of opinion between the continental
Protestant traditions, such as Predestination and Election in Article XVII,
they are written in such a way that either Lutherans or Calvinists could affirm
them (there is no mention of Reprobation, which Calvinists accept and Lutherans
reject, in the Article).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Articles of Religion, like the Anglican
Formularies in general, were irenicons, drafted so as to minimize conflict
among members of the Church of England, whether it be conflict between those
who see the Church as Catholic first and Protestant second and those who see it
the other way around, or between those whose Protestantism was more Lutheran
and those whose Protestantism was more Calvinist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Anglicans who want the Anglican Church to
be only Protestant often make arguments that seemingly presuppose the
regulative principle, despite the Articles’ affirmation of the normative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This past weekend I engaged in an online
discussion with them on a matter that might seem to be an exception to the rule
that the English Reformers rejected only what was Roman and kept all that is
Catholic.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That matter occurs in Article XXII of the Articles of
Religion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am not referring to the main
subject of that Article which is Purgatory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Purgatory is a Roman doctrine, not a Catholic doctrine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While some of the ideas associated with it
go back much further, Purgatory itself dates to the end of the twelfth century,
the century after the Great Schism, and is not an official doctrine of the
Eastern Orthodox Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the
Eastern Orthodox opposed the doctrine following the attempt at reunification in
the Second Council of Lyon (1272-1274).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There have been and are different schools within Eastern Orthodoxy that have
held different views on the matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
ones who came closest to Rome were the seventeenth century prelates such as
Peter of Moghilia and Dositheus of Jerusalem who reacted against the
“Calvinist” Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris, and in doing
so produced Confessions that affirmed Purgatory in all but name.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rejection of the name is more significant
than the affirmation of the doctrine as these men were representative only of
their own time in this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most Eastern
Orthodox schools of thought reject the doctrine as well as the name, and
interestingly enough there has been a heated on-and-off controversy in the
Eastern Church over “Aerial Toll Houses”, a different concept of an
intermediate state from that of Purgatory, the most recent flare up in the
controversy being in the last century. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Armenian Apostolic and Coptic Orthodox
Churches both reject Purgatory and I suspect this is true of the other
Non-Chalcedonian Churches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus,
Purgatory does not pass the Vincentian tests of Catholicity and is a distinctly
Roman error.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The matter in question is
found among those tucked in with Purgatory in this Article.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is Article XXII in full:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Romish Doctrine
concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as
of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented,
and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of
God.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Note in passing the use of the word “Romish” rather than
“Catholic”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The discussion began with someone sharing the quotation “If
you think you need a mediator with Jesus; you don’t know Jesus”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, there is nothing wrong with these words
taken in their plain, ordinary, sense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is One God, St. Paul declares, and One Mediator between God and
man, the Man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>You do not need a mediator between yourself and the Mediator.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The man being quoted, however, was James R.
White, a Reformed Baptist minister and the director of Alpha and Omega
Ministries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a man who never
misses an opportunity to throw the Catholic baby out with the Roman
bathwater.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.com/2020/08/black-and-white.html">A
few years ago I thoroughly rebutted</a> his attempt to have it both ways on
Nestorianism and “the Mother of God”, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>something not uncommon among Calvinists, as
well as his embrace of “scientific” textual criticism as applied to the New
Testament, the gateway drug to “higher criticism” an error he could easily have
avoided had he applied the Vincentian Catholic principle to textual criticism
and adopted the position that the true text of the New Testament is the text
received by the Church everywhere, always, and by all, with the recognition
that in areas of the Church where another language predominates that text may
find representation in a “Vulgate” of the dominant language, such as the Latin
Vulgate in the Roman Church, and the Authorized Bible in the English
Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I observed the possibility that
by “mediator” White might actually have meant “intermediary”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hyper-Protestants reject the Apostolic
priesthood of the Church, despite its being there in the New Testament, because
they reject the idea of intermediaries between Jesus and the individual
believer, condemning themselves in the process because they accept the
necessity of preaching, and preachers are intermediaries between Jesus and the
individual believer in precisely the same way that Apostolic priests are, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not gatekeepers</i> who decide who gets to
see Jesus, but <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">stewards </i>appointed to
bring Jesus to each individual through their dual ministry of Word and
Sacrament.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As it turned out, however, the discussion went down a
different road than that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What the
person who posted the quote from James White and those who agreed with him were
interested in condemning was the practice of asking the saints to pray for
them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now this is not something that I do myself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have never had any interest in doing this,
much less a compelling urge to do so. It is, however, something that is done in
all the ancient Churches – Roman, Eastern Orthodox, Non-Chalcedonian, and
Assyrian – and so cannot be said to be a distinctly Roman practice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only case that can be made against it
being Catholic is that it can only be traced back for certain to the third
century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In St. Clement of Rome’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">First Epistle to the Corinthians</i>,
written before the end of the first century, around the time St. John was
writing the Book of Revelation, this early Roman bishop and companion of St.
