Dawkins' 747

First, this post is not directly related in any way to the Atheistic Morality debate w/ ChooseDoubt.
Chris Severn, a commenter on a a previous post, has placed great import on the wikipedia article entitled The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit. The premise is that Richard Dawkins believes that the idea of God is highly improbable, even more improbable than a tornado's sweeping thru a junkyard creating a fully functional 747.

Chris, I thank you much for commenting here, but I gotta tell you - reading this article made me laugh out loud. Seriously, if you want to be a serious and intellectually honest and consistent atheist, Dawkins is pretty far from where you want to be spending your reading and thought time and energy.

I'll comment on Dawkins' thinking as presented by the wiki article, 'cause I can promise you I'm not going to waste time reading Dawkins' book.

-He (Dawkins) considers the existence of such an entity to be a scientific question, because a universe with such a God would be significantly different from a universe without one

2nd sentence in the article and we already have huge problems. This doesn't look good.
Anyone paying attention to my argumentation w/ Chris will know that my contention is that, w/o God, there IS no universe at all. It wouldn't just be "different." There would be nothing.
In response, Chris has suggested several alternative possibilities:
1) the universe has always existed
2) matter, energy, 'and' the universe popped spontaneously into existence out of nothing w/o a cause
3) time repeats itself. The big crunch at the end of the universe begins again as the big bang at the beginning...

Notice that #s 1 and 3 are the same.
Briefly, the problems w/ each, as I've already stated...
1a) There were an infinite amount of seconds before now, and we have just added a second, now two, now three, etc, to infinity.
1b) To sustain your objection to a strong theistic argument, you just thrust aside The Laws of Thermodynamics; if energy is neither created nor destroyed and the universe is infinitely old, the finite amount of energy in the universe would have been a victim of entropy long before now.

#2 is also logically impossible b/c nothing causes nothing. If there's nothing, then there's nothing.

Chris continues to insist that the answer "God did it" is unacceptably improbable. And what if it is? It's still the only logically possible option offered so far.

-Therefore, Dawkins concludes, the same kind of rational reasoning can be applied to the God Hypothesis as to any other scientific question.

"Rational," yes. "Scientific," no. Science has no mechanism to test whether God exists one way or the other.

-Dawkins concludes that the argument from design is the most convincing

I think it's a good argument but it's far from the 'most convincing.' It's not "convincing" at all for a hardened fundamentalist like Dawkins anyway, so that's a poor choice of words by either Dawkins or the wiki author.

-The extreme improbability of life and a universe capable of hosting it requires explanation, but Dawkins considers the God Hypothesis inferior to evolution by natural selection as explanations for the complexity of life.

Stop the press!
But when I see Dawkins' sloppy reasoning and the massive holes in Darwinian evolutionary models, I see no reason to accept what he says.

-he redirects the argument from complexity in an attempt to show that God must have been designed by a superintelligent designer

The moment he does so, he stops responding to the Christian worldview.
Maybe that's part of his problem - he's arguing against a religion of his own making, or some kind of finite godism. On Christianity, God is the Uncaused First Cause, the Undesigned Designer. Arguing that He needed a designer is to continue to commit the infinite regress fallacy that so many atheists are so wedded to in their ideas of the universe (including Chris Severn w/ his "cyclical universe" model). Just b/c atheists want to continue in idiocy doesn't mean Christians have to.

-Fred Hoyle reportedly stated that the "probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.

I'd argue it's much, much less probable, but the principle is the same.

-The basic argument against empirical theism dates back at least to David Hume, whose objection can be popularly stated as "Who designed the designer?"

Wow, so impressive! Either one ends up w/ the God that atheists don't like or one ends up in logical impossibility. Personally, I've never considered it all that rational to pass up rational thought just b/c I don't like it. But that's just me.

-to show that where design fails to explain complexity, evolution by natural selection succeeds and is the only workable solution

It doesn't work, for one thing.

DAWKINS' ARGUMENT:

-1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.

So far so good.

-3. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable.

The loud guffaws you hear in the bkgrd are coming from me. That's the best that internationally-renowned atheist and Oxford scholar Dawkins can do?
I should take Dawkins' say-so that God's existence is improbable? And, again, I should be willing to follow him into idiotic reasoning that leads me AWAY from a logically non-impossible option (God) and BACK INTO a logically impossible one? Sign me up!

-4. The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings.

This is a minor point, but, again, evolutionary theory is full of huge problems that, to me, are insuperable.

-5. We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics

But we will! Believe us!!! Or we'll label you morons and fools! And we'll make sure to try to re-educate your children!!!

-Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology.

Speaking of "no evidence" and "improbability"...

-But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.

Dawkins' personal preferences surface again. Why should anyone care what he thinks? That's serious, not rhetorical. B/c of his reasoning? Haha, it's lame. B/c of his reputation? In this area, it's 100% unwarranted. B/c of his clipped English accent? It's the best thing he's got going for him.

-Richard Swinburne reasons that theism is parsimonious because it only invokes a single substance, God, as a cause and maintainer of every other object. This cause is seen as omnipotent, omniscient and totally free.

Otherwise known as one of the core doctrines of Christianity. Credit to the author - he correctly represented Christianity here.

-Dawkins believes postulating such an entity doesn't explain anything and usurps the role of science.

1) It explains origins in a way that's actually logically possible.
2) Unlike anythg Dawkins has offered.
3) This is a perfect example of Dawkins' inability to confine science to what it can actually do.
What materials could one test to determine whether God exists? What repeatable experiment? Science is not the only way to arrive at truth. In cases of metaphysics, it's nearly worthless and leads you to act like an idiot, like someone who does NOT have a Ph.D from a prestigious university.

-He suggests that a God that controls every atom and listens to all our prayers cannot be something simple, and his existence would require a "mammoth explanation" of its own.

I hope his argument is any better than what he's offered above.
"Mammoth explanation" has been provided in the Bible, for one thing. And I'd be happy to recommend several extremely large volumes of systematic theology.
And this is not what I would call a "mammoth explanation."

-[Natural selection], as far as we know, is the only process ultimately capable of generating complexity out of simplicity.

It's not my fault that you artificially level the playing field.

-Dawkins's response to criticism
According to Dawkins, the strongest response was the objection that he was imposing a scientific epistemology on a question that lies beyond the realm of science.

Yes, thank you.

-Dawkins writes that he didn't get the impression that those employing this "evasive" defence were being wilfully dishonest, but were "defining themselves into an epistemological Safe Zone where rational argument could not reach them because they had declared by fiat that it could not."

OK, then the burden is on him to demonstrate how science could test whether God exists using the scientific method.
You know, it MIGHT be that his critics were waiting for him to engage the question using a relevant and applicable methodology.

Atheistic Morality 1

I linked to Mr./Ms. ChooseDoubt from another antitheist website where I had some interaction (well, it was more like the antitheist asking questions and me answering them and then me asking questions and him refusing to answer them) a while ago. I decided to take a look at what ChooseDoubt was cooking up, and I discovered that he (I’ll just go w/ “he” unless corrected) had just been fired from his job for being an atheist. He was understandably upset and angry at his boss. I decided to ask a few questions about the situation and probe his understanding of the basis for ethics and morality (throughout the course of our discussion, unless someone takes exception, I’ll use those two terms interchangeably). This led to ChooseDoubt’s proposing that we take our discussion to a slightly wider forum than the combox of one post, which was a fine idea.

