Jewish Objections to Christianity, Part 2

Elijah kills the prophets of Ba'al

Continuation.

By: Jay

1. The doctrine of a third Person was not clearly taught in the first few centuries. Indeed, even by Basil’s time, he expressed hesitation about declaring for sure that the Spirit was a third hypostasis in the godhead. The problem with this is that we must either admit a very extreme form of doctrinal development, which few are willing to admit, or we must say that in some way the fathers of the 1-3 centuries were utterly deficient in their doctrine of God. How did they carry on the apostolic Tradition, if many of them did not even grasp the divinity and Personhood of the Spirit? In fact, Justin Martyr posited a Dyad. Consider also the “development” of the notion from Athanasius that the Son is generated from the essence of God, to the Cappadocian idea  that He is generated from the Father proper. Once you read Plotinus, though, it becomes clear how influential the Platonic tradition was on the Alexandrians and the Latins in their triadic formulations. But once we admit this, we have moved far from the Hebraic and Mosaic tradition, into what appears to be a Greek Hellenic mystery religion.  Indeed, if you pay attention to Christian writers, notice how often when speaking of God, it is a singular Person, with a singular will acting. Yet when we come to Trinitarian theology and God acting, we are immediately caught in a whirlwind of explaining how three Persons act in different way, yet don’t. It’s a maze that ends up being miles away from the Shema. Peruse the 5th Ennead for yourself, which Augustine openly borrowed heavily from: http://classics.mit.edu/Plotinus/enneads.5.fifth.html

2. Can we pray impreccatory prayers now? C.S. Lewis found them offensive and demanded we cannot. Aquinas says we must in no wise despise our enemies.  If no, this would be absurd, since it would mean God composed many prayers in the Psalms that are now useless. Although some might resort to lengthy explanations as to how we can pray them, this would run counter the tradition of many of the saints, who forbid such an idea. And based on a simple reading of the Sermon on the Mount, it would appear we cannot pray them. Other examples of how this is fuzzy would be something like martyrdom – does God want me to fight my opponents and possibly save the lives of others, or am I bound to martyrdom? When we look at the Church of the first few centuries, pacifism was almost the absolute law.  Why such a radical change in God’s social rules? Read more of this post

The Death Penalty

Vindicating the Justice of the Death Penalty

By: Jay

It has become popular in certain circles of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, to oppose the death penalty as something “unchristian.”  I have had many discussions on this topic with professing Christians from all stripes.  However, this response usually comes from a misplaced “sentimentalism,” rather than the divine founts of Scripture and Tradition.  Purveyors of this anti-death penalty view usually fall back on saying that “God is love,” or they cite an obscure saint somewhere who was overflowing with compassion and hated to see men die.  While I understand the compassion in mind here, we need not be more compassionate than Christ Himself.  God is love, but He is also just (Matt. 12:18).  But, “evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand all” (Prov. 28:5).

The usual response at this point is that, “if one opposes abortion, he must also oppose the death penalty.”  This confuses two issues.  All murders are killings, but not all killings are murders.  One can be just and is a virtue, while the other is a vice and a crime.  God Himself ordained civil government to be a restraint on the wickedness of men, and part of that ordination includes the death penalty.  In Genesis 9:6, God states that whoever sheds man’s blood, deserves to have his blood shed because he has defaced the image of God.  Such is God’s reasoning. Read more of this post

Taking the Law and Prophets Seriously: Judgments

The Prophet Samuel Hacks Up King Agag

By: Jay

I am sick and tired of the Law and the Prophets being a joke. This past year I’ve seen several Orthodox priests/prelates openly say they do not accept the “God” as presented in the Old Testament, as well as not a few Roman Catholics. Textual liberalism and rejecting “that kind of God” often go hand in hand, or are at least kissing cousins. One need only look at the history of Luther’s “reformation” and the explosion of textual liberalism that followed a few hundred years later in German higher criticism to see where these views lead.