Paul talks in what is usually numbered as the fifty sixth chapter about
remembering those who, having fallen into sin, had submitted in meekness and
humility to the will of God, to God and the saints.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The wording is ambiguous and the saints
mentioned here could be the living members of the Church, but especially since
everywhere else in the epistle St. Clement refers to these as brethren, this
could also be the earliest reference to the practice in question, in which case
it most decidedly is Catholic, this earliest of the writings of the Apostolic
Fathers having been regularly read in the Churches along with the Sacred texts
in the early centuries and considered, although ultimately rejected, for
canonical status.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even if St. Clement
is not a first century witness to the practice, the third century predates both
the first Ecumenical Council and the rise of Emperor Constantine who is usually
regarded as the founder of “Catholicism” by the restorationist type of
Hyper-Protestant, the historical illiterate who thinks that the Church apostatized
the moment Christianity was legalized (a view these type of Hyper-Protestants
share with all the heretical sects they call cults) . <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is recommended by both St. John Chrysostom
and St. Augustine in the fourth century, neither of whom was known as an
innovator and both of whom would have staunchly rejected it had it been
inconsistent with orthodox Christianity as it had come down to them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the idea of the Intercession of the
Saints – that the faithful who have gone on to the next life are praying for us
in Heaven – that is associated with the practice, and often but not always
denied by those who reject it, can be traced back with certainty much earlier
than the practice, being frequently mentioned in the Apostolic Fathers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For that matter, it appears in the Bible itself
in Revelation 5:8 where the twenty-four elders are depicted as holding golden
vials, filled with odours that are the “prayers of the saints” (if the “saints”
here are taken to be the saints on Earth, the image is even stronger, for it
suggests that it is the saints in Heaven who bring before the Throne the prayers
of the saints on Earth), which raises a few questions about the Scriptural
literacy of those who loudly trumpet their belief in “Sola Scriptura” while denying
that the faithful departed pray for us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>An even more important doctrine is at stake in this dispute, however,
the doctrine of “The Communion of the Saints” that is indisputably Catholic,
confessed in the Apostles’ version of the Creed, and held even by those ancient
Churches that use only the Nicene and not the Apostles’ Creed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was for the sake of this Truth, not the
practice itself per se, that when I realized what was being argued, I joined in
the argument on the side of the defenders of the practice.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br />
A word here about, well, words, is in order.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Those on the other side of the debate consistently spoke of the practice
of asking the faithful departed for their prayers as “praying to the saints”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I consistently referred to it as asking for
their prayers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would not have been
comfortable making the arguments I made, even in defence of the Truth confessed
in the Creed, using the same language as the other side.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The English word “pray”, comes to us through
French, from a Latin word meaning “ask, beg, request, entreat” and in earlier
centuries was used in a more general sense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>“I pray thee”, contracted to “prithee” used to be a common synonym for “please”
and was used with requests made of other people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For most people, however, “pray” has long
ceased to be a synonym for “ask” in general, and is now limited to requests
made as acts of worship. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This being the
case, I would say that the word should be reserved for requests made directly
to God, and not used of the act of requesting that others pray for<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are two entirely different arguments
here depending upon whether we follow that rule or not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One is an argument about whether we should
make the same kind of requests of the faithful departed that we make of God, in
which case the right is on the side of those who say no, we should not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The other is an argument about whether we
should make the same kind of requests of the faithful departed that we make of other
living Christians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is in regards to
this second argument that I would say that since the practice is Catholic and
not just Roman and based on “the Communion of the Saints” confessed in the
Creed a strong burden of proof must be placed on those who say it isn’t allowed
to prove their case from the Scriptures, which I do not think they can do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I will note that the language of “praying to
the saints” is sometimes used by defenders of the practice among those Churches
who practice it, undermining their own position in my opinion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has been my observation, however, that
this language is far more likely to be used by less-informed lay people in
these Churches than in official ecclesiastical statements.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On a related note, the frequent heard
accusation by Hyper-Protestants against the Roman Church, and sometimes the
other ancient Churches, that they pray more to Mary and the saints than to God,
has no validity with regards to prayers used in public worship, although it may
sometimes be warranted in the case of private practice, just as private
Protestants may distort things in private in a way unsanctioned by their Church
or sect. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Eastern Orthodoxy, one of
the most popular prayers, if not the most popular, is a prayer addressed to
Jesus – it is actually called “The Jesus Prayer” - and virtually
indistinguishable from the one that in evangelical circles is often substituted
for “believe” in presentations of the Gospel and treated as if it were a
magical incantation the reciting of which mechanically transforms one into a
Christian.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The act of asking the Saints
or Mary to grant something in their own power is not sanctioned by any Church
and is, of course, idolatry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is
not to say that it is not superstitiously done by the ignorant, but the only
requests directed towards anyone other than God in the liturgies of any of the
ancient Churches are requests for prayer.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When I raised the point of the difference between praying to
someone and asking them to pray for you in the debate someone pointed out that
Article XXII speaks of “invocation of Saints” and argued that “invocation” is a
broader term and includes all forms of address not just prayer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My response was to point out that in that
case technically the Article forbids asking living Christians to pray for us as
well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For, as the type of Hyper-Protestant