Just for the purposes of identifying ChooseDoubt, his Profile states the following:

People die for it. People kill for it. They ignore fact to support it. They champion ignorance to defend it. And worst of all they teach their children to do the same. Faith is a disease; a dysfunction of the mind and of society as a whole. Faith is a dangerous irrationality that has cost millions of lives and will cost millions more. In a world in which we hear so much about respecting others beliefs this blog is a stand against that idiocy. Faith deserves no respect. Faith deserves to be cured.

Just so you know where he’s coming from. He is a self-described atheist.

Just so you know a bit more about what he thinks about theism:

I’ve said many times that theism is irresponsible and my own sacking is a simple example of why that is true. When people have beliefs that are in no way bound to reality through any requirement for coherence or evidence then they tend to make unreasonable decisions.

I, OTOH, am a pretty conservative, fairly Calvinistic Evangelical Christian. Yeah, that’s a lot of labels. No, it’s not my fault. "Biblical Christian" also works 100%, but it's not as useful in today's day and age for identification purposes.

So, the question before us starts w/ his firing and ends at a Big Question

I think my evaluation of CD’s position is summed up thusly: “That is, the value judgment begins and ends w/ you, and his begins and ends w/ him.”

I will be taking the atheistic worldview onto myself and then testing what CD is saying about these moral statements. Are his statements consistent w/ his worldview? So far, the answer is no. Where morality begins and ends w/ the individual w/ no higher absolute authority to give the law (as it were), then that’s where morality begins and ends. CD might (or at minimum, other atheists I know would and have) claim that morality is a construct of society, but that simply backs the problem up one step while incurring a new problem. Who says that society is the basis of morality? You? Why should I accept your authority for that? Society says so? Why should I accept "society's" word for that? For that matter, where and when did "society" decree the same?

For a second and slightly less important point, I’ll go ahead and infer from others of CD’s statements that he holds to Darwinian evolution as held by much of modern science and invite him to correct me if I’m wrong. This is related to the question before us. In his view, man is nothing more or less than an animal, a biological machine, who has evolved to a state where he can think better than other animals. Our thinking processes, too, have evolved and become complex and skilled. However, an evolutionary paradigm gives no structure of morality, no oughtness to life. It simply IS. Thus, his boss was acting according to the coalescing of the firing of his neurons and chemical reactions in his brain to his personal situation, which thus caused him to exercise his "judgment" (which is, again, nothing more or less than the modern evolution of neurological chemical reactions) to fire CD. Kind of like what happens to a can of root beer when you shake it up and then open it. CD was naturally deselected. CD of course, objects to this, much the way an oak tree would object to an infestation of mistletoe. That is, he can fight (b/c it was disadvantageous to him) but must back down in the face of superior force.

I am proud to present the Christian worldview as a much more reasonable and fitting (not to mention existentially satisfying) alternative to the atheistic one. On Christianity, the omnipotent and omniscient Creator of the Universe, Jesus, gives directives so that we His creations might know firmly what is right and what is wrong. He gives them out of love so that we might be like Him, the best and brightest being, so that we can be the most fulfilled, useful, and purposeful people we can be. Maybe best of all, when we protest against injustice, like “that’s not fair!” or “you’re wrong to do that!” we are not being inconsistent. If we have indeed been acted against in a way that violates God’s law, then we are both consistent AND correct to say “that’s not fair.” And there is a way to tell the difference, on Christianity.

Best of all, though we have these directives, though we don’t always agree on these directives, and though we often do not follow them, Jesus sacrificed Himself on the cross to take on Himself these sins and to offer His purity to all those who will believe in Him and love Him as Savior and as Lord. He does this b/c of His great love and generosity.

I invite CD’s response to what I’ve said here, specifically in relation to my evaluation of his position. Typically, ‘opening statements’ in debate are the most widespread and encompass a breadth of topics, whereas the interactions and statements later in the debate become more focused as the debaters bear down on areas of disagreement. I will attempt to keep my responses readably brief and think we can count on CD to do the same. We are both self-described verbose writers, but hopefully we won't bore our readers too much. If either of us does, it's our own fault, I guess. Finally, many thanks to CD for his willingness not only to interact on this topic but also to have done so in a very conciliatory tone so far. My goals will be to tear his position apart and to do so in the least provocative and insulting way possible.

For the purposes of keeping which posts come when, we will add numbers to the titles of our posts. Thus, CD's response to this post will be "_________ 2". I will post his offerings on my blog and he will do the same for mine, so a reader can catch the entirety of the interaction on either blog.

Rome offers a plenary indulgence

I'd like to note this in relation to what took place at the Svendsen-Pacwa debate during the Audience Questions section.
(Edit in green text)
Father Pacwa, answering an audience question...
Question: "Please comment on the view of today's Vatican regarding the selling of indulgences in history."

Pacwa (almost verbatim): "The Vatican hasn't said anythg about selling indulgences b/c it was condemned earlier in the C of Trent. There was abuse of selling of indulgences and the reason that Vatican didn't say anythg was b/c it's not being done."

First of all, that's awesome for our RC friends. In particular I'd love to know why such goodies as plenary indulgences are only granted from time to time rather than all the time. And why the RCC doesn't just go all the way and become Reformed, where the one sacrifice of Christ provides for a true plenary indulgence. As to the former, I wonder if Indulgentiarum Doctrina has anything to say?

In my review, I noted that Fr Peter Stravinskas disagreed w/ Pacwa's assertion, and apparently the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is coming down somewhere near Stravinskas' side as far as I can tell. So I guess here we have a problem between Stravinskas and Pacwa, and it leads to a few questions:

1. What is the difference between buying an indulgence with money and buying one with stuff you do?
2. Is this not demonstrative of disunity among RC clergy? (I know Mateo wouldn't agree that this is a big deal, but he's not the majority opinion so far as I've seen.)

Pretty good stuff. Either way, I hope all the Roman Catholics who can will take advantage. I sure would.
And what good fortune to die just a few hours after hooking one of these dandies!
I'm gonna go ahead and post screen shots of the article here b/c another link I found turned out to be dead just hours after I saw the article that links to it.

Odds and ends

-This is my heart for unity among Protvangelicals.

-Many congratulations to my friend David Bryan's 2nd daughter. Daughters rock.

-In a week or two I may begin a slightly on-the-formal-side blog debate w/ an atheist blogger. Could be interesting, and so far his tone has been highly conciliatory, which is appreciated.

-I'm out of pocket for Internet until Monday, 9 July. Happy Fourth of July Day!

-My little brother is getting married. Guess he grew up. But I can still pick on him. It's just that he can pick back!

-I'm done.

"Battleground God"

I have to admit it, this little game is right up my alley. I sustained two "direct hits", but that's due to some of the questions being impossible to answer True or False. A 3rd option would've been nice.
I'd be interested in knowing how this goes for others. I thought like a fairly dumb atheist and went thru the game a 2nd time and had to "bite the bullet" thrice.
W/o taking on a fairly Reformed worldview, it might be tough to make it thru as clean as I did. Maybe I should think like an Arminian and see how I do.

Only £10 to hear something other than the Gospel

Whew! At least Joel Osteen finds it almost impossible to preach the Gospel. I'd hate to think that he would charge people to hear it in the United Kingdom.

And BTW, I'll get back to the discussions here, but this week I've been occupied w/ work and especially completing our application for missionary service, and then I was sick for just over 2 days.

Exegesis practice

ORTHODOX says:

You tell us what Matt 18 means then if you want to be contentious.

How about I post it here and we can figure it out from the context?

15"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.

16"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

17"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

18"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

19"Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.

20"For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."

Are you familiar w/ how to perform proper exegesis of the biblical text? How might we go about figuring out how to interpret this psg? This is a question to any reader.

The Gospel and the OT Law. Orthodox has no idea.

OK, I spoke too harshly about Orthodox's disingenuousness recently. He has made many comments I consider disingenuous, but this one in particular that I called out was off.

On the other hand, let's consider this brilliant input into our discussion:

WIll (sic) you test the NT canon against the previous torah? Would you have tested Paul's oral traditions in the early church against the torah? Good luck justifying Paul's gospel against the torah.

It's so funny, when I think about it. This guy Orthodox is clearly skilled in polemics against Protestants and has demonstrated some knowledge of the Bible and some knowledge of Church Fathers' writings. And yet he exhibits total cluelessness as relates to a fundamentally important idea in the New Testament.
I recommend that Orthodox read the Epistle to the Hebrews. And then he can ask himself how the noble Bereans went about testing what the Apostle Paul said when he brought the Gospel to them and they tested it by the Scripture (ie, the Old Testament).
He is also welcome to come to my church anytime where, if he cares to, he can learn about God's Word.

Orthodox the Disingenuous

This is not the 1st time I've seen him do this but it's certainly fairly egregious this time around.

1st came this exchange:

>ORTHODOX: I'd be curious to know if the early church fathers who are very clearly the same as EO, are also "not the people of God". People like say, John Chrysostom, or Athanasius.
RHOLOGY: Their beliefs are not directly in line w/ modern EOC.

ORTHODOX: Oh do tell. PLEASE PLEASE tell, how Chrysostom or Athanasius are substantially different to modern EOC. This will be very interesting if you bother to provide more than a sound bite.

In response, I wrote this post.

In that post's combox, Orthodox now writes the following:

ORTHODOX: LET'S NOT LOSE SIGHT OF WHAT THE CHALLENGE WAS. THE CONTENTION IS THAT ATHANASISUS AND CHRYSOSTOM ARE IN THE TRUE CHURCH AND EOC ARE SUBSTANTIVELY DIFFERENT TO EXCLUDE THEM FROM THE TRUE CHURCH.

Was that indeed the original challenge? Did my post completely and totally miss the point as Orthodox implicates? You make the call.

Athanasius, Chrysostom, and the modern EOC

The question has been raised as regarding my claim that Athanasius and John Chrysostom (for ex) did not teach the same as modern EO-doxy. I will paste several statements from each of them below to defend that. I of course don't expect Orthodox the poster to buy it, but he won't have any good reason not to concede the point.

As far as this goes, I'm not going to comment much on these but I will list them b/c I was challenged. I am not a patristics scholar or even very well-read in them. But what I will do is try to head some objections off and then defend those in the combox if challenged.

Athanasius is first in alphabetical and historical order:

1A) Athanasius had a Canon of Scripture (unlike the modern Eastern Orthodox Church [EOC]). Also, his books are different from those that EO-dox usually present as their Canon.

"I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Festal Letter 39:2-4, 39:7)

2A) See above citation - "this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews". Athanasius disagrees w/ EO posters on this very blog in that he was convinced that his was the Canon of the Hebrews.

3A) See above citation - just two 'verses' later in the same letter, Athanasius says: "These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these." (Festal Letter 39:6)

4A)

"It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity; it is equally plain from what follows that the Arian phrases 'He was not,' and 'before' and 'when,' are in the same Scriptures predicated of creatures." (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4:13)

"And let them [the Arians] blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However, if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if the expressions [used by those who oppose Arianism] are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine." (Defense of the Nicene Definition, 5:21)

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture" (De Synodis, 6)

5A)

"The knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth,-while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,-still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,-the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith in Christ unreasonable." (Against the Heathen, 1:1)

John Chrysostom:


1J) John Chrysostom wanted people to read and hear scripture as often as possible and to possess copies of the Bible. He included unbelievers, even young children. As opposed to the EOC (or at the very least quite a few EO-dox w/ whom I have interacted over the past few years).

"this I say, not to prevent you from procuring Bibles, on the contrary, I exhort and earnestly pray that you do this" (Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 32:3)

"It is a great thing, this reading of the Scriptures!...For it is not possible, I say not possible, ever to exhaust the mind of the Scriptures. It is a well which has no bottom....How many persons, do you suppose, have spoken upon the Gospels? And yet all have spoken in a way which was new and fresh. For the more one dwells on them, the more insight does he get, the more does he behold the pure light." (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 19)

"And so ye also, if ye be willing to apply to the reading of him [Paul] with a ready mind, will need no other aid. For the word of Christ is true which saith, 'Seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.' (Matt. vii. 7.)...For from this it is that our countless evils have arisen - from ignorance of the Scriptures; from this it is that the plague of heresies has broken out; from this that there are negligent lives; from this labors without advantage. For as men deprived of this daylight would not walk aright, so they that look not to the gleaming of the Holy Scriptures must needs be frequently and constantly sinning, in that they are walking the worst darkness." (Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, The Argument)

2J) "All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain." (Homilies on Second Thessalonians, 3, v. 5)

3J) John Chrysostom didn't think there was much unity in what is alleged to have been the Eastern Orthodox Church® of his day:

"What is one to say to the disorders in the other Churches? For the evil did not stop even here [Constantinople], but made its way to the east. For as when some evil humor is discharged from the head, all the other parts are corrupted, so now also these evils, having originated in this great city as from a fountain, confusion has spread in every direction, and clergy have everywhere made insurrection against bishops, there has been schism between bishop and bishop, people and people, and will be yet more; every place is suffering from the throes of calamity, and the subversion of the whole civilized world." (Correspondence of St. Chrysostom with the Bishop of Rome, Letter 1:4)

4J) He refers to 2 Timothy 3:17 applying to all Christians, not just members of the church hierarchy:

"'That the man of God may be perfect.' For this is the exhortation of the Scripture given, that the man of God may be rendered perfect by it; without this therefore he cannot be perfect. Thou hast the Scriptures, he says, in place of me. If thou wouldest learn anything, thou mayest learn it from them. And if he thus wrote to Timothy, who was filled with the Spirit, how much more to us!" (Homilies on Second Timothy, 9, 3:16-17)

Many thanks to Jason Engwer for the sourcing of these quotes.


Now, someone might object: You got these from an article meant to refute Roman Catholicism.
True, but the citations stand on their own and refute the EO position too.

This is just your own private personal interpretation.
Ah geez, don't even get me started.
Of course everyone interprets things - that is not open to question. Do you believe, however, that every interpretation is the same? If so, then here is how I interpret your last statement:

MY INTERPRETATION OF OBJECTOR: My feet are made of broccoli and I won 500 corn chips in the lottery.

See how silly it is to talk that way?
If you disagree w/ my statement, you must show me (and any reader) why w/ a reasoned argument. Which will then be interpreted by me and every reader. Just running around questioning interpretation or retorting “That’s just your interpretation!” is a conversation-killer. And it’s an ugly death for the conversation.

(If you're keeping score at home, that's my exact response to a liberal Protestant who used the same line. Just sayin'.)

You've taken them out of context.

i) According to YOU. But you tell me to eschew private interpretation all the time, so why should I listen to your private interpretation?
ii) I don't have time right now to read thru the Fathers, so I don't feel the force of the objection very strongly anyway.
iii) **Main point** Let's just say for the sake of argument that you're right - Ath and JoChr taught in more than one *other* place the opposite doctrine to what I've presented here.
That leaves us w/ CFs who have contradicted themselves. To be consistent w/ these Ch Fathers (and remember, my claim is that modern EO-doxy is inconsistent w/ them), EOC would either have to:
A: Teach just as inconsistently as these two guys do, sometimes saying one thing, sometimes the other, or
B: Call these teachings not actually part of Divine Tradition.

The problem w/ resolution A is that the cognitive dissonance would be pretty much unbearable. The upshot is that I don't know if I'd expect a lot of people to turn away from EO-doxy in real life.
The thing about resolution B is that they have indeed already done just that. Somehow these two godly, forcible, powerful writers, from whom EOC ostensibly derives much of its tradition and doctrine, also produced impious, ungodly, and flat wrong teachings.

Now, how would the EO know this? Apparently from judging these non-"Apostolic Traditions" by... yup, you guessed it! What The Church® Says.
In the end, it's a vicious circle of question-begging. I claim the modern EOC is not totally faithful w/ Ch Fathers and then cite them when challenged. Then they say, "Hey, those aren't part of Apostolic Tradition!" I say, "Thanks for proving my point."

I also pause to note how pernicious this is. The Lord Jesus set an authoritative example for how one is to judge tradition - by Scripture. The EO refuses to do that and instead appeals to his own doctrinal construct which is already in place to then look BACK on tradition AND Scripture and pick and choose what he'll believe and what he won't believe. Thus the EO holds to the Scriptural teaching of the Deity of Christ and rejects the Scriptural teaching of salvation by grace alone thru faith alone. He accepts the Trinity and rejects sola scriptura. He accepts the fact that we should pray to God as commanded in the Scripture and rejects the fact that prayer to dead people and angels is strictly prohibited in the Scripture.
It becomes easy to see how this not only dishonors God in ideal (that is, that we should not judge men's teachings by God's) but also later in practice (bowing down to images, praying to dead people, trying to work one's way to salvation).

The Canon made simpler

Several friends have recently told me that they've had difficulty following recent interactions on this blog. It's understandable - it's not every day that an American or une française encounters a Hyper-Preterist or talks to an Eastern Orthodox (or anyone) about the Canon of Scripture or our basis for knowing what it is.

There's also Lucian, who's not following me either, given his recent ???????????????????????? comment.

Let me try again really quick:
The pious Jew in 50 BC did indeed know that Isaiah and 2 Chronicles were Scripture, were Canonical. How did they know? God led His people gradually, passively, subtlely over time to understand the Canon. They did not have any Infallible Interpreter to TELL them what the Canon was.

The reason this is relevant is that EO-dox tell me that I need The Church® to tell me what the Canon is and I can't know it w/o their telling me. Thus, as a Protestant, denying that any such infallible interpreter exists, I don't have any justification for the Canon I do accept.

Two immediately relevant problems w/ their answer:
1) The EOC does not have a Canon of Scripture themselves, so how are they in a position to tell me what the Canon of Scripture is?
2) The model we see in the Old Testament provides the paradigm for knowing what the Canon of the NT is - God's subtle, gradual leading of His people as a whole to accept the true Canon, to accept the books He has inspired and to reject as inspired the books He didn't inspire.

Hopefully that is helpful.

Doug Wilson, a wordsmith of some skill

In response to Christopher Hitchens' challenge to present evidence for Jesus' resurrection, Wilson responds w/ a brilliant paragraph:

Actually, I believe I can present evidence for what I know. But evidence comes to us like food, and that is why we say grace over it. And we are supposed to eat it, not push it around on the plate—and if we don't give thanks, it never tastes right. But here is some evidence for you, in no particular order. The engineering that went into ankles. The taste of beer. That Jesus rose from the dead on the third day, just like he said. A woman's neck. Bees fooling around in the flower bed. The ability of acorns to manufacture enormous oaks out of stuff they find in the air and dirt. Forgiveness of sin. Storms out of the North, the kind with lightning. Joyous laughter (diaphragm spasms to the atheistic materialist). The ocean at night with a full moon. Delta blues. The peacock that lives in my yard. Sunrise, in color. Baptizing babies. The pleasure of sneezing. Eye contact. Having your feet removed from the miry clay, and established forever on the rock. You may say none of this tastes right to you. But suppose you were to bow your head and say grace over all of it. Try it that way.

Orthodox lays his cards on the table

Orthodox has let much of his position be known, and it's shaky indeed.


ORTHODOX: questions the tradition of drinking green cordial and wonders if we ought really be drinking red cordial, we MUST abandon green cordial because we can't prove it is a "good" tradition?

RHOLOGY: Is drinking one or the other condemned in Scr? No.
Is judging people and dividing people b/c of traditions that are held in their proper place (ie, subservient to Scr) and which are not commented on by Scr, thus condemned? Yes, it's condemned - 1 Cor 8 and Rom 14 comment on those. Your example is bad.

ORTHODOX: That's one way. But it's not the only way.

RHOLOGY: I know that several ways.
Mark 7:1-13 tell me that Scr is the standard by which trads are to be judged.
Also, as I said above: you can't tell me a priori what Holy Tradition is. You can only tell me AFTER I cite you some writing of the ECFs or sthg. Then, if it agrees w/ your position, it is Holy Tradition. If it does not, it is not. Which is, of course, circular and unconvincing.
And, we're testing Tradition itself, so it is stupid to say "We test tradition by tradition to see if tradition is good."
But you can help me out - how shall I go about testing tradition by tradition?

ORTHODOX: I was talking about "the Tradition" which has a specific meaning in Orthodoxy.

RHOLOGY: Oh, OK. What is that specific meaning?
Can you provide a list of what "the Tradition" is? Since it is so specific, you must have a list compiled by The Church®, which is infallible since The Church® is infallible.

ORTHODOX: tell is what is clearer, the Orthodox Tradition, or scripture alone?

RHOLOGY: I already told you. Scr is clearer by far.

ORTHODOX: No, it is not Holy Tradition if it agrees with me, it is Holy Tradition if it agrees with the Church, aka the people of God whom the Spirit led into all truth.

RHOLOGY: But the Church is supposed to live by Holy Tradition and use it for its rule of faith. How can The Church® be submitted to Holy Tradition and at the same time define in and out of Tradition any opposing viewpoint expressed by an otherwise-reliable ECF?

ORTHODOX: And yes, if an ECF is at variance to the rule of faith, then they are in error.

RHOLOGY: B/c The Church® says so, yeah I know.

ORTHODOX: Just like if an ECF is wrong about the canon from your point of view are in error.

RHOLOGY: Unlike in your view, I have an easy explanation to acct for when ECFs are in error - I judge them by Scr. Indeed, they themselves would have told me to do so.

ORTHODOX: Whatever the church holds up IS the truth. The bible says so.

RHOLOGY: Yes, and the Church holds up the truth of God. The Scr. That's what my pastor does every week.

ORTHODOX: You argument is similar to me saying to you, how am I, a mere individual, supposed to know the canon of scripture when I can't infallibly discern it? I presume you hope for me to discern it, but that doesn't mean I infallibly will.

RHOLOGY: Strawman. My argument has never been that individuals are the ones who judge the Canon/have the Canon revealed to them. I refer to "the people of God" over and over, through a "passive, subtle" act of God. (I'm quoting myself between ""s.)

ORTHODOX: It's called humility Alan.

RHOLOGY: How does that answer my question?
Here's my question: But how would I know that (that is, that the Scr is only a subset of revelation) if I can't interp the Scr correctly, as a mere individual?

ORTHODOX: That you "can" doesn't mean that you actually will.

RHOLOGY: Thank you. That's exactly my answer when you ask me about "Protestant disunity". Just b/c individuals can interp the Scr correctly (b/c the Scr is sufficiently clear for that) doesn't mean that they will.

ORTHODOX: but I have at my disposal the collective wisdom of the Church which is led into all truth.

