Open Forum

Continue on!

All opinions are welcome to be expressed, but at the same time anyone can also freely express an opinion as to the relative merits of various competing opinions. We argue vigorously here, but minus the personal insults. It is possible! It has occurred on this blog for almost three years now.

A person's opinion is not the same thing as a person, so critiquing the opinion is not the same as a personal "attack" (as long as done politely and with respect and courtesy). Nor do we have to accuse others of deliberate dishonesty if they have what we feel is a wrong belief or belief-system.

It's good to reiterate the basics of good, constructive discussion now and then. I'm extremely proud that we have managed to have such great dialogue here. Kudos to all of you who have made that happen. And a merry Christmas and blessed new year to you.

Debate on the Nature of "Church" and Catholicism (vs. Eric Svendsen)

Stained glass in Chartres Cathedral, France.

The following series of dialogues with leading anti-Catholic apologist Dr. Eric Svendsen, took place on Bishop James White's Sola Scriptura discussion list, between 27 May and 5 July 1996, and later compiled on 13 August 2000. Dr. Svendsen's words will be in blue. My cited words will be in green.

* * * * *

I didn't say we need no earthly authorities. Clearly we do, and the NT bears that out.

Good. This would be progress for many Protestants who have anarchical beliefs. Do you have a bishop, then, by the way? If not, why (it's certainly biblical)?

But it doesn't teach anything about Rome's authority, nor a pope's authority, nor apostolic succession.

Not Rome - that comes immediately after the NT period, but is directly apostolic, since Peter and Paul both ended up there and were martyred there - surely not for no reason, in God's Providence. I have my Peter and the Pope: 50 NT Proofs paper, if you're interested (privately, of course). NT has "nothing" about the pope, huh? Shows how profound the gap is between us. Very sad. I've shown how apostolic succession is biblical, too. But apostolic succession also flows from simple common sense and a respect for maintaining all Christian truth undefiled.

My point was that it is a non-sequitur to jump from "the NT teaches ecclesial authority" to "that ecclesial authority must be singular, must be Rome, and must be the pope."

It is not singular, strictly speaking, because it encompasses bishops and councils as well. The pope often acts formally in concert with them (or, at the very least, consults them in every major pronouncement he makes. The "Rome" factor is apostolic, and was present from the beginning (e.g., St. Clement of Rome's letters). The papacy is grounded in Peter's extraordinary prerogatives, granted him by Christ,as shown in my paper.

We are not a denomination, but the original New Testament Church.

Many assumptions cloud your perspective: (1) you assume the church is a "visible" organization (a "shell" as it were--which is in contradiction even with your catechism!).

It is visible, but more than that. We hold to the Mystical Body also (which is how we can include you guys, since you deny visibility). I prove visibility in my paper on the Church. Not sure why you use the description "shell," nor how you think this contradicts the CATECHISM, which speaks of visibility in, e.g., #815, under the category "The Church is One."

(2) that apostolic succession is a fact (this has not been demonstrated--and probably is not appropriate here);

It is a fact, and has been demonstrated. You guys must deny the fact because you have removed this proof from your ecclesiology and principle of authority. But the fact remains nonetheless. We have the continuity from the Apostles, whereas you have forsaken that by ditching wholesale all the doctrines which Luther and the so-called "Reformers" found personally distasteful, or "unbiblical," or, in some cases, even politically or morally inexpedient.

(3) that the current Catholic church is the same as the historic catholic church (it is not).

It certainly is. Here, you reveal that you misunderstand development of doctrine (as virtually all Protestants do). You confuse outward appearance with continuous doctrinal essence. This very factor is what made me a Catholic. Once I understood it, my fight was over, as I had no logical, consistent counter-reply. The Protestant has only two choices in this regard, in my opinion. He can either ignore Church history, and what it teaches us (the usual course of action) - or (related) can distort it and engage in dishonest revisionism for polemical purposes, as Dave Hunt and many other anti-Catholics do, or, he can face up to historical realities and apostolic succession and become a Catholic. As John Henry Newman says, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." Is it any wonder, then, that so many Protestants are abysmally ignorant of Church history? Studying it only creates problems for them, so why start? Ignorance is bliss . . . :-) <----said half tongue-in-cheek

I'm happy to renounce much of what happened in the Inquisitions, Crusades, etc. Why can't you guys renounce your sinful sectarianism, as many Protestants have in fact done?

Who doesn't admit it? The difference, of course, is that FALLIBLE institutions are allowed to err--infallible ones aren't. :)

All kinds of people don't admit it, by pretending that they have unity "in the essentials," when in fact there is very little of that: And if there were, why not start uniting the denominations if there is so much "agreement," once having admitted that division is sinful? As it is, usually only the liberals do that, because they all agree in ditching fundamental tenets of faith, and in their indifferentism. You can't have it both ways.

The Crusades and the Inquisition (where they did stray) were instances of moral failure, not doctrinal, thus having nothing to do with infallibility, as defined by the Catholic Church (e.g., in 1870 at Vatican I). If you're going to bash us, at least use the appropriate club! :-) In any event, Protestants, in my opinion, are far more guilty of religious persecution and intolerance, especially in light of their otensible first premises of freedom of conscience, etc.

I've not yet heard an answer as to my query of what is the true, best Protestant faith (i.e., what is true Christianity, with no error mixed in)? Care (and dare) to take me up on that one? Again, if you can't even tell the man on the street what true Christianity is, what good is that view? It is a disgrace, and a disrespect for God's truth, I say. At least have the courage of your convictions. I am being obnoxious, but heaven knows all the flak the Catholic Church takes, most of it unjustified. So I return the favor, with all due respect.

One of the reasons why we cannot view Romanism as the true church is because, while we Protestants may not ultimately agree on what every passage of Scripture means, we do know what it cannot mean. Hence, while we may disagree on whether Christ is merely represented, spiritually present, or consubstantiated with the bread and wine, we all agree that He is not transubstantiated (how's that for Protestant unity? :).

A pity indeed. I've been saying this for years. About all that Protestants can agree on is that the Catholic Church is wrong! Even then, you must split into at least two camps, which regard us as 1) an aberrant form of Christianity, but still within the fold (e.g., Walter Martin, Colson, Geisler, J.I. Packer, Billy Graham) or 2) the Whore of Babylon, the Beast, Pelagians, idolaters, pagans, etc. (e.g., Dave Hunt, Bart Brewer, James White, Boettner, D.J. Kennedy, MacArthur, Ankerberg, ad infinitum). But you must demonize us or at least severely criticize us, else how would you justify your own existence as a schism out of the Catholic Church?

Yet on this subject, I find it quite interesting that Super-Pope Luther did not regard belief in transubstantiation as an obstacle to joining his party, as late as 1543, I believe, and "gentle," "cultured" Melanchthon opted for the death penalty for those who denied the Real Presence (but later changed his own mind on the subject!). Luther regarded Zwingli, on the other hand, as damned, because he denied the Real Presence. But then again, many a Protestant exhibits not the slightest interest in what Luther taught, thinking it has no relevance whatsoever to their own beliefs.

Rome simply has too many biblically untenable and contradictory beliefs.

A Protestant criticizing someone else for "contradictory beliefs!" Is any further comment necessary?

Why don't we start instead with the inerrancy and material sufficiency of the Scriptures? What do Catholics believe about these issues? I have yet to receive an answer from anyone on the Catholic side. Are you afraid of these issues? By the way you side-step them, I think you must be.

Nice try. As for fear, I'm waiting to see if James White responds to my simple request for a list of what the Apostles believed [see Dialogue on the Alleged "Perspicuous Apostolic Message" as a Proof of the Quasi-Protestantism of the Early Church]. I ain't scared o' nuthin'! I believe in inerrancy (always have - what that means exactly, of course, is the topic of much discussion among those who hold to it - and I claim no particular expertise on it). I responded directly to James White's question on material sufficiency, but gave a nuanced answer, and argued that, in the final analysis, it is largely a moot point.

I agree that defining dogma is useful in distinguishing between heresy and orthodoxy. So here are some of those dogmas that all Protestants in good standing must believe to be within the pale of orthodoxy: the Trinity, the full deity and humanity of Christ, the full deity and personhood of the Holy Spirit, the co-equality and co-eternality of all three persons in the being of God, salvation by grace alone through faith alone (sola fide), final authority in Scripture alone (sola Scriptura), one bride of Christ consisting of all who have ever placed faith and trust in him, the bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead, the bodily second coming of Christ in glory, the bodily resurrection of the saved to eternal life and the lost to eternal damnation.

Catholics agree with all of these save for sola fide and sola Scriptura, so this list does not really accentuate our differences. No one taught sola fide from Paul to Luther, according to Norman Geisler, and no one of any note (save for perhaps Wycliffe) set the Bible against Tradition and the Church (which is the usual form and spirit of sola Scriptura) until Luther. So you have an insurmountable historical obstacle where it concerns these two pillars of the "Reformation." Most Protestants "resolve" that dilemma by simply ditching Church history, and "abracadabra" - no more problem! Is that your solution, too?

Perhaps the issue should really be sola Scriptura groups vs. non-sola Scriptura groups. Within non-sola scriptura groups, there is WIDE disagreement. Non-sola scriptura groups would include Catholicism, Seventh-Day Adventism, the Watchtower, Mormonism, Christian Science, and every other false Christian cult in the world that relies on an infallible interpreter, tradition, or some other extra-biblical authority.

Does that mean Catholics are among these "false Christian cults"? Your sentence could easily be interpreted that way. I think, rather, that the relevant analytical dynamic is private judgment vs. apostolic Tradition and the resultant hierarchical Church structure. You guys are much more similar to these heresies (excluding SDA and the Catholic Church), many of which originated in America (gee, I wonder why?). They invariably result from one man or woman, who, of course, is infallible (and more often than not, an autocrat):

• 7th-Day Adventists: Ellen White
• Jehovah's Witnesses: Charles Taze Russell
• Mormons: Joseph Smith
• Christian Science: Mary Baker Eddy
• The Way International: Victor Paul Wierwille
• Worldwide Church of God: Herbert W. Armstrong (no relation!)

Heresies have traditionally relied on sola Scriptura, but seen though the lens of one man. The original Arians, e.g., quoted Scripture alone, but the Catholic Church countered with Scripture as interpreted by apostolic Tradition. Likewise the Monophysites, Gnostics, Nestorians, Monothelites, and a host of other non-Christian heresies. They were always countered by recourse to apostolic succession and apostolic Tradition, of which the Catholic Church was Guardian, and of course, Scripture always, too. But Scripture-within-the-Tradition, not Scripture in atomistic isolation, eisegeted by one idiot with a novel idea. Newman discusses this at length in his ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, which made me a Catholic.

Now, this heretical dynamic is also very much present in early Protestantism, where Luther formed his own church in which he was infallible (I have MANY quotes substantiating this, lest anyone doubt it for a second). Calvin was the infallible Super-Pope in his church, from which derives Presbyterianism and Reformed sects today. So then, private judgment reigned, but the private judgment of ONE MAN. Zwingli started the novel idea of a symbolic Eucharist, and Bucer, Bullinger and Melanchthon tried to steer a "middle course," very broadly speaking. And apostolic Tradition and succession was necessarily thrown to the four winds, since the new sects could not even pretend to hold to it in so many particulars. Visible authority had to go too (excepting Luther's secular princes, who replaced the bishops, and Calvin's virtual dictatorship in Geneva). The Anabaptists spurned all authority in many cases, which is equally unbiblical.

It goes without saying that Catholicism is entirely different than this. No one man predominates. The popes clearly must respect and build upon doctrines already etablished, and none have remotely the power of infallibility claimed by Luther and Calvin. Our popes make infallible decrees (in the strictest sense) only every 100 years or so, whereas Luther claimed that ALL his teaching was "from God." He regarded his self-proclaimed authority as tantamount to a prophet: i.e., unquestionable. So where do you guys get off accusing us of "authoritarianism"?

It is the same way (to a lesser degree) with pastors in independent congregations, who have their own little "popedoms," often regulating peoples' private lives with impunity and extreme arrogance and impropriety (e.g., Calvin's Geneva and the modern "shepherding" fiasco). Popes, on the other hand, work together with bishops, Councils, many advisors, and the sensus fidelium, the "sense of the faithful," in which the beliefs of the masses are by all means taken into account when a new dogmatic pronouncement is being considered. No kidding!

If someone thinks otherwise, I am curious as to what one man would have started Catholicism? Constantine? Ludicrous. Leo the Great? Hardly: the whole system was in place long before his reign. Gregory the Great? Same as Leo, but even more so, as he was 150 years later. I can think of only one Man Who can be thought of as the Founder of my Church, and that Man is none other than our "Great God and Savior," Jesus Christ. I wouldn't want it any other way, so that's one reason I'm where I am. That's why St. Jerome said:

I, who follow none as my chief but Christ, am associated in communion with thy blessedness, that is, with the See of Peter. On that rock the Church is built, I know.

{Epistle 15 - writing to Pope Damasus}

(which, I am certain, far exceeds the 25,000 denomination figure railed against us by the Catholic side).

I doubt it, Eric. Why don't you back up this "certainty" of yours with some documented figures.

All sola scriptura groups (so far as I am aware) agree on the deity of Christ. Almost every non-sola scriptura group (with the exeption of two that come to mind) [deny it].

But one of those "exceptions" is MY Church!!!!! Talk about non sequiturs! One billion people is one huge "exception"!

I think you get the idea. On this view, sola scriptura has actually prevented churchly disunity that surely would have occurred if every Protestant denomination had their own infallible interpreter.

Ah, I see. But unfortunately for your schema, the first Protestants DID have infallible Super-Popes, and DID experience massive, scandalous disunity. Of course, that was somehow Rome's fault too, as everything must ultimately be!

We may use strong debating language, but that certainly does not make us anti-Catholic. You'll remember, my wife is Catholic--I certainly do not despise my wife! :). I think that I can demonstrate that you are just as anti-Protestant as you claim we are anti-Catholic. Note in even this (your last) post:

"Orthodoxy" according to whom? I don't know what this means (well, it's "correct doctrine," but who determines that?). The Arians thought they were "orthodox," while the Catholics were "heretical." The Nestorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, Sabellians, Eastern Orthodox, etc. ad infinitum thought likewise, so this is not merely a clever, rhetorical question, but a deadly serious one.

Now, Dave, if I were to take every thing you say personally, I might note here that you have equated me with Arius, Nestorius, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Sabellianism. And I might find just cause to say to you, Why, you're nothing more than a Protestant-bashing anti-Protestant! We are no more anti-Catholic than you say you are anti-Protestant.

I think you're sharp enough to understand the analogy I was making. It doesn't imply, ipso facto, that Protestants are in the same league with all the early heresies, only that you guys have a problem in determining orthodoxy, just as these others do (in fact anybody who is non-Catholic), because "orthodoxy" means (historically speaking) what was decided upon by the Catholic Church, time and again.

If you say that Catholicism as a system is Christian, then you are not anti-Catholic (by my definition, anyway). I believe in context I was referring more to an attitude of severe bias (and often bigotry), which could spill over onto people who technically aren't anti-Catholic. I realize this is subjective, so I suggest we just drop it. But I am not anti-Protestant in my terms, because I accept Protestants as Christians. Thus, any criticisms I levy (however severe) are from a brother to a brother, so to speak. I've described the difference before as the comparison of a family fight to a struggle between Christian and infidel. James White has a ministry devoted to making Catholics come out of their non-Christian error and convert to Christianity (preferably his own Calvinism, of course). This is quintessential anti-Catholicism. How could it be construed otherwise?

When the debate is sola Scriptura vs. Scripture plus something else, then that something else automatically has to first be proved.

And it was, to my satisfaction, in my Tradition is not a Dirty Word paper.

But neither am I going to trust a system which sanctioned Reservations, Indulgences, Expectancies, Dispensations, Nepotism, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and multiple popes (each condemning the others to hell). Catholics . . . shall exterminate the heretics, possess the land without dispute and preserve it in the true faith. . . . Hence if forgers . . . are straightway justly put to death, . . . with much more justice can heretics . . . be not only excommunicated but also put to death. When I referred ealier to Catholics killing Protestants, I wasn't being anti-Catholic, I was being truthful! Are you one of those Mythical Catholics who revise Catholic history?

No, but I think it quite fair to point out that Protestants are in no better shape (I think much worse, actually) once their own scandalous history is examined (which it rarely is). I don't even attempt to defend the Crusades or Inquisition, although I regard neither as intrinsically evil. I simply attempt to balance the scales by teaching others about how Protestants did the same sorts of things. And their acts are all the more heinous since they supposedly believed in the primacy of conscience and private judgment from the beginning.

Yes, the pope's authority (in the final analysis) is distinct from the Councils - this was defined so as to avoid the error of conciliarism, which is a root problem of the Orthodox, who have no non- arbitrary way of determining the legitimacy of an Ecumenical Council.

Oh, I see. To prevent the error of adhering to the consensus of opinions, we adopt the non-arbitrary method of adhering to the opinion of one man. HELLO!!!

HI!!! You guys decide which Councils are or are not legitimate individually. We do it through the institution of the papacy (with all its guarantees of infallibility, etc.). Either way, one is left to judge Councils. One man provides a unity that no group can ever attain. But in large measure, the pope agrees with conciliar decisions, so it isn't an either/or proposition.

I'm talking about the interpretation of one man entirely dominating a denomination. You simply can't assert that about any one pope. It can't be done, period.

Is not your pope an infallible interpreter? Besides, your criteria is a bit arbitrary and self-serving. The pope is seen in RC as the vicar of Christ on earth and his pronouncements are seen as infallible. Put it this way; even if he doesnt say its infallible, if the pope says it, you may be certain the Catholic church will heed it. THAT is one-man dominance.

You miss my point entirely yet again. No single pope has constructed the edifice of the Catholic Church and its dogmas. Not even close. So my argument stands, entirely unchallenged. In other words, no pope can be said to be the Founder of Catholicism.

Your opinion on Luther is irrelevant to my argument, since it is an analogy between Protestantism and the non-trinitarian heresies. Luther had more power in his sphere than any pope ever dreamt of, and this is the whole point. You keep switching the terms of the debate, whenever you're trapped by the incoherence of your own position.

I honestly do not follow you here. What terms am I switching? On the contrary, to equate Luther as some kind of infallible interpreter is indeed to throw a red herring into the argument.

My original argument (countering you) was that the heresies and Protestantism are similar in that they adhere to sola Scriptura, but seen through the lens of one man. And this was certainly the case with Luther and the Lutherans, at least in the beginning, which was my primary emphasis. Thus, in terms of refuting my analogy, it is absolutely irrelevant what you think of Luther or his claims. The fact remains that he made himself infallible. Do I have to give you the quotes? This is no "red herring," whatsoever. It is a valid analogy (I love anological arguments, because they are largely what made me a Catholic - from Newman's ESSAY ON DEVELOPMENT, which is chock-full of 'em).

You seem to view Luther as somehow the genesis of apostolic succession of Protestants;

All Protestants stem from his dissent.

This is simply not true. The Anglicans have no connection to Luther other than the fact that they departed about the same time. Calvin admired Luther, but noted that he was wrong on many points. The Anabaptists absolutely had no connection to Luther. Well, that just about covers all the reformed groups of the sixteenth century.

I meant in spirit, not technically, or "apostolic succession," as you put it, as if Protestants had no disagreements (which would be like saying that zebras have no stripes). Luther was the first to successfully break, thus making the unthinkable (excepting the Orthodox) thinkable. The similarities are such that I think my opinion is valid. All are agreed in antipathy to Catholicism, and especially in opposing the pope.

By the way, my wife was very disappointed to discover (last night) that the Catholic Biblical College where she was enrolled teaches the legitimacy of higher criticism (JEPD, Source, Form, and Redaction), and that Gen 1 not only contradicts Gen 2 (since, they argue, they were written by two different authors), but also that Gen 1 and 2 are examples of Biblical myth, not history.

Classic liberalism, ain't it?

The book she was reading had both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, guaranteeing that there are no doctrinal errors.

This is obviously often abused.

Several questions for you. First, I am assuming (and I would hope) that you see a mythical reading of Gen 1 and 2 as doctrinal error. Yet the Catholic Magisterium has placed its stamp of approval on it. Who is right? You or the Magisterium? Second, I am assuming (and I would hope) that you disagree with the mythical interpretation of Gen 1 and 2, no? But if so, then where is your unity of belief with other Catholics on this point?

Geisler in his recent book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals points out that all Catholics must agree that:

. . . the first 3 chapters of Genesis contain narratives of real events . . . no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends. (p.63)

I understand this to be the Catholic dogma on the subject, with which I agree (as a good Catholic). To believe otherwise would be to deny the reality of original sin, as I've already stated. Ludwig Ott also discusses this, under "Creation" (if you have his book). By the way, Geisler also strongly confirms what I said about our views on inerrancy (pp.29-31). Very good! Liberals will be liberals. All you need is a liberal bishop (or even an orthodox one who wants to avoid controversy and unpopularity) to grant an illegitimate Imprimatur.

This same point could be made, of course, about the hundreds of other places where your interpretation would differ from the scholarly interpretation.

As is the case in evangelicalism as well. But, again, we have the "books" to authoritatively ascertain what is an error.

In light of this, I cannot see how you can maintain that the Catholic church is united in its interpretation of Scripture in any meaningful sense. Remember, Dave, this teaching is stamped with both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.

The books, Eric, the books. That's all I care about, and that is our system, not a collection of dissenting, intellectually-dishonest, "bleeding-brain" liberals.

This decision was made twenty-six years before Hippo. The Western (Roman) church accepted a Canon that did not include the book of Hebrews, but eventually followed the East in including all twenty-seven books. In other words, the Roman church relied upon the Eastern Orthodox church for her Canon. Far from making an infallible decision, the Roman church, at Hippo and Carthage, simply adopted the decision of the Eastern church. Therefore, the Canon that we currently have is the work of the Eastern Orthodox church, which doesn't claim infallibility.

Again, there was no "Eastern Orthodox church" at this time, so the argument is altogether fallacious. So what if a truth comes from the East in its entirety or partially? Catholic means "universal." We rejoice in such occurrences. This has nothing whatsoever to do with our current argument, nor will it resolve your insuperable difficulties vis-a-vis the Canon.

The point, of course, is that this was at a time before Roman Catholicism existed.

Alright, then: Please define for me: 1) Catholicism, and 2) Roman Catholicism, and inform me as to when each (or either, as the case may be) began. I've yet to hear any Protestant apologist give a cogent, sensible answer to this. This viewpoint, frankly, reminds me of pro-abortionist arguments as to when a "fetus" becomes a "person," all theoretical points of origin being purely arbitrary and subjective. It will do no good to say that my question is irrelevant, since you yourself have stated that there was a time (i.e., the 4th century) when "Roman Catholicism" did not yet exist.

If you can't tell us when it did begin to exist, then your historical statement is unfalsifiable and therefore suspect. You do use the term "Roman church" above. Is that body synonymous with either the "Catholic Church" or the "Roman Catholic Church"? This is a particularly relevant consideration in light of the fact that you make reference to the "Eastern Orthodox church" as presumably existing in the same time period. I say that this historical/ecclesiological scenario is hopelessly muddled. Perhaps your clarification will clear up my confusion.

If later on, the East and West split, what gives you the right to claim an Eastern father?

If you're speaking of St. Athanasius, the Western church leaders and the pope "claimed" him to a far greater extent than the Eastern (almost always caesaropapist) political and church leaders did (which fact I mentioned in the same post). The Eastern Orthodox today venerate, e.g., Pope St. Leo the Great, while they frown upon, e.g., St. Augustine. Pick and choose. For our part, we venerate and hold in high esteem all the Fathers. It is of no consequence to us whether they are Eastern or Western. But the fact remains that there was but one universal Christian Church at this time, and you've shown me nothing to cause me to jettison that "perspicuous" fact of Church history.

Furthermore, it is quite amusing and ironic for any Protestant to chide us for claiming "Eastern fathers" as our own, when it is patently ridiculous for a Protestant to claim any Father, Eastern or Western, as their own, or even anywhere close to "proto-Protestant" (most notably, St. Augustine, who was present at both Hippo and Carthage and exercised a prevailing influence).

You are simply assuming that Rome was on the right side of the issue,

As it always was. This is what made Ronald Knox and Newman sit up and take notice, so striking and far beyond coincidence was it. As I said, historically speaking (most strikingly in the early centuries of the Church), "orthodox" is equivalent to the Roman position on any given issue. It was not very easy to know what Christian orthodoxy was (there were many competing heretical groups), apart from an acceptance of the authority of the Roman see and the papacy, which was shown (with hindsight) to be "orthodox" again and again. This, to us, is compelling evidence of divine guidance and protection from error. On the other hand, one constantly finds in the East in those centuries heretical patriarchs, and massive, widespread defections from orthodoxy, such as the "Robber Council" of 449 and the huge, tragic Monophysite schisms after Chalcedon in 451.

that everyone before that time were Romanists,

This is far too broad of a statement to tackle rationally.

Put it this way; suppose the Eastern Orthodox were to claim, say, Clement of Rome as one of their own against Romanism. How would you feel about that?

For the third time: such talk is meaningless and moot, since there was but one Church then. It is a common heritage, just as medieval England is the common antecedent of both America and Canada. One doesn't speak of Shakespeare as "American" or "Canadian." Now, if some Orthodox want to claim that they are the true Church over against us, that is another quarrel (one which they will lose), but one beyond our purview here. The Catholic Church is presently trying its utmost to be ecumenical and accepting of the Orthodox, with, e.g., word pictures such as Pope John Paul II's "two lung" perspective on ecclesiology, and ecumenical Encyclicals such as Ut Unum Sint (1995).

Besides, one letter from a single patriarch is not a binding requirement. The East still believed in ecumenical Councils at that time - they would be binding, not a single epistle. And you act like infallibility must necessarily possess the attribute of "first time mentioned," which is untrue.

Are you under the impression that Hippo and Carthage were ecumenical councils? They were neither ecumenical nor councils--both were nothing more than local synods.

Of course. You misunderstood my point. All I was saying was that St. Athanasius' letter was not binding since it was not conciliar (which is the least one would expect in the East, if one wants to maintain - incorrectly - that they rejected the papacy en masse in this period).

So, again, we are faced with the consistency of Rome's decisions. Are all local synods infallible and binding?

Obviously not. If they are orthodox then they are part of the ordinary magisterium, as David Palm noted.

If not, then you end up picking and choosing which are and which are not. Why do you arbitrarily pick Hippo and Carthage as infallible and binding on the church? Let me guess--because Rome tells you to, right?

Well, yes. They were ratified by Pope Innocent I (d.417) and Gelasius I (d.496). This is how Ecumenical Councils are determined as well. The "conciliarism" of Eastern Monophysite heretics brought us the "Robber council" of 449. The leadership of the Western papacy, on the other hand, led to Chalcedon in 451. Before you deride this outlook, let me remind you that you have proposed nothing as a substitute for authoritative determination of the NT Canon. Our system is consistent, but yours is incoherent. You can deny our premises (as is the case in any belief-system), but at least we proceed logically from them, whereas Protestantism is self-defeating with regard to the question of the NT Canon & how it was finalized (and sola Scriptura also).

Thank you for your candor.

You're most welcome.

We Catholics eagerly await a non-contradictory, plausible alternate Protestant explanation of how Christianity came to obtain the present NT Canon. Such insurmountable obstacles are representative of the reasons many of us former Protestants felt compelled to accept Catholicism, not some dreamt-up psycho-babble of an alleged infantile desire for fideistic dogma-without-reflection-and-exegesis, as James White would have it.

Note well, folks, the circularity here. We as Protestants are told that we have no right to pick and choose which decisions of the church we hold and which we jettison--that it is all or nothing.

In a word: nonsense. What you're "told" is that you ought to retain doctrines which have been the historical teaching of the Church from the beginning (e.g., infused justification, baptismal regeneration, Real Presence and apostolic succession come to mind immediately as striking examples of the general Protestant departure from orthodoxy). Protestant "picking and choosing" of "correct" doctrines is, in the final analysis - completely arbitrary, often based historically on the whim of one man (e.g., Luther, Calvin, Zwingli). When these depart in essence from historic Christian teaching they can only be deemed heretical.

Our system, on the other hand, is neither circular, nor based on a radically individualistic, subjective, anarchical principle. We've said all along that Rome, and more specifically the pope, were the arbiters of orthodoxy. The pope is the final court of appeal, and he ratifies councils, whether local or Ecumenical. I'm glad you press this point, Eric, because now I will post a lengthy comment by Newman regarding what can happen in Council (Robber Council of 449) without the pope and what happens with the pope presiding by common consent (Chalcedon - 451). That will illustrate our perspective quite adequately, I think.

Note that both Protestants and Orthodox have a problem in determining which Council is orthodox and which not. But we have always held to papal primacy and jurisdiction. This is precisely why the pope is needed - as a principle of unity (as even many Lutherans and Orthodox are willing to admit). And of course papal primacy is in turn a fairly explicit biblical doctrine. We need not ditch history, nor the Bible, nor consistency, as you guys do when it comes to these sorts of questions. Your principle of individualism and sola Scriptura, on the other hand, leads to "200 Interpretations of 'This is My Body'" within 60 years of the 95 Theses (a book by that title which appeared in Germany).

Moreover the specific test case for this, provided by the Catholic side, is the issue of the canon.

In this discussion, perhaps, but of course there are many, many test cases in which the Protestant position is revealed to be utterly incoherent as well.

Unless we ascribe infallibility to the church in deciding upon the canon, we cannot know with certitude if the church chose the right books. And the minute we ascribe infallibility to the church in this area, then we are inconsistent if we do not likewise ascribe infallibility to the church in all areas.

Yes, you make a tacit exception to your system by bowing to a local council (not even an Ecumenical one) and conceding that a bunch of Catholics "got it right." Why would, and how could, that be? God made an exception to the rule of sola Scriptura and individualism just because the Bible was involved? Why accept any councils in the early days but not later ones? Protestants hold no councils that I'm aware of. When was the last: the acrimonious Marburg Colloquy in 1529, in which Luther and Zwingli butted heads over the Real Presence?

Yet the minute we press the issue, we get another story altogether! Were Hippo and Carthage councils? Well, no, they were synods. Were they even ecumenical? Well, no, they were both local. Indeed, were they even infallible? In the words of David Palm: Let's make sure we're precise. The decisions of local councils are never taken as intrinsically infallible in and of themselves.

"Another story"? This is silly. There are no big "revelations" here. Only Ecumenical Councils are infallible, and only insofar as they are in accordance with the pope, who may "veto" some of the proceedings. It must be this way, otherwise one is faced with the sad reality of the Robber Council, in which the East adopted Monophysitism wholesale.

But if this is the case, then Catholics themselves pick and choose which synods and councils are infallible and which are not. And in fact, the very synod (often posed to Protestants as a council until challenged) Catholics point to as their coup de grace ends up not even being infallible itself. Ah but (we are told) Hippo and Carthage are infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium. Do you know what ordinary magisterium really means, folks? It simply means that the Catholics can have their cake and eat it to. They can neatly avoid labeling all councils and synods as infallible (as avoid they must since many councils and synods subscribed to heresies); yet at the same time they can reserve the right to label those councils and synods by which they are well-served infallible via an esoteric principle that the Catholic church could not possibly be led into error.