who does not understand how language works and that a word can have a narrower
as well as a wider meaning and so condemns the use of “Saint” as a title likes
to point out, all Christians are Saints in the most basic sense of the word.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So what about Article XXII?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Do the <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Articles of Religion
depart from the normative principle affirmed in Article XXII by condemning a
practice “invocation of Saints” that is truly Catholic rather than merely
Roman?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As the saying goes “it’s complicated”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Articles affirm the Apostles’ and Nicene
Creeds as well as the Athanasian (more an annotated version of the Apostles’
than a distinct Creed in its own right) in Article VIII saying these are
“proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, they cannot mean in Article XXII that
the doctrine of the “Communion of the Saints” confessed in the Apostles’ Creed
is “grounded upon no warranty of Scripture” when they seemingly impugn the
practice based on this doctrine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This raises the question of whether the practice
and the doctrine can be so separated that one can affirm one without the
other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If they cannot, then either the
Articles contradict themselves, a possibility as they, not being Holy
Scripture, are not infallible, something those Anglicans which insist so
strongly on their Protestantism might try to remember, or, as the wording of
the Article allows, the “fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no
warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God” is not “invocation
of Saints” per se but the “Romish doctrine” concerning it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>John Henry Newman tried to make this last argument
with regards to the main subject of the Article, Purgatory, in the last of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Tracts for the Times</i> before he crossed
the Tiber.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His argument was not
particularly convincing, although it could possibly be made more strongly for “invocation
of Saints” than for Purgatory based on invocation being Catholic and Purgatory
distinctly Roman, potentially allowing for “the Romish doctrine” about “invocation
of Saints” being asking them to intercede for those in Purgatory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m not going to press that interpretation
as it seems highly unlikely that this is what was meant in the days of the
Elizabethan Settlement by those who came up with the final draft of the
Articles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Historically it was not until
the Tractarians that High Churchmen thought to understand the Article in any
way other than as completely forbidding the practice as demonstrated by it
being a point of contention between the Non-Jurors and the Eastern Orthodox in
the unsuccessful attempt to bring the two into communion in the early
eighteenth century, about a century before the Oxford Movement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Neither, however, am I going to say that the
Articles do contradict themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Rather, I am going to take the position that Article XXII as an exercise
of that “power to decree Rites or Ceremonies” affirmed of the Church in the same
Article that affirms the Normative Principle and as thus binding upon the
province of the Holy Catholic Church that is the Anglican Church in terms of
practice and not an authoritative statement dictating what we are to think
about the practice, a position quite in keeping with the spirit of the court of
Elizabeth I, who understood well that her God-given authority to regulate the
Church for the sake of the peace of her realm was limited to the public
exercise of religion and did not extend to the private consciences of men,
something monarchs reigning by divine right understand a lot better than politicians
elected by the mob.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In keeping with
this position on Article XXII which is in accordance with my own
non-participation in this practice as a member of the Anglican Church, I shall
now discuss the matter of whether or not the practice violates Scriptural prohibitions
and/or principles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My position is that
it does not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now, in the debate last weekend, those on the other side
were arguing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">for</i> something and not
just <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">against</i> something.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What they were arguing for was that Jesus
Christ is the only Mediator, that His One Sacrifice is sufficient and that
nothing anyone else does can add anything to it, that He is accessible through
prayer to all believers and that we don’t need to go through anyone else to get
to Him, and that we should not direct towards creatures that which belongs to
God alone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With none of this, did I, or
anyone else on my side of the debate, disagree, and indeed, I, and I would
assume everyone on both sides, would affirm all of this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those on my side were also arguing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">for</i> something, and not just the practice
of asking the faithful in Heaven to pray for you, but a truth we confess every
time we confess the Apostles’ Creed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Before I even entered this conversation, others on the side
that I took had already asked the other side whether or not they ever asked
members of their parishes to pray for them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The point of the question, of course, was that if asking the faithful
departed to pray for you somehow takes away from Christ’s sole Mediatorship,
implies a deficiency in His Sacrifice, or suggest the idea that we need to go
through someone else to get to Jesus, then this is also true of asking living
believers to pray for us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This point is
entirely valid, and I further observed that it cuts both ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If in asking another Christian for prayer we
do so in a way that transgresses by inappropriately offering to our fellow
Christian the prayer that we should be addressing to God alone we have
transgressed regardless of whether that fellow Christian is alive or dead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If, on the other hand, we ask other
Christians for their prayers in accordance with the Scriptures, then it is
Scriptural regardless of whether the other Christians are part of the Church
Militant – the Church on earth – or the Church Triumphant – the Church in
Heaven.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The other side always answered the question with yes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They justified the inconsistency in their
position by saying that the New Testament tells us as Christians to ask our
living brethren for their prayers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This, while not wrong exactly, is a bit misleading.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the New Testament you find St. Paul
requesting the prayers of the Roman Christians (Rom. 15:30), the Colossians
(Col. 4:3), and the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You find him telling several different
groups of Christians that they are always in his prayers (Rom. 1:8-9, Col.
1:9-10, Phil. 1:3-4).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is St.