RHOLOGY: So do I, but unlike you I accept what earlier mbrs of the church have said and judge them by God's revelation rather than having to resort to one of two options:
1) shoehorn what they said into My Church's Paradigm, or
2) reject what they said as Authentic Holy Tradition b/c I don't like it

ORTHODOX: Which is why protestants can't agree on paedo baptism, but Orthodox Tradition has no ambiguity.

RHOLOGY: As I have said about 6 times so far, I refuse to compare apples to oranges.
Among Reformed Baptists, there is as much unity as in the modern EOC, so how are you any better off than I?

ORTHODOX: But if I want to say I can have knowledge about God's people led into the truth concerning the traditioin, suddenly you claim it is all too fuzzy.

RHOLOGY: Finally, a good question - I commend you.
1st, there is no Scriptural promise that God will lead His people to an infallible tradition.
2nd, there is no Scriptural promise that God will make His church infallible.
3rd, church history shows that the church has not been infallible.
4th, ECFs whom you often cite as sources of Holy Tradition say other things related to subjects that make you uncomfortable, such as that the Scr should be our sole final authority; when they do, you just reject them out of hand w/o even thinking about it.


ORTHODOX: It (that is, whether Copts (No) or non-Chalcedonians (No) or ROCOR (Yes) are in your church) is common knowledge.

RHOLOGY: OK, then the Canon is common knowledge. No matter what question you ask of me, I'm just going to respond "it is common knowledge, no more questions!"
Besides, you have a difficult road ahead of you if you want to convince me that it's "common knowledge".

ORTHODOX: I don't see anything about "denominations" in scripture.

RHOLOGY: True, just a WHOLE BUNCH of smaller house churches.
But the concept of infallible interpreter doesn't appear in Scr either, and that hasn't stopped you from believing it. I'm beginning to suspect you have a higher authority than the Scriptures. [/irony]

ORTHODOX: Why are you so afraid to compare who you consider in the Church to who I consider in the Church?

RHOLOGY: It's ludicrous to suggest that I'm afraid of what you have to offer, man.
And kudos - apparently you're not afraid either since you ARE interacting w/ it. It just took me a couple tries to get you around to it. But you're doing better than your bud Lucian.

ORTHODOX: the "White Question" is not in scripture.

RHOLOGY: Don't remember claiming it was. But it reveals the bankruptcy of one point of your position.

ORTHODOX: Neither is the canon.

RHOLOGY: Interestingly, even in your much wider body of teachings (ie, Tradition), you don't have a Canon either, whether of Scripture or of Tradition. So why even bring it up? Every time you do it's another bullet discharged into your own leg.

ORTHODOX: Now you are adding to scripture.

RHOLOGY: Ssssuuuurrrrre I am.

ORTHODOX: Thus: chaos... SS doesn't work.

RHOLOGY: Oops, you were showing promise, like you were actually going to interact w/ my position, and then you backed off right back into Orthodox clichés again. W/ a little effort you can make it back to real argumentation.

ORTHODOX: An unclear teaching in the infallible scripture plus a clear teaching in the fallible "other authority", leads to the "other authority" winning out.

RHOLOGY: Ah, so the Scr is unclear, is it?
See, I knew you would say that eventually. You have to either claim the Scr is unclear or demean its authority, b/c if you took it as your highest authority, you would have so much cognitive dissonance that it would be painful to remain a mbr of the EOC. As it is, your cognitive dissonance expresses itself in terrible and circular argumentation.

ORTHODOX: So no buddhists adhere to sola the buddhist scriptures? No Muslims adhere to sola the Koran?
...So if you're going to make the absurd link of lumping us with LDS, I'm going to lump you with Wahhabis Muslims. Deal?

RHOLOGY: I reject this comparison to Buddhists and Muslims, as if they were comparable to Sola Ecclesia-ists or Sola Scripturists who at least say that the Bible is an authority.
Buddhists don't even care about the Bible.
Muslims kind of do but the Had'ith and Qur'an are far higher. And those two are not "Scripture". They are more properly called "pagan writings". Cool?
My point is related to those who use the actual Scriptures as final authority (SS) or Scriptures + infall interper (SE).

ORTHODOX: do you list any ECFs as SSists?

RHOLOGY: There are many many who give a lot of support to the idea that the Scr are the highest authority.

ORTHODOX: Just when did the true church perish from the earth?

RHOLOGY: It never did.

ORTHODOX: Who in these first centuries enumerated your canon?

RHOLOGY: Haha, who enumerated YOURS? You amaze me.

ORTHODOX: why shouldn't I compare Greek Orthodox with Russian Orthodox?

RHOLOGY: Whoa whoa whoa, are Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox denominations? I thought you Totally United Eastern Orthodox® didn't have any of those!

ORTHODOX: Or if you want to compare RCC with EOC, why shouldn't I compare reformed baptists with anglicans, or pentacostals, or even oneness pentacostals?

RHOLOGY: Anglicans aren't SS.
Oneness Pentecostals aren't either and they aren't Trinitarian. They hold to Scr+infall interper (ie, private revelation) model. Thus, yup, you guessed it, they are SE-ists.
But compare Reformed Baptists to some SS Pentecostals is 100% fair.
See how easy that was? I'm very agreeable as long as you make sense.

ORTHODOX: I said that we can get rid of the bad by testing against scripture. I never said to compare tradition to tradition.

RHOLOGY: Excuse me, but in this same post you said this:
ORTHODOX: That's one way (to test tradition). But it's not the only way. If you disagree show me the verse saying it is the only way.
RHOLOGY: I guess I need you to explain the other way to test tradition.

ORTHODOX: When scripture refers to a righteous man it isn't always referring to anybody and everybody who simply has faith. See what happens with you and your bible under a tree?

RHOLOGY: Strawman - show me where I ever expressed the idea of "me and my Bible under a tree". You're very discourteous for doing that.
And the very category of "righteous" in the Scr means someone who has saving faith. Feel free to join in on the discussion on that if you want.

ORTHODOX: Did you really NEED your NASB to tell you that it is right to look after your parents as per the passage in question?

RHOLOGY: Not the NASB but God's revelation, yes.
What are you, a member of the Rational Response Squad? You think you have some morality outside of what God has declared? How?
You have a worldview that is far from biblical, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

ORTHODOX: There is no scriptural revelation specifically about abortion.

RHOLOGY: Your ignorance shouldn't surprise me, but it does.

ORTHODOX: The only clarity and workability that is of practical interest, is what we find in real life.

RHOLOGY: B/c you don't have a Christ mind.
Your big (and unsupportable) assumption is that, just b/c sinful people misinterp and misuse the Scripture, that means it's the Scr's fault for being unclear.
This is why I always say that EOC and RCC go a long way towards demeaning the authority of Scr and bear a large resemblance to liberal Protestant epistemology. Even if I cite Scr to you, you won't care. Why should I even waste my time talking to you? What common authority could we possibly share?

ORTHODOX: 2 Peter says some things are hard to understand.

RHOLOGY: Yes, which the "untaught and unstable distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."
I don't suppose that could mean that the taught and stable can understand them!
Besides, the points where you and I disagree (ie, authority, justification, prayer to dead people) are not unclear at all. But I'll grant you that I don't fully get Paul's eschatology.

ORTHODOX: It's really hard to follow that if you never received the oral traditions.

RHOLOGY: The ones that I'm commanded to receive have been enscripturated and I receive them w/ gladness. You w/ your ungodly authority structure and demeaning attitude towards God's Word don't. Your destiny scares me.

The "White Question"

A question has been raised regarding the "White Question", which reads more or less as follows:

How did the pious Jewish man living in 50 BC know that Isaiah or 2 Chronicles were inspired Scripture, ie, were in the Canon of Scripture?

