Renouncing Rome: A Defense of orthodox Christianity according to the Reformed Faith

Tim Staples' Straw-Man

2010-12-30T15:44:00.001-08:00

Last February pop Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid hosted fellow apologist, Tim Staples', short article here.

The article boasts:

"A bedrock Protestant argument against the Papacy gets reduced to rubble."

To the mainline Protestant who argues against Romanism, this statement is nothing short of a lie. "Bedrock argument" hardly describes the "petros/petra" line some Protestants like to use against the Roman Catholic Papacy. In fact, I would go so far as to say this argument doesn't make the list for many Protestant defenders, since there are a great number of Protestant theologians who readily and happily admit that "Peter" in the Koine Greek means "rock". The folks that I have seen promulgate the "petros/petra" argument are usually the Jack Chicks or KJV Onlyists, a group that does not at all represent the standards of Protestantism, whether in doctrine, action, or apologetic argument.

So right before we even delve into the article itself, the headline gives us reason to pause and consider its grossly exaggerated lie.

You participate in an employee Bible study every day on your lunch hour. This particular Monday, Fred, a new employee, is introduced to the group. He announces he's a former Catholic and is also a part-time minister at a nondenominational “Bible church” in a nearby town.

As you begin, Fred opens his Bible and begins to “explain” why the papacy is “unbiblical.” The other Catholics in the room look to you expectantly. They know you've been attending a Catholic apologetics training course at your parish, and as you look around, you realize you're the only one in the room who is ready to respond.

You take a deep breath and interrupt. “Fred, what exactly is your main objection to the Catholic teaching on the papacy?”

Fred's response is as blunt as it is sincere. “It's unbiblical.”

You grin to hide your nervousness. “Actually, it is biblical, and if you turn to...”

“No, it's not.”

“Yes, it is.”

Right away the reader is implicitly told through this very unrealistic dialogue that Fred the Protestant is simply a sincere idiot who immediately cuts into the Catholic's explanation, nearly transforming the discussion into a "No it isn't," "Yes it is" ad nauseam. Had this article been aimed towards Jack Chick disciples or King James Onlyists, I could see some reality in this scenario. But, since this article boasts that it will crush a "bedrock Protestant" argument, the scene is in complete misrepresentation. Had Mr. Staples truly intended to offer a substantial realistic Protestant viewpoint for Fred, he would not have had Fred bluntly interrupt the Catholic's response to the subject being biblical. Any Protestant would welcome such interaction from Roman Catholics, especially when focused on specific scriptural passages Catholics wish us to believe describe or prefigure the Papacy.

What Staples has presented thus far is a very Roman Catholic misinterpretation of a Protestant's response to the argument. But it gets even more interesting...

Man, oh man, this is getting off to a great start, you think to yourself in exasperation as you open your Bible to Matthew 16:17-19 and read aloud: “And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' “

“That passage does not refer to Peter as the rock!” Fred emphatically declares. “Contrary to the erroneous Catholic interpretation, it refers to Christ as the rock. For 30 years, I believed that Peter was the rock, but then I found the original Greek proves he wasn't. There's a distinction between the two “rocks” in Greek. The text actually reads, 'You are petros,' which means small pebble, 'and on this petra,' which means massive boulder, 'I will build My Church.' The first rock is Peter, the second rock is Christ. See? Christ didn't build the Church on Peter, but on Himself.”

Fred's response is, in short, a straw-man. Protestants who steer clear from this unstable argument find no point at all in Staples' article. Instead of using the words Staples gives Fred, allow me to speak for Fred in a more realistic way after the Catholic's citation of the biblical passage,

"Actually, interesting you should start the passage from verse 17. If you don't mind I'd like to make sure the context of the passage is taken into consideration so please allow me to read from verse 13. I'll be reading from the ESV. '13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"' Now, sir, why do you suppose Christ asked this question?"

Catholic: Well, He's asking them whether the people believe in His divinity.

Fred: Right, and further, He's wanting to know what they themselves believe of His divinity, as He clearly gets to the point in verse 15, "Who do you say that I am". What happens next?

Catholic: Peter immediately answers. I'd like to stress that it is Peter who answers for all the apostles.

Fred: Noted, though that bears no indication that Peter is the supreme leader of the apostles, which is what you were implying by your statement, correct?

Catholic: Well, I do think that is significant...

Fred: Let's get back to that. Now, Peter answers first, right? Is this Peter's own words or divine revelation?

Catholic: Divine revelation, of course. Scripture makes that clear in verse 17, "flesh and blood have not revealed this to you."

Fred: Quite significant! Peter has just confessed Jesus to be the divine Messiah, the Son of God. Christ builds upon this by stating this was not some random thought on Peter's part, but a direct revelation from God the Father Himself. If we want to follow along in the context of the passage, take into consideration the grammatical structure of the Koine Greek, and compare the whole of the New Testament we cannot conclude that Peter alone is the "petra" Jesus is referring to.

Catholic: Oh? I'd like proof of this if you don't mind.

Fred: Certainly. Allow me to quote Reformed Baptist Dr. James White--

Catholic: Him! Oh I don't listen to him! He's so arrogant and his doctorate is uncredited, invalid.

Fred: Well, I could argue those points, but be that as it may let's suppose for the sake of argument that he is, as you claim, a nasty man without a valid doctorate. Does this invalidate his argument? If he's on par with us credential-wise then it should be perfectly easy to refute him and I'll simply be emberresed using him as a reference.

Catholic: Alright, fair enough. What's your quote?

Fred: Dr. White points out in Matthew 16:18:

As we simply translate the passage and attempt to ascertain the meaning, we note that Jesus begins with direct personal address to Peter. "And I say to you (soi)" is singular, addressed to Peter and to Peter alone. This is continued in the first part of the main statement, "You (su,) are (singular) Peter." This is known as direct address. Jesus is speaking in the first person, and Peter is in the second person, being directly addressed by the Lord. Up to this point, all is clear and understandable.
Then we run into the phrase at issue. kai. evpi. tau,th| th/| pe,tra is indeed singular; there is only one "rock" in view. The issue is, to what does tau,th| refer? As a pronoun, it has an antecedent, a referent that it is pointing back to. Rome insists the referent is Peter.* But if it is, why use a demonstrative pronoun at all? Jesus has used two personal pronouns of Peter already in this sentence, soi and su,. He could have easily said, "and upon you the rock," (evpi. se, or evpi. soi, th/| pe,tra). But again, He didn’t. Instead, he switches from direct address to the demonstrative "this." I have expressed this, in non-technical language, as going from second person, "you, Peter," to third person, "this rock." "This rock" is referring to something other than the person who was being addressed in the preceding phrase, something that we find in the immediate context. A natural reading of the passage (one that I truly believe would be nigh unto universal if history had not fallen out as it did, with only one "apostolic see" in the West, the continuance of the Empire in the East, etc.) makes it plain what must function as the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun:
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
The confession that Peter gives of the Messiahship of Jesus is the central thought of the entire passage. It is the reason for the trip to Caesarea Philippi. Jesus indicates that Peter has just been the recipient of divine revelation. God, in His grace, has given to Peter an insight that does not find its origin in the will of man, but in God the Father Himself. The content of that confession is, in fact, divine revelation, immediately impressed upon the soul of Peter. This is the immediate context of verse 18, and to divorce verse 18 from what came before leads to the errant shift of attention from the identity of Christ to the identity of Peter that is found in Roman Catholic exegesis. Certainly we cannot accept the idea, presented in Roman theology, that immediately upon pronouncing the benediction upon Peter’s confession of faith, the focus shifts away from that confession and what it reveals to Peter himself and some office with successors based upon him! Not only does the preceding context argue against this, but the following context likewise picks up seemlessly with what came before: the identity of Jesus as Messiah. Hence, the logical antecedent for tau,th| is Peter’s confession. Such not only commands the most logical grammatical sense, but it also commands the obvious teaching of the rest of the New Testament itself! While Peter falls out of view by Acts 15, the centrality of the Messiahship of Jesus continues in the forefront throughout the recorded history of the primitive Church.
Hence I have suggested that the shift from the direct address of Peter to the use of the demonstrative pronoun, pointing us back to something prior, specifically, the confession of faith, that will function as the foundation of the Church Christ promises to build, is significant and must be explained by the Roman apologist who seeks to present an interpretation that is to be binding upon all Christians.

So you see, sir, the issue at hand isn't as simple as you make it. Greek grammar is incredibly vital when discussing this sort of thing

Catholic: I, uh...yes, of course. But, well, there are other Protestants whom I respect as doctors who DO indeed say Peter was the rock!

Here, dear reader, is where we resume Staples' article as it leads into the Catholic gentleman's point in the dialogue...

“I understand your argument, but there are problems with it. Petros is simply the masculine form of the feminine Greek noun petra. Like Spanish and French, Greek nouns have gender. So when the female noun petra, large rock, was used as Simon's name, it was rendered in the masculine form as petros. Otherwise, calling him Petra would have been like calling him Michelle instead of Michael, or Louise instead of Louis.”

“Wrong.” Fred shakes his head. “Petros means a little rock, a pebble. Christ didn't build the Church on a pebble. He is the Rock, the petra, the big boulder the Church is built on.”

Of course, we do not confess this sort of straw-man defence, so there really is no point commenting on it.

You take a deep breath, calm your nerves a little, and continue. “Well, what would you say if I told you that even Protestant Greek scholars like D.A. Carson and Joseph Thayer admit there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra in the Koine Greek of the New Testament? [Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), 507; D.A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), vol. 8, 368.] As you pointed out, petra means a 'rock.' It even usually means a 'large rock.' And that's exactly what petros means, too — large rock. It does not mean 'pebble' or 'small stone,' as you've been told. The Greek word for 'pebble' or 'small stone' is lithos, not petros.

First, it is erroneous to call Joseph Thayer a "Protestant Greek scholar" since he was not Protestant at all, but Unitarian. Unitarianism is distinct from Christianity in that it denies the doctrine of the Trinity clearly taught in Scripture. Christ is regarded as supernatural, but certainly not God Himself in human flesh. For Mr. Staples to claim Thayer was Protestant is just as gross an error as saying Pope Benedict 16th is a five-point Calvinist. Be that as it may, despite Staples' error the Thayer Lexicon is definately a valuable tool to the biblical student. My own personal copy is an 1889 edition, and though quite valuable it is somewhat outdated. This is why most biblical students and scholars prefer the Bauer-Danker Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature over Thayer's.

Second, let's consider what Thayer actually said in his lexicon.

πέτρᾳ ...Mt. xvi. 18 [some interpp. regard the distinction (generally observed in classic Greek; see the Comm. and cf. Schmidt, Syn. ch 51, 4-6) between πέτρᾳ, the massive living rock, and πέτρος, a detached but large fragment, as important for the correct understanding of this passage; others explain the different genders here as due first to the personal then to the material reference. - Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, 1889 ed., p. 507, emphasis mine

Πέτρος (an appellative prop. name, signifying 'a stone', 'a rock', 'a ledge' or 'cliff'; used metaph. of a soul hard and unyielding, and so resembling a rock.................This is not the place to relate and refute the ecclesiastical traditions concerning Peter's being the founder of the church at Rome and bishop of it for twenty-five years and more; - Ibid, p. 508

Contrary to Mr. Staples' claims, Thayer does indeed distinguish between 'petras', the massive living rock, and 'petros', the detached but large fragment. Given this information it is easy for the casual reader to realize that Peter cannot be the 'masculine petras' Jesus intends to build His church upon. Therefore, the Roman claim fails.

But let us also consider what Carson says regarding the passage. From the Expositor's Bible Commentary:

18 And I tell you… : Weiss sees a contrast between Jesus and his Father, as if Jesus were saying, “Just as the Father revealed something to you and thereby honored you, so now I do the same.” But the formula is common enough in places without such a contrast, and this may be an unwarranted refinement. The words simply point to what is coming.

that you are Peter… : The underlying Aramaic kepa (“Cephas” in John 1:42; 1Cor 15:5; Gal 1:18 et al.) was an accepted name in Jesus’ day (see on 4:18). Though B.F. Meyer (pp. 186-87) insists that Jesus gave the name Cephas to Simon at this point, Jesus merely made a pun on the name (4:18; 10:2; Mark 3:16; John 1:42). Yet Meyer is right to draw attention to the “rock” motifs on which the name Cephas is based (pp. 185-86, 194-95), motifs related to the netherworld and the temple (and so connoting images of “gates of Hades” and “church”: see below.) The Greek Kephas (Eng. “Cephas”) transliterates the Aramaic, and Petros (“Peter”) is the closest Greek translation. P. Lampe’s argument (“Das Spiel mit dem Petrusnamen—Matt. xvi.18,” NTS 25 [1979]: 227-45) that both kepa and petros originally referred to a small “stone,” but not a “rock” (on which something could be built), until Christians extended the term to explain the riddle of Simon’s name is baseless. True, the Greekpetros commonly means “stone” in pre-Christian literature; but the Aramaickepa , which underlies the Greek, means “(massive) rock” (cf. H. Clavier, “Pe÷troß kai« pe÷tra,” Neutestamentliche Studien, ed. W. Eltester [Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1957], pp. 101-3).

and on this rock … “Rock” now becomes petra (feminine), and on the basis of the distinction between petros (above) and petra (here), many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere “stone,” it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the “rock,” as Peter himself attests (1 Peter 2:98) (so, among others, Lenski, Gander, Walvoord). Others adopt some other distinction: e.g., “upon this rock of revealed truth—the truth you have just confessed—I will build my church” (Allen). Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.

1. Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepa was used in both clauses (“you are kepa and on this kepa “), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.

2. Paronomasia of various kinds is very common in the Bible and should not be belittled (cf. Barry J. Beitzel, “Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,” Trinity Journal [1980]: 5-20; BDF, par. 488).

3. Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos (“stone” of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun—and that is just the point!

4. The objection that Peter considers Jesus the rock is insubstantial because metaphors are commonly used variously, till they become stereotyped, and sometimes even then. Here Jesus builds his church; in 1 Corinthians 3:10, Paul is “an expert builder.” In 1 Corinthians 3:11, Jesus is the church’s foundation; in Ephesians 2:19-20, the apostles and prophets are the foundation (cf. also Rev 21:14), and Jesus is the “cornerstone.” Here Peter has the keys; in Revelation 1:18; 3:7, Jesus has the keys. In John 9:5, Jesus is “the light of the world”; in Matthew 5:14, his disciples are. None of these pairs threatens Jesus’ uniqueness. They simply show how metaphors must be interpreted primarily with reference to their immediate contexts.

5. In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation.

None of this requires that conservative Roman Catholic views be endorsed (for examples of such views, cf. Lagrange, Sabourin). The text says nothing about Peter’s successors, infallibility, or exclusive authority. These late interpretations entail insuperable exegetical and historical problems—e.g., after Peter’s death, his “successor” would have authority over a surviving apostle, John. What the NT does show is that Peter is the first to make this formal confession and that his prominence continues in the earliest years of the church (Acts 1-12). But he, along with John, can be sent by other apostles (Acts 8:14); and he is held accountable for his actions by the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:1-18) and rebuked by Paul (Gal 2:11-14). He is, in short, primus inter pares (“first among equals”); and on the foundation of such men (Eph 2:20), Jesus built his church. That is precisely why Jesus, toward the close of his earthly ministry spent so much time with them. The honor was not earned but stemmed from divine revelation (v.17) and Jesus’ building work (v.18). - emphasis mine

While Carson allows for Peter to be the rock which Christ builds His church, he makes perfectly plain and obvious that this in no way whatsoever bolsters Roman Catholic claims to Peter being the first Pope. In fact, Peter isn't even the sole foundation! When taken as a whole, the New Testament does not so much as even hint at any supremacy supposedly given to Peter. The Greek Orthodox Churches hailed the Bishop of Rome as primus inter pares, first among equals, because of the (historically inaccurate) tradition that Peter founded the church in Rome. However, these same Orthodox Churches will in the exact same breath point out that they do not in any way shape or form regard the Bishop of Rome as Supreme, Universal Bishop, Head of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. They will, by use of Scripture and history, prove with ease that early Christianity never heard of the Papacy nor operated under one Universal Bishop as Roman Catholic churches do today.

With these citations quoted in context, it becomes clear why Mr. Staples refused to actually quote them.

“In Matthew 4:3,” you continue, “the devil cajoles Jesus to perform a miracle and transform some stones, lithoi, the Greek plural for lithos, into bread. In John 10:31, certain Jews pick up stones, lithoi, to stone Jesus with. In 1 Peter 2:5, St. Peter describes Christians as 'living stones,' lithoi, which form a spiritual house. If St. Matthew had wanted to draw a distinction between a big rock and a little rock in Matthew 16:17-19, he could have by using lithos, but he didn't. The rock is St. Peter!”

Indeed, 'lithos' does mean 'small stone', but as we have seen from the previous citations this doesn't present any issues whatever for the Protestant. The detached boulder is Peter, the rock itself is Christ.

Wilma, the VP of finance and a member of your parish has a thought, “Fred, how do you explain the fact that Jesus addresses St. Peter directly seven times in this short passage? It doesn't make sense that He would address everything to St. Peter and then say, 'By the way, I'm building the Church on Me.' The context seems pretty clear that Jesus gave authority to St. Peter, naming him the rock.”

The exact number of times a person is mentioned means absolutely nothing. In fact, the Apostle Paul is mentioned more than Peter in the books of Acts! The New Testament epistles are penned mostly by Paul, with only two short letters by Peter. Most of the thick of Christian doctrine comes from Paul's quill rather than Peter's. Wouldn't it make sense that the meat of doctrine should come from Peter rather than Paul or any other Apostle, that is, if Peter were truly the first Pope?

Fred shakes his head. “I don't think so. And even if petros and petra mean the same thing, Jesus surely made the distinction with His hand gestures or tone of voice when He said, 'You are rock, and on this rock I will build My Church.' “

Betty, another young Catholic in the group, chimes in. “I don't think it's much use to conjecture about what Jesus' hand gestures or voice intonations might have been, since we can't know what they were. And doesn't that kind of speculation contradict your belief in the 'Bible alone' theory? Anyway, speculation aside, we do know that Jesus definitely said, 'You are rock, and on this rock I will build My Church.' Going from the text alone, His meaning seems crystal-clear to me.”

Staples' portrayal of the Protestant objection is just plain insulting. No Protestant who is serious about his biblical knowledge would ever use this 'argument' against Rome. I believe it speaks for itself regarding Mr. Staples' attempts at any sort of Protestant/Catholic dialogue.

You notice several heads nodding in agreement. Fred's isn't one of them. “But getting back to the Greek, Fred,” you say, “notice Matthew used the demonstrative pronoun taute, which means 'this very,' when he referred to the rock on which the Church would be built: 'You are Peter, and on taute petra,' this very rock, 'I will build My Church.'
“Also, when a demonstrative pronoun is used with the Greek word for 'and,' which is 'kai,' the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. In other words, when Jesus says, 'You are rock, and on this rock I will build My Church,' the second rock He refers to has to be the same rock as the first one. Peter is the rock in both cases.
“Jesus could have gotten around it if He'd wanted to. He didn't have to say, 'And,' kai, 'on this rock I will build My Church.' He could've said, 'But,' alla, 'on this rock I will build My Church,' meaning another rock. He would have then had to explain who or what this other rock was. But He didn't do that.”

Let us recall Dr. White's observations regarding this:

The issue is, to what does tau,th| refer? As a pronoun, it has an antecedent, a referent that it is pointing back to. Rome insists the referent is Peter.* But if it is, why use a demonstrative pronoun at all? Jesus has used two personal pronouns of Peter already in this sentence, soi and su,. He could have easily said, "and upon you the rock," (evpi. se, or evpi. soi, th/| pe,tra). But again, He didn’t. Instead, he switches from direct address to the demonstrative "this." I have expressed this, in non-technical language, as going from second person, "you, Peter," to third person, "this rock." "This rock" is referring to something other than the person who was being addressed in the preceding phrase, something that we find in the immediate context. A natural reading of the passage (one that I truly believe would be nigh unto universal if history had not fallen out as it did, with only one "apostolic see" in the West, the continuance of the Empire in the East, etc.) makes it plain what must function as the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun:
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

***

Fred flips through his Bible. “God says in Isaiah 44:8, 'And you are My witnesses! Is there a God besides Me? There is no Rock; I know not any.' And 1 Corinthians 10:4 says, 'And all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.' See? These passages tell us Peter could not have been the rock of Matthew 16:17-19. Only God — Christ — is a rock.”
“That's a good point,” you say. “Yes, God is called 'rock' in Isaiah 44:8 and elsewhere. But notice that just seven chapters later in Isaiah 51:1-2, God Himself calls Abraham the rock from which Israel was hewn. Is this a contradiction? No. Jesus is the one foundation of the Church in 1 Corinthians 3:11, but in Revelation 21:14 and Ephesians 2:20, we're told that the Apostles are the foundation of the Church. Jesus said He is the light of the world in John 9:5, but the Bible also says in Matthew 5:14 that Christians are the light of the world. Jesus is our 'one teacher' in Matthew 23:8, yet in Ephesians 4:11 and James 3:1, it says 'there are many teachers' in the Body of Christ.
“Are these contradictions? Of course not. The Apostles can be the foundation of the Church because they are in Christ, the one Foundation. The Church can be the light of the world because she is in the true Light of the world. A teacher can teach because he is in the one true Teacher, Christ. In the same way, St. Peter is indeed the rock of Matthew 16, and that doesn't detract from Christ being the rock of 1 Corinthians 10:4. St. Peter's 'rock-ness' is derived from Christ.

Indeed sometimes titles used of God and Christ are given to patriarchs and disciples. This in and of itself is not the issue and is a clear attempt to dodge the real problem at hand. That problem being that neither in Rev. 21:4 or Eph. 2:20 is Peter even hinted at being the Head of the Apostles. Roman Catholics read late interpretations into the text which simply are not there. To read any text in context means the reader must allow the author to define his own terms and words and allow the author's thoughts and points to be completely and readily understood through the text itself. As Carson noted, Peter was held accountable to the church instead of being its sovereign head.

***

“Aside from everything we said earlier about the Greek,” you continue, “there's an even stronger case that can be made for Christ meaning Peter was the rock on which He would build His Church. When Jesus gave Simon the name 'Rock,' we know it was originally given in Aramaic, a sister language of Hebrew, and the language that Jesus and the Apostles spoke. And the Aramaic word for 'rock' iskepha. This was transliterated in Greek as Cephas or Kephas, and translated as Petros. In Aramaic, nouns do not have gender as they do in Greek, so Jesus actually said, and St. Matthew first recorded, 'You are Kephas and on this kephas I will build My Church.' Clearly the same rock both times. “And just as Greek has a word for 'small stone,' lithos, so does Aramaic. That word is evna. But Jesus did not change Simon's name to Evna, He named him Kephas, which translates as Petros, and means a large rock.”
“No way,” Fred shakes his head. “There's no evidence in Scripture that Christ spoke in Aramaic or originally gave Simon the name 'Kephas.' All we have to go on is the Greek, and the Greek says Simon was called Petros, a little stone.”

All of this is very true, but, as we have already pointed out, this makes no doctrinal impact at all for the Protestant. In fact, the Roman Catholic must misinterpret the passage in order to fit their late dogmas into Scripture. Of course, Staples makes our Fred look arrogant and ignorant, which again is simply insulting.

“Actually, Fred, you're mistaken on both counts. The second point we've already discussed, and as far as your first point, well, take a look at John 1:42. 'Jesus looked at [Simon] and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).' See? St. John knew that the original form of the name was Kephas, large rock, and he translated it into Greek as Petros, or Peter.” Just then, your watch beeps 1:00, signaling the end of your lunch hour. You close in a quick prayer, then grab a Catholic apologetics tract from inside your Bible and catch Fred on his way out. “Hey, Fred,” you smile warmly. “I really appreciate your input in this group, and I'm glad you've joined us. You're going to add a great new dimension to the group. Welcome!” You extend your hand to shake his. Fred shakes politely, but you can see on his face that he's not pleased with the way the day's discussion went. But he's a good sport and he promises to be back tomorrow for “round two,” as he calls it.
On the way out, you hand him the apologetics tract and smile inwardly at the odd look he gives you as he slips it into his Bible. He's clearly not used to being on the receiving end of a tract, especially not one that's handed to him by a Catholic.

I realize that this short work is that of an amateur responding to a professional Roman apologist, but I do believe the facts contained herein with their context fully considered will allow the reader to compare posts and ponder the information provided.

In short, we may summarize that 'petros' means boulder or large detached piece of rock, whereas 'petras' means massive rock, and is therefore distinct. We may also conclude that though Christ builds His church on all the Apostles, Peter's primacy is no way equal to Popish supremacy. The earliest documents of the Christian church, the New Testament, do not hint at such a supremacy. But suppose Peter held such a supremacy, this still does not account for his supposed successors, the bishops of Rome. The Bible is completely silent regarding Peter's successors, and their invented infallibility cannot be sustained through scriptural references.

Once again, I believe the facts speak plainly for themselves.

A Slight Makeover

2010-07-07T14:53:00.001-07:00

Over time you will see many things on this blog change. I have seen through the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures that the Reformed Faith best expounds the biblical doctrines, especially concerning Predestination and the Elect. As I am so very new to this particular teaching, I will not be posting too many apologetic posts on the subject until I fully understand it intellectually. There is a great difference between understanding it with the heart of a guitly sinner, and understanding how to properly expound and defend it against objections. And, of course, we will have many posts concerning Rome's false doctrine. All those links you see to the right will remain exactly where they are, as they are excellent sources to look up and compare against actual history and the Holy Writ.

An Update - Rejecting and Renouncing Roman Catholicism

2010-03-08T03:36:00.000-08:00

I've talked with some of you about this already, but for the rest of you still oblivious, here's a little piece of information you should know.

About two years ago I entered the Roman Catholic Church, convinced that it alone was the only true Christian Church. Some of you still remember the interesting dialogues that took place, the rather hateful notes I would post up on Facebook almost every day against Protestantism, and the clear change that took place in me personally. Thanks to organizations like Catholic Answers, or men like Steve Ray, Dave Armstrong, Art Sippo, and other well-known Roman Catholic apologists, my way towards Rome seemed the best idea. Seemed...the best idea.

Unfortunately, there were a few things which, after deeper research and honest inward searching and prayer, just fell apart under scrutiny, fell apart under Christ's light. There are many things that fall under this category, but the main one I'd like to focus on is the Papacy. This note isn't an apologia for my renouncing and rejecting Roman Catholicism, but rather an attempt at giving everyone a fair explanation.

The Church of the Apostles, those first pastors and bishops, was unlike anything we see in modern Rome. In fact, the Roman Church of that time was Greek, no different than any of the other Greek Churches. Further, the Roman See was not even occupied by St. Peter, according to the very correct Church Historian Eusebius. He was not Rome's bishop. He never pastored Rome personally, but instead helped spread the Gospel there along with St. Paul, both of whom shed their blood there for the sake of Christ. For this reason the Roman Church was so highly esteemed, but even more so because Rome was the great city, which ruled the known world at the time. Naturally the Church there held a primacy, not to be confused with the miedeval corruption of supremacy. As time move on, the primacy of honor fell to Constantinople as is recorded in the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople:

"The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome."

According to later Christian legend which worked its way into certain early documents unverifiable by actual history, Peter was Rome's first bishop, however as said before the earliest histories tell us he NEVER had a See in Rome. He AND St. Paul appointed Linus as Rome's first bishop, according to Eusebius whose testimony no sound person will dispute. St. Peter also appointed successors in Antioch as well, so in the truest sense the Antiochan bishops may also claim succession from St. Peter.

Then all of a sudden the Bishop of Rome - the Pope - is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. Again, along with his supposed supremacy, papal infallibility is also not to be found in the Holy Scriptures nor in the church fathers, nor in the Ecumenical Councils. But wait, see what Pope John XXII said concerning this in Quia Quorundam,

"Because the father of lies is said to have so blinded the minds of certain [men], that they by [means of] false madness have obscured Our constitutions—not without much punishable temerity, unless they retract and lean themselves [once more] upon the truth, which these contain—of which one begins: “Ad conditorem canonum,” the other indeed: “Quum inter non nullos,” arranged diligently by previously held deliberation certainly as much with Our brother Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, as with many Archbishops and Bishops, and other prelates of the [local] churches, and not a few masters of sacred theology, and professors of both [kinds] of law [i.e. civil and canon], and promulgated on the counsel of Our aforementioned brothers: lest by daring [and] pernicious deeds their pestiferous doctrine shake the souls of the simple so much, and prevail to lead them into the deviation of their own errors, on the counsel of certain brother [cardinals] We judge soberly to make provision concerning this matter, as follows [below]. Moreover, they have used as much as word as writing to impugn the aforesaid constitutions, for the alleged reason, as is shown: They say that “That which the Roman Pontiffs had defined by [means of] the key of knowledge, in faith and morals, once for all, persists unchangeable to such an extent, that it is not lawful for a successor to call it again into doubt, nor to affirm the contrary,” although concerning those things, which have been ordained by [means of] the key of power, they assert it to be otherwise."

Yet this very subject is reversed in the First Vatican Council,

"Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

Anathema, totally condemned, damned to eternal hell fire, without hope of everlasting life. According to Roman Catholicism I am damned, under the anathema because I reject this invention of papal infallibility, and will not hail the Pope as the Supreme Bishop of the Church. It is not enough to look to Jesus alone for salvation, says the [traditional] Roman Church quite clearly, but one must hold to the papal dogmas as well for salvation, and all the infallible degrees such as the Immaculate Conception, a dogma which I also must reject because it was not found in Scripture or the early fathers and Christian tradition. Mind you, Mary is esteemed as the Mother of God and cleansed by the Holy Spirit to bear Christ, but she was not born sinless according to the earliest fathers, and no thought of merits is to be found in their writings as described in the papal decree.

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Pope Boniface 8th, Unam Sanctum

Pope Innocent III ( A.D. 1198-1216 ) "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which we believe no one is saved." Denzinger 423

Note that it specifies the Roman Catholic Church, meaning all must be in communion with her for salvation.

Pope Pius IX "If any man does not enter the [Roman] Church, or if any man departs from it, he is far from the hope of life, and salvation." Ubi Primum

In Rome's eyes I am far from any hope of salvation since I departed from her. But may I be damned in Rome's eyes and saved in Christ's arms. When salvation is dependant not only on Christ, but on which Church you belong to, despite your faith in Christ according to the Scriptures and the fathers, there is a serious problem at hand. It is a heresy, and cannot be tolerated by the people of God.

There are many more quotes from the popes and certain Roman Councils on this subject, much which would put modern Roman Catholics into a bit of a panic. Vatican Council II certainly reversed quite a few dogmas, which any decent researcher will easily find after examinging carefully all the documents. This is no development of doctrine: it is instead a full-blown evolution of Roman dogma, and full of contradictions. But we'll save that for another day.

Now, I already know Roman Catholics who are Christians, that's not the point here, although salvation is an essential doctrine to be clear on, but we'll save it for another time. The fact is the traditional Roman Catholic system demands subjection to the Papacy for salvation, an adherence to dogmas which cannot be sustained from Scripture or the Fathers or Councils. Nowadays, Rome says practically anyone can be saved. If the Lord tarries, within the next twenty years we'll see new dogmas affirming that.

But to show how the older catechisms contradict this new Roman Catholic Catechism, allow me to provide some quotations.

From "Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine" by Fr. Michael Muller, Adapted for the Family and More Advanced Students in Catholic Schools and Colleges with the Approbation of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1876AD. Containing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, this catechism is without error according to the Holy See:

Lesson XII.—No Salvation Outside of the Roman Catholic Church.

Q. Since the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Jesus Christ, can any one who dies outside of the Church be saved?

A. He cannot.

Q. Why not?

A. Because one who does not do the will of God cannot be saved.

Q. Is it, then, the will of God that all men should be Catholics?

A. Yes; because it is only in the Roman Catholic Church that they can learn the will of God; that is, the full doctrine of Jesus Christ, which alone can save them.

Q. Did Jesus Christ Himself assure us most solemnly, and in plain words, that no one can be saved out of the Roman Catholic Church?

A. He did, when He said to His Apostles: "Go and teach all nations, and teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. He that believeth not all these things shall be condemned."

Q. Did Jesus Christ assure us in other words of the damnation of those who die out of His Church?

A. He did in these words: "He who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." Matt. xviii. 17.

Q. Can you give some further proofs to show that no one can be saved out of the Roman Catholic Church?

A. From these words of Jesus Christ: "Other sheep I have who are not of this fold. them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and they shall be one fold and one shepherd." John x. 16

Q. How can you show from these words of our Lord that all who wish to be saved must be Roman Catholics?

A. Because in this passage He plainly declares that all those of His sheep who are not of His fold (that is, of His Church) must, as a necessary condition of their salvation, be brought to that fold.

Q. What do the Fathers of the Church say about the salvation of those who die out of the Roman Catholic Church?

A. They all, without exception, pronounce them infallibly lost forever.

Q. What did St. Augustine and the other Bishops of Africa, at the Council of Zirta, A.D. 412, say about them?

A. "Whosoever," they said, "is separated from the Catholic Church, however commendable in his own opinion his life may be, he shall, for the very reason that he is separated from the Union of Christ, not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." John iii. 36.

Q. What does St. Cyprian tell us about the salvation of those who die out of the Roman Catholic Church?

A. He says that, "He who has not the Church for his mother cannot have God for his Father;" and with him the Fathers in general say, that "as all who were not in the ark of Noah perished in the waters of the deluge, so shall all perish who are out of the true Church."

Q. Who are out of the pale of the Roman Catholic Church?

A. All unbaptized persons, unbelievers, apostates, excommunicated persons, and all heretics.

Q. How do we know that unbaptized persons are not saved?

A. Because Jesus Christ has said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John iii. 5.

Q. How do we know that unbelievers are not saved?

A. Because it is said of them that they do not please God. "Without faith it is impossible to please God."

Q. How do we know that apostates are not saved?

A. Because to fall away from the faith is a great sin, which makes one lose the kingdom of heaven.

Q. How do we know that persons justly excommunicated, who are unwilling to do what is required of them before they are absolved, are not saved?

A. Because the sin of great scandal, for which they were as dead members expelled from the communion of the Church, excludes them from the kingdom of heaven.

Q. What is the meaning of the word heretic?

A. Heretic is a Greek word, and means simply a chooser.

Q. Who, then, is a heretic?

A. A baptized person who chooses among the doctrines proposed to him by the Roman Catholic Church, to accept such doctrines as they please him, and to reject the rest.

Q. How do we know that heretics are not saved?

A. Because St. Paul the Apostle assures us that such a chooser or heretic is condemned. "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid; knowing that he who is such an one is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment." Tit. iii. 10, 11.

Q. Are there any other reasons to show that heretics, or Protestants who die out of the Roman Catholic Church, are not saved?

A. There are several. They cannot be saved because
1. They have no divine faith.
2. They make a liar of Jesus Christ, of the holy Ghost, and of the Apostles.
3. They have no faith in Christ.
4. They fell away from the true Church of Christ.
5. They are too proud to submit to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.
6. They cannot perform any good works whereby they can attain heaven.
7. They do not receive the Body and Blood of Christ.
8. They die in their sins.
9. They ridicule and blaspheme the Mother of God and His Saints.
10. They slander the spouse of Jesus Christ—the Catholic Church.

Q. Why is it that Protestants have no divine faith?

A. Because they do not believe God in those whom He has appointed to teach.

Q. Who is the teacher among Protestants?

A. Every one is his own teacher, his own law-giver and judge in matters of religion.

Q. Was there ever a time when God left men to themselves, to fashion their own religion, to invent their own creed, and their own form of worship?

A. No; from the beginning of the world God established on earth a visible teaching authority, to which it was the bounden duty of every man to submit.

Q. What follows from this?

A. That Protestants, by refusing to submit to that divine teaching authority, cannot have divine faith.

Q. What is the act of faith of a Protestant?

A. O my God, I believe nothing except what my own private judgment tells me to believe; therefore I believe that I can interpret Thy written word—the Holy Scriptures—as I choose. I believe that the Pope is anti-Christ; that any man can be saved, provided he is an honest man; I believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation; that good works, and works of penance, and the confession of sins are not necessary, etc.

Q. Is this an act of divine faith?

A. It is rather a great blasphemy against God; it is the language of Luther, who, according to his own avowal, learned it from the devil.

Q. But if a Protestant should say—"I have nothing to do with Luther, or Calvin, or Henry VIII., or John Knox; I go by the Bible" what would you answer him?

A. In that case you adopt and go by the principles and spirit of these men, and you change the written Word of God into the word of man.

Q. How so?

A. Because every Protestant interprets Holy Scripture in his own private manner, giving it that meaning which he chooses to give it, and thus, instead of believing the Word of God, he believes rather his own private interpretation of it, which is but the word of man.

Q. Now, what is man without divine faith?

A. Such a man is profane, and devoid of all religion; and for refusing all obedience to his Sovereign Lord, he will never enjoy His presence, or see clearly what he is not willing to believe humbly.

Q. How do Protestants make a liar of Jesus Christ?

A. Jesus Christ says: “Hear the Church." "No;" say Luther and all Protestants, "do not hear the Church, protest against her with all your might!”

Jesus Christ says: "If any one will not hear the Church, look upon him as a heathen and a publican." “No,” says Protestantism, “if any one does not hear the Church, look upon him as an apostle, as an ambassador of God."

Jesus Christ says: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church." "No," says Protestantism, “’Tis false; the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church for a thousand years and more."

Jesus Christ has declared St. Peter, and every successor to St. Peter—the Pope—to be his Vicar on earth. "No," says Protestantism, "the Pope is Anti-Christ."

Jesus Christ says: "My yoke is sweet, and my burden light." Matt. xi. 30. "No," said Luther and Calvin "it is impossible to keep the commandments."

Jesus Christ says: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt. xix. 17. "No," said Luther and Calvin, "faith alone, without good works, is sufficient to enter into life everlasting."

Jesus Christ says: " Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish." Luke, iii. 3. "No," said Luther and Calvin, "fasting, and other works of penance are not necessary in satisfaction for sin.”

Jesus Christ says: "This is my body." "No," said Calvin, "this is only the figure of Christ's Body, it will become his body as soon as you receive it."

Jesus Christ says: "I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery." Matt. xix. 9. "No," say Luther and all Protestants, to a married man, “you may put away your wife, get a divorce, and marry another."

Jesus Christ says to every man: “Thou shalt not steal." “No," said Luther to secular princes, “I give you the right to appropriate to yourselves the property of the Roman Catholic Church."

Q. How do Protestants make a liar of the Holy Ghost?

A. The Holy Ghost says in Holy Scripture: "Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred" (Eccles. ix. 1); "Who can say: My heart is clean, I am pure from sin"? (Prov. xx. 9); and "Work your salvation with fear and trembling" (Philip. 11. 12). "No," said Luther and Calvin, "but whosoever believes in Jesus Christ, is in the state of grace."

Q. How do Protestants make liars of the Apostles?

A. St. Paul says: "If I should have faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Cor. xiii. 2. "No," said Luther and Calvin, "faith alone is sufficient to save us."

St. Peter says that in the Epistles of St. Paul there are many things "hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other Scriptures, to their own perdition." 2 Eph. iii. 16. "No," said Luther and Calvin, "the Scriptures are very plain, and easy to be understood."

St. James says: "Is any sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord." Ch. v. 14. "No," said Luther and Calvin, "that is a vain and useless ceremony."

Q. Now, do you think God the Father will admit into heaven those who thus make liars of His Son Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles?

A. No; He will let them have their portion with Lucifer in hell, who first rebelled against Christ, and who is the father of liars.

Q. Have Protestants any faith in Christ?

A. They never had.

Q. Why not?

A. Because there never lived such a Christ as they imagine and believe in.

Q. In what kind of Christ do they believe?

A. In such a one of whom they can make a liar, with impunity, whose doctrine they can interpret as they please, and who does not care about what a man believes, provided he be an honest man before the public.

Q. Will such a faith in such a Christ save Protestants?

A. No sensible man will assert such an absurdity.

Q. What will Christ say to them on the day of judgment?

A. I know you not, because you never knew Me.

Q. Can a man be saved who has left the true Church of Christ—the Holy Catholic Church?

A. No; because the Church of Christ is the kingdom of God on earth, and he who leaves that kingdom shuts himself out from the kingdom of Christ in heaven.

Q. Have Protestants left the true Church of Christ?

A. They have, in their founders, who left the Catholic Church either through pride or through the passion of lust and covetousness.

Q. Who were the first Protestants?

A. 1. Martin Luther, a bad German priest, who left his convent, broke the solemn vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, which he had made to God, married a nun, and became the founder of the Lutherans.
2. Henry VIII., a bad Catholic king of England, who murdered his wives, and founded the Episcopalian or Anglican Church.
3. John Calvin, a wicked French Catholic, who was the founder of the Calvinists.
4. John Knox, a bad Scottish priest, who was the founder of the Presbyterians or Puritans.

Q. What great crime did these wicked men commit?

A. They rebelled against the Church of Jesus Christ, and caused a great number of their Catholic countrymen to follow their bad example.

Q. What will be the punishment of those who wilfully rebel against the Holy Catholic Church?

A. Like Lucifer, and the other rebellious angels, they will be cast into the everlasting flames of hell.

Q. Who has assured us of this?

A. Jesus Christ Himself, the Son of God.

Q. What are His words?

A. "He who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican." MAtt. xviii. 17.

Q. What does Jesus Christ tell us in these words?

A. He tells us plainly that he who is out of His Church, and does not obey her, is before Him as the heathen and publican.

Q. What follows from this?

A. It follows that, as the heathen is damned, so, also, all those will be damned who die out of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Q. Can a man be saved who is too proud to submit to the Head of the Church of Christ, and despises Jesus Christ in His representative—the Pope?

A. He cannot; because Jesus Christ says: "He who despiseth you (the Apostles and their successors) despiseth me."

Q. Do Protestants despise Jesus Christ in the person of St. Peter and his successors?

A. They do; for Luther taught them that whoever does not oppose the authority of the Pope cannot be saved. 1 Vol. Germ. Edit., f. 353.

Q. Do you think Christ can admit into Heaven him by whom He is despised?

A. This is impossible, and of such a one is true what St. Paul says: "He that resisteth the power that is from God, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation." Rom. xiii. 1,2.

Q. Can any one enter into the Kingdom of Heaven without good works?

A. No.

Q. How do we know this?

A. Because on the last day of judgment Christ will say to the wicked: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink." Matt. xxv. 41, 42.

Q. Do not Protestants perform such good works?

A. Many of them do.

Q. Will they be saved on account of such good works?

A. By no means; because works, however good in themselves, performed outside of the church established by Jesus Christ, are not accompanied and vivified by divine faith, without which it is impossible to please God, and, therefore, they do not, they cannot merit the everlasting joys of Heaven. As faith without works is dead, so also works without faith are dead and cannot save the doer from damnation.

Q. What does Jesus Christ say of those who do not receive His Body and Blood?

A. Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you. John vi. 54.

Q. Do Protestants receive the Body and Blood of our Lord?

A. No, because their ministers are not priests, and consequently have no power from Jesus Christ to say Mass, in which, by the words of consecration, bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.

Q. What follows from this?

A. That they will not enter into life everlasting, and deservedly so, because they abolished the holy sacrifice of the Mass.

Q. What was the consequence of the abolition of Mass?

A. By abolishing the Mass, they robbed God the Father of the infinite honor which Jesus Christ renders Him therein, and themselves of all the blessings which Jesus Christ bestows upon those who assist at this holy sacrifice with faith and devotion. "Wherefore the sin of the young men (the sons of Heli) was exceeding great before the Lord, because they withdrew men from the sacrifice of the Lord." 1 Kings ii. 17.

Q. Do you believe that God the Father will admit into heaven these robbers of His infinite honor?

A. By no means; because if those are damned who steal temporal goods of their neighbor, how much more will those be damned who deprive God of His infinite honor and their fellow-men of the infinite spiritual blessings of the Mass.

Q. Can a man be saved who dies in the state of mortal sin?

A. He cannot; because God cannot unite Himself to a soul in heaven who, by mortal sin, is His enemy.

Q. Do Protestants commit other mortal sins besides those above mentioned?

A. Very many besides.

Q. How do you prove this?

A. If it is a mortal sin for a Roman Catholic wilfully to doubt only one article of his faith, it is also, most assuredly, a mortal sin for Protestants wilfully to deny not only one truth, but almost all the truths revealed by Jesus Christ.

Q. Do they die in the sins of apostasy, blasphemy, slander, etc.?

A. They do, because all die in mortal sin who, having grievously offended Almighty God, are nor willing to confess their sins.

Q. How do we know this?

A. Because Jesus Christ assures us that those sins which are not forgiven by His apostles and their successors, by means of confession, will not be forgiven. "Whose sins you retain they are retained." John xx. 22, 23.

Q. Are Protestants willing to confess their sins to a Catholic Bishop or priest, who alone has power from Christ to forgive sins? "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them."

A. No, for they generally have an utter aversion to confession, and therefore their sins will not be forgiven throughout all eternity.

Q. What follows from this?

A. That they die in their sins and are damned.

Q. If any one loves God, will he also love the Mother of God and the Saints?

A. He will, undoubtedly.

Q. Do Protestants love the Mother of God and the Saints?

A. They do not, or they would not ridicule and blaspheme the Mother of God and the Saints.

Q. What follows from this?

A. That Protestants will never be admitted into the company of the Saints in heaven, whom they have ridiculed and blasphemed on earth.

Q. Would a great king of this world punish most severely one who slanders the Queen?

A. He would.

Q. Is the Catholic Church the Spouse of Jesus Christ, the King of heaven and earth?

A. She is, and St. Paul assures us that "Jesus Christ loves His church, that He died for her in order that He might have a glorious church, having neither spot nor wrinkle, but holy and without blemish." Eph. v. 25-27.

Q. Have Protestants ever ceased to slander her?

A. Never.

Q. How do they slander the Spouse of Jesus Christ?

A. The Protestant Episcopalian book of homilies, for instance, says: "Laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages and degrees of men, women, and children of entire Christendom had been drowned in abominable idolatry."

Q. Is idolatry a grievous sin?

A. It is one of the most grievous sins that can be committed.

Q. Could Protestants ever prove that the Catholic Church, the Spouse of Christ, became guilty of this sin?

A. Never; on the contrary, all know that the Catholic Church has abolished idolatry and has always held it in abomination.

Q. What follows from this?

A. That Protestants commit the great sin of slander against the Spouse of Christ.

Q. Can they commit this great sin without accusing Jesus Christ at the same time of having abandoned that glorious Spouse, whom He loves so ardently?

A. They cannot.

Q. What follows from this?

A. That the vengeance of Jesus Christ shall sooner or later overtake Protestants for committing the sins of horrid blasphemy and slander.

Q. But is it not a very uncharitable doctrine to say that none can be saved out of the Church?

A. On the contrary, it is a very great act of charity to assert this doctrine most emphatically.

Q. Why?

A. Because Jesus Christ Himself and His apostles have taught it in very plain language.

Q. Is it not great charity to warn one's neighbor when he is in danger of falling into a deep abyss?

A. It is indeed.

Q. Are not all those who are out of the Church in very great danger of falling into the abyss of hell?

A. They are.

Q. Is it not, then, great charity to warn them of this danger?

A. It would be as great a cruelty not to warn them.

Q. Are all those who are out of the Church equally guilty and damnable before God?

A. No; some are more guilty than others.

Q. Who are least guilty and damnable?

A. Those who, without any fault of theirs, do not know Jesus Christ or His doctrine at all.

Q. Who are most guilty and damnable?

A. Those who know the Catholic Church to be the only true Church, but do not embrace her faith, as also those who could know her if they would candidly search, but who, through indifference and other culpable motives, neglect to do so.

Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?

A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.

Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.

Q. What do you mean by this?

A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.

Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?

A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.

Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?

A. Eternal damnation.

Q. But are there not many who would lose the affections of their friends, their comfortable homes, their temporal goods, and prospects in business, were they to become Catholics? Would not Jesus Christ excuse them under such circumstances from becoming Catholics?

A. As to the affections of friends, Jesus Christ has solemnly declared that: "He who loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me," Matt. x. 37; and to the loss of temporal gain He has answered: "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?" Mark viii. 36.

Q. But would it not be enough for such a one to be Catholic in heart only, without professing his religion publicly?

A. No; for Jesus Christ has solemnly declared that, "He who shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of Man shall be ashamed when he shall come in his majesty, and that of his Father, and of the holy angels." Luke ix. 26.

Q. But might not such a one safely put off being received into the Church till the hour of death?

A. This would be to abuse the mercy of God.

Q. What might be the punishment for this sin?

A. To lose the light and grace of faith, and die a reprobate.

Q. What else keeps many from becoming Catholics?

A. It is this; they know very well that, if they become Catholics, they must lead honest and sober lives, be pure, and check their sinful passions, and this they are unwilling to do. "Men love darkness rather than light," says Jesus Christ, "because their deeds are evil." There are none so deaf as those that will not hear.

Q. What follows from what has been said on salvation in the Roman Catholic Church alone?

A. That it is very impious for one to think and to say that it matters little what a man believes provided he be an honest man.

Q. What answer can you give to a man who speaks thus?

A. I would ask him whether or not he believed that his honesty and justice was so great as that of the Scribes and Pharisees in the Gospel?

Q. In what did the honesty and justice of the Scribes and Pharisees consist?

A. They were constant in prayer, they paid tithes according to the law, gave great alms, fasted twice a week, and compassed sea and land to make a convert and bring him to the knowledge of the true God.

Q. What did Jesus Christ say of this justice of the Pharisees?

A. He says: "Unless your justice shall exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matt. v. 20.

Q. Was, then, the righteousness of the Pharisees very defective in the sight of God?

A. Most undoubtedly. Their righteousness was all outward show and ostentation. They did good only to be praised and admired by men; but within, their souls were full of impurity and malice. They were lewd hypocrites, who concealed great vices under the beautiful appearance of love for God, charity to the poor, and severity to themselves. Their devotion consisted in exterior acts, and they despised all who did not live as they did; they were strict in the religious observances of human traditions, but scrupled not to violate the commandments of God.

Q. What are you then to think of those men who say: "It matters little what a man believes, provided he be honest"?

A. That their exterior honesty, like that of the Pharisees, may be sufficient to keep them out of prison, but not out of hell.

Q. Should a non-Catholic say: "I would like very much to believe the doctrine of the Catholic Church, but I cannot," how would you answer?

A. That, without doubt, it is the will of God, that "all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim. ii. 4; but it is, at the same time, the will of God that you should earnestly employ all the proper means to acquire this necessary knowledge; otherwise, you plainly show that you do not sincerely desire to believe.

Q. What are the means you speak of?

A. Sincerity of heart which must prove itself,
1. By a most earnest desire to know the true religion,
2. By a diligent and persistent search for it,
3. By fervent and frequent prayer to God for the gift of faith,
4. And lastly, by a firm resolution to trample underfoot every obstacle that might hinder or retard one from embracing the known truth.

Q. But will one not lose his dear liberty if he believes and does what the Roman Catholic Church teaches?

A. No; on the contrary, he will then only enjoy true liberty, for he only is free whom the truth makes free.

Q. Cannot God do all things that He pleases?

A. He can.

Q. Why?

A. Because He is supreme Liberty itself.

Q. But can God sin?

A. He cannot.

Q. Are not the angels and saints in heaven free?

A. They are perfectly free, because they partake of the liberty of God.

Q. But can the saints sin?

A. They cannot.

Q. Is it, then, a mark of liberty to be under the power of sin, in following your passions, and so going to perdition?

A. This is no power or mark of liberty at all.

Q. What is it, then?

A. It is rather a mark of weakness and misery.

Q. What does the power of sin imply?

A. The possibility of becoming a slave of sin and the devil.

Q. Are those then truly free who are greatly under the power of sin, and thus go to hell?

A. They are rather the miserable slaves of sin and of their passions.

Q. What must necessarily become of them if they remain under this power of sin and of their passions?

A. They will become the slaves of the devil in hell for all eternity.

Q. Who, then, can call himself truly free?

A. He who wills and does what God wishes him to do for his everlasting happiness.

Q. If God, then, as we have seen, wishes that men should be saved only in the holy Roman Catholic Church, does a man lose, or does he enjoy liberty, when he believes and does what the Church teaches?

A. Then, indeed, he enjoys true liberty, and makes a proper use of it.

Q. What do you say of a man whose power of will is very great, and who hardly experiences any difficulty in following the teaching of the Church?

A. Such a man is truly free.

Q. Do Catholics, then, who faithfully live up to the teaching of the Church, enjoy greater liberty than Protestants and unbelievers, who believe and do as they please?

A. They do, indeed, because they are the children of the light of truth, that leads them to heaven, whilst those who live out of the Church are the children of the darkness of error, that leads them finally into the abyss of hell.

Q. If no one can be saved except in the Roman Catholic Church, what are all who are out of it bound to do?

A. They are obliged to become members of the Church.

Q. Does not common sense tell this to every non-Catholic?

A. It does.

Q. How so?

A. Because every non-Catholic believes that every practical member of the Catholic Church will be saved.

Q. What follows from this?

A. It clearly follows that when there is question about eternal salvation and eternal damnation, a sensible man will take the surest way to heaven.

Q. Will every one who is a member of the Catholic Church be saved?

A. No; only practical members will be saved; but those who are dead members, that is, bad Catholics, will be condemned to hell.

Q. Who is a practical member of the Catholic Church?

A. He who firmly believes all the truths contained in the Apostles' Creed, keeps the commandments of God and of the Church, and uses the means of grace, that is, the sacraments and prayer.

Q. Where do you learn all this?

A. In the Christian doctrine.

Q. Whose duty is it to teach the Christian doctrine?

A. This is the duty of the pastors of the Catholic Church.

Q. Is it very pleasing to God to instruct men in the Christian doctrine?

A. Yes; it is one of the holiest works, and most pleasing to God.

Q. Whose duty is it to attend to the explanation of the Christian doctrine?

A. This is the duty of all, but especially of those who are more or less ignorant of the Christian religion.

Q. Is God much pleased with those who eagerly listen to the explanation of the Christian doctrine?

A. God is so pleased with them that He often showed His pleasure by miracles.

Q. Is God also much displeased with those who do not care for the Christian doctrine?

A. God is so displeased with them that He often showed His displeasure by frightful punishments.

Q. What should we do when we hear the Christian doctrine explained?

A. We should listen to it with the intention of profiting by it.

Q. What do you call the book which briefly contains the Christian doctrine in the form of questions and answers?

A. The Catechism.

Q. Of what, then, does the Catechism treat?

A. The Catechism treats of what we must believe, of what we must do, and of the means of grace which we must use; that is, of the sacraments and prayer.

***

Not only Protestants, but Orthodox as well, are damned to eternal hellfire according to the traditional Roman doctrine.

“In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.” - Pope Clement VI, Super Quibusdam, 1351AD

Another thing contrary to the Gospel is Rome's traditional teaching that infants and damned to hell if they die without baptism. Interestingly enough the East never had this problem, but only the West.

Of the many alledged heresies of John Wyclif, Pope Martin V at the Council of Constance formally and officially condemned the following proposition:

"Those who claim that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this." - Session 15, 1415AD

Once again, the idea that it is stupid to say dead unbaptized children burn in hell is utterly condemned formally by the pope. Rome, at least traditional Rome, taught, proclaimed, and professed that all unbaptized dead infants suffer torments in hellfire. Wyclif taught against this, and was condemned for it.

From the very same Council,

"This holy synod, therefore, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, repudiates and condemns, by this perpetual decree, the aforesaid articles [of John Wyclif, his teachings, pamphelts, and books] and each of them in particular; and it forbids each and every Catholic henceforth, under pain of anathema, to preach, teach, or hold the said articles or any one of them.” - Session 15

This Roman Council infallibly declared Wyclif a heretic, his teachings heresies, plainly noting he was of "cursed memory", and that any Roman Catholic holding to any of his teachings was under the dreaded anathema. This is a perpetual decree, said the Roman Ecumenical Council, and anyone not holding to it is damned in Rome's eyes. Again, the Greek Churches never proposed or had this problem, but only the Roman Church.

To be certain unbaptized infants perish in hell according to Rome, let us turn to what another pope and council says,

“If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” - Council of Trent, Session 5

It is quite clearly implied that unbaptized infants perish in eternal hellfire if they should die. Further, the Roman Catechism - or also called the Catechism of the Council of Trent - once the universal catechism by replaced by the new one, declared thus:

"Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death." - Catechism of Trent http://www.freecatholicebooks.com/books/catechism_of_trent.pdf

Interestingly enough, Limbo was first a Pelagian fable, a heresy denounced by Rome but revived by scholastics like Thomas Aquinas. It was never a Roman Catholic dogma, and therefore subject to change. Pope Benedixt 16th goes against traditional Roman teaching in asserting unbaptized infants see Heaven should they die. In fact, he proclaims Wyclif's heresy, and according to Rome is under the anathema himself!

"The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of the children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk” – Condemned as false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools." - Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 1794AD

Besides the Second Vatican Council contradicting much of Rome's old teachings, thus calling to question whether this Church is truly the one and only Church, infallible, and a means of total salvation, the very fact of the papacy being built on a falsehood is enough for a faithful member to renounce his religion and hold fast to Jesus Christ.

For so long I had left Him, and now recently, amidst my mistakes and sins, am rushing back into His arms. I lied to myself in thinking I had found the truth in Rome, and in turn I lied to others. I apologize to you all.

There is so much that cannot be all told here. The Scriptures and Church history speaks for itself as a testimony against Roman Catholicism, the ever-changing, ever-evolving Church, and her papacy. It is so unlike Apostolic Rome that it cannot truthfully be called 'Apostolic' anymore. The essential truths have been compromised, the Gospel tarnished, and Christ removed from His throne and in His stead a man, the pope, as supreme head over the Church. Christ, visible in the Eucharist, is the true Head of the Church and no other. Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and other Protestant groups proclaim the mystery of the Eucharist, but the Greek Churches even more so, maintaining that ancient biblical and historical doctrine of the Last Supper. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine not declared in Scripture, and on that note I will say even the Presbyterians and Reformed Churches proclaim a very sound Eucharistic teaching, naturally contrary to Rome's and perhaps to Luther's, but certainly rejecting Zwingle's teaching all the same. Given the description of the Eucharist from a Reformed perspective, I would seriouslly find no reason to reject it. But how unlike this teaching does Rome preach! Contrary to all that is taught in Scripture, contrary to St. Paul's own words,

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. - Col. 1:15-23

Not a word of a visible head besides Christ, but rather this Apostle stresses that Christ IS VISIBLE, the Icon of the Invisible God, and that HE THE VISIBLE CHRIST is ALONE the Supreme Head of the Christian Church. No bishop has the right to such authority, no human creature should dare take this role for himself, for it belongs to Jesus alone, Him alone, and no other. The Word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than a two-edged sword, piercing even to the joints of bone and marrow: let the Holy Scriptures speak then and bring you into His light, out of the mangled interpretations from popes and cardinals, and let the Holy Spirit lead you out from the lies proclaimed in Rome.

I bear no hatred against any Roman Catholic: I love them, many of whom are my dearest, most dearest friends, and I hope will remain that way. If you are honest with yourself, honest with Christ, you must examine the claims of the Roman Church and see if you truly follow Christ, or the evolved teachings of men. I say all of this knowing full-well my relationship with some Roman Catholics will never be the same again, and perhaps that may well be, but so be it for the sake of Christ. If I am condemned by Rome then so be it, let me be under the anathema. I know in whom I believe, and I know He is faithful to the end, even though I am many times faithless to Him. But I look forward to eternal life, not to this present world, though I'm thankful to be where I am, I press onward in His Truth, drawing ever-nearer to Him in my pains, despite my sins, knowing He is more than ready to forgive.

This is it. I pray for you all, and I ask you to pray for me. Do not think this was a sudden choice, but it spanned almost a year if not more of continual searching, and now I've found Him again, or rather He found me. A prodigal has come home.

God, may Your Truth be shown, may Your Word speak, may Your Light show the way and guide us in Your Truth. Amen.

Christ, have mercy. Amen.

POSTSCRIPT:

In case any of you are wondering which church I'm leaning towards now, I'm sincerely seeking out the Reformed Christian faith. That's the "Calvinist" faith specifically, and believe me I'm just as much surprised about this as you are! But I haven't found the doctrine of grace preached and taught so faithfully according to the biblical texts as I have found in Calvinism. I don't think I have much of a choice, but this freedom I'm feeling inside me despite my INNUMERABLE sins is a bit of a good sign. A bit ;) Don't be surprised if I announce I'm attending the local Presbyterian church in town. God bless all.

Daniel McClellan's Attacks

2009-11-30T17:50:00.000-08:00

Mr. Daniel McClellan has once again sought to misrepresent me. Despite my continually asking him to cease posting his insulting verbiage on my blog, Mr. McClellan inisists on blotting my character any chance he seemingly can get. A recent example of this is the private correnspondance between Mr. McClellan and myself.

On my last blog article, Mr. McClellan posted the comment,

For the readers:

Carmenn is now emailing me privately to assert that the approval of his readership means that he has adequately responded to the scholarship. He also insists that his posts do the same. Oddly, if one hasn't read a word of the above posted scholarship, they can hardly claim to have responded to it. Carmenn doesn't even know what the above says. He knows it arrives at a conclusion contrary to his own, and so he a priori assumes that his arguments must undermine any argument to the contrary. This is the very epitome of pseudo-scholarship: "You must be wrong because you disagree with me, and I don't even have to read what you say to know that."

Carmenn, you do a great disservice to all of academia by perverting its standards so blatantly and egregiously.

Our correnspondance was meant to be strictly private, but because Mr. McClellan has yet again turned this into a cheap shot against me, the emails must be published for the reader to judge. I think it will be very telling.

November 29, 2009 at 9:30pm
Mr. McClellan,

You have quite a difficult time respecting the requests of others, don't you sir? But I suppose you feel if you have the last say things will be in your favor. Believe what you wish, but I'd like to confront you on a certain issue you raised, viz.,

"By the way, I'm not concerned about it, but it's against the rules and very inappropriate to post someone's full name and identify their username on a message board where they have not done so themselves. It doesn't matter to me, but you're trying to do the same with a friend of mine there, and he may not be so understanding."

Would you care to document that? I've named a few people, so besides yourself, and Mr. Shirts (unless he is the friend to which you referr), would you please state the exact name of this person? Frankly sir, you have not been understanding about this entire discussion so whatever insults (or worse, perhaps?) your friend may bring would be nothing new. Of course, be forewarned every letter of our correnspondance - whether in public discussion or private email - is archived, and should the need arise that any of your words directed to myself, or mentioning others in verbal insult - even God forbid, a threat (of which I've had many :-)) - will be published for all to see. Otherwise, if you can refrain from your normal course of action with opponents, this will be strictly private.

Once again, sir, I ask you to exercise whatever decency and maturity is left in you by ceasing to write insulting comments on my blog.

Carmenn Massa

November 30, 2009, at 4:09am
Carmenn-

Respecting requests? How about the request to engage the scholarship I brought up that you flat refused to respect in spite of your repeated public attempts to paint me as "non-academic"? Don't talk down at me as if you've had experience in scholarship. You're haven't, and if you keep this sophomoric stuff up you never will. Responding to scholarship is a fundamental part of this whole endeavor, and you have tacitly averred that it's beneath you and that you're not required to respond. I have no respect for that kind of dilettantism. You can call that an insult all you want, but there's not a scholar on this planet that will disagree with me. Documenting fallacies and errors is a part of scholarship, and one you shouldn't take personally. If you want to become a scholar, or even just participate in a discussion like a scholar you need to quit pretending every critique of your argument and your rhetoric is a personal insult. In addition, as I stated on you blog, you have been much more insulting of me than I possibly could have of you (and the majority of it because of misunderstandings on your part). Rather than accept your errors, however, you try to paint me as the misunderstanding party.

Regarding my friend, you're attempting to identify Elds as David Bokovoy. You've already directly asked him if his first name is David. His identity is his to reveal when he sees fit, so you're out of bounds, and I suggest you try to carry it no further.

November 30, 2009, at 7:44am
"Respecting requests? How about the request to engage the scholarship I brought up that you flat refused to respect in spite of your repeated public attempts to paint me as "non-academic"?"

You and your fellows seem to be the only ones who actually (strangely) see this. Everyone else who has read my responses say quite the opposite, Mr. McClellan. The scholarship you brought up in your responses I did deal with - I'm sorry I cannot say the same for you.

"Don't talk down at me as if you've had experience in scholarship. You're haven't, and if you keep this sophomoric stuff up you never will. Responding to scholarship is a fundamental part of this whole endeavor, and you have tacitly averred that it's beneath you and that you're not required to respond."

I suggest you re-read my work, sir. Yet again you accuse me of the very thing you have done. You have provided more than enough examples of this in our discussion and on CARM with other folks. It simply astounds me you accuse me of believing scholarship is "beneath [me]" when I've challenged the reader more than once, not only in our discussion, but in the discussion with Kerry Shirts and my 8-part video series to seek out the scholarship. Please read my words carefully sir before drawing these phenomenally erroneous conclusions.

"I have no respect for that kind of dilettantism."

Neither do I.

"You can call that an insult all you want, but there's not a scholar on this planet that will disagree with me."

You're building another straw-man, Mr. McClellan, based on your own clouded perspective of what I have truly been consistently saying.

"Documenting fallacies and errors is a part of scholarship, and one you shouldn't take personally."

Correct. Hence why I never take it personally. You, on the other hand, seem to be too emotionally involved. It shows clear as crystal.

"If you want to become a scholar, or even just participate in a discussion like a scholar you need to quit pretending every critique of your argument and your rhetoric is a personal insult."

Another staw-man, Mr. McClellan. In my many discussions with Mormons I don't take every critique as insulting. Had you read *any* of my archived discussions with Mormons you would note this. You, however, cannot seem to respond *without* adding a subtle underlining of ad hominem, not only with me but other opponents as well. Shall I pull up the CARM boards for a few examples?

"In addition, as I stated on you blog, you have been much more insulting of me than I possibly could have of you (and the majority of it because of misunderstandings on your part)."

If that's what you would like to believe, then by all means. You will find yourself and perhaps a few disciples the only ones promoting this idea. Of course, we should just ignore the fact you haven't answered any of the small errors I clearly documented, but simply accused me of trying to "wriggle out of [my] rhetorical pettiness." There is only one misunderstanding on my part, Mr. McClellan, viz. the "graduate student" issue. You and your fellows have used this as an attack instead of simply making a polite correction. That speaks volumes, sir. You've failed to document anything else. I suggest you do so if you continue to make these baseless claims. I further suggest you document specifically where I defined, declared, and professed myself to be a scholar, something which seems to be a favorite accusation of yours. To date you have not done so. Your low-blow shot to Dr. White (and Dr. Walter Martin, from the link you provided) are completely uncalled for. It must feel good to attack a man behind his back, Mr. McClellan, and even better if he's dead. If you truly were serious about any reasearch at all you would not accuse both these men of holding invalid credentials. Not only your apologists, by many popular Roman apologists fall into this same error. Frankly, it's sickening.

"Rather than accept your errors, however, you try to paint me as the misunderstanding party."

Believe what you will, sir.

