Were the Gospel Accounts Myth?

The challenges that the Apostles were deluded or lying are not very probable given the consistent accounts of the Apostles and their willingness to stick to it through hardship and death.  Because of this, another theory arose, which says that the Apostles never claimed to have encountered Jesus literally resurrected, but instead the symbolic words they intended were transformed over time into mythical accounts where miracles were "added."

Again, for such a theory to be considered credible, we need to look into what sort of evidence is available to prove such a thing.  Without proof, this is an opinion based on nothing but the assumption that miracles could not happen.

I've dealt with this a little in a past article, but the time has come to look at the matter in more depth.

The Basic Charge and what it needs to establish

The general assumption is that the Apostles did not teach what the Christian faith teaches today, but over time the Church became overly literal with things which were meant to be merely analogy or spiritual.

Supporters of this idea will argue that certain religions (Islam, Buddhism) have accounts which arose later which are alien to the actual teachings of the religious founders.  Islam, for example, teaches that the only miracle was the Koran.  Later stories of Mohammed flying to the Moon on a horse are considered additions.  They cannot be established as being around during the time of Mohammed, and only arose later.

From this, some argue that the accounts of miracles and the resurrection of Jesus were not original, but instead added later.

What this theory needs to establish is the existence of actual accounts sans miracles, claims of Jesus to be God and so on.  Since it is generally not disputed that the person of Jesus existed [generally, the dispute is over whether He was God, not whether He existed], for there to be a myth, there needs to be something for the myth to be based on.  We know of the life of Mohammed without miracles.  Do we also know of the life of Jesus apart from the miracles told about Him?

Biblical Criticism is a good tool, but it is only as effective as the one using it

Biblical criticism can be quite useful to understand the context of what was said and done.  However it is a tool, and if one uses a tool improperly, the results will be poor.  So if someone comes to the Bible with pre-conceived notions of what can and cannot be possible before looking at the texts, those pre-conceived notions will affect what the person using the tool will see.

I bring this up because some people invoke "Biblical Criticism" claiming they disprove the accounts of miracles, when in fact what we have are people who do not believe miracles can happen believing they can be added later.

Looking at some objections to the "Myth" theory

For those who want to argue that the accounts of Jesus we know of are in fact myth which was tacked on to what really happened, certain objections need to be met in order to establish this theory.

1) The accounts of the Gospels are not in the style of myth.  We have the events tied to real places and real times.  There are no anachronisms.  The people behave as First Century AD Jews, not as Third Century pagans or philosophers.  We see details that an eyewitness could have noticed but not necessarily understood (Jesus writing in the sand in John 8:6 for example).  We see references to witnesses.  The Feeding of the 5000 is often derided as sexist for the line "besides women and children" in Matthew 14:21.  Such a view shows a lack of understanding of the law of the times, where a woman or a child could not be a legal witness to a thing.  So Matthew 14:21 is saying in effect Thousands of people saw this, and 5000 of them were legal witnesses.

Actual apocryphal gospels show us what a mythical version of Jesus is like.  The child Jesus creating real birds out of clay, getting angry at a playmate and killing him, bringing another child back to life to say who really killed him when the child Jesus stood accused.  We see frivolous actions in these apocryphal gospels.  In contrast, the real gospels show miracles worked as confirming the authority He had to teach.  They had a very real purpose, done to meet real needs.

2) The time required for myth to develop from real events is longer than the time the accounts we have first appeared.  Those who deny that the accounts we have were original try to claim that the Gospels were written in the second century AD.  The problem is, accounts which reference the Gospels indicate they were written in the first century.  Legendary accounts of Buddha or Mohammed come from generations after Buddha and Mohammed died.  Accounts of miracles existed with Jesus in the first century when those who knew Jesus were still alive.

The Epistles of Paul were undeniably written within 30 years of the death of Jesus, and they are referenced by early Christian writers which confirm them from the first century.

We need to remember that while in modern times people challenge the accuracy of Scripture because "it is so old."  However, reading the Christian defense of the faith in the times of the Pagan Roman Empire shows they had to answer a different charge — that it couldn't be true because "it was so new."

[These are both fallacies by the way.  To reject an idea because it is old or because it is new has no bearing on whether it is true.]

The claims of the "myth added later" requires a two level structure:

1. The so-called "Historical" Jesus who lived and taught but did not, claim divinity, perform miracles or rise from the dead.
2. The so-called "Mythical" accounts we have in Scripture today.

The problem is, we have no evidence of the existence of the first layer.  Instead we have individuals who seek to remove the miracles, claims of divinity and resurrection and claim this was the "first layer."  All we do have are the accounts of Scripture which existed from the first century.

This presupposes "Miracles can't happen" however, which requires proof, and cannot merely be assumed to be true.

