An Internet poster named Guardian wrote this post (link) in response to which Dr. White asked him to call into the Dividing Line radio program. Guardian did so, and was much more respectful and reasonable than the brief post linked above would suggest.
When Guardian called in on July 17, 2007, and suggested that he would have a list of Dr. White's scholarly failures within three months or so. Three months will have elapsed on October 17, 2007. Hopefully Guardian has not forgotten. I know that many of us are waiting to see what the allegations will be.
Guardian seemed very reasonable on the phone, and I hope that he will have the time and interest to follow through on his planned documentation. It will be very instructive as to what are perceived to be the weak links in Dr. White's exposés of Catholicism.
-Turretinfan
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Communications to the Departed
From time to time, one hears folks claim that they hold to their views because they found them in the Bible. For example, one hears claims from Roman Catholic apologists that they figured out that Roman Catholic theology was scriptural, and consequently became Roman Catholics.
One area where such a claim cannot be true (and there are doubtless many such areas) is in the area of prayers/communications/call them what you like, to departed Christians. The source of such doctrines is not the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.
Here are some questions to demonstrate:
1. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person who did not know your language during life, what makes you think that the person will understand your language now?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people gain knowledge of new human languages.
2. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person whose body is far away from you, what makes you think that the person will hear you?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people can hear people who are talking far away from their corpses.
3. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person who is very popular - such as Jude or Seraphim of Saratov, what makes you think that the person has the ability or availability to hear you?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people can hear many communications that are made at the same time, or that can be available to hear communications in general.
4. If you are trying to communicate with someone who you believe is bodily in heaven, other than Christ, what makes you think that such communication is possible?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that anyone in heaven beside Christ can hear our communications.
Let's see how one Roman Catholic apologist (a lay apologist named Dave Armstrong) responded on similar issues:
Similar to (1) & (4):
Dave writes: "If it is objected that the dead saints cannot hear us, we reply that God is fully able to give them that power ...."(source) The problem with this response is that it is special pleading. There is no question that God can give the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues, and even that he has done so. Likewise, there is no question that God can enable communication between the living and the dead. The question is whether there is a reason to suppose that God does give dead saints (or those who are bodily in heaven) such an ability. It should be clear that the answer to that question remains "not the Bible."
Similar to (2):
DA writes cites the "Cloud of Witnesses" of Hebrews 12:1 (source). The problem with DA's citation is that "witnesses" in that verse does not mean spectators, but testifiers. In other words, DA's citation is based on misconstruing an ambiguity that is present in English but not present in Greek or Latin. In English, a witness can be an observer or the one who is observed. In fact, the first sense has slightly predominated our usage. Nevertheless, the cloud of witnesses of Hebrews 12:1 are a cloud of the latter kind of witness - the kind we see (not in graven images, but in the pages of Scripture) and who testify to us (not by voices in our heads, but from the pages of Scripture). Of course, while the principle witnesses were taken from Scripture, we could add additional ones not listed in Scripture, to the same effect. We are surrounded by their testimony and it should encourage us. They stand as a memorial, not as judges.
DA, however, cites a contrary opinion: DA cites Marvin Vincent (calling his work "a famous, standard Protestant reference work") who acknowledges that witnesses do not mean observers, but who asserts that the idea that they are spectators is implied. This is the classic "argument from authority" fallacy. DA cites a broad reference work that is supposedly "standard" and uses that in place of a reasoned exegesis of the text. There's a reason why such an approach is taken: whether it is Vincent or DA making the claim, the claim cannot stand on the text of Scripture, because it fundamentally relies on the English ambiguity. DA (by Vincent) asserts that the idea of spectators is "the principal idea," but that assertion is not correct. The idea of encouragement is the main idea - and that encouragement is gained by the footprints of those who have run before, not by their observation from the stands, as DA/Vincent portrays the matter.
Similar to (3): How can Mary, as a human being, hear millions of daily prayers simultaneously, much less process millions of daily prayers?
DA's Response: "Very simple: the saints, being with God in heaven, are outside of time. That being the case, they simply have no problem of number and sequence as we do, since we are temporal creatures, and hence, severely limited in that sense." (source)
There are several important problems with the response, but the point to be made here is that the only aspect of the response that is derived from Scripture is that the saints are with God in heaven. The other aspect, that they are outside of time, is contrary to Scripture. Recall that the martyrs in heaven will ask the question: "How long ... before... ?" (Revelation 6:9-10) Such a question presumes both time and the martyrs' subjection to it.
It should be clear from the examples above that those who try to communicate with the departed do so without Biblical warrant. The practice of attempting to communicate with the departed is both futile and sinful, even though it is doubtless done with excellent intentions by many Christians who so practice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It should be noted that a rebuttal to DA's multi-part argument for prayer to the saints has already been rebutted here (link).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May God be glorified by those whom He has made holy!
-Turretinfan
One area where such a claim cannot be true (and there are doubtless many such areas) is in the area of prayers/communications/call them what you like, to departed Christians. The source of such doctrines is not the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.
Here are some questions to demonstrate:
1. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person who did not know your language during life, what makes you think that the person will understand your language now?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people gain knowledge of new human languages.
2. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person whose body is far away from you, what makes you think that the person will hear you?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people can hear people who are talking far away from their corpses.
3. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person who is very popular - such as Jude or Seraphim of Saratov, what makes you think that the person has the ability or availability to hear you?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people can hear many communications that are made at the same time, or that can be available to hear communications in general.
4. If you are trying to communicate with someone who you believe is bodily in heaven, other than Christ, what makes you think that such communication is possible?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that anyone in heaven beside Christ can hear our communications.
Let's see how one Roman Catholic apologist (a lay apologist named Dave Armstrong) responded on similar issues:
Similar to (1) & (4):
Dave writes: "If it is objected that the dead saints cannot hear us, we reply that God is fully able to give them that power ...."(source) The problem with this response is that it is special pleading. There is no question that God can give the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues, and even that he has done so. Likewise, there is no question that God can enable communication between the living and the dead. The question is whether there is a reason to suppose that God does give dead saints (or those who are bodily in heaven) such an ability. It should be clear that the answer to that question remains "not the Bible."
Similar to (2):
DA writes cites the "Cloud of Witnesses" of Hebrews 12:1 (source). The problem with DA's citation is that "witnesses" in that verse does not mean spectators, but testifiers. In other words, DA's citation is based on misconstruing an ambiguity that is present in English but not present in Greek or Latin. In English, a witness can be an observer or the one who is observed. In fact, the first sense has slightly predominated our usage. Nevertheless, the cloud of witnesses of Hebrews 12:1 are a cloud of the latter kind of witness - the kind we see (not in graven images, but in the pages of Scripture) and who testify to us (not by voices in our heads, but from the pages of Scripture). Of course, while the principle witnesses were taken from Scripture, we could add additional ones not listed in Scripture, to the same effect. We are surrounded by their testimony and it should encourage us. They stand as a memorial, not as judges.
DA, however, cites a contrary opinion: DA cites Marvin Vincent (calling his work "a famous, standard Protestant reference work") who acknowledges that witnesses do not mean observers, but who asserts that the idea that they are spectators is implied. This is the classic "argument from authority" fallacy. DA cites a broad reference work that is supposedly "standard" and uses that in place of a reasoned exegesis of the text. There's a reason why such an approach is taken: whether it is Vincent or DA making the claim, the claim cannot stand on the text of Scripture, because it fundamentally relies on the English ambiguity. DA (by Vincent) asserts that the idea of spectators is "the principal idea," but that assertion is not correct. The idea of encouragement is the main idea - and that encouragement is gained by the footprints of those who have run before, not by their observation from the stands, as DA/Vincent portrays the matter.
Similar to (3): How can Mary, as a human being, hear millions of daily prayers simultaneously, much less process millions of daily prayers?
DA's Response: "Very simple: the saints, being with God in heaven, are outside of time. That being the case, they simply have no problem of number and sequence as we do, since we are temporal creatures, and hence, severely limited in that sense." (source)
There are several important problems with the response, but the point to be made here is that the only aspect of the response that is derived from Scripture is that the saints are with God in heaven. The other aspect, that they are outside of time, is contrary to Scripture. Recall that the martyrs in heaven will ask the question: "How long ... before... ?" (Revelation 6:9-10) Such a question presumes both time and the martyrs' subjection to it.
It should be clear from the examples above that those who try to communicate with the departed do so without Biblical warrant. The practice of attempting to communicate with the departed is both futile and sinful, even though it is doubtless done with excellent intentions by many Christians who so practice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It should be noted that a rebuttal to DA's multi-part argument for prayer to the saints has already been rebutted here (link).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May God be glorified by those whom He has made holy!
-Turretinfan
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Mutual Exclusivity
This popular Internet poster (link) recently realized that one cannot please both Roman Catholicism and Reformed Theology (iMonk writes: "If the answer to my blogging is Olson’s “Why I’m Not A Protestant,” I think my answer to Olson is…….completely irrelevant. If I call him my brother, I’m a damnable heretic with the truly reformed, and if I call myself a “Not a Catholic”, then the best I can be is just one more deficient, defective Protestant, outside of the true church with no authority to say anything anyway and never getting the real Jesus because I refuse to recognize transubstantiation."). Sadly, this was disheartening for the writer when it should have been an encouragement: there is absolute truth. Either Rome is right or the Reformation was right. Both cannot be right.
-Turretinfan
P.S. again, Jonathan, not the one I had mind...
-Turretinfan
P.S. again, Jonathan, not the one I had mind...
Apparently You Still Can Get Excommunicated ...
Although it is the first time it happened in Little Rock in 165 years, a few nuns have been excommunicated (according to the journalists it was for heresy ...) (source).
One of the nuns' comments:
"We are at peace and we know that for us we are doing the right thing. We pray that the church will open their eyes before it is too late. This is God's work through Mary, the blessed mother, and we're doing what we're asked to do. She [the founder of the group] is doing only what God and Mary tells her to do."
What was their heresy? Allegedly they believe that an 86 year old nun in their midst is a reincarnation of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and that God speaks directly through her.
That would seem to give her authority independent of the church, which - of course - cannot be tolerated by Rome. If there is one lesson to be learned from Rome's opposition to Sola Scriptura, that is the lesson.
An affilliated group, the "Sons of Mary," was apparently not excommunicated for heresy, though its spokesman said: "The Virgin Mary took possession of her soul. I would rather say it that way."
Bizarre stuff, but Mary speaking would not be God speaking, and consequently would not be divine revelation. Thus, apparently, such a view is tolerable within Roman Catholicism (however odd it may be).
I would not be the least surprised if the woman was possessed, but it is shame that the blessed Mother of Christ would be accused of possessing her.
-Turretinfan
P.S. No, Jonathan, this is not the post I was referring to.
One of the nuns' comments:
"We are at peace and we know that for us we are doing the right thing. We pray that the church will open their eyes before it is too late. This is God's work through Mary, the blessed mother, and we're doing what we're asked to do. She [the founder of the group] is doing only what God and Mary tells her to do."
What was their heresy? Allegedly they believe that an 86 year old nun in their midst is a reincarnation of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and that God speaks directly through her.
That would seem to give her authority independent of the church, which - of course - cannot be tolerated by Rome. If there is one lesson to be learned from Rome's opposition to Sola Scriptura, that is the lesson.
An affilliated group, the "Sons of Mary," was apparently not excommunicated for heresy, though its spokesman said: "The Virgin Mary took possession of her soul. I would rather say it that way."
Bizarre stuff, but Mary speaking would not be God speaking, and consequently would not be divine revelation. Thus, apparently, such a view is tolerable within Roman Catholicism (however odd it may be).
I would not be the least surprised if the woman was possessed, but it is shame that the blessed Mother of Christ would be accused of possessing her.
-Turretinfan
P.S. No, Jonathan, this is not the post I was referring to.
Poor Gen. Pace
General pace recently made headline news for stating that homosexual behavior is sinful, and that he will not condone it (link). He immediately got labelled a "bigot" by those who either don't recognize that homosexual behavior is sinful or who do not care.
The reason that I use the adjective "poor," though is not so much because Gen. Pace is the target of name-calling - but because Gen. Pace seems to have been so battered by it that he is ready to compromise.
Currently, U.S. military law prohibits both adultery and homosexual relations. These are excellent rules that are enforced, and should continue to be enforced. The U.S. military is one of the last places in America where the 7th commandment's prohibition on adultery and homosexual activity is enforced, largely because of action's taken by America's Supreme Court and by the apathy towards sexual immorality felt by most Americans.
Let's be clear: Adultery and homosexual acts are both sinful, and both deserve severe criminal consequences. God justly authorized Moses to use capital punishment for both offenses, and it would be just for any modern government to do the same. I'm not taking this opportunity to say that a lesser punishment would necessarily be wrong, just pointing out that capital punishment would be just.
There are a lot of folks who don't like that view: they hate the truth that sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful, and for them it is headline news when a General stands up and says (even heavily qualified, the way poor Gen. Pace put it) that such actions are wrong.
Gen. Pace, in the unlikely event that you read this, be strong! Don't be afraid to state without qualification as to your upbringing that sex outside of marriage is wrong, is sinful, and is immoral. Don't feel compelled to compromise just because many people who were guilty of such sins have contributed much (in other regards) to America. Surely they have, and so have many others who do immoral acts.
I can tell from your comments that you will not, but I wish to exhort you, sir, not to compromise on moral issues. Ever, sir.
-Turretinfan
The reason that I use the adjective "poor," though is not so much because Gen. Pace is the target of name-calling - but because Gen. Pace seems to have been so battered by it that he is ready to compromise.
Currently, U.S. military law prohibits both adultery and homosexual relations. These are excellent rules that are enforced, and should continue to be enforced. The U.S. military is one of the last places in America where the 7th commandment's prohibition on adultery and homosexual activity is enforced, largely because of action's taken by America's Supreme Court and by the apathy towards sexual immorality felt by most Americans.
Let's be clear: Adultery and homosexual acts are both sinful, and both deserve severe criminal consequences. God justly authorized Moses to use capital punishment for both offenses, and it would be just for any modern government to do the same. I'm not taking this opportunity to say that a lesser punishment would necessarily be wrong, just pointing out that capital punishment would be just.
There are a lot of folks who don't like that view: they hate the truth that sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful, and for them it is headline news when a General stands up and says (even heavily qualified, the way poor Gen. Pace put it) that such actions are wrong.
Gen. Pace, in the unlikely event that you read this, be strong! Don't be afraid to state without qualification as to your upbringing that sex outside of marriage is wrong, is sinful, and is immoral. Don't feel compelled to compromise just because many people who were guilty of such sins have contributed much (in other regards) to America. Surely they have, and so have many others who do immoral acts.
I can tell from your comments that you will not, but I wish to exhort you, sir, not to compromise on moral issues. Ever, sir.
-Turretinfan
An Example from the Religion of Science
Apparently, now it is necessary, not only to quote an expert, but to quote an expert who cites more than one study for this proposition:
"Studies have shown people fall asleep," Docknevich said.
(source)
See, now you MUST believe it - an expert citing an unspecified study - no - studies (plural) have said so.
The point of this post is to illustrate that it has been commonplace in the secular world to think that science as gravitas to virtually anything.
The point above is a fairly extreme example - but it makes the point. If you don't have "studies," but instead are asking people to believe what God said about something - don't expect an immediate positive response. Why? Because to the Greeks, such things are foolishness.
It was the same in Paul's day, as it is becoming in ours.
May God provide Pauline imitators to illumine the understanding of those who worship the creature rather than the creator,
-Turretinfan
"Studies have shown people fall asleep," Docknevich said.
(source)
See, now you MUST believe it - an expert citing an unspecified study - no - studies (plural) have said so.
The point of this post is to illustrate that it has been commonplace in the secular world to think that science as gravitas to virtually anything.
The point above is a fairly extreme example - but it makes the point. If you don't have "studies," but instead are asking people to believe what God said about something - don't expect an immediate positive response. Why? Because to the Greeks, such things are foolishness.
It was the same in Paul's day, as it is becoming in ours.
May God provide Pauline imitators to illumine the understanding of those who worship the creature rather than the creator,
-Turretinfan
What does it mean to "Propitiate"?
Let's start by reviewing the verses where that English word is used:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Paul (in Romans) uses the noun ιλαστηριον, and John uses the noun (in two different declensions) ιλασμος (1 John 2:2) and ιλασμον (1 John 4:10). They are all related Greek words, and both are ordinarily translated by some form of the verb propitiate.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines propitiate:
PROPI''TIATE, v.t. [L. propitio; pio. Eng. pity.]