"Regarding my friend, you're attempting to identify Elds as David Bokovoy. You've already directly asked him if his first name is David. His identity is his to reveal when he sees fit, so you're out of bounds, and I suggest you try to carry it no further."

I suggest you tell your friend if he is put out by my simply asking him his name, he should contact me personally. Secondly, you should once again get the fact straight. I specifically asked,

"And just out of curiosity, sir, would your name happen to be David?" http://forums.carm.org/v/showthread.php?p=5633807#poststop

Tell me: exactly how do you get "David Bokovoy" from only "David"? You said in your comment,

"By the way, I'm not concerned about it, but it's against the rules and very inappropriate to post someone's ***full name*** and identify their username on a message board where they have not done so themselves."

"Full name", sir? "Full name"...Would you care to explain how stating the first name *only* in an innocent question is posting a *full name* and identity? I would love to understand how this works.

The reason I asked Elds his name was because I saw virtually the same wording Elds used was used by David Bokovoy at MADB, regarding the exact same subject. Yet again you have misrepresented the facts. I think it's mutually obvious why you did so.

If your friend has an issue with my simply asking for his name, please tell him to bring the issue to me personally. There's so little personal confrontation these days...

Good day, sir.

Carmenn Massa

November 30, 2009, at 9:16am
Carmenn-

You actually believe that the naivety of your readers means you're not required to respond to evidence? Are you serious? You didn't engage a word of it and you haven't even read a word of it, thus you cannot even begin to claim you have dealt with a word of it. You don't even know what the scholarship says, much less whether or not you've addressed it.This is an utterly asinine assumption on your part.

Regarding my friend, I didn't say he was put out, I said it was against the rules and incredibly inappropriate. I suggest you correct your indiscretion before he decides he's put out. It's not a matter of Mormon v. anti-Mormon, it's a matter of decorum and respect. If you treat this as a debate between me and you you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm just trying to save you some trouble.

-Dan

November 30, 2009, at 5:49pm
Mr. McClellan,

I have never seen anyone twist my every syllable as you have. I'm sure many if not all my readers would object to you labelling them "naive." Your obnoxious remarks just don't stop, do they Mr. McClellan?

Regarding your friend, you said,

"It doesn't matter to me, but you're trying to do the same with a friend of mine there, and he may not be so understanding."

The impression is clearly given that he is put out by my mention his name, Mr. McClellan.

I reject the deragotory label "anti-Mormon." I am not an anti-Mormon, sir. I do not label you an anti-Christian, or an anti-Catholic to be specific. I find this type of behaviour childish and insulting, as will many.

There is no debate with you, Mr. McClellan. I don't know if this can even be declared a "discussion." True discussions do not result like this.

I see you have yet again gone against my personal request of not writing on my blog by posting this,

"For the readers:

"Carmenn is now emailing me privately to assert that the approval of his readership means that he has adequately responded to the scholarship. He also insists that his posts do the same. Oddly, if one hasn't read a word of the above posted scholarship, they can hardly claim to have responded to it. Carmenn doesn't even know what the above says. He knows it arrives at a conclusion contrary to his own, and so he a priori assumes that his arguments must undermine any argument to the contrary. This is the very epitome of pseudo-scholarship: "You must be wrong because you disagree with me, and I don't even have to read what you say to know that."

"Carmenn, you do a great disservice to all of academia by perverting its standards so blatantly and egregiously."

Decency has no meaning in your vocabulary, Mr. McClellan. Because you have taken this low-blow by misrepresenting this correnspondance, I will make these emails public preceeded by your comment. Not only is this behavior unfair to the discussion, but it is also greatly unfair to the readers.

Good day.

Carmenn Massa

Today Mr. McClellan responded with the following.

December 1, 2009, at 3:42am
Carmenn-

Again, you manifest a sincere desire not to listen. I made it quite clear that my friend has registered no response at all to your mentioning his name. I am simply trying to give you the opportunity to correct the oversight before it goes any further. He has said nothing to me, but what you are doing is against the rules. As I also stated quite clearly, this issue isn't about you and me, this is about inappropriate board behavior. And you are the very definition of anti-Mormon. Feigning congeniality while burping up sophomoric little jabs, condescending remarks, and incredibly poor scholarship doesn't make you any less anti-Mormon.

Regarding your blog, as I said, if you want me to stop pointing out your indiscretions, stop committing them. You attack me by name (and very naively) in the very titles of two of your blog posts, and that was a big mistake. I'm letting your readership know just how big a mistake, and if you're really that concerned about censoring the responses to your weak scholarship then bring your dilettantism full-circle and start deleting my posts. I still have a lot of criticism to mete out to your silly little posts, and your continued refusal to listen to reason is only going to perpetuate that criticism. I asked you to read the scholarship so we could discuss them like adults, but you refused, and so the conversation is turning one sided, and it's one you lost the instant you hit "Publish" on your post.

-Dan

December 1, 2009, at 4:40am
"Again, you manifest a sincere desire not to listen. I made it quite clear that my friend has registered no response at all to your mentioning his name. I am simply trying to give you the opportunity to correct the oversight before it goes any further."

Sir, it's obvious what was being implied. I really see no reason for you to continually dwell on it. Your past record of *documented* misrepresentation speaks for itself.

"He has said nothing to me, but what you are doing is against the rules."

Here's the link for the CARM rules, sir: http://www.carm.org/forum-rules

Please direct me to which exact rule prohibits one user to ask another board member his first name?

I should also mention - in case you may be wondering - why your name was in the threads. First, I had no intention of posting on CARM but a friend from the boards saw my blog article and requested that I post it there. Would I have labelled it "Documenting Maklelan's Errors" this would have truly made no difference at all since your true name is mentioned in the articles. I recieved no messages from CARM saying I broke any rules. As always I do ask you to document your assertions.

Further, you yourself have in the past expressed a link to your blog which has your name clearly written for all to see:

"I've never dodged a thing in my life. See my blog post on this subject **Edit per Mod**" - Psalm 82:6

The Moderator deleted the link of course. Nevertheless, you willingly made your blog [and true identity] accessible for anyone interested. That was exactly three weeks ago.

"As I also stated quite clearly, this issue isn't about you and me,"

Correct.

"this is about inappropriate board behavior."

Sir, take no offense, but please don't lecture me on board behavior. You have proven over and over and over again that you're incapable of dialogueing with *anyone* who disagrees with you. The CARM boards are filled with examples of your obscene attitude, and goodness knows how many times you have been banned because of the very issue. You wouldn't take a compulsive gambler very seriouslly at all if he told you, "Gambling's bad for you, son. Don't do it all. It's a sin," while he's sitting at the poker table with high stakes. So once again, sir, please do not speak of what is and is not appropriate. Allow some of these to suffice for references:

"I don't get to that point. That's just stuff you've either made up or suckled from the swollen and ignorant teet of online antimormonism." - Mormonism's Jesus-Satan Brotherhood Error

"Now your professionalism is based exclusively off of naked assertion? Your profession doesn't make you a psychologist, but just knowing when someone has a psychiatric disorder does. Brilliant." - Documenting Daniel O. McCllelan's [Maklelan] Errors on Psalm 82 (I singled out this one because you addressed it to Athansius, a woman much older than you or I. I don't think this type of language is suitable for addressing an elder whether she's right or not, wouldn't you agree?)

"No, I'm not. This text isn't context in any sense of the word. I've explained why. You can engage that explanation or you can keep your mouth shut, but "Nu-uh!" is getting old." - Sometimes "gods" = "judges"

"No, zing is meant as a quick way to remind you that I recognize your post is nothing more than a juvenile insult meant only to make you feel better about hating us but not being able to respond to the evidence. If you can hurl enough zingers you can walk away feeling like you've won something, even if you never even addressed the topic of the post." - The Biblical Gods

You will find no fault in your own words, but everyone who has engaged with you thinks otherwise, including the Moderators who have deleted many posts on account of bickering, infraction, off-topic, and insult.

By the way, Mr. McClellan, since you are so caught up on Dr. White's and Dr. Martin's credentials, may I ask on what grounds do you consider yourself to be a scholar?

"I'm a scholar, so I obviously studied them from an etic perspective." - Satan [from "Mormonism" on CARM]

What credentials do you hold that confirm you are a scholar? I once asked if "Dr. McClellan" would be more appropriate than "Mister", but you told me you do not hold a doctorate yet. Have you held any particular scholarship in the past? I can easily find where you've claimed to be a scholar, but I'm still await for you to document where I declared myself one.

"And you are the very definition of anti-Mormon. Feigning congeniality while burping up sophomoric little jabs, condescending remarks, and incredibly poor scholarship doesn't make you any less anti-Mormon."

Your childish, derogatory comments speaks for themselves, sir. And please don't make an issue of my labelling your attitude as childish. I seem to recall you did the same here,

"More childish insults with no substance (which don't address my concerns)." - Psalm 82, in response to GoldenContact

"Feigning congeniality while burping up sophomoric little jabs, condescending remarks, and incredibly poor scholarship doesn't make you any less anti-Mormon."

I do wish you'd take your own advice, sir.

"Regarding your blog, as I said, if you want me to stop pointing out your indiscretions, stop committing them."

Actually I said clearly I want you to stop insulting me and everyone else. But does that fact matter to you, sir?

"You attack me by name (and very naively) in the very titles of two of your blog posts, and that was a big mistake. I'm letting your readership know just how big a mistake, and if you're really that concerned about censoring the responses to your weak scholarship then bring your dilettantism full-circle and start deleting my posts."

I already told you not a letter of your insulting, self-indulgent, immature, comments will be deleted. They will be read by my reader and I hope by countless others. You've made yourself my ally in demonstrating to the reading audience the very things I previously told them you have done, viz. attacking others. It's been made quite clear to our audience from your own words you believe this is centered around you: it is not, sir. Every shot you take at me and anyone else will return not with hatred, but with rational words, with a calm, thinking mind, documenting your very words carefully and at great length if only to show *your* subscribers the many errors you've made.

"I still have a lot of criticism to mete out to your silly little posts, and your continued refusal to listen to reason is only going to perpetuate that criticism."

My "silly little posts", as you call them (that's not insulting in your mind, sir?) are still awaiting any kind of decent response from you, sir. Your last response did not prove anything except that you do not agree. Why do you think I've let my readers see your response? You've proven my point better than I ever could. Once your paper is (hopefully) published, you will get a response from me. Until then I find no time in continually responding to *nothing* but empty rhetoric and insult. Your continuous disrespect doesn't help the situation any, either.

"I asked you to read the scholarship so we could discuss them like adults, but you refused, and so the conversation is turning one sided, and it's one you lost the instant you hit "Publish" on your post.

-Dan"

My articles weave a different tale, Mr. McClellan. My readers have noted that long before I told you. But in your mind all is lost for me. Your constant denial that Our God is Supreme above all other heavenly hosts is a sad admission, a frightening one, actually. Despite my assuming the gods are heavenly, you seem to reach other conclusions. Let them be heavenly, and you will have the Almighty, the First Mover, presiding over these creations who He Himself set into motion, these beings He created out of nothing and who are His divine vicars. Any scholar who is quoted to you and disagrees with you is labelled "wrong" without any proof whatsoever to back it up. You did this with Heiser and Geisler; you did it with Kenyon also in August.

Good day.

Carmenn Massa

December 1, 2009 at 4:56am
Correction: The thread "Satan" is not found under "Mormonism", but rather "Theology > Apologetics." Apologies :-)

Carmenn Massa

December 1, 2009, at 8:36am
"Documented misrepresentation"? You can't point to a single instance where I've misrepresented a thing. You're just making up facts again. It's you who has misunderstood everything from the meaning of "Oxford graduate student" to the academic process. If you honestly think that you were being misled in any of that then you're more far gone than I thought.

Regarding my name: I posted it at CARM, which is why I said I didn't care in my case. But you'll notice my comment wasn't about my case, it was about my friend's, and this asinine attempt to change that is getting increasingly juvenile. All I'm asking is that you remove the reference to his first name and not pursue that line of inquiry. That is not the least bit an imposition.

Regarding board decorum: It's perfectly acceptable and accurate to refer to online anti-Mormonism as a bloated whore. That's what it is, and it's a personal attack on exactly zero people. It's a characterization of a movement, not a person. Regarding Athanasius, her age and gender make no difference to me. Her scholarship is what makes a difference, and that is sorely lacking. Every person is treated equally in my world. Their arguments are treated according to merit, and becoming upset over a conflation of the two is your error, not mine.

By the way, no one on CARM thinks my comments are appropriate because they don't like Mormons, and they especially don't like Mormon who know more about Mormonism and the Bible than they do. Our own exchange about what it means to be a graduate student shows exactly how far people are willing to go to disagree with someone (despite being phenomenally mistaken) just because they disagree with you. Don't presume to nakedly assert that my methodologies are poor. I'm the only one citing scholarship and responding to scholarship. All you're doing is saying "Nu-uh!" and refusing to engage the argument.

Regarding my credentials: I told you numerous times (despite your repeated misunderstandings) that I am an Oxford graduate student. Last week I presented a paper at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature's annual meeting (the largest gathering of biblical scholars on the planet) to a packed house. You can find my abstract by searching for my name here:

http://sbl-site.org/meetings/Congresses_Abstracts.aspx?MeetingId=15

I intend to publish the paper next year. As I have made crystal clear, I am working on my masters degree, so I can provide no doctorate, but if presenting in professional conferences and publishing is any indication for you, then the above should satisfy you.

Regarding childish: I wouldn't make an issue out of calling something childish, but the difference between our uses of the word is that I do it accurately. Responding to requests to engage scholarship by (1) ignoring them, and (2) flat refusing is what is childish. Criticizing weak argumentation is not childish.

Regarding my comments on your blog: I wonder what your readers will think when they see the dozen publications that I have cited that you have flatly refused to even read? Do you think anyone out there with an objective bone in their body is really silly enough to think that not reading your opponents scholarship and just responding by saying "Nu-uh!" is a smart move? I really hope you don't.

Regarding "Scholars" being quoted to me: My own scholarship directly engages and refutes the assertions you provided from Geisler, and he doesn't engage a word of my work. To assert that simply providing a text from decades before my argument that arrives at different conclusions without considering a word of my argument is not engaging my argument, it's just a naive appeal to authority. I don't know why you would appeal to Heiser unless you're just not familiar with his work. He agrees with my fully about monotheism not being found in Deuteronomy or Isaiah, and that Psalm 82 very clearly refers to other deities. We disagree only on the existence of an "invisible Yahweh" and the nature of the divisions of the early Israelite pantheon (much more technical and peripheral). Kenyon is outdated and also doesn't respond to a word of my argument. This is your big problem. If I make an argument saying certain considerations lead to conclusion X and you point to a scholar from decades ago that doesn't at all address my considerations then their arrival at a different conclusion is irrelevant. You have to be able to show my considerations are wrong, not just that other conclusions have been made. That's scholarship. What you're doing is naively appealing to authority.

Regarding your witnessing: save your breath.

December 1, 2009, at 3:37pm
Mr. McClellan, if you have anything substantial to add please do. I see only a few things worth a response, viz.,

"Regarding childish: I wouldn't make an issue out of calling something childish, but the difference between our uses of the word is that I do it accurately. Responding to requests to engage scholarship by (1) ignoring them, and (2) flat refusing is what is childish. Criticizing weak argumentation is not childish."

Both 1 and 2 have been you modus operandi, sir. You should have no issue whatsoever with people seeing your work (and attitude) as childish.

Presenting a paper to even the greatest scholars does not make you one, sir. You demand credentials from Drs. White and Martin (which they both have) but for quite obvious reason you overlook the facts pertaining to their stories while declaring yourself a scholar when you have no credentials yet. Fantastic.

"You have to be able to show my considerations are wrong, not just that other conclusions have been made. That's scholarship. What you're doing is naively appealing to authority."

Thank you for fully demonstrating you never carefully read my articles. Not only do I show your considerations to be faulty, but I back them up with scholarship. But believe what you will, Mr. McClellan. So far you've been my greatest help.

Since it seems to give you a feeling of victory (incredibly ridiculous as that is) you may have the last word in this correnspondance. Thanks for the charity, Mr. McClellan :-)

Carmenn Massa

Less than twenty minutes later, Mr. McClellan responded with the following:

December 1, 2009, at 6:54pm
Carmenn-
Substantial to add? I'm still waiting for you to respond to my substantial comments. My dozen publications that support my interpretation of Psalm 82 versus your zero that support yours still needs to be addressed. That's substantial and your twofold "response," that (1) your readership still seems to agree with you, and (2) Norman Geisler agrees about something else, is irrelevant. As is abundantly clear, you don't even begin to respond.

Second, White and Martin don't have PhD's. White has a phony degree from an unaccredited apologetics "college" run primarily by Martin, whose PhD is also from an unaccredited correspondence school. Neither of their PhD's are legitimate, and both have been documented lying about their schools. See the following links:

http://www.fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/Does_Walter_Martin_Have_a_Valid_PhD.html

http://www.shields-research.org/Novak/james.htm

Lastly, I have read every word of your blog posts (they're not articles) very carefully, and I did not find a single instance of you legitimately engaging my arguments. I found nothing but "Nu-uh!" ornamented with Greek texts you can't even read. Post this impotent posturing on the message boards where someone else might believe you, but you should know better than to think the only person reading these responses (me) is possibly going to be fooled by this.

-Dan

And there you have it folks. According to Daniel McClellan I make the fallacy of appealing to authority, but at the same time it's perfectly fine for him to appeal to scholarly authorities which support his view. Doesn't matter that I've made arguments regarding the issues involved with the divine council, doesn't matter that my objections (including archaeological evidence) prove monotheism was the first religious belief, doesn't matter what any of the facts say, so long as Mr. McClellan gets the last word and declares what is true and what is false. You've seen it for yourself. Now you be the judge.

Daniel McClellan Responds...Sort of...

2009-11-23T04:44:00.000-08:00

[Edited November 27th, 2009]

As I came home from work this morning, I noticed Mr. McClellan left a comment letting me know he typed out a response to my article regarding Psalm 82 and the Divine Council. A sudden thrill of excitement reawakened my fatigued body as I was very glad Mr. McClellan made a rebuttal to my arguments. I hoped for something intriguing, intelligent, thought-provoking, something that would truly challenge my assertions pertaining to Psalm 82 and the Gods. I had seen far too many times the superficial, insulting, "responses" drawn up by BYU professors on a number of different issues, not responding to my little blog of course, but to other professionals defending Christendom from the Mormon attacks. I had thought, hoped, that Mr. McClellan would not follow suit.

Sadly, I am very mistaken.

The post Mr. McClellan has presented as a rebuttal to my article self-testifies to my fears. I now ask the reader to examine with me McClellan's rebuttal, and please be aware of the things I actually said in my first article as opposed to what is presented in the following response.

Mr. McClellan begins,

Carmenn Massa has responded to this thread on his blog (here). I didn't have room to post my entire response on his blog, so it's going here.

Carmenn, thanks for taking the time to respond. I hope it comes as no surprise that I disagree entirely, and I’m happy to set forth why. My first point, however, has to do with your criticism of “Jerry Shirts.” Not only is this a petty “criticism,” but it’s misplaced. My spell check did not recognize the name “Kerry” and changed it to Jerry. I know Kerry personally and have never thought his name was Jerry. Hopefully that puts that to rest. Just to show you, however, that being petty about spelling is never a smart thing to do, I’m including all your spelling errors in my response. Your primary error in that regard is misspelling my name. It’s not McCllelan, as you have it throughout your post; it’s McClellan, as it appears in the title of your post. Oops. In addition, my “awkwardly long sentence” is actually two sentences of perfectly normal length. There’s a period after “Psalm 82.”

I think it'd be wise to remind the reader what I actually said regarding this alleged "misplaced criticism",

Jerry Shirts is actually Kerry Shirts, a lay Mormon apologist who goes by the nick 'The Backyard Professor', though he holds no credentials in theology, early patristics, Hebrew, Greek, Scriptural exegesis, or in any other matters which are neccessary for expounding the sacred mysteries of the Gospel.

Now, considering what I had truly said, I hardly think any rational human being would call this a "petty", "misplaced criticism." Mr. McClellan very clearly insinuates that I use this mistake as some sort of reason, or - Heaven forbid that he think this - an argument against him. All I corrected was Kerry's name, then moved on to his lack of credentials (another point we'll get to in just a moment). No where did I imply, state, or argue that Mr. McClellan is an ignoramus simply because of the misspelling of Shirts' name. However, McClellan accuses me of being "petty" about spelling mistake: I would ask that Mr. McClellan document that assertion (small and irrelevant to the subject as it is) from my first article. The reader will note that no where, not once, do I supposedly jump on McClellan for making typos. We're [fallible] human beings - mistakes happen. But concerning Mr. Shirts, I think it's important that the reader know his true name. They would certainly be confused from seeing "Kerry" in the title, then "Jerry" in the post. Which is it? they would most certainly be wondering. I had hoped my noting that error would be painfully obvious, but seemingly it's an open door to attack and accusation.

But where Mr. McClellan is entirely correct is my misspelling of his own name! Mea culpa. My apologies, Daniel.

Thirdly, when I in my first article called Mr. McClellan's sentence long and awkward, I referred specifically and only to the very first sentence. Admittedly, it looks at first as though I claim the two are one sentence, but were Mr. McClellan to read again more carefully, he would have seen my words here,

Mr. McCllelan in the next sentence says regarding me,

Massa has been active on some Facebook message boards, and while he has a decent working knowledge of the catechisms and his own dogmas, he's woefully unprepared to engage LDS scholarship directly.

But we move on...though sadly we've not yet reached the actual rebuttal. McClellan next says,

You also criticize Kerry for not having any credentials, which is something you say is “neccessary [sic] for expounding the sacred mysteries of the Gospel.” If I recall correctly, you likewise have no credentials of which to speak. (Neither does James White.) Between the three of us, in fact, my credentials are the only legitimate ones. If you mean to insist that credentials = better understanding, I’ll claim the win right now. Since that certainly can’t be your contention, however, let’s recognize the fallacious nature of that appeal and move on.

What I actually say is that he

holds no credentials in theology, early patristics, Hebrew, Greek, Scriptural exegesis, or in any other matters which are neccessary for expounding the sacred mysteries of the Gospel.

Consider Mr. Shirts' "About Me" page from his website, and decide whether or not valid, accredited credentials are necessary for the following,

I teach the Elder's Quorum. (They haven't kicked me out yet for translating out the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, so so far, I am in the good - GRIN!)

Perhaps I rest upon higher, more traditional standards, but aren't credentials needed for a project as complex and laboring as translating dead languages into modern English correctly? The Scriptures do indeed expound the mysteries of the Gospel, so I wouldn't feel comfortable having just anyone teach by using his own unique translations of the original autographs. Checking his credentials is essential. Mr. Shirts simply has none which make me feel secure in knowing he has full knowledge what he's talking about.

Mr. McClellan, of course, not realizing the importance of that assertion, turns it back on me by saying,

If I recall correctly, you likewise have no credentials of which to speak.

Quite correct. I have none. In fact, the home-schooling courses I was enrolled in are unaccredited [thank God for GEDs and SATs]. But I do not teach from my own Hebrew and Greek translations, I don't translate at all, nor do I preach homilies, teach on ancient languages, teach theology, philosophy, in fact I do none of those things which consist of expounding the Gospel. Whenever I use Greek or Hebrew, I cite world-renown scholars on the subject who themselves teach in great and precise detail what I am briefly laying out. Again, dear reader, I hoped this would be very clear and obvious.

But Mr. McClellan doesn't stop with me. No, he goes down a very predictable road by immediately stating regarding valid credentials,

(Neither does James White.)

What may come as a terrific shock to the reader, is that this visible Roman Catholic blogger strongly disagrees. Yes, yes, I know Sippo, Sungenis, Ray, Armstrong, Keating, Albrecht, and all the other popular Roman apologists love to throw this one in nearly all their writings relating to White, but the truth is simply the opposite, and White proves it. You know, dear reader, that I and Dr. White are of completely opposite religious minds: though we may hold to the Triune God, the Incarnation, we don't stand on the same shores of the Tiber. I don't find any reason to question White's doctorate, just as I don't find any reason to question Hamblin's doctorate. I am not defending White because "he's an anti-Mormon just like Carmenn Massa!", a myth which I do hope will never surface from the murky waters of bloggers and discussion forums. I defend White - and Walter Martin I might add - because they don't deserve the abuse executed by Mormon and Roman Catholic apologists alike. One is dead, the other is fully alive and so fully able to defend himself directly to the one accusing him of bearing invalid credentials. I would suggest Mr. McClellan read White's defense on his own blog at A&O Min.

Despite all this [please be patient, dear reader, we're coming to the rebuttal, I promise...hang in there] Mr. McClellan boastfully declares,

Between the three of us, in fact, my credentials are the only legitimate ones.

That should be, "Between the two of us", meaning White and yourself. Since you are so confident that you are intellectually superior to White, and even further confident his credentials are bogus, I would love to see you contact him on the DL and challenge him to debate you on Psalm 82. You may ask, "Why don't you challenge White to debate something like the Papacy?" Answer: I'm not a scholar. I wouldn't debate White yet, just as I wouldn't debate say Victor J. Stenger, yet [if ever that would be a possibility in either case]. Turretinfan I would love, just love, to engage with in debate. Perhaps that'll happen one day, but I can't go against White's intellect yet. But Daniel has declared himself a smarter man than White, so I shouldn't see why he would give any reason to not challenge White. To be fair, I would pose the same words to Steve Ray, Art Sippo, William Albrecht, and the others who execute this low blow.

In realizing this, we pass over McClellan's next few sentences with little seriousness,

If you mean to insist that credentials = better understanding, I’ll claim the win right now. Since that certainly can’t be your contention, however, let’s recognize the fallacious nature of that appeal and move on.

After these childish attacks the reader may wonder if Daniel actually gets to the point of his response. No, not yet. But we draw nearer. McClellan says,

Regarding the person with whom you had this exchange: I did not read what you had to say, since my post was not about you. My post was about James White, and I went by what he said, which is why I said “apparently.” That means “as it appears.” Since White’s post does make it appear the way I stated, there’s no error whatsoever. The substance of my post is criticism of his rather inept exposition of Psalm 82.

What Mr. McClellan stated is thus,

Massa apparently criticizes White and his colleagues concerning some other exchange about Jerry Shirts's use of Michael Heiser's scholarship regarding Psalm 82.

Note, he says I criticized White and his colleagues concerning Kerry Shirts' use of Michael Heiser. I answered specifically and clearly in my last post,

Had he taken the time to read what I actually said, he would have found that I wrote responding to Mr. Rich Pierce, the President of Alpha and Omega Ministries. So, truthfully, the person I criticized was Pierce, not White, nor any of his other colleagues, as McCllelan asserts. Further, my article had nothing to do with Kerry Shirts, nor Dr. White for that matter, except that both were mentioned indirectly as the reader may clearly see. My article focused on responding to Mr. Pierce's assertion that Heiser's work promotes henotheism, and so has nothing to do with Mr. Shirts at this point. If McCllelan would have continued looking further, he would have also noted my response to Dr. White's post. In my response, I apologize for the errors I made, which open letter to James White and Rich Pierce may still be read.

See the difference context makes? Now, is my assertion more in line with what James White's blog article actually says...or is Daniel really giving the correct account of things?

I was directed to a blog article that took a shot at A&O based not upon what I have published in my books on Catholicism or Mormonism (the writer is a young Roman Catholic), not upon what I have written on our website, not upon what I have said in formal debates against Catholics or Mormons (more than forty such debates are widely available), not even upon what I have written in a blog article or taught in a Sunday School class or Sunday sermon. No, Mr. Massa, though he has all of that material available to him upon which to draw for foundation for criticizing me and this ministry, chose instead to go after some short e-mails written by my partner in ministry, Rich Pierce. - Carmenn Massa and Dodging the Real Arguments

Indeed, as irrelevant to the subject as this is, Mr. McClellan's false assertions must nevertheless be answered since he has chosen to misrepresent the facts, and consequently, my character. Even though McClellan's post was not about me, he should have checked with me first to be clear on the facts pertaining to my "attacking" or "criticizing White and his colleagues." But it seems facts are not essential to Daniel's writings.

That aside, Mr. McClellan adds another critique before finally addressing the issue,

“Him calling me . . .” is incorrect grammar, by the way. You can say “his calling me” (since the action belongs to him) but “him” is a personal pronoun meant for direct and indirect objects. It’s not appropriate in the nominative. Next, I’m not an Oxford graduate. I’m an Oxford graduate student. I’m still at Oxford.

Yes, quite correct with the grammar. Thank you, Daniel. And thank you for demonstrating yet again your childish behavior which lies behind your grammatical corrections.

You say you are not an Oxford graduate. How strange, since I was simply going by what you yourself have told me. The Internet has quite a long memory, Mr. McClellan, so I do wish you'd remain consistent with the details. I direct you, and the reader, to our conversation in August, wherein I said,

Unfortunately, once again, you fail to provide the readers with any sort of rebuttal. I now see that you are indeed an Oxford professor (I'm flattered that someone went out of their way to contact you, sir, simply to respond to a nobody like me).

To which you replied,

I'm a graduate student, not a professor.

Clearly, it appears as though you admitted yourself to be an Oxford graduate, correcting my mistake in calling you an Oxford professor. Mistakes happen, Mr. McClellan, so I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. As I said earlier, human beings are fallible.

[Edited portion: November 29, 2009]

From the CARM boards in response to a Mormon who jumped on the issue (but disregarded everything else, not surprisingly):

In the context of our discussion Mr. McClellan made it appear as though he were an Oxford graduate. I'm not saying he did it on purpose, in fact in my article (which I'm very happy you took the time to read, yet seemingly can only find this little bit to address says quite enough) I say humans are fallible, so it was a simple mistake. You however seem to think I accuse Mr. McClellan of lying, when the opposite is stated in my article. Of course, you have a valid point when you say "graduate student" is not the same thing "graduate", since it essentiallys means a "student who continues studies after graduation". Naturally, I assumed Mr. McClellan was carrying on in his studies after graduating from Oxford. I think if you actually see the context of our discussion you will see my thinking.

But Mr. McClellan has likewise jumped on this issue as yet another means of attack. Specifically he says,

You seem to have a very difficult time admitting when you're wrong. I never gave you any false impression or mistakenly identified myself at any time. "Oxford graduate student" means a graduate student studying at Oxford. It does not mean anything else. There's no ambiguity at all, and I made no mistake. You misunderstood because you don't understand the vernacular very well (again, see above). The sooner you quit objecting to having your errors pointed out the sooner they will stop being pointed out. Calling them ad hominem doesn't make you any less mistaken.

Despite my correcting my very own errors numerous times, Mr. McClellan seemingly finds merit in accusing me of having "a very difficult time admitting when [I'm] wrong." I will not bore the reader with explicit examples of the exact opposite, but Mr. McClellan...you may want to refer back to that open formal letter to Dr. White and Mr. Pierce for just such an example. By the word "assumed" I hinted that I may have made a mistake. Allow me to be more explicit: Sorry, but that's how it looked. I simply assumed Mr. McClellan graduated from Oxford and continued his studying elsewhere. The reader will recall from the August Discussion I first asked Mr. McClellan if he was a BYU professor, to which he simply responded, "No." From my limited knowledge of where Mr. McClellan studied, I naturally assumed he graduated from Oxford but continued his studies elsewhere. I think anyone else would agree this is a natural assumption. But since Mr. McClellan and his fellows have jumped, utterly jumped, on this error as some sort of "proof" that my posts can't be trusted, my defense is called for. Again, since I've found saying things once doesn't quite get through: Sorry for the mistake; it sure seemed like you were saying something else. Correcting an honest is one thing; using it as an attack against me is quite another. Let the reader judge.

Ever-closer to the true issue, McClellan continues,

Next you criticize my reading as intending to support “the polytheistic Mormon doctrine as taught by Smith and his successors.” First, I’m not supporting anything but an honest and intelligent view of scripture. My conclusions are hardly Mormon doctrine. Second, our doctrine is not polytheistic, it’s monolatrous. Yours is as well. Technically speaking, strict monotheism is precluded by the presence of angels and demons and the other celestial creatures which fill your Bible. You’re a henotheist, if we are to speak accurately. If you want to assert that your self-identification is what matters, that’s fine with me, but you have to afford me the same courtesy. If you want the sole right to define terms then find someone else to bicker with.

Later on in the Mormon Apologetics Forum, McClellan added,

I am not trying to prop up Mormonism in any way, shape, or form. I am correcting atrocious exegesis and absolutely nothing more.

Yet in another thread on the CARM forums McClellan wrote the following,

The Biblical Gods

I tried this thread out on another board and not a single person was able to respond to the evidence. I'm curious to see how people here respond.

The thread is designed to provide some evidence concerning the nature of ancient Israelite belief in God, just so everyone is aware that their criticisms of Mormon henotheism are greatly misplaced. If you have questions or concerns, I am happy to answer them, but please refrain from drive-bys. I am not appealing to the theological authority of the Bible. I am appealing to the Bible as an historical record that can reveal early Israelite belief, and I will show that accusations that Mormon henotheism (recognizing that God and Yahweh are two separate beings, and that many divine beings inhabit the heavens) is unbiblical or is incompatible with the belief of the ancients is unfounded.

Mr. McClellan, for the sake of your readers, please be consistent. First you say you attempt to prove Mormon polytheism [we will tackle the henotheism vs. polytheism issue very shortly] from the Bible, and now you tell me directly that no such thing was on your mind, but that you were simply - in not so many words - allowing Scripture to speak for itself. In light of your own words compared to Mormon dogma, your conclusions are very much Mormon doctrine.

