Common Misconceptions on the Council of Nicaea

In 318 AD, a dispute arose between the Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and one of his presbyters, a young man by the name of Arius. Alexander had been attempting to explain the Trinity, and in doing so explained that the Father and Son were homoousios - that is, "of the same substance."

Arius, however, feared that Alexander was reintroducing a heresy known as Sabellianism. This teaching (known as "Modalism" today) came from a man named Sabellius, who said that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were different manifestations, or modes, of the one God, rather than three distinct Persons within the one Being of God. Sabellianism had been condemned in 220 AD, but Arius, hearing Alexander speak of the Father and Son being the "same substance," worried that Alexander was bringing it back. Being heavy on reasoning and philosophy, Arius proposed that the Father and Son were actually heteroousios - that is, "of a different substance."

“If,” said [Arius], “the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.” [Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Book I, Ch. V]

Alexander eventually condemned Arius and his followers, but the presbyter found support in neighboring churches, and soon a war of words and condemnations erupted within the body of Christ. This eventually caught the notice of the Roman Emperor Constantine, who called the Council of Nicaea to settle the dispute in 325 AD.

This single council has become perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented events in history. The following are some of the most common misconceptions (or downright falsehoods) regarding the Council of Nicaea and the circumstances around it.

Misconception #1: Arius taught that Jesus was just a man.

This is actually untrue - in fact, Arius believed Jesus was divine. What perhaps confuses people was that Arius taught that the Son was a creature - however, not in the sense of complete mortality, but in the sense that he was not co-eternal with the Father and was instead a created being - what one might call a lesser god. Arius believed that Jesus was creator of the world, and acted, in essence, as a "middle creature" between God and man. To give a choice quote that explains the matter:

The Father alone is God; therefore he alone is unbegotten, eternal, wise, good, and unchangeable, and he is separated by an infinite chasm from the world. He cannot create the world directly, but only through an agent, the Logos. The Son of God is pre-existent, before all creatures, and above all creatures, a middle being between God and the world, the creator of the world, the perfect image of the Father, and the executor of his thoughts, and thus capable of being called in a metaphorical sense God, and Logos, and Wisdom. But on the other hand, he himself is a creature, that is to say, the first creation of God, through whom the Father called other creatures into existence; he was created out of nothing (not out of the essence of God) by the will of the Father before all conceivable time; he is therefore not eternal, but had a beginning, and there was a time when he was not. [Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol. III; § 124]

And another quote:

Arius was forced to admit, in his first letter to Eusebius of Nicodemia, that Christ was called God...But he reduced this expression to the idea of a subordinate, secondary, created divinity. [New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. I, pg. 281; source]

The teaching of Arianism is not unlike today's Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe that Christ is not God Himself, but a lesser spiritual being. Arianism itself, logically speaking, leads to a form of henotheism, which believes that there are many gods but only one worthy of worship.

Misconception #2: It was a Roman Catholic council called by the Roman pope.

This misconception is both anachronistic and fallacious. It is anachronistic in the sense that there was no such thing as a "Roman Catholic Church" back then, as the Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, and Church of the East would all contest. What we know today as the Roman Catholic Church is a historical development whose coming into being is worth another, longer blog post, but the point is we shouldn't read backwards into history and apply labels that wouldn't have existed. The words "catholic," "orthodox," etc., did not have the connotation as they do today with some churches.

This misconception is fallacious in the sense that there is no record of the Roman bishop being consulted regarding the calling of the council. When Constantine first heard of the conflict going on between Alexander and Arius, he initially wrote them a personal letter, asking them to reconcile. When this failed, he sent the Bishop of Corduba, the 70-year old Hosius, to negotiate between the two parties. This likewise failed, and so Constantine called for something entirely new: an "ecumenical" council. Keep in mind that, at this time, the distinction between "local" or "general" and "ecumenical" councils was not established, and the decades that followed would demonstrate few considered there to be any real distinctions.

The role of the pope at the council, in fact, was very minimal. Of the over 300 men who attended the council, only seven came from the Roman church, with two legates representing the pope, who stayed in Rome. Any idea of "secret backdoor deals" between Constantine and Pope Sylvester I at Nicaea is simply pure conspiracy theory and nothing else.

Misconception #3: Nicaea was an all white council.

This one is probably going to catch some people off guard, but it was inspired by a YouTube video I came across. In the video, an African American gentleman made the claim that the Council of Nicaea was an all white person council designed to create a white Jesus to enslave the black man.

I am not making this up!

In all seriousness, however, historical sources say that the participants of the council came from all corners of the Roman Empire. There were Syrians, Arabians, Thebeans, Libyans, Persians, Macedonians, Spaniards, and countless other groups represented. Athanasius, a deacon of Alexandria at the time, and the later champion of the orthodox faith, was nicknamed by his enemies as "the black dwarf." Clearly, the men at Nicaea were a little more diverse than most people assume.

Misconception #4: This was where the Trinity and Christ's divinity were invented.

This is likewise not true. Christ's divinity is plainly taught in scripture (see my posts here and here), as is the Trinity (see my post here). Also, several Church Fathers wrote on both subjects in the years preceding Nicaea. Some examples:

This is the way, beloved, in which we find our Saviour, even Jesus Christ, the High Priest of all our offerings, the defender and helper of our infirmity. By Him we look up to the heights of heaven. By Him we behold, as in a glass, His immaculate and most excellent visage. By Him are the eyes of our hearts opened. By Him our foolish and darkened understanding blossoms up anew towards His marvelous light. By Him the Lord has willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge, “who, being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” (Heb 1:3-4) For it is thus written, “Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.” (Psa 104:4; Heb 1:7) But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: “Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.” (Psa 2:7-8; Heb 1:5) And again He saith to Him, “Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” (Psalm 110:1; Heb 1:13) But who are His enemies? All the wicked, and those who set themselves to oppose the will of God. [Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 36; Clement of Rome (30-100)]

Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism; (Eph 4:5) and one Church which the holy apostles established from one end of the earth to the other by the blood of Christ, and by their own sweat and toil; it behooves you also, therefore, as “a peculiar people, and a holy nation,” (Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9) to perform all things with harmony in Christ. [Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 4; Ignatius of Antioch (50-117)]

If any one says there is one God, and also confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God, and Wisdom, and the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul and body, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men, And such a man is poor in understanding, even as by name he is an Ebionite. [ibid, Chapter 6; Ignatius of Antioch (50-117)]

“For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;” (1 John 4:3) and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. Wherefore, forsaking the vanity of many, and their false doctrines, let us return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning; “watching unto prayer,” (1 Peter 4:7) and persevering in fasting; beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God “not to lead us into temptation,” (Matt 6:13; 26:41) as the Lord has said: “The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt 26:41; Mark 14:38). [Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter 7; Polycarp (69-155)]

Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, “who bore our sins in His own body on the tree,” (1 Pet 2:24) “who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth,” (1 Pet 2:22) but endured all things for us, that we might live in Him. (1 John 4:9) Let us then be imitators of His patience; and if we suffer (Act 5:41; 1 Pet 4:16) for His name’s sake, let us glorify Him. For He has set us this example (1 Pet 2:21) in Himself, and we have believed that such is the case. [ibid, Chapter 8; Polycarp (69-155)]

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught. [First Apology, Chapter 6; Justin Martyr (100-165)]

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” (Eph 1:10) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven” and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess (Phi 2:10-11) to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” (Eph 6:12) and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. [Against Heresies I, 10:1; Irenaeus of Lyons (115-200)]

For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which was delivered to them, nor is it a mere human system of opinion, which they judge it right to preserve so carefully, nor has a dispensation of mere human mysteries been committed to them, but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things — by whom He made the heavens — by whom he enclosed the sea within its proper bounds — whose ordinances all the stars faithfully observe — from whom the sun has received the measure of his daily course to be observed — whom the moon obeys, being commanded to shine in the night, and whom the stars also obey, following the moon in her course; by whom all things have been arranged, and placed within their proper limits, and to whom all are subject — the heavens and the things that are therein, the earth and the things that are therein, the sea and the things that are therein — fire, air, and the abyss — the things which are in the heights, the things which are in the depths, and the things which lie between. This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Savior He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. [Epistle to Diognetus, Chapter 7; Mathetes (circa 130 AD)]

We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun — there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. [Apology, Chapter 21; Tertullian (145-220)]

But lest, from the fact of asserting that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Creator, was manifested in the substance of the true body, we should seem either to have given assent to other heretics, who in this place maintain that He is man only and alone, and therefore desire to prove that He was a man bare and solitary; and lest we should seem to have afforded them any ground for objecting, we do not so express doctrine concerning the substance of His body, as to say that He is only and alone man, but so as to maintain, by the association of the divinity of the Word in that very materiality, that He was also God according to the Scriptures. [Trinity Treatise, Chapter 11; Novatian (210-280)]

Moreover, names are such as these - Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob: these, I say, are names. But the Divine Persons are names indeed: and the names are still the persons; and the persons then signify that which is and subsists - which is the essence of God. The name also of the nature signifies subsistence; as if we should speak of the man. All (the persons) are one nature, one essence, one will, and are called the Holy Trinity; and these also are haines subsistent, one nature in three persons, and one genus. But the person of the Son is composite in its oneness (unita est), being one made up of two, that is, of divinity and humanity together, which two constitute one. Yet the divinity does not consequently receive any increment, but the Trinity remains as it was. Nor does anything new befall the persons even or the names, but these are eternal and without time. No one, however, was sufficient to know these until the Son being made flesh manifested them, saying: "Father, I have manifested Your name to men; glorify me also, that they may know me as Your Son" (John 17:6). And on the mount the Father spoke, and said, "This is my beloved Son" (Matt 3:17). And the same sent His Holy Spirit at the Jordan. And thus it was declared to us that there is an Eternal Trinity in equal honor...

This Word took our substance of the Virgin Mary; and in so far as He is spiritual indeed, He is indivisibly equal with the Father; but in so far as He is corporeal, He is in like manner inseparably equal with us. And, again, in so far as He is spiritual, He supplies in the same equality (aequiparat) the Holy Spirit, inseparably and without limit. Neither were there two natures, but only one nature of the Holy Trinity before the incarnation of the Word, the Son; and the nature of the Trinity remained one also after the incarnation of the Son. But if any one, moreover, believes that any increment has been given to the Trinity by reason of the assumption of humanity by the Word, he is an alien from us, and from the ministry of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is the perfect, holy, Apostolic faith of the holy God. Praise to the Holy Trinity for ever through the ages of the ages. Amen. [Gregory Thaumaturgus (213-275)]

The very term used by the orthodox party - homoousios - predates the council as well. One can find it used in regards to the Father and Son in the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others. It is true that at times it was met with trepidation in the eastern churches, but this was due to the fear, similar to Arius', of reintroducing Sabellianism.

Use of the Persons in the Trinity, in fact, was seen among the Arians. The Arians upheld that the Father was God, and that the Son and the Holy Spirit were lesser gods, or demi-gods. Another group that arose at the council, the Semi-Arians, who upheld that the Father and Son were homoiousios ("of a similar substance"), believed the Father and the Son were co-equal, but that the Holy Spirit was a lesser divine being or demi-god. It was from this group that another heresy of the time arose called Macedonianism (named after its founder, the Bishop Macedonius), which upheld the Holy Spirit was not divine and not worthy of worship.

Misconception #5: It was from Nicaea that we got the books of the Bible.

There is positively, absolutely no evidence for this. The Bible was not even a topic for discussion. Anyone who wants to contest this, I will present the challenge I give to everyone who does: find the documents recording the events of the Council of Nicaea, and point to me the one line that mentions the books of the Bible, let alone declares anything regarding their canonical status.

Misconception #6: Emperor Constantine enforced his will on the council.

Constantine's role was actually very minimal. His main concern was to have unity, and desired the leaders of Nicaea to come to some resolution to ensure stability in the empire. Whatever agreement the council came to, he would agree with. To quote one church history source:

Finally all the priests agreed with one another and conceded that the Son is consubstantial with the Father. At the commencement of the conference there were but seventeen who praised the opinion of Arius, but eventually the majority of these yielded assent to the general view. To this judgment the emperor likewise deferred... [Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, Book I, Ch. XX]

There is no evidence that Constantine enforced his will upon the council in any way. His actions after the council, in regards to who he really sided with, were likewise very telling, but we will get to that shortly.

Misconception #7: The council came to a close tie.

This misconception is the most humorous because, even though it's popular in some circles, it's completely false. Of the over 300 men there, only two refused to agree.

Only two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, persistently refused to sign, and were banished with Arius to Illyria. [Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol. III; § 120]

There is no evidence of there being a close tie or some disagreement that had to be settled through other means.

Misconception #8: After the council, heretics and non-Christians were persecuted.

This is perhaps the biggest - and sadly least contested - misconception about the council. I say "sadly' because it is probably the most disprovable, and all one would need to do is study a layman's work on church history to see that. Let's go over this in two parts:

Firstly, heathenism actually enjoyed a good amount of freedom at this time, and wouldn't experience any form of persecution until later on. The Edict of Milan in 313 AD merely permitted Christianity to exist, and although Constantine began to show favor towards those who called themselves Christians, he permitted heathens to maintain their offices and government positions, and heathen worship continued to be protected by the state. A relevant source on the matter:

Nevertheless he continued in his later years true upon the whole to the toleration principles of the edict of 313, protected the pagan priests and temples in their privileges, and wisely abstained from all violent measures against heathenism, in the persuasion that it would in time die out. He retained many heathens at court and in public office, although he loved to promote Christians to honorable positions. [Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol. III; § 2]

It wasn't until his son Constantius came to power in the middle fourth century that we begin to see persecution of non-Christian faiths by the state. What developed over time was a gradual removal of heathen rights by the Roman emperors, leading to the destruction of heathen temples in 435 AD by Emperor Theodosius II. Even then, heathenism (now called paganism by this time) continued to have some presence within the empire, right up until the last major school of pagan thought was shut down by Emperor Justinian I in 529 AD.

Secondly, anyone who makes this claim shows that they are either repeating what someone else said or they are completely ignorant of church history. Why is this? Because they are forgetting something called the "Arian Resurgence": soon after the council, the Arians returned to power, and obtained so much that, at one point, all the top church positions (Rome included) were run by Arians. Jerome, a Church Father who lived at the tail end of the Arian controversy, wrote regarding the Post-Nicene era: "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian" (Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 19).

This Arian resurgence began when Constantine was persuaded by Semi-Arians to let Arius back into the empire, and Arius was absolved of the charge of heresy by the Council of Jerusalem in 335 AD. Constantine himself began to show favor towards the Arians, and at his death in 337 AD was baptized by a Semi-Arian bishop. The successive emperors (save for Julian the Apostate's brief pagan rule) continued to persecute those who held to the non-Arian view, and hundreds of pro-Arian church councils were held affirming the Arian belief. This finally came to an end when the Arians and Semi-Arians turned against each other in the middle fourth century, followed by the rise of Emperor Theodosius the Great in 379 AD, banning Arian theology the next year and calling the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to affirm Nicaea.

Most telling of the Arian power is the story of Athanasius, the lead proponent of the orthodox cause at Nicaea who later became bishop of Alexandria after Alexander's death. During this time period - up until his own death in 373 AD - Athanasius was removed from his position as bishop five times, either by Arian councils or by pro-Arian emperors. The first time was in 336 AD, after his condemnation by two church councils and at the orders of Emperor Constantine himself. One time, in 356 AD, Athanasius had to literally run out the back door of his church mid-service because Roman soldiers were pouring through the front door. It was from this era that the phrase Athanasius contra mundum ("Athanasius against the world") came.

Again, as I said before: anyone who wants to try to argue that Nicaea resolved all issues (as some Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox claim), or wants to try to argue that after Nicaea all contrary thought was eliminated (as many non-Christians and skeptics do), simply does not know what they are talking about.

The Story of a Self-Proclaimed Communist

Once upon a time a gentleman came across someone who called himself a Communist. As they began to chat, the gentleman asked what had attracted the Communist to that ideology.

"Because I believe that the government should provide for the people," the Communist said.

"But do you agree with class warfare" asked our gentleman.

"Heavens no," replied the Communist.

Perplexed, but also curious, the gentleman asked, "Do you think capitalism is bad?"

"Of course not," replied the Communist, "I believe capitalism is a perfectly legitimate system of economy."

"Do you believe in private property and ownership?"

"Why should I? People should be permitted to freely own property."

"Perhaps you could help me for a moment, sir, because you say you are a Communist, and yet you have affirmed a love for all the things which Communism speaks out against."

The gentleman could tell our Communist friend was getting agitated, if just a bit, and he grew rather stern as he looked at our gentleman and asked, "Are you judging me, sir?"

"Judging? Not at all. You, however, present to be two contradictions: that which you think you are, and that which you truly are. Have you read the works of Marx and Engels?"

"Somewhat," replied the Communist, "but I find them to be irrelevant to this topic. They are two men who lived long ago, and who are now dead. Their works are antiquated by now."

"Yet their works have laid the foundation for the belief system you now uphold. You cannot simply ignore the historical development and traditions of the system of beliefs you now uphold, neither can you choose to redefine it by your own unilateral will."

"Now see here, sir," said the Communist, his voice showing he was growing quite irate, "I will not have you pass judgment on me. I know what I am, and I'm a Communist! You have no right to tell me otherwise!"

"Tell me, if I told you I descended from African tribes, would you believe me?"

The Communist looked our gentleman over and, finding him quite Caucasian, replied, "I wouldn't reckon so."

"Of course not. I could declare myself African all I wanted, but that wouldn't change the facts. Now, in a similar circumstance, you tell me you are Communist, and yet you neither uphold what Communism believes, nor do you oppose what it opposes - in fact, you present all the negative in the positive. You even belittle their founders."

"You cannot suppose what is in my heart!" the Communist cried.

"Your heart is irrelevant," the gentleman said, "the reality that is and the reality you desire are two separate things, irregardless of what your 'heart' thinks. Words have meaning, history is in stone, and it is not up to us to reinterpret what either means or says. You cannot choose to unilaterally revise what it means to be Communist any more than I can decide unilaterally means to be Caucasian. In this essence, you deny the authority of Marx, Engels, and other men in history, and choose instead to rely upon your own authority. You are not a Communist, my friend, you are simply yourself."

"And I suppose you believe yourself to be of authority on Communism?!" the Communist said in a loud voice, his rage building.

"I claim no such thing," the gentleman said, "I am simply going by what the original writers of your pet ideology have said. I have judged you by them - and they all say that you are a fake."

At these words, the Communist threw into a rage, calling the gentleman an intolerant bigot and stormed off.

What was up with Galileo?

The following is from the Bad Catholic blog. The entire article is actually worth a read, but this section covers on the whole issue of the Roman church at the time attacking Galileo and censoring him, supposedly for his scientific views.

1. That this is the only event in 2000 years of Church history that atheists can point to in order to claim that the Church is opposed to Science seems to indicate that the Church is not in fact opposed to Science.

2. The Church did not say that Galileo was teaching heresy. They rightly pointed out that if the earth did orbit the sun then there would be a shift in the position of a star observed from the earth on one side of the sun, and then six months later from the other side. Galileo was not able with the best of his telescopes to discern this “stellar parallax.” (This was a valid scientific objection, and it was not answered until 1838, when Friedrich Bessel succeeded in determining the parallax of star 61 Cygni.)

The Church gave Galileo the following offer: Copernicanism might be considered a hypothesis, one even superior to the Ptolemaic system, until further proof could be adduced. He refused it. Everyone had to believe in Copernicanism, despite the lack of evidence, and despite Galileo’s obviously wrongheaded claim – that the planets orbit the sun in perfect circles. This still wasn’t a problem until he tried to make his argument on theological grounds. (An irony that atheists remain blissfully unaware of, that the man they lift up as a martyr for scientific discovery was actually a martyr for bad theology.)

3. When Galileo was brought to the Inquisition for his interpretation of Scripture it was by the testimony of a rather stupid priest, Caccini, whose claims were “a web of hearsay, innuendo, and deliberate falsehood,” historian Arthur Koestler writes. The Inquisition dropped all charges against him.

Following this up, the Consultor of the Holy Office and Master of Controversial Questions...Cardinal Robert Bellarmine told Galileo it was perfectly acceptable to maintain Copernicanism as a working hypothesis, and if there were “real proof” that the earth circles around the sun, “then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary…” Basically, until you have proof, stop trying to interpret Scripture. Galileo ignored this, continued campaigning, and was then brought to the Inquisition, and put under house-arrest, where he died a mass-going, daily-prayer Catholic. [source]

Can a statement of faith be false?

A while ago, I got into a conversation with a gentleman over what constituted a true believer. His position, as he explained it, was that there was no such thing as a false statement of faith, as those who proclaim Christ as their Lord and say they believe in him will be saved. His opinion appeared to be that there was no such thing as a "false Christian." Is this the case in scripture?

Let's first review the words of the apostle John:

I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church. Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God. [3 John 1:9-11]

The apostle John, writing to a spiritual son known as Gaius, makes mention of a man named Diotrephes. Little is known of this person, other than what is mentioned here. Diotrephes' faults are many: he seeks personal power; he denies the authority of the apostles (v. 9); he refuses to welcome traveling missionaries who need a place to stay; he hinders those who desire to help the missionaries, and even excommunicates them if they do so (v. 10).

John now addresses Gaius personally again, telling him to "not imitate evil but imitate good" - that is, to do good in stark contrast to the evil done by Diotrephes. The apostle John then writes: "Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God" (v. 11). This language is similar to John's other writings, and expand on the words of Christ that you will know someone by their fruit. For example, in his first epistle, the apostle had written: "No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him" (1 John 3:6).

Here now is the relevance of this passage to our topic: in saying "whoever does evil has not seen God," John is in essence questioning - if not outright denying - Diotrephes' salvation. Remember Diotrephes was not an unbeliever: he was a self-proclaimed Christian, and seemingly a leader in a local church. Given both, he should have seen God, but John says he had not. He was unregenerated and unsaved - he was a false Christian.

Let's now review the words of Jude, regarding the false teachers who were slipping into the churches:

But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. [Jude 1:17-21]

Jude has spent much of his epistle writing against the false teachers and heretics who were invading the churches. He now reminds them that the apostles had warned them about this before (v. 17), going on to give a near direct quote of 2 Peter 3:3. It is interesting to note that Peter, in his original epistle, had made mention of the prophets and Christ, and Jude now makes reference to the apostles. It is interesting to note that this shows two things: 1) the early church understood what God was doing with the writings of the apostles; 2) the writings of the apostles were seen with the same authority as the prophets and Christ, and quoted as such...but this is all getting off topic.

Jude then gives three labels for the false teachers and heretics: they "cause divisions," are "worldly people," and are "devoid of the Spirit" (v. 19). The label of divisive against false teachers is ironic given that, in the church today, it is usually the people who do what Jude was doing who are called divisive. If some Christians today were consistent with their own level of discernment, they would have called Jude a Pharisee and a legalist.

In any case, I want to hone in on two words Jude uses: "worldly people" and "devoid of the Spirit." The phrase "worldly people" is the same phrase used by the apostle Paul in reference to unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor 2:14). The phrase "devoid of the Spirit" means that the false teachers and heretics did not have the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul had written that believers had the Spirit within them, and if anyone did not have the Spirit, they do not belong to Christ (Rom 8:9). This combination of "worldly people" and "devoid of the Spirit" means that the apostle Jude was challenging the salvation of the false teachers and heretics - he was basically saying they weren't Christian. Keep in mind that these were men who claimed to be Christian, and acted as if they were. They are written as being among the other believers (v. 4), and participating in the fellowship meals (v. 12). They were active in the community, and for many would have merely been assumed to have been true believers.

These false teachers are now contrasted to Jude's audience, who were believers (v. 1), and who were told to build themselves up in the faith (implying faith was already there) and praying in the Holy Spirit (v. 20). They could pray in the Holy Spirit because they were not like the false teachers and heretics - they were true Christians. They had the Spirit inside them and were marked as Christ's.

In both these situations, we see examples where a person's statement of faith was questioned or challenged by a biblical authority. The reasons are different: 1) John challenged Diotrephes' salvation on the basis of his evil acts; 2) Jude challenged the heretics' salvation on the basis of their false doctrine. We might call one the "fruits of deeds" and the other the "fruits of creeds": a regenerated heart will not unrepentantly continue in or attempt to glorify their sin (cf. Rom 6:1-4); one of God's sheep will not follow the voice of a stranger (cf. John 10:5).

On the contrary to our opening contention, there do appear to be such things as false Christians, who have made a false statement of faith without ever being regenerated. There are likewise signs of noticing this false conversion, as both Jude and John display for us. On the flip side of the coin, of course, there is the opposite extreme, where we launch into an inquisition against other people, or accuse them of not being saved based on trifles. We must therefore remember what Jude said regarding supposed believers suffering from error, for he wrote "show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 1:23).

Here's to you, Mister Wesley

The following is based off the poem "Fuzzy-Wuzzy" by Rudyard Kipling.

I've read books written by men who could think,
Who could turn theology into art:
That Edwards and that Bunyan and that Pink;
But John Wesley was the first to win my heart.
The world was his pulpit from which he preached
So it was from the day his heart was warmed,
It was from God's word that he did teach,
Despite all the blows taken from Satan's swarm.

So here's to you, Mister Wesley, in the bosom of Abraham;
Sure you were Arminian, but a first-class godly man;
Someday we'll give a praise to God, perhaps a hymn we'll sing
I'll have to wait until the morn we're dining with the King.

One day I referenced your written word.
A girl took note, and it made her smile.
She told me bluntly that she hadn't heard
Any Calvinist quote you in quite a while.
My love grew then on as deep as the sea
Just as that Elkanah adored his Hannah;
Until I, ring in hand, dropped to my knee
At the foot of your statue in Savannah.

So here's to you, Mister Wesley, and your brother Charles too,
There's no man whose saved by works, but you did more than most do.
For now you rest with saints; you don't know your impact on my life;
See, God still had a use for you, Mister Wes - you hooked me up a wife!

Reflections on Worship of the Eucharist

Recently I attended a funeral for the sister of a woman I hold dear. It happened to involve Roman Catholic mass, which meant it involved communion, and hence the Eucharist and transubstantiation. While my main concern was, of course, the mourning of an individual's passing, something struck me during the service, and hit me harder than it had before. This was when the priest held aloft the Eucharistic host, during which people knelt. I remained seated, refusing to kneel, and would have continued refusing to kneel even if I was asked to do so on pain of expulsion. I had attended Roman Catholic masses and Eastern Orthodox liturgies most of my life, and it was the first time it truly hit me what was unfolding in that room.

The Council of Trent outlined that, to the Roman Church, the elements used during the mass become the literal body and blood of Christ.

Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof. [Thirteenth Session, Ch. 3; source]

And likewise:

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation. [ibid, Ch. 4; ibid]

Most of all, and the point of this blog post, we are to worship the Eucharist as we worship God Himself.

Wherefore, there is no room left for doubt, that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament... [ibid, Ch. 5; ibid]

And again:

And finally this holy Synod with true fatherly affection admonishes, exhorts, begs, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that all and each of those who bear the Christian name would now at length agree and be of one mind in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord; and that mindful of the so great majesty, and the so exceeding love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His own beloved soul as the price of our salvation, and gave us His own flesh to eat, they would believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His body and blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, with such devotion of soul, with such piety and worship as to be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread... [ibid, Ch. 8; ibid]

Similarly, from the online Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Adorableness of the Eucharist is the practical consequence of its permanence. According to a well known principle of Christology, the same worship of latria (cultus latriæ) as is due to the Triune God is due also to the Divine Word, the God-man Christ, and in fact, by reason of the hypostatic union, to the Humanity of Christ and its individual component parts, as, e.g., His Sacred Heart. Now, identically the same Lord Christ is truly present in the Eucharist as is present in heaven; consequently He is to be adored in the Blessed Sacrament, and just so long as He remains present under the appearances of bread and wine, namely, from the moment of Transubstantiation to the moment in which the species are decomposed... [source]

Returning to the Council of Trent, regarding the seriousness of this topic:

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema. [Thirteenth Session; ibid]

The bowing and kneeling during the mass or liturgy itself is directed towards the Eucharistic host and wine.

In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. [Roman Catholic Catechism, 1378; source]

It was the realization of all this that hit me as almost everyone in the church, save myself and my beloved beside me, knelt down before the altar. When the priest holds aloft the elements of the Eucharist, it is to be treated exactly as if Christ himself were in the room. What's more, the taking of the Eucharist is attributed to the justifying work of Christ's sacrifice:

The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is "given up for us," and the blood we drink "shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins." For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins... [ibid, 1393; source]

From a less official source:

"Christ," Father Hardon writes, "won for the world all the graces it needs for salvation and sanctification." In other words, in His Sacrifice on the Cross, Christ reversed Adam's sin. In order for us to see the effects of that reversal, however, we must accept Christ's offer of salvation and grow in sanctification. Our participation in the Mass, and our frequent reception of Holy Communion, brings us the grace that Christ merited for the world through His unselfish Sacrifice on the Cross. [source]

All this grants to the hosts of the Eucharist the same divinity and justifying power as Christ himself.

Nowhere, in all of scripture, are the elements of communion given the traits that masses or liturgies attribute to it. Those who might turn to the language of John 6 forget that, early on in Christ's sermon, he demonstrates that eating and drinking are equated with coming and believing (John 6:35). In no way was Christ being literal in his wording regarding eating and drinking any more than he was when he told Nicodemus he had to be born a second time (John 3:3), or he told the Samaritan woman he was water (John 4:13-14). Those who turn to the last supper forget that the primary role of the last supper was remembrance of Christ's sacrifice (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25), and was performed in the context in which the Jews celebrated the Passover and remembered their freedom from Egypt; Christ's declaration of "It is my body" was no more literal than when the Jews declared regarding their meal of lamb "It is the Passover" (Exo 12:11). Nowhere was there anything said about it becoming his literal body and blood, nor about the atoning work of his sacrifice on the cross being given through it. Rather, it was meant to point us to that single, once-for-all act which did it for us, which was Christ's death and resurrection.

At this funeral, when this occurred, I did not bow to the Eucharist, nor did I get on the cushions and kneel. I simply sat down and attempted to be respectful to those around me. I would not have shown any honor or worship towards it even if I had been threatened expulsion. It was plain idolatry. I could not be an idolater. I recognize that these words may cause some readers to stumble or feel enraged, but they are not written with malicious intent, but from a heart with a love for God's truth. If any one desires to see me change my way of thinking, I of course welcome any attempt, but it will have to be from God's Holy Writ, and by God's command. I cannot embrace any form of worship that is not explicitly permitted by God Himself. God bless.

UPDATE - July 24, 2012: In the combox below, it has been contested that this is not idolatry, as Roman Catholics direct this worship towards the Trinitarian God, even if it is directed at the host itself. Hence it cannot be idolatry, as it is not worship directed towards another god, but the true God Himself. However, worship of any single object, even if in the name of God, is still idolatry.

Many are familiar with the story of the golden calf, and many know that it is idolatry. Many more, however, fail to remember that the Hebrew people directed worship of the LORD God towards the calf.

And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.” And they rose up early the next day and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. [Exo 32:4-6; emphasis mine]

The people referred to the golden calf by the plural "gods," and yet Aaron identified their feast as that being a feast towards the LORD. The people were holding their feast in the honor of God, but it was directed towards the calf. I don't need to quote the rest of this story - most people know how it goes, and know that God isn't too pleased with this.

Some choice words from other men on this:

But this intimation of an Egyptian custom is no proof that the feast was not intended for Jehovah; for joyous sacrificial meals, and even sports and dances, are met with in connection with the legitimate worship of Jehovah (cf. Exodus 15:20-21). Nevertheless the making of the calf, and the sacrificial meals and other ceremonies performed before it, were a shameful apostasy from Jehovah, a practical denial of the inimitable glory of the true God, and a culpable breach of the second commandment of the covenant words (Exodus 20:4), whereby Israel had broken the covenant with the Lord, and fallen back to the heathen customs of Egypt. [Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary]

and Aaron made proclamation, and said, tomorrow is a feast to the Lord; that is, he gave orders to have it published throughout the camp, there would be solemn sacrifices offered up to the Lord, as represented by this calf, and a feast thereon... [John Gill]

Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow is a feast to the Lord-a remarkable circumstance, strongly confirmatory of the view that they had not renounced the worship of Jehovah, but in accordance with Egyptian notions, had formed an image with which they had been familiar, to be the visible symbol of the divine presence. [Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary]

Their sin then lay, not in their adopting another god, but in their pretending to worship a visible symbol of Him whom no symbol could represent. [Albert Barnes]

Aaron, seeing the people fond of their calf, was willing yet further to humour them, and he built an altar before it, and proclaimed a feast to the honour of it (v. 5), a feast of dedication. Yet he calls it a feast to Jehovah; for, brutish as they were, they did not imagine that this image was itself a god, nor did they design to terminate their adoration in the image, but they made it for a representation of the true God, whom they intended to worship in and through this image; and yet this did not excuse them from gross idolatry, any more than it will excuse the papists, whose plea it is that they do not worship the image, but God by the image, so making themselves just such idolaters as the worshippers of the golden calf, whose feast was a feast to Jehovah, and proclaimed to be so, that the most ignorant and unthinking might not mistake it. [Matthew Henry]

Animals and Evil

The following post has some spoilers - just a fair warning!

Sometime ago I watched the 1994 German animated film Felidae. Based off a German novel by the same name, the film tells the story of Francis, a domesticated cat whose owner moves into a neighborhood wherein he soon discovers that there's a cat serial killer on the loose. In the investigation that follows, Francis discovers that it's another cat named Paschal, who had gone through animal testing. In the process, Paschal had learned a lot from the humans, including the concept of genetics, from which he designed a plan to create a "super cat" (code-named "felidae") bred from preferred specimens - the murders were to remove the "unwanted" genes from the neighborhood. After a fight in which Francis fatally wounds his opponent, Paschal laments, "Look at me now, and all you see is evil, yet once I was good." Francis later tells a friend, regarding Paschal, "He lost his innocence, as man has lost his."

It's a really interesting film, though definitely not one for kids (but it's a false presupposition to think all animation should be). What I found most interesting was the film's interpretation of mankind's sinfulness. Namely, it recognized that man was inherently evil, and Paschal had been good until he interacted with the teachings and beliefs of men, wherein he became evil. The cat was not corrupt until he encountered, was taught, and embraced mankind's corruption. All the same, the film seems to take a Pelagian mindset near the end, when Francis tells the audience that it's still possible for humans to be as innocent as animals, achieving what ultimately truly is "felidae."

In some ways this mindset is very true. For certain, some levels of cruelty exists in the animal world: ants make war, invade, and even enslave other insect colonies; cats themselves are known to play with their prey before finally killing them; wolves and other predators will purposefully taunt, wound or tease their fleeing prey before finally going in for the kill; some animals will eat their young or the young of other mothers. Yet with animals, there is a certain purpose behind all this. For many, such as ants and cats, it is nothing more than instinct. For others, such as wolves or other predators that gradually kill their fleeing prey, it allows them to weaken their opponent to make for an easier kill. For others still, the eating of children is merely for the purposes of survival or fear of competition with their own young.

With humans, however, there is a greater level of cruelty, because our level of cruelty is mixed with our reason, our emotions, and our intellect. During the climactic defense scene in Straw Dogs, what made the actions of Dustin Hoffman's character so shocking was not necessarily just that he was doing them, but that, early on in the film, he had been established as an intelligent character, and now that intelligence was being used to harm or kill other human beings. Perhaps what still makes the Holocaust the most horrific form of genocide in human history is the fact that it was human ingenuity mixed with human cruelty. The Nationalist Socialists and their sympathizers hated certain undesirables in society, and had now found a way to eliminate them in the most efficient, cheapest, and quickest way possible. While Mendel (who is mentioned, and even depicted, in the film) had no wicked intentions with his study of genetics, he surely would be horrified to learn what man has since done with it. On this level, even the fiercest shark or the meanest wild animal seem far more civilized than humanity.

All the same, that still brings us to the issue of animals as a role model. One difference between mankind and animals is that mankind is able to distinguish between right and wrong on a basis of moral codes. Try discussing why war is ethically wrong to a colony of ants invading a termite hill, and you won't get any where. Try to tell a male stray dog sexually assaulting a female stray dog why rape is bad, and you'll achieve nothing. Certainly animals can be conditioned to feel guilt or remorse, but without this training they would care otherwise. A dog raised from a pup to know not to relieve himself on the carpet will show remorse when you scold him for doing so because he recognizes why he is being scolded; a dog never trained to know whether the grass or the carpet is the bathroom will not care, no matter how much you yell at him.

In fact, Christian tradition has often used animals as an example of what man is like when he sinks low. The reason devils today are often depicted with tails and horns is because early Christian art added such features to depict visually how an "animal-like" state might look. Jude, in his epistle, compares the false teachers and heretics as being "unreasoning animals" (Jude 1:10). If you poke a lion with a stick, he doesn't know well enough to take deep breaths and count to ten - at some point, he will attack you, because that is what his bare animal instincts tell him. In the same manner a human being who lashes out with wild, violent anger that he knows is otherwise wrong is sinking to the level of animals.

All mankind has, within themselves, some level of judgment. The apostle Paul wrote that men "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18), and likewise "know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die" (Rom 1:32). We see this in the fact that even the most ardent atheists, who might deny some of the moral law, will nonetheless accept much of the moral law (even at times, ironically, to attack God). Even a person who denies moral absolutes will quickly change their tune if you then attempt to vandalize their car or commit bodily harm against them. Even those who might want to argue for a kind of plain "universal" moral law inherent in all people must then answer: 1) upon what basis is this accepted, outside of plain majority (argumentum ad populum); 2) to where is this sense of morality sourced, if not to divine commission nor to moral instincts rooted by a great designer?

The fallen man, therefore, lives in a strange kind of state: he is half true man, half animal. We know the moral law subconsciously, and yet we are enslaved to sin and behave like animals. The apostle Paul writes to believers that, before we were quickened by God, we "lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Eph 2:3). We were like the heretics and false teachers described in Jude's epistle, living as unreasoning animals. There's a difference between animals and humans here, however: we are guilty of our sins before God because we know better and should know better. A shark that eats another fish because he's hungry isn't going to be judged before God for doing that; a man who kills another man out of malice will stand before God as a murderer, and will be judged for every other sin he has committed.

In a sense, there is innocence in animals. In another sense, humans are also animals. Humans by their nature move towards animalistic tendencies which leads them to sin. They are, however, able, by the grace of God, to be regenerated and move further and further away from their animalistic tendencies so that they can, again by the grace of God, be glorified in the truest sense of "felidae." God bless.

Michael Horton: "Let's Not Cut Christ to Pieces"

A great article from Michael Horton in regards to homosexuality, what scripture teaches, and the matter of application. As always, Michael Horton presents a good, balanced view of the pros and cons regarding an issue.

Let's Not Cut Christ to Pieces | Christianity Today

Meme Remonstrance Part 1

The image to the left is a meme I saw shared on Facebook recently. It shows a statue of Jesus saying: "I'm Jesus of Nazareth. I cured 10 lepers thanks to unsubstantiated miracles 2000 years ago and half the world worships me for it." It then shows a picture of Jacinto Convit, the Venezuelan medic, saying: "I'm Jacinto Convit. I was nominated for a Noble [sic] prize for inventing a vaccine to combat leprosy. Thousands of lives were saved worldwide with proven science yet few know of me." At the bottom of the meme read the words: "Something is dreadfully wrong with the relative famousness [sic] of these two individuals."

Like most memes, this is obviously meant to do little except extract the "That's cool!" reaction from its target audience. All memes are guilty of that, not just ones such as this. Usually when I encounter these things, there's so little to say that I just move on with life. Part of me, however, felt a bit compelled to offer something of a response to this, especially if this is going viral. It's often good to take time to examine and respond to this kind of argumentation and mentality. So, let's review what this meme is trying to say.

First and foremost, however, let's establish that men like Convit do deserve recognition for their hard work. Ironically against the purposes of this meme, Convit actually doesn't want personal recognition and fame for his work (source), but nonetheless men like him should be appreciated for what they contribute to society. I think people of every faith would agree with me on this. There are many unsung heroes in the world of science and medicine.

That being said, let's continue on to address the statement made by this meme.

We see a statue of Jesus saying, "I'm Jesus of Nazareth. I cured 10 lepers..." Obviously this is making reference to the story in Luke 17:11-19, wherein Christ heals ten lepers, one of whom was a Samaritan and actually came back to Christ to praise God. It's a story about faith and a precursor to the acceptance of Christ by the Gentiles, not about why we should worship Jesus (but we'll get to that later). Furthermore, Christ healed far more than these simple ten, as any one who has seriously studied Christian scripture is well aware: an individual episode involving a leper is recorded in all three synoptic gospels (Matt 8:1-4, Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-16); Christ tells the disciples of John the Baptist that lepers (plural) have been healed, even before the incident with the ten has occurred (Luke 7:22), suggesting there were plenty more. The meme creator is cutting Jesus a little short by stopping at just ten.

The statue likewise says that the latter account is "thanks to unsubstantiated miracles 2000 years ago." Here we have to ask what we mean by "unsubstantiated"? Do we mean there weren't any medical records of the individuals before and afterward? There weren't any detailed medical files with x-rays, examinations, and the like? I suppose that would be true, but such technology didn't exist back then. We might as well disregard any medicinal healing or accounts of medicine before the invention of modern equipment or understanding. We might as well forgo the idea that the ancient American civilizations practiced any kind of surgery that was in any way successful. We don't have to stop there either - perhaps we should throw out Pliny the Younger's account of Mount Vesuvius erupting because he went straight from his own eyewitness account, which was "unsubstantiated" by anything such as seismic readings or geological study.

If we mean "unsubstantiated" as in these healings had no merit even at the time they were recorded, then that is likewise erroneous. The vast majority of the specific healings in the New Testament, in which the gospel writers go into further detail, involve either a large number of witnesses or a sickness or condition which was knowable and able to be confirmed. It wasn't like today's faith healers, where an individual comes up on stage out of the blue, refers to a vague sickness or a condition that one can't readily see, and then is declared healed. The blind man of John 9, for example, was recognized by all the people as having been born blind, and the Pharisees even brought in his parents to confirm it. It would have been impossible to have faked such a healing. Another such healing is the man with the withered hand (Matt 12:9-13; Mark 3:1-5; Luke 6:6-10), who was a regular visitor to the synagogue and therefore seen by everyone there to have, indeed, had a withered hand. It was a visible condition that was well known to be substantiated by those in Christ's presence, and when his hand was healed, it was a transformation that was readily known and accepted by all. This is combined with the fact that the gospels were written by either eyewitnesses to the life of Christ, or by those who had access to those who were eyewitnesses - the gospels were not written hundreds of years later and reliant upon legends and rumors like many stories of other historical figures were. The earliest manuscripts of said accounts were far closer to the original authors and far more consistent with other manuscripts than many other works of antiquity that deal specifically with history (for example, Caesar's Gallic Wars).

On a side note, the mention of something being done "2000 years ago" is irrelevant, unless this is the "because something is older, it can't be trusted" fallacy. Anyone who wishes to make such an argument would have to then answer the question: how long does something have to have existed before it is declared untrustworthy?

Finally, we see the part where the statue of Jesus says, "half the world worships me for it." This is completely and utterly false. No one worships Jesus because he healed lepers - they worship him because he is God. If Jesus had healed not one single leper, it would not be an issue. He was the Eternal Word made flesh (John 1:14), the great I AM who existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and the one before whom every knee will bow and confess that he is Lord (Phi 2:9-11). His miracles confirmed who he was in regards to his status as the Messiah and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (as seen in Isa 26:19, 29:18, 35:5-6 and others) but the worship and adoration of Christ does not rise and fall on whether or not he performed a certain number of miracles. As I say to Muslims who ask if Jesus ever said "I am God," if Jesus is God then he deserves worship owed to God - Q.E.D.

So we are told by our meme, "Something is dreadfully wrong with the relative [fame] of these two individuals." Actually, there's nothing wrong. Convit is well known in medical circles for his medical work; Christ is well known among men as the Lord God. To try to compare the two is comparing apples and oranges; to try to associate Convit's partial obscurity with the well known status of Christ, as if the one affects the other, is a weak connection at best.

Inspired by all this, I now present the following countermeme.

Battle Hymn of the Republic

The following is a rendition by John McDermott - probably my favorite rendition of the song.

I want those collars to come back

All credits to the original...artist...meme maker...whatever.

Tiptoe Through the TULIP: Irresistible Grace

I apologize to my readers (especially the one who asked me to do this) for the delay in writing this post. A combination of real life matters (ie., work) as well as real life events I had to attend (ie., a funeral) delayed me somewhat. For those who might be new to this series, see the first post here.

We are moving along with our tiptoeing through the TULIP (durr hurr hurr, me so clever), and we've reached the second-to-last letter: "I", for Irresistible Grace. This phrase, also known as Efficacious or Effectual Grace, refers to the saving grace which God bestows upon an individual. Irresistible Grace refers to the grace God bestows on an individual that both calls them to the Gospel and regenerates them, thus permitting them to respond to the Gospel. This is why it is called irresistible, in that an individual cannot resist the grace once it has been given to them, and why it is likewise called effectual or efficacious, as every calling of God for salvific purposes is successful.

Irresistible Grace, like the other members of TULIP we've discussed before, often gets greatly misrepresented in non-Calvinist circles. Many seem to presume that Irresistible Grace means that God must do something to the equivalent of pointing a gun at a person and saying, "Believe in me or else." Hence some will say that Irresistible Grace teaches that God "forces" people to believe, while others have said that Irresistible Grace teaches that God "drags people into the kingdom." Some have gone so far as to call it "divine rape" - a cruel, irresponsible and utterly reprehensible label if there ever was one. To answer all these misrepresentations, I'll quote a man who was far, far, far more knowledgeable than myself:

It is a common thing for opponents to represent this doctrine as implying that men are forced to believe and turn to God against their wills, or, that it reduces men to the level of machines in the matter of salvation. This is a misrepresentation. Calvinists hold no such opinion, and in fact the full statement of the doctrine excludes or contradicts it. The Westminster Confession, after stating that this efficacious grace which results in conversion is an exercise of omnipotence and cannot be defeated, adds, "Yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace." The power by which the work of regeneration is effected is not of an outward and compelling nature. Regeneration does no more violence to the soul than demonstration does to the intellect, or persuasion the heart. Man is not dealt with as if he were a stone or a log. Neither is he treated as a slave, and driven against his own will to seek salvation. Rather the mind is illuminated, and the entire range of conceptions with regard to God, self, and sin, is changed. God sends His Spirit and, in a way which shall forever rebound to the praise of His mercy and grace, sweetly constrains the person to yield. The regenerated man finds himself governed by new motives and desires, and things which were once hated are now loved and sought after. This change is not accomplished through any external compulsion but through a new principle of life which has been created within the soul and which seeks after the food which alone can satisfy it. [Loraine Boettner, Reformed Doctrine of Predestination; source]

Irresistible Grace does not compel anyone against their will. However, let's remember we established in our post regarding Total Depravity that the will of man is enslaved to sin. Man's default condition is to reject God. If God were to simply give an empty call sans regeneration, all men would reject Him. Therefore, logically speaking, regeneration is required in order for the man to respond to God's call, and the regeneration is part of God's calling and beckoning to His elect.

Now that we've done some defining, let's move on to the part of the post where I examine a section of scripture to discuss this topic further. For this topic, we will be turning to Christ's words in the sixth chapter of John's gospel.

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. [John 6:35-47]

This follows the account of Christ's miracle with the five thousand fed, followed by his walking on water before the disciples, and will eventually become one of the greatest sermons in scripture regarding faith in God. Now the five thousand who had been fed, desiring to see more miracles, sailed to where Christ was and met him in the synagogues of Capernaum. It seems like Jesus has the chance to start the first megachurch, but then our Lord tells the people, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves" (v. 26). In other words, their faith was not sincere; it wasn't true faith; it was shallow, empty faith that meant nothing. We see this further when the people show a desire to justify themselves, asking: " Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" (v. 28) What is Christ's response? What is the one work a person must do to be justified before God? Believe in Christ - sola fide (v. 29). The people are not yet satisfied, and so they ask Christ for signs that they might believe (v. 30-31), suggesting something like the bread that came down out of heaven in the Exodus account (v. 32).

At this point, Christ drops a bit of a bombshell - the Father has already sent them bread out of heaven, and it's him! (v. 35) However, this isn't the Eucharist, and that is made plain when Christ equates eating with coming to him, and drinking with believing in him: "whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." Christ is keeping the focus on himself, and especially belief targeted towards him. This belief in him the people do not have, as he says quite plainly in the next verse: "But I have said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe" (v. 36). Yet hadn't these people called him rabbi? (v. 25) Hadn't they sailed across an entire lake to find him and seek him out? (v. 24) How can Christ possibly say they don't believe? How does he even know they don't believe?

Christ then drops another bombshell: "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out" (v. 37). What has our Lord just taught? All that the Father gives to the Son, all these people will come to him, and those who are given to him will never be cast out. In other words, those whom are drawn and called by the Father (and we'll see more of this soon) will come to the Son, and these same individuals will never be cast out. There is a clear chain within this train of thought that is not broken. The reason Christ said the people didn't believe was because he knew who it was the Father had given him, and it was those people who would come to believe in him.

Some people might jump in here and say, "Obviously the Father might give some to the Son, but after that they can reject the Son." The problem with this argument is two-fold. First, it ignores what Christ himself says in verse 37: "whoever comes to me I will never cast out." These people also forget that Christ says in the next verse that he came to do the will of the one who sent him (v. 38), and this is Father's will, as defined by Christ himself: "That I should lose nothing of all that He has given me, but raise it up on the last day" (v. 39). In other words, no one who is given to the Son will fall away, but will be raised up on the last day - in other words, they won't reject the Son, and in fact will be kept secure until the day of resurrection (v. 40).

Now the people in Capernaum have problem understanding all this, as they're harping on the fact that Christ said he was the bread from heaven (v. 41) - after all, didn't he have family and friends that all the people knew of? So how could he come from heaven if (from their perspective) he had an earthly family? (v. 42) How can he be claiming what amounts to divinity? Jesus admonishes them for grumbling (v. 43), and then drops one of the biggest bombshells in the Bible:

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. [v. 44]

Here we see the perfect tie between Total Depravity and Effectual Grace (hinted at earlier). No one can come to Christ - literally "No one has the power to come to Christ" in the original Greek. What then happens? They are drawn by the Father. This is not an empty, surface-level drawing, like a sign outside a door beckoning customers to come inside; rather, it is an effectual drawing - a spiritual drawing - that transforms the individual to follow God.

I recognize that many contend this, and argue in this manner: "I agree that no one can come without the drawing of the Father, but people can still reject the Son after the initial drawing." This is similar to the popular concept of Prevenient Grace, which says that God takes totally depraved individual and gives them the ability to respond, either for or against, the gospel. However, we have a great issue here: the person making this argument has only read half a sentence, and we do anyone a great disfavor if we only recognize half a sentence and assume other teachings based on that. For you see, Christ goes on to explain what happens to this person drawn: he is raised up on the last day. Christ clearly teaches that no one can come unless the Father draws him, and it is him who will be raised up on the last day. In my previous post on John 6:44, I used the analogy of a murderer using the phrase "I'm gonna find him and kill him!" and then later telling the police that the two "hims" in that sentence were different. That would be an irrational assumption, and so too would it be to assume that the two "hims" in Christ's statement refer to two completely different individuals. To cut up Christ's statement and read other theologies into it is plain eisegesis.

Some have turned to verse 45, where Christ quotes Isaiah 54:13 with "and they will all be taught of God." The argument, therefore, is that people will be taught of God and hence respond like the better students in the classroom. The problem is that right after the quotation Christ states: "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me." Again - everyone within this category will come to him. Why is this? Well, the concept of "learning from God" in the Old Testament is of itself effectual in nature. The passages in Isaiah 54 feature actions given by God and Him alone in regards to the regeneration and rejuvenation of His people. The teaching of God to His children is not passive, but active, and involves a regeneration towards Him. As God said regarding the new covenant He was preparing: "I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer 31:33). This is why everyone who has been taught of the Father - through regeneration - will come to the Son.

What have we learned here? Firstly, we've Total Inability reestablished. Secondly, we've been taught that man's coming to God is the effectual work of God, and effectual it is indeed, for all drawn, called, or taught by the Father will come to the Son.

We will, God willing, continue on to the final petal in TULIP within the next week or so.