Saturday, October 29, 2011

The definitive Paul vs James debate: the end of Protestantism is near!

I happened across one of the most astonishing admissions in the history of Reformed Protestant scholarship. One of the most renowned Reformed scholars, Dr. Buchanan, said this in his 400 page tome, The Doctrine of Justification:
'There is not in all the Scriptures,' says one [opponent], 'an instance in which one man's sin or righteousness is said to be imputed to another. There is not in all the Bible one assertion that Adam's sin, or Christ's righteousness, is imputed to us; nor one declaration that any man's sin is ever imputed by God or man to another man. Having followed (the Hebrew and Greek verbs) through the concordances, I hesitate not to challenge a single example which is fairly of this nature in all the Bible.'
These are bold statements, and may seem to imply a denial of the doctrine, as well as a criticism on the term, by which it has been usually expressed; but we refer at present only to the latter. Every reader of his English Bible, without the aid of critical scholarship, may discover,—and it has never been denied, so far as we know, by any competent divine,—that the verbs in question are applicable to cases, in which that which is imputed to any one was personally his own beforehand,—that one man, for instance, who is righteous, is reckoned and treated as righteous; and that another man who is wicked, is reckoned and treated as wicked. But the question is, Whether the same verbs may not be equally applicable to other cases, in which that which is imputed to him was not personally his own, and did not previously belong to him, but became his only by its being put down to his account?
The debt due, and the wrong done, by Onesimus to Philemon, were not chargeable against Paul personally or previously, but he became chargeable with them simply by their being imputed to him: 'If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account,' or 'impute that to me;' 'I will repay it.' In like manner, 'He, who knew no sin, was made sin for us,' and 'bore our sins in His own body on the tree,'—not that our sins were chargeable against Him personally or previously, but they became His by imputation on God's part, and voluntary susception on His own. If it be said, that the mere word 'impute' is not employed in this case, it may be asked, whether there be any other which could more accurately express the fact, if it be a fact; and whether the word itself is not used in a parallel case, when God is said 'to impute righteousness without works,' as often as 'He justifieth the ungodly?' (Part II, Lecture XII, Proposition XVII)
This quote is astonishing for in it contains a hidden admission that Protestantism is founded upon a grand scam, one of the greatest cover-ups in Christian history. This admission by Buchanan actually surpasses the admission by Dr Albert Barnes (which I also commented upon Here).

Buchanan starts off by quoting an opponent who claims that the Bible never teaches: (a) Adam's sin was imputed to us; (b) Christ's Righteousness was imputed to us; (c) our sins were imputed to Christ. Further, the opponent claims there is not a single example of the Biblical Greek or Hebrew terms for "impute" ever being used in such manner.

"These are bold statements," Buchanan admits. And Buchanan says this for good reason: this claim, if true, refutes the entire doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.

Notice how Buchanan proceeds to "address" this objection. He begins by admitting that the term "impute," as used in Scripture, is often applied to situations where someone is imputed (or reckoned) to be (or have) something that he actually was (or actually did have). In his words, the Bible uses "impute" in such a way as to say someone who is actually righteous is reckoned and treated as righteous. The only question, Buchanan proceeds to raise, is whether "impute" is used to mean something is imputed to someone that doesn't actually belong to that person. Here is where the great scam takes place.

As Buchanan's sole and definitive proof that the Bible uses "impute" to support the Protestant position, Buchanan references the situation of Philemon 1:18, where Paul tells Philemon to "charge" (impute) any debts of Onesimus to Paul's account instead. What Buchanan hides from the reader (recall he said this was basic enough for a layman reading an English Bible) is that the term for "impute" in Philemon is the Greek word ellogeo, which is only used one other (non-relevant) place in Scripture! In other words, this isn't even the same Greek word for "impute" - the Greek word logizomai - that the New Testament uses almost 40 times, and which Paul uses about 30 times, including when speaking of "reckoned as righteousness". It is a classical scam of bait-and-switch: starting off speaking of one issue, but then shifting the focus onto a second (unrelated) issue.

By Buchanan's own admission, though totally indirect, he couldn't even come up with a true counter-example to what his opponent originally charged. And if that wasn't enough, he "concludes" by admitting that even though the term "impute" is never actually used in the cases of Adam's sin to us or our sin to Christ, we none the less can assume (fallaciously begging the question) that this concept is taught using other language. I've seen this very same argument and logic used by Charles Hodge, James White, and William Webster, to name a few.

When I say this is one of the biggest cover-ups in Christian history, I don't say that lightly. This is about scholars who end up shamelessly hiding the truth, even in the midst of unwittingly admitting their Justification thesis is bad, and in a desperate attempt to defend it they end up employing the most absurd and false arguments. This information is so damning that as the word continues to spread, more and more 'aware' Protestants will leave Protestantism, while their apologists will eventually have to face up to these facts as well. It is because of issues like these that I believe we are living in the last days of Protestantism.

Help spread the word!

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

The blasphemous foundations of Mormonism

Mormonism is a popular subject right now, not only because a popular presidential candidate named Mitt Romney is a Mormon, but most especially because the Mormon church has a major internet campaign going to promote Mormonism. More and more advertisements (especially on Google and major social networking sites) are promoting a church that appears welcoming and offers a very family friendly environment. Sadly, many will be deceived by Mormonism's glitter, but a semi-informed individual will not be caught off guard. The purpose of this post is to point out serious problems within Mormon theology and practice. Some of these you might have seen before, while others you might not have seen. The errors in Mormonism easily rival the errors of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

One of my BIGGEST finds ever - a Protestant scholar refutes Sola Fide!

In the middle of writing another post refuting Sola Fide, I came across a popular Protestant Commentary that said something I never thought I'd see in a Protestant Commentary.

Presbyterian theologian Albert Barnes wrote a hugely popular Commentary on the New Testament. Though he apparently later on taught some unorthodox Protestant doctrines, his reputation became somewhat tarnished, but his Commentary does not seem to have received much criticism considering it's still widely popular. When I took a look at what he said in regards to Romans 4:3, I nearly fell off my seat. Since his comments are relatively long for this short post, I'll condense it and add my own emphasis (Full Source Here):
Abraham believed God - The faith which Abraham exercised was, that his posterity should be like the stars of heaven in number. This promise was made to him when he had no child, and of course when he had no prospect of such a posterity. See the strength and nature of this faith further illustrated in Romans 4:16-21. The reason why it was counted to him for righteousness was, that it was such a strong, direct, and unwavering act of confidence in the promise of God.

And it - The word "it" here evidently refers to the act of believing. It does not refer to the righteousness of another - of God, or of the Messiah; but the discussion is solely of the strong act of Abraham's faith, which in some sense was counted to him for righteousness. In what sense this was, is explained directly after. All that is material to remark here is, that the act of Abraham, the strong confidence of his mind in the promises of God, his unwavering assurance that what God had promised he would perform, was reckoned for righteousness. The same thing is more fully expressed in Romans 4:18-22. When therefore it is said that the righteousness of Christ is accounted or imputed to us; when it is said that his merits are transferred and reckoned as ours; whatever may be the truth of the doctrine, it cannot be defended by "this" passage of Scripture.

Was counted - ἐλογίσθη elogigisthē. The same word in Romans 4:22, is is rendered "it was imputed." The word occurs frequently in the Scriptures. In the Old Testament, the verb חשׁב chaashab, which which is translated by the word λογίζομαι logizomai, means literally, "to think, to intend," or "purpose; to imagine, invent," or "devise; to reckon," or "account; to esteem; to impute," that is, to impute to a man what belongs to himself, or what "ought" to be imputed to him. It occurs only in the following places: Psalm 32:2; Psalm 35:4; Isaiah 10:7; Job 19:11; Job 33:10; Genesis 16:6; Genesis 38:15; 1 Samuel 1:13; Psalm 52:4; Jeremiah 18:18; Zechariah 7:10; Job 6:26; Job 19:16; Isaiah 13:17; 1 Kings 10:21; Numbers 18:27, Numbers 18:30; Psalm 88:4; Isaiah 40:17; Lamentations 4:2; Isaiah 40:15; Genesis 31:16. I have examined all the passages, and as the result of my examination have come to the conclusion, that there is not one in which the word is used in the sense of reckoning or imputing to a man what does not strictly belong to him; or of charging on him what ought not to be charged on him as a matter of personal right. The word is never used to denote imputing in the sense of transferring, or of charging that on one which does not properly belong to him. The same is the case in the New Testament. The word occurs about forty times (see "Schmidius' Concord)," and, in a similar signification. No doctrine of transferring, or of setting over to a man what does not properly belong to him, be it sin or holiness, can be derived, therefore, from this word. Whatever is meant by it here, it evidently is declared that the act of believing is what is intended, both by Moses and by Paul.

For righteousness - In order to justification; or to regard and treat him in connection with this as a righteous man; as one who was admitted to the favor and friendship of God. 
While Barnes says other things here that I did not quote (for the sake of brevity) that could be sufficient to keep him within the realm of Protestant orthodoxy on this matter, what I have quoted ultimately cripples the Protestant attempts to point to Romans 4 as proof for Sola Fide. In regards to what I did quote and highlight, I have been saying these same thing for years (see This Document as one of many examples), but not getting much feedback from Protestants (or even Catholics!). I and a few other Catholics have been striving to point out that the Hebrew and Greek terms popularly translated as reckon, count, impute, etc, speak principally about what something is in itself and thus being treated according to what that object really is. It is a term that has nothing to do with "transferring" or even (graciously) counting something other than what it really is. Now that I found a Protestant theologian who says this in a popular commentary, I see this as confirmation of what I and other Catholics have been saying all along. I would just hope many Catholics reading this get on board and spread the word!