You assert your doctrine is not polytheistic, but I strongly disagree. Not only do you maintain, as a Mormon, to worship Heavenly Father, but you also say you worship Jesus Christ. But Christ is a God entirely distinct from Elohim, for indeed there are three Gods in Mormonism which make up the Triad God [to be distinguished from the Christian Triune God]. This is polytheism. Unless you admit that you fail to give Our Lord complete and total adoration, the same which you give to Heavenly Father, we have no choice but to conclude and declare based on the words of your own apostles, prophets, elders, missionaries, and laity that Mormonism is polytheistic.

Christianity is not monolatrous by any means, nor is it henotheistic. You say,

Technically speaking, strict monotheism is precluded by the presence of angels and demons and the other celestial creatures which fill your Bible. You’re a henotheist, if we are to speak accurately.

Dr. Michael Heiser disagrees,

"Monotheism" as a term was coined in the 17th century not as an antonym to "polytheism," but to "atheism." A monotheist, then, was a person who believed there was a God, not someone who believed there was only one spiritual entity that could or should be named by the letters G-O-D. This understanding of the term has been lost in contemporary discourse, and so it would be pointless to call for its re-introduction. - Heiser; Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism?, p. 22 [emphasis mine]

As Christians, we believe even angels may be called "gods", just as Satan is called a "god" [a biblical fact you explicitly denied, but we'll examine that once we reach your quote], and at the same time assert that these gods are not ontologically one with the Almighty. We also assert that Christians are themselves gods, by theosis, not the Mormon apotheosis. But you also make this strange claim,

You’re a henotheist, if we are to speak accurately.

Speaking accurately, Mr. McClellan, would consist of you admitting that my religion is monotheistic. Allow me to quote Heiser again,

Historically, henotheism assumes all gods are species equals and the elevation of one god is due to socio-political factors--not theological nuancing. Quoting Max Müller's seminal work on the subject, M. Yusa writes that henotheism was a technical term coined "to designate a peculiar form of polytheism...[where] each god is, 'at the time of a real divinity, supreme and absolute' not limited by the powers of any other gods." - Ibid, p. 22

And again,

More substantive is the fact that those who don’t want to take the text for what it says in such verses fear that they might be affirming polytheism as part of the belief system of the biblical writers. This is a concern only in that we use the word “monotheism” in a particular way that means “the belief that no other gods exist,” as opposed to “the belief that there is one unique God.”11 Polytheistic religions typically have a group of gods who fight and scheme against one another for power, and sometimes leadership of the lead god in charge can (and does) change in such religions. These systems also universally assume that the gods can be identified with parts of the creation, and that at least subset of the pantheon is basically equal in power and ability (or they have powers and abilities that offset the powers and abilities of the other “top tier” gods). Other terms relevant to this question are also flawed, such as henotheism (the belief in one superior god among other gods) and monolatry (the belief that you should worship only one god though others exist). These terms are deficient in that they do not sufficiently describe what the biblical writers believed. Henotheistic systems can have the lead god toppled and replaced by another god who then becomes “superior” (one wonders on what grounds, since just prior to that the god was inferior). Monolatry fails to articulate why one God is superior and what criteria make him superior—it comments only on worship. - Heiser; Introduction to the Divine Council [emphasis mine]

What the biblical readers believed, so believes the Catholic Church. Christianity's monotheism flows from ancient Israelite monotheism. To quote Heiser yet again,

"Many scholars have concluded that the presence of a divine council in the Hebrew Bible means that Israel’s religion was at one time polytheistic (there are many gods) or henotheistic (there are many gods, but one is preferred) and only later evolved to monotheism. Polytheism and monolatrous henotheism both presume “species sameness” among the gods. Henotheism in particular assumes the possibility of a power struggle for supremacy in the council, where the supreme authority could be displaced if another god defeats or outwits him. This does not reflect orthodox Israelite religious belief. The biblical data indicate that orthodox Israelite religion never considered Yahweh as one among equals or near equals. The biblical writers refer exclusively to Yahweh as “the God” (ha elohim; I Kings 18:39) when that term occurs with respect to a singular entity. Yahweh is the “true God” (elohim emet; Jer 10:10). The assertion points to the belief that, while Yahweh was an elohim, he was qualitatively unique among the elohim. The primary distinguishing characteristic of Yahweh from any other elohim was his pre-existence and creation of all things (Is 45:18), including the “host of heaven” (Ps 33:6; 148:1-5; cf. Neh 9:6), language that at times clearly refers to the other divine beings…Yahweh’s utter uniqueness to all other elohim is monotheism on ancient Semitic terms, and orthodox Israelite religion reflects this at all stages.” - Heiser; The Divine Council, pp. 5-6

In Heiser's words, "monotheism on ancient Semitic terms" is the monotheism of Christianity, Israel post-Messiah. This is quite different from Mormon polytheism, as I've already demonstrated.

[Edited portion, dated November 27th, 2009]

Here I would like to interpolate a few words from Dr. Norman Geisler, whose work I cited in July in my article refuting Kerry Shirts. Dr. Geisler's credentials are as follows: B.A, M.A., Th.B., and Ph.D in religion. In his work, Primitive Monotheism, he says,

“What is more, Romans 1 affirms that monotheism preceded animism and polytheism, affirming that "what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator -- who is for ever praised" (Rom. 1:19-25)…”

He goes on to say,

“Contrary to popular belief, the primitive religions of Africa unanimously reveal an explicit monotheism. The noted authority on African religions, John S. Mbiti wrote of the 300 traditional religions, "In all these societies, without a single exception, people have a notion of God as the Supreme Being."6 This is true of other primitive religions as well, many of which have a High God or Sky God which reflects a basic monotheism.” (Ibid)

And again,

“Outside the Bible, the oldest records come from Ebla in Syria. And they reveal a clear monotheism declaring: "Lord of heaven and earth: the earth was not, you created it, the light of day was not, you created it, the morning light you had not [yet] made exist." This lucid statement of monotheism from such early tablets is an evident sign of early monotheism. It alone should lay to rest the idea of an evolved and late monotheism.” (Ibid)

The Ebla Tablets are a driving force in solid archaeological proof that monotheism was the earliest form of religion. Mr. McClellan will have to prove otherwise if he wishes to assert there has always been a plurality of Gods as found in the Old Testament. I assert the gods - if you must insist are heavenly - still must be seen as creations, not ontological with Yahweh El Elyon. They have a beginning and clearly they will have an end (cf. Psalm 82:7). Our God, however, is everlasting to everlasting, having no beginning and no end. He judges all and is judged by no one. His unity is complex, beyond anything we may comprehend, while these gods are strictly one in their beings, while God is Three.

Next, Mr. McClellan gets closer to the issue,

Regarding Psalm 45: don’t waste my time with your pedantic use of LXX and the Hebrew. I’m well aware you don’t know either well enough to draw anything helpful out of the original languages.

Here we see yet another attack Mr. McClellan must hurl because, quite frankly, there is no serious answer to the proof I cited in my first article. To remind the reader, I will post my exact words:

I wish more LDS missionaries would admit what Mr. McCllelan has surprisingly admitted regarding Moses acting as God towards Pharaoh. In any case, the error here is when McCllelan says of elohim, "It cannot refer to humans." But the Psalms themselves refute this quite easily.

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions - Psalm 45:6-7

As Shamoun correctly notes, this Psalm is addressed directly to the human King of Israel. And this human King is explicitly called "God."

In Hebrew the passage reads,

כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עוֹלָם וָעֶד שֵׁבֶט מִישֹׁר שֵׁבֶט מַלְכוּתֶךָ
אָהַבְתָּ צֶּדֶק וַתִּשְׂנָא-רֶשַׁע
עַל-כֵּן מְשָׁחֲךָ אֱלֹהִים אֱלֹהֶיךָ שֶׁמֶן שָׂשׂוֹן מֵחֲבֵרֶךָ

In the LXX,

ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου

This should not be passed over lightly. For the writer of Hebrews, probably St. Paul or at least a Christian Jew with the same OT knowledge as found in Paul, uses this very passage to demonstrate the explicit Deity of Jesus Christ.

But of the Son He says, YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS. - Heb. 1:8-9

In Greek, the passage reads,

προς δε τον υιον ο θρονος σου ο θεος εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος ραβδος ευθυτητος η ραβδος της βασιλειας σου ηγαπησας δικαιοσυνην και εμισησας ανομιαν δια τουτο εχρισεν σε ο θεος ο θεος σου ελαιον αγαλλιασεως παρα τους μετοχους σου (Byzantine/Majority Text [2000])

This from the Tischendorf 8th Ed.,

προς δε τον υιον ο θρονος σου ο θεος εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος και η ραβδος της ευθυτητος ραβδος της βασιλειας σου ηγαπησας δικαιοσυνην και εμισησας αδικιαν δια τουτο εχρισεν σε ο θεος ο θεος σου ελαιον αγαλλιασεως παρα τους μετοχους σου

Now let's compare the LXX passage with the NT application and see its usage word for word,

LXX
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου

NT
προς δε τον υιον ο θρονος σου ο θεος εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος ραβδος ευθυτητος η ραβδος της βασιλειας σου ηγαπησας δικαιοσυνην και εμισησας ανομιαν δια τουτο εχρισεν σε ο θεος ο θεος σου ελαιον αγαλλιασεως παρα τους μετοχους σου

Thus, contrary to Mr. McCllelan's claim, the Hebrew elohim clearly can and is used of human beings depending on the context.

But despite my providing the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament texts, despite my further advancing my assertion by demonstrating how the writer of Hebrews uses this exact text in reference to the [God]-man Jesus Christ, Mr. McClellan has chosen to totally ignore the evidence and instead decry my words as essentially ridiculous. Not a single syllable of mine is cited, not one letter. The reader is expected to simply take Mr. McClellan at his word, seemingly. I, on the other hand, provide the reader with Mr. McClellan's actual words and demonstrate by using documentation and various sources how McClellan's claims are faulty. He has not demonstrated at all how my position is incorrect out of those very same autographs.

In addition to his attack, McClellan says,

I disagree that Psalm 45 is clearly calling the king God. The king of Israel does not have an eternal throne, and the reading you advocate is based primarily on the early 20th century assumption that other texts from Exodus already use elohim to refer to humans, and so is justifiably read as a vocative in v. 7.

Had Mr. McClellan paid more attention to my article he would have noted that I fall upon Hebrews 1 as an infallible proof for my assertion. One again my own words,

This [Psalm 45:6-7] should not be passed over lightly. For the writer of Hebrews, probably St. Paul or at least a Christian Jew with the same OT knowledge as found in Paul, uses this very passage to demonstrate the explicit Deity of Jesus Christ.

But of the Son He says, YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS. - Heb. 1:8-9

It is not an alleged early 20th century idea I am advocating, but the very position of the Apostolic Church clearly seen in Hebrews 1:8-9. The Son, Jesus Christ, is blatantly called God by the very fact the Scripture cited is applied to Him. And if this Scripture is applied to Christ, then we must be consistent with what that Scripture means in its original context in Psalm 45. In Christ, this Scripture has a fuller, deeper meaning. But in its Old Testament source, it has a lesser meaning, yet a meaning which must be interpreted in its context. Recall that Hebrews 1 focuses on demonstrating the Deity and unique position of Jesus Christ. By citing Psalm 45, the writer is directing his Jewish-Christian readers to a particular OT text, which when examined in context clearly hails the king as God. Certainly the king was not thought to be divine by nature, but as an earthly representative holding the temporal power God Himself exercises in Heaven. But when the same text is applied to Jesus, the readers understand immediately that Psalm 45 has a much deeper meaning, since in context the writer is attempting to show his readers the Deity of Jesus Christ. In short, the writer of Hebrew could only apply this to Jesus if the Psalm explicitly calls the king God.

But Mr. McClellan seems to make a point when he says,

The king of Israel does not have an eternal throne...

The NET translates the passage thus,

Your throne, O God, is permanent. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of justice. You love justice and hate evil. For this reason God, your God has anointed you with the oil of joy, elevating you above your companions.

The footnote in the NET under vs. 6 says,

The king is clearly the addressee here, as in vv. 2-5 and 7-9. Rather than taking the statement at face value, many prefer to emend the text because the concept of deifying the earthly king is foreign to ancient Israelite thinking (cf. NEB “your throne is like God’s throne, eternal”). However, it is preferable to retain the text and take this statement as another instance of the royal hyperbole that permeates the royal psalms. Because the Davidic king is God’s vice-regent on earth, the psalmist addresses him as if he were God incarnate. God energizes the king for battle and accomplishes justice through him. A similar use of hyperbole appears in Isa 9:6, where the ideal Davidic king of the eschaton is given the title “Mighty God” (see the note on this phrase there). Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: “No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (see Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67). Ps 45:6 and Isa 9:6 probably envision a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king’s enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself.

The Jewish Study Bible notes on Psalm 45:7,

This may also be translated "Your throne, O God ("elohim"), is everlasting" (so LXX), where the king is referred to as God. If this is taken literally, this psalm would be unique in the entire Bible in explicitly depicting the king as divine (see v. 4 and v.18 n.), a notion that existed at times in other ancient Near Eastern cultures but is otherwise absent in biblical thought. Other modern scholars render the v. as "Your throne is like God's throne" (so already Ibn Ezra) or "Your throne is supreme." The Targum and Saadia add the words "will establish," reading "God will establish your throne," while Rashi understands "elohim" as judges (see Exod. 21.6, translators' note).

We can obviously see the true meaning of this particular verse once we realize that the king is the visible temporal representative of God on earth. In a far deeper sense, however, the king's throne is indeed everlasting, for Christ Himself shall sit on David's throne as the Holy Scriptures say,

The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy [David's] throne. If thy children will keep My covenant and My testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore -Psalm 132:11-12

Of the increase of His [Christ's] government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this - Isaiah 9:7

Yet again we see how Psalm 45:6-7 carries a fuller and deeper interpretation once applied to Jesus Christ. Mr. McClellan ought to note this before dismissing the facts entirely.

He continues,

Even if you do want to argue it is a reference to the king, this is no different than Exod 7:1. The word should not be translated “king” or “judge.” It means “God,” and if you want to say it refers to the king you have to say it is a metaphorical expression.

This has already been covered, obviously.

This doesn’t support the reading of “judges” in Psalm 82 or in Exodus. The words should still be translated “gods” or “God,” and you still have to show that the context demands they be understood as references to humans. Since you can show no such thing, the endeavor fails.

I don't know any translation that translates Exodus 7:1 as "judge", since it's clear from the context that Moses is a spiritual representative of God, and therefore "a god", or "like God." Dr. White has already sufficiently demonstrated how Psalm 82 refers to human beings, points of which I will reiterate later. But since Mr. McClellan has no desire to take Christ's words as a trustworthy source of interpretation, it would not benefit him anything were we to present a thousand credible sources which utterly disprove his theory. Once one denies the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and still claim to believe in Him, as Mr. McClellan does since he is a good LDS faithful, no amount of substantial evidence will ever convict the hardened heart unless the grace of God break it.

We continue further. Mr. McClellan says,

You move on then to argue that my reading of the divine council is mistaken. You cite the NASB:

The NASB says, "God takes His stand in His own congregation."

The NASB is simply wrong. The Hebrew cannot be read that way. The translation committee just wanted to paraphrase in a way that protected their theology.

Mr. McClellan feel no guilt whatsoever in raising baseless accusation against folks [specifically the NASB translation committee who, we kindly remind Mr. McClellan, have far more credentials than he does] when they disagree with him theologically. Imagine the verbiage we would receive from McClellan had I said, "Daniel O. McClellan just wants to paraphrase and essentially mistranslate Psalm 82 to protect his own theology." Claiming that the NASB translators are dishonest, sneaky folks who are trying to hide the truth to protect their biases really doesn't solve the problem. Mr. McClellan cannot prove his cheap-shot accusation, and he knows it. Theologically the translators would have no problem reading the text the way the NET translates it:

God stands in the assembly of El; in the midst of the gods he renders judgment.

Interestingly enough the footnote says,

The phrase עֲדַת אֵל (’adat ’el, “assembly of El”) appears only here in the OT. (1) Some understand “El” to refer to God himself. In this case he is pictured presiding over his own heavenly assembly. (2) Others take אֵל as a superlative here (“God stands in the great assembly”), as in Pss 36:6 and 80:10. (3) The present translation assumes this is a reference to the Canaanite high god El, who presided over the Canaanite divine assembly. (See Isa 14:13, where El’s assembly is called “the stars of El.”) In the Ugaritic myths the phrase ’dt ’ilm refers to the “assembly of the gods,” who congregate in King Kirtu’s house, where Baal asks El to bless Kirtu’s house (see G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 91). If the Canaanite divine assembly is referred to here in Ps 82:1, then the psalm must be understood as a bold polemic against Canaanite religion. Israel’s God invades El’s assembly, denounces its gods as failing to uphold justice, and announces their coming demise. For an interpretation of the psalm along these lines, see W. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” EBC 5:533-36.

The NET's footnote provides some interesting thoughts for anyone who wishes to say these gods are truly heavenly beings. I don't take this position myself, but as the reader knows I desire to assume this position is correct to show that it in no way justifies the polytheistic Mormon Gods.

But back to the actual verse,

God stands in the assembly of El; in the midst of the gods he renders judgment.

Who is El? I believe Him to be Almighty God. Then who is this character named "God" in the verse? Again, I believe Him to be Almighty God. The reader asks: "And you expect this to make sense how?" Quite easily.

Lest the issue be raised that "God" should be translated as "Gods", plural, because of the plural elohim, let's make perfectly clear that the singular is indeed the correct rendering. The word "stands" comes right after "God"; in Hebrew, it is נִצָּב [naw-tsab']. Not only does it indicate presidency (cf. 1 Kings 22:47, "There was no king in Edom at this time; a governor [נִצָּב] ruled.") but it is also a singular verb. The word varies slightly in, for example Exodus 5:20: "When they went out from Pharaoh, they encountered Moses and Aaron standing [נִצָּבִים] there to meet them." "Moses and Aaron" are a plural subject, thus needing a plural verb. Elohim may be used plurally or singularly, depending on the context and the verbs it takes. Describing God in the plural was the Jewish way of expressing majesty and greatness to Him, hence elohim. The Christian agrees with this and further sees it as a very implicit - but certainly not definite by any means - reference to the mysterious Trinity that God is. In Psalm 82:1, elohim takes the singular verb, thus indicating there is only one person being mentioned: God, singular. The translation in our Bibles is entirely correct. Of course, I am not a Hebrew scholar by any means and don't pretend to be, so I encourage, challenge, and insist that the reader compare my assertions here with the Hebraic scholars [which I add Mr. McClellan is not], Hebrew lexicons, Hebrew commentaries and sentence structure, various literal Bible translations, and you will discover that they will be in full agreement with what you have just read. The biblical texts alone will prove that "stand" in Hebrew can also means "presides", but Mr. McClellan ignores the texts. He says,

Your exposition of the word nitsab is also misplaced.

I believe this has been thoroughly disproven.

Not only does the deliberateness of the standing not change the reading in the least, but you utterly ignored the scholarship I cited.

Actually, Mr. McClellan "cited" no one, instead he just named a few scholars and their works. Interestingly enough, in August Mr. McClellan accused me of allegedly doing the exact same thing,

I really do wonder, sir, did you even take the time to watch my videos or read the material I presented relating to this subject? I find it very surprising that you have not once quoted anyone to base your claims on, while I have quoted not only Scripture but other noted scholars.

No, you haven't quoted other scholars to me. You've simply written their names. (August Discussion, post # 468)

Of course anyone reading that discussion may clearly see Mr. McClellan's claim was entirely wrong. And now he ends up doing the very thing he chided me for. Incredible.

But back to the issue. Who is El? And who is God? I say They are One and the same Being, but two entirely separate Persons. I believe the God character is Jesus Christ pre-Incarnate, and the El is Heavenly Father. The gods, we will assume, are divine or heavenly beings higher than the angels but lesser than God, mere creations given much power by their Divine Source. Let's take a look at the entire Psalm from the NET,

A psalm of Asaph.

82:1 God stands in the assembly of El;

in the midst of the gods he renders judgment.

82:2 He says, “How long will you make unjust legal decisions

and show favoritism to the wicked? (Selah)

82:3 Defend the cause of the poor and the fatherless!

Vindicate the oppressed and suffering!

82:4 Rescue the poor and needy!

Deliver them from the power of the wicked!

82:5 They neither know nor understand.

They stumble around in the dark,

while all the foundations of the earth crumble.

82:6 I thought [Heb. said], ‘You are gods;

all of you are sons of the Most High.’

82:7 Yet you will die like mortals;

you will fall like all the other rulers.”

82:8 Rise up, O God, and execute judgment on the earth!

For you own all the nations.

In Hebrew (WLC),

מִזְמֹור לְאָסָף אֱ‍לֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת־אֵל בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט
עַד־מָתַי תִּשְׁפְּטוּ־עָוֶל וּפְנֵי רְשָׁעִים תִּשְׂאוּ־סֶלָה
שִׁפְטוּ־דַל וְיָתֹום עָנִי וָרָשׁ הַצְדִּיקוּ
פַּלְּטוּ־דַל וְאֶבְיֹון מִיַּד רְשָׁעִים הַצִּילוּ
לֹא יָדְעוּ ׀ וְלֹא יָבִינוּ בַּחֲשֵׁכָה יִתְהַלָּכוּ יִמֹּוטוּ כָּל־מֹוסְדֵי אָרֶץ
אֲ‍נִי־אָמַרְתִּי אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם וּבְנֵי עֶלְיֹון כֻּלְּכֶם
אָכֵן כְּאָדָם תְּמוּתוּן וּכְאַחַד הַשָּׂרִים תִּפֹּלוּ
קוּמָה אֱלֹהִים שָׁפְטָה הָאָרֶץ כִּי־אַתָּה תִנְחַל בְּכָל־הַגֹּויִם

In the LXX,

82:1 ψαλμὸς τῷ ασαφ ὁ θεὸς ἔστη ἐν συναγωγῇ θεῶν ἐν μέσῳ δὲ θεοὺς διακρίνει 82:2 ἕως πότε κρίνετε ἀδικίαν καὶ πρόσωπα ἁμαρτωλῶν λαμβάνετε διάψαλμα
82:3 κρίνατε ὀρφανὸν καὶ πτωχόν ταπεινὸν καὶ πένητα δικαιώσατε
82:4 ἐξέλεσθε πένητα καὶ πτωχόν ἐκ χειρὸς ἁμαρτωλοῦ ῥύσασθε
82:5 οὐκ ἔγνωσαν οὐδὲ συνῆκαν ἐν σκότει διαπορεύονται σαλευθήσονται πάντα τὰ θεμέλια τῆς γῆς
82:6 ἐγὼ εἶπα θεοί ἐστε καὶ υἱοὶ ὑψίστου πάντες
82:7 ὑμεῖς δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωποι ἀποθνῄσκετε καὶ ὡς εἷς τῶν ἀρχόντων πίπτετε
82:8 ἀνάστα ὁ θεός κρῖνον τὴν γῆν ὅτι σὺ κατακληρονομήσεις ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν

We will examine each verse and show how Mr. McClellan's unsubstantial "arguments" have no place whatsoever in this sacred text. We will also reiterate my own personal conviction from the words of Christ that this Psalm refers to human judges. But for now, we continue in assuming the gods are heavenly, not human.

82:1 God stands in the assembly of El;

Again the question is asked, "If you believe both these characters are God, why do we see two of them? How do you expect to prove your assertion?"

The Hebrew seems to indicate there are two person in this verse, as Mr. McClellan fully advocates: El and God. However it must be noted that El in Hebrew is translated as "God" in numerous passages. For example, in Isaiah 9:6 the prophet says of Jesus Christ that He will be the El Gibbor, Mighty God. This same title is also used of Yahweh in Isaih 10:21. Recall that Mr. McClellan made the following assertion regarding God [elohim] in Psalm 82,

My point still stands uncontested, and Yahweh is still not supreme.

But if El is actually Yahweh, as the biblical texts strongly indicate, then Mr. McClellan has once again proven himself in gross error. The NASB then is fully correct in paraphrasing verse 1 as,

God takes His stand in His own congregation.

But the reader may wonder why the Hebrew text words the verse in such a way that indicates there are two persons present in this Council? El seems to be the Head of the Council, since it is named "the Council of El", but God also is presiding over it. For Israel, this is quite clearly an example of the Two Powers in Heaven seen at the same time, a doctrine which Rabbinical scholar Alan Segal notes was present in Judaism before the Second Temple period. Dr. Michael Heiser, building upon Segal's work, adds,

Segal argued that the two powers idea was no deemed heretical in Jewish theology until the second century A.D. He carefully traced the roots of the teaching back into the Second Temple era (ca. 200 B.C.), noting instances where Jewish writers like Philo referred to a "second God" or "lesser Yahweh" as part of their theology.

The Jewish category of a "second power in heaven" caught the attention of scholarly specialists in New Testament origins and Second Temple Jewish monotheism since the exaltation of a second power in heaven became the hallmark of Christianity. New Testament scholars were stimulated by the work of Segal and others who followed in the search for an explanation for the exaltation of Jesus by a Jewish sect whose adherents were willing to suffer death rather than deny monotheism. A fundamental question still remained, though. If Christianity derived from Judaism, was the exaltation of a second power a departure from Israelite religion? Segal raised this question in his book as well. He was able to trace the idea through the discussions of the rabbis to passages like Dan 7:9-13, Exo 23:20-22, and Exo 15:3, but could only speculate that such an idea came from the divine warrior imagery in the Hebrew Bible. This answer did not satisfy him, nor has it satisfied his readers in the three decades since his book appeared. There needed to be a larger coherent religious framework into which a Binitarian interpretation of these passages would fit or derive from. Persian dualism was unacceptable as an explanation since neither of Judaism's two powers in heaven were evil. - Heiser; The Concept of a Godhead in Israelite Religion, p. 2

Even if we were to completely ignore the fuller context of Scripture with regards to the Trinity throughout the Old and New Testaments, Mr. McClellan must answer to the simple fact that monotheistic Israel had two divine Yahwehs, but one God. This is unlike any myth we see in paganism and other ancient religions. In the New Testament this mystery becomes even more explicitly revealed as the Trinity. McClellan obviously does not feel obligated to take Scripture in its context, but as a Mormon must demand that Christians take the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and all the words of the Apostles and Prophets into context when criticizing Mormonism's doctrines. With the Bible, however, McClellan somehow thinks the same standards do not apply, as we have already noted him saying earlier that he views the Bible as a theological mess.

Now that we have briefly covered the Israelite Two Powers in Heaven, let us proceed fully aware that we are not reading a late first century concept back into the Old Testament text, but instead that we are simply following in the consistent development of the Binitarian/Trinitarian doctrine becoming fully revealed in Christ.

...in the midst of the gods he renders judgment.

The "he" is obviously God [elohim] from the text who renders judgment. We recall how Mr. McClellan in his first rebuttal to White's exegesis said,

The next portion ("He judges among the gods") means the same thing. He is one of the divine judges. The gods are not being judged at this point in the text, they are judging alongside Yahweh.

We can easily see how Mr. McClellan makes this error by noting his misrepresentation of "standing" in the Council, particularly Psalm 82. But this portion has already been explained. So if God [elohim] is the President, why does the same verse say He judges "in the midst of" the gods? Does this not indicate that He is merely one of the gods who judge? Not at all.

Example after example is given in Scripture wherein God freely chooses to meet with His beloved creation, to be among them, to be in their midst, just as He met with Moses on the Holy Mountain and decreed His sacred Laws. Simply because Our God is seen "among" the gods, or "in their midst" cannot indicate that He is merely one of them, especially once the context is examined. If these gods in Psalm 82 are heavenly, and God [elohim] (whom we have already noted must be the pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ) freely judges from among them, as though He were one of them, does this not make us stop and wonder that this is part of His divine plan, a prototype, even a prophetic picture, of a greater design? For if He freely meets with His heavenly creations, and desires to be seen as though He were one of them, how much more so His desire to meet with Mankind and be seen as one of us, we who are created in His very image? If these gods are truly heavenly, they are representatives of the Almighty God, the Supreme Judge; and they are also prototypes of the earthly judges, who also represent the Almighty Judge, and who, if they follow His will, shall indeed become gods through theosis. Far from portraying a pagan legend, Psalm 82 demonstrates the supremacy of Our Lord in heavenly and earthly goings-on. It demonstrates His humility to be found in the midst of His own creation, and yet even in their midst He is the Sovereign Lord, the Supreme Judge, the President whose authority is never ceasing.

But simultaneously Psalm 82 declares that God [El] is the Head of the Council, the President, and far above all the gods who are gathered before Him. We are reminded of Heavenly Father being seated on His Throne presiding over the judgment of Man, and we remember Christ stands before the Father as Lion and Lamb, and even as He stands before Him Christ is also seated on the very same Throne. What a mystery! The Ten Sefirot are nothing compared to the complex unity which God is, and which Segal touches upon in his work. Ancient Israel was given this complex mystery, but it was for true Israel (the Church) to discover its hidden meaning, its place in Scripture, in theology, and in our Christian living.

In El's Court Elohim executes the Judgment. This brings to mind the parable Our Lord spoke in St. Luke's Gospel,

11As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 12He said therefore, "A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, 'Engage in business until I come.' 14But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We do not want this man to reign over us.' 15When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. 16The first came before him, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.' 17And he said to him, 'Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.' 18And the second came, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made five minas.' 19And he said to him, 'And you are to be over five cities.' 20Then another came, saying, 'Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; 21for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.' 22He said to him, 'I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?' 24And he said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.' 25And they said to him, 'Lord, he has ten minas!' 26'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'" - Lk. 19:11-27, ESV

Just as He demands the wicked enemies of the Kingdom be slain, so in Psalm 82 He demands the unjust gods to die like mortal princes. Their sin has betrayed their true intentions: they dealt unjustly with their decrees, they wasted their power and authority over the nations in corruption, and they produced nothing of good, nothing holy, to the glory of God. But to the glory of God He took away what these selfish gods already had, since they had made themselves His enemies, and so they were now like mortals doomed to eternal damnation.

He says, “How long will you make unjust legal decisions and show favoritism to the wicked? (Selah)

Again, the "He" refers to God [elohim] from verse 1. We are reminded of countless examples in the Old Testament where Israel's and Judah's kings favored paganism, decreed injustice; not only kings but the priests also, as in the case of Eli's two corrupt sons found in First Samuel.

Skipping to verse 5,

They neither know nor understand. They stumble around in the dark, while all the foundations of the earth crumble.

As Dr. White correctly notes,

Finally, Heiser expresses difficult in understanding how, if the judges here referred to are in fact human judges, "the corrupt decisions of a group of humans would shake the foundations of the earth." This ignores the obvious biblical teaching that Yahweh is a God of justice, for as the Psalmist put it, "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne" (Psalm 97:2). The same term referring to the "foundations of the earth" is found in Psalm 18:8 where God's wrath makes them tremble and quake; Isaiah 24:18 likewise uses the term metaphorically in reference to God's wrath coming in judgment; they are called as witnesses by Yahweh against His people in Micah 6:2, again, a metaphoric use. The point of the Psalmist is actually rather easily seen: when justice is perverted, as it is by these judges, the proper order is perverted. Men walk about in darkness. The foundations of the earth are shaken (metaphorically, as in the other texts cited). The very foundation of society is its righteous judges, and much is said in Scripture about what happens when unrighteous judges sit amongst the people. - Carmenn Massa and Dodging the Real Arguments

I also note Hosea 4:3 declares,

1Listen to the word of the LORD, O sons of Israel,
For the LORD has a case against the inhabitants of the land,
Because there is no faithfulness or kindness
Or knowledge of God in the land.
2There is swearing, deception, murder, stealing and adultery
They employ violence, so that bloodshed follows bloodshed.
3Therefore the land mourns,
And everyone who lives in it languishes
Along with the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky,
And also the fish of the sea disappear.

Again, the from the Old Testament alone the perspective that these gods are actually human is not entirely inconceivable.

I thought, ‘You are gods; all of you are sons of the Most High.’

The phrase "sons of the Most High" does not strictly mean biological sonship, but is used metaphorically as St. Paul metaphorically called St. Timothy his "son". One wonders what the LDS may say about the Pharisees where Jesus calls them children of their father the Devil. Somehow this is obviously figurative but when referring to the sons of the Most High it must be literal. The Christians are still waiting for some type of reasonable answer from LDS apologists on that particular issue.

Yet you will die like mortals; you will fall like all the other rulers.”

Figuring they were better than any other human being because of their great authority, these human judges are reminded by God that they are indeed mortal, and like mortals they will die, like princes they will fall. We note that the Bible contains very serious and dark accounts of earthly rulers falling from glory. Chaos and destruction almost always accompany their fall, if not in their empires, then in their own personal lives. If these are heavenly beings, then we recall how Lucifer, one of the sons of God, fell from grace and like a mortal man will be condemned to an everlasting grave.

Rise up, O God, and execute judgment on the earth! For you own all the nations.

Here Elohim rises up and prepares to judge the earth. The נָחַל (nakhal) is sometimes translated in other versions as a future verb, "will possess [or 'own'] all the nations." Yet again this indicates to us that God [elohim] here is Jesus Christ, who will inherit all which His Father will give to Him,

1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. - He. 1:1-4

I believe now that we have examined all of this, Mr. McClellan's rather short citation here really doesn't prove anything against the Christian perspective,

“Ps. lxxxii speaks of a monarchic status of El, superior to that of the other gods and among them Yahweh. This psalm clearly presents Yahweh in the congregation of El, i.e. in the council of gods led by El.”
- Otto Eissfeldt, “El and Yahweh,” Journal of Semitic Studies 1.1 (January 1956): 29–30

Once again, we have seen how El is the Head of the Council, but God [elohim] also presides. Since the Father is greater than Christ, it make perfect logical sense that the Father would be seen as leading it while Christ presides and passes judgment.

