Biblical Perspicuity and Linguistic Under-Determination

Biblical Perspicuity

Arguments based on disagreements in biblical interpretation are often answered with an appeal to biblical perspicuity (clarity). The appeal takes many forms. One is the idea is that the Bible is clear on “the main things,” and so disagreements are no big deal because they must, by definition, be over secondary issues. Another is that the Bible is simple enough for a child to understand, but also so deep a theologian can drown – implying that, on the surface, the text is sufficiently clear, but there is simply more to it on deeper levels. Sometimes perspicuity is used to blame disagreements on underlying issues such as presuppositions, hermeneutics, or traditions – since the Bible is clear, these things are blamed for obscuring “the plain meaning” of Scripture. Sometimes several of these views are affirmed together (example). In all cases, however, the basic assumption is that the Bible is clear enough to get its meaning across to any who will simply take it at its word.

The idea has intuitive merit. God, it seems, would not choose a manner of communication that is needlessly obscure. What would be the point? Assuming that the Bible was written to be read and understood by normal people, how can anyone think that it is difficult to understand?

Biblical, Theological, and Practical Considerations

Well, there are some reasons. First, God might have had a perfectly good reason for obscurity. Jesus’ parables are a good example of this very thing. We would not want to commit the fallacy of composition by applying what is true of the parables to the entirety of Scripture, but there are at least some instances where God purposefully did not communicate clearly. Thus the general principle that God would not do so fails.

Second, the apostle Peter himself says that at least some Scriptures are difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Here he was speaking of Paul’s writings – which make up a significant portion of the New Testament. So there is biblical warrant for not thinking all of the Bible should be easy to understand.

Third, the fact that the Bible is cited as the source for a dizzying array of conflicting beliefs by both scholars and laypersons is pretty good evidence that it is not as simple as we might like. But even if differences of method or presupposition were to blame for interpretive disagreements – should they be? Can such a clear text be so easily misconstrued? That seems a fragile perspicuity.

Finally, experience confirms that that language is often difficult to fully determine – especially written texts. Besides all of the interpretive layers separating the mind of the biblical authors and ours (see Sola Scriptura: Death by 1,000 (or 10) Qualifications), there is also the simple issue of under-determination.

Linguistic Under-Determination

Linguistic under-determination occurs whenever a given text has more than one possible meaning, referent, or significance, which cannot be narrowed down by the text itself. Take the following examples:

Example 1: “Fred Smith left his New York apartment, walked across the street to Central Park, sat on a bench under an oak tree, and fed pigeons bread crumbs.”

This is a fairly determined statement. There is little-to-no ambiguity or vagueness present in the sentence, and I doubt many meanings could be dreamed up that did not stretch credulity. And if not, it is certainly more determined than this:

Example 2: “It exists.”

Not only might the term “existence” be misunderstood, this statement could reference  anything! One might say this statement is therefore undetermined – it can be applied to virtually anything. Compare the previous examples to this one:

Example 3: “Pat ran home after stealing.”

There are at least two perfectly reasonable – even likely – ways to take this: (1) Pat is a thief who stole some object and then ran to his (her?) house, or (2) Pat is playing baseball, and after stealing third base, ran in to home plate. Now, even though this example has more than one good interpretive possibility, it is not so wide open as to include millions of possibilities (it definitely does not mean that Pat ate a pencil or that Pat walked on the moon). Thus, this example is under-determined. There is some determination of meaning – at least enough to exclude the vast majority of false understandings, but it is not determined enough to guarantee a singular interpretation.

Case Study: “Richard’s Not Gay!”

Under-determination can also be more subtle. I’ve seen more than one person demonstrate this with examples like the simple sentence, “Richard is not gay.” This might appear to be a straightforward assertion, easily understandable by anyone who knows what the words mean. But is it?

The most obvious difficulty might be that the word “gay” has changed from meaning “happy” to meaning “homosexual” in the last generation or so. Most words have a range of meaning that must be narrowed down by context, and perhaps context would clear this one up as well. But ambiguity in meaning is only the most obvious issue here.

Consider the problem of emphasis. If spoken with different emphases, several potentially conflicting interpretations might arise:

1. “Richard is not gay” might imply that someone is gay, just not Richard.
2. “Richard is not gay” might imply that not only is Richard not gay, but the very idea is absurd.
3. “Richard is not gay” might imply that while Richard is not gay, there is something gay about him.

Which is it? Without the author present, we might only be guessing. Further, it would be legitimate to ask why this statement was said in the first place. It might seem that its very utterance implies that Richard’s gayness was in question. But should it?

Implications

Now, if this four word sentence spoken in a shared language and cultural setting can be legitimately considered under-determined, how much more so could a collection of over sixty books written by scores of different authors in different languages at different times and I different cultures?

And this is just one issue – we have not even delved into multiple-meanings (the allowance of which seems demanded by some biblical prophecies) or allegory (examples of which are found in the Bible), and other varying degrees of less-plain understandings that are required for an accurate understanding of biblical meaning.

Finally, I know of instances where similar or even equivalent presuppositions, hermeneutics, or traditions are held by conflicting interpreters – so there must be more going on. I even know of single individuals who, purportedly using the same methods with the same presuppositions have radically altered their views in a short period of time  (example).

Conclusion

Biblical perspicuity is an answer to biblical obscurity – not difficulty. It seems that God did not purposefully communicate his word in such a way that its meaning is beyond normal comprehension. But this does not necessarily mean that the Bible is clear on the main things and only difficult on secondary issues, or that the Bible is simple enough for a child to understand and it is only on deeper levels that difficulty arises, or that  the Bible is always clear enough to get its meaning across to any who will simply take it at face value.

The clarity of Scripture means that understanding is possible, not that it is easy.

This is why offering examples of “obvious” statements in Scripture is not a very compelling response to assertions of biblical difficulty. Counter-arguments based on biblical perspicuity must deal with the non-obscure-but-still-difficult elements in interpretation too.  Yes, the statement of Isaiah (40:8) that “the grass withers”  might be understandable by a child – but its implications may not. Perhaps each word of the statement in Revelation  (20:6), “they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years,” may be understandable “on the surface” – but the theological explications generated by such a statement can remain widely (and legitimately) varied.

Linguistic under-determination is not the Bible’s fault – it is merely a feature of human language and must be accounted for under any view of biblical perspicuity. Many other considerations come into play as well. Thus, interpretive disagreements should not always be seen as indications of impiety or ignorance. Nor should they simply be swept under the rug of mistaken presuppositions, hermeneutics, or traditions.

Theological Abstrusity

It’s been about 500 years since Martin Luther penned these words, so how many theological disagreements could there be left to resolve, right? Quite a few, actually (ask any Lutheran!). Without making claims as to their cause or solution, I offer a list of the continuing theological debates within Christianity which I find significant due to theological / ethical importance (e.g., salvation or morality), pedigree (e.g., academic or popular), or position variance (whether quantitative or qualitative).*

* Indicates that the debate has its own multi-view book(s).

1. Abortion
2. Adam’s Historicity*
3. Alcohol Consumption
4. Apologetic Methodology*
5. Baptism’s Meaning and Procedure*
6. Biblical Authorship / Origins
7. Biblical Higher Criticism
8. Biblical Inerrancy*
9. Christ’s Atonement*
10. Christian Education
11. Christian Spirituality
12. Church Definition
13. Church Government
14. Church Growth*
15. Communion (Eucharist / Lord’s Supper)*
16. Contraception
17. Covenant Theology*
18. Creationism*
19. The Meaning and Authority, of the Church’s Creeds and Councils
20. Destiny of the Unevangelized*
21. Dispensationalism*
22. Divine Foreknowledge*
23. Eastern Orthodoxy’s Compatibility with Evangelicalism*
24. Election / Predestination
25. Entertainment Involvement (e.g., music listening / TV or movie watching)
26. Essentials of the Faith
27. Eternal Security*
28. Evangelicalism’s Nature
29. Evolution*
30. Faith’s Definition
31. Faith’s Relation to Reason
32. Family Ministry
33. Free Grace Salvation
34. Free Will
35. God’s Will*
36. God and Time*
37. God’s Providence*
38. God’s Attributes*
39. Gospel Conditions
40. Hell*
41. Hermeneutics
42. Judaism and Christianity
43. Justification*
44. Law and Gospel Relationship*
45. Marriage / Divorce / Remarriage*
46. The Millennial Kingdom*
47. Mind-Body Problem*
48. Miracles / Miraculous Gifts*
49. Natural Law
50. New Testament Use of the Old Testament*
51. Old Testament Genocide*
52. The Old Testament Canon
53. Pauline Soteriology*
54. Paul’s Status in Romans 7
55. Peter’s Role / Importance
56. Prosperity Gospel
57. Psychology
58. Purgatory
59. Rapture Timing*
60. Revelation’s Interpretation*
61. Sabbath Observance
62. Salvific Pluralism*
63. Sanctification*
64. Science and Religion’s Relationship*
65. Social Activities (e.g., Dating / Dancing / Playing Cards / Celebrating Holidays)
66. Spiritual Gifts
67. Spiritual Warfare
68. Tithing
69. War*
70. Warning Passages in Hebrews*
71. Women’s Role in Ministry*
72. Works Role in the Final Judgment*
73. Worship Styles*
74. Youth Ministry*

Reading the Bible Like a Man

“Guys Don’t Need Instructions”

When it comes to reading instructions, I am probably a pretty typical guy. With the exception of firearms, I generally read just enough product instructions to get started, and only reopen a user’s manual if I need a question answered.

Many Christians refer to the Bible as an “instruction manual for life.” There are a number of issues with thinking of the Bible as a life instruction book – on the side of the Bible because most of it does not really cover day-to-day issues, and on the reader’s side because we often have questions not addressed in the Bible (at least not the way an instruction manual would). But here I want to address another problem: not only do many people read the Bible as if it were an owner’s manual, but they read it like a man reads most instruction manuals.

What Must I Do To Be Saved?

There is, of course, some sense in which the Bible functions instructionally. The Apostle John, for example, writes so that people might believe and have eternal life (Jn. 20:31). So I think we can all agree that if the Bible functions in an instructional way, it at least is there to instruct people concerning salvation. Here’s where the typical-guy scenario becomes dangerous.

For example, I recently read a church website that said,

We believe there is one condition to Eternal Life, believing in Jesus Christ.

This position is then contrasted with others who add requirements like  righteousness, baptism, or repentance. For example, practicing righteousness or acknowledging Christ’s Lordship are excluded by this church as requirements for salvation:

There are some who believe you must live a sinless life or at least have “less sin” in your life and that you must make Jesus the Lord of your life to have Eternal Life. And some believe that you must live this sinless or “less sinning life” until you die, . . . We believe these conditions put the focus on the individual’s life and not on Christ.

Concerning baptism they state:

We can find no evidence in scripture where baptism is a condition for Eternal Life.

And when it comes to repentance:

We believe that repentance is not a condition for Eternal Life. Of all the people who wrote books in the Bible, the Apostle John seemed to have a special desire to educate others about Eternal Life. . . . Believing in Jesus to receive Eternal Life is written in the gospel of John close to 100 times. The words repent or repentance are not found in John’s gospel.

While some find biblical support for each of these (and others), it is the methodology revealed in this last statement I wish to focus upon.

The Salvation Manual

Note the logic employed above: because the salvation passages in John’s writings do not include the words “repent” or “repentance,” then repentance is not necessary for eternal life. This may sound like a trustworthy methodology – after all, we had a question about salvation, and we opened the manual and found some instructions. Those instructions said nothing about repentance, only “belief”.

Q.E.D. So let’s close the manual and get on with life, right?

Well, perhaps a rather obvious problem suggests itself: namely, how do we know that’s all the manual says? When I open up the owner’s manual for my car to the section on changing my oil it says nothing about the radiator or brakes – yet both require fluids that are necessary for my car’s proper operation. If I had read all the fluid sections in my owner’s manual, I would see that there are in fact many fluids necessary to keep my car running. Just because only oil is mentioned in one section, that does not mean no other fluids are dealt with anywhere else.

Salvation According to the Whole Bible

Just like a car manual has more to say about fluid replacement than just the oil, the Bible has more to say about salvation and repentance than is mentioned in just one section. It would seem, then, that limiting biblical instruction to one biblical author (especially one whose writings are usually considered supplementary) is equally illegitimate as limiting fluid information to one section of the car manual. While it might be true that John’s gospel reflects a “special desire to educate others about Eternal Life” – is this not the concern of the other gospel writers and apostolic writers as well? In any case, what these inspired writers have to say is at least true.

So what happens if we turn to the rest of the Bible to see what “words it uses” when discussing salvation? We not only find far more than the one this church chose, we also find the very requirements that it excluded:

• Repentance
  • “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:3)
  • “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19)
  • “Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. (Luke. 3:8)“[God] commands all men everywhere to repent because he fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness” (Acts 17:30-31)
  • “Godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation” (2 Cor. 7:10)
• Confession of Jesus as Lord
  • “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.” (Rom. 10:9)
• Loving God and Neighbor
  • “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” (Luke 10:25-28)
• Having Belief in God’s Existence and Rewards
  • “Whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”  (Heb. 11:6)
• Being Obedient
  • “Not every one that says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Mt. 7:21-23)
  • “I assure you, unless you turn from your sins and become as little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.” (Mt.18:2-5)
• Being Righteous
  • “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 5:20)
  • “The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?” (1 Cor. 6:9)
  • “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious . . .  those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Gal. 5:19-26)
• Enduring to the End
  • “He who endures to the end will be saved.” (Mt. 10:22)
  • “The one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Mt. 24:13)
  • “You have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. . . . my righteous one shall live by faith; and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him. But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.” (Heb. 10:32-39)
• Forgiving Others
  • “If you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (Mt.  6:14-15)
• Doing Good Works
  • “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? . . . faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” (James 2:14-17)
  • “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph. 2:10)
  • “Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” (Titus 2:13-14 )
  • “Insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works.” (Titus 3:8 )
• Being Baptized
  • “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38)
  • “Baptism now saves you.” (1 Peter 3:21)
  • “Be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” (Acts 22:16)
  • “All of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death” (Rom. 6:3)
  • “All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Gal. 3:27)
  • “We have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4)
  • “Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” (Col. 2:12)

Salvation According to the Apostle John

Finally, even if this church’s method was legitimate (that only the writings of the Apostle John should be consulted for salvation requirements), there would still be more to salvation than belief.

• Being Born Again
  • “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) .
• Being Born of Water (=Baptism?)
  • “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:7)
• Loving and Not Hating Brethren
  • “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loves not his brother abides in death. Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” (1 John 3:14)
• Doing Good and Not Evil
  • “Those who have done good will rise to experience eternal life, and those who have continued in evil will rise to experience judgment.” (Jn. 5:29)
  • “The dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.” (Rev. 20:12 cf. chapters 2-3)
• Conquering
  • “The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” (Rev. 3:5)
• Eating Jesus’ Flesh and Drink His Blood
  • “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (Jn.  6:53 )

Conclusion

Now, there may be good reasons why this church does not think any of these other requirements found outside their cherry-picked proof texts are really required for salvation. Certainly there are verses that use the word “salvation” which either do not seem to give universal requirements (e.g., Mt. 19:16-22), or which do not seem to imply eternal life (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:15). But given all the Bible has to say about salvation, to act as though the presence or absence of one word in one author’s writings can adequately answer the question of salvation requirements is misleading at best.

There are serious dangers to treating the Bible as an instruction manual. Doing so can lead to looking for answers to questions it does not address, expecting Ouija-like responses to inquiries, or the misapplication of commands or examples. These dangers increase exponentially if we “read it like a man” – skipping around until we find what we’re looking for, and then moving on. The Bible is not a single – nor simple – writing; it is a collection of varied writings. And if they are all inspired, then all of what they say is important for understanding the truth.

Transubstantiation and the Christian Faith

I can’t stand bad arguments or faulty reasoning, no matter which side of a debate I am on. But when bad thinking can lead to loss of faith, I really can’t keep quiet. On a recent radio show, one of the  guests was asked for his thoughts on the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. His reply was brief (it only lasted from 86:30 – 90:00), and I am sure he has more that he could have said on the issue – but in that time he managed to make several claims that should raise red flags for all Christians regardless of their stance on transubstantiation (indeed regardless of whether the doctrine is even true).

What is Transubstantiation?

In order to understand what the doctrine of transubstantiation teaches, and why the guest’s comments are so problematic, we first need to understand the philosophy of change that the doctrine employs.

Substantial vs. Accidental Change

In Aristotelian philosophy there are two types of change corresponding to two kinds of descriptions of a thing: substance and accidents. Substance refers to what a thing is at its core, while accidents are modifications of that substance. What something is at its deepest level is its substance, while how that thing differs from other things of the same substance are its accidents. So for example, males and females are both substantially human – they differ by gender, but gender is accidental to humanity because being human does not determine gender.

This distinction gives rise to a distinction in the ways things can change: substantially or accidentally. If a man’s skin turns red from being in the sun too long, he has undergone accidental change. Skin color is not determined by the substance of humanity, because it is a difference among humans. Thus, to change skin color is not to go from being human to being non-human.

Accidental Change

Now, to go from being human to being non-human would be a substantial change, because the “what” would have changed. Substantial change is not often recognized as such outside of philosophical circles, but it happens every day and is often reflected in how we name things. When a cow (which is a living substance) dies, it turns into meat (non-living material), and then – if eaten – turns into the body of another living being. When a tree is cut down it goes from being a tree to being wood, and if the wood is burnt, it changes from wood to smoke. Those are examples of substantial change.

Substantial Change

Note that just as a thing may undergo accidental change without going through substantial change, a thing might also undergo substantial change without going through accidental change. In fact, it is because the accidental qualities of a thing may remain after a substantial change that we do not always take notice of such change (as when a sleeping cow dies).

Truck: Accidental Change without Substantial Change
Tree: Substantial Change without Accidental Change

Transubstantial Change

Now, transubstantiation is the Latin word for “substance” with the prefix “trans” which indicates change (e.g., transportation). So transubstantiation means the changing of a substance. Specifically, in Roman Catholic theology it is the theological expression of the substantial change the elements of communion undergo when they change from being bread and wine to being the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Transubstantiation is the name for the process of what happens during communion – the substantial change of bread and wine into flesh and blood without the accidental change of these elements’ appearances. Thus, transubstantiation is not believed because of any perceived accidental change in the elements (for, according to the doctrine, there is none). The bread and wine are perceived in the same way before and after the change. This is believed to be the best explanation for biblical statements that identify the communion meal with Jesus’ body and blood (John 6:53-58; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:26-27), as well as the testimony of the historic church.

Counter Assertions

The guest on the show did not believe that transubstantiation takes place, or even can take place. He begins with the assertion that, “Obviously it’s contrary to the word of God, there’s just no doubt about that. If you just read the Bible, you know it’s just contrary to it.” Instead of providing biblical support for such an accusation, he simply goes on to ridicule the very idea of transubstantiation:

“I don’t know how anybody makes sense out of that. I know that I could never believe in the viewpoint that something looks identical to bread and wine, but it’s actually the blood and body of a human being [is] just outrageous.”

The guest’s inability to make sense of transubstantiation is hardly an argument, and it will not be treated as such here. But notice that it is the fact that bread and wine do not change in appearance that makes him think the idea of transubstantiation is “outrageous.” Oddly, that is exactly what the doctrine teaches should happen. This will become important later.  He goes on:

“I mean just from a philosophical standpoint that is just . . . I don’t understand how someone could hold to that. It’s very counter-intuitive  In fact I would say that it’s more obvious that things can’t be that way. It’s impossible.”

The guest’s incredulity and intuitions may be interesting features of his psychology but, again, these provide no argument that transubstantiation is actually impossible. This connection, though, between his incredulous intuition are important. He continues:

“It’s almost as if – I’ve heard it explained this way, I don’t even know if a Roman Catholic would agree with this – but God hides Christ, and he kind of deludes our senses and . . . God deceives us almost, and we are in fact seeing Christ’s body and blood right there. . . . You have God deceiving us in worship which I’m sure does not seem like something the most perfect being would do. . . . It’s God messing with our cognitive faculties.”

Fortunately the guest admits that this is just how he has “heard” transubstantiation described – not what the doctrine actually teaches. But since he apparently thinks it is relevant, some things should be said.

First, by complaining that the bread and wine do not appear to be flesh and blood, he is actually affirming the conclusion one would reach by believing in the doctrine of transubstantiation. Whether or not the bread and wine had been transubstantiated, the bread and wine would not appear to have changed (any more than a living tree branch might not appear different when initially cut off of a tree). That’s just a common feature of substantial changes, and is exactly what transubstantiation says will be the case. Thus, neither the philosophy nor the theology behind transubstantiation are threatened by this (understandable) intuition.

Second, as to being “deluded” or “deceived” by God, this would be no more true in transubstantiation than in other instances of substantial change that do not involve accidental change. Those who believe in transubstantiation are not making a false judgment based on “deluded senses” (whatever that would be), because there is no accidental change to perceive. Their judgment is based on faith in the substantial change that is not perceived. This last point reveals the critical area of failure for this methodology, as will be fleshed out(!) below.

In his closing statements, the guest continues to eschew argumentation and opts for more rhetoric:

“If you allow for such a thing it’s possible that . . .  a car could be the entire Soviet Union . . . you can see that this is just so beyond any common sense or any sort of rationality. I don’t know how people affirm this. I think it is extremely counter-intuitive and I find it highly implausible and that’s one of the reasons – apart [from] you know, the Gospel  and sola scriptura are just reasons –  why I just say on a theological level and on a philosophical level, I just cannot buy this – I don’t know how people do it.”

The fact that the guest cannot imagine how people believe in transubstantiation is, again,  simply a report on his own thinking and forms little-to-no support. Analogies are not arguments, and no evidence from the Gospels or from sola scriptura is offered. Although he knows he is dealing with a philosophical explanation for a theological teaching, nothing is offered  in the way of philosophical or theological disproof. All he has to offer is invective against something he cannot see.

Faith and Plausibility

For the guest, the fact that transubstantiation goes “beyond any common sense or any sort of rationality,” and is “extremely counter-intuitive,” and is “highly implausible,” makes the doctrine simply unbelievable for him. Now, all these unsupported assertions would hardly be worth mentioning except that they reveal something of great importance for all Christians. If the thinking behind this dismissal of transubstantiation is legitimate, it may threaten the Christian faith itself – for Christianity stands or falls on many truths that would fall into the above categories if his method is followed.

Consider the doctrine of the Atonement: Christianity teaches that because a man got nailed to a piece of wood anddied that somehow humanity can be freed from the power of sin. Well, we don’t see that happening at the crucifixion. Thousands of people were nailed to crosses back then, and nothing came of it. It would certainly seem “highly implausible,” therefore, that Jesus’ death could have been spiritually significant.

Moreover, consider the doctrine of Jesus’ Incarnation: Jesus was clearly a human being with all the limitations of humanity, yet Christianity teaches that he was also deity. Not only does such a doctrine go “beyond any common sense or any sort of rationality” . . . not only is such an idea  ”extremely counter-intuitive” . . . it seems completely impossible! How can one thing be both material and immaterial, finite and infinite? These are not just big differences – they appear to be contradictory.

Now the doctrines of the Atonement and the Incarnation are not believed because of anything that can be verified by our senses or by philosophy, of course. They are matters of faith, founded on facts that point to the truth of Christianity and believed by God’s grace. Thus, a skeptic’s incredulity is of no consequence with regard to whether or not these doctrines ought to be believed. Christianity teaches them, and Christians believe them.

Further, these doctrines seem much more difficult to believe than transubstantiation. Which is more difficult to believe: that one finite, material thing can be changed into another finite, material thing via a process similar to that which occurs every day – or that contradictory properties can coexist in one being, or that something as particular and physical as a man’s death on a cross could have such far-reaching and spiritual effects?*

Conclusion

The fact that the guest not only did not provide good arguments against transubstantiation but also substituted his own intuitions and rationalisms for good arguments is a huge problem. His unsupported assertions are exactly the kinds of attacks atheists use against Christianity’s other claims. If one cannot accept transubstantiation simply because it “seems” so “counter-intuitive” or “implausible,” I fail to see why one would remain a Christian at all.

Now, none of this means that transubstantiation is true or that it should be accepted. It may be that, as was implied, transubstantiation is in conflict with the Bible or can be shown to be philosophically impossible. The point of this article is not simply that the guest failed to offer any good reasons to reject transubstantiation, but that his reasons for rejecting it, if accepted, could easily lead to rejecting the Christian faith itself.

___________________________________________________________________

*These doctrines have been spelled out in much greater detail, which may serve to make them more plausible – but even these explanations are not demonstrations of the sort the guest seems to require for his assent. Further, the doctrine of transubstantiation itself has been defended on biblical, philosophical, theological, and historical grounds.

The Limits and Dangers of Apologetics

Natural and Supernatural Wisdom

The Apostle Paul writes in First Corinthians (1:18-29) that natural wisdom cannot attain to supernatural truths. Here are a few excerpts that all make the same basic point:

• Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
• The world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
• Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
• For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

This may sound a lot like anti-intellectual fideism (“Don’t think, just believe.”). Unfortunately, having read Paul this way, both Christians and Non-Christians have embraced the idea that faith and reason must not only be kept separate, but that they are antithetical to one another. This is not what Paul had in mind, however. When read in context, Paul is contrasting the supernatural truths of divine revelation with the natural knowledge attained by the wise.

