Sunday, September 6, 2026

Paul Launchbury (Christadelphian) on Hebrews 2:5, 16 and its Compatibility with "Angelification"

 

Hebrews 2:5, 16: “It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come . . .” “For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants.”

 

It has been suggested in preliminary discussions that the above passages might seem at variance with the theme being developed. We do not think so. It seems to us that the point of such passages is that angels were not sufficient of themselves to be given the Kingdom, and this is precisely the point. Jesus is the key, first and foremost, since without him there would be no way to angelhood. Further, it was necessary for him to work among his human brothers, or, again, there would be no angels. To be even more precise, it was not just to any child of Adam that Jesus came to help, it was to those who were also Abraham’s children—and of some of these (those who were willing to accept him) he “took hold” or “helped”.

 

The world to come is subjected to Christ, and he shares it with his angelic redeemed; that, it seems to us, is the basis of these passages. The identity of these “angels” is again, as we see it, established by v10 of Hebrews 2: “In bringing many children to glory . . . make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.”

 

We have already seen that these sons/daughters whom God is bringing to glory are those who will be revealed in their true sonship by the redemption of their bodies (Romans 8) and that they are the same “sons” as those who God told Job (Job 38:7) rejoiced at creation. Again, though, it could not be so without the redemption in Jesus. To think it might be would be putting the cart before the horse—“it is not angels he helps but Abraham’s descendants.” Without the work, and particularly the death, of Jesus there would be simply be no angels.

 

When the Lord, in the garden, said, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled . . .” (Matthew 26:53-4) he touched upon the point. Without his fulfilling of the scriptures those called to be angels would never attain unto angelhood, without his obedience, there would be no angels—at least, not from this creation. Comment: This saying of Jesus is, though, the one passage, referred to earlier, which might just be taken to suggest that there are angels who did not originate from among the descendants of Adam. However, it is just one small passage among many and should be interpreted in the light of the rest. The one outstanding point about this saying is that the legions of redeemed were there precisely because he would not, and did not, fail. (Paul Launchbury with Steve Cooper, Beyond Our (Kind of) Time: Exploring the Realities of Eternal Life [Gembrook, Victoria, Australia: Food for the Journey Press, 2009], 301-3, emphasis in original)

 

Johannes Crell (1590-1633) on Celibacy being the highest expression of Temperance

 Johannes Creel (alt. Crellius) was the rector of the Racovian Academy. He was a leading proponent of Socinian theology in the 17th-cenutry. I found it interesting that a leading theologian of the Radical Reformation would argue that celibacy (“perpetual virginity”) represents the highest expression of temperance:

 

Its perfection is perpetual virginity

 

The perfection of this virtue is perpetual virginity, that is, a perpetual abstinence from this kind of pleasures, even from those which are otherwise not dishonourable, provided only that purity of soul be present as well. And although God lays it upon no man whatever as a command, yet it becomes those to pursue it to whom the strength for performing it has been granted. Whence Christ says: “He who is able to receive it, let him receive it.” And this our Lord Christ kept, and so did Paul, the chief of the Apostles, who also prefers it to wedlock and affirms this state of life to be the holier and the purer, and the fitter for a perpetual zeal in serving God. To the rest he says: “It is better to marry than to burn.” True celibacy, therefore, or perpetual virginity, is of itself and its own nature more excellent than wedlock; but for this man or that, marriage is the more useful. And who has the strength for that perpetual chastity may be discerned in the flower of youthful and manly age.

 

As regards longing, it must be observed that you never desire dishonourable pleasures, and that you desire the honourable ones moderately, and in their own time and age. In two ways men are wont to offend in the longing for dishonourable pleasures: either when a man resolves that he will obtain them and only awaits the occasion; or when he does not indeed so resolve, but tickles his soul with the thought of them. Both of these are to be avoided in the desires of all dishonourable things, and especially by the young, whose desires at that vigorous age are wont to be the keener. For nothing defiles or pollutes the soul more than this thought and this desire, even as nothing defiles the body itself more than this very pleasure. Whence he alone who gives himself over to lust is said κατεξοχην to sin against his own body and to bring dishonour upon it. If, therefore, the thought of a base thing creeps in, it must at once be shaken out of the soul, and the thought turned elsewhere. And if you will this steadfastly, and give yourself leisure for prayer and for the meditation of divine things, and holy the body in check by moderation of diet and shun sleep and idleness, and busy yourself with honourable studies and labours, you will attain it without difficulty.