James’ instructions to pray for one another (Jas. 5:16).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are also general instructions to pray
for all Christians (Eph. 6:18) or even more generally, all people of all sorts
(1 Tim. 2:1) as well as instructions to bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2)
and to encourage and build one another up (1 Thess. 5:11).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those opposed to asking the faithful
departed for their prayers say that nowhere in all of these passages is there
an example of someone asking the departed for their prayers or an instruction
to ask the departed specifically for their prayers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With regards to the second point, however,
nowhere are we told not to ask the departed faithful for their prayers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With regards to the first, while obviously
those to whom St. Paul wrote requesting prayer were living at the time, he did
not tell them to stop praying for him when their earthly sojourn was over and
they departed to be with Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, I
am being neither facetious nor flippant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Those who are opposed to asking the faithful departed for their prayers
are generally also opposed to praying for the faithful departed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Praying for the faithful departed is another
practice that is Catholic – shared by all the ancient Churches, not just Rome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. James’ instructions to pray for one
another can be reasonably taken to exclude the departed as those for whom the
prayer is to be offered because he is not talking about prayers in general but
specifically about prayer for healing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, prayers for the faithful departed are clearly not prohibited in
the New Testament because St. Paul offers up just such a prayer for Onesiphorus
in 2 Tim. 1:18.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For that matter, every
prayer in the New Testament that resulted in a resurrection was obviously a
prayer for the departed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If this aspect
of Catholic practice, prayers <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">for</i> the
faithful departed, can be proven by the New Testament, and in case you failed
to notice I just proved it from the New Testament, then the other side of the
same coin, asking the faithful departed for their prayers can hardly be excluded
simply because there is neither example nor instructions for it <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">specifically</i> can be found.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I emphasize the word specifically because
the burden on those opposed to asking the departed for their prayers is
actually heavier than that which the normative principle implies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their burden is to prove that the faithful
departed, the Church Militant, are excluded from the general instructions to
bear one another’s burdens, encourage, and build one another up, in all of
which praying for one another in a more general sense than in James is
included.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is a burden of proof they cannot meet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, their assumption that the faithful
departed are automatically excluded from the New Testament’s instructions to
Christians to pray for one another and bear their burdens, is an assumption
that contradicts the entire New Testament on the subject of the union between
believers with Christ and through Christ each other in the Church, a union that
cannot be broken by death. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The faithful
departed, including the Old Testament saints, are depicted by St. Paul in
Hebrews 12<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>as “so great a cloud of
witnesses” on account of which we should “lay aside every weight, and the sin
which doth so easily beset us” so that we may “run with patience the race that
is set before us”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Later in the same
chapter when the Apostle uses Mt. Sinai and Mt. Zion as symbols of the Law and
Gospel covenants respectively, he tells his Hebrew Christian readers “ye are
come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and
church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of
all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect” (vv. 22-23) which would be an
incredibly strange way of wording it if he thought death to be an impassible
barrier between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not only are the faithful departed depicted as
a “cloud of witnesses” encompassing us, but believers in their earthly sojourn
are depicted as having already joined them in Heaven, “And hath raised us up
together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph.
2:6)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The New Testament teaches that on the first Whitsunday (the
Christian Pentecost), the Holy Ghost came down from Heaven and united the
disciples with Jesus Christ, Who had died, descended as Conqueror into Hell
(the Kingdom of death), rose again from the dead, and ascended to Heaven where
He sat down at the right hand of God the Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This union formed the Church, a united body
in which Jesus Christ is Head, and all who are baptized into the Christian
faith are members.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the establishment
of the Church the Old Testament saints, that is, those in the Old Testament who
were not just members of the Covenant nation of Israel physically, but were
also members of the spiritual Congregation of the Lord, who had been awaiting
their redemption in the Kingdom of death, were released by Jesus Christ, and
taken up to Heaven with Him when He returned there, were also joined that all
of God’s saints in all ages would be part of the one Body of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Church, each individual Christian is
united with Jesus Christ, and through Jesus Christ with each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus Christ having already conquered death,
believers being described as having “passed from death unto life” (past tense)
and having “everlasting life” (present tense) in this life (Jn. 5:24), death
cannot break this union and divide those who have departed this world from
those who remain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Jesus Christ and
to Jesus Christ, all believers are alive eternally:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">I am the resurrection,
and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he
live:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And whosoever liveth and believeth
in me shall never die. </i> (Jn. 11:25-26)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">After all, as He said to the Sadducees in rebuking their
denial of the resurrection, “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living”
(Mk. 12:27).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is what the Communion of the Saints that we confess in
the Apostles’ Creed is all about.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Those who condemn the practice of asking the Church
Triumphant to pray with you and for you just as you might ask the person
sitting in the pew next to you to do so seem to have a much harder time in
affirming this New Testament truth as those of us who do not wish to throw the
Catholic baby out with the Roman bathwater have in affirming the truth of
Jesus’ sole Mediatorship – even Rome affirms this – which they think,
mistakenly, they are safeguarding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
is a pretty strong indicator that they are the ones in error here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Another such indicator is how quickly they descend into vulgar
abuse when they cannot answer questions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Unable to answer how their position is consistent with the New Testament
teaching that all believers are one in Him to Whom there is no living and dead,
they resort to accusations of occult superstition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Asking the departed faithful to pray for
you, they say, violates the Old Testament prohibitions against such things as
necromancy, witchcraft, séances and the like.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Anybody who knows anything about these practices knows that they are
worlds removed from asking the faithful departed for their prayers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The practices condemned in the Old Testament
involve summoning the spirits of the dead as if they were your personal slaves,
either to obtain information from them, use them to manipulate the natural
world in a supernatural way, or both.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is no acknowledgement of God in these practices, the spirits of
the dead <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">qua </i>spirits of the dead are
invoked, the power to summon them is thought to be inherent in either the
ritual used or the summonor, and the power to do what the summonor wants or
tell him what he wants is thought to belong to the spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Suggesting that the Catholic practice falls
into this category is just a cheap insult.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The type one would expect from the sort of person who speaks of
ecclesiastical bodies which confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, in the
words of the ancient Creeds, as possessing the “spirit of Antichrist”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The New
Testament tells us who “Antichrist” is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>“</span>Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?” St.