Of course, Mr. McClellan doesn't dwell long on actually addressing the issue. Right after citing the above he slips right back into snobbery and insult, a pattern that has become all too familiar in his correspondence with opponents,

Feel free to go read that article. I expect you to be familiar with the entirety of it by the time you respond. If not, I won’t read a word. You’re not respecting the academic process here, and I have zero respect or time for that kind of dilettantism. If you want me to treat you like a scholar then you act like a scholar.

Despite the fact I've told him numerous times I don't think of myself as a scholar, Mr. McClellan insists on misrepresenting my every syllable and once again accuses me of doing the exact same thing he has done. I don't recall ever insinuating I was a graduate from Oxford. But Mr. McClellan has. It's documented.

Deuteronomy 1 is later than Psalm 82 and Deut 32:8–9, and the text you quote has nothing to do with the divine council motif.

Besides from completely missing the point of citing that text, Mr. McClellan again expects the reader to take him at his word. No proof is given for his assertion. Once again, my own words,

Next, McCllelan says,

God is also not standing in the congregation of Israel. That terminology is never, ever used this way. In fact, to stand in a council means you do not conduct or preside over it. The next portion ("He judges among the gods") means the same thing. He is one of the divine judges. The gods are not being judged at this point in the text, they are judging alongside Yahweh.

Once again, contrary to Daniel's assertions, the text says something quite the opposite. The NASB says, "God takes His stand in His own congregation." The Hebrew word translated into English as "stands" is nitzabh, which "denotes a deliberate and formal act, connected with a definite purpose. I Sam. 19:20.” J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, l972), II, p.105. In the LXX, the word for "stands" is esth [Strong's 2476], and is used in Psalm 82:1.

In 1 Sam. 19:20 we read,

Then Saul sent messengers to take David, but when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, with Samuel standing [Strong's Heb. 5975; Strong's Grk. 2476 from LXX] and presiding over them, the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul; and they also prophesied. - NASB

I also will note, to further show the reader the errors in McCllelan's statement,

That terminology is never, ever used this way. In fact, to stand in a council means you do not conduct or preside over it.

the following passage:

The LORD has taken his place to contend; he stands [Heb. 5324; Grk. 2476] to judge peoples. - Is. 3:13

Both 1 Samuel and Isaiah clearly show that Mr. McCllelan's argument is in error. In light of this, we know that God judges in the midst of the gods, presiding over this Council. He is not simply one of them, but He is the Supreme Judge, the President. If the gods are judging alongside Yahweh, it is only because He alone has allowed them to do so.

At that time I said to you, ‘I am not able to bear you by myself. The LORD your God has multiplied you, and behold, you are today as numerous as the stars of heaven. May the LORD, the God of your fathers, make you a thousand times as many as you are and bless you, as he has promised you! How can I bear by myself the weight and burden of you and your strife? Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.’ And you answered me, ‘The thing that you have spoken is good for us to do.’ So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and set them as heads over you, commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds, commanders of fifties, commanders of tens, and officers, throughout your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, ‘Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him. You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God's. And the case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.’ And I commanded you at that time all the things that you should do. - Deuteronomy 1:9-17

If the above passage refers to human judges, made in the image of God, how much more so would it apply to divine beings in Heaven who are their prototype? The formula is the same be they human or divine.

I reiterate my own words for the reader's benefit.

McClellan continues,

You go on to cite the texts I earlier referred to, but you misunderstand their application. The divine council did not necessarily have to include judgment (which is actually a later adaptation of the motif). The presence or absence of judgment alone is insufficient for the thesis you’re trying to push, and scholarship universally recognizes Psalm 82 and 1 Kings 22 as textbook examples of the divine council motif (see the Kee article already cited; Robinson, “The Council of Yahweh,” Journal of Theological Studies 45 [1944]: 153–55; Cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 12.4 [1953]: 275; Tsevat, “God and the Gods in Assembly: An Interpretation of Psalm 82,” Hebrew Union College Annual 40/41 [1969/1970]: 126; and Morgenstern, who says the following about Psalm 82: "this is precisely the same assembly as that referred to in 1 Ki. 22.19-23." See "The Mythological Background of Psalm 82," Hebrew Union College Annual 14 [1939]: 40). You also misspelled “scenarios” (you spelled it “senerios”).

In First Kings 22:19-23 we see Yahweh Himself presiding and sitting in the Council. McClellan errs yet again in assuming I am saying the Council needs a judgment. Had he actually read my words carefully he would not have made this mistake. My own words,

Of the other passages McCllelan mentions, viz. 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:1; Dan 7:9-10; Job 1:6; Zech 3:1, 3, 4, in which he claims "you will see the subordinates always stand before the presiding authority, who is seated", I only answer that 1 Samuel and Isaiah disprove that theory. But we wil[l] cite those passages just the same in their context, which when taken into said context further prove Mr. McCllelan's theory erroneous.

Regarding the passages McClellan cited, I said,

Once again there is no council or judgment here as seen in Psalm 82, no condemnation of men or divine beings so-called. Simply because God is sitting down really proves nothing unless the same senerio we are examining may be also be found here as well...Verse 10 brings to mind Revelation 20:11-15, wherein the books are opened while God is seated on His Throne as He judges mankind. Unlike the first t[w]o references provided by Mr. McCllelan, this one actually shows God in judgment. And He indeed is seated. But remember, folks, Mr. McCllelan has made the following assertion,

In the following scriptures you will see the subordinates always stand before the presiding authority, who is seated...

But if we compare the above passage from Daniel with the passages from 1 Samuel and Isaiah, we see too that the President of the Council may also stand, not neccessarily always sit. This particular passage from Daniel does not substantiate Mr. McCllelan's claims.

After examining Psalm 82, in comparison with these other passages, it remains quite clear Mr. McClellan has ignored the context, therefore arriving at the strange conclusions he has thus far made.

None of the other texts you cite at all support your assertion. You go on to make a rookie mistake in trying to undermine the idea that Yahweh was subordinate to El. You cite Gen 14:22 as equating Yahweh and Elyon, but the word “Yahweh” there is a late interpolation. It’s not in the Septuagint, the Genesis Apocryphon, or the Syriac. It’s in later texts that the two are equated, like Psalm 92:1. Had you bothered to take the time to look critically at these texts you’d have discovered this. The fact that you haven’t shows how superficial your readings are.

The empty rhetoric and insult in Mr. McClellan's writing gets tiring. I find it odd McClellan does not cite any scholars or sources to support his assertion: I haven't heard this from the Old Testament scholars who in fact have valid credentials. I suppose Psalm 21:7, or 7:17 are corruptions as well. Considering Mr. McClellan has trouble documenting many of his assertions, I'd seriously re-think who is being superficial in this dialogue.

Moving on to the final error and attack made by McClellan,

You finally conclude, basically repeating the assertions you made in the body of your argument with insufficient supporting evidence. You also state: “In Job, the sons of God approach Him, and Satan - which Scripture clearly calls a "god" - is in their midst. It simply does not make sense that Satan would enter with the gods into Heaven's Court, but is more probable that he would enter with his brethren by nature: the angels.”

The Bible does not call Satan a “god.” It simply says he came among the “Sons of God.” This, in effect, equates him with the sons of God. If you want to read about Satan’s demotion to the realm of angels, see here. Asserting the “sons of God” were angels simply falls prey to late Second Temple Period propaganda, which shows how uncritically you’re evaluating the Bible.

Regarding the "sons of God" I said,

Simpl[y] because the gods are called bene elohim, "sons of God", does not mean they are truly divine sons, but can be used as a metaphor to describe the close relationship between these beings and God. St. Timothy is described as St. Paul's son, yet we all know very well that Paul was not Timothy's biological father.

Since the New Testament descibes Satan as an angel, and coming as an angel of light, I do believe that is quite enough evidence for anyone who claims to believe the historicity of Scripture. Speaking of uncritical evaluation of the Bible, Mr. McClellan asserts the Bible never calls Satan a god, yet St. Paul says quite the opposite,

In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. - 2 Cor. 4:4, ESV

If this god isn't Satan, I'd love for Mr. McClellan to demonstrate exactly why he disagrees with literally hundreds of biblical scholars and exegetes who have had credentials ever since he was born, who all conclude that this passage refers to Satan. In fact, it'd be great if he answered at least one of the many objections I present here and in my previous post. All I've seen are childish remarks, incredible behavior not fit for any type of discussion, insult, false undocumented accusation, complete misrepresentation, and empty rhetoric. The thinking reader no doubt will agree.

Your final sentence is also a weasely cop-out. You basically say that even if your entire argument is wrong, it still doesn’t matter because it doesn’t match Mormon doctrine.

No, Mr. McClellan, what I actually said was quite the contrary. I see you did not quote me here, and I think the reason is obvious. So allow me to quote myself yet again to clear up what you have confused,

And again, even if one insists these "gods" in Psalm 82 are truly heavenly beings, so be it, as this does not in any way support the plurality of Gods or the very doctrine of Elohim and Yahweh according to Mormonism.

I never said I was wrong, I didn't even hint such a thing. Instead, all I said was that even if someone insisted the gods are heavenly beings, despite the evidence to the contrary, it in no way supports the Mormon polytheism. You conveniently ignored my words here,

With Christ's usage of Psalm 82 we see more clearly that these gods simply must be human beings.

Your attempt to twist my words into something else entirely does not do your credibility any good at all, sir. The reader may safely expect you to execute the same low-blows to others who may disagree with your conclusions and eisegesis.
You try to sound like you know the languages, but you still cite Strong’s and you still show yourself unwilling and unable to think critically about the texts you’re using, as was pointed out concerning Genesis 14.

I cited Strong simply so the reader could read the basic definition of the Greek word himself. I assure you sir I have Bauer's sitting safely in my library, along with Thayer's, Louw & Nida, Vine's, and a Brown-Driver-Briggs PDF file on my desktop. As always your charity is most kind.

If you wish to respond to this post and have me read it I’ll ask you to actually read the scholarship I’ve cited. I can show you where to get access to it if you can’t find it. If you can’t familiarize yourself with the scholarship being addressed by your opponents, then you’re not debating, you’re just saying “Nu-uh!” I’m not going to waste another second on someone who refuses to take me seriously, especially if they make the kinds of mistakes you make on such a regular basis.

Rest assured, sir, that serious-minded readers know exactly who has been dodging the objections and presentations. Many people find it hard to respect anyone who responds with insult and very little substance to their "argument". I take the Mormon misinterpretation of Psalm 82 very seriously. Sadly, I cannot say the same for you. Your own words are more than enough documentation that brings me to this conclusion.

Conclusion: What did Jesus say Again?

In closing, I think it'd be wise to review once again the words of Our Lord with regards to Psalm 82.

John 10:1-21 (NET)

10:1 “I tell you the solemn truth, 1 the one who does not enter the sheepfold 2 by the door, 3 but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber. 10:2 The one who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 10:3 The doorkeeper 4 opens the door 5 for him, 6 and the sheep hear his voice. He 7 calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 8 10:4 When he has brought all his own sheep 9 out, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they recognize 10 his voice. 10:5 They will never follow a stranger, 11 but will run away from him, because they do not recognize 12 the stranger’s voice.” 13 10:6 Jesus told them this parable, 14 but they 15 did not understand 16 what he was saying to them.

10:7 So Jesus said to them again, “I tell you the solemn truth, 17 I am the door for the sheep. 18 10:8 All who came before me were 19 thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 20 10:9 I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he will be saved, and will come in and go out, 21 and find pasture. 22 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill 23 and destroy; I have come so that they may have life, and may have it abundantly. 24

10:11 “I am the good 25 shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life 26 for the sheep. 10:12 The hired hand, 27 who is not a shepherd and does not own sheep, sees the wolf coming and abandons 28 the sheep and runs away. 29 So the wolf attacks 30 the sheep and scatters them. 10:13 Because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep, 31 he runs away. 32

10:14 “I am the good shepherd. I 33 know my own 34 and my own know me – 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life 35 for 36 the sheep. 10:16 I have 37 other sheep that do not come from 38 this sheepfold. 39 I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, 40 so that 41 there will be one flock and 42 one shepherd. 10:17 This is why the Father loves me 43 – because I lay down my life, 44 so that I may take it back again. 10:18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down 45 of my own free will. 46 I have the authority 47 to lay it down, and I have the authority 48 to take it back again. This commandment 49 I received from my Father.”

10:19 Another sharp division took place among the Jewish people 50 because of these words. 10:20 Many of them were saying, “He is possessed by a demon and has lost his mind! 51 Why do you listen to him?” 10:21 Others said, “These are not the words 52 of someone possessed by a demon. A demon cannot cause the blind to see, 53 can it?” 54

Briefly put, Christ is declaring to the Jews that there are false shepherds who rule unjustly, who corrupt the Law of God, who corrupt the very Word of God, and those who follow these perverse shepherds will perish with them. Christ alone is the Good Shepherd, the only Shepherd whom we have to do, the Shepherd whom our local shepherds (the bishops and priests) must follow in example and teaching. The priests and bishops are the Living Icons of Christ, just as Christ is the Icon of the Father. And just as the bishops shepherd the Churches of God, so Christ shepherds the bishops and their flock. He alone is our Teacher, the Infallible Potentate, the only true Pontiff of the Church. In the above passages Christ condemns these false shepherds by affirming that He alone is the true Shepherd, the true Door to everlasting life.

10:22 Then came the feast of the Dedication 55 in Jerusalem. 56 10:23 It was winter, 57 and Jesus was walking in the temple area 58 in Solomon’s Portico. 59 10:24 The Jewish leaders 60 surrounded him and asked, 61 “How long will you keep us in suspense? 62 If you are the Christ, 63 tell us plainly.” 64 10:25 Jesus replied, 65 “I told you and you do not believe. The deeds 66 I do in my Father’s name testify about me. 10:26 But you refuse to believe because you are not my sheep. 10:27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 10:28 I give 67 them eternal life, and they will never perish; 68 no one will snatch 69 them from my hand. 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, 70 and no one can snatch 71 them from my Father’s hand. 10:30 The Father and I 72 are one.” 73

10:31 The Jewish leaders 74 picked up rocks again to stone him to death. 10:32 Jesus said to them, 75 “I have shown you many good deeds 76 from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?” 10:33 The Jewish leaders 77 replied, 78 “We are not going to stone you for a good deed 79 but for blasphemy, 80 because 81 you, a man, are claiming to be God.” 82

10:34 Jesus answered, 83 “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 84 10:35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken), 85 10:36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart 86 and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 10:37 If I do not perform 87 the deeds 88 of my Father, do not believe me. 10:38 But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds, 89 so that you may come to know 90 and understand that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” 10:39 Then 91 they attempted 92 again to seize him, but he escaped their clutches. 93

10:40 Jesus 94 went back across the Jordan River 95 again to the place where John 96 had been baptizing at an earlier time, 97 and he stayed there. 10:41 Many 98 came to him and began to say, “John 99 performed 100 no miraculous sign, but everything John said about this man 101 was true!” 10:42 And many believed in Jesus 102 there.

Now He claims Deity. For this the Jews are about to stone Him, and when He inquries as to why, they answer Him plainly: "Because you, a mere human being, claim to be Almighty God." It is here Christ quotes Psalm 82:6, "I said, 'You are gods.'" Notice what He says, "If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken)..." - People to whom the word of God came, these were called "gods." Jesus calls them "people", human beings whom God had revealed His word. He does not reveal His word to angels, nor to so-called gods in the heavens, but to Mankind for whom Christ died.

The NASB translates verse 35 as,

If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)

The Greek word for "he" is ἐκείνους, which the NET translates as "people" since it is in the plural. It is human beings Christ has in mind when He cites Psalm 82:6 to the Jews. The context fits quite well. First, He's decried the false shepherds as liars, even frauds, who have erred in the Truth and perverted God's Law. Secondly, He declares Himself to be God in human flesh. Thirdly, when accused of blasphemy, He quotes Psalm 82:6 in His defense (and demonstrates His superior understanding of the Scriptures at the same time). As God He once again declares of the false shepherds, those corrupt spiritual rulers, "How long will you judge unjustly and favor wickedness?" He also, in effect, says, "If the Scriptures call these mere human beings gods, what sin have I committed by declaring Myself to be the Son of God?"

I think that says it all.

Documenting Daniel O. McClellan's Errors with Psalm 82

2009-11-21T18:17:00.000-08:00

Well I had thought the issue would be laid to rest, but Mr. McCllelan felt compelled to make a response to Dr. James R. White's exegesis on Psalm 82 and the so-called Divine Council. Before delving into the issue, I'd like to point out to the reader the first error Daniel makes in the very first, and very awkwardly long sentence,

James White responds on his blog to a Roman Catholic youngster going by the name Carmenn Massa who apparently criticizes White and his colleagues concerning some other exchange about Jerry Shirts's use of Michael Heiser's scholarship regarding Psalm 82. Massa has been active on some Facebook message boards, and while he has a decent working knowledge of the catechisms and his own dogmas, he's woefully unprepared to engage LDS scholarship directly.

Jerry Shirts is actually Kerry Shirts, a lay Mormon apologist who goes by the nick 'The Backyard Professor', though he holds no credentials in theology, early patristics, Hebrew, Greek, Scriptural exegesis, or in any other matters which are neccessary for expounding the sacred mysteries of the Gospel. But Mr. Shirts seemingly doesn't let his numerous [documented] errors stop him from presenting faulty arguments, isolated texts, long-refuted assertions which when scrutinized turn out to be nothing more than 'fluff'. One of those badly mutilated Scriptural texts Mr. Shirts, like many Mormons, attempted to present as proof for the plurality of Gods (and the divinity of Man) was Psalm 82. We will examine Psalm 82 in just a few moments.

Secondly, Mr. McCllelan states I

...apparently criticize[d] White and his colleagues concerning some other exchange about Jerry Shirts's use of Michael Heiser's scholarship regarding Psalm 82.

No matter how many times I searched and searched, I simply could not find an email in my inbox, junk, or even spam box from Mr. McCllelan contacting me to confirm the true nature of my article regarding A&OMin and Heiser. I even checked my Facebook email to see if Daniel left a message there, or a wall post: nothing. No, instead Mr. McCllelan went by the information provided by Dr. White's formal response to my said article. Had he taken the time to read what I actually said, he would have found that I wrote responding to Mr. Rich Pierce, the President of Alpha and Omega Ministries. So, truthfully, the person I criticized was Pierce, not White, nor any of his other colleagues, as McCllelan asserts. Further, my article had nothing to do with Kerry Shirts, nor Dr. White for that matter, except that both were mentioned indirectly as the reader may clearly see. My article focused on responding to Mr. Pierce's assertion that Heiser's work promotes henotheism, and so has nothing to do with Mr. Shirts at this point. If McCllelan would have continued looking further, he would have also noted my response to Dr. White's post. In my response, I apologize for the errors I made, which open letter to James White and Rich Pierce may still be read. I also clarified my position so that any confusion regarding my stand would be done away with.

-EDITED UPDATE- March 14, 2010 -

The above is for the most part correct, however even though I did not attack Dr. White up front, the underlining subtlety was most certainly there, and so Dr. White was very correct in saying I took a shot at him and the ministry. I did in fact use the Mormon issue as an opportunity to attack, and attempted to justify it by following up in another article all the while maintaining a semi-apologetic appearance. The same can be seen in the above paragraph as well. However, let us not turn aside from the fact that Mr. McClellan did not attempt to contact me to verify any of it. I thought it wise to delete the posts containing the attack and follow up since there is truly no more need for them, and why bother keeping a blatant sin like attacking someone public? But those said posts are still available in note-form hidden in my Facebook note archives, and can be made privately available for anyone wishing to read the letter or the posts for themselves to verify the accounts. Dr. White's post is still available to my knowledge, so the reader may see all for himself.

Mr. McCllelan in the next sentence says regarding me,

Massa has been active on some Facebook message boards, and while he has a decent working knowledge of the catechisms and his own dogmas, he's woefully unprepared to engage LDS scholarship directly.

Him calling me "woefully unprepared" produces a bit of a chuckle considering Mr. McCllelan has to date refused to answer any of the objections, arguments, or documentation I present in Christianity's defense against the Mormon misinterpretation of God. The reader will remember Mr. McCllelan's gross attitude towards me in his "responses", which to be perfectly honest were nothing but paragraphs of insulting verbiage. His behaviour, especially being an Oxford graduate, would be expected to meet a higher standard, but sadly this just isn't the case. I invite the reader to judge by reading that dialogue here.

I find it ironic McCllelan asserts my inability to engage the arguments directly yet he clearly dismissed everything I presented then abruptly ended the conversation altogether, and then turns around to start a thread which I am not involved in, stating that I, in fact, am the one who cannot engage. Interesting, Daniel, very interesting.

Besides his shots at me, Daniel takes quite a few more shots at Dr. White during his attempted rebuttle. White argues from the perspective that the gods in Psalm 82 are human rulers. This interpretation is fine by me as I've repeatedly stated before. In fact, I direct the reader to Sam Shamoun's piece regarding the subject. However I like to argue from the view that even if these beings are "gods", creatures set into motion by Yahweh, the passage in no way whatsoever supports the polytheistic Mormon doctrine as taught by Smith and his successors.

In response to White's assertion, viz.

Here we have the key to the passage, for this is a psalm of judgment against the rulers of Israel. God takes his stand in His own congregation, that being His own people, Israel. (Is the Mormon my Brother?)

McCllelan says,

It is not a judgment against Israel. It is a judgment of the gods of the foreign nations. The word elohim does not refer to humans. It cannot refer to humans. The closest it comes is Exod 7:1, where God tells Moses he will make him an elohim as far as pharaoh is concerned. It is not a taxonomic designation there, but just rhetoric. As far as pharaoh is concerned, Moses is as a deity. The verb נתנ and the inseparable prefix לְ makes that clear. If Moses were being called a god over pharaoh, or were in some way identified as an actual אלהים, the preposition עַל would have been used.

I wish more LDS missionaries would admit what Mr. McCllelan has surprisingly admitted regarding Moses acting as God towards Pharaoh. In any case, the error here is when McCllelan says of elohim, "It cannot refer to humans." But the Psalms themselves refute this quite easily.

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions - Psalm 45:6-7

As Shamoun correctly notes, this Psalm is addressed directly to the human King of Israel. And this human King is explicitly called "God."

In Hebrew the passage reads,

כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עוֹלָם וָעֶד שֵׁבֶט מִישֹׁר שֵׁבֶט מַלְכוּתֶךָ
אָהַבְתָּ צֶּדֶק וַתִּשְׂנָא-רֶשַׁע
עַל-כֵּן מְשָׁחֲךָ אֱלֹהִים אֱלֹהֶיךָ שֶׁמֶן שָׂשׂוֹן מֵחֲבֵרֶךָ

In the LXX,

ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου

This should not be passed over lightly. For the writer of Hebrews, probably St. Paul or at least a Christian Jew with the same OT knowledge as found in Paul, uses this very passage to demonstrate the explicit Deity of Jesus Christ.

But of the Son He says, YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS. - Heb. 1:8-9

In Greek, the passage reads,

προς δε τον υιον ο θρονος σου ο θεος εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος ραβδος ευθυτητος η ραβδος της βασιλειας σου ηγαπησας δικαιοσυνην και εμισησας ανομιαν δια τουτο εχρισεν σε ο θεος ο θεος σου ελαιον αγαλλιασεως παρα τους μετοχους σου (Byzantine/Majority Text [2000])

This from the Tischendorf 8th Ed.,

προς δε τον υιον ο θρονος σου ο θεος εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος και η ραβδος της ευθυτητος ραβδος της βασιλειας σου ηγαπησας δικαιοσυνην και εμισησας αδικιαν δια τουτο εχρισεν σε ο θεος ο θεος σου ελαιον αγαλλιασεως παρα τους μετοχους σου

Now let's compare the LXX passage with the NT application and see its usage word for word,

LXX
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου

NT
προς δε τον υιον ο θρονος σου ο θεος εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος ραβδος ευθυτητος η ραβδος της βασιλειας σου ηγαπησας δικαιοσυνην και εμισησας ανομιαν δια τουτο εχρισεν σε ο θεος ο θεος σου ελαιον αγαλλιασεως παρα τους μετοχους σου

Thus, contrary to Mr. McCllelan's claim, the Hebrew elohim clearly can and is used of human beings depending on the context.

Next, McCllelan says,

God is also not standing in the congregation of Israel. That terminology is never, ever used this way. In fact, to stand in a council means you do not conduct or preside over it. The next portion ("He judges among the gods") means the same thing. He is one of the divine judges. The gods are not being judged at this point in the text, they are judging alongside Yahweh.

Once again, contrary to Daniel's assertions, the text says something quite the opposite. The NASB says, "God takes His stand in His own congregation." The Hebrew word translated into English as "stands" is nitzabh, which "denotes a deliberate and formal act, connected with a definite purpose. I Sam. 19:20.” J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, l972), II, p.105. In the LXX, the word for "stands" is esth [Strong's 2476], and is used in Psalm 82:1.

In 1 Sam. 19:20 we read,

Then Saul sent messengers to take David, but when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, with Samuel standing [Strong's Heb. 5975; Strong's Grk. 2476 from LXX] and presiding over them, the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul; and they also prophesied. - NASB

I also will note, to further show the reader the errors in McCllelan's statement,

That terminology is never, ever used this way. In fact, to stand in a council means you do not conduct or preside over it.

the following passage:

The LORD has taken his place to contend; he stands [Heb. 5324; Grk. 2476] to judge peoples. - Is. 3:13

Both 1 Samuel and Isaiah clearly show that Mr. McCllelan's argument is in error. In light of this, we know that God judges in the midst of the gods, presiding over this Council. He is not simply one of them, but He is the Supreme Judge, the President. If the gods are judging alongside Yahweh, it is only because He alone has allowed them to do so.

At that time I said to you, ‘I am not able to bear you by myself. The LORD your God has multiplied you, and behold, you are today as numerous as the stars of heaven. May the LORD, the God of your fathers, make you a thousand times as many as you are and bless you, as he has promised you! How can I bear by myself the weight and burden of you and your strife? Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.’ And you answered me, ‘The thing that you have spoken is good for us to do.’ So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and set them as heads over you, commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds, commanders of fifties, commanders of tens, and officers, throughout your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, ‘Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him. You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God's. And the case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.’ And I commanded you at that time all the things that you should do. - Deuteronomy 1:9-17

If the above passage refers to human judges, made in the image of God, how much more so would it apply to divine beings in Heaven who are their prototype? The formula is the same be they human or divine.

Of the other passages McCllelan mentions, viz. 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:1; Dan 7:9-10; Job 1:6; Zech 3:1, 3, 4, in which he claims "you will see the subordinates always stand before the presiding authority, who is seated", I only answer that 1 Samuel and Isaiah disprove that theory. But we wil cite those passages just the same in their context, which when taken into said context further prove Mr. McCllelan's theory erroneous.

1 Kings 22:17-23

17So he said,
"I saw all Israel
Scattered on the mountains,
Like sheep which have no shepherd.
And the LORD said, 'These have no master.
Let each of them return to his house in peace.'"

18Then the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?"

19Micaiah said, "Therefore, hear the word of the LORD. I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left.

20"The LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said this while another said that.

21"Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'

22"The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.'

23"Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you."

There is no formal judgment here as seen in Psalm 82. Rather, God is having a meeting with His heavenly hosts, inquiring what they think should be done about the matter at hand. The senerios in Psalm 82 and the above passage are too different to make any sort of comparison.

Isaiah 6:1-7

1In the year of King Uzziah's death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple.

2Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.

3And one called out to another and said,
"Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts,
The whole earth is full of His glory."

4And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke.

5Then I said,
"Woe is me, for I am ruined!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I live among a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts."

6Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs.

7He touched my mouth with it and said, "Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven."

Once again there is no council or judgment here as seen in Psalm 82, no condemnation of men or divine beings so-called. Simply because God is sitting down really proves nothing unless the same senerio we are examining may be also be found here as well.

Daniel 7:1-12

1In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel saw a (A)dream and visions in his mind as he lay on his bed; then he wrote the dream down and related the following summary of it.

2Daniel said, "I was looking in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea.

3"And four great beasts were coming up from the sea, different from one another.

4"The first was like a lion and had the wings of an eagle. I kept looking until its wings were plucked, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man; a human mind also was given to it.

5"And behold, another beast, a second one, resembling a bear. And it was raised up on one side, and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth; and thus they said to it, 'Arise, devour much meat!'

6"After this I kept looking, and behold, another one, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird; the beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it.

7"After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.

8"While I was contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and three of the first horns were pulled out by the roots before it; and behold, this horn possessed eyes like the eyes of a man and a mouth uttering great boasts.

9"I kept looking
Until thrones were set up,
And the Ancient of Days took His seat;
His vesture was like white snow
And the hair of His head like pure wool
His throne was ablaze with flames,
Its wheels were a burning fire.

10"A river of fire was flowing
And coming out from before Him;
Thousands upon thousands were attending Him,
And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him;
The court sat,
And the books were opened.

11"Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire.

12"As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time.

Verse 10 brings to mind Revelation 20:11-15, wherein the books are opened while God is seated on His Throne as He judges mankind. Unlike the first to references provided by Mr. McCllelan, this one actually shows God in judgment. And He indeed is seated. But remember, folks, Mr. McCllelan has made the following assertion,

In the following scriptures you will see the subordinates always stand before the presiding authority, who is seated...

But if we compare the above passage from Daniel with the passages from 1 Samuel and Isaiah, we see too that the President of the Council may also stand, not neccessarily always sit. This particular passage from Daniel does not substantiate Mr. McCllelan's claims.

Job 1:1-12

1There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.

2 Seven sons and three daughters were born to him.

3 His possessions also were 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 female donkeys, and very many servants; and that man was (H)the greatest of all the men of the east.

4His sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one on his day, and they would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them.

5When the days of feasting had completed their cycle, Job would send and consecrate them, rising up early in the morning and offering burnt offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, "Perhaps my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts." Thus Job did continually.

6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.

7The LORD said to Satan, "From where do you come?" Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it."

8The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil."

9Then Satan answered the LORD, "Does Job fear God for nothing?

10"Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.

11"But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face."

12Then the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him." So Satan departed from the presence of the LORD.

The assumption is made the God is sitting during this time, but the text doesn't actually say that. Further, this isn't a council or judgment of any kind; rather, it's a dialogue between God and one of the renegade angels, viz. Satan. Again this doesn't follow the senerio as found in Psalm 82.

Zechariah 3:1-7

1Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.
2The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?"

3Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments and standing before the angel.

4He spoke and said to those who were standing before him, saying, "Remove the filthy garments from him " Again he said to him, "See, I have taken your iniquity away from you and will clothe you with festal robes."
5Then I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments, while the angel of the LORD was standing by.

6And the angel of the LORD admonished Joshua, saying,

7"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'If you will walk in My ways and if you will perform My service, then you will also govern My house and also have charge of My courts, and I will grant you free access among these who are standing here.

Yet again, even though the person is standing, God Himself is not said to be sitting. Simply because a person stands in council or judgment in the OT doesn't neccessarily mean he himself is being judged, or that he's simply judging alongside others.

McCllelan also asserts that Yawhweh is one of the sons of El Elyon. This is true in a sense, since El Elyon is Yahweh whose only begotton Son is Yahweh Memra who assumed human flesh. Genesis 14:22 specifically labels El Elyon as Yahweh, thus proving McCllelan's assertion once again is erroneous.

Moving on, Mr. McCllelan goes on to say,

White saying that a Christian must assume the univocality of scripture, thus meaning Psalm 82 must be perfectly in harmony with John 10. This means White can twist Psalm 82 to fit his interpretation of John 10. He wouldn't dare think about using Psalm 82 to interpret John 10, though. It's the very definition of the hermeneutic circle, and it's one of the most egregious logical fallacies there is.

I think Dr. White himself provides a good enough answer to that,

This text is cited in John 10:34. Only a (today) relatively small percentage of modern "scholarship" will care about how this text is used in John. That is, outside of believers, how this text was understood centuries after its original writing is irrelevant, since they believe the Bible to be merely a collection of books without any coherent, let alone consistent, message. And amongst liberal Christians who do not hold to a canonical view of inspiration and consistency, it is common to ignore the relationship of one's interpretation of one text in relationship to another (for an example of how the Psalm can be handled in such a fashion, see Marvin E. Tate's comments in the Word Biblical Commentary series, volume 20). But for the believing Christian, Jesus' use of the text must be taken into consideration, and I truly believe that the exegesis offered above fits perfectly with Jesus' own citation of the text and conclusions drawn therefrom.

McCllelan further says,

First, it's a direct allusion to Deut 32:8 and 4:19. Second, no, there is no assumption. The conclusion is that since the verb נחל (to inherit, take possession, possess) is in the imperfect, the sense is not that he has always owned the whole earth, but that he will or just previously has taken possession of the whole earth. He was taken over the stewardships of the negligent gods. Again, and I cannot seem to make this clear enough, this is a direct allusion to Deut 32:8 and 4:19.

Again, since El Elyon is clearly Yahweh, McCllelan's claim is shown to be simply fallacious in light of the sacred texts. God may rule through judges, divine or human, just as He ruled Israel through Kings and Prophets. Their jurisdiction over the people does not in any way indicate Yahweh Himself is not ruling, but simply that He is the Supreme Lord and God whom those said rulers and judges must give answer.

McCllelan says of White,

I would have posted it [his response to White's exegesis] on my blog if I was looking for him to respond. I know he's not going to be willing or able to engage this discussion, but at least others can find some better information than what he's offering.

As folks in the Old West would say, "Them's fightin' words." Seeing as how White is a very busy man, making it highly unlikely he'd respond to a mere thread which lacks in substance (but makes up with insult), I decided a few hours would be well invested refuting Mr. McCllelan's assertions. Hopefully he will make his dissertation available on his blog, and when that happens rest assured a response to that will be found here at Amnos Tou Theou.

