The God Contention

If God created everything and decided how it would be, wouldn't our sins be his fault?

CHRISTIAN View

The word "fault" means a defect or an imperfection. God has no defects or imperfections, and it is nonsensical to suggest that the contrary could be true, for if God had defects or imperfections, they would not be recognized as defects or imperfections by anyone, including Him, and thus to call them defects or imperfections would be utterly meaningless.

Further, if God were anything other than perfect-in-every-way, nothing could be trusted at all since He is the source of everything. If nothing can be trusted, then knowledge itself is impossible.

So, no, our sins are not His "fault".

However, God certainly does cause people to sin, and we see plenty of evidence of this in the scriptures. The key point here is that it is not a "fault" for Him to do so.

According to the Bible, God caused the murder of His Son, Jesus (Acts 4:27-28). God caused the Israelites to stray from His ways (Isaiah 63:17). God caused marauding Sabeans and Chaldeans to murder Job's children and servants (Job 1:21-22). God caused King David to take a census that He then condemned Him for taking (1 Chronicles 21:1-8; 2 Samuel 24:1). God caused Eli's sons to disobey, dishonor, and disrespect both their father and God Himself (1 Samuel 2:25).

So, you may be wondering, how is this not a "fault"?

The logic is pretty simple, really:

Premise 1 - God did these things.

Premise 2 - It is impossible for God to have "faults" (defects or imperfections).

Conclusion - Therefore, it is not a defect or imperfection for God to do these things.

Frequently, we like to think that the rules that God has given us apply to Him as well, but there is no real reason to think that, and every reason to reject such a concept. It might very well be a "fault" for me to cause someone to sin (Matthew 18:6), but that does not mean it is a "fault" for God to do so. After all, He is God (Psalm 135:6). Does not the potter have a right over the clay (Romans 9:21)?

Having explained this, God calls on all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). And as the scriptures clearly explain, He will hold you personally responsible for all of your sin unless you call on Christ for forgiveness (John 3:18).

God bless.

Do we have free will?

ATHEIST View

by Richard Carrier

Yes. They could only exist if they were the product of his deliberate design. Moreover, all the effects of sin could only exist if God designed the universe so as to produce those effects, thus they must also be his fault.

Take just one example: lust. Lust is the basis for many sins. If we did not experience lust, we would not commit any of its related sins.

Science has proven that lust is hardwired into the brain: it exists there as a fundamental component of the actual design of the human brain and body. So if God designed that brain and body, he must have consciously and deliberately programmed it to experience and be motivated by lust. Yet there is no credible reason for any intelligent designer to program our brains to feel lust. Lust serves no intelligent purpose. We don't need it to experience love. We love friends, neighbors, and family without experiencing lust; even love for our spouses isn't produced by lust, but respect and admiration and compassion. And we don't need lust for procreation. Most life on earth reproduces without even brains, much less the means to experience lust. God could have designed the universe so that love between a man and a woman spontaneously generates a child.

However, evolution by natural selection (in other words, the complete absence of a compassionate and intelligent designer) explains why our brains are programmed to feel lust. Indeed, it is the only plausible explanation of that fact. As a product of God's design, it makes no sense at all. But as such a product, God shares responsibility for all the sins motivated by the lust that he installed in our brains.

The Science of Lust

Comments

Anonymous writes:

Doesn't the Bible say that God does not tempt? - James 1:13

If God makes people sin, isn't that contradictory?

Andrew @EC writes:

I commend Timothy on his honesty, at least. This bit here--

----------
The logic is pretty simple, really:

Premise 1 - God did these things.

Premise 2 - It is impossible for God to have "faults" (defects or imperfections).

Conclusion - Therefore, it is not a defect or imperfection for God to do these things.
----------

...says it all. Timothy even did us the favor of using the generic word "things" to illustrate that Christian "logic" can answer *any* criticism (so long as you're willing to never think about it again).

Was God wrong for ordering the slaughter of the Amalekites? Nope, because God did it, and nothing God did can be wrong.

Was God wrong for setting up a system of eternal punishment and torture? Nope, because God did it, and nothing God did can be wrong.

Brilliant!

caharris writes:

If we were to accept Timothy's premises, then we should be able to kill people whenever we want because it is consistent with the nature of God, which, like he pointed out, isn't faulty.

Wait, what?? No, Timothy's premise 2 is faulty logic.

Please, come up with a better answer.

Timothy McCabe writes:

caharris,

I'm afraid I don't follow your argument. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind trying to lay it out with clear and specific premises and a conclusion that necessarily follows from those premises for me. If you'd rather communicate via email, feel free to use the Contact Us page.

Andrew,

You are correct regarding the Amalekites and the existence of Hell. You are also correct that Christian logic can answer any criticism. In fact, it is the only worldview in which coherent logic is possible.

Anonymous,

James 1:13 is addressed here:
http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=147

Randy Pelton writes:

Timothy,

As I am sure you know a syllogism is only as good as its premises and the conclusion, while perhaps a logical derivative of the premises, is true only if the premises are true. I take issue with premise 2. You offer no proof of its veracity. In fact, this is a logical fallacy because your premise is a conclusion itself for which you have offered no evidence to establish it as true. A very textbook example of begging the question. Any person convinced by this argument will be so only because they have accepted your conclusion despite any and all evidence to the contrary. In other words, premise 2 and your concluson require faith, and as we know faith is the acceptance of a conclusion without any evidence to support it or in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Timothy McCabe writes:

Randy,

I established premise 2 in the first few paragraphs of my answer above. To reiterate:

AP1 - God has ultimate authority.

AP2 - If God were ever in error, He would have deviated from that which is in ultimate authority.

AC1 - Therefore, since God cannot both be the ultimate authority and not be the ultimate authority, God is never errant.

The question asked was "If God created everything and decided how it would be, wouldn't our sins be his fault?" So, the questioner grants the premise that God exists. This does not need to be proven. The questioner grants that God created everything. This also does not need to be proven. The questioner grants that God decided how everything would be. This likewise does not need to be proven. All are granted assumptions within the original question and therefore none need to be proven.

See the following comment for a continuation...

Timothy McCabe writes:

The question above can be rephrased as the following argument:

BP1 - God causes everything to happen the way it does.
BP2 - Sin happens.
BC1 - Therefore God causes sin to happen.
BC2 - Therefore God is at fault.

You'll note that I agree with BP1, BP2, and BC1. However, because I agree with BP1, I reject BC2. I do not believe that BC2 follows logically from BP1 and BP2 -- in fact, I believe BC2 is logically precluded from being possible specifically because of the veracity of BP1 (see AP1, AP2 and AC1 above).

There is no begging of any question here.

Thanks and God bless.

Charles Rath writes:

The way Timothy outlined it,

BP1 - God causes everything to happen the way it does.
BP2 - Sin happens.
BC1 - Therefore God causes sin to happen.
BC2 - Therefore God is at fault.

is a very accurate description of the logical argument. However, the reason why there is a disagreement at all is that the definition of "God" is used differently between Timothy and the original author of the question. Timothy is assuming, due to Scripture, that the nature of God is such that he cannot be morally errant. God is described in Scripture as being morally perfect; there is, however, no logical reason why moral perfection and metaphysical perfection are mutually inclusive. A metaphysically perfect and all-powerful God who was morally imperfect could easily create the Scripture to lie and say he was, in fact, the moral ideal. The point of reasoning on which Timothy's argument turns is an assumption based on faith rather than logic, which he is not explicitly including.

Timothy McCabe writes:

Charles,

As I said above:

AP1 - God has ultimate authority (God causes EVERYTHING to happen the way it does).

AP2 - If God were ever in error, He would have deviated from that which is in ultimate authority.

AC1 - Therefore, since God cannot both be the ultimate authority and not be the ultimate authority, God is never errant.

This would apply to any error, moral or metaphysical, and any concept of God that meets AP1, as the Christian God does. Where exactly are my unincluded premises?

Charles Rath writes:

An error is something done wrong, according to the intentions of the person performing the error or of the person judging them. An evil action is not necessarily an error, and it would certainly not be an error if committed by a God which was the ultimate authority. However, the fact that it was not in error does not keep it from being evil. As human evil is always considered an error as it is judged to be something done wrong according to God, if you accept that is what happens, you have wrongly associated evil with error. Evil can be deliberate, and if deliberately acted out by a God in ultimate authority, no, it is not an error. But God is still responsible, and it still makes him the perpetrator of an evil act. As perpetrators of deliberate evil are considered evil, it stands to reason that God is therefore himself evil. The phrase "God's fault" was used, I believe, to mean that he is responsible for his actions and should be held accountable to them, that he is evil

Timothy McCabe writes:

Charles,

I'm not following how you are defining evil. It seems to me that evil (or sin) is a deviation from the moral authority, which the questioner presupposes is God.

This leads me to AC1 - God cannot both be the ultimate authority and not be the ultimate authority.

You seem to have a definition for evil that presupposes a separate moral authority distinct from the One who "decides how everything would be".

But if that's the case, He decides how everything would be and it is not the case that He decides how everything would be. If that's what you're claiming, its thoroughly incoherent.

Diane writes:

If God created everything and decided how it would be, wouldn't our sins be his fault?

- Probably, but since the question assumes that Christianity rejects evolution and the science behind it, the question is badly flawed.

No intelligent person - Christian or otherwise - thinks that the world, or the people in it are just holograms in God's video arcade. So it's not Gd's fault that we are killing the planet, it's our fault. And it's not Gd's fault that we are too greedy to prevent the death's of millions from hunger. It's our fault. If it were all pre-ordained, there would be no need for a theology which includes a final Judgement, would there?

Kishore shenoy M writes:

Timothy,

Reasoning ends when we say "god did it coz god wanted it to happen and whatever he does is the absolute truth". Then the point of argument never comes into picture. we can stop it when it starts. The very point of gods existence is in question when Man just a small part of such a huge universe.

Branden Y writes:

Religon is a weapon of mass destruction

Agnostic Apatheist writes:

Part I:
No one seems to be taking issue with McCabe’s use of the word “fault”. McCabe is twisting this discussion by defining “fault” as a defect, imperfection, or error. But the question is referring to responsibility, and thus, moral culpability. To rephrase the question: if God created everything and decided how things would be, isn’t God responsible for our sins? In other words, shouldn’t God be morally culpable for our sins? The answer is “yes”.

McCabe’s argument is irrelevant since premise 2 (below) uses a different understanding of “fault” than used in the question.

Premise 1 - God did these things.

Premise 2 - It is impossible for God to have "faults" (defects or imperfections).

Conclusion - Therefore, it is not a defect or imperfection for God to do these things.

Agnostic Apatheist writes:

Part II:
McCabe says, “It might very well be a "fault" for me to cause someone to sin, but that does not mean it is a "fault" for God to do so. After all, He is God.” But he never explains why being a god exempts him from responsibility, though we, as humans, are not exempt under the same circumstances. Is it merely because God is more powerful and can assert his will by force – i.e. might makes right? What is it about being a god that exempts him from culpability?

The fact is God is responsible or blameworthy for our sins. He created us sick and commands us to be well, and when we fail (since God has created us with the desire to sin and burdens us with Adam & Eve’s sin) we are banished to eternal torture. If a human ruler behaved this way, we would call him a tyrant and a criminal. Such a person would deserve the death penalty for the countless suffering he caused. Does McCabe actually think this behavior is morally acceptable?

Timothy McCabe writes:

1. No one is taking issue with my use of the word "fault" because I understood the intent of its use. No one would say "It's Joe's fault I'm so happy" unless the use of the word "fault" was intended as a joke. The word does not carry neutral intent.

2. The concept you've presented of immorality is incoherent:

If Christianity is true, then the Christian God never does anything immoral.

If Christianity is false, then the concept of immorality has no meaning, since all things derive their meaning from the person of the Christian God.

To suggest that immorality has meaning is to agree that Christianity is true and that the Christian God is perfectly good. Therefore, to suggest the Christian God is immoral is to accept the truth of Christianity while simultaneously rejecting it. This incoherent position is what you are advocating.

3. To be responsible is not the same as to be "blameworthy". The latter is a subcategory of the former. The two cannot be equated.

Agnostic Apatheist writes:

Tim - In your statement, "It's Joe's fault I'm so happy", the term "fault" does not mean error, defect, or imperfection. It still means "responsible" or "to have caused" (in this case). We can rephrase it to say, "Joe is the one who is responsible for making me happy". But we generally reserve the term when referring to negative or blameworthy situations. I never said it had a neutral connotation.

Also, you state that the concept of immorality is incoherent. You said that if Christianity is true, then God never does anything evil. The keyword is "if". You believe that anything God says and commands is good. To you, it isn't that God can only do good. It is that whatever he does is deemed good.

But humans deem an act to be good (or evil) based on an act's impact on humans. And if Christianity is false (which it is) then God is a criminal. In fact, by human standards (the only standard that matters), God is synonymous with evil. And the evil in this world is his "fault".

Timothy McCabe writes:

AgAp,

You say "the term 'fault' does not mean error, defect, or imperfection", yet you also say "we generally reserve the term when referring to negative or blameworthy situations".

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to say, or how it calls into question my original answer. Let me put this as clearly as I can: God causes us to sin, but it is not sin for Him to do so. If your argument is that, according to Christianity, God causes us to sin, then I agree with you. If your argument is that, according to Christianity, He is wrong to do so, then I disagree with you, because such a suggestion is logically incoherent.

If your argument is all about spin and semantics, then I am uninterested in the discussion.

Timothy McCabe writes:

AgAp,

"Humans deem an act to be good (or evil) based on an act's impact on humans."

I don't and I'm a human. Frankly, I doubt even you agree with your concept of "good". Is it perfectly moral to beat or mutilate one's pet simply because it brings happiness to the human who does it?

But even if you are consistent with your own description of goodness, defining the concept of "good" by its impact on humans is purely arbitrary: there is absolutely no reason the rest of us should agree to your theories of what is "good" any more so than those of Gordon Gecko or Adolf Hitler -- you don't have ontological authority.

Since you have no ontological authority, any explanation of what qualifies as truly "good" that you can possibly invent is definitively arbitrary, regardless of how many others agree with it.

Apart from the Christian God, "good" loses all meaning (as does everything else).

Timothy McCabe writes:

AgAp,

"By human standards... God is synonymous with evil."

This may very well be the case, but it just serves to demonstrate how skewed and inaccurate our views of ourselves are. We actually think that we, whose very thoughts are predetermined by God, are in an ontologically authoritative position to condemn Him! LOL!

I think it's important to point out that judging any worldview using the standards of another is a form of straw man. Each worldview stands or falls based on its own standards.

And, except for Christianity, they all fall by their own standards. This includes all forms of Humanism.

Agnostic Apatheist writes:

I see. So what you are saying is that since God is good (by your understanding of God and "good"), he cannot be blamed for causing us to sin (i.e. causing us to miss the mark that he established). But then again, you've never actually established that God is good.

I can also assert that my god, Demented Santa Claus, is good. He takes toys away from little boys and girls without their permission at Xmas time. He also sprinkles cyanide dust on the cookies that mom & dad left for him. But while I admit he took the toys and did sprinkle cyanide on the cookies, he didn't steal or poison anyone since stealing and poisoning are not good and defies the definition that I've arbitrarily assigned to Demented Santa Claus. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I guess the concept of "fault" makes no sense to your God just as "stealing" and "poisoning" make no sense to my Demented Santa Claus.

Agnostic Apatheist writes:

To your point about mutilating one's pet: It depends on what standard you use to determine what is moral. Morality is subjective and relative; however, there can be an objective basis for normative morality if we agree on the goal that we wish to achieve.

Moreover, I never claimed that morality was arbitrary. That's your erroneous reading of my post. Read it again without injecting your biases into my words.

As for your last post, I see you've conveniently removed my phrase expressing that the only standard that matters is the one we (as humans) establish. Even if God exists, there is no reason why I should assume he is good; you've never demonstrate that as fact. Nor have you given me reason to use God as the standard for establishing what is good. You've merely asserted it without evidence. But I'm glad you admit that God is synonymous with evil (by human standards).

Timothy McCabe writes:

AgAp,

I've explained why God necessarily exists because of the impossibility of the contrary and why He has necessarily caused all temporal things because of the impossibility of the contrary:

http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=424

Up above in my original column on this very page I explained why the God that necessarily exists is necessarily good, likewise because of the impossibility of the contrary.

Inventing your own creation of a god that cannot possibly be real is simply another straw man and has nothing to do with the discussion.

God bless.

Agnostic Apatheist writes:

You did not demonstrate that God is necessarily good. You merely asserted it. Sorry, Tim. I need evidence to be convinced. I'm not going to take your word for it.

Also, you stated, "Inventing your own creation of a god that cannot possibly be real is simply another straw man...." Funny you should say that. That's exactly what I've been trying to tell you about YHWH.

Timothy McCabe writes:

AgAp,

"You did not demonstrate that God is necessarily good."

Sure I did. Here's another way to look at it:

P1 To sin is to disobey God.
P2 God does not disobey Himself.
C God does not sin.

God is good because of the impossibility of the contrary. As I explained in the original answer up above, it's incoherent to suggest otherwise.

Agnostic Apatheist writes:

So your argument is circular.

P1 = To sin is to disobey God.
P2 = God does not sin (since sin = to disobey God).
C = Therefore, God does not sin

Sorry if I'm not convinced.

Your Average Atheist writes:

Tim,
Premise 1 already implies that God is the standard for determining what is good, hence, the concept of sin. Isn't that what is in question? You seem to be assuming the very thing that AgAp asked you to prove.

Timothy McCabe writes:

There is nothing circular about my argument. Here are two things to consider:

1. AgAp claims that if the Christian God exists, He is immoral. However, if the Christian God exists, then P1 and P2 are true by definition. Therefore, AgAp's claim is that P1 and P2 are true, yet the conclusion that necessarily follows from them is false. AgAp's claim is utterly incoherent.

2. Even if AgAp somehow did not intend to presuppose P1 and P2, they are necessarily true anyway within any worldview that accepts the validity of the laws of logic in conjunction with any concept of authoritative morality. To state that someone is "moral" or "immoral", and for that statement to have meaning, necessitates the validity of P1 and P2.

Agnostic Apatheist writes:

So using your argument, I can replace the term, God, with anything I want.

P1 = To sin is to disobey Satan
P2 = Satan does not disobey himself
C = Satan does not sin

This is bad argument. I still have not proven that P1 is true, and I have merely reiterated P1 in another form (i.e. in P2).

Moreover, your post above misunderstands the point. You assume that sinning is immoral or not sinning is moral. But that is the question; you haven't demonstrated that. To disobey God may be the moral thing to do or to obey God may be the immoral thing to do.

Your second point has already been addressed in another post.

Timothy McCabe writes:

If we are not presupposing the P1 and P2 that I used in my argument, then we aren't discussing the Christian God.

"To disobey God may be the moral thing to do..."

Not if we are talking about the Christian God. If you are talking about some other God, or some distorted version of the Christian God who has no moral authority, then you are committing a straw man fallacy. If you are talking about the Christian God, you are talking about someone with moral authority. If you are talking about someone without moral authority then you are not talking about the Christian God.

Having complete moral authority is part of the definition of who the Christian God is. He isn't the Christian God if He has no moral authority: He's somebody else.

Agnostic Apatheist writes:

Once again... you are asserting the very thing that I am asking you to demonstrate. From the beginning you have already defined God a certain way, but I'm asking you to demonstrate that your definition is accurate and true. You are merely asserting it as true without proving it to be true.

Timothy McCabe writes:

What are you asking me to demonstrate exactly? That according to Christianity, God is moral?

Here you go: Matthew 5:48; Luke 18:19; Deuteronomy 32:4.

If you are postulating a god who is not moral, then you are clearly postulating a god other than the one that Christians worship and you are not arguing against Christianity but rather a straw man. Go ahead and reject immoral gods. Your rejection of immoral gods has nothing to do with Christianity or the Christian God.

If that's not what you wanted me to demonstrate, please let me know what you did want me to demonstrate.

Agnostic Apatheist writes:

I am not postulating a god who is not moral. I am asking you to demonstrate that God is good. All you've done is assert that god is good by defining him a certain way, in essence, you assume that he is the standard of all that is good. That may be acceptable to me but only if I already agree with your definition. But that is the very thing I am questioning and asking you to prove.

Moreover, quoting the Bible isn't proof that God is good. It only demonstrates that the Bible says he is good.

Timothy McCabe writes:

If the Bible is true, then the Christian God is good, as I demonstrated. If the Bible is not true, then the Christian God doesn't exist. It doesn't make sense to claim that someone who doesn't exist does all kinds of immoral things as you have suggested.

Does this answer your question?

Agnostic Apatheist writes:

It doesn't answer the issue/ question at all. You are merely asserting that Bible is true and therefore concluding that the God is good (because it says so). You haven't demonstrated God's goodness and you haven't demonstrated that the Bible is accurate with respect to information about God, let along anything else.

Your Average Atheist writes:

Tim,

So your logic is basically that God wrote the Bible and the Bible says God is good; therefore, God must be good. That's unassailable reasoning. Where do I sign up to become a believer?!

Timothy McCabe writes:

YAA,

An omnipotent, singular, personal God necessarily exists because of the impossibility of the contrary and He necessarily is the First Cause (and thus the ultimate authority) behind all things temporal.

http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=424

http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=4

http://www.godcontention.org/index.php?qid=248

Since God is necessarily the ultimate authority, in what way is it coherent to suggest that He has not done what He ought? "Ought" according to what authority?

YAA writes:

I think that's been the discussion. You haven't established that God is an authority on anything.

Fletchus writes:

Divine Command Theory at its best!

The question presumes that a god exists, but it does not presume God’s goodness. It is asking, Is God responsible (at fault) for the manifestation of sin (evil in action) in his creation. In other words, is God the creator of evil?

McCabe’s fallacious argument from definition presumes that God is perfect and cannot sin. While his argument may be logically valid, it is not logically sound because it presumes the conclusion of God’s goodness in the premise.

If God spans time and created everything with intent, then God MUST be responsible for all that exists, including the existence of sin in HIS creation. If God didn’t want sin to exist then he only needed to make a different creation where sin doesn’t exist. What we have in this creation MUST be exactly what God wants, which is the existence of sin and a Hell for punishment.

While God can be an authority, that doesn’t mean he isn’t an evil authority when it comes to human well-being.

Timothy McCabe writes:

"While God can be an authority, that doesn’t mean he isn’t an evil authority when it comes to human well-being."

Evil according to whom?

Fletchus writes:

Sorry, I don't get notifications when there are replies here.

Evil according to the facts relating to things which are detrimental to human well-being.

Timothy McCabe writes:

Fletchus,

If the Christian God exists (which He must if He caused sin), then He meets the Biblical description. If He does not meet the Biblical description, then he cannot be said to be the Christian God.

By the Biblical description, He alone is in authority over all of His creation.

In order for something to be "wrong" in some way, it must be contrary to that which is in authority. God, in the Christian view, can certainly create something that is contrary to Him (in opposition to Him, disobedient toward Him); but He cannot be contrary to Himself: there is a huge difference between sinning and causing someone else to sin. God does one, not the other.

I think your final statement clears things up nicely -- according to Humanism, if the Christian God exists, He is bad. Thus, if the Christian God exists, Humanism is obviously false (or "wrong") and should be repented of.

Christianity and Humanism, as you've demonstrated, are definitely incompatible.

Fletchus writes:

How would we know if the Biblical description of God is accurate? God could be an evil being trying to deceive us. Honestly, I have a difficult time equating the supposed acts of the Christian God with a loving being. It seems to me that love and the Christian God are incompatible since God unnecessarily creates a place of *eternal* torture to punish people for acting on the nature that HE gave them. If that is not pure evil, what is? And if that is what 'Christian good' means, I'm not sure why anyone would want to be a part of it. What value is there in a moral code that ultimately doesn't take human well-being into consideration?

Anonymous writes:

#Newtown #CTshooting Amos 3:6; Luke 13:3

herbert writes:

Timothy, the positions you present are hardly representative of those of historical Christianity. To suggest that you represent the "Christian" view is quite misleading (though certainly unintentionally so). -herbert

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

My goal has been to accurately represent the Biblical position. I believe attempting to accurately represent the scriptures is in fact the historical Christian position. Have I failed in accurately representing them? If so, how?

Thanks.

herbert writes:

Timothy, thanks for your response: there are a host of presuppositions that we all bring to the table. The idea that seeking to accurately represent the Scriptures is "the historical Christian position" speaks to some of your presuppositions. Christians are, in my view (which i consider to be the Biblical view), called to represent Christ primarily... and the Scriptures play a role in verifying and attesting to the truths of Christ and the Church. As I see it, you are calling upon the Scriptures to play a role that is itself unscriptural. Your rigid Biblicism is itself unBiblical. Thanks.

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

It is not my intent to deify the scriptures, if that is essentially what you are suggesting I am doing. However, in representing Christ, is it appropriate to represent Him in a way other than how He represents Himself (Matthew 4:10, 11:10, 13:14-15, 26:24, 26:31, 26:54; Mark 14:21, 14:27; Luke 4:21, 7:27, 22:37, 24:44, 24:46; John 13:18, 17:12, 19:28), or other than how His hand-picked representatives represented Him (Matthew 2:17-18, 27:9; Acts 1:16, 3:18, 3:22, 13:33; Romans 9:33, 14:11, 15:3, 15:21; Galatians 3:8, 3:13, 3:22)?

Could you provide me with an example or two where I have been more "rigidly Biblical" than the Bible permits? And it would be helpful if you could explain, from scripture, how my use of scripture is incorrect, since that is the accusation you have leveled.

Thanks.

herbert writes:

Timothy, Hello. For starters I would refer to 1st Timothy 3:15. It is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth complete with a foundation of Christ, the Apostles and the Prophets (Ephesians 2:20). Your view, on the other hand, has something peculiarly in common with the viewpoints of individuals such as Marcion, Arius, and Pelagius: namely, you appeal to the Scriptures (contra the Church) and feel fully justified in picking and choosing from among historical Christian doctrines those which you accept according to your intellectual/philosophical analysis of the Scriptures. You, then, and not the Scriptures, act as the judge and the jury in your hermeneutical court. In summary, an appeal to the Church would carry with it the full consideration of Scripture AND the Apostolic authority granted to the Church... and NOT to any particular fallible man such as you or me. Thanks.

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

Would you define for me what you yourself mean when you use the term "the church" in your last comment?
http://goo.gl/Oq9IQ

In this particular passage in 1 Timothy, I would take it to mean either "the entire body of Christ including all believers", or possibly "any given assembly or gathering of believers", or conceivably both at once, as Matthew Henry seems to understand it:
http://goo.gl/ADFkU

I'd like to make certain we aren't talking past each other.

Thanks.

herbert writes:

Timothy- Biblically speaking, the Church is more than just a local congregation of like-minded believers. For if any local congregation constitutes "the church," what would be different than there existing simply a congregation of like-minded Biblicists? Nothing. The Church is, then (consistent with the prescriptions for discipline found in Matthew 18), public and visible, capable of exercising discipline in a conclusive manner. You, as far as I can feel (according to your unScriptural Biblicism) appeal to no such authority. Also, regarding your (possible) interpretations of 1st Timothy 3:15, I notice that you're bringing in words and phrases not found in the actual texts in order to make sense of the passage. In one case, you posit a reading inclusive of all believers, in the next you interpret the words as referring to any mere local gathering of believers. How could such divergent interpretations both be plausible? Thanks.

herbert writes:

Matthew Henry? By what authority does he speak? If the Scriptures are clear and understandable as they are, what of him? and if they arent, and HE is the aithoritative interpreter to whom i should appeal, then his whole argument for Scriptial perspicuity collapses upon itself. He appeals to the Catholic Church in his interpretation of these passages. But where is his Catholic Church? According to his definitions, were his "catholic church" to cease to exist, when it comes to his ecclesiology, what would be different? Nothing. It confuses me when those who appeal to the Scriptures so assuredly are the very ones who are ready to, according to their own fallile reasoning, interpret the most confounding of passages (such as Mark 10:18) Thanks.

herbert writes:

Timothy, forgive my autocorrect/typo problems. This tablet is a drag! I wanted to clarify one thing, though. I said: "In one case, you posit a reading inclusive of all believers, in the next you interpret the words as referring to any mere local gathering of believers. How could such divergent interpretations both be plausible?" That really should read "GIVEN YOUR BIBLICIST PRESUPPOSITIONS or GIVEN YOUR (presumed) ECCLESIOLOGY how could such divergent interpretations both be plausible?" Also, where I say "As far as I can feel" it should say "As far as I can tell." Thanks.

Herbert writes:

Timothy, so that i am as clear as possible, let me answer your question more directly. i was not trying to avoid your question. but i was not as direct as i could have been. The Church, specifically, is every member of His Body- those called out. This includes people from all over the place who may or may not enjoy fellowship with one another. Publicly and institutionally, though, a follower identifies the Church established and governed and maintained by Christ according to His promises by seeking out her local bishop in communion with the bishop of Rome. Through reconciliation with her local bishop, a Christian knows that she has joined that visible communion established by Christ, that Church birthed on Pentecost.

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

"The Church, specifically, is every member of His Body -- those called out."

What then is the church's relation to the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15?

That it defines the truth? This would make the church into God Himself, so this interpretation seems unreasonable.

That it discerns the truth? But pillars and supports do not discern. The metaphor fails miserably if this is the intent.

That it upholds the truth? This is indeed the church's job, I think we both agree, and, metaphorically, pillars and supports could be said to do likewise.

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

It seems then that 1 Timothy 3:15 states that it is the job of "every member of His body", as you said, to uphold the truth. But if this is the case, in what way does this pertain to your accusation toward me? I am simply doing what 1 Timothy 3:15-16 calls me to do, upholding the truth of Christ. How does it follow, based on 1 Timothy 3:15, that I am unBiblical in my rigid Biblicism, per your accusation?

All I am saying is that you accused me of being unBiblical by being too Biblical, and then you cited 1 Timothy 3:15 as justification for this accusation. But 1 Timothy 3:15 doesn't seem to justify your accusation against me.

Am I missing something?

herbert writes:

Timothy, you're promoting your doctrine and your philosophy. You're promoting your interpretations of Scripture. You're not promoting and encouraging people to be following their local bishops as those who must shepherd them and one day give an account. You're not calling people to the Sacraments. You're being too Biblical on account of your leaving out the Church family in which the Scriptures themselves were written , recognized and delivered to the faithful. You're fixated upon a catholic book- a book you simply couldn't have received apart from the Church's faithful delivery of the texts. Why not call people to the Church where they live their faith, not think their faith? You're not calling people to a church, but to agreement with you concerning what the Bible says and then claiming their eternal fate will be based upon these attempts at philosophy mostly based upon modern, sectarian interpretations of texts.

herbert writes:

Timothy- you asked: "What then is the church's relation to the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15? That it defines the truth? This would make the church into God Himself, so this interpretation seems unreasonable." Christ Himself told the Apostles that they would bind and loose. And whatever was bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven. The Church then is the instrument
God uses to reveal His will. To affirm this isn't to grant to the Church a divine status of its own. I am merely accepting the fact that God uses the Church to achieve His purposes. (More to come) thanks.

herbert writes:

(Continued from above) on the other hand, when Christ says "As the Father sent me, so I am sending you" and "He who hears you hears me," the Apostolic College is indeed acting on God's behalf through the doctrinal safeguard provided by the Holy Spirit. As far as your attempting to fulfill this role goes, if your teaching is out of alignment with genuine apostolic teaching, then, though you mean well, due to your relying strictly on your mind's ability to rightly interpret the Scriptures, you're actually potentially teaching false doctrine. This is due to the fact that you're looking to the Bible to fulfill a role it was never written to fulfill. It isn't a completely exhaustive all-you-need-to-know treasure of the faith complete with prescriptions for how everything is to be carried out in the church. This is why, as I mentioned, Christ tells us to go to the Church to reconcile, not pore over the Scriptures and if we don't agree plant new churches teaching contradictory doctrines.

Anonymous writes:

Finally, I do believe that 1st Timothy 3:15 substantiates my charge because you can only call people to His Church if you've rightfully identified His Church. It seems to me that you have taken a Catholic book and are reading it in a manner generally out of sync with the Church itself. In other words, you're calling people to accept your Scriptural philosophical system, not the Church spoken of in the 1st letter to Timothy.

herbert writes:

That anonymous above is obviously me. I shouldn't try to participate in conversations on a tablet!

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

"You're calling people to accept your Scriptural philosophical system, not the Church spoken of in the 1st letter to Timothy."

Contextually, was the church spoken of in 1 Timothy governed by Christ through a single elevated patriarch based out of Rome, or does it appear to have been governed by Christ through a plurality of Apostles and elders based out of Jerusalem (Acts 8:14, 9:26-27, 11:2-3, 11:22, 13:31, 15:2, 15:4, 16:4, 21:17-18; Galatians 1:17-19, 2:2, 2:7-10, 2:11)?

Were individual assemblies governed by singular bishops, or a plurality of elders (1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14)?

Did this church teach that Mary was sinless, or that all have sinned (Romans 3:9, 3:23; Galatians 3:22) except for the spotless lamb of God (Hebrews 4:15, 9:14; 1 Peter 1:19)?

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

Did it teach that most of those destined for heaven must first pay the penalty for their own sins in purgatory, or that the penalty for their sins had been paid in full by the Son of God Himself (Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 2:17, 10:12, 10:26; Romans 3:24-25, 5:9; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 3:13; 1 John 2:2, 4:10; Acts 20:28; Revelation 1:5)?

Did it teach that "saints" are only those who have earned the title through proven heroic virtue, or that "saints" are the entire body of Christ (Acts 9:13, 9:32, 9:41; Romans 1:7, 16:15; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1, 13:13; Ephesians 1:1, 2:19, 5:3; Philippians 1:1, 4:21-22; Colossians 1:2; Philemon 1:5)?

Did it teach that baptism brought about the justification of the baptized, or that justification was freely given before the practice of baptism was inaugurated (Acts 10:47, 11:17; Ephesians 1:13; Romans 4:9; Galatians 3:2, 3:8-9, 3:17, 3:18)?

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

According to this church of 1 Timothy, was Peter the stone upon which the church was built, or was Christ (Isaiah 28:16; Matthew 21:42; 1 Peter 2:6-7)?

Was Peter the only one commissioned to feed sheep, thereby making him supremely exalted, or were others given virtually identical commissions (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2)?

Did this church consist of a priesthood only available to celibate, scholarly and pious individuals who subject themselves to Romish claims (1 Corinthians 9:5; 1 Timothy 3:2), or a priesthood of all believers (Matthew 27:50-51; Romans 12:1; 1 Corinthians 6:19; Hebrews 13:15-16; 1 Peter 2:5, 2:9; Revelation 1:6)?

Was this a church that condemned "rigid" Biblicism, or that praised personal study of the scriptures and personal use of them to recognize false teachings (Acts 17:11, 17:2, 18:28; Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17)?

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

Rome would have the beloved Apostle John, hand-picked by Christ in the flesh, subservient to the apparently fanciful and undiscerning Clement (1 Clement 25) based solely on the latter's geographical location, a self-serving premise never even hinted at in any of the Apostolic writings or known teachings of Christ.

Frankly, as a Christian, I would not counsel anyone to go to their local Roman Bishop for shepherding unless I desired to see that person eternally condemned.

But perhaps I am wrong. Feel free to make your case.

herbert writes:

I am typing on a tablet which I find laborious! So i won't even attempt to respond to your many understandable and valid challenges. But I mostly am not interested in doing so b/c as I see it, the burden lies with the Protestant to justify his schism from the One Church established by Christ (after all, i was a Baptist my whole life). My simple point is that you overstep the Bible's prescriptions for its use. And the burden lies on you to simply provide a Bible passage that proves your ground. Such a simple, clear verse doesn't exist, however, which demonstrates the fact that the Bible was not ever intended by God to be THE rule of faith. Such is an inference, an unBiblical philosophical leap you have chosen to make. Finally, it was only within and through the hierarchal structure of this Church that the 27 books of the NT Scriptures came to be recognized as being divinely inspired. The Bible did not come w/ a Table of Contents, after all! Check out: www.calledtocommunion.com

herbert writes:

Timothy, I have been thinking about your invitation: "feel free to make your case." I responded by saying that the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate the validity of Sola Scriptura. After all, you didn't refute my claim that there isnt a single Bible verse that substantiates SS. So without actually taking the time to explain yourself, I am curious to see, at the very least, what you think of the idea that it's the Protestant, not the Catholic, who is actually in a position that assumes the burden of proof. This is a website promoting discussion, right? So in all respect and charity, I am curious to hear your thoughts. There are a untold thousands of former "Bible Christians" who once held to your POV but now are Catholic. It feels like you're just ignoring me b/c I am catholic. Maybe not. It's hard to tell over the Internet! Thanks...

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

Not ignoring you -- you explicitly stated you didn't want to respond to my "understandable and valid challenges". My strategy throughout this site when dealing with alternate views is to (A) demonstrate the incoherence of my opponent's position and (B) demonstrate the coherence of my own. In terms of burden of proof, I currently think everyone shares the same burden and everyone should utilize the same strategy I have here delineated. Whenever people don't follow this process, I personally find their arguments wanting.

I believe I've done (A) by demonstrating that the Roman Holy Book is rejected by the Romans in my "challenges" above. I have demonstrated (B) by explaining my interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15, as you asked, showing that my understanding of it is perfectly consistent within my worldview.

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

I'm not sure where on this website I have advocated "sola scriptura" per se, but I don't think I have anywhere, so I don't see why I should be expected to defend it. However, if you could show me somewhere that I myself am being inconsistent in my views, I will be forced to attempt (B) again, or to change my views.

FWIW, It may help me understand your "sola scriptura" challenge if you define that term for me as you are specifically using it.

herbert writes:

Timothy- So in your view we all share the same burden of proof, then? Ok. That helps me to understand your position more clearly. Because, already at that point we are on different pages. I have come to see Catholicism as somewhat of a "default" setting. Unless I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Catholicism is fundamentally off course, then, despite there certainly being things that I cannot grasp concerning various teachings, I am nonetheless bound to submit to Christ's Church just as the Disciples did when Christ's teachings were confounding to them. Take Christ's words "This is My Body," for example! Talk about powerful and shocking words straight format he lips of Christ. Dare I deny them simply b/c of my inability to understand them? As far Sola Scriptura goes, though you didn't come right out and say it, I understood this: "I believe attempting to accurately represent the scriptures is in fact the historical Christian position" as a basic promotion of it.

herbert writes:

Finally, you did sort of present a shotgun blast of doctrinal challenges, Catholic teachings that you believe are unScriptural... And I say they're valid challenges b/c many thoughtful people hold to them. But that doesn't mean they are are anything more than apparent contradictions. Every single one of them can be answered and put to rest. I guess, my point in honing in in the burden of proof issue, rather than discussing particular doctrines was to identify the ground we are standing on in the first place. That is why I tried to strike right at the root of your position (namely that "I believe attempting to accurately represent the scriptures is in fact the historical Christian position"). IMO, trying to represent Christ is the historical position. And representing Christ has a lot to do with a public, visible, hierarchical Church- a church with councils, sacraments, the same government, the same faith... Thoughts?

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

Since none of the apostles were subservient to the Bishop of Rome and since none of them advocated that we should be, and since Christ likewise did not, I see no reason to assume Romanism as a default for Christianity. However, even if it were a default for Christianity, in an attempt to convert someone to it (like myself, for example), it seems to me that an argument for it still needs to be made.

"I believe attempting to accurately represent the scriptures is in fact the historical Christian position" was not intended to be exclusive by any stretch of the imagination. In other words, loving God is not excluded, loving one's neighbor is not excluded, and representing Christ, His Father, and the Spirit are also not excluded.

But the Muslim represents Christ, as does the Baha'i, the Mormon, and the Roman. If we are representing Christ, which Christ are we representing? I attempt to represent the Christ of the scriptures.

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

And if we are representing Christ, does that mean we are not representing the Father, or loving our neighbors, or presenting scriptural truths to those we speak to?

Of course not.

If "accurately representing the scriptures" is unscriptural, then the scriptures are incoherent -- lies or nonsense. If it is not what Christians have historically attempted to do, then "historical Christianity" is not my faith, nor do I wish it to be. Of course, I am not billing myself as a "historical Christian" -- merely as a Christian.

herbert writes:

Hi. When I questioned this statement: "I believe attempting to accurately represent the scriptures is in fact the historical Christian position" I did so not because authentic Christianity would do something other than accurately represent the Scriptures. And i don't mean to imply that you do this to the exclusion of other Godly things. My challenge lies with the idea that it isn't my job to authoritatively interpret Scripture. Take, for example, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. I have accepted it my whole life. However, am I so naive as to think that were I to read the Scriptures apart from the Church, that I would come up with anything like the idea of the Trinity on my own? No. I depend upon God's faithful revelation of Himself THROUGH the Roman Church for such a doctrine. You may argue that you do not need the Church in order to hold to this doctrine. But trace things back through history and you will find the Roman bishop playing an integral role in the establishment of doctrine

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

Let me know if I have misunderstood it, but your argument seems to be:

P1. Roman Pope X enunciated doctrine Y before anyone else had accepted it.

P2. McCabe agrees with doctrine Y.

C. Therefore McCabe ought to feel compelled to acknowledge the universal authority of Roman Pope Z in all matters of faith.

Frankly, even if I accept both premises (a stretch at best) I see no logical reason to feel bound to the conclusion -- it simply doesn't follow from the premises.

herbert writes:

Hmmm. I am no logician. But I can say that if i presented such an argument, I didn't intend to do so. Let me put it this way:
P1: Christ established a visible, institutional church to which He (being its Head) is wed.
P2: Christ promised to guide this Church until His return.
P3: This Catholic Church is the institutional
Church from which sects and schisms originally separated themselves (on various doctrinal grounds).
C: The Catholic Church is, therefore, that original institutional Church established by Christ Himself and safeguarded from error according to His promises.
Obviously, I am no logician! So help me out where I am mistaken. Thanks.

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

Since it seems clear to me that the Roman church has erred in a great many ways (some of which I mentioned above), then if in fact Christ promised to safeguard his church against error as you say, it follows that the Roman church is clearly not the church He established.

So P3 would be false.

I should note that Luther was excommunicated. He did not "separate himself" from the Romans -- rather they "separated themselves" from him. If Luther's concerns were justified, if his doctrines essentially correct, Romans are nothing more than wolves in sheep's clothing who fled from fellowship with the body of Christ the moment the light shined on their evil deeds (1 John 2:19).

Spin it like that and Rome are the schismatics.

Do you happen to live anywhere near Cincinnati?

herbert writes:

Hello again- Interesting stuff. I am curious to see that you are discounting P3 because while the first two might be argued Scripturally, P3 is a matter of christian history, is it not? Can I not look to the early councils and recognize the various heresies and heresiarchs who in defiance of the Catholic Magisterium, went their own separate ways? Can I not trace their lineages back to the 16, 13th and 11th centuries, etc? Your comment about Luther, then, begs the question (ie assumes the very thing at issue) b/c it puts the cart (doctrine) before the horse (ecclesial authority). You've already concluded that Luther was right concerning the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls (Justification by Faith Alone) not by his authority but according to your agreement w/ his Scriptural interpretation. Whereas, a catholic keeps the horse/cart rightfully arranged. More to come...

herbert writes:

Luther's excommunication came about as a result of his decision to cling to (what i have come to see as) his invented doctrine (and I mean no disrespect). Also, I can certainly agree w/ the notion that there have been and are corrupt clergy. Such individuals are wolves in sheep's clothing. They, however, cannot threaten or frustrate the efforts of God Almighty through their hypocrisy any more than Pharasaic hypocrisy did anything to devalidate Moses' Seat (Matt 23). So the universal Church of Christ (which has been mystical, public/visible since Pentecost) was instituted w/ certain marks which it still has today. So your idea of spinning it one way to see Rome as schismatic fails b/c the Church is the very Body of Christ and He cannot be at odds w/ His own Body. The Church, then, cannot be in schism with Herself. Therefore, if the Roman Church ever had a unique status by virtue of its Apostolic authority, why, then, it follows that this Church maintains this status yet today.

herbert writes:

Last one for now! Many of Luther's concerns were certainly justified (pardon the pun). But you said "if" his doctrines were essentially correct, then Rome was in the wrong. And that is the very thing at issue here. As an adult, i had to consider the possibility that the doctrines that i had been taught all my life were, like many other peoples' confused beliefs, forged w/ the best of intentions yet could possibly be mistaken in some pretty serious ways. And it was precisely the Protestant appeal to Sola Scriptura (and not also to a living, authoritative Church) that opened the door to the kind of fallibility inherent to Protestantism. The Prot. acceptance of various Cath. doctrines seemed simply ad hoc to me. Protestant certainly have Christ. Bit they do not recognize His public Church. Finally, I live near Grand Rapids, MI. peace to you.

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

What I hear you saying is the Roman church is the true church, therefore the Roman church is the true church.

EXAMPLE 1: "Your idea of spinning it one way to see Rome as schismatic fails b/c the Church is the very Body of Christ and He cannot be at odds w/ His own Body"

REPHRASED: Rome is the Body of Christ and Christ cannot be at odds with His own body, therefore Rome is the Body of Christ.

EXAMPLE 2: "If the Roman Church ever had a unique status by virtue of its Apostolic authority, why, then, it follows that this Church maintains this status"

REPHRASED: The Roman church has Apostolic authority, therefore the Roman church has Apostolic authority.

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

EXAMPLE 3: "[Rome] is the institutional Church from which sects and schisms originally separated themselves... therefore, [Rome] is that original institutional Church established by Christ Himself..."

REPHRASED: Rome is Christ's original institutional church, therefore Rome is Christ's original institutional church.

You can feel free to keep assuming the very thing at issue, whether or not the Roman church was established by Christ and / or the Apostles as His official and authoritative body, with the Bishop of Rome as its perpetual head, but I myself have never assumed this and see the premise as both unBiblical and absurd. Unless you can give me good reason to come to that conclusion, instead of simply presupposing it, I think you're just spinning your wheels with me.

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

Plus, it seems to me you gave the XYZ argument again...

P1. Roman Pope X denounced heresy Y before anyone else.

P2. McCabe denounces heresy Y.

C. Therefore McCabe ought to feel compelled to acknowledge the universal authority of Roman Pope Z in all matters of faith.

Before any of your examples where Rome denounced a heresy I also denounce, they accepted claims that seem to me to be equally heretical. An example would be the Creed of Chalcedon in which Mary is referred to as the "Mother of God". Given the hypostatic union, Mary is merely the mother of a man, not the "Mother of God", even as God did not die for my sins, only the Son's human nature did.

herbert writes:

Timothy, thanks for the response. I certainly am saying what it is you're saying I am saying:).But the initial claims of my circular argument aren't matters of opinion. They are matters of history. It is historically accurate to say that other sects and schisms can be traced back to Rome. And since that is so, I am saying that Rome was the first Church. And by virtue of that Church being established by Christ, she is still carries the promises originally gifted to her. So i want to be clear,b/c this is my position, I don't feel compelled to convert you. It is interesting to discuss these matters, however!

herbert writes:

As far as the mother of God phrase goes, it seems to me you're overlooking the "union" part of the term "hypostatic union." Mary did not just give birth to the man part of Christ precisely because if the hypo static union. She gave birth to the God-man. So to the extent that Christ was God (which is totally), she is the Mother of God. This does not mean she pre-dated God or does anything by her own power. It just means that God became a man. And that man had a mom. She is Mary. How about this:
P1: Christ was God
P2: Mary was Christ's mother.
C: Mary was the Mother of God.
Which of those premises do you reject (OR how could those premises NOT lead to that conclusion)?

herbert writes:

About the XYZ argument. I have heard of that one before. And i am not meaning to say that b/c Pope X pronounced it before you believed it, he should be credited w/ your believing it. You may have arrived at your conclusion by a different road. and when youre right, that's great! but what guarantee do you have of being right? What I am basically saying about Protestantism is this: anything Protestants have right, so does the Catholic Church (And there is nothing that Protestants have that is right that the Catholic Church doesn't have right, also- doctrinally speaking). Ultimately, there are Catholics and there are Cafeteria Catholics (often called "Protestants"). I really would recommend spending time at Called to Communion. Because I have some free time, I have actually been chiming in on the comments over there, too. There's an interesting conv. Going on right now with a guy named Curt. You really should chime in. There you will find far more developed thoughts/arguments. Peace!

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

When Paul wrote 2 Timothy from Rome, he begs Timothy to come to him because everyone in Rome has abandoned him (2 Timothy 4:9-17). Given this, what Roman Bishop's authority is he appealing to when he condemns the Preterist heretics Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17-18)?

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

If we meet at the racetrack and you discover my brother is driving one of the cars, you may ask "Which one is your brother?" I may then reply, "The black Volkswagen." We could then make the following argument:

P1. My brother is the black Volkswagen.
P2. My mother gave birth to my brother.
C. My mother gave birth to the black Volkswagen.

Both premises are true, and the conclusion follows from them, but the conclusion is not true. This is because the premises are both true, but not in the way that they need to be in order for the conclusion to follow from them. The "is" in the first premise is not equative: it cannot be replaced with an equals sign. My brother does not equal the back Volkswagen. And Christ does not equal God. If He did, we could make the following argument:

P1. The Son is God.
P2. The Father is God.
C. The Son is the Father.

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

Again, both premises are true, but only in the same way that my brother is the Volkswagen. Therefore, the conclusion actually does not follow from them. What we have here is a confusion between common, pedestrian prose and technical philosophical terminology. A deductive argument requires the latter to be valid, but we have instead constructed these arguments out of the former.

So, no, your argument is invalid because to be valid it requires replacing the "is" with an equals sign. But Christ does not equal God.

herbert writes:

Timothy, I am surprised that you would say that Christ is not God. In fact, i am blown away at the fact that you appeal to philosophical terminology to justify your denial of divinely revealed truths. In order to maintain your rejection of Catholic dogma you have denied that Christ is God by saying "Christ does not equal God." If Christ is not God, whom do you worship? Christian teaching claims that Christ is indeed God. There is a revealed truth given to the church which describes the Trinitarian nature of God, yes. But make no mistake: Christ is fully God. Your attempts to hide behind technical language to justify your rejection of the conclusion doesn't work. And your equating your bro w/ his car is hardly analogous. One of the ill-effects of your cafeteria Catholicism is a mistaken theology. You can argue your Biblical case all day. But by what authority do you teach? Remember, Christ established a Church. Your access to that Church's sacred texts does not change that fact.

herbert writes:

P1 Christ = God (fully, lacking nothing in His divinity)
P2 Mary is Christ's mother
C Mary is rightly identified as the Mother of God
To deny this is to deny the fullness of Christ's divinity.

herbert writes:

By the way, could Elizabeth have been any more explicit (concerning who it was in Mary's womb) when she said "And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Can you get any more Biblically clear than that? What do you think of that verse? Just curious...

herbert writes:

Thinking more about your car analogy, I am seriously confounded. Whereas, your car isn't truly your bro, Christ truly is God. If you have seen Him, you've seen the Father. He and the Father are one. Your bro is certainly not one with his car. Neither have you seen your brother if you've seen his car. Think back to when you asked me to use the Bible to demonstrate that you had misused the Bible (which was my initial charge). Tim, that was the equivalent of calling upon me to make the same mistake you're making. Jesus came in the flesh. Never did He proclaim the written word as His primary means of revelation (thus justifying a Christian's claim that to "accurately represent the Scriptures" is to assume the historical Christian position). You're in a position like that of a goldfish who cannot comprehend of a life outside of his bowl. But though Christ is in that bowl. He is participating in the life of the world outside of that bowl, also. Even if you aren't.

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

On Luke 1:43, does Sarah equate Abraham with God (1 Peter 3:6)?

Trinitarian doctrine requires a distinction (difference) between a NATURE and a PERSON. Christ is a PERSON. God is a NATURE. Therefore, there is a difference in meaning between the words "Christ" and "God", just as there is a difference between "Herbert" and "human". They are not equivalent in meaning.

If we remove the distinction between NATURE and PERSON, if we make them equal, we have Unitarianism (instead of Trinitarianism) and Monophysitism (instead of the hypostatic union).

Ask your Bishop.

herbert writes:

Tim, I will write in response to your question regarding 1st Peter 3:6 when I get a minute. Also, I will respond to something more important: Christ's identity. But first, I may be mistaken, but I sensed a bit of disdain or disregard in your closing suggestion for me to ask my bishop. Maybe it isn't there. But I sensed it. So let me say that if you are perturbed by me and that comment was meant to be derisive b/c you were offended or insulted by any of my previous comments (such as my assertion that you're essentially a cafeteria catholic, etc.) please forgive me. I meant what I said, but not in an insulting way. I am just trying to be honest and hope that I haven't come across as less than charitable in the delivery my comments or at all insulting or belittling. So please forgive me if this is the case. And again, I will respond to your other points as time allows (which should be quite soon!)

herbert writes:

I understand that Christ (though He was 1 person) had 2 natures (divine and human). But Mary didn't give birth (solely) to Christ's human nature and somehow not have anything to do w/ bearing, also, His divine nature. It is precisely according to the hypostatic union that your position is refuted. For she gave birth to a person and thus to whatever that personhood included (which, in the case of Christ includes His 2 natures). Also, your understanding of Monophysitism is mistaken: Monophysitism was a heresy that concerned a confusion or synthesis of Christ's 2 natures (and not a person-nature synthesis as you asserted). Since Christ's person is by nature divine (fully God), His mother is rightly called Theotokos (God-bearer). This is why I initially took issue with your saying that "Christ does not equal God." Because Christ does equal God.

herbert writes:

(continued from above) Christ is 1 of 3 divine persons, each of whom together constitute 1 God. It sounds to me (correct me if i am wrong) that your position is that b/c Christ isn't also the other 2 persons of the Holy Trinity it is not accurate to say that He = God. However, to deny that "Christ equals God" is to do either of 2 things:
1. Render the Trinity a plurality (by asserting that Christ's divine nature doesn't constitute His fully divine status)
or
2. Deny the hypostatic union (that is essential to the person of Christ) by claiming, for example, that Mary only bore His human person & nature.

And lastly because my Bishop is a Catholic bishop, he would affirm Mary's identity as Mother of God. So telling me to ask him would do nothing to convince me of either your position or of my being confused about this matter (if that is sincerely what you were implying by suggesting I go and ask him about this).

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

I meant no insult. I have really enjoyed our conversation. I expected your Bishop to agree with me that "Christ" does not equal "God", even though of course he would affirm that Mary is the Mother of God.

On Monophysitism, I should have phrased my statement differently -- you are correct in that I did not represent it accurately. I should have said something more like, "if the person and nature are equated, Christ, one person, has only one nature, as in Monophysitism", rather than saying one would actually be a Monophysitist.

Christ is fully divine. I never asserted He was not. By this is meant that He has a divine nature, not that "Christ" equals "God".

Mary only bore His human nature -- not His divine nature. This in no way denies that He has a divine nature -- it simply clarifies the perpetual distinction between the two.

God bless.

herbert writes:

Thanks for the response. I am glad I wasn't rude or insensitive. As far as Mary somehow bearing His human nature, how would such a thing be possible in light of the hypostatic union? How could, if the person Christ had 2 natures (which we both accept), Mary somehow carry In her womb just the "human part"? This seems a stretch philosophically AND Biblically.

herbert writes:

Tim, One other thing for now: You said that Christ is fully divine. Now, since our God is 1 (though manifesting 3 distinct persons), how could Christ be fully divine and not = God, when there is only 1 divine nature for Him to possess (ontologically-speaking)? How can He possess a divine nature and not = God when there is only 1 God and 1 divine nature shared by the 3 persons of the Trinity?
P1 Only God possesses the divine Nature
P2 Christ possesses the divine Nature
P3 There is only 1 God
C Christ is God/Christ = God

To deny this, as I suggested earlier, is to either render the Trinity a plurality or deny the hypostatic union.

herbert writes:

Tim, I am quite confident in the validity of this dilemma i have pointed out. I am curious to see how you would attempt to avoid either one of its conclusions. How can you hold your position concerning maternal role [that is, a position which rejects the fact that Mary was the mother of the whole Christ (the person complete with 2 natures) and affirms the idea that she was somehow only the mother of the human nature of Christ (ps- where is that in the Bible?)] and allow the Trinity to remain unified WHILE retaining your belief in the hypostatic union?

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

If Christ = God, and the Father = God, then Christ = the Father. This denies the Trinity. So, either Christ != God or the Father != God. Or both. This does not prove that Mary did not give birth to the divine nature... it simply demonstrates that to give birth to Christ is not necessarily the same thing as giving birth to the divine nature. At that point, there is no longer any reason whatsoever to assert that Mary did in fact give birth to the divine nature, and we are left asking ourselves if something perpetually eternal (Deuteronomy 33:27; Revelation 1:8) might begin to exist in a woman's womb, if something omnipresent (Ephesians 4:6; Psalm 139:7; Jeremiah 23:24) might be confined in location to only the birth canal, if something unchanging (Psalm 55:19; Malachi 3:6) would be nurtured from fetus to infant to child to adult, etc. With no reason to assert that it could, and every reason to assert that it could not, we assert the latter.

herbert writes:

Timothy, Your initial series of statements concluding in "Christ = The Father" is mistaken b/c that conclusion does not follow from the first 2 premises. Why? Because the Father is 1 divine person and Christ, sharing in that divinity, is another divine person. So BOTH can = God and still retain that single divine nature shared by all 3 persons of the Trinity. Further, Catholic teaching isnt claiming that Mary gave birth to the "divine nature" (which is something uncreated, btw). Catholic teaching is simply acknowledging a fact: Christ is divine. Therefore, by virtue of His sharing in the divine nature possessed only by the single Tri-une God, Mary was the mother of God. Timothy, Was Christ divine while He was in Mary's womb or not? If He was, then He was God (the 2nd Person) and Mary is, therefore, the Mother of God. If you say He was not, you're denying Christ's divinity (that He already possessed in utero, and which caused His cousin to jump in the womb of his own mother!).

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

If A = B and B = C then A = C. This is, by definition, what it means to be equal. If A != C then either A != B or B != C. Or both.

If you are claiming that "equal" doesn't fit this definition, then you are claiming that "equal" doesn't mean "equal", or rather that "is" doesn't mean "equal" in this scenario, which is exactly what I am asserting. In other words, it sounds like you completely agree with me that "is" does not fit the definition of "equal" when we say "Christ is God".

I'd really suggest you talk with your bishop. I'm pretty sure he will agree that the "is" in the statement "Christ is God" is not equative, but possessive (it means "Christ HAS a God-nature").

God bless.

herbert writes:

Timothy, if my bishop could agree with you AND still accept Mary's identity as Theotokos (you acknowledged earlier that he would, right?), then why are you bothering to try to explain this distinction to me? After all, if your position doesn't refute the Catholic position (i.e. does not make it impossible to hold to BOTH your position AND accept Mary's title), then it is a moot point we've been going over here (This reminds me if when Pres. Clinton was getting into the "depends on what the meaning of is is..." stuff. Ha.) Either way, it might be best if we step away from the Father/Son distinctions and focus in on my question to you (which simply uses the term "divine" in reference to Christ). So, was Christ divine while in Mary's womb or not (And if He was, how could she not be rightly called Theotokos/God-bearer, somewhat roughly translated as Mother of God)?

herbert writes:

Try thinking of it this way:
P1 to have a divine nature is to be God (not gods, b/c there is only 1 God)
P2 Christ possesses the divine nature
C Therefore, Christ is rightfully worshipped and called God (by virtue of His divinity) even though He is a distinct person within the Holy Trinity.

It seems like your hang up lies in the fact that there are 2 other divine persons whom Mary didn't carry in her womb. Therefore, we cant rightly call her God. However, His not being Them, does nothing to mitigate the fullness if His divinity which is grounded in the 1 divine nature they share as persons of the 1 Tri-une God. Further, when it seems that you're pressed, you avoid the implications of your position. Earlier I said that your position renders the Trinity a plurality OR denies the hypostatic union. You never spoke to that dilemma.

Timothy McCabe writes:

"Was Christ divine while in Mary's womb or not?"

Absolutely.

"If He was, how could she not be rightly called Theotokos/God-bearer?"

Because the one has no relevance to the other.

Christ has a divine nature. I have a right shoe. Christ has a human nature. I have a left shoe. Christ was born. I kicked a ball. Christ's human nature was born. My left shoe kicked the ball. Christ's divine nature was not born. My right shoe did not kick the ball. Christ is fully human in that He possesses a human nature to the same degree as anyone else. I am fully left-shoed in that I am wearing a left shoe to the same degree as anyone else. Christ is fully divine in that He possesses the divine nature to the same degree as anyone else (like the Father and Holy Spirit). I am fully right-shoed in that I am wearing a right shoe to the same degree as anyone else.

My right shoe did not kick the ball, even though I did and I am fully right-shoed.

Phil writes:

Tim, you're really outdoing yourself this time.

A lengthy, completely off course example of poor logic, which completely misses the point, and doesn't address the question.

Bravo.

Phil writes:

herbert,

To understand Christianity in this regard, I suggest a review of the trinity, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Pay close attention to the Trinity Shield in particular, because it basically states:

A = B = C, AND, A != C

Once you understand this, I think you will also understand that your conversation with something like Tim can be composed of entirely random letters, words and sentences, and will increase your knowledge by as much as any other process, including English words and sentences which you're trying to use now.

herbert writes:

Hello, Phil. I really do appreciate your chiming in here. And though Timothy and I seem to disagree about certain (perhaps many) things, we hold to the truth of the Holy Trinity and we both strive to follow and worship Christ. I consider Tim a brother in Christ (though I don't know him at all outside of this site). So though we disagree concerning certain things (and I agree with your assessment of his last comment), I do think it worthwhile to carry out this discussion with him. Since I don't have any context for your comments, though, it's hard for me to understand what you're getting at. I have been a christian since I was twelve. And I was reconciled to the Church Christ founded (the Catholic Church) at the age of 30. So it may be that I have more in common with Tim (theologically speaking) than I have in common with you. I'd be interested to hear more about what you're getting at? Are you simply suggesting that the Trinity is an absurd, impossible doctrine (logically-speaking)?

herbert writes:

Tim, you said: "Christ's divine nature was not born." Of course it wasnt. And i am not claiming that it was. Christ Himself, the man, Christ, HAD a divine nature. When He was born, he possessed this divine nature. He was the one born complete with 2 natures. You cannot separate His divine nature from Him and thereby avoid the fact that Mary bore Christ in His fullness. She bore Him, not parts of Him. She could not somehow bear Christ but not some fundamental aspect of Him (i.e. His divine nature). This is precisely why I am saying that your position necessitates a denial of the hypostatic union (as if she could bear n ontologically divisible Christchild in her womb). It's as though you're saying that Christ came in separate parts or components (the divine, the human, etc.) and she was somehow the vessel of delivery for certain aspects of Him, but not the whole Him (despite the fact that you acknowledge His "uterine divinity").

herbert writes:

Your foot and your shoe do not share anything but close proximity to one another. Whereas, the person of Christ and His 2 natures are inseparable. In the case of your kicking the ball, your shoe is an unecessary factor. You could have kicked the ball barefoot. And that's where your analogy really falls apart. Christ came into this world in human flesh. The divine man, complete in Himself, rather than His flesh being something like an old shoe He might as well kick off, was glorified. And He retains a glorified bodily bodily form to this day as He sits at the right hand of the Father. One day we'll all kneel in front of that man. No component of Him, therefore, can be likened to a mere shoe, something that wasn't intrinsic to His mission. For it was that very flesh that was whipped and torn by Roman whips and that human heart that was pierced by that Roman spear.

herbert writes:

Tim, Your analogy of the shoes and the ball just doesn't make too much sense to me. Aren't both feet connected to legs which are connected to one person? The analogy just doesn't seem at all analagous. Analogies should make things more clear and understandable. This one doesn't. It seems that part of your problem with this dogma concerns the implications of Mary's motherhood of Christ. However, her identity as Theotokos doesn't imply that she's responsible for creating God or anything like that. She was, however, a willing participant (God was not coercive in His relationship to her) in God's efforts. She played a maternal role to the person of Christ. She can, therefore, rightly be called Theotokos without being misunderstood as somehow being the maternal origin of divinity or something absurd like that.

herbert writes:

Tim, do you really stand by that kicking analogy? I was trying to make sense of it. But I really think it's just confusing. I was inferring a whole bunch of things and trying to do anything I could to make it shed light on you position. It does anything but help. So is this how it goes? Your comments come to an end after you provide a poor analogy? Or are you taking some time to think of another way of dealing with this issue?
P1 Christ was divine while in the womb.
P2 Only God is divine
P3 There is only one God
P4 Christ was born of Mary
C Mary bore God (i.e. Mary is the mother of God)

Timothy McCabe writes:

Herbert,

When we say "Christ is God" or "Christ is divine", if the "is" is equative, then we are also claiming that "Christ is the Father". But He isn't. Therefore the "is" cannot be equative.

Is it possible in the English language for "is" to mean something other than "equals"? Yes. As I demonstrated with both the black volkswagen analogy and the shoe analogy, "is" does not have to be equative to make sense in the English language.

Do we agree with the statement "Christ possesses the divine nature"? I think we do. This statement is a possessive statement, not an equative one. In this statement, we are not saying "Christ = the divine nature", rather, we are saying that He possesses it.

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

We know that "Christ is divine" or "Christ is God" cannot possibly be using "is" in an equative manner, as shown above, and we know that we agree with the possessive statement "Christ possesses the divine nature", so is it possible that these two statements, which seem very similar, are actually equivalent in meaning? My claim is, yes, that is exactly the case:

"Christ is God" = "Christ possesses the divine nature"

These two statements are exactly equivalent in meaning.

Mary bore a possessor of the divine nature. She did not bear the divine nature itself. Thus, it seems to me that there is no logical basis (since it doesn't deductively follow from any granted premises) or Biblical basis (since its use is nowhere encouraged in scripture) for the phrase "Mother of God".

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

Further, "Mother of God" will always be understood as the "maternal origin of divinity" unless great elaboration, explanation, and twisting of the phrase is used to change its plain meaning. Even if we grant that "God" could simply be a title for any of the three persons of the Trinity individually, it is certain that the intended meaning behind the phrase will definitely be misunderstood. I tend to think it is intended to be misunderstood to increase a sense of superstitious esoteric mystery.

So, (1) there is no warrant for its use, and (2) its use is only misleading.

Keep in mind that neither I, nor anyone else, is obligated to respond to any of your comments. I personally feel that I have made my case quite clearly and have little intention of explaining it over and over and over again. This is not intended as an insult to you or anyone else. I simply have better things to do than repeat myself incessantly. I'm sure you do too.

[continued]

Timothy McCabe writes:

[continued]

If you have not yet spoken with your Bishop about the non-equative nature of the word "is" when we say "Christ is God", I would still recommend you do so.

God bless.

herbert writes:

Tim, Christ is "one in being" w/ the Father. Mary bore Christ. She didnt bear the Trinity (And such doesn't need to be the case in order to justify Mary being given this title). Also, a doctrine's veracity isn't judged according to the extent to which it is likely to be twisted and misunderstood by heretics. It just seems to me that you are strictly logical except for the times you aren't. And you are entirely Biblical except for those times when you aren't (for example, by insisting upon that unBiblical notion that the portion of the Bible that you have is intended by God to be treated as the basis for the Christian faith- as opposed to the Catholic Chirch that Christ established and shepherds over the course of centuries). But either way, I appreciate your time and kindness. Thank you.

Comment on this topic

The God Contention

If God created everything and decided how it would be, wouldn't our sins be his fault?

CHRISTIAN View

ATHEIST View

Comments

More Questions