John writes in 1 John 2:22, “He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the
Son.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Patriarch of Rome has been
guilty of overstepping the boundaries of his jurisdiction, usurping a supremacy
over the entire Church, and teaching various errors, among them his own
infallibility, but as someone who confesses the faith of Jesus Christ in the
orthodox form of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and governs a Church that
confesses this, the Apostles’ and the Athanasian Creeds, he cannot be the
Antichrist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What does it say about
Hyper-Protestants that whenever they use the word “Antichrist” it is in
association with the Roman Patriarch and his Church?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Indeed, there is another type of Hyper-Protestant than the
Calvinist type I have been addressing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In addition to identifying the Patriarch of Rome as the “Antichrist” and
the Church he governs as “Mystery Babylon”, this type insists that that
adherents of another world religion that literally fits the description of the
Antichrist in 1 John 2:22 in that it, like Christianity, claims to have
inherited the mantle of the Old Testament religion but departs from
Christianity on precisely the point that it denies “that Jesus is the Christ”,
cannot be criticized without incurring the curse of Genesis 12:3, as if St.
Paul had not identified for Christians once and for all Who the Seed of Abraham
is in Galatians 3:16.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I know Hyper-Protestants
of this type who cannot stand to hear anything negative, no matter how true,
said about this other world religion and its adherents, but who believe and
regurgitate every last piece of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>conspiratorial drivel they hear, not only about the Patriarch of Rome
and his Church, but about all the ancient Churches so that basically, while
believing nothing but good about people who deny that Jesus is the Christ, they
write off the vast majority of people in the world today and who have ever
lived who confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, their
Lord and Saviour, since the majority of people in the world today and who have
ever lived who confess Jesus as Christ, Son of God, Lord and Saviour, have
belonged to the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and other ancient Churches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These same Hyper-Protestants claim to be
Spirit-filled and Spirit-led Christians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>One would think that if the Spirit that filled and led them were the
Holy Ghost, He would convict them of the sin of participating in the last
socially acceptable bigotry (except the genocidal anti-white racial hatred
currently being displayed by “anti-racist” academics and activists),
anti-Catholic bigotry.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Be a Protestant, but don’t be a Hyper-Protestant nut!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977100651062963844.post-41895008541276882062023-08-04T00:02:00.001-05:002023-08-04T00:58:26.909-05:00Barbenheimer Meets the Terminator<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Just when
everyone thought that the combination of two and a half years of bat flu
paranoia, online streaming services, and new film releases consisting mostly of
the double digit latest installments in series that everyone had grown tired of
at least a decade ago had finally killed off the cinema, Barbenheimer – the
simultaneous release of the films <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Barbie</i>
and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Oppenheimer </i>-brought the teetering
industry back from the brink of bankruptcy, as both films broke box office
records their opening weekend.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The meme
itself, which encouraged people to watch both as a double feature, probably had
something to do with it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t know who
exactly came up with it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a well-known
phenomenon in which rival film studies release similar films around the same
time – think <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Deep Impact</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Armageddon</i> in 1998, for one example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is obviously the exact opposite of
that, two movies that could hardly be more different from each other being
released at the same.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course this is
not exactly an unusual phenomenon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Arguably, it occurs every weekend.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In this case, however, the difference between the two seems to have struck
someone, or rather a whole lot of someones as the popularity of the meme
attests, as being much larger than is usual.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or maybe it was just the
catchiness of the portmanteau.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first is a live action comedy featuring
Margot Robbie as the fashion doll upon which Mattel built its toy empire.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The second is a three hour biopic starring
Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer, the physicist from Berkeley who was led
the Manhattan Project in uncorking the bottle and releasing the genie of
nuclear weapons into the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Barbie</i> being only an hour shorter than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Oppenheimer</i>, bringing the total running
time of the two to five hours, it would have been a long night at the movies
for anyone who took the meme literally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Not, “watch the entire Ring cycle in one sitting” long, but a step in
that direction.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Barbie </span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">proved to be the bigger hit of the two, taking
in almost twice as much as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Oppenheimer</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since it is a highly politicized movie, a
fact the filmmakers made no attempt to hide prior to release, some have jumped
on this as debunking the maxim “go woke, go broke”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An op-ed cartoon in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Baltimore Sun</i>, for example, depicts Ron DeSantis as saying “go woke
go broke” as he is trampled by a mob rushing into a theatre showing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Barbie</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Tori Otten wrote an editorial for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
New Republic</i> maintaining that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Barbie</i>
opening weekend sales debunk the saying that she dubs “far right”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps she has never heard of the other
saying “the exception that proves the rule”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That might be what we are seeing here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Then again, the rule may simply not apply.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The implications of “go woke go broke” are
that companies that were originally apolitical and sold their products to a
general consumer base will lose a lot of customers if they start injecting politics,
especially of the obnoxious, preachy, ultra-left kind that is now called
“woke”, into their brand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What
happened with Bud Light earlier this year is the textbook example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or, and this is particularly the case when
it comes to pop culture, if a story or character originally created to appeal