Conclusion

Now that we have seen quite clearly God presides over this council in Psalm 82 as the Supreme Judge and Supreme Deity, how does this in any way support the Mormon polytheism? It doesn't. As I pointed out in my article from July in response to Kerry Shirts' misuse of Heiser,

Let it be said here that in Mormonism there is no Supreme Being. Elohim was a man who worshiped his god. Eventually he got glorified. His god was once a man who became glorified, etc, etc, etc. McConkie tells us that the…

“plurality of gods exist . . . there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods." (Mormon Doctrine, (Salt Lake: Bookcraft, 1991), 576-577)

“It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.” (Smith, HC 6:305)

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).

"Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves--to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done--by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power." (Joseph Smith, The King Follet Discourse)

I will note also the lyric from If You Could Hie To Kolob,

If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward With that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity,
Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?

In Psalm 82 we are shown the Supreme God to be Yahweh, but the Mormon Church denies this, claiming that Yahweh (or Jehovah) is Jesus Christ only, and that Elohim was once a mortal man who ascended to Godhood by following and fulfulling perfectly all the requirments needs. If this were true, and Elohim was once a man who became God, how is it that He has now made Himself Supreme Judge over all the gods in existance? It doesn't make sense, is inconsistent, illogical, and frankly I've not had an answer from any Mormon apologist on this issue. But supposing those gods in Psalm 82 were exalted men who once lived on our planet Earth, then surely this would explain why they are subordinate to God and subject to His judgments. But again, we run into a problem: These gods are disposed of, rejected for their sins, doomed to die as mortal men. Mormonism does not teach that once a person becomes deified he is subject to eternal damnation, rather, the Church teaches that deified Mormons will continue forever as gods, from everlasting to everlasting (cf. D&C 132). There is not one hint of a scruple of a hint in Mormonism's teachings that the exalted ones will be subject to possible damnation by Elohim. But Psalm 82 paints quite a different picture. Would the Mormons only admit that these are merely human judges, or at best, angels, they would not have this kind of difficulty. Simple because the gods are called bene elohim, "sons of God", does not mean they are truly divine sons, but can be used as a metaphor to describe the close relationship between these beings and God. St. Timothy is described as St. Paul's son, yet we all know very well that Paul was not Timothy's biological father.

In Job, the sons of God approach Him, and Satan - which Scripture clearly calls a "god" - is in their midst. It simply does not make sense that Satan would enter with the gods into Heaven's Court, but is more probable that he would enter with his brethren by nature: the angels.

With Christ's usage of Psalm 82 we see more clearly that these gods simply must be human beings. The Pharisees saw Christ as a mere human being, and this mere human being declared, "I and the Father are One (Jn 10:30)." To which the Jews declared, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." It follows from pure logic alone that Christ's quoting from Psalm 82 is simply this:
If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

In other words, "If he called those men gods, and the Scripture cannot err, do you say I'm blaspheming when I proclaim myself not to be a god, but simply the Son of God?"

Mormon apologists may dismiss Christ's interpretation of Psalm 82, as Daniel McCllelan, Kerry Shirts, and their fellows shamelessly do, but as for me and anyone else dedicated to the Gospel of the Logos, I think it's safe to follow Christ's clear understanding of the controversial Psalmist passage. And again, even if one insists these "gods" in Psalm 82 are truly heavenly beings, so be it, as this does not in any way support the plurality of Gods or the very doctrine of Elohim and Yahweh according to Mormonism.

Mormon Apologists, Pretexts, Misconstrued Information, the Church Fathers, and the term 'Catholic'

2009-11-11T05:31:00.000-08:00

[Edited Nov. 19, 2009]

Early this morning I stumbled upon an interesting thread on the Mormon Apologetics Forum, which had the subject for the day, yours truly. The discussion centered around the use of the early Church Fathers, as a result from the "dialogue" with Kerry Shirts and a few other amateur Mormon apologists. To most Mormons, Kerry Shirts is known as the Backyard Professor, though he holds no degrees whatsoever in theology, archaeology, but holds a B.S in history. Like his fellows, he resorts to incredible ad hominem when backed into a corner with the facts, as is explicitly evident in the discussion thread Early Christian use of Psalm 82 proving Mankind is divine, even gods. The title says it all, so naturally I protested. In my first post I specifically said,

I can't believe so many Mormons quote the Backyard Professor when clearly he, much like James Talmage, has absolutely no experience in biblical exegesis and textual criticism. Not to mention the distorted presentation of church history. First, the Western and Eastern Church knew and continues to this day to proclaim that Christian Mankind is divine, because he has chosen Christ as his Lord. The Eastern Orthodox, those early Christians whom Smith, Young, and your other "Prophets" condemned, speak of this point of theology more so than the Western Church, for sure. Yet this same Eastern Church condemns, denounces, and anathematizes any man who dares suggest because he is an adopted son of God, that he will become a god to rule over his personal word, his own creation adoring him. That condemned anyone who believed that there were many gods out there, and proclaimed with fiery passion there was only one God that ever existed, and is ever to be worshiped.

On the same note, St. Thomas Aquinas in the Western Church touched up on this subject and is in full agreement with the Eastern Church. What the "Professor" lacks in his usage of the early saints is that they all denounced the views he and all Mormons hold.

This is incredible. Your founders condemned all the early Christians, because they obviously fell into darkness at the death of the apostles, but then people like this "Professor" try and turn the early saints into primitive Mormon apologists. Am I the only one seeing an inconsistency here? Oh, and that fact that in Isaiah 45 God declares that there are no gods before Him and no gods after Him, hmmmm...I wonder what He means by that.

What a horrible mutilation of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy fathers.

Instead of engaging in a rational dialogue on the subject, Mr. Shirts [expectantly] posted a reply smacking of insult and attack:

My what drama Carmenn Massa! How exciting! After reading your impressive contribution to Sacred Church History, I can see I better quit reading Vigilae Christianae, not to mention Journal of New Testament Studies, and Numen, and Journal of Near Eastern Studies, and Journal of Biblical Literature. After all we old duffs obviously don't know the half of anything as you obviously do. Wow. You need to write the intelligensia and inform them how absolutely off base they all are, and they need to hired you to clean up the obvious mess in their thinking and writing.

A "smart-Alec" remark [I could think of a worse label for it] really doesn't solve the problem. Instead, it speaks volumes about just how little the person actually knows about the subject at hand. Once one reads the discussion in full, one will find Mr. Shirts' sadly lacks information here. In almost every post he hurls insulting verbiage not only at me but at anyone else who disagrees with his unsupported position. But you may read all of the incredible details for yourself.
The subject of this article concerns the thread I found. The very first post concerns me, written by Tyler Anderson [who seemingly finds it necessary to attack me whenever he gets the chance] who was engaged with me in the discussion. He also apparently wrote a response to my article on Mormons and the Eucharist, but is of now no longer existent. However, one may still see the advertisement on Google here:

AmatuerLDSApologist: March 2009 Carmenn Massa: Catholic Zealot. WHAT DOES THE LDS CHURCHBELIEVE ... A TRACT IN DEFENSE OF THE EUCHARIST AGAINST MODERN-DAY PAGANISM BY CARMENN MASSA ...
amatuerldsapologist.blogspot.com/2009_03_01_archive.html - Similar

Had it not been deleted for whatever reason it would've been quite interesting to see what kind of response was actually written. I could only imagine it being littered with ad hominem such as:

You have to understand! When the fruits of your own faith are decaying and corrupt, you must attack the faith of another in order to somehow feel justified. Perhaps the only way Carmenn will ever stop his "onslaught" against Mormonism is if we somehow put together a fund, a "hush-money fund." Given hush money works for most Catholics in any situation, I'm sure Carmenn could make a profitable living. [p.9]

I must admit though, that is *nothing* compared to Kerry's "rebuttals". Take, for example, this one:

Hey Dork, sit up and pay attention just a little bit before talking about something you kinow nothing of. Mormons did NOT start this childish, stupid, insipid, and ***worthless*** name calling of "cult." The critics and anti-Mormons did, so I am simply returning it to you all. I am more than absoluely pleased to see it bothers you. It bothers us too. My suggestion? We all begin to stop the name calling and get on with the issues. I suspect Carol won't, and I have serious doubts about you (you still have 10 years of growth in maturity before I ever take much of what you say seriously) doing it either. Soooooo, get used to, we LDS have had to. Sucks don't it. I mean it SUCKS don't it?! (Carol, do you need me to mail you a quarter so you can buy a clue with what I am saying here to Carmenn?) [p.15]

Think of a Mormon version of Art Sippo, only slightly, ever so slightly more reserved. Imagine over 18 pages worth of "dialogue" filled with remarks like these. Yes, it is despairing to say the least. But before we move on to the actual thread I must add also that I have been accused of "attacking" folks and using ad hominem remarks. It seems that whatever I say my Mormon opponents must repeat and throw back at me. Personally I don't understand this type of thinking, but be that as it may Ron Beron wrote,

"I don't use ad hominem in my dialogues" [Ron quoting me]

Not so fast there kimo sabe...These are your quotes from the first few pages of this thread....

Joseph Smith and his ilk

I feel sorry for you sir that you've wasted 48 years in religious falsehood

If you were honest you would have presented that in your material. But you did none of this and end up making yourself look like a fool rather than facing the subject on hand, and revert like any other cultist to ad-hominem which gives no answer whatsoever. Lol, pride comes before a fall, "Pro".

What a pathetic run from grace.....

You have demonstrated over and over again sir that you are totally incapable of handling intelligent factual argumentation. It is unfortunate that so many decieved Mormons - as sincere as they are - actually believe the lies you call 'arguments'.

Did they lie to me like you did? <<

My response to those baseless accusations are as follows:

I understand that you must dig up whatever you can to make it appear as though I had been using ad hominem, and to be honest it's pretty unconvincing. I see I'm going to have to refute each one at a time for the readers' sake.

"I can't believe so many Mormons quote the Backyard Professor when clearly he, much like James Talmage, has absolutely no experience in biblical exegesis and textual criticism."

Now I honestly don't see what this line has to do with ad hominem, since it's a plain and simple fact James Talmage had a very selective view of church history and textual criticism, which can easily be seen once compared with scholastics who are well-experienced in the field. Kerry Shirts is no different, as is even more evident. My saying he has no experience whatever is no different than my saying that I have no experience whatever when it comes to computer graphics design or designing plans for a space rocket. I simply cannot do either. Far from being ad hominem, it's a plain and stated fact as any rational person can see.

"Joseph Smith and his ilk"

I assume the accusation is towards my usage of the word "ilk". Let's allow for the definition of the word...

Word History: When one uses ilk, as in the phrase men of his ilk, one is using a word with an ancient pedigree even though the sense of ilk, "kind or sort," is actually quite recent, having been first recorded at the end of the 18th century. This sense grew out of an older use of ilk in the phrase of that ilk, meaning "of the same place, territorial designation, or name." This phrase was used chiefly in names of landed families, Guthrie of that ilk meaning "Guthrie of Guthrie." "Same" is the fundamental meaning of the word. The ancestors of ilk, Old English ilca and Middle English ilke, were common words, usually appearing with such words as the or that, but the word hardly survived the Middle Ages in those uses.

So...by my saying there were men of Joseph's Smith kind or sort, who shared in the same beliefs and convictions as he did, is insulting how? I don't recall anywhere where I called them 'dorks'...but then again I guess that particular word isn't seen as ad hominem to you gentlemen when evidently "ilk" is :-)

"I feel sorry for you sir that you've wasted 48 years in religious falsehood"

Yes...your point is what exactly? Your folks had no problem telling us that Satan sits in God's place - that is a historical religious falsehood. I fail to see your point in mentioning this line.

"If you were honest you would have presented that in your material. But you did none of this and end up making yourself look like a fool rather than facing the subject on hand, and revert like any other cultist to ad-hominem which gives no answer whatsoever. Lol, pride comes before a fall, "Pro"."

Considering that he hurled numerous insults at me, I'd call that ad hominem yes and that is the common phenomenon we see amongst cult-apologists. Whenever one does not accurately represent a certain side he does make himself appear foolish, it's another simple fact. [I must admit, my response here at first glance appears to have me saying I actually did use ad hominem, however that isn't the case. What I meant was that I could see how my words could be taken as ad hominem, but in fact once viewed without the sky-rocketing emotions of my Mormon readers, the opposite is true]

"What a pathetic run from grace....."

Yes indeed, denying the evidence with insult is quite pathetic....

"You have demonstrated over and over again sir that you are totally incapable of handling intelligent factual argumentation. It is unfortunate that so many deceived Mormons - as sincere as they are - actually believe the lies you call 'arguments'."

Once again, just as I cannot for the life of me design a rocket ship, Kerry just cannot handle any of the evidence brought forth. We are talking about the same man who couldn't wait for my 2nd Response to be posted, and when I eventually did post it here in video format he to this day refuses to watch them. I think his actions prove my point all too well. You'll notice I called Mormons sincere and not sneaky madmen trying to take over the world, which of course you are not, so I fail to see how *that* would be considered ad hominem to you.

"Did they lie to me like you did?"

I never got an answer to that one...I proved sufficiently how Kerry misused the evidence, to this day he refuses to respond. Up here they call that a lie :-) [p.16]

I will also add to this date Kerry still refuses to answer any of the evidences I have brought up, evidences which I can assure you he is well aware of. In any case, that aside Tyler writes in this thread:

About a year and a half ago I first found MADB, and since then have joined other discussion boards on Facebook etc, dealing with LDS Apologetics. Recently in a discussion with an individual named Carmenn Massa, an avowed and dedicated Roman Catholic, the issue was raised as to whether or not it would be appropriate for Latter-day Saints to use the early "Catholic" Fathers' exegetes in order to support LDS positions on issues such as eternal progression, proxy baptism, the nature of God, and so on. Carmenn argued that:

Quote

With the [F]athers, the Mormon apologists take them completely out of their context in order to try and substantiate Mormon doctrine, but the evidence, when taken as a whole, just isn't there...Similar views are one thing, dogmatic quite another

By and large in my own examination of the writings of Tertullian, Origen, Cyril, Justin and others, I don't necessarily find parallels but indeed find similarities Perhaps the issue isn't whether or not I'm quoting from them, but Carmenn's inability to process information different from his own views. So, as sort of an informal survey I wonder whether or not it is appropriate to use the Early Christian Fathers in apologia, or whether I should just leave it on the shelf. All thoughts would be appreciated. Thank you.

For a view of the entire discussion located on Facebook's Joseph Smith the Prophet page, see Early Christian use of Psalm 82 proving Mankind is divine, even gods.

I've taken the time to find the context of my quote, since Mr. Anderson failed to provide the post or page number. The post number is 610, the [Facebook] page number is 21. Earlier Tyler said,

I think I'll reiterate what I've explained to some who take offense at LDS use of early Christian literature by going at it this way. C.S. Lewis no doubt was one of the most influential Christian writers of the 20th Century. I'm a fan, and given your aptitude for the scriptures Carmenn you seem like an individual who would admire Lewis' work as well. Was Lewis a Latter-day Saint? No. Was he a Roman Catholic? No. Yet we both presumably believe certain things AS Lewis does about being a true disciple of Christ. Does that mean you or I must undoubtedly submit to all the tenants of the Church of England in order to agree with or use Lewis' work? I beg to answer Carmenn, no sir. [p. 21]

My answer in full was,

Once again C.S. Lewis was never used by me co[n]cerning doctrinal matters. To use him as a parrallel to somehow prove another doctrinal point does not make any sense. In fact it proves useless. With the fathers, the Mormon apologists take them completetly out of their context in order to try and substantiate Mormon doctrine, but the evidence, when taken as a whole, just isn't there.

The reason Mr. Anderson brought up C.S. Lewis was because Mr. Shirts had previously mutilated Lewis' understanding of theosis, in fact trying to make Lewis sound as though he were advocating the Mormon apotheosis. In the post to which I just linked, I sufficiently demonstrate Mr. Shirts' inexcusable errors pertaining to Lewis and his writings concerning the Christian's glorification. I will note that Mr. Shirts has not yet responded to my rebuttles, even though he is well aware of their existance, and I don't think he will respond any time soon. Lewis cannot be used to substantiate a doctrine which he did not preach, teach, or confess. The same formula applies to the Holy Fathers of the Church. It is, in reality, just plain common sense. But as we have seen Mormon apologists don't possess this understanding when dealing with the texts. If I were to use Lewis as a defender of the Papacy I too would be mutilating Lewis' work, since his writings denounce more than once the Roman Church's claim to supremacy. I find it strange Mr. Anderson failed to mention the context of my quote, which now that we have seen provides more light on the issue.

In Mr. Shirts' article dated May 12, 2009, he cites St. Irenaeus as proof that early Christendom expounded Mormon apotheosis. I would direct the reader to my first article dealing with Mr. Shirts and his usual cut-and-paste standards with the Fathers and the Scriptures. In that article, I specifically pointed out the subtle differences between Mormonism's understanding of deification [apotheosis] and the Christian doctrine [theosis]. To note,

McConkie tells us that the…

“plurality of gods exist . . . there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods." (Mormon Doctrine, (Salt Lake: Bookcraft, 1991), 576-577)

“It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.” (Smith, HC 6:305)

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).

'This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did"' (Gospel Principles, Chapter 47, quoting from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46).

"Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves--to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done--by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power." (Joseph Smith, The King Follet Discourse)

We must look at the Holy Fathers with this Mormon mindset of apotheosis if we are hoping to find this very same teaching in their ancient writings. That said, does St. Irenaeus really support the Mormon view? He also says,

"Nor is He [God] moved by anyone; rather, freely and by His Word He made all things. For He alone is God, He alone is Lord, He alone is Creator, He alone is Father, He alone contains all and commands all to exist." - Against Heresies 2:1:1

The question is, of course, if God was once a man as Joseph Smith infallibly taught, then who moved God when He was not God? And if He alone is God, as St. Irenaeus proclaims, how is it that men can also become Gods according to Doctrines and Covenants?

"Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them." - D&C 132:20

Once we compare this with Irenaeus, can we honestly and truthfully conclude that this saint actually taught the Mormon deification? When expounding on Psalm 82, it becomes even clearer Irenaeus is exegeting theosis from the passage, not apotheosis [cf.Against Heresies 4.38:4]. But as is the norm with many Mormon apologists, context is not an essential to their defences of the LDS Church.

Moving on. In the same Mormon Apologetics thread, a user name "mfbukowski" commented,

Of course it is OK to use them.

And who is to say that the Catholic context is better than ours? The whole point of using them is that the Catholic context which has been imposed on them for 1500 years is wrong.

Of course we have to realize that they are already "apostate" but they may give some evidence of what early doctrines were, and how they agree with our position.

If anything one could argue decisively imo, that any Catholic context is guilty at least of "presentism" -- really the context they superimpose over what the ECF's are actually saying.

Obviously this person never took the time to read the discussion which contains my numerous examples that the Fathers are far from Mormonism in thought and doctrine. It is also clear that "mfbukowski's" definition of context and the standard definition are two entirely different things. When one examines the Fathers in their context without imposing a Reformed or Roman thought into them, one finds that they are in the fullest sense Catholic. Roman thought developed later in history, but the Judeao-Greek thought was always intact with these pious saints. They, like Philo, used Greek understanding to explain Jewish theology to the Gentiles. Transubstantiation for Rome is the thought used to explain, at least logically, the Mystery of the Eucharist, a doctrine which flows from the Jewish Passover Feast. St. Paul himself follows this route in his epistles when expounding Christianity [Judaism post-Messiah] to the Gentiles.

Ron Beron also decided to add in his two cents worth,

As one of the respondents on Facebook I have had my confrontations with Carmenn and while he is young and zealous he makes some good points according to his relative position. He is incorrect in that Mormons incorrectly use the Patristic Fathers in that their interpretation is not exclusive to Catholics only. What he fails to realize is that the Catholic Church per se didn't exist until at least the 4th century and most of the early patricians existed prior to that and represented a transitional position between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity. I say to use the material, but be careful in its application.

Of course the most blatant error Ron makes is based on his totally deficient understanding of what the Catholic Church actually is. To note, Ron is an ex-Catholic, one who clearly did not understand the doctrines of the Church even when he was in our fellowship. In fact, in the Facebook discussion I posed to him the following:

As for youre being raised Catholic, please allow me to see if you knew the Faith. For my own curiosity, could explain the definition of an Ecumenical Council; explain the issues surrounding the Council of Chalcedon; the earlist holy father to use the word 'eucharist' in an explicit manner (for his time); the definition of the word 'eucharist' and where the word is found in Scripture; the proof-texts for the doctrine of the eucharist; the role of the priest; the divine liturgy (or the mass). [post #483]

That was dated August 15, 2009. I'm still waiting for his answers. Back to his comment, he alledges the Catholic Church per se did not come about till the 4th century. But history messes up that theory quite a bit. St. Ignatius of Antioch who lived in the 2nd century wrote,

"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans)

The essentials of Roman and Greek Catholic theology and ecclesiastical government can be found in St. Ignatius' epistles, since he being a very early witness was a disciple of Apostles John and Paul. Jewish Christianity remained consistent in Gentile Christianity, since as we've already discovered the Fathers used Greek thought to expound on doctrines whose seeds are deep-rooted in ancient Jewish understanding and sources. St. Matthew's Gospel is a wonderful example of the Jewry which engulfs Christ's epic. St. Luke's Gospel, on the other hand, focuses on bringing the news to the Gentiles, so the Jewishness is lacking, but this is needed to make the Gospel simple and plain to the outsiders who know nothing of the ancient Israeli histories and oracles.

Daniel Peterson commented,

Of course we have a right to quote the early Christian fathers.

And it isn't clear, anyway, that the fathers are the property of the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox churches have at least as good a claim to them, even if one accepts the notion that they could "belong" to a particular denomination today -- which I don't.

Once again we see another example of misunderstanding the Catholic Church. The Roman and Greek Churches both were visibly One in history, but after the Schism [which was not an official excommunication of East and West, but a most serious tear in Christ's Garment nonetheless] the two went their seperate ways. Because of the Schism they are not in full communion together, yet because they both share in the Apostolic Faith and Holy Fathers both East and West have valid and legal rights to the said Faith and Fathers. The Arians, for example, do not have such a claim because their sect and faith was condemned and anathematized at Nicea by the Christian Church. Protestants have no access to the Fathers because their bodies sprung up completely void of Apostolic origins. Their founders seperated themselves from Apostolic Succession, both mechanically and doctrinally, that is, not teaching the same doctrines as the Apostles and their Successors proclaimed. Because of their complete and total break from Rome, an Apostolic Church, they broke away from the entire Catholic Church. Suppose Rome were in error, that she herself had fallen from the Faith long ago being infested with apostasy and heresy, then all the churches which sprung out of her would by that very fact be seperated from the Catholic Church, since they come from a heretical Church, and they taught doctrines contrary to the declarations of the Church Catholic, sustained and upheld by the Greeks. The Holy Church Fathers are indeed the Patriarchs of our Holy Catholic Faith, Ignatius and Justin, Augustine and Chrysostom, and all their fellows who continued in building up the Mystical Body of Christ on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, with Christ Himself being the Chief Corner Stone.

Contrary to this fundamental fact, "ChristKnight", a Roman Catholic, replied to Peterson's comment,

This is true. The Catholic Church doesn't "own" the Church Fathers, nor do we claim that they are for Catholic usage only. The Orthodox always refer to them. And of course there are the Desert Fathers and other groups of early "Fathers".

The Desert Fathers, simply because they are called "Desert", does not imply that they are distinctly seperate from the Catholic Fathers. They were Catholic hermits, monks who meditated in the quite wildernesses, fleeing from persecution and preaching the Faith to whoever would hear. Let the following citation suffice in showing that the Desert Fathers actually were very Catholic:

"This is what Abba Daniel, the Pharanite, said, 'Our Father Abba Arsenius told us of an inhabitant of Scetis, of notable life and of simple faith; through his naivete he was deceived and said, 'The bread which we receive is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol.' Two old men having learnt that he had uttered this saying, knowing that he was outstanding in his way of life, knew that he had not spoken through malice, but through simplicity. So they came to find him and said, 'Father, we have heard a proposition contrary to the faith on the part of someone who says that the bread which we received is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol.' The old man said, 'It is I who have said that.' Then the old men exhorted him saying, 'Do not hold this position, Father, but hold one in conformity with that which the catholic Church has given us. We believe, for our part, that the bread itself is the body of Christ and that the cup itself is his blood and this in all truth and not a symbol. But as in the beginning, God formed man in his image, taking the dust of the earth, without anyone being able to say that it is not the image of God, even though it is not seen to be so; thus it is with the bread of which he said that it is his body; and so we believe that it is really the body of Christ.' The old man said to them, 'As long as I have not been persuaded by the thing itself, I shall not be fully convinced.' So they said, 'Let us pray God about this mystery throughout the whole of this week and we believe that God will reveal it to us.' The old man received this saying with joy and he prayed these words, 'Lord, you know that it is not through malice that I do not believe and so that I may not err through ignorance, reveal this mystery to me, Lord Jesus Christ.' The old men returned to their cells and they also prayed God, saying, 'Lord Jesus Christ, reveal this mystery to the old man, that he may believe and not lose his reward.' God heard both the prayers. At the end of the week they came to church on Sunday and sat all three on the same mat, the old man in the middle. Then their eyes were opened and when the bread was placed on the holy table, there appeared as it were a little child to these three alone. And when the priest put out his hand to break the bread, behold and angel descended from heaven with a sword and poured the child's blood into the chalice. When the priest cut the bread into small pieces, the angel also cut the child into pieces. When they drew near to receive the sacred elements the old man alone received a morsel of the bloody flesh. Seeing this he was afraid and cried out, 'Lord, I believe that this bread is your flesh and this chalice your blood.' Immediately the flesh which he held in his hand became bread, according to the mystery and he took it, giving thanks to God. Then the old men said to him, 'God knows human nature and that man cannot eat raw flesh and that is why he has changed his body into bread and his blood into wine, for those who receive it in faith.' Then they gave thanks to God for the old man, because he had allowed him not to lose the reward of his labor. So all three returned with joy to their own cells." - pp. 53-54, "The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection" from Cistercian Publications.

But unfortunately "ChristKnight" goes on to say,

We all think the Bible says what we think it says, and the same goes for the Church Fathers. For Catholics, they support Catholic beliefs. For Orthodox, they support Orthodox beliefs. For LDS, they support LDS beliefs (or at least, the parts that aren't already a product of the Apostasy). This is why, in the majority of cases, such discussions go no where, except for convincing us of our positions and how wrong others are. This is why forums have the same conversations repeated. Nothing wrong with that, but that's just how it goes.

Well, actually, once again the context is the key to understanding what the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers are saying. Nothing gets solved by simply saying "Maybe it means this, or I guess it could mean that, or maybe it means..." It's just ridiculous at best. To essentially say there is no real true interpretation to the Fathers' or Scriptures' words puts the universal Christian Faith into unfathomable jeopardy. In fact, were we to use this same illogical principle on Mormon writings we could expect a very strong protest from the LDS faithful. They would be entirely justified in raising protest if we claimed of their prophets and apostles "Well, for you they support that doctrine, but for us they're actually saying something else. That's just our opinion." Were we to say that of Joseph Smith's sermons the Mormons would never let us hear the end of it. Yet these same Mormon apologistsd have no shame at all in twisting the words of the Holy Fathers and the General Councils, whenever they actually acknowledge the Councils.

In addition to the comments, a user by the name of "e=mc2", someone who is undoubtedly Kerry Shirts - or at least someone who closely copies to the tee his insulting verbiage - wrote,

Carmenn's youth has betrayed him far more than once in his astonishing ideas. As if the Early Christian Fathers were owned by *any* church - GRIN! He's just angry that we can show *so much* similarities between the Early Christian Church and the Restored Gospel. It really is rather astounding that the very doctrines which today's Christians say is proof we are NOT Christian, are the very doctrines espoused by the Early Christian Fathers!

I cannot help but chuckle over this silliness. The fact that Mr. Shirts feels comfortable sitting quite safely behind his key-board, ignoring all my evidences, possessing this self-indulgent, obscene, childish, attitude not only towards me but towards my fellow Christians who also partook of the discussion, in particular a woman named Carol, and has the audacity to go behind my back, misrepresent and attack me, instead of confronting me personally and debating the subject, speaks incredible volumes than I could ever explain. I have documented the things he has said against me, against Carol, against Christians in general; I mean it's been long well-known to anyone following my blog that the man has some serious issues. This kind of behaviour is not only cowardly but also disgraceful. It only goes to show that the true colors really do come out once the facts are laid on the table. When I write about Kerry Shirts, or do videos on him, I quote his writings, his sources, I actually address what he's saying. But we just do not see these same actions coming from Mr. Shirts in response to my documentation.

If only I had a dollar every time a Mormon has told me I'm "angry." Many rationally thinking people who have read the Facebook discussion [and there have been many] can see that this is far from the truth. I've had quite a few persons contact me asking, "Where does he get this stuff from? How does he see you as angry?" But this is what we can expect from folks who are spiritually blinded, who have no desire whatsoever to know the Truth, despite the vast evidences which are so readily available to anyone who, quite frankly, just asks.

This article will be sent to Mr. Shirts personally via his youtube email account. And may I say directly to Mr. Shirts: I'm still waiting for your responses to my videos and paper dealing with Heiser, Psalm 82, Mormon doctrine, and the Divine Council. I'm also awaiting your response to my refutation of your misuse of C.S. Lewis and deification. I think it would be beneficial to both your readers and viewers as to mine if they were to see us engaged in a debate, whether by phone [which would be recorded and uploaded to the net; I will gladly pay the phone bill], or video format. The subject in question would be exegesis on Psalm 82 in comparison with the doctrine of plurality of gods according to the writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young particularly, and the Holy Fathers' understanding of Christian deification. The debate does not have to take place now, but even months from now, when we both have free time to gather and present our materials to our viewing/reading audience.

I await your reponse.

Update: New Blog Name: Aμνὸς Tοῦ Θεοῦ

2009-11-03T04:34:00.000-08:00

I've just renamed the blogsite to Amnos Tou Theou, which is Greek for "Lamb of God," in Latin, Agnus Dei. The phrase may be found in St. John 1:29,

Τῇ ἐπαύριον βλέπει τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ λέγει, Ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" - ESV

As of today, Amnos Tou Theou is the official name of this blog, even though the web-link hasn't been changed yet.

David's [AnglicanApologist72] Final Response, and My Final Answers

2009-11-01T03:25:00.000-08:00

Before we begin, I'd like to first thank David very much for a wonderful, intelligent, respectful dialogue concerning the Papacy. I encourage all my readers to read David's words carefully: Neither of our works are scholarly by any means, not by any means at all, but I assure you after reading both our arguments and documentation you will want to know more from the real theologians. I encourage you to take that step, be you Roman or Anglican, step outside the bubble and see the other side. Prepare to be shaken, or secured.

David's final response may be found here. Please read it first before reviewing my article.

After introductions, David says,

He claims in response to my statement, "Just because God did something one way once does not mean he will do so the same way again", with,

"David doesn't offer any examples of how God does not do thing the same way twice. If he implies that at one point in time God raised up a Prophet to lead Israel, then next time raised up a Judge, then the next time a King, then the next time a Prophet and Judge, etc., then this still hasn't proven anything. Visibly the situations are different, but essentially what is happening in each and every senerio? God is raising up a visible Head to set Israel straight. Gideon's story differs from Samson's; King David's story is different from Jerobam's, and so on. Indeed God changed some things that were done in the Old Testament. But what is the important detail David left out here? Correct. In each and every instance where God changed something, He always specifically mentioned it through Divine Revelation."

An example I gave of God changing a custom of the Old Testament was that "It is not required anymore to abstain from unclean foods as evident from Acts". I believe Carmenn attempted to answer this by making the last statement I cited above, "In each and every instance where God changed something, He always specifically mentioned it through Divine Revelation"; as if God had not done so in the case of a single, supreme, earthly head of his people. The problem here, of course, is the assumption that God didn't make it known that he put to rest the custom of a single, supreme, earthly head of his people. I believe God abolished this when he commissioned ALL of his apostles to teach the nations, to bind and loose, etc. There is no evidence Peter was given a higher authority than the other commissioned apostles, which is what Carmenn wishes to claim.

Concerning the abstination of unclean foods, I also said besides what David already cited,

David uses the example of the unclean foods. I ask you, dear readers, to whom did God reveal this divine Truth? St. Peter. Is this significant? I think so. The Jews totally abstained from all unclean foods, and since this new Revelation would be a shocking curve thrown at the Jewish Church [even St. Peter had trouble swallowing it, pardon the pun], who better to reveal this Truth to the Church than the visible Leader?

Indeed, I think this is quite significant in portraying the supreme authority St. Peter was given. God could have revealed this Revelation to any one of the Apostles, but since Peter was appointed to be the Preacher to both Jew and Gentile, it seemed fitting that he would be the one to reveal this Truth. With the honor he bore, and the position he held in the Church, his mouth would seem the only logical instrument out of all the Apostles to promulgate this new Revelation to the Church. But let the reader judge.

Returning to what David said,

"The problem here, of course, is the assumption that God didn't make it known that he put to rest the custom of a single, supreme, earthly head of his people. I believe God abolished this when he commissioned ALL of his apostles to teach the nations, to bind and loose, etc. There is no evidence Peter was given a higher authority than the other commissioned apostles, which is what Carmenn wishes to claim."