 

As regards memory, pains must be taken that even the memory of lawful pleasures be, so far as may be, blotted out, and much more that of base ones. For the soul ought to be pure and unspotted; and if in any matter at all a man should have to wish for himself, with Themistocles, the art of forgetting, surely it is here that it should be wished for. No pain at the absence of dishonourable pleasures ought to arise in a chaste soul, and only a moderate pain at the absence of honourable ones.

 

Incidentally therein pertain to this virtue: 1. that the eyes, the ears and the hands be continent, that is, that nothing be looked upon, read, heard or handled which stirs up in us the desire of these pleasures. 2. That our tongue also, and the gesture and bearing of the whole body be modest, lest we stir up in others the thought of base pleasures and the desire of them. For what is said of piety, that it is often wounded even by the countenance, may be said of chastity as well. Whence Christ forbids even the look upon a woman to lust after her; and hither belong also those sayings about plucking out the eye and cutting off the hand, if they be a stumbling-block to anyone, that is, if they afford occasion for sin—although what is said of the hand pertains to touch. Care must therefore be taken, in what we look upon, in our conversations with others and in the hearing of the discourse of others—to which I added the reading of books as well—and lastly in touch and in the gesture of the whole body, that nothing be done, said, seen or heard which might stir up, nourish and increase in ourselves or in others the desire of pleasures of this sort, or might rub up the memory of them, or which might be a sign that the love of these pleasures holds up fast. Meetings, moreover, and conversations, and the sight of those persons in whom there are any allurements to such pleasures, such as beauty of form, are to be avoided, lest an unclean thought creep in even upon one who is busied with something else. (Johannes Crell, Aristotelian Ethics: Corrected by the Standards of Holy Scripture [trans. Marcin Poholski; 2006], 109-10)

 

 

Why Latter-day Saints Stopped Sharing One Sacrament Cup

 

Why Latter-day Saints Stopped Sharing One Sacrament Cup








Cyril of Alexandria on Isaiah 22:20-24 and Eliakim

  

On that day I shall call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I shall commit control and administration into his hands, and he will be like a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the inhabitants of Judah. I shall give him the glory of David, and he will rule and there will be no one to gainsay him. I shall set him as a ruler in a secure place, and every prominent person in the house of his father will trust in him, small and great, and he will depend on him that day (vv. 20-24). So far the story does not depart from the facts, reporting as it does the details of Shebna the treasurer who, though accorded the position of priesthood, so abused it and was hostile to everyone he met as to be intolerably oppressive and in a word leave no crime untried. When he was cast aside, then—namely, by being deported to a distant and immense land—the text says, I shall call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah. Now, by referring to him as his son, he confirmed his compliance, and made clear that he had endowed him with the glory of priesthood, promising to crown him by saying that he would give him a robe, control, and administration, that is, the power to rule the peoples under him. In addition to this he confirmed that he would be kindly, not conceited like Shebna, but like a father, faithful and good. For this reason he will also be fastened in a secure place, that is, firmly fastened in him who saves and abides, so that every prominent and famous person would choose, as it were, to place his hope in him, not as God—far from it—but as a kind of father; he will foster and protect small and great, the text says. He will be so loved that the peoples under his control will seem to depend on him.

 

So much, as I said, for the factual content of the passage. In turn, however, the mystery of Christ is probably suggested to us in an elevated interpretation. The scribes and Pharisees, although endowed with the priesthood according to the Law, were disobedient, hard-hearted, and arrogant, venal and interested in having full purses, and bent on every exploit hateful to God. The prophet Isaiah himself, for instance, says at the beginning of the book, “How did she become a whore, the faithful city of Sion, full of justice? Righteousness came to rest in her, but now assassins. Your silver has become dross, your innkeepers mix water with the wine. Your leaders are disobedient, hand in glove with robbers, loving bribes, on the lookout for kickbacks, not judging in favor of orphans or attending to the cause of widows.” The Savior personally accused them by speaking in these terms “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For your tithe mint, dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the Law, justice and mercy and faith”—and even more sacrilegiously still, they turned killers of the Lord. For this reason they were deprived of the dignity of priesthood, removed from the governance of the people, and expelled from the administration entrusted to them by Law, forfeiting the sacred laurels and the robe proper to priests.

 

After them it was our Lord Jesus Christ who was called, our great high priest; as blessed Paul writes, “One does not presume to take this honor, only when called by God, just as Christ did not glorify himself in becoming high priest, but was appointed by the one who said to him, You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” By nature, in fact, he is God and Lord of all, and the object of worship by all; so when he became man, he was also styled our high priest. He is also said to receive the glory of David, that is, rule and kingship over Israel, though we say it is not at all Israel according to the flesh but in spirit and understanding. Scripture says, remember, that not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants—only those justified by faith, following in the footsteps of their father Abraham, are his children, styled children of the promise and of Israel. So when Christ is revealed as high priest of us all, there will be no one to gainsay him, the text says; no enemy will prevail over him, nor will the son of iniquity proceed to abuse him. To take it in another sense: while Israel opposed him, the nations accepted being ruled by him. He is found saying in a statement of David, for instance, in reference to Israel, “Deliver me from a people of contradiction,” and in reference to the nations, “You will make me head of the nations, people I had not known served me; on hearing of me they obeyed me. Foreign sons were false to me, foreign sons grew old, and went limping from their paths.” In other words, they have grown old and come close to disappearing, and with their minds as good as shattered they have become “foreign sons”—the people of Israel, that is. Though once firstborn, in fact, they became “foreign” when they proved false to Christ; they are now called children of ruins, sons of Hades.

 

When, however, the text says, I shall bring to light Eliakim (which means “God’s resurrection, for, as God, the Word is raised up for our assistance, as he also said of old, “For the sake of the hardship of the poor and the groaning of the needy I shall now arise, says the Lord”), at that time, the text says, every prominent person in the house of his father will trust in him. Now, the house of the Father of Christ can only be the Church; anyone prominent there will trust in Christ; and not only the prominent but also the insignificant—in worldly terms, that is. The God of all, after all, being righteous and no respecter of persons, accepts people rather according to the measure of spiritual maturity, whether parents, or still children, adolescents or young adults in a spiritual sense. (Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaiah, 3 vols. [trans. Robert Charles Hill; Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2008], 2:90-93)

 

Saturday, September 5, 2026

Eric Lafferty and Paul Haffner (RC): The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is an Infallible Teaching of the Ordinary, not Extraordinary, Univeral Magisterium

 

. . . Mary’s perpetual virginity is best understood as a dogma set forth by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No ecumenical council or pope has presented a solemn definition that contains all three aspects of Mary’s virginity. In this manner, it is unique among the four Marian dogmas. Nevertheless, the church has consistently taught that Mary maintained her virginity before, during, and after the birth of Christ. (Eric Lafferty, Approaching the Assumption, 1863-1950: Revelation, Scripture, and the Laity in the Development of a Marian Dogma [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2025], 21)

 

As a dogma set forth by the ordinary and universal magisterium, it is difficult to assign an exact date for its definition. No ecumenical council or pope ever promulgated a solemn definition that contains the full tripartite definition. Both the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 and the Lateran Synod in 649 are sometimes suggested as possible dates, however, both fall short of a solemn definition. The Second Council of Constantinople used the title aeiparthenos but did not issue a definition. The Lateran Synod issued a definition but is not regarded as an ecumenical council. Regardless, the accumulation of pronouncements by popes, ecumenical councils, church fathers, and synods suffice to demonstrate the church’s consistent doctrinal tradition of affirming Mary’s virginity ante partum, in partu, and post partum. (Eric Lafferty, Approaching the Assumption, 1863-1950: Revelation, Scripture, and the Laity in the Development of a Marian Dogma [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2025], 28)

 

As Lafferty elsewhere notes, “it would be misguided to downplay the synod’s authority” (Ibid., 28 n. 92). He then quotes Haffner. Here is a fuller quotation from that work:

 

 

The solemn definitions of faith by the Ecumenical Councils and the papal Magisterium followed the first brief formulae of faith and the teaching of the Fathers on the virginal conception. The Council of Chalcedon in the year 451, in its carefully formulated profession of faith and with its infallibly defined content, affirms that Christ was ‘begotten . . .as to his humanity in the latter days, for us and for our salvation from Mary the Virgin Mother of God.’ In the year 649, the Lateran Council made a clear declaration concerning the virginal conception: ‘If anyone does not, according to the Holy Fathers, confess truly and properly that the holy and ever virgin and immaculate Mary . . . without human seed, conceived by the Holy Spirit, God the Word Himself, who before all time was born of God the Father . . . let him be condemned.’ The council was not ecumenical, but since it was conducted under the authority of Pope Martin I, and the teaching was given under pain of anathema, so its authority came to be regarded as very weighty. Pope Martin’s successor Agatho conveyed the impression that the decisions of the Lateran Council were definitive, infallible and binding the faith.

 

In the same way, in the year 681, the third Council of Constantinople proclaimed that Jesus Christ was ‘begotten . . . as to his humanity, by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, she who is properly and in all truth the Mother of God.’ Other Ecumenical Councils (Constantinople II, Lateran IV and Lyons II) declared Mary ‘ever-virgin’, stressing her perpetual virginity. These affirmations were taken up by the Second Vatican Council, which highlighted the fact that Mary ‘through her faith and obedience . . . gave birth on earth to the very Son of the Father, not through the knowledge of man but by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.’ (Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary [Herefordshire, U.K.: Gracewing, 2024], 145-46, emphasis in bold added)

 

The following is the text of Paul IV’s 1555 affirmation of virginity in partum that is referenced elsewhere by both Lafferty and Haffner:

 

 

The Trinity and the Incarnation (against the Unitarians)

 

[From the ordinance of Paul IV, “Cum quorundam,” Aug. 7, 1555]

 

993 [DS 1880] Since the depravity and iniquity of certain men have reached such a point in our time that, of those who wander and deviate from the Catholic faith, very many indeed not only presume to profess different heresies but also to deny the foundations of the faith itself, and by their example lead many away to the destruction of their souls, we, in accord with our pastoral office and charity, desiring, in so far as we are able with God, to call such men away from so grave and destructive an error, and with paternal severity to warn the rest, lest they fall into such impiety, all and each who have hitherto asserted, claimed or believed that Almighty God was not three in persons and of an entirely uncomposed and undivided unity of substance and one single simple essence of divinity; or that our Lord is not true God of the same substance in every way with the Father and the Holy Spirit, or that He was not conceived of the Holy Spirit according to the flesh in the womb of the most blessed and ever Virgin Mary, but from the seed of Joseph just as the rest of men; or that the same Lord and our God, Jesus Christ, did not submit to the most cruel death of the Cross to redeem us from sins and from eternal death, and to reunite us with the Father unto eternal life; or that the same most blessed Virgin Mary was not the true mother of God, and did not always persist in the integrity of virginity, namely, before bringing forth, at bringing forth, and always after bringing forth, on the part of the omnipotent God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with apostolic authority we demand and advise, etc.  (The Sources of Catholic Dogma, ed. Henry Denzinger and Karl Rahner [trans. Roy J. Deferrari; St. Louis, Miss.: B. Herder Book Co., 1954], 301-2, emphasis in bold added)

 

Friday, September 4, 2026

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 107: Discussing Ecclesiology and Sacramental Theology (with Jennifer Roach Lees)

 

Episode 107: Discussing Ecclesiology and Sacramental Theology (with Jennifer Roach Lees)








Paul Haffner (RC) on Epiphanius's Silence Concerning the Death of Mary in Panarion 78

  

The question then arises concerning the nature of her passing, and concretely whether she died or not. This issue examines whether she experienced the separation of the soul from the body. The dogma of the Assumption of the Mother of God leaves open the question of whether or not she died. A minority of theologians hold that she did not in fact suffer death. In the late fourth century, we find the earliest known, non-Apocryphal mention of the close of Mary’s life, in the writings of St Epiphanius (315-403), Bishop of Constantia, on the island of Cyprus: ‘Whether she died or was buried we do not know . . . Say she died a natural death. In that case she fell asleep in glory, and departed in purity, and received the crown of her virginity. Or say she was slain with the sword according to Simeon’s prophecy. Then her glory is with the martyrs, and she through whom the divine light shone upon the world is in the place of bliss with her sacred body. Or say she left this world without dying, for God can do what He wills. Then she was simply transferred to eternal glory.’ St. Epiphanius genuinely may have not known, or else he was being careful not to play into the hands of contemporary heretics, the Antidicomarianites and the Collyridians. The former group denied the perpetual virginity of Mary; the latter, erring in the opposite direction, maintained that divine worship should be given to her. To claim that Our Lady died was to give possible fuel to the former heresy (for it was to suggest that the body of Mary was subject to the corruption of the tomb, and thus minimize her prerogatives); to assert that she did not die was to encourage the latter. (Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary [Herefordshire, U.K.: Gracewing, 2024], 210-11)

 

Blog Archive