In other words, they've covered their tracks. How do we know whether a synod or council is infallible or not? Why, only the Catholic church can tell us. Conveniently enough, Hippo and Carthage just happen to be included within the infallible ordinary magisterium. That, my friends, is circular reasoning at its best. I dare say that if the Protestant side tried this kind of rationale, the Catholic side would be only too quick to point out our faulty reasoning.

A fair enough description of our system (at least by you :-). But you ought to substitute "pope" for the "Catholic Church" and "Catholics" in a couple of places, for accuracy's sake. Pure conciliarism is the principle of the Eastern Orthodox, although they don't seem to have many Councils lately. Again, our system is not circular. You have not proven that in the least here. But yours is, as I've shown in my Fictional Dialogue on Sola Scriptura, which has not really been answered.

END

Dead Saints: Are They Playing Harps on Clouds or Interceding for Us?

[all passages RSV; Scripture passages colored in blue]

1. "Cloud of Witnesses" - Hebrews 12:1

. . . we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses . . .

Word Studies in the New Testament (Marvin R. Vincent, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980; originally 1887; Vol. 4, p. 536), a famous, standard Protestant reference work, comments on this verse as follows:

'Witnesses' does not mean spectators [Greek martus, from which is derived martyr], but those who have borne witness to the truth, as those enumerated in chapter 11. Yet the idea of spectators is implied, and is really the principal idea. The writer's picture is that of an arena in which the Christians whom he addresses are contending in a race, while the vast host of the heroes of faith who, after having borne witness to the truth, have entered into their heavenly rest, watches the ontest from the encircling tiers of the arena, compassing and overhanging it like a cloud, filled with lively interest and sympathy, and lending heavenly aid.

Saints in heaven are therefore aware of, and observe events on earth, "with lively interest," as Vincent puts it.

2. Prayers in Heaven for Those on Earth

Revelation 6:9-10 . . . I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; they cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?"

Here the martyrs in heaven are saying what are known as "imprecatory prayers": pleas for God to rescue and vindicate the righteous. Examples can be found particularly in the Psalms (Psalms 35,59,69,79,109,139) and in Jeremiah (11:18 ff., 15:15 ff., 18:19 ff., 20:11 ff.). An angel offers up a very similar prayer in Zechariah 1:12. Jesus mentions a type of this prayer in Matthew 26:53, in which He stated that He could "pray" to the Father and receive legions of angels to prevent His arrest had it been the Father's will.

Therefore dead saints are praying for Christians on earth. If they can intercede for us, then why shouldn't we ask for their prayers? Clearly, they're aware of what is happening on earth. They are more alive, unfathomably more righteous, and obviously closer to God than we are. Omniscience isn't required for them to hear our prayers, as is often charged. Rather, we have reason to believe that they are out of time, by God's power, because to be in eternity is to be outside of the realm of time. That allows them to answer many requests for prayer because they have an infinite amount of "time" to do it.

Even Martin Luther and John Calvin admitted that the saints may be praying for us in heaven:

Although angels in heaven pray for us . . . and although saints on earth, and perhaps also in heaven, do likewise, it does not follow that we should invoke angels and saints.

(Smalcald Articles, 1537, Part II, Article II in Theodore G. Tappert, translator, The Book of Concord, St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1959, 297)

I grant they pray for us in this way.

(Institutes of the Christian Religion, III, 20, 24)

If so, then how can it be wrong to simply ask dead saints to pray for us, since they are aware of earthly happenings?

3. Saints and Angels Presenting Our Prayers to God

Revelation 5:8 . . . the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. (cf. Tobit 12:12,15)

It's somewhat unclear whether the twenty-four elders in this scene are angels or men, and commentators differ. References to them clad in white garments, with golden crowns (4:4,10) suggests the view that these elders are glorified human beings (see, for example, 2:10, 3:5,11, 6:11, 7:9,13-14, 2 Timothy 4:8, James 1:12, 1 Peter 5:4). In any event, in both examples above, creatures - whether men or angels - are involved with our prayers as intercessory intermediaries, which isn't supposed to happen according to most versions of Protestant theology, where all prayer goes straight to God with no creature involved other than the one who prays the prayer. What in the world are these creatures doing with "the prayers of the saints"?

Also the deuterocanonical book 2 Maccabees (15:13-14), describes Jeremiah the prophet loving his people after his death and praying for them. since Protestants don't accept that book as inspired, we might offer them also Jeremiah 15:1: "Then the Lord said to me, 'Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people.'"

Here it appears that God receives the prayers of the dead saints as a matter of course. Moses and Samuel were both known as intercessors. One could argue that this is only a hypothetical, yet even parables can't contain something that isn't true. This mentions a state of affairs which is assumed to be possible (or else why would Jeremiah mention it at all, as coming from God?)

4. No Contact Between Heaven and Earth?

A) 1 Samuel 28:12,14-15 (Samuel): the prophet Samuel appeared to King Saul to prophesy his death. The current consensus among biblical commentators (e.g., The New Bible Commentary, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary) is that it was indeed Samuel the prophet, not an impersonating demon (since it happened during a sort of seance with the so-called "witch or medium of Endor"). This was the view of, e.g., St. Justin Martyr, Origen, and St. Augustine, among others. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 6:19-20 reinforces the latter interpretation: "Samuel . . . after he had fallen asleep he prophesied and revealed to the king his death, and lifted up his voice out of the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people."

B) Matthew 17:1-3 (the Transfiguration: Moses and Elijah): . . . Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. (see also Mark 9:4 and Luke 9:30-31)

C) Matthew 27:52-53 (raised bodies after the crucifixion): . . . the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

D) Revelation 11:3,6 (the "Two Witnesses"): And I will grant my two witnesses power to prophesy for one thousand two hundred and sixty days . . . they have power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall . . . and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to smite the earth with every plague . . .

These two witnesses are killed (11:7-9), then raised after "three and a half days" and "stood up on their feet" (11:11), and then "went up to heaven in a cloud" (11:12). Many Church Fathers thought these two were Enoch and Elijah, because both of them didn't die; thus this would explain their dying after this appearance on earth. Some Protestant commentators think the two witnesses are Moses and Elijah, because of the parallel to the Transfiguration, and also similarities with the plagues of Egypt and the fact that Elijah also stopped the rain for three-and-a-half years (James 5:17).

We must conclude based on the above passages that contact between heaven and earth is God's will; otherwise He wouldn't have permitted it in these instances. The Catholic belief in more interconnection between heaven and earth cannot be ruled out as "unbiblical". One has to try other arguments to refute our beliefs in this regard.

5. Prayers for the Dead in the New Testament

Prayers for the dead are very clearly presented in the deuterocanonical book of 2 Maccabees (12:39-45). Protestants don't accept that book as part of the Bible, of course, so is there anything about prayers for the dead in the New Testament? It may shock and surprise Protestants to hear it, but yes, there is. I contend that there are three passages:

A) 1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

Protestants consider this one of the most mysterious and odd passages in the entire Bible. But it really isn't that difficult to interpret. It's very similar to 2 Maccabees 12:44: "It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. . . ." That gives us our clue as to what Paul means here. In the Bible "baptism" can describe not just the water ritual but also afflictions and penances (Luke 12:50, Mark 10:38-39, Matthew 3:11, 20:22-23, Luke 3:16). So Paul is saying that we pray and fast and undergo penance for the dead in purgatory precisely because they are resurrected and will live eternally. The "penance" interpretation is supported contextually by the next three verses, where the Apostle speaks of being in peril every hour, and dying every day. So this is a proof of both purgatory and prayers for the dead.

B) 2 Timothy 1:16-18 May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me - may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day - and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

This is another passage that gives Protestants fits. The problem is that it seems to plainly imply that Paul is praying for a dead man. Yet Protestants can't accept that practice because of their theology; therefore, they must explain this away somehow. What they do is either deny that Onesiphorus is dead, or that Paul is praying. Most of the nine Protestant commentaries I consulted for this passage seen admit that he was praying, but deny that the person was dead. Some try to say that Paul was merely "wishing", but I don't see any difference between that and a prayer: it looks like a word game to avoid the implications. The same commentaries said he was possibly dead (two), take no position (two), think he was "probably not" dead (one), or deny it (three). A.T. Robertson, the great Baptist Greek scholar, felt that he was "apparently" dead and that Paul was "wishing" rather than praying. I think it's much more plausible to simply take the Catholic position: the man died and Paul was praying for him.

C) Acts 9:36-37,40-41: Now there was at Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which means Dorcas . . . In those days she fell sick and died . . . But Peter . . . knelt down and prayed; then turning to the body he said, "Tabitha, rise." And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. And he gave her his hand and lifted her up. Then calling the saints and widows he presented her alive.

Now, what would Peter have been praying for?: obviously, that Tabitha would be raised from the dead. So it seems indisputable that St. Peter literally prayed for a dead person, the very thing that Protestants say is not permitted, and supposedly not recorded in the Bible. And Jesus prayed for Lazarus, just before he was raised from the dead, in John 11:41-42 ("Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. I knew that thou hearest me always, but I have said this on account of the people standing by, that they may believe that thou didst send me"). The Bible informs us that the disciples raised people from the dead (Mt 11:5, Lk 7:22) and that Jesus told them that they would be able to, and should, do so (Mt 10:8). So they went out and did it. It's natural to assume that prayer would accompany these extraordinary miracles (because God performs miracles - thus we ask). So almost certainly they prayed for the dead, too. It's as simple as that. The prophet Elijah did the same thing in the Old Testament:

D) 1 Kings 17:21-22: Then he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried to the Lord, "O Lord my God, let this child's soul come into him again." And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.

Martin Luther and his successor as head of Lutheranism, Philip Melanchthon, accepted prayers for the dead:

As for the dead, since Scripture gives us no information on the subject, I regard it as no sin to pray with free devotion in this or some similar fashion: "Dear God, if this soul is in a condition accessible to mercy, be thou gracious to it."

(Confession Concerning Christ's Supper, 1528, in Luther's Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan, vol. 37, 369)

[W]e know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit . . .

(Apology to the Augsburg Confession: Article XXIV, 94)

END

Sarah McLachlan - "O Little Town Of Bethlehem"

My favorite female singer today. The Voice!

Enya - "Silent Night" in Gaelic

My heavens! If this doesn't touch you, you got a heart of stone! Absolutely gorgeous.

The 12 Pains of Christmas (You Tube)

A little Christmas humor. This song is hilarious. Nothing harmful or insulting about it; just good clean fun about some of the frustrations that we (especially parents of young ones) usually experience at Christmas along with all the fun and joy and blessings.

On Whether Atheism is Inherently More Rational and Scientific, and Less Dogmatic and Axiomatic Than Christianity

The Holy Trinity of the materialistic atheist religion: proton, neutron, and electron: quite capable of creating everything in the universe by its own inherent powers and attributes: in fact, it must do so: there is no other possible explanation for what is. But of course it takes no
faith at all to believe that! Only those gullible Christians exercise pitiable faith . . .

This came about when I posted notice of my recently re-posted paper, The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Deo-Atomism ("The Atom-as-God") in atheist forums. "drunkentune" (words in blue) and "beepbeepitsme" (words in green) offered responses. "soulster", a Christian (words in purple) made a "moderator-type" remark that may have been partially directed towards my arguments in this regard, and I responded in turn with a general defense of my arguments and perspective.

* * * * *

Atheist blind faith and irrationality far exceeds the supposed blind faith and irrationality of the Christian, I would contend [I then cite the Deo-Atomism paper]. So, if you atheists want to come after us, fine; just exercise the same scrutiny towards your own epistemology and cease with the double standards (hyper-examining us while ignoring your own ultimate philosophical commitments, which are ridiculous and intellectually-suicidal at worst and flimsy and unsubstantiated at best).

Why would an atheist consider the atom to be god especially as an atheist doesn't believe in god or gods.

Quarks are possibly one of the basic building blocks of matter and I don't know any scientists or atheists or consider them to be gods either.

Why do you ask questions that are already answered in the paper?

Let me repeat this because obviously it wasn't understood the first time. Atheists do not believe in the existence of gods. So to pretend that atheists consider, atoms, quarks, George Bush, Richard Dawkins, or a little fluffy kitten god, might make a nice tu quoque fallacy, but that is about all.

You believe in precisely the same things that we believe God can do, except you project these powers onto the atom, as explained in the paper. Your polytheism exceeds that of the ancient cultures who worshiped amulets and slabs of stone.

The powers that you attribute to spiritless matter far exceed anything those ancient "gods" could supposedly do. I don't see any difference at all. I say that you are much more religious and exercise almost infinitely more faith than the ancient Babylonians or even us Christians. And by the way, my argument is what is known in logic as a reductio ad absurdum. If you don't like it, overcome it by reasoned refutation. That would be a nice change.

*** CLICK ON "Tolle, lege!" immediately below to finish this article ***


Oh, I see, it is the semantic argument from the liberal interpretation of god. Where god gets to be an atom if you say so.

Tsk stk - just the usual tu quoque fallacy. You might have well said - "Yes, I know we are silly for believing in a god, but look, you are silly also for believing that atoms exist."

Really - quite a poor argument I must say. When you have to loosely define what "god" is, in order to try and make atheists look like god worshippers, you must be really embarrassed about your delusion, is all I can say.

And by the way, when I start demanding "under atom" on the moneys, or "in atom we trust" in the pledge, then I will do what most of you should have done 50 years ago - seen a psychiatrist.

That's right. We're all nuts. Then why waste time talking to us at all, pray tell? Why do you so many of you atheists spend tons of energy talking to lunatics (as if it would do any good)?

It's good to hear from you again. Four questions, after skimming your paper:

1. Are you an "atheist" in relation to the Greek gods?

2. Are you an "atheist" in relation to the Muslim god?

3. Are you an "atheist" in relation to the Mormon god?

4. Are these "irrational" atheistic notions, as you say, "ridiculous and intellectually-suicidal at
worst and flimsy and unsubstantiated at best", that you hold, denying the existence of the Greek, Muslim, and Mormon gods?

I'm not gonna answer your question-answer to my questions!

If you want to actually interact with my paper, fine, but I don’t see the point of going down a rabbit trail.

Oh, and I would recommend actually reading it, not just skimming.

*** I should add that my target in that paper is not non-belief in the Christian or theistic God, so much as it is what atheists do manage to believe, that I find essentially indistinguishable from gross polytheism, as argued in the paper.

In other words, it is your religious beliefs (the stuff you actually believe in faith) that I find intriguing and quite absurd, not your lack thereof (with regard to Christianity or some form of western theism).

Then your paper isn't really targeting atheists and atheism - only the few atheists that express polytheistic language in relation to matter (as per your argument). You generalize the worldview of atheists by including other claims under the "atheist" label besides positive or negative atheism. The lack of faith in the existence of a god is not irrational; perhaps the beliefs of the atheists you quote are.

You are (presumably) an atheist in relation to the Greek Pantheon, Allah, and the Mormon god. That is not "blind faith" or "irrational" or "ridiculous and intellectually-suicidal at worst and flimsy and unsubstantiated at best."

It's common sense.

Again, you completely miss the point. If you had actually read the paper and grasped the reductio argument I made there, it is a perfectly serious critique (incorporating provocative satirical humor) of what every atheist believes (indeed must believe - matter being all there is).

Clearly, neither you nor beepbeep have understood the very nature of the argument. You obviously think it is far less serious and ignorant than it actually is. It doesn't rest upon you stating that you are a polytheist. Of course you don't say that.

Rather, it is based on the attributes that you believe particles of matter inherently possess, that require no less faith (I would say much more faith) than the attributes we believe God possesses.

And so this is faith, and not a whit more reasonable than what we believe (again, I myself believe it is much less reasonable or plausible). You can hem and haw that you have no faith at all and that your outlook is entirely reasoned and logically airtight if you like, but it's sheer nonsense.

The sooner the atheist recognizes this, then the better off they will be, epistemologically -speaking (because self-understanding is key to all understanding). Atheist-Christian discussion would then vastly improve, too, because you will cease laboring under the condescending illusion that y'all are so eminently rational and we are fundamentally irrational and gullible, and as if we are the only ones exercising faith or accepting things we can't prove, whereas you supposedly are not.

It's the residue of the dead philosophy of positivism, I reckon. It'll take several more generations for atheists to get over that miserably failed thought-experiment.

Also, please read #36 above [indicated here by three asterisks]. You seem to have missed that, too, judging by your response, that #36 already dealt with. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Just wanted to say that some posts on this tread are getting dangerously close to a mocking tone. In the interest of keeping our ears open, we should be careful not to push people into defensiveness at which point listening becomes difficult if not impossible. Of course, this will require walking a knife edge of sorts since we must still be honest, which includes much evaluation and saying how we feel about things.

I'm feeling that this conversation is teetering on the edge about to fall into closing each other's minds. Perhaps we can practice good listening skills by summarizing the other person's objection or position, stating politely that we understand but disagree or where we think they missed us, and moving on to the exploration of other things if the conversation is just going round in circles.

Since we have very different views of the world in some areas, we should expect disagreements about the importance of certain pieces of evidence and the force of certain arguments, so none of that should be a surprise to anyone. There will likely be no single point where anyone stands or falls in this blog, or in the larger conversation it represents, so we are more faithful to ourselves and our readers by presenting the broadest picture possible.

For my part (inasmuch as [the above] would apply to me, if at all), I am simply turning the tables. The implication that Christians are somehow logically and intellectually deficient (and often, mentally ill) is standard, humdrum atheist modus operandi.

As long as that is the case, certainly it can't be wrong for Christians to make arguments that atheist epistemology involves the same basic aspects of faith and induction that Christian epistemology entails.

Nor is it wrong for me to point out that my very argument is not being accurately portrayed in how it is described in replies.

It's "mocking", I suppose, insofar as the standard argumentative techniques of the reductio ad absurdum, analogy, or turning the tables are "mockery." Much worse happens to us Christians all the time. My replies are, I think, quite mild compared to what Christians are routinely accused of.

To cite just one example above, drunkentune wrote:

"Science does not claim to have the ultimate truth, as many holy texts do. Science is a process, and I trust the process that attempts to uncover the truth because its results have been repeatedly verified by both skeptics and individuals disinterested in furthering a dogma."

Now, the implication (subtle, but quite real and definite) is that Christians are either anti-science or irrational or dogmatic in the blind sense, or all of the above (or quantitatively much more so than atheists, at the least). This is common atheist polemic: they are the "scientific" ones, while we flounder around in gullible irrationality.

But it's simply untrue. The materialist atheist is, I would argue, more dogmatic than the Christian. To show this is very simple. Take, for instance, the evolution / creation controversy.

The Christian can adopt either position (I have held both myself, at different times, as a Christian). But the atheist cannot possibly accept a creationist outlook in any way, shape, or form (even fairly secular Intelligent Design has to be derisively dismissed), because his dogma precludes it from the outset.

How about the question of spirit and matter, that has occupied philosophers for centuries? The materialist atheist (not all atheists are materialists, but most are) cannot accept the existence of spirit, because his materialist dogma forbids it. The Christian, of course, can, so his worldview is less dogmatic and less exclusive.

The materialist has the underlying dogma that science is pretty much the only path to truth (albeit constantly capable of being revised, but even so, it can give us much reliable truth about reality). Science, in turn, rules out (by definition) explanations involving non-material elements or aspects.

But that is pure dogma, and simplistic to boot. The Christian, on the other hand, recognizes that science is but one philosophy (roughly-speaking, empiricism): one which involves unproven axioms from the outset. To claim that it is the only way to arrive at truth is philosophically naive in the extreme.

The Christian is under no such constraints. Recognizing that science is but one species of philosophy, and that it can't possibly exclude things that are beyond its purview (just as religion does not and cannot preclude science, because it is a separate inquiry), we can discuss and incorporate non-scientific avenues to truth.

But the atheist, by and large, cannot do that, because their dogma (generally-speaking, as throughout) confines them to one method, and then they labor under the illusion that this method is the be-all and end-all of reality (itself in turn reduced to materialism by most atheists).

All of that requires at least as much as, but arguably much more faith than any Christian exercises by believing in God and revelation. It entails dogma that has no shred of evidence suggesting that it is indubitably true, and that no one could possibly doubt it.

Blind faith? There is plenty in atheism. There are many faith-assumptions and axioms, just as in Christianity. The difference is that we honestly admit that we have faith and can't and don't know everything there is to know about reality.

In other words, Christianity allows a place for intellectual humility and the finiteness of human beings and our minds. But atheism tends to make out that people can figure everything out, and it is relatively simple, etc., etc., because we have the "god" of science to solve all problems and reach virtually all knowledge.

But most atheists are unwilling to admit that they accept any tenets or presuppositions that involve any leaps of faith or unproven assumptions. This is itself irrational, and philosophically naive.

And that is what I was driving at in my paper about "Deo-Atomism." Most atheists don't dare to truly interact with it because it attacks their root assumptions at such a fundamental level, and they (like anyone else) don't want to deal with that: it's too frightening in its implications. Again, we Christians have our root assumptions attacked all the time (often gleefully so, with the "gotcha" attitude quite apparent), but atheists don't like it so much when we do the same to them (minus the triumphalism and condescension and insinuations of mental and psychological abnormality).

It was that way when I first put out the paper some years ago and I see that nothing has changed: the reaction is precisely the same now (judging by drunken and beepbeep and their non-replies or non sequitur responses).

Nothing personal, I assure you. All I'm doing is responding to what Christians are constantly subjected to and making a reasoned, analogical, analytical critique of atheist presuppositions.

Open Forum

Socrates in dialogue, from Raphael's The School of Athens

Time for a new one, since the comments are over 100. Link to previous Open Forum. I'm gonna keep these pinned at the top from now on, for the convenience of readers and commenters. The book sales page has been removed from permanent "top" status and made a link on the sidebar.

The Atheist's Boundless Faith in Deo-Atomism ("The Atom-as-God")

[This is one of my favorite of my own papers, and perhaps exhibits some satirical influence of Malcolm Muggeridge. It was originally uploaded on 14 January 2002]

Atheists constantly tell us that "the knockout [scientific] proof of atheism just around the corner." We've heard this grandiose claim for almost 150 years, about, e.g., (1) the origin of life, (2) the origin of DNA, (3) all the missing links, and (4) extraterrestrial life. Now it is asserted that cosmology and the beginning of the universe will be soon explained comfortably under atheist assumptions, just like all the other things above have been (???).

Many counter-replies could be given, of course, such as: How did gravity and quantum mechanics and natural selection come to be in the first place? They still derive from the Big Bang. How did they evolve? And what remarkable potentialities were present in the Big Bang itself to make such a thing occur? What do "most nontheists" believe about how the universe came to be, and about its seeming "design"?

Well-known cosmologist Stephen Hawking feels "that the beginning of the universe should be governed by the same laws that held at other times." Well, he can have this predisposition all he wants, but that is not science; rather, it is the bias he brings to his science, and a mental process which has been much written-about by scientific observers / philosophers of science such as Steven Jay Gould and Thomas Kuhn.

When someone (even a scientist) says that "God caused the Big Bang," I agree that that is not a scientific statement, but by the same token, when Hawking and others want to apply uniformitarianism to the Big Bang, and even "before" it, with no empirical evidence whatever for such a claim, then they are not doing science either, but rather, expressing their arbitrary metaphysical preferences. Hawking's god, then, is uniformitarianism and the potentiality of matter to do anything and everything with no Ultimate Design superintending it. This is yet another axiom held in faith. It can't be proven to hold everywhere and at all times, before and after the Big Bang, etc.

Atheists are currently denying that what they believe about the actions of matter in a universe without God is "pure chance" or "randomly colliding atoms," as their earlier forebears might have boldly and proudly described it. Logical positivism is now decidedly out of fashion. But this is ultimately only semantics and avoidance of the relevant philosophical issues.

Natural "laws" (themselves metaphysical abstractions in a large sense, even though they have to do with matter) still have to attain their remarkable organizing abilities at some point. One either explains them by natural laws or by humbly bowing to divine teleology at some point as an explanation every bit as plausible as a scenario which boils down to materialism any way you cut the cake (everything is explained by material processes).

Matter becomes god in the atheist/materialist/naturalist view, as far as I am concerned, and this is patently obvious, because in the godless universe, matter has the inherent power to do everything by itself, which Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, being their ultimate Creator and even Ongoing Preserver and Sustainer.

Quite obviously, then, since all these marvels which we observe in the universe are attributed to matter, just as we attribute the same capacities and designs to God's creative power, from our perspective, matter is the atheist's god, in which he places extraordinary faith; more faith even than we place in God, because it is far more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone. Yet atheists manage to believe this anyway because they refuse to acknowledge a God behind all the Design. Indeed, this is faith of the most un-rational, childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians have the blind, childlike, gullible, fideistic faith, rather than "rational, intellectual, sophisticated" atheists who possess it in far greater measure.

Babylonian idols, c. 18th-16th century B.C.

Ancient polytheist idolaters are put to shame by the trillions and
trillions of gods of modern atheist idolatrous polytheism

Such belief is, in effect and in substance, closely-examined, a kind of poytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, which puts to shame the pagan worship and incredulities of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other primitive groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish. The polytheistic materialist is far, far more religious than that: he thinks that trillions of his Atom-gods and their distant relatives, the Cell-gods, can make absolutely everything in the universe occur, of their own power, possessed eternally either in full or in inevitably-unfolding potentiality.

One might call this (to coin a phrase) Deo-Atomism ("belief that the Atom is God"). The omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, ubiquitous (if not omnipresent) Atom (especially trillions of them) can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason which we can understand (i.e., why and how the Atom-God came to possess such powers in the first place). The Deo-Atomist worships his trillions of gods unreservedly, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He is what sociologists call a "true believer."

Oh, and we mustn't forget the Time-goddess as well. She is often invoked in worshipful, reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to shut up any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. The Time-goddess might be said to be the highest in the ranks of the Deo-Atomist's wonderfully-varied hierarchy of gods, since she is one, rather than trillions (sort of the "Zeus" of Deo-Atomism). One might call this belief Deo-Temporalism.

Deo-Atomism is a strong, fortress-like faith. It is often said that it "must be" what it is. How is this at all different from monotheism, where certain things are taken for granted as basic beliefs? There is no epistemological difference. The atheist's and materialist's or positivist's or naturalist's religion is Deo-Atomism; mine is theistic Christianity. Matter is their god; a Creator Spirit God is mine. The Deo-Atomist simply reverses the error of the Gnostics. They thought spirit was great and that matter was evil. Deo-Atomists think matter is great (and god) and spirit is not only "evil" (metaphorically-speaking), but beyond that: non-existent.

In a certain remote sense, on one level, the Christian reacts to such profound religious belief with the thought, "Who am I to endanger by rational argument such a sublime fideism and Absolute Trust in a Teleological Argument vis-a-vis trillions of Atom-gods? I can only stand in awe of such Pure Faith."

Deo-Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which god could do what, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism.

Some Deo-Atomist utterances even have the "ring" of Scriptures, such as an appropriate humility urged in man's opinion of his own importance, because the universe is so large, and we are so small, as if material or spatial largeness itself is some sort of inherently God-like quality. One Deo-Atomist told me that "order is in the eye of the beholder." That reminded me of the biblical Proverbs (perhaps he was the Deo-Atomist equivalent of Solomon).

Of course, in Deo-Atomism, each person is gods too, because he is made up of trillions of Atom-gods and also lots of Cell-gods, so there are lots of gods there indeed! When you get trillions of gods all together in one place, it stands to reason that they can corporately perceive the order of which any one of them individually is capable of producing. So within the Deo-Atomist faith-paradigm, this make perfect sense. But for one outside their circle of religious faith, it may not (just to warn the devout, faithful Deo-Atomist that others of different faiths may not think such things as "obvious" as they do). The Deo-Atomist manages to believe any number of things, in faith, without mere explanation.

In other words, the "why" questions in the context of Deo-Atomism are in and of themselves "senseless." And the reason why that is (i.e., for the Deo-Atomist), is because the question impinges upon the Impenetrable Fortress of blind faith that the Deo-Atomist possesses. If the question of "Why does God exist?" is senseless, then it follows straightforwardly that likewise, the question, "Why do the Atom-gods and Cell-gods and the Time-goddess exist and eternally possess the extraordinary powers that they do?" is senseless, meaningless and oughtn't be put forth. One simply doesn't ask such questions. It is bad form, and impolite in mixed company. We know how sensitive overly-religious folk are.

Instead, we are asked to bow to the countless mysteries of Deo-Atomism in humble adoration and awed silence, dumbstruck, like the Magi at the baby Jesus' manger, offering our "scientific" and "philosophical" allegiance like they offered gold and frankincense and myrhh. The very inquiry is senseless and "intrusive." And so rational examination is precluded at and from the outset. It is, indeed, an ingenious, self-contained system: hopelessly irrational and self-defeating; ultimately incoherent, of course, but ingenious and admirable in its bold, brilliant intellectual audacity and innovation, if nothing else. In other words, it is an immensely enjoyable game to play, like much of modern philosophy-cum-religion.

Evolutionary mutations as Teleology offer a particular example of this particular religiosity; akin to the Christian Divine Providence. Occasionally, it is true, a mutation (99.999% of the time harmful) is beneficial to the organism. Thus, a mistake in a process that is almost always a mistake is the "stuff" and mechanism and cause of the "progress" of evolution. The entire spectrum of biological diversity and evolution begins in such a causal fashion. This is the Deo-Atomist teleology, and an amazing and faith-filled one it is, as always. Deo-Atomism might go by many names, but when the rubber meets the road, it is all pretty much the same: Boundless Faith in Matter-gods, Cell-gods, and the Time-Goddess.

As an example of a devout, pious Deo-Atomist believer, consider Stephen Hawking:

"It has been a glorious time to be alive and doing research in theoretical physics," he told an audience, which included Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees. "Our picture of the universe has changed a great deal in the last 40 years and I'm happy if I have made a small contribution. I want to share my excitement and enthusiasm."

He added: "Based on the no boundary proposal, I picture the origin of the universe as like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. "Quantum fluctuations lead to the spontaneous creation of tiny universes out of nothing. Most of the universes collapse to nothing, but a few that reach a critical size will expand in an inflationary manner and will form galaxies and stars and maybe beings like us."

Hawking's words constitute a fine statement of the pure faith of what I have been calling Deo-Atomism. But what is the cosmic analogy to water in his boiling water scenario? And if universes come from nothing, how is that not absurd and not unthinkable? What is his empirical proof for such a scenario? By what observation did he arrive at this?

Hawking believes his bubble universe scenario with, admittedly, no direct scientific evidence (it is merely coherent with other of his beliefs), and no way to explain it step-by-step in any compelling matter. It is entirely tentative. So he is exercising the blind faith of Deo-Atomism. Christians don't claim to have exhaustive explanations for every process we believe in. But it ain't required because religious faith is not science.

I find it exceedingly humorous that many scientists and atheists (many, Deo-Atomists) are so concerned about separating religion and science (to the extent that science would literally die if a miracle were acknowledged by a scientist AS a scientist), yet when it comes to something clearly within the religious, theological, supernatural realm (a purported miracle), they continue to demand scientific explanation as if they have forgotten all about their strenuous, Chicken Little attempts to separate science from God and theology altogether!