Higher criticism and modern rejections of Moses may not have the same motivations, but they arrive at the same endpoint – the rejection of “that kind of God.” By that, what is meant is the God who condones exterminations of cities, is providential within all historical events, and punishes (even if remedially) descendants based on the actions of fathers and forebears. The simple question that arises is this – how do these people expect anyone to take them seriously as proponents of a religion which comes from the Law and the Prophets? Seriously? I am supposed to accept that you have the truth, and you tell me all these instances are “allegory” or at least not historical. Anyone with basic logic and an elementary knowledge of the Bible need only think for about 5 minutes about how implausible this is. Were I a serious Jew, I would not accept such ridiculous claims, and justly so. You prelates have told me that the very Book you accept is a-historical in crucial events, when all along it’s been viewed as historical – even amongst the various Christian groups, prior to higher criticism. In fact, in places where the New Testament views incidents in the Law and Prophets as historical, I have been told they are not – and that the New Testament writers are in error. What arrogance. 

I am always bitched at for “not being practical.” Well, ok, here we go – let’s be practical. Let me examine the stories I was told emulate in Sunday School as a young boy – arguably the most simplistic and practial stories imaginable, and let’s see if these religionists persuade me to be practical according to their conceptions. Read more of this post

Christ United to All Men: What “Traditionalists” Need to Understand

St. Irenaeus: Early Bishop & Teacher of the Recapitulation

What Latin Traditionalists Need to Understand

By: Jay

My purpose here is to correct a tendency and misconception, which sometimes leads to an error.  Debating the status of this document’s authority is also not in view, either.  The Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes, stated (with the relevant citations of Constantinople II and III):

“22. The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a figure of Him Who was to come,(20) namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear. It is not surprising, then, that in Him all the aforementioned truths find their root and attain their crown.

He Who is “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15),(21) is Himself the perfect man. To the sons of Adam He restores the divine likeness which had been disfigured from the first sin onward. Since human nature as He assumed it was not annulled,(22) by that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in our respect too. For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. He worked with human hands, He thought with a human mind, acted by human choice(23) and loved with a human heart. Born of the Virgin Mary, He has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin.(24)”

And the references are:

20. Cf. Rom. 5: 14. Cf. Tertullian, De carnis resurrectione 6: “The shape that the slime of the earth was given was intended with a view to Christ, the future man.”: P. 2, 282; CSEL 47, p. 33, 1. 12-13. Read more of this post

There is No Such Thing as Calvinism

John Calvin's Beautiful (Purported) Grave

(Back by popular demand. -Jay  ;)

By M. B.

One thing that amazes me when I read Reformed people’s arguments against Rome is not so much what they say about us, but the gall and arrogance they have to even say anything at all.

The funny thing about the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate is that there is no such thing. What? That’s right. Calvinism does not exist, at least not any more than the Ku Klux Klan does. Oh sure, there are still several groups that run around in rural communities in the South, calling themselves everything from “The Traditional Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan” to the “International Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan”. But everyone knows what Nathan Bedford Forrest started over a century ago after the War Between the States has long since disbanded, only be revitalized by kooks, losers, and provocateurs trying to keep the torch aflame every other decade or so. And the ironic thing is that they’re trying to revitalize some thing that, any student of history knows, would not be blessed by the men who first established it to fight Yankees and carpetbaggers.

And it’s the same with Calvinism, with its “Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly” and “Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States ”. These amounts to little more than malcontent American whites trying to revamp a failed experiment, some thing that has long since been swept away into the dustbin of history. Read more of this post

The Importance of Biblical Inerrancy

Moses receives the Law from God

A Presuppositional Critique: It’s Inseparability from Faith
By: Jay

I shouldn’t have to go to my local church [!] and end up having to defend the accuracy and authenticity of the Biblical texts.  Unfortunately, this happened more than once.  In a casual conversation one Sunday with someone I assumed was a kindred spirit, a heated discussion erupted over the reliability of the biblical texts.  This prompted me to post some thoughts that hopefully illustrate the central importance of maintaining and defending, not just the accuracy and inerrancy of the texts, but also of the patristic and Traditional understanding of the texts as inerrant and historically reliable. 

This is not a strict “scientific” treatment.  This defense is more practical, patristic and presuppositional in nature.  So please, no comments about an “unscientific” approach.  I am familiar with different codices and their histories.  That is the subject of another blog post or a whole series.  And, on top of that, please, no comments about “fundamentalism.”  I know firsthand what fundamentalism is (having been raised a Baptist “fundamentalist”), and I’ve read liberal higher critics.  I’ve also read the Church Fathers, and conservative biblical scholars. I hope to show a couple presuppositional flaws that are apparent in the higher critical approaches, that it’s completely foreign to Tradition, and that the patristic tradition is unequivocally clear concerning inerrancy.

