Blackcappa and Purgatory II

Blackcappa from Youtube has responded to my article in response to him on purgatory vs the 39 Articles. I want to thank him for his response, which was well-thought-out in my opinion. I also want to respond to his errors.

Blackcappa states in his article,

"I doubt Anglicanapologist72 would declare any dogma until the 7th century to be "vainly invented". Why? Because he claims to follow these first 7 Ecumenical Councils: even if one could challenge every single one of them - as had been done before they were formulated. As a matter of fact: many dogmas were formulated in response to arising heresies.''

The seven ecumenical councils did not invent doctrine. They declared doctrines which were proved by the tradition of the apostles as dogma, not because they themselves declared them to be true, but because the doctrines they declared were either proved by the earliest Fathers (Clement, Ignatius, Justin, etc.) or proved by Holy Scripture. In the case of purgatory, you might find a few pre-5th century attestations to a similar form of Purgatory held to by the Roman Church, at best. What you don't find is a consensus, as if it was dogma. You have one as late and as great as Saint Augustine, as I noted in my previous article on this issue, saying, ''I won't argue against it' for PERHAPS it is true (caps added).'' If the doctrine of Purgatory was at least a majority belief among the Fathers, why does Augustine, one who so greatly values tradition, one who so acknowledged it as having the binding authority near to that of Holy Scripture, leave room for the possibility of Purgatory's falsity and considers it a matter of probability? Why? I'll tell you why. The doctrine of Purgatory was a matter of speculation which gained the acceptance of some Fathers, while others had remained indifferent or contrary, through indirect statements, to it. You can't compare this to the case of Arianism or Nestorianism, because all the fathers of the Church rejected these falsities without question.

Blackcappa asks me, concerning my quotation of Tertullian,

"How does this contradict or even refute the dogma of Purgatory? We affirm that heaven indeed is the destination of the spirits of the saints."

Except Tertullian wasn't speaking of heaven. He was speaking of paradise, which is a reference, not to heaven, but the place above hell, yet below heaven, where the thief on the cross resided on the same day he died, not in the non-existent state of purgatory, but in the "the place of heavenly bliss appointed to receive the spirits of the saints."

Additionally, when Tertullian speaks of "the smallest even of your delinquencies (to) be paid off in the period before the resurrection", it is quite possible he is not referring to the intermediate state, obviously in fact, since I've shown he denied it already. He probably held the same view as Origen, that at the day of judgment was the day of purging.

Blackcappa asks me how it's possible to harmonize these two sections of my article:

"We see nothing of a state where sins are purified by inflicted suffering after death and before judgment in this citation. All we see is prayer for a dead person's comfort, which gives no support of Purgatory."

And...

''The intermediate state was not believed to be a state of purging (of course until the time of Augustine - Gregory), but rather, a state of looking to the joys of the resurrection for the righteous, and a state of torture for the wicked."

Blackcappa asks the more specific question,

''Why would one pray for the just?"

Praying for the saints would be purposeful, for one, because we don't know the future. We don't know the fate those who enter the intermediate state. When my grandfather died earlier this year, I didn't quite know that he was part of God's kingdom. I have prayed that he is of God, that he is now looking to the joys of the Resurrection, that he is truly comforted and protected at this current time. This is because I don't know his exact destination.

Prayers for those that you assume are in God's kingdom, such as my young brother who died as an infant, are also useful and meaningful. Praying for his comfort would be a purposeful endeavor, because if he is indeed conscious, then he might well need comfort from God and to be encouraged and have no fear in his state of existence, that is, in his state away from the actual world.

These might be very vague and possibly shallow examples, but they show that this is why should pray for the saints, regardless of the truth of purgatory. Prayers for the saints and for souls in the intermediate state are efficacious in the same way your prayers, say, for the safety of friends that go on vacations to other countries are. We don't know the fate of those who enter the intermediate state' which is why we pray for them. This explains Blackcappa's citations in his article concerning prayers for the dead that later appear.

Blackcappa thinks that I believe "the just go to their respectice place and the damned to theirs." This can be hardly more utterly false. Go back and observe how many times I have referred to the reality of an intermediate state between death and judgment. Denial of purgatory =/= denial of the intermediate state. The just, I believe, go to the intermediate state, but in a state of happiness or at the very least, a state of peace, while the unjust, while not in hell, are in a state of torment, looking to the unfortunate result of their blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, namely hell/eternal-damnation.

Blackcappa then once again mentions the passion of Perpetua and Felicitas, which I think, in its case, it would suffice to note that it contains a very Monatistic nature. So why cite it? Why is it worth anything? Because it's proof of the existence of the purgatorial notion in the early Church? Sure, the idea was there, but it was only believed by speculators and probably the Montanists. This is why it's near usless to cite from the Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas.

On Clement of Alexandria, Blackcappa has a hard time imagining death being the final purification of our sins according to Clement. I only ask, why?

Blackcappa asks me, concerning Tertullian on the intermediate state, what the prayer for refreshment is supposed to mean. Blackcappa says, ''refreshment from "a state of looking to the joys of the resurrection for the righteous"? This sounds a bit odd.'' And I say, the refreshment, which otherwise means, toleration of or a comfortable outlook, in this context, is from the separation of his soul from the body. The intermediate state is not fully comfortable, though you are looking forward to the joys of the resurrection. It is a process of waiting and patience.

This further implies an answer to Blackcappa's question, ''What is the "evil" that a saint must be freed from when he is already experiencing the rewards to come?" The answer is uncomfort, loneliness, impatience, etc. In the intermediate state, one is freed from all punishment, but is subject still to those sufferings, which is why we pray that the saints are comforted.

Blackcappa cites Augustine where he says,

"If the baptized person fulfills the obligations demanded of a Christian, he does well. If he does not--provided he keeps the faith, without which he would perish forever--no matter in what sin or impurity remains, he will be saved, as it were, by fire; as one who has built on the foundation, which is Christ, not gold, silver, and precious stones, but wood, hay straw, that is, not just and chasted works but wicked and unchaste works."

Then, Blackcappa asks the question, "Does this sound like mere speculation?"

And I say, no. It sounds as if Augustine believes one must be purged from sins if he does not fulfil the obligations demanded of a Christian. What is speculation, is that the purging occurs in the intermediate state, which it doesn't. But Augustine did say, that it is perhaps true that the purging occurs in the intermediate state.

It seems Caesar of Arles is vague about this for the same reason. Is the purging at the intermediate state or at death or at judgement, etc. etc. etc. etc!!! He never says in Blackcappa's citation.

Blackcappa asks concerning a quote of mine,

''Is AnglicanApologist72 then saying that the doctrine of Purgatory has been declared a dogma in a.D. 594?''

I said that the doctrine of purgatory was accepted as non-speculative doctrine by at least the Roman church, since around 600 AD.

Blackcappa remarks,

''This is before the Great Schism! So why does he reject it?''

Why shouldn't I?

Blackcappa lastly argues as Gregory the Great did, that the reference to the unforgivable sin being unforgiven in the world to come shows that some sins are forgiven in the world to come, by the purging of them. There is no logical deductivity in this argument, which is why it doesn't show purgatory to be true.

In conclusion, Blackcappa has yet to show real, solid rebuttals to the Anglican view of purgatory. I await his response.

Free-will and Determinism

Recently on Youtube.com, there has been a discussion on determinism vs free-will, and on whether they are compatible. I consider them to both be compatible, as long as one correctly defines the two. I think many people have false conceptions about what they are, so I shall define what I mean by the two. By "free-will", I am speaking of a being's ability to make an action based on his/her own desire. I do not think it's correct to define free-will as the ability to make an action based on no prior influence, because what drives your choices, namely, your desire, is enslaved to external causes. For example, say you see some ice cream and decide to eat it. That choice of course, was based on your desire, but your desire was based on seeing the ice cream. Seeing the ice cream caused your desire to want it and in turn, you ate it. Therefore, the ability to make an action based on no prior influence is simply non-existent, since your actions are based on your desire which in turn, is based on external influences. It makes much better sense to describe free-will as your ability to make an action based on your desire. Now determinism, on the other hand, should be defined as the belief that everything that happens is dependent or contingent upon a chain of prior events and occurrences. So with these two definitions in mind, let's discuss a few things here. Some may ask me, how does my definition of free-will permit any kind of freedom in humans? After all, the desire which drives choices is determined by prior influences. I would answer this by saying that choices are indeed bound in a way, but they are also free in another way. This is because making an action based on your desire, a choice, is not the same as being forced against your will to do something, because when you're forced against your will to do something, your desire is overriden, whereas when you make a choice, it is not. Therefore, there is an element of freedom in my definition of free-will. Another objection some might have to my view is that humans would be no more than robots driven by prior causation if my view is right, but this is not true, because robots do not have desires as humans do. A desire or will is the factor which would seperate humans from robots and therefore, it's not correct to compare humans to robots on my view. The last thing I want to talk about is the consistency of this view with what the Bible teaches. We know that the bible teaches that humans have free-will, as I defined it. It speaks of us choosing life and receiving the grace of God, such as in John 1:12 which speaks of us receiving or taking Christ into our hearts, but the Bible also says that it is God who works all things after the counsel of his will, Ephesians 1:11. Therefore both the choice of man kind, free-will and the philosophy of determinism is presented almost as clear as daylight in the Bible. And I feel quite grounded in my belief concerning what I do on free-will and determinism. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Why John's Jesus is true!

I have been inspired by a Youtube User known as "Philos71", a rather popular Christian person on the internet, to make this particular article. He made a case for why Jesus is divine and is really who the Canonical Gospels describe him to be, by arguing almost entirely from the Gospel of John's authenticity. I am inspired to do something quite similar, yet I am going to try and adapt the argument, for the sake of its strength, so that the "Jesus" presented within the Gospel of John is historical and correctly portrayed therein. The argument is as follows.

P1. John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.
P2. John the Apostle was said to be an eyewitness of Jesus, his miracles, post-resurrection appearances and many more questioned propositions concerning Jesus.
P3. John the Apostle actually believed he was an eyewitness of Jesus.
p4. John the Apostle couldn't have believed these things due to hallucination or deception.
C. Therefore, the content of the Gospel of John is virtually true, at least that which was purportedly witnessed by John the Apostle.

I doubt many would argue with the logic behind these claims, that is, the fact that if the premises are true, the conclusion is true also. What most would contest are the premises themselves. So let's show why they should be believed.

P1. John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.

The importance of early tradition cannot be underrated here. The tradition of Irenaeus, in the second century, as we all know, says, "John, the disciple of the Lord who rested on His breast, also wrote a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia" (Adv. Haer., III, i, n. 2). Irenaeus himself was a disciple of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of the Apostle John himself. Since he was in a close relation to the traditions of John the Apostle, his testimony should at least be considered. Also, in a quotation by Eusebius of the third century from Clement of Alexandria of the second century, "the tradition of the old presbyters" affirms that John "wrote a spiritual gospel" (Eusebius, op. cit., VI, xiv, 7). Since this is in relation to traditions of the ancient Christian community, this testimony is to be considered as well. In addition to these strong, early traditions in favor of the Gospel of John being written by a disciple of Jesus named John, no significant author or churchman disagreed with the propositions put forth in the early traditions concerning Johannine authorship. While later authors such as Eusebius and Dionysius distinguish between two disciples of Jesus named John, there is no distinction between John the Apostle and the author of the Gospel of John in any primitive Christian literature. If indeed one posits that the early traditions from Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria affirm a different John other than John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John, it is not readily apparent why they don't clarify they are speaking of a "John" distinguished from the most well-known John the Apostle, as Eusebius and Dionysius did when they distinguished between two "Johns". In conclusion, the early Christian traditions most certainly are to count as a good reason to accept that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.

p2. John the Apostle was said to be an eyewitness of Jesus, his miracles, post-resurrection appearances and many more questioned propositions concerning Jesus.

John the Apostle was among the 12 Apostles of Jesus, who all were said to follow Jesus constantly, either to listen to his teachings, watch his miracles, etc. We know that the 12 were said have been present when Jesus appeared alive after his death to them. John the Apostle was indeed said to be an eyewitness of Jesus and his purported wonders.

P3. John the Apostle actually believed he was an eyewitness of Jesus.

There is sufficient historical evidence that John the Apostle suffered persecutions that no person would reasonably endure for a conspiracy that profits him nothing. Eusebius, the third century historian says that John "was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word (Eusebius, Church History, iii 18:1)". This makes sense, because at the time Eusebius says this happened, Domitian, the Roman Emperor was persecuting Christians. At any rate, John the Apostle endured persecutions for his proclamations concerning Jesus. He would not suffer persecutions for something he knew he couldn't gain anything from. The obvious conclusion is that he really believed what he had proclaimed concerning Jesus. He believed he was eyewitness of Christ's life, miracles, etc.

p4. John the Apostle couldn't have believed these things due to hallucination or deception.

Does it really make sense that he hallucinated this entire story concerning Jesus? No, because if he did hallucinate this entire story he proclaimed, there wouldn't be others who wrote down similar stories concerning Jesus as seen in the other gospels. And it's entirely ludicrous and improbable to think that more than 2 people individually hallucinated the exact same thing, not to mention such a thing as the story of Jesus, as complex as it is.

Therefore, the content of the Gospel of John is virtually true, at least that which was purportedly witnessed by John the Apostle. Since he was not intentionally trying to deceive others, and was not deceived himself, we must conclude that what he said he witnessed in the Gospel of John was truly witnessed by him.

Blackcappa and Purgatory

A Roman Catholic Youtube User and Blogger has challenged me in a blog-entry with his rejection and rebuttal of the Anglican Position concerning Purgatory, Pardons and the Worshiping/unlawful-adoration of images, relics and saints. The Anglican view of these things is summarized in the 39 Articles of Religion:

"XXII. Of Purgatory: The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."

Blackcappa responds to this Article saying that he intends to refute that the doctrine of Purgatory is vainly invented, that it is grounded upon no warranty of scripture, that the doctrine of Invocation of Saints is vainly invented, that it is grounded upon no warranty of scripture, and that purgatory and Invocation of the saints are repugnant to the word of God. I must now make some comments here. First, the conception of purgatory in the 39 Articles is not simply the intermediate state between death and judgment where one experiences separation of body and soul (death), but further, the intermediate state between death and judgement where one is purified/purged from sins from the past life, so that this person may enter the kingdom of God. I, as an Anglican, affirm the first conception, which is not the "fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God" that the 39 Articles speak of, and I deny the latter conception, which is the conception of Purgatory repudiated by the 39 Articles. Second, the "invocation of the saints" repudiated in the 39 Articles, is not simply giving honor and adoration to the saints, as in acknowledging their good works and their nature of devotion to God, but further, a form of worship to the saints as if they are our protectors, our saviors, our strength, etc. The Book of Common Prayer, accepted by the same Anglicans who affirm the 39 Articles, has all sorts of prayers to the saints, so the 39 Articles is repudiating a certain TYPE of prayer to the saints. With these things in mind, let's listen to Blackcappa try and fulfill his desire to refute the Anglican view on Purgatory.

"The claim, [the "Romish Catholic Doctrine" concerning Purgatory is "vainly invented"] suggests that the Roman Catholic Church invented post-1054 a.D. a novel and false doctrine called "Purgatory". If this is true, we should not find anything pertaining to Purgatory prior to 1054 a.D."

Not really, Blackcappa. What it means is that at some point in Church history, the doctrine was vainly invented, whether after 1054 or maybe in the 6th century AD. As we will see, throughout this article, the Romish doctine of Purgatory evolved over time. Gregory the I is the first Church leader to affirm, as an article of faith, the Romish doctrine of Purgatory. No significant leader beforehand had fully believed and accepted it as truth. Blackcappa proceeds to try and show that prayer for the dead proves the doctrine of Purgatory, yet I fully disagree with his reasoning. Let's observe his citations.

"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again receives her. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: Mother, thou shaft have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the just." Acts of Paul and Thecla(A.D. 160),in ANF,VIII:490

First of all, the Acts of Paul is not an authority whatsoever, but rather, a later, apocryphal text. Yet, the citation above proves nothing of purgatory from the prayer given by Falconilla, because it says nothing of a state where one is purified from the sins of the past life, only that her mother be received by God and made just. No where is the Romish conception of Purgatory found here. Let's take a look at the next citation.

"Without delay, on that very night, this was shown to me in a vision. I saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid colour, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age? who died miserably with disease...But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then was the birth-day of Gets Caesar, and I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me.Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me. I saw that that place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. And where there had been a wound, I saw a scar; and that pool which I had before seen, I saw now with its margin lowered even to the boy's navel. And one drew water from the pool incessantly, and upon its brink was a goblet filled with water; and Dinocrates drew near and began to drink from it, and the goblet did not fail. And when he was satisfied, he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment." The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitias,2:3-4(A.D. 202),in ANF,III:701-702

Again, we see nothing of a state where sins are purified by inflicted suffering after death and before judgment in this citation. All we see is prayer for a dead person's comfort, which gives no support of Purgatory. Let's observe his next citation.

"Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more--not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness." Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,6:14(post A.D. 202),in ANF,II:504

And what suggests that the purification of the believer's sins after baptism are in the intermediate state, necessarily? Nothing. The purification Clement speaks of, is death itself- the most dreaded of our torments; and after death, one is passed into a state of less suffering, not more suffering. This is what Clement is saying. Consider Blackcappa's next citation.

"[A] woman is more bound when her husband is dead...Indeed,she prays for his soul,and requests refreshment for him meanwhie, and fellowship(with him) in the first resurrection;and she offers(her sacrifice) on the anniversary of his falling asleep." Tertullian,On Monogamy,10(A.D. 216),in ANF,III:66-67

Again, like with the first two citations, we see nothing of a state where sins are purified by inflicted suffering after death and before judgment in this citation. All we see is prayer for a dead person's comfort, which gives no support of Purgatory. Finally, consider his last citation on the prayers for the dead.

"Then we commemorate also those who have fallen asleep before us, first Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, that at their prayers and intercessions God would receive our petition. Then on behalf also of the Holy Fathers and Bishops who have fallen asleep before us, and in a word of all who in past years have fallen asleep among us, believing that it will be a very great benefit to the souls, for whom the supplication is put up, while that holy and most awful sacrifice is set forth. And I wish to persuade you by an illustration. For I know that many say, what is a soul profited, which departs from this world either with sins, or without sins, if it be commemorated in the prayer? For if a king were to banish certain who had given him offence, and then those who belong to them should weave a crown and offer it to him on behalf of those under punishment, would he not grant a remission of their penalties? In the same way we, when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves." Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,23:9,10(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:154-155

We know that God knows the future and who will be in the kingdom of God and who won't be. We don't know the future. And that is why Cyril so strongly encourages prayer for the saints. In a way, they help the saints' salvation, only in the same way that if you prayed for a friend of your's who is ill to get better, you would have helped him get better. Therefore, prayer for the saints is not how Roman Catholics have made it out to be, that is, a meritorious system. It is rather, an acknowledgment that we don't know everything and God does. In sum, the prayers for the dead in the early church do not show the Roman conception of Purgatory to be correct. Moving on now, Blackcappa proceeds to show that Purgatory has scriptural basis, through the Early Fathers' interpretation. He first cites Origen.

"For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones(1 Cor.,3);but also wood and hay and stubble,what do you expect when the soul shall be seperated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God;or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones; Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials;for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature,but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble.It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our trangressions and then returns to us the rewardof our great works." Origen,Homilies on Jeremias,PG 13:445,448(A.D. 244),in CE,577

What Blackcappa forgot to mention was that while Origen believed in this state of purification one must undergo before entering into the Kingdom of God, he did NOT believe this purification occurred in the intermediate state between death and judgment. Origen, as Bishop Edward Harold Browne notes, believed all must undergo the fires of purging at the day of judgment, not in the intermediate state between death and judgment. Blackcappa proceeds to cite Augustine of Hippo.

"For our part, we recognize that even in this life some punishments are purgatorial,--not, indeed, to those whose life is none the better, but rather the worse for them, but to those who are constrained by them to amend their life. All other punishments, whether temporal or eternal, inflicted as they are on every one by divine providence, are sent either on account of past sins, or of sins presently allowed in the life, or to exercise and reveal a man's graces. They may be inflicted by the instrumentality of bad men and angels as well as of the good. For even if any one suffers some hurt through another's wickedness or mistake, the man indeed sins whose ignorance or injustice does the harm; but God, who by His just though hidden judgment permits it to be done, sins not. But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment; for to some, as we have already said, what is not remitted in this world is remitted in the next, that is, they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the world to come." Augustine,City of God,21:13(A.D. 426),in NPNF1,II:464

Augustine is probably Blackcapp's closest companion in this fight for the validity of Purgatory. But unfortunately for Blackcappa, Augustine is not dogmatic about this doctrine of Purgatory at all. He says elsewhere, concerning the notion that there is a purging fire after death of sins committed in the first life, that "[He] will not argue against it, for perhaps it is true (De. Civit. Dei, xxi. 26, Tom. vii. p.649)". He also says at least, that "it is not incredible (Enchiridion ad. Laurent. Cap. 69, Tom. vi. p. 222)". Augustine thinks Purgatory is probable, nothing more. "He does not affirm it as an article of faith" as Bishop Browne words it. It is a probable conjecture in the eyes of Augustine, yet contains some speculation. This is why Augustine cannot be used to strictly support the Purgatorial belief as a dogma in the early church. Blackcappa comes to the era in history, around 200 years after Augustine, where Purgatory is transformed into a dogma and enforced by the Church of the West. He quotes Caesar of Arles, who is rather vague, but gives a good hint of it...

"If we neither give thanks to God in tribulations nor redeem our own sins by good works,we shall have to remain in that purgatorian fire as long as it takes for those above-mentioned lesser sins to be consumed like wood and straw and hay." Ceasar of Arles,Sermon 179(104):2(A.D. 542),in JUR,III:283

...and Blackcappa quotes the first to actually state the Romish doctrine of Purgatory as a dogmatic doctrine of the Church. "Each one will be presented to the Judge exactly as he was when he departed this life. Yet, there must be a cleansing fire before judgement,because of some minor faults that may remain to be purged away. Does not Christ,the Truth,say that if anyone blasphemes against the Holy Spirit he shall not be forgiven 'either in this world or in the world to come'(Mt. 12:32)? From this statement we learn that some sins can be forgiven in this world and some in the world to come. For, if forgiveness is refused for a particular sin, we conclude logically that it is granted for others. This must apply, as I said, to slight transgressions." Gregory the Great[regn. A.D. 590-604],Dialogues,4:39(A.D. 594),in FC,39:248

I shall comment on Gregory's interpretation of Matthew 12:32 to support a purging of sin after death and judgment. Blasphemy/rejection of the Holy Spirit not being forgiven "either in this world or the world to come" is a reference to the infinite amount of time the sin will not be forgiven. That does not mean some sins will be forgiven in the world to come, but that some sins are not to be unforgiven for eternity. Let us not abuse logic here. Now, Blackcappa spends a great amount of time later in his article defending the invocation of the saints. As I noted previously, the "invocation of the saints" repudiated in the 39 Articles, is not simply giving honor and adoration to the saints, as in acknowledging their good works and their nature of devotion to God, but further, a form of worship to the saints as if they are our protectors, our saviors, our strength, etc. I think Blackcappa, the 39 Articles, and I agree on this, that the saints are by all means not to be worshiped, but of course, it is permitted that they be honored in a suitable way. Near the end of his article, Blackcappa writes this.

"It is to be observed: it is one thing to say that a certain idea is 'unbiblical' than to say it is 'repugnant to the Word of God'. I could e.g. make a case against the Biblical canon by saying that Scriptural canon is 'not warranted by Sacred Writ'. Indeed, the Bible does not contain any list of canonical Scriptures from which we derive the canon of the Holy Bible (a reason why sola scriptura fails). However, the lack of a Biblical list of canonical Scriptures does not mean that the canonization of the Holy Bible is thus 'repugnant to the Word of God'. It becomes quite apparent that the authors of the 39 articles were blinded by their opposition to the Catholic Church."

The doctrine of Purgatory is not only unbiblical, but it is repugnant to the word of God because God's words are not to be added to. Of course, I don't think the doctrine of Purgatory is heresy, but adding to God's words is most certainly repugnant and should not be done. Since Blackcappa has put forth his case for Purgatory and against the 39 Articles on the matter, I shall now put forth my case against purgatory itself and not only against his arguments. The earliest and apostolic belief was that death itself finished off the purging of sin, which hence, occurs in this life and at death. The intermediate state was not believed to be a state of purging (of course until the time of Augustine - Gregory), but rather, a state of looking to the joys of the resurrection for the righteous, and a state of torture for the wicked. How else can you explain these statements made by the Fathers?

Justin Martyr: The souls of the godly remain in a better place, the unjust and wicked in a worse, awaiting the day of judgment (Dial. p. 223 ; Conf. Quaest. et Respons. ad Orthodox. Justino Imputat. qu. 5).

Irenaeus: Each sort of Men receive, even before the judgment, their due place of abode (Lib. II 63).

Tertullian: (Paradise is described) as a place of divine pleasantness, destined to receive the spirits of the just (Apol. c. 47).

Cyprian: Do not think death the same thing to the just and the unjust. The just are called to a refereshing, the unjust are taken away into torment; speedily safety is given to the faithful, to the unfaithful, punishment (Cyp. De Mortalitate, p. 161, Oxon 1682).

Let this suffice for now. I await the response of you, Blackcappa.

Religion Causes All The Bad Stuff!! Or...

A favorite tactic of the "New Atheists" or what I like to call, the "Fundy Atheists", is to argue from all of the bad things in the world that have happened in the name of a religion or God, or the bad things that have been done as a result a religion or god-belief, to show that "religion should not be followed" or "religion is bad" or "religion is false". If not these three conclusions, then the conclusion is usually very, very similar. This is an argument that I’ve heard time and time again, constantly repeated by Fundamentalist Atheists, especially the likes of our beloved friend, Christopher Hitchens. I find the argument to be insulting to the name of logic and reason, repugnant to truth and embarrassing to the totality of human beings. Let me tell you why.
When I ask these atheists who use this argument, "give me an example of something bad happening in the name of or as the result of religion or god-belief," I will be immediately referred to the Crusades, or something else bad that happened because of or in the name of religion and/or God. Now, I’ll grant that there have been some very bad things that have happened in the name of and as a result of religion and god-belief. So I can grant the factuality of what these atheists argue from. But you might be surprised at what is wrong with arguing from the fact for any of the three conclusions I mentioned.

First of all, I hate to see that religion is generalized as one thing. Religion is made up of 1000's upon 1000's of different groups, so what one group would do wrong does not speak against another group. The fallacy of composition is committed if you affirm otherwise. But then you might say, well your religion, David, Christianity, has caused a lot of bad things and the adherents have done very bad things in the name of the Christian God. Let me point here, however, that the belief in the Christian God itself did cause the evil to occur. For example, if a so-called Christian person said, "I’m going to kill you because Jesus told me to", then that would be a problem with the person who is going to murder, not a problem with Jesus or the belief in Jesus. I can say that I’m going to kill someone else in your name, but that wouldn’t be a problem with you unless you actually told me to kill that other person. Simply doing something in the name of God that is bad doesn’t mean that God is bad, nor does it mean that God should not be worshiped, nor does it mean that God is false.

Now, another problem I see with the atheist argument from bad things occurring as a result of religion is that it blatantly commits a genetic fallacy, because it argues from what has been done as a result of religion to show something about religion itself. You know, many bad things can happen as a result of human existence, but that doesn’t mean human existence is bad or false right? So just because something bad occurs as a result of religion doesn’t mean anything about the morality or truth of religion.

So we’ve seen that you can’t take one thing that has resulted from one branch of religion to generalize all of religion as false, bad, etc. and we’ve seen that you can’t even argue from what has resulted from religious beliefs to show that those religious beliefs are false, bad, etc. I want to note finally, that if all religion and God-belief are both performed correctly, that we wouldn’t have bad things result from them. And I’m not arguing here that you should believe in God or Christianity, but that if Jesus’ teachings were followed correctly and by all religious people, then there would be no bad things resulting from religion. Jesus taught love, giving, sacrifice, not war, hatred or selfishness. It’s when these teachings are violated that people kill in the name of God, in the name of their religion and so on. The bad things that occur because of religion and god-belief are not problems with religion and god-belief itself, but with those who abuse religion and god-belief. Therefore, I don’t think the atheist argument we’re dealing with is sound or logical whatsoever.

The Anglican Church Was Not Even Founded By Henry VIIIW

Many people bastardize the history of my denomination (Anglican) to make it look as if it is something that it is not, to support their own conjectures against it. They re-write history to say that Henry VIII "founded the Anglican Church" after splitting from the Roman Church when the Bishop of Rome lawfully denied Henry's annulment of marriage, due to Henry's reason that she could not bear him a son. Thus, the Anglican Church, they say, was born "not because of theological reasons, but because of political reasons". This ideology is used sometimes to prove that Anglicans are separated from Rome for no real, substantial, theological, religious reason, but rather because of a sinful, political cause.

In answer to these claims, I usually ask, can you tell me exactly what the theology of the so-called Anglicans was at the time Henry VIII split from Rome? Was it the same as what it was, say, 100 years later? The reason why this is relevant, is because the "Anglicanism" of Henry is not the Anglicanism of the later periods. Henry killed people because they used English bibles. He killed Roman Catholics and even Lutherans for their particular branches of Christianity. And Henry did a plethora of other things that later Anglicans (after Henry VIII, that is) would not do. In fact, the only major difference between the Churches of England and Rome was that England denied papal supremacy. Other than that, protestants were still burned, Roman Catholics were still burned, etc. How come the Anglicans after Henry VIII were so different?

They were different because there were revisions, reformations, changes, etc. after Henry's passing away. Even though Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, supported much of what Henry did, he set the foundation for many of these changes. However, he did not author them. After Henry died, Cranmer was free to, and did adopt a great amount of protestantism (the 42 articles) and using prior liturgy and rite, he authored a book of common prayer. Yet, Queen Mary reversed all of this reformation and brought the English Church back in communion to Rome. Cranmer was burned for repudiating his signing of a retraction by Mary. So Queen Mary's reversion of the English reformation shows that the Anglican Church was not founded by Henry VIII.

In fact, the real reformation began with Queen Elizabeth and Matthew Parker. Elizabeth stopped the persecution of Mary, supervised a revision of the book of common prayer and when Parker was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, it was under his supervision that the 42 Articles were revised, made the "39 Articles" and drafted as a doctrinal statement by a convocation of the Church of England.

Therefore, it is appallingly misinformed at least to claim that the Anglican Church was formed by Henry VIII, when his reformation, as we've seen, was not only entirely separate, but largely different from the later reformation under Elizabeth and Parker. Even what Cranmer instituted, as we've seen, did not go unchanged, but was carefully revised under later reformers. What needed to be removed, was removed and what needed to remain, remained. Even without the sins of Henry and Cranmer's mistakes of condoning what he shouldn't have, the English Church would probably still be where it is today, due to the acts of Elizabeth and that under the supervision of Parker. Thus, I am steadfast in my repudiation of Rome's errors and my belief in that which was carefully instituted by the English Bishops, i.e., the 39 Articles.

Contra DeiVerbum777 Part II

DeiVerbum has responded to my blog article which was in response to his response to my video and article on the Papacy and Matthew 16 (did you catch all that?). I am going to make this article my last response to DeiVerbum777 concerning the issues at hand on this blog. Since I had the first word, he will necessarily have the last word. Furthermore, conversations such as these can go on for eternity. Therefore, I feel that there has to be a "stop", if you will, in the discussion at some point. It is my intention to make the "stop" as fair as I possibly can. I am sure you all understand this, if you are active in discussions/debates on like-matters. So, without further ado, I shall begin my answer to his article.

He claims in response to my statement, "Just because God did something one way once does not mean he will do so the same way again", with,

"David doesn't offer any examples of how God does not do thing the same way twice. If he implies that at one point in time God raised up a Prophet to lead Israel, then next time raised up a Judge, then the next time a King, then the next time a Prophet and Judge, etc., then this still hasn't proven anything. Visibly the situations are different, but essentially what is happening in each and every senerio? God is raising up a visible Head to set Israel straight. Gideon's story differs from Samson's; King David's story is different from Jerobam's, and so on. Indeed God changed some things that were done in the Old Testament. But what is the important detail David left out here? Correct. In each and every instance where God changed something, He always specifically mentioned it through Divine Revelation."

An example I gave of God changing a custom of the Old Testament was that "It is not required anymore to abstain from unclean foods as evident from Acts". I believe Carmenn attempted to answer this by making the last statement I cited above, "In each and every instance where God changed something, He always specifically mentioned it through Divine Revelation"; as if God had not done so in the case of a single, supreme, earthly head of his people. The problem here, of course, is the assumption that God didn't make it known that he put to rest the custom of a single, supreme, earthly head of his people. I believe God abolished this when he commissioned ALL of his apostles to teach the nations, to bind and loose, etc. There is no evidence Peter was given a higher authority than the other commissioned apostles, which is what Carmenn wishes to claim.

Moving on, Carmenn says I "missed...an important fact" when I asked, "Has it ever occurred to you that Christ appointed all of the apostles equally to be the earthly representatives of Christ’s authority? Why must there be only one person who is the head of the church on earth and not a group of authoritative leaders which make up the earthly leaders who decide things by council?", then, when I moved on to note, "Carmenn might try to cite Hosea 1:11 in response to this, which he did cite in his article. Hosea 1:11 says, "And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head." Now remember, God doesn’t necessarily have to do things exactly the same every time. Change is an important concept". This important fact I supposedly missed, according to Carmenn, is,

"Christ, the divine Word [or Memra, to the Jewish students of the Targums] is one, visible, Head of a community which He has established according to the typological Israel of the Old Testament [a theme found strongly in St. Matthew's Gospel], it follows that Christ would equip His inner circle to lead the community in the same way He did. For that to be executed to its fullest, a visible Head - not the Founder, but a mere steward, a servant - would be needed to fill Christ's role while He, being the Master and King, was away. When He declared to His Apostles and disciples, "As the Father has sent Me, even so I am sending you," He was saying that He would send them in the same manner which the Father sent Him into the world. The kings, judges, and prophets of the OT, all of which ruled from a sole chair, [i.e. Moses had helpers to shepherd Israel, but he was the Supreme Head of Israel, the Steward of God the Founder of Israel] represented God not seen by human eyes; the Apostles now came representing Christ in a much fuller way, viz. by Christ living within them, this same Christ now no longer seen by human eyes. The cosistency is the same from the Old Testament through to the New. By the simple fact that the Church is described as a spiritual house by St. Peter leads one to conclude there must be a Head. The Church is obviously a Family of the highest form, and every Family has a Supreme Head figure, the Father. When he is absent the eldest Son becomes Head, and when he is absent either the second-born son becomes Head, or a Servant is appointed Head. Since we are all servants of Christ, yet children by adoption, St. Peter being both servant and [adopted] son remains Head of the Family by royal right, since he must fulfill the continuous typology of a visible representation of God, as well as fulfull the Jewish role as a steward guarding the House till the Master return."

Examine closely here, that Carmenn is comparing the church and the authorities in and of itself to a family, which is by all means a correct analogy. It is a known fact that God the Father appointed Christ to be the true head of the whole church. I believe Carmenn would agree with this. But Carmenn claims Christ is gone from earth and has appointed a man, Peter to take his place, as the father in a family appoints his eldest son to take his place. This is not quite analogous with the facts concerning Christ's presence and the apostles. "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" were Jesus' last words recorded by Matthew the Apostle, before Christ ascended. Jesus has not left us. So there is no need for him to appoint one man to rule, as a father would appoint his eldest son to rule in his stead. While a father is present, his sons have a near equal authority, do they not? Christ is present. His apostles were given an equal power by Christ. One was given a primacy to represent unity, but this primacy was not of authority. It was of honor. The eldest son of a family is respected the most, but while the father is present, he does not rule over his younger brothers as the father does. In sum, Christ is present. He is not gone. Therefore, Carmenn's analogy fails to prove his propositions.

Carmenn once again, quotes himself after citing the example of Eliakim in Isaiah 22:20-24:

"Clearly Eliakim is a type of Christ the Servant, the Steward of God the Father. Notice Eliakim has one key, singular, and consequently so has Christ in Revelation. But St. Peter has keys, plural. It seems that Christ, being the Father's Chief Steward has the Master Key, and St. Peter being Christ's Chief Steward has a number of keys, because his keys are not the One Supreme Key which Christ alone possesses. His lone key represents Power, Authority, Supremacy, Jurisdiction, Binding and Loosing, all things deserving of Deity. His lone key binds and looses first in Heaven what St. Peter's keys, which belong to the Pope and the Church, will in repeated fashion bind and loose on Earth. Because Eliakim represents Christ, he must also represent St. Peter - the Matthew 16:18-19 passage parralleling Isaiah 22 being unmistakable - because St. Peter also represents Christ. If we choose to remain consistent with in Israeli thought stemming from the types of the Old Testament, we must conclude that St. Peter held some sort of primacy among the Apostles, clearly seen in Matt. 16:18-19." David must deal with this type of pattern found throughout the OT into the NT. Even though the senerios change, the pattern remains unchanged. Why can't all the Twelve Apostles be Christ's representatives equally? Because this does not flow from the consistent working of God, despite the change [which we have noted doesn't actually change the pattern at all]."

The pattern is the passing of keys to others. The keys represent authority. They are given by those who have the highest authority in whatever they are authoritative over. Whether or not keys are given to a single person or multiple people is irrelevant. It seems that it's a pseudo-interpreting-criterion to say that just because one person is granted keys from another who holds a single key, this must be done in the same way, having the exact same aspects, every single time it occurs. That is an assumption, nothing more. Carmenn appears to feel that the instance of a higher authority giving keys to another must have the same aspects everytime it occurs. This is silly. It is my approach to this issue that instead of Eliakim giving keys to one person in Isaiah 22, Christ gave keys to all of the apostles. The pattern is still there, except the keys were given to more than one person in the case of Christ and his apostles. Where is the irrationality in this approach? I do not see it.

Carmenn later on, confesses,

"St. Peter alone was given the keys first, then the other Apostles."

Then he asks,

"Why not give the keys to all the Apostles at the same time?"

Finally, he answers in his opinion,

"To execute this the way Christ did is to show a superiority within St. Peter. But to show also that the other Apostles are not powerless, gives to them the keys also."

Or, to show that the other apostles have Peter's authority, but not all of his honor. By granting the keys to all of the apostles, Christ showed that they all have the same authority. But by giving Peter the keys first, Christ showed that Peter is the first among equals.

Carmenn later on claims,

"Concerning the Church being built on all the Apostles equally, [David] ignores what I previously said in my first post,

"Yet at the same time in Revelation, when the Thrones of the Apostles are mentioned, we do not see a special chair for Peter alone, who apparantly was the first Pope. Neither do we see a special pillar for Peter among the Pillars of the Apostles, which is strange if he is supposed to be the visible Head. But this is the problem we run into when we look at leadership in the Bible strictly as a heirarchy. Leadership on God's terms has no rank, but all are on the same level - i.e, we have countless pastors in the world who tend to us the sheep, yet at the very core of it all pastors are sheep as well in God's eyes... Seeing that heirachy is needed, how are we to understand in what sense God's views it? One need only listen to Christ's words, "The greatest among you shall be the least...The servant is not greater than his master..." - but above all, His own example, when He said "I did not come to be served, but I came to serve." For this reason, the Pope is called Servant of the Servants of God. His role is the greatest among all; not in the sense as a king is greater than his subject, but in the sense where Christ said, "My Father is greater than I." - J. 10:29...The Pope is greater than any man in this sense: as the Father is no more and no less than the Son, so the Pope is no more and no less than his flock. Christ looked to the Father; we look the Pope as the Church's Pastor, the Leuitenant-General of Christ."

However, while I agree, obviously, that Peter and all others have equal importance and value, I don't agree Peter has higher authority in role as you stated and compared to the fact that God the Father is a higher authority, in role, to God the Son. There is simply no reason to think that Peter is more authoritative in role than the other apostles, as I have been trying to demonstrate.

Yet Carmenn says,

"Essentially the example of Jesus Christ Himself leads us to this conclusion. The consistency flows smoothly. God will not distinguish between Peter and the other Apostles in Eph. 2:20 because that is simply not His way. Even in Matt.16 & 18 we see Peter indistinguishable from the Apostles in their authority, but at the same time when we realize what the Church is, we also realize the need for the Papacy. Being a visible Family, the Church needs a visible Head".

And of course, I responded to this previously in this article.

Moving on to the supposed evidence from the Ecumenical councils of Papal Supremacy, Carmenn insists,

"Let's take a look at those Councils' words again.

'There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down to this day and forever lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic Faith.'

'Arcadius the legate of the Apostolic See said: “Nestorius hath brought us great sorrow…Celestine, most holy pope of the Apostolic See hath condescended to send us as his executors of this business, and also following the decrees of the holy synod we give this as our conclusion: Let Nestorius know that he is deprived of all Episcopal dignity, and is alien from the whole church and from the communion of all its priests.' Session III, Ephesus (NPNF: The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pg. 223)"

Carmenn then goes on,

"What David avoids to do, this Council Session does, viz. distinguishing between Peter and the other Apostles, i.e. "...blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down to this day and forever lives and judges in his successors." Why this distinction? Because St. Peter held the primacy, and not merely one of honor."

Wrong, Carmenn. You are reading non-existent things into the text. "Prince and head of the apostles" does not necessarily mean in authority. Yes it does prove primacy. No, it does not prove that Peter was "prince and head of the apostles" in authority. I can place the words "in honor" to the end of the statement and it would make just as much sense. "Pillar and foundation of the Catholic Church" correctly describes Peter, but it would also correctly describe the other apostles, the prophets and especially Christ. Peter is the first among equals, that's why he is specifically mentioned here. The keys and the authority of "loosing and binding sins" was given to all of the apostles and once again, Peter is specifically mentioned because he holds a primacy of honor.

Carmenn, I respect you highly, since you and I can disagree, without nashing our teeth at each other, cursing each others' particular branches of Christianity and appealing to stupidity and insults. Your arguments are very, very well articulated. They reflect your wisdom. They show your strength in rationality. However, I do not think they properly reflect the very truth of the issues we discussed. If you wish to respond to this, you may of course, however, I will not respond, since it is fair for you to have the last word, since I had the first. If you don't respond, I will by NO means consider you irrational, a coward or anything of the sort. I won't even be convinced that I "won" this exchange, if there would even be such a thing possible in this discussion on either side of the table. May the Lord bless you and keep you, forever and ever. Amen.