Certainly this remains very ambiguous in the Scriptures, and so a careful reading is called for before a final conclusion may be reached. My belief is that Christ did not abolish the custon of a single, supreme, earthly head, but rather fulfilled it within Himself [obviously, as David will happily agree], but in fulfilling it within Himself, He also fulfilled it within a Steward who would be needed to fill the empty visible office when He would visibly depart into Heaven. The Papacy is sacramental, not a Sacrament mind you, but sacramental in nature, just as the Church is, because of who Christ is. Anglicans understand the Sacraments as well as Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox, so I don't think an exhaustive explaination will be needed. It is the Roman reasoning that since Christ is the visible Icon of the invisible God, then the Church being His mystical Body is also visible and a teaching authority which will never fall into error, and if the Church is this, then it follows that her visible Head [not Christ, but the Steward], hold the same teaching power. We know St. Peter holds a primacy of honor, is a symbol of unity in the Church, but the question is does this remain here or does it extend to actual universal jurisdiction? If he holds such a supremacy, why does the Church send St. Peter on a mission in Acts 8? I don't think this prove very much in opposition, since the Church today may send Pope Benedict 16th to any part of the world with the Gospel, by the advisory of his cardinals and bishops. If that be a suffice answer, then why doesn't St. Peter practice his alledged supremacy in the New Testament Church more often so that we may be sure he held a papal office? Because there was no need for it. Peter was not alone: he had 11 infallible Apostles who expounded on matters of faith and morals.

The Apostles were each endowed with what you may loosely term, Papal Powers, St. Peter being the Supreme Pope. The Bishops today, save for the Pope, do not individually speak ex cathedra. Not only St. Peter, but St. Paul also, and all the Apostles when they expounded on doctrine spoke ex cathedra. St. Paul's epistles are the perfect examples of this. But St. Peter alone was given the Supremacy over St. Paul, and all the Apostles. Granted, he didn't seem to exercise his Jurisdiction too often in the New Testament, but there seemed no need to do so since all the Apostles were endowed with a type of Infallibility as we have just noted. Today the Apostolic Bishops do not and cannot exercise that kind of authority. They are Apostolic, but not Apostles. St. Peter spoke ex cathedra, and it became Scripture. Not even the Pope's ex cathedra statement can rightly be declared Scripture. This gift is not given to the Pope since it was given once only to the Apostles. In the same way, the infallibility of the other Apostles are not given to their Successors, since this gift was given once only to the Apostles. St. Ignatius in his own way affirms this when he says of Sts. Peter and Paul, "Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were Apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3) Yet he himself was a Bishop, a son of Peter who founded the See in Antioch, and he declares that their Apostolic power is not given to him in the full sense that it was exercised by the Apostles themselves. Hence why the Apostles and Prophets are the foundation; their era is long past, and all that they could do, such as write Scripture, is not all endowed to their Successors. Being the foundation of the Church the Apostles had every right to admonish any Church they saw fit. They oversaw the growth of many Churches, and founded the Holy Catholic Church as One. But when the era of the Apostles ended, it became neccessary for Peter's Successors to recognize and exercise in full the supremacy which they recieved from the Papal Office. For the Roman Catholic, St. Peter was no less Pope simply because he did not exercise his papal authority in the same manner the Popes after him did. Pope John Paul I, following in this same logic, is not considered by Roman Catholics any less a Pope simply because he did not exercise said authority. Both Peter and John Paul I, for the Roman Catholic, are true Popes who held all the authority belonging to the Papal Office, even though neither of them may have exercised that authority as the Popes in history did.

Moving on, David brings up a striking point which should not be so easily dismissable,

Examine closely here, that Carmenn is comparing the church and the authorities in and of itself to a family, which is by all means a correct analogy. It is a known fact that God the Father appointed Christ to be the true head of the whole church. I believe Carmenn would agree with this. But Carmenn claims Christ is gone from earth and has appointed a man, Peter to take his place, as the father in a family appoints his eldest son to take his place. This is not quite analogous with the facts concerning Christ's presence and the apostles. "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" were Jesus' last words recorded by Matthew the Apostle, before Christ ascended. Jesus has not left us. So there is no need for him to appoint one man to rule, as a father would appoint his eldest son to rule in his stead. While a father is present, his sons have a near equal authority, do they not? Christ is present. His apostles were given an equal power by Christ. One was given a primacy to represent unity, but this primacy was not of authority. It was of honor. The eldest son of a family is respected the most, but while the father is present, he does not rule over his younger brothers as the father does. In sum, Christ is present. He is not gone. Therefore, Carmenn's analogy fails to prove his propositions.

Indeed Christ had not left us. But visibly He is not here. Mystically He is with us always, and even this includes His physical ressurected Flesh and Blood at every Mass and Divine Liturgy. Christ also tells His Apostles that He will truly go away, but in His divine stead He will send the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit. The Spirit stands in the divine stead of Christ in the Church, yet Christ is still truly and really present at the same time. For the Roman Catholic, the Pope, being a son of St. Peter, stands in the human stead of Christ in the Church as the visible Head, yet Christ is still truly and really present as the unseen Head at the same time. One of my favorite songs happens to be Joe Zambon's "Brother Lead", in which this verse is sung,

"I believe You when You said You would never leave till You return."

This baffling paradox amazes us every time we hear Christ's words proclaimed from the Scriptures. How is it that He is gone yet still remains? The Roman, the Greek, the Russian, and all the Apostolic Christians know the answer, but they cannot explain how this Mystery works, else we would be God. Yes, Christ still remains as our holy, immaculate Head, and yet He is departed from us so that in His stead are the bishops and priests to offer as Christ offered. And in His stead, there is the Pope also.

Continuing, David says,

By granting the keys to all of the apostles, Christ showed that they all have the same authority. But by giving Peter the keys first, Christ showed that Peter is the first among equals.

To this I would respond by reiterating that this passage declares Peter to hold a supremacy, but the other Apostles hold a very similar authority, and with Peter exercise the keys in an Ecumenical Council.

In closing, David sufficiently and quite nicely offers a rebuttle to my assertion that the sessions from the quoted Ecumenical Councils support papal supremacy. Specifically, David says,

"Prince and head of the apostles" does not necessarily mean in authority. Yes it does prove primacy. No, it does not prove that Peter was "prince and head of the apostles" in authority. I can place the words "in honor" to the end of the statement and it would make just as much sense. "Pillar and foundation of the Catholic Church" correctly describes Peter, but it would also correctly describe the other apostles, the prophets and especially Christ. Peter is the first among equals, that's why he is specifically mentioned here. The keys and the authority of "loosing and binding sins" was given to all of the apostles and once again, Peter is specifically mentioned because he holds a primacy of honor.

I will simply say that I disagree, and once again reiterate my previous assertion, based on the evidence from the New Testament that St. Peter held the Papal Office according to the demands of the Jewish pattern which flows from the Old Testament into the New.

And finally, David ends by kindly saying,

Carmenn, I respect you highly, since you and I can disagree, without nashing our teeth at each other, cursing each others' particular branches of Christianity and appealing to stupidity and insults. Your arguments are very, very well articulated. They reflect your wisdom. They show your strength in rationality. However, I do not think they properly reflect the very truth of the issues we discussed. If you wish to respond to this, you may of course, however, I will not respond, since it is fair for you to have the last word, since I had the first. If you don't respond, I will by NO means consider you irrational, a coward or anything of the sort. I won't even be convinced that I "won" this exchange, if there would even be such a thing possible in this discussion on either side of the table. May the Lord bless you and keep you, forever and ever. Amen.

The same kindly [but most undeserving] regards you pay to me, David, I return back to you ten times over. Your participation in this dialogue has been very much appreciated. Your arguments are very intelligent, respectful, and they make good, solid points which I believe cannot go ignored. By no means are my rebuttles to you anything to settle the matter by, but I think we've accomplished in getting our reading audience to investigate the matter further using deeper theological sources, historical sources, and of course, Scriptural sources. We haven't solved the matter, but we've brought our own perspectives to the table, and by doing this maybe someone somewhere will decide to get serious about what he believes and why regarding this subject. Many thanks once again. The Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God, and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

Turretinfan and the Primacy of the Roman Bishop

2009-10-31T14:42:00.000-07:00

Today Turretinfan posted a very short article entitled Papal Primacy vs. Scripture. Short enough to quote here in full, the article simply [and, I'm sad to say, superficially] says,

Pope Boniface VIII, in Unam Sanctam, stated: “Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.”

Scripture, in contrast, gives universal jurisdiction to Christ alone: “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15) and the Psalmist declares: “Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet” (Psalm 8:6) which the Apostle tells us plainly refers to Christ: “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church” (Ephesians 1:22).

Clearly Turretinfan has unfortunately divorced a very small portion of the papal text from the rest of the bull, making it into a pretext. I should note that this particular article of Turretinfan's has also been published on Dr. White's Alpha and Omega Blog here. I do wonder whether Mr. Turretinfan took the time to read the entire bull before publishing his article. If he would have, he would have found no need to write what he did. I'd like to ask the reader to take a few moments and read the entirety of Pope Boniface's Unam Sanctum before we continue in our examination of Turretinfan's article.

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

I have emphasized the important points which make up the totality of the bull's meaning. Boniface himself admits that the Head of the Church is indeed Christ, thus re-affirming 1 Tim. 6:15, Psalm 8:6, and Eph. 1:22. These passages are essential to the doctrine of the Papacy. But how is one actually subject to the Roman Pontiff? Answer: the exact same way one is subject to the Church. Being subject to the Christian Church, that same person is by that very fact made subject to the Roman Pontiff. Boniface doesn't say one must know he is subject to the Pope, but rather that he must be subject. How does this happen? Once again, the same way one becomes subject to the Church. By what means is this? By Holy Baptism, through which even infants become subject to the Church, and thus, to the Pope.

“The Church, guardian of the integrity of the Faith – which, in virtue of its authority, deputed from God its Founder, has to call all nations to the knowledge of Christian lore, and which is consequently bound to watch keenly over the teaching and upbringing of the children placed under its authority by baptism” - Pope Leo XIII, Nobilissima

“…Jesus Christ laid upon His Apostles the injunction to ‘preach the Gospel to every creature,’ He imposed, it is evident, upon all men the duty of learning thoroughly and believing what they were taught. This duty is intimately bound up with the gaining of eternal salvation: ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.’ [Mk. 16:16] But the man who has embraced the Christian faith, as in duty bound, is by that very fact a subject of the Church as one of the children born out of her, and becomes a member of that greatest and holiest body, which it is the special charge of the Roman Pontiff to rule with supreme power, under its visible head, Jesus Christ.” - Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae christianae

“Moreover, if anyone without repentance dies in mortal sin, without a doubt he is tortured forever by the flames of eternal hell. – But the souls of children after the cleansing of baptism, and of adults also who depart in charity and who are bound neither by sin nor unto any satisfaction for sin, at once pass quickly to their eternal fatherland.” - Pope Innocent IV, Council of Lyons I

“If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.” - Trent, Canon 13 on Justification

I think these few quotations will suffice for understanding in context the exact meaning of being subject to the Roman Pontiff. If Boniface's infallible statement was to be understood in the distorted way Protestants misunderstand it, one wonders why the Council of Trent didn't jump on this opportunity to reiterate it as dogma concerning salvation. They had no need to do so because no amount of documents one might sign saying they are subject to the Pope, even if they were signed in blood, would actually make that same person subject to the Pope. Only Holy Baptism or the Desire thereof makes such a person a son or daughter of the Church, and thus, subject to the Church's visible Pastor, the Roman Pontiff.

Hopefully this has been somewhat useful to you. I hope Mr. Turretinfan will correct his error in misunderstanding this Roman Catholic doctrine.

Transubstantiation, Metaphor, and Common Sense that leads one to believe the Eucharist is Mystical, not Metaphor

2009-10-31T04:38:00.000-07:00

A long awkward title, yes, but true nonetheless. I actually borrowed much of the title from Turretinfan's title to his post here. In passing, I noticed he posted a video in response to a Greek Orthodox Youtube user 'Apologist117', whose video was a response to Dr. James White's 5-part series on St. Ignatius of Antioch and the Eucharist. I made a few videos responding to Turretinfan but decided not to post them, simply because I thought it better to redo the videos responding to Dr. White's videos directly, which in turn would immedietly answer Turretinfan's assertions also.

Well, now that you're more confused than you were when you first read the title, please continue.

What I mainly want to adress are the quotes from the holy fathers Turretinfan provides in his defense that the Eucharist is merely figurative. Here I'd like to state plainly, lest there be much confusion, I am a Roman Catholic, but will also be drawing on the witness of the Greek Catholics, who with the Russians and the Coptics, commonly called Orthdox, with all the Apostolic Churches will bear witness concerning this Mystical Flesh and Blood.

Bellisario's and Turretinfan's back-and-forth aside, let's take a look at what Mr. Turretinfan says concerning the Eucharist,

"(1) Jesus never used the word "metaphor" in the pages of Holy Scripture - not just about this metaphor, but about any of them. (2) Normally what distinguishes metaphor from simile is the absence of a signal - if it said "this represents my body" we would have simile, not metaphor. (3) Jesus didn't say that the cup was a figure of speech for the contents of the cup, but folks use their common sense to recognize this. (4) Finally, some of the early church fathers confirm that Jesus used metaphors, including the metaphor identification of his body with bread and of wine with his blood."

This is the problem we run into when this particular subject is approached with a modern Western mindset. Folks tend to forget the Gospel is ancient and Eastern, and very, very Jewish. Applying a modern Western interpretation to an ancient Eastern text will, as unintentional as it may be, distort said text entirely losing the true meaning. This is, as becomes quite obvious to the Roman or Greek, the case with Mr. Turretinfan. Recall I said concerning Turretinfan and Icons that his errors were unintentional, the same applies here. His sincerity is not on the line, but 'sincerity' does not distinguish Truth from Falsehood. With this in mind, let's look at the first holy father he cites:

"What mean, then, the words, "I am the true vine"? Was it to the literal vine, from which that metaphor was drawn, that He intended to point them by the addition of "true"? For it is by similitude, and not by any personal propriety, that He is thus called a vine; just as He is also termed a sheep, a lamb, a lion, a rock, a corner-stone, and other names of a like kind, which are themselves rather the true ones, from which these are drawn as similitudes, not as realities."

- Augustine, Tractate 80 on John's Gospel, Section 1

Naturally St. Augustine is correct. But what exactly does this have to do with the Eucharist? Let's consider a few things. First, Tractate 80 in context deals with John 15:1-3, many chapters after John 6 and the famous Eucharistic Discource. Tractate 26 would have been a more sufficient passage to quote Augustine's view on the Eucharist. You will note Augustine speaks very mystically concerning the precious Flesh and Blood of Christ, specifically,

"For even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another." - Augustine, Tractate 26, Section 11

Sacraments, according to the Roman Church and all Church in communion with her, is as St. Augustine once put it, "An outward sign of inward grace." To distinguish from the heretical Protestant interpretation, which essentially says the Bread and Wine are mere symbols which in a mysterious way connect us to Christ [forgive my poorly worded explaination, but I believe for the most part it's accurate], let us turn to a few trustworthy sources which may help set the record straight. Besides Augustine, Protestants look to Tertullian as a Church Father who also believed the Eucharist were only symbolic. In fact, William Webster writes,

"Tertullian (155/160-240/250 A.D.) spoke of the bread and wine in the eucharist as symbols or figures which represent the body and blood of Christ. He specifically stated that these were not the literal body and blood of the Lord. When Christ said, ‘This is my body,’ Tertullian maintained that Jesus was speaking figuratively and that he consecrated the wine ‘in memory of his blood’ (Against Marcion 3.19). Some theologians have claimed that the ancient usage of the words ‘figure’ and ‘represent’ suggested that the symbols in some mysterious way became what they symbolized. But Tertullian uses the word ‘represent’ in a number of other places where the word carries a figurative meaning. For example, in Against Marcion 4.40 he says, ‘He represents the bleeding condition of his flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red.’ His interpretation of John 6 similarly indicates that when he spoke of the bread and wine as figures and symbols of Christ’s body and blood, that is exactly what he meant.6 He says that Christ spoke in spiritual terms when referring to the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood and did not mean this literally. He holds that the eating of the flesh of Christ and the drinking of his blood means appropriating him by faith: ‘He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.’7 Clearly he did not teach the concept of transubstantiation." - Webster, The Eucharist

In my rather short and unsatisfactory response [in my oppinion] to a person on CARM who used the Webster-quote, I simply responded,

"Contrary to Mr. Webster's position, the Anglican patristic scholar JND Kelly writes concerning Tertullian and his use of 'figura' and 'repraesetat',

"Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion...All that his language really suggest is that, while accepting the equation of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them." (Early Christian Doctrines, p. 212)

"And the Rev. Leighton Pullan M.A.,

"The teaching of Tertullian is fundamentally the same as that of Irenaeus, and his belief is misrepresented when he is said to hold that the Eucharist is only a figure of the body of Christ." (Early Christian Doctrine, p. 76-77)"

The same can be said of St. Augustine. Kelly also says,

"Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

In the early days of the Church, the Sacrament not only signified something, but it was also in some sense that very thing which it signified (Kelly, p. 212). St. Augustine follows in this consistent flow of sacramental theology in the Church. With that we now turn to the second quotation of Augustine which Turretinfan provides us with,

"Now the rule in regard to this variation has two forms. For things that signify now one thing and now another, signify either things that are contrary, or things that are only different. They signify contraries, for example, when they are used metaphorically at one time in a good sense, at another in a bad, as in the case of the leaven mentioned above. Another example of the same is that a lion stands for Christ in the place where it is said, "The lion of the tribe of Judah has prevailed;" (Revelation 5:5) and again, stands for the devil where it is written, "Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about seeking whom he may devour." (1 Peter 5:8) In the same way the serpent is used in a good sense, "Be wise as serpents;" (Matthew 10:16) and again, in a bad sense, "The serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety." (2 Corinthians 11:3) Bread is used in a good sense, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven;" (John 6:51) in a bad, "Bread eaten in secret is pleasant." (Proverbs 9:17) And so in a great many other cases. The examples I have adduced are indeed by no means doubtful in their signification, because only plain instances ought to be used as examples."

- Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 25, Section 36

Obviously no Roman Catholic believes Christ was saying He was a literal loaf of bread when He descended from Heaven, so of course this phrase is an obvious metaphor of His divine Flesh which would be eaten. Apparantly Bellisario raised a stink about the exact usage of the word "metaphor" or something to that like, so Turretinfan here is merely trying to show that the exact word doesn't have to be there for the meaning to be obvious. Interestingly enough, before citing the second Augustine quotation, Turretinfan cites St. John Chrysostom in proving said point to Bellisario, viz. the actual word "metaphor" doesn't have to be present,

"And when He says, "The Lord looked down from Heaven:" [Psalm 14:2] it describes His perfect knowledge by a metaphor taken from men. So also here He says, "Now I know," to declare this to be greater than all which had preceded it."

- Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Second Corinthians, Section 6

But Chrysostom says, in quite a Catholic fashion, concerning the Eucharist,

"When you see the LORD immolated and lying upon the altar, and the Priest bent over that Sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that Precious Blood, can you think that you are still among Men and on Earth? Or are you not lifted up to Heaven?" - St. John Chrysostom, The Priesthood 3:4:177

"What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of his death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This sacrifice is a type of that, ... Read Moreand this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one sacrifice" (Homilies on Hebrews 17:36)

And again Chrysostom from Turretinfan,

"And He Himself drank of it. For lest on hearing this, they should say, What then? Do we drink blood, and eat flesh? And then be perplexed (for when He began to discourse concerning these things, even at the very sayings many were offended),therefore lest they should be troubled then likewise, He first did this Himself, leading them to the calm participation of the mysteries. Therefore He Himself drank His own blood. What then must we observe that other ancient rite also? Some one may say. By no means. For on this account He said, "Do this," that He might withdraw them from the other. For if this works remission of sins, as it surely does work it, the other is now superfluous.

As then in the case of the Jews, so here also He has bound up the memorial of the benefit with the mystery, by this again stopping the mouths of heretics. For when they say, Whence is it manifest that Christ was sacrificed? Together with the other arguments we stop their mouths from the mysteries also. For if Jesus did not die, of what are the rites the symbols?"

- Chrysostom, Homily 82 on Matthew, Section 1

The obvious Catholicity [or Orthodoxy, whichever you prefer] in Chrysostom's are so blatant that one wonders how any Protestant could possibly believe he was merely refering to the Eucharist as symbolic. We have noted that "symbol" in those early days had an entirely different significance and meaning than it does now. Protestants tend to forget the Greeks and Eastern Catholics [those in communion with Rome] use the Divine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, that most excellent Saint. Would any Reformed Protestant be comfortable using this Liturgy? I wonder. Would any Reformed pastor say of the communion bread,

"Behold, I approach Christ, our immortal King and God. The precious and most holy Body of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is given to me (Name) the Priest, for the forgiveness of my sins and eternal life. The precious and most holy Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is given to me (Name) the priest, for the forgiveness of my sins and eternal life."

Now, must we really suppose St. John Chrysostom looked upon the Eucharist in the same light as a Reformed faithful would? I think that answer has become obvious. So let us put away the myth that Chrysostom didn't view the Eucharistic doctrine the same way the Roman and Greek Churches do today.

Turretinfan continues with another quote,

"And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;" [John 6:34] describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood."

- Clement of Alexandria, The Paedogogus, Chapter 6

"The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood; but reproving the base tippling with the dregs of wine, it says: "Intemperate is wine, and insolent is drunkenness." [Proverbs 20:1] It is agreeable, therefore, to right reason, to drink on account of the cold of winter, till the numbness is dispelled from those who are subject to feel it; and on other occasions as a medicine for the intestines."

- Clement of Alexandria, The Paedogogus, Chapter 2

St. Clement seems to be advocating a Reformed view, but I would suggest a more in-depth study to his theology. Let's suppose though that he held a full Reformed theological perspective to the Eucharist, suppose all the fathers Turretinfan quoted did the same, then what? That would be meaningless, because the holy fathers are not infallible. They are the witnesses of our fundamental truths, but they of their own selves do not decide what is dogma and what isn't. For this we turn to the infallible and holy General Councils, specifically Ephesus,

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius)

Even before Ephesus, as Kelly notes in his book, the Eucharistic teaching was universally held as realistic, and sacramental.

Let's finish up. Turretinfan quotes Theodoret,

"Moreover the Lord Himself promised to give on behalf of the life of the world, not His invisible nature, but His body. "For," He says, "the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world," and when He took the symbol of divine mysteries, He said, "This is my body which is given for you.""

- Theodoret, Letter 130

I will leave that as is and provide the reader with another quote that I believe shows Theodoret's complete theology on this subject,

"Just as the symbols are one thing before the invocation of the priest, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing so the body of the Lord is changed after the ascension into the divine substance." - Theodoret, Eranistes, Dialogue 2

Lastly Turretinfan amazingly quotes what is alledged to be a lost fragment of St. Irenaeus, quoting it as thought it somehow goes against the Western and Eastern doctrine of the Eucharist,

"Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, "from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;" [Malachi 1:11] as John also declares in the Apocalypse: "The incense is the prayers of the saints." Then again, Paul exhorts us "to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." [Romans 12:1] And again, "Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips." [Hebrews 13:15] Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; [Colossians 2:14] but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God "in spirit and in truth." [John 4:24] And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom."

- Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus, Section 37 (I should point out that I'm not sure about the legitimacy of the authorship of this quotation.)

I don't think any Roman or Greek would disagree. I know Trent wouldn't,

"And He would also that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls, whereby may be fed and strengthened those who live with His life who said, He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me; and as an antidote, whereby we may be freed from daily faults, and be preserved from mortal sins." - Trent, Session 13, Chapter 2

But supposing Trent too erred. What then? The Protestants must answer to the Synods of Constantinople and Jerusalem of the Orthodox Churches, specifically in the Jerusalem Synod,

"Article XVII.—The Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice, in which the very body and blood of Christ are truly and really (ἀληθῶς καὶ πραγματικῶς) present under the figure and type (ἐν εἴδει καὶ τύπῳ) of bread and wine, are offered to God by the hands of the priest as a real though unbloody sacrifice for all the faithful, whether living or dead (ὑπὲρ πάντων τῶν εὐσεβῶν ζώντων καὶ τεθνεώτων), and are received by the hand and the mouth of unworthy as well as worthy communicants, though with opposite effects. The Lutheran doctrine is rejected, and the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation (μεταβολή, μετουσίωσις) is taught as strongly as words can make it; but it is disclaimed to give an explanation of the mode in which this mysterious and miraculous change of the elements takes place."

In the end, it is the Councils which make the final descision. I would advise Protestants not to interpret the General Councils according to their own understanding, but allow the very same Churches which put forth those same Councils to interpret them. Clearly, the Jerusalem and Tridentine Synods interpreted with much clarity what the Ephesus Council previously declared, though not directly naming that said Holy Council.

In closing, I'd like to provide a passage given to me by a Lutheran-Orthodox friend which helps bring to further clarity the Eucharistic view in those early days of the Christian Church:

"This is what Abba Daniel, the Pharanite, said, 'Our Father Abba Arsenius told us of an inhabitant of Scetis, of notable life and of simple faith; through his naivete he was deceived and said, 'The bread which we receive is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol.' Two old men having learnt that he had uttered this saying, knowing that he was outstanding in his way of life, knew that he had not spoken through malice, but through simplicity. So they came to find him and said, 'Father, we have heard a proposition contrary to the faith on the part of someone who says that the bread which we received is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol.' The old man said, 'It is I who have said that.' Then the old men exhorted him saying, 'Do not hold this position, Father, but hold one in conformity with that which the catholic Church has given us. We believe, for our part, that the bread itself is the body of Christ and that the cup itself is his blood and this in all truth and not a symbol. But as in the beginning, God formed man in his image, taking the dust of the earth, without anyone being able to say that it is not the image of God, even though it is not seen to be so; thus it is with the bread of which he said that it is his body; and so we believe that it is really the body of Christ.' The old man said to them, 'As long as I have not been persuaded by the thing itself, I shall not be fully convinced.' So they said, 'Let us pray God about this mystery throughout the whole of this week and we believe that God will reveal it to us.' The old man received this saying with joy and he prayed these words, 'Lord, you know that it is not through malice that I do not believe and so that I may not err through ignorance, reveal this mystery to me, Lord Jesus Christ.' The old men returned to their cells and they also prayed God, saying, 'Lord Jesus Christ, reveal this mystery to the old man, that he may believe and not lose his reward.' God heard both the prayers. At the end of the week they came to church on Sunday and sat all three on the same mat, the old man in the middle. Then their eyes were opened and when the bread was placed on the holy table, there appeared as it were a little child to these three alone. And when the priest put out his hand to break the bread, behold and angel descended from heaven with a sword and poured the child's blood into the chalice. When the priest cut the bread into small pieces, the angle also cut the child into pieces. When they drew near to receive the sacred elements the old man alone received a morsel of the bloody flesh. Seeing this he was afraid and cried out, 'Lord, I believe that this bread is your flesh and this chalice your blood.' Immediately the flesh which he held in his hand became bread, according to the mystery and he took it, giving thanks to God. Then the old men said to him, 'God knows human nature and that man cannot eat raw flesh and that is why he has changed his body into bread and his blood into wine, for those who receive it in faith.' Then they gave thanks to God for the old man, because he had allowed him not to lose the reward of his labor. So all three returned with joy to their own cells." - pp. 53-54, "The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection" from Cistercian Publications.

David [AnglicanApologist72] Responds

2009-10-30T06:40:00.000-07:00

Without getting into a long introduction, please see my original post here.

In response to my article David posted his rebuttle here.

Now, on to the issue at hand!

First, David says,

"There was something he said in a "by the way" demeanor and here’s the exact quote in response to my acceptance of the seven ecumenical councils,

'No Protestant can declare that and still be a Protestant, since these Holy Councils condemn his heretical teachings.'

"Now, I want to know, DeiVerbum777, or Carmenn, where in any of the seven ecumenical councils a belief of mine is repudiated and stated as a heresy. I doubt that you can find that repudiation."

Anglicans are not labeled under the category of "Protestant." In fact no Protestant holds to all the Ecumenical Councils, but Anglicans do; hence my previous statement. In my first post I distinguished clearly between Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox. So the above comment was not directed to any Anglican anywhere.

After quoting me on the Old Testament concerning a type of earthly structure for the Papacy, specifically,

"God called upon Judges to be the supreme heads of Israel, and when Israel protested desiring a king, God raised up Kings to be the visible Authorities of the Invisible Authority, Yahweh the True King."

David responds with,

"There is something here that Carmenn forgot to mention. God does not do things the same way twice in some situations. God changed many things that were done in the Old Testament era. It is not required anymore to abstain from unclean foods as evident from Acts. It is not required as of today to abstain from all work on the Sabbath. And I can go on and on, wasting time explaining simple truths. Just because God did something one way once does not mean he will do so the same way again."

But we have a number of problems here. First, David doesn't offer any examples of how God does not do thing the same way twice. If he implies that at one point in time God raised up a Prophet to lead Israel, then next time raised up a Judge, then the next time a King, then the next time a Prophet and Judge, etc., then this still hasn't proven anything. Visibly the situations are different, but essentially what is happening in each and every senerio? God is raising up a visible Head to set Israel straight. Gideon's story differs from Samson's; King David's story is different from Jerobam's, and so on.

Indeed God changed some things that were done in the Old Testament. But what is the important detail David left out here? Correct. In each and every instance where God changed something, He always specifically mentioned it through Divine Revelation. David uses the example of the unclean foods. I ask you, dear readers, to whom did God reveal this divine Truth? St. Peter. Is this significant? I think so. The Jews totally abstained from all unclean foods, and since this new Revelation would be a shocking curve thrown at the Jewish Church [even St. Peter had trouble swallowing it, pardon the pun], who better to reveal this Truth to the Church than the visible Leader?

As for the Sabbath, nothing but the exact day has changed. The Sabbath was a type of Sunday, on which day all Christians abstain from labor. The Scriptures tell us the Church came together to hold Eucharist on Sunday, not Saturday, this being a highly significant text showing the reader that the Sabbath is done away with now, for now the Church meets on a higher Sabbath.

David continues to quote these words of mine,

"At the same time, the Church did not elect Christ as their Head, and so this is a type of the election of the Bishop, specifically the Roman Bishop. In both cases, God chose Christ to be Head of the Church, and Christ choses who will be the Pope, the steward-Head of the Church. Not two Heads like a monster, as Pope Boniface 8th wrote in Unam Sanctum, but One Head: Christ and the Pope being in Union together. Since Christ is the Icon of the Invisible God, the Visible Head of the Invisible Father, it follows from logic and reason that Christ Himself would need a Visible Head in like manner to Him as He is to the Father, since the Earth is deprived of Christ's body."

He then asks the reader,

"Has it ever occurred to you that Christ appointed all of the apostles equally to be the earthly representatives of Christ’s authority? Why must there be only one person who is the head of the church on earth and not a group of authoritative leaders which make up the earthly leaders who decide things by council? Carmenn might try to cite Hosea 1:11 in response to this, which he did cite in his article. Hosea 1:11 says, "And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head." Now remember, God doesn’t necessarily have to do things exactly the same every time. Change is an important concept."

What David has missed here is an important fact which I expounded on in my original post, namely,

"Because Christ, the divine Word [or Memra, to the Jewish students of the Targums] is one, visible, Head of a community which He has established according to the typological Israel of the Old Testament [a theme found strongly in St. Matthew's Gospel], it follows that Christ would equip His inner circle to lead the community in the same way He did. For that to be executed to its fullest, a visible Head - not the Founder, but a mere steward, a servant - would be needed to fill Christ's role while He, being the Master and King, was away. When He declared to His Apostles and disciples, "As the Father has sent Me, even so I am sending you," He was saying that He would send them in the same manner which the Father sent Him into the world. The kings, judges, and prophets of the OT, all of which ruled from a sole chair, [i.e. Moses had helpers to shepherd Israel, but he was the Supreme Head of Israel, the Steward of God the Founder of Israel] represented God not seen by human eyes; the Apostles now came representing Christ in a much fuller way, viz. by Christ living within them, this same Christ now no longer seen by human eyes. The cosistency is the same from the Old Testament through to the New. By the simple fact that the Church is described as a spiritual house by St. Peter leads one to conclude there must be a Head. The Church is obviously a Family of the highest form, and every Family has a Supreme Head figure, the Father. When he is absent the eldest Son becomes Head, and when he is absent either the second-born son becomes Head, or a Servant is appointed Head. Since we are all servants of Christ, yet children by adoption, St. Peter being both servant and [adopted] son remains Head of the Family by royal right, since he must fulfill the continuous typology of a visible representation of God, as well as fulfull the Jewish role as a steward guarding the House till the Master return."

After citing the example of Eliakim in Isaiah 22:20-24, I go on to say,

"Clearly Eliakim is a type of Christ the Servant, the Steward of God the Father. Notice Eliakim has one key, singular, and consequently so has Christ in Revelation. But St. Peter has keys, plural. It seems that Christ, being the Father's Chief Steward has the Master Key, and St. Peter being Christ's Chief Steward has a number of keys, because his keys are not the One Supreme Key which Christ alone possesses. His lone key represents Power, Authority, Supremacy, Jurisdiction, Binding and Loosing, all things deserving of Deity. His lone key binds and looses first in Heaven what St. Peter's keys, which belong to the Pope and the Church, will in repeated fashion bind and loose on Earth. Because Eliakim represents Christ, he must also represent St. Peter - the Matthew 16:18-19 passage parralleling Isaiah 22 being unmistakable - because St. Peter also represents Christ. If we choose to remain consistent with in Israeli thought stemming from the types of the Old Testament, we must conclude that St. Peter held some sort of primacy among the Apostles, clearly seen in Matt. 16:18-19."

David must deal with this type of pattern found throughout the OT into the NT. Even though the senerios change, the pattern remains unchanged. Why can't all the Twelve Apostles be Christ's representatives equally? Because this does not flow from the consistent working of God, despite the change [which we have noted doesn't actually change the pattern at all].

David continues,

"And he is correct, no doubt. But what I don’t understand is why Christ can’t be the chief head of the church and there still be a number of earthly representatives who decide matters by council. So far, Carmenn has shown nothing to prove this."

Christ is the Chief Head, but the fact is He is the Master gone away from the House for a while...yet He still remains. While the Master is away the Head-Butler has charge over all the House, and that includes making descisions which need making when the time arises. If Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the Old Testament Kings, Prophets, and Judges, then it follows that St. Peter would be the fulfillment of the Old Testament servants who took charge when the King left. Even the Prophets had their stewards: Moses had Joshua, Elijah had Elisha, etc. It is fitting that Christ have His steward. When He returns bodily the Papal Office will fade, and there will be no need for Popes because the Master has returned.

David says,

"Now, Carmenn proceeds to doing something he has not done yet, that is, appeal to something in the Bible which might be able to support his claims concerning the papacy, instead of appealing to irrelevant facts."

I would hardly call the Old Testament types "irrelevant facts", since this was the common way the early Christians showed the Jews the Truth of the Christian Faith. We cannot ignore the types that point to an earthly visible Head when the Supreme Divine Head is unseen. This is significant.

David says concerning the keys,

"Now when you consider what obtaining the keys actually means, then you’ll conclude that all of the apostles had them. They do signify a sort of authority and supremacy, but authority to do and supremacy over what? There’s nothing to suggest the keys indicate an authority over all the other apostles whatsoever. So it’s an appeal to ambiguity when one argues from the keys Peter obtained to show that Peter has supremacy over the other apostles. Absolutely nothing suggests the keys of the kingdom of heaven imply a supremacy over the other apostles. The keys signify that Peter has authority to pastor the church. Don’t all of the apostles have this authority though? Of course. So it’s reasonable to conclude that all of the apostles were given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, even though it is not explicitly stated in scripture."

What David misses is that St. Peter alone was given the keys first, then the other Apostles. Why not give the keys to all the Apostles at the same time? To execute this the way Christ did is to show a superiority within St. Peter. But to show also that the other Apostles are not powerless, gives to them the keys also. As the recent Catechism reiterates,

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

As the Chief Steward, St. Peter may exercise the keys alone, or in the fellowship of the Apostles, that is, in a General Council. The royal Family, the Church, needs a Head-Butler, in fact logic demands it. The Scriptures certainly imply a primacy of power in Peter above the other Apostles.

Moving on David says,

"While Peter does represent unity in the church by his primacy, he does not represent alone, the supreme head of the church in that the apostles don’t. If one says that Peter is supreme over the other apostles, he is putting forth a proposition that is a disgrace to the fact that the church was built just as equally on the prophets and the other apostles, as Ephesians 2:20 says. To this point in Carmenn’s response, Carmenn has not put forth a valid case for the supremacy of Peter. It’s about time he does."

On the contrary, upon ignoring the OT types of stewardship which follows the OT types of Kings and Prophets and Judges, David does not see the argument as valid. Concerning the Church being built on all the Apostles equally, he ignores what I previously said in my first post,

"Yet at the same time in Revelation, when the Thrones of the Apostles are mentioned, we do not see a special chair for Peter alone, who apparantly was the first Pope. Neither do we see a special pillar for Peter among the Pillars of the Apostles, which is strange if he is supposed to be the visible Head. But this is the problem we run into when we look at leadership in the Bible strictly as a heirarchy. Leadership on God's terms has no rank, but all are on the same level - i.e, we have countless pastors in the world who tend to us the sheep, yet at the very core of it all pastors are sheep as well in God's eyes... Seeing that heirachy is needed, how are we to understand in what sense God's views it? One need only listen to Christ's words, "The greatest among you shall be the least...The servant is not greater than his master..." - but above all, His own example, when He said "I did not come to be served, but I came to serve." For this reason, the Pope is called Servant of the Servants of God. His role is the greatest among all; not in the sense as a king is greater than his subject, but in the sense where Christ said, "My Father is greater than I." - J. 10:29...The Pope is greater than any man in this sense: as the Father is no more and no less than the Son, so the Pope is no more and no less than his flock. Christ looked to the Father; we look the Pope as the Church's Pastor, the Leuitenant-General of Christ."

Essentially the example of Jesus Christ Himself leads us to this conclusion. The consistency flows smoothly. God will not distinguish between Peter and the other Apostles in Eph. 2:20 because that is simply not His way. Even in Matt.16 & 18 we see Peter indistinguishable from the Apostles in their authority, but at the same time when we realize what the Church is, we also realize the need for the Papacy. Being a visible Family, the Church needs a visible Head.

David continues,

"Next, Carmenn puts forth quotations from Haydock in support of his interpretation of what the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" means as a phrase. Haydock simply states his position, without argumentation. He assumes as many do that keys necessarily mean a supreme grant of authority to Peter when he obtained them. This is simply unsupported. It’s interpretation of ambiguity and nothing more."

Besides Haydock, I also quoted the Roman Catechism of Trent,

"Moreover to this Church, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, belong all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time; all of whom are founded and raised upon the one corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, and announced peace to them that are near and to them that are far."

I would hardly call this citation ambiguous.

Concerning the cited Ecumenical Councils, David says,

"Of Peter the Apostle and the Church of Rome, all this letter affirms is that the Peter, his successors and the church of Rome had never erred from the tradition of the apostles. That of course doesn’t mean that they can’t err does it? Of course it doesn’t. There is a reference to the authority of Peter no doubt. Yes, Peter does have an authority and he is the prince of the apostles, the first to be honored, the first to be mentioned, the most significant of all of them. But where in that letter does it say that Peter had an authority over the other apostles? Where in that letter does it say that the apostles are authoritatively submissive to Peter and his successors? It doesn’t, whatsoever. Therefore, the letter of Pope Agatho at the third council of Constantinople does not prove papal supremacy."

Let's take a look at those Councils' words again.

"There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down to this day and forever lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic Faith.

“Arcadius the legate of the Apostolic See said: “Nestorius hath brought us great sorrow…Celestine, most holy pope of the Apostolic See hath condescended to send us as his executors of this business, and also following the decrees of the holy synod we give this as our conclusion: Let Nestorius know that he is deprived of all Episcopal dignity, and is alien from the whole church and from the communion of all its priests.” Session III, Ephesus (NPNF: The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pg. 223)

What David avoids to do, this Council Session does, viz. distinguishing between Peter and the other Apostles, i.e. "...blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down to this day and forever lives and judges in his successors." Why this distinction? Because St. Peter held the primacy, and not merely one of honor.

Of Agatho's Letter, one can only read it in light of our discoveries and find it difficult to conclude this Bishop held merely a Primacy of Honor. But certainly this issue will not be settled here, but I know that you, dear reader, will take it upon yourself to go beyond this little discussion and search out this matter in-depth.

After all, the worst that could happen to us Roman Catholics is that we convert to Greek Orthodoxy. Note the [intentionally] humerous sarcasm. For now, I think the Roman position stands well enough.

David thanks for the excellent response! I'm positive it got people thinking just as it got me thinking. The Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ the Love of God and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

Francis Beckwith disposed of in 60 Seconds? [Or] In Beckwith's Defense: A Short Response to Turretinfan's Short Response

2009-10-29T12:52:00.000-07:00

Recently I discovered Turretinfan's latest video dealing with Francis Beckwith's exceptionally short post regarding Trent and Forensic Justification. Turretinfan is an anonymous Reformed blogger who frequently writes for Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Reformed apologetics organization run by Dr. James White. Beckwith is an Evangelical convert to Roman Catholicism, and is a Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies at Baylor University.

The article in question can be quoted in full here, but the original source may be found here:

'It seems to me that in Catholic thought prior to the Reformation there had always been a forensic aspect to justification, insofar as there is a legal component to one becoming an adopted son of the Father at baptism. Even The Council of Trent claims as much: “If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,[Rom. 5:5] and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.” If you read it carefully, Trent does not deny that justification involves imputation of righteousness. What it is claiming is that it is wrong to think of justification as "the imputation of the justice of Christ alone," just as it is wrong to think of Jesus Christ as not fully both God and man.'

In response Turretinfan uploaded a video entitled "Francis Beckwith on Trent and Justification Gone in 60 Seconds", a rather confident title to say the least. But does he actually do it? You be the judge. Now that you have read Beckwith's statement, please take a moment [literally] to view Turretinfan's video, then come back and let's review what's been said.

A few things to note.

Turretinfan says at 0:27-0:32,

"Adoption is a theologically distinct concept from Justification, but Beckwith conflates the two."

All a Roman, Greek, Oriental, Coptic, Russian, or any other Christian from any of the Apostolic Churches can do is be amazed at the blatantly manifest heresy in that statement. For the Christian Church, that is, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, 'adoption' can be summed up in the recent Roman Catechism,

1709 He who believes in Christ becomes a son of God. This filial adoption transforms him by giving him the ability to follow the example of Christ. It makes him capable of acting rightly and doing good. In union with his Savior, the disciple attains the perfection of charity which is holiness. Having matured in grace, the moral life blossoms into eternal life in the glory of heaven.

Essentially, anyone who believes in Christ enters the filial adoption. When do people believe in Christ? When they have been Justified. For the Catholic, the Justification of God works by His divine sovereignty mysteriously working with man's free will. At the moment of [initial] Justification he becomes a son of God.

Beckwith quotes one of Trent's canons, which I will repeat here for clarification:

“If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,[Rom. 5:5] and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.”

With this quote he asserts Trent is not really denying Forensic Justification.

What is Forensic Justification according to Protestantism?

"Justification is defined as the act of God by which he imputes the righteousness of Christ to a believer and declares that person to be forgiven of all sins, thus pronouncing the person righteous in his sight (Acts 13:38-39; Romans 4:5, 24). It is a declarative and judicial act of God (Romans 8:1; Colossians 1:22), based on the righteousness of Christ, rather than an infusion of holiness into a believer or a change in their character. It changed the position of a believer and puts them into a right standing with God, but is distinct from the dispositional change of that person's heart or the actual altering of their spiritual condition."

"Justification means that God, as the universal judge, acquits us of our guilt and declares us as righteous (Romans 5:8). The very righteousness of Jesus Christ is transferred to our account and we are seen as if we had never sinned nor been a sinner, as if we had been as perfectly obedient as Christ was obedient for us (2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:18-19)."

"From our human point of view, faith in the finished work of Christ is the only thing that is required for us to be declared righteous (Romans 3:28). We receive this gracious gift of God by faith alone (Romans 3:22; 4:4; Galatians 3:24-24); we do not merit it in any way by good works, reformed behaviour, or resolutions to never sin again (Galatians 2:16)." - Justification: Emphasizing the Distinction Between Protestant and Roman Catholic Thought by Corey Keiting, Proferssor Al Glenn (ST502 Systematic Theology II; Fuller Theological Seminary, Phoenix Extension; Winter Quarter 2002)

The Council of Trent declares concerning Justification,

"Finally, the one formal cause [of justification] is the justness of God: not that by which he himself is just, but that by which he makes us just and endowed with which we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and are not merely considered to be just but we are truly named and are just." (Decree on Justification 7)

Trent's real issue here isn't that Forensic Justification is wrong, but that Forensic Justification alone is wrong, just as Faith for salvation isn't wrong, but that Faith Alone for salvation is wrong. I should insert here that the Roman Church, with the Greeks, the Orientals, the Russians, the Coptics, and all the Apostolic Churches proclaim with one Voice that the holy and glorious doctrine of Justification is not simply a Divine Declaration of the sinner, but rather also effects the inward soul of the one Justified.

We know that St. Paul used a strong legal, forensic element in his epistle to the Romans concerning this issue. The Protestants argue that since the Apostle uses this argument, using the analogy of a Judge justifying a guilty person, the declaration does not change the nature of the guilty person, so it follows that God's declaration of the sinner does not change the nature of that sinner. This is completely heretical, for it puts a limit on God's sovereignty.

As Newman once noted,

"God's word, I say, effects what it announces. This is its characteristic all through Scripture. He calleth those things which be not, as though they are, [Rom 4:17] and they are forthwith. Thus in the beginning He said, Let there be light, and there was light...So again in His miracles, he called Lazarus from the grave and the dead arose; he said, Be thou cleansed, and the leprosy departed; He rebuked the wind and the waves, and they were still; He commanded the evil spirits, and they fled away... It would seem, then, in all cases that God's word is the instrument of His deed. When, then, He solemnly utters the command, Let the soul be just, it becomes inwardly just." J. H. Newman, Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification. 3rd ed. (London: Rivingtons, 1874), 81-2

Indeed Almighty God's holy word is always powerful and effective in every declaration: What He declares comes to be.

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." - Isaiah 55:10-11, ESV

In short, Trent focuses on the inner workings of Justification, at the same time noting the Forensic side. Dikaioo cannot be used alone to define the doctrine of Justification; we must consider from Whom that word proceeds. Considering that it comes from God's own mouth, we know for certain it will execute what it declares: the righteousness of the sinner, which consists of changing his nature. We must also note that guilty persons, though justified by their judges, may easily break the Law again and require to be justified again. For Christians, specifically of the Apostolic Churches, our Justification is a process called theosis, viz. the deification of the Christian. But let us leave that for another time.

Getting back to the original point of this post, if Turretinfan attempts to refute Beckwith's assertion he'll have to deal with Trent here:

"Finally, the one formal cause [of justification] is the justness of God: not that by which he himself is just, but that by which he makes us just and endowed with which we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and are not merely considered to be just but we are truly named and are just."

I think this lone passage speaks for itself. You decide whether Beckwith has been disposed of in 60 seconds. I think the answer is obvious.

AnglicanApologist72 and the Papal Issue

2009-10-26T05:00:00.000-07:00

I was recently directed to a video published by AnglicanApologist72 on Youtube, concerning Matthew 16:18 and Papal Supremacy. The text version to this video can be found here.

It should be mentioned that unlike Protestant arguments, Anglicans and Orthodox theologians offer the best of anti-papal arguments, since they can actually deal [more or less] with the ancient thought of the holy fathers and present them in their glorious context. Protestant proponents against the Papacy continually demonstrate a serious deficiency of understanding the fathers and the Councils, and because of this both Anglicans and Orthodox shudder at the mutilated, misconstrued, misplaced pretexts and erroneous interpretations Protestants generally [but not always, and certainly not all] apply to the holy fathers. With an Anglican presentation we can relax at least slightly, since we can be sure that 98% of the time the Anglican opponent has the same reverence and awe for the Councils and the fathers, attempting to treat them in their historical context. An example of this can be found in AnglicanApologist72's (whose true name is David) short article here, in which he says:

"The Apostles had been given the authority to govern the affairs of the church when Jesus told them that whatever they bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven. This authority didn't fade when the apostles died though. The apostles appointed who we call bishops (or you can say they established the episcopate) so that their authority could be exercised while they were not on earth. So whatever the church, as a whole, binds or looses has authority over the whole of Christ's church. The establishments of the church as a whole are infallible. The implications of this are so very important. The general councils which are accepted by the church (both east and west), namely the ecumenical councils, are a reflection of the binding and loosing authority that was bestowed to the bishops in the church...What these councils decide goes, if you want to be consistent with the words of Christ."

No Protestant can declare that and still be a Protestant, since these Holy Councils condemn his heretical teachings. Now that we are certain David displays the same reverence for the Councils as we do, let us proceed happily in this common ground and examine the subject in question, viz. the office of the Papacy and its Supremacy over the Church.

In his own words, David says in the written article,

"The specific passage in Matthew 16 ,

"Matt 16:16-19- And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

"According to Roman Catholics, this passage shows that Peter is the rock of the Church and was given the authority to bind and loose things on earth, which would then be bound and loosed in heaven. Because of these things, Roman Catholics claim, Peter MUST be the supreme head of the Church and all Christians must submit to him.

"First of all, we need to properly understand what being the rock of the church would constitute. Why must it mean that Peter is somehow superior to all the other apostles and must be the head of the church? I see no need to believe such a notion."

For one, St. Peter's superiority comes not from his own person, but as a result of the divine decree of God, viz. that Peter would be the Chief Pastor of the Christian Church. God infallibly declared through St. Peter that Jesus was the Messiah, the Divine Son. Christ declares to Peter that human understanding did not prompt him to say this, but "my Father which is in Heaven." Because of this Revelation, which did not come from Peter himself, Christ declares to Peter himself, "You are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build My Church..." Why would Christ build His Church on Peter (as David concedes) if Peter, in reality, did absolutely nothing to deserve such an honory title, 'Rock'? Because from age to age, in His own unique timing, God raises up Prophets and Shepherds to declare the Word where it has not been heard. Jesus, being the Supreme Divine-Prophet and Supreme Divine-Shepherd was the Word incarnate, proclaiming Himself to the world. But when He would not be with them, as He knew He would soon not be, He desired that He [the Word] be preached evermore into the Earth, and to do this He needed those Prophets and Shepherds. But He would not execute this Plan in any old fashion, but rather in the consistent pattern He, His Father, and the Holy Spirit appointed and sent out Prophets and Shepherds in the Old Testament era.

They called out Moses, a prince in exile, an outcast, to be the Prophet of God, a sole supreme visible Head of the Invisible Head, God Himself. God Himself pastored Israel, at times coming down to meet with them, but on most occasions He relayed everything to Moses, who in turn relayed the same message to the people, being free from any error.

God called upon Judges to be the supreme heads of Israel, and when Israel protested desiring a king, God raised up Kings to be the visible Authorities of the Invisible Authority, Yahweh the True King.

In Hosea 3:10-11 we read:

10Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," it shall be said to them, "Children of the living God." 11And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head. And they shall go up from the land, for great shall be the day of Jezreel. (ESV)

It is interesting to note that these people appoint for themselves one head. Why? Wesley in his Notes writes concerning v. 11:

"Then - This verse has both an historical and a spiritual sense; the one referring to the return out of Babylon, the other to a more glorious deliverance from a more miserable captivity. Judah - The two tribes, who adhered to the house of David. Israel - Some of the ten tribes who were incorporated with the kingdom of Judah, and so carried captive with them. But this is spiritually to be understood of the whole Israel of God. One head - Zerubbabel, who was appointed by Cyrus, yet with full approbation of the people. And so Christ is appointed by the Father, head of his church, whom believers heartily accept. Come up - Literally out of Babylon, spiritually out of captivity to sin and to Satan. Great - Good, joyous and comfortable. Of Jezreel - Israel is here called Jezreel, the seed of God. This seed is now sown in the earth, and buried under the clods; but great shall be its day, when the harvest comes. Great was the day of the church, when there were daily added to it such as should be saved."

Likewise the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says of the same verse:

"...one head-Zerubbabel typically; Christ antitypically, under whom alone Israel and Judah are joined, the "Head" of the Church (Eph 1:22; 5:23), and of the hereafter united kingdom of Judah and Israel (Jer 34:5, 6; Eze 34:23). Though "appointed" by the Father (Ps 2:6), Christ is in another sense "appointed" as their Head by His people, when they accept and embrace Him as such."

The footnote in the ESV above the words "they shall appoint for themselves one head" directs us to Hosea 3:5, which says:

"Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God, and David their king,and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to his goodness in the latter days."

Directly, Hosea 1:11 is a typeology of Jesus Christ being Head of the Church. Rather than disprove the Papacy, this funamdental truth demands the need for the Papacy. At the same time, the Church did not elect Christ as their Head, and so this is a type of the election of the Bishop, specifically the Roman Bishop. In both cases, God chose Christ to be Head of the Church, and Christ choses who will be the Pope, the steward-Head of the Church. Not two Heads like a monster, as Pope Boniface 8th wrote in Unam Sanctum, but One Head: Christ and the Pope being in Union together. Since Christ is the Icon of the Invisible God, the Visible Head of the Invisible Father, it follows from logic and reason that Christ Himself would need a Visible Head in like manner to Him as He is to the Father, since the Earth is deprived of Christ's body. We understand quite clearly from His own words when He breathes on the Apostles the Holy Spirit and says:

"As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." (J. 20:21)

What is the consistent teaching of St. John's Gospel? Christ, the Word being made truly flesh, visibly comes to the world to reconcile Mankind with God, being made truly Man while still remaining truly God. Because Christ, the divine Word [or Memra, to the Jewish students of the Targums] is one, visible, Head of a community which He has established according to the typological Israel of the Old Testament [a theme found strongly in St. Matthew's Gospel], it follows that Christ would equip His inner circle to lead the community in the same way He did. For that to be executed to its fullest, a visible Head - not the Founder, but a mere steward, a servant - would be needed to fill Christ's role while He, being the Master and King, was away. When He declared to His Apostles and disciples, "As the Father has sent Me, even so I am sending you," He was saying that He would send them in the same manner which the Father sent Him into the world. The kings, judges, and prophets of the OT, all of which ruled from a sole chair, [i.e. Moses had helpers to shepherd Israel, but he was the Supreme Head of Israel, the Steward of God the Founder of Israel] represented God not seen by human eyes; the Apostles now came representing Christ in a much fuller way, viz. by Christ living within them, this same Christ now no longer seen by human eyes. The cosistency is the same from the Old Testament through to the New. By the simple fact that the Church is described as a spiritual house by St. Peter leads one to conclude there must be a Head. The Church is obviously a Family of the highest form, and every Family has a Supreme Head figure, the Father. When he is absent the eldest Son becomes Head, and when he is absent either the second-born son becomes Head, or a Servant is appointed Head. Since we are all servants of Christ, yet children by adoption, St. Peter being both servant and [adopted] son remains Head of the Family by royal right, since he must fulfill the continuous typology of a visible representation of God, as well as fulfull the Jewish role as a steward guarding the House till the Master return.

Isaiah 22:20-24, like the above passages, in its immediete context refers to Christ, and is even applied to Him by St. John in the book of Revelation.

"In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. 24And they will hang on him the whole honor of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons."

Clearly Eliakim is a type of Christ the Servant, the Steward of God the Father. Notice Eliakim has one key, singular, and consequently so has Christ in Revelation. But St. Peter has keys, plural. It seems that Christ, being the Father's Chief Steward has the Master Key, and St. Peter being Christ's Chief Steward has a number of keys, because his keys are not the One Supreme Key which Christ alone possesses. His lone key represents Power, Authority, Supremacy, Jurisdiction, Binding and Loosing, all things deserving of Deity. His lone key binds and looses first in Heaven what St. Peter's keys, which belong to the Pope and the Church, will in repeated fashion bind and loose on Earth. Because Eliakim represents Christ, he must also represent St. Peter - the Matthew 16:18-19 passage parralleling Isaiah 22 being unmistakable - because St. Peter also represents Christ. If we choose to remain consistent with in Israeli thought stemming from the types of the Old Testament, we must conclude that St. Peter held some sort of primacy among the Apostles, clearly seen in Matt. 16:18-19.

In an older post, I said concerning this passage,

"Majority of Protestants. Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelicals will admit the Rock is Peter, according to the Greek. However all of them unamiously likewise say this is not a sufficiant proof text that Peter had a Pope-role in the Church. Indeed, he was the pre-eminent Apostle, the spokesman for the Apostles. Yet at the same time in Revelation, when the Thrones of the Apostles are mentioned, we do not see a special chair for Peter alone, who apparantly was the first Pope. Neither do we see a special pillar for Peter among the Pillars of the Apostles, which is strange if he is supposed to be the visible Head. But this is the problem we run into when we look at leadership in the Bible strictly as a heirarchy. Leadership on God's terms has no rank, but all are on the same level - i.e, we have countless pastors in the world who tend to us the sheep, yet at the very core of it all pastors are sheep as well in God's eyes. Yet the pastor has authority over the laymen, and can perform the Sacraments (in the Roman Catholic and East Orthodox Churches alone), but in Heaven's eyes, he himself is still a sheep. Of course, there must be some structure of order, for God does not create confusion, but is a God of order." (Why the Christian Church needs a Pope)

Later on I said,

"Seeing that heirachy is needed, how are we to understand in what sense God's views it? One need only listen to Christ's words, "The greatest among you shall be the least...The servant is not greater than his master..." - but above all, His own example, when He said "I did not come to be served, but I came to serve." For this reason, the Pope is called Servant of the Servants of God. His role is the greatest among all; not in the sense as a king is greater than his subject, but in the sense where Christ said, "My Father is greater than I." - J. 10:29. The Arians and Jeovah's Witnesses apostasies declare that this verse means Christ is lesser than God, but this is far from the truth. The word "great" does not denote nature, but rank. Remember, at this point, Christ had already emptied Himself of all His divinity, but still was "very God from very God."

"Let's contrast this with Hebrews 1:4, "(Jesus) being so much better than the angels.."

"Notice the verse says He is "better" than the angels, not "greater". The Greek word here is κρείττων, which denotes nature. But in John 10:29, the Greek word for "greater" is μέγας, which denotes...

"1) great 1a) of the external form or sensible appearance of things (or of persons) 1a1) in particular, of space and its dimensions, as respects 1a1a) mass and weight: great 1a1b) compass and extent: large, spacious 1a1c) measure and height: long 1a1d) stature and age: great, old 1b) of number and quantity: numerous, large, abundant 1c) of age: the elder

"To put it simply, this particular Greek word implies position, not nature. Jesus, when He was a man, was "made a little lower than the angels", and therefore looked to the Father for guidance, since His Father was in a higher position than Christ. But Christ was still 100% God, never less than God, continually Yahweh the Son. The Father did not lord over Christ as a tyrant, but served Him just as Christ served the Father. In Hebrews Christ is called "better" than the angels, which most certainly denotes nature. Why is He better? Because He created them. The Father did not create Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ was continually with the Father, "eternally begotten." Do you see the difference?

"The Pope is greater than any man in this sense: as the Father is no more and no less than the Son, so the Pope is no more and no less than his flock. Christ looked to the Father; we look the Pope as the Church's Pastor, the Leuitenant-General of Christ." (Ibid)

This is an accurate description of how the Church views St. Peter and his Successors. I believe if we look at Scripture in light of the Apostolic Tradition and the Jewish mindset, it becomes rather blatant that the Papacy was a neccessary institution in honor of Christ, the King from the line of David, the ultimate fulfillment of Judah's royal lineage.

In his post, David argues,

"We also see that the foundation of Christ's church is NOT only Peter, but all of the Apostles AS WELL as Christ and the prophets, Ephesians 2:20. To label Peter as the sole rock of the Church is grossly incorrect. The church was built upon Peter, of course, but NOT ONLY Peter. Peter is the first among equals in terms of the foundation of the Church. He is the one to be most HONORED among all that are the foundation of the Church. He was never given a higher authority than the other apostles, while he was given a higher HONOR than the other apostles."

Unfortunately David fights a straw-man when he claims that the Church says St. Peter is the sole Rock of the Church. In the words of Pope St. Leo IX,

"The holy Church built upon a Rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas, the son of John who first was called Simon, because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome." (In Terra Pax Hominibus, Chap. 7)

The Catholic Haydock Bible Commentary, in regards to Eph. 2:20 simply says,

"The Church is in this place said to be built upon the apostles and prophets; why not then upon St. Peter?"

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, in its description of the Church says,

"The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair."

"The Church is also to be called holy because she is united to her holy Head, as His body; that is, to Christ the Lord,' the fountain of all holiness, from whom flow the graces of the Holy Spirit and the riches of the divine bounty."

"Moreover to this Church, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, belong all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time; all of whom are founded and raised upon the one corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, and announced peace to them that are near and to them that are far."

The First Vatican Council declares,

"Therefore, before he was glorified he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father,in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation."

In this clear context, one can very easily see how Vatican Council I taught that St. Peter is the prime Bishop, the "principle of both unities and their visible foundation", that visible foundation being "the union of the clergy." St. Peter brings to fulness the visible Unity of the Church, all the Apostles being the Foundation, but Peter himself being Chief, a symbol of that said Unity. Just as Christ has Jurisdiction over the Church, so does His servant, the Head-Butler of the House.

David continues to write,

"Due to the above fact that Peter is not solely the rock of the Church and was not solely give the power to bind and loose, why should we think that the keys to the kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone either? The fact is, the authorities given to Peter in Matthew 16 are not limited to Peter. Nothing suggests such a proposition."

Indeed Haydock writes in his Commentary concerning Matt.16:19,

"Ver. 19. And I will give to thee the keys, &c. This is another metaphor, expressing the supreme power and prerogative of the prince of the apostles. The keys of a city, or of its gates, are presented or given to the person that hath the chief power. We also own a power of the keys, given to the other apostles, but with a subordination to St. Peter and to his successor, as head of the Catholic Church. --- And whatsoever thou shalt bind, &c. All the apostles, and their successors, partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to one head invested with the supreme power."

Concerning Matt.18:18 Haydock says,

"Ver. 18. Whatsoever you shall bind, &c. The power of binding and loosing, which in a more eminent manner was promised to St. Peter, is here promised to the other apostles and their successors, bishops and priests. (Witham) --- The power of binding and loosing, conferred on St. Peter, excelled that granted to the other apostles, inasmuch as to St. Peter, who was head and pastor of the whole Church, was granted jurisdiction over the other apostles, while these received no power over each other, much less over St. Peter. (Tirinus) --- Priests receive a power not only to loose, but also to bind, as St. Ambrose writeth against the Novatians, who allowed the latter, but denied the former power to priests. (Lib. i. de pœnit. chap. ii.) (Bristow)"

A Complete Catechism of the Christian Religion asks under the heading, "The End of the Church and Her Qualities Resulting from this End", asks,

46. Who composes this Infallible Teaching Body?

A. The Pope, and the Bishops united with him.

The recent Catechism of the Catholic Church says,

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

Were we to look at more of the documents from the past, we would see a consistent flow of the teaching that all the Bishops with the Pope exercise the Keys at a General Council, which the recent Catechism affirms.

Near the end of his article, David references St. Cyprian's name and position regarding Peter being the Rock,

"While Cyprian held the view that Peter was the rock, he believed Peter's authority was equal with the other apostles..."

Orthodox scholar Nicholas Afanassieff writes concerning St. Cyprian and the Roman See,

"The ideal “Peter’s throne” occupied by the whole episcopate became confused in Cyprian’s mind with the actual throne occupied by the Bishop of Rome. According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter’s throne (the Bishop of Rome among others), but the See of Peter is Peter’s throne par excellence. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian’s insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church." (The Church Which Presides In Love)

Anglican convert to Catholicism, Dom Chapman, also expounds on the Cyprian passage concerning the Roman Chair. Besides Newman, Chapman and Luke Rivington should be consulted by Catholic readers, since these two along with Newman were Anglican divines who converted to the Catholic Faith. I think you will find their works profitable. What St. Cyprian declares bolsters the Roman claim rather than alledgedly refute it.

The same can be applied to Origen, who taught that all Christians were the rock. This can be understood as all Christians being the rock indirectly, but Peter is the rock par excellence. St. Augustine taught that the Rock was Christ, Peter, and Peter's Confession, which is identical to the Roman teaching as we have just seen.

But David makes a point when he says,

"Therefore, we cannot use the Church fathers as authority to give us an answer. They disagree!"

So true! Hence why we must now turn to the Ecumenical Councils recognized by both East and West. Of these Councils there are Seven.

In Session III of the Council of Ephesus we read,

"There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down to this day and forever lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic Faith.

“Arcadius the legate of the Apostolic See said: “Nestorius hath brought us great sorrow…Celestine, most holy pope of the Apostolic See hath condescended to send us as his executors of this business, and also following the decrees of the holy synod we give this as our conclusion: Let Nestorius know that he is deprived of all Episcopal dignity, and is alien from the whole church and from the communion of all its priests.” (NPNF: The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pg. 223)

Perhaps even more blatant is Pope St. Agatho's letter at Constantinople III, which reads,

"This is the pure expression of piety. This is the true and immaculate profession of the Christian religion, not invented by human cunning, but which was taught by the Holy Ghost through the princes of the Apostles. This is the firm and irreprehensible doctrine of the holy Apostles, the integrity of the sincere piety of which, so long as it is preached freely, defends the empire of your Tranquillity in the Christian commonwealth, and exults [will defend it, will render it stable; and exulting], and (as we firmly trust) will demonstrate it full of happiness. Believe your most humble [servant], my most Christian lords and sons, that I am pouring forth these prayers with my tears, or its stability and exultation [in Greek exaltation]. And these things I (although unworthy and insignificant) dare advise through my sincere love, because your God-granted victory is our salvation, the happiness of your Tranquillity is our joy, the harmlessness of your kindness is the security of our littleness. And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere, which is chiefly to be loved and fostered, and is to be preached with confidence, which conciliates with God through its truthful confession, which also renders one commendable to Christ the Lord, which keeps the Christian empire of your Clemency, which gives far-reaching victories to your most pious Fortitude from the Lord of heaven, which accompanies you in battle, and defeats your foes; which protects on every side as an impregnable wall your God-sprung empire, which throws terror into opposing nations, and smites them with the divine wrath, which also in wars celestially gives triumphal palms over the downfall and subjection of the enemy, and ever guards your most faithful sovereignty secure and joyful in peace. For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, “Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift 332you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that (thy) faith fail not. And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all. For woe is me, if I neglect to preach the truth of my Lord, which they have sincerely preached. Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which I am bidden to give to the exchangers, i.e., to teach to the Christian people and imbue it therewith. What shall I say in the future examination by Christ himself, if I blush (which God forbid!) to preach here the truth of his words? What satisfaction shall I be able to give for myself, what for the souls committed to me, when he demands a strict account of the office I have received?"

Indeed, the Council examined the letter before accepting it as the Catholic Encyclopedia admits. However the First Vatican Council did the exact same thing with Papal Infallibility, examining the issue before formally declaring it to be dogma. This is standard Catholic procedure when it comes to these serious doctrinal matters.

When all this is taken into consideration, one begins to seriouslly wonder whether the Papal claims really are inventions of the Middle Ages, or long-ignored teachings of the Apostolic Church? I think the answer is pretty clear.