To conciliate; to appease one offended and render him favorable; to make propitious.
Let fierce Achilles, dreadful in his rage,
The god propitiate and the pest assuage.
Now, let's go back to the verses. In the verses, John and Paul are saying that Jesus is the one who appeases the offense that our sins cause to God and render us favorable in God's sight.
Now, in the verse Romans 3, I don't think anyone is going to have heartburn about what the verse says: it says that the Father put the Son in the role of being an appeaser of wrath by means of his blood to all those who believe: namely by a declaration of Christ's righteousness to remit the previous state of sinfulness, and, of course, through God's forbearance.
1 John 4:10 similarly does not cause heartburn, because John is writing from the apostles to believers, so whether "our" means the apostles or "our" means the apostles and the believers to whom he is writing, it is Jesus who assuaged God's wrath against us on account of our sins.
I John 2:2 is the verse that may cause Arminians some chest pains. It says that Jesus is not just the propitiation for "our" sins but for the sins of the "whole world." The problem for some Arminians is that they have adopted an exhaustive, universalistic sense (instead of a generic, expansive sense) to the term "world" in other passages, and feel obliged to understand the word similarly here, especially when accompanied by the word "whole."
Thus, Arminians are faced either with universal propitiation (and consequently universal salvation), or universal hypothetical propitiation. The problem with the former interpretation is that it is abundantly clear from Scripture that some will not be saved. The problem with latter interpretation is that there is nothing in the context to suggest that John or Paul believes that the propitiation of our sins is hypothetical or potential, as opposed to actual. Another option would be to suggest that the propitiation does not save, i.e. that propitiation is just an intermediate position between lost and saved. This, however, is clearly inconsistent with Paul's use, and there is - again - no reason in context to suggest this alternative.
There is, however, another solution to the dilemma:
The phrase translated "whole world" could be used in the generic, expansive sense - such that John is contrasting himself together with the apostles and/or his readers ("our") with other people generally. There is some support for this sense, because John uses the phrase in 1 John 5:19:
1 John 5:18-19
18We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
Of course, here the "whole world" cannot be used in an exhaustive, universalistic sense - for John has just contrasted the "we" with it.
Furthermore, there are other passages where the term is used simply to convey a large amount (e.g. Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25) or a broad expansive geographic area (Matthew 26: 13, Mark 14:9, Romans 1:8). In fact, in terms of Scriptural usage, those are all of the other (i.e. except for the two uses in 1 John) uses of the phrase. In other words, the phrase never in Scripture clearly conveys the sense of "each and every person who has or will live on the planet Earth," as Arminians are prone to think.
If we view John's comment as magnifying the greatness of the scope of God's love (i.e. that he propitiated for the sins not just of first century believers, but for the huge multitude of the elect), then the dilemma evaporates. There is no longer any need to eisegetically invent a hypothetical propitiation or a non-saving assuagement of wrath as one of the works of Christ.
And do you know what is really interesting?
The same Greek word ιλαστηριον is used by Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) to refer to the mercy seat, the cover of the ark of the testimony, the place where God communed with Moses, the places where God appeared in a cloud to Moses, and the place where blood was offered to God. It is the place where blood was offered to obtain mercy, and the author of Hebrews indicates that this blood sacrifice pictured the blood sacrifice of Christ.
May God who is Love, cause us to be thankful for the propitiation accomplished by our High Priest,
-Turretinfan
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Paul (in Romans) uses the noun ιλαστηριον, and John uses the noun (in two different declensions) ιλασμος (1 John 2:2) and ιλασμον (1 John 4:10). They are all related Greek words, and both are ordinarily translated by some form of the verb propitiate.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines propitiate:
PROPI''TIATE, v.t. [L. propitio; pio. Eng. pity.]
To conciliate; to appease one offended and render him favorable; to make propitious.
Let fierce Achilles, dreadful in his rage,
The god propitiate and the pest assuage.
Now, let's go back to the verses. In the verses, John and Paul are saying that Jesus is the one who appeases the offense that our sins cause to God and render us favorable in God's sight.
Now, in the verse Romans 3, I don't think anyone is going to have heartburn about what the verse says: it says that the Father put the Son in the role of being an appeaser of wrath by means of his blood to all those who believe: namely by a declaration of Christ's righteousness to remit the previous state of sinfulness, and, of course, through God's forbearance.
1 John 4:10 similarly does not cause heartburn, because John is writing from the apostles to believers, so whether "our" means the apostles or "our" means the apostles and the believers to whom he is writing, it is Jesus who assuaged God's wrath against us on account of our sins.
I John 2:2 is the verse that may cause Arminians some chest pains. It says that Jesus is not just the propitiation for "our" sins but for the sins of the "whole world." The problem for some Arminians is that they have adopted an exhaustive, universalistic sense (instead of a generic, expansive sense) to the term "world" in other passages, and feel obliged to understand the word similarly here, especially when accompanied by the word "whole."
Thus, Arminians are faced either with universal propitiation (and consequently universal salvation), or universal hypothetical propitiation. The problem with the former interpretation is that it is abundantly clear from Scripture that some will not be saved. The problem with latter interpretation is that there is nothing in the context to suggest that John or Paul believes that the propitiation of our sins is hypothetical or potential, as opposed to actual. Another option would be to suggest that the propitiation does not save, i.e. that propitiation is just an intermediate position between lost and saved. This, however, is clearly inconsistent with Paul's use, and there is - again - no reason in context to suggest this alternative.
There is, however, another solution to the dilemma:
The phrase translated "whole world" could be used in the generic, expansive sense - such that John is contrasting himself together with the apostles and/or his readers ("our") with other people generally. There is some support for this sense, because John uses the phrase in 1 John 5:19:
1 John 5:18-19
18We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
Of course, here the "whole world" cannot be used in an exhaustive, universalistic sense - for John has just contrasted the "we" with it.
Furthermore, there are other passages where the term is used simply to convey a large amount (e.g. Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25) or a broad expansive geographic area (Matthew 26: 13, Mark 14:9, Romans 1:8). In fact, in terms of Scriptural usage, those are all of the other (i.e. except for the two uses in 1 John) uses of the phrase. In other words, the phrase never in Scripture clearly conveys the sense of "each and every person who has or will live on the planet Earth," as Arminians are prone to think.
If we view John's comment as magnifying the greatness of the scope of God's love (i.e. that he propitiated for the sins not just of first century believers, but for the huge multitude of the elect), then the dilemma evaporates. There is no longer any need to eisegetically invent a hypothetical propitiation or a non-saving assuagement of wrath as one of the works of Christ.
And do you know what is really interesting?
The same Greek word ιλαστηριον is used by Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) to refer to the mercy seat, the cover of the ark of the testimony, the place where God communed with Moses, the places where God appeared in a cloud to Moses, and the place where blood was offered to God. It is the place where blood was offered to obtain mercy, and the author of Hebrews indicates that this blood sacrifice pictured the blood sacrifice of Christ.
May God who is Love, cause us to be thankful for the propitiation accomplished by our High Priest,
-Turretinfan
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Who would have thought ...
... that Dave Armstrong, the man who is too busy to reply to my posts dealing with his doctrinal errors, would have time to challenge my recollection about whether Dr. White has ever posted a response to Armstrong that was purely a personal attack on Armstrong (link)?
And who would have that Armstrong's best example was Dr. White's response to a reading list that Armstrong posted. I wonder how Dr. White ought to have rebutted that reading list? Surely, White is guilty here of substituting rhetoric for reason in his rebuttal of that list! Read for yourself! Look at that shallow reply to the reading list! And to think, this author had let such a shocking display of non-responsiveness slip out of his mind! Shame on me. How could I do that? No, Dave, you're right. Dr. White's response in no way rebutted your reading list.
And of course, those comments Dr. White made (specifically that Armstrong by listing books can no longer claim that his misrepresentations are based on ignorance) would make it "hypocrisy" for me to point out that Dave's comment that follows:
If I were to speculate that Dave's multi-page illustrated rebuttal to my single-phrase comment was actually a pretext to throw a pity party about Dr. White's allegedly harsh words in the past, I suppose I'd be challenged to prove which of the many negative things Dr. White has said about Dave (mostly reflecting on Dave's demonstrated misuse of sources) are true, and which are false, et cetera ad nauseum.
