By Christopher on Atheism, Government, Marxism, Politics, Uncategorized tagged Barack Obama, Communism, Cultural Marxism, Fabian, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Socialism

An Evaluation of Marxist Humanism (Part 1 of 2)

An Evaluation of Marxist Humanism

Part 1 of 2

by Norman L. Geisler

Judged by the standard of political influence, Marxism is the most widespread form of humanism in the world. Its founder, Karl Marx, was born in 1818 to a German Jewish family which was converted to Lutheranism when he was six. As a university student he was influenced heavily by Georg Hegel’s idealism and he adopted Ludwig Feuerbach’s atheism. After some radical political activity, which resulted in expulsion from France in 1845, he teamed up with Friedrich Engels to produce the Communist Manifesto (1848). With the economic support of Engels’s prosperous textile business Marx spent years of research in the British Museum and produced his famous Das Kapital (1867). These and succeeding Marxist writings have bequeathed a form of humanistic thought that is politically dominant in much of the world.

The Marxist View of God and Religion

Even as a college student Marx was a militant atheist who believed that the “criticism of religion is the foundation of all criticism.” For this criticism Marx drew heavily on the radical young Hegelian, Ludwig Feuerbach. Engels admitted that Feuerbach influenced them more than did any other post-Hegelian philosopher. [1] He triumphantly spoke of Feuerbach’s Essence of Christianity which “with one blow . . . pulverized [religion] . . . in that without circumlocution it placed materialism on the throne again.”[2]

There were three basic premises Marx learned from Feuerbach. First, “the teaching that man is the highest essence for man”[3] was accepted. This means that there is a categorical imperative to over-throw anything—especially religion—which debases man. Secondly, Marx accepted the premise of Feuerbach that “man makes religion, religion does not make man.”[4] In other words, religion is the self-consciousness of man who has lost himself and then found himself again as “God.” Thirdly, Marx also accepted the Feuerbachian belief that “all religion … is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces.”[5] In brief, God is nothing but a projection of human imagination. God did not make man in His image; man has made “God” in his image.

Marx’s atheism, however, went well beyond Feuerbach. Marx agreed with the materialists that “matter is not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter.”[6] That is, he agreed with Feuerbach that man in seeking his origin must look backward to pure matter. Marx, however, objected that Feuerbach did not go forward in the social domain. For Feuerbach by no means wished to abolish religion; he wanted to perfect it.[7] Feuerbach, reasoned Marx, did not see that the “religious sentiment” is itself a social product.[8] Hence “he [did] not grasp the significance of ‘revolutionary’ of ‘practical-critical,’ activity.”[9] Feuerbach did not realize, in the words of Marxism’s famous slogan, that “religion is the opium of the people.”[10] Man needs to take the drug of religion because this world is not adequate to assure him of his complete and integrated development. So he compensates himself with the image of another, more perfect world.[11]

In going beyond Feuerbach, Marx argued that “nowadays, in our evolutionary conception of the universe, there is absolutely no room for either a Creator or a Ruler; and to talk of a Supreme Being shut out from the whole existing world [as deism does] implies a contra-diction in terms.”[12] Hence, concluded Marx, “the only service that can be rendered to God today is to declare atheism a compulsory article of faith and … [to prohibit] religion generally.”[13]

Marx had no illusions that religion would immediately cease to exist when socialism was adopted. Since religion is but a reflex of the real world, religion will not vanish until the practical relations of everyday life offer to man perfect relations with regard to his fellow men and to nature[14]—that is, until the communist utopia is realized.

The Marxist View of Man

Basically Marxism holds a materialistic view of man’s origin and nature. This, of course, entails an evolutionary concept of man’s origin.

The Origin of Man

Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859. Marx’s Das Kapital came out only eight years later (in 1867). Evolution for Marx was a helpful addition to his materialistic understanding of the origin of man.[15] “Mind is the product of matter,” he wrote; that is, mind has evolved from material stuff. The nonliving matter has always been; it has produced the living, and finally, the nonintelligent has produced the intelligent (man).

Marx had written his doctoral thesis (at the University of Jena, 1841) on the materialistic philosophies of two early Greek philosophers, Epicurus and Democritus. Then with the subsequent support of Darwinian evolution he could explain the origin of human life as the product of evolutionary processes in a material world—there was no longer any need to speak of God.

The Nature of Man

Marx was not interested in pure philosophy, which he dismissed as mere speculation and quite useless when compared to the vital task of changing the world.[16] Hence he was not particularly interested in philosophical materialism. His being designated a materialist, however, does not mean that he denied mind altogether (as he denied life after death). Rather he believed that everything about man, including his mind, is determined by his material conditions. “For us,” said Marx, “mind is a mode of energy, a function of brain; all we know is that the material world is governed by immutable laws, and so forth.”[17] This view would fit with what philosophers call epiphenomenalism, according to which consciousness is nonmaterial but dependent on material things for its existence.

Karl Marx was more interested in man in the concrete, in man as a social being. He believed that “the real nature of man is the total of social nature.”[18] Apart from the obvious biological facts such as man’s need for food, Marx tended to downplay individual human existence. He believed that what is true of one man at one time in one society is also true of all men at all times in all places.[19] Thus it is not [that] the consciousness of men . . . determines their being, but . . . their social being determines their consciousness.”[20] In short, psychology is reducible to sociology, but sociology is not reducible to psychology.

One important generalization Marx makes about human nature is that man is a socially active being who distinguishes himself from other animals in that he produces his means of subsistence.[21] That is, it is natural for men to work for their living. Thus, Marx concludes, it is right for men to have a life of productive activity, to be workers.

The Alienation of Man

Men who do not find fulfillment in industrial labor will experience alienation. This alienation will be eliminated when private property is done away with.[22] Private property, however, is not the cause but a consequence of alienation.[23] The alienation itself consists in the fact that the work is not part of the worker’s nature. He is not fulfilled in work because it is forced on him so that someone else may be fulfilled Even the objects he produces are alien to him because they are owned by another. The cure for this ill will be the future communist society in which everyone can cultivate his talent by working for the good of the whole commune of mankind.[24] It is in this sense that Marxism is appropriately called a humanism.

The Marxist View of the World and History

The Dialectic of History

As has been noted already, Marx’s overall view of the world is materialistic. He uses the term historical materialism to designate that view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause and the great moving power of all important historic events in the economic development of society.[25] Further, Marx can be classified as a dialectical materialist, following in the tradition of the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.[26] History is unfolding according to a universal dialectical law the outworking of which can be predicted the way an astronomer predicts an eclipse. In the preface to Das Kapital Marx compares his method to that of a physicist: “The ultimate aim of this work is to lay bare the economic law of motion of modern society” He also speaks of the natural laws of capitalistic production as “working with iron necessity toward inevitable results.”[27]

The dialectic of modern history is that the thesis of capitalism is opposed by the antithesis of socialism, which will unavoidably give way to the ultimate synthesis of communism. History is predetermined like the course of the stars, except that the laws governing history are not mechanical but economic in nature. Man is economically determined. That is, “the mode of production of material life determines the general character of the social, political, and spiritual processes of life.”[28] This, of course, does not mean that man is determined solely by economic factors. Marx means only that the economic is the primary or dominant influence on man’s social character. Engels emphatically proclaimed, “More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase.”[29]

The Future of Capitalism

On the basis of his assumption that the dialectic of history is carried out by means of economic determinism, Marx confidently predicted that capitalism would become increasingly unstable and that the class struggle between the bourgeoisie (ruling class) and the proletariat (working class) would intensify. The poor would become larger and poorer until, by a major social revolution, they would seize power and institute the new communist phase of history.[30]

The fact that these predictions did not come to pass remains an embarrassment to Marxist theory. It casts doubt on the scientific and predictive value of orthodox Marxism.

The Future Communistic Utopia

According to Marx, capitalism has internal problems which will eventually lead to a communistic economic system. For as the masses become more numerous and the capitalists fewer, the latter will control great concentrations of productive equipment which they will throttle for their own gain. But the masses will then sweep aside the capitalists as a hindrance to production and seize an industrial economy which has been carried to the edge of perfection by self-liquidating capitalism Thus there will emerge a progressive society with no wages, no money, no social classes, and eventually no state. This communist utopia will simply be a free association of producers under their own conscious control. Society will ultimately realize the communist ideal: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”[31] There will, however, be the need for an intermediate period of “the dictatorship of the proletariat.”[32] But in the higher stage the state will vanish and true freedom will begin.

The Marxist Ethic

There are several characteristic dimensions of the ethics of Marxism. Three of these are relativism, utilitarianism, and collectivism.

Relativism

Since Marxism is atheistic, and since, as Nietzsche rioted, when God dies all absolute value dies with Him, it is understandable that Marxist ethics is relativistic. That is, there are no moral absolutes. There are two reasons for this.

First, there is no external, eternal realm. The only absolute is the inexorable progress of the unfolding dialectic of history. Engels wrote, “We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatever as an eternal, ultimate and forever immutable law on the pretext that the moral world has its permanent principles which transcend history.”[33]

Secondly, there is no such thing as a nature or essence of man which could serve as a foundation for general principles of human conduct. Man’s ideas of good and evil are determined by man’s concrete place in the socioeconomic structure. In brief, class struggle generates its own ethic.

Utilitarianism

On what basis are one’s actions regarded as moral? The answer is, they are regarded as moral if they serve to create a new communist society. Actions can be justified by their end. Lenin once defined morality as that which serves to destroy the exploiting capitalistic society and to unite workers in creating a new communist society,[34] in effect saying that the end justifies the means.[35] This is the communist’s equivalent of utilitarianism’s “greatest good for the greatest number in the long run.” Whatever promotes the ultimate cause of communism is good, and what hinders it is evil.

Collectivism

Another feature of Marxist ethics is that the universal transcends the individual. This is a heritage from Hegel, who believed that the perfect life is possible only when the individual is organically integrated into the ethical totality. For Marx, however, the highest ethical totality is not the state (as it was for Hegel) but “universal freedom of will.” Note that this “freedom” is not individual but corporate and universal. The difference from Hegel is that the emphasis is shifted from the state to society, from the body politic to the body public.

According to Marx, in the perfect society private morals are eliminated and the ethical ideals of the community are achieved. This will be accomplished, of course, by material production. For material production determines religion, metaphysics, and morality.[36]

An Evaluation of Marxist Humanism

Several aspects of Marxism call for comment here. Some comments will be of a positive nature; a large number, however, will point out weaknesses in Marx’s philosophy.

Positive Contributions of Marxism

Marx’s concern for the condition of workers is to be commended. Working conditions in Europe and North America are vastly improved today from those of over a century ago when Marx wrote and this is at least partially due to the pressure applied by Marxists. Likewise, Marx is certainly right in attacking the view that workers are merely a means to the end of capitalistic gain. Thus there has been a significant humanistic contribution in that Marxist philosophy places man over money.

Another positive contribution of Marxism has been its corrective on unlimited and uncontrolled capitalism. Any system which permits the rich to get richer and makes the poor poorer without limits is bound to produce ethical abuses. In the ancient Jewish economy this possibility was checked by the Year of Jubilee (every fiftieth year), when acquisitions were returned to their original owners.[37]

Finally, the millennial aspirations of Marxism are noble. Indeed, the Marxist philosophy of history encourages men to work toward the goal of overcoming the perceived evils of the present world. It is this humanistic vision which has captured the imagination and dedication of many young thinkers.

Negative Features of Marxism

Marxism is subject to numerous critiques. We will briefly indicate some of the more significant ones.

First, the dogmatic atheism of Marxism is unfounded. It is self-defeating to insist that God is nothing but a projection of human imagination. “Nothing but” statements presume “more than” knowledge. One cannot know that God is confined to imagination unless one’s knowledge goes beyond mere imagination.

Second, Marx’s deterministic view of history is ill founded. Not only is it contrary to fact—since things have not worked out as Marx predicted—but it is a category mistake to assume that economic influence works like physical laws.

Third, a materialistic view of man ignores the rich spiritual and religious aspects of human nature, to say nothing of the evidence for man’s immateriality and immortality.

Fourth, in its strongest form ethical relativism is self-destructive. The absolute denial of absolutes cuts its own throat. And to replace one absolute with another (the communist end) does not avoid absolutism. Also, the fallacies of the “end justifies the means” ethic are infamous.

Fifth, Marxism holds out an admirably idealistic goal (a human utopia) but has a miserable record of achievement. Life in Marxist countries has been more like hell than heaven. While the goal of a perfect community is desirable, the revolutionary means of achieving it is highly dubious. Every country that experienced a communist revolution ended up seeing a system that is even more repressive and oppressive than the flawed system it displaced. Where the standard of living improved for some in the short term it was at the expense of the many whose property and wealth was seized while they were murdered, sent to labor camps for reeducation, or sent to collective farms to serve as slave labor. And ultimately the promise of equality for all proved to be equal poverty and oppression for the people while the few at the top enjoyed what little wealth was left over. Also the means for maintaining the system—brainwashing campaigns, fear of the secret police force, networks of secret informers, etc.—after failing to deliver on its promises is dystopian. From a Christian perspective the means of transforming mankind is not revolution and reprogramming but regeneration. It begins not with the birth of a new government but with the birth of new men and new women—that is, the new birth (John 3:5).

Sixth, Marx’s view of capitalistic systems was short-sighted, shallow, and based on a stereotype. While his critique of the unbridled, compassionless capitalism at work England in the nineteenth century was warranted and insightful, it wrongly assumed that capitalist systems were impossible to gently reform in a politically and the only possible option was a violent and bloody overthrow. Marx was wrong. Several capitalistic countries were able to implement several types of reforms and implement controls without violence.[38]

Seventh, Marx’s view of religion is superficial. He should have heeded his father’s exhortation to him at age seventeen: “Faith [in God] is a real [requirement] of man sooner or later, and there are moments in life when even the atheist is [involuntarily] drawn to worship the Almighty.”[39] Or better yet, in view of his later tumultuous life and the revolutions his thought has precipitated in the world, Marx should have applied his own earlier thoughts:

Union with Christ bestows inner exaltation, consolation in suffering, calm assurance, and a heart which is open to love of mankind, to all that is noble, to all that is great, not out of ambition, not through the desire of fame, but only because of Christ.[40]

Karl Marx’s own father feared it was the desire for fame which transformed Karl’s Christian conscience into a demonic passion. In March 1837 he admonished his ambitious son:

From time to time, my heart revels in the thoughts of you and your future. And yet, from time to time, I cannot escape the sad, suspicious, fearful thoughts that strike like lightning: Does your heart match your head and your talents? Does it have room for the earthly but gentler feelings that are such an essential consolation to the sensitive human being in this vale of sorrows? Is the demon, which is clearly not given to or dominated by everybody, of a celestial or a Faustian nature?[41]

[1] See Marx and Engels on Religion, ed. Reinhold Niebuhr (New York: Schocken, 1964), 214.

[2] Ibid, 224.

[3] Ibid, 50.

[4] Ibid, 41.

[5] Ibid, 147.

[6] Ibid, 231.

[7] Ibid, 237.

[8] Ibid, 71.

[9] Ibid, 69.

[10] Ibid, 35.

[11] Ibid, 36.

[12] Ibid, 295. Even agnosticism was rejected by Marx: “What, indeed, is agnosticism but, to use an expressive Lancashire term, ‘shamefaced’ materialism? The agnostic conception of nature is materialistic throughout.”

[13] Ibid, 143.

[14] Ibid, 136.

[15] At Marx’s burial, Engels eulogized him saying, “just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution human history.” Robert L. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of Great Economic Thinkers. (Simon and Shuster: New York: 1986) 170

[16] See Marx, Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy, trans. T. B. Bottomore (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), 82.

[17] Marx and Engels on Religion, 298.

[18] Marx, Selected Writings, 83.

[19] Ibid, 91-92.

[20] Ibid, 67.

[21] Ibid, 69.

[22] Ibid, 250.

[23] Ibid, 176.

[24] Ibid, 177, 253.

[25] Marx and Engels on Religion, 298.

[26] Hegel himself rejected this dialectic, though it is commonly attributed to him. See Gustav E. Mueller, “The Hegel Legend of Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis,” Journal of the History of Ideas 19, no. 3 (1958): 411-414.

[27] Das Kapital, ed. Friedrich Engels, trans. Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, in Great Books of the Western World, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 19521, vol.50, 6.

[28] Marx, Selected Writings, 67; cf. 70, 90, 111ff.

[29] Marx and Engels on Religion, 274.

[30] See Marx, Selected Writings, 79-80, 147ff., 236.

[31] Ibid, 263.

[32] Ibid, 261.

[33] Quoted in R. N. Carew Hunt, The Theory and Practice of Communism. New York: Macmillan, 1962), 87-88.

[34] Ibid, 89.

[35] Some neo-Marxists have rejected this, insisting that means are subject to the same moral principles as the end. But they have thereby departed from orthodox Marxism. See George H. Hampsch, The Theory of Communism (Secaucus, N. J.: Citadel, 1965), 127.

[36] See Marx, The Communist Manifesto, ed. Samuel H. Beer (New York: Appleton Century-Crofts, 1955), 177.

[37] Leviticus 25.

[38] Robert L. Heilbroner. The Worldly Philosophers: The Lives, Times, and Ideas of Great Economic Thinkers. (Touchstone: 1986). 166-169.

[39] Letter from Trier, November 18, 1835.

[40] Written by Marx between August 10 and 16, 1835.

[41] Saul K. Padover, Karl Marx: An Intimate Biography. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978), 97.

This essay is adapted from Chapter Five of Norman Geisler’s Is Man the Measure? An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism (Wipf & Stock: 1983). It will also be reproduced in Norm’s forthcoming book Is Man the Measure: An Evaluation of Contemporary Humanism and Transhumanism (Bastion Books: 2017).

Read Part 2 of 2 here.

By Christopher on Postmodernism, theories of, Uncategorized

The Concept of Truth in the Inerrancy Debate

by Norman L. Geisler

(from Biblioteca Sacra, October-December, 1980)

How is it that evangelicals on both sides of the inerrancy debate can claim the Bible is wholly true and yet one side believes that there can be minor mistakes of history or science affirmed by the biblical authors¹ while the other side denies that there are any mistakes whatsoever? Some even claim to believe in inerrancy to the point that every word of the Bible is true,² and yet they hold that Jesus’ statement that the mustard seed is the “smallest of all seeds” is scientifically incorrect.³ Some claim that the Bible is “the only infallible rule of faith and practice”⁴ but hold that Paul was wrong when he affirmed that the husband is the “head” of the wife.⁵ One errantist put it bluntly when he wrote. “We can speak of the Bible as being inspired from cover to cover, human mistakes and all.”⁶

Is this duplicity? Are those who believe the Bible contains errors intentionally deceiving their constituency? Do they hold a double standard of truth? As a matter of fact, it is not necessary to come to any of these conclusions. Errantists do not hold a double standard but rather a different theory of truth.

Could it be, then, that the real problem is that a fundamental issue that occasions the difference between the two major camps of evangelicals on biblical inerrancy is that they are presupposing different theories of truth? This writer proposes that this is indeed the case. One thing is certain: Different theories of truth will make a significant difference in what one considers to be an “error,” or deviation from the truth. In fact, what counts as an error on one definition of truth is not an error on another definition of truth.⁷

Two Theories of Truth

A NONCORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH

For the sake of simplicity of discussion, only one of several noncorrespondence views of truth will be discussed. One that is used by errantists may be called an intentionality view of truth.⁸ According to this view a statement is true if “it accomplishes what the author intended it to accomplish,”⁹ and conversely, a statement is false if it does not. Several corollaries of this view of truth may be stated.

The first corollary is that a statement is true, even if some of its factual assertions do not correspond with reality, so long as the statement accomplishes its intended purpose.¹⁰ This means that factually incorrect statements can be true, provided they accomplish their intended results. For instance, the parental exhortation to a young child, “If you are good, Santa Claus will bring you presents,” is factually incorrect but, according to this view of truth, it could actually be true if it helps produce the intended good behavior in children before Christmas.
A second implication of this point is that factually correct statements can be false if they do not accomplish their intended goals. Some parents are driven to negative psychology in saying, “That is bad; do not do that,” because their factual correct statement “That is good” was not accomplishing its intended result.¹¹
A third corollary of the noncorrespondence view of truth is that persons, not merely propositions, can be properly characterized as true.¹² A person is true if he accomplishes or lives up to someone’s intentions for him, and persons are not true if they fail to measure up to someone’s expectations (whether the intentions are their own or another’s).

A CORRESPONDENCE VIEW OF TRUTH

According to this view, truth is “that which corresponds to the actual state of affairs,” to the way things really are. If this theory of truth is correct, then an “error” is that which does not correspond with the facts, with what is really the case.¹³ Several corollaries of this view may be observed.

The first corollary of a correspondence view of truth is that a statement is true even if the speaker (or writer) intended not to say it, provided that the statement itself correctly describes a state of affairs.
The second corollary is that one can make a true statement that is actually more than he intends to say. Everyone has had the experience of accidentally revealing more by his words, to his own embarrassment, than he intended to say. This writer once heard an unfair umpire say, “I umpired against that team once.” He obviously meant, “I umpired a game for that team.” Judging by his highly questionable calls, what he actually said was true, even though he did not mean to reveal as much.
The third corollary of a correspondence view of truth is that, properly speaking, truth is a characteristic of propositions (or other expressions) about reality, but truth is not a characteristic of the reality itself.
The fourth corollary is that reality, or that which is, is neither true nor false as such; it simply is. For instance, a lie can be real but the lie is not true. That is, someone’s lying can be the actual state of affairs. One would not say that the lie is therefore true. It is simply true that he is actually lying.

Therefore, strictly speaking, it is propositions about states of affairs which are true or false. Truth is found in the affirmation (or denial) about reality, not in the reality itself.

Of course “reality” or states of affairs referred to by propositions can be mental states of affairs (thoughts, ideas, etc.) or even other propositions. But strictly speaking, on a correspondence theory of truth, only affirmations (or denials) are true or false, not the reality about which the affirmations are made. Persons can be called true in the secondary sense that what they say can be trusted to come to pass or to correspond to reality. So they can be called true or trustworthy persons because their statements can be trusted to come to pass, or to correspond with reality.¹⁴

Some Implications for Inerrancy

It seems apparent that if one adopts the noncorrespondence (intentionality) view of truth he could easily (and consistently) hold that the Bible is wholly true (as God intends it) and yet the Bible could have many errors in it. For if truth means only that the Bible will always accomplish its intended purpose (regardless of factual incorrectness), say, “to make men wise unto salvation,”¹⁵ then it can do that with or without minor errors. Even incorrect maps can get one to the intended destination. In this view, there can be unintentional biblical errors in minor matters, without affecting the author’s main intention to save sinners. These minor errors do not reflect badly on the author’s (God’s) character, since they are not pernicious. In an intentionality view of truth one does not need an inerrant Bible; all one needs is a “reliable” and “trustworthy” Bible.

It becomes obvious that serious implications for the doctrine of inerrancy follow from each of these theories of truth.

IMPLICATIONS FOR INERRANCY IN THE NONCORRESPONDENCE (INTENTIONALITY) VIEW

With this view several implications follow for inerrancy, two of which will be discussed.

First, factual incorrectness in affirmations is not necessarily an error unless the author intended to affirm it.¹⁶ Accordingly neither the so-called “three-storied universe,” the “mustard seed,” nor affirmation about creation (versus evolution) are really errors, even if they are factually incorrect statements. For example, as long as Genesis 1-2 fulfills its intention, say, to evoke worship of God, then — any incorrect scientific affirmations notwithstanding — it could still be wholly true and without error. The same could be true of the Flood, of Jonah and the great fish, of Paul’s view of male “headship,” and of other biblical affirmations of this kind. On an intentionality view of truth these could all be factually wrong and yet the Bible would still be trustworthy.¹⁷As long as the intention of God is being fulfilled through these passages, that is, His redemptive function, then it does not matter whether some aspects affirmed in them correspond with reality.

Second, on an intentionalist’s view, truth, properly speaking, can be personal and not merely propositional. Persons who fulfill someone’s intentions are true or genuine. In this sense Jesus’ claim, “I am the . .. truth” (John 14:6), could mean that He is the one who perfectly fulfills the Father’s intentions for Him.

It should be noted in passing that proponents of this view cannot claim that something is not true simply because it was intended by someone. If this were so, then almost everything ever written would be true, since surely almost every author intended to tell the truth, even though most of them make many mistakes.

In any event, the intentionalist view of truth discussed here holds that true statements are those which faithfully fulfill their author’s intentions. That is, it is not simply a matter of intention but of accomplished intention which makes something true.¹⁸ In the case of God’s truth one could say it always accomplishes what God intends (Isa. 55:11). The Bible, then, would be inerrant so long as it always accomplishes its purpose to “make us wise unto salvation” (2 Tim. 3:15).

IMPLICATIONS FOR INERRANCY IN THE CORRESPONDENCE VIEW

Inerrancy means “without error” or “wholly true.” On the correspondence view of truth, several implications are involved. First, it would mean that whatever the writer of a scriptural book actually affirmed is to be taken as true, even if he personally did not intend to affirm it. That is to say, the Bible could say more than its human authors intended it to, since God could have intended more by it than the authors did.¹⁹ Psalm 22 may be an example of this. David may have intended merely to describe his own persecution, whereas God intended to affirm the Cross in this passage. This is what many think happened to the prophets (1 Pet. 1:10-11) when they wrote of things that seemed to go beyond them (cf. Dan. 12:4).

Of course the fact that the authors could say more than they intended does not mean they did. One might hold that God supernaturally restrained the biblical writers from doing so in order that there would always be an identity between God’s intentions and the author’s intentions.²⁰ In any case, an implication of the correspondence theory of truth is that one knows an author’s intentions by his affirmations and not his affirmations by his intentions. This is so because there is no way for one to get at the biblical author’s intentions apart from his expressions of them. A person cannot read a biblical author’s mind apart from reading that author’s writings.²¹

Second, on the correspondence view of truth an error can occur even when an author intended otherwise, because error has to do with his affirmations and not simply with his intentions apart from his affirmations. In short, mistakes are possible even if they are unintentional. Therefore to prove the Bible in error, one need not prove wrong intentions of the author (which is virtually impossible to do) but simply show that he made an incorrect affirmation.²² Hence any proposition affirmed as true by any writer of Scripture which does not (or did not) correspond with the reality to which it referred would be false and in error even if the author did not intend to so affirm.

For instance, if the Bible actually affirms that hell is geographically down and heaven is up, and if this is contrary to fact, then the Bible would be wrong regardless of what the author may have intended by the passage. Further, if the Bible affirms that God directly created all basic forms of life and if this is contrary to scientific fact,²³ then the Bible would be in error. Likewise, if Paul affirmed that a husband is the “head” of his wife and if in fact God does not intend this to be so, then the Bible would be in error here.²⁴

It should be noted in passing that the correspondence view of truth does not have any direct implications as to the beliefs of the biblical authors. They may have believed many false things just so long as they did not affirm any of these false beliefs in Scripture.²⁵ For on this view of truth “whatever the Bible affirms, God affirms,” and God cannot affirm as true what is false.

What Is Truth?

At first one might think that the resolution of the problem as to which view of truth is correct could be achieved by a simple appeal to biblical usage of the terms for “truth,” namely, aletheia and emet.²⁶ However, these and kindred terms are used both ways in Scripture. “Truth” is used of correspondence to reality in Proverbs 14:25; John 8:44-45; Acts 24:8, 11; Ephesians 4:25; and in many other places. On the other hand, God is said to be truthful) (Rom. 3:4) and Jesus said, “I am … the truth” (John 14:6), thus showing that “truth” is used of persons.

How, then, can the problem of the two views of truth be resolved? Is this an irresolvable impasse? This writer thinks not. For one view of truth is broad enough to include the other, but not the reverse. For example, a true statement will always accomplish its intention, but what accomplishes its intention is not always true. Lies and falsehood sometimes accomplish their intentions too. Hence only the correspondence view is adequate as a comprehensive view of truth. Further, if truth is only personal but not propositional, there is no adequate way of explaining the numerous biblical passages where truth means propositional correspondence?²⁷ In fact, of the some one hundred New Testament occurrences of the word “truth” (ἀλήθεια) only one passage indisputably uses truth of a person as opposed to propositions or expressions about reality (viz., John 14:6). Some other passages speak of truth as being (or not being) in a person (e.g., John 1:14, 17; 8:44; 1 John 2:4), but the latter passage makes it clear that a person is not considered true because he “is a liar,” which involves false propositions (or expressions). In his second epistle John speaks of “walking in the truth” (v. 4) or of continuing “in the teaching” (v. 9) as though truth were personal, but then he explains that this means to “walk in obedience to his commands” (v. 6), which are propositional. Most of the other passages using truth in a personal sense employ words for truth in the adverbial sense of “truly,” not in the substantival sense of “truth.” At least one can safely say that the normal and consistent New Testament usage of “truth” is of truth in the cognitive, propositional sense. Truth is what can be known (Rom. 2:20), what can be thought (1 Tim. 6:5), what can be heard (Eph. 1:13; 2 Tim. 4:4), what can be believed (2 Thess. 2:12) — in short, it is used of propositions. And any passage where truth is used in reference to a person can be understood as meaning a person who speaks the truth or one whose word can be trusted (cf. Rev. 3:14; 21:5).

Even if some passages are best understood as meaning truth in a personal or practical sense, they still entail a correspondence view of truth. For the person or action must correspond to God’s expectations in order to be true. Furthermore the passages where truth is used propositionally cannot all be explained as truth in a strictly intentional or personal sense, that is, a sense that is not necessarily factually correct. Hence truth — biblical truth understood as primarily (or exclusively) personal or intentional does not accurately represent the teaching of Scripture about the nature of truth.

In Defense of a Correspondence Theory of Truth

There are two lines of argument for a correspondence view of truth — the biblical²⁸ and the philosophical.

BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS

The ninth commandment is predicated on a correspondence view of truth. “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor” (Exod. 20:16) depends for its very meaning and effectiveness on the correspondence view of truth. This command implies that a statement is false if it does not correspond to reality. Indeed this is precisely how the term lie is used in Scripture. Satan is called a liar (John 8:44) because his statement to Eve, “You will not surely die” (Gen. 3:4), did not correspond to what God really said, namely, “You will surely die” (Gen. 2:17).

Ananias and Sapphira “lied” to the Apostles by misrepresenting the factual state of affairs about their finances (Acts 5:1-4).

The Bible gives numerous examples of the correspondence view of truth. Joseph said to his brothers, “Send one of your number to get your brother; the rest of you will be kept in prison, so that your words may be tested to see if you are telling the truth”(Gen. 42:16).

Moses commanded that false prophets be tested on the grounds that “if what a prophet proclaims … does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken” (Deut. 18:22).

Solomon prayed at the dedication of the Temple, “And now, O God of Israel, let your word that you promised your servant David my father (that there would be a Temple) come true” (1 Kings 8:26).

The prophecies of Micaiah were considered “true” and the false prophets’ words “lies” because the former corresponded with the facts of reality (1 Kings 22:16-22).

Something was considered a “falsehood” if it did not correspond to God’s law (truth) (Ps. 119:163).

Proverbs states, “A truthful witness saves lives, but a false witness is deceitful” (14:25), which implies that truth is factually correct. In court, intentions alone will not save innocent but accused lives. Only “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” will do it.

Nebuchadnezzar demanded of his wise men to know the facts and he considered anything else “misleading” (Dan. 2:9).

Jesus’ statement in John 5:33 entails a correspondence view of truth: “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth.”

In Acts 24 there is an unmistakable usage of the correspondence view. The Jews said to the governor about Paul, “By examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these charges we are bringing against him” (v. 8). They continued, “You can easily verify (the facts)” (v. 11).

Paul clearly implied a correspondence view of truth when he wrote, “Each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor” (Eph. 4:25).

The biblical use of the word err does not support the intentional theory of truth, since it is used of unintentional “errors” (cf. Lev. 4:2, 27; etc.). Certain acts were wrong, whether the trespassers intended to commit them or not, and hence a guilt offering was called for to atone for their “error.’9

To summarize, the Bible consistently employs a correspondence view of truth. A statement is true if it corresponds to the facts and false if it does not. Rarely are there even apparent exceptions to this usage.3°

If the biblical arguments are this strong for a correspondence view of truth, why is it that many Christians — even some who believe in inerrancy— claim to hold a noncorrespondence (intentionality) view of truth? Actually the reason is often quite simple: There is a confusion between theory of truth and test for truth. That is, often both parties hold the correspondence theory of truth but differ in their claims that truth is tested by correspondence, by results, or by some other method. In short, truth should be defined as correspondence but defended in some other way.

In summation, there are good reasons for insisting that a correspondence theory (definition) of truth should be accepted, regardless of the apologetic debate about how Christian truth is to be tested.

PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS

Several arguments outside biblical usage can be given in support of a correspondence view of truth.

Lies are impossible without a correspondence view of truth. If one’s statements need not correspond to the facts in order to be true, then any factually incorrect statement could be true. And if this is the case, then lies become impossible because any statement is compatible with any given state of affairs.3′

Without correspondence there could be no such thing as truth or falsity. In order to know something is true as opposed to something that is false, there must be a real difference between things and the statements about the things. But this real difference between thought and things is precisely what is entailed in a correspondence view of truth.

Factual communication would break down without a correspondence view of truth. Factual communication depends on informative statements. But informative statements must be factually true (that is, they must correspond to the facts) in order to inform one correctly. Further, since all communication seems to depend ultimately on something being literally or factually true, then it would follow that all communication depends in the final analysis on a correspondence view of truth.

Even the intentionalist theory depends on the correspondence theory of truth. The intentionalist theory claims something is true if it is accomplishing what it intends. But this means that it is true only if the accomplishments correspond to the intentions. So without correspondence of intentions and accomplished facts there is no truth.

Conclusion

A certain irony is involved in the present debate about inerrancy which illustrates this point. Hubbard, who is apparently an intentionalist and errantist, recently criticized Lindsell, who is an inerrantist and correspondentist, for misrepresenting thefacts about the situation at Fuller Theological Seminary. He provided Lindsell with “a handful of errors”32 in Lindsell’s treatment of the Fuller situation. But why should these be called “errors” on an intentionalist’s view of truth? Surely Lindsell intended well and even accomplished his intentions in arousing awareness of the drift from inerrancy at Fuller. But this is all that one can expect on an intentionalist’s view of truth. In short, why should Hubbard complain about factual misrepresentation unless he really holds a correspondence view of truth? And if he holds a correspondence view of truth, then why should he reject the factual inerrancy of the Bible? The least to be expected is that he be consistent with his own view of truth.

There is more, however, that biblical Christians must expect and even demand. It is this: Every Christian should get his view of truth about the Bible from the Bible. And if this is the correspondence view of truth, as the foregoing discussion indicates, then it follows that the factual inerrantists are right. That is to say, the Bible is inerrant in whatever it affirms.

Notes

1 LaSor admits that “those portions where one passage is clearly in disagreement with another (such as the thousands in Kings compared to the ten thousands in Chronicles) cannot be explained as ‘textual corruptions– because otherwise “we could never again use the canons of criticism to support any text against the conjectural reading of liberal critics” (William S. LaSor, “Life under Tension,” Theological News and Notes ‘Pasadena, CA: Fuller Theological Seminary, 1976], p. 7). This means, according to LaSor, that clear contradictions (such as four thousand stalls in 2 Chron. 9:25 and forty thousand stalls in 1 Kings 4:26) should be accepted as part of the autographs.

2 In a letter to a radio listener Daniel E. Fuller wrote. “I believe that every statement in the Bible is totally without error and every word is equally inspired” (April 28, 1978, italics added).

3 Fuller claims that “although the mustard seed (see Matt. 13:32] is not the smallest of all seeds, yet Jesus referred to it as such” because “to have gone contrary to their mind on what was the smallest seed would have so diverted their attention from the knowledge that would bring salvation to their souls that they might well have failed to hear these all-important revelational truths” (Daniel E. Fuller, “Benjamin B. Warfield’s View of Faith and History,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 11 (Spring 19681:81-82).

4 From Fuller Theological Seminary’s “Statement of Faith,” Article III.

5 See Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), p. 139.

6 Dewey Beegle, The Inspiration of Scripture (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), p. 138.

7 It is clear from the writings of the errantists that this is their belief. Hubbard wrote, “The nub of Lindsell’s quarrel with many of us who have been his colleagues is the interpretation of the word ‘error’ . . Many of us signed, and still could sign, Fuller’s earlier Statement without buying Lindsell’s definition of error” (David A. Hubbard, “A Conflict in Interpretation,” Theological News and Notes, p. 8). Rogers approvingly quotes Bavinck that “the purpose, goal. or ‘designation’ of Scripture was ‘none other than that it should make us wise to salvation.’ According to Bavinck, Scripture was not meant to give us technically correct scientific information” (Jack Rogers. “The Church Doctrine of Biblical Authority,” in Biblical Authority, ed. Jack Rogers [Waco, TX: Word Books, 1977], p. 43). In other words, since the Bible accomplishes this soteriological intention, then it is true.

8 This view could also be called a “functional” view of truth since it centers in the saving function of the Bible. Rogers and McKim write, “The authority of Scripture in these [Reformed] confessions resided in its saving function, not in the form of words used” (The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible (New York: Harper & Row, 1979], p. 125). Again they state, “It is significant to note . .. that for the Reformation concept of the ‘reliability’ of Scripture in achieving its function of salvation, Terretin substituted a discussion of the formal ‘necessity’ of Scripture” (ibid., p. 175).

9 Fuller (Fuller to Geisler, March 29, 1978) and Hubbard hold this same functional view of truth, namely, that the Bible is true in that it is “able to make us wise unto salvation.” Hubbard contends that “error” in the Bible means “that which leads astray from the truth God is teaching” (“A Conflict in Interpretation,” p. 8).

10 Berkouwer makes it clear he holds this same intentionalist or functional view of truth. He wrote approvingly of Kuyper that “he was not at all troubled by the absence of accuracy and exactness precisely because of the God-breathed character of Scripture: the reliability of the Gospels was guaranteed by thispurpose of the Spirit” (G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, Studies in Dogmatics, comp. and ed. Jack B. Rogers [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975] p. 250, italics added). Berkouwer also stated, “The authority of Scripture is in no way diminished because an ancient world view occurs in it; for it was not the purpose of Scripture to offer revealing information on that level” (ibid., p. 181, italics added).

11 Rogers claims that the redemptive function of the Bible is the locus of truth rather than the verbal form (The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, p. 125). Broadly speaking, the intentional (functional) view is a species of the “pragmatic” theory of truth, along with its sister “personalistic” and “existential” theories of truth.

12 Of course neoorthodox theologians such as Emil Brunner contend that revelation is personal, not propositional (see, e.g., Brunner’s Revelation and Reason [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 19461, pp. 369-70). This neoorthodox view bears a strong kinship with the neoevangelical views of Berkouwer, Rogers, and others.

13 On a correspondence view of truth see Aristotle Categories 1. a.10-4.b.19 and On Interpretation 19.a.10-19.

14 Thiselton gives an excellent discussion of the various theories of truth and of the biblical usage of truth (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, s.v. “Truth.- by A. C. Thiselton, 3:874-902).

15 Fuller has stated this point very clearly. “I believe it is a necessary implication of II Tim. 3:15 that the Bible’s truth depends on how well it lives up to this intention, stated explicitly here. I know of no other verse which states the Bible’s purpose so succinctly as 11 Tim. 3:15” (Fuller to Geisler, March 29, 1978).

16 A thoroughly consistent intentionalist’s view of truth, in contrast to a correspondence view. is factually unfalsiflable. For no matter what facts are presented contrary to the affirmation, it is always possible that the author’s intentions were true.

17 Davis is more forthright than most errantists in admitting errors in the Bible (see Stephen T. Davis, The Debate about the Bible ‘Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977]). He tries to preserve the “infallibility” of the Bible in moral matters while denying its inerrancy in historical and scientific matters. But even here he runs into difficulty since some of his illustrations are “errors” and have decidedly moral aspects, for instance, the slaughter of the Canaanites (ibid., p. 97).

18 In this sense the intentional or functional view of truth is akin to or a kind of subspecies of a pragmatic view of truth. As James remarked, “Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by events. … ‘The true,’ to put it very briefly, is only the expedient in the way of our thinking, just as ‘the right’ is only the expedient in the way of our believing” (William James, Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking [New York: Longman, Green, & Co, 19131. pp. 201, 222, italics his).

19 Even Hirsch, who places strong emphasis on the intention of the author in interpretation, admitted that “the human author’s willed meaning can always go beyond what he consciously intended so long as it remains within the willed type, and if the meaning is conceived of as going beyond even that, then we must have recourse to a divine author speaking through the human one. In that case it is His willed type we are trying to interpret, and the human author is irrelevant” (E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967]. p. 126, n. 37).

20 Kaiser places great weight on this point. See his recent essay, “Legitimate Hermeneutics,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), pp. 117-47.

21 Phillip H. Payne makes an interesting point of this in “The Fallacy of Equating Meaning with the Author’s Intention,” Thrifty Journal 6 (Spring 19771:23-33.

22 Hirsch contends that there is no meaning apart from the author’s intention of that meaning (Validity in Interpretation, p. 58). But if this claim is not false it is at least in need of serious qualifications. First. It would seem to make all unintentional falsehoods meaningless statements, whereas it seems evident that unintentionally false directions can be clearly understood, even though they are wrong. Second, why cannot a statement be meaningful even if no human has affirmed it? As long as someone could affirm it, even as he reads it. it would seem to be a meaningful statement. In other words, is not its affirmability (not whether it has been affirmed) a sufficient condition for its meaning?

23 This writer believes the Bible does affirm creation and opposes evolution. See the excellent book by A. E. Wilder Smith, Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publications, 1968).

24 In this sense inerrancy as held by a proponent of the correspondence view of truth is a truly falsifiable position. All one needs to do to falsify the biblical affirmation “Christ rose from the dead” is to produce the body of Christ or good evidence of witnesses who saw it in decay sometime after the first Easter morning (see 1 Cor. 15:12-13).

25 It may even be possible for an author to reveal some of his beliefs through his affirmations without necessarily affirming those beliefs. First Thessalonians 4:15 may be an example (“we who are still alive …”). Paul did not affirm that he would be alive when Christ returned, but he seemed to believe (or hope?) that he would be alive at the Lord’s return.

26 The Hebrew word for truth (r1,415) is used in roughly the same way as the New Testament word. It occurs some 127 times. Often it is used of propositional truth. The Old Testament speaks of true /ces (Neh. 9:13), words of men (1 Kings 17:24), words of God (2 Sam. 7:28; Ps. 119:160), commandments (Ps. 119:151), Scripture (Dan. 10:21), and of the factually correct (Dent. 17:4; 22:20; 1 Kings 22:16; 2 Chron. 18:15). Also “truth” is used of God (2 Chron. 15:3: Jer. 10:10). of value judgments (Ezek. 18:8), and of actions (Gen. 47:29; Judg. 9:16). But even these can be understood in the sense of correspondence to what is or what ought to be. In short, truth is what can be spoken (Jer. 9:5), known (lsa. 10:19), declared (Ps. 30:9), factually investigated (Deut. 13:14), written (Neh. 9:13), or expressed in some way (2 Sam. 2:6), and is what would correctly represent that to which it refers. In view of this it is strange to read that “truth is not measured in the Old Testament by correspondence to a theoretical norm but by its ability to achieve its goal” (Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 19791. p. 535).

27 See note 26 for Old Testament examples and the following discussion for New Testament examples.

28 These arguments are basically an elaboration and expansion on some of the same points made by Robert Preus (The Inspiration of Scripture [London: Oliver & Boyd, 19551. p. 24).

29 Of the five times 1111/ (“to err-) is used in the Old Testament (Gen. 6:3; Lev. 5:18; Num. 15:28: Job 12:16; Ps. 119:67). The Leviticus and Numbers references clearly refer to erring unintentionally. Further, the noun riRri, Is used nineteen times and all but two are of unintentional errors (Lev. 4:2. 22.27; 5:15. 18; 22:14; Num_ 15:29. 25 [twice], 26, 27. 28, 29: 35:11 [twice]; Josh. 20:3, 9). Only Ecclesiastes 5:6 and 10:5 could be understood as using rt.nli to refer to intentional errors.

30 John 5:31 (RSV) appears to be an exception. Jesus said, “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid” (dkriel)c). This would seem to imply that Jesus’ factually correct statements about Himself were not “true.” This, however, would be nonsense on even an intentionalist’s definitions of truth, for surely Jesus intended truth about Himself. What is meant here is that a self-testimony was not established as true. Or. as the NW puts it, such “testimony is not valid,” despite the fact that it is true, since it is only by the testimony of two or three !other] witnesses” that every word is established (Matt. 18:16: cf. John 8:17) and not by one’s own word. Elsewhere Jesus clearly said, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid” (John 8:14). meaning that it is factually correct, even if they did not accept it.

31 Part of the confusion rests in the fact that errantists sometimes confuse “lying” which is always an intentional falsehood and “error” which is just a plain falsehood. Rogers and McKim seem to make this mistake when they said that “error, for Augustine. had to do with deliberate and deceitful telling of that which the author knew to be untrue” (The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, p. 30. italics added). Besides the fact that Augustine is not speaking of a mere error but a lie in this context — a crucial fact which Rogers and McKim mistakenly overlook — their use of the word untrue in the last part of the sentence belies a correspondence view of truth which Is at odds with the intentional view they are proposing in the first part of the quotation.

32 See David A. Hubbard, Theology, News and Notes (Pasadena, CA: Fuller Theological Seminary. 1976), p. 26. Hubbard’s comment is especially strange in view of the fact that he explicitly rejected Lindsell’s view of an “error” or untruth (ibid.. p. 81.)

By Christopher on Bible Difficulties, Biblical Criticism / Higher Criticism, Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Genre Criticism & Historical Criticism, Mike Licona

Was Mark Confused or was it Mike Licona?

Was Mark Confused or was it Mike Licona?

by Norman L. Geisler

The Problem

In his YouTube presentation on this topic, Mike Licona declared that “probably Mark is confused” concerning the location of the Feeding of the 5,000. Later, in his internet article on the topic (8/23/2016) he wrote, “The difficulty appears after the feeding when in Mark 6:45 we read that Jesus told His disciple to cross over the lake to Bethsaida. This seems difficult to reconcile with Luke’s report that the feeding had occurred at or near Bethsaida.”

Proposed Solutions

After reviewing what Licona considers several admittedly “possible” solutions, he dismissed them for various reasons; they were “awkward,” did not solve the “tension,” “a stretch,” or “groundless.” He concludes, “while some are less ad hoc and more plausible than others, none of them enjoys anything close to a scholarly consensus….” He then resorts to his favorite solution—a hermeneutically definitive appeal to extra-biblical Greco-Roman genre and finds similar difficulties when Plutarch tells “the same stories differently.” Thus, Licona concludes that he also is willing here to accept the “confusion” of Mark, and “remain content to live with an unanswered question.”

A Brief Evaluation

First of all, there is no unresolvable problem for an inerrantist here, as even Licona admits there are “possible” solutions.

Second, he even acknowledges that some solutions are “more plausible” than others.

Third, Licona’s problem rests with his acceptance of Greco-Roman genre which allows for even contradiction in the Gospel, as there are in Greco-Roman literature.

Fourth, he reflects his distaste for some attempts to use the time-honored method of “harmonizing” (which goes back as far as Tatian’s Diatessaron, c. 150-160 a.d.) to reconcile the tension or apparent contradiction. He calls it “hermeneutical gymnastics” and elsewhere refers to similar proceedings by the exaggerated term “hermeneutical waterboarding.”

Fifth, Licona’s confusion, not Mark’s, also stems from the hidden premise that if there is no “scholarly consenses” on a problem, then we must consider it unanswered, if not unanswerable. He seems unwilling to admit the venerable conclusion of St. Augustine who wrote, “If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, ‘The author of this book is mistaken; but either: [1] the manuscript is faulty, or [2] the translation is wrong, or [3] you have not understood’” (Augustine, Reply to Faustus 11.5). But to repeat, “it is not allowable to say, ‘The author of this book is mistaken’”—or confused. God is not confused, and He cannot err (Heb. 6:18), and the Gospel of Mark, along with the rest of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16), is the Word of God. Therefore, it cannot be confused or err. If anyone was confused here, then mark it down, it was not Mark.

http://defendinginerrancy.com

Explaining Biblical Inerrancy

Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate

By Christopher on Biblical Criticism / Higher Criticism, Biblical Studies, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Classical Apologetics, Comparative Religion, Conversational Evangelism, Ethics, Festschrift, Open Theism, Philosophy & History of Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion, Politics, Reliability of the Bible, Resources, Theology, Thomism, Transhumanism tagged festschrift

I am Put Here for the Defense of the Gospel: Dr. Norman L. Geisler: A Festschrift in His Honor

I Am Put Here for the Defense of the Gospel: Dr. Norman L. Geisler:

A Festschrift in His Honor

Edited by Terry L. Miethe

Pickwick Publishers | 2016

480 pages

Order at Wipf&Stock and use “Geisler” as a 40% off coupon code!

Or purchase from AMAZON.

Contents

Preface by Ravi Zacharias · xi

Introduction by Terry L. Miethe · xiii

Tributes to Norman L. Geisler

Thanks for the Memories by William E. Nix · xxi

A Tribute to Norman L. Geisler by Patty Tunnicliffe · xxiii

A Personal Story by John Ankerberg · xxvii

Yesterday, Today, and Forever: Personal Reflections on a Favorite Professor

by Timothy Paul Erdel · xxix

A Tribute to Dr. Norman L. Geisler by Mark M. Hanna · xxxii

Personal Experience with Norm by Grant C. Richison · xxxiv

Biographical Reflections about Norm Geisler by Winfried Corduan · xxxv

Norma Turbulenta: “Stormin’ Norman” by Donald T. Williams · xxxvii

Apologetics

chapter 1: Using Apologetics in Contemporary Evangelism by David Geisler · 1

chapter 2: Distinctive Elements of a Judaeo-Christian Worldview by William E. Nix · 22

chapter 3: Our Faith Seeks Their Understanding: Evangelistic-Apologetics & Effective Communication by Ramesh Richard · 57

Biblical Studies

chapter 4: Beware the Impact of Historical Critical Ideologies on Current Evangelical New Testament Studies by F. David Farnell · 76

chapter 5: Building Babel: Genesis 11:1–9 by Thomas Howe · 99

chapter 6: The Task of Bible Exposition by Elliott Johnson · 122

chapter 7: God’s Ultimate Purpose for Creation by Grant C. Richison · 135

chapter 8: Text Versus Word: C. S. Lewis’s View of Inspiration and the Inerrancy of Scripture by Donald T. Williams · 152

Philosophy

chapter 9: Some Features of Finite Being in St. Thomas Aquinas by Winfried Corduan · 169

chapter 10: Unamuno and Quine: A Meta-Philosophical Parable Concerning Faith, Reason, and Truth by Timothy Paul Erdel · 192

chapter 11: Open Theism, Analogy, and Religious Language by Joseph M. Holden · 204

chapter 12: Defending the Handmaid: How Theology Needs Philosophy by Richard G. Howe · 233

chapter 13: Aristotle: God & The Life of Contemplation, or What is Philosophy & Why is it Important? by Terry L. Miethe · 257

chapter 14: The Enlightenment, John Locke & Scottish Common Sense Realism by Terry L. Miethe · 281

Ethics

chapter 15: Big Data, Big Brother, and Transhumanism by J. Kerby Anderson · 297

chapter 16: Using Expository Preaching to Address Ethical Issues in Our Day by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. · 307

chapter 17: Moral Absolutes and Moral Worth: A Proposal for Christian Ethics Inspired by Norman Geisler by Richard A. Knopp · 317

chapter 18: A Christian Response to Homosexuality by Patty Tunnicliffe · 346

Other Religions & Cults

chapter 19: Why They Blow Themselves Up: Understanding Islamic Suicide Bombers from a Christian Perspective by John Christian · 370

chapter 20: A Theological and Apologetical Assessment of Positive Confession Theology by Ron Rhodes · 382

Norman L. Geisler’s Impact

chapter 21: The Impact of Norman Geisler on Christian Higher Education by Wayne Detzler · 400

chapter 22: A Detroit Yankee in King Cotton’s Court: Love Expressed in the Thought and Writings of Norman Geisler by Paige Patterson · 417

Tabula Gratulatoria: Testimonials to Dr. Geisler’s Impact on our Time · 427

“Geislerisms” · 431

About Norman L. Geisler · 433

2 May

By Christopher on Archaeology, Arkapology, NAMI, Noah's Ark

Is the Ark-Like Structure Found on Mt. Ararat a Hoax?

For those who are interested in the search for Noah’s ark, check out the response by Philip Ernest Williams (Mount Ararat Discovery Foundation) to “A Critique of the Claim of Noah’s Ark Ministries International of the Discovery of a Wooden Structure on Mount Ararat” by Dr. Randall Price Ph.D. and Don Patton, Ph.D. Click this link to read it: http://araratdiscovery.org/ReviewPrice2010Critique.pdf.

http://www.viagragenericoes24.c

By Christopher on Evangelical Exodus, Roman Catholicism

Salvation, the Church, and the Papacy

Click here to open as a PDF: Salvation, the Church, and the Papacy

Salvation, the Church, and the Papacy

Mike Field

INTRODUCTION

The inerrancy of Scripture is common ground for Protestants and Roman Catholics.[1] However, its interpretation is not. In fact, Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis asserts: “the written Word cannot cry out to you, ‘Wait! You have misinterpreted me!’ But the Church can.”[2] Thus, Roman Catholics believe that the Church, in the person of Peter’s successor and the bishops in communion with him, possesses “the charism of infallibility when authentically teaching matters of faith and morals.”[3] The papal bull, Unam sanctam, written by Boniface VIII in 1302, provides a provocative example of such teaching on salvation, the church, and the papacy. Indeed, Unam Sanctam concludes with the words: “we declare, say, define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[4] Commenting on this papal bull, Catholic apologist Mark Shea says: “When a Pope declares, pronounces and defines, he is using the formula to make crystal clear that he is delivering, not his personal opinion, but the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.”[5] Nevertheless, like the apostle Paul, we Protestants ask: “what does the Scripture say?”[6] In other words, might the divine author be saying through Scripture that Boniface VIII has misinterpreted His inerrant Word?

The primary questions of interest in this study are: (1) Is EENS as articulated by Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam consistent with Scripture?, and (2) Is EENS as formulated by Vatican II consistent with Unam Sanctam and/or Scripture? The initial assumption is that it is presumptuous to declare what is absolutely necessary for salvation (as Boniface VIII did), and unwarranted to speculate about those incapable of faith, such as infants or the profoundly retarded. The methodology I have chosen is to analyze Unam Sanctam in its historical context, drawing from Scripture and the writings of the church fathers and others, including Roman Catholic apologists, and then to evaluate its present interpretation according to Vatican II.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Published on November 18, 1302, the papal bull Unam Sanctam was prompted by a Church-State quarrel between Boniface VIII and King Philip IV of France that began in 1296 over taxation of the clergy.^{^[7]} Over the intervening years the power struggle escalated to encompass control of the clergy’s attendance at rival councils called by the king and the pope. The pinnacle of hostilities occurred in September, 1303, ten months after Unam Sanctam was published, when an armed band from Philip briefly captured Boniface after hearing of his plans to excommunicate him. The pope died within a month. This episode represents just one of many chapters in Church-State conflicts over the centuries.

For example, after Christianity was declared a legal religion in 313, Constantine set the precedent for all of the Ecumenical Councils (AD 325 to 787) to be convened by the Roman emperor (and in one case, the Roman empress). Yet in 800, Pope Leo III presided over Charlemagne’s coronation as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. The Church-state pendulum then swung the other way for more than two centuries of lay investiture, wherein feudal lords and vassals appointed bishops and other church officials. Pope Gregory VII (1073 – 1085) wrested power back to the Church, not only ending lay investiture, but also excommunicating and deposing King Henry IV of Germany. Pope Innocent III (1198 – 1216) further consolidated power by acquiring title to papal states, declaring all kings to be subject to the pope, and asserting that the pope, as Christ’s vicar, could be judged by no man.^{^[8]} It is in this context that Unam Sanctam was published and has come to be viewed as “one of the most carefully drafted documents which emerged from the papal chancery . . . a formal exposition of the plenitude of papal power, spiritual and temporal.”^{^[9]} In light of today’s prevailing perspective wherein the powers of Church and State are considered to be largely complementary, Boniface’s papal bull might seem irrelevant – were it not for his dogmatic claims about salvation and the papacy.

Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam

Boniface VIII makes five provocative claims in Unam Sanctam, each building upon the preceding ones. This study will briefly examine these claims in light of their historical context and the teaching of Scripture. The five claims are:

(1) Salvation and forgiveness of sins can be found only in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

(2) There is one head of the Church: Christ and the Vicar of Christ (the pope).

(3) The pope is the shepherd of all of Christ’s sheep, and only those who are committed to the pope can be Christ sheep.

(4) The plentitude of papal powers underscores the perils of resisting the pope.

(5) It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

The opening statement of Unam Sanctam offers an interesting mix of Scripturally-based ecclesiology and the provocative soteriological premise upon which Boniface builds a series of pretentious claims about the relationship between salvation, the Church, and the papacy.

Unam Sanctam’s Opening Statement

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.[10]

Much of this opening statement about the Church is scripturally sound. For example, the Church is one according to 1 Cor. 12:5-12 (the body of Christ is one, though the members are many). The Church is holy according to Eph. 5:25-27 (Christ cleansed the church “by the washing of water and the word . . . that she would be holy and blameless”). Moreover, 1 Cor. 1:2 attests to the catholic, or universal, scope of the Church, including “all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” In addition, Paul describes the apostolic character of the Church in Eph. 2:20 by affirming that the Church has been “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Boniface then reiterates the point that the Church is unique, “the only one” (Song of Songs 6:9; cf. Rom. 12:4-5, 1 Cor. 10:17; 12:12-13, 20; Eph. 2:16; 4:4; 5:25-32; Col. 1:24; 3:15; etc.), and he alludes to Col. 1:18, identifying Christ as the head of the Church, and to 1 Cor. 11:3, which says that the head of Christ is God. The paragraph concludes with a quote from Eph. 4:5, further describing the Church, marked by “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” These truths are common ground for Protestants and Roman Catholics.

Boniface’s First Provocative Claim

Embedded among Boniface’s affirmations about the Church is his first provocative claim: that outside of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins. The general belief that “outside the church there is no salvation” was well-established long before Boniface’s time, known by the Latin phrase, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (EENS). However, Boniface’s precise language and his subsequent assertions about the Church, the papacy, and salvation raise significant questions. How does this dogma, as understood by Boniface and the church fathers, stand up in the light of Scripture?

Outside of the Church There is No Salvation (EENS)

Boniface VIII justifies his premise by appealing to the story of Noah’s ark. He writes: “For certainly, in the time of the Flood, the ark of Noah was one, prefiguring the one Church. . . . And outside of Her, everything standing upon the land, as we read, had been destroyed.” Compare Heb. 11: 7 – “By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world.” Thus, the ark functioned as a safe haven during God’s judgment of the world by the great flood: whoever was in the ark was saved, whoever was outside of the ark perished. Boniface infers that the Church will function in the time of God’s future judgment as the ark did in Noah’s time.

The EENS dogma is by no means unique to Boniface, having been articulated more than a thousand years earlier by Cyprian of Carthage. Cyprian quotes 1 Pet. 3:20, writing: “[Peter] said, ‘In the ark of Noah, a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water; the like figure where-unto even baptism shall save you;’ proving and attesting that the one ark of Noah was a type of the one Church.” A number of other church fathers agree with Cyprian.[11] Yet, Augustine recognizes an important soteriological difference between the ark and the Church: “How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!”[12]

Augustine’s observation about the Church notwithstanding, those who leave the Church are singled out. Cyprian cites 1 John 2:19, “Let none think that the good can depart from the Church. . . . ‘They went forth from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, surely they would have continued with us.’”[13] However, Cyprian takes this verse out of context. John is talking about ‘antichrists,’ who deny that Jesus is the Christ. Christians leave churches and other fellowships for many reasons, the vast majority having nothing to do with rejecting Christ. For example, John Mark deserted Paul and Barnabas in Pamphylia during his first missionary trip, yet his faith remained intact, as Paul himself attests later (cf. Acts 15:38; 2 Tim. 4:11).[14] Hence, Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John is not a reliable test of whether or not someone is outside of the Body of Christ.

Cyprian also asserts that schismatics as well as heretics are outside the Church. For example, in the treatise, Unity of the Church, he quotes Luke 11:23 and comments: “‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.’ He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ.”[15] Cyprian likens schismatics to Korah, who rebelled against Moses.[16] However, schisms are messy, and typically all participants share some fault.

Nevertheless, Augustine argues from 1 Corinthians 13: “You ask, do they [schismatics] have the baptism of Christ? Yes. You ask, do they have the faith of Christ? Yes. If they have these, what do they lack? . . . Listen to the Apostle: ‘if I understand all holy things . . . if I have all prophecy . . . and all knowledge.’ . . . Listen further: ‘if I have all faith . . . so that I could move mountains. But if I have not love, I am nothing.’”[17] Augustine infers that if you have not love, your faith is nothing and you are therefore without Christ and have no hope of salvation. He continues: “Prove to me now that you have love: hold to unity. . . . If we praise one Father, why don’t we recognize also one mother?”[18] However, if unity is the proof of love, unity with whom? For example, the “mother church” in Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. The remaining churches still shared one Lord, one faith, one baptism; yet the schism between East and West in 1054 persists to this day.[19] Attempts to take sides in that schism by identifying the “mother church” are futile. More importantly, do we recognize and love our brothers and sisters in Christ? Our Lord must grieve schisms, and we should strive to avoid them and to be reconciled one to another.

In spite of the strong tradition supporting EENS, not all church fathers limit salvation to membership in the Church, or even to faith in Christ. For example, Justin Martyr (ca. 170) writes: “[Those] who lived according to reason [logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them.”[20] However, salvation by reason alone is another gospel. Another church father, Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200), asserts: “before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness,” because, he says, it brought the Greeks to Christ as the Law did the Hebrews.[21] Again, philosophy without Christ never saved anyone (cf. Acts 17:22-31).

In summary, EENS (“outside the Church there is no salvation”) has enjoyed a strong, though not unanimous, following since the third century. This tradition counts deserters, heretics, and schismatics as being outside the Church – notwithstanding John Mark’s desertion and the long-standing schism between the East and the West. In addition, EENS raises questions about the definition of the Church: are the Old Testament saints catalogued in Hebrews 11 members of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church? Interestingly, even Calvin and the Westminster Confession endorse a version of EENS.[22] But – what does Scripture say about these things?

A Scriptural Evaluation of EENS

First, nowhere does Scripture articulate EENS. Instead, Scripture teaches broadly that “Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Joel 2:32; cf. Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13).[23] And, according to Gen. 4:26, “men began to call upon the name of the Lord” in the time of Adam and Eve. Interestingly, the Old Testament name, YHWH, translated Lord, is incorporated in Jesus’ name, which means “YHWH saves” (cf. Matt. 1:21). Thus, Old Testament saints, in effect, called upon the name of Jesus. Hebrews 11 gives many examples of such saints who lived long before the Church was founded, and yet have come to the “heavenly city.” Moreover, Rev. 7:4-8 explicitly identifies twelve thousand from each tribe of Israel as “sealed bond-servants of our God,” and Rev. 21:9-27 depicts the bride of Christ as having twelve gates representing the tribes of Israel and twelve foundation stones representing the apostles (cf. Eph. 2:20; Rev. 4:4, 10; etc.).[24] In summary, according to Scripture, salvation is not confined to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church – but extends to all who call upon the name of the Lord (YHWH, Jesus).

In particular, Scripture promises salvation and forgiveness of sins to all who are ‘in Christ’ by grace through faith. For example, “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13; cf. Rom. 1:16). Moreover, Peter declares in Acts 10:43, “Of Him [Jesus] all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” Furthermore: “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Gal. 3:27). In other words, no one “in Christ” can be outside the Church since the Body of Christ is the Church, according to Col. 1:18.

Boniface’s Second Provocative Claim

Boniface’s second provocative claim is that there is one head of the Church: Christ and the Vicar of Christ (the pope). Like EENS, the primacy of Peter has a long history in the Church, but the church fathers did not articulate it as Unam Sanctam did. For example, Cyprian writes of Peter: “upon whom He built the Church, and whence He appointed and showed the source of unity.”[25] Theodoret of Cyrus (ca. 450) also says of Rome: “For that holy see has precedence over all churches in the world.”[26] However, no church father ever suggested that Christ and the pope constitute one head of the Church. From where did this idea come?

According to Unam Sanctam: “[The ark] had one pilot and helmsman, that is, Noah, and outside of Her, everything . . . had been destroyed. . . . And so, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter.” In other words, since the ark prefigured the Church (as Boniface previously argued), and the ark had “one pilot and helmsman,” so also must the Church have only one pilot and helmsman. However, Noah could not have been the pilot of the ark because he, like the other passengers, was stowed deep inside, tossed by the waves and driven by the winds and currents to land on Mt. Ararat. Rather, God was the pilot and helmsman of the ark.

Nevertheless, Boniface continues to argue that since Christ is the head of the Church and there can only be one head (lest the Church be like a two-headed monster), then Christ and “Vicar of Christ” must be one head. Boniface is right that Christ is the head of the Church and there is only one head. But one plus one is not one. Peter and his successors cannot say “I and Christ are one” in the same way that Jesus said “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).[27] Jesus alone, being both divine and human, is capable of being the head of the whole Church, of both those in heaven and on earth (cf. Col. 1:18; 2:19). Moreover, Peter and his successors are undeniably members of Christ’s body, not the head of the body. Thus Boniface commits a category mistake. Furthermore, Peter himself acknowledges that he is not the “Chief Shepherd” (1 Pet. 5:4).[28] Boniface is mistaken: Christ has no peer in the Church; He alone is its head. The ramifications of Boniface’s claim, which implies two heads of the Church, become clearer as the text of Unam Sanctam unfolds.

Boniface’s Third Provocative Claim

Boniface next argues that the pope is the shepherd of all of Christ’s sheep. On what grounds? He writes: “there is one head [of the Church]. . . Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep’, meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter].” The idea that Peter was the universal teacher or the chief shepherd of the Church was by no means new with Boniface. For example, John Chrysostom late in the fourth century cites John 21:17-19: “‘Tend My sheep’ . . . ‘Follow Me’ . . . And if any should say, ‘How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?’ I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.”[29] Gregory the Great, at the turn of the seventh century, also comments on Acts 10:25-26 thus: “When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter raised him up, saying, ‘Stand up; I too am just a man.’ It is hence that the chief Shepherd of the Church . . . refers to the equality of his creation.”[30] However, it is one thing to make claims about Peter; it is another to apply them to Peter’s successors.

Interestingly, regarding Jesus’ prophecy in John 10 to bring other sheep into his flock, Catholic apologist Tim Staples asks: “Who does our Lord use as the shepherd to bring this prophecy to pass?” He then suggests that John 21:17 supplies the answer: “Jesus the shepherd here commissions Peter to be the prophetic shepherd of John 10:16 to shepherd the entire people of God!” Staples next asserts that the prophecy is fulfilled in Acts 10 when Peter “commanded [Cornelius and his household] to be baptized . . . There was now one fold and one shepherd for Jews and Gentiles.”[31] However, Staple ignores the fact that Christ had already decided that Paul would be entrusted with all of the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Rom. 1:5).

In addition, the authors of the book, Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, assert that because other disciples were present when Jesus commanded Peter to feed his sheep, that Jesus gave Peter a distinct and supreme office, ruler over all the flock.[32] Moreover, they say, “Our Lord did not say feed these lambs, nor those lambs. He said My lambs . . . He does not abdicate His office of pastor when He appoints a Vicar; He makes him co-pastor with Him and in Him. All the lambs and sheep of Christ are Peter’s also. No one in the whole flock, no disciple of Christ, can claim exemption from the jurisdiction of Peter.”[33] Yet Rom. 1:5 and other passages indicate otherwise.

According to the book, Upon This Rock, by Stephen Ray, even the apostle John was subordinate to Peter’s successors after Peter’s death. He asserts that John, writing his gospel thirty years after Peter’s death, paid special attention to the claims of Peter “because Peter was living on in his successors who even during John’s own lifetime . . . were exercising Peter’s prerogative of shepherding the entire flock.” He continues, “Whatever John’s position . . . he was still inferior not only to Peter but to Peter’s successors, for to John was not given the supreme commission to feed the entire flock of Christ.”[34] However, John’s own disciples knew nothing of this. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 105) addressed a fellow-disciple of the apostle John, Polycarp, as the “Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and Jesus Christ.”[35] The apostolic fathers, therefore, did not recognize a special Petrine office.[36]

A Scriptural evaluation of the pope as universal shepherd

Scripture portrays the broad extent of Peter’s shepherding role as temporary at best. In fact, Christ personally entrusted a significant portion of His sheep to Paul during Peter’s lifetime. As Paul writes in Galatians: “Those who were of high reputation” (Peter, James, and John) recognized “that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised” (Gal. 2:6-9; cf. Acts 22:21; Rom. 15:15-16). In fact, Paul writes to the church of Rome that he, not Peter, was entrusted with the Gospel to all of the Gentiles (Rom. 1:5). Moreover, as Peter addresses his fellow shepherds of Christ’s flock, he admits that he is not the Chief Shepherd: “I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder . . . shepherd the flock among you. . . . And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory” (1 Pet. 5:1, 2, 4; cf. Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:20).[37] Finally, Jesus did not say to Peter, “Feed all my sheep;” whereas Scripture affirms that He did entrust Paul with the gospel to all the Gentiles. Boniface’s interpretation of John 21:17 does not follow.

Furthermore, Jesus leaves no doubt in John 10 who is the ‘one shepherd’: “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, . . . and I lay down My life for the sheep. I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd” (John 10:14-16). Jesus thereby identifies Himself as “the good shepherd,” claiming a personal relationship with each of His lambs, whom He will bring into one fold, where they hear His voice and follow Him (cf. vv. 27-28). No bishop is capable of such a personal relationship with all of Christ’s sheep. Moreover, by laying claim to all of Christ’s sheep, Boniface creates tension between Christ and His alleged Vicar. No one can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24). There is no question, then, that Boniface’s interpretations of John 10 and John 21 are contrary to the teaching of Scripture and the testimony of the apostolic fathers. Jesus Christ is and always has been the only universal shepherd of the Church.

Corollary to Boniface’s Third Provocative Claim

Having just argued that the pope is the universal shepherd of all of Christ’s flock, Boniface then claims that only those committed to the pope can be Christ’s sheep. He writes: “Therefore, if either the Greeks or others declare themselves not to be committed to Peter and his successors, they necessarily admit themselves not to be among the sheep of Christ, just as the Lord says in John, ‘there is one sheepfold, and only one shepherd.’” Ironically, he also likens the Church to Christ’s seamless tunic which was not torn (cf. John 19:23-24), yet now he specifically cites the Greeks. What about the Greeks who had followed Christ since Paul brought them the gospel, and who continued to follow Christ after the East-West schism?

About commitment to the Petrine office, Catholic apologist Mark Shea says, “It is impossible to accept Christ without accepting the authority of Peter’s office to some degree or other. If you say to Jesus, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ you are submitting to the judgment of Peter, who said it first (Matthew 16:16).”[38] Shea forgets that the thief on the cross never heard Peter’s confession, so it was not possible for him to submit to Peter’s judgment. Jesus also said that Peter’s confession was a revelation from God, not the result of human judgment. In fact, Scripture teaches “no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3). Furthermore, the context of Boniface’s statement has nothing to do with King Philip’s response to Peter’s confession. Boniface is instead warning the king against resisting the pope, which he more fully articulates in the next section of Unam Sanctam.

Nevertheless, Boniface’s assertion that Greeks or others not committed to the pope are not Christ’s sheep rests on a false premise. Peter could not hand down a universal office that he himself did not hold. Moreover, it is striking that Boniface denies that some are Christ’s sheep without regard to Christ’s own relationship with them. Indeed, Jesus says, “My sheep hear My voice and follow Me, and I give eternal life to them, . . . and no one will snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:27-28). Furthermore, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37). Indeed, “The Lord knows those who are His” (2 Tim. 2:19). Scripture thus refutes Boniface’s arbitrary exclusion of Greeks (who were originally entrusted to Paul anyway) and others (such as the thief on the cross) from Jesus’ flock. Moreover, Boniface exposes his own duplicity: claiming to be “one head” with Christ, he could not be further from the mind of our Savior, who desires all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2:3-4).

Boniface’s Fourth Provocative Claim

So far, Boniface has focused on commitment to the pope; he focuses next on the dangers of resisting the papacy.[39] In the fourth section of Unam Sanctam, he asserts that the pope possesses a plentitude of powers, and consequently anyone who resists papal authority does so at his own peril.[40] Among these powers, Boniface asserts that the Church has ‘two swords’ – one spiritual and the other, temporal. He supports this claim by citing Luke 22:38, where Peter asks Jesus if two swords are enough as they head to Gethsemane following the Last Supper. His interpretation simply does not follow. He also claims that the Church has been appointed over the nations and kingdoms of the earth, as God says of Jeremiah in Jer. 1:10. Yet Rom. 13:4 declares that civil government with its temporal power is a minister of God, not of the Church. Third, he asserts that the supreme spiritual power [the pope] judges all things but he himself is judged by no one (cf. 1 Cor. 2:15). Innocent III made this same claim a century earlier. Perhaps this assertion explains the impunity of past immoral popes?[41] Did not Jesus say, “You shall know them by their fruits” (Matt. 7:15-19); and did not Peter himself say, “Let another man take his office” (Acts 1:20; cf. Deut. 21:21; 1 Cor. 5:11-13)?

Boniface bases all of these powers on Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16: “Christ ‘disclosed [Peter] to be the firm rock, just as the Lord said to Peter himself: ‘Whatever you shall bind, etc.’” He describes this authority as “a divine power given by divine word of mouth to Peter and confirmed to Peter and to his successors by Christ himself.” However, Jesus gave the other apostles the same power to bind and loose, and He never addressed Peter’s successors (Matt. 18:18; cf. John 20:23). Moreover, throughout the history of the Church there has never been a unanimous interpretation of ‘this rock’ in Matthew 16:18.[42] For example, although Tertullian (ca. 210) and some early church fathers describe Peter as “the rock on which the church is built,”[43] Hilary of Poitiers (ca. 365) and others say that Jesus was speaking of “the rock of confession whereon the Church is built.”[44] Moreover, Augustine declares: “For the Rock was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.”[45] After all, Christ is the corner stone (Eph. 2:20; cf. Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11).

Nevertheless, Boniface assumes the “plentitude of papal powers” to be his, and adds, “Whoever, therefore resists this power so ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God. . . .” (cf. Rom. 13:1-2). By claiming all of these powers, Boniface portrays himself as Christ’s equal. Furthermore, his appropriation of Paul’s teaching about civil authority projects a certain ominous tone, leading to his fifth, and most provocative, claim.

Boniface’s Fifth Provocative Claim

Unam Sanctam concludes with the words: “Furthermore, we declare, say, define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[46] This claim seems to rest on an implicit assumption: that the pope is an arbiter of salvation. Boniface thereby usurps the prerogative of Jesus, the author of salvation (Heb. 2:10). Whatever the power of the keys of the kingdom might be, salvation is from the Lord alone. “There is no savior besides Me,” declares the Lord in Hosea 13:4 (cf. Isa. 45:21; 1 Tim. 4:10; Tit. 1:4). In fact, Peter himself, filled with the Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus: “there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Neither Peter nor his successors are able to save.[47] Thus, the conclusion of Unam Sanctam, invoking the formula of papal infallibility, contradicts Scripture and is therefore false.

In summary, Boniface argues in Unam Sanctam (1) that the pope is Christ’s peer in the Church, outside of which there is no salvation or forgiveness of sins; and (2) that the power of the keys passed down to Peter’s successors extends to salvation itself. However, Scripture and reason counter every provocative claim Boniface makes. Christ alone is Savior and head of the whole Church. Moreover, the Body of Christ has flourished in Orthodox and Protestant Churches around the globe for centuries apart from the pope. How, then, have Roman Catholics (especially, as taught by Vatican II) understood the provocative claims asserted by Unam Sanctam?

As background, it is important to recognize that Roman Catholics cannot ignore Pope Boniface VIII’s ‘infallible’ teaching, thanks to the dogma adopted at Vatican I in 1870.[48] Yet, Unam Sanctam has been divisive for Roman Catholics: some, like Leonard Feeney, assert that it and Vatican II are incompatible; whereas most, like Dave Armstrong, believe that Vatican II and Unam Sanctam are consistent.[49] Yet others express various personal opinions, such as this one by Phil Porvaznic (“Philvaz”): “a non-Catholic CANNOT submit or be subject to the Pope, even if the person sincerely desired to obey the Pope in everything and believe all his teachings. Only CATHOLICS can submit to the Pope . . . Therefore, Unam Sanctam applies only to Roman Catholics.”[50] Porvaznic’s opinion, however, is not compatible with Boniface’s explicit assertion that Greeks not committed to the pope are not among Christ’s sheep. Nor is his opinion consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the documents of Vatican II, the official sources of Roman Catholic teaching that will be considered next.

Unam Sanctam Revisited: Vatican II

Vatican II largely retains the perspective of Unam Sanctam, albeit with some significant revisions. For example, the dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation (EENS) is now stated thus: “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” The Catechism continues: “those, who through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church” but “who seek God with a sincere heart” and try to do his will according to their conscience, “may achieve eternal salvation.”[51] Thus Vatican II recognizes “invincible ignorance” as an exception to the rule of “no salvation outside of the Church.”

Invincible Ignorance

Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong affirms “invincible ignorance” as taught by Vatican II and claims it was known and accepted by Boniface VIII. He cites Thomas Aquinas to support this position. However, Unam Sanctam, exempts no one from the “absolute necessity” of being subject to the pope. Moreover, according to Aquinas, if unbelievers “who have heard nothing about the faith are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief.”[52] Aquinas therefore denies that invincible ignorance saves anyone. Rather, as Scripture repeatedly affirms: salvation requires faith in the name of the Lord (cf. Joel 2:32; Hos. 13:4; John 1:12; 3:16; Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:11-13; 2 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 11:6; 1 Pet. 1:5, 9; etc.). God may overlook ignorance, but He does not reward it.

According to Jesus, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6). Moreover, Paul affirms that “whoever calls upon the Lord will be saved” and asks, “How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard?” (Rom. 10:13-14). Thus, according to Paul it is necessary to hear and believe in order to call on the Lord. Paul demonstrates this in Acts 17, where he finds Athenians groping for an unknown God and he responds by telling them about Jesus, saying: “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring that all people everywhere should repent” (cf. Acts 17:22-31). Instead of excusing ignorance, Paul asserts that God now demands repentance from all peoples. Therefore, Vatican II appears to be at odds with the Apostle by asserting that ignorance (if ‘invincible’) exempts one from needing to call upon the name of the Lord, which requires knowing who the Savior is (cf. Acts 10:34-35; Rom. 10:13-14). Rather, fulfillment of Jesus’ Great Commission is necessary for the salvation of “some from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.”

The Head of the Church

Vatican II also differs from Unam Sanctam in its treatment of the head of the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “[A]ll salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.”[53] Lumen Gentium adds that the successor of Peter is “the Vicar of Christ, the visible Head of the whole Church.”[54] Vatican II thus stops short of calling the pope ‘one head’ with Christ. Yet Christ and the pope cannot both be head of the whole Church; you cannot serve two masters.[55] Moreover, Eph. 1:22-23 teaches that Christ is “head over all things to the church, which is His body.”

Not surprisingly, Vatican II has retained Boniface VIII’s claim that the pope is the shepherd of all of Christ’s sheep. As expressed by Unitatis Redintegratio, Christ “selected Peter, and after his confession of faith determined that on him He would build His Church. Also to Peter He promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and after His profession of love, entrusted all His sheep to him to be confirmed in faith and shepherded in perfect unity.”[56] The claim that Christ entrusted all of His sheep to Peter and his successors has already been refuted.

Christ’s Sheep and Unity

On the other hand, Vatican II views Christ’s sheep in a radically different way than Unam Sanctam. In fact, instead of saying that anyone not committed to the pope cannot be among Christ’s sheep, Unitatis Redintegratio declares: “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.”[57] This document calls such Christians “separated brethren” (more will be said about this later).

Regarding unity, Vatican II asserts: “The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity of both the bishops and of the faithful.”[58] Catholic apologist Tim Staples ties this interpretation to Luke 22:24-32, where “Jesus prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail, so that ‘he may be the source of strength and unity for the rest of the apostles’”[59] However, it does not follow that Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith makes his successors the permanent “source of strength and unity for the whole Church.”

Scripture never teaches that Peter’s successors are the source of unity; in fact, the papacy, with its antipopes and its roles in the great schisms of the Church, has a mixed record on unity.[60] According to Eph. 4:4-5, unity is found in “one Spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” In fact, perhaps baptism, with its confession of the one faith, is a better visible sign and symbol of unity of the Church.[61]

Papal Powers

Regarding papal powers, Vatican II says: “The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, . . . the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.”[62] This claim is based on Jesus’ promise to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). For most Catholics, this is the strongest Scriptural argument for the exclusive claims of the papacy. For example, Scott Hahn argues that the keys imply a permanent office requiring perpetual succession from Peter throughout the history of the Church.[63]

On the other hand, it is not at all clear (1) what power and authority Peter possessed that was not shared by other apostles, and (2) what authority Peter actually handed down to his successors.[64] As already noted, the other apostles shared the power to bind and loose (Matt. 18:18), and Christ subsequently entrusted Paul with the Gospel to all of the Gentiles (Rom. 1:5; cf. Gal. 2:9). Thus, Peter himself held no permanent exclusive power or authority (cf. 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20).[65] Moreover, none of Peter’s successors walked on water or exhibited any other signs and wonders to confirm this alleged supreme office. Furthermore, none of Peter’s successors are part of the foundation of the Church, as the apostles were. There is simply no basis in Scripture or in history for the presumption that Christ granted supreme perpetual power to Peter or to his successors.

Separated Brethren and EENS

Regarding the salvation of Christians separated from the Church, Vatican II takes a cue from Augustine’s understanding of EENS. Having argued that unity is the proof of love, without which faith is nothing, Augustine continues:

Outside the Catholic Church there can be everything except salvation. He can hold office, he can have sacraments, he can sing “alleluia,” he can respond “amen,” he can hold to the gospel, he can have faith and preach in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But never except in the Catholic Church can he find salvation.[66]

Apparently Augustine recognized in his day that Christians “outside of the Catholic Church” demonstrated all the visible signs of Church life. Yet, he felt compelled to insist on institutional unity as the test of the widely accepted dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation. Nevertheless, does not Scripture teach that “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9-11)? Sadly, Vatican II followed the tenets of EENS rather than Scripture, and said: “[I] is only through Christ’s Catholic Church . . . that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation.”[67] In addition, Unitatis Redintegratio 2.22 states: “Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.” Therefore, according to Vatican II, ‘separated brethren’ cannot “benefit fully from the means of salvation” because they lack “complete incorporation in the system of salvation.” Consequently, how do Roman Catholics today believe Protestants are saved?

Roman Catholics find it difficult to articulate how Protestants are saved because of the dogma of EENS. What follows is an attempt to explain this complex issue in simple terms. According to Vatican II, a person is incorporated into the Church by Trinitarian baptism, which does not have to be administered by a priest (UR 1.3, CCC 1256). Thus, Protestants are incorporated into the Church by baptism. However, the new life conferred at baptism requires ongoing nourishment, which Rome attributes to the Eucharist based on John 6:53: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves” (cf. CCC 1392).[68] Roman Catholics are required to partake of this “spiritual food” at least annually, which in turn requires preparation by the sacrament of Reconciliation (CCC 1389). However, Rome asserts that only priests possessing sacramental Orders conferred through apostolic succession can administer a valid Eucharist, in which the bread and wine truly become the body and blood of Christ (CCC 1400).[69] Moreover, according to Joseph Ratzinger (later, Pope Benedict XVI), Protestant “Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element [the Eucharist] of the Church.”[70] In other words, Protestants are deprived of ongoing spiritual nourishment through a valid Eucharist. Hence, according to the Roman Catholic Church, Protestants lack what Jesus said is necessary for [spiritual] life. Nevertheless, like Augustine, Roman Catholics cannot deny the vibrant spiritual life manifest in many Protestant communities today. Consequently, Roman Catholics conclude that Protestants may be saved by means of extra-ordinary grace, being excused from the ordinary means of grace provided through the Eucharist because of non-culpable ignorance.[71] However, this is essentially the same means of salvation that Vatican II articulates for unbelievers. Why is “by grace you have been saved through faith” not enough?

CONCLUSION

Summary and Scriptural Reflections on the Papacy

In summary, Vatican II differs substantially from Unam Sanctam as follows: (1) it says that those who are invincibly ignorant, yet sincerely seek God, may be saved outside of the Church (vs. “there is no salvation outside of the Church”); (2) it recognizes baptized Christians not in communion with Rome as Christ’s sheep (vs. only those committed to the pope are Christ’s sheep); and (3) it distinguishes Christ, the (invisible) Head of the Church, from the pope, the visible head of the whole Church (vs. Christ and the Vicar are “one head,” not “two heads like a monster”). However, Vatican II does claim that the papacy is the “supreme and universal power over the Church” as well as “the perpetual source of unity.” Finally, Vatican II asserts that all baptized Christians – except for those who do not know any better – must be completely incorporated in “the system of salvation” available through the Church (vs. the “absolute” necessity for all humans to be subject to the Roman Pontiff).

In contrast, Jesus says that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. What is necessary for salvation? Trusting the Savior who has revealed Himself through the prophets and in the person of Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:13-14; Heb. 11:6).[72] We Protestants affirm salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to the Scriptures alone, for the glory of God alone (the “five solas”). Nevertheless, the Church plays a significant role in nurturing God’s children on their journey of salvation.

Regarding the nurturing role of the Church, Scripture suggests several ways the papacy may be affirmed. For example, as a bishop, the pope is called to preach the gospel and teach the mysteries of God, as well as to exhort, rule, and manage the church of God under his care (cf. 1 Tim 3:1-7; 2 Tim. 2:2; Tit. 1:5-9).[73] Moreover, as the spiritual leader of more than one billion Christians, he has great responsibility and power (Heb. 13:17). Therefore, he must be careful not to usurp the authority and role of the Head and Chief Shepherd of the Church, nor disparage the authority of other overseers of Christ’s flock (cf. 1 Pet. 5:1-5). In addition, as Paul writes: “Render to all what is due them” (Rom. 13:7). Christians who are under the pope’s care are to follow his example and to obey him, as he watches over their souls (Heb. 13:7, 17); Protestants, as well, should love, honor, and respect the pope as a brother in Christ and as the leader of many of Christ’s sheep.

Finally, with a sincere desire to seek reconciliation between Christians who are separated from one another by various divisions, I commend the following from Vatican II: “Sacred Scriptures provide for the work of dialogue an instrument of the highest value in the mighty hand of God for the attainment of that unity which the Saviour holds out to all” (UR 2.2).

APPENDIX: Summary of Unam Sanctam’s Claims and Responses

(1) Salvation and forgiveness of sins can be found only in the one holy catholic and apostolic Church – a questionable assertion, in view of Joel 2:32 and Hebrews 11. Salvation is from the Savior, who is not bound exclusively to a New Testament institution.

(2) There is one head of the Church: Christ and the pope – nonsensical (one plus one is not one); a category mistake (Peter is a member of the body, not the head). Christ is the sole head of His body, the Church.

(3a) The pope is the shepherd of all of Christ’s sheep – refuted in Rom. 1:5 and Gal. 2:9 (Christ entrusted Paul with the Gospel to the Gentiles); and by John 10 (according to Jesus, the shepherd has a personal relationship with each sheep; there is one heavenly shepherd and many earthly shepherds).

(3b) Only those committed to the pope can be Christ’s sheep – contrary to Scripture: Jesus promises eternal life to all who come to him; and no one will snatch His sheep (including the Greeks) from His hand (cf. John 10:27-29).

(4) The plentitude of papal powers underscores the perils of resisting papal authority – claims based on eisegesis, wrongly portraying the pope as Christ’s peer.

(5) It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff – it is presumptuous for the pope to set himself up as an arbiter of salvation (Heb. 2:10); salvation is from the Lord alone (Hos. 13:4; Acts 4:12).

Notes

[1]Robert Sungenis states that “official statements and teaching of the Catholic Church have always affirmed and continue to affirm that Scripture is written wholly and entirely in all its parts through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and that it is absolutely inerrant” (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing Company, 1997), 38.

[2]Ibid. 4.

[3]Lumen Gentium (LG) 3.25, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, by Pope Paul VI, 1964, at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html (accessed January 29, 2015). A ‘charism’ is a divine gift for the building up of the Body of Christ.

[4]As quoted by Mark Shea in “Just Exactly Where is the Church?” at Mark-Shea.com, http://www.mark-shea.com/unam.html (accessed March 10, 2015).

[5]Ibid.

[6]Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30. Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation), 1995.

^{^[7]}For further reading, see Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII: State vs. Papacy, ed. Charles T. Wood (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967).

^{^[8]}For further reading on Gregory VII and Innocent III, see Mandell Creighton, “Halfway House from Gregory VII to Luther,” in Wood, 94 – 95.

^{^[9]}F. M. Powicke, “The Culmination of Medieval Papalism,” in Wood, 103.

[10]The English translation of Unam Sanctam, unless otherwise noted, is quoted from Catholic Planet.com at http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/Unam-Sanctam-English.htm (accessed February 22, 2015). The name, Unam Sanctam, comes from the first words of the bull: Unam sanctam ecclesiam catholicam (one holy catholic church).

[11]Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 75.2 (ca. AD 255), in Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 5 (ANF 5), ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). Others who taught EENS prior to Boniface VIII include Irenaeus, Origen, Lactantius, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Innocent III, and Thomas Aquinas.

[12]Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 45.12, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series 1, vol. 7 (NPNF 1-07), ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1888).

[13]Cyprian, Unity of the Church 9, in ANF 5.

[14]Anti-popes might similarly be charged with schism; but was Hippolytus therefore outside the Church when he opposed the heretical Callistus, yet restored to the Church when he later reconciled with another pope?

[15]Cyprian, Unity of the Church 6.

[16]Cyprian, Letters 72.8 and 75.8.

[17]Augustine, Address to the People of the Church at Caesarea 3, translated by Jean Goodwin, at http://www.public.iastate.edu/~goodwin/sermo.html (accessed February 23, 2015).

[18]Ibid. 5. More importantly, do we still recognize and love our brothers and sisters in Christ?

[19]There have been steps between the East and Rome to “forgive and forget,” but the schism remains.

[20]Justin Martyr, First Apology 46, in ANF 1 (ca 170).

[21]Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.5, in ANF 2 (ca. 200).

[22]According to Calvin, “Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for . . . the paternal favour of God and the special evidence of spiritual life are confined to his peculiar people, and hence the abandonment of the Church is always fatal.” However, he cites Joel 2:32, “And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape . . .” (Institutes of Christian Religion 4.1.4, trans. Henry Beveridge [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989]). Thus, according to Calvin, the Church includes Jews. The Westminster Confession similarly states that there is “no ordinary possibility of salvation” out of the visible Church, “which consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and their children” (25.2). See The Westminster Confession, in Reformed Confessions Harmonized: with an annotated Bibliography of Reformed Doctrinal Works, ed. Joel R. Beeke and Sinclair B. Ferguson (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999).

[23]The phrase, “the name of the Lord,” appears more than one hundred times in Scripture.

[24]Israel, with its unique gifts and calling, should not be confused with the Church (cf. Rom. 9-11). Members of both are written in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev. 21:27; cf. Dan. 12:1; Rev. 12-13).

[25]Cyprian, Epistles 72.7, in ANF 5 (ca. 255).

[26]Theodoret, Epistles 116, in NPNF 2-03 (ca. 450).

[27]Jesus, having taken human nature while remaining eternal God, makes an ontological claim when he says, “I and the Father are one.” That God subsists in three persons is not a contradiction. One person (the Father) plus one person (the Son) plus one person (the Holy Spirit) is three persons and at the same time one God.

[28]On the other hand, Stephen Ray notes that the President of the United States does not deny his office when he addresses his audiences, “My fellow Americans.” However, the President does not say, “When your President comes . . . ,” as Peter says of the Chief Shepherd. See Stephen K. Ray, Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 59.

[29]Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of St. John 88, in NPNF 1-14.

[30]Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job 21.24, trans. John Henry Parker and J. Rivington (1844) at http://www.lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book21.html (accessed March 19, 2015). Cf. Book 5, Epistle 18.

[31]Catholic Answers, “The Papacy in Scripture, no Rocks Required,” by Tim Staples, at http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/the-papacy-in-scripture-no-rocks-required (accessed March 6, 2015). Staples also attributes supernatural strength to Peter who “heaves the entire net of fish to shore by himself” (the net, according to Staples, is a symbol of the church). Staples fails to acknowledge that moving a heavy object in water requires no special strength, as long as the object is buoyed by water (water was used by NASA to simulate the moon’s much lighter gravity when training astronauts in the 1960s).

[32]Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus Peter, and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing Company, 1996), 118 – 22.

[33]Ibid. 123. Notice the similar language vis-à-vis Unam Sanctam: “not these lambs, nor those lambs.”

[34]Stephen K. Ray, Upon This Rock, 49n64 (quoting Hugh Pope).

[35]Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Polycarp preface, in ANF 1. Ignatius was also a disciple of John.

[36]Roman Catholics cite Ignatius’ letter to Rome as evidence for the primacy of that See, but the text merely mentions “the region of the Romans” (ANF 1). Moreover, Ignatius asserts that all authorities, including Caesar, should be subject to the [local/regional] bishop, as their bishop is to Christ (To the Philadelphians 4, in ANF 1).

[37]Because shepherding requires personal relationships, the office of shepherding Christ’s flock on earth is distributed among many: “He gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers” to spiritually feed the members of Christ’s flock under their care (cf. Eph. 4:11).[37] The Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees in principle: “the office of shepherding the Church, which the apostles received . . . [is] to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 862, at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p4.htm#889 (accessed March 1, 2015).

[38]Shea, “Just Exactly Where is the Church?”

[39]Unam Sanctam merely escalates warnings to the king communicated a year earlier (1301) in his papal bull, Ausculta fili. Not long after Unam Sanctam Boniface VIII wrote a bull of excommunication against King Philip.

[40]The text for this fourth claim is actually divided among four sections (4 – 8) of Unam Sanctam as translated at catholicplanet.com.

[41]Roman Catholics acknowledge the gross immorality of popes such as John XII (AD 955), Benedict IX (1032–48), and Alexander VI (1492–1503), but they say that the Vicar of Christ does not have to be impeccable (sinless) to be infallible. However, the point is that such men should have been deposed and replaced.

[42]In spite of the diversity of interpretations of Matt. 16:16-19 noted, Stephen Ray asserts that “preconceived biases or anti-Catholic sentiments, and not objective study of the passage itself, compel the objector to resist the clear meaning of the biblical passage” – clear only to those who agree with Ray? (Upon This Rock, 61n82)

[43]Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics 22, in ANF 3. Cyprian, Origen, Ephraem the Syrian, Basil of Caesarea, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Cyril of Alexandria also said Peter was the rock upon which the Church was built. Some of these church fathers also endorse other interpretations of ‘this rock’ in Matt. 16.

[44]Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 6.36, in NPNF 2-09. Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodoret also identify the rock as Peter’s confession or his faith.

[45]Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John 124.5, in NPNF 1-07. Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and John of Damascus agree that Christ was the rock upon which the Church was built.

[46]Thomas Aquinas’ Contra Errores Graecorum (ca. 1265) contains a number of assertions favorable to the papacy, including: “It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation” (part 2, 38). See Contra Errores Graecorum, trans. Peter Damian Fehlner, ed. Joseph Kenny, at http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38 (accessed March 2, 2015). The editor says he has supplied “missing chapters,” but does not identify which chapters were thus supplied and why they were missing. Nevertheless, the assertions about the papacy attributed to Aquinas are addressed in this study.

[47]“There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy” (James 4:12).

[48]At Vatican I, Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of papal infallibility while declaring his previous (1854) teaching of Mary’s “Immaculate Conception” to be infallible. Canon 18 of Session 3 asserts: “this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.” The formula used by Pius XII in his later declaration of Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven (1950) is almost identical to that of Unam Sanctam.

[49]Leonard Feeney (1897-1978) was excommunicated for teaching that Jews and Protestants could not be saved; however, other “old school” Roman Catholics remain. For example, several years ago, a contributor on Stephen Ray’s Defenders of the Catholic Faith apologetics forum (http://www.catholic-convert.com/) told me, “You are separated from the Mystical Body of Christ and the wrath of God does indeed remain upon you.”

[50]Phil Porvaznic, “The Unam Sanctam ‘Problem’ Resolved: Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?” at http://www.philvaz.com/apologet0ics/debate9.htm (accessed February 12, 2015).

[51]CCC 846-47; cf. LG 16. Pope Pius IX was the first pope to tie ‘invincible ignorance’ to EENS (Singulari Quadem, 1854). The tradition articulated by Pope Innocent III (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215), Pope Boniface VIII (Unam Sanctam, 1302), Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino, 1441), and Pope John XXIII (1958) has been revised.

[52]Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica vol. 2, part 2 of 2, 10.1 (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947). Aquinas also denies that one who has a false opinion of God (e.g., other religions) knows Him (ibid. 2.2.10.5). Dave Armstrong cites Aquinas, arguing that invincible ignorance is not a sin; but he fails to recognize the burden of other sins that, without faith, condemn all humans. See “Dialogue on ‘Salvation Outside the Church’ and Alleged Catholic Magisterial Contradictions” (2004), at Biblical Evidence for Catholicism with Dave Armstrong, hxxp://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/dialogue-on-salvation-outside-church.html (accessed March 10, 2015).

[53]CCC 846.

[54]LG 3.18; cf. CCC 882.

[55]Conflict occurs when requiring religious assent and submission to the teaching of the pope (such as in Unam Sanctam) that can be reasonably shown to contradict the teaching of Christ and His apostles (cf. LG 3.25).

[56]Unitatis Redintegratio (UR) 1.2, a decree of Vatican II, at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html (accessed February 28, 2015). At the same time, CCC 862 affirms “the office of shepherding the Church, which the apostles received . . . to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops.”

[57]UR 1.3. Interestingly, this broader view of Christ’s sheep has incited a backlash from some conservative Roman Catholics who claim Vatican II ushered in a realm of anti-popes who have corrupted the Church’s dogmas. The fact is, the Protestant situation today is in principal the same as it was for the Greeks in Boniface’s day.

[58]LG 3.23; cf. Cyprian, Epistles 72.7 (ca. 255).

[59]Staples, “The Papacy in Scripture.”

[60]There have been more than forty antipopes (including Boniface VII). Moreover, the pope initiated both the Great East-West Schism (1054) and Martin Luther’s excommunication (1521), resulting in lasting schisms within the Body of Christ. In addition, not long after Boniface VIII, two or three popes simultaneously claimed to be the only valid successor of Peter for forty years (1378 to 1418) – a situation Unam Sanctam did not anticipate.

[61]The Eucharist is (should be) another visible sign and symbol of the unity of the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 10:17). Sadly it has become a symbol of divisions within the Body. Similarly, the assembly of Christians for worship can be either a sign of unity or division, depending on the context. It, too, often is a sign of the latter.

[62]LG 3.22; cf. CCC 882.

[63]Catholic-pages.com, Scott Hahn on the Papacy, at http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp (accessed March 26, 2015). Interestingly, Calvin identifies the keys as a metaphor for the gospel, which is the power of God for salvation (cf. Rom. 1:16; Eph. 1:13). See Institutes of Religion 4.6.4. He says “heaven is opened to us by the doctrine of the Gospel.”

[64]Another question might be: How does anyone today know to which of Peter’s successors “the keys” were actually bequeathed? For example, Mark, a well-known protégé of Peter was the first patriarch of Alexandria; and the line of succession from Peter in Rome is not reported consistently by the church fathers.

[65]Roman Catholics cite Isa. 22:15-25 as a type of the keys Jesus offered to Peter. However, in Isaiah, Shebna, the incumbent, is deposed and replaced by Eliakim, something that has never happened with the papacy (“the supreme spiritual power is judged by no one”). Instead, there were often ‘anti-popes,’ and only in hindsight did “the Church” decide which were the rightful heirs of ‘Peter’s Chair’.

[66]Augustine, Address to the People of the Church of Caesarea 6.

[67]UR 1.3; cf. CCC 845. CCC 830 defines the means of salvation to be: “correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession.” CCC 1129 says that the sacraments are necessary for salvation: “The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.” CCC 1816 also says that “service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation” (cf. Matt. 10:32-33).

[68]Protestants view John 6:63 as the key to Jesus’ Bread of Life discourse: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” Tertullian says of this passage: “we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith” (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37, in ANF 3). Similarly, Irenaeus writes: “Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord” (Against Heresies 5.20.2). Consequently, Protestants seek spiritual nourishment primarily by coming to Christ through the written Word of God: through reading, prayer, and preaching; although Anglicans celebrate the Liturgy of the Word together with the Liturgy of the Sacrament. See the footnote below for more on the Anglican perspective of the Eucharist.

[69]According to Rome, even Anglicans, who claim apostolic succession, do not have a valid priesthood, nor a valid Eucharist, because they deny transubstantiation. Thomas Aquinas explains this dogma in Summa Theologica, vol. 2, 3.73 – 83. According to Aquinas, “the entire Christ could be in both His hands and mouth. Now this could not come to pass were His relation to place to be according to His proper dimensions” (3.81.1 ad 2). Also, “God ‘wedded His Godhead,’ i.e. His Divine power, to the bread and wine, not that these may remain in this sacrament, but in order that He may make from them His body and blood” (3.75.2 ad 1). These are highly strained interpretations of Jesus’ words, “This is My body.” The Apostle Paul suggests an alternative in 1 Cor. 10:2-4, where he identifies manna as spiritual food and says that the rock that gave the Israelites spiritual drink “was Christ.” The substance of the manna and the water did not change, yet they provided both physical and spiritual nourishment. Thus the sacrament can be affirmed as “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace” (the Anglican view).

[70]Joseph Ratzinger, Dominus Iesus 17, [2000]). See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html (accessed March 22, 2015). According to Ratzinger, Protestants worship in “ecclesial communities” which “cannot be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense” because “these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element [the Eucharist] of the Church” (cf. CCC 1275). However, the Eucharist was originally celebrated house to house with more than 3000 people without the sacrament of Orders (cf. Acts 2:42, 46-47). Protestant clergy fulfill the requirements and functions of church leaders defined in 1 Tim. 3; 2 Tim. 2:2; Tit. 1; Heb. 13:17; etc.

[71]This explanation was given by Andrew Preslar in private correspondence, August 18, 2015.

[72]It is vain to call on the name of the Lord without faith (cf. Job 35:13; Psa. 18:41; Isa. 1:15; Rom. 10:9).

[73]The pope, like all other bishops and overseers of the Church, must meet the qualifications of and fulfill the responsibilities of the office.

Mike Field is a graduate of Southern Evangelical Seminary (MA-Apologetics), a lover of Jesus and His Word, and a member of Church of the Cross (Anglican) in Austin, TX. Hoping to retire soon to spend more time in ministry, Mike currently helps his wife, Leanne, train people in healthcare informatics and health IT at the University of Texas.

This essay is reproduced at http://normangeisler.com with permission of Mike Field. It originally appeared in the March 2016 issue of the Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics. For additional resources by Dr. Geisler on Roman Catholicism, please visit http://normangeisler.com/rcc/.

3 Jan

By Christopher on German

Gibt es irgendwelche Fehler in der Bibel?

(German translation of: Are There Any Errors in the Bible?)

Dr. Norman L. Geisler

Die Bibel kann sich nicht irren, da sie das Wort Gottes ist, und Gott sich nicht irren kann. Dies bedeutet nicht, dass es keine Schwierigkeiten in der Bibel gibt. Aber die Schwierigkeiten gibt es nicht auf Grund der vollkommenen Offenbarung Gottes, sondern weil wir sie nur bruchstückhaft verstehen. Die Geschichte der Bibelkritik offenbart, dass die Bibel keine Fehler enthält, aber ihre Kritiker Die meisten Probleme fallen in eine der folgenden Kategorien.

Die Annahme, dass Unerklärliches unerklärlich ist.

Wenn ein Wissenschaftler etwas Unlogisches erkennt, gibt er nicht auf, bis er eine wissenschaftliche Erklärung gefunden hat. Vielmehr motiviert das Unerklärbare dazu, weitere Studien durchzuführen. Dabei konnten Wissenschaftler nicht einmal Meteore, Finsternisse, Tornados, Orkane und Erdbeben erklären. Bis vor kurzer Zeit wussten Wissenschaftler nicht, wie die Hummeln fliegen können. Alle diese Mysterien mussten ihre Geheimnisse der unermüdlichen Ausdauer nachgeben. Wissenschaftler wissen momentan nicht, wie Leben auf den Thermoöffnungen in den Tiefen des Meeres wachsen kann. Aber kein Wissenschaftler wirft das Handtuch und schreit: „Widerspruch!” Ebenfalls nähert sich der bibeltreue Wissenschaftler der Bibel mit derselben Annahme, dass es Antworten auf das Unerklärte gibt.

Kritiker schlugen einmal vor, dass Mose die ersten fünf Bücher der Bibel nicht geschrieben haben könnte, weil die Kultur von Mose ohne schriftliche Zeugnisse bestand. Jetzt wissen wir, dass das Schreiben bereits Tausende von Jahren vor Moses existierte. Außerdem glaubten Kritiker einmal, dass die biblischen Verweise auf die Hethiter völlig erfunden waren. Solche Leute mit so einem Namen hätte es nie gegeben. Nun wurde die nationale Bibliothek der Hethiter in der Türkei gefunden. So haben wir Grund zu der Annahme, dass andere unerklärte Phänomene in der Bibel später erklärt werden.

Die Annahme, dass die Bibel Fehler enthält, bis das Gegenteil bewiesen ist Viele Kritiker nehmen an, dass die Bibel Fehler enthält, bis irgendetwas sich als richtig erweist. Aber, wie ein amerikanischer Staatsbürger wegen eines Vergehens angeklagt wird, sollte die Bibel mit mindestens derselben Annahme der Genauigkeit gelesen werden, der andere Literatur gegeben ist, die behauptet, Sachliteratur zu sein. Dies ist die Art und Weise, wie wir uns aller menschlichen Kommunikationen nähern. Wenn wir dies nicht täten, wäre Leben nicht möglich. Wenn wir annehmen, dass Verkehrszeichen und Ampeln nicht die Wahrheit sagen würden, würden wir wahrscheinlich tot sein, bevor wir etwas anderes beweisen könnten. Wenn wir annehmen, dass ahrungsmittelpakete falsch beschriftet sind, würden wir alle Dosen und Pakete vor dem Kaufen öffnen müssen. Ebenfalls sollte Davon ausgegangen werden, dass uns die Bibel wie jedes andere Buch mitteilt, was die Autoren gesagt haben, erfahren haben und gehört haben. Aber negative Kritiker beginnen mit gerade der entgegengesetzten Annahme. Da wundert es nicht, dass sie schlussfolgern, dass die Bibel voll von Fehlern ist.

Das Verwechseln unserer fehlbaren Auslegungen mit Gottes unfehlbarer Offenbarung

Jesus versicherte, dass die „Bibel nicht gebrochen werden kann“ (Joh 10,35). Als ein unfehlbares Buch ist die Bibel auch unabänderlich.

(Übersetzt von Matthias Ackermann)

Jesus hat gesagt: „Denn wahrlich, ich sage euch: Bis der Himmel und die Erde vergehen, soll auch nicht ein Jota oder ein Strichlein von dem Gesetz vergehen, bis alles geschehen ist“ (Mt. 5,18; Lk. 16,17 Elberfelder). Die Schriften haben auch die letzte Instanz, das letzte Wort über alles, was es anspricht. Jesus verwendet die Bibel, um dem Versucher zu widerstehen (siehe Mt. 4,4+ 7+10), dogmatische Streitigkeiten beizulegen (siehe Mt. 21,42), und seine Autorität zu rechtfertigen (siehe Mk. 11,17).

Manchmal ruht biblische Lehre auf historischen Details (siehe Hebr. 7,4-10), einem Wort oder einen Satz (siehe Apg. 15,13-17), oder der Unterschied zwischen Singular und Plural (vgl. Gal. 3,16). Aber, während die Bibel unfehlbar ist, sind es menschliche Interpretationen eben nicht. Auch wenn das Wort Gottes perfekt ist (siehe Ps. 19,7), solange unvollkommene Menschen existieren, gibt es Fehlinterpretationen des Wortes Gottes und falsche Ansichten über seine Welt. In Anbetracht dessen, sollte man nicht so schnell annehmen, dass eine derzeit dominierende Annahme in der Wissenschaft das letzte Wort ist. Einige der gestrigen unwiderlegbaren Gesetze werden auf einmal zu Fehlern durch die heutige Wissenschaft. Also, sind Widersprüche zwischen populären Meinungen in Wissenschaft und weithin akzeptierten Interpretationen der Bibel zu erwarten. Aber vorher sollte man beweisen ob ein wirklicher Widerspruch vorliegt.

Versagen, den Kontextzu verstehen

Der häufigste Fehler von allen Bibelauslegern , darunter auch einige kritische Wissenschaftler, ist ein Text so zu lesen, der außerhalb seines eigentlichen Kontextes steht. Wie das Sprichwort sagt: “Ein Text aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen ist ein Vorwand.” Man kann alles mit der Bibel durch diese falsche Vorgehensweise beweisen . Die Bibel sagt: “Es gibt keine Gott”(Psalm 14,1 Elberfelder). Natürlich sollte man den Kontext lesen: „Die Toren sprechen in ihrem Herzen: Es gibt keinen Gott“. Weiter kann man auch behaupten, dass Jesus uns ermahnt, nicht dem Bösen zu widerstehen (siehe Mt. 5,39), aber der Kontext, in dem er diese Aussage traf, darf nicht ignoriert werden. Viele Jesu Anweisung wie z.B.: “wer euch bittet, dem gebt” können so falsch ausgelegt werden, dass man sich verpflichtet fühlen könnte, einem kleinen Kind eine Waffe zu geben. Dadurch dass die Bedeutung ohne den Zusammenhang genommen wird, verfälscht es die Schrift und wird zu einer Hauptsünde.

Das Schwierige mit dem Klaren übersetzen

Einige Passagen sind schwer zu verstehen, weil einige Teile der Heiligen Schrift sich scheinbar widersprechen. Jakobus scheint sagen zu wollen, dass das Heil durch Werke erreichbar ist (siehe Jak. 2,14-26), während Paulus lehrt, dass es nur durch Gnade erlangt wird. Paulus sagt Christen ” Denn durch die Gnade seid ihr errettet, mittelst des Glaubens; und das nicht aus euch, Gottes Gabe ist es; nicht aus Werken, auf dass niemand sich rühme” (Eph. 2,8-9; Röm. 4,5, Elberfelder). Doch die Zusammenhänge offenbaren, dass Paulus von der Rechtfertigung vor Gott spricht (allein durch den Glauben), während Jakobus Bezug auf die Rechtfertigung vor anderen Menschen nimmt (die nur sehen, was wir tun).

(Übersetzt von Leo Echner)

Und Johannes und Paulus sprechen von der Fruchtbarkeit, die immer im Leben derer kommt, die Gott lieben.

Das Vergessen der Eigenschaften von den Menschen der Bibel

Mit Ausnahme von kleinen Abschnitten, wie die Zehn Gebote, (Ex 31:18, Elberfelder) wurden “durch den Finger Gottes” geschrieben, war die Bibel nicht wörtlich diktiert. Die Schriftsteller waren nicht Sekretäre des Heiligen Geistes. Es waren menschliche Komponisten, die ihre eigene literarische Stile und Eigenheiten verwendet. Diese menschlichen Autoren verwendeten manchmal menschliche Quellen für ihr Material (vgl. Jos 10:13;. Apg 17,28; 1 Kor 15.33;. Titus 1:12). In der Tat ist jedes Buch der Bibel das Werk eines menschlichen Schriftstellers- alles in allen gibt es etwa 40 von ihnen. Die Bibel offenbart auch verschiedene menschliche literarische Stile. Autoren sprechen von einem Standpunkt des Beobachters, wenn sie von dem Auf-oder Untergang der Sonne (vgl. Jos. 1:15) schreiben. Sie enthüllen auch menschliche Denkmuster, ein-schließlich Gedächtnislücken (vgl. 1 Kor. 1:14-16), als auch menschliche Emotionen (vgl. Gal. 4:14). Die Bibel offenbart spezielle menschliche Interessen. Hosea hat ein ländliches Interesse, Lukas ein medizinisches Anliegen, und Johannes die Liebe zur Natur. Wie Christus, ist die Bibel vollkommen menschlich, aber ohne Fehler. Das Vergessen von der Menschlichkeit der Schrift kann zu falschen Streitbarkeiten führen, welche die Integrität durch ein erhöhtes Wort, höher als das, was üblich ist, für ein menschliches Dokument. Dies wird noch deutlicher, wenn wir die nächsten Fehler der Kritiker diskutieren.

Die Annahme, ein partieller Bericht ist eine Falschmeldung

Kritiker kommen oft zu dem Schluss, dass ein partieller Bericht falsch ist. Dies ist jedoch nicht so. Wenn es so wäre, wäre das meiste von dem, was gesagt worden ist als falsch zu zählen, da nur selten die Zeit und der Raum es zulässt, einen absolut vollständigen Bericht abzugeben. Zum Beispiel das berühmte Bekenntnis von Petrus in den Evangelien:

Matthäus: “Du bist der Christus, der Sohn des lebendigen Gottes” (16:16, Elberfelder).

Mk: “Du bist der Christus” (8:29, Elberfelder).

Lk: “Der Christus Gottes” (9:20, Elberfelder).

Auch die Zehn Gebote, die durch den “durch den Finger Gottes” geschrieben wurden (Deut. 9:10), werden zum zweiten Mal mit Variationen aufgezeichnet (siehe Ex. 20:8-11 mit Deut angegeben. 5,12-15). Es gibt viele Unterschiede zwischen den Bücher der Könige und Chronik in ihrer Beschreibung der gleichen Ereignisse, aber sie hegen keinen Widerspruch in den Ereignissen, die sie erzählen.

Die Annahme, die neutestamentlichen Zitate des Alten Testaments müssen wortwörtlich verstanden werden

Kritiker weisen oft auf Variationen hin, die im Neuen Testament sind, wenn alttestamentliche Schriften verwendet werden und sehen es als Beweis für Fehler. Sie vergessen, dass jedes Zitat nicht ein genaues Zitieren sein muss. Manchmal verwenden wir indirekt und manchmal direkte Zitate. Es war damals (und heute) durchaus akzeptabel als literarischer Stil, die Essenz einer Aussage wiederzugeben ohne den Einsatz der genauen und gleichen Worte. Die gleiche Bedeutung kann gefördert werden ohne die gleichen sprachlichen Äußerungen zu verwenden.

(Übersetzung Dimitri Isaak)

Variationen in neutestamentlichen Zitaten des Alten Testaments fallen in verschiedene Kategorien. Manchmal gibt es sie aufgrund eines Sprecherwechsels. Beispielsweise schreibt Sacharja den Ausspruch Gottes folgendermaßen auf: „Sie werden auf mich sehen, den sie durchstochen haben“ (12,10). Als dieser Text im Neuen Testament zitiert wird, spricht Johannes, nicht Gott. Deshalb ist das Zitat verändert in: „Sie sollen auf ihn sehen, den sie durchstochen haben“ (Joh 19,37).

An anderen Stellen, zitieren die Autoren nur einen Teil des alttestamentlichen Textes. Jesus tat das in seiner Heimatsynagoge in Nazareth (vgl. Lk 4,18-19 und Jes 61,1-2). Tatsächlich stoppt er mitten im Satz. Wenn er etwas weiter gegangen wäre, hätte er nicht seinen zentralen Aspekt in dem Text betonen können, „Heute ist die Schrift vor euren Ohren in Erfüllung gegangen“ (V. 21). Der unmittelbar folgende Satz, „Und der Tag der Rache unseres Gottes“ (vgl. Jes 61,1-2), bezieht sich auf sein zweites Kommen.

Manchmal umschreibt oder fasst das Neue Testament den alttestamentlichen Text zusammen (vgl. Mt 2,6). Andere Texte verschmelzen zwei Texte zu einem (vgl. Mt 27,9-10). Gelegentlich wird eine allgemeine Wahrheit erwähnt, ohne einen bestimmten Text zu zitieren. Beispielsweise sagt Matthäus, dass Jesus nach Nazareth zog, „damit erfüllt wird, was bei den Propheten gesagt worden ist: ‚Er soll ein Nazarener genannt werden‘“ (Mt 2,23). Beachte, Matthäus zitiert keinen konkreten Propheten, sondern vielmehr „Prophet“ im Allgemeinen. Einige Texte sprechen von der Niedrigkeit des Messias. Aus Nazareth zu stammen, also ein Nazarener zu sein, war Schimpfwort für Niedrigen Status in Israel zur Zeit Jesu.

Es ist falsch abweichende Berichte anzunehmen, nur weil sich zwei oder auch mehr Berichte desselben Ereignisses unterscheiden, heißt das nicht, dass sie sich gegenseitig ausschließen. Matthäus 28,5 sagt, dass nach der Auferstehung ein Engel am Grab war, während Johannes uns informiert, dass dort zwei waren (vgl. 20,12). Das sind aber keine widersprüchlichen Berichte. Eine unfehlbare mathematische Regel kann dieses Problem leicht klären: Wenn es zwei gibt, gibt es immer auch einen. Matthäus sagte nicht, dass es nur einen einzigen Engel dort gab. Außerdem hätte es an dem Grab an diesem verworrenen Morgen zu einem Zeitpunkt einen Engel am Grab geben können und zu einem anderen Zeitpunkt zwei.

Man muss das Wort „einziger“ zu Matthäus‘ Bericht hinzufügen, um ihn widersprüchlich zu dem des Johannes zu machen. Aber wenn der Kritiker an den Text herantritt, um zu zeigen, dass er irrt, liegt der Irrtum nicht bei der Bibel, sondern beim Kritiker.

Ebenso informiert uns Matthäus (vgl. 27,5), dass Judas sich selbst erhängt. Aber Lukas sagt: „er ist vornüber gestürzt und mitten entzwei geborsten, sodass alle seine Eingeweide hervorquollen“ (Apg 1,18; LUT 84). Nochmal, diese Berichte schließen sich nicht gegenseitig aus. Wenn Judas sich selbst auf einem Baum erhängte, der am Rand einer Klippe oder Schlucht in dieser felsigen Gegend stand, und sein Körper auf einen scharfen Felsen unter ihm fiel, dann würden seine Eingeweide hervorquellen, wie Lukas es anschaulich beschreibt.

(Übersetzung Robert Koop)

Angenommen, die Bibel stellt sich in allem, was sie beschreibt, als wahr heraus

Es ist falsch anzunehmen, dass alles, was die Bibel enthält, auch von der Bibel für richtig gehalten wird. Die ganze Bibel ist wahr (vgl. Joh 17,17), aber sie hält auch einige Lügen fest, z.B. Satans (vgl. 1Mose 3,4; Joh 8,44) und Rahabs Lüge (Jos 2,4). Die Bibel ist umfassend inspiriert in dem Sinne, dass sie korrekt und wahrheitsgemäß sogar Lügen und Irrtümer sündiger Wesen beschreibt. Die Wahrheit der Schrift findet sich in dem, was die Bibel offenbart, nicht in allem, was sie beschreibt. Wenn man diese Unterscheidung nicht macht, könnte fälschlicherweise geschlossen werden, dass die Bibel Unmoral lehre, weil sie von Davids Sünde erzählt (2 Sam 11,4), dass sie Polygamie unterstütze, weil sie von Salomos Polygamie berichtet (1 Kön 11,3), oder dass sie Atheismus gut heiße, weil sie den Tor zitiert, der sagt: „Es gibt keinen Gott.“ (Ps 14,1).

Wenn man vergisst, dass die Bibel kein technisches Buch ist

Um ehrlich zu sein muss nicht alles in gelehrter, technischer oder sogenannter „wissenschaftlicher“ Sprache formuliert werden. Die Bibel wurde für den normalen Menschen aller Generationen geschrieben, und deshalb benutzt sie auch eine allgemeine Alltagssprache. Der Gebrauch einer beobachtenden, nicht-wissenschaftlichen Sprache ist nicht unwissenschaftlich, allenfalls vorwissenschaftlich. Die Schriften wurden in der Antike nach antiken Standards geschrieben, und deshalb wäre es anachronistisch, ihnen moderne, wissenschaftliche Standards überzustülpen. Deshalb ist es auch nicht unwissenschaftlicher, davon zu sprechen, dass die Sonne stillsteht (Jos 10,12), als sich auf das „Aufgehen“ der Sonne zu beziehen (Jos 1,16). Meteorologen sprechen immer noch vom „Sonnenaufgang“ und „Sonnenuntergang“.

Angenommen, runde Zahlen stimmen nicht

Wie die normale Sprache benutzt auch die Bibel gerundete Zahlen (Jos 3,4; 4,13). Sie beschreibt den Durchmesser als ca. ein Drittel des Umfangs von Etwas (1 Chr 19,18; 21,5). Während dies technisch gesehen nur eine Annäherung ist (vgl. Lindsell, 165-66), mag es vom Standpunkt einer technologischen Gesellschaft aus ungenau sein, von 3,14159265 als von „3“ zu sprechen, aber es ist nicht falsch. Für ein „gegossenes Meer“ (2 Chr 4,2) in einem antiken hebräischen Tempel reicht es aus, auch wenn es für einen Computer in einer modernen Rakete nicht genau genug ist. Man sollte weder von Schauspielern in einem Shakespeare-Stück erwarten, dass sie auf eine Armbanduhr schauen, noch von Menschen eines vorwissenschaftlichen Zeitalters, dass sie präzise Zahlenangaben machen.

Ablehnung literarischer Stilmittel

Menschliche Sprache beschränkt sich nicht auf eine Art des Ausdrucks. Deshalb gibt es auch keinen Grund anzunehmen, dass in einem göttlich inspirierten Buch nur ein literarisches Genre benutzt wurde. Die Bibel zeigt eine ganze Reihe von literarischen Stilmitteln. Ganze Bücher sind poetisch geschrieben (z.B. Hiob, Psalmen, Sprüche). Die synoptischen Evangelien weisen Parabeln auf. In Galater 4 benutzt Paulus eine Allegorie.

(Übersetzung Ute Cron-Boengeler)

Das Neue Testament ist voll von Metaphern (siehe 2. Kor. 3,2-3; Jak. 3,6), Gleichnissen (siehe Mt. 20,1; Jak. 1,6), Übertreibungen (siehe Joh. 21,25; 2. Kor. 3,2; Kol. 1,23) und sogar poetischer Figuren (siehe Hiob 41,1). Jesus verwendet Satire (siehe Mt. 19,24; 23,24). Sprachfiguren treten in der ganzen Bibel häufig auf.

Es ist kein Fehler für einen biblischen Schreiber eine Sprachfigur zu verwenden, aber es ist ein Fehler für den Leser die Figur wörtlich zu nehmen. Es ist offensichtlich, dass die Bibel, wenn sie von dem Ruhen des Gläubigen unter dem Schatten der „Flügeln“ Gottes spricht (siehe Ps. 36,7), damit nicht meint, dass Gott ein gefiederter Vogel ist. Wenn die Bibel sagt, dass Gott „erwacht“ (siehe Ps. 44,23), so als ob er schlafen würde, meint sie damit, dass Gott zum Handeln geweckt wird.

Vergessen, dass nur der Originaltext irrtumslos ist

Es wurden echte Fehler in den Kopien von Bibeltexten gefunden, die hunderte von Jahren nach den Autographen gemacht wurden. Gott sprach nur den Originaltext der Schrift und nicht die Kopien. Daher ist nur der ursprüngliche Text ohne Fehler. Inspiration garantiert nicht, dass jede Kopie ohne Irrtum ist; vor allem die Kopien, die von Kopien von Kopien von Kopien gemacht wurden. Zum Beispiel gibt die King James Version (KJV) von 2. Könige 8,26 das Alter von König Ahasja als 22 an, während 2. Chronik 22,2 von 42 [Jahren] spricht. Die letztere Nummer kann natürlich nicht richtig sein, sonst wäre er älter als sein Vater. Das ist natürlich ein Fehler des Abschreibers, aber es ändert nichts an der Unfehlbarkeit des Originals.

Erstens befinden sich diese Fehler in den Kopien, nicht den Originalen. Zweitens sind es unbedeutende Fehler (meistens in Namen und Nummern), ohne Einfluss auf die Lehre. Drittens sind diese Fehler relativ wenig in ihrer Anzahl. Viertens wissen wir in der Regel aufgrund des Kontextes oder einer anderen Schrift, was der Fehler ist. Zum Beispiel muss Ahasja 22 Jahre alt sein. Und schließlich dringt, auch wenn ein Abschreibfehler vorhanden ist, die gesamte Botschaft dennoch durch. Wenn du zum Beispiel ein Brief mit der folgenden Aussage bekommst, würdest du annehmen, dass du etwas Geld bekommen könntest?

#IE HABEN 10 MILLIONEN € GEWONNEN.

Auch wenn hier ein Fehler im ersten Wort ist, kommt die eigentliche Botschaft an – du bist 10 Millionen Euro reicher! Und wenn du am nächsten Tag einen weiteren Brief erhalten würdest, was wie folgt zu lesen wäre, dann wärst du dir umso sicherer:

S#E HABEN 10 MILLIONEN € GEWONNEN.

Je mehr Fehler dieser Art vorhanden sind (jeweils an einem anderen Platz), desto sicherer bist du über die eigentliche Botschaft. Dies ist der Grund warum schriftliche Fehler in den biblischen Manuskripten keinen Einfluss auf die eigentliche Botschaft der Bibel haben.

Verwechslung zwischen allgemeinen und universalen Aussagen

Wie auch andere Literatur, verwendet die Bibel oft Verallgemeinerungen.

(Übersetzung Jakob Grundmann)

Das Buch der Sprüche enthält viele davon. Sprichwörtliche Aussagen bieten von ihrer Beschaffenheit generelle Leitung, nicht allgemein gültige Sicherheiten. Sie sind Regeln für das Leben, jedoch Regeln, die auch Ausnahmen einräumen. Sprüche 16,6: „Wenn der HERR an den Wegen eines Mannes Wohlgefallen hat, lässt er selbst seine Feinde mit ihm Frieden machen.“ (Pro 16:7 ELB). Offensichtlich war es nicht die Absicht dieser Aussage, eine immer zutreffende Wahrheit zu zeigen. Paulus war für Gott ein Wohlgefallen und seine Feinde steinigten ihn (Apg.14, 19). Jesus gefiel dem HERRN und seine Feinde kreuzigten ihn. Nichtsdestotrotz ist es eine generelle Wahrheit, dass jemand, der in seinem Handeln Gott gefällt, die Feindseligkeit seiner Feinde auf ein Minimum reduzieren kann.

Sprüche sind Weisheit (allgemeine Führer), nicht Gesetz (universell bindende Imperative). Wenn die Bibel verkündigt: „Ihr sollte heilig sein, denn ich bin heilig“ (Lev.11, 45), dann gibt es hier keine Ausnahmen. Heiligkeit, Güte, Liebe, Wahrheit und Gerechtigkeit sind verwurzelt im Wesen eines unveränderlichen Gottes. Die Weisheitsliteratur jedoch wendet Gottes allgemein gültige Wahrheiten auf wechselnde Lebensumstände an. Die Ergebnisse werden nicht immer dieselben sein. Dennoch sind sie hilfreiche Leiter.

Vergessen, dass spätere Offenbarung die jüngere ablöst.

Manchmal erkennen Kritiker die fortschreitende Offenbarung nicht. Gott offenbart nicht alles auf einmal, auch stellt er nicht immer dieselben Bedingungen für jeden Zeitabschnitt der Geschichte. Einige seiner späteren Offenbarungen werden frühere seiner Offenbarungen ablösen. Bibelkritiker verwechseln manchmal eine Veränderung in Offenbarung mit einem Fehler. Es ist kein Widerspruch, dass Eltern einem sehr kleinen Kind erlauben mit Fingern zu essen, aber von einem älteren Kind erwarten, dass es mit Gabel und Löffel isst. Das ist fortschreitende Offenbarung, in der jede Anordnung den Umständen angepasst ist.

Es gab eine Zeit wo Gott das menschliche Geschlecht auf eine Probe stellte, indem er ihnen verbot von einem bestimmten Baum im Garten Eden zu essen (siehe Gen. 2,16-17). Dieses Verbot ist nicht mehr wirksam, aber die spätere Offenbarung widerspricht der früheren nicht. Zudem gab es eine Zeit (unter dem mosaischen Gesetz) in der Gott anordnete, dass Tiere geopfert werden sollten für die Sünde der Menschen. Jedoch, seitdem Christus das perfekte Opfer für Sünde gebracht hat (siehe Hebräer 10, 11-14), ist dieses alttestamentliche Gebot nicht mehr wirksam. Es gibt keinen Widerspruch zwischen den späteren und früheren Anordnungen.

Natürlich kann Gott nicht Gebote ändern, die mit seinem unveränderlichen Wesen zusammenhängen (siehe Mal.3, 6; Heb.6, 18). Zum Beispiel: Da Gott Liebe ist (siehe 1.Joh.4, 16), kann er nicht befehlen, dass wir ihn hassen. Auch kann er nicht anordnen, was logisch unmöglich ist. Zum Beispiel beides, gleichzeitig opfern und nicht opfern für Sünde und im gleichen Sinne. Aber ungeachtet dieser moralischen und logischen Grenzen, kann und hat Gott unwidersprüchliche, fortschreitende Offenbarungen gegeben, die, wenn sie aus ihrem eigentlichen Kontext genommen und nebeneinandergestellt werden, widersprüchlich aussehen können.

http://www.bsb-journal.de/

By Christopher on Classical Apologetics, Education, First Principles, Foundationalism, Logic, Thomism tagged advice

Advice to Aspiring Apologists and Philosophers

Here are some of the recommendations Dr. Geisler has made over the last few years when various students requested his advice on becoming more effective Christian apologists and/or Christian philosophers. Some of this advice was taken from private email correspondence that Norm had with various people between 2010 and 2018. Some was taken from interviews. Some came from memories of personal conversations.

Only one book, the Bible, I read to believe. All other books I only consider.

Either the Bible will keep you from sin, or sin will keep you from the Bible.

Start with Norman Geisler’s Twelve Points that Show Christianity is True and I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.

I recommend earning a Master’s degree in either philosophy or apologetics from a solid Christian School. I recommend Veritas Evangelical Seminary (http://VIU.VES.edu) and Southern Evangelical Seminary (http://SES.edu). I co-founded both. I would take the courses in this order: Apologetics, Cults, World Religions, Logic, Ancient and Medieval Philosophy, Modern and Contemporary Philosophy. Ask for one course at a time if that’s all you do. Listen to the lectures, read the texts, write the papers, pass the exams. When you finish, you will have a good handle on the core apologetics courses. I guarantee you will be better prepared to do apologetics.

Take a course in logic at your university. Or take it by extension from VIU.VES.edu or SES.edu. You may be able to purchase and download MP3 versions of my lectures from a logic course I taught by visiting http://NGIM.org. You can get a twelve-minute sample of that course here. Also read our companion book Come Let us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking.

After getting a foundation in logic, start reading books by thomistic philosopher like Joseph Owens, James Collins, and Etienne Gilson. Joseph Owen’s An Elementary Christian Metaphysics is a good place to start. Then read Etienne Gilson’s Being and Some Philosophers.

The rest of what you need we teach at VIU.VES.edu, namely, metaphysics, the history of philosophy, and epistemology. VIU.VES.edu uses my two volumes on the history of philosophy in their courses. You can find the same books here:

A History of Western Philosophy, Vol. I: Ancient and Medieval
A History of Western Philosophy, Volume II: Modern and Postmodern: From Descartes to Derrida
My lectures on the history of philosophy may also be available soon in .mp3 format at http://ngim.org.

Scroll down on http://normangeisler.com/about/ to see a list of all the 100+ books I’ve written. In particular, master the “twelve points that show Christianity is true” schema. The e-book of Twelve Points that Shows Christianity is True is available at amazon.com and ngim.org. As of 20218, the “Introduction to Apologetics” course at Veritas International University (http://viu.ves.edu) focuses on the twelve points. We should have the MP3s that go with the 12 Points course available on http://NGIM.org soon. Our books I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Geisler and Turek) and Reasons for Belief (Geisler and Tunnicliffe) also are built on my twelve-point framework. Also be sure to get Introduction to Philosophy, Christian Apologetics, Philosophy of Religion, and either The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics or The Big Book of Christian Apologetics. Also you can find many of my e-books at a very inexpensive price at http://bastionbooks.com and/or Amazon.com.

Also master my chapters on the preconditions of doing theology. They’re found in the prolegomena of my Systematic Theology. If your approach to understanding the Bible is aberrant, your theology is going to become aberrant. That’s why it’s important to understand God as the metaphysical precondition, miracles as the supernatural precondition, revelation as a precondition, logic as the rational precondition, meaning and the semantical precondition, truth and the epistemological precondition, exclusivism and the oppositional precondition, language and the linguistic precondition, interpretation and the hermeneutical precondition, historiography and the historical precondition, and the methodological precondition. These preconditions are at the heart of the defense of the gospel and the biblical faith. Many of the theology courses at Veritas Evangelical Seminary use my systematic theology as the primary text. Their “Prolegomena and Bibliology” course covers these preconditions.

Since defending the faith often means defending it from corrosive philosophies, I highly recommend reading booklet Beware of Philosophy. I wrote this as a warning to biblical scholars and delivered it to the Evangelical Theological Society when I was its president. It’s just as applicable to apologists and philosophers as it is to biblical scholars. Similarly, read Explaining Biblical Inerrancy to help keep you from drifting.

I also recommend that you read all of C.S. Lewis’s major apologetics books–Mere Christianity, Miracles, The Problem of Pain, The Great Divorce, and God in the Dock.

Every great idea I ever had I later discovered had already been stated by Aquinas.

Read all the classics first: Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Hume, Kant in philosophy. Then study Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, Francis Turretin, C. Hodge, and C.S. Lewis. Then, if you have time, read the best secondary sources on these men.

The Bible says, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your heart.” You won’t be happy or fulfilled outside of God’s will. And God’s will is for you to use your talents and abilities to live according to God’s Word in the context in which he has placed you. But even God cannot steer a parked car. You have to be moving before he can direct you. Also, “In the multitude of counsel there is wisdom.” Ask yourself: what do godly people who know you best (starting with your spouse) think you ought to do? Spurgeon said, God’s call on your life consists of four things: 1) Do you have a strong desire to do it? 2) Do you have the ability to do it? 3) Do you have success when you do it? And 4) do other people recognize you have the ability to do it?

Remember that God has four answers to prayer: Yes, No, Wait, or “Here is something better.”

Thomism is the antidote to modern philosophy and post-modern philosophy. For Christian thinkers who start to appreciate Thomistic philosophy and want to go deeper into Thomism, I have additional recommendations. I already recommended the reading of books by Joseph Owens, James Collins, and Etienne Gilson. I’ll add Jacques Maritain, Alasdair, MacIntyre, and Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange to that list. It is important to understand that Thomism in the 20th century split into two basic camps–the existentialist Thomists (which has nothing to do with the existentialism of Kierkegaard) and the transcendental Thomists (which attempts to integrate phenomenology with Thomism). I recommend the former and not the latter. Broadly speaking today there are seven different schools of “Neo-Thomistic” thought. In no certain order, they are: (1) Neo-Scholastic Thomism, (2) Cracow Circle Thomism, (3) Existential Thomism, (4) River Forest Thomism or Aristotelian Thomism, (5) Transcendental Thomism, (6) Lublin Thomism or Phenomenological Thomism, and (7) Analytical Thomism. I recommend the writings of the Existential Thomists first and the Neo-Scholastic Thomists second. I recommend avoiding the writings of the Transcendental and Phenomenological varieties of Neo-Thomist thinkers as they have too much compromise with Heidegger and Kant.

First, read my updated book on Aquinas: Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal.

Second, I recommend Etienne Gilson the most because he is the most scholarly. Some find him easier to read than Joseph Owens. After reading Gilson’s Being and Some Philosophers, read his God and Philosophy. This is so brilliant because of making the connection between God and being. God is being! This is the genius of Christian philosophy that the Greek philosophers did not have.

Third, read Jacques Maritain books. They’re very good and eloquent, but not as good as Gilson.

Fourth, read Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange’s books.

Fifth, read Joseph Owens’s An Elementary Christian Metaphysics and A History of Ancient Philosophy.

At some point you will want to read Aquinas’ own writings!

Get the translation by Maurer of Aquinas’s On Being and Essence. It is the most readable. Also read Aquinas’ Summa contra Gentiles. It is easier to master than the Summa Theologica.

Medieval Philosophy: A History Of Philosophy 2011

by Armand A. Maurer (Author), Etienne Gilson (Editor)

Author: James Collins. Everything he wrote is good but especially consider his A History of Modern European Philosophy.

The Principle of Analogy in Protestant and Catholic Theology by Battista Mondin

Mortimer Adler’s books, especially Six Great Ideas.

Horace Bushnell’s The Character of Christ: Forbidding his Possible Classification with Men. (or here)

In email correspondence between 2013 and 2018, Dr. Geisler recommended students of philosophy and apologetics read the writings of several Neo-Thomists:

Étienne Gilson Being and Some Philosophers (1949)
Étienne Gilson God and Philosophy (1941)
Joseph Owens An Elementary Christian Metaphysics (1963)
James D. Collins A History of Modern Philosophy (1967)
Armand Maurer’s translation of Aquinas’s On Being and Essence
Battista Mondin The Principle of Analogy in Protestant and Catholic Theology (1963)

Secondarily, he recommended the writings of Jacques Maritain, Alasdair McIntyre, Reginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange, and Mortimer Adler.

Norm offers all sorts of great advice in this interview:

By Christopher on Ethics, Morality / The Moral Argument tagged alcohol, alcoholism, drunkenness, strong drink

To Drink or not to Drink

Should Christians drink alcohol or not?

Here is the Microsoft PowerPoint slide presentation by Dr. Geisler on the question: ToDrinkOrNotToDrink

And here is the same presentation in PDF format: drinkornot

By Christopher on Islam tagged interview

Answering Islam: An Interview with Norman L. Geisler (1994)

Answering Islam: An Interview with Norman L. Geisler

by Ron Rhodes

1994

Norman L. Geisler is a theologian, teacher, and the dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. He has recently co-authored a book with Abdul Saleeb entitled “Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross” (Baker Books). In this issue of the “Newsletter”, Dr. Geisler is interviewed on a variety of issues related to this book.

Newsletter: Why do Christians need to be concerned about Islam?

Geisler: One out of every five persons on the face of the earth is a Muslim. One out of every five! In the United States Islam is growing at an astronomical rate. There are more Muslims than Methodists in the United States.

These are people who are diametrically opposed to Christianity’s most central belief — that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead. Historically and theologically, many Muslims have been committed to the annihilation of unbelievers — which includes us.

Muslims believe Christians have committed the unpardonable sin of attributing “partners” to Allah — namely, belief in the Trinity. In Saudi Arabia they recently cut somebody’s head off for blaspheming the prophet Muhammad, which, by definition, my co-author (Abdul Saleeb) and I do on practically every page of our new book. Islam is a serious threat to Christianity.

Newsletter: But this book is not written in a hostile fashion towards Islam, towards the Qur’an, towards Muhammad, is it?

Geisler: No, it’s not. We take an objective, dispassionate, scholarly approach in dealing with (1) what Muslim’s believe (and, by the way, we believe a Muslim could pick this book up and agree with how we’ve described Islamic beliefs); (2) a Christian response to Islamic beliefs; and (3) an apologetic defense of what we believe as Christians.

Newsletter: Muslims are monotheists, right?

Geisler: Yes. Monotheism is the belief that there is one God. Jews and Christians are monotheistic. But Muslims are the most rigid monotheists in the world. They believe there’s not only one God but that there’s only one person in God (i.e., God doesn’t have a son). They confuse unity and singularity. Any other persons associated with God is considered blasphemy. It’s the great sin. God has no partners, Muslims say.

Newsletter: So, to say that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and that He was equal with God would be considered anathema.

Geisler: You just lost your head in Saudi Arabia!

Newsletter: Muslims say Muhammad was a prophet. And Muhammad in the Qur’an said Jesus Christ was a prophet. Assuming that prophets do not speak error, wouldn’t this present a logical problem for Muslims? After all, according to John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” So, Jesus the “prophet,” being one-hundred percent correct, refutes Muhammad and all of Islam, right?

Geisler: That’s correct. And that’s a good approach to use. But you need to keep one thing in mind here. What Muslims say to that line of reasoning is that while they believe in the Christian Gospels, which represent Christ, they’ve been corrupted down through the centuries. And so Christians must answer that allegation.

We do this in our book, Answering Islam, by showing that we have manuscripts of the New Testament that go back hundreds of years prior to the time of Muhammad. Now, keep in mind that Muhammad referred to the New Testament Gospels of his day — and indicated their reliability. After all, he said to Christians: “Go and look in your own Gospels.”

Well, if the Gospels of his day (A.D. 600) were accurate — and we’ve got manuscripts that go back even before that — then they’re in a pretty tough dilemma to explain why you shouldn’t follow the logic you suggested above: Jesus is a prophet; He always teaches the truth; and if He taught He was the only way to God, then how can Christianity not be true?

Newsletter: What specifically does the Qur’an teach about Jesus Christ?

Geisler: It’s strange that while Muslims think Jesus was only a man — a prophet superseded by Muhammad — at the same time the Qur’an teaches that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, the Word of God, a speaker of truth, a sign unto men of mercy from God. It teaches that Jesus was virgin born, sinless, performed supernatural miracles (including raising people from the dead), and bodily ascended into heaven. All of this is affirmed of Jesus Christ in the Qur’an. The crucial thing Muslims don’t believe is that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead.

One must emphasize to the Muslim that the Jesus of the New Testament claimed to be God, not just a prophet. We have a whole chapter in our book on the deity of Christ. Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). In John 8:58 Jesus said to some Jews, “Before Abraham was, I am,” thereby claiming to be God (cf. Exod. 3:14). He received worship on many different occasions. One of His disciples bowed before Him and said, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), acknowledging His full deity. Jesus forgave sins, which only God can do (Mark 2:5-7). Jesus resurrected people from the dead, which only God has the power to do (John 11:38-44). So Jesus in many different ways is shown to be God, not just a prophet. The Bible and the Qur’an are irreconcilable on these ideas.

Newsletter: Interestingly enough, the Qur’an does not claim Muhammad was a miracle worker, does it?

Geisler: You’re right! And that’s a very important apologetic point. Nowhere in the Qur’an does it record Muhammad performing any supernatural feats of nature. In fact, he disavowed such an ability. When asked, “Why don’t you perform miracles like the other prophets did?” he responded: “This is my miracle, the Qur’an.” The Qur’an is said to be the only miracle of Muhammad.

Newsletter: Speaking of the Qur’an, this book does not portray God as a heavenly Father, does it?

Geisler: No, it doesn’t. There are 99 names for God in Islam. We have them listed in our book. Out of the 99, there is no mention of “Father.” And the reason for that is that Muslims are rigid monotheists. They believe that being a Father implies that he has a son, and that is considered blasphemous. God has no partners.

Newsletter: What is the Islamic concept of God in terms of human beings relating to him?

Geisler: The Islamic God is very remote, very transcendent. He is not immanent; he’s not personally involved with his creatures. The main thing in Islam is not fellowship with God, but service and allegiance to God. There is no fatherly concept of God at all. It’s very different from the concept of God found in the Christian Bible. In Christianity, believers are adopted into God’s family (Eph. 1:5) and can personally address God as Father (Rom. 8:15). It’s a relationship of great intimacy. Not so in Islam.

Newsletter: Islam and Christianity, then, set forth clearly different views of God and Jesus Christ, among other things. Both systems cannot be true.

Geisler: Right! There’s a big difference between the two systems. The answer to the question of truth is of eternal importance. If there’s a substantial difference between the two systems — and if your eternal soul depends on a correct choice of one system or the other — then it behooves everyone to examine seriously all the evidence and make a truly informed decision.

We can’t just say, “Well, I believe it, I was taught it, I was reared that way.” The question is, Which one is true? If Islam is true, Christianity is false. If Christianity is true, Islam is false.

Remember what Jesus Christ said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6). If Islam is right, then Jesus Christ was lying when He said that. Muslims say Jesus was a prophet, and prophets can’t lie. So they’re in a real dilemma here.

Newsletter: Any closing thoughts for Christians who want to become equipped for the work of apologetics?

Geisler: One of my teachers — a man who spent some twenty years in the Middle East, and made a great impression on my life — used to say that with regard to education and preparation for serving Christ, Get all you can! Can all you get! And sit on the lid! Then you’ll have everything you need to defend the faith as opportunities arise. Becoming equipped for the work of apologetics is an absolute necessity for Christians today.

End of document, CRN0072A.TXT (original CRI file name), “Answering Islam: An Interview with Norman L. Geisler” release A, July 31, 1994 R. Poll, CRI

An article from the Interview column of the Christian Research Newsletter, Volume 7: Number 1, 1994.

The Editor of the Christian Research Newsletter is Ron Rhodes.

COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as “freeware,” without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., “Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute”). This data file may not be used without the permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to exceed more than 500 words.

If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale, please give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688-7000.