RCs and EOs criticise the Sola Scriptura (SS) position by questioning, as Orthodox just did, how SS-ers can have a Canon of Scr.
But SS-ers respond by pointing out the canonisation process of the OT. W/o an infallible authority that RCC and EOC posit, God brought His people to understand the Canon of the OT. Given the many epistemological problems inherent in the Sola Ecclesia/Infallible Interpreter model, it makes a ton more sense to see God handling the canonisation process of the NT in a similar way to the way He did the OT Canon - passively, subtlely leading the people of God to recognise it.

SE-ers will then splutter, "But, but, by what authority do you have the NT Canon?" as if the question were not just answered. We respond w/ the White Question - how did a pious Jewish man in 50 BC know that Isaiah or 2 Chronicles was inspired, ie, was in the Canon of Scripture?
Clearly, he knew it b/c God had mysteriously and passively led His people to recognise it. They had no infallible interper.
If you say they DID have one, then it ends up being the same "infall interper" who also taught the Corban Rule; they were not infall at all.
The White Question reveals that you don't have a good objection to the SS conception of how the NT Canon came about.

And RCC keeps saying that you need an infall interper to have an infall list of infall teachings. But Rome itself has no infall list of infall teachings. Besides the fact that Rome's 1st infall Canon of Scr is not until the 16th cent, they STILL have no infall list of all their infall teachings.
EOC is right behind - Orthodox is on record as completely unable to even give a Canon of Scr, much less a full Canon of his church's infall teachings.

So, SS-ers in the know are right to just laugh when presented w/ these lame arguments based on the unknowability of the Canon.

The Svendsen-Pacwa debate: A Review

Before I begin, please note that I am biased and believe that Sola Scriptura is the correct position to hold. That said...

On 18 May 2007, about 150 people gathered in an Oklahoma City University classroom for a debate between Dr. Eric Svendsen and Fr. Mitchell Pacwa on the subject of Sola Scriptura vs Sola Ecclesia.
I sat w/ my wife near the middle and the moderator explained the format - 20 min opening, 10 min rebuttal, 10 min break, 15 min cross-ex, 15 min closing, 30 min of audience questions (for which you must write down your question and turn it in at the intermission), turn off your cell phones, no applause until after each debater's closing statement.

Fr. Pacwa Opening - 20 min
There are 2 forms of revelation - Scripture and Apostolic Tradition (hereafter, Scr and ApTrad, respectively). The only authoritative tradition is apostolic in origin. Scr is inerrant (2 Tim 3:16-17 tells us it is breathed out by God), and tradition also contains God's revelation, but, curiously, he made a distinction between Trad's inspiration (not?) and Scr's.
Rome's authority is a 3-legged stool of Scr, Trad, and the living voice of the RCC. Using a sports analogy, the Magisterium serves as the "referee" for biblical and traditional interpretation.

Dr. Svendsen Opening - 20 min
Galatians 1:8-9 enjoins upon us the severity of this issue. At stake is the Gospel b/c each debater's respective Gospel is founded upon 2 different authority structures.
2 Tim 3:16-17 tells us what the Scr is good for - teaching, training in righteousness, etc.
Sola Scriptura is not several things: not our sole authority, not the only source of truth for religion or the world, the teaching that oral trad is entirely invalid, particularly during times of inscripturation, the teaching that there are no other subordinate authorities like creeds/confessions, a refusal to appeal to historical data, all psgs of Scr are equally clear, or that all interps of Scr are equally valid.
When we press RCs, however, we do find that Sola Ecclesia is indeed their authority b/c the task of interping Scr and Church history is solely the bailiwick of the Magisterium and no other.
Statement from the RC document declaring the Immaculate Conception - "these teachings have never been added to, never changed," etc.
We can see how SE is indeed the RCC's modus operandi in the way they deal w/ historical data and Scr - when they declare sthg like the Marian dogmas, they do so strictly on the basis of their own authority since no Scriptural or historical data from the 1st at least 400 yrs of the church would support their statements.

Pacwa Rebuttal - 10 min
No, indeed we have a 3-pronged source of authority.
He then took up virtually his entire rebuttal discussing the problem of the Canon of Scr for Protestants.
Which Canon should we hold to? Muratorian fragment's, Irenaeus', Tertullian's, Origen's, etc? They are all different for the NT until the mid 4th century.
Mentions the LXX - the apostles mostly quoted from the LXX in writing the NT. We hold to Scr teaching, as 1 Peter 3 teaches that "baptism now saves you" (omitting the 2nd half of that sentence); we don't add "alone" and "only" into the words of Scr like Luther did.
Interestingly, during his rebuttal, the RCs in the mostly-RC audience started to crank up a bit; several ladies behind my seat would ooh and aah approvingly or quietly say "thank you Jesus, thank you Lord" when Fr. Pacwa would mention the Eucharist or the Blessed Virgin Mary. It sounded charismatic and was a bit strange.

Svendsen Rebuttal - 10 min
Rome is not the only infallible interper in the world trying to get you to submit yourself to its infallibility. EO-xy, LDS, and JWs along w/ most other cults also claim the same. Rome's position means that the individual is not a competent interper of the Scr or of church history
But this means that the indiv is also incapable of looking at the Scr or Ch history and correctly judging, "Hmm, that looks like Rome". We need an infallible interper to tell us which infall interper to follow.
Also, Rome can't give us an infallible list of her infallible teachings either, so they have the same problem.
Which is it - did the Ch preserve the Canon for 3 centuries until it was all correctly put together in the mid-4th century, or was it that the Canonisation process was in complete chaos and disarray? You can't have it both ways.
The "White question" - how did a pious Jew living in the 1st century BC/AD know what the Canon of Scripture was?
For the NT canon, we go by the precedent set by the OT canon - God passively moved His people collectively and gradually to form the Canon, and the Canon was set the moment the last book of the Bible was completed by its author, since the Canon exists in the mind of God 1st and foremost.

Pacwa cross-x Svendsen - 15 min
Pacwa asks about the Canon of the Jews; how are we sure it is what you think it is?
Almost the entire P-X-S section dealt w/ Canon issues and the Apocrypha specifically. I was disappointed by that since I believe it to be a side issue. Related, but side.
Svendsen - it doesn't matter what the Jews thought after Pentecost; they were custodians of the oracles of God before only.
The LXX was often mentioned and its varying contents and implications.
Jerome was mentioned as were Cajetan and Erasmus - what was their Canon? Dr S says that the fact that theirs were different is a clear demonstration of the lack of clarity that Rome gave to the question of Canon in actual practice.

Svendsen cross-x Pacwa - 15 min
As regards Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, which is the Apostolic tradition - that none are saved outside the RCC or the position of Vatican 2, that Prots and EOs are separated brethren and Muslims, Jews, and good atheists are sharers in salvation?
Pacwa answers: invincible ignorance, dvlpmnt of doctrine.
Vat 2 is a Magisterial document - how did it clarify this issue?
Magisterium is a "referee".
Discussion of Raymond Brown and other liberals on Magisterial committees, etc.
Discussion of Irenaeus' belief that Christ was at least 50 yrs old when He died and Augustine's and Basil's belief that facing the east during worship was absolutely crucial to the Gospel.
But this was not legislated by the whole Church.

