Against Ray Ryland (and Calvin) : How God Revealed Exodus and Other Parts of Holy Writ, and What Hardening of Pharao's Heart Meant

Ray Ryland is supposed to be a Catholic priest (I don't known if he was ordained before or after new pontifical of Montini*, nor if this is certain to make ordinations invalid) and he is certainly in good standing with some bishop (or sham bishop, see previous aside) who is in good standing with Bergoglio*. He has produced a book of Apologetics. In itself this is a laudable thing.

Ray Ryland: Catholic Q&A: Essentials of the Faith Explained Kindle Edition
http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Q-Essentials-Faith-Explained-ebook/dp/B017MV56AS/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1450437940&sr=1-1

Below quotes are from a preview, but here is first one from the description, on Amazon:

This is a compilation of Fr. Ryland's column that appeared from 2004 through 2014 in The Catholic Answer magazine, published by Our Sunday Visitor, Huntington, IN 46750. The 676 questions came from Catholics, Protestants, and non-Christians who wanted a better understanding of the Catholic faith.

Compilations are good - I encourage paper publishing compilations of my blogs. But they are good if the texts are good.

A certain topic on which Father Ryland is misleading rather than good (perhaps there aren't many of them) is the inerrancy of Old Testament. The below quotes, as said, have been copied by eye and hand after reading them in the preview. I will comment on each.

Ryland:

The ancient Hebrew people apparently considered that that had only one way to avoid being corrupted spiritually and morally by the peoples surrounding them. That was to destroy these peoples. So in their warfare they were striving for a good end -- to be faithful witnesses to God's revelation -- but by tragically erroneous means. Only gradually did God bring them to realize ("zic"!) that they should seek to convert, and not to destroy, their spiritual enemies.

Lundahl

In Holy Writ we are not told of what the ancient Hebrew people "apparently considered", but what it was commanded to do by God.

Ryland:

Another example of the Hebrew people's gradual embrace of God's truth is in marriage practise. We know that from the beginning of the human race God intended a monogamous, lifelong union of those called to marriage. Yet for a long time the ancient Hebrews practised polygamy. It was not until about the eighth century before Christ that monogamous marriage finally became the norm for the Hebrew people.

Lundahl

God had dispensations, and those who used the dispensation allowing (though not commanding) polygamy were back then not sinning.

Jesus Christ RESTORED marriage to its pristine dignity, he did not just reaffirm sth forgotten and neglected.

Also, what the standard of marriage was in OT times, monogamous or polygamous, we do not know from Holy Bible, though we are told of polygamous people (King David, King Solomon). We do not know how typical or exceptional they were in being at all polygamous. Of course they werre exceptionally polygamous even for being polygamous, these two, but we do not know how usual it was to have two wives and how usual it was to have only one. We are not given statistics. Indeed, statistics are forbidden in one passage.

Of the patriarchs, Abraham had three wives (if you count Hagar as in a way one), of which the third was only after he was a widower, Isaac one, Jacob two or four (depending on whether the servants of Rachel and Lea count as wives), Judah at least two, of which the second had been legally but not fulfilledly the wife of two of his sons, Joseph one wife (who may have been his niece and only adopted by Potiphar), Lot was intentionally monogamous and accidentally trigamous, incestuously so, of which not he, but only his misguided daughters have the blame. I think these are the only men of whom we know how many wives they had and we know there were way more. Abraham at one point had 318 men (and gematria has been done whether this refers to TIH (Cross of IHCOYC) or to Eliezer, both of which add up to 318), and Jacob in Egypt had about seventy people around him.

So, even back when stats of monogamy, bigamy and polygamy would have been feasible, they are not given.

The polygamy, though in law tolerated, may have been back then more like a royal and nobility privilege.

Ryland:

The Old Testament consistently ascribes directly to God everything that happens -- even at times human sin, as in the hardening of the Pharaoh's heart (see Ex 7:3-5). I believe that in the process of unfolding revelation, this was the sacred writers' best understanding of God's providence at that time.

Lundahl

Is this really what Ryland makes of Biblical inerrancy?

It is preposterous!

Holy Text:

Exodus 7:3 But I shall harden his heart, and shall multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt.

4 And he will not hear you: and I will lay my hand upon Egypt, and will bring forth my army and my people, the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt, by very great judgments.

5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, who have stretched forth my hand upon Egypt, and have brought forth the children of Israel out of the midst of them.

Own first note:

The sacred writer, in all probability (or certainty of faith, by tradition) Moses himself, is here testifying as to what God Himself told Moses!

Whatever God harding Pharao's heart may mean, it is certainly not an "incorrect but best available guess" from a writer who had not spoken to God himself.

Now to what God can really have meant, and here I let the Church speak:

Haydock comment:

Ver. 3. I shall harden, &c.; not by being the efficient cause of his hardness of heart, but by permitting it; and by withdrawing grace from him, in punishment of his malice; which alone was the proper cause of his being hardened. (Challoner - an English Catholic bishop, quoted by Haydock)

He took occasion even from the miracles to become more obdurate. (Haydock - compiler of the Haydock comment, but also author of some remarks himself)

Yet Pharao was less impious than Calvin, for he takes the sin to himself, chap. ix. 27. (Tirinus - Jacobus Tirinus (1580–1636) was a Belgian Jesuit Biblical scholar. His major work is the Commentarius in Sacram Scripturam, a Bible commentary in two volumes from 1645. Here quoted by Haydock)

Holy Text as cited by Tirinus

EXODUS - Chapter 9:27 And Pharao sent and called Moses and Aaron, saying to them: I have sinned this time also, the Lord is just: I and my people, are wicked.

And what was the reference to Calvin?

Calvin on Exodus 7:Verse 3

3.And I will harden. As the expression is somewhat harsh, many commentators, as I have before said, take pains to soften it. Hence it is that some take the words in connection, “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart by multiplying my signs;” as if God were pointing out the external cause of his obstinacy. But Moses has already declared, and will hereafter repeat it, that the king’s mind was hardened by God in other ways besides His working miracles. As to the meaning of the words, I have no doubt that, by the first clause, God armed the heart of His servant with firmness, to resist boldly the perversity of the tyrant; and then reminds him that he has the remedy in his hand. Thus, then, I think this passage must be translated, “I indeed will harden Pharaoh’s heart, but I will multiply my signs;” as though He had said, his hardness will be no obstacle to you, for the miracles will be sufficient to overcome it. In the same sense, He adds immediately afterwards, “Although Pharaoh should not hear you, still I will lay on my hand;” for thus, in my opinion, the conjunctions should be resolved adversatively I do not altogether reject the interpretation of others; “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, that I may multiply my signs;” and, “He (78) will not hearken unto you, that I may lay on my hand.” And, in fact, God willed that Pharaoh should pertinaciously resist Moses, in order that the deliverance of the people might be more conspicuous. There is, however, no need of discussing at length the manner in which God hardens reprobates, as often as this expression occurs. Let us hold fast to what I have already observed, that they are but poor speculators who refer it to a mere bare permission; because if God, by blinding their minds, or hardening their hearts, inflicts deserved punishment upon the reprobate, He not only permits them to do what they themselves please, but actually executes a judgment which He knows to be just. Whence also it follows, that He not only withdraws the grace of His Spirit, but delivers to Satan those whom he knows to be deserving of blindness of mind and obstinacy of heart. Meanwhile, I admit that the blame of either evil rests with the men themselves, who willfully blind themselves, and with a willfulness which is like madness, are driven, or rather rush, into sin. I have also briefly shewn what foul calumniators are they, who for the sake of awakening ill-will against us, pretend that God is thus made to be the author of sin; since it would be an act of too great absurdity to estimate His secret and incomprehensible judgments by the little measure of our own apprehension. The opponents of this doctrine foolishly and inconsiderately mix together two different things, since the hardness of heart is the sin of man, but the hardening of the heart is the judgment of God. He again propounds in this place His great judgments, in order that the Israelites may expect with anxious and attentive minds His magnificent and wonderful mode of operation.

So, Pharao was LESS impious than Calvin

We have now seen how, insofar as Calvin says God himself MADE Pharao sin or MADE Satan take control of his actions, rather than permitted him to sin.

But it might seem Calvin was LESS impious than "Father" Ryland (I reserve Father for good Catholic priests), who actually denies the veracity of the text and denies these words were God's and also attributes to the Hebrew faithful back in those days a misunderstanding about the matter as gross as that of Calvin.

Pharao had already chosen what sin he was going to commit. God permitted him to be untroubled by grace and guardian angels about going ahead. This was indeed God judging Pharao, but not chosing for Pharao.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Sts Rufus and Zosimus, Martyrs
18-XII-2015

* By those accepting them as Popes, Montini and Bergoglio are usually referred to as "Paul VI" and "Pope Francis".

In defense of Jay Dyer's Objections from Back Then

1) Creation vs. Evolution : CMI and Reformers, *sigh* , 2) Great Bishop of Geneva! : 2 Timothy 3:16, 3) HGL's F.B. writings : With Matt Singleton on LXX/"Apocrypha" and on liquor in moderation, 4) Great Bishop of Geneva! : In defense of Jay Dyer's Objections from Back Then

Jay Dyer

Though I am a sinner, I believe God’s deifying grace had brought me to this truth. Such arguments, by God’s grace, have already led to the conversion of many of my learned friends from Protestantism.

Bible Smack

It is interesting that jay affirms that Protestantism though heretical, imparts grace. Why has God imparted more grace through heresy, if EOC is true? Because Protestantism has covered more of the world, after all.

My comment

Where exactly is he affirming Protestantism was imparting grace?

[Sorry, missed earlier part of quote than the part I quoted.]

St Eustace pleased God before God Made Flesh appeared to him and converted him. But surely it was not Paganism IN which Eustace was living FROM which he got the grace, rather he got the grace FROM God even while living IN a Paganism which of itself does not dispense it.

Similarily with those living in Protestantism, if God touches them.

The geographic argument is one which works out for Roman Catholicism, actually. Where exactly do you get a Protestant Missionary where there hasn't been a Catholic one before? Not very many places. Not very great peoples.

Unless you would say that Catholics failed to evangelise Kabyls and now Pentecostals are doing the job, even so, Kabyls descend from the people who in St Augustine's day were Catholics.

[Here I catch up on what was referred to:]

However, he spoke about Protestant baptisms being valid. A Protestant baptism when valid is NOT of Protestantism, just as a Protestant Bible in its correctly translated verses is also not OF Protestantism. The Lord's Prayer remains the Lord's Prayer, even if a Protestant is the one you learn it from.

These things, according to RC theology (as much as his version of EO, there are divisions on such matters, notably baptism among non-EO) are not Protestantism providing grace, they are grace working through an inimical and alien Protestantism, despite what is wrong in it.

Bible Smack

But also notice how "God's deifying Grace had brought me to this truth"? Jay assumes that he has a transcendent knowledge which gives Him a truth which others can not obtain.

1 Corinthians 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

So the idea of "hidden knowledge" or gnostcism is an immoral agent when used extensively.

My comment

Grace is not a question of hidden knowledge, but of being touched by the knowledge available. Some aren't, not because knowledge be not available to them, but because they refuse to look.

John 6:66
And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

Christ was not hidden. But Pharisees were not taken a good look, neither were the ex-disciples who were walking away from him. But all the facts they needed were there.

So is it also with this question.

In order to know the canon, we need the Tradition of the Church. We will return to it.

Note also, the ban on "hidden knowledge" (as in knowledge obtainably from only non-public traditions), it is an excellent response to the claims of the Baptist Continuity Scenario, or those claiming Foxe had access to a real oral tradition linking both Albigensians and Valdensians to early Church.

Jay Dyer

"1. The First and Major Error: the Protestant Canon of Scripture.

"My first argument is that if the Protestant has the wrong canon, then his claim of sola scriptura is completely groundless and falls flat. Let me preface this by saying we believe in soli verbum Dei, the Word of God alone, not Scripture alone. The Divine Logos is a living Person (Heb. 4:12, John 5:39), not a book, though the written Revelation of Himself in the canonical Scriptures is inerrant and infallible. It is not, as will be demonstrated below, the sole means of knowing Christ and obtaining infallibly true religious propositions."

Bible Smack

So Jay is really putting forth his basic thesis and theology of scripture. The Word of God alone but not scripture alone.

My comment

Correct analysis. And this is the position, not just of EO, not just of EO and RC, but also for Jacobite Monophysites, also for Armenian Monophysites, also for Nestorians, not failing to mention Old Catholics and High Church Anglicans. In other words, all bodies who have anything like a realistic claim to be the unbroken line of the Church of God, and even some where the claim seems very spurious (and is declared so by the RCC), like Anglicans and Old Catholics.

Bible Smack

Let us see two important passages

matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

2 timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for ins truction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

So I want to point your attention to What Christ says about the Word of God. Man shall live by every word which proceeds out of the mouth of God. So we need to get the complete revelation of God's Word. But Paul teaches that the scripture may make the man of God perfect.(Here perfect simply means complete.)

How can the scripture make us complete when the scripture does not contain the complete revelation of God's Word? It is obviously a contradiction to hold this line of thinking alongside scripture.

My comment

He is not saying "Scripture (and only that) makes us complete", he is saying "when it comes to make us complete, no part of Scripture is superfluous".

I am sorry, but it is not my fault that Pastor Matt Singleton lacks reading skills necessary to grasp the otherwise pretty obvious meaning of 2 Tim 3:16-17.

A little hint is that the words "That the man of God may be perfect" contain the English words "that" and "may", which in Latin correspond to "ut" and subjunctive (in the case of "may be" in stead of "is" or "becomes", it is "sit" and not "est" or "fit").

The original Greek text, though my Greek is a lot rustier than my Latin, since I studied both, has a similar nicety, no doubt.

But not only that. Scripture is here talked of as a completion, not as a foundation. That is, before a "man of God" is completed by Scripture, he may well have become so in the first place by some OTHER instruction, like oral or Q and A type Catechism. And that OTHER instruction is ALSO of the Church. And that PREVIOUS instruction would certainly shape how that man of God viewed Scripture. Among RC no less than among Protestants, Hebrews being invoked by BOTH sides in the controversy on Holy Mass.

The difference is that a Protestant going with a previous understanding that "Hebrews condemns the RC doctrine of Mass being a Sacrifice" (a question begging argument if you mean Hebrews 9, since the RC doctrine allows for singularity of Calvary Sacrifice by claiming Mass is SAME sacrifrice, not other), while the Catholic goes to it with a previous understanding "Hebrews tells us what the Sacrifice of the Mass is" (it is for instance not an utterly other sacrifice than that of Calvary, it is not an addition to it).

Both read Hebrews, both remain convinced of being right, and one of them has to be reading Hebrews wrong.

Even supposing that Protestants were right in supposing Bible alone (in this question text of Hebrews) could settle the question, Protestants are not actually getting "Bible alone" through being spared the traditional RC filter. They are getting, generally speaking, Bible seen through the non-permanent-tradition, five-hundred-years-ago-revolutionary filter of Protestantism.

And five hundred years ago revolutionary amounts to now traditional. And clearly not extant 600 years ago amounts to not continuously from Apostles, which amounts to man made. The Protestant filter is actually precisely a man made tradition.

Note that there is a difference between "clearly not extant 600 years ago" (because if so it would not have been revolutionary about 500 years ago, which everyone agrees it was) and "not clearly extant 600 years ago" or "not clearly extant everywhere 600 years ago". This is to distinguish my method from that used by Protestants who say "I can't find Sacrifice of Mass in Tertullian" (except you can) or "St Augustine's works against Pelagius or on Genesis according to the Letter, Twelve Books, are not quite specific that Mass is a Sacrifice, one could interpret it otherwise" (more probably I should have taken St Ambrose's De Mysteriis).

I believe those who DID get to Hebrews without either filter would by now (in an age no longer drenched in Renaissance rhetoric) probably even from Hebrews be able to lean to Catholicism, even more so if comparing to Malachi 1:11, and if looking up the clear cross reference to Melchisedec in Hebrews.

But going to Scripture before getting instruction from Church is a little like trying to get the top of the house before the foundation is laid. While it may keep out the rain, it is not quite steady without foundation. And when it comes to foundation of truth, Scripture is VERY specific. It is not "Scripture" but Church.

1 Timothy 3:15 Si autem tardavero, ut scias quomodo oporteat te in domo Dei conversari, quae est ecclesia Dei vivi, columna et firmamentum veritatis.

One letter earlier, one verse earlier in chapter three. The hint is so broad, if you miss it, you will miss a barn at three feet distance.

Oh, in English:

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Next verse is also referring to Oral Tradition:

And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory.

"hath been preached"

Not "written and read", but "preached". You cited one book later for an otherwise comparable verse. 1 Tim 3, verses 15-16 come before 2 Tim 3 verses 16-17. If you don't get the hint, I still do.

Jay Dyer

"A detailed response to the major Protestant myths concerning the DC, which is what is required, are ably dealt with in this article of mine. I cite only conservative, respected Protestant scholars of various flavors."

Bible Smack

The problem is the whole label "protestantism" is actual catholic. Ultimately it is a straw man. If he wants to debated evangelical theology then that is fine. But some have used the term protestant as a name to call any non-catholic and therefore set up a straw man.

My comment

Not at all.

The label "Protestantism" is NOT a straw man. It includes all who DO have one specific relation to Roman Catholic Church and Tradition : having their Bible ultimately or mainly FROM it, and claiming it got it wrong. That a reformation was needed.

Oh, Evangelicals and Calvinists may be very divergent about what exact reformation was needed. But they claim one was needed. They and Lutherans are divided on WHAT one should keep from Martin Luther, but they agree one should keep something from him.

And more specifically, from his rebellion against the Catholic Church.

Evangelicals are a brand of Baptists, more specifically a brand of usually free will Baptists. They differ from other free will baptists by not being clearly Modernist and tended to differ from Fundamentalists by being freer about historic senses of OT, now however they tend to coalesce with Fundamentalists (unless I got that part of Protestant history wrong). Free will Baptists and also Baptist Union (which if I get it right tends to free will, but is less opposed to Calvinism) go back to one of the two original sects of Baptists, namely an Arminian and a Calvinist faction thinking they should now reform also baptism according to the example of the Mennonites.

Arminians and Calvinists are Zwingli-Oecolampadius branch of Protestantism, diverging on how much they should take from Luther's De Servo Arbitrio. Mennonites are the Münzer branch of Protestantism, with a difference of being unlike Münzer pacifists (like Moravians differ from the Ziska line of Hussites, in being, unlike Ziska, pacifists).

So, the actual founders of two early forms of "Baptism" in 17th C go back through 16th C. Arminius or through 16th C. Calvin to early 16th C. Zwingli and Oecolampadius, and they go back through Menno to Münzer. And in 1517, Luther, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, Münzer AND the two Sozzini, ALL went back to having previous year been Catholic, which is where they got the Bible from. Similar things can be said about ANY Protestant sect. They can NOT exactly be said about EO or Nestorians.

EO claim "early Church was less Papal than RC, we are just continuing it". The biography of Photius gives them a lie, because in it they claim that Pope Zacharias rescinded the Constantinople IV which had condemned Photius and convoked another Constantinople IV which is the real one, i e they claim that as Pope he had a right to rescind what had been accepted (though not by the faction of Photius) as an Ecumenical Council. But no RC is saying that Photius was a Latin who got a Vulgate from Rome and then decided to make his own translation into Greek. We very clearly admit he had the Greek text of NT and not from the text transmission in Rome in centuries closely previous to his own. We admit his episcopal consecration was by a bishop who had enjoyed some independence of Rome greater than that of Latin bishops. We say he innovated, but we also say he was in a position at least to pretend that he was just following tradition, as it had come to him, while all agree, even Protestants, that Luther was not doing so.

Skipping

for here at least, the discussion of specific passages.

Note that Jay's method is the same as when Protestants argue Christ and the Apostles accepted the Old Testament.

Whether his passages are probative or not, they are an answer to what Protestants usually do when arguing that Christ and Apostles accepted canonical but not deuterocanonical books.

Jay Dyer

"Thus, we see that the NT writers clearly had no Protestant dislike of the Deuterocanon (from now on DC). I fact, it is well known that many early Protestant vernaculars contained still contained the DC Books, or at least some of them, such as the early King James and the original Geneva Bible. Who, then, is right on the canon? Who has the full written Word of God? If a Protestant cannot give a cogent account as to what constitutes canonicity, who makes that decision, and the historical events that makeup canonicity, then he continue to claim sola scriptura as a viable principle. It might simply be asked, why follow Luther in rejecting them? Luther himself admitted he had theological reasons for rejecting them. But that begs the question—to reject the DC because it doesn’t fit with “the Word of God,” as many Protestants do, is merely presupposing you already have the correct canon. But that’s what is in question. If you do not even have the correct canon, it logically follows that you are also wrong about sola scriptura."

My comment

At least in its material application.

Bible Smack

They did not contain the apocyrpha in the traditional sense. The apocrypha was always separate because they were not translating from the LXX they were translating from the hebrew which did not contain the apocrypha. They did this for historical perspective. letting the books inform the reader of the history.

My comment

As I previously answered this one, the Apostles when speaking Greek where not "translating from" LXX, but QUOTING it as an already EXTANT translation from Hebrew to Greek.

There is a passage in Hebrews, which presupposes that LXX got a passage of Jeremiah right and implies that the present Masoretic text gets it wrong. The present text of the Masoretic version is in the Hebrew Original Language, but it is not in the Hebrew Original Wording. Or if it is, Hebrews is wrong and NT can be thrown out. Your choice. Or not, God has chosen, Hebrews and LXX are right, Masoretic is on this one wrong. But it is not me you should believe on that one, but the Church.

Bible Smack

Here we are coming to Jay's fundamental misunderstanding of inspiration.

it just comes across so ridiculous in my mind. "Who Decides what God says?"

God!! He determines His Word.

psalm 119:89 For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.

My comment

And in Heaven, Jesus as God made Man, His Blessed Mother, the angels, the souls of the saints, on a lower level, probably, Henoch and Elijah, certainly do not need to ask any Pope or Bishop what the canon is, it is IN HEAVEN set out forever, exactly as the verse says.

So, IN HEAVEN, God has decided it, once and for all. No doubt or ambiguity possible.

Next question, to repeat what Jay was obviously asking, but to paraphrase a bit.

Who decides ON EARTH what God has said in Heaven?

Bible Smack

Jay appears to be missing the fundaental question. "what is the word of God to begin with?" Is it a set of Holy Books? Or is it the Revelation of God?

The Church does not make something the Word of God. The Church simply has a responsibility to recognize what we know that God has revealed.

My comment

The Church is the "we" - the real we - which knows that God has revealed a certain book.

You admitted yourself, it is the CHURCH which has the responsibility to recognise what "we" - in fact THE CHURCH - know(s) that God has revealed.

There can be no other "we" than the Church to know this, if it is the Church that has this responsibility. Which brings us to the question of where is the true Church.

And the obvious answer is "at least not Protestantism". In any of its branches. It may have parts of Catholic truth and even one true Sacrament (in most forms of Protestantism) which remains valid : Baptism. Plus Marriage, when between baptised persons intending to remain faithful all their lives, and intending to be fruitful and multiply.

But each and every one of the more than 5000 larger or smaller branches of Protestantism (from Anglican Community down to a one congregation Independent Baptist community) shares the root of trying and failing to base its canon of the Bible on anything other than the Roman Catholic Church the original branches of Protestantism rebelled against.

When I say "failing", I am obviously not referring to "in their own eyes".

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Feast: Rome, on the Lateran,
Dedication of Basilica of Christ Our Saviour
Mother and Head of all Churches in Rome
and on the Orb of Earth
9-XI-2015

Why we Trust the Bible : Lita Gets It Nearly Right

Her idea about why we trust the Bible goes a bit like this:

The originals were inspired, The originals were copied, The copies were copied, The copies were quoted and translated, and Exciting manuscript research is now going on.

Wonderful.

All this is very true.

But she leaves out one crucial thing.

When we speak of crucial, why not mention the exchange about gematria* between Epistle of Barnabas and early non-Christian rabbis? Abraham went to (was it Gehazi?) with 318 men. Now, in Greek, the letters had numeral values. 318 looks like TIH. T looks like a cross, and Tav means mark and looks even more like a cross in its oldest forms. IH are the first two letters of IHCOYC - the Greek version of Jesus. Or in genetive IHCOY. And the phrase then means "cross of Jesus", which is the real reason Abraham was victorious or successful. Rabbis answered that 318 is the numeral value of the name Eliezer, the name of Abraham's trusted servant. So, 318 men really meant Eliezer alone went down with Abraham. Now, Eliezer has a counterpart in the New Testament. Jesus also has chosen a one servant as trusted as Eliezer. St Peter.

So, when Abraham went down with 318 men, he went down under the God seen shadow of the cross of Christ, and he went down with Eliezer, who was prophetically prefiguring papacy. Not meaning there were not 317 other men too.

The crucial (or, Eliezeric, or papal) issue Lita Cosner leaves out is the role of the Church as authoritative body of teachers.

The originals were inspired, and the Church knew this.

The originals were copied, mostly not on private initiative, unlike what she imagines, but because the Church had accepted as inspired certain apostolic writings, either by apostles themselves or by certain disciples of them. These were ORDERED to be copied. In the case of Apocalypse, it was certainly copied to the bishops (early Christian term : angels, St John might have called simple priests bishops), of the Seven Churches. And since these (except perhaps the one of Laodicea**) accepted St John as being a guarantee of his writing being inspired, these ordered further copies. But of course, every bishop or series of bishops who received an epistle from Sts Peter or Paul ordered copies too. Rome received Romans from St Paul and one at least from St Peter. Corinth received two from St Paul. Bishops*** Timothy and Titus received together three from St Paul.

The copies were copied, like the originals had been, mainly because Church men required it.

The copies were quoted and translated, also because Church men wanted it. Most notably, when St Jerome translated what we know as the Vulgate, he took orders from bishops (he was just a priest himself), and while translating OT from Hebrew and himself wanting to translate only what he found a Hebrew text for (a preference which Protestants have taken from his personal preference), he obeyed the preference of the bishops to include all books of the LXX (Septuagint). Now, there were diverse versions of LXX, and St Jerome's apparently did not include III and IV Maccabees, the latter being a moral sermon by Flavius Josephus. But he did obey the Church and we do have I and II Maccabees in the Vulgate.

As for Church Fathers quoting Scripture, yes, for one thing these were usually Church men (priests like St Jerome, more often Bishops like Sts Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, though Bede of Jarrown was again just a priest), but even more, it is the authority of Church men which tells us how to distinguish a genuine Church Father (like those mentioned) from a writer who is not holy and not reliable (like Terence or Origen), and it were Church men who chose what aspects (if any, but like for these two) one could accept (like Mariology of Origen, but not his idea of Apokastasis ton Panton).

The last part, and Exciting manuscript research is now going on. Sure. Some of it on orders of Church men. But it is less important than the Tradition of the Church.

For instance, some have found very old manuscripts in Sinai or elsewhere, which here and there lack a verse. We do not go by manuscript research and say those verses were later additions. We go by the tradition of the Church and say these verses belonged there. If they missed in that manuscript, this may be due to having been written by some sect and then taken hold of, or may be a mistake by a copyist, who may have been a moralist or sth, and the mistake was why the manuscript was left unused in a corner, which was why it was preserved so long and so well.

So, when we trust God to have preserved His Word, we trust Him to have preserved the original Church (visible body, not abstract total of all real Christians dispersed through different ones) which He originally spoke to. If you say, God could have preserved His Word without the Church, we answer, He could and did preserve His Church too, and His Word mainly through it. Or through Her.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of Sts Simon and Jude
27-X-2015

CMI : Has the New Testament been corrupted?
by Lita Cosner
Published: 27 October 2015
http://creation.com/nt-manuscripts

* See the article Gematria in Encyclopædia Judaica.

** A council of Laodicea some centuries later gives a list of books from which readings are to be made during Holy Mass and Hours. Apocalypse of St John is not among these. However, even in the West, reading Apocalypse was more done by lectio continua by monks reading it in private. Than by public reading of its texts in Church.

*** These were functionally bishops, but there was at first no one accepted name for these, after these included more than the Apostles. The word "bishop" in the letters seems to mean "priest" rather than what we call bishop. For instance, they could be married. On the other hand, someone has said that only later celibacy was required before becoming a bishop.

2 Timothy 3:16

1) Creation vs. Evolution : CMI and Reformers, *sigh* , 2) Great Bishop of Geneva! : 2 Timothy 3:16, 3) HGL's F.B. writings : With Matt Singleton on LXX/"Apocrypha" and on liquor in moderation, 4) Great Bishop of Geneva! : In defense of Jay Dyer's Objections from Back Then

First of all - "all Scripture" does not mean "all mistranslations of Scripture" like the two modifications Dr Martin Luther defended in his Sendbrief vom Dolmetzschen. Romans 3:28 and Luke 1:28 are indeed part of it, but Luther's versions of them are not.

Second, "all A is B" does NOT mean "all B is A". For example, "all dogs are mammals" does NOT mean "all mammals are dogs".

A statement like "all A is/are B" is unsymmetrical and should definitely NOT be symbolised by the symmetrical A = B.

Now, there is a third point, which is not so much directed against Protestantism in general as against a very Modernist type of it.

slacktivist : The symmetric property of 2 Timothy 3:16
www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2015/10/05/the-symmetric-property-of-2-timothy-316/

It is that when the B of "all A is/are B" refers to a list, it does not reduce A to just one item on the list.

McGrath seems to have made a point that appealed to slacktivist. Here he gives the quote, including following verse:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in justice, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Now, McGrath continues to be cited with approval:

That reinforces and amplifies McGrath’s point. This isn’t about doctrine or dogma, but about behavior — about “training people in living a particular way.”

Is that so?

First of all "every good work" might include also good works on the intellectual field, like today creationism or, as on this blog, apologetics against the Protestant errors (see my observations 1 and 2). But then it seems to be some kind of sloppy reading.

Justice is indeed about behaviour. And actually in many ways about the behaviour called righteousness. Not towsing before marriage is usually a rule neglected by people clamouring for justice, and yet it is eminently just. It is just towards God not to abuse intercourse by preventing conception. Since God had a specific goal in view, see Genesis 1:28. But it is also just towards the neighbour, the child one is possibly procreating, to make a good two-person and these of different sexes and also related to the child arrangement for its raising. It is called marriage.

Now, "justice" was one item on a list.

useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in justice

So, behaviour was one part of the list, but not all of it.

useful for teaching,

This means doctrine and dogma!

for reproof,

This means apologetics.

for correction,

This means pastoral and fraternal correction.

and for training in justice

Now, this last one actually means behaviour.

I looked up the Greek word for "training". Nestlé Aland is good. Here is the end of the verse: πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, and paideia does not quite as strongly as askesis suggest things like fasting and praying. But obviously Scripture is very useful for that too, at least if you count Gospels as part of it. Again, something like "righteousness" and not just sth like modern meaning range for "justice".

Note that paideia does suggest another thing. Scripture does not contain all the good works there are by description. It "inspires" every kind of them, and "inspires" most of those found in the lives of the saints, but some of the actual complexities of deeds, like founding monasteries, are not directly in Divine Scripture. This was a paideia, a propaedeutic, a paedagogy for them. Like playing études is for playing sonatas. Like learning multiplication tables are for doing useful maths, and so on.

But here too, we are once again confronted with doctrine. St Dominic and St Thomas were doing as good works precisely the kind which is concerned with teaching and reproof, mostly by converting or helping others to convert Albigensians. A k a Manichees. And the patron of this blog was doing the same when it came to the poor Calvinists in Chablais. 2 Tim 3:16-17 is indeed concerned with doctrine. McGrath got that all wrong.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Placidus and Companions*
5-X-2015

* Messanae, in Sicilia, natalis sanctorum Martyrum Placidi Monachi, e beati Benedicti Abbatis discipulis, et ejus fratrum Eutychii et Victorini, ac sororis eorum Flaviae Virginis, itemque Donati, Firmati Diaconi, Fausti et aliorum triginta Monachorum, qui omnes a Manucha pirata, pro Christi fide, necati sunt.

If Someone Seeing my Creationist Apologetics Wonders Why I am Catholic, I said what I think about Luther here (link)

Creation vs. Evolution : CMI and Reformers, *sigh*
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/10/cmi-and-reformers-sigh.html

The post links to this blog.

Dwight Longenecker rightly attacked Sola Scriptura - but went wrong himself

Links first.

Page 1 and page 2 of his article.

The good part:

I understand that an educated and intelligent Protestant knows that Biblical exegesis is a complex and subtle art which requires a learned and expert scholar. This is not the way it is perceived however by the vast relatively unlearned populace. They hear Protestant preachers issue prohibitions and pronouncements based on a Bible text and they respond by asking why this text was authoritative and that one is not.

In the public square therefore, the most common objection to Christian teaching on traditional marriage is the argument that goes like this: “You say gay sex is an abomination because one verse in the Old Testament says so, but why don’t you therefore outlaw bacon sandwiches, eating shrimp and say every boy needs to be circumcised? Huh??”

Even the most basically informed Christian will be able to answer the question, but the question would not exist if it weren’t for the false doctrine of sola Scriptura.

...

The Catholic Church has good answers as to why certain teachings (like dietary prohibitions) are not applicable while others are universal and foundational.

There is also a bad part.

The Catholic Church doesn’t mind if there are historical inconsistencies or editorial mishaps because the Church is the greater authority and the living inspiration of the church is there to balance the written inspiration of the Scriptures.

Inspiration has a very precise meaning in Catholic doctrine. A Bible text which is inspired (that means all texts that are in original manuscript or correct copies and translations thereof, and that of books deemed by the Church to be part of Canon) has God Himself for author.

If Amwaz is 160 stades or 32 km from Jerusalem, and we find Emmaus in Gospel of St Luke as being 60 stades or 12 km from Jerusalem, we have options:

• The Syriac manuscript which says 160 stades preserves the correct original reading;
• Amwaz is same city community but not strictly same locality as Emmaus. Emmaus was torn down by Romans and rebuilt, this may have been further away from Jerusalem;
• Christ made a miracle so that a distance of 32 km was walked in a walk of 12 (less probable, but not outside His Omnipotence);
• and that's it.

If one were speaking of a merely human text, one could say they walked together 60 of the 160 stades, and that Luke misunderstood the distance, or that he was told "hundred sixty" and only heard "sixty", but since St Luke in writing of Gospel as well as Acts was an Inspired Author, these options are strictly off-limit. Actually my third option would also involve an error on part of St Luke, since he wrote:

Luke 24:13 And behold, two of them went, the same day, to a town which was sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, named Emmaus.

He said the town was that distant, not that they walked that distance.

(Furlongs = older English translation of stades. Not Old English, since that would be "furhe lang", and 60 furlongs would be "seoxtige furhom lang", but just older Modern English, when translators picked an English measure roughly equivalent to the stade.)

My own normal common sense favourite is that Amwaz was rebuilt further away from Jerusalem than Emmaus was when the disciples went there in company with Our Lord and also than Emmaus still was when St Luke came to Holy Land to make his research before Year Seventy.

Inspiration is therefore a total exclusion of any error, even factual errors "totally beside the point", in the text. Such a thing is NOT the ecclesiastic infallibility, which only excludes error that "fallunt" - deceive - in relation to the necessary beliefs and commandments and works of perfection relevant to our Salvation. Since infallibility does not amount to inerrancy, it's cause is not lightly to be equated with "inspiration" which for one thing is an intimate thing between God and the Holy Writer (while infallibility may be external, such as a Pope going off to teach an error providentially stumbling and breaking a leg and getting correction while in bed, so that he doesn't teach that error, or even getting contradicted by fraternal correction, as with Pope John XXII, after teaching it, but in that case also accepting correction), and for the other produces not just infallibility (freedom from salvation relevant deceptions) but actual inerrancy, freedom from any factual error.

Therefore, the Church cannot enjoy any "inspiration" in the full sense and what the Church does enjoy cannot balance, only preserve, the Inspiration of the Sacred Writings. Such a preservation is done with utmost deference.

This is very much more than sixty or hundred sixty furlongs away from what Dwight says here:

Consequently it is a very big deal when Biblical scholars poke through the Bible and say, “Well, we don’t think this particular story happened exactly like this.” or “The external historical record indicates that these Bible stories are not completely historical.” or “Textual and linguistic evidence indicates that there are two or three different authors here…” If the Bible is all, then the findings of Biblical scholars are an earthquake which shake the faith of many Protestants. The Bible, it turns out, is not the perfect perfect book from heaven they were told it was.

Well, the Bible IS precisely a perfect book, and if not Fallen from Heaven in our time, at least virtually so for each book in its time and for all times.

What Kent Hovind says about chariot warriors being 10 times more than chariots in one comparison between 2 places in King James is precisely what the Traditional Haydock comment (1859, one year after Darwin and not the least Darwinistic or Old Earthish) attributes to the French Bible commenter Dom Augustin Calmet.

Catholic Bible understanding, as far as factuality is concerned, is in fact very much the Fundamentalist one. Kent Hovind and Dom Calmet agree : if you study the matter close enough, there is really no contradiction anywhere in the Bible.

Tota Scriptura (inerrancy of all sacred Scripture) must not be thrown out with the bathwater of Sola Scriptura (infallibility only of inerrant Scripture or "paper Pope" being only Pope).

The one was as much affirmeed by Trent as the other was condemned by Trent.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Germaine-Tillion
St Emmeram
22-IX-2015

Can One Bow Down to Angels?

Josue V:[13] And when Josue was in the field of the city of Jericho, he lifted up his eyes, and saw a man standing over against him: holding a drawn sword, and he went to him, and said: Art thou one of ours, or of our adversaries? [14] And he answered: No: but I am prince of the host of the Lord, and now I am come. [15] Josue fell on his face to the ground. And worshipping, add: What saith my lord to his servant? [16] Loose, saith he, thy shoes from off thy feet: for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Josue did as was commanded him.

[14] Prince of the host of the Lord: St. Michael, who is called prince of the people of Israel, Dan. 10. 21.

[15] Worshipping: Not with divine honour, but with a religious veneration of an inferior kind, suitable to the dignity of his person.

Apocalypse XIX:[10] And I fell down before his feet, to adore him. And he saith to me: See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, who have the testimony of Jesus. Adore God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

[10] I fell down before: St. Augustine (lib. 20, contra Faust, c. 21) is of opinion, that this angel appeared in so glorious a manner, that St. John took him to be God; and therefore would have given him divine honour had not the angel stopped him, by telling him he was but his fellow servant.

St. Gregory (Hom. 8, in Evang.) rather thinks that the veneration offered by St. John, was not divine honour, or indeed any other than what might lawfully be given; but was nevertheless refused by the angel, in consideration of the dignity to which our human nature had been raised, by the incarnation of the Son of God, and the dignity of St. John, an apostle, prophet, and martyr.

From above, I take it the answer is yes:

Sancte Michael Archangele,		Blessed Michael, Archangel,
defende nos in proelio;		defend us in the hour of conflict;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.		be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur:		May God restrain him, we humbly pray;
tuque, Princeps militiae Caelestis,		and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
satanam aliosque spiritus malignos,		by the power of God, thrust, down to hell, Satan,
qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo,		and with him the other wicked spirits
divina virtute in infernum detrude.		who wander through the world for the ruin of souls.
Amen.		Amen.