The first error made by my friend in conversation Sunday was the same error made by virtually all higher critics:  because there are similarities in pagan texts and rituals in comparison with Christianity, the various biblical authors must have borrowed from these pagan sources.  So, for example, the Gilgamesh Epic has a flood myth.  Other pagan narratives have a first man or woman, so, the argument runs, the biblical account must have been borrowed and redacted these Ancient Near Eastern traditions.  Note first of all that this rests on an obvious assumption—that the biblical authors borrowed from their pagan neighbors.  Why not the other way?  What if the devil inspired his minions to borrow from the true account and obscure it.  “Absurd,” you say—”unscholarly and unscientific.”  Beware, lest you come to find the hard way that “there is no wisdom or counsel against the Lord” (Prov. 21:30), and that “He overthrows the words of the faithless” (Prov. 22:12). Read more of this post

Recommended Articles

This week I read some really good articles I want to pass on.

“Temple of Man: Freemasonry, Civil Religion and Education” by: Terry Melanson

“The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity” by: Leon J. Podles

Lost Ends Up Lost in Syncretistic Gnosis

By: Jay

The “television event of the decade” ended with what is, in my opinion, the cheesiest and empty theme it could have possibly had.  As it turns out, as many had speculated, the entire storyline was Jack’s (and the other Oceanic passengers) afterlife – or the season 6 alternate reality…? Either way I was disillusioned.  This was all fine and good.  We were led about with notions of alternate realities, time travel, other worlds, and so on.  All of this was also interesting and even within the realm of possibility.  However, what isn’t within in the realm of possibility is the overall message of Lost – all paths lead to “God.”

I noticed back when we were in season 2 or 3 we were dealing with some esoteric notions that were likely of a occultic and gnostic  flavor, and with mainstream Hollywood and TV, this is nothing suprising. We are bombarded with this on a daily basis, as we are being indoctrinated via pop culture into any and every religion other than what is actually biblical.      Read more of this post

The Incarnation Versus Calvinists and Lutherans

A Detailed Analysis of the Implications of Reformation Theology

By: Jay Dyer

St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote of the reason for the Incarnation: 
“Sick, our nature demanded to be healed; fallen, to be raised up; dead, to rise again. We had lost the possession of the good; it was necessary for it to be given back to us. Closed in the darkness, it was necessary to bring us the light; captives, we awaited a Savior; prisoners, help; slaves, a liberator. Are these things minor or insignificant? Did they not move God to descend to human nature and visit it, since humanity was in so miserable and unhappy a state?” (Orat. Catech., 15)
 
The Catholic Catechism goes on to say as well of the Incarnation, quoting Ss. Irenaeus and Athanasius:
“The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: ”For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” ”For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” ”The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” (Par. 460)

In the never-ending debates with Calvinists (and Lutherans), the questions of the proper views of the Trinity, Incarnation and salvation continually arise.  What becomes evident to those weathered in these disputes is he differing theologies that arise from these camps when compared with the Catholic view. As we will see, our Catechism in masterly fashion, explains the Scriptural, patristic and conciliar theology of the first seven centuries in an erudite, pristine fashion.  And, to be sure, most Calvinists and Lutherans are not willfully desiring to be Nestorian or Pelagian, but as I’ve come to see, there’s often a lot of misunderstanding.  In other words, they are these errors without knowing it.   Read more of this post

Paul Washer is a False Prophet

By: Jay Dyer

I was, for several years, a huge fan and follower/disciple of Paul Washer.  I thought he was a godly leader: a real missionary, and a true “reformer.” I had several of his sermons on tape and, in fact, made copies of his tapes and distributed them to my fellow college students who needed to hear the “true Gospel of God’s grace.” I met him and spoke with him on theology several times. However, I was on a Path that Paul Washer was not on.

As I researched biblical theology and Church History more in depth, and in particular, the formation of the biblical canon,  I came to reject common Protestant notions, such as sola scriptura.  The simple reason for this is that it was unheard of until the time of the Reformation.  Prior to Luther and Calvin, the doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura were non-existent.  There is a complete blackout of Protestant theology for 1,500 years of the Church.  Apparently, the Holy Spirit forgot the Church.   But that brings me to an interesting point in regards to Paul Washer… Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers