The Martyrdom of Polycarp

"The Martyrdom of Polycarp" (translated by Roberts and Donaldson).  Available online.

Some oddities:

• "were no longer men, but had already become angels" - I guess it does go back further than "It's a Wonderful Life" :)
• There's a fair amount of anti-semitism (especially in chapter 13).  Hard to tell how much of that is post-70, and how much was added by later authors.
• No explicit definition of the Gospel

And the good points:

• "we do not commend those who give themselves up [to suffering], seeing the gospel does not teach so to do"
• "the churches throughout the world" (churches - plural)
• "the blameless one for sinners"

End on a good note :)

Doctrine and Politics

I often hear that Catholics have unity, while Protestants are divided (the old forty thousand denominations canard).

However, I always reply that Catholic unity is outward (ritual and authority structure), while conservative Protestants find unity in doctrine.

A new survey confirms what I have said.

Note the split between "Mainline" (aka Liberal, lower right) Protestants and "Evangelical" (conservative, upper right).  We also see that Catholics are not identified with any political ideology (they are disparate in their application of doctrine to practice).

It's interesting that "Other" tend toward the lower left (except for Muslims, Hindus, and Jews).

It's as I have said - conservative Christians tend toward conservative politics.

The Icon Smashers

You don't meet many Eastern Orthodox in day-to-day life.  For some reason, they are more aggressive and conspicuous on-line (like a lot of weird, tiny groups).

I had sudden insight that the Great Schism occurs after the rise of Islam.  I wanted to investigate how much EO have been influenced by dhimmitude and Islam in general (seeing as how the EO view Protestantism as a step away from themselves).

I started on Wikipedia, and (as such things usually work out) ended up reading on Iconclasm.


Some might try to view iconoclasm (or the iconomachy - "icon conflict") through a Reformation lens.  However, I don't think it can be seen that way.


The records are somewhat scarce (the iconolaters or iconodules won the struggle, and purged the iconclasts).  The first phase is connected to 726, when the Byzantine emperor (Leo III) is said to have ordered the removal of icons (religious images).

It's unclear how dedicated to this cause Leo was, as later historians seem to have targeted him as the fall guy for later events.  It does seem Leo's son (Constantine V) was more dedicated to the cause.

Constantine went so far as to summon an ecumenical council, although he stacked the deck with iconoclastic bishops.

What's most remarkable is that it was Constantine's son's widow who had iconclasm overturned.  There was another council, this time enshrining icons.  The wording used is most remarkable:

"As the sacred and life-giving cross is everywhere set up as a symbol, so also should the images of Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the holy angels, as well as those of the saints and other pious and holy men be embodied in the manufacture of sacred vessels, tapestries, vestments, etc., and exhibited on the walls of churches, in the homes, and in all conspicuous places, by the roadside and everywhere, to be revered by all who might see them. For the more they are contemplated, the more they move to fervent memory of their prototypes. Therefore, it is proper to accord to them a fervent and reverent adoration, not, however, the veritable worship which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone — for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever adores the image adores in it the reality of what is there represented."

We see here an attempt to make a distinction between "reverent adoration" and "worship".

There was a second period of iconoclasm (814-842), which was again overturned under the guidance of the king's widow.


Perhaps most interesting, this all does not seem to have arisen from any particular theological crisis or revival.

The Muslims had started to invade the Byzantine empire, and they had an extreme aversion to religious imagery.  It appears some in Byzantium attached their military troubles to God's displeasure.  It was thought that eliminating these idols would restore God's pleasure (and allow them to defeat the Muslims).

The Pope and Mary

(continuing from the last post)
The middle questions don't concern me too much. I did want to analyze the last one:

"At the cross we witness a poignant dialogue between Jesus and his mother in which Jesus says to Mary: 'Behold your son”, and to John, 'Behold your mother.'"

This is entry into what could cause a big debate on the role of Mary. But it starts out well:

"These words of Jesus are, above all, a very human act. We see Jesus as a true man who makes a human act, an act of love for His mother, entrusting the mother to the young John so that she might be safe. A woman living alone in the East at that time was an impossible situation. He entrusts his mother to this young man and to this young man he gives his mother, therefore Jesus actually acts as a human with a deeply human sentiment. This seems very beautiful to me, very important, that before any theology we see in this act the true humanity of Jesus, his true humanism."

That is very true. The first application is always to those people at that time, in that context. We must cross connect many different things to go further.

But he goes on:

"it is also true that this Mother expresses the Church. We cannot be Christians alone, following a Christianity based on our own ideas. The Mother is the image of the Church, the Mother Church, and entrusting ourselves to Mary means we must also entrust ourselves to the Church"

Of course, this is not new. The Eastern Orthodox are even more extreme in their Mariology (if that is imaginable). It is of course, very hard to understand Biblically. Nowhere in the Bible is the Church referred to as Mother. In fact, nowhere is there talk of a "Church" that is separate from either a local body of Christians or all Christians everywhere - that is, people are the church. Thus, "the church at Corinth" refers to "the called out ones of Corinth" or "the saints at Corinth" (where every believer is a "saint" - holy, set apart to God).

The word "mother" is used 8 times from Romans to Revelation:

1. Romans 16:13 - this is in the final salutation, where Paul says hi to Rufus' mother
2. Galatians 1:15 - Paul refers to God's purpose for him, "from his mother's womb"
3. Galatians 4:26 - "Jerusalem is the mother of us all" (as opposed to Hagar). This is part of a great exposition on Sarah and Hagar - the mother of freedom, and the mother of slavery. Here, Hagar represents the burden of the Law, while Sarah represents the freedom of grace (which is ironic, since it was a descendant of Sarah's child who received the Law).
4. Ephesians 5:31 - "For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother"
5. Ephesians 6:2 - "Honor thy father and mother"
6. 2 Timothy 1:5 - referring to Timothy's faithful mother
7. Hebrews 7:3 - "without father or mother" (referring to Melchizedek, who is a type of Jesus)
8. Revelation 17:5 - "Mystery Babylon the mother of harlots"

There are other references ("mothers", "daughter(s)", "nurse"), but they don't fit. For example, 1 Peter 3:6 says that faithful Christian women are the daughters of Sarah. 2 Corinthians 6:18 says we are sons and daughters of God the Father.

The Pope and Suffering

An odd post from Ignatius Insight:

"the first question that comes from a seven-year-old Japanese child who says:'My name is Elena. I am Japanese and I am seven years old. I am very frightened because the house where I felt safe really shook a lot and many children my age have died. I cannot go to play at the park. I want to know: why do I have to be so afraid? Why do children have to be so sad? I'm asking the Pope, who speaks with God, to explain it to me.'"

Ok. Japan is the least Christian first world nation I can think of (unless one counts Russia as first world). This little girl has very likely never heard the Gospel, or about sin, or anything Christian. We need a strong proclamation of who God is, and what Jesus did.

"I also have the same questions: why is it this way? Why do you have to suffer so much while others live in ease? And we do not have the answers but we know that Jesus suffered as you do, an innocent, and that the true God who is revealed in Jesus is by your side. This seems very important to me, even if we do not have answers, even if we are still sad; God is by your side and you can be certain that this will help you. One day we will even understand why it was so. At this moment it seems important to me that you know 'God loves me' even if it seems like He doesn't know me. No, He loves me, He is by my side, and you can be sure that in the world, in the universe, there are many who are with you, thinking of you, doing what they can for you, to help you. And be aware that, one day, I will understand that this suffering was not empty, it wasn't in vain, but behind it was a good plan, a plan of love. It is not chance."

Let me start by saying that I am not the right person to witness to a seven year old girl who just had thousands of people killed nearby. You need a nice, motherly lady - not a troll who lives in a basement! :)

That said, there is a nice way to say what I say - not a dumbed down, watered down, or vacuous thing to say - to deliver the truth in love, with full truth and full love.

With that disclaimer, what this girl needs to hear about is sin and God's righteousness, and His demand for justice. How the world is in rebellion against God, and how we must surrender to Him.

That Jesus' death wasn't just a senseless act against an innocent.

That Jesus paid the price for sin.

And, if we turn from sin and trust Him, we can have our sins forgiven.

JP2 on Evil

Some good points from John Paul II:

"Evil always exists in what is good."

This is awkwardly stated, a better phraseology would be (borrowing from C. S. Lewis) - "evil is a twisting or rejection of what is good". That is: good can exist in a vacuum, evil cannot. There is no "being evil for evil's sake" (despite the villains on Captain Planet). He says this later:

"Evil thus is not a thing but the lack of a good in a being in which what is lacking should be present."

"Suffering normally, however, is a sign that something is wrong in a real world."

That's precisely what I said in "The Problem of Evil".

It is interesting how Arminian he was:

"The possibility of evil is contingent on the possibility of freedom and love."
"Those who refuse the gift of grace, however many there be, are left with their choice. God cannot take that away from them. This is the limit of the divine mercy."

I thank God that He overrode my choice to reject Him! That He chose me, even when I was His enemy (Col 1:21).

Is Suffering Good?

One of the problems of the old earth is that of suffering.

An old earther must believe that animals lived and died (often horrible deaths, eaten alive) for hundreds of millions of years before man and sin.

Yet, the Bible tells us on day five (before man and sin) everything was good.

The Catholic church accepts the old earth, there is also an odd view of suffering which comes out in this interview with the current Pope (then Cardinal).

"Anyone who really wanted to get rid of suffering would have to get rid of love before anything else, because there can be no love without suffering, because it always demands an element of self-sacrifice"

That looks really bad on the face of it, but I think I understand the deeper context (love in the context of the current, fallen world). There is an "element" of self-sacrifice, but love is an eternal attribute of God. There was love expressed in the Trinity before creation, and there will be love in eternity future. I assume Catholics believe we will be free of suffering in eternity future...

"Seewald: What would actually have happened if Christ had not appeared and if he had not died on the tree of the Cross? Would the world long since have come to ruin without him?

Cardinal Ratzinger: That we cannot say. Yet we can say that man would have no access to God. He would then only be able to relate to God in occasional fragmentary attempts. And, in the end, he would not know who or what God actually is.

Something of the light of God shines through in the great religions of the world, of course, and yet they remain a matter of fragments and questions. But if the question about God finds no answer, if the road to him is blocked, if there is no forgiveness, which can only come with the authority of God himself, then human life is nothing but a meaningless experiment."

I actually like most of Ratzinger's answer here. The answer to any "what if" should be "we cannot say". We can only say what is - if we know, or what was - if it has been revealed to us.

The "Something of the light of God shines through in the great religions of the world" sounds like something a politician would say. The light of God shines in creation (and in the proclamation of the Gospel), the false religions seek to obscure and distort that light - we should be clear on that.

I want to focus on "if there is no forgiveness, which can only come with the authority of God himself". This is an odd expression, something I would expect from a Muslim. Forgiveness comes from the substitutionary death of Jesus - the righteous in place of the unrighteous - our sin is attributed to Him, and His righteousness attributed to us. For God to simply forgive sin on "His authority" (as Muslims believe) would be unjust - there must be a payment for sin.

Perhaps that is implied, but I would expect it to be more explicit.

The Key to Heaven

Returning to our evaluation of the claims of the Bishop of Rome:

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:19

What keys are being referred to here? The word key is not a common one in the New Testament:

1. Here (Matt 16:19) - "kingdom of heaven"
   
2. Luke 11:52 "knowledge"
   
3. Rev 1:18 "Hell and death" (Hades)
   
4. Rev 3:7 "David"
   
5. Rev 9:1 "bottomless pit" (abyss)
   
6. Rev 20:1 "bottomless pit" (abyss)
   

The references in Revelation 9 and 20 are "the key of the bottomless pit" (abyss), possibly part of Hell (the main areas being Hades and Gehenna). Satan and demons are bound in this pit, and later transferred to the lake of sulfur.

Revelation 3:7 is interesting "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth"

My main focus is Luke 11:52:
"Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."

It would seem this passage is different, but I believe it is exactly on target.

The question is, is this key one of power - deciding who is in and who is out (shutting what Christ has opened, and opening what Christ has closed - see Rev 3:7)?

Or is it one of knowledge? How it is that we are saved - the Gospel (soteriology).

Peter was given "the key" to salvation ("the kingdom of heaven") - the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A key which had been given to the Jews, and which had been bent out of shape by the Pharisees.

Now, historically, has the Bishop of Rome made good use of this key? Or has he (multiple individuals in this one seat) bent this key with a gospel of works? And hidden this key in Latin - hindering the translation of the Bible (and thus, understanding and evaluation of the gospel) into local languages? Reading the Bible in only Latin from 1570 to 1962?

Rocky and Apostle Creed

(apologies to Carl Weathers)

Peter (Petros, a chunk of rock) was originally named Simon (or Simeon, meaning "hearing"), a common Hebrew name. At some point Jesus changed his name.

In Matthew, Simon is referred to as Peter fairly early (starting from 4:18), although nowhere does Jesus specifically address him as Peter until 16:18 (right after Peter's proclamation). Five verses later, Jesus refers to Simon as "Satan" (v23).

Mark 3:16 is "And Simon he surnamed Peter", although this may be a comment (rather than an event in the timeline). Peter's proclamation is in 8:29. Interestingly, Jesus only refers to Peter as "Satan" (Mark 8:33) and "Simon" (Mark 14:37) (at least, when searching for Peter).

In Luke, Jesus does not address him as Peter until 22:34 (where Jesus predicts he will deny Him). The proclamation is in 9:20.

In John, Jesus addresses him as Simon (John 21:15).


That Jesus refers to building upon the proclamation, rather than the person, should be clear:
Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

"Peter" is petros (chunk of rock, as above). "This rock" is petra, meaning "mass of rock" (there is a city built into a mountain referred to as Petra near Israel).

This interpretation is hinted at in Catechism 442: "From the beginning this acknowledgment of Christ's divine sonship will be the center of the apostolic faith, first professed by Peter as the Church's foundation."

Mary and Byzantine

Insightful article from Ignatius Insight.

I must apologize, because I like to always say something good on a topic, before offering criticism (for example "On Pietism"/"Against Pietism"). That post will have to wait...

Some tidbits:

"The Mariological experience and piety of the Byzantine Churches—Catholic and Orthodox—seem to be embodied almost entirely in their worship. But we find no prominent theological reflection on the subject"

"In the East, knowledge of God is not the result of logical arguments presented by theology."

This second quote really captures a lot.

Catholic and catholic

Internet Monk has a special perspective on Evangelical and Catholic relations - his wife has converted to Catholicism (not to mention his blog is overrun by Catholics trying to convert him! :).

In this light, he has published a five part interview with Catholic apologist Bryan Cross. I would love to dig in line by line, but I am a little (a lot) overwhelmed.

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5
  

Michael also has some closing words.

For part 1, I was surprised to see the weight he gives to philosophy. I was reminded of Colossians 2:8:
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

He also has a very odd view of the Gospel:

"For this reason, unity is at the very center of the gospel of Jesus Christ, because the unity of God and man in Jesus Christ is at the center of His gospel, in the greatest union of all time, God united to man in the incarnation of Christ."

and an odd absorption with "unity":

"So the unity and catholicity of the Church are together a sign to the world that the One whose Name we bear as Christians was from God"

Happy Halloween

This is late for Halloween, but on topic.

Halloween is "All Hallow's Eve", the night before "All Souls Day", the day Catholics pray for the dead.

Some Evangelical Christians have problems with Halloween, but I don't really see it. The idea that it is in any way connected to paganism (despite the claims of neo-pagans) is really silly. The modern practice was created by suburban (nominally Christian) moms who wanted fun and candy for their kids, and supported by candy companies. I can't prove that, but it makes a lot more sense than imagining neo-pagans in the 50's and 60's (during the height of tension with atheistic Communism).

I do have a problem with prayer for the dead:

"If any man see his brother sin a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it." 1 John 5:16

Some might say this is a description of mortal and venial sin. But the concept of different categories of sin is not well supported in Scripture (there are different punishments for sin, and the sin against the Holy Spirit).

The simpler explanation is that "death" simply means "death". If you see a brother sin, and live - pray for him. If your brother dies, don't pray for him.

Why?

Because there's no point: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). Your brother has gone to judgment, his case cannot be considered any longer.

Perhaps there is tradition in such prayers. Or they comfort us. I think such a thing can be done in a theologically sound way (assuming their life did not show fruit of repentance):
"Father, we pray for our dearly departed that, in their last moments, they might have come to a knowledge of sin, and trusted in You."

Or for a known Christian:
"Father, we thank you for the life of our dearly departed brother. We thank you for the testimony of their life, and for the reward they have now received."

Lapsed Catholics

Ignatius Insight has a link to an interesting article. It is sad to see the "seeker sensitive" approach invading the Catholic church (although, it has invaded Islam [citation needed] :), so I shouldn't be surprised)...

The choice bits:

"We have to use tools that respond to the criterion that most people, de facto, use for religion today (whether we like it or not) -- experience."... "'This is what I (want to) feel or think.'"

A lot of ways to go... the most important is that our feelings and thoughts are almost always sinful and broken (rebellious). Coddling people's feeling and sinful thoughts isn't Biblical, and is only going to produce false converts (I know from experience).

Biblical conversion comes from brokenness (Jesus says we must "hunger" and "thirst" for the kingdom). The "door" is "low" and "narrow" (you enter on your knees). The audience at Pentecost was "pricked in their heart".

Preach sin and wrath. Yes, it is not popular. Some people will walk out. Some will call you hateful, intolerant, unloving.

But you will produce genuine repentance.

Donatists Alive and Well

According to CNN, the Catholic church in Brazil has apparently forgotten a hard earned lesson of orthodoxy - Donatism.

I covered this heresy over a year ago. Donatus believed that the effectiveness of sacraments was tied to the individuals performing them. The orthodox position is that it is God who is effective for everything in our lives.

Apparently, some things get forgotten after 1700 years:

"It said couples married by Santos must now seek a 'legitimate priest' to renew their vows."

Catholic and Protestant Dialogue

The Ignatius Insight blog has had a lot of good stuff lately. Most recently it is an interview with Mark Brumley on differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. It points out that there are real differences in the theories of justification, but that is not the biggest barrier. The biggest differences are the Papacy, Mary, and efficacy of the Sacraments.

Of course, these sorts of differences are fairly minor - on the order of differences between Protestant denominations. For example, Presbyterians and Baptists disagree about infant baptism. Similarly, there are arguments about "real presence" in the Eucharist.


It reminds me that it is not our theology which saves us. We must have enough theology to have the right Jesus (without the right Jesus, you do not have the Father). But we must agree on the major and overlook the minor.