I won't bow to this double standard. It is simply one more strain of the religion of scientism, which is a crucial component and aspect of Deo-Atomism. I don't worship science or the atom or my own brain. I worship God. And if God didn't possess some attributes I didn't fully understand or comprehend, I submit that He wouldn't be God. That would simply be an idol that I created, that I completely understand, as it is no higher than what I can conceive it to be: a "God" made in man's image, rather than vice versa.

If materialist scientists would like to take back their position on science vs. miracles (an absolute dichotomy), then we can (at least attempt to) offer scientific explanations of every miraculous occurrence, as Christianity and science would then comprise one grand, unified theory of nature.

Until then, Deo-Atomists ought to stop asking for scientific explanations in the name of theology, when they can't even give scientific explanations (pertaining to origins and teleology) in the name of naturalistic science for many of their beliefs, yet simultaneously claim that this is not merely a matter of religious or metaphysical belief, and that any other alternative religious/metaphysical belief (namely, theism and creation) is impermissible as unscientific. Take the beam out of thine own eye. Metaphysician; heal thyself . . .

Short Dialogue With Two Atheists on Souls, Bodily Resurrection, and Heaven (vs. Steve Conifer and Sue Strandberg)

Is there such a thing as a soul, or a resurrected body?

[From Internet list discussion: 28 April and 8 June 2001. Steve's words will be in blue, Sue's in red:]

A brave soul you are, venturing into this subject matter and spirited discussion . . . but to get to the heart and soul of the question: The sole notion of importance is the spirit of the thing . . . :-) Okay, okay . . . couldn't resist . . .

How can one possibly conceptualize a nonspatial (or transcendent), atemporal entity?

By thinking at all, just as you did right then (and as you are, reading this).

There's no substance to imagine, no points of reference (in space or time), just no imagery whatever.

One doesn't need "imagery" (there is no image to a "spirit" in the first place, by definition). One merely needs thought and consciousness, or self-awareness. What "imagery" does a person blind from birth see? Does that mean, then, that they can't imagine or conceptualize anything? Stevie Wonder, e.g., has said that when he thinks of colors, he imagines them to be analogous to how the sun's rays feel on his skin. Very interesting . . .

I suspect that what YOU take to be (what you believe is an accurate mental representation of) a "soul" (or "spirit") is something largely akin to a ghost on TV.

No; that's what I conceptualize as most pop psychic nonsense and charlatanism (or horror movie imagery) - akin to the "devil in a red suit [with the obligatory zipper in back] and horns, with a pitchfork" sort of silly and stupid cultural "mush religion" which attempts to pass for a description of serious Christianity (and to caricature or distort it, on other levels of deliberate slander and construction of straw men).

But that's really just a guy with a sheet over his head, Dave, and no matter how hard you try, I assure you that you will NOT succeed in conceptualizing a nonspatial, atemporal entity.

As I said, it is no different from having a thought, or a dream, an imagination, an intuition, an inspiration, an appreciation of beauty, romantic love, reflection upon poetry, or any number of things along those lines.

Why? Because it's downright impossible.

I should think that any philosophically-minded person would be a lot more reluctant to throw around a word such as "impossible." It is impossible for you because you have chosen to think in categories (themselves axiomatic and unprovable) that disallow belief in spirits and souls in the first place. That is not rational argument per se; it is arbitrary selectivity and hypothesis-espousal as to what one chooses to believe: defining some things as "out" from the outset.

Now, does this prove that no such entity exists? Yes, since it shows the proposition that there exists such an entity to be unthinkable and therefore conceptually (a priori) false.

Why, and how, then, did a great many philosophers manage to believe in such a thing? You tell me. Were they all simpletons or bound to dogmatic religious assumptions which even they couldn't shake due to cultural mores or groundless sentimentalities or psychological needs? Einstein, e.g. (as one example among hundreds of revered intellects) is in disagreement with you on this "spirit" / "atemporal entity" business. How can that be, if this is so obviously "impossible" to imagine? You clearly consider him intelligent and rational, else you wouldn't have tried so hard (failing, I believe) to establish that he is more properly to be classified in your camp than in mine (given that rigid double choice).

And how is that even atheists can be dualists, as I am currently being informed, yet have the greatest difficulty comprehending a mind (or soul) which doesn't have a body or brain to accompany it? What is so difficult about that?! I don't get it. One simply imagines thinking or mind without a brain to be necessarily associated with it. The relevant question at hand is the relationship between minds and bodies. Far greater minds than yours and mine have struggled with that complex question for centuries. The very struggle itself leads me to believe that, therefore, the question is not so cut-and-dried, black-and-white, and simply resolved as you make it out to be, by slinging around words such as "impossible." You don't seem to show much respect for the history of philosophy when you talk like this.

. . . it should be noted that virtually no theist (or believer in an afterlife of some kind) takes either God or the afterlife to be physical in character. Indeed, some (if not most) of them take both to be immaterial and atemporal, i.e., outside spacetime altogether.

This is quite uninformed. All orthodox Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and non-classified trinitarians) believe in the general resurrection. That means that we will eventually have bodies in heaven. If we have bodies, presumably there will be ground to walk on, food to eat, chairs, and all the usual accompaniments of physical life. I'm hoping there will still be baseball, roller coasters and hang gliders, so I can float on a cloud, but it will be with both a body and a hang glider. :-)

In orthodox Christianity God the Father is a spirit, as is the Holy Spirit (obviously). God the Son took on flesh and a human nature in the Incarnation, and retains His body eternally.

I think you are making a much too hasty generalization here. I seem to recall that both the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons believe that the afterlife will be physical, a bodily resurrection into a world (or worlds) much like the Garden of Eden was before the Fall.

As do orthodox Christians (which these two groups are not - they deny the Trinity). JW's (I studied their doctrine in some depth in the early 80s, as a cult researcher) believe that God the Father has a body. I'm not sure about the Mormons.

What you guys are describing are the Platonists and the heretical Gnostics who followed them insofar as regarding matter as evil (so that resurrection would be quite undesirable; indeed virtually unthinkable). This is gross heresy and a foul error in the eyes of the Apostles and the three branches of orthodox Christianity.

The other day I was curious and went into a Christian chatroom to ask them what they believed about heaven. They were either very vague or very specific. One woman wistfully said "oh, I hope I get a cottage by a lake" and nobody at all seemed to think this odd. They seem to see "spiritual reality" as virtually identical to this one, only somehow lighter or more purified.

Yes, that's good theology. This life is a preparation for the next, which will not be so different as to be completely unfamiliar to us. That's why we will have our own bodies, but in a resurrected, glorified form. It's only our wonderful "cultural mush religion" which perpetuates all the silly, stupid stereotypes about floating on a cloud playing a harp, St. Peter at the Gate, and all the rest of the juvenile, inane tripe which our secular culture seeks to pass off as representative of serious Christian theology (so as to be able to ridicule and dismiss it - very ingenious!).

And even Christians pick up some of this drivel from the culture, unfortunately. We don't seem to be able to escape the influence of secularization, pervasive anti-Christian bias or ignorance, and theological watering-down. It's hard to be different and independent-minded. One has to work much harder and be all the more educated, to go against the grain of society and actually understand Christianity as it is and has been all through the centuries.

I am also thinking of the book/movie What Dreams May Come, a New Age version of heaven that is also very similar to our experiences in this life, only stranger in content.

Unless the New Agers give me rational reasons to believe in their brand of reality, I don't care about their speculations of heaven. I used to be into all the "life after life" near-death experiences (and von Daniken and Uri Geller and UFO's and so forth) during my occultic-leaning period. But I have a far more skeptical and rational criterion of truth and falsehood since becoming a Christian.

The sophisticated heaven of the theologians and transcendental mystics seems to be very different than what the majority of people expect.

One would expect people who have actually studied the subject to know far more (just as in philosophy or science or any other field of knowledge), even despite the assurances we have heard here that any atheist can readily understand biblical exegesis and theology as well as your average Christian (not very compellingly demonstrated in practice here, however, I hasten to add). To read a bit more sophisticated orthodox Catholic descriptions of heaven, see the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) on Heaven and General Resurrection. If you don't trust the Catholic version, the Protestant beliefs on these things are pretty much the same as ours, as far as I know.

Biblical Evidence for an Eternal Hell

One cannot deny the traditional Christian doctrine of hell and honestly call oneself an orthodox Christian. No mainline or self-proclaimed evangelical denomination denies this doctrine (Seventh-Day Adventists being a special case), and of course, Catholicism and Orthodoxy have always held to this belief as well. It has often been noted that Jesus Himself spoke more about hell than He did about heaven. The following are the major scriptural evidences for both the existence of, and the everlasting duration of hell:

The Greek meaning of aionios ("eternal," "everlasting") is indisputable. It is used many times referring to eternal life in heaven. The same Greek word is also used to refer to eternal punishments (Mt 18:8, 25:41,46, Mk 3:29, 2 Thess 1:9, Heb 6:2, Jude 7). Even in one verse - Mt 25:46 - the word is used twice: once to describe heaven and once for hell. "Eternal punishment" means what it says. There is no way out of this without doing violence to Scripture.

The Jehovah's Witnesses render "punishment" as "cutting-off" in their bogus New World Translation in an attempt to establish their doctrine of annihilationism, but this is impermissible. If one is "cut off," that is a one-time event, not an eternal one. If I am cut off the phone with somebody, would anyone think to say I am "cut off eternally?" This word, kolasis, is defined in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament as "(eternal) punishment." Vine (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words) says the same thing, as does A.T. Robertson - all impeccable language scholars. Robertson writes:

There is not the slightest indication in the words of Jesus here that the punishment is not coeval with the life.

{Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, vol. 1, p. 202}

Since it is preceded by aionios, then it is punishment which continues forever (not non-existence which continues indefinitely). The Bible couldn't be more clear than it is. What more could be expected?

Likewise for the related Greek word aion, which is used throughout Revelation for eternity in heaven (e.g., 1:18, 4:9-10, 5:13-14, 7:12, 10:6, 11:15, 15:7, 22:5), and also for eternal punishment (14:11, 20:10). Some attempt to argue that Revelation 20:10 only applies to the devil, but they must explain Revelation 20:15: "and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire." The "book of life" clearly has reference to human beings (cf. Rev 3:5, 13:8, 17:8, 20:11-14, 21:27). It is impossible to deny that fact.

Now on to some annihilationist "proof texts":

Mt 10:28: The word for "destroy" is apollumi, which means, according to Vine, "not extinction, but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well-being." The other verses in which it appears make this meaning clear (Mt 10:6, Lk 15:6,9,24, Jn 18:9). Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament or any other Greek lexicon would confirm this. Thayer was a Unitarian who probably didn't believe in hell. But he was also an honest, objective scholar, so he gave the proper meaning of apollumi, in agreement with all other Greek scholars. The same argument applies to Mt 10:39, Jn 3:16 (same word).

1 Cor 3:17: "Destroy" is the Greek, phthiro, meaning literally, "to waste away" (much like apollumi). When the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., the bricks were still there. it was not annihilated, but wasted. So shall it be with the wicked soul, which will be wasted or ruined, but not blotted out of existence. We see the meaning of phthiro clearly in every other instance of it in the NT (usu. "corrupt"), where in each case, the meaning is as I have said (1 Cor 15:33, 2 Cor 7:2, 11:3, Eph 4:22, Jude 10, Rev 19:2).

Acts 3:23 refers to simply being banished from the people of God, not annihilation. "Soul" just means a person here (cf. Deut 18:15-19, from which this passage is derived; see also Gen 1:24, 2:7,19, 1 Cor 15:45, Rev 16:3). We see this usage in English when someone says, "There was not a living soul there."

Rom 1:32 and 6:21-2, James 1:15, 1 Jn 5:16-17 either refer to physical or spiritual death, neither of which means "annihilation." The first is separation of body from soul, the second, separation of the soul from God.

Phil 1:28, 3:19, Heb 10:39: "Destruction" or "perdition" is the Greek apolia. Its meaning as "ruin" or "waste" is clearly seen in, e.g., Mt 26:8 and Mk 14:4 (a waste of ointment). In Rev 17:8, when it refers to the Beast, it states that the Beast is not wiped out of existence: "...They behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is."

Heb 10:27-31 must be understood in harmony with Heb 6:2, which speaks of "eternal judgment" (mentioned above in discussion of aionios). The only way to synthesize all the data presented here is to adopt the eternal hellfire view. The counter-arguments, on the other hand, almost always have simple contrary explanations.

Heb 12:25,29: Is 33:14, a verse similar to 12:29, says, "... who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?" The metaphor of God as a fire (cf. Acts 7:30, 1 Cor 3:15, Rev 1:14) is not the same as hellfire, which is spoken of as eternal or unquenchable, within which the wicked suffer consciously (Mt 3:10,12, 13:42,50, 18:8, 25:41, Mk 9:43-48, Lk 3:17).

2 Pet 2:1-21: In v.12, "utterly perish" is from the Greek kataphthiro. In the only other place in the NT where this word appears (2 Tim 3:8), it is translated as "corrupt" in KJV. If the annihilationist interpretation were applied to that verse, it would read, "...men of nonexistent minds..."

2 Pet 3:6-9: "Perish" is the Greek apollumi (see comment on Mt 10:28 above), so annihilation, as always, is not taught, by virtue of the simple meaning of the Greek word. Furthermore, in v.6, where it is said that the world "perished" in the flood, it is obvious that it was not annihilated, but wasted, consistent with the other interpretations above.

Orthodox Christians must defend their beliefs as commanded in Scripture (1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3). This is a loving act, if what we speak is indeed the truth. The proclamation of biblical and Christian truth often makes people angry, but that should not deter us from doing it. On this issue, Protestants (excluding Adventists), Catholics, and Orthodox all agree (in their official doctrinal statements), so those squabbles don't even enter into the discussion. That fact, along with the biblical evidence above, ought to be sufficient to put the matter to rest, for anyone who respects the Bible and Christian, apostolic Tradition.

I received the following letter, concerning the above reasoning:

I was reading your article on Biblical Evidence for an Eternal Hell and something caught my attention. In your article you cited:

There is not the slightest indication in the words of Jesus here that the punishment is not coeval with the life.

{Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, vol. 1, p. 202}

I have been studying Aion and Aionios and would conclude that the punishment is lasting or durational along with the life. There is the kolasin aionion and the zoen aionion. Translated eonian chastening and eonian life. Both run concurrently. I have found that aionion or (aionios) is that which pertains to the eons. It is the adjective which represents aion its noun. The adjective cannot be greater than the noun it represents in the Bible.

I, as of yet, have not found a scripture either in the LXX O.T. nor in the Greek N.T. which one would conclude that aion carried the idea of eternality i.e. no beginning, no end...or having a beginning but having no end. Therefore, aionios, being the word which pertains to the noun it represents, that noun being aion which does not mean eternal, aionios cannot refer to something which is eternal.

Apart from the eschatological (non-dispensational) interpretation of Matt 25, which I don't have the time to pursue (much as I would enjoy that - maybe sometime in the future), are you saying that neither life in heaven nor in hell are eternal? Or are you merely disputing the meaning of aionios in Matt 25:46 and/or generally?

I still maintain that Matt 25:46 is crystal clear, and that aionios here means duration with no end. Greek Lexicons and biblical language reference works confirm this. E.g., An Expository Dictionary of NT Words (W.E. Vine; Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1940, vol. 2, p. 43, under "Eternal") pretty much sums it up, in my opinion, beyond argument:

Aionios describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Romans 16:25; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 1:2; or undefined because endless, as in Rom 16:26, and the other 66 places in the NT.

The predominant meaning of aionios, that in which it is used everywhere in the NT, save the places noted above, may be seen in 2 Cor 4:18, where it is set in contrast with proskairos, lit. 'for a season,' and in Philm 15, where only in the NT it is used without a noun. Moreover it is used of persons and things which are in their nature endless, as, e.g., of God, Rom 16:26; of His power, 1 Tim 6:16, and of His glory, 1 Pet 5:10; of the Holy Spirit, Heb 9:14; of the redemption effected by Christ, Heb 9:12, and of the consequent salvation of men, 5:9, as well as of His future rule, 2 Pet 1:11, which is elsewhere declared to be without end, Luke 1:33; of the life received by those who believe in Christ, John 3:16, concerning whom He said, 'they shall never perish,' 10:28, and of the resurrection body, 2 Cor 5:1, elsewhere said to be 'immortal,' 1 Cor 15:53, in which that life will be finally realized, Matt 25:46; Titus 1:2.

Aionios is also used of the sin that 'hath never forgiveness,' Mark 3:29, and of the judgment of God, from which there is no appeal, Heb 6:2, and. of the fire, which is one of its instruments, Matt 18:8; 25:41; Jude 7, and which is elsewhere said to be 'unquenchable,' Mark 9:43.

Likewise, A.T. Robertson:

The word aionios . . . means either without beginning or without end or both. It comes as near to the idea of eternal as the Greek can put it in one word. It is a difficult idea to put into language. Sometimes we have 'ages of ages' (aiones ton aionon).

{Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930, vol. 1, p. 202 (under Matt 25:46) }

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon also concurs, as does Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, the most revered and respected Greek analysis of the NT.

This is overwhelming linguistic and exegetical evidence which you would be hard-pressed to refute, I think.

The following discussion tok place on my Apologetics / Ecumenism Discussion List:

John Stott, of all people, would "deny that the Bible is trustworthy, and assert that it contains blatant falsehood"?

In effect, yes - if he denies the eternality of hellfire.

Not hardly! Stott is a well-known and highly respected evangelical . . .

So now the term "evangelical" encompasses heterodoxy on the doctrine of hell? What other heterodox doctrines (i.e., from within traditional evangelical "orthodoxy") are now up for grabs, too? What about, e.g., a personal devil?

. . . who emphatically affirms the absolute authority of the bible. He has a very high view of Scripture.

Affirming it and living it out are two different things. Unfortunately, many professed Christians dishonestly sign on to, and claim to adhere to creeds and confessions which they no longer completely believe. I was just as indignant about that as an evangelical as I am now.

Many people who have such a high view of Scripture nevertheless interpret it differently. It seems pointless and tendentious to insist that those who disagree with your interpretation are denying the trustworthiness of the Bible.

Tell me, then, is there any doctrine, the denial of which would lead you to suspect that the holder of the view is (consciously or not) denying the infallibility of the Bible? It seems to me that us "theological conservatives" make that charge about theological liberals all the time. I'm saying that there are certain doctrines that are so clear in Scripture that denying them brings into doubt one's overall view of Holy Scripture.

As for it being my ("your") interpretation, sure (and obviously); however (and this is my whole point), it has also been the consistent interpretation of all the major branches of Christianity: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant. That makes it a bit more than merely "my" interpretation, wouldn't you think? Going against all that Christian tradition and consensus strikes me as an extreme "individualist" position, where the person cares little about what 99% of all Christians for 2000 years have believed about a particular doctrine. So Stott says this is his interpretation. Why should we believe him, pray tell? St. Paul and others issue many stern commands and warnings about believers departing from what was "received" from Jesus and the Apostles: Lk 1:1-2; 1 Cor 11:2; 15:1-2; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim 2:2; Jude 3.

Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as a doctrine springing up many hundreds of years after Christ with little or no precedent among Christians (again, of all major branches). So Stott has violated Scripture on two counts: a denial of what virtually all Christians have considered a clear biblical teaching, and introducing historical novelties.

By the way, I have been one of those who has respected and benefitted from John Stott. So perhaps in my disappointment I am overly harsh. I think, though, that I am merely applying clear biblical mandates with regard to heresy. Paul issues anathemas, and commands us not even to fellowship with heretics, and those who cause divisions, and who introduce teachings not "received" from the Apostles. So I haven't even gone as far as he probably would have . . .

But on the assumption that there will be a hell, I have never read a defense of its endless duration that made sufficient sense to me. Therefore annihilationism seems more reasonable, and in particular, more consistent with the unlimited mercy of God.

The ins and outs of the understanding of the doctrine cause you difficulty (which is fine: I wonder about predestination and the problem of evil all the time myself), but can you really positively assert that the Bible teaches no such thing, given the overwhelming biblical indications above?

Now, concerning the place of scripture in this controversy, I disagree that Scripture is sufficient by itself. Scripture is among the relevant data, but if it conflicts with sound moral principles and/or logic, it cannot be affirmed on pain of immorality or irrationality.

But of course that can't happen in any consistent Christian system. Such a scenario makes no sense to those of us who wholeheartedly accept the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture. Beyond that, I don't see how we could definitively resolve this question, unless you think people can die and come back and tell us if they had a second chance.

---

Afterword:

The essence of hell is separation from God. God in effect says: "so you want to live apart from Me? You think that is a preferable state of affairs to living with Me? Very well, then, go ahead; see how you like it." Of course, God would have a great deal more love and compassion than that (I'm applying human emotions to Him -- a sort of anthropomorphism in reverse), but this is the basic idea. The Bible talks about God giving men up to their own devices and the hardening of their hearts (the same sort of notion).

C.S. Lewis stated that "the doors of hell are locked from the inside." God respects human free will so much that He is willing to let men reject Him and spend eternity away from Him, if that is their choice. Of course, those who choose this don't have the faintest idea of what an existence utterly without God is like, because they have not yet experienced it. This is the tragic folly of the whole thing.

The instant they do experience it, they'll know what a terrible mistake they made, and in my speculative opinion that will be the primary horror of hell: the intense, irreversible self-loathing, self-hatred, and regret at having made such a stupid and perfectly avoidable mistake as to end up in an unspeakably dreadful, hideous place or state like hell. We know from this life how difficult it is to live with bitter regret: the mulling over the "if only's" of life and our bittersweet journey through it.

Imagine doing that for eternity! And, of course, this is one big reason why Christians want to proclaim the gospel, so people can avoid that miserable fate, and can live eternally the way God intended them to live, without suffering and sin: complete, whole, perfect creatures, rejoicing in God's wonderful presence forever.

Uploaded in 1998 by Dave Armstrong. Afterword: 8 February 2003.

The Thief on the Cross (Are Sacraments Unnecessary?)

[originally uploaded in 1996]

Many evangelical Protestants like to point out that the thief on the cross next to Jesus wasn't baptised and went to heaven anyway (Lk 23:39-43). From this they then conclude that both baptism, and sacraments in general are unnecessary for salvation.

This is a weak, insubstantial argument from the get-go, because it presupposes a fallacy of wrongly applying the elements of an extraordinary, exceptional situation to ordinary situations (i.e., the routine infant baptism). That's as illegitimate as arguing from the "hard cases" of abortion to unlimited abortion-on-demand. C.S. Lewis said: "the rules of chess are what create chess problems." One doesn't ditch the rules upon discovering a potential or perceived "problem" made possible by the very existence of the rules!

The Catholic Church has always recognized the baptism of desire:

Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

{Vatican II: Constitution on the Church, I, 16; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1257-1261}

In other words, the thief was in this situation. He had the desire for salvation (and, one might say, for baptism), but obviously was in no shape to receive it! But generalizing from this case to everyone is clearly illogical. Furthermore, Paradise in this verse (Lk 23:43) about the thief on the cross (if interpreted literally) is not even referring to heaven, and indeed could not, since Jesus was not yet in heaven on that day ("today . . ."). He was crucified on Friday and didn't rise from the dead until Sunday. In fact, He didn't ascend to heaven until forty days after that (Acts 1:3,9-11; cf. Jn 20:17)!

Between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, He descended into Sheol, or Hades, the place of the dead (both righteous and unrighteous- see Luke 16:19-31) to preach to the captives (righteous dead). We know this from passages such as 1 Pet 3:19-20, 4:6, and Eph 4:8-10 (cf. Rom 10:7, Acts 2:27). So, then, Paradise in Lk 23:43 is referring to Sheol, not heaven. The conclusion is inescapable from cross-scriptural exegesis. E.g., Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (an impeccable and standard Protestant linguistic source) holds to this view, which is not just Catholic belief, but that of conservative Protestants as well (see also the reputable Protestant reference New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., p.935).

When some Protestants claim that baptism isn't necessary at all, they are in clear violation of scriptural injunctions or examples (e.g., Mt 28:19, Col 2:11-12, Jn 4:1-2, Eph 4:5, Acts 10:48, Gal 3:27). All Christians (excepting Quakers and the Salvation Army) have held to the necessity of baptism (if not regenerative baptism). There is no option for the believer on this point, provided he is able to be baptized (which the thief was not). Furthermore, baptism is explicitly tied in with salvation in several passages: Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21 (cf. Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4), Jn 3:5, Acts 22:16, 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5. These constitute proofs for baptismal regeneration, which is held not only by Catholics, but also by Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Churches of Christ, and Disciples of Christ. It is certainly as necessary for a Christian to be baptized, as it is to "receive Jesus into your heart" (which cannot be found in the Bible in those terms), whether or not it is considered regenerative.

Sacramentalism and Inner Disposition

[originally written in 1996]

Pope Paul VI, in his Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, of January 1, 1967, made some statements which have relevance to all devotional and pious practices of Catholics, such as the scapular and the Rosary:

To gain indulgences the work prescribed must be done. But that is not all. The faithful must have the dispositions that are necessary. These are that they must love God, hate sin, trust in Christ's merits, and believe firmly in the great help they obtain from the Communion of Saints. (ch. 4, sec. 10).

In other words, it is not a mere "magic formula," apart from disposition, holiness, intent, sincerity, etc. Sacramentals (holy water, scapulars, blessings, miraculous medal, genuflection, etc.) work differently than sacraments, which are objectively efficacious (ex opere operato). But even the sacrament of the Eucharist will not have an effect if taken by a person in mortal sin, and priestly absolution is null and void without the prerequisite of true repentance.

The scapular will not "work" - Protestants can rest assured - for a person who neglects holiness and obedience and uses it as a "magic charm" (which is occultic superstition, not Christianity). A piece of cloth cannot rescind the normal, routine duties of the Catholic life. Any Catholic worth his salt knows this. Yet we see - sadly - how many don't know it. On the other hand, devotional language is usually not meant to be taken literally, any more than love letters of young lovers are ("I'd cross any mountain or river to get to you.....," etc.)

Likewise, Vatican II stressed active participation in the liturgy:

In order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects it is necessary that the faithful come to it with PROPER DISPOSITIONS, that their minds be attuned to their voices, and that they cooperate with heavenly grace lest they RECEIVE IT IN VAIN. Pastors of souls must, therefore, realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the laws governing valid and lawful celebration. It is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part FULLY AWARE of what they are doing, ACTIVELY ENGAGED in the rite and enriched by it.......

Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy.......In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy the full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered above all else, for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit. Therefore, in all their apostolic activity, pastors of souls should energetically set about achieving it through the requisite pedagogy.

{Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Dec. 4, 1963, ch. 1, I, sec. 11 and II, sec. 14; emphasis added}

In his booklet The Wonders of the Holy Name (1946; rep. TAN Books, Rockford, IL: 1993), which is about a common devotion known as the "Jesus Prayer" ( a repetition of "Jesus"), Fr. Paul O'Sullivan is quite cognizant of these considerations (they did not begin with Vatican II, after all!). First of all, he grounds the practice in Scripture (Col 3:17), so that it can hardly be objectionable. And he explicitly places it in the context of holiness and gratefulness, so that it is not intended as a charm or magic remedy (p.34):

And in the future, when you say, "Jesus," remember that you are offering to God all the infinite love and merits of His Son......You cannot offer Him anything holier, anything better, anything more pleasing to Him......

How ungrateful are those Christians who never thank God for all He has done for them .......

When you say the Name of Jesus, remember, too, to thank Our Sweet Lord for His Incarnation.

Thus understood, this practice - and by extension, many "sacramental" Catholic practices - are wholly in accord with the Protestant stress, in their doctrine of sanctification, on gratefulness to God for all He has done as a compelling motivation for engaging in good works and becoming more righteous in some sense. And it is the very opposite of a pathetic attitude of treating God like a "vending machine," as some Protestants put it. If any Catholic does that, he or she is in opposition to clear Catholic teachings, and is in serious sin.

Sacramentalism

[originally written in 1996]

Evangelical Protestants of the "low church" or non-denominational variety especially, oftentimes exhibit an antipathy to matter as a conveyor of grace (or "blessing"). In other words, they tend to deny the sacramental principle. This hearkens back to the Docetic heresy, with traces of Nestorianism and Donatism. Non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians frequently express the notion that matter is a step down, a "reduction" of Christ's Atonement: Matter vs. Spirit. Catholics (and Orthodox and many Anglicans and Lutherans) believe that the truth is quite the contrary, both prima facie and when examined in scriptural and reasoned depth.

The Incarnation, which made the Atonement possible, is the Event in salvation history which has raised matter to previously unknown heights. God took on human flesh! Given that all created matter was "good" in God's opinion from the start (Gen 1:25), and now is "glorified" further by the wonder of the Incarnation, why is it that such beliefs are still held? What is the scriptural basis? Most non-sacramental Protestants wouldn't deny the goodness of matter per se, but then their beliefs regarding sacraments are all the more puzzling.

Ritual and "physicality" were not abolished by the coming of Christ. Nor was the Atonement purely "spiritual." Quite the contrary! It was as physical as it could be, as well as obviously spiritual. Protestants speak much (or used to, anyway) of "the Blood," and rightly so (see Rev 5:9, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14, Heb 9:12, 1 Pet 1:2, 1 Jn 1:7, etc.). It was the very suffering of Jesus in the flesh, and the voluntary shedding of His own blood, which constituted the crucial, if not essential aspect of the Propitiatory Atonement. One can't avoid this. "By his bruises we are healed" (Is 53:5).

So it is curious that most Protestants appear to possess a distinct and pronounced presuppositional hostility to the sacramental idea of the Real Presence, flowing as it does so straightforwardly from the Incarnation and Crucifixion itself. To me, this smacks of an analogy to the Jewish and Muslim disdain for the Incarnation as an unthinkable (impossible?) task for God to undertake. They view the Incarnation in the same way as the majority of Protestants regard the Eucharist. For them God wouldn't or couldn't or shouldn't become a man. For evangelicals God wouldn't or couldn't or shouldn't become substantially, sacramentally present under the outward forms of bread and wine. I think the dynamic is the same. And I think that if any bias must be present going into a study of the Eucharist, it ought to be in favor of a material, Real Presence standpoint, for the following scriptural reasons:

The New Testament is filled with incarnational and sacramental indications: instances of matter conveying grace. The Church is the "Body" of Christ (1 Cor 12:27, Eph 1:22-3, 5:30), and marriage (including the sexual act) is described as a direct parallel to Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22-33, esp. 29-32). Jesus even seems to literally equate Himself in some sense with the Church, saying He was "persecuted" by Paul, after the Resurrection (Acts 9:5).

Not only that, there is the whole repeated strain in St. Paul's thought of identifying with Christ and His sufferings, very graphically and literally, or so it would seem: 2 Cor 4:10, Phil 2:17, 3:10, 2 Tim 4:6, and above all, Col 1:24; cf. 2 Cor 1:5-7, 6:4-10, 11:23-30, Gal 2:20, 6:17, Rom 12:1. Again, if this be the case, why not a literal Eucharist (and indeed, Paul sure seems to believe in that very thing, too)? It makes all the sense in the world, and is indicated strongly by Scripture in the first place.

Matter conveys grace all over the place in Scripture: baptism confers regeneration: Acts 2:38, 22:16, 1 Pet 3:21 (cf. Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4), 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5. Paul's "handkerchiefs" healed the sick (Acts 19:12), as did even Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15), and of course, Jesus' garment (Mt 9:20-22) and saliva mixed with dirt (Jn 9:5 ff., Mk 8:22-25), as well as water from the pool of Siloam (Jn 9:7). Anointing with oil for healing is encouraged (Jas 5:14). Then there is the laying on of hands for the purpose of ordination and commissioning (Acts 6:6, 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6) and to facilitate the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17-19, 13:3, 19:6), and for healing (Mk 6:5, Lk 13:13, Acts 9:17-18). Even under the Old Covenant, a dead man was raised simply by coming in contact with the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21)!

All this and yet so many Protestants reject sacramentalism in principle! Protestants have exhibited many extremes in this regard historically: the no holds-barred iconoclasm of the early Calvinists and some Lutherans (e.g., Carlstadt), in which they marauded about, destroying stained glass windows, altars, religious paintings and statuary (even of Christ!), organs (probably even manger scenes), etc. Drama was banned in England for a time. Early Protestant painting was almost confined to the Dutch in one bleak period, due to the pervasive iconoclasm. Music and dance and art in general is still frowned upon in many Protestant circles, or else vastly under-appreciated. It is obvious that the great majority of classic Western art originated in the Catholic countries. This was no coincidence!

Sacramentalism is merely the Incarnation extended, just as the Church is. No a priori biblical or logical case can be made against a literal Eucharist on the grounds that matter is inferior to spirit and/or indicative of a stunted, primitive, "pagan" spirituality or some such similar negative judgment. If Christ could become Man, He can surely will to become actually and truly present in every sense in bread and wine, once consecrated.

So I challenge "low church" Protestants to go ahead and make their case against the Real Presence, but to do it on scriptural, exegetical grounds, not Docetic, philosophical ones. I submit that oftentimes, the bias against matter is what creates a prior bias in favor of pure symbolism, thus leading to eisegesis of John 6, Lk 22:19-20, 1 Cor 10:16 and 11:27-30.

"Man-Centered" Sacramentalism: The Remarkable Incoherence of James White

How Can Martin Luther and St. Augustine Be Christians According to His Definition?

[Originally uploaded by Dave Armstrong on 26 November 2003]

Bishop James White (one of the most vociferous critics of Catholicism today) and I engaged in a vigorous postal exchange in 1995. I have his letters in my possession, and the "debate" has been posted on my website for many years, with the good bishop's permission. In it, he stated:

If you feel a communion that replaces the grace of God with sacraments, mediators, and merit, can be properly called "Christian," then please go ahead and use the phrase. But please understand that if a person shares the perspective of the epistle to the churches of Galatia they will have to hold to a different understanding, and hence may not be as quick to use the term "Christian" of such a person.

(4-6-95, p. 2 and 5-4-95, p. 2)

I pointed out (surely he was aware, as a student of the history of theology) that Martin Luther believed in baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I set out to prove -- by means of an elaborate but very solid chain of logical deductive reasoning, using White's own remarks as a premise -- that by White's own stated reasoning, Luther would not be a Christian.

If a communion that supposedly "replaces" grace with sacraments cannot properly call itself Christian, then it seems to me that a person who does the same (since White assumes a "replacement" is occurring rather than an appropriation or application of grace through sacraments) should also not be considered a Christian. Or if they are, then Catholicism should be deemed Christian as well. But that is assuming logical consistency and a sensible, coherent perspective on these matters. Much of the thrust of my argument in my long debate with Bishop White in 1995 was designed to show that his position is not internally consistent and coherent. A close analysis of the present topic demonstrates this, I think, very clearly.

The logical outcome of White's false premise produces the absurd state of affairs of a non-Christian (who didn't even comprehend God's grace) bringing back into practice the gospel and true Christianity (as he and his followers often claimed). Elsewhere in the debate, I proved how (logically), White's arguments would also mean that C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, John Wesley, and Philip Melanchthon were not Christians, either.

Basically, all non-Calvinists would be (doctrinally) excluded from confessing, creedal, or orthodox Christianity if one consistently applied Bishop White's criteria, which is why he stated in the same exchange that I was never "truly a Protestant to begin with" because I was an Arminian evangelical Protestant (1977-1991) who (as I noted in my conversion story in Surprised by Truth) had always rejected the Calvinist distinctives of double predestination and total depravity.

The men above (Anglicans and Lutherans) also rejected these doctrines; ergo, they, too, were not Protestants and therefore, not Christians (by White's reasoning; not mine; I admire Wesley and Bonhoeffer very much and Lewis has long been my favorite Christian writer). He has never replied to my reductio ad absurdum. In the next year after our debate, Bishop White was still emphasizing this animus against sacramentalism, in his book against Catholicism, objecting to the fact that:

. . . salvation is mediated through the Sacraments of the Church.

. . . God's grace is said to be channeled through the Sacraments . . . .

(White, 128-129, 179)

This is precisely what Luther believed:

Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle.

(The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, in Steinhauser, 197)

Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ's kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . .

When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . .

(Large Catechism, 1529, sections 223-224, 230, pp. 162, 165)

Luther comments on John 3:5:

Christ says clearly and concisely that the birth referred to here must take place through water and the Holy Spirit. This new birth is Baptism . . . And begone with everyone who refuses to accept this doctrine!

. . . we reply, "Of course, they believed that John purified by his Baptism; for by means of it he joined you to Christ." Thus one is saved according to the way in which Christ instructed Nicodemus (John 3:5)

(Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Chapters 1-4, 1540; in LW, 22, 287-288, 429)

Note the terms that Luther uses to describe what baptism does (emphases added). His view is exactly the sort of one that James White condemned above:

Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism.

. . . the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace . . .

. . . the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save.

. . . baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration.

. . . baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . .

. . . being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life ...

. . . baptism; . . . through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us ...

[Baptism gives] the entire Christ and the Holy Spirit with his gifts. [see below]

Martin Luther holds an even stronger view than the Catholic one on baptism: in his view the grace of baptism cannot be lost:

Thus the papists have attacked our position and declared that anyone who falls into sin after his Baptism must undergo a distinct type of purification.

(Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Chapters 1-4, 1540; in LW, 22, 429-430)

Describing Luther's view on baptism, the expert on his theology, Paul Althaus, citing Luther, states:

Through baptism, "I am promised that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in body and in soul." Baptism does not give a particular grace, not only a part of salvation, but simply the entire grace of God, "the entire Christ and the Holy Spirit with his gifts." The total gift of baptism is meaningful throughout the Christian's life and remains constantly valid until he enters into eternity. He lives from no other grace than from that promised and conveyed to him through baptism, and he never needs new grace.

(Althaus, 353-354)

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, but actually a lifelong Anglican (reasoning much like St. Augustine often does) accepts the notion of baptism being a seal, without denying that it is at the same time a means or cause of regeneration. He doesn't dichotomize as Calvin does, but thinks in far more biblically-oriented terms. Hence he comments in his Notes on the Bible, on John 3:5, Acts 22:16, Titus 3:5, and 1 Peter 3:21:

Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit - Except he experience that great inward change by the Spirit, and be baptized (wherever baptism can be had) as the outward sign and means of it.

Baptism administered to real penitents, is both a means and seal of pardon. Nor did God ordinarily in the primitive Church bestow this on any, unless through this means.

. . . Sanctification, expressed by the laver of regeneration, (that is, baptism, the thing signified, as well as the outward sign,) . . .

. . . through the water of baptism we are saved from the sin which overwhelms the world as a flood: not, indeed, the bare outward sign, but the inward grace . . .

Elsewhere Wesley makes this even more clear:

. . . there is a justification conveyed to us in our baptism, or, properly, this state is then begun.

(The Principles of a Methodist Farther Explained, 1746; in Lindstrom, 106-107)

. . . the ordinary instrument of our justification.

(A Treatise on Baptism, 1758; in Lindstrom, 107)

Luther holds the same kind of view regarding the Eucharist:

Even if I followed the Karlstadtian teaching and preached the remembrance and knowledge of Christ with such passion and seriousness that I sweated blood and became feverish, it would be of no avail and all in vain. For it would be pure work and commandment, but no gift or Word of God offered and given to me in the body and blood of Christ . . .

For whoever so receives the cup as to receive the blood of Christ which is shed for us, he receives the new testament, that is, the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

(Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 1525; LW, 40, 213, 217)

But for some reason, Bishop White (as far as I know) is most reluctant to argue that Martin Luther and John Wesley were not Christians, on the basis of believing the same thing that causes him to conclude that Catholicism is not a Christian belief-system. Once in a while it is good to point out anomalies like this.

Likewise, we find St. Augustine (whom James White calls "great" and "the great bishop of Hippo" in his book: pp. 122-123) espousing these ideas which White thinks are hostile to sola gratia and a biblical, Christian worldview:

Just as Judas to whom the Lord handed a morsel, furnished in himself a place for the devil, not be receiving something wicked but by receiving it wickedly, so too anyone who receives the sacrament of the Lord unworthily does not, because he himself is wicked, cause the Sacrament to be wicked, or bring it about that he receives nothing because he does not receive it unto salvation. For it is the Body of the Lord and the Blood of the Lord even in those to whom the Apostle said: "whoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment to himself."

(Baptism, 5, 8, 9; in Jurgens, III, 68)

Thus St. Augustine reveals that he, too, is not a Christian (i.e., by consistently applying one of White's thoroughly wrongheaded but dogmatically-stated criteria), since he believes that a "sacrament" can be received "unto salvation." White praises St. Augustine in various places on his website:

The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached . . . [citing Charles Spurgeon in agreement]

[Dave] Hunt vociferously and unfairly attacks the character of both Augustine and Calvin, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the system of grace . . .

("Dave Hunt vs. Charles Haddon Spurgeon")

It does not seem that any discussion of ancient theology can be pursued without invoking the great name of Augustine. But surely by now Roman controversialists should be aware that Augustine is no friend of their cause.

("Whitewashing the History of the Church")

Certain men throughout the history of the Christian church capture the imagination. Paul, Augustine, Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli - each holds the possibility of fascinating reflection and thought.

("The Sovereign God, the Grace of Christ, and Sinful Man: A Brief Inquiry into the Theology of Jonathan Edwards")

It's true that the His Eminence, Right Reverend Bishop White admits St. Augustine was no Protestant, but I've yet to see him deny that he was a Christian. White has also reiterated on his website his seeming belief that sacramentalism is not only unbiblical but unChristian altogether:

This . . . demonstrates with clarity the vast differences between the God-centered gospel of Scripture and the man-centered sacramentalism of the Roman system.

("An In Channel Debate on Purgatory")

In God's providential wisdom, we live in a time when the church must struggle against false teaching and false teachers (Acts 20:24ff). Specifically, the truth of God's sovereign grace is attacked by Roman Catholicism, and its man-centered sacramentalism.

("1 Cor 3:10-15: Exegesis and Rebuttal of Rom,an Catholic Misuse")

Man's religions are invariably anthropocentric, always including at their very heart various rites and rituals (in Roman Catholicism, sacraments) designed to control God and His power, removing from Him His sovereign freedom and placing the ultimate power of salvation squarely in the hands of man. This is where biblical Christianity differs from the religions of men, including Roman Catholicism . . .

("An Excellent Example of Sola Ecclesia: John 6 and Exegesis")

I continue to pray that God will be merciful in showing you all the power of His grace, the truth of His gospel . . . my God is not dependent upon the actions or sacraments of men . . .

("The Mass Card")

. . . the biblical gospel over against Rome's system of sacraments . . .

("Key, Keys, What's the Difference?: An Apologist for 'Catholic Apologetics International' Provides Some Interesting Responses to Objections to Roman Catholic Claims")

So it is clear that Bishop White doesn't like sacraments at all (putting him at great odds also with Martin Luther) but he manages to like St. Augustine quite a bit (ranking him with great Christian figures such as Calvin, St. Paul, Jonathan Edwards, etc.). Yet St. Augustine was an enthusiastic advocate of the very "man-centered" Catholic system of sacramentalism that James White insists is utterly contrary to "God's sovereign grace," the gospel, the Bible, mom, apple pie, baseball, and who knows what else.

Despite this, St. Augustine inexplicably remains, for White, one of the "great exponents of the system of grace" and even "no friend" of the Catholic apologetic "cause." How does he fit all this together in his head (assuming that he wishes to do so consistently)? It's very difficult to comprehend. Here are some of St. Augustine's many relevant utterances on the topic of sacramentalism (emphases added):

It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated through the agency of another's will when that infant is brought to Baptism . . . The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in one Adam.

(Letter to Bishop Boniface, 98, 2; A.D. 408; in Jurgens, III, 4)

The Sacraments of the New Testament give salvation . . .

(Explanations of the Psalms, 73, 2; A.D. 418; in Jurgens, III, 19)

. . . God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.

(Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed, 7, 15; c. 395; in Jurgens, III, 35)

. . . the grace of Baptism . . .

(Baptism, 1, 12, 20; 400; in Jurgens, III, 66)

It is an excellent thing that the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation, and the Sacrament of Christ's Body nothing else but life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too.

The Sacrament of Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration.

. . . there is a full remission of sins in Baptism.

(Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, 1, 24, 34 / 2, 27, 43 /2, 28, 46; 412; in Jurgens, III, 91-93)

With the exception of the gift of Baptism, which is given against original sin, so that what was brought by generation might be taken away by regeneration, -- though it also takes away actual sins, such as have ever been committed in thought, word, or deed . . . this great indulgence whereby man's restoration begins and in which all his guilt, both original and actual, is removed . . .

(Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love, 17, 64; 421; in Jurgens, III, 149)

Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said "This is My Body."

He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation. But no one eats that flesh unless first he adores it . . . and not only do we not sin by adoring, we do sin by not adoring.

(Explanations of the Psalms, 33, 1, 10 / 98, 9; A.D. 418; in Jurgens, III, 20)

That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God is the Body of Christ.

Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's body.

What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ.

(Sermons, 227 / 234 / 272, 2; in Jurgens, III, 30-32)

How can Luther be the great founder of Protestantism (i.e., true Christianity, in White's mindset) and St. Augustine the great exponent of "grace" while both believed things with regard to sacramentalism that cause White to condemn (out of the other side of his mouth) as non-Christian the Catholic Church and its sacramental theology? Luther's conception of baptismal regeneration even goes further than the Catholic view.

St. Augustine believed in baptismal regeneration (calling it the cause of regeneration, grace, salvation, forgiveness, life, life eternal, and the full remission of sins), and (strongly) in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, yet James White can nevertheless describe him as "great," in the same league with Calvin and the Apostle Paul, and a "great exponent" (with Calvin) "of the system of grace." How can this be?, since when Catholics believe the same thing, we get described by him as follows:

1. A communion that cannot "be properly called Christian", because it "replaces the grace of God with sacraments, mediators, and merit."

2. ". . . man-centered sacramentalism of the Roman system," as opposed to "the God-centered gospel of Scripture."

3. A system that attacks "the truth of God's sovereign grace."

4. A system which uses "sacraments" which are "designed to control God and His power, removing from Him His sovereign freedom and placing the ultimate power of salvation squarely in the hands of man."

5. ". . . religion[s] of men" which is "anthropocentric" and differs from "biblical Christianity."

6. A system opposed to "the power of His grace, the truth of His gospel."

7. ". . . system of sacraments" over against "the biblical gospel."

Perhaps Bishop White can explain how all these discordant opinions can go together. I don't have a clue (not on an intellectual plane that presupposes the validity of deductive, classical logic), unless it is simply yet another case of undue hostility against the Catholic Church clouding the reasoning of an otherwise fairly cogent and able mind.

I've always considered anti-Catholicism (the belief that Catholicism is not a Christian religion) intellectual suicide (that is, when it is held by a Protestant). In other words, I think it is logically, theologically, and historically impossible to hold that Protestantism is Christian while Catholicism is not. The above examples provide abundant proof for why I think this is so. People like James White want to have their cake and eat it too: St. Augustine can be a Catholic (which he really was) but also a great "Christian" (read, "proto-Protestant") man. He can be a "great exponent of grace" but scarcely a Christian at all (following through with White's own criteria) when we look at his sacramentology (and many other things such as his views on purgatory, prayers for the dead, Bible and Tradition, etc.).

Even Martin Luther plainly fails James White's "quiz" of what it takes to be a good "biblical" Christian. But both get a pass because it looks bad to go after Luther and St. Augustine (and even -- on a lesser scale -- a man like John Wesley). It's lousy public relations and counter-productive to boot. People will start getting suspicious and glaring logical ludicrosities such as the ones shown above will be pointed out. That's embarrassing and too much work, and no one needs that hassle. It is easier to play games with history and theology and words and pretend that people were what they clearly weren't. But that in turn results in nonsense like the above scenario.

Perhaps the crowning irony of all this is what Luther would certainly have thought of James White and his views, were he to return and be here today. We have very good reason to believe that he would have a more favorable opinion of Catholics such as myself than he would of what he called a "sacramentarian" like White. Luther wrote, for example:

I have often enough asserted that I do not argue whether the wine remains wine or not. It is enough for me that Christ's blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Before I would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have pure blood with the Pope.

(Early 1520s; in Althaus, 376; LW, 37, 317)

Luther called fellow Protestants Zwingli, Karlstadt, Oecolampadius, and Caspar Schwenkfeld (all men who accepted a symbolic Eucharist) - and by implication those who believe as they do - "fanatics and enemies of the sacrament," men who are guilty of "blasphemies and deceitful heresy," "loathsome fanatics," "murderers of souls," who "possess a bedeviled, thoroughly bedeviled, hyper-bedeviled heart and lying tongue," and who "have incurred their penalty and are committing 'sin which is mortal'," "blasphemers and enemies of Christ," and "God's and our condemned enemies." He described Zwingli as a "full-blown heathen," and wrote: "I am certain that Zwingli, as his last book testifies, died in a great many sins and in blasphemy of God."

(see: Brief Confession Concerning the Holy Sacrament, September 1544; LW, 38, 287-288, 290-291, 296, 302-303, 316)

We know that Luther, in his Commentary on the 82nd Psalm (1830) advocated the death penalty for Anabaptists. These were people who didn't believe in infant baptism and who practiced adult baptism (just as Bishop White believes, as a Baptist). This is backed up by Roland Bainton, author of the most well-known biography of Luther, Here I Stand:

In 1530 Luther advanced the view that two offences should be penalized even with death, namely sedition and blasphemy . . . Luther construed mere abstention from public office and military service as sedition and a rejection of an article of the Apostles' Creed as blasphemy. In a memorandum of 1531, composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, a rejection of the ministerial office was described as insufferable blasphemy, and the disintegration of the Church as sedition against the ecclesiastical order. In a memorandum of 1536, again composed by Melanchthon and signed by Luther, the distinction between the peaceful and the revolutionary Anabaptists was obliterated.

(Bainton, 295)

Historian Preserved Smith writes about this aspect of Luther and the early Lutherans:

All persons save priests were forbidden by the Elector John of Saxony to preach or baptize, a measure aimed at the Anabaptists. In the same year, under this law, twelve men and one woman were put to death, and such executions were repeated several times in the following years, e.g., in 1530, 1532, and 1538. In the year 1529 came the terrible imperial law, passed by an alliance of Catholics and Lutherans at the Diet of Spires [from which first came the term Protestant], condemning all Anabaptists to death, and interpreted to cover cases of simple heresy in which no breath of sedition mingled. A regular inquisition was set up in Saxony, with Melanchthon on the bench, and under it many persons were punished, some with death, some with life imprisonment, and some with exile.

While Luther took no active part in these proceedings, and on several occasions gave the opinion that exile was the only proper punishment, he also, at other times, justified persecution on the ground that he was suppressing not heresy but blasphemy . . .

Melanchthon . . . reckoned the denial of infant baptism, or of original sin, and the opinion that the eucharistic bread did not contain the real body and blood of Christ [a doctrine he himself later denied!], as blasphemy properly punishable by death. He blamed Brenz for his tolerance, asking why we should pity heretics more than does God, who sends them to eternal torment?

(Smith, 176- 177)

At the end of 1530, Melanchthon drafted a memorandum in which he defended a regular system of coercion by the sword (i.e., death for Anabaptists). Luther signed it with the words, "It pleases me," and added:

Though it may appear cruel to punish them by the sword, yet it is even more cruel of them . . . not to teach any certain doctrine -- to persecute the true doctrine . . .

(Grisar, VI, 251)

So it is clear that Luther regarded as "enemies of Christ" those who denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (as James White does), and that he regarded as "seditious" those who rejected infant baptism and who practiced a symbolic non-regenerative adult baptism (as White does), and that the latter was punishable by death in Lutheran territories (with Luther's and Melanchthon's express permission), whereas Luther would have largely agreed with the Catholic position on the Real Presence and Baptism, and he didn't believe in the death penalty for Catholics (he preferred banishment at worst for them).

Martin Luther -- in all likelihood, from what we know -- would have extended to me the hand of Christian fellowship before he would have done the same to His Eminence, the Right Reverend Bishop James White: whom he would have regarded as a heretic sentenced to hell and a blasphemer (just as he viewed the Sacramentarians such as Zwingli and Oecolampadius), at least hypothetically worthy of the death penalty (as actually occurred in Lutheran territories).

Ironies never cease, and they ought to be pointed out now and then, especially with so many historical myths flying around in theological and apologetic circles . . .

REFERENCES

Althaus, Paul, The Theology of Martin Luther, translated by Robert C. Schultz, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

Bainton, Roland (Protestant), Here I Stand, New York: Mentor Books, 1950.

Grisar, Hartmann, Luther, translated by E.M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, six volumes, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1915.

Jurgens, William A., editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, three volumes, 1979.

Lindstrom, Harald, Wesley and Sanctification, Grand Rapids, MI: Francis Asbury Press, 1980.

Luther, Martin, Luther's Works (LW), American edition, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (volumes 1-30) and Helmut T. Lehmann (volumes 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (volumes 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (volumes 31-55), 1955.

Luther, Martin, Large Catechism, 1529, translated by Dr. Lenker, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1935.

Smith, Preserved, The Social Background of the Reformation, Book II of The Age of the Reformation, New York: Collier Books, 1962 (originally 1920).

Steinhauser, A.T.W., translator, Martin Luther: The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from Three Treatises, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, revised edition, 1970; taken from the American edition of Luther's Works, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (see above), volumes 31, 36, 44.

Wesley, John, Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, 1765. Available online.

White, James R., The Roman Catholic Controversy, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1996.

The Beach Boys A Cappella in 1985: "Their Hearts Were Full Of Spring"

Fabulous. No one ever sang harmonies more beautifully.

Hydrotherapeutic Spa: Massage, Health & Fitness in Your Own Bathtub: Initial Outline

The SG-2000 home spa offers remarkable multiple benefits: total body massage, calorie burning, relaxation, stress-reduction, "hydro-sleeping-aid" qualities, deep cleansing, body firming, internal warming, energizing, detoxification, and (most importantly) a host of preventive general health and healing benefits. It does so by means of ultrasonic air-bubble technology, far-infrared rays, ozone, oxygen, and negative ions, hydrotherapy, cavitation, and aromatherapy (including bath salts and oils). My wife Judy has already shown fabulous, life-changing improvement in severe back pain (she has scoliosis), serious longtime insomnia, and energy levels, in just three short weeks of use.

Lake Superior, Michigan, 1991 (my photo)

It all sounds too good to be true, right? But if your curiosity is aroused, you should read my fact-filled Introduction. The seven additional in-depth educational papers below include verification by over 225 references (most linked) to scientific journal studies and other related information:

I. Introduction

II. Hydrotherapy, Hot Springs, Spas

III. Ultrasonic Wave Energy / Cavitation

IV. Anions / Negative Ions / Ozone

V. Far-Infrared Radiation

VI. Aromatherapy, Healing Oils, & Bath Salts

VII. Testimonies of Health Improvement

VIII. Response to Extreme Irrational Skepticism Regarding Alternative Medicine in General & Hydrotherapeutic Spa & Testimonials of Users, in Particular

Holistic Health (Index Page)

Homeopathy, Pragmatic Medicine, Dogmatic Science, and Supposedly "Unscientific" Religion

Conquer Depression and Anxiety Naturally

Great News For Women Suffering Hot Flashes: Natural Remedies

Is Smoking a Sin? / Diatribe on the Inadequacy and Unbiblical Nature of Libertarian Philosophy (+ Discussion)

Second-Hand Smoke: Scientific Documentation of its Harmfulness

Learn the Whole Truth About Splenda (Sucralose) and Nutrasweet (Aspartame) (Dr. Joseph Mercola)

Home Spa (Initial Outline)

Hydrotherapeutic Spa: Massage, Health & Fitness in Your Own Bathtub: Introduction

Hydrotherapeutic Spa: Massage, Health & Fitness in Your Own Bathtub: Hydrotherapy, Hot Springs, Spas

Hydrotherapeutic Spa: Massage, Health & Fitness in Your Own Bathtub: Ultrasonic Wave Energy / Cavitation

Hydrotherapeutic Spa: Massage, Health & Fitness in Your Own Bathtub: Anions / Negative Ions / Ozone

Hydrotherapeutic Spa: Massage, Health & Fitness in Your Own Bathtub: Far-Infrared Radiation

Hydrotherapeutic Spa: Massage, Health & Fitness in Your Own Bathtub: Aromatherapy, Healing Oils, & Bath Salts

Hydrotherapeutic Spa: Massage, Health & Fitness in Your Own Bathtub: Testimonies of Health Improvement

Response to Extreme Irrational Skepticism Regarding Alternative Medicine in General & Hydrotherapeutic Spa & Testimonials of Users, in Particular

Updated on 2 March 2008

Home Spa

The SG-2000 home spa offers remarkable multiple benefits: total body massage, calorie burning, relaxation, stress-reduction, "hydro-sleeping-aid" qualities, deep cleansing, body firming, internal warming, energizing, detoxification, and (most importantly) a host of preventive general health and healing benefits. It does so by means of ultrasonic air-bubble technology, far-infrared rays, ozone, oxygen, and negative ions, hydrotherapy, cavitation, and aromatherapy (including bath salts and oils). My wife Judy has already shown fabulous, life-changing improvement in severe back pain (she has scoliosis), serious longtime insomnia, and energy levels, in just three short weeks of use.

• 

It all sounds too good to be true, right? But if your curiosity is aroused, you should read my fact-filled Introduction. The seven additional in-depth educational papers below include verification by over 225 references (most linked) to scientific journal studies and other related information:

I. Introduction

II. Hydrotherapy, Hot Springs, Spas

III. Ultrasonic Wave Energy / Cavitation

IV. Anions / Negative Ions / Ozone

V. Far-Infrared Radiation

VI. Aromatherapy, Healing Oils, & Bath Salts

VII. Testimonies of Health Improvement

VIII. Response to Extreme Irrational Skepticism Regarding Alternative Medicine in General & Hydrotherapeutic Spa & Testimonials of Users, in Particular

Hydrotherapeutic Spa: Massage, Health & Fitness in Your Own Bathtub: Aromatherapy, Healing Oils, & Bath Salts

From the introductory post:

From the Wikipedia article "Balneotherapy" "[M]any of the spas adopt special means by which they increase or modify their influence, e.g. the so-called 'aromatic' or 'medicated' baths, in which substances are mixed to exert a special influence on the skin and peripheral nerves. Of these the 'pine needle' bath has the greatest repute; it is made by adding a decoction of the needles or young shoots of firs and pines. Fir wood oil (a mixture of ethereal oils) or the tincture of an alcoholic extract acts equally well. The volatile ethereal constituents are supposed to penetrate the skin and to stimulate the cutaneous circulation and peripheral nerves, being eliminated later by the ordinary channels. Similar effects follow the addition to the bath of aromatic herbs, such as chamomile, thyme, &c." The aroma is, of course, very aesthetically appealing, apart from any health effects. The Grand Sun Enterprise Co., Ltd., manufacturer of the SG-2000, offers for sale various specialized oils and mineral salts for this purpose.

* * * * *

The web page Robert McDowell's Herbal Treatments gives a very helpful overview of aromatherapy:

Essential oils stimulates the powerful sense of smell. It is known that odors we smell have a significant impact on how we feel. In dealing with patients who have lost the sense of smell, doctors have found that a life without fragrance can lead to high incidence of psychiatric problems such as anxiety and depression. We have the capability to distinguish an amzing 10,000 different smells. It is believed that smells enter through cilia (the fine hairs lining the nose) to the limbic system, the part of the brain that controls our moods, emotions, memory and learning.

Studies with brain wave frequency has shown that smelling lavender increases alpha waves in the back of the head, which are associated with relaxation. Fragrance of Jasmine increases beta waves in the front of the head, which are associated with a more alert state.

Scientific studies have also shown that essential oils contain chemical components that can exert specific effects on the mind and body. Their chemistry is complex, but generally includes alcohols, esters, ketones, aldehydes.

Each essential oil contains as much as 100 chemical components, which together exert a strong effect on the whole person. Depending on which component is predominating in an oil, the oils act differently. For example, some oils are relaxing, some soothes you down, some relieves your pain, etc. Then there are oils such as lemon and lavender, which adapt to what your body needs, and adapt to that situation. (These are called "adaptogenic"). The mechanism in which these essential oils act on us is not very well understood. What is understood is that they affect our mind and emotions.

It has been well established that chicken soup is good for a cold (both historically and scientifically). Studies were conducted to find out whether the effect was due to the action of the hot steam on the lining of the nostrils or whether the aroma of the chicken soup has some thing to do with it. The results indicated that chicken soup was more effective than the steam, indicating the effectiveness of the aroma itself.

The article, "Aromatherapy: What Is It?," by Jane Buckle, Ph.D., R.N., from HerbalGram: The Journal of the American Botanical Council, 2003;57:50-56, provides a superb "introductory course" in aromatherapy [I've deleted the footnote numbers in the text].

The definition accepted in most aromatherapy schools is, "Aromatherapy is the therapeutic use of essential oils." Essential oils are defined as volatile parts of aromatic plants extracted by steam distillation or expression.

Although one of the lesser-known complementary therapies in the United States, aromatherapy has been accepted as part of nursing care in the United Kingdom. British nurses are insured by the Royal College of Nurses to use essential oils (both topically and inhaled) for improved patient care, provided their hospital approves and without a doctor's specific instructions. Further, some hospitals also allow non-nursing personnel to use essential oils. Aromatherapy is also used by nurses in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, and Switzerland, and is becoming popular in the United States. More than 30 states allow the use of some complementary therapies (including aromatherapy) as a part of holistic nursing care.

. . . The confusion around what is, and what is not, aromatherapy may have occurred with the renaissance of aromatherapy in France and its export to England in the 1950s. French physicians used topical applications, ingestion, and inhalation, the method chosen according to its clinical appropriateness (e.g., inhalation for respiratory tract infections, or for psychological effect; ingestion for intestinal complaints; topical application for burns, skin, and muscular problems). These methods are clearly outlined in Aromatherapie (The Practice of Aromatherapy), a book first published in 1964 by Valnet, a French physician who used topical, oral, and inhaled applications of essential oils with his patients. Valnet documented the use of essential oils for wound healing and infection control. He wrote, "Essence of thyme [Thymus vulgaris L., Lamiaceae] destroyed the anthrax and bacillus and was a stronger antiseptic than phenol." . . .

Absorption of essential oil components through the skin

Jager et al showed that linalyl acetate and linalol, two components in essential oil of English lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill., Lamiaceae), were absorbed from a 2 percent dilution of English lavender in peanut oil through the abdominal skin of human subjects "within minutes" and detected in the blood plasma (ca. 10 ng/ml). The maximum level was attained at 20 minutes; even at 90 minutes, the two components could still be detected.

Fuchs et al demonstrated that (R)-(-)- carvone easily penetrated the skin of human subjects, producing a plasma concentration of 24—32 ng/ml after almost 30 minutes. Covering the skin produced a significantly higher effect. Twenty-five percent (R)-(-)- carvone in peanut oil was used. (R) carvone is an isomeric ketone found in caraway (Carum carvi L., Apiaceae). (L) carvone is found in spearmint (Mentha spicata L., Lamiaceae).

Wyers and Brodbeck demonstrated that 1,8 cineole was absorbed through the skin into the muscles. They found that when an applicator was used the absorption rate increased 320 percent.

In an email in June 2002, Buchbauer, who led much of the experimental work on topical absorption at the Institute of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of Vienna in Austria from the 1980s, is very clear, "It is now common knowledge that fragrance compounds are absorbed through the skin into the blood stream."

. . . because of its name, many people continue to think that aromatherapy is only about smelling something. That is incorrect. The usual definition is, "Aromatherapy is the use of essential oils for therapeutic purposes." No methods are suggested. But, clearly, only essential oils are used.

. . . Of the three methods of application (oral, topical, inhaled), inhalation has the most rapid effect. Chemical components within the essential oil bind to receptors in the olfactory bulb and have an almost instant effect on the hypothalamus and amygdala, which are located in the limbic part of the brain, where memory and smell are said to reside. Mills writes that the lipophyllic components in essential oils actually penetrate the blood-brain barrier. In animal experiments, Buchbauer showed that inhaled essential oil compounds could pass the blood-brain barrier and be detected in brain tissues (especially the cortex) of mice who inhaled single volatile fragrance compounds for 20 minutes.

Jager et al. reported an increase in the cerebral blood flow in the cortex of human subjects after inhalation of 1,8-cineole from an unspecified source. Similar studies by Nasel et al. found the increase not only in normal healthy subjects, but also with a woman with anosmia (the inability to smell). . . .

The importance of smell

The sense of smell is important to human beings throughout their lives. Babies use it to identify their mothers, and depression of elderly persons in residential facilities may be reduced by the smell of flowers. The scent of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus Labill., Myrtaceae) can increase creativity, citrus, (Citrus spp., Rutaceae) may enhance immune function, lavender and clove (Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr. & L.M. Perry, Myrtaceae) can improve cognitive processing, and rose (Rosa spp., Rosaceae) and bergamot orange (Citrus bergamia Risso & Poit., Rutaceae) can be relaxing. Unfortunately, the source species is not always specified in the published literature.

Some essential oils have been found to have analgesic effects when inhaled, taken orally, or applied topically. Topically applied essential oils of lavender, Roman chamomile (Chamaemelum nobile (L.) All., Asteraceae), neroli (Citrus aurantium L., Rutaceae), mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco, Rutaceae), sandalwood (Santalum album L. Santalaceae), palmarosa (Cymbopogon martinii (Roxb.) J.F. Watson, Poaceae), and geranium (Pelargonium spp., Geraniaceae) were found to enhance pain relief in children with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Topically applied lavender was also found to be effective in reducing perceptions of pain in critical care settings.

West Indian lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus (DC. ex Nees) Stapf, Poaceae) was shown to have topical analgesic effects and appeared to increase the effects of morphine. The component in West Indian lemongrass that produces the analgesic effect is myrcene, a monoterpene. Topically applied Roman chamomile reduced the perception of pain by patients with cancer in a randomized study by 51 patients. One of the patients in the study said, "I know most definitely that it [aromatherapy] has helped me in my quest for pain relief." In each of these studies, diluted essential oils were applied topically in a massage so it is difficult to extrapolate what analgesic effects are attributable solely to the essential oils. However, in a single case-study, inhaled damask rose essential oil (Rosa damascena Mill., Rosaceae) was found to be highly effective in reducing the perception of chronic pain in a patient with uncontrollable pain, despite patient-controlled morphine analgesia. Certainly it is the experience of the author and many of her students that essential oils can affect relaxation, and that in itself can alter the perception of chronic pain, making something that was unbearable, bearable. Candace Walsh, R.N., wrote, "I have come to understand that essential oils and touch can be a powerful part of any health package. They add an element of comfort and relief that promotes well being on the mental and emotional levels and can help to relieve pain."

Antimicrobial effects of essential oils

Possibly because aromatherapy is perceived to be useful mainly for stress, the antimicrobial properties of essential oils have not been acknowledged. Many essential oils have antibacterial, antifungal, and antiviral properties. Some in vitro studies have indicated that essential oils are effective against such bacteria as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), resistant Shigella, and resistant Escherichia coli bacteria.

[further specific examples provided, and the article concludes with 54 footnotes]

The University of Minnesota offers a page on aromatherapy. Some highlights:

From the sub-page, "How do Essential Oils Work?":

During inhalation, odor molecules travel through the nose and affect the brain through a variety of receptor sites, one of which is the limbic system, which is commonly referred to as the “emotional brain.”

The limbic system is directly connected to those parts of the brain that control heart rate, blood pressure, breathing, memory, stress levels and hormone balance (Higley & Higley, 1998). This relationship helps explain why smells often trigger emotions. Knowing this, we can hypothesize how inhalation of essential oils can have some very profound physiological and psychological effects!

And from "How Do I Choose and Use Essential Oils?" we find an application specifically relevant to the SG-2000 bubble massage spa:

. . . you can apply essential oils topically using compresses, sprays, baths, or massaging them into the skin. . . .

Bath: Drops of essential oils are added to bath water in a dispersant immediately before stepping in. This method results in absorption through the skin, as well as inhalation of the volatilized essential oil. A few tablespoons of full cream milk can be used as a dispersant.

Remember, essential oils are not water soluble; thus they will float on top of the bath and skin passing through the oil will be exposed to full strength essential oil. Bath salts can also be used to disperse essential oils. A relaxing bath base can be made by mixing 1 part baking soda, 2 parts Epsom salts, and 3 parts sea salt. Add 6 drops of true lavender essential oil to about 2 tablespoons of this mixture and mix it into bath water just before entering.

Another page on this website describes research currently taking place:

Although essential oils have been used therapeutically for centuries, there is little published research on many of them. However, this is beginning to change as more scientific studies on essential oils are conducted around the world.

Clinical studies are currently underway in Europe, Australia, Japan, India, the United States, and Canada. Many of these studies describe the remarkable healing properties of various oils.

. . . Research studies on essential oils show positive effects for a variety of health concerns including infections, pain, anxiety, depression, tumors, premenstrual syndrome, nausea, and many others. The articles included below are meant to highlight a few examples.

Anti-Microbial Effects

There is considerable international literature on the effects of essential oils against a wide range of bacterial, viral, and fungal microorganisms. Study results suggest that certain essential oils and components have strong bactericidal action, some even against antibiotic resistant microorganisms. Tea tree (Melaleuca alternifolia) oil in particular has a wide range of research studies that report its anti-microbial properties.

Click to download a PDF file of these research studies.

Pain

Some studies have been conducted on the use of aromatherapy for pain treatment. These studies suggest that essential oils may be effective for reducing discomfort during childbirth, headaches, gastrointestinal procedures, and for wound pain.

Click to download a PDF file of these research studies.

Psychological Effects

There are some studies on the psychological effects of essential oils. These studies suggest that essential oils may be effective for reducing anxiety and mild depression.

Click to download a PDF file of these research studies.

Toxicity and Sensitivity

Published reports suggest that a small proportion of individuals may develop sensitivity to topically applied essential oils. In addition, toxicity can result from accidental or intended ingestion.

Click to download a PDF file of these research studies.

Other Interesting Studies

There are other studies that examine the use of essential oils for such purposes as mosquito repellency, the potential to treat skin cancer, alopecia areata, and to affect glucose and insulin levels.

Click to download a PDF file of these research studies.

Expert contributor: Linda Halcon, Ph.D., M.P.H., B.S.N., R.N.

Created: March 2006

Other Resources

1) National Association of Holistic Aromatherapists

2) International Journal of Aromatherapy

3) International Council for Aromatic and Medicinal Plants (ICMAP)

4) AGORA, The Aromatherapy Global Online Research Archives

5) Essential Oils: Their Lack of Skin Absorption, but Effectiveness Via Inhalation (Martin Watt)

6) Aromatherapy Case Studies (Danila Mansfield)

7) FAQ Page (Michel Vanhove)

8) What is Aromatherapy and How Does it Work? (Martin Watt)

9) The Dangers of Some Essential Oils Sold on the Internet (Martin Watt)

10) Natural Toxins in Traditional Medicines - Some Myths Removed (Martin Watt)

11) Correcting the Gross Errors in Aromatherapy Teaching (Martin Watt)

12) Aromatherapy and Essential Oils Website

13) Aromatherapy Benefits: It Does More Than Just "Smell Good"

14) Aromatherapy Stress Relief

15) Which Problems can Aromatherapy Help? Results of Clinical Studies

16) A Beginner's "Essentials" [Oils]

17) Advanced Aromatherapy: The Science of Essential Oil Therapy, Kurt Schnaubelt, Ph.D. [book]

NAPRA Review Vol. 9, No.5 : "Schnaubelt brings singular authority to this explanation of the reasons why essential oils act on different systems of the body. This is aromatherapy's next generation, based in scientific analysis and structured to produce predictable results. Essential for the serious student." [Amazon]

18) Medical Aromatherapy: Healing With Essential Oils, Kurt Schnaubelt, Ph.D. [book]

19) Clinical Aromatherapy: Essential Oils in Practice, Second Edition, Jane Buckle [book]

James Barlow, Irish Pharmacy Journal, January 2005:

"The text is undoubtedly a progressive and ambitious work, and showcases the enthusiasm and experience of the author, and can be recommended to health professionals with an interest in the integration of conventional medicine with complementary and alternative therapies." [Amazon]

20) The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Essential Oils: The Complete Guide to the Use of Oils in Aromatherapy and Herbalism (Illustrated Encyclopedia), Julia Lawless [book]

21) The Complete Book of Essential Oils and Aromatherapy, Valerie Ann Worwood [book]

22) 375 Essential Oils and Hydrosols, Jeanne Rose [book]

23) Natural Home Health Care Using Essential Oils, Daniel Penoel, M.D. [book]

24) Essential Oils Desk Reference (3rd Edition), by Essential Science Pub. (Compiler) [book]

25) Essential Oils Integrative Medical Guide: Building Immunity, Increasing Longevity, and Enhancing Mental Performance With Therapeutic-Grade Essential Oils, D. Gary Young [book]

26) The Practice of Aromatherapy: A Classic Compendium of Plant Medicines and Their Healing Properties, Jean Valnet, Robert B. Tisserand (Editor) [book]

27) Aromatherapy Science: The Facts and Research on Scent: The Scientific Evidence on Aromatherapy and Mood, Wanda Leibowitz

28) Disorders that Aromatherapy Can Cure, Mike Mcgee

29) Soothe Your Stress With Aromatherapy, Heather Haapoja

30) Aromatherapy 101: What is Aromatherapy?

31) Why is Aromatherapy Effective?

32) Aromatherapy in the Bath

33) An Epsom Salt Bath

34) Medicinal Benefits of Soaking in Epsom Salts (magnesium sulfate)

35) Detox Baths For Purification

36) Epsom Salt Baths (Massage Therapy Centre)

37) Detox Yourself

38) Moya Essential Bath Oils (sold in conjunction with the SG-2000 spa):

Grand Sun Moya Essential Bath Oils provide the perfect compliment for the SG2000 spa device, adding extra enjoyment to your spa treatment.

	Imported from Germany Free from alcohol 100% essential oils Specially formulated for hydrotherapy Refined and mild Natural fragrance No artificial coloring or emulsifiers

39) Moya Bath Salts (sold in conjunction with the SG-2000 spa):

The Moya spa (bath) salt contains rich amounts of natural minerals such as magnesium, potassium, zinc, sodium, sulphur and chloride. The SG2000 Spa at home machine is designed to aid in the absorption of each of these healthy ingredients. Moya Bath Salt Is: Excavated from a mineral salt layer 100m deep underground in the world famous hot spring area in Germany. Crystallized with 40% of herbal essence and examined by R-Moyea Lab, contains rich natural minerals such as magnesium, potassium, zinc, sodium, sulphur & chloride. 3-5 times higher density than regular sea salt & vitalized micro-particles 10 times more active trace elements, and eliquescence is not a problem (whereas it is a problem for normal sea salt). An excellent anti-moisturized property (regular sea salt is easily melted

Spa Salt 1: Melissa contains rich special lemon Melissa extract and Indian Cymopogon Winterianus. Benefits Calms, soothes, comforts, exfoliates and rejuvenates skin elasticity and improves sleep quality. -> <- Spa Salt 2: Seaweed Developed from valuable brown seaweed, contains a rich complex of naturally vitalized minerals and precious seaweed gel. Benefits: Provides your skin with mineral needs, rejuvenates, and soothes sore muscles after a hard day of work or heavy exercise. It stimulates good blood circulation, is anti-bacterial, and excellent for skin exfoliation and contraction Spa Salt 3: Lemon Crystallized with Mediterranean Lemon acid and Bergamot along with hot spring salt. Benefits Good for cleansing, sterilizing, exfoliating, and contracting the skin. -> BENEFITS from the minerals in the home spa salts MAGNESIUM Skin moisturizing, anti-allergens, enhances cells vitality and activates healthy internal body enzymes. POTASSIUM Important for skin hydrating-balance and regenerating cells CALCIUM Helps to balance the cells minerals and improve the bodies constitution BROMIDE Excellent for detoxifying, anti-bacteria and soothing the mind SODIUM Transports revitalizing ingredients to cells for nutritional balance ZINC Enhances the healing of skin abrasions and wounds SULPHUR Excellent for detoxifying and anti-bacteria CHLORIDE . Improves the balance of cell minerals

40 More on Essential Oils:

[ Link Back to Introductory article on the SG-2000 Spa ]

For a free, no-obligation "Q & A" consultation by e-mail or phone (in the US; my "dime"), and/or free trial spa (southeast Michigan area), contact Dave Armstrong (be sure to change the "[at]" below to @ ):

apologistdave[at]comcast.net

For all inquiries concerning purchase or the remarkable business opportunity, please contact my good friend and business associate Matthew Tan [see his website] (please remember to mention that you are writing to him as a result of reading Dave Armstrong's materials, Internet or print ad, etc.):

tkhme[at]starhub.net.sg

[more specific details on contact information, price, and the business opportunity can be found near the end of the Introduction paper]

Hydrotherapeutic Spa: Massage, Health & Fitness in Your Own Bathtub: Testimonies of Health Improvement

First, before you read the remarkable testimonies below, I'd like to make some preliminary comments on the nature of testimonial evidence (largely brought on by skeptical questioners). One person asked me: "So you believe the testimonials? Does your machine actually cure cancer? Do you think people who claim a device they are selling that goes in your bathtub can cure cancer are reputable?" I replied as follows:

I believe in the wellness philosophy. If you want to dispute this stuff, then by all means, make an argument, and deal with the scientific data I have assembled.

I believe my wife when she says her back is much better and when she says she sleeps at night and has a lot more energy. Would you like to call her a liar too? I keep an open mind on testimonials, and have no reason to doubt someone's self-report (unless it's a total fabrication, which I don't believe unless I am shown some compelling evidence to believe so). I also wrote in my Introduction:

One shouldn't blindly accept claims, with no rational investigation. Anecdotal evidence is good and not to be dismissed, but the problem is that, for example, one person in a hundred may be cured of cancer by using some method (spa or otherwise). That's great, but it's only 1% of all who tried (and that is statistically insignificant: one can get one out of a hundred for almost anything). Anecdotes usually don't tell us how many tried and failed.

I keep anecdotes in perspective, per the above, but I don't completely dismiss them out of hand, as you do. All the various aspects of the spa have been supported by scientific research. These things are good for health. They have a positive effect.

As for cancer, lots of factors go into both cause and prolonging the cancer victim's life. If you doubt that, go ask any oncologist in any hospital cancer ward: they'll tell you the same thing. My brother Gerry had leukemia and was given a year or so to live by the doctors in 1989. Due to various alternative treatments he lived till 1998.

My father has lung cancer. I haven't told him that this machine could cure him, but I sure do believe it could help him and promote health and recovery from all the deleterious effects of chemotherapy.

There is enough healthy skepticism to go around, too. Conventional medical procedures and even diagnoses aren't omniscient, and doctors are far too often incompetent (others, like our own family doctor, are wonderfully able, caring, self-sacrificing practitioners).

For example, doctors had my mother on ten different medications at once. She was then diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease and showed symptoms of shaking and lack of control in her nervous system. She was even hallucinating.

My sister and I simply looked at drug interaction charts on the Internet and some books about drugs and saw that there were several adverse indications. With the help of the advice of a nurse-friend, we weaned her off several of the drugs (Paxil was the biggest culprit) and her symptoms went away. The diagnosis was reversed by her doctor. We had found out that there was such a thing as "drug-induced Parkinson's."

My mother's doctors were so incompetent that they couldn't even figure out drug interactions that anyone with a computer could determine in two hours of browsing medical and pharmacological sites. Their dumb multiple prescriptions had actually caused the very thing they then wrongly diagnosed, because the symptoms are mimicked by the effect of the drug interactions.

I believe that laymen like myself are not stupid idiots (like too many doctors seem to regard people). We can think and study and try some methods on our own, and have the right to ask questions about any treatment, procedure, or medication, and make a rational decision. In my mother's case, the doctors were greatly mistaken and amateurs like my sister and I
figured out what was going on.

There are thousands of such cases. I'm neither anti-conventional medicine nor anti-science. But I'm anti-incompetent, overly-dogmatic, and closed-minded science and medicine. I'm not totally closed-minded to something different, like you are.

You can think I'm a gullible fool if you like. I'll continue to use the spa and reap the benefits that are already apparent. So will my wife Judy. So will thousands of other people, while you scoff and disbelieve everything.

Another person stated in my blog comments section for the initial presentation of the SG-2000 spa: "[F]rom my experience an ethical manufacturer of a health care product would never include testimonials that the product had cured terminal cancers or other serious disorders."

The literature from the spa company does not claim to "cure" cancer. One must be careful in critiquing. The four-page color brochure never mentions cancer, nor many other serious diseases. The longer, detailed booklet (magazine-length) doesn't, either. In fact, in a study of the SG-2000, by Dr. Pulket, he concluded that five major diseases could be treated (note: he doesn't even say "cured"): bowel syndrome, insomnia, arthritis, menopause, and anxiety.

Likewise, another cited study, from the Shizuoka Agricultural Society in Japan, directly testing the SG-2000, cited remarkable improvements in 17 maladies, but the most serious illness mentioned was diabetes (the second most serious being, perhaps, high blood pressure).

The objections all seem to come down to the value of testimonial evidence. Rightly-understood, there is nothing wrong or unethical about testimonies. They are the basis, for example, of much legal evidence and determination of guilt for alleged crimes (eyewitness report, etc.). Legal testimonies in courtrooms aren't studied in a laboratory, in a test tube, and published in a scientific journal, with double-blind, random, controlled studies, allowing for the placebo effect. Folks can be too skeptical for their own good.

Either these people (the spa testimonials) are liars and it is all a complete fabrication (complete with names, faces, and fake medical histories) or these are true accounts. If they are true, they are significant for the people involved, and potentially for others. Some of them report remission or absence of previous cancer tumors. I believe them. It doesn't mean that every cancer patient will be cured by the spa, but I think it is significant and exciting for what it is worth.

I agree (as I already stated in my Intro.) that more statistics or percentages would be helpful for further clarification and knowledge, but that doesn't wipe out the credibility or function of the testimonies, simply because scientific rigor has not yet been brought to bear concerning them. Science is not everything in life. It's wonderful, but it doesn't contain the sum of all knowledge.

Besides, if you look at chemotherapy and its success rates, they are very low. This is easily ascertained if you look at the scientific literature on the subject (as I have, myself, since my father has lung cancer; and tons of this stuff can be found online).

Doctors have told us personally (one oncologist friend, in personal correspondence), that rates of "cure" (defined for cancer patients as five years without further growth, or, roughly, a "remission") are pretty low, and that chemotherapy does very little, and in fact, can harm the body's immune system considerably.

Side effects are another serious problem with chemotherapy. The spa I am promoting works, on the other hand, on the principle (often neglected in conventional western medicine) of wellness, which seeks to help the body's immune systems and internal defenses against disease. It is primarily a matter of preventive health. But by the same token it can help to alleviate symptoms and sometimes, causes of existing disease.

My friend continued:

"If it was as you say perhaps a statistically insignificant occurance, ethical business practices would preclude one from placing the testimonial in an advertisement."

I don't buy this. The bottom ethical line (even given my "disclaimer") is whether they are true or not, not whether they have been tested and subjected to scientific rigor. In light of the low percentages of chemotherapy success (and that is scientifically verified a thousand times over), yet the continued, almost automatic recourse to it by doctors, what is so wrong with possibly considering or trying an alternative treatment that has shown some success in some people? We're dealing with people's lives here. The fact remains that these people experienced a remarkable recovery.

You seem to be willing to dimiss any report, simply because it isn't detailed and studied under a microscope by someone in a white coat. But these are real people with real recoveries. They were suffering and now lead much happier lives, because of a wonderful product: the SG-2000 spa. I'm not prepared to call anyone a liar without absolutely compelling evidence. So I believe the testimonies below, and anyone should at least keep an open mind to (at the very least) the possibility that something relatively unknown at present is causing these rather extraordinary health improvements. The copious, scientifically-verified material I have compiled indicates, I think, what these natural processes are and (to a large extent) why they are effective in promoting health and the body's immune system and fighting disease and physical maladies.

[For a further extensive discussion of related issues of testimonies and evidence, see my interaction with a severe critic: Response to Extreme Irrational Skepticism Regarding Alternative Medicine in General & Hydrotherapeutic Spa & Testimonials of Users, in Particular]

My friend and business associate, Matthew Tan Kim Huat: a vibrant 62 years-old young

Matthew had reduced his weight from 68 kg (149 lbs.) to 62 kg in 2 1/2 years with nutrition and fasting, but then in only six months of spa use, he went down to 49 kg (108 lbs.). He was also able to avoid having triple bypass heart surgery. He used to experience breathlessness climbing one flight of stairs. Now he can go up and down eight flights and feels very healthy, with lots of energy. Matthew was also an ex-prostate cancer patient. With the help of the spa, his 0.6 psa reading has been well under the 4 ug/L max. for the normal person.

Additional testimonies

Mr. Ekgapong: age 19, from Thailand: collapsed with cerebral thrombosis. He went into a coma for a period and then was bedridden for four years, unable to do anything. After using the spa for ten days, he started to sit, blink his eyes, and smile. After two months, he was able to walk with a walking aid.

* * *

Jessie Yeo: after two weeks using the spa and seaweed salt, her weight went down by 2 kilograms (4 1/2 lbs.). After six months, she had lost 10 kg (22 lbs.).

* * *

Katherine Yeo: after three months' use, she lost 11 kg (24 lbs.).

* * *

Mrs. Zhang Ching Fang, Taiwan, age 56: suffered from migraine headaches, gout, rheumatism, pain in knees and legs, and obesity; couldn't stand or lift up hands, had weakness in her entire body, injured vertebrae; needed brace straps. After six months of the SG-2000 spa, her migraines completely stopped, she was able to stand and walk, and she lost 20 kg (44 lbs.).

* * *

Mdm. Maria Goh, Singapore, age 58: suffered from severe depression due to grief (her husband died in June 2005), was suicidal, not able to sleep well, had blood in the urine. After her first spa, she slept soundly for 12 hours. Now the blood in the urine is gone, as is her depression.

* * *

Mrs. Huang Chew Ruan, Taiwan, age 50: suffered from body pains. Upon first using the spa, the pains worsened (sometimes this happens in the detox process; similar to withdrawal from drugs). But after three months, 80% of the pains were gone, with total relief from pain in six months.

* * *

Mrs. Zhang Yar Ching, China, age 50: had rheumatoid arthritis, high blood pressure, heart problems, backaches; unable to breathe well; could only walk for 15 minutes without feeling exhausted and breathless; couldn't be left alone. She felt better after two weeks of the spa, and after three months, all the problems subsided.

* * *

Mdm. Chen Shao Mei, China: rheumatoid arthritis since she was a baby; dark pigmentation on cheeks and neck. She was treated with accupuncture from ages 1 to 7, and doctors recommended injection of drugs when she was 17, but these lowered her immune system and caused problems in internal organs. After one month using the SG-2000 spa, the pigmentation disappeared, her body became stronger, and the rheumatism was gone.

* * *

Mrs. Liu Fang Ting, Taiwan, age 45: whole body aches, gastric problems, bone and back aches, nerve pain, sinus problems, insomnia, numbness. She tried laser, accupuncture; doctors had trouble diagnosing the cause; needed injections for pain. After six months using the spa, all her pains were gone.

* * *

Mrs. Chen Siew Lee, USA: backache and nerve pains for seven years, heart problems, chest pains, highly stressed, trouble breathing, irregular heartbeat. After two months of spa, her heartbeat was normal. After three months, the backahce was cured and nerve pains gone.

* * *

Mr. Dennis Sim, Singapore: Very bad cough for over 40 years. Each cough lasted two to three months; mild diabetes. Unable to sleep due to the coughing. Because of the spa, the cough attacks have been gone for two years; diabetes medication was reduced, and can eat ice cream again.

* * *

[Link back to introductory page on the hydrotherapeutic spa]

For a free, no-obligation "Q & A" consultation by e-mail or phone (in the US; my "dime"), and/or free trial spa (southeast Michigan area), contact Dave Armstrong (be sure to change the "[at]" below to @ ):

apologistdave[at]comcast.net

For all inquiries concerning purchase or the remarkable business opportunity, please contact my good friend and business associate Matthew Tan [see his website] (please remember to mention that you are writing to him as a result of reading Dave Armstrong's materials, Internet or print ad, etc.):

tkhme[at]starhub.net.sg

[more specific details on contact information, price, and the business opportunity can be found near the end of the Introduction paper]

Hydrotherapeutic Spa: Massage, Health & Fitness in Your Own Bathtub: Anions / Negative Ions / Ozone

Reiteration of Basic Facts From the Introductory Page (Link)

Ever wonder why the air smells so fresh after a thunderstorm? It's because lightning generates ozone and anions (pronounced "an-eye-on"); also known as negative ions. A negatively charged ion has extra electrons. Anions are great for health, and lots are present in places like mountains, waterfalls, and beaches. The SG-2000 produces one million ozone-laden (O3, or "heavy oxygen") air bubbles per minute (or 46 liters [12 US gallons] of ozone anion-laden air thrust out of the mat through small holes every second; 0.03-0.05 ppm: the German FDA standard) and rapidly improves the quality of the bath water and surrounding air in the room.

Ozone is a quick-acting decontaminant and kills bacteria (it's even used by hospitals to decontaminate operating rooms). Its antiseptic powers are 3000 times better than chlorine; it breaks down toxins. An ozone bath boosts the oxygen utilization rate in human tissues and activates the cells of the body (which in turn helps to prevent cancer).

* * * * *

The WebMD website featured an article on 6 May 2002, entitled "Negative Ions Create Positive Vibes," by Denise Mann, and reviewed by the highly-credentialed physician Dr. Brunilda Nazario. Here are some excerpts:

. . . Negative ions are odorless, tasteless, and invisible molecules that we inhale in abundance in certain environments. . . . Once they reach our bloodstream, negative ions are believed to produce biochemical reactions that increase levels of the mood chemical serotonin, helping to alleviate depression, relieve stress, and boost our daytime energy.

. . . Ions are molecules that have gained or lost an electrical charge. . They are created in nature as air molecules break apart due to sunlight, radiation, and moving air and water. You may have experienced the power of negative ions when you last set foot on the beach or walked beneath a waterfall. While part of the euphoria is simply being around these wondrous settings and away from the normal pressures of home and work, the air circulating in the mountains and the beach is said to contain tens of thousands of negative ions - much more than the average home or office building, which contain dozens or hundreds, and many register a flat zero.

"The action of the pounding surf creates negative air ions and we also see it immediately after spring thunderstorms when people report lightened moods," says ion researcher Michael Terman, PhD, of Columbia University in New York.

In fact, Columbia University studies of people with winter and chronic depression show that negative ion generators relieve depression as much as antidepressants.

. . . Generally speaking, negative ions increase the flow of oxygen to the brain; resulting in higher alertness, decreased drowsiness, and more mental energy," says Pierce J. Howard, PhD, author of The Owners Manual for the Brain: Everyday Applications from Mind Brain Research and director of research at the Center for Applied Cognitive Sciences in Charlotte, N.C.

"They also may protect against germs in the air, resulting in decreased irritation due to inhaling various particles that make you sneeze, cough, or have a throat irritation."

[the article also states that air conditioners and computer monitors emit positive ions]

Peak Pure Air, an air purification company endorsed by the Better Business Bureau, offers a lot of fascinating related information in its web page on negative ions and ozone:

[I]n healthy outdoor environments such as in the mountains, or in a country meadow, the negative ion concentration is typically 2000 to 4000 negative ions per cubic centimeter. By contrast, the negative ion concentration in an unhealthy place, such as on congested L.A. freeways, is less than 100 negative ions per cubic cm. The negative ion concentration in most indoor environments is between 100 and 200 negative ions per cubic cm. In extremely healthy and invigorating environments, such as near a large waterfall, the negative ion level is around 1,000,000 per cubic cm. . . .

The ozone level in healthy outdoor environments is typically between 0.02 ppm (parts per million) and 0.04 ppm, which is the ozone level produced by Surround Air Ionizer purifiers. In most unhealthy indoor environments, the ozone level is virtually zero.

. . . the EPA advises us that indoor air pollution is the nation's worst environmental health problem, even 2 to 10 times as bad as outdoor air pollution. In addition, most people spend well over 90% of their time inside, making clean indoor air even more important for our health.

. . . [Negative ions are] approved by the U.S. FDA (Food & Drug Admin.) as an . . . allergy treatment. . . .

Other Negative Ion Benefits

Asthma, Allergies, and other Respiratory Problems and Illnesses. Many scientific studies have been conducted over the years (mostly in Europe and Russia) showing how exposure to high levels of negative ions drastically or significantly reduce asthma and allergy symptoms, as well as respiratory-related illness.

Migraine Headaches. Inhaling negative ions prevents the production of Serotonin inside the brain. The overproduction of Serotonin inside the brain is the cause of migraine headaches.

Depression. A study at Columbia University suggested that negative ion treatment is more effective than anti-depressant drugs such as Prozac and Zolof, and there are no side effects with negative ions.

Fatigue. The production of Serotonin (chemical produced inside the brain) also causes fatigue, and negative ions prevent the production of Serotonin inside the brain.

Sleep. A study in France found that negative ionizers helped people to sleep better, by preventing the production of the chemical Serotonin in the brain.

Mental Performance and Concentration. Several tests have shown people exposed to negative ion treatment perform much better in mentally-oriented activities than those who are not.

Physical Performance. Due to test results performed by Russian scientists, negative ionizers were always installed in the locker rooms and resting places for the Russian athletes.

Burns. Studies performed in one hospital found that burn patients were far more likely to recover more quickly and thoroughly. . . .

Effectiveness of Ozone at Low Levels

Russian scientists performed a study to see how effective ozone was at improving indoor air quality in schools. Respiratory-related illnesses were drastically improved after the ozone systems were installed. The ozone concentration produced by the systems were 0.015 ppm (parts per million).

In testing performed by two scientists by the name of Elford and Van den Ende, it was found that ozone effectively destroyed bacteria at 0.04 ppm.

Many publications have published studies showing the effectiveness of lower concentrations ozone (0.01 to 0.03 ppm) at removing odors and pollutants. Some of these include the Refrigeration Service Engineers Society (RSES), U.S. Air Force technical publications, and Manufacturing Chemist.

The Applied Ozone Systems website provides very extensive information. One particularly fascinating and educational page is Medical Ozone Oxygen Therapy References, which provides a host of scientific / medical studies backing up the claims of medicinal and therapeutic utility of proper levels of ozone. Here are some examples (see the link itself for many more):

* * * There are over 3,000 references in the German literature showing it safe, successful use in over 50 years of application to humans during millions of dosages.

* * * 1980 August 22nd Sweet F, Kao M S, Lee S. (Dept of obstetrics and Gynecology, WA. Univ. School of Medicine, St Louis) and W. Hagar (St Louis Air Pollution Control) publish in, Science Vol 209: 931-933, a U.S. peer reviewed scientific journal, their study: "Ozone Selectively Inhibits Human Cancer Cell Growth."

* * * 1991 October 1, The peer reviewed Journal of the American Society of Hematology published the ozone\HIV work of M.D. Wells, Latino, Galvachin, and Poiesz. Their article: "Inactivation Of HIV Type 1 by O3 In Vitro" appears in Blood Journal, Volume 78 Number 7, October 11, 1991, page 1882 describ[es] the research coordinated by Dr. Bernard Poiesz from Syracuse State Univ. of NY Research Hospital.

They performed 15 replications of a study that interfaced it with HIV infected factor 8 blood. It completely removed the HIV virus 97 to 100 percent of the time, yet was non-toxic to normal blood components. Ed McCabe announced this study back in 1988, in his Oxygen Therapies book.

See also 126 sources on the web page Ozone Research References. The Medical Society for the Use of Ozone in Prevention and Therapy in Germany is part of the European Cooperation of Medical Ozone Societies. It summarizes the current state of knowledge in scientific ozone studies (with regard to medical application):

* activates cellular metabolism,
* modulates the immune system,
* regulates the antioxidative capacity of the biological system.

The activation of immunocompetent cells

results in the physiological release of cytokins (interferones, interleukins)

Indications: diseases accompanied by a immune deficiency
As additional / complementary therapy for various types of cancer

Activated red blood cells (RBCs)

(increase in ATP and 2,3-DPG-Anstieg) thanks to a reduction in Hb-O2-affinity, this facilitates the transfer of transported oxygen to the tissue

Indications: Peripheral and cerebral arterial circulatory disorders

Enzymatc antioxidants and radical scavengers

(SOD, catalase, glutathion peroxidase and reductase...) are induced and activated, thus increasing the organism´s antioxidative capacity.

Indications: Inflammatory processes such as e.g. arthritis, reaktivated arthroses; strained muscles, myogelosis, trigger points; vascular diseases, aging processes.

See also the very helpful summary-table: Therapeutic Uses Indications. Detailed treatment aspects for many diseases are found on the page Information For Patients.

E. G. Beck, G. Wasser, R. Viebahn-Hänsler, published a very helpful article, entitled, "The Current Status of Ozone Therapy Empirical Developments and Basic Research", Research in Complementary Medicine [Forschende Komplementarmedizin], 1998; 5: 61-75 [complete PDF file: 30 pages]. They state (pp. 4, 24):

It therefore goes without saying that any responsible decision to apply ozone must be made against the background of scientifically founded knowledge. On the other hand, a rejection of the method by stereotypically repeating that the case in hand has not yet been confirmed by randomised, double blind clinical trials, is of no further help. Obviously, a treatment method used in private clinics has no financially powerful pharmaceutical industry to support it by contracting clinical studies demonstrating the efficacy of medical ozone under controlled conditions in a qualified design framemork and involving large patient populations.

. . . the negative assessment of ozone therapy and its subsequent image are based on unscientific statements in public media and scientific press showing a lack of proper information, together with the reasons against it expressed by the Medical Service of the health insurance organisations. The critical attitude shown by the representatives of conventional, official medicine towards ozone therapy can, for the most part, be explained as being a result of this.

This is often the case with regard to many alternative health and medicine practices and treatments (what else is new?). I fully agree with the authors that science out to be brought to bear, while at the same time, one must extend understanding of the handicaps of small, non-wealthy alternative practices and have an open mind to be able to see what positive results have already been achieved (the conventional medical establishment - for all its gladly-acknowledged successes and triumphs in many areas of medicine (especially surgical) - is notorious for having a closed mind against anything "alternative" that threatens its overwhelming dominance). There is existing evidence here that cannot easily be discounted.

Among many technical medical descriptions, the authors, for example, summarize the benefits of ozone (p. 21):

Ozone therapy is a non-specific form of therapy which, on the one hand, is able to set off a metabolic, self-regulatory cascade and, on the other hand, induce immunomodulation in the form of a general, physiological protection mechanism.

The authors come to another familiar conclusion in this classic example of a case where the overly-skeptical, extremely powerful medical establishment clashes with effective alternative treatments (to the detriment of patients in need of quick assistance):

Not to recommend ozone therapy for the time being would mean, in spite of all the criticism arising due to the incidents that have occurred, giving no importance either to the experience gained from decades of successful use, or to the large number of positive results from recent basic research. If we were here to wait until financially almost impossible, large-scale clinical studies were to confirm an efficacy we can already observe in reality, this would also mean not providing the many patients seeking help with a highly tolerant and low-risk, economic and in many cases promising (complementary) therapy form.

(p. 25)

The article ends with 72 footnotes of further sources.

Pine forests also have a high concentration of negative ions

Ozone in Medicine: Overview and Future Directions, is a comprehensive review by Gerard V. Sunnen, M.D. Excerpts:

Balneotherapy

Ozonated water bubbled in warm baths, provides stimulation of local circulation and disinfectant action to varicosities, peripheral circulatory disorders and dermatological conditions (eczema, ulcers).

. . . Although the inhibitory and lethal effects of ozone on pathogenic organisms have been observed since the latter part of the 19th century, the mechanisms for these actions have not yet been satisfactorily elucidated. Ozone is a strong germicide needing only a few micrograms per liter for measurable action. At a concentration of 1 g/m3 H2O at 1C, ozone rapidly inactivates coliform bacteria, staphylococcus aureus and Aeromonas hydrophilia.[44]

. . . The inactivation rate of enteroviruses[45] is more rapid than for E. coli, takes place in relatively small concentrations of ozone, and is influenced by pH, temperature, and the presence of ambient organic compounds.

In those clinical applications which make use of external (or body cavity) application of ozone, it can be appreciated that in view of the fact that a direct ozone-organism contact exists, inactivation of micro-organisms, bacteria, viruses or fungi, proceeds by any one of a variety of different mechanisms. The treatment of burns, superficial mycotic infection, decubitus ulcers and abscesses is applied by this method. Theoretical issues present themselves, however, when examining treatment strategies aimed at systemic infections, notably viral afflictions which make use of introducing ozone-oxygen mixtures into the bloodstream (usually major AHT). The ozone-treated aliquot of blood which is reported to be rendered viral-free through direct contact with ozone and ozone peroxides,[5] is reintroduced into the circulation. Since very little free ozone remains in solution due to its high reactivity, it is its products mainly lipid compounds, possibly others which are thought to interact with circulating as well as tissue-bound virions, thus inactivating them.

Within the dose ranges prescribed (up to 10 mg (O3/100 ml of blood), we may be curious to measure this overflow antiviral capacity. Although unproven to be outright curative for any viral illness, ozone blood treatment, as reported in several studies[21,31,55] may lessen clinical severity or duration. Thus therapeutic benefits have been noted in hepatitis, acute and chronic, and herpes.[55] In chronic viral infections Cytomegalic, Epstein-Barr and Retroviridae (AIDS) among others blood ozonation performed in viremic cycles or in periods of clinical exacerbation may, through direct action, through the production of cofactors inhibitory to viral replication, or through modification of immune function, be used in inducing viral quiescence. Ozone is reported to be an immuno-stimulant in low doses and immuno-inhibitory at higher levels.[15,26,27]

It is not inconceivable, in view of the possibilities given to ozone's antiviral properties that new generations of machines may be developed to test the therapeutic potential of the extra-corporeal treatment of circulating blood. . . .

Ozone Treatment in Cancer

The logic sustaining the use of oxygen-ozone application to the treatment of carcinomas rests on the strategy of capitalizing on the disturbed metabolism of cancer cells. Since the first bio-chemical hypothesis of cancer was proposed by Warburg[56] in 1925; that all tumors have higher rates of glycolysis under aerobic conditions than do nontumor cells, efforts have been made to find the variations which could best affect treatment strategy. Although his statement has subsequently been amended considerably, there is a massive and evolving body of research centering on biochemical differences between normal and malignant cells.[57]

. . . ozone may induce metabolic inhibition in some carcinomas.

In one study,[58] cultured cells of different carcinoma types were compared with non-cancerous human lung fibroblasts on exposure to ozonated air (0.3, 0.5, and 0.8 ppm of O3 for 8 days). Alveolar (lung) adenocarcinoma, breast adenocarcinoma, uterine carcinosarcoma and endometrial carcinoma showed 40% cell growth inhibition at 0.3 ppm and 60% at 0.5 ppm. The non-cancerous lung cells were unaffected at these levels. In 0.8 ppm exposure, cancer cell growth inhibition was 90%. Interestingly, it was at this level that the control cell group started to manifest anabolic slowdown (50%). The authors postulate that cancer cells are less able to compensate for the oxidative challenge of ozone than normal cells, possibly by way of a less functional glutathione system.

There are many clinical and anecdotal reports,[21,25,27,59] of ozone major or minor autotherapy, at times prescribed on a daily basis for several weeks applied to the treatment of various carcinomatous conditions but with a paucity of controlled data. Several researchers have focused their efforts on using ozone as an adjunct to radiation or chemotherapy.

. . . A review of a large body of literature is presented which describes a spectrum of therapeutic indications. Of these, ozone application for superficial infection, burns, dental and intestinal conditions, and possibly circulatory problems seem to be the most promising. As regards blood ozonation, further research is indicated to delineate the nature of its dynamics and the extent of its effectiveness in (1) the identification of the galaxy of compounds formed in this process which, in view of doses administered, by all evidence, have metabolic, immunological, endocrine and possibly neurological effects; (2) the purification of blood or blood components for transfusion purposes; (3) the inhibition of carcinomas with reference to the types which may be the most susceptible and to its use as an adjunct to radiation or chemotherapy; and (4) the inactivation or the repression of viral diseases with special attention to chronic conditions of the Herpes or Retroviridae (HIV) families.

Further Sources

1) Protective effect of ozone treatment on the injury associated with hepatic ischemia-reperfusion: Antioxidant-prooxidant balance, C. Peralts et al, Free Radical Research, Vol. 31, No. 3 / 1999 [abstract].

2) "Minimally Invasive Oxygen-Ozone Therapy for Lumbar Disk Herniation," by Cosma F. Andreula et al, American Journal of Neuroradiology 24:996-1000, May 2003 [full text].

3) Ozone Therapy (CaringMedical.com). Remarkably, despite listing a host of positive effects on many dozens of maladies of ozone therapy, and 59 footnote references documenting the positive medical research, this group decided to cease using ozone as a treatment. Why? Well, no one can tell from their vague explanation: "Our doctor team has decided to drop some of our interventional natural medicine procedures. Many factors went in to making this decision." Sounds like pure "medical politics" and intimidation from the powerful, almost monopolistic medical establishment (the site states: "Ozone is not approved or acknowledged by the FDA, AMA, or ADA"). It seems to be another classic example of irrationality in medical treatment. These doctors are fully aware that ozone works, but they have been threatened in some manner. The site states:

Caring Medical and Rehabilitation Services (CMRS), S.C., is a comprehensive natural medicine center just outside of Chicago, Illinois in the suburb of Oak Park. The center utilizes the most innovative and effective natural medicine treatments from around the world. The Ozone Therapy is actually done in the Caring Cancer and Interventional Natural Medicine Center which is part of the CMRS complex. Dr. Hauser calls Ozone Therapy "the most underutilized of all the effective natural medicine therapies".

Dr. Hauser as founder and director of CMRS has since its inception had Ozone Therapy as part of its treatment protocols. Dr. Hauser was taught Ozone Therapy by Dr. Stephen Elsasser and then by the then president of the German Ozone Society Gerd Wasser. Dr. Hauser made two separate trips to Germany and was able to study and befriend Dr. Wasser who some consider to one of the most knowledgeable men in the world on Ozone Therapy. Dr. Wasser has referred patients (americans) to Dr. Hauser for Ozone Therapy.

Caring Medical is one of the few centers in the world that has utilized Ozone Therapy in all of its facets. This has included not only routinely using Ozone Therapy in its cancer regimes but most of the conditions discussed in Renate Viebahn-Haensler's book The Use of Ozone in Medicine have been treated at CMRS with Ozone Therapy.

4) Warburg O: "On the origin of cancer cells." Science 1956;123:309-315.

5) Wenzel D, Morgan D: "Interactions of ozone and antineoplastic drugs on rat fibroblasts and Walker rat carcinoma cells." Res Commun Chem Patho Pamacol 1983;40(2):279-288.16.

6) Sweet J, Kao MS, Lee D, Hagar W: "Ozone selectively inhibits growth of human cancer cells." Science 1980;209:931-933.

7) The utilization of ozone for external medical applications, Gerard V. Sunnen, M.D., 1998.

8) Books on ozone therapy.

9) Oxytech Research (includes page on Benefits of Ozone Steam Sauna).

10) The politics of AIDS and Ozone, by Thomas Levy, MD.

11) Medical Ozone and Cancer: Medical ozone saves lives in Europe, but the FDA continues to prevent formal testing in the United States, by Ed McCabe.

12) Why do doctors use treatments that do not work?, Jenny Doust & Chris Del Mar, British Medical Journal, 2004;328:474-475 (28 February).

13) Ozone University.com

14) Ozone, A Medical Breakthrough? , by Geoff Rogers. This is an investigative documentary video, featuring interviews with patients, doctors, including Academy Award nominated Nick Nolte, as well as top experts and representatives from U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the (NIH) National Institutes of Health. Narrated by Will Lyman (PBS Frontline).

15) Medical Ozone Therapy, by Stanley Beyrle, N.M.D. (Naturopathic Medical Doctor).

Medical ozone is accepted by the overwhelming majority of all German educated physicians and doctors. Most water purification in Germany is through ozone, and we are beginning to use it now to purify water in the United States. Ozone is a bleaching agent, a deodorant and a disinfectant; it is virucidal and bactericidal. If it can kill viruses and bacteria when used industrially, why can't we use it in medicine, and apply it to human function? Because it is inexpensive and the drug companies don't want it. There is no money in it for them.

. . . Ozone oxidizes the cells of the body systemically. It stimulates enzymes and phagocytes, the white blood cells which chew up the debris, the viruses and the bacteria in the blood. It activates alpha interferon, gamma interferon, interleuken II and tumour necrosis factor. Ozone is specific for pathogenic cells and does not hurt the good cells. With red blood cells, it increases the cascade of events that eventually frees oxygen from the hemoglobin molecule so that oxygen is released. It is effective with hepatitis B. We have not had one hepatitis patient that we haven't had success with. We use more than just ozone, but ozone is a major part of it. For pathological conditions produced by viruses like herpes, hepatitis, AIDS and cancer, we use 38-42 ug/ml.

16) What is Ozone Therapy? (The Dove Clinic for Integrated Medicine).

17) Oxygen/Ozone Therapy (Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine).

18) Alternative Cancer Therapies (The Cancer Cure Foundation): includes section on "Oxygen and Ozone Treatment."

19) Treating & Healing Cancer With Oxygen, Ozone & Hydrogen Peroxide (Healing Cancer Naturally).

20) Ed McCabe ("Mr. Oxygen") website.

21) The Story of Ozone (large compilation of articles by Osmo Joronen).

22) Ozone (Lifestyles Therapeutics).

23) Oxygen Healing Therapies website.

24) Ozone Stimulation website.

25) Ozone Cancer Treatments

26) Ozone Therapy (hyper-linked index of collected papers).

27) The Oxygen and Oxidative Therapies: broad utility in treating chronic degenerative disease and in anti-aging, Eric Chan.

28) "Repeated ozone exposures enhance bronchial allergen responses in subjects with rhinitis or asthma." Holz,-O; Mucke,-M; Paasch,-K; Bohme,-S; Timm,-P; Richter,-K; Magnussen,-H; Jorres,-R-A. Clin-Exp-Allergy. 2002 May; 32(5): 681-9

Our data suggest that repeated exposure to ozone, at a peak ambient air level, can enhance both functional and inflammatory responses to inhaled allergen in subjects with pre-existing allergic airway diseases, and that these effects might reach a clinically relevant magnitude.

29) "Biological and clinical effects of ozone. Has ozone therapy a future in medicine?" Bocci,-V, Br-J-Biomed-Sci. 1999; 56(4): 270-9

Although ozone therapy has been used as an alternative medical approach for four decades, it has encountered scepticism, if not outright objection, by orthodox medicine. This prejudice is not unjustified because ozone therapy often has been used without rational basis or appropriate controls. With the advent of precise medical ozone generators, it is now possible to evaluate some mechanisms of action and possible toxicity. In contrast with the respiratory tract, human blood exposed to appropriate ozone concentrations is able to tame its strong oxidant properties and neither acute nor chronic side effects have ensued in millions of patients treated with ozonated autohaemotherapy. This paper summarises studies aimed at clarifying biological effects, defining any possible damage, the therapeutic window, and suitable doses able to express therapeutic activity. Although an unfashionable and unpopular approach, it is hoped that orthodox medicine will help to critically assess the validity of ozone therapy.

30) Naturopathic Medicine Network.

31) BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine (PubMed)

32) Articles on complementary medicine in the British Medical Journal.

33) Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (PubMed).

34) Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (indexed in MedLine).

35) Alternative & Complementary Therapies.

36) Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine: An international forum for evidence-based practices.

"peer-reviewed, all-electronic journal, publishing research focusing on different aspects of evidence-based approach towards complementary and alternative medical (CAM) practices/ interventions and natural health products. This mandate also covers publications about whole systems of health care, including their integration with allopathic/orthodox medicine."

37) Alternative Systems of Medical Practice: Internet Resources: Alternative Medicine.

38) Internet Resources: Alternative Medicine Resources (Office of Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health).

39) Autohemotherapy: An effective tool to fight cancer, Francisco Contreras, MD.

40) What is Oxygen therapy and Ozone therapy? (Healthy Christian Living: Alternatiove Solutions for a Healthy Christian Lifestyle).

41) For many more articles on ozone. type "ozone treatment therapy medicine" into Google Search (http://www.google.com/).

EFFECTS OF NEGATIVELY CHARGED FRESH AIR
Improved sense of well being Increased rate and quality of growth in plants and animals Improved function of the lung's protective cilia Tranquilization and relaxation (decreased anxiety) Lowered body temperature Lowered resting heart rate Decreased survival of bacteria and viruses in the air Improved learning in mammals Decreased severity of stomach ulcers

From: More About Negative Ions web page.

42) About Negative Ions (Comtech Research) / Ions Can Do Strange Things To You, Robert O'Brian.

43) Negative-Ions and Computers, T. Neil Davis.

44) Negative Ions: Vitamins of the Air?, Jim Karnstedt and Don Strachan.

45) Asthma and Ions: Advanced Research on Atmospheric Ions and Respiratory Problems, Guy Cramer, Sept. 2, 1996.

46) Treatment of seasonal affective disorder with a high-output negative ionizer,
by Terman M, Terman JS. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. J Altern Complement Med 1995 Jan;1(1):87-92:

Abstract:

This study was designed to evaluate the antidepressant effect of negative ions in the ambient air as a potential treatment modality for seasonal affective disorder. Twenty-five subjects with winter depression underwent a double-blind controlled trial of negative ions at two exposure densities, 1 x 10(4) ions/cm3 or 2.7 x 10(6) ions/cm3, using an electronic negative ion generator with wire corona emitters. Home treatments were taken in the early morning for 30 min over 20 days, followed by withdrawals. The severity of depressive symptoms (prominently including the reverse neurovegetative symptoms of hypersomnia, hyperphagia, and fatigability) decreased selectively for the group receiving high-density treatment. Standard depression rating scale assessments were corroborated by clinical impressions. When a remission criterion of 50% or greater reduction in symptom frequency/severity was used, 58% of subjects responded to high-density treatment while 15% responded to low-density treatment (chi 2 = 5.00, df = 1, p = 0.025). There were no side effects attributable to the treatment, and all subjects who responded showed subsequent relapse during withdrawal. Treatment with a high-density negative ionizer appears to act as a specific antidepressant for patients with seasonal affective disorder. The method may be useful as an alternative or supplement to light therapy and medications.

47) Scientific Study Summaries of Negative Ion Air Purifiers.

48) Computers and ionization of air.

49) Negative Ions Information Center.

50) Negative Ions and Ozone: Myths vs. Facts.

[ Link Back to Introductory article on the SG-2000 Spa ]

For a free, no-obligation "Q & A" consultation by e-mail or phone (in the US; my "dime"), and/or free trial spa (southeast Michigan area), contact Dave Armstrong (be sure to change the "[at]" below to @ ):

apologistdave[at]comcast.net

For all inquiries concerning purchase or the remarkable business opportunity, please contact my good friend and business associate Matthew Tan [see his website] (please remember to mention that you are writing to him as a result of reading Dave Armstrong's materials, Internet or print ad, etc.):

tkhme[at]starhub.net.sg

[more specific details on contact information, price, and the business opportunity can be found near the end of the Introduction paper]

Response to Extreme Irrational Skepticism Regarding Alternative Medicine in General & Hydrotherapeutic Spa & Testimonials of Users, in Particular

The following is a lengthy exchange with a person who is very critical of the SG-2000 hydrotherapeutic spa, which I promote (see initial presentation and Introduction). He has now written several articles, in an effort at wholesale mockery and belittling of both my claims and my person. Nevertheless, despite these shortcomings, he occasionally raises some (at least) serious points of contention (whether erroneous or not) that represent the thoughts of many.

I shall do my best to select those rational, substantive parts of his overall argument that are not solely personal or instances of deliberate ridicule, in order to respond, so as to present a relatively reasonable dialogue of two opposing viewpoints. I cannot link to his articles or website in good conscience because of the low quality of the material and questionable ethics (but all of the material below - except for my latest responses made only here - is on his blog and publicly available). For my part, I apologized on this person's blog for my own angry statements in response to his treatments of me. His words will be in blue.

* * * * *

Unfortunately, when Armstrong starts quoting snake-oil testimonials about how his glorified Jacuzzi can cure terminal cancer and spinal cord injury, he instantly ranks himself with the worst charlatans and con-men . . . He should rename his blog scam-ad-scam loquitur.

I'm curious:

Are you saying that my wife Judy is lying through her teeth to her own husband about reduction of severe back pain as a result of 52% curvature of her spine and lifelong scoliosis?

Are you saying that she is lying about being able to sleep like a baby every night now for five weeks, after 13 years of insomnia?

Is she also lying about losing about seven pounds weight in that same time period?

I made very clear my position on the evidential status of testimonies, on the same page these appeared (and the URL cited). There is nothing improper here at all. Anyone who wants to engage in rational, science-based discussion about the various benefits of this spa can write to me anytime.

I have no opinion about your wife's testimony one way or the other. And I didn't cite it .

Later, he cynically characterized this, as: "Then you have his transparent and pathetic attempt at emotional intimidation: Who would dare call his wife a liar?"

You want to run everything down, so put up or shut up, and be consistent and fair-minded. Do you believe her or not, or is she a liar? Or perhaps she is mentally ill, so that her report can't be trusted? You characterized all the reports as "snake-oil testimonials". Does that include my wife's too? Or do you give her a pass? She has integrity and tells the truth because I know her (hence your convenient omission of her case), and these other people are all bald-faced liars and charlatans because they happen to be Chinese? Every last one of them?

But one can cite identical testimonies from people who frequent faith-healers of the [implied: quacks and fakes] variety. So it has zero evidentiary value.

That's not true. It's firsthand experiential evidence. Would you assume that a loved one of yours was lying if they told you they could now sleep after 13 years, or had far less back pain after literally a lifetime of it? Would you call them a liar to their face? On what basis? You deny them their self-report?!

Would you laugh in their face and scoff, as you are doing with these other people, and care not a whit that someone you loved was feeling much better, because their report had "zero evidentiary value"? I highly doubt it.

The spa I am promoting involves strictly natural processes, all in turn, confirmed in some way by scientific research in reputable journals. You can quibble with the studies if you like.

[I]t's absolutely immoral for you to reproduce "testimonies" of people who claim to have been cured of terminal cancer or spinal cord injury, &c., by using your spa.

On what basis? I have no reason to believe that any of these people are lying. They may be, of course (anything is possible), but unless I see compelling evidence to prove that, I won't make such an uncharitable judgment of any person.

This is especially true in the present case because I have seen with my own eyes the remarkable improvement of my own wife, who has suffered from severe back pain her entire life and the 22 years we have been married. That should make you rejoice, and be curious as to how this happened.

No one is claiming that anyone can be "cured of terminal cancer . . . by using [the] spa." What is claimed in some testimonials is that, in their particular case, the tumors were reduced, the cancer went into remission, or the tumors went away.

This either happened or it did not. You immediately claim it didn't. But I see no reason, epistemologically, that this is absolutely necessary to do. The objective person withholds his judgment until further evidence pro or con is measured. But it's not objective to automatically dismiss out of hand every report as a lie and a scam because it may have dealt with a serious illness. That's equal parts uncharitable and unscientific in spirit (because the scientific mind keeps an open mind about possibilities).

What: people have lied in the past about such things, so all these people without exception (and my wife) must necessarily be liars? We can't trust a word any of them say? The whole thing is a complete scam? This is, of course, unreasonable and uncharitable as well.

All that said, and without judging any particular testimony, upon further reflection as a result of these exchanges (yet on a different basis than the ultra-skeptical reasoning my opponent has exhibited), I do think it would probably be wise, as a prudential judgment, to remove the testimonials that have to do with cancer and similarly serious, possibly terminal diseases. I have decided to do that, not because I think they are necessarily or even likely untrue, (let alone that my opponent's wild charge of "absolutely immoral" applies) but because of common misperceptions of the value and significance of one piece of anecdotal evidence.

Following up on that, I think people are largely not trained to think critically, or to discern the various levels and types of evidence. So, for instance, someone with cancer may see a testimonial concerning it, and believe that this means anyone with cancer (or, say, a majority) will be cured by therapeutic spa. I have not claimed that at all (far from it!), nor has the manufacturer of the spa (Grand Sun International).

But since we don't have further statistical evidence, and given people's tendency to overlook such considerations, it is, arguably, better to not include such testimonies until more statistical, scientific data is also available, so as not to raise false hopes. It is a sort of "concession" to deficiencies in perceptions and shortcomings in analyzing of various types of data, in the general public. Therefore, I remove them, while happily acknowledging that such testimonies exist, and may, therefore, very well be true with regard to those particular cases (with no implied general, wider claim).

I also have removed another paper devited to showing some evidence in studies linking infrared radiation and hyperthermia to effective cancer treatment, for the same reason: people will tend to make connections and reach conclusions from what I posted there that don't follow and that I do not hold, so it's best to remove it. There are a few related references in the existing paper on infrared rays that were moved from the old paper, if anyone wants to see those.

I take science very seriously, and I am willing to go where its confirmed results lead. If these researchers say there is some basis for whatever it is they are studying, and they demonstrate it by the usual accepted empirical methods and processes, I accept their results.

In my opinion, a truly scientifically-informed mind will say it is possible that the spa can be helping folks. And it is an unscientific, irrational attitude that would dismiss the finds of science about so-called "alternative" medicine, out of hand, on grounds that some people in the history of the world have lied in their "testimonials"; therefore everyone who gives a testimony is a liar. This is atrocious logic, needless to say. For my part, I'll defend my beliefs unless and until I am presented reasoning that is sufficient to overthrow them.

Another person entered the discussion and stated that my critic "never once mentioned Dave's wife." That's irrelevant (that he didn't mention her). My wife is relevant to this very discussion because I included her own testimonial in my literature for the spa. Her case illustrates a very important principle: if one person is telling the truth about something, perhaps the others may be also. This undermines an irrational, ridiculous hyper-skepticism that would contend that everyone giving similar testimony is lying and it is all a scam and a ruse.

He knows full well (he's not dumb) that if he grants my wife's case, that there is no compelling reason to immediately dismiss all the others, as he has been doing. All I want to do is talk intelligently about the different natures of evidence and their relative strengths, and about scientific research.

It's a crucial question about the value of eyewitness, firsthand, experiential testimony. I am saying it can't be dismissed out of hand. He seems to imply that it can be. My wife's own testimony is absolutely relevant to that discussion.

But she's not across the sea; a picture on a page, from a different culture. She's a real flesh-and-blood person who lives with me. So my critic doesn't want to deal with that because he knows how it will undermine his dubious position, if he admits that she is telling the truth.

If she's telling the truth, then what happens? Well, this "snake oil" machine I am promoting is actually doing something and helping people. And then it is not so immoral that I am trying to sell it, is it? So I continue to ask him what he thinks about my wife's remarkable improvement?

My critic decided to write another lengthy critique, making more wild and unsubstantiated charges. He (to put the most charitable slant on it possible) either reads very poorly or doesn't comprehend what my position on all these matters is, because he consistently presents a distorted version of my supposed beliefs and advocacy. I'll try to straighten up all the misinformation as best I can. I could literally spend three days on this: that is how distorted his presentation is. But I have other things to do, so I'll do what I can with the time available to me.

At one level is the inherent silliness of a man who defends aromatherapy and other miscellaneous quackery as hard science.

Whether what I advocate is quackery remains to be proven (to put it mildly). I've presented scientific evidence in support of the possible therapeutic and health-enhancing effects of the various aspects of the SG-2000 spa machine [including a brand-new paper since this writing, giving explicit scientific explanations for ultrasonic wave energy and cavitation]. My critic hasn't dealt with any of that: not one word. Instead, he chooses to distort and use highly-charged words such as "quackery." Let no one mistake this for rational (let alone scientific) argument. It's not. It's bald assertion, playing upon certain widespread existing prejudices in the public at large.

Descriptions such as "snake oil salesman" are well-known in America as descriptions of a certain type of unscrupulous huckster or con man (and unfortunately, America has a notorious history of an abundance of such shady characters; virtually every salesman - no matter how honest and ethical - has to regularly deal with this baggage). It conjures up derogatory, nefarious images immediately. Slapping this label on someone is a deliberate technique used when trying to tar and feather them without using reason and fact. It's classic propagandizing and smear tactics.

So, take, for example, his mocking or aromatherapy (again, with no argument whatsoever). And one ought to also keep in mind that my opponent is a young earth creationist who believes that the universe is between 6000-10,000 years old. So we have the surreal spectacle of a man who accepts a ludicrous position rejected by probably 99.9% of all the world's scientists, lecturing someone else on "quackery" and lack of scientific evidence, when the other person has presented much scientific verification for his position (which is, in turn, inconsistently and irrationally summarily ignored).

What claims have I made about aromatherapy? Very little. One need only refer to my paper on that topic. I cite a great deal of scientific findings in that paper, as I do in most of mine on the topic of the spa. Readers (especially overly-skeptical types) are urged to take a look at it. My opponent simply mocks; I provide scientific reasoning. For example, I cite the article, "Aromatherapy: What Is It?," by Jane Buckle, Ph.D., R.N., from HerbalGram: The Journal of the American Botanical Council, 2003;57:50-56:

British nurses are insured by the Royal College of Nurses to use essential oils (both topically and inhaled) for improved patient care, provided their hospital approves and without a doctor's specific instructions. Further, some hospitals also allow non-nursing personnel to use essential oils. Aromatherapy is also used by nurses in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany, and Switzerland, and is becoming popular in the United States.

Jager et al showed that linalyl acetate and linalol, two components in essential oil of English lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill., Lamiaceae), were absorbed from a 2 percent dilution of English lavender in peanut oil through the abdominal skin of human subjects "within minutes" and detected in the blood plasma (ca. 10 ng/ml). The maximum level was attained at 20 minutes; even at 90 minutes, the two components could still be detected.

Fuchs et al demonstrated that (R)-(-)- carvone easily penetrated the skin of human subjects, producing a plasma concentration of 24—32 ng/ml after almost 30 minutes. Covering the skin produced a significantly higher effect. Twenty-five percent (R)-(-)- carvone in peanut oil was used. (R) carvone is an isomeric ketone found in caraway (Carum carvi L., Apiaceae). (L) carvone is found in spearmint (Mentha spicata L., Lamiaceae).

. . . In an email in June 2002, Buchbauer, who led much of the experimental work on topical absorption at the Institute of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of Vienna in Austria from the 1980s, is very clear, "It is now common knowledge that fragrance compounds are absorbed through the skin into the blood stream."

West Indian lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus (DC. ex Nees) Stapf, Poaceae) was shown to have topical analgesic effects and appeared to increase the effects of morphine. The component in West Indian lemongrass that produces the analgesic effect is myrcene, a monoterpene. Topically applied Roman chamomile reduced the perception of pain by patients with cancer in a randomized study by 51 patients. One of the patients in the study said, "I know most definitely that it [aromatherapy] has helped me in my quest for pain relief." In each of these studies, diluted essential oils were applied topically in a massage so it is difficult to extrapolate what analgesic effects are attributable solely to the essential oils. However, in a single case-study, inhaled damask rose essential oil (Rosa damascena Mill., Rosaceae) was found to be highly effective in reducing the perception of chronic pain in a patient with uncontrollable pain, despite patient-controlled morphine analgesia.

The University of Minnesota has an extensive page on aromatherapy, including mention of several recent medical-scientific studies. I present much more evidence in my paper. My critic can scoff at all that and dismiss it if he likes, but what does he know about the field? Probably no more than I do, which is next to nothing. That's precisely why I cite those scientists who do study these things. This is how science works. One can sneer at it if they like, but that is no rational argument. The fact remains that I have presented a significant amount of supporting evidence, but on the other hand, my opponent specializes in snickering and put-down remarks based on ignorance of the actual field in question.

I came up with, for example, the article, Aromatherapy Science: The Facts and Research on Scent The Scientific Evidence on Aromatherapy and Mood, by Wanda Leibowitz. She writes:

The strongest evidence aromatherapy science has produced in favor of the stress reducing effects of smell was in a recent study on anxiety in hospital patients. In a study conducted at Manhattan's Sloan-Kettering Hospital, the scent of vanilla was shown to help reduce stress related to claustrophobia 63% during MRI scans. This is a dramatic statistic, and has helped raise interest in aromatherapy science in the larger academic community.

In any event, I have made no extraordinary claims of healing serious diseases by aromatherapy alone. What claims I have advanced (implied through my citations) are more along the lines of relaxation, some pain relief, respiratory aid, etc. He doesn't like that? Let him quibble with the scientific studies, then, not with me. That is how science proceeds. And the person who understands and respects true science (not half-baked pseudo-science like my critic's young earth creationism), will follow it where the empirical, laboratory-controlled evidence leads, not refuse simply because of an irrational pre-existing prejudice based on folk tales and misinformation, or sheer ignorance.

Then there's the far more serious issue of serving up his overcooked quackery as a credible alternative to medical science when dealing with life-threatening illness like cancer.

Of course, this is a false dichotomy and a gross distortion of what I advocate: which is always (stated repeatedly in my papers) an acceptance of alternative health treatments and approaches only insofar as they can be backed up by solid scientific rigor and controlled experiment. Therefore, my viewpoint cannot possibly be characterized as an "alternative to medical science" because it invokes that same medical science at every turn, in its favor.

That's precisely why I've provided so much of that documented support! But my opponent utterly ignores it. I think he may do so because he realizes that a fair approach to and appraisal of my perspective would undermine goofy, inaccurate portrayals of it like the cynical description above.

In the first instance, Dave is simply being a buffoon. In the second instance, Dave is volunteering medically reckless and dangerous advice.

I'm not "volunteering" anything. What I'm doing is presenting medical-scientific verification, from reputable, peer-reviewed journals in the field, rather than the empty rhetoric that my opponent is currently specializing in. If that makes me a "buffoon" in his eyes, so be it. I'm glad (in fact, delighted) to be one, in the cause of helping people to be healthier and happier.

To claim that a Jacuzzi can relieve joint and tissue soreness or stiffness is one thing; to claim that it's a cure for terminal cancer, or spinal cord injury, or a coma, or a stroke is something else entirely.

Apart from the exaggerated report of grandiose claims supposedly made (already dealt with), the basic fallacy here is that the SG-2000 is a "Jacuzzi." It is not. It's not simply a hot tub (Jacuzzi is a well-known brand name for a hot tub). This was dealt with, too, in the introductory paper, thus proving again that my opponent seems not to have even read my material before lashing out with extreme vehemence and hostility. In the Introduction I dealt with this (a whole section on it). I wrote:

None of these effects (or full extent of the effects in some instances) occur in a hot tub, sauna, or a normal hot bath. They don't have ultrasonic waves. Nor do they have ozone-laden anions, nor (except for some kinds of saunas) far-infrared rays. These other water or steam-based practices basically warm the skin only, while an ultrasonic massage bath warms the internal organs (much like the sun does on a hot day). The jet-stream massage of a hot tub is partial and local (usually the lower back) compared to the full-body massage of the SG-2000. Cleansing in the other three methods requires soap. Relaxation and body contouring effects are also less in a sauna and hot tub and minimal in a standard bath.

There is some overlap: notably in the infrared saunas now available that heat the body in the same fashion (internally, not just on the surface). One sweats in the sauna like they do in the SG-2000 spa, but there is no ultrasonic bubble massage, which produces an exercise effect and burning of calories in addition to simply sweating off calories (corroborated by research in The Journal of the American Medical Association).

Natural hot springs often have infrared rays, but also not the massaging effect of ultrasonic bubbles and the process known as cavitation, whereby collapsing air bubbles in liquid create ultrasonic shock waves (or, usually, the ozone). My critic simpy doesn't grasp all the combined features of the SG-2000 spa. Until he does, he'll be doomed to regard it as simply a variant of a hot tub, or a bubble-making machine, as if it were a child's toy. He seems to not have the slightest inkling what is involved.

Since he chooses to make this personal,

Not at all, as explained above. It is about the nature of various types of evidence; my wife being an example of anecdotal, or eyewitness, or testimonial evidence.

the very reasons he gives for believing his wife are the very reasons I'd give for suspending judgment: he knows her and I don't. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable for me, as a second party, to reserve judgment on his very own grounds.

This is where he hangs himself in his own internal consistency and double standards of evaluation. This was exactly my point in bringing her up. If it is reasonable for him to reserve judgment on my wife's case, then it is equally reasonable for him to ALSO reserve judgment on all the other case studies, because he doesn't know those people either. It's very simple, straightforward logic (and ethics: not simply assuming that people giving reports are liars).

But he wants to have it both ways, and equivocate. He'll reserve judgment on my wife, but he won't for the other people. He does it with regard to my wife because he doesn't know her. But he doesn't do it for the others, because - and here is the inconsistency - he applies a different standard to both classes of people (wives of one's opponent vs. strangers to both).

And underlying that internal logical inconsistency is a further aspect: he knows that my eyewitness testimony of my wife's progress cannot so easily be dismissed, and that he will look like a fool if he tries to do so. But again: if that means, therefore, that there is something to my wife's testimony, then who's to say that there isn't also something to some or perhaps all the other testimonies?

If the spa has a positive effect on one person, why can't it, on other people? The more testimonies come in, that it is helping people in fact, the more credible and plausible (all things being equal) the testimonies become (considered as a whole) by the principle of accumulated quantitative evidence leading to the same conclusion: the spa helps people to be healthier! All this amounts to a sheer logical fallacy and double standard on my critic's part.

Likewise, emotional leverage only works with people we know and care about, or vice versa.
Since I don't know Armstrong or his wife, his appeal has no traction with me.

Since my point there was logical, not emotional in the first place, this is a non sequitur. The counter-point had logical power; it trapped him "on the horns of a dilemma," as classical logic puts it. He's more than sharp enough to know that and to know where it was leading to, logically. So in order to avoid being trapped in his own logical fallacies, he opted to make out that I was making a mere "emotional" or "personal" argument, which is patently untrue. One might call this sophistry (to the extent that he knew what he is doing; and I have reason to believe from much experience with him, that he did).

What Dave has given us is not firsthand evidence, but a series of product endorsements via the very company which has a direct financial stake in the sale of the produce. This is, at best, a secondhand source.

This is a halfway decent point for a change (how refreshing). It's obviously true that there is always the suspicion of the advertiser's claims, due to his self-interest. And rightly so. hence the almost universal skepticism of the profession of selling and marketing. I'm the same way when I am deciding to purchase anything. But then again, this is why I have taken the greatest pains to back up everything I say about the spa that I promote with outside, non-interested scientific research.

It's true also, that one could argue that my wife has self-interest, as the spouse of the person promoting a product, which she claims has benefitted her. But this observation only goes so far, because there are truth claims being made that ultimately (beyond all the sophisticated epistemological analyses) are independent of the self-interest of the person making them. My wife either has far less of a sore back or not. She either sleeps very well now or not. She either weighs seven pounds less or not. Something like weight can easily be objectively verified by witnesses, etc. The other reports, at this point, have to be taken on my word and hers. But they are no less true, nevertheless.

I understand that one can be skeptical of things to varying degrees, based on the type of evidence involved, and its verifiability. I've already written about that, before any of this came up. My present point, however, is to say that:

If any individual anecdotal, testimonial claims are indeed true, as a matter of fact (granting that for the sake of argument), then they remain true regardless of the sort of evidence the claim may happen to fall under.

The bottom line is whether such reports are true or not. What is so objectionable in my critic's case is how he immediately assumed that the testimonial evidence was worthless and concluded, therefore, that a con or a scam was being undertaken (thus I was accused outright of immorality and conning the public with "quackery"). But I reply that he has no compelling evidence to disbelieve anything any particular person claims.

Granted, anecdotes are not nearly as valuable, evidence-wise, as controlled scientific studies (as I've already made clear in my spa papers), but they are not worthless. Nor are they insignificant (no more than the reports of any patient to their doctor about their symptoms are). They may often lead to a belief that a certain thing may be true, and in turn, to more controlled studies to verify whether one can make a more informed and categorical judgment on the matter or not. Despite all this, my critic then makes this remark:

Observe how, in the interests of lining his own pockets, Dave throws all evidentiary standards out the window.

The material above (and all my papers related to the spa) shows that this is not the case at all. In point of fact, I haven't made one cent so far, trying to sell this spa (though I haven't been doing it very long). I don't even know if promoting it will produce any significant supplemental income or not, at this point. But I know what the product has done for my health and well-being, and especially my wife Judy's.

If it turns out that I can't sell any of them by means of my educational literature (and selling anything has never been a very notable talent of mine), I will still have all these papers on my blog in the interest of helping people to feel better and be more healthy. And that is because I passionately believe in the product, based on what I've seen: from our experience, from testimonies, and from extensive scientific verification of its different elements.

My interest in the SG-2000 spa goes far beyond merely a financial one. It's not by any means "just about money" anymore than my other work as a writer is about money. I could have been making far more money than I do for years now, based on my abilities, but I chose to make less because I passionately believed in the work I was doing: that it could help people. Making lots of money isn't anywhere near my highest goal in life. But I don't look down on someone who has a lot of money. If they earned it fair and square, more power to them. It's all in how one uses money. Money in and of itself is not evil; making money your "idol" is what is wrong.

Let's see an independent organization investigate these claims. Let's see the organization interview the witnesses.

I think that would be a good thing, as I already stated in my papers. On the other hand, I don't take a hyper-skeptical view of the existing anecdotal evidence simply because more rigorous analysis hasn't yet occurred. That's where my critic and I are vastly different. I give people reporting their own health status the benefit of the doubt and of charity. I take their words at face value. I don't presume them to be liars, or merely self-interested.

Let's see medical records from a reputable physician regarding their prior diagnosis. Let's see medical records from a reputable physician regarding their subsequent "cure."

Some of the testimonials indeed include one or both of these things. My friend and business associate Matthew Tan had medical reports confirming his conditions. His later mother was visiting a doctor, and the doctor agreed that she needed less insulin for her diabetes, as a result of the spa. This is documented information. The testimony of Mrs. Shi Wei Shang, from Taiwan (now removed, per my decision explained above) noted that she went to a doctor, who confirmed that her cancer cells were gone (after having been given six months to live, by doctors).

The testimony of Ms. See Lian Hua of Singapore (still posted) noted a doctor's confirmation that her thyroid gland was normal (after 10 months of using the spa). Lin Cui Lin (a breast cancer victim) gave an extraordinary testimony (cited by my critic in its entirety) where confirmation by doctors was mentioned several times. Since I am removing it from the main testimonial page, but it illustrates so well that my critic is being hyper-skeptical, I shall cite it here (bolding added):

She was given two years to live (without chemotherapy) in 1996, but was able to go into remission for five years due to diets and detox programs, before suffering a sudden relapse. The tumor grew and she had to have a mastectomy in March 2005. She encountered great side effects with chemotherapy. On 13 July 2005, Lin came across the SG-2000 spa and says "it began to transform my life completely. I am deeply thankful for that." She had suffered water retention problems during chemotherapy. But after every spa she could relieve herself. After two weeks of the spa, her migraines, which had lasted ten years, improved tremendously. After four weeks, her back pain and stiff shoulders lessened. "Coldness" in the body subsided after six weeks. On 29 August 2005 her red and white blood cells were at 4500: the highest in ten years. On 29 September 2005, her cancer cells were at a normal level,and she stopped chemotherapy treatments. She continued to spa. On 2 January 2006, it was discovered that the tumors in her liver and lymph nodes were all cleared. She was given a clean bill of health on 5 January 2006 and was told she no longer needed chemotherapy. She reports: "I am now so much happier and very cheerful with lots of energy for life!"

Note that the doctors administering the chemotherapy told her she no longer needed it. This was not some wacko crackpot rebellion against conventional medicine. No; all along she confirmed the situation with her cancer doctor(s), and they concluded that her condition was improving. Now, a hyper-critic can choose to entirely disbelieve the entire story, or else pursue it further: trying to contact the person and her doctor, do interviews, see records, etc.

But say, hypothetically, that my own delightful extreme critic did that and confirmed that everything was absolutely true? What would he think then? Would he conclude that the spa had something to do with the reduction of cancer? It seems to have been the main thing that she did that was different. It stands to reason that it had some positive causal effect. Then he would be in the same position he is with regard to my wife's health improvements. He would be forced to admit that something was going on; that the spa somehow is helping (I think I have adequately explained why I believe it does help people).

But in this case it has to do with cancer. So what does he do with this information? Ignore it? Mock it and pretend that it has no significance for anything? At some point, if enough evidence is presented, even the irrationally skeptical person is forced to admit that there is something to it. Then (in my critic's case) he would have to admit that he had been dead wrong in trashing it and casting aspersions upon the motives of the one who promoted it.

Let's see an outside organization interview everyone who was subjected to alternative medicine. Not just the ones who were "cured," but the ones who were not. What are the percentages?

I agree. I stated this myself (in the Testimonials paper), before this present controversy ever began. But it doesn't follow that the existing anecdotal evidence is worthless until such a study happens.

Let's see a follow-up investigation a year after their "cure."

That would be good, too. I wrote in my Introduction:

Scientific studies do provide such data and statistics; they utilize controlled (often "double-blind") and random samples; they also seek to isolate causative factors and to account for any possible "placebo" effect. I view all this as a matter of being realistic, not raising false hopes, and "truth-in-reporting."

I have produced many, many scientific studies that (indirectly) back up the claims of the SG-2000 spa, and several of the aspects related to it (e.g., many dealing with arthritis and rheumatism, where the success rate is pretty high). If the spa works (and it does), it should be able to be verified by scientific examination. Its proponents like myself have nothing to fear from science. Science was used to create and manufacture the spa, and so it can also be used to confirm its positive results.

I seek the truth, wherever it lies, and I plan on always telling people the truth (and the whole truth) as far as I can ascertain it, in promoting this spa. I know that my wife Judy feels better and can sleep better (see her testimonial above). That's the truth. A study might show what percentage of people with scoliosis or sleeping problems show this benefit. The second (scientific) knowledge clarifies and expands upon the first anecdotal knowledge.

Let's see how much of the medical literature supporting alternative medicine is subsidized by a religious cult like the Unification Church.

Classic example of my opponent's ceaseless attempts to marginalize and ridicule everythng I am arguing for. If he likes, he can do a little study to determine whether periodicals such as Journal of Heredity (out of Oxford University), The Lancet Oncology, Annals of Oncology, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys., Cancer (published by the American Cancer Society), British Journal of Cancer, Int. J. of Hyperthermia, etc. are funded by the Unification Church (and those are just a few of all I have cited throughout my papers). Perhaps he could spend an afternoon inquiring about a reputable journal such as Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, published by Oxford University. An Oxford-Moonie connection? You never know! One can't be too careful of avoiding conspiracies, you know . . .

Let's see if the witnesses received any financial remuneration for their testimony.

I don't know, but I do know that my wife didn't. And even if any of them did, it wouldn't make their testimony less true, if in fact, it was true.

In other words, like's see some basic fact-checking from an outside source.

I'm all for that, which is why I have spent multiple hours confirming the various aspects of the spa by scientific studies in reputable journals, as much as possible.

One can get personal testimonies for anything and everything, from astrology, ufology, reflexology, iridology, psychic surgery, magnetic therapy, crystal healing, pyramid power, psychic surgery, the therapeutic touch, and Scientology to recovered memories of ritual Satanic abuse and male enhancement products advertised on cable stations at two in the morning.

This is true. Let's see all these folks back up their claims with science, as I have, then.

Science deals with the ordinary providence of second causes. There are things a Jacuzzi can and cannot do.

Once again: this spa has many features that the typical hot tub does not have (particularly ultrasonic waves and infrared rays). They are not identical; they only have some overlap in some aspects. Apples and oranges have some similarities too (they're both fruit, both sweet, both have skins), but that doesn't mean that someone ought to equate them.

Yes, I "quibble" with the power of hydrotherapy to cure terminal cancer or spinal cord injury.

No one is saying that hydrotherapy alone cures cancer or spinal cord injury. As to "spinal cord injury", I have one posted testimonial of a seven-year-old girl Sheary Chong, of Singapore, who suffers from Spinal Muscular Atrophy. The doctors said her muscles would deteriorate as she got older, but after spa use, they are strengthening. The doctors told her that she wouldn't be able to sit upright, but after seven weeks of spa, she did. The testimony did not claim that she was cured, or that she could even stand: only sit up and that she had more muscle tone.

There was another testimony of someone "paralyzed" who was later able to walk. I have decided to remove that, due to vagueness. If the prognosis had been, for example, irreversible paralysis, then it would be an extraordinary testimony indeed, and one could reasonably question it, or demand more hard facts. But perhaps there was a window of opportunity for improvement. If so, then the spa could be helpful because the ultrasonic waves penetrate to the bones and cause rejuvenation. But since it is too vague and without needed crucial information, I removed it.

I also "quibble" with the science of aromatherapy. Very backward of me, I know. How could I be so retrograde and unscientific!

That's fine. Then he should argue with the scientific sources I produced, and get his facts straight as to what I am claiming for aromatherapy: very little, and all backed up by solid research. He hasn't given us one single example of a counter-study yet. I'm still waiting. As for "unscientific," this person certainly already has shown that with regard to himself, by his ludicrous belief that the universe is 6000-10,000 years old. I must admit, though, that I am intrigued by a universe (even an imaginary one) where a man could ride on the back of a brontosaurus, just like in Jurassic Park! If I could go back a few thousand years, in my opponent's "scientific" world, I could have done that! So we can respect his fundamentalist-type views as "science fiction," if nothing else.

I'm very cynical and uncharitable towards a man who advertises hydrotherapy as a cure for cancer.

I haven't done so. This is a fabricated lie based on selectively presenting aspects of what I am advocating and putting them back together again (like Humpty Dumpty) in a way that I have not done. But it works well as propaganda and disinformation for the purpose of irrational ridicule and dismissal of opponents, doesn't it?

Forgive my cynicism, but when push comes to shove, I'm more charitable towards the cancer patient than the flim-flam man.

Right.

Armstrong's idea of "caring for the well-being of others" is to make money off of hydrotherapy by encouraging cancer patients and quadriplegics to believe that by buying his glorified hot-tub, they can walk again or overcome stage-four cancer. Yes, David simply oozes with compassion.

Another classic instance of sheer caricature and ultra-distortion of what I advocate. There was one mention of someone paralyzed from the waist down that I removed due to lack of needed information; nothing about quadriplegics that I am aware of. So this is a distortion for mere dramatic effect. I fail to see what is accomplished by systematic misrepresentation of an opponent's position, for the purpose of discrediting them. All that is "discredited" is the straw man of their making.

I'm quite happy to "make a fool of myself" by failing to share Armstrong's faith in the curative powers of aromatherapy. Shame on me for obstructing the stately progress of medical science . . . Yes, it's irrational to dismiss a hard science like aromatherapy.

More falsehoods at the service of deliberate propaganda. Aromatherapy was already dealt with. He simply uses it because for one not familiar with it, it sounds goofy and a bit "New Agey": just smell a rose or a lilac and get healed of cancer, etc. But it is far more than that caricature, as I learned myself, just in the last month. Nor is it devoid of scientific support. It has a legitimate basis (as far as it goes). If my critic had simply read my paper on it, he would have known that, but he prefers to not read and remain ignorant. And that seems to be his approach throughout.

I hope that my treatment of this typical example of the ultimately irrational, unreasonable hyper-skeptical attitude will serve as a general description of my approach to scientific and medical and health matters and a response to all similar sorts of inquiries and questions about my advocacy of the SG-2000 spa. I do think that I have amply proven that my critic is woefully inaccurate in his portrayals of my beliefs and my person, and even concerning many demonstrable facts about claims and health improvements related to the spa.

For a free, no-obligation "Q & A" consultation on the SG-2000 spa by e-mail or phone (in the US; my "dime"), and/or free trial spa (southeast Michigan area), contact Dave Armstrong (be sure to change the "[at]" below to @ ):

apologistdave[at]comcast.net

For all inquiries concerning purchase or the remarkable business opportunity, please contact my good friend and business associate Matthew Tan [see his website] (please remember to mention that you are writing to him as a result of reading Dave Armstrong's materials, Internet or print ad, etc.):

tkhme[at]starhub.net.sg

[more specific details on contact information, price, and the business opportunity can be found near the end of the Introduction paper]

Hydrotherapeutic Spa: Massage, Health & Fitness in Your Own Bathtub: Hydrotherapy, Hot Springs, Spas

From the introductory post:

The Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia notes ("Hydrotherapy"): "The use of water to treat rheumatic diseases has a long history. Today, hydrotherapy is used to treat arthritis, burns, spasticity, . . . musculoskeletal disorders, spinal cord injuries, and stroke patients with paralysis, . . . and to improve fitness. . . . A 2006 survey of research in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases discusses the vast amount of high-quality studies showing the effectiveness of hydrotherapy."

The basic benefits are well-summarized in the article "Hydrotherapy" in the Encyclopedia Britannica (1985 edition, Vol. 6, 195): "Wet heat helps relieve pain and improves circulation; it also promotes relaxation and rest . . . Whirlpool tubs and the Hubbard tank are forms of underwater massage in which the water swirls in constant motion over legs and arms or the entire body to promote healing . . . Hydrotherapeutic methods are usually employed by specialists in physical medicine and rehabilitation and by physical therapists." The composition of the human body is 65% water.

* * * * *

A typical example of the benefits of hot springs and spas, enjoyed for centuries, is the Hot Mineral Springs of Therma (Ikaria), Greece, in use since the 4th century B.C. A long, fascinating article about its therapeutic effects offers several facts that coincide with the characteristics of the SG-2000 spa, combined with mineral salts and oils:

The therapeutic effects of Ikaria's radioenergic hot mineral baths are delivered to the body primarily through inhalation while bathing (90%) with the remaining ten percent absorbed through the skin. . . .

Hydrotherapy in Ikaria's radioenergized hot mineral springs can have beneficial effects on the following diseases, disorders, and conditions:

* Chronic rheumatism
* Uric and other forms of arthritis
* Neuritis and other neurological disorders
* Respiratory diseases/disorders
* Endocrine gland disorders
* Cutaneous diseases and especially excema
* Gynecological diseases and sterility
* Allergies

. . . Hippocrates od Cos (460-375 B.C.),who is considered the founder of medical science and the father of hydrotherapy, paid great attention to the different natural waters which exist in marches and lakes, which are formed by rain and those which well out of rocks, namely mineral waters. These, he says, gush out and certain iron, copper, silver, gold, sulfur and other mineral elements.

. . . Well known Roman spas remain as historical monuments of architecture throughout Europe and also in Greece. Curative Spa-therapy has been finding wider application over the last two centuries. In many countries in Europe (Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Hungary,the Czech Republic, and Slovakia) new spa-therapy centers have been constructed which have superseded the old Roman baths. After the Second World War there were improvements or even new establishments whose operation was harmonized with modern medical approaches for the benefit of curative spa-therapy.

. . . To have effect, the thermal factor, the temperature of the water has to be 34°C or higher. Most springs of Icaria are above 38°C. The thermal factor acts in many ways: Namely, the straining of vessels, hyperemia, local perspiration relaxation of the muscles, improvement in the exchange of nutritious substances, and analgesia. At temperatures above 40°C there is absorption of fluid in the joints and penetration of mineral and radioactive elements which are beneficial in the treatment of various complaints.

As for the subconscious factor, its action is based on the laws of Archimedes which refer to elevation and to hydrostatic pressure. In water the human body becomes lighter, movements easier, muscle relaxation sets in, absorption of swellings and perspiration, and finally this has a benign influence on the human psych[e].

A more strictly medical recounting of the history of such water therapies is the article "A brief history of spa therapy," by A van Tubergen and S van der Linden (Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2002;61:273-275). It states in part:

The word "spa" may be derived from the Walloon word "espa" meaning fountain. This, in turn, came from the name of the Belgian town Spa, where in the 14th century a curative, thermal spring was discovered. Spa may also originate from the Latin word "spagere" (to scatter, sprinkle, moisten) or may be an acronym of the Latin phrase "sanitas per aquas" (health through water). In Britain, the word spa is still used, whereas in the rest of Europe the term "thermal waters" is preferred. Bathing in thermal water for therapeutic purposes has several descriptions (for example, taking the waters, balneotherapy, spa therapy, hydrotherapy), . . .

Around 1800 interest in the bathing culture grew. Further attempts to analyse the mineral water were made, aiming at improving its use in medicine, and at preparing mixtures of water identical to those mineral waters famous for their curative properties.10 Doctors were convinced that for each disease Mother Nature possessed an appropriate medicinal spring, which could be discovered through chemical analysis of the waters. Priessnitz and [Fr. Sebastian] Kneipp [a Bavarian Catholic priest] further developed the principles of balneotherapy (medicinal use of thermal water) and hydrotherapy (immersion of the body in thermal water for therapeutic purposes). Individual treatments were prescribed, based on the composition and temperature of the water. Also, combinations of treatments were developed consisting of hot and cold baths, herbal baths, mud packs, active physical exercises, massages, and diets. Kneipp advocated a holistic approach to the treatment of a disease. In contrast with the spa resorts, which aimed at the elite, Kneipp directed his attentions to the common man.

. . . After the second world war and with the rise in welfare, spa treatment became available for the common man in many European countries, mainly owing to reimbursement by state medical systems. Other activities and new treatments were introduced, and balneology, hydrotherapy, and physiotherapy underwent major developments.

In the past decades, a large change in the use of mineral water for the treatment of several diseases has taken place in continental Europe. The medical significance of bathing is now acknowledged, especially by many rheumatologists and dermatologists, and this aspect is considered more important for a number of spa resorts than prestige and leisure. Bathing is usually combined with many other treatments, such as physical exercises, hydrotherapy, and mud packs. The spa resorts are differentiated according to their location (for example, seaside, mountain area) and the chemical composition of their mineral water (for example, sulphurous, bicarbonated, or sulphated).

. . . In the past decade several randomised controlled trials have studied the effects of spa therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly allocated to receive spa therapy or sham/no therapy.

Wikipedia, "Sebastian Kneipp":

Sebastian Kneipp (May 17, 1821, Stephansried, Germany – June 17, 1897 in Worishofen) was a Bavarian priest and one of the founders of the Naturopathic medicine movement. He is most commonly associated with the "Kneipp Cure" form of hydrotherapy, a system of healing involving the application of water through various methods, temperatures and pressures.

. . . Although most commonly associated with one area of Naturopathic medicine, Kneipp was the proponent of an entire system of healing, which rested on five main tenets:

* Hydrotherapy
* Herbalism – The use of botanical medicines.
* Exercise
* Nutrition - A wholesome diet of whole grains, fruits & vegetables with limited meat
* Spirituality - Kneipp believed that a healthy mind begot a healthy person

. . . Kneipp was able to counsel many people. Tens of thousands came from all over the world to receive his healing advice. He was the author of the books "My Water Cure", "Thus Shalt Thou Live", and "My Will".

Further Sources

1) Observations on the effect of immersion in Bath spa water, J P O'Hare, A Heywood, et al, British Medical Journal (Clin Res Ed). 1985 Dec 21-28;291(6511):1747-51.

2) Dead Sea bath salts for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, S. Sukenik et al, Clin Exp Rheumatol. 1990 Jul-Aug;8(4):353-7.

3) Effect of spa therapy in Tiberias on patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis, O. Elkayam et al, J Rheumatol. 1991 Dec;18(12):1799-803.

4) Long-term efficacy of radon spa therapy in rheumatoid arthritis—a randomized, sham-controlled study and follow-up, A. Franke et al, Rheumatology 2000; 39: 894-902.

5) Prolonged effects of 3 week therapy in a spa resort on lumbar spine, knee and hip osteoarthritis: follow-up after 6 months. A randomized controlled trial, M Nguyen, M Revel and M Dougados, The British Journal of Rheumatology, Vol 36, No. 1, 77-81 (1997).

6) Combined spa-exercise therapy is effective in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized controlled trial, A. van Tubergen et al, Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Oct;45(5):430-8.

7) The Kneipp philosophy (five pillars) (Kneipp USA)

8) The Water Course (Kneipp), Jonathan Paul De Vierville

9) Father Sebastian Kneipp (brief bio)

10) What is Naturopathy? (Sebastian Liew Centre)

11) Hydrotherapy (Holistic Online.com)

12) Hydrotherapy and Aquatic Therapy, Dana L. Davis, M.P.T., M.T.T.

13) Michalsen A, Ludtke R, Buhring M, Spahn G, et al. Thermal hydrotherapy improves quality of life and hemodynamic function in patients with chronic heart failure. Am Heart J 2003;Oct, 146(4):E11.

14) Masuda A, Miyata M, Kihara T, et al. Repeated sauna therapy reduces urinary 8-epi-prostaglandin F (2alpha). Jpn Heart J 2004;45(2):297-303.

15) Kurabayashi H, Machida I, Kubota K. Improvement in ejection fraction by hydrotherapy as rehabilitation in patients with chronic pulmonary emphysema. Physiother Res Int 1998;3(4):284-291.

16) Haskes PJ. Beneficial effect of climatic therapy on inflammatory arthritis at Tiberias Hot Springs. Scand J Rheumatol 2002;31(3):172-177.

17) Gerber B, Wilken H, Barten G, et al. Positive effect of balneotherapy on post-PID symptoms. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud 1993;Sep-Oct, 38(5):296-300.

18) Constant F, Guillemin F, Collin JF, et al. Use of spa therapy to improve the quality of life of chronic low back pain patients. Med Care 1998;36(9):1309-1314.

19) Cider A, Schaufelberger M, Sunnerhagen KS, et al. Hydrotherapy: a new approach to improve function in the older patient with chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2003;Aug, 5(4):527-535.

20) Barsevick A, Llewellyn J. A comparison of the anxiety-reducing potential of two techniques of bathing. Nurs Res 1982;Jan-Feb, 31(1):22-27.

21) Hydrotherapy Glossary

22) Description of Various Mineral Baths

23) Thirteen Tips for Using Hydrotherapy at Home, Bill Gottlieb

24) Hydrotherapy, Paula Ford-Martin (Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine)

25) Complementary and Alternative Therapies For Cancer Patients: Hydrotherapy (University of California: San Diego: Medical Center)

26) What is Hydrotherapy? / How does it work? / Clinical Observations

27) Hydrotherapy (Tuberose.com)

28) Hydrotherapy, Cathy Wong (About.com: Alternative Medicine)

29) Spa Evolution, A Brief History of Spas, Julie Register (About.com)

30) My Water-Cure (1894), Fr. Sebastian Kneipp (book: translated into English)

31) The Cold Water Cure (1843), Vincent Priessnitz (book)

32) Hydrotherapy Theory & Technique, N Md Patrick Barron (book)

33) Testimonials of Users of Whirlpool Spas (similar to the SG-2000)

34) Osteo-arthritis and spa treatment

35) Medical Spas in Bulgaria

36) Hot springs treatment in Turkey

37) What is Balneotherapy?

38) Balneotherapy - Healing with Water (from: The Ultimate Guide to Taking the Waters, by Nathaniel Altman)

39) Balneological prospects in Iceland using geothermal resources, Hrefna Kristmannsdottir and Olafur Grimur Bjornsson, International Geothermal Conference, Reykjavik, Sept. 2003

40) Elevation of antioxidant enzymes in the clinical effects of radon and thermal therapy for bronchial asthma, F. Mitsunobu et al, J Radiat Res (Tokyo). 2003 Jun;44(2):95-9.

41) Effects of Hot Bath Immersion on Autonomic Activity and Hemodynamics, Yoshinobu Nagasawa et al, Japanese Circulation Journal, Vol. 65 (2001), No. 7, pp.587-592

42) Effects of bathing and hot footbath on sleep in winter, Sung EJ, Tochihara Y.,
J Physiol Anthropol Appl Human Sci. 2000 Jan;19(1):21-7.

43) Balneotherapy at the Dead Sea area for knee osteoarthritis, S. Sukenik et al,
Isr Med Assoc J. 1999 Oct;1(2):83-5.

44) Present features of balneotherapy in Japan, Agishi Y and Yoshinori Ohtsuka,
Global Environ. Res. (1988) 2: 177-185.

45) Spa Medicine International

46) Shinrin-yoku (forest-air bathing and walking) effectively decreases blood glucose levels in diabetic patients, Ohtsuka Y, Yabunaka N, Takayama S., Int J Biometeorol. 1998 Feb;41(3):125-7.

47) Treatment of refractory cases of atopic dermatitis with acidic hot-spring bathing, Kubota K et al, Acta Derm Venereol. 1997 Nov;77(6):452-4.

48) Effective physical therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Pilot study of exercise in hot spring water, Kurabayashi H et al, Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1997 May-Jun;76(3):204-7.

49) Balneotherapy and platelet glutathione metabolism in type II diabetic patients, Ohtsuka Y et al, Int J Biometeorol. 1996 Sep;39(3):156-9.

50) Endocrine and metabolic aspects of balneotherapy, Y. Agishi, Int J Biometeorol. 1985;29 Suppl 2:89-103.

[ Link Back to Introductory article on the SG-2000 Spa ]

For a free, no-obligation "Q & A" consultation by e-mail or phone (in the US; my "dime"), and/or free trial spa (southeast Michigan area), contact Dave Armstrong (be sure to change the "[at]" below to @ ):

apologistdave[at]comcast.net

For all inquiries concerning purchase or the remarkable business opportunity, please contact my good friend and business associate Matthew Tan [see his website] (please remember to mention that you are writing to him as a result of reading Dave Armstrong's materials, Internet or print ad, etc.):

tkhme[at]starhub.net.sg

[more specific details on contact information, price, and the business opportunity can be found near the end of the Introduction paper]

Hydrotherapeutic Spa: Massage, Health & Fitness in Your Own Bathtub: Introduction

SG-2000 Ultrasonic Spa

Total Body Massage / Relaxation / Ultrasonic Wave Energy

SG-2000's tiny yet powerful bubbles violently collapse and collide, creating ultrasonic waves (high frequency energy of up to 100,000 Hz or 10,000-15,000 micro tremors of energy per second) and their rhythmic impact deliver a massaging effect to the entire body, leading to complete relaxation and relief from fatigue and stress. Ultrasonic waves penetrate deep into the body, to promote healing and stimulation of tissues, especially beneficial for arthritis, rheumatism, sore backs, and other bone and tissue injuries.

Bones absorb ultrasonic waves four times more than muscle and soft tissue, so they benefit the most. The effects of a 15-minute ultrasonic massage bath resemble the results of a conventional professional massage. The SG-2000 spa is fabulous and must be experienced to be believed!


[read more specific and detailed scientific information on ultrasonic waves and the process of "cavitation"]

Exercise While Sitting in a Bathtub?

The ultrasonic waves created by thousands of colliding air bubbles deliver 1.5 kg of pressure to every cubic centimeter of the body (or 54 lbs. per cubic inch), producing an effect similar to exercise. 15 minutes in an ultrasonic bath is the exercise equivalent of a 2 mile (3 km) jog (which would take about 40 minutes). The massage effect actually burns calories (approximately 300-400 in 15 minutes) and thus can even help bring about weight loss.

The spa is amazing to experience. It feels like sitting in the middle of a wild whitewater river (but with warm water) - and I've been whitewater rafting. The pulsating power of it is unbelievable. You feel your body vibrating. This is not simply a hot tub with a jet spray coming out of the side. It's a different principle: ultrasonic wave energy, rather than an air jet, pushing water around.

The article, "Effect of Sweating," by W. Dean, in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA: 7 August 1981, Vol. 246, No. 6, p. 623) concluded: "A moderately conditioned person can easily sweat off 500 gms. in a sauna [note: many saunas today utilize infrared heating, like the SG-2000, which also includes the ultrasonic bubble massage effect] consuming nearly 300 kcal [calories] - the equivalent of running 2 - 3 miles. A heat-conditioned person can easily sweat off 600 - 800 kcal with no adverse effects. While the weight of the water loss can be regained by rehydration with water, the calories consumed will not be . . . Many of us who run do so to place a demand on our cardiovascular system, not to build big leg muscles. Regular use of a sauna may impart a similar stress on the cardiovascular system, and its regular use may be as effective, as a means of cardiovascular conditioning and burning of calories, as regular exercise." Arthur C. Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology states that producing one gram of sweat requires 0.586 calories.

NASA concluded from research during the 1980's that infrared radiation (see below) was a great way of maintaining cardiovascular conditioning for astronauts over the course of lengthy space flights.

Deep Cleansing / Firming

Jewelers use ultrasonic devices to remove foreign particles from gems and restore their sparkle. The ultrasonic waves of the SG-2000 thoroughly cleanse 150,000 pores of the skin, without the need of soap. This in turn helps with detoxification and aids the body's metabolism, leading to a beautification effect on the whole body, including firming and contouring. Skin becomes smoother, softer, and more resilient, and dead skin cells are eliminated. One week of continuous use will produce a thorough bodily cleansing.

The Wikipedia article, "Ultrasound" explains: "Ultrasonic cleaners, sometimes mistakenly called supersonic cleaners, are used at frequencies from 20-40 kHz for jewelry, lenses and other optical parts, watches, dental instruments, surgical instruments and industrial parts. An ultrasonic cleaner works mostly by energy released from the collapse of millions of microscopic cavitations near the dirty surface. The bubbles formed by cavitation collapse forming tiny jets directed at the surface."


Internal Warming / Improved Circulation and Energy

Traditional massage (left) works by compression of body tissue.
Hydrosonic massage compresses by means of dilatation of cells

As ultrasonic waves are created when air bubbles rupture after colliding at high speed, wave energy is converted into heat energy. A 10-minute ultrasonic massage bath with infrared radiation is sufficient to achieve internal warming of the bones and internal organs. Blood vessels and capillaries are dilated so that blood circulation is increased, thus facilitating removal of impurities, influx of nutrients, and stimulation of the body's immune system. Molecules in the body vibrate, creating a resonant effect and increased energy levels.

In an ordinary bath, such warming would take 90 minutes of immersion (at 42C or 108F degrees). Yet prolonged immersion in a hot bath or hot tub also causes dizziness and other ill effects (as warnings on hot tubs in hotels often advise), so practically speaking, it usually can't be done.

Anyone who has experienced the spa knows without a doubt that internal warming occurs. It's quite different from a hot tub (I've been in those many times). You come out completely warmed up, and with a higher pulse rate: equal parts relaxed and tired. I usually don't wear a shirt for at least an hour after my spa; sometimes 90 minutes, and I am perfectly warm the whole time. My five-year-old daughter has mentioned several times that she can feel the heat coming out of me at that time, as if I am a radiator. The closest analogy would be laying in the hot sun on a sandy beach for an hour. But this occurs in just fifteen minutes of hydrotherapeutic spa.

Far-Infrared Radiation

Far-infrared radiation is now known to occur in certain minerals. People have visited hot springs for centuries because they really worked: far-infrared rays (FIR) were one such helpful element of the natural hot spring. The SG-2000's flexible ceramic mat creates a magnetic field of far-infrared radiation. Some saunas operate on the same principle (rather than steam) to create heat. FIR heats skin without warming the air, and the effect is quite similar to the warming heat of the sun on the skin.

Toxin removal from the body is also facilitated (some researchers believe that toxins are the culprit behind all or most diseases not caused by either bacteria or virus). It's interesting to note in passing that infrared rays from the sun are strongest from 6-10 AM and 4-6 PM. Damaging ultraviolet rays are strong during 10 AM to 4 PM. The SG-2000 emits "good rays" but not "bad" ones.

[read more specific and detailed information, including scientific research]

Anions / Negative Ions / Ozone

Ever wonder why the air smells so fresh after a thunderstorm? It's because lightning generates ozone and anions (pronounced "an-eye-on"); also known as negative ions. A negatively charged ion has extra electrons. Anions are great for health, and lots are present in places like mountains, waterfalls, and beaches. The SG-2000 produces one million ozone-laden (O3, or "heavy oxygen") air bubbles per minute (or 46 liters [12 US gallons] of ozone anion-laden air thrust out of the mat through small holes every second; 0.03-0.05 ppm: the German FDA standard) and rapidly improves the quality of the bath water and surrounding air in the room.

Ozone is a quick-acting decontaminant and kills bacteria (it's even used by hospitals to decontaminate operating rooms). Its antiseptic powers are 3000 times better than chlorine; it breaks down toxins. An ozone bath boosts the oxygen utilization rate in human tissues and activates the cells of the body (which in turn helps to prevent cancer).



[read more specific and detailed information, including scientific research]



Hydrotherapy



Kamchatka Nalychevo Nature Park, Russia

The Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia notes ("Hydrotherapy"): "The use of water to treat rheumatic diseases has a long history. Today, hydrotherapy is used to treat arthritis, burns, spasticity, . . . musculoskeletal disorders, spinal cord injuries, and stroke patients with paralysis, . . . and to improve fitness. . . . A 2006 survey of research in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases discusses the vast amount of high-quality studies showing the effectiveness of hydrotherapy."

The basic benefits are well-summarized in the article "Hydrotherapy" in the Encyclopedia Britannica (1985 edition, Vol. 6, 195): "Wet heat helps relieve pain and improves circulation; it also promotes relaxation and rest . . . Whirlpool tubs and the Hubbard tank are forms of underwater massage in which the water swirls in constant motion over legs and arms or the entire body to promote healing . . . Hydrotherapeutic methods are usually employed by specialists in physical medicine and rehabilitation and by physical therapists." The composition of the human body is 65% water.



[read more specific and detailed information, including scientific research]



Aromatherapy and Healing Oils

From the Wikipedia article "Balneotherapy" "[M]any of the spas adopt special means by which they increase or modify their influence, e.g. the so-called 'aromatic' or 'medicated' baths, in which substances are mixed to exert a special influence on the skin and peripheral nerves. Of these the 'pine needle' bath has the greatest repute; it is made by adding a decoction of the needles or young shoots of firs and pines. Fir wood oil (a mixture of ethereal oils) or the tincture of an alcoholic extract acts equally well. The volatile ethereal constituents are supposed to penetrate the skin and to stimulate the cutaneous circulation and peripheral nerves, being eliminated later by the ordinary channels. Similar effects follow the addition to the bath of aromatic herbs, such as chamomile, thyme, &c." The aroma is, of course, aesthetically appealing, apart from any health effects. The Grand Sun Enterprise Co., Ltd., manufacturer of the SG-2000, offers for sale various specialized oils and mineral salts for this purpose.



[read more specific and detailed information, including scientific research]



Comparison With Hot Tubs, Saunas, Normal Baths

None of these effects (or full extent of the effects in some instances) occur in a hot tub, sauna, or a normal hot bath. They don't have ultrasonic waves. Nor do they have ozone-laden anions, nor (except for some kinds of saunas) far-infrared rays. These other water or steam-based practices basically warm the skin only, while an ultrasonic massage bath warms the internal organs. The jet-stream massage of a hot tub is partial and local (usually the lower back) compared to the full-body massage of the SG-2000. Cleansing in the other three methods requires soap. Relaxation and body contouring effects are also less in a sauna and hot tub and minimal in a standard bath. Yet the average price of a hot tub (Jacuzzi being a well-known brand name) is three to four times the cost of the SG-2000 (which requires no installation other than a simple fastening of the machine to the bathroom wall).

Warnings and Precautions

Avoid temperatures of above 40C / 104F
Don't spa if you are too tired, hungry, or have a full stomach
Don't spa if you are excited or anxious
Don't spa if you have consumed alcohol
Not recommended for those with open wounds
Infants, elderly, and pregnant women should pay special attention
If you have chest pains you shouldn't spa as it might aggravate your heart. If you experience giddiness or tightness of the chest, turn the spa off immediately
For elderly or those with heart disease, high or low blood pressure, diabetes, stroke, physically weak: water level should only be up to the navel, and duration, temperature and bubble intensity should be only slowly increased
Emerge slowly from the spa to avoid dizziness; rest for a while and drink water

Testimonies of Health Improvement

Here is a summary of just 25 of the many potential health benefits of the spa:

- Contour and firming up of the body, restoration of skin smoothness, elasticity and muscle tone

- Aid in weight loss by speeding up the metabolic process of vital organs and endocrine glands, resulting in substantial caloric loss

- Increased blood circulation by means of promotion of dilation of the micro-circulatory system of capillaries

- Normalization of blood cholesterol, stabilized blood pressure and balance in acid levels of the body.

- Help rid the body of toxins and metabolic wastes through the stronger flow of blood without increasing blood pressure

- More oxygen to joints and extremities, speeding the healing of sprains and strains and relieving pain

- Improved body metabolism and digestion

- Improved body strength and health and faster repair of body cells

- Normalization of the prostate gland in men, thus improving urination and sexual functions

- Boost to the immunity system and improvement of the nervous system

- Aching and injured muscles recover faster

- Reduction of swelling and inflammation by improving lymph flow

- Reduction of muscle spasms as muscle fibers are heated. Sooth aching muscles and shoulder pain

- Reduction of soreness through direct action on both free nerve endings in tissues and on peripheral nerves

- Strengthening the body and promotion of general health and wellness, thus preventing diseases

- Therapeutic effect on the human body, stimulating it to self-treat various common ailments

- Relief of arthritis, rheumatism, neuralgia, and backache

- Helps patients with diabetes and Parkinson's disease

- Improvement shown in patients with piles

- Prevents attacks in asthma patients

- Treats skin disease, fungal infections, and athlete's foot

- Cures frostbite in 4-5 sessions

- Reduction of muscle wasting in paralyzed and polio patients

- Treats hardening and narrowing of blood vessels in stroke patients

- may possibly have some positive effect in fighting cancer cells


[see the information page for many first-hand reports]

[see also my related paper: Response to Extreme Irrational Skepticism Regarding Alternative Medicine in General & Hydrotherapeutic Spa & Testimonials of Users, in Particular]

My Wife Judy's Remarkable and Rapid Pain and Sleep Improvement, and Higher Energy Levels



Judy had been having trouble sleeping and/or getting back to sleep if awakened for (literally) at least thirteen years, since the birth of our second child (who had colic and cried quite a bit for two years). She slept soundly after the very first use of the SG-2000 spa, and has continually done so ever since (she had been using it only two weeks as of this initial writing).

She has severe back pain due to scoliosis (she wore a brace back in her school days, and the curvature is 52%). She often has pain after doing simple chores around the house. It's something she has just had to live with. Chiropractors have helped, but only relatively and temporarily. But since the spa she says she has hardly any pain. She's been doing things like grocery shopping, or a bunch of laundry, where she knows her back would normally have hurt, but it doesn't. Recently when we were walking around a lot at a Christmas place, she told me that usually her legs and back would be hurting. But after a spa when we got back, she felt great. Additionally, she is now reporting a significantly higher energy level, which has obvious benefits for any busy mother; indeed, virtually any adult.

Since back pain and sleep deprivation are her main barriers to feeling good, and fatigue was also an ongoing problem, she will certainly be much happier now. This is very significant improvement. The relaxation effects are immediate too. She loves this spa. As soon as she gets in it she says "aaaahhhh!" Anyone who uses it will do the same! Neither of us could ever go back to not having a spa. Our lives (especially Judy's) have already considerably changed for the better. I don't have a similar spectacular recovery story to tell (at least not yet), but that's because I didn't have problems as serious as hers were. But the longterm health benefits and how wonderful it feels and the relaxation and stress-reduction aspects alone are more than worth the cost of the machine.

Free Trial Spa / Free Phone or E-Mail Consultations

For anyone in the Detroit metro area, southeast Michigan, or those traveling through; or anyone willing to travel some distance to get here, I will provide to you a free 15-minute hydrotherapeutic spa in my home, along with a friendly, informal, pressure-free, no obligation consultation (up to 45 minutes maximum) about the SG-2000. Just write to my e-mail address (please include the word "Spa" so I can spot it right away, and put @ rather than [at], with no spaces in the address - I write it like that to avoid spam mailings):

apologistdave[at]comcast.net

(Dave Armstrong)

If you'd like to talk about the SG-2000 on the phone, that is also free. Just provide a phone number in your e-mail letter and list best times to contact you, and I'll call you (anywhere in the US). For anyone outside the US, I'd be happy to talk to you also, but you'll have to make the call.

You can always communicate by e-mail and read my web pages providing information on the spa. I'd be happy to answer questions and inquiries through e-mail. If anything is covered in existing web pages, I'll direct you there (unless someone has no Internet access).

Purchase

The average spa (or massage) treatment costs around $100. Having an SG-2000 hydrotherapeutic spa in the privacy of your own home costs as low as one dollar per treatment. Hot tubs run anywhere from $4000-$7000 (see example of a discount site). And that may not include installation labor costs. Everyone knows how high medical bills can be. The SG-2000 offers extraordinary preventive and curative health benefits and great relaxation in the privacy of your home, and costs $1623.58 USD (including a shipping fee from Singapore of $176.21: Singapore dollars = $2,200 / $267.84 shipping by DPEX / UPS).

Any and all purchases will be made by contacting my business associate and friend Matthew Tan Kim Huat [see his website], a very nice gentleman from Singapore (where spa sales are flourishing and rapidly expanding). The convenient credit / transaction service PayPal can be used. Write to him at this address (please remember to mention that you were referred to him by Dave Armstrong and use @ rather than [at], with no spaces in the address):

tkhme[at]starhub.net.sg

Business Opportunity

In addition to all the incredible health and fitness and relaxation benefits of the SG-2000 spa, one can also become a sales representative or a distributor and spread the good news of this wonderful machine, while making a good income. The potential is great. This is a real, reputable business (Grand Sun Int Pte Ltd., begun in Taiwan in 1999), with some 60,000 distributors already thriving, mainly in Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, and Hong Kong, but also in other countries (more than 20 total).

If you live in the USA (as I do), this means that the market is wide open and almost unlimited, since alternative health and medicine is growing by leaps and bounds in America. If you live in Europe, it would be even easier, because of the greater traditional openness to various "non-conventional" means of health and wellness. Modern scientific hydrotherapy began in Germany. The desire to be healthy, happy, and fit knows no national or cultural boundaries.

As with purchases (section above), the person to talk to if you are interested in the multi-level marketing opportunity, and/or an investment which could very well produce an income many times higher, is Matthew Tan Kim Huat [see his website]. I know this man; I can vouch for his character and integrity. This is no fluke or get-rich quick scheme. It works, if you have the enthusiasm and sales ability. Matthew has been openly stating his recent income from this business. In October 2006 (his first month "actively" promoting: just 2-3 hours a day), he earned $5676 (USD). His November income from his spa business was $11,440.

If you're interested in this opportunity, write to Matthew (use @ rather than [at], with no spaces in the address):

tkhme[at]starhub.net.sg

Please mention that you got his e-mail address and discovered the opportunity from reading Dave Armstrong's SG-2000 spa web page. I receive a straight commission on any sales, even though I am technically not actively engaged in MLM marketing. I'm mainly promoting, advertising, and educating because I strongly believe in the product, and for some additional income, to enable me to continue my vocation of apologetic and theological writing. Matthew and I are working together to make the health and potential financial benefits of the SG-2000 spa more widely known. We both believe that spiritual and physical health are closely related.

Holistic Health, Science, and Harmonious Truth

My health philosophy is holistic, while always seeking to harmonize or synthesize any "alternative" or "natural" practices and beliefs with "conventional" or "western" science and medicine, as much as possible. I am neither "anti-science" nor closed-minded towards any new [oftentimes, actually quite old] healing methods. I think there is much wrong with modern medicine, and obviously also much good there, too. It's a mixed bag.

Likewise, some alternative beliefs and treatments are "out there" or even inconsistent with a Christian worldview or science in some way. Some entail outright quackery or the proverbial "snake oil" chicanery. I haven't seen anything at all objectionable or questionable with regard to the SG-2000 spa (if I had, I certainly wouldn't be involved in promoting or using it myself).

One shouldn't blindly accept claims, with no rational investigation. Anecdotal evidence is good and not to be dismissed, but the problem is that, for example, one person in a hundred may be "cured" of some serious disease by using a particular method (spa or otherwise). That's great, but it's only 1% of all who tried (and that is usually considered "statistically insignificant": one can get one out of a hundred for almost anything). Anecdotes usually don't tell us how many tried and failed.

Scientific studies do provide such data and statistics; they utilize controlled (often "double-blind") and random samples; they also seek to isolate causative factors and to account for any possible "placebo" effect. I view all this as a matter of being realistic, not raising false hopes, and "truth-in-reporting."

I have produced many, many scientific studies that (indirectly) back up the claims of the SG-2000 spa, and several of the aspects related to it (e.g., many dealing with arthritis and rheumatism, where the success rate is pretty high). If the spa works (and it does), it should be able to be verified by scientific examination. Its proponents like myself have nothing to fear from science. Science was used to create and manufacture the spa, and so it can also be used to confirm its positive results.

I seek the truth, wherever it lies, and I plan on always telling people the truth (and the whole truth) as far as I can ascertain it, in promoting this spa. I know that my wife Judy feels better and can sleep better (see her testimonial above). That's the truth. A study might show what percentage of people with scoliosis or sleeping problems show this benefit. The second (scientific) knowledge clarifies and expands upon the first anecdotal knowledge.

I believe that the scientific outlook and alternative or holistic health or a natural philosophy can work together in harmony: each needs the other. I would characterize my own overall attitude as open-minded and quite open to alternative and holistic health and medicine, but with a healthy skepticism and awareness of how science can confirm or disconfirm. I'm critical of science (i.e., usually individual scientists), too, when it is necessary, and of conventional medicine. I don't automatically rule something out because I haven't studied it myself. I think it is the willingness to be open-minded which is helpful for anyone in trying to determine what is true and what isn't, with regard to anything at all, while not being gullible or averse to scientific verification.

Final Word / Why I Promote the SG-2000 Spa

My wife Judy and I have been advocates of a natural or "holistic" philosophy, whole, organic, and health foods, sugar-free diet, semi-vegetarianism, herbalism, chiropractic, vitamins, and other "alternative" healing approaches since 1983, so (generally-speaking) this is nothing new for me. See, e.g., my previous articles about the relationship of (not equation of) homeopathy to science, and natural antidotes for depression.

We're learning and getting more and more excited about the preventive health / wellness possibilities of this spa as we use it ourselves and pass along the optimistic, encouraging news to you. I like to try to help people in any way I can. A fit, healthy, well-nourished person is usually happier and more spiritually attuned. Life is hard enough without unnecessary problems.

If you feel the same way, and believe (as I do) that you could greatly benefit from the SG-2000 spa, feel free to write to me today (please include "spa" in the title of the e-mail). I'd be glad to answer any of your questions, or direct you to someone who can. Follow the links provided above for more detailed information and research.

If you live in or near southeast Michigan, you can come and try a free 15-minute spa (or we could talk on the phone if you like: I'll call anyone in the US, to save you the "dime"; those from other countries can call me if they want to - my phone service doesn't have unlimited international!). This home hydrotherapeutic spa could radically change your life, as it has ours, and has with many many people. Have a wonderful day, and may God bless you (naturally or supernaturally) with great health, to experience life as it should be.

Dave Armstrong

apologistdave[at]comcast.net

Hydrotherapeutic Spa: Massage, Health & Fitness in Your Own Bathtub: Ultrasonic Wave Energy / Cavitation

Credit: Carsten Clasohm, Kruger National Park, South Africa, 22 March 2006.

From the Introduction:

SG-2000's tiny yet powerful bubbles violently collapse and collide, creating ultrasonic waves (high frequency energy of up to 100,000 Hz or 10,000-15,000 micro tremors of energy per second) and their rhythmic impact deliver a massaging effect to the entire body, leading to complete relaxation and relief from fatigue and stress. Ultrasonic waves penetrate deep into the body, to promote healing and stimulation of tissues, especially beneficial for arthritis, rheumatism, sore backs, and other bone and tissue injuries.

Bones absorb ultrasonic waves four times more than muscle and soft tissue, so they benefit the most. The effects of a 15-minute ultrasonic massage bath resemble the results of a conventional professional massage. The SG-2000 spa is fabulous and must be experienced to be believed!

The ultrasonic waves created by thousands of colliding air bubbles deliver 1.5 kg of pressure to every cubic centimeter of the body (or 54 lbs. per cubic inch), producing an effect similar to exercise. 15 minutes in an ultrasonic bath is the exercise equivalent of a 2 mile (3 km) jog (which would take about 40 minutes). The massage effect actually burns calories (approximately 300-400 in 15 minutes) and thus can even help bring about weight loss.

The spa is amazing to experience. It feels like sitting in the middle of a wild whitewater river (but with warm water) - and I've been whitewater rafting. The pulsating power of it is unbelievable. You feel your body vibrating. This is not simply a hot tub with a jet spray coming out of the side. It's a different principle: ultrasonic wave energy, rather than an air jet, pushing water around.

As ultrasonic waves are created when air bubbles rupture after colliding at high speed, wave energy is converted into heat energy. A 10-minute ultrasonic massage bath with infrared radiation is sufficient to achieve internal warming of the bones and internal organs. Blood vessels and capillaries are dilated so that blood circulation is increased, thus facilitating removal of impurities, influx of nutrients, and stimulation of the body's immune system. Molecules in the body vibrate, creating a resonant effect and increased energy levels.

Anyone who has experienced the spa knows without a doubt that internal warming occurs. It's quite different from a hot tub (I've been in those many times). You come out completely warmed up, and with a higher pulse rate: equal parts relaxed and tired. I usually don't wear a shirt for at least an hour after my spa; sometimes 90 minutes, and I am perfectly warm the whole time. My five-year-old daughter has mentioned several times that she can feel the heat coming out of me at that time, as if I am a radiator. The closest analogy would be laying in the hot sun on a sandy beach for an hour. But this occurs in just fifteen minutes of hydrotherapeutic spa.

* * * * *



From: Rixane.com.

The specific process that occurs with the air bubbles flowing through bath water out of the ceramic mat of the SG-2000, is called "cavitation." The Wikipedia article on this fascinating natural phenomenon explains:

Cavitation is a general term used