The Aristophrenium

A Follow-Up on “Was Mary Sinless?”

Fisher — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:25:30 +0000

Last week, I posted an article for the Aristophrenium entitled Was Mary Sinless?, which was a critical examination of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Therein I compiled various pieces of biblical and historical evidence showing why Mary could not be regarded as immaculately conceived. Now, I deliberately chose to publish the article on the 26th of August because on the 28th of August, Dr. James White had a debate on this very topic against Christopher Ferrara, Roman Catholic lawyer from the American Catholic Lawyers’ Association. I chose to publish my article two days before the debate so that it can serve as a sort of “pre-emptive strike” that will equip other Christians beforehand so that they would know what arguments to expect. The interesting thing is that Ferrara quite predictably went to Luke 1 and egregiously misinterpreted the verses in it. He also threw up a few arguments that I didn’t address in my article. Of course, Dr. White was more than capable of refuting those arguments, but I think it’d be worth going through a couple of these arguments.

First, Ferrara tried to argue on the basis of John the Baptist’s being sanctified in the womb. Ferrara alleges that since John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb, Mary could have conceivably been sanctified in the womb as well and thus preserved from the stain of original sin. Of course, this argument suffers from two major flaws: First of all, Just because Mary could have been immaculately conceived, does not mean that God actually would do so. If this was the case, then why would God stop at Mary? Think of all the other characters God could have reasonably sanctified in such a way that they would be immaculately conceived. The second problem with this argument is the rather obvious fact that John the Baptist wasn’t even sinless. When John the Baptist is considered “sanctified from the womb,” this simply means that he was set apart for a special purpose. Mary could very well have been “sanctified” in this sense of the term, but the simple fact is that this in no way implies sinlessness.

The other argument that was brought by Ferrara has to do with the interpretation of Genesis 3:15. Mary, as it goes, is the woman whose heel will be bruised by the serpent, and her triumph over this serpent is evidence of her purity and immunity from sin. Of course, this is a very old argument. In fact, it is enshrined within Ineffabilis Deus itself:

The Fathers and writers of the Church, well versed in the heavenly Scriptures, had nothing more at heart than to vie with one another in preaching and teaching in many wonderful ways the Virgin’s supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin, and her renowned victory over the most foul enemy of the human race. This they did in the books they wrote to explain the Scriptures, to vindicate the dogmas, and to instruct the faithful. These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind — words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed” [Genesis 3:15] — taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.

First of all, note once again the anachronistic and historically uninformed claim that this is a doctrine that was taught from the early days of the Christian Church. Since this claim has already been debunked to death, refuting it once again won’t do any good. As for the interpretation of Genesis 3:15, it is well worth noting that the Roman Catholic misuse of this passage is based on a mistranslation. If you look at the majority of modern translations of the Bible, you will notice that the pronouns are masculine. For example, the modern Roman Catholic translation known as the New American Bible renders Genesis 3:15 this way:

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.
(Genesis 3:15, NAB)

So where does this mistranslation come from? Well, it can be traced to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, where the pronouns are rendered in the feminine pronoun “ipsa.” This mistranslation somehow found its way into the 17th century Roman Catholic translation of the Bible known as the Douay-Rheims Version, which renders the verse this way:

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
(Genesis 3:15, DRB)

Funny enough, the Douay Rheims attempts to justify this mistranslation in a footnote where it states:

“She shall crush”… Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.

Of course, the Douay Rheims footnote conveniently neglects to tell us who these fathers are who read the pronoun as being feminine. Even if it is indeed the case that some early church fathers read the pronoun as being feminine, this does not change the fact that the original Hebrew pronoun is masculine. Roman Catholic scholars have long since realized the error of this mistranslation, and in the Nova Vulgata, the pronoun has now been corrected to the masculine “ipsum.”

One other thing to note is that I mentioned in my article that Thomas Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception. At that time, I did not have access to the actual quotations by Aquinas, but sometime afterward, my brother in Christ “Turretin Fan” has provided the actual quotations on his blog. I will not repeat the citation here, but I would like to redirect readers to Turretin Fan’s article on Thomas Aquinas. Suffice to say, Thomas Aquinas did believe that Mary was eventually made sinless by God, but denied that this was her original state, and asserted that she was conceived in original sin.

That being said, it is safe to say that the case against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, stands, and Roman Catholic attempts to justify their declaration of this belief as a dogma is vacuous both from a biblical and a historical perspective. It has been claimed by some that the dogma is not dependent upon the scriptural and historical proofs that have been offered in support of it (since such “proofs” have already been debunked to death). However, given that these arguments are contained in the very article which declared the Immaculate Conception to be a dogma, and have long since been recognized even by Roman Catholic scholars and theologians as being untenable, how can a faithful Roman Catholic continue to hold on to Ineffabilis Deus? The cognitive dissonance is quite telling.

Further Reading

The Illogic of Pluralism, Pt. 3

Fisher — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 05:51:25 +0000

(Continued from part two)

In the first part of this series, we discussed and debunked Balgrim Ragoonanan’s tirades against Christian exclusivism and evangelistic efforts as a form of Religious Bigotry and Exclusivity. In the second part, we refuted his misuse and misrepresentation of Jesus’ teachings in order to promote Hindu pluralism over against what he deems to be The Insidiousness of an Only Pathway to God. In this third part in the series, we will be looking at the third of Mr. Ragoonanan’s articles, entitled, The Whole Truth About Those who Debase and Derogate Other Religions.[1] In his opening paragraph, he writes,

Anyone who thinks that he/she has some kind of corner on religious and spiritual beliefs and practices, and believes he/she can take another person to task for exposing the falsehood of an only pathway to God are welcome to do so. I am prepared to defend the legitimacy of all religions as I research and understand them better, especially when God and religion are purely for the transformation of the human heart to the higher state of the divine. I have been doing studies ever since I joined the membership of the Trinidad & Tobago Online Community, when it was once fashionable to deride, derogate, defame and characterize Hinduism as being outside the frame of legitimate religions.

Mr. Ragoonanan has basically restated for us (albeit in less articulate terms) the doctrine of Hindu pluralism. For our benefit, it might help to bring up a commonly used analogy, which is that of a mountain with many paths that all converge at the top. In the words of the famous comparative religions scholar Huston Smith:

To claim salvation as the monopology [sic] of any one religion is like claminig that God can be found in this room but not the next, in this attire but not another. Normally, people will follow the path that rises from the plains of their own civilization; those who circle the mountain, trying to bring others around to their paths, are not climbing… It is possible to climb life’s mountain from any side, but when the top is reached the trails converge.[2]

This common analogy fails however, for two simple reasons. The first is that it is not true that the paths converge at the same location, for not all religions seek the same goal. Surely our author will not suggest that Hindus are seeking justification and forgiveness for sins, would he? Recall that in the first part of this series, it has been shown that Hindus do not even believe that human beings have a sin nature. Since the Christian doctrine of salvation presupposes that men are by nature sinners, and that redemption from these sins is necessary, then it is impossible for the Hindu doctrine of union with Brahman and the Christian doctrine of salvation to be the same “peak” which Hindus and Christians are both striving for.

Also, Mr. Ragoonanan has to come to the internally consistent position of saying that elements of the Christian faith are false in order to assert that all religious faiths are equally legitimate. As has been pointed out before, for example, it is an integral part of the Christian faith that we evangelize (cf. Matthew 28:19 and 1 Corinthians 9:16). As it says in Proverbs, “he that winneth souls is wise” (Proverbs 11:30). And it is not just our view of witnessing that the author has to dismiss as false, but also our doctrines of God and man. He has to essentially juxtapose Hindu pantheism upon other religions in order to assert that these other religions are “for the transformation of the human heart to the higher state of the divine.” But in the Christian worldview (to say nothing of the other two Abrahamic faiths), there is an infinite chasm that separates God and man, and this chasm cannot be crossed by finite human beings.[3] So we see that it is impossible for the author to consistently hold to his pluralism because in order for him to do so, he has to assert the falsity of certain aspects of the very religions which he seeks to establish as being equally legitimate.

Everyday I uncover growing evidences of a misunderstanding or propaganda from the use of the single passage of an only pathway to salvation which has been the bone of contention for many when many Christians present themselves as the only ones with a legitimate religion.

The task I assigned to myself is to debunk the assertion held by some Christians that Jesus said He was the only way to salvation which I consider to be a false interpretation for a deliberate hold on many. Furthermore, as I continue my research, I cannot but help see all the connections between the base philosophies of Hinduism and Buddhism in just about all religions.

Mr. Ragoonanan seems to think that the doctrine of Solus Christus is only to be found in one isolated verse in the entire Bible (i.e., John 14:6, although the author never actually quotes this verse, or any other verse from the bible, for that matter). Of course, no serious bible student thinks John 14:6 is the only place which teaches that Christ alone provides salvation. The teaching is found throughout the New Testament, and is at the very heart of the Christian Gospel. The whole premise of the Gospel is that fallen human beings are unable to reach God by their own efforts, which is why God “gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16, NASB). Later on in this same chapter of John, it is written: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” (John 3:36). Without this teaching, there will be nothing left of Christianity, which once again demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of this idea that Christianity can be just one of many equally legitimate religious options. C.S. Lewis said it best when stated, “One must keep on pointing out that Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important.”[4]

Also, Mr. Ragoonanan has once again demonstrated his inconsistency by superimposing “the base philosophies of Hinduism and Buddhism” upon other religions whose worldviews are worlds apart from anything that even remotely resembles Hindu or Buddhist metaphysical claims. Do Christians believe in reincarnation, or do Muslims in karma, or Jews in the notion of this world as being illusory? Obviously not. At best, one can say that there are superficial similarities in our ethical beliefs, but this is due to the fact that God has revealed His moral order in every human conscience (cf. Romans 1:19-20, 2:14-15).