to the kinds of people the woke hate is suddenly given a woke makeover, it is
not likely to go over well. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If someone
were to film a remake of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dirty Harry</i>,
for example, telling the story from the perspective of the liberal mayor and
police commissioner, with Inspector Callahan breaking down into tears, coming
around to their point of view, throwing away his .44 Magnum instead of his
star, and hugging Scorpio and begging his forgiveness, then I would expect that
movie to do exceptionally poorly in the box office.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A movie, on the other hand, about the doll
that has been associated with the Helen Gurley Brown “you can have it all,
girl” type feminism from pretty much the day Ruth Handler ripped her off from a
more risqué German doll marketed for adult males and repackaged her in a pink
box for girls, is not likely to be harmed at the box office by its having a
feminist message.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Amusingly,
the film preaches feminism in such a way as to completely undermine its
message.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>*spoiler alert* <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The title character, a feminist of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Cosmo</i> type her brand has long
represented, lives in a world inhabited by her multiple versions, and the other
characters of the franchise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That world
is a complete gynocracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most people
would probably call it a matriarchy but none of the females who rule the place
seem to have any maternal instincts – except discontinued pregnant Midge - so
gynocracy makes more sense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To
“stereotypical Barbie” this is a utopia.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is also a mirror-image parody of what feminists think the world looked
like before feminism and would still look like without feminism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Barbie thinks that due to her influence the
real world is like hers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then she has to
visit it and discovers that it is not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the real world she is verbally dressed down by a young girl who
spouts the extra crazy version of feminism that thinks that women are all
oppressed “A Handmaid’s Tale” style in the Western world today and that Barbie
is the “fascist” enabler of said oppression.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This girl and her mother end up going back with Barbie to Barbieland,
where they discover that it has been taken over by Ryan Gosling’s Ken, who had
gone to the real world with Barbie, read about “patriarchy” in a library, went
home and easily replaced the gynocracy with what he thought “patriarchy”
was.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Note that patriarchy is the term
feminists use for a society ruled by men <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">qua</i>
men, who oppress women <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">qua</i> women,
basically the Marxist concept of haves oppressing have nots, with the sexes
taking the place of the economic classes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The same objection that I made to matriarchy earlier apply to this usage
of patriarchy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The term logically
suggests the traditional authority belonging to fathers which is a good thing
not a bad thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Androcracy would be a
better word for what the feminists are talking about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not likely to catch on, but then as the
thing it would denote only exists – and only ever has existed - in the fevered brains
of feminists, it is not really needed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Now, and
this is the point, nobody with an IQ over ten who watches this movie is going
to think that the actual world around them either a) resembles Barbieland with
the sex/gender roles reversed or b) resembles Kendom, the weird caricature that
the idea of “patriarchy” inspired Ken to create.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Especially since in the movie, Barbie
herself, after restoring her world to the way it was, sort of, opts to leave
Barbieland for the real world and become a real girl with the help of the ghost
of Ruth Handler, played by Rhea Perlman, who for some unexplained reason has the
same powers as the Blue Fairy from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Pinocchio</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>Something similar can be said about the
movie’s man-bashing, which Piers Morgan and others have criticized. (1)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, the movie does depict its male
characters as stupid, incompetent, clumsy and boorish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can’t imagine anyone, however, who has not
already been thoroughly brainwashed by feminism, watching the movie, and
thinking that this is an accurate depiction of men.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor, I suspect, are many likely to be
persuaded to think that the film’s portrayal of men accurately depicts how men
see women, which is obviously the point it is, at least on the surface, trying
to make.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is simply too much of a
caricature to be taken seriously.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
film comes across as pretending to promote feminism while actually satirizing
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Except that this does not mesh well
with anything else I have ever heard about filmmaker Greta Gerwig, I would be
inclined to say this must be intentional.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Many have
criticized <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Barbie</i> as being far too
political for a children’s movie and this criticism would be accurate
regardless of whether it is the woke, feminist, propaganda that on the surface
it can be read as or whether it is actually the most brilliant, satirical,
takedown of the same ever made.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Except,
of course, that it is obviously not a children’s movie as ought to be evident
from the rating.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra </i>(2009) and
its sequel, and the more successful <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Transformers</i>
film series, also based on children’s toys, this film’s target audience is not
children playing with the toys today, but the children who played with the toys
decades ago and are today adults, if only in the sense of having passed the age
of majority.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Oppenheimer</span></i><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> seems set to become Christopher Nolan’s most
successful film yet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would probably
have done even better if he had not insisted on shooting it only in IMAX, forcing
moviegoers to either pay the steep price of an IMAX ticket or watch it in a
theatre for which it is not really formatted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a very timely film.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I suspect that a lot of people would agree
with that statement because, due to the war between Russia and Ukraine and
NATO’s involvement in said conflict on Ukraine’s side, we are closer to nuclear
war than we have been since the Cold War ended.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is certainly a valid reason for thinking
the film to be timely<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not the
reason behind my statement, however.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Before looking at that reason a few remarks about the movie are in