St. Augustine made an excellent point about this sort of objection, saying:

[A]t this time the words of one Helpidius, speaking and disputing face to face against the said Manichaeans, had begun to move me even at Carthage, in that he brought forth things from the Scriptures not easily withstood, to which their answer appeared to me feeble. And this answer they did not give forth publicly, but only to us in private,—when they said that the writings of the New Testament had been tampered with by I know not whom, who were desirous of ingrafting the Jewish law upon the Christian faith; but they themselves did not bring forward any uncorrupted copies. (Confessions.  Book V, Chapter XI Section 21. Emphasis added)

3) The Gospel Accounts do not omit details embarrassing to the Apostles or the Faith.  The first who saw the open tomb were not the Apostles, but women.  In first century Judea (and the Roman empire) women were not considered to be reliable witnesses and could not testify in a court of law.  A mythical account would doubtlessly be reluctant to open itself to such a charge as some could argue that the fact meant the account was not reliable.  Jesus rebuked Peter.  If the accounts we have were a myth, why was this not downplayed?  The Apostles were not triumphantly waiting for Jesus to rise again.  They were in hiding, thinking that Jesus had failed.  They ran away.  If the accounts of Scripture we have were "mythologized" then why do we see such failings so prominently displayed?

Because of this, we are faced with two choices.  if it is not a true account, it must be a lie… which brings us back to the problems of deception.  The Apostles specifically reject a mythic interpretation (2 Peter 1:16-19), insisting the accounts they have given are what they were eyewitnesses to:

^16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ^17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” ^18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

If someone wants to claim that another wrote this in the name of Peter, but Peter did not teach this, we again have the problem of deception, because this account plainly says they were eyewitnesses.

The Significance of these Objections

The significance of these objections demonstrates problems with the theory of myth which assumes that the miraculous could not have been original, and is in fact a lack of belief that the seems to be the motivation for the theory to begin with.

The problem is, if mythical interpretation is to be considered as a credible theory, we need to explain how the so-called "myths" arose so quickly and so consistently across the Roman Empire, instead of being localized to one area and disputed in others.  Greek mythology, for example, has many different variants of the same story where central elements of the story vary widely depending on the story.  Athens, for example, tended to deny or downplay elements about Athena which other regions.  (See Robert Graves' The Greek Myths for examples of these sorts of discrepancies).

In comparison, the Gospels do not have these sorts of contradictions.  We do not see a case where one account says "Jesus did X" and another where it says "Jesus did NOT do X."  Instead we see one account saying "Jesus did X", a second saying "Jesus did X and Y" and a third not commenting on it at all.  These are not contradictions, but rather differences which can be explained by different people having different impressions of the same event.

We don't see one copy of a gospel found in one area of the Roman Empire saying one thing, and another copy found on the opposite side of the empire saying something contradictory.  With the exception of certain copyist errors and glosses, we find a consistency which is remarkable in an age with no instantaneous transfer as we have today.

This anticipates the so-called "Telephone Game" theory which claims that passing on information from one to another will lead to a distorted message.  How can such a theory account for the consistent records which we do have?

Conclusion: Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine

Again, as with the previous theories, we see a theory which is not a conclusion based on the gathering of evidence, but is instead the reading of evidence based on a conclusion already drawn of what must have happened to begin with.  Because miracles are assumed to be impossible, the reasoning is that there must be another explanation for the accounts.

However, if the assumption is wrong, the conclusions will doubtlessly be in error as well.  As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, "Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine" (“Small error in the beginning; large [error] will be in the end”).

The way to avoid this is to eliminate preconceived notions and actually study Scripture and Christian teaching to see what was said, and look examine the reliability of the sources without deciding in advance that whatever does not fit our views must have been "added later."

Were the Gospel Accounts Myth?

The challenges that the Apostles were deluded or lying are not very probable given the consistent accounts of the Apostles and their willingness to stick to it through hardship and death.  Because of this, another theory arose, which says that the Apostles never claimed to have encountered Jesus literally resurrected, but instead the symbolic words they intended were transformed over time into mythical accounts where miracles were "added."

Again, for such a theory to be considered credible, we need to look into what sort of evidence is available to prove such a thing.  Without proof, this is an opinion based on nothing but the assumption that miracles could not happen.

I've dealt with this a little in a past article, but the time has come to look at the matter in more depth.

The Basic Charge and what it needs to establish

The general assumption is that the Apostles did not teach what the Christian faith teaches today, but over time the Church became overly literal with things which were meant to be merely analogy or spiritual.

Supporters of this idea will argue that certain religions (Islam, Buddhism) have accounts which arose later which are alien to the actual teachings of the religious founders.  Islam, for example, teaches that the only miracle was the Koran.  Later stories of Mohammed flying to the Moon on a horse are considered additions.  They cannot be established as being around during the time of Mohammed, and only arose later.

From this, some argue that the accounts of miracles and the resurrection of Jesus were not original, but instead added later.

What this theory needs to establish is the existence of actual accounts sans miracles, claims of Jesus to be God and so on.  Since it is generally not disputed that the person of Jesus existed [generally, the dispute is over whether He was God, not whether He existed], for there to be a myth, there needs to be something for the myth to be based on.  We know of the life of Mohammed without miracles.  Do we also know of the life of Jesus apart from the miracles told about Him?

Biblical Criticism is a good tool, but it is only as effective as the one using it

Biblical criticism can be quite useful to understand the context of what was said and done.  However it is a tool, and if one uses a tool improperly, the results will be poor.  So if someone comes to the Bible with pre-conceived notions of what can and cannot be possible before looking at the texts, those pre-conceived notions will affect what the person using the tool will see.

I bring this up because some people invoke "Biblical Criticism" claiming they disprove the accounts of miracles, when in fact what we have are people who do not believe miracles can happen believing they can be added later.

Looking at some objections to the "Myth" theory

For those who want to argue that the accounts of Jesus we know of are in fact myth which was tacked on to what really happened, certain objections need to be met in order to establish this theory.

1) The accounts of the Gospels are not in the style of myth.  We have the events tied to real places and real times.  There are no anachronisms.  The people behave as First Century AD Jews, not as Third Century pagans or philosophers.  We see details that an eyewitness could have noticed but not necessarily understood (Jesus writing in the sand in John 8:6 for example).  We see references to witnesses.  The Feeding of the 5000 is often derided as sexist for the line "besides women and children" in Matthew 14:21.  Such a view shows a lack of understanding of the law of the times, where a woman or a child could not be a legal witness to a thing.  So Matthew 14:21 is saying in effect Thousands of people saw this, and 5000 of them were legal witnesses.

Actual apocryphal gospels show us what a mythical version of Jesus is like.  The child Jesus creating real birds out of clay, getting angry at a playmate and killing him, bringing another child back to life to say who really killed him when the child Jesus stood accused.  We see frivolous actions in these apocryphal gospels.  In contrast, the real gospels show miracles worked as confirming the authority He had to teach.  They had a very real purpose, done to meet real needs.

2) The time required for myth to develop from real events is longer than the time the accounts we have first appeared.  Those who deny that the accounts we have were original try to claim that the Gospels were written in the second century AD.  The problem is, accounts which reference the Gospels indicate they were written in the first century.  Legendary accounts of Buddha or Mohammed come from generations after Buddha and Mohammed died.  Accounts of miracles existed with Jesus in the first century when those who knew Jesus were still alive.

The Epistles of Paul were undeniably written within 30 years of the death of Jesus, and they are referenced by early Christian writers which confirm them from the first century.

We need to remember that while in modern times people challenge the accuracy of Scripture because "it is so old."  However, reading the Christian defense of the faith in the times of the Pagan Roman Empire shows they had to answer a different charge — that it couldn't be true because "it was so new."

[These are both fallacies by the way.  To reject an idea because it is old or because it is new has no bearing on whether it is true.]

The claims of the "myth added later" requires a two level structure:

1. The so-called "Historical" Jesus who lived and taught but did not, claim divinity, perform miracles or rise from the dead.
2. The so-called "Mythical" accounts we have in Scripture today.

The problem is, we have no evidence of the existence of the first layer.  Instead we have individuals who seek to remove the miracles, claims of divinity and resurrection and claim this was the "first layer."  All we do have are the accounts of Scripture which existed from the first century.

This presupposes "Miracles can't happen" however, which requires proof, and cannot merely be assumed to be true.

St. Augustine made an excellent point about this sort of objection, saying:

[A]t this time the words of one Helpidius, speaking and disputing face to face against the said Manichaeans, had begun to move me even at Carthage, in that he brought forth things from the Scriptures not easily withstood, to which their answer appeared to me feeble. And this answer they did not give forth publicly, but only to us in private,—when they said that the writings of the New Testament had been tampered with by I know not whom, who were desirous of ingrafting the Jewish law upon the Christian faith; but they themselves did not bring forward any uncorrupted copies. (Confessions.  Book V, Chapter XI Section 21. Emphasis added)

3) The Gospel Accounts do not omit details embarrassing to the Apostles or the Faith.  The first who saw the open tomb were not the Apostles, but women.  In first century Judea (and the Roman empire) women were not considered to be reliable witnesses and could not testify in a court of law.  A mythical account would doubtlessly be reluctant to open itself to such a charge as some could argue that the fact meant the account was not reliable.  Jesus rebuked Peter.  If the accounts we have were a myth, why was this not downplayed?  The Apostles were not triumphantly waiting for Jesus to rise again.  They were in hiding, thinking that Jesus had failed.  They ran away.  If the accounts of Scripture we have were "mythologized" then why do we see such failings so prominently displayed?

Because of this, we are faced with two choices.  if it is not a true account, it must be a lie… which brings us back to the problems of deception.  The Apostles specifically reject a mythic interpretation (2 Peter 1:16-19), insisting the accounts they have given are what they were eyewitnesses to:

^16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ^17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” ^18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

If someone wants to claim that another wrote this in the name of Peter, but Peter did not teach this, we again have the problem of deception, because this account plainly says they were eyewitnesses.

The Significance of these Objections

The significance of these objections demonstrates problems with the theory of myth which assumes that the miraculous could not have been original, and is in fact a lack of belief that the seems to be the motivation for the theory to begin with.

The problem is, if mythical interpretation is to be considered as a credible theory, we need to explain how the so-called "myths" arose so quickly and so consistently across the Roman Empire, instead of being localized to one area and disputed in others.  Greek mythology, for example, has many different variants of the same story where central elements of the story vary widely depending on the story.  Athens, for example, tended to deny or downplay elements about Athena which other regions.  (See Robert Graves' The Greek Myths for examples of these sorts of discrepancies).

In comparison, the Gospels do not have these sorts of contradictions.  We do not see a case where one account says "Jesus did X" and another where it says "Jesus did NOT do X."  Instead we see one account saying "Jesus did X", a second saying "Jesus did X and Y" and a third not commenting on it at all.  These are not contradictions, but rather differences which can be explained by different people having different impressions of the same event.

We don't see one copy of a gospel found in one area of the Roman Empire saying one thing, and another copy found on the opposite side of the empire saying something contradictory.  With the exception of certain copyist errors and glosses, we find a consistency which is remarkable in an age with no instantaneous transfer as we have today.

This anticipates the so-called "Telephone Game" theory which claims that passing on information from one to another will lead to a distorted message.  How can such a theory account for the consistent records which we do have?

Conclusion: Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine

Again, as with the previous theories, we see a theory which is not a conclusion based on the gathering of evidence, but is instead the reading of evidence based on a conclusion already drawn of what must have happened to begin with.  Because miracles are assumed to be impossible, the reasoning is that there must be another explanation for the accounts.

However, if the assumption is wrong, the conclusions will doubtlessly be in error as well.  As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, "Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine" (“Small error in the beginning; large [error] will be in the end”).

The way to avoid this is to eliminate preconceived notions and actually study Scripture and Christian teaching to see what was said, and look examine the reliability of the sources without deciding in advance that whatever does not fit our views must have been "added later."

Thoughts on Jefferson and the so-called Wall of Separation

I notice articles by atheists tend to run in themes: "Islam is bad, so religion is bad," "Science disproves religion" and so on.  One of the recent themes is on Thomas Jefferson and his calling for a "Wall of Separation," citing the Danbury Letter.

The key point of this letter is:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

The argument tends to be "Jefferson said we need to keep a wall between Church and State.  Religions are trying to change laws.  Therefore religion needs to be controlled."

The problem is twofold.  First, the Danbury Letter is not  legally binding document or the like.  Second, the modern interpretation is one of bifurcation: "Either we control religion or religion controls us," which simply is not the case.

The letter Jefferson was responding to (from the Danbury Baptists) expressed a concern that certain sectarian groups might seek to attack members of the government being "irreligious,"  based on their own views.  Now this is a legitimate concern.  Certainly Catholics in Maryland in the 17th and 18th century before the founding of America knew of groups which, once in power, sought to strip them of their rights to religious freedom which they granted to others.  However, we remain with the problem of a wall of separation properly understood.

Now the first amendment to the Constitution does tell us:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This means of course that the state may not impose any specific religion on the people true, but it also forbids the prohibiting of the free exercise of religion.  It seems the dangerous part of Jefferson's letter is when he says:

I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties

The dangerous part of this sentiment is this potentially opens the door to the negation of the First Amendment if misapplied.  It's not completely wrong of course: The Church holds that freedom is not license to do what we wish, but rather the freedom to do what we ought before God, for example.  The problem is when the state decides a certain group acts contrary to undefined "social duties" not because of actual acts which are unlawful but because they practice a religion which is not well received.

As the old saying goes, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  If the state defines what is intrusion on the Establishment of Religion, what prevents it from defining social duties in such a way to harass a religion or the like?

This is the problem of the modern understanding of the separation of Church and State.  The claim is that something benefits religion in general is a violation of the separation of church and state.  The problem is such a view de facto defines religion as being in opposition to social duties when it speaks out against the state.

We do need to remember that the view of atheism also falls under this criteria.  The atheist who seeks to remove public expression of prayer or the like is in fact violating this so-called wall of separation in a way which denies the rights of the first amendment.

The atheist who wishes to cite the Danbury Letter as excluding religion from political life needs to remember that the first amendment also grants to citizens the rights of the freedom of press, speech,  to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

This of course means that a Church has a right to speak out in word and in print about the ways the nation is bringing harm to members or harm to itself.  Yet churches do not have this right.  If a church wishes to say "What this government official is doing is wrong," they cannot without legal repercussions.

It is a paradox of course set about by a phrase with no legal bearing.  Separation of Church and State means a state cannot dictate how an individual may practice religion or to infringe of the practices of a religion, and certainly this is what popes like Leo XIII praised about the American way.  However, on the other hand, going from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to "Religion shall have no say in government" is certainly a contradiction, because it denies or limits members of religion their right to free speech, press, assembly and redress.

Things like the Danbury Letter or claims like saying "The Founding Fathers were not Christians" is in fact a Red Herring.  Certainly the Declaration of Independence shows that the understanding of America had some understanding of God, who had an authority above the state:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, these are not rights the state can arbitrarily give and take away.  Rather they are things people possess which are beyond the ability of the state to regulate.   We now come to a problem with the claims of the atheist over America.  If we do not hold that our rights come from a creator, from what do they come from?  What makes them binding so that tomorrow Obama cannot say "I'm taking away your right to the free press"?

The choices for where our rights come from are: God, or Nothing. If they come from God, then no person can take them away from us… certainly a government can compel us so we cannot exercise our rights, but in doing so, they act in an unjust manner.

However, if they come ex nihilo (out of nothing), they are not rights, but tolerances from the government, as what one man can say is good for him, another might disagree with.  One government administration might decree we have the right to property, another which follows the first might claim we exploit people by the existence of private property and it may not be allowed.

Some atheists and agnostics do not like where this leads.  They recognize that some actions are wrong, but reject the idea as the source of what is good, so they seek to find a source which is not absolute to give us these rights, such as instinct or some undefined sense of justice.

The problem is our rights are only as absolute as the source which grants them. What binds a nebulous force like "justice" or "instinct" to do something we must obey?  What part of it prevents a Hitler or a Stalin from saying "I reject these values and replace them with another which I find superior for me."

Either we recognize that our rights as human persons come from a binding force outside of us (which, if one does not call it God, must define what it is) or we are forced to concede that we have no rights at all, but merely the tolerance of a government.

This latter view of course would be against the Constitution, and this is the paradox of Jefferson's Danbury Letter

Thoughts on Jefferson and the so-called Wall of Separation

I notice articles by atheists tend to run in themes: "Islam is bad, so religion is bad," "Science disproves religion" and so on.  One of the recent themes is on Thomas Jefferson and his calling for a "Wall of Separation," citing the Danbury Letter.

The key point of this letter is:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

The argument tends to be "Jefferson said we need to keep a wall between Church and State.  Religions are trying to change laws.  Therefore religion needs to be controlled."

The problem is twofold.  First, the Danbury Letter is not  legally binding document or the like.  Second, the modern interpretation is one of bifurcation: "Either we control religion or religion controls us," which simply is not the case.

The letter Jefferson was responding to (from the Danbury Baptists) expressed a concern that certain sectarian groups might seek to attack members of the government being "irreligious,"  based on their own views.  Now this is a legitimate concern.  Certainly Catholics in Maryland in the 17th and 18th century before the founding of America knew of groups which, once in power, sought to strip them of their rights to religious freedom which they granted to others.  However, we remain with the problem of a wall of separation properly understood.

Now the first amendment to the Constitution does tell us:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This means of course that the state may not impose any specific religion on the people true, but it also forbids the prohibiting of the free exercise of religion.  It seems the dangerous part of Jefferson's letter is when he says:

I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties

The dangerous part of this sentiment is this potentially opens the door to the negation of the First Amendment if misapplied.  It's not completely wrong of course: The Church holds that freedom is not license to do what we wish, but rather the freedom to do what we ought before God, for example.  The problem is when the state decides a certain group acts contrary to undefined "social duties" not because of actual acts which are unlawful but because they practice a religion which is not well received.

As the old saying goes, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  If the state defines what is intrusion on the Establishment of Religion, what prevents it from defining social duties in such a way to harass a religion or the like?

This is the problem of the modern understanding of the separation of Church and State.  The claim is that something benefits religion in general is a violation of the separation of church and state.  The problem is such a view de facto defines religion as being in opposition to social duties when it speaks out against the state.

We do need to remember that the view of atheism also falls under this criteria.  The atheist who seeks to remove public expression of prayer or the like is in fact violating this so-called wall of separation in a way which denies the rights of the first amendment.

The atheist who wishes to cite the Danbury Letter as excluding religion from political life needs to remember that the first amendment also grants to citizens the rights of the freedom of press, speech,  to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

This of course means that a Church has a right to speak out in word and in print about the ways the nation is bringing harm to members or harm to itself.  Yet churches do not have this right.  If a church wishes to say "What this government official is doing is wrong," they cannot without legal repercussions.

It is a paradox of course set about by a phrase with no legal bearing.  Separation of Church and State means a state cannot dictate how an individual may practice religion or to infringe of the practices of a religion, and certainly this is what popes like Leo XIII praised about the American way.  However, on the other hand, going from "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to "Religion shall have no say in government" is certainly a contradiction, because it denies or limits members of religion their right to free speech, press, assembly and redress.

Things like the Danbury Letter or claims like saying "The Founding Fathers were not Christians" is in fact a Red Herring.  Certainly the Declaration of Independence shows that the understanding of America had some understanding of God, who had an authority above the state:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In other words, these are not rights the state can arbitrarily give and take away.  Rather they are things people possess which are beyond the ability of the state to regulate.   We now come to a problem with the claims of the atheist over America.  If we do not hold that our rights come from a creator, from what do they come from?  What makes them binding so that tomorrow Obama cannot say "I'm taking away your right to the free press"?

The choices for where our rights come from are: God, or Nothing. If they come from God, then no person can take them away from us… certainly a government can compel us so we cannot exercise our rights, but in doing so, they act in an unjust manner.