Pacwa Closing - 15 min
We need the infall interper to prevent splits like between Zwingli and Luther.
I don' t know of any martyrs for facing the east but I know quite a few martyrs for the Scr and the Eucharist (and the RCs in the audience sigh "Oh yes, yes.")
Enchridion Symbolorum is the list of infallible teachings of the RCC.
Also suggests Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma or the Catechism.
Magisterium is the wall to keep us from falling off the cliff but also to protect us from fear of falling off the cliff.
Matthew 16:18 says Peter is the rock.
Mentions abortion, that it is not in the Scripture but in tradition.
Prohibition of birth control is not in the Scr but it is in trad and BC leads to abortion.

Svendsen Closing - 15 min
The nature of ch history.
We can prove the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, etc, from Scr.
Most distinctive RC dogma is not found in early ch history.
Vat2 teaching vs. Extra Ecclesiam teaching are different - it has changed.
Skepticism over the issue of the Canon will undermine the authority of Scr. Why do that for the sake of traditions?
Equates to "has God really said?"

Audience Questions - 30 min
Thank God they took written questions over the intermission rather than having open mics.
They switched off, each answering one question. I'd've liked to see 30 sec of rebuttal for each question, but oh well.
Not until the 12 minute mark did a question relevant to the debate topic come up. [Sigh]
One notable question: What is the Vatican's position on selling indulgences?
Fr Pacwa acted all confused, like he'd never heard that question before. Answer - "Um, we don't sell indulgences anymore." --Applause--
Note - Fr Peter Stravinskas disagrees. But that must be b/c I'm not RC and am but a fallible interpreter of these things.

Horrified gasp from audience mbrs when Dr Svendsen insists on labeling the RC position as Sola Ecclesia.

The last question for Fr. Pacwa was mine, and it was this: Given the Magisterial authority of Rome, what is the infallible list of infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic church?
Fr. Pacwa did a dance and answered simply the Enchiridion Symbolorum.

Dr. Svendsen clarifies that holding Sola Scriptura is not necessary for salvation. Are Catholics saved? There are Catholic Christians, yes.

Aftermath
I went to talk to Fr. Pacwa, who had quite a few people wanting to meet and greet him.
I identified myself as the asker of the last question and asked him how to spell "Enchiridion". He told me and then I asked him if that is an infallible document. He answered in a roundabout non-responsive sort of way. I then asked him again "But it is it infallible? I ask b/c we see the Canon of Scr as our list of infall teachings; what is your list?" That was my mistake - he latched onto my comparison to Scr and said "Oh but other RC teachings are not inspired, they're just infallible."
I asked, "But what's the functional difference between those 2?"
He said, "Scr stirs the heart; reading other teachings is like reading law or the Constitution."
Since there were other RCs waiting to talk to him, I didn't press the point any further. What a pitiful reply, but I don't guess it surprised me.
Had I the chance over again, I might have been a bit more pugnacious and asked "But we're not talking about what stirs the heart; I agree 100% that Scr stirs the heart better than canon law, believe me! I'm asking about authority - if a command to act/believe a certain way/thing is infallible, the question of whether it's 'inspired' is beside the point. So is it infallible or is it not, this Ench Sym?"

If he had said no, then thank you very much. Now please stop trying to act like that's a good point in your debates and in your talking about Prot-ism.

If he had said yes, then I ask him where the Ench Sym was declared to be infallible. I ask him by whom. I ask him when it was so declared. I also ask him how he knows that list is infallibly defined. Finally, I ask him if the Ench Sym is one of the infallible teachings listed in the infallible Canon of Rome (ie, the Ench Sym). He can't tell me any of that, so then thank you very much. Now please stop trying to act like that's a good point in your debates and in your talking about Prot-ism.


Finally, here are some of my own thoughts about the debate:


+Dr. S brought up a great point:
Which is it - did the Ch preserve the Canon for 3 centuries until it was all correctly put together in the mid-4th century, or was it that the Canonisation process was in complete chaos and disarray? You can't have it both ways.

+Another good point from Dr. S:
Rome's position means that the individual is not a competent interper of the Scr or of church history. But this means that the indiv is also incapable of looking at the Scr or Ch history and correctly judging, "Hmm, that looks like Rome". We need an infallible interper to tell us which infall interper to follow.

+Cajetan and Erasmus - what was their Canon? Dr S says that the fact that theirs were different is a clear demonstration of the lack of clarity that Rome gave to the question of Canon in actual practice. Pacwa's weak response - I'd like to see their statements in context. I doubt this is the 1st time you've heard this, and if you have, that's an area of study you must be prepared in.

+I later got an email from Phil Porvaznik, Roman Catholic e-pologist (who is to be thanked for cleaning up and editing the audio file of the debate for me), who said basically - "Re: the infallible list of infall teachings of the RCC, good point. The Ench Sym (aka "Denzinger") is not infallible, nor is Ott's book. I'll have to think about how to answer that."
Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Some things that could have gone better:
-Dr. S:
"Rome's position means that the individual is not a competent interper of the Scr or of church history"
This should be added: "...which is also an indictment of the clarity of Scripture itself; it's not clear enough for you to understand it."

-Why didn't Dr S bring up the fact that the 1st official infallible Roman Canon of Scr is the Co of Trent?

-From Dr. S' answer to his final audience question:
"Is it a good idea to adopt traditions outside Scripture? I do not believe so." This language needs to be more precise.


Conclusion:
In several ways this debate confirms the contention that Dr. James White often makes - RC apologists remain years behind the current Evangelical answers. Fr. Pacwa's use of his entire rebuttal to deal w/ the Canon while having such a glaring weakness on his own flank on the very same question demonstrates that. Fr. Pacwa avoided the "White question" - how did the Jewish man of 50 BC know the Canon? Fr. Pacwa leaned heavily on "trust me"-style points; did he expect to convince me w/ these arguments, citing the Councils of Carthage and Hippo for the source of the NT and OT Canons when he should know well that the 1st official Roman Catholic Canon of Scr was not before the Council of Trent (16th cent)? Add on that the way that he digressed into pro-life issues in his closing statement; it is pretty obvious to me that he was playing to his crowd.
Fr. Pacwa's describing the Magisterium as "the wall, inside of which we have freedom" is not reassuring, especially when questions like Extra Eccelesiam and the liberalism of JP2 and Vatican2 are brought up.

Fr. Pacwa and other RC apologists would do well to do some updating of their arguments. Well done, Dr. Svendsen. You weren't as sharp as you could've been but you did more than well enough to win this debate by a comfortable margin.

Edit: Dr. Svendsen has posted this debate's video here.

Pictures sent by strange Roman Catholics

These are a few of the pictures that were included in the previous document. Just for fun:

A love letter from a devoted son of Rome

I just received an email from the author of this comment, and I emailed him yesterday to ask him if he's Roman Catholic. He said he is and I asked him why. He asked me to explain why I asked him that. I responded thusly:

Well, it's simple, really - the Gospel of Roman Catholicism is not a valid one; therefore, I am wondering about your beliefs to some degree and your motivations for holding to said false Gospel.

He responded thusly:

Ba’al aka Rhology

MOLOCH
Michael,

Well, it's simple, really - the Gospel of Roman Catholicism is not a valid one; therefore, I am wondering about your beliefs to some degree and your motivations for holding to said false Gospel.

Rhology

Moloch the God Ba'al, the Sacred Bull, was widely worshipped in the ancient Near East and wherever Carthaginian culture extended. Baal Moloch was conceived under the form of a calf or an ox or depicted as a man with the head of a bull.
Hadad, Baal or simply the King identified the god within his cult. The name Moloch is not the name he was known by among his worshippers, but a Hebrew translation. The written form Moloch (in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament), or Molech (Hebrew), is no different than the word Melech or king, transformed by interposing the vowels of bosheth or 'shameful thing'.
Greetings! Rhology,
I felt some pain when I read your comments [Email] - I imagine you were “raging” over your fear, pain & shame. I imagine that you are a "control freak", “rageaholic” & avoider [You have a conscious fear of intimacy & an unconscious fear of abandonment]. I imagine that you are a terrified "little boy!!”. The only way you will recover is to go back to the “chamber of horrors” [your childhood] & recover “Little Rhology” – you abandoned him a long time ago [SHIFT SHAPING REPTILE]. Now you know what you really look like, Rhology!!