There are significant apologetic issues concerning how one sees this issue – some that may even affect one’s salvation.

Natural and Supernatural Revelation

First we need to be clear on what constitutes natural and supernatural objects. Natural knowledge is of things which can be known apart from any divine revelation. Things in this category would include anything demonstrable by empirical science (e.g., the second law of thermodynamics), historical investigation, or that can be deduced from philosophical first principles (e.g., one cannot both and not-exist at the same time and in the same way). In other words – anything knowable by unaided natural human endeavor.

Supernatural revelation refers to subjects which would not be discoverable apart from divine  revelation (e.g., that God is a Trinity, that Jesus Christ was God, etc.). Truths of supernatural revelation (like many truths) cannot be demonstrated either scientifically or philosophically, although there can be some overlap because things supernaturally revealed that may also be discoverable by natural investigation (e.g., that God exists or that Jerusalem is in Israel).

Faith and Knowledge

In Thinking vs. Believing, I looked at how Thomas Aquinas viewed knowledge and faith. Aquinas says that  faith can be considered “to think with assent”  - but only so long as the correct definition of “think” is being used (viz., “the movement of the mind while yet deliberating, and not yet perfected by the clear sight of truth”). When one attains “clear sight of truth,” they no longer have faith in that object and, indeed, cannot – for it is now an object of knowledge (and to say that faith is “to know with assent” would be rather silly, for one does not “assent” to what one simply knows). Faith, then, is only ”to think with assent” when the mind has not yet attained some demonstrated certainty.

Thus, when it comes to objects discoverable by natural investigation, we often think of those as objects of knowledge – whereas objects that require supernatural revelation are considered objects of faith (though, again, some objects may be in both categories - which is fine, for some objects of faith may become objects of knowledge as we gain learning).

Implications for Apologetics

I believe that both Christians and Non-Christians have confused these two categories, and the results have been fairly disastrous. Mistaken notions concerning what can be known naturally (and thus requires some kind of scientific, historical, or philosophical proof) with what requires supernatural revelation to believe has lead to several issues:

• First, such a mistake can lead a Christian to think that one can be “argued into faith,” and put too much confidence in the power of apologetic argument and evidence to convince a non-believer. He may thus conclude that non-believers are simply stupid. 
• Second, once the over-zealous apologist sees the failure of arguments and evidence to “get the job done,” he may simply give up on apologetics altogether (in violation of Scriptural commands). 
• Third, the same kind of misunderstanding may lead a non-believer to conclude that there are no “convincing” arguments for Christianity. Equating “convincing” with “compelling,” he may thus one may conclude that believers are simply stupid. 
• Fourth, Christian apologists may waste time trying to prove that which cannot be proven. While the apologist may have a strong case for Jesus’ existence and death on the cross, that does not equate to evidence for Jesus’s incarnation or atonement for sin. Similarly, while the existence and (some) attributes of God may be demonstrated using science or philosophy, God’s trinitarian nature will not be. 
• Fifth, apologists may use inappropriate arguments or evidence when trying to prove some point of Christianity. For example, in order to show that the Bible is trustworthy, many apologists will appeal to the historical accuracy of some books (which, being necessarily based on natural knowledge cannot prove the Bible’s supernatural origin). Or they will list the evidence for only some books of the Bible as if their support can be applied to every book in the Bible (although different books will often not have the same evidence available).

The above five problems are serious, but with a bit of tweaking can pretty easily mitigated. Another problem, however, may be far more serious.

False Faith

What if, because of the way the Christian faith is argued, one is encouraged to affirm a false, non-saving “faith”? Returning to Summa Theologia II-II, Q.2, we find a rather startling conclusion from Aquinas regarding faith:

Unbelievers cannot be said “to believe in a God” as we understand it in relation to the act of faith. For they do not believe that God exists under the conditions that faith determines; hence they do not truly imply belief in a God… (A.2 Reply to Obj. 3)

What are the “conditions that faith determines”? Aquinas says later, in Article 9, that,

the act of believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the Divine truth at the command of the will moved by the grace of God, so that it is subject to the free-will in relation to God; and consequently the act of faith can be meritorious.

Faith, then, requires an act of the will – not just the possession of knowledge (thus the “assent” part of ”to think with assent”). But one cannot assent to knowledge:

the assent of science is not subject to free-will, because the scientist is obliged to assent by force of the demonstration, wherefore scientific assent is not meritorious.

According to Aquinas, if one were to be “argued into the faith” by apologetics, they would not actually have saving faith! It seems, then, that doing apologetics might actually be harmful – but this is not the case, for even the best apologetics cannot actually deliver saving knowledge.

Motives of Faith vs. Proof of Faith

The conclusion above is more believable when we remember the distinction between natural and supernatural objects. When it comes to the specific articles of the Christian faith (e.g., God’s trinitarian nature, Jesus’ deity, incarnation, and atonement, or the Holy Spirit’s regeneration), apologetics has very little to do other than prove that these things are not impossible. That is, apologetics can motivate, but not coerce belief. Aquinas concludes that,

when a man either has not the will…to believe, unless he be moved by human reasons . . . human reason diminishes the merit of faith. [Instead man ought] to believe matters of faith, not on account of human reason, but on account of the Divine authority.

Grace alone can move the will to believe in the articles of faith – they cannot be proven by natural means. We believe these things based on the authority of God.

However, when it comes to what are known as the “Preambles of Faith” (e.g., God’s existence, Jesus’ historical actions, or the creation of the Church), apologetics takes on a much stronger role. Because these are objects of natural knowledge, they can be successfully proven based on arguments and evidence from science, history, or philosophy. 

The believer has sufficient motive for believing, for he is moved by the authority of Divine teaching confirmed by miracles, and, what is more, by the inward instinct of the Divine invitation: hence he does not believe lightly. He has not, however, sufficient reason for scientific knowledge, hence he does not lose the merit.

So, because these “preambles” do not contain the articles of faith, convincing someone of them is not a threat to their faith (and, afortiori, not a threat to their salvation since the Gospel message is among them). It is only when the articles of faith are thought to be provable by natural reason that dangers arise.

Conclusion

So what of the apologist, or the one who has come to faith largely moved (at first) by apologetics? So long as one does not confuse science, history, or philosophy with Divine Authority – and recognizes the place each has for “proving” differing objects of knowledge or revelation – he is rewarded for coming to know more in service to God:

For when a man’s will is ready to believe, he loves the truth he believes, he thinks out and takes to heart whatever reasons he can find in support thereof; and in this way human reason does not exclude the merit of faith but is a sign of greater merit. . . .  even the wise have greater merit of faith, through not renouncing their faith on account of the reasons brought forward by philosophers or heretics in opposition to faith.

James and Paul on Justification, Faith, and Works

Introduction: Didn’t James Read Paul?

The alleged contradiction between James’ and Paul’s view on faith and works is based on statements such as these:

JAMES: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (James 2:14)

PAUL: “No one is justified before God by the law, for ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” (Gal. 3:11)

JAMES: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

PAUL: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Rom. 3:28)

Well, which is it???

The difficulty in resolving these statements is a problem so great that Martin Luther, who discovered salvation by faith alone in Romans and called the book of Galatians his “wife,” condemned the book of James to the fire. But are these accusations of contradiction legitimate? Several factors indicate they are not.

First, James was probably composed in the mid 40’s – making it perhaps the very first New Testament book to be written. Galatians was either written at about the same time or, according to some, a decade later. One major problem with this latter view is that Paul nowhere cites the relevant decision of the Jerusalem Council (c. A.D. 50) in his arguments against the Judaizers in his letter to the Galatians. This seems both rhetorically and historically odd at best.

Further, whereas Paul is quite clear in the book of Galatians that he took issue with Peter just for his Jewish seating preference, Scripture nowhere indicates that Paul and James ever had a disagreement over their views on justification. Given that James’s letter was in circulation, it is difficult to believe that the issue never came up!

Finally, Paul was aware of “men from James” who were teaching against his doctrine – yet he never blamed James for what these men taught. In fact, the teaching of the book of Galatians parallels the book of James at several points. Thus, it seems clear that Paul did not find James to be contradicting his teachings.

Same Vocabulary, Different Dictionary?

The difficulty is that both James and Paul use the same words (e.g., “justification,” “faith,” “works,” “love”) in the same context (salvation) and even with the same illustration (Abraham’s righteousness) to make their seemingly conflicting points. So what is the solution? Several have been put forward – mostly banking on an equivocation in language. These solutions follow the pattern: “Paul and James are using the word ____ in different ways.” If either author is using a key term (e.g., faith, justification, or works) in a different manner than the other, contradiction is avoided. Each of these has been suggested.

Faith

It may be that Paul and James are using the word “faith” differently. Namely, while Paul is talking about the (kind of) faith that saves, James is talking about a (kind of) faith that does not save. Usually this has to do with a faith that has works as its product (“fruit”). The idea is that “we are saved by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.” Paul is said to be focusing on faith alone, while James is focusing on the kind of faith. This keeps the faith-works link, but does not confuse the two.

Justification

It may be that Paul and James are using the word “justification” differently. That is, while Paul is equating justification with (initial) salvation, James means something like proof of one’s salvation. Sometimes it is said that Paul is speaking of justification of God (a one-time act whereby God declares a person to be just), while James is speaking of justification before men (i.e., one’s faith being proved genuine to others).

Works

None of the above solutions may be theologically problematic, but I would like to suggest a third possibility – that the equivocation is on the word “works.” This solution, I believe, is better established by the actual wording of the texts in question and, because it does not rely on a particular theology, better avoids the charge of  theological question-begging.

Works of (Which) Law?

As noted elsewhere, when Paul is contrasting faith and works he nearly always qualifies “works” in the text itself: e.g., “works of the law” (Gal. 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; Rom. 3:20, 28), “works of darkness” (Rom. 13:12; Eph. 5:11), “works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19). Even when there is not a direct qualifier, it is often clear what kinds of works Paul means, such as works done for illegitimate boasting (Rom. 3:27, 4:2 cf. Gal. 6:4). As can be seen, Paul establishes the context for “works” in his letter to the Galatians as well – where he is contrasting New Covenant faith with an Old Covenant legalism which was being foisted upon gentile Christians.

James does a similar thing in his letter. He speaks of faith and works with regard to “the law” – but not just any law. When he references obedience to the law, he is not – like Paul – speaking of the Old Covenant law of the Jews.  Rather, he refers to the “law of liberty.” This is established in the very first chapter:

For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. (James 1:23-25)

While the context of the book of James makes it pretty obvious what this “law of liberty” is, James spells it out in chapter two. In what he also refers to as the “royal law,” James defines the law of liberty as the Great Commandments of Jesus (Mt. 22:37 cf. Dt. 6:5):

If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. (James 2:8-13)

James is not  (pace Ray Comfort) speaking here of the Ten Commandments specifically, nor the Old Covenant generally. Rather, he is speaking of the law of love. (Note that in the above passage, James quotes the Ten Commandments when threatening the one who thinks he is fulfilling the law simply by not committing adultery. The threat works because the sinner is showing partiality which, while not one of the Ten Commandments, is against the law by which he will be judged. In other words, obeying the Old Covenant won’t save one who breaks the New Covenant.)

James, then, is not contradicting Paul – for he is not asserting that failure to follow Jewish law invalidates a profession of faith. Rather, it is failure to exhibit Christian love that shows one’s professed faith to be “useless.” For the same reason, Paul is not contradicting James – for he is not making works out to be useless (just useless to attain salvation legalistically). Two different laws are under discussion during these different discussions of works.

Paul, in fact, parallels James’ words concerning works of the law [of liberty] when he writes (in the very letter under question!):

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. . . . For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Galatians 5:6, 13-14)

Conclusion

When we consider that Paul and James are speaking of different works based on different laws, then the two no longer appear contradictory. This provides a valuable key to resolving James and Paul. Additional theological distinctions arising from different uses of “faith” and/or “justification” may also be important, but they do not appear to be necessary to resolve the alleged contradiction.

This solution also squares nicely with the words of Jesus Christ when he says,

If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. (1 John 4:20)

Legalism, Licentiousness, or Love?

Introduction: Legalism vs. Licentiousness

A constant tension in Christian thinking has to do with the faith/works relationship. At either end of the spectrum it remains – from the strictest “legalist” (who thinks works save but also allows that forgiveness and mercy are possible even for sinners) to the loosest “licencist” (who thinks that works – good or bad – do not matter to the saved, but also thinks that some moral rules ought to be followed). This tension is worsened when one tries to split the difference or aim for a mean between the two – for this has the appearance of either adding works to faith for salvation, or trusting in a “faith” that, being merely of the head or mouth, cannot really save.

Justice vs. Mercy

An issue behind the faith/works controversy is that of God’s justice and mercy. If God is perfect, then any attribute of His is likewise perfect. So how can a perfectly just God (one who always gives to others exactly what they deserve) also be perfectly merciful (one who does not always give to others exactly what they deserve)? Husbands, wives, and parents can let their their family members get away with more than they should because they are not perfectly just, and can be too strict because they are not perfectly merciful, but God does not have either option.

So the problem is this: under the law, God must judge all people as failures (for no one keeps the law perfectly), and therefore must punish them and exclude them from His Kingdom (for He is perfectly just). But, because God is perfectly merciful, He wants to save them and bring them into His Kingdom. What to do?

Faith vs. Works

All Christians know the answer: Christ’s death and resurrection provides salvation from sin to the faithful (somehow). But because this atonement has been understood in more than one way, it actually causes the tension we’re dealing with here. For example, one view is that God basically overlooks sin by considering people’s faith instead of their works. But even those sharing this view think doing good works are important (evidenced by the majority of their sermons being about what we need to do to be good Christians).

The problem is that this view might seem inconsistent, and lead to the danger of allowing works to get in the way of salvation by faith. So there always has to be a swing in the other direction to make sure that only faith (not necessarily faithfulness) saves. This, then, leads to the opposite danger of giving people license to sin simply because they “have faith.” Again, what to do?

Family Analogy

A consideration of the analogies used to describe the Christian’s relationship to God may help here. Familial (e.g., father/son and husband/wife) analogies are ubiquitous in the Bible for describing salvation, and I think that reflection upon these can help resolve a lot of the tension. What if Christ’s death and resurrection restored God’s ability to relate to people as family? How do (or should) families work? Certainly not legalistically – we do not base our love for one another on performance of duties and we don’t withhold love from one another  for imperfect obedience. But we also do not withhold punishment when necessary to correct bad behavior, and we enjoy rewarding for good behavior.

Mere obedience is not the basis of a loving familial relationship, and neither is the mere affirmation of facts about the family. Rather, love is the foundation of family. Love, however, is also obedient – even imperfect obedience (Acts 5:32; Rom. 6:17-18; Heb. 5:8-9; 1 Pet. 1:22). Thus, justice and mercy are both called for in a family relationship.

Living Faith and Loving Works

Does  that sound familiar? It does to me (like, pretty much everything Jesus and Paul said about our relationship to God!). The Christian faith is one that works by love. This is not a contradiction, nor is it legalism. Rather it reflects the true nature of living faith and loving works as an inseparable pair (e.g., Jn. 13:35; 14:15, 23-24; Rom. 13:10;  1 Cor. 13:13; Gal. 5:6; Eph. 6:23; 1 Thes. 5:8; 1 Tim. 1:14;  1 John 2:3-4; 5:2-3).

If some middle way between legalism and licentiousness is not available, we’re all in trouble! but how does this square with God’s perfect justice and mercy?

Death to Sin and Resurrection to Life

Christ’s death atones for the believer’s sin, but His death is not the end of the gospel. Christ also rose to new life – and that gets applied to the believer as well. Being forgiven for our sin is only half the story. We are called to live a new life of loving works (hence the Apostle Paul’s standard twin emphases of salvation by faith for a life of works, e.g. Eph. 2:8-10).

So God’s mercy is satisfied in that salvation results in the forgiveness of sins (which would be unjust without Christ’s death in our place), and God’s justice is satisfied in that how we act continues to matter (which would have to be be unmerciful if based on our perfectly fulfilling the law).

Conclusion: Legalism vs. Licentiousness vs. Love

God desires all to come to salvation (e.g.,1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9), but how can He do so?

• Legalism says we have to do works of the law to be saved; but this is impossible - for any slip makes one a lawbreaker (e.g., James 2:10) – God’s perfect justice, then, prohibits salvation by good works.
• Licentiousness says our works do not matter if we are saved; but this is impossible since believers will be judged according to our works (e.g., Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10) – God’s mercy, then, prohibits salvation without regard to sin.

The dilemma is resolved by Christ’s death, which sets us free from the curse of legalism (e.g., Gal. 3:13), and His resurrection which sets us free(!) from licentiousness (e.g., Rev. 20:12), thus making it possible for God to judge us according to our love (which fulfills the law!): “For the whole Law is summarized in a single statement: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself’” (Gal. 5:14).

Love, I think, both encompasses the nature of – and explains the need for – faith and works (without confusing either).

“So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” (1 Corinthians 13:13 ESV)

Ecumenical Abortion Activism

Protesters outside the first anti-abortion organization.

Introduction

In case you haven’t noticed, Roman Catholics and Protestants disagree on many doctrinal matters. While these are often important, I am not considering either side’s view’s dogma here. What matters for this article is not whether these disagreements are justified, or who is on the correct side – but whether or not it is OK for these two groups to work together on something both sides can agree upon: the need to end human abortion.

While Catholics are more than willing to work side-by-side with Protestants to end abortion, the reverse is often not the case. It is this issue I wish to write about today, specifically in response to the kind of thinking represented by writers like Justin Edwards at Airo (who thinks partnering with the ecumenical anti-abortion powerhouse 40 Days for Life is sinful, deceitful, and a stumbling block), Jon Speed at Crown Rights (who says Catholicism’s moral loopholes are in conflict with the Word of God), or Toby Harmon at Abolish Human Abortion (who does not think Catholics are Christians “at all”*).

While I understand that these writer’s have a strong aversion to Catholic theology, their divisive reaction to partnering for the sake of saving the lives of the unborn is simply baffling to me. If abortion truly is murder, then what these people are saying is tantamount to arguing that only evangelical Christians should be allowed to stop murders from occurring! Even if Rome’s gospel were utterly false, how would that detract from the efficacy of its Pro-Life stance and actions throughout history?

I am no expert on these matters (I have to remain behind the scenes when it comes to abortion activism, because I am quite sure violence would ensue if I got too close to an abortion clinic or militant pro-abortionists), but it seems to me just obviously false that the conclusions reached by these folks are even coherent. Thus, for any who might be  thinking along their lines, I offer a brief summary of the history and state of the Christian pro-life movement and some suggestions for moving forward.

History and State of the Christian Pro-Life Movement

A.D. 30 – 1973

From first century sources on up to today, the Christian Church has forbid abortion (which was commonplace even in early pagan culture). Continuously and to this day both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church teach that abortion is murder. Before Roe v. Wade, the pro-life (“right-to-life”) movement was almost entirely Catholic (in fact the only coordinated opposition to abortion came from Catholic organizations), and even after the Roe v. Wade the strongest anti-abortion voice was Catholic (e.g., the National Right to Life Committee). It has been fairly said that the Catholic Church created the right-to-life movement, and it was the Catholic Church that was targeted by the pro-abortion movement:

What paved the way for Roe was NARAL. Founded by Lawrence Lader in 1969, he knew he had to take down the greatest defender of the unborn, the Catholic Church. . . . the original members all agreed that anti-Catholicism was “probably the best strategy we had.” (source)

1973 – Today

Sadly, it was not until decades after Roe v. Wade that some conservative Protestant and Evangelical groups became a force in opposition to abortion. Not only did they show up late in the game, they sometimes began on the opposing side (worse, others never left it).

According to Pew Forum, the Southern Baptist Convention today believes that abortion is allowable only in cases where there is a direct threat to the life of the woman. However, according to Randall Herbert Balmer in his book Thy Kingdom Come, the Southern Baptist Convention:

• originally officially advocated for loosening of abortion restrictions.
• called for “work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.”
• wrote in the Baptist Press, “Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the [Roe v. Wade] Supreme Court Decision.”

Even among more conservative Christians there has been a spotty history. Evangelical scholar Norman Geisler, for example, has argued on both philosophical and biblical grounds that abortion is murder – but this was not his original position. In his widely used 1971 textbook Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, Geisler:

• stated that, “the one clear thing which the Scriptures indicate about abortion is that it is not the same as murder. . . . [because] an unborn baby is not fully human . . . (Ex. 21:22)” (p. 218).
• argued that abortion is not murder because life itself has not started and because the embryo is only potentially (or, in some cases “sub-“) human (p. 219).
• considered babies born of incest to be an instance of the “flowering” of evil (p. 223).
• concluded that abortion was justifiable for several reasons (therapeutic, eugenic, incestual, etc.).

Despite its rocky start, a significant voice heard from other Christian conservative groups – and this is great news. One must ask, however, why it took them so long to get in the fight, and why the majority of the pro-life movement today remains Catholic. Further, while there are now many in the pro-life movement from non-catholic groups, there remain groups that either ride the fence, or are simply on the wrong side.

The National Association of Evangelicals, for example, opposes abortion on demand but does “not wish to exalt a one-size-fits-all approach to abortion reduction,” and considers abortion permissible in cases of fetal deformity, threat to the health of the mother, or when a pregnancy results from rape or incest. Worse, there are entire mainline Protestant denominations that remain open to abortio, such as the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran Church (ELCA), the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and the United Church of Christ.

Temporal and Eternal Salvation

It seems to me that if any group has the upper hand in this intramural war over ecumenical abortion activism it is the Catholics – and yet it is they who continue to be willing to join hands with those outside their group in the fight. Maybe the  johnny-come-lately’s of Protestantism and Evangelicalism should re-think their strategy when it comes to this human effort. Dogma, even over salvific issues, should not obscure what is at stake here.

Abortion is an evil, vile act that must be stopped if at all possible. The struggle to save a physical life today and the one to save an soul for eternity will not always exactly overlap.  We can all agree that the gospel is ultimately the answer to the evil of abortion in general. But that does not make it the only answer to a particular abortion that is about to take place.

Eternal  salvation involves a spiritual battle that has many fronts. The abortion clinic sidewalk, on the other hand, may be the last chance these babies have today. It is their life to fight for first. The primary job of the sidewalk counselor, then, should be to act as the last line of defense – to convince a woman to seek alternatives to abortion and save her baby – not to proselytize her. God can do his converting work without letting babies die over confusing doctrinal disputes. Handing out gospel tracts and waving Mary posters should not get in the way of convincing women to not murder their babies.

Conclusion

It must be admitted that there are fanatics and fundamentalists on both sides of this civil war. The question that must be asked is: Do we really need to take the battle to the clinic sidewalk for these poor women to see? Angrily proselytizing or fighting each other while women go in to take part in the horror of abortion is simply sick, and it only makes it easier to ignore us when offering them an alternative choice. Christian disunity has consequences that both sides should fear (John 17), so let’s all get over ourselves.

In the end, if abortion really is murder, then it should be treated in the same way as murder. Evangelical Protestants would work with a Catholic (or Mormon, or Atheist!) police officer to stop a murderer from killing children, so there should not be a problem working together with Catholics (or Mormons, or Atheists!) if it means saving more of the unborn.

This post, my 250th, is in honor of the birth of my baby girl (and the stealing of my heart) 18 months ago today.

Of Acorns and Antichrists: Typological Fulfillment in the Book of Revelation

Introduction

The Book of revelation presents some pretty interesting options within orthodox Christianity. There are four radically different views competing for prominence today (not counting millennial and rapture views!), namely:

• Futurism: most of Revelation’s prophecy concerns our future.
• Preterism: most of Revelation’s prophecy concerns the first century.
• Historicism: most of Revelation’s prophecy concerns the entire Church Age.
• Idealism: most of Revelation is communicating principles, not prophecy.

Without many hours of study, the positives and negatives of these views can be difficult to appreciate. But what emerges for many who take the time to really understand these positions is the feeling that there is a legitimacy to all of them, and that even the views with which one disagrees may not be as ridiculous as first thought. How can this be the case, when the various views are about as disparate as can be?

One possible answer lies in a typological approach to prophetic fulfillment. The idea here is that while prophecies often have an immediate, obvious, and simple fulfillment (especially when time limits are involved), that the FULL-fillment of them may come later in a very different (yet grammatically, hermeneutically, and theologically legitimate) manner than might have been expected from the “plain, literal” reading.

While this may seem sketchy to some, the Bible actually indicates that this is the case.

OT PROPHECY EXAMPLES

Isa. 7:14 / Mt. 1:23 – The Virgin Birth

According to Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14 refers to the birth of Jesus Christ. But when we turn to the passage in Isaiah, we discover a prophecy that seems limited to the time of the prophet. It is difficult to see how the “plain meaning” of Isaiah 7:15 (“before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste”) can mean anything other than that Isaiah believed the child he had just described (v. 14) will be born within his lifetime, as a harbinger of the destruction of kings Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Remaliah (cf. 7:1). [Both kings were deposed by the Assyrians and their lands subjugated in 732 B.C.]

Further, the ‘almah‘ of 7:14 simply refers to “a young woman of marriageable age” without settling the question of her virginity. And, even if the woman referenced was a virgin at the time of the prophecy, Isaiah does not indicate that she would still be a virgin after becoming pregnant (i.e., in the usual way). This child may be the child of 7:14 is Isaiah’s son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz (cf. Isa.8:3-4). Thus, it seems unlikely that Isaiah 7 would have been taken as messianic in the first place.

Despite all this, according to Matthew 1:23, the birth of Jesus Christ – which occurred centuries after Isaiah’s prophecy would have had to occur (and, indeed, did) – fulfilled Isaiah 7:14. Before dealing with this issue, two more difficult examples will be observed.

Jer. 31:15 / Mt. 18 – Rachel Crying for Her Children

Like the example above, Matthew claims an Old Testamant passage is fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ. But here we seem to have a present-tense statement handled as an future-tensed prophecy! Three times in Scripture, Rachel’s tears are mentioned (Genesis, Jeremiah, and here in Matthew). Rachel was the wife of Jacob and the mother of two sons—Joseph and Benjamin, and in Jeremiah 31:15 we have “a voice in Ramah; a lamentation; a very bitter cry; Rachel is weeping over her children; she refuses to be comforted about her children because they are not.” Ramah was the point at which Nebuchadnezzar assembled the people of Judah to take them into captivity in Babylon (cf. Jeremiah 40:1).

How can the death of the infants demanded by Herod in Jerusalem hundreds of years later function as a fulfillment of Israel centuries earlier? And why call it a “fulfillment” in the first place since its use in the Old Testament is not even prophetic? One last example will show that Matthew does not even require present-tensed statements to apply them to the future.

Hos. 11:1 / Mt. 2:14-15 – Out of Egypt I Called My Son

Here we lack not only a future prophecy, but even a future- or present-tensed statement! It sounds as if Matthew turned the historical statement of Hosea 11:1 into a prophecy. When Hosea mentioned this event, he was referring to the exodus of Israel out of Egypt – which transpired centuries before Hosea wrote. Yet once again, Matthew takes a first century event as this statement’s fulfillment.

Solutions

There are a few possible solutions to these difficulties: one is grammatical, another is hermeneutical, and the last is theological.

Grammatical Solution: Initial vs. Complete Fulfillment

The Greek for “fulfill” has two chief meanings. One is to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full. Another is to render full, i.e. to complete, to render perfect, or to carry through to the end. Thus, a prophecy can be said to be fulfilled when it comes to pass, such as when a prophet predicts an event and it comes to pass. This is the sort of prediction that must come true literally and obviously to avoid apologetic problems (see Dt. 18:21-22; cf. Isa. 41:21-23).

But there is an additional sense to the term fulfillment that refers to a fuller expression of a given statement (prophetic or not). That is, the statement may point to something even bigger than its literal and obvious meaning – an additional sense in which the passage can be understood. Does this pose a problem for a literal (i.e., grammatical-historical) hermeneutic? Not necessarily.

Hermeneutical Solution: Meaning vs. Referent

When we speak or write a word we are taking the thing in our mind and putting it in someone else’s via some sign (usually written or spoken). When we encounter a given sign, we can speak of its meaning as well as its referent. Meaning is universal and singular, while a word’s referent is particular and can pick out many different things in reality. To put it another way, word meaning is abstract – it points to an idea, while word referent is a specific instance signified by the abstract meaning of the word.

For example, when I say, “dog” you probably know what I mean in general, although we may not be thinking of the same particular dog. The word “dog” might have a dictionary meaning of “a highly variable domestic mammal (Canis familiaris) closely related to the gray wolf.” This general, universal definition covers all things that are dogs and allows anyone familiar with actual dogs to communicate to others who are familiar with actual dogs. But the word “Fred’s dog” only picks out a single, particular dog. Thus, “dog” in this case has a specific referent – Fred’s dog.

Given this distinction we can see that Matthew is not abusing the Old Testament statements because he is not changing the meaning so much as the referent. For the Isaiah prophecy to be fulfilled in Isaiah’s day only required that a few conditions be met, namely: ”a young woman (probably currently a virgin) will give birth to a son named Emanuel within a short period of time.” That occurred in Isaiah’s time, and in Matthew the same thing happened: Mary (a young woman and a virgin) gave birth to a son who many called Emanuel (“God with us”). In fact, Matthew points out the additional features of this fulfillment: Mary remained a virgin, and many (“they”) called Jesus “God with us”.

The same sorts of re-referencing can be seen in the other examples. When Herod tried to kill all the children in Israel under the age of two, the nation (aka Rachel) wept. In this case we have two evil rulers coming against Israel’s children. In the first case, though, only the future of a nation was at risk – in the second case it was mankind itself. Further, while God did take Israel (“His son”) out of Egypt at the exodus, thus producing a covenanted nation made up of the Jewish people – in the New Testament He brings His only-begotten Son out of Egypt to produce a new-covenanted nation made up of all people.

Theological Solution: Double vs. Typological Fulfillment

The above pattern is exhibited in many other instances in Scripture (e.g., Mt. 27:46; Jn. 19:36; Acts 2; Gal. 4; etc.). The results of an ordinary exegesis of one text point to a referent within the time frame of the Old Testament, yet those same passages are later said to have a “fuller” dimension in subsequent events.

The expression “double fulfillment” is sometimes used for these examples. But this can be misleading. It is rarely the case that an initial (or primary) fulfillment simply recurs later in history. Further, even in cases where such a thing could be said to happen, in any case where a prophecy contains a specified time frame referent, a second “fulfillment” would not even count. For example, Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the temple predicted in the Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24-25; Mark 13, Luke 21) has often been said to conflate first century and end-of-the-world events. But the discourse is specified in the text to pertain to the first century temple (e.g., Mat. 24:1-3). Any additional destructions of any temples in the future would not count as “double fulfillments” of this specific prophecy (if “fulfillment” is taken in the normal way).

The fact that several different instances of God’s actions can all be referenced by particular passages seems to be much more impressive than mere repetition. In addition, biblical writers often cite non-prophetic passages for “fulfillments” that had no short-term referents. This points more to typology than “double fulfillment.”

Gregory Beale defines biblical types as “analogical correspondences among revealed truths about persons, events, institutions, and other things within the historical framework of God’s special revelation, which, from a retrospective view, are of a prophetic nature and are escalated in meaning.” Typological fulfillments, in other words, are of the fully-filled variety. Thus, once a passage has had it’s meaning and referent made full (exhausted?), it is called a fulfillment.

Rev. C. Lattey calls this compenetration ”a form of prophetic idealisation wherein the more immediate present fades away, as it were, into the mightier fulfilment of the same divine counsel, which gradually glows through till it takes full possession of the screen.” He points out that this sort of understanding is reflected in both Jerome and Aquinas.

In Aquinas’s preface to his commentary on the Psalms, he says:

“Prophecies are sometimes uttered about things which existed at the time in question, but are not uttered primarily with reference to them, but in so far as they are a figure of things to come; and therefore the Holy Ghost has provided that when such prophecies are uttered, some details should be inserted which go beyond the actual thing done, in order that the mind may be raised to the thing signified. Thus in Daniel many things are said of Antiochus as a figure of Antichrist; wherefore some things are therein read which were not accomplished in the case of Antiochus, but will be fulfilled in Antichrist. Thus, too, some things are read about the kingdom of David and Solomon, which were not to find fulfilment in the kingdom of these men, but they have been fulfilled in the kingdom of Christ, in figure of whom they were said. Such is Psalm Ixxi., . . . expounded of the kingdom of Solomon, in so far as it is a figure of the kingdom of Christ, in whom all things there said shall be fulfilled.”

Revelation and Typological Fulfillment

This typological/analogical view of much of Old Testament prophecy may be a clue as to the difficulty in Revelation. Prophecy has worked like this in the past – why not the future? As an analogy, it is easy to see that acorns, saplings, and oak trees do not seem very similar, yet are all just stages of a single thing. Further, knowing about any one of these gives almost no information about the others. Worse, their descriptions are virtually contradictory! Our knowledge of them comes from what we see after the stage has arrived.

Perhaps the prophecies of Christ’s Second Coming work in a similar way to those of His first coming. Revelation might very well have an initial (primary?) fulfillment in the first century (as indicated by its “soon-coming” language, identification of the beast as a present reality to John, OT parallels that identify the Harlot as Jerusalem, etc.). But could these not also signal the historical reality of the Church Age (as shown by Revelation’s obvious connections to Daniel, the fact of the beast’s ongoing activity after the first century, and more than one accurate prediction based on the day-for-a-year principle, etc.)? And, if this be allowed, why not an ultimate prediction of the final fulfillment of Revelation in the far future (given that the Church has always taught a future Antichrist and Tribulation period, the world-encompassing tenor of much of Revelation’s language, and the fact that Revelation ends with the final judgment and entrance into eternal life, etc.)?

Perhaps it is in the nature of Revelation’s prophecies to retain this typological feature of God’s predictive power. Even many who claim to eschew such a process do so in the letters to the churches in Revelation 2-3 (seeing them as both first-century churches and periods of time during the Church Age). If this is a legitimate process for the “things that are” (i.e., not prophetical) potion of Revelation, then it would seem to be even more appropriate for the prophetic section (4-22)!

Conclusion

It is clear that God esteems predictive prophecy as a means for determining true deity as well as identifying true prophets of God (again see Dt. 18:21-22; cf. Isa. 41:21-23). Thus, when a prophet of God makes a prediction, it must take place in a clear way. That shows the awesomeness of God’s knowledge and sovereignty. But how much MORE awesome is a God that can not only predict the future – but one who can fulfill those predictions in multiple, legitimate ways!

This possibility should give us pause when (but not necessarily stop us from) speculating about the future. Like the acorn analogy above, knowing what we know about the past does not give us a simple formula for figuring out the future. We especially should be careful that we do not ruin our witness with failed speculations.

This further indicates that all interpreters must be careful not to impose artificial limits to past or future fulfillments. (Imagine a debate between “preterists” and “futurists” over Isaiah’s prophecy - the former might deny Jesus’ virgin birth, while the latter might make Isaiah a false prophet!). Both parties may be right in what they affirm, but wrong in what they deny.

What we know for sure is that both the reader and hearer of the Book of Revelation will be blessed (Rev. 1:3). Every generation can find blessing in Revelation.

The Arche, Logos, and Theos in John 1:1

When the Apostle John wrote his gospel, he opened with words that would have stirred the hearts of Jew and Greek alike. “In the beginning was the Word . . . “

Old Testament Period

The Old Testament represents God’s creative act as speaking, i.e., the word of God (Genesis 1:3). God spoke and creation followed. By the word of the Lord the heavens were made (Psalm 33:6), and God’s word goes out from Him to accomplish His will (Isaiah 55:11). So in the Old Testament we have the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets all testifying to the power of God’s word.

Inter-Testamental Period

Between the Old and New Testament times we have the “Inter-Testamental period.” One writing made during this time personifies wisdom as the Word (Book of Wisdom 18:15 cf. 9:1-2).  Interestingly, it is about this time that, over in Greece, we have the rise of the philosophers (lovers of wisdom – from philos and sophia).

The Presocratics (the first philosophers, that taught before Socrates) were a group of philosophers who began their work in about 600 B.C. – about the time that Israel was being taken away to Babylon. As my professor Tom Howe once said,  “As the light dimmed in Israel, it came on in Greece.”

The Presocratics emphasized the rational unity of things, and rejected mythological explanations of the world. Their investigation was of the ultimate basis and essential nature of the external world. They sought the ultimate principle of things. This they termed the “arche” – a Greek word meaning ‘beginning’, ‘origin’ or ‘first cause’. The arche is the source, origin or root of things that exist, and the method of their origin and disappearance.

The last time the prophetic phrase “the word of the Lord came to me” was used in Jewish writings (which some consider Scripture) was 2 Esdras, written between 465-424 B.C. It was during this time that the pre-socratic philosopher Heraclitus arose.

Heraclitus

Heraclitus believed that all things are in flux – that all things are always changing, nothing is permanent, everything is constantly becoming something else or going out of existence. Heraclitus uses the river as a metaphor to depict the nature of all things: we can point to a single river, but what it really is is water in flux. “You can’t step into the same river twice.”

But change itself cannot be the arche of things, for what would be undergoing the change? What would direct it (for change does seem rational and predictable – it is not simply chaos). The principle that guided the changing cosmos was called the Logos (Greek for “word”). For Heraclitus, although all changing things are impermanent, the Logos – according to which all things change – is eternal. Finally, Heraclitus identifies the Logos with the primal element of fire, and that the cosmos is cyclically consumed by fire before reverting back to its current state (cf. 2 Peter 3:5-7!).

This idea was variously picked up, modified, and evolved by Jewish rabbis and philosophers of the Inter-Testamental period. Some rabbis considered God under the abstract idea of “the Word.” The philosopher Philo made the logos a sort of bridge between God and man (cf. 1 Timother 2:5!).

So imagine what happened when, in the New Testament period, John began his writing with the same words as the beginning of the Old Testament . . .

New Testament – St. Peter and St. John

The exact term Logos is found only in the Johannine writings:

• The Gospel of St. John (1:1-14)
• John’s First Epistle (1:1; cf. 1:7)
• The Apocalypse (19:13)

Of these, the most famous is his use in the first line of his Gospel: ”In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God.” In Greek it reads:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.

In other words, for John in the arche was the logos, and the logos was the theos (God). Perhaps not super innovative – by now the terms for God, Beginning, and Word were being used together often. But they were not equated. John is writing in Greek but with a Jewish mind – one that probably recognized the various levels of meaning this sentence would have on both Jew and Greek. Thus, the biggest shock was yet to come.

Imagine a first century Jew and Gentile reading John’s Gospel. At first  much of it echoes Moses or Philo for the Jew, and perhaps Heraclitus or some Stoic philosopher for the Gentile. John is using the terms like “arche,” “logos,” and “theos” in interesting ways – but not going completely out of the box. Then he recalls some of John the Baptist’s fairly mundane backstory  . . . and then he drops the bomb:

 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Jew and Gentile both spit out their drinks. “The logos . . . a person???” . . . “The theos . . . a human???” How does this make any sense?

Christian Theology

In the subsequent history of Christian theology  this difficult concept was affirmed, but not always in the same way. The early Apostolic Fathers do not spend much time dealing with John’s use of logos. St. Ignatius only says, “He is at the same time one and the other, not inasmuch as He is the Word, but as the Incarnate Word.” (To the Ephesians 7:2).

Later apologists used the idea of the logos to deal with Christian theology in a way that would make more sense to the Greek mind. St. Justin Martyr uses the theology of the logos in his “Apology“. Clement says the logos is eternal like the Father, and affirms the equality of the Father and the Son. St. Irenæus asserted the identity of the Father (theos) and the Son (logos).

But a few theologians did not agree. One church elder, Arius, taught that the logos was not the theos as was the Father. Arius believed that the Son was not eternal nor truly divine, but was merely the first and most perfect of God’s creatures – the Word through whom God  made all other creatures (pretty much exactly what the Jehovah’s Witnesses would come to teach 1500 years later). This debate would come to a head at the Council of Nicaea.

The Council of Nicaea

The First Council of Nicaea was the first “ecumenical council” of the Church (not counting the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15), and it resulted in the first universal Christian doctrinal statement of orthodoxy. The persecution of Christians had just ended with the Edict of Milan (A.D. 313) by the emperor, Constantine. The council was convened by Constantine upon the recommendations of a synod in A.D. 325. Approximately 300 bishops attended from nearly every region of the Roman Empire.

St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the position that the Son was co-eternal with the Father, and divine in just the same sense that the Father is - saying that if
the Father is eternal then the Father was always a father (and thus the Son was always a son). The Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, thus contradicting the writings of the Apostle John (e.g., “The Word was God”; “I and the Father are one”; John 1:1-14; 10:30 cf. John 17:21.).

For about two months, the two sides were heard. According to tradition, the debate became so heated that Arius was slapped in the face by Bishop Nicholas of Myra who was later miraculously restored and eventually canonized as a saint (yes, the St. Nick!).The council firmly decided against the Arians by a massive majority – of the 300 or so attending bishops, only 2 were in disagreement with the council.That Jesus Christ, the logos, was “one being with the Father” would go on to form the basis of the Nicene Creed which unites Christianity in orthodoxy.

Conclusion

It is traditionally held that Matthew wrote his gospel for the Jewish people to present Jesus Christ as the Messiah King, that Luke wrote his gospel for the Gentile people to present Jesus Christ as the ideal man, that Mark composed his gospel from Peter’s sermons to the Romans presenting Jesus Christ as the Servant of God, and that John wrote to the whole world – Jew and Gentile – to present Jesus Christ as God. The opening lines of his gospel would have captured the imagination of both.