order.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The film
does not just cover the period in which the atomic bomb was being
developed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It also looks at
Oppenheimer’s revulsion at the destructive fruit that his efforts produced, his
unsuccessful attempts to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle and the
ensuing falling away between him and his former colleagues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The movie zig-zags between this latter part
of Oppenheimer’s life, the period in which he led the Manhattan Project’s Los
Alamos Laboratory, and an even earlier, pre-war period of his career.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this earlier period he apparently
identified as Snow White’s evil stepmother.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Or, at any rate, he tried to dispatch his tutor, Lord Patrick Blackett, played
in the film by James D’Arcy, in the same manner employed by the witch in her
final attempt on Snow White’s life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since
the apple went uneaten, neither dwarves nor prince were needed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They would have been available for the movie since Disney kicked them
out of its new ultra-woke live action remake of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Snow White</i>. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">In the
storyline about the post-war part of his life the dominant theme is the growing
animosity between him and US Atomic Energy Commission chair Lewis Strauss,
portrayed in the film by Robert Downey Jr.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The film is shot partly in black and white, partly in colour, with the
colour parts depicting when the story is told from Oppenheimer’s point of view,
the black and white depicting when it is told from Strauss’ point of view.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is best to know that going into the
theatre because otherwise the natural assumption would be to think it had
something to do with the different timeframes the movie keeps switching
between.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The contest between Oppenheimer
and Strauss culminated in the 1954 AEC hearings in which Oppenheimer was asked
about his Communist associations (before the war his social circle included
several Communists, including his pre-war girlfriend Jean Tatlock, portrayed by
Florence Pugh in the movie, Katherine “Kitty” Puening, portrayed by Emily Blunt
in the movie, who became his wife, and his younger brother Frank, portrayed by
Dylan Arnold) and stripped of his security clearance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Strauss’s purpose in these hearings was more
to publicly humiliate Oppenheimer than to harm him professionally – the
clearance was set to expire the day after he was stripped of it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ultimately, it cost Strauss his own
appointment to Eisenhower’s cabinet as Secretary of Commerce when the US Senate
voted against confirmation of the appointment in part because of the lobbying
of scientists looking to avenge Oppenheimer. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In depicting these events Nolan does not
stray from the Hollywood party-line on “McCarthyism”, which is not surprising
since if any film since John Wayne starred in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Big Jim McLain</i> in 1952, two years before the Oppenheimer hearings,
has dared to tell the other side of the story I am not aware of it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Accordingly the film’s precise historical
accuracy fails somewhat on this point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That Strauss in hauling Oppenheimer before the AEC’s Personnel Security
Board was carrying out a personal vendetta is accurate enough.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That the charges against him were bogus,
well, that is not as clear as the film suggests and as many people think.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That J. Brandon Magoo took it upon himself,
last December, to indulge in the empty gesture of voiding the revocation of J.
Robert Oppenheimer’s security clearance, suggests there might have been more to
the charges than meets the eye.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The reason,
however, that I said that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Oppenheimer</i>
is a very timely film, is not the Russia-Ukrainian War and the renewed threat
of nuclear annihilation that the repentant Oppenheimer felt to be the
inevitable outcome of his work nor does it have anything to do with Communism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A notable moment in the film is when the
title character quotes “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds” upon
his realization of just what he had unleashed, a line which earlier he had
translated upon request from his pre-war Commie girlfriend during an, ahem,
intimate moment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The classical Sanskrit
original of the quote comes from the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Bhagavad
Gita</i>, an important section of the sixth parva or book of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mahabharata</i>, the longest epic poem still
extent and one of the principal Hindu scriptures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In its original context, the line is spoken
by Krishna, avatar of the Hindu supreme deity Vishnu, to Prince Arjuna, the hero
of the epic, and its intent is to convince Arjuna to go to war.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When Oppenheimer took to quoting this line
in his post-war life it was rather to the opposite effect of this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another contrast, however, jumps out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oppenheimer in his testimony before the
USAEC Personnel Security Board in 1954 said:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white; color: #202124;">When you see something that is
technically sweet, </span>you go ahead and do it and you argue about what
to do about it only after you have had your technical success<span style="background: white; color: #202124;">. That is the way it was with the atomic
bomb.</span><o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">George
Grant, the greatest thinker my country, the Dominion of Canada, has ever
produced, was as fond of quoting these words, especially the first part up to
the words “do it”, as Oppenheimer himself was of quoting the line from the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Gita</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Grant believed that in these words Oppenheimer had captured the spirit
that animates Modern technological progress and had also expressed in the same
words, the very thing that was objectionable, or at the very least problematic
from a Christian, ethical, and philosophical point of view, in said progress.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The question of whether or not something
should be done is made subordinate to the question of whether or not something
can be done and postponed until it is too late to ask the question because the
damage has already been done.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Given
what has already been noted about Oppenheimer’s thoughts, later in life,
towards the atomic bomb, his words have the force of a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mea maxima culpa</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">As the
trailers for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Barbie</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Oppenheimer</i> were released and the hype
for these movies grew we began to hear story after story about another
technological genie in the process of being released from its bottle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is the genie of artificial intelligence
or AI.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">That AI
poses a threat to mankind as great or greater than that of the Manhattan
Project’s invention is something that even Elon Musk, the last person on earth
one would suspect harboured technoskeptical sentiments, suggested that the
brakes be applied.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the man
behind Tesla has been issuing these warnings for quite some time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The AI threat that he has been talking
about is a lot more serious than the threat to their careers that the striking
Hollywood actors began to perceive about the time AI channels began to flood
Youtube offering us artificially generated covers of every song ever written by
every artist that never covered it. <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5585185/We-forced-serve-immortal-ROBOT-DICTATOR-warns-billionaire-Elon-Musk.html">About
five years ago he warned</a></span> that AI was like “summoning the devil”,
that it needed to be proactively regulated, because “By the time we are
reactive in AI regulation, it will be too late”, that it could produce an
“immortal dictator from which we would never escape” and posed “a fundamental
risk to the existence of human civilization”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Of course
when it comes to warning about AI, Musk was beaten to the punch by decades by a
film maker.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As you have probably
deduced from the title of this essay I am talking about James Cameron.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Ottawa a couple of weeks ago, when he was
asked by CTV News Chief Political Correspondent Vassy Kapelos to comment about
recent warnings regarding AI <span class="MsoHyperlink"><a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/i-warned-you-guys-in-1984-terminator-filmmaker-james-cameron-says-of-ai-s-risks-to-humanity-1.6484546">he
said</a></span> “</span>I warned you guys in 1984, and you didn't listen.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1984, in addition to being the title of George Orwell’s
novel warning about a totalitarian dystopia, was the year that Cameron released
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Terminator</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Directed and co-written by Cameron, this
film starred Arnold Schwarzenegger in the title role as a cyborg assassin, sent
back in time to assassinate Sarah Connor, the character played by Linda
Hamilton.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Terminator was sent by
Skynet, an Artificial Intelligence designed by Cyberdyne Systems and placed in
charge of nuclear defences that would declare war on humanity in the future and
eventually be defeated by a resistance led by Sarah Connor’s son John.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The future John Connor, to protect his
mother and his own existence from the Terminator, sends one of his men, Kyle
Reese, portrayed by Michael Biehn back in time to protect Sarah.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reese, over the course of the movie, becomes
John Connor’s father, and he and Sarah eventually defeat the Terminator at the
cost of his own life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Before the
Terminator is destroyed it loses an arm, however, which in the first of many
sequels it is revealed falls into the hands of the creators of the future AI
enemy of mankind, becoming the means by which they learn how to develop that
technology in the first place.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Throughout the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Terminator</i>
movie franchise both sides are constantly struggling to prevent an outcome that
proves to be inevitable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Skynet is
constantly fighting against its own future defeat at the hands of the
resistance, the Connors and their allies are constantly trying to prevent the
rise of Skynet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fatality both are
fighting a losing battle against arises out of the dilemma attached to the concept
of time travel, that if you go back in time to change something, after having
changed it you lose the motive to have gone back in time to begin with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The present attempt to prevent AI from
becoming the threat already visible on the horizon of the future often seems
similarly futile but it is not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
battle is not against a future that cannot be changed because it is the fixed
reference point for everyone working to change it in the past as in the
movies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is against a future that is
only inevitable if we continue to accept the idea that when it comes to science
and technology, we must first find out if something can be done, and, after
having done it, only then ask the question whether we should have done it or
not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We must reject, in other words,
the Oppenheimer ethic, and in its place firmly establish – or re-establish – the
idea that we must first ask the question of whether or not something should be
done, and not bother at all with the question of whether it can be done unless
the answer to the first question is firmly determined to be yes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we don’t, we are at risk of unleashing a technological
threat that would render the “battle of the sexes” type controversy surrounding
the first of the movies discussed here moot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For if soulless, sexless, machines take over the world, this would indeed
be an end to any sort of “patriarchy”, real or imagined, but it would also be “Hasta
la vista, Barbie”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>(1)</o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -18pt;">I
find it hilarious that Piers Morgan has been taking this both personally and
far more seriously than I have. Morgan is
liberal on most social and moral issues, albeit liberal in the sense of thirty
years ago rather than today. Indeed, the
question he posed in ranting about <i>Barbie</i>’s
man-bashing was “why does empowering women have to be about trashing men?” He
framed it in that way to indicate his support for “empowering women”. Frankly, I think there is far too much “empowering”
going on in this day and age. While people
who talk about empowerment generally conceive of it in terms of self-fulfillment,
in reality power is the ability to coerce others to do your will. It is something that is very dangerous and
needs to be constantly held in check and under control. What is sorely needed today is not for more people
of more types to have more power, as the left thinks, but a restoration and
revival of authority, the respected right to lead, vested by prescription – the
quality of having been tested and proven since time immemorial – in traditional
institutions, the only thing capable of containing power and bending it to
serve the ends of civilization, rather than unleashing it in a destructive
manner. The terms “patriarchy” and “matriarchy”
if they were used to mean what their component parts suggest, which neither of
them is, would denote fatherly and motherly authority respectively, both good
things, -archy being the suffix corresponding to authority as –cracy is the
suffix corresponding to power. As far
as “empowering women” specifically goes, I am unapologetically of the same mind
as Dr. Johnson, “nature has given women so much power that the law has very
wisely given them little”, and Stephen Leacock, “women need not more freedom but
less”, and think that every wave of feminism, including the first, was based on
a fundamentally erroneous miscalculation of how little power women already had in the world, but did not take offense at
this movie the way Morgan did.</span></p>Gerry T. Nealhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12137796641408373451noreply@blogger.com1