Which is why I will gladly concede that if it makes you happy, Dave, I gladly concede that my recollection is imperfect - which is the only thing that proving what you set out to prove would accomplish as a response to me. Now, I suppose you can add this edifying exchange to your list of published written debates.
I hope it will be a while before we have a similar "dialogue" and "exchange of ideas."
-Turretinfan
P.S. Apparently Dave is at least as unaware of my not-nearly-as-lengthy history with Dr. White, because he seems to have overlooked this post (link) in which the present author (gasp) disagreed with Dr. White publicly. But, of course, perhaps that does not count because I don't begin my post by making personal insults, fill my article with name-calling, or ask for pity because Dr. White ignored it(according to my - as Dave has tried to prove, and I have not rebutted - faulty recollection).
And who would have that Armstrong's best example was Dr. White's response to a reading list that Armstrong posted. I wonder how Dr. White ought to have rebutted that reading list? Surely, White is guilty here of substituting rhetoric for reason in his rebuttal of that list! Read for yourself! Look at that shallow reply to the reading list! And to think, this author had let such a shocking display of non-responsiveness slip out of his mind! Shame on me. How could I do that? No, Dave, you're right. Dr. White's response in no way rebutted your reading list.
And of course, those comments Dr. White made (specifically that Armstrong by listing books can no longer claim that his misrepresentations are based on ignorance) would make it "hypocrisy" for me to point out that Dave's comment that follows:
TF wants to kiss up to White and not openly criticize him, because he is the Grand Poobah and Big Cheese: the King of the Anti-Catholics. And so it is a naughty no-no to publicly call him on his blatant, wanton, ongoing hypocrisies. That would make TF mighty unpopular in know-nothing anti-Catholic circles.is not true (and to complain about its tone, my - that application of a cruel "double standard" would add years to Anti-Catholic purgatory).
If I were to speculate that Dave's multi-page illustrated rebuttal to my single-phrase comment was actually a pretext to throw a pity party about Dr. White's allegedly harsh words in the past, I suppose I'd be challenged to prove which of the many negative things Dr. White has said about Dave (mostly reflecting on Dave's demonstrated misuse of sources) are true, and which are false, et cetera ad nauseum.
Which is why I will gladly concede that if it makes you happy, Dave, I gladly concede that my recollection is imperfect - which is the only thing that proving what you set out to prove would accomplish as a response to me. Now, I suppose you can add this edifying exchange to your list of published written debates.
I hope it will be a while before we have a similar "dialogue" and "exchange of ideas."
-Turretinfan
P.S. Apparently Dave is at least as unaware of my not-nearly-as-lengthy history with Dr. White, because he seems to have overlooked this post (link) in which the present author (gasp) disagreed with Dr. White publicly. But, of course, perhaps that does not count because I don't begin my post by making personal insults, fill my article with name-calling, or ask for pity because Dr. White ignored it(according to my - as Dave has tried to prove, and I have not rebutted - faulty recollection).
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Reginald Suggests that Roman Catholics Deny the Subjective Sinfulness of Involuntary Sin
Reginald (a Roman Catholic blogger) in a recent comment on his own blog suggested that Roman Catholics do not believe that involuntary sin is subjectively sinful (although they would agree that it is objectively sinful).
In this regard they are clearly contrary to the Orthodox who routinely pray for God to forgive both their voluntary and involuntary sins, and contrary to Augustine as well.
Query for the Roman Catholic readers of this blog, is Reginald right?
The Compendium of the CCC (I guess that would make it the CCCC) seems to suggest so.
Is that right? Do Catholics seek remittance of their involuntary sins or not? If so, why?
-Turretinfan
In this regard they are clearly contrary to the Orthodox who routinely pray for God to forgive both their voluntary and involuntary sins, and contrary to Augustine as well.
Query for the Roman Catholic readers of this blog, is Reginald right?
The Compendium of the CCC (I guess that would make it the CCCC) seems to suggest so.
Is that right? Do Catholics seek remittance of their involuntary sins or not? If so, why?
-Turretinfan
The Image of God - Short Exegetical Version
We (mankind) were created in the image of God.
We were created in a position of authority, enjoyment, and responsibility over the physical world.
God is ruler over all, but we were made rulