Pages

Friday, February 17, 2012

You have got to be kidding me: one of the biggest JW whoppers ever!

Today I present to you another "you've got to be kidding me!" moment in Jehovah's Witness theology. As with other JW oddities I've come across, I'm likewise amazed that this has not gotten much attention in the apologetics realm since it's a very vulnerable spot of JWs.

This article will deal with the JW doctrine concerning Judgment Day, what it is and when it will happen. Fortunately, their main door to door evangelization book, What Does the Bible Really Teach? is available on their official website and basically lays out their view of Judgment Day in the Appendix. But first to whet the appetite I will quote from a passage in Chapter 7 of the Really Teach book (all highlights by me):
The apostle Paul said: “There is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) What does that mean?

18 “The righteous” include many of the people we read about in the Bible who lived before Jesus came to the earth. You might think of Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Ruth, Esther, and many others. ...

19 What about all the people who did not serve or obey Jehovah because they never knew about him? These billions of “unrighteous” ones will not be forgotten. They too will be resurrected and given time to learn about the true God and to serve him. During a period of a thousand years, the dead will be resurrected and given an opportunity to join faithful humans on earth in serving Jehovah. It will be a wonderful time. This period is what the Bible refers to as Judgment Day. (see Appendix) 
20 Does this mean that every human who ever lived will be resurrected? No. The Bible says that some of the dead are in “Gehenna.” (Luke 12:5) ... Although Jesus will have a role in judging the living and the dead, Jehovah is the final Judge. (Acts 10:42) He will never resurrect those whom he judges to be wicked and unwilling to change.
I know what you are thinking: you have got to be kidding me! The term "unrighteous" plainly means one who does evil, and this is clear especially when the context contrasts them to the good guys, the righteous. Why in the world are the JWs redefining "unrighteous" to mean those billions of good people who were simply ignorant about God? The answer to that will come later, because now we have to consult the Appendix referenced above:
Judgment Day—What Is It? 
HOW do you picture Judgment Day? Many think that one by one, billions of souls will be brought before the throne of God. There, judgment will be passed upon each individual. Some will be rewarded with heavenly bliss, and others will be condemned to eternal torment. However, the Bible paints quite a different picture of this period of time. God’s Word portrays it, not as a terrifying time, but as a time of hope and restoration. ...
The book of Revelation shows that Judgment Day begins after the war of Armageddon, when Satan’s system on earth will be destroyed.* (Revelation 16:14, 16;19:1920:3) After Armageddon, Satan and his demons will be imprisoned in an abyss for a thousand years. During that time, the 144,000 heavenly joint heirs will be judges and will rule “as kings with the Christ for a thousand years.” (Revelation 14:1-3; 20:1-4; Romans 8:17) Judgment Day is not some hurried event lasting a mere 24 hours. It lasts a thousand years
During that thousand-year period, Jesus Christ will “judge the living and the dead.” (2 Timothy 4:1) “The living” will be the “great crowd” that survives Armageddon. (Revelation 7:9-17) The apostle John also saw “the dead . . . standing before the throne” of judgment. As Jesus promised, “those in the memorial tombs will hear [Christ’s] voice and come out” by means of a resurrection. (John 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15) But on what basis will all be judged? 
According to the apostle John’s vision [in Revelation 20:11-12], “scrolls were opened,” and “the dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to their deeds.” Are these scrolls the record of people’s past deeds? No, the judgment will not focus on what people did before they died. How do we know that? The Bible says: “He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.” (Romans 6:7) Those resurrected thus come to life with a clean slate, so to speak. The scrolls must therefore represent God’s further requirements. To live forever, both Armageddon survivors and resurrected ones will have to obey God’s commandments, including whatever new requirements Jehovah might reveal during the thousand years. Thus, individuals will be judged on the basis of what they do during Judgment Day
Judgment Day will give billions of people their first opportunity to learn about God’s will and to conform to it. ... However, not all will be willing to conform to God’s will. ... These wicked ones will be put to death permanently during Judgment Day.
By the end of Judgment Day, surviving humans will have “come to life” fully as perfect humans. (Revelation 20:5) Judgment Day will thus see the restoration of mankind to its original perfect state. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28) Then a final test will take place. Satan will be released from his imprisonment and allowed to try to mislead mankind one last time. (Revelation 20:3, 7-10) Those who resist him will enjoy the complete fulfillment of the Bible’s promise: “The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.” (Psalm 37:29) Yes, Judgment Day will be a blessing to all faithful mankind!
Again, I know what you are thinking: you have got to be kidding me!  All of this is so unscriptural and false that it's hard to know where to even begin, but it's still a great opportunity to show just how far people will go to prop up false teaching. The most important thing you should take away from the following analysis is that the JW view of Judgment Day is not some isolated doctrine, but deeply tied to many other JW errors on which their entire system rests. In other words, they came to this absurd idea of Judgment Day in order to protect other erroneous teachings.

The first thing to notice is that they give off the impression Christians just made up the traditional view of Judgment Day. The JWs insinuate that there is no Scriptural basis for claiming Judgment Day is a very quick event at the very end of time in which all men are judged based on their good or evil deeds and consequently rewarded with Heaven or Hell. This is absurd, as numerous texts teach this plainly (e.g. Romans 2:5-8; Matthew 16:27), including the very texts JW's appeal to like Revelation 20:11-12, John 5:28-29, and Acts 24:15. 

John 5:28-29 is plainly speaking about evil doers and Revelation 20:11-12 is plainly saying the same thing as the other similar texts: the dead will be judged based on their deeds. The simple fact the text is speaking in the past tense also debunks the idea the 'deeds' in question are future deeds: the dead haven't even done these yet, and in fact are actually 'new commandments' that God issues along the way. The JW appeal to Romans 6:7 is likewise ridiculous, entailing physical death wipes away one's record. Whenever you see desperation going on like this when doing apologetics, it's almost always a sign that there are other more important doctrines the person is trying to protect

The next thing to note is the JWs have embraced the popular (mostly Protestant) view that the "thousand years" mentioned in Revelation 20:1-10 is a literal thousand years that will begin in the future. While this is possible, granting this has no effect one way or another on the main issue at hand. The common Catholic interpretation of the text is that the "thousand years" are figurative, referring to the present Christian age, beginning when Jesus condemned Satan at Calvary. Then at the very end, Satan will have one more all-out offensive to try and hurt as many as possible before Jesus returns for the Final Judgment. This is not a cop-out, it has a good basis in the text.

To begin to see the real problem at hand, consider that the JW view of the 'end' is ironic for it basically makes it the start of another trial period: Judgment Day is now a second try to get it right, and only if you survive this 1,000 year test then you will 'live forever' - and if not, you will be annihilated (since the JWs don't believe in hell). But Scripture says nothing about giving mankind a second chance, nor does that fit with Christ's mission to address sin at the Cross. As I noted earlier, all these JW errors are tied together, so with that in mind we can see a few precious doctrines the JWs have sought to defend are at stake, ultimately causing them to interpret "unrighteous" as 'ignorant of God's ways' as opposed to evil doer. 

Simply stated, the JW consider Christian doctrines like the immortality of the soul and hellfire to be Satanic inventions corrupting pure Christianity. Thus, to believe that the unrighteous will be resurrected directly calls into account both of those doctrines since they have to explain why resurrect an unrighteous person in the first place. If the grave is the end, especially as one's ultimate punishment, then resurrecting an unrighteous person makes no sense, which is why JWs say "unrighteous" refers to good-hearted ignorant folks rather than evil doers. But since the unrighteous are resurrected, this suggests their punishment is not over! Now if the soul is not immortal, then resurrection is nothing more than a total recreation from 'memory' of the person (which the JWs affirm), and it makes little sense to go through with this only to turn around annihilate the evil doer out of existence again. Thus, resurrecting the unrighteous directly implies the reality of hellfire and an immortal soul, though Scripture is already clear about this truth (e.g. Rev 20:10). 

But I also believe they say this because their view on heaven is corrupt as well, teaching only a small group will go to heaven while the rest remain on earth, but that will have to wait for another post! In a future post, I hope to address how JWs equivocate with the term "resurrection" and "salvation" (again both to protect other errors) and thus are ultimately caught in one big web of absurdity and falsehood. 

Friday, February 10, 2012

Jehovah's Witnesses errors encapsulated in Matthew 13

The parables contained in Matthew chapter 13 are of immense importance when doing apologetics, particularly when talking with Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. The Parable of the Weeds is especially useful when addressing the most anti-Catholic claim out there: the heresy that the Church Jesus established fell into Total Apostasy and had to be "restored" at some point (for Luther this was the 1500s, for Mormons this was the 1800s, and for JWs this was the 1900s).

In this article, I'll show why the Parable of the Weeds is extremely devastating to Jehovah's Witnesses and how just turning to Matthew 13 when talking with them can go a long way in planting seeds (pun intended) in their minds.

Monday, January 30, 2012

7 reasons Protestant anthropology is to be rejected

(If you want to double your effectiveness as a Catholic apologist in 30 minutes, read this article.)

Anthropology refers to the study of human nature in general, but within the context of theology it refers to man's nature as it corresponds to his final goal, his abilities, and the effects of Adam's sin. This subject is indispensable in forming good theology, especially when discussing salvation, because if you get this subject wrong, you'll likely get salvation wrong as well. As an analogy, if a medical doctor fails to understand how the body functions, he will most likely fail to properly diagnose and treat the ailment. Well-informed Catholic theologians have understood this and explained why incorrect anthropology is at the heart of the Protestant Reformation. Luther's decision to reject the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church came ultimately as a result of him severely erring on his view of human nature, and thus turning that into an erroneous view of salvation. From an apologetics point of view, any discussion with a Protestant is bound to fail if you don't understand that each side has issued a radically different "diagnosis" to the "illness" mankind finds himself in after Adam's disobedience. 

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Do Muslims deny the Crucifixion of Jesus?

Like most Christians living outside the Middle-East and northern Africa, my knowledge of Islam is limited, yet Islam's massive influence on world history from the time it began in the Seventh Century up to today make it a subject worth looking at. The question is: where to start? My most recent interest in looking into Islam came when a blogger named David made a post regarding the Muslim view of the Crucifixion. In particular, David was addressing a verse from the Muslim holy book, the Koran, which plainly says Jesus was not really crucified, but David came upon a few scholars who say otherwise. In looking into the evidence for myself, I believe that David is incorrect, and that I believe the Koran clearly denies the Crucifixion. This matter is important for Christian apologetics for obvious reasons: the Crucifixion is one of the central aspects of the Christian faith - if it didn't happen, Christianity is a lie; if it did happen, then the Koran is wrong and thus so is Islam. The first step then is to show the Koran does in fact deny the Crucifixion. 

Sunday, January 8, 2012

"Call no man Pastor" - a fresh look at Our Lord's prohibition.

In seeking to 'refute' the naive Protestant attack of appealing to Our Lord's instructions to "call no man father" (Matthew 23:9) as a prohibition of calling a priest "father," most Catholics have fallen into an entirely 'defensive mindset' and thus failed to apply this teaching at all. Typically, a Catholic will point out how this instruction cannot literally mean don't use the term "father" in reference to biological (Mt 15:4) or adoptive (John 6:42) or spiritual fatherhood (Rom 4:11-12; 1 Cor. 4:15), but once they've 'disarmed' the Protestant they feel their duty towards this verse is finished. In reality, the lesson from this verse is as important as ever, particularly with the rise of Protestantism.

I have become increasingly disturbed over the past few years as I stop and realize how much sway Protestant "pastors" have within the culture at large. This is disturbing because of the nature of their authority: it's ultimately self-appointed. I cannot think of any (functional) system in which the human authorities are self-appointed, and yet this is precisely a cornerstone of Protestant ecclesiology. Millions of people, including Catholics, have the mindset that just because someone is a "pastor" that they are entitled respect and even some level of submission. I write this having had that mentality until recently, only now realizing how dangerous and anti-Christian it is. And I realize now this is the true context in which Our Lord said "call no man father," meaning do not bestow titles of religious authority upon usurpers and detractors from God's true leaders.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Sports Mad America

Sports have a stranglehold on the heart and mind of our culture and people need to be made aware of this. As predicted by the Popes of the last few centuries, as Secularism continued to take hold, mankind would begin to think less about the eternal dimension of their life (especially religious obligations) and focus solely on the temporal aspects (life's pleasures). While fewer and fewer parents have the energy or willpower to get to Mass on Sunday, pray as a family, or even eat together, they have almost limitless energy for getting up early on Sunday to watch football or get their kids to practice every night so that they can play in the game by the end of the week. Anyone who takes a step back and looks at this situation can see the insanity - and sinfulness - of it all.

Unfortunately, I have to make this disclaimer, though most people reading should already understand this: Sports are not evil, and in fact some benefits can be derived from them. Popes have even suggested that, within key limits, sports are a good outlet for males and foster bonding, which is true. The problem is most people don't take this in the proper context, and as a result end up eclipsing the more important aspects of life (i.e. religion and family).

Those who think that history does not repeat itself need look no further than the pagan Empires of Greece and Rome, which had their own sports teams and arenas. What is often forgotten about in our secularized culture is that sports originally were centered around worship of the human body and pagan gods. In other words, it's origins center around idolatry. But being secularlized doesn't mean the 'religious pagan aspect' has totally vanished, for there still remains a "cult of the body" (i.e. worship of athletic talents and good looks) that is alive and stronger than ever today. This is thanks to the break down of family, loss of religion, the advent of mass media, mass transportation, as well as the rise of feminism. Today sports have become an unhealthy and even unChristian obsession, including a very pagan and idolatrous dimension.

Cross-referencing the subject of man being made in the Image of God and thus naturally inclined towards union with God, the Catechism speaks on the sin of idolatry:
Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. (CCC#2113)
Such elements are clearly present in the modern concept of sports. This paragraph, likewise, cross-references to the subject of sports:
If morality requires respect for the life of the body, it does not make it an absolute value. It rejects a neo-pagan notion that tends to promote the cult of the body, to sacrifice everything for its sake, to idolize physical perfection and success at sports. By its selective preference of the strong over the weak, such a conception can lead to the perversion of human relationships. (CCC#2289)
Not only is the "cult of the body" (a form of idolatry) present, but "the perversion of human relationships." The latter naturally lends itself to creating relationships along the lines of competition and success, leaving the 'weak' and 'loser' to be neglected as humans. This entails that if one isn't good at sports or good looking, they're naturally 'inferior' and not worth relating with. How often do we see cities and schools exalted or mocked based simply on how good their sports team is? And notice how modern "heroes" are not the Catholic saints, but the celebrities and sports stars. We even regularly hear people call their favorite celebrity or sports star their "idol" (which culturally has gone beyond a simple expression).

For all of our modern obsession with science, what our culture refuses to tell us - blinded as it is by sin and deviance - is that sports are fundamentally unnatural. The body was never meant to undergo regular sessions of 'cardio workouts' (which unnaturally speed up and slow down the heart) and recreational running/jogging (which wear out and damage knee and ankle joints), much less getting hit and elbowed in the face (e.g. basketball), or even slam-tackled (football). Contrary to the notion that sports promote "good health," sports related injuries are very common, and often these injuries far outweigh any health benefits. Yet what is the most common response? It's right out of paganism: "at least he got hurt doing what he loved" - as if sacrificing on the pagan altar of pleasure and (not so common) victory was worth the cost of the injury. We all know people who have been injured playing sports (often simply doing routeing moves), and even though we don't bring this up for the sake of being sensitive, we (and they know) that the injury wasn't worth it. I know people young and old who have had to have serious surgeries and will carry these injuries the rest of their life, be they damaged joints, metal rods in their arms/legs, concussions, etc. I feel sad when I hear them talk about how much pain they're in or how they cannot do this or that simply because of an old sports injury (it pains me even more when they refuse to accept the fact it wasn't worth it). Good health is simply a matter of good eating, good company, spiritual exercises, and activities like simple walks - no sports required. 

To make matters worse, there are even sports where the primary goal is to injure your "opponent" (e.g. boxing, cage fighting). Any Christian should be able to see the total barbarism and unChristian spirit such violent and dehumanizing events, but sadly many don't. This can even be carried over to many "extreme sports" that are by definition centered around dangerous activities (e.g. jumping off cliffs), which are also sinful because they treat life without sacredness and put pleasure and success as the ultimate goal. And what many parents don't know is that even if the sport isn't about hurting the other team, there is always a troubled child on the opposing end that has no problem taking out his anger or frustration on your child (and all it takes is one time). That alone should have parents be on extreme caution. 

Along the lines of debasing the value of life and relationships comes the loss of shame and decency. For example, cheerleading is often thought to be an innocent sideline sport to football, but really cheerleading is of pagan origin and not really about sports at all. It's origins are from female flaunting of their body to stimulate sexual temptations in order to 'urge on' their men, but astute Catholics can see this is wrong and degrades women. A similar (even more disturbing) thing can be said about how people are taught to act and behave in the locker room, particularly getting undressed infront of other people as if it's no big deal (when in fact it's very damaging). It is well known that many very lewd jokes and gestures go on in locker rooms precisely because of the fact people are undressed (and even shower) in front of eachother, where not only is shame and decency totally abandoned, it even fosters temptations like child abuse. This is right out of pagan Greek and Roman sports, where pedophila and homosexuality were encouraged in their changing rooms.

Next there is the time commitment. Do the math: If a child has practice 3 days per week from 5-6pm, with a game on the weekend, then 4 days of that week are effectively blocked out, including missing out on family meals and busy weekends. Not only that, but the child comes home too tired to do homework or other family activities. Just as serious is the fact one of the parents will likely have to do the driving, meaning one of the parents also must be gone during the important hours at the end of the day when their family needs them most. This isn't rocket-science, the results are plain: the entire household is thrown into serious chaos with just a single child in sports. Now add to this this, say there are 2 or 3 children in sports, and you've exponentially increased the chaos in the family. That's the reality, and it's totally insane.

Who is to blame here? Ultimately, the parents, who see nothing wrong with it and even encourage it. But most parents simply don't know any better, and get their conditioning (no pun intended) from the schools and media. This is undoubtedly because we live in an age where pleasure seeking is the highest good, and religion (i.e. worship of God) is an afterthought. The result is smaller families (so there is more time and money to "have fun") and less of a long-term outlook on life. And the media simply plays on these fantasies. Just look at how much hype there is surrounding games, including the hours leading up to the game purely speculating on what will happen, as well as hours after the game repeating what already happened. A typical NFL game is about 3 hours long, including tons of advertisements full of sin and vices, with a 1-hour 'pre-game' show and 1-hour 'post-game' recap. That's 5 hours in front of the TV for what really isn't that important, and often takes priority over Mass.

The school system actually does society a great disservice in this regard, because they are designed to not teach children about religion and higher duties of life, and have no problem flooding families with numerous year-round after school sports activities. And this leads to another problem, which is conditioning society to think about College in terms of sports-scholarships and good athletic programs. Think about it: how many colleges are tightly wrapped up and consumed with sporting events while promoting virtue and moderation are not even on the radar? Many big name modern Colleges are literally built around their massive athletic programs and the revenues that flow from it. Is that really what College is about? No wonder the College environments are so full of sin and children are so confused; it's because the philosophical environment is one of secularist hedonism. Ironically, the very term "gymnasium" has historically meant a place for intellectual exercises and growth, where as in America the term is exclusively used for physical activities.

The last important aspect I will look at is is the influence of feminism. With the rise of 'woman-power' came the 'competition' to be as good as (or better) than males at everything, including sports. As a result, women's sports needed to be equally funded and promoted. The result was that women began acting more and more like men, and lost their sense of femininity both physically and psychologically. Even the uniforms they have to wear often amount to immodest dress, with short shorts, sports-bras showing, etc. People say sports help reduce health problems like obesity, but what they don't realize is that most health problems are the result of mothers not being available for their kids at home. Think about it, if a child doesn't have time for family dinner, then the parent is forced to have them eat fast food, give them unhealthy sports drinks and snacks, and abandon the rest of the family at home to physically and emotionally fend for themselves. The mistakes and ramifications of the past generations have been sadly seen and felt, which is why more women today are rejecting the feminist role which looks down upon motherhood and caring for family.

There are very practical cures for this disease that I believe are worth sharing, and which people will agree with if they simply stop and let the initial shock pass. First of all, don't be on someone's agenda: if they schedule games on Sunday, don't participate; if they demand a strict practice regimen that makes them more of a parent than you, don't participate. Families need to be strong enough to say "No" and even get themselves off the rat-race and hamster-wheel if they're currently on it. Second of all, do the math: calculate how much time it consumes and whether you and your family really have the energy for it; consider whether it will prevent a parent from being able to take care of the rest of the family; consider the cost of gas and eating out; and consider the risks to health and development. You will see there really isn't enough time and energy. Third, put your Catholic faith first: this means promoting family time, promote decency, watch as little TV as possible, promote the father's role as head of the family, and promoting activities that foster large families. The result of this will force sports into their right and natural place as a backyard or neighborhood activity.

What amuses me about subjects like these is that most people avoid talking or blogging about them because they are "too controversial." But really, it's topics like these that many Catholics are eager to hear about and which promote proper thinking about faith and life.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

The Filioque proved in Revelation 22:1

[Update 4-21-12, big find by Steven in the comment box]

The other day I decided to look into the Filioque - the part of the Nicene Creed that says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son" - and as I was casually looking at how the Greek term "proceeds" is used in the New Testament, I came across a fascinating verse in Revelation 22:1. It turns out other people have noticed this as well, but to my amazement I couldn't find any Catholic apologetics articles spreading the news. One blogger who is Eastern Orthodox and strongly advocates reuniting with Rome based on many good arguments actually made some brilliant observations about Revelation 22:1, which I think deserve more recognition and thus will reproduce here along with my other findings. As I continue to look into this verse, I believe this verse has the potential to move mountains in terms of steps to bringing the Eastern Orthodox back into communion with the Catholic Church. I say this because I've become convinced this verse is solid Scriptural proof that the Filioque is true.

Monday, December 5, 2011

What would Mr Robinson Do? (Did St Maximus really abandon Rome?)

The Sixth Ecumenical Council assembled in 680 A.D. to deal with the Monothelite heresy. In the course of condemning this error, the Council also condemned various men who played a role in propagating this heresy, including Pope Honorius. Throughout history, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox have pointed to this situation as definitive proof that the Pope is not infallible, and that he can even be overturned by an Ecumenical Council. On the surface, that sounds like quite an indictment, but the details reveal a different picture. (NB: The example of Honorius is a favorite for Catholic agitators because it's one of the extremely few situations in 2,000 years of Church history where they have any hope of making a case against the Papacy.) Now, many Catholics have already written in defense of Honorius and how this example doesn't undermine the Papacy, so I only want to touch upon certain key details rather than write a lengthy post repeating what's already been done in service to the Church. In particular, I want to address an objection made by an Eastern Orthodox apologist named Perry Robinson in his article, "What would Mr Newman Do?"

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Augustine: The (Lost) Fourth Chapter?

It is not uncommon for Eastern Orthodox (and even some Protestants) to say Saint Augustine was one of the worst heretics in all of Church history. Of course, some don't go so far as to make that an explicit charge, but they'll make all sorts of allusions to the fact, often by saying a certain teaching is one of the most pernicious heresies ever and connecting that back to something Augustine taught.

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!

Monday, September 26, 2011

A Protestant show stopper: Psalm 106:30f

If you want to pull the rug out from out under a Protestant, ask them to tell you what Psalm 106:30-31 means,
Then Phinehas stood up and intervened, and the plague was stayed.
And that was counted to him as righteousness [ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην] from generation to generation forever.
As will be shown, this is one of the most devastating verses for Sola Fide in the whole Bible. It's right up there along with James 2:24 and Romans 10:9-10 (see this article and this article). I personally believe it has more to offer than those other passages because it hits the Protestant where he least expects it.

Most people have never seen Psalm 106:30-31, and the tiny minority of Protestants who do know about it keep it under tight wraps. Why? Because it targets one of their most "sacred" passages in Scripture, Romans 4:3-5 quoting Genesis 15:6 (Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness - ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην), and utterly demolishes their entire understanding of it. (In case you didn't notice, both verses use the identical Greek phrase for "credited as righteousness".)

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Does Saint Paul have his own "Not by Faith Alone" verse?

In Romans 10:9-10 (NKJV) we read:

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness*, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Plainly read: to be "saved" you must "confess" and "believe". Obviously, "salvation by faith alone" is ruled out here. But surely there is a Protestant answer to this, for now it appears Saint Paul has his own "Not By Faith Alone" verse (since we already know Saint James has his own)!

Thursday, September 8, 2011

The Little Flower and the Death Penalty

In her famous biography, The Story of a Soul (selling millions of copies even today), St Therese of Lisieux (affectionately referred to as "The Little Flower") recounts a time in her life when she first became conscious of her duty to look out for the salvation of her fellow citizens:
In order still further to enkindle my ardour, Our Divine Master soon proved to me how pleasing to him was my desire. Just then I heard much talk of a notorious criminal, Pranzini, who was sentenced to death for several shocking murders, and, as he was quite impenitent, everyone feared he would be eternally lost. How I longed to avert this irreparable calamity! In order to do so I employed all the spiritual means I could think of, and, knowing that my own efforts were unavailing, I offered for his pardon the infinite merits of Our Saviour and the treasures of Holy Church.

... I said in all simplicity: "My God, I am quite sure that Thou wilt pardon this unhappy Pranzini. I should still think so if he did not confess his sins or give any sign of sorrow, because I have such confidence in Thy unbounded Mercy; but this is my first sinner, and therefore I beg for just one sign of repentance to reassure me." My prayer was granted to the letter.

The day after his execution I hastily opened the paper, La Croix, and what did I see? Tears betrayed my emotion; I was obliged to run out of the room. Pranzini had mounted the scaffold without confessing or receiving absolution, and the executioners were already dragging him towards the fatal block, when all at once, apparently in answer to a sudden inspiration, he turned round, seized the crucifix which the Priest was offering to him, and kissed Our Lord's Sacred Wounds three times. . . . I had obtained the sign I asked for, and to me it was especially sweet. (Chapter 5)
Look at this beautiful act of Love and Mercy that brought true Peace to all parties involved! This "little giant" of a Saint sure knew how to put things in perspective and bring justice and peace to society! But how can this be if she stood by and let him receive the death penalty? How could this Doctor of the Church fail to uphold the sanctity of life? Something must be wrong.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Habemus altare! - We have an Altar!

[UPDATED: See the quote at the end.]

Most people are aware of the slogan "Habemus Papam!" when a new Pope is elected; it means "We have a Pope!" In the case of this post, I'm going to be taking a look at Hebrews 13:10, in which "Habemus altare" appears in the Latin Vulgate translation of the first few words of that verse:
We have an altar whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.
While Catholics have pointed out this verse various times in history, particularly against Protestants who reject the Mass is a Sacrifice, I felt it necessary to comment upon it myself since I've not seen a detailed examination of it, only casual references.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

The wishy-washy "Protestant-ethos" in Eastern Orthodox moral teaching

[I can't believe it's been over a month since I last posted. I've been very busy (and still am). I'm not the type to post too frequently (I believe it leads to burn-out), but a few posts a month is not asking too much. It seems that I have a lot of posts in the "drafts" box that I never seem to have the time to finish up, and though this post was not an exception, I want to post something so I've decided to post what I do have on this subject.]

Posts like these cause me heart-ache because they discuss problems that really shouldn't exist, but do. In this instance, I've been delving more deeply into various official Eastern Orthodox websites trying to find "definitive" answers to common moral problems, particularly abortion, divorce, and contraception. In each case I find answers that are a mixture of indecisiveness, uncertainty, and wishy-washy reasoning that resembles the Protestant ethos where morality is subjective and "based" more on the individual level of Priest-Bishop-Patriarchate than that of a unified and definitive voice for Christendom.

Friday, June 24, 2011

Examples of Individuals Losing Salvation in Scripture

One of the most effective ways of refuting the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) heresy of Eternal Security (aka Once Saved Always Saved) is to point out some examples of individuals in Scripture who at one point in their life were saved but then lost their salvation through grave sin (whether they repented or not is outside the scope of this brief article). The following list is by no means exhaustive, and I welcome any suggestions for other examples.

King Uzziah:


I have to credit Dave Armstrong (bookmark him!) with pointing this example out to me a while ago. 2nd Chronicles 26 records the following about this man:
3Uzziah was sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. 4And he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, according to all that his father Amaziah had done. 5He set himself to seek God in the days of Zechariah, who instructed him in the fear of God, and as long as he sought the LORD, God made him prosper. ...  16But when he was strong, he grew proud, to his destruction. For he was unfaithful to the LORD his God and entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense. ... 20And Azariah the chief priest and all the priests looked at him, and behold, he was leprous in his forehead! And they rushed him out quickly, and he himself hurried to go out, because the LORD had struck him. 21 And King Uzziah was a leper to the day of his death, and being a leper lived in a separate house, for he was excluded from the house of the LORD.

Clearly, there was a time when Uzziah was living in God's favor, with no indication this was disingenuous. Yet, he "grew proud, to his destruction" to the point he was struck by God and never healed. (This is in contrast to those who have sinned and have healed after repenting.) This can only signify that Uzziah lost his salvation, and goes directly against the Protestant notion that good works will automatically flow. I'm sure there are similar situations for other OT Kings who at one point lived uprightly but then became corrupt.

King David:


Everyone is familiar with David's infamous sin with Bathsheba (adultery) and Uriah (murder). This was one of the most infamous and tarnishing sins in the OT, particularly because David was such a holy man (1 Kings 15:5). St Paul quotes David's repentance (in Psalm 32) in Romans 4:6-8 and calls that a moment of justification, and since David wasn't converting (for the first time) there, it can only mean his justification was lost. Indeed, Martin Luther's famous document, the Smalcald Articles (enshrined as part of the Lutheran Book of Concord) says this about the matter:
It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them. (Section 3:3:43)
This is very similar in essence to the Catholic teaching regarding Mortal Sin.

St Peter:

In Matthew 26:33-34 we hear Christ reveal that Peter will deny Him three times. We know this denial of Christ was influenced by Satan, but Jesus prayed that Peter would have the grace to repent afterwards and be converted (Luke 22:31-32). This is clear language of losing salvation and recovering it, especially considering denying Jesus is one of the worst sins a person can commit (Matthew 10:33).

Judas Iscariot:

This is one example in which Protestants give much opposition, since they claim Judas couldn't have been saved in the first place, since no true believer could do what he did. On top of this, their favorite proof text is John 17:12,
While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
However, if you read this carefully, it is saying Jesus protected all 12 Apostles, and that one became "lost" (indicating there was a time he was not lost). But that's not all the data we have to consider. In John 6:70-71, Jesus says:
70Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil." 71He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.
Here it shows Judas was one of the Twelve, chosen by Jesus. It's impossible to be an Apostle if one is not a true believer. If the Protestant position were correct, the Bible could only have said Eleven were Apostles. Acts 1:17 says Judas "was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry," and Acts 1:24-25 records the replacing of Judas by Matthias, when Peter says they need a person to "take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside." Judas had a place and apostleship, and was originally out with the Twelve, undistinguished, performing the same miracles and having power to cast out demons (e.g. Mark 6:7-13; Matthew 10:1-4). And most of the time when Judas is mentioned, his infamy traces to one thing: his future betrayal of Jesus, not some non-converted status he had the whole time. It is only in John 13 where we see Satan "entered Judas," indicating Judas consented to the betray but up until then Judas was not possessed by Satan.

The final point to consider is a very important detail which a Catholic apologist recently pointed out (bookmark his blog!) in an article he wrote on this subject. Jesus quotes a prophecy in regards to Judas in John 13:18, "But the Scripture will be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.'" To share bread with someone in the Hebrew mindset indicates an intimate relationship; something impossible if Judas was never a believer to begin with. But that's not all, most of us forget to look up the prophecy Jesus is quoting, which happens to be Psalm 41:9, which says: "Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me." What a new picture emerges after reading this! Indeed, the idea that Judas was so close to Jesus up until then shows just how serious and enormous the betrayal was, since the worst betrayals are those from the people closest to you. Jesus even calls him 'friend' at the moment of betrayal (Matthew 26:49-50)!


Ananias and Sapphira:

The infamous account of this lie (and subsequent punishment by death) by a newly converted husband and wife is recorded in Acts 5. This story is actually a continuation of Acts 4:32-37, which shows how the first Christian community supported eachother such that nobody was needy. The account begins by contrasting their story to that of Barnabas' (in the previous verses), showing how the couple sold some of their property and were donating (some of) the proceeds to the Apostles for charity. This act makes no sense if they were indeed never believers in the first place, nor does Peter's rebuke of them indicate they were imposters or never true believers. Indeed, the only indication of sin was at the point of laying it at the Apostle's feet, not before, since Peter says the money was theirs all along and were free to use it as they pleased. Lastly, the account says a "great fear" came over the Church as a result of this, indicating this divine judgment was a warning to them; otherwise there would be no need to fear in that regard.

Simon Magus:

In Acts 8:9-24 is the account of Simon Magus trying to bribe the Apostles after seeing the miracles they could perform. In verse 12-13, it plainly says many men heard Philip preach and were converted, and that even Simon Magus "believed and was baptized" and followed Philip. When Peter and John arrived to give the Sacrament of Confirmation, Simon Magus became envious and wanted this 'power'. Peter rebukes him by saying: "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you." Clearly, Simon had fallen away and was in danger of damnation, unless he repented of that sin. The only 'excuse' a Protestant could make is that Simon's belief and baptism recorded in Scripture must have been fake, but this is pure assumption without any warrant in the text. Further, that excuse fails to consider that Peter was rebuking Simon Magus for a specific sin, and told him to repent, not saying that he never believed in the first place.


Demas:


I found this account by accident, but it's still worthy of mention. Demas appears 3 times in the New Testament: Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:10; Phm 1:24. He is a companion and fellow laborer with Paul, mentioned alongside St Luke, who helped Paul and sent their greetings to the other Christians. Yet Paul says Demas got caught up in worldly affairs and deserted him (cf. 2 Tim. 4:16). There is no reason to think Demas was some scam artist who was pretending to be a Christian this whole time, and we have little reason to think Paul would be so deluded as to not detect such a thing. As with other examples, the apostasy is tied to a specific sin, in this case abandonment in pursuit of worldly affairs (cf. 1 Tim. 6:10). 


The Seven Congregations of Revelation:

In Revelation 2-3, John records how Jesus is judging seven Christian communities in different regions of the Roman empire. The following are some excerpts:
1 To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: ... 3I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name’s sake, and you have not grown weary. 4But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. 5Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

18"And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: ... 19 "'I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. 20But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. 22Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works

1"And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ... "'I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. 3 Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. 4Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy.
14"And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ... 15"'I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. 17 For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. 18I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. 19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.
In each case, God is eager to warn these congregations of impending punishment, and in each case tells them to repent before it's too late. This only makes sense if these are genuine Christians who have grown cold, for the language will not allow any sort of reading that entails they were never truly Christian. For example, the warning often starts out by saying they are doing certain things pleasing to God, which is impossible if they're non-Christians. There are references to "abandoning" their first love, God's servants being "seduced" into immorality, people who have not "soiled their garments," and those who are "lukewarm" rather than purely evil. 

Friday, June 17, 2011

Traditionalist Thoughts on Women's Head-Coverings (with an interesting tie-in to Sola Scriptura)

One very unpopular (and thus often forgotten about) subject that has recently caught my attention is the Christian teaching on head-coverings for women. This subject is unpopular because the underlying subject matter is so repugnant to our modern culture. I have always thought the practice of head-coverings was pious and traditional, but mostly done for reasons of modesty and aesthetics. Most males are aware of how distracting and (unfortunately) tempting it can be when women dress immodestly for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. But recently I found out there was more to the practice, much more, which touched upon very relevant theological matters.

The practice of women wearing head-coverings goes all the way back to the earliest days of the Church. Though I was aware that St Paul spoke on the practice, I didn't realize the context from which he was framing his lesson was theological.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Did John Calvin believe in "double imputation"?

The more I study historical Protestant documents, I continue to be amazed at how often later generations of Protestants depart from what the Pretend Reformers originally taught. A few months ago I was investigating a quote by a popular Reformed professor claiming Calvin taught the "imputation of Christ's Active Obedience" - yet when I examined the quote in detail and context, it seemed quite clear Calvin did not believe in such a thing.

I just happened to be reading another important passage in Calvin's Institutes (Book 3: Chapter 11) - the chapter which he speaks most 'definitively' on the doctrine of Justification - and was struck by the fact Calvin appears to never have believed in "double imputation" (which would make sense if he didn't believe in Christ's "Active Obedience"). Rather than stating justification consists in the imputation of Christ's Active Obedience to us and our sins being imputed to Christ, as 'traditional' Reformed orthodoxy would have it, it appears Calvin limited justification to the forgiveness of sins only. And the most interesting thing I found is that Calvin's own arguments can be used to refute Confessional Reformed soteriology.