Yes, it is historically true that Sanathana Dharma or Dharam, (eternal truth) better know as Hinduism is a way of life, and was given the status of a great religion only a few hundred years ago by the British, sometime after they arrived in India. Yet, these are the same people who later tried to show that the source of Hinduism, the Vedas, was the writings of childlike saints and sages, and that Hinduism was a false religion. They at first ridiculed the Vedas openly and went so far as to pay enormous sums of money to Max Muller who never set foot on Indian soil. The only purpose, as documented, was to research and prove that the writings of the Vedas, were false teachings, and not worthy as religious beliefs and philosophies which he confirmed at first, but later had to change as his conscience would not permit it.

Sanathana Dharma, like Islam, is truly a way of life, with religious and spiritual practices governing every aspect of life, from birth to death and beyond. The Hindus had no need to change their spiritual practices and call Sanathana Dharma a religion, but the British wanted to bring it into the fold of the great religions of the world, and so it is today the common practice to refer to Hinduism as a religion and also a way of life. Who can object to that, other than some Christians, claiming to belong only to the true religion of the world, as they try to destroy all non-Christian religions?

Of course, anybody who has even the slightest knowledge of what Islam teaches will find this attempt at comparing it with Hinduism to be intellectually bankrupt. Sure, one can claim that both present all-encompassing systems of living life. Then again, so are certain political systems, such as Orwell’s dystopian police state. That does not mean that they are in any way parallel with each other, as these similarities are very superficial. Besides, even the Islamic system is fundamentally different from the Hindu system. Can Mr. Ragoonanan cite, for example, anything in the Hindu system that will parallel the following injunctions laid out by the Qur’an?:

And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.
(Surah Al-Imran, 3:85)[5]

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
(Surah At-Tawba, 9:5)

Say: O unbelievers! I do not serve that which you serve, Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve…
(Surah Al-Kafirun, 109:1-3)

Once again, the obvious answer is no. These are fundamentally opposite systems, as Islam is just as opposed to Hinduism’s pluralism as Christianity is (with the exception that the Lord Jesus has not commanded us to wage holy war against unbelievers). Thus, this is a meaningless attempt at finding a parallel.

The Jews now say to Hindus that Idol worship by Hindus is ok. The Jewish Rabbinate of Israel learned from Hindu leaders that Hindus internalize all concepts and Idols of God as consciousness into the Atman which is Brahman or God in the hearts of all beings. They then relented to a new understanding of Idol worship, and now believe that Hindus are not Idol worshippers, since God in the heart of man cannot constitute Idol worship. So the question is why Christianity, a child of Judaism, can’t do the same?

What can be more debasing, deriding, derogating, humiliating, dehumanizing, etc., than to criticize or reject someone’s belief in God that he knows to be right for himself in worshipping, and having a loving relationship with his concept and understanding of God as the ultimate reality? One who sincerely believes in his favorite form of God and experiences God will be hard pressed to give up his religion, and would not want the same for another, isn’t it? Why should one understanding of God negate another? His ways of worshipping God and reaping the benefits of his religious and spiritual practices become sacred to him, and it is morally wrong to interfere with them or chastise them for their beliefs in the same God of all.

Each one understands the concept of God in his own unique ways. To say that there is only one way to follow and love God or to have a relationship with God, and gain salvation is as demonic as it gets. To say that any other way, but the Christian way, characterized as the wrong way or a demonic way is as debasing and deriding as one can get? That and more is the language of usage by the proselytizers. We heard it all, and hear and see the aggression of the proselytizers every day at our doorsteps and when they break our temples, desecrate out sacred images and altars, and uproot our prayer flags. These are facts, not propaganda, as some will have us believe. They are well know to all Hindus and Christians alike in Trinidad and Tobago and elsewhere.

It is worth remembering that modern Judaism is not the same religion as the Judaism of the first century, from which Christianity sprung up. The worldview of the Bible clearly teaches us what the nature of God is, and His nature is nothing like the Hindu concept of “supreme being.” What this means is that even if one reduces all of Hinduism’s various idols to a pantheistic monad (Speaking of which, how does one establish a “loving relationship” with a pantheistic monad, anyway? That doesn’t really make any sense.), one is still left with a God other than the true and living God that is declared to us in scripture. Perhaps the Jews who signed this declaration need to heed to once more what their scriptures say regarding the One who alone rules the universe and is worthy of all praise and worship:

“Answer me, Yahweh, answer me, so that this people may know that you, Yahweh, are God and are winning back their hearts.” Then Yahweh’s fire fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and licked up the water in the trench. When all the people saw this they fell on their faces. “Yahweh is God,” they cried, “Yahweh is God!”
(1 Kings 18:37-39, NJB)

Once one gets past the emotional rhetoric, it should be clear that when different religions proclaim mutually contradictory concepts of God, those concepts cannot all be right at the exact same time and in the exact same sense. The very fact that the author identifies God as an “ultimate reality” signifies that he recognizes that God’s nature is real and objective, not bound up by human perceptions. That being said, it would be a loving thing to correct one who is mistaken in his or her view of God, since a mistake regarding the nature of the One “in [Whom] all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17) is the most grievous mistake one could possibly make. When Christians tell non-Christians that they are mistaken in their view of God, they do so (at least ought to do so) out of love, since we are concerned about the eternal destiny of that person. This is best stated in what is written in the Old Testament Proverbs:

There is a way that seems right to a man,
but in the end it leads to death.
(Proverbs 14:12)

All a man’s ways seem right to him,
but the LORD weighs the heart.
(Proverbs 21:2)

“True worshipers,” as Jesus put it, “will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks” (John 4:23). One cannot be said to be worshiping the true and living God if one is not worshiping Him according to the truth. And what is truth? The answer: Truth is a person. We already went through John 14:6, so it is unnecessary to elaborate on this.

Also, it is deplorable that some Christians have mistreated non-Christians in their evangelistic efforts. This should not be so, since we are admonished to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15), That does not, however, invalidate the plain and simple message of the Christian Gospel. Now, moving on:

Current proselytizing and recorded history of proselytizing show the full extent of the debasing and derogating of all other religions by mostly Christians, only on the basis that Jesus is the only way to salvation. This is not something new, anything just made up, or something that is done in secret. It is openly confessed by Christians, themselves, that they have the right to bring others under the Christian umbrella at any cost or means.

The Jews and Muslims know the Christian arrogance of being the only true religion too well, for they, too, and others vehemently deny Jesus as God, but only a messenger of God. Hindus do not go that far, because they understand the concept of God with more openness, clarity and richness than any other prevailing concepts of God held by non-Hindus. Man and God, for Hindus, are One, and Godhead and salvation is available to all in any one lifetime, in the same way Jesus realized his divinity and arrived at Godhead at age twenty five.

The idea that Christians can bring others to the faith “at any cost or means” is simply false, and is based on a misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (a misinterpretation which, unfortunately, is constantly being perpetuated by Islamic apologists who seek to discredit Paul). What is being advocated is the fact that there are certain cultural customs or expedient traditional practices which are not essential to the Gospel and may be compromised or temporarily laid aside should they pose an unnecessary stumbling block to witnessing to others.[6] With that out of the way, it is quite clear that although Jesus commanded Christians to proclaim the Gospel to every nation, He never commanded Christians to do it in dishonest or violent methods. That certain people who claimed to be Christians committed heinous crimes in His name does not change the fact that they did this contrary to what the Lord Himself taught.

Also, it is quite true that Jews and Muslims disagree with Christians on the deity of Christ. The fact that we have this disagreement shows that we take the idea of truth seriously enough to attempt to reason with each other about who Jesus truly is. What the author does not realize is that the idea that “Man and God… are One, and Godhead and salvation is available to all in any one lifetime” is not an expression of open-mindedness, but an abject denial of the one thing the Creator/Creature distinction that is so vital to all three Abrahamic faiths. One ought to wonder how it is not equally “intolerant” for the author to pontificate using his own view that God and man are Monistic, and that human beings can find divinity within themselves, rather than acknowledging the sovereignty of God over the whole created order. Not only that, but one ought also to wonder how it is not equally “intolerant” for the author to essentially revise the New Testament teaching of Jesus by superimposing his pantheism and claiming that Jesus “realized his divinity and arrived at Godhead at age twenty five.” No, Jesus has eternally been God (John 1:1), and He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things (Colossians 1:15-17). Furthermore, Jesus, who is the eternal Word of God, “became flesh and dwelt [ἐσκήνωσεν, literally "tablernacled"] among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten [μονογενοῦς, literally "one of a kind"] of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).

Interestingly, Mr. Ragoonanan never actually accomplishes what he set out to do at the very beginning, which was to debunk the plain meaning of John 14:6. All he provides us is this feeble paragraph:

Besides, the only way doctrine was misunderstood from the beginning. It is now believed by some of the more enlightened and renowned Christians of today that Jesus is not the only way to salvation. But this is after two thousand years of incorrigible aggression, based on a false belief or a false doctrine, by misinterpretation, perpetrated on innocent people. But who can doubt that it is better late than never?

Even though he never mentions to us who these “more enlightened and renowned Christians of today,” He is undoubtedly citing the liberal theologians and the postmodernists. He is appealing to the John Shelby Spongs, Barry Lynns and the Gretta Vospers of this world to support his point. And yet, he does not so much as provide us actual argumentation, only a fallacious appeal to people who wear the label of “Christian” yet would undoubtedly be condemned by Jesus Christ Himself as being “lukewarm” (cf. Revelation 3:16). Mr. Ragoonanan offers us no exegesis; no analysis of Jesus’ actual words; no real reasons to reject Christ’s own exclusivity claims. In the end, the truth remains the same:

What can wash away my sin?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus;
What can make me whole again?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Oh! precious is the flow
That makes me white as snow;
No other fount I know,
Nothing but the blood of Jesus.[7]

End Notes

Ragoonanan, Balgrim. The Whole Truth About Those who Debase and Derogate Other Religions. Crusade Watch. <http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1095&Itemid=128>.
Smith, Huston. The World’s Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991. p.73.
Although human beings can never become God, this is not to say that the chasm cannot be crossed from the other side. Indeed, Christianity asserts that salvation has come to humankind because God can and has crossed the chasm when He took on flesh and dwelt among us (cf. John 1:14, 18).
Lewis, C.S. God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994. p. 101.
All Qur’anic quotations are taken from the M.H. Shakir translation of the Qur’an, which may be viewed in the following website: <http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/translations/shakir/MHShakir.htm>.
See the following article by Sam Shamoun: 1 Corinthians 9 and the Charge of Christian Missionary Deception. Answering Islam. <http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/1cor9_19-23.html>.
Lowry, Robert. Nothing but the Blood. Big low & Main, 1876.

Was Mary Sinless?

Fisher — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 03:45:01 +0000

Introduction

Because of the atmosphere of ecumenicism that has pervaded the Christian Church in recent decades, many Evangelical Christians are ill-equipped to properly handle the distinctive doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Mariology is one particularly sticky topic. Many misconceptions abound, and there are relatively few Evangelical writings that adequately handle this topic.[1] As such, it is necessary to tackle the Roman Catholic Marian Dogmas with care and accuracy, and this will hopefully be accomplished in this analysis of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Although the Immaculate Conception has an interesting history that goes back to the Middle Ages, it is one of the more recent of the Marian dogmas to have been officially declared a dogma by the Roman Catholic Church. It was declared as such by Pope Pius IX during 1844 in the apostolic constitution entitled Ineffabilis Deus. It is worth looking at the text of this constitution to see how Rome defines this dogma:

From the very beginning, and before time began, the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate and from whom, in the blessed fullness of time, he would be born into this world. Above all creatures did God so loved her that truly in her was the Father well pleased with singular delight. Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully.

And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son — the Son whom, equal to the Father and begotten by him, the Father loves from his heart — and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God the Father and of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was she whom the Son himself chose to make his Mother and it was from her that the Holy Spirit willed and brought it about that he should be conceived and born from whom he himself proceeds.[2]

This is basically what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is about. The Roman Catholic Church has declared this to be an essential aspect of the Christian faith and anathematizes anybody who dissents from this view:

Hence, if anyone shall dare — which God forbid! — to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.[3]

The Biblical Evidence

In support of this dogma, many Roman Catholic apologists appear to the words of the Angel Gabriel during the Annunciation and those of Elizabeth in the Visitation. Those who are or have been raised in Roman Catholicism would recognize these words very easily, for they are recited by Roman Catholics in the Ave Maria (Hail Mary). Here are the words:

The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favoured [κεχαριτωμένη]! The Lord is with you.
(Luke 1:28)

In a loud voice she [Elizabeth] exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!
(Luke 1:42)

The argument that many Roman Catholics make based on Luke 1:28 has mainly to do with the usage of the Greek word κεχαριτωμένη (a perfect tense form of χαριτoω), which is translated in the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims Bible as “full of grace.” The popular Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism contends that this is the best translation of this word, and proceeds to make an exegetical point based on this. Keating writes,

The newer translations leave out something the Greek conveys, something the older translation conveys, which is that this grace (and the core of the word kecharitomene is charis, after all) is at once permanent and of a singular kind. The Greek indicates a perfection of grace. A perfection must be perfect not only intensively, but extensively. The grace Mary enjoyed must not only have been as “full” or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it must have extended over the whole of her life, from conception. That is, she must have been in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called “full of grace” or to have been filled with divine favor in a singular way. This is just what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds…[4]

Patrick Madrid, in an article posted in the popular Roman Catholic apologetics website known as Catholic Answers, provides the same argument, adding some comments on Luke 1:42 as well in the process:

Look first at two passages in Luke 1. In verse 28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as “kecharitomene” (“full of grace” or “highly favored”). This is a recognition of her sinless state. In verse 42 Elizabeth greets Mary as “blessed among women.” The original import of this phrase is lost in English translation. Since neither the Hebrew nor Aramaic languages have superlatives (best, highest, tallest, holiest), a speaker of those languages would have say, “You are tall among men” or “You are wealthy among men” to mean “You are the tallest” or “You are the wealthiest.” Elizabeth’s words mean Mary was the holiest of all women.[5]

If this exegetical (or rather, eisegetical) argument proves anything, however, it proves too much. There is no reason to believe that κεχαριτωμένη is “a recognition of her sinless state,” because if this was the intended of the word, then we end up with all sorts of exegetical absurdities. For example, Saint Stephen is referred to as being “full of grace and power” [πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως] in Acts 6:8. If being full of grace is a description of being immaculately conceived, then we must therefore conclude that the Bible is teaching the immaculate conception of Stephen! Not only that, but the exact same verb that is used of Mary is also used of all believers in the aorist tense in the epistle to the Ephesians:

…he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given [ἐχαρίτωσεν] us in the One he loves.
(Ephesians 1:5-6)

The text is literally saying that God has graced (ἐχαρίτωσεν) Christians with His glorious grace. If the usage of κεχαριτωμένη in Luke 1:28 is good enough to prove the immaculate conception of Mary, then the usage of ἐχαρίτωσεν in Ephesians 1:6 is good enough to prove that every true believer is just as immaculately conceived as Mary is. This is absurd, of course, but if we are to follow the argument given to us by Roman Catholic apologists such as Keating to its logical conclusion, then we end up with this glaring absurdity.

As for Luke 1:42, does Elizabeth’s greeting “Blessed are you among women” (εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν) mean that she was considering Mary to be “the holiest of all women?” If this is so, we encounter even more exegetical absurdities, for the exact same phrase is used of Jael in the old testament:

Most blessed of women be Jael,
the wife of Heber the Kenite,
most blessed of tent-dwelling women.
(Judges 2:24)

If we applied Madrid’s eisegesis of the phrase “blessed among women” consistently throughout the whole Bible, then we are forced to conclude that Jael is also immaculately conceived. It should be clear at this point that Roman Catholic apologists cannot consistently apply their eisegetical tricks without proving the immaculate conception of other persons besides Mary.

So what do the phrases “highly favoured” and “blessed among women” actually mean? Well, it is quite simple: Mary has received favour and blessing by being chosen by God to be the instrument by which the Lord Jesus shall be made incarnate in the world (she is, after all, the Theotokos). That is all. There is no reason whatsoever to read into these passages the idea of sinlessness and immaculate conception. In fact, this is precluded by the very same chapter of Luke. In the Magnificat, we see Mary’s exaltation of Jesus as her Saviour:

And Mary said:

“My soul glorifies the Lord

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

for he has been mindful

of the humble state of his servant.

From now on all generations will call me blessed.

(Luke 1:46-47)

Now, from a plain reading of the text, we could easily deduce that since Mary called Jesus her Saviour, then she could not have been sinless, otherwise she would have nothing to be saved from in the first place. Of course, Roman Catholic apologists remain undaunted by the statement that Jesus Christ was Mary’s Saviour. They have devised ingenuous methods of getting around the plain meaning of the text. In Patrick Madrid’s article, he tries to make the argument that Jesus saved Mary by preventing her from ever even becoming a sinner. His argument is as follows:

Medieval theologians developed an analogy to explain how and why Mary needed Jesus as her savior. A man (each of us) is walking along a forest path, unaware of a large pit a few paces directly ahead of him. He falls headlong into the pit and is immersed in the mud (original sin) it contains. He cries out for help, and his rescuer (the Lord Jesus) lowers a rope down to him and hauls him back up to safety. The man says to his rescuer, “Thank you for saving me,” recalling the words of the psalmist: The Lord “stooped toward me and heard my cry. He drew me out of the pit of destruction, out of the mud of the swamp; he set my feet upon a crag” (Psalm 40:2-4).

A woman (Mary), approaches the same pit, but as she began to fall into the pit her rescuer reaches out and stops her from falling in. She cries out, “Thank you for saving me” (Luke 1:47). Like this woman, Mary was no less “saved” than any other human being has been saved. She was just saved anticipatorily, before contracting original sin. Each of us is permitted to become dirtied with original sin, but she was not. God hates sin, so this was a far better way.[6]

Picking up on this line of argumentation, another Roman Catholic apologist by the name of Mark Shea argues that Christ saves Mary in a “preventative” manner. In volume two of his book series entitled Mary, Mother of the Son, he writes,

There are two ways Christ saves us from sin, just as there are two kinds of medicine>curative and preventative… Christ the physician can apply preventative medicine, too. It’s possible to rescue somebody from quicksand by keeping them out of it in the first place. And so Mary, according to the Church, was saved from original sin by Christ in [that]… he never let Mary fall into any sin in the first place.[7]

Now, it is safe to say that both Madrid and Shea are grasping at straws here when it comes to the meaning of Luke 1:47. It doesn’t take an exegetical genius to figure out that nowhere in the entire text of scripture is the word “save” being used to mean that someone is prevented from ever actually sinning. One has to presuppose the immaculate conception in advance for this type of eisegesis to actually work, since the plain reading of the text does not allow for it.