Ask Jesus to forgive you, for your sins, Rho!. He died for your sins, Rhology!!!!

Peace Be With You

Micky(Follower of JESUS CHRIST)

PS:
MORON: A Stupid Person
STUPID: Dazed & unable to think clearly.
Are you a STUPIDPERSON, Rhology?
How do you FEEL!!!?
Are you A ZOMBIE,
Rho?


Are you in Hell, “Silly Little Rhology?”


I LOVE “YOU,” Rhology!!


============
I don't really know what else to say after that. Thanks, Micky!

(Edit: The pictures stopped showing up, so I removed them.)

Public Service Announcement

We interrupt these very important heresy-hunts for this public service announcement. Please remain calm.



In honor of our time in Japan, I wish all of you a good weekend.

"Incarnational" means "we are clueless"

Having hijacked the post (w/ my permission; it's OK), Lucian has been avoiding my questions related to praying to the dead. It never hurts to deal w/ those questions again.

In "response" to this question from me:

Scenario: an Israelite has been calling up a dead believing ancestor and has been caught and brought before Moses for judgment.
His defense: "our God is a God of the living, not one of the dead"

Is it your position that he would be exonerated? Should he be?

Lucian cited an article referring to Jewish practice in the Middle Ages. Thanks but no thanks - I was asking about the time during or close to the Wanderings in the Desert and the giving of the OT Mosaic Law.

I responded by critiquing the article anyway ('cause I'm a courteous sort), and then moved on to dealing w/ the question he posed to me, whose follow-ups are fascinating and very illustrative. Keep in mind that Lucian has claimed to be a Romanian Orthodox, and Eastern Orthodoxy prides itself on being highly "Incarnational". Well, maybe, but it apparently didn't take w/ Lucian.
His question:

An Israelite has been caught and has been brought before the ones sitting in the chair of Moses. He's OWN words accuse him bitterly for calling himself to be one with God, Who is only One, and besides Whom there are no other Gods. (Deuteronomy 5:7; 6:4; 11:16; 11:28; 28:14; 29:26-28; 30:17-18).

Is it your position that he would be exonerated? Should he be?

My answer (after an initial misfire due to my own misapprehension of his question):

It depends. Is this guy Jesus Christ? If so, He should be exonerated (but that is impossible since God predestined to put him to death).

If this guy is anyone else, he should and would be executed.

The substantive parts of his response:

the Jews who don't believe in Jesus ... because, not only do they have no reason to, but also because it goes against some 5500 yrs of God-to-man relationship ... I mean God stroke their ancestors dead whenever they even as much as counted their own people, even much more so when they winked at, or even worse, bowed down to other Gods... -- and to this problem You very serenely answered with a smile -- like that was gonna cut it...
Yeah... right... it depends on what? I failed to see any of these 'dependencies' in the Shema, or in the 1st Commandment].
Why (should he be exonerated if he were Jesus Christ)??

My replies:

You are ignorant of the Scriptures to a very high degree. (So much for EO-xy being "highly Incarnational".)
As the Epistle to the Hebrews makes plain, the Incarnation is not AGAINST that established relationship; it is the FULFILLMENT thereof, w/o which the OT Laws are empty and pointless.

(It depends) On whether that guy is God incarnate or not, as I explained.

(Re: the Shema and 1st Cmdmt) As if the Incarnation of Jesus Christ is contrary to the Shema or 1st Commandment.
I am 100% serious - you should be ashamed of your ignorance of the Scriptures. This is just basic stuff. Why should I take you seriously?
(Re: why would Jesus Christ be exonerated?) B/c then He would actually be God.

The claim is that Eastern Orthodoxy is supposed to be a serious contender for The Church of The Apostles of Jesus Christ.
...
I'm done.

The Pope grows a spine

I'm sure he's really interested in props from me, but props from me on this one.

Men of whom the world was not worthy

May your terrible ordeals glorify your Lord and Savior.

Sawing off the limb he's sitting on

Bryan says:

-What GOOD does it do us, really, if an original-yet-lost-to-time manuscript was innerant (sic) down to the last details if God didn't see fit to preserve it in such a state through all generations?

I should've said "autograph" (ie, the original manuscript written by the hand of the biblical author or his amanuensis) instead of "MSS" before, so just wanted to clear that up.
As I said before, the Scriptures are God-breathed. So if the autographa weren't inerrant and error-free, then God screwed up. This is what I mean when I say that the Eastern Orthodox (EO) and Roman Catholic (RC) positions on this question are nearly always saw-off-their-own-limb.

-God, according to this criterion, made innerant (sic) Scriptures, then let them suffer corruption which, in your view, detracts from their innerance (sic).

I'm not sure of the antecedent to "their inerrance". If you mean the MSS that we have in our possession now, then obviously, yeah. If you mean the autographa, I don't see how that logically follows.

-You assume that it is ONLY the MSS that is God-breathed.

I don't see how taking what 2 Timothy 3:16 says and believing it is an assumption. You yourself are telling me the copied MSS have these problems, so you don't believe that the copied MSS are inerrant. You are in fact questioning whether the autographa are inerrant; on this one you're going back on your own position, which I find strange.

-Never mind the fact that the NT authors themselves almost ALWAYS preferred to quote the Greek Septuagint text instead of the Hebrew Masoretic.

OK.
Are you saying the LXX doesn't contain these copyist errors?

-The writer of Hebrews bases a MAJOR Christological argument on a verse from the LXX that, if read from the Hebrew, makes no sense.

This is tangential, but I'm genuinely curious to know which one.

-Someone should have told him, it seems, to stay away from "inferior" texts when writing Holy Writ.

Or one might reasonably conclude that when a God-inspired writer cites sthg, that psg at least has the seal of approval from God.

-from the late first century/early second century onward, "doubting the biblical MSS" was considered something that made you more faithful to apostolic Christian teaching rather than the Synagogue of Satan--the unbelieving Jews

In private correspondence, I've given you citation after citation of Early Ch Fathers who showed nothing but the highest respect for the authority of Scripture and who indeed considered it their foundational authority. You didn't buy them then; I don't expect you to now. But just to say.
Besides, I don't see how it matters to this question whether many in the early church overreacted to the Jews' general rejection of their Messiah by throwing the baby out w/ the bathwater.

-My admission of being corrected was in reference to HOW the errors were accomplished; someone took me to task for not understanding HOW the errors crept in. THAT the errors existed within the texts AS WE HAVE THEM was never in question, nor did I admit any error regarding whether or not the errors existed.

When did I ever deny that there exist errors in the extant MSS?

The article that was pasted into the comment correcting you also included this:

-Christians readily admit, however, that there have been 'scribal errors' in the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from any book, sacred or secular. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript (better known as autograph) of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. Those originals, however, because of the early date of their inception no longer exist.

Include me among the "Christians (who) readily admit..." that errors exist in the extant MSS. I don't see what you are trying to say here.

It might be profitable to the discussion if Bryan could elucidate why he thinks that it doesn't matter whether the autographa are inerrant.
What method SHOULD God have used to preserve His written Scriptures throughout history, as opposed to the one He used, to ensure that a correct and trustworthy copy of the Scriptures got into our hands years later, even 2000 years later?