However, if they come ex nihilo (out of nothing), they are not rights, but tolerances from the government, as what one man can say is good for him, another might disagree with.  One government administration might decree we have the right to property, another which follows the first might claim we exploit people by the existence of private property and it may not be allowed.

Some atheists and agnostics do not like where this leads.  They recognize that some actions are wrong, but reject the idea as the source of what is good, so they seek to find a source which is not absolute to give us these rights, such as instinct or some undefined sense of justice.

The problem is our rights are only as absolute as the source which grants them. What binds a nebulous force like "justice" or "instinct" to do something we must obey?  What part of it prevents a Hitler or a Stalin from saying "I reject these values and replace them with another which I find superior for me."

Either we recognize that our rights as human persons come from a binding force outside of us (which, if one does not call it God, must define what it is) or we are forced to concede that we have no rights at all, but merely the tolerance of a government.

This latter view of course would be against the Constitution, and this is the paradox of Jefferson's Danbury Letter

The Circular Argument: Interpreting Scripture from Scripture

One of the curious things I come across with those who give primacy to Scripture and deny the role of Sacred Tradition is the explanations given in order to defend their belief.  Generally summed up, the statement of “Interpreting Scripture from Scripture” means one needs to take the Scripture as a whole and reject any readings which are contrary.

As one site put it, citing 2 Timothy 3:16 (All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness)

So all scripture is useable for doctrine. However, if we take the view scripture is inspired and that God is Holy, we then can know that there will not be any contradictions. If we see a contradiction then it is our understanding that must be changed. We also must realize the differences between the Old Testament and the New. While the Old is still profitable for doctrine, we must realize the New says the Old is a shadow.

The problem is that this does not answer the question.  If I and another study Scripture as a whole, and another draws from Scripture a conclusion which is contrary to mine, to what shall we both appeal to?  John Wesley, in his Sermon 136, shows the limits of the appeal to Scripture while trying to justify the appeal to Scripture alone when he says:

[III. 1.] If, then, we have spoken the word of God, the genuine unmixed word of God, and that only; if we have put no unnatural interpretation upon it, but [have] taken the known phrases in their common, obvious sense, — and when they were less known, explained scripture by scripture; if we have spoken the whole word, as occasion offered, though rather the parts which seemed most proper to give a check to some fashionable vice, or to encourage the practice of some unfashionable virtue; and if we have done this plainly and boldly, though with all the mildness and gentleness that the nature of the subject will bear; — then, believe ye our works, if not our words; or rather, believe them both together. Here is all a Preacher can do; all the evidence that he either can or need give of his good intentions.

Of course, we have to start with that first IF: what guarantee do we have that one has met these requirements?  How can we be assured that one has taken a less known verse and explained it by Scripture as opposed to committing eisegesis?  If there is a small error in the beginning, a great error will be at the conclusion (to paraphrase St. Thomas Aquinas).

In other words, how well can an inerrant scripture lead when it is interpreted by erring people.  John Wesley again seems to struggle against the human inadequacies, when in Sermon 64 [68] says:

2. It must be allowed that after all the researches we can make, still our knowledge of the great truth which is delivered to us in these words is exceedingly short and imperfect. As this is a point of mere revelation, beyond the reach of all our natural faculties, we cannot penetrate far into it, nor form any adequate conception of it. But it may be an encouragement to those who have in any degree tasted of the powers of the world to come to go as far as we can go, interpreting Scripture by Scripture, according to the analogy of faith.

So, the question is this: Can we say for certain that when we interpret Scripture by Scripture, that our understanding of Scripture is adequate to so interpret what is meant.

Then there is the meaning of “the analogy of faith.”

Calvin, in his introduction to his Institutes writes:

When Paul declared that all prophecy ought to be according to the analogy of faith (Rom. 12:6), he laid down the surest rule for determining the meaning of Scripture. Let our doctrine be tested by this rule and our victory is secure.

The problem is that in context, Romans 12:6 tells us:

^1 I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. ^2 Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

^3 For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him. ^4 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, ^5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. ^6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; ^7 if service, in our serving; he who teaches, in his teaching; ^8 he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

In other words, the appeal to Romans 12:6 is to claim that those ministers have the prophecy in proportion to their faith.

The result is a circular argument:

1. The minister in question has the ministry proportion to faith.
2. We can tell this because his interpretation of Scripture by Scripture
3. His interpretation of Scripture by scripture shows his ministry

The problem is if we reject the interpretation of Scripture by Scripture as expounded by a minister, we no longer see his authority to interpret.  Ultimately this is a subjective test of whether or not one approves of what the interpreter of Scripture has to say.  When we consider the number of Christians who contradict each other on matters of the faith (Baptism is a symbol vs. a saving sacrament; John 6 is literal vs. John 6 is symbolic), all of them claiming to interpret Scripture by Scripture, there are two possibilities:

1. Either Scripture is not Inerrant or
2. “Interpreting Scripture by Scripture” is not a sound principle because it fails to take into account how men may be misled.

Jesus Christ is the way, truth and life.  However, there is one way, one truth and one life.  Not many contradictory ways.

So how did the early Christians handle it?  Numerous groups, such as the Sabellians, the Adoptionists, the Arians, the Nestorians and so on all appealed to Scripture to show that their view was acceptable within Scripture, denying it contradicted Scripture.

The Christians did so by appealing to the Teachings of the Apostles.  Scripture was not to be interpreted by any individual who came along, but through the consistent teaching of the Apostles passed on within the Church.  When something cited Scripture in contradiction to the constant sense it was understood as, it was a warning sign.

The problem with “Interpreting Scripture by scripture” when faced by this is that anyone can argue that an interpretation contradicting their own is, well… contradictory to Scripture.  (As an aside, this is also a No True Scotsman fallacy.  Essentially arguing that the Bible is clear, and putting down opinions different than ones own by saying they are not true interpretations of the Bible this makes anything one says “unchallengeable.”)

When one considers how the early Christians handled it, the idea of Interpreting Scripture from Scripture, while ignoring the fact that the individual is still interpreting the Scripture he uses to interpret Scripture [is this confusing anyone?] is essentially spiritual anarchy.  Only when we consider a Church given the power to bind and loose can we understand how we can have a consistent faith for 2000 years

The Circular Argument: Interpreting Scripture from Scripture

One of the curious things I come across with those who give primacy to Scripture and deny the role of Sacred Tradition is the explanations given in order to defend their belief.  Generally summed up, the statement of “Interpreting Scripture from Scripture” means one needs to take the Scripture as a whole and reject any readings which are contrary.

As one site put it, citing 2 Timothy 3:16 (All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness)

So all scripture is useable for doctrine. However, if we take the view scripture is inspired and that God is Holy, we then can know that there will not be any contradictions. If we see a contradiction then it is our understanding that must be changed. We also must realize the differences between the Old Testament and the New. While the Old is still profitable for doctrine, we must realize the New says the Old is a shadow.

The problem is that this does not answer the question.  If I and another study Scripture as a whole, and another draws from Scripture a conclusion which is contrary to mine, to what shall we both appeal to?  John Wesley, in his Sermon 136, shows the limits of the appeal to Scripture while trying to justify the appeal to Scripture alone when he says:

[III. 1.] If, then, we have spoken the word of God, the genuine unmixed word of God, and that only; if we have put no unnatural interpretation upon it, but [have] taken the known phrases in their common, obvious sense, — and when they were less known, explained scripture by scripture; if we have spoken the whole word, as occasion offered, though rather the parts which seemed most proper to give a check to some fashionable vice, or to encourage the practice of some unfashionable virtue; and if we have done this plainly and boldly, though with all the mildness and gentleness that the nature of the subject will bear; — then, believe ye our works, if not our words; or rather, believe them both together. Here is all a Preacher can do; all the evidence that he either can or need give of his good intentions.

Of course, we have to start with that first IF: what guarantee do we have that one has met these requirements?  How can we be assured that one has taken a less known verse and explained it by Scripture as opposed to committing eisegesis?  If there is a small error in the beginning, a great error will be at the conclusion (to paraphrase St. Thomas Aquinas).

In other words, how well can an inerrant scripture lead when it is interpreted by erring people.  John Wesley again seems to struggle against the human inadequacies, when in Sermon 64 [68] says:

2. It must be allowed that after all the researches we can make, still our knowledge of the great truth which is delivered to us in these words is exceedingly short and imperfect. As this is a point of mere revelation, beyond the reach of all our natural faculties, we cannot penetrate far into it, nor form any adequate conception of it. But it may be an encouragement to those who have in any degree tasted of the powers of the world to come to go as far as we can go, interpreting Scripture by Scripture, according to the analogy of faith.

So, the question is this: Can we say for certain that when we interpret Scripture by Scripture, that our understanding of Scripture is adequate to so interpret what is meant.

Then there is the meaning of “the analogy of faith.”

Calvin, in his introduction to his Institutes writes:

When Paul declared that all prophecy ought to be according to the analogy of faith (Rom. 12:6), he laid down the surest rule for determining the meaning of Scripture. Let our doctrine be tested by this rule and our victory is secure.

The problem is that in context, Romans 12:6 tells us:

^1 I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. ^2 Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

^3 For by the grace given to me I bid every one among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him. ^4 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, ^5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. ^6 Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; ^7 if service, in our serving; he who teaches, in his teaching; ^8 he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

In other words, the appeal to Romans 12:6 is to claim that those ministers have the prophecy in proportion to their faith.

The result is a circular argument:

1. The minister in question has the ministry proportion to faith.
2. We can tell this because his interpretation of Scripture by Scripture
3. His interpretation of Scripture by scripture shows his ministry

The problem is if we reject the interpretation of Scripture by Scripture as expounded by a minister, we no longer see his authority to interpret.  Ultimately this is a subjective test of whether or not one approves of what the interpreter of Scripture has to say.  When we consider the number of Christians who contradict each other on matters of the faith (Baptism is a symbol vs. a saving sacrament; John 6 is literal vs. John 6 is symbolic), all of them claiming to interpret Scripture by Scripture, there are two possibilities:

1. Either Scripture is not Inerrant or
2. “Interpreting Scripture by Scripture” is not a sound principle because it fails to take into account how men may be misled.

Jesus Christ is the way, truth and life.  However, there is one way, one truth and one life.  Not many contradictory ways.

So how did the early Christians handle it?  Numerous groups, such as the Sabellians, the Adoptionists, the Arians, the Nestorians and so on all appealed to Scripture to show that their view was acceptable within Scripture, denying it contradicted Scripture.

The Christians did so by appealing to the Teachings of the Apostles.  Scripture was not to be interpreted by any individual who came along, but through the consistent teaching of the Apostles passed on within the Church.  When something cited Scripture in contradiction to the constant sense it was understood as, it was a warning sign.

The problem with “Interpreting Scripture by scripture” when faced by this is that anyone can argue that an interpretation contradicting their own is, well… contradictory to Scripture.  (As an aside, this is also a No True Scotsman fallacy.  Essentially arguing that the Bible is clear, and putting down opinions different than ones own by saying they are not true interpretations of the Bible this makes anything one says “unchallengeable.”)

When one considers how the early Christians handled it, the idea of Interpreting Scripture from Scripture, while ignoring the fact that the individual is still interpreting the Scripture he uses to interpret Scripture [is this confusing anyone?] is essentially spiritual anarchy.  Only when we consider a Church given the power to bind and loose can we understand how we can have a consistent faith for 2000 years

Sinister: The Attempt By the State to Co-opt Religion

Sources: Army of the Lord? Obama Seeks Health Care Push From Pulpit - Political News - FOXNews.com; http://faithinpubliclife.org/content/feature/140000_participate_in_historic.html; http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/08/obama_health_care_pitch_to_rab.html; http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/08/politics-lies-and-obama-who-tells-them.html

Seeking to bolster his health care plan in the rising objections from Catholic Bishops and other pro-life religious groups, who have pointed out that — despite White House claims — the Health Care reform is indeed a sanction for paying for abortions, fetal stem cell research and a denial for the rights of conscience; Obama has sought to reach out to certain groups of pastors and rabbis in order to push for support for his plan.

I find this to be rather chilling.  When a church speaks out against abortion and candidates who support it, it is labeled a violation of the separation of Church and State.  However, when Obama wants to bolster support for health care, it is suddenly all right for the state to enlist the churches to promote a partisan view.

The church which is the puppet for the state is putting man over God, and is an intrusion both against the freedom of religion, and a violation of the separation of Church and State so often invoked when religion speaks out against evil in the state.

If it is illegal for a church to say that a vote for a pro-abortion candidate is a sin, then it stands to follow that it must be similarly illegal for the state to seek to sway the churches in supporting a partisan political agenda.

The fact that it is set aside at the convenience of the government shows it is not the rule of law we live under, but the injustice of arbitrary enforcement of rules to benefit one’s allies and punish one’s opponents.

Without the just enforcement of the law with equality for all, we do not have a Republic where the rule of law is supreme, but a government of oligarchy (rule by a few self-interested men).  America is now ready for a government which sets aside the constitution at its own convenience and hides behind it when it wishes to justify its actions.

Under this action, we do not have pure despotism, but as Lincoln warned, despotism with the base alloy of hypocrisy.

Sinister: The Attempt By the State to Co-opt Religion

Sources: Army of the Lord? Obama Seeks Health Care Push From Pulpit - Political News - FOXNews.com; http://faithinpubliclife.org/content/feature/140000_participate_in_historic.html; http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/08/obama_health_care_pitch_to_rab.html; http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/08/politics-lies-and-obama-who-tells-them.html

Seeking to bolster his health care plan in the rising objections from Catholic Bishops and other pro-life religious groups, who have pointed out that — despite White House claims — the Health Care reform is indeed a sanction for paying for abortions, fetal stem cell research and a denial for the rights of conscience; Obama has sought to reach out to certain groups of pastors and rabbis in order to push for support for his plan.

I find this to be rather chilling.  When a church speaks out against abortion and candidates who support it, it is labeled a violation of the separation of Church and State.  However, when Obama wants to bolster support for health care, it is suddenly all right for the state to enlist the churches to promote a partisan view.

The church which is the puppet for the state is putting man over God, and is an intrusion both against the freedom of religion, and a violation of the separation of Church and State so often invoked when religion speaks out against evil in the state.

If it is illegal for a church to say that a vote for a pro-abortion candidate is a sin, then it stands to follow that it must be similarly illegal for the state to seek to sway the churches in supporting a partisan political agenda.

The fact that it is set aside at the convenience of the government shows it is not the rule of law we live under, but the injustice of arbitrary enforcement of rules to benefit one’s allies and punish one’s opponents.

Without the just enforcement of the law with equality for all, we do not have a Republic where the rule of law is supreme, but a government of oligarchy (rule by a few self-interested men).  America is now ready for a government which sets aside the constitution at its own convenience and hides behind it when it wishes to justify its actions.

Under this action, we do not have pure despotism, but as Lincoln warned, despotism with the base alloy of hypocrisy.