And this brings us to one more verse which is frequently brought up, and that is Romans 3:10-23. The text stresses the universality of sin, which climaxes in verse 23 where it says “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Now, Roman Catholic apologists try to argue that Mary is an exception here since she has not sinned, according to their theology. Mark Shea spends a great deal of time trying to lay a case that the passage does not refer to every individual without exception, but that “all” means both Jews and Gentiles.[8] To this effect, he even quotes Psalm 18:20 which says:

The Lord dealt with me according to my righteousness;
according to the cleanness of my hands he rewarded me.
(Psalm 18:20)

Shea argues that righteousness is being used in a non-legal sense. He may be right about that part, but he makes two mistakes in citing this verse. First, he thinks that just because righteousness is used in a non-legal sense in Psalm 18:20, then it must not be legal either in Romans 3. But the context of Romans 3 makes it quite clear that the word is being used in a legal sense, hence the abundant references to the verb δικαιόω (something which does not occur in Psalm 18, which has a totally different context altogether). Second, Shea misses the fact that David isn’t even sinless! Is David trying to claim sinlessness in Psalm 18:20? Of course not.

Now, it may be true that “all” refers to both Jews and Gentiles, but think about this: Is Paul trying to establish a third class of men who are not encompassed by “all?” Obviously not, so while “all,” does refer to both Jews and Gentiles, it does not preclude the meaning of “every single individual.” That is simply a false dichotomy. Now, one may argue that Jesus is an exception to the rule, but that is because Jesus is the incarnate God-man, and there are plenty of scripture passages that explicitly teach His sinlessness (such as John 8:46, 1 Peter 2:22 and Hebrews 4:15). Shea tries to argue for Mary being another exception to the rule, by saying that, “[i]f our ‘lens’ is Sacred Tradition, we know the apostles always intended to read passages like those in Romans to exclude, not just Jesus, but Mary.”[9] By “Sacred Tradition,” Shea must be referring to what Rome has been teaching since the middle ages, since it cannot be established from church history that this was a historic belief of the Christian Church. In fact, it is to this that we shall come to next.

The Historical Evidence

The Roman Catholic Church claims that this doctrine, like all of their other distinctive doctrines, has the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” (contra unanimen consensum Patrum).[10] They argue that what they teach concerning the Immaculate Conception has been the historic belief of the Christian Church since the very beginning. As Ineffabilis Deus puts it,

The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God… has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin… and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.[11]

However, the student of church history will quickly discover that this is not the case. The earliest traces of this doctrine appear in the middle ages when Marian piety was at its bloom. Even at this time, however, the acceptance of the doctrine was far from universal. Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the immaculate conception. The Franciscans (who affirmed the doctrine) and the Dominicans (who denied it, and of whom Aquinas was one) argued bitterly over whether this doctrine should be accepted, with the result that the pope at the time had to rule that both options were acceptable and neither side could accuse the other of heresy (ironic that several centuries later, denying this doctrine now results in an anathema from Rome).

When we go further back to the days of the early church, however, the evidence becomes even more glaring. For example, the third century church father Origen of Alexandria taught in his treatise Against Celsus (3:62 and 4:40) that that the words of Genesis 3:16 applies to every woman without exception. He did not exempt Mary from this. As church historian and patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly points out,

Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2.35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.”[12]

Also, it must be noted that it has been often pointed out that Jesus’ rebuke of Mary in the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-12) demonstrates that she is in no wise perfect or sinless. Mark Shea scoffs at this idea that Mary is “sinfully pushing him [Jesus] to do theatrical wonders in John 2,” arguing that “there is no reason to think [this] is true.”[13] However, if we turn to the writings of the early church fathers, we see that this is precisely how they interpreted Mary’s actions and Jesus’ subsequent rebuke of her. In John Chrysostom’s twenty-first homily on the gospel of John (where he exegetes the wedding of Cana), he writes,

For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” (Matt. xii.48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion… He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.[14]

Now why on earth would Jesus care for the salvation of Mary’s soul at this point in time if she was already “preventatively” saved through having been immaculately conceived, as was claimed earlier? That does not make any sense, whatsoever. Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrus agrees with John Chrysostom in saying that the Lord Jesus rebuked Mary during the wedding at Cana. In chapter two of his Dialogues, he writes,

If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten—the Lord Christ—the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth [Luke 2:52]; at another He rebukes her as her Lord [John 2:4].[15]

And then there is Augustine of Hippo, whom many Roman Catholic apologists attempt to appeal to for their belief in the immaculate conception. They like to quote a portion of chapter 42 of his treatise, On Nature and Grace, where Augustine states,

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.[16]

However, those who quote this passage miss the point of what Augustine is trying to communicate. He was trying to refute the Pelagian heretics (who were the ones who were claiming that Mary—among other biblical characters—were sinless, since they denied the depravity of man). The article explaining Augustine’s view of Mary on Allan Fitzgerald’s Augustine Through the Ages helps clear up misconceptions regarding this passage:

His [Augustine's] position must be understood in the context of the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius himself had already admitted that Mary, like the other just women of the Old testament, was spared from any sin. Augustine never concedes that Mary was sinless but prefers to dismiss the question… Since medieval times this passage [from Nature and Grace] has sometimes been invoked to ground Augustine’s presumed acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is clear nonetheless that, given the various theories regarding the transmission of original sin current in his time, Augustine in that passage would not have meant to imply Mary’s immunity from it.[17]

This same article then goes on to demonstrate that Augustine did in fact believe that Mary received the stain of original sin from her parents:

His understanding of concupiscence as an integral part of all marital relations made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that she herself was conceived immaculately. He… specifies in [Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 5.15.52]… that the body of Mary “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.”[18]

As can be seen here, these and many other early church fathers[19] did not regard Mary as being sinless or immaculately conceived. It is quite clear that the annals of church history testify that Rome cannot claim that this belief is based upon the “unanimous consent of the fathers,” since the belief that Mary was sinless started out among Pelagian heretics during the fifth century and did not become an acceptable belief until at least the beginning of the middle ages.

Conclusion

As has been demonstrated here, neither scripture nor church history support the contention of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary was sinless by virtue of having been immaculately conceived. In fact, Rome did not even regard this as an essential part of the faith until the middle of the nineteenth century. This should cause readers to pause and question why on earth Rome would anathematize Christians for disbelieving in a doctrine that was absent from the early church (unless one wants to side with the fifth century Pelagians) and was considered even by Rome to be essential for salvation until a century and a half ago. Because Rome said so? But their reasons for accepting this doctrine in the first place are so demonstrably wrong. After all, they claim that this was held as divinely revealed from the very beginning, even though four and a half centuries’ worth of patristic literature proves otherwise. This ought to be enough to cast doubt not only on Rome’s claims regarding Mariology, but their claims to authority on matters of faith and morals in general.

End Notes

Perhaps the best book that treats the topic of the Marian dogmas from an Evangelical Protestant perspective would be Eric Svendsen’s Who Is My Mother?: The Role of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and in Roman Catholicism. Calvary Press: 2001.
Pope Pius IX. Ineffabilis Deus. Papal Encyclicals Online. <http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm>.
Ibid.
Keating, Karl. Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1988. p. 269.
Madrid, Patrick. Ark of the new covenant. Catholic Answers. <http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp>.
Ibid.
Shea, Mark P. Mary, Mother of the Son, Volume II: First Guardian of the Faith. San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 2009. p. 109.
Ibid., pp. 105-107.
Ibid., p. 108.
Pope Pius IX. Ineffabilis Deus.
This phrase originates from the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1546). The original Latin text of this session with an accompanying English translation may be found here: <http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html>.
Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines (Revised Edition). San Francisco, CA: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978. p. 493.
Shea. Mary, Mother of the Son, Volume II. p. 110.
Schaff, Philip. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume XXIV (Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889. pp. 74-75.
Schaff, Philip (ed.) Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume III (Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, & Rufinus: Historical Writings). New York, NY: Cosimo, Inc. 2007. p. 194.
Schaff, Philip. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume V (Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887. p. 135.
Doyle, Daniel E., O.S.A. “Mary, Mother of God.” Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia (Allan Fitzgerald, ed.). Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1999. p. 544
Ibid.
Lack of space prevents a thorough citation of all the early church fathers who (explicitly or implicitly) rejected the concept of Mary being sinless in their writings. However, it is well worth providing a partial listing of other such fathers who are not quoted here: Ambrose of Milan, Basil the Great, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Justin Martyr, Leo I and Tertullian.

Further Reading

Defending the gospel anywhere

Ryft — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 02:17:12 +0000

So I recently discovered some interesting corners of a web site I was aware of but never really explored before—Reddit.com. And I may have continued in my ignorance about this site, except that one of my various alerts told me that someone there had directed attention to the Aristophrenium. After I checked it out—someone pointing atheists to an article of mine and some colourful commentary following—I was intrigued to find out what other type of sections the site had besides Atheism.

One section that caught my interest (for the time being) is DebateAChristian, and one of the threads I chose to engage was titled, “More un-Christian advice from the word of God” by a gentleman we might safely assume is not a believer who presented what he considered a challenge for Christianity. He cited 2 John 1:9-11 and then contrasted it against Luke 5:29-32, following it with his challenging question, “How are we supposed to call sinners to repentance if we cannot welcome them?”

What follows is the brief conversation between Basilides and myself. (To be updated as the conversation progresses, so check back.)

Last Update: 24 August 2010, 12:45 AM.

Ryft:

We call sinners to repentance by going out to where they fellowship. That does not necessitate bringing them in to where we fellowship. (In other words, inside the church is for edification of believers, outside the church is for evangelization of unbelievers. We are called to go out into the world and share the gospel.)

Basilides:

So sinners are not welcome in Church [2 John 1:9-11].

Ryft:

Incorrect. If sinners were not welcome in church, then every church would be empty, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” That means all people are sinners in need of a Savior—including believers. The difference is that those who repent and trust in Christ are sinners who are saved by him.

Sinners are absolutely welcome in church. What is not welcome in church are unrepentant sinners who neither teach nor abide in the doctrines of Christ and presume to lead or instruct those in the church with their false teachings. As it is also said elsewhere, “Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. [...] If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”

Basilides:

If sinners were not welcome in church, then every church would be empty…

Will you make up your mind? In your last post you insisted…

What is not welcome in church are unrepentant sinners who neither teach nor abide in the doctrines of Christ and presume to lead or instruct those in the church with their false teachings.

That would be any “sinner” (and anyone who’s Christianity you fundamentally disagree with) who dared to make his opinion known in the church.

Ryft:

Will you make up your mind?

As if I need to. Your original question was, “How are we supposed to call sinners to repentance if we cannot welcome them?” And I answered by pointing out the non-existence of this obstacle you’ve imagined. First, how we’re supposed to call sinners to repentance is by going out to them. That answered your question directly. Second, that does not necessitate bringing them in to where we fellowship. Please notice that word “necessitate,” for I used it on purpose (i.e., it’s not as though we’re prevented from calling sinners to repentance if we cannot welcome them). That is, I answered your question from both angles.

Then you asked the follow-up question about sinners being unwelcome in the church, pointing at 2 John 1:9-11 again. So I answered by showing that this passage is not referring to sinners qua sinners (i.e., it does not make the point you want it to), explaining who that passage is talking about (verse 9): unrepentant sinners who neither teach nor abide in the doctrines of Christ and presume to lead or instruct those in the church with their false teachings. (I could cite the Greek text, the indicative mood, etc., but I presumed such textual mechanics were unnecessary.) Then I also demonstrated that verse 10 is consistent with this point by referring to the Galatian epistle where Paul presented them with the same warning John is giving here. This exegesis is supported and consistent (with itself, the context, the text overall, and with other Scriptures).

That would be any ‘sinner’ [...] who dared to make his opinion known in the church.

That conclusion can follow only by completely ignoring my answer and the passage itself. It is not about expressing an opinion, but about leading or instructing (cf. John 10:4, 3 John 1:9; same Greek usage). The question you had asked is answered. Q.E.D.

The Illogic of Pluralism, Pt. 2

Fisher — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:17:00 +0000

(Continued from part one)

This article is a continuation of a rebuttal to Balgrim Ragoonanan, a writer for the anti-Missionary website Crusade Watch which argues vehemently against Christian evangelistic efforts. In another one of his articles, entitled, The Insidiousness Of an Only Pathway to God,[1] he attempts to twist Jesus’ teachings in order to promote Hindu Pluralism. It would seem that the author believes that he can reconstruct Jesus in order to get around His clear teachings regarding salvation through Christ alone by reading into His statements things that He never taught:

Can it be true, according to the Bible, that God can only have one human form? The answer is obviously no, because Jesus said he will come again as a thief in the night, meaning that he will not be recognized in his new form, but only by his works they shall know him.

It is very clear that Jesus credits God with more than one human form and was fully aware of the principle of other forms of God. He was speaking about another one of his coming as God, consistent with the Hindu principle of the manifestation of God at other points in time for a special purpose at the time.

Now, the actual phrase “thief in the night” does not actually come from Jesus but from the words of the apostle Paul, who writes, “for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” (1 Thessalonians 5:2). Nevertheless, Paul does accurately describe Jesus’ own eschatological predictions (Matthew 24:43 and Luke 12:39, cf. 2 Peter 3:10). But notice this: None of the passages just referenced speak about Jesus coming in secret. In fact, we see that exactly the opposite is the case:

As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
(Matthew 24:36-44)

Both the apostles Peter and Paul expand upon this point in their own epistles:

While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
(1 Thessalonians 5:3)

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
(2 Peter 3:10)

Obviously, the eschatological occurrences just mentioned are not going to happen secretly; when a flood occurs, everybody will know about it. When Jesus and His apostles talk about the day coming like a thief in the night, they are referring to the suddenness of the occurrence, not the secrecy thereof.

So where is Jesus “very clear” about “credit[ing] God with more than one human form” and teaching “the principle of other forms of God” here? Nobody doing a plain reading of the New Testament would come to such absurd conclusions. However, this is what happens when “worldview confusion” develops. As D.A. Carson explains in Exegetical Fallacies:

The fallacy in this case lies in thinking that one’s own experience and interpretation of reality are the proper framework for interpreting the biblical text, whereas in fact there may be such deep differences once we probe beyond the superficial level that we find quite different categories are being used, and the law of the excluded middle apples.[1]

Unfortunately, writers who are influenced by Eastern philosophy are often guilty of this fallacy. One need only look at such New Age books as Eckhart Tolle’s A New Earth or Deepak Chopra’s The Third Jesus to confirm that worldview confusion is very prevalent amongst those who are influenced by Hindu or Buddhist thought.[2]

The solution to this problem is quite simple: When reading the biblical text, understand the context of Jesus’ statements and try to know what kind of worldview He was espousing. The Bible proclaims a worldview that is independent of any system that has appeared outside of it, so it is totally illogical to read Hinduism into the scriptural text.

Jesus spoke to a particular group of people who needed assurance of the continuity of their beliefs in God and the continuation of their religion over time in the same vein of Hindu Avatars of God who come with a particular mission at a particular time. It can hardly be a reference to any finality of God and human society in any one point in time, because Jesus also said that many will be called, but few will be chosen.

The anticipation of the coming of Jesus as a thief in the night reminds the Hindu of Lord Krishna who was described as a stealer of butter. The significance of Krishna as a stealer of butter is that he stole the hearts of his devotees after making their hearts as soft as butter by their love for him. It stands to reason that Jesus is another form of an earlier form of God as Lord Krishna, the stealer of butter whom Hindus refer to as a Poorna (full by birth) Avatar of God. It did not require anyone to stop worshipping an earlier or different form of God, with the advent of a new Avatar of God, as Jesus.

Now, Mr. Ragoonanan is trying to grasp at straws by finding something that bears even the slightest resemblance to Christianity in the story of Krishna and using that to create a parallel between Krishna and Jesus. This ignores the fact that the universe as described by Jesus is nothing like the universe that is taught by Hinduism. For example, in contrast with the Hindu view that God one with the world, Jesus affirmed creation, thus making a distinction between the Creator and His creatures. As it says in the Gospel of John, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3). If we are to take seriously what Jesus and His apostles taught, then we must conclude that God is in no way dependent upon or connected to His creation, and an event such as the incarnation is a unique moment in history that is totally unparalleled in the entire history of mankind.

There is no doubt, from reading the Bible, that God may take as many human forms, over time, as he wishes, and so can incarnate in any human form. This is a basic Hindu belief, and one that most Christians also believe, since they, too, believe that nothing is impossible with God. While Hindus speak about many forms of God, most Christians speak only about one form of God as Jesus, the only form of God of which they believe they know and about which they read and are told.

Mr. Ragoonanan obviously does not understand the Christian doctrine of God. He needs to define what he means by “form,” because once you take into account the doctrine of the Trinity, you would have take into account our belief that “Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”[4] We do not believe that the Father nor the Holy Spirit ever came in the flesh; only the Son. Also, the “Avatars of God” that he speaks of are mere exalted men. Do the Hindu scriptures ever attribute to them the kinds of titles that are attributed to Jesus? No, of course not. Listen to what the author of Hebrews taught regarding the Lord Jesus:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
(Hebrews 1:1-5)

As John puts it, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God [μονογενὴς θεὸς] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him” (John 1:18, NASB). In recent years, it has been popular amongst liberal theologians and new age writers to downgrade the status of Jesus by placing Him on the same level as Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, etc., but looking at the life of Jesus will reveal that He is totally unlike any other person who has ever lived in the history of this earth; even these so-called “Avatars of God” that Mr. Ragoonanan likes to tout. Jesus Christ is truly “God the One and Only,” as the New International Version translates the passage just mentioned.

Think about it: If Jesus was just one of several “Avatars of God,” then why did Jesus never inform His disciples about this? Surely, if our author is right, He must have taught this somewhere. We find no such teaching from Him, however. The reason is obvious: The Lord Jesus Christ did not teach the worldview that Mr. Ragoonanan believes in; Jesus was not a Hindu pantheist. Rather, He taught His disciples the worldview that is presented to us in the Bible, where God is Creator, man is finite and Jesus is the “one mediator between God and men” (1 Timothy 2:5). There is no other. Jesus never intended to teach that there were any others like Him. If there were any others like Him, then Jesus would be teaching us a lie, and an “Avatar of God” would not teach a lie, now would He?

It stands to reason that most Christians may be right about one form of God, since time only started for them with the story of Adam and Eve some six thousand or so years ago. Besides, Christianity started formally, as a new religion, some three hundred and twenty five years after the crucifixion of Jesus when the Council of Niceae was formed to launch Christianity as a new religion. One can know much more about other forms of God by reading ancient Hindu scriptures that describe multiple forms of God as Avatars of God much earlier than the advent of Jesus…

…Hindus worshipped God as one since ancient times. This is written in Hindu scriptures which are much earlier than the development of Christianity as a multi formed religion in the area of some forty thousand of them and still growing. We are told that most Christians know God only in one form, and are prepared to reject the existence of any other forms of God prior to Christianity. Their only excuse for their lack of knowledge about God in form much earlier than that of Jesus is to gain support for describing other forms of God as false Gods which drive the power of their aggression onto other religions.

And so, it gives most Christians some cover for persecuting the followers and believers of other forms of God. It is by far the most overt aggression and destruction ever perpetrated on mankind, only because they fail to understand the truth of multiple forms of God since ancient times. Like the British, most Christians would rather distort and destroy what they do not understand by spreading their only one-way religion for salvation that they do not know is a built-in form of self determination in all the forces of nature.

Actually, what Nicaea accomplished was to provide an orthodox definition of the deity of Christ against the Arian heresy (which was a contemporary controversy at the time). Any student of church history and/or of the early church fathers will know that Christianity and its core doctrines were already in place at the close of the apostolic age (circa 98-100 A.D.). Also, to think that the Hindu scriptures carry more weight because they precede the Bible is to commit the fallacy known as the appeal to antiquity, that is, to “assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can’t learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.”[6]

That being said, the New Testament writings were written within twenty to sixty years of Jesus’ death and resurrection. This means that they contain eyewitness accounts of what Jesus actually said and did. Contrasted with this, what is the time gap between the events described in the Hindu scriptures and the actual enscripturation? Is there not a millennium and a half of a difference between when Krishna walked upon this earth and when the earliest portions of the Hindu scriptures were written?[5] Do Hindus even care about the historicity (or lack thereof) of the characters and events written in their own scriptures, or do they think of the men described therein and the events that happened to them as occupying some mystical “other” that is divorced from the real world that we inhabit?

Of course, in the end, none of what Mr. Ragoonanan claims here actually disproves the exclusivity claims of Christ. All the emotionally-driven rhetoric in the world will not change the simple fact that what Jesus taught is what Jesus taught:

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.
(John 14:6-7)

End Notes

Ragoonanan, Balgrim. The Insidiousness Of an Only Pathway to God. Crusade Watch. <http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1085&Itemid=128>.
Carson, Donald Arthur. Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996. p. 103.
In the book just cited, D.A. Carson cites James Sire and provides a very interesting example of how worldview confusion causes Hindu writers to completely miss the point when reading the biblical text: “Swami Satchitandanda interprets ‘Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God’ (Matt. 5:8, KJV) to mean ‘Blessed are those who purify their consciences, for they shall see themselves as God.’ Quite apart from the unjustified intruduction of reflexives, Satchitananda has imported his pantheism into the text, so that not only is the God of the Bible to that extent depersonalized, but also the ontological distinction between God and man is obliterated” (Ibid).
White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief. Minneapolis, MI: Bethany House Publishers, 1998. p. 26.
Krishna allegedly lived during the end of fourth millennium B.C., whereas the earliest portions of the Hindu scriptures were written during the second half of the second millennium B.C. This means that the time gap between when Krishna walked this earth and when the earliest sources for his life were written is at least 1,700 years! It should thus surprise nobody that the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita should contain what are obviously legendary accretions. What a world of difference between them and the New Testament writings, which were written within the lifetime of Jesus’ own apostles.
Appeal to Antiquity/Tradition. Logical Fallacies. <http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition>.

(Continue to part three)

Australia Votes

Adam — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:00:01 +0000

This Saturday the 21st of August 2010 is the Australian Federal Election. On this day Australia votes for who they want to run the country for the next three years. It is similar in a way to the U.S. Presidential election in that we too have only two parties that have any chance of winning the election. They also have similar left and right leanings as in the U.S. In Australia they are called the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. In comparison some might say that the Australian Labor Party is similar to the Democrats in the U.S. while the Liberal Party is similar to the Republicans when it comes to conservative policy. In addition there are some minor parties who align themselves with the major parties and form a sort of coalition for a stronger balance of power.

Ahead of this year’s election the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has provided an excellent summary of the positions of various parties on issues that may be of significant interest to Christian voters. Some of the questions they pose are not likely to be prominently discussed in the wider election coverage. Issues such as abortion, marriage, classification standards, sexualisation of children, religious freedom and chaplaincy, to name a few.

The results of the ACL’s questionnaire can be found here.

One thing I did note with interest was that the Greens Party regularly declined to answer many of the questions – even on the issue of marriage, despite recent unsuccessful attempts to destroy this institution with a Bill that would modify the Marriage Act. I believe many would agree that the Greens are the most Anti-Christian of the more prominent political parties. So perhaps their reluctance in answering many of these questions is due to their concern over losing the Christian vote?

While we will be electing a party to run the country, we will also in effect be voting for Australia’s leader. Sometimes a persons opinion of the would-be Prime Minister can have a large influence in determining a persons vote, regardless of how they feel about party policy. The religious nature of each candidate could be a factor in this election. We have Julia Gillard (Labor) – who will incidentally become our first officially elected female Prime Minister should Labor be returned to power. She currently holds the office of Prime Minister due to a Party coup where she controversially deposed the previous leader. Oh, she is also a confessed atheist. On the opposite side we have Tony Abbott (Liberal) who is a confessed Catholic.

However it turns out, it will be an interesting election. And one that some will believe provides a glimpse into the general direction Australia is heading from a religious perspective. Are we heading down the path of atheism or theism? Some will no doubt believe – perhaps with good reason – that the answer to that question was clear long before Julia Gillard ever stood for Office.

Christian reaction to Ground Zero Mosque

Ryft — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:19:00 +0000

Mark Lamprecht wrote a curious article over at HereIBlog questioning how Christians should react to the building of an Islamic mosque near Ground Zero. And I deem that article “curious” because it largely escapes me how this calls for an internal reflection by Christians. In the final analysis, the matter is a political issue. While there may be something to be said about us being consistent with our Christian faith when it comes to engaging political issues—how we evaluate some legislation, who we consider voting for in elections, how we conduct ourselves in political office, etc.—I really don’t see how the Ground Zero Mosque poses a challenge for Christians and our biblical convictions. Unless, of course, that is precisely what Lamprecht intended with his question; that as followers of Christ we should be careful that we remain consistent with the gospel and our faith as we engage this controversial political issue.

Lamprecht said that his gut reaction was basically, “No way!” But then he walks that reaction back a little, suggesting that it may not be the best reaction. Okay, but why not? What was wrong about that gut reaction—one that is shared by several million Christians all over the United States and beyond? What issue of faith or doctrine does that reaction conflict with, thereby calling for his restraint and perhaps ours?

He does not cite any. Rather, he invokes the freedom of religious exercise protected by the Constitution, tempering the substance of his attitude by that. I have two problems with this. First, as Christians our orthopraxic ‘gut check’ is not predicated on human laws and legal documents. When it comes to tempering our attitude and behavior, the governing authority is the Word of God. In other words, if there is something not quite right about that reaction, we want to see the case made on Scriptures, we want to see something in the Bible which says that reaction is a bit off. Second, the controversial issue of the Ground Zero Mosque does not have anything to do with freedom of religion at any rate. Nobody is saying, “You cannot build a mosque in New York.” As a matter of fact, New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques. Rather, what people are saying is, “You should not build a mosque there in New York.” I have never heard anyone deny Muslims their right to build a mosque near Ground Zero. They most certainly do have that right. To invoke the vocabulary used by the President on this, the conversation is not about the ‘right’ but rather about the ‘wisdom’. When people (like New York City mayor Michael Boomberg) cite the First Amendment they are obscuring the issue with an irrelevant red herring.

Yes, they can build a mosque near Ground Zero; that is their right. No, they should not build a mosque there; that is not wise. And the reasons for why it is not wise are quite numerous, but I do not wish to explore them right now. When Christians react with a loud and strong “No way!” to the idea, it is neither wrong nor inappropriate; they are not in conflict with biblical orthopraxy, nor are they denying anybody their freedoms under the Constitution, for the argument is that the Ground Zero Mosque shouldn’t be built there, which is very different from arguing that it can’t be built there.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has worked hard to portray himself as a ‘bridge-builder’ in the eyes of the American public and the interfaith community, and the location being so close to Ground Zero “was precisely a key selling point” for him, as reported by Ralph Blumenthal with the New York Times. Abdul Rauf wants a presence that close to the World Trade Center “where a piece of the wreckage fell” because he thinks it will send “the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” However, I have got a message for Abdul Rauf: when the majority of the American public is opposed to the construction of the Ground Zero Mosque, and you proceed with your construction plans in defiance of them, you are not building any bridges. As Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah from the Muslim Canadian Congress wrote for the Ottawa Citizen, “As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens, and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to soothe the pain.”

The Illogic of Pluralism, Pt. 1

Fisher — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 06:45:13 +0000

For those who are unfamiliar with Crusade Watch, it is a website with multiple contributors who all write with the express purpose of denouncing evangelism and missions as an evil act that must be banned and legislated against. Of course, the vast majority of the articles published on this website have no real intellectual merit; being comprised primarily of shoddy logic, unwarranted assumptions and undocumented assertion after undocumented assertion. One of the recurring themes among the writers, though, is the idea of pluralism; the ideology that all all paths to God are equally valid, and that none of them can assert to be correct over and against any other path. In particular, it will be well worth documenting the claims of one Balgrim Ragoonanan, an author from Trinidad and Tobago who strongly favours Hindu ideas of plurality over and against religious exclusivity. The rest of this will be dealing with his article entitled, Religious Bigotry and Exclusivity.[1] We will begin by examining the author’s thesis, which appears in the first few paragraphs of his article:

This presentation may also reflect an aspect of the narrow and restrictive pathway offered for salvation by the Christians versus the broad and expansive pathway of the Hindus, although it is not the gist of the paper.

This paper is to be taken only as a working framework for further discussion against religious proselytizing and the Christian one way doctrine to salvation.

Those who do not support religious proselytizing can find the appropriate lawyers to develop a case against religious proselytizing as an abuse of human rights versus the freedom of speech and the freedom to practice a religion in peace without intrusions.

The freedom of speech argument is a false one when it comes to religious proselytizing and must be debunked at the onset. We know that although freedom of speech is sacred to many, it is still over-ruled under certain conditions that incite violence and family and community disturbances.

Note that the author makes two main assertions: The first assertion is that the Hindu concept of pluralism is superior to the biblical Christian doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ alone. The second assertion is that evangelism is an immoral action that should be legislated against as a form of human rights violation.

From the very outset, the logical incoherence of the Mr. Ragoonanan’s position should already be apparent. The first assertion is flawed because Hinduism asserts the equal validity of all religious viewpoints, and yet it condemns the Christian message because it does not have the same message of plurality that Hinduism has. The Hindu ideology of pluralism thus exposes itself as being internally inconsistent. Aside from being internally inconsistent, this view of pluralism also ignores some very basic laws of logic. In particular, it ignores the law of the excluded middle, which states that “every proposition is either true or not true.”[2] This law by its very definition refutes the idea that more than one religion can be simultaneously true.

The second assertion is also flawed because the author praises freedom of speech and religion yet calls for the silencing of Christian missionaries’ freedom to proclaim their faith to others (which is an essential aspect of the Christian faith, cf. Matthew 28:19 and 1 Corinthians 9:16). Also, by what moral standard can evangelism be regarded as “an abuse of human rights” that “that incite violence and family and community disturbances?” We are not told; we are simply asked to assume that it is so. It may very well be true that freedom of speech should be overruled when it causes the kinds of abuses and disturbances that have just been mentioned, but unless the author can demonstrate that evangelism is inextricably linked to these things (which has not and cannot be proven), then this accusation is totally baseless.

This is the least I can do to help in the struggle against aggressive religious proselytizing and the belief in a doctrine that speaks of a single pathway to salvation which is the backbone of religious proselytizing. For me, my writings are “seva”, or a service to man as a service to God. It is not about persecuting/prosecuting anyone, but to highlight the problems involved, and trying to put a stop to aggressive religious proselytizing and the false doctrine of an only one way to salvation.

Not all religious proselytizing may be wrong, I must agree, like reaching out to those who do not already have a religion and those who are seeking information for more information about God, etc. When religious proselytizing is presented as an only way for salvation, then it becomes dangerous for the goal of unity and harmony of any nation. Harmony and unity are the bed rock and foundation of any society or nation and are among the highest goals of all and when observed well. It ensures social harmony at other levels everywhere around the world.

Mr. Ragoonanan apparently believes that he is serving God and man by writing this tirade against Christian missionary efforts. This is rather ironic given the fact that those missionaries who proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ believe that they are doing that very same thing (and, from a Christian perspective, are right to do so). Also, note that exclusivism is regarded by the author as a “false doctrine,” yet how can this be the case if all religious viewpoints are equally valid? This glaring inconsistency should stick out like a sore thumb to anybody who is thinking these things over logically.

The author then asserts that not all forms of proselytizing are wrong, and that it is only a problem if the message is one that presents itself as the only way to God. Once again, we find more inconsistency: Why on earth would any given group even want to proselytize unless they regarded their viewpoint as being correct over and against other viewpoints? Also, why arbitrarily draw the line between those who don’t already have a religion and those who do, and saying that it is okay to proselytize to the former but not the latter? This arbitrary distinction assumes that those who have a religion are in a better off state than those who do not, yet this once again contradicts the very message which the author wishes to convey, which is pluralism. After all, if all viewpoints are equal, then the viewpoint of the one who has no religion is just as good as the viewpoint of the one who has.

Finally, Mr. Ragoonanan’s assertion that such evangelistic work is “dangerous for the goal of unity and harmony of any nation” is simply unfounded. Now, it is true that some missionaries have caused damage in the past, but is such damage rooted in the Christian Gospel itself, or is it caused by other motives that the missionaries held which were completely unrelated to the actual content of the Gospel. For example, anti-missionary writers often quote Jomo Kenyatta, Kenya’s first elected Prime Minister (1963-1964) and President (1964-1978), as saying, “When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the missionaries had the Bible. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible.” In fact, this quote is featured prominently within the Crusade Watch website itself.[3] And yet, the question is never asked whether these heinous crimes (and Christians and non-Christians do need to agree that stealing other people’s land is a heinous crime) are necessitated by Biblical Christianity, or are committed in spite of what the Bible teaches against stealing and oppressing the poor. After all, this is the same Bible which says “do not defraud your neighbor or rob him.” (Leviticus 19:13) and “he who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker” (Proverbs 14:31). Jesus would undoubtedly have rebuked such men as hypocrites, but this does not invalidate Jesus’ command to go out into the world and make disciples of all nations.

Bhagawan Shri Sathya Sai Baba is a spiritual teacher and a mystic of the highest order, and I and many more put our full faith in his teachings. He rejects any claim of a single pathway to God and encourages all to follow their own chosen pathway very closely and deeply, and incorporate his teachings in as they apply. He has never yet told anyone to leave any religion and follow him. He repeatedly says that he did not come to found any new religion, but to teach man the power of self confidence in his own divinity. It speaks to the truth that not every religion has the whole truth, but only some of the truth. I knew this fact in my heart even before I ever came to know about Sathya Sai Baba.

Mr. Ragoonanan does not seem to realize that promoting Sai Baba’s view of spirituality is actually an attack upon Christianity (not to mention Judaism and Islam) on at least two fronts: First, he is claiming that Sai Baba’s viewpoint is more “enlightened” than the traditional understanding of religious faiths (sound familiar?). Does the author not realize that it is deeply offensive to any serious religionist to have his firm adherence to the truth brushed aside by somebody who says, “No, your way is just as good as anybody else’s” to them? Second, by promoting the idea of “teach[ing] man the power of self confidence in his own divinity,” he is rejecting the distinction between the Creator and His creation; a distinction which is fundamental to the Biblical worldview. The author does not seem to realize that by promoting this kind of teaching, he is already engaging in the very thing which he condemns, because he is encouraging others to accept his view of divinity (which is grounded in Hindu pantheism, and is thus antithetical to Judaism, Christianity and Islam) rather than the view that God is a distinct being from His creatures.

Also, think about this for a moment: Different religions have different truth claims that are mutually exclusive. For example, Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is the eternal word of God, that He died on the cross and was raised from the grave after three days. Islam denies all of this, and teaches that Jesus Christ is an ordinary messenger of God who was miraculously prevented from dying on the cross (either by substitution or by swooning, depending on which particular Muslim you ask). According to the law of non-contradiction, these two claims cannot both be true. Someone has to be right; either Jesus is who Christians say He is or He isn’t. Now, the Hindu pluralist’s may say that these claims are true for the Christian but not for the Muslim, but this does not hold water because both Christians and Muslims would claim that Jesus did definitely teach one way or another. The Hindu may again respond by denying that Jesus had a definite teaching on this topic. Alternatively, the Hindu may argue that Jesus’ message was misunderstood by both Christians and Muslims (and in fact, many writers who are influenced by Hindu concepts would argue just that). However, both of these options refute the Hindu’s own view of religious pluralism by asserting that the Christians and Muslims have it wrong, and he has it right.

At this point, the Hindu may then concede that not all religious claims are equally true, but they are still equally valid as pathways to God. The inconsistency of this position is quite glaring; Who on earth would want to follow a falsehood, even if it’ll lead to God? In fact, why would God accept a pathway that is based on falsehood? It could be argued that God will still accept them on the basis of their sincerity, but think about this for a moment: Suppose you wanted to catch a plane flight from New York to London, but you accidentally board a plane headed for Moscow instead. Unaware of this, you sleep throughout the whole length of the flight, and are astonished when you wake up to find that your plane has landed in Moscow. You may then say, “But I sincerely believed that my plane is headed for London!” However, does the sincerity of that belief change the fact that your plane flight did not take you where you wanted to go? Of course not.

I struggled for years for the real answers as to why religious proselytizing on the basis of salvation in Jesus alone is wrong. This struggle may have resonated in other peoples’ hearts, as I shared my feelings about Jesus and Christianity with them. I was never convinced that I had the answers to advance a good argument against religious proselytizing and Jesus as the only way.

I felt deeply confused that some would believe that God did not have other human manifestations over the ages before the advent of Jesus, and would consider one human manifestation of God, as Jesus, to be the only way to salvation. I felt that such a doctrine was only an interpretation that was used by many Christians to manipulate a monopoly on God.

I felt that it was wrong not to believe that God had previous human incarnations, and how could anyone prove that it was not so, especially when what Jesus is presumed to have said about salvation in Him alone was also said in a variety of ways by other incarnations of the same principle of God as man.

For me, God manifests as a teacher of the Supreme Eternal Principle, only one person at a time, as per history according to Hinduism. It would be logical for each incarnation of the God principle to advise all followers to take refuge in Him alone among other teachers of spirituality and religions of the time.

I strongly object when Christians say that the body of Jesus points the only way to salvation. That may be true for many, but it does not negate what others may have said earlier along the same line about taking refuge in them alone, especially when many believe that God manifests as a teacher from time to time to restore dharma when it is on the extreme decline.

Note the strong emphasis Mr. Ragoonanan places upon emotionalism here. There is a lot of talk about what “resonated in other peoples’ hearts.” Also, notice that the Pluralistic “true for you but not for me” attitude emerges once again here. Yet the author employs it inconsistently, because he has to presuppose that the Christian doctrine of God is wrong and that his view of Hindu pantheism is right. This is the only way he can substantiate his claim that Jesus is just one of many “incarnations of the principle of God as man” who came to “restore dharma when it is on the extreme decline.” Has it never occurred to the author that these concepts are completely foreign to anything Jesus ever taught about Himself? Why on earth would a first century Palestinian Jew be teaching eastern philosophy? Anybody who is thinking about these things clearly and has not been indoctrinated into the philosophies of this age will realize how utterly fallacious inserting these concepts into the mind of Christ are, since the Hindu pantheist’s worldview is completely antithetical to the worldview which Christ proclaimed to His followers.

Also, he never really offers any evidence for the claim that previous religious figures have pointed to themselves as the only way to God. The reason for this should be very obvious: When Jesus said “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) He is not just proclaiming a message like a prophet, saying “I have a message from God; follow it!” This is one of those famous “I am” statements. Jesus is pointing to Himself and the work that He is about to do. By pointing to Himself, He is saying that His atoning death on the cross is the only way by which estranged sinners may be forgiven of their sins and reconciled to an all-Holy God, and His resurrection from the grave is the only way by which our own eternal life may be secured. It is for this reason that the apostle Peter proclaimed, “salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). This flies totally in the face of everything Hindu philosophy teaches concerning God and His relationship with man.[4]

Who is not confused when the highest authority in Christendom says Jesus is the only way for hundreds of years and then turns around later and says not so. “Even Pope John Paul II has said that “salvation is not denied to non-Christians”

Can it just be another example of how theologians and even the representative of Jesus on earth interpret the word of God to suit the needs of the time?

It may constitute a clear case for debunking forever the Church doctrine of aggressive proselytizing and a one only religion for salvation.

When the Pope is reported to have used the word “not denied,” the immediate question is by whom? Then he is clearly speaking about the God of all to confirm that all pathways lead to the same God.

At the very outset, the bible-believing Evangelical Christian ought to protest against the characterization of the Pope in Rome as “the highest authority in Christendom.” The Christian’s final authority is God’s infallible Word. To it shall the Christian submit, not to a man who proclaims himself to be the “vicar of Christ.”[5] That being said, Mr. Ragoonanan has still not provided any kind of meaningful response to the Lord Jesus’ clear teaching that the only way to be saved and be reconciled to God is through “[His] blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28). This teaching is offensive to many, no doubt. But the truth of the Gospel does not depend on whether or not fallible human beings find it to be palatable to their tastes. After all, the apostle Paul taught us:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God… The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment.
(1 Corinthians 1:18, 2:14-15)

This ought to be sufficient to refute Mr. Ragoonanan’s tirade on “Religious bigotry and exclusivity.” Lord willing, we shall examine the rest of his writings to refute his attempts to argue against the propagation of the Christian Gospel and twist its contents to fit in with his view of pantheistic Hinduism.

End Notes

Ragoonanan, Balgrim. Religious Bigotry and Exclusivity. Crusade Watch. <http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1057&Itemid=128>.
Law of Excluded Middle. Philosophy Professor. <http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/excluded-middle-law.php>.
Why People Oppose Evangelism? Crusade Watch. <http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=22&Itemid=57>.
In fact, Hinduism denies the very notion that man is a sinner who needs to be reconciled to God. Consider, for example, the words of Swami Vivekananda in his lecture before the Parliament of religions in Chicago in 1893: “The Hindu refuses to call you sinners. Ye are the children of God; the sharers of immortal bliss, holy and perfect beings. Ye divinities on earth, sinners? It is a sin to call a man a sinner. It is a standing libel on human nature” (Stott, John. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006. pp. 161-162.). Contrast this with the biblical view of man: “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:22-24).
For more information, see Adam Morgan’s article entitled, Was Peter the First Pope?: <http://aristophrenium.com/adam/was-peter-the-first-pope>.

(Continue to part two)

The Islamic War Machine Rears its Ugly Head Once Again

Fisher — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 07:18:12 +0000

Breaking news from the Assyrian International News Agency:

Muslim Cleric Calls for Jihad, Coptic Christians Attacked in Egypt

(AINA) — On August 13 Sheikh Tobah, Imam of the village of Shimi 170 KM south of Giza, called during Muslim Friday prayers for Jihad against Christians living there. As a result the Christian Copts living in the village were assaulted over two consecutive days. Eleven Copts were hospitalized and many Coptic youths were arrested.

The assaults begain a couple of hours after the Sheikhs incitement. An argument between Copt Maher Amin, who was washing his taxi, and Mohamed Ali Almstaui, a Muslim extremist from the village, escalated into violence as Mohamad assaulted Maher. The altercation was stopped by bystanders. However, after the evening break of Ramadan fast, Ahmad, the brother of the perpetrator Mohamad, who is reported to belong to an extremist organization, together with twenty other men, went to Maher’s family home, breaking down the door and assaulting him and his family with batons, including his old mother and his paralyzed sister, injuring them and breaking their furniture.

Security forces came and took away the Christian victims and kept them at the station in spite of their wounds, to pressuree them into accepting “reconciliation” with their attackers. None of the Muslims were arrested.

Saad Gamal, Egyptian MP for Elsaff, phoned from Gaza, where he is on a visit, and gave orders to the police to force reconciliation on the Coptic parties…

Please read the rest of the article here.

It is sad that these things are happening to our brothers and sisters in Christ, but I guess this is inevitable as long as Muslims take seriously Muhammad’s words in surah 9:29-30. May the Lord be with our brethren and deliver them out of the hands of the oppressors.

Explaining and Defending the Incarnation

Fisher — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 06:31:12 +0000

I recently ran into this video by a fellow named Farhan who attempts a response to David Wood’s video entitled How Can God Die? I have decided to post a video response of my own, so here it is:

Please excuse the less than perfect video editing. I used a different editing program than I usually use for making this video.

End Notes

See the article I wrote on my personal blog here: <http://epagonizesthai.blogspot.com/2010/07/in-defense-of-nabeel-qureshi.html>.
Nabeel writes in a note on his conversion story: “I mention that I had learned a very peaceful version of Islam. I belonged to the Ahmadiyya movement in Islam, a sect that many Muslims consider heretical. One of the distinguishing features of this movement is that they consider military jihad to be abolished. As I wish to be forthright with all my readers, this note serves to explicitly state which sect of Islam I belonged to.” Source: <http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Qureshi/testimony.htm>.
See the article Who Suffers the Consequence of Sins according to the Qur’an? at Answering Islam: <http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/suffer_for_sin.html>.
Here is the full citation: “Elsewhere the Hiphil of פָגַע (paga’) means “to intercede verbally” (Jer 15:11; 36:25) or “to intervene militarily” (Isa 59:16), but neither nuance fits here. Apparently here the Hiphil is the causative of the normal Qal meaning, “encounter, meet, touch.” The Qal sometimes refers to a hostile encounter or attack; when used in this way the object is normally introduced by the preposition -בְּ (bet, see Josh 2:16; Judg 8:21; 15:12, etc.). Here the causative Hiphil has a double object – the Lord makes “sin” attack “him” (note that the object attacked is introduced by the preposition -בְּ. In their sin the group was like sheep who had wandered from God’s path. They were vulnerable to attack; the guilt of their sin was ready to attack and destroy them. But then the servant stepped in and took the full force of the attack.” Source: <http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Isa&chapter=53#v18>.
If one is not sufficiently convinced that Isaiah 53 is referring to the Messiah, then I would like to refer the reader to this article from the Christian Think-Tank: <http://www.christian-thinktank.com/bad53.html>

See Also

The Aristophrenium

A Follow-Up on “Was Mary Sinless?”

Most Commented Posts

The Illogic of Pluralism, Pt. 3

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Was Mary Sinless?

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Defending the gospel anywhere

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

The Illogic of Pluralism, Pt. 2

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Australia Votes

Most Commented Posts

Christian reaction to Ground Zero Mosque

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

The Illogic of Pluralism, Pt. 1

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

The Islamic War Machine Rears its Ugly Head Once Again

Other related Aristophrenium articles:

Explaining and Defending the Incarnation

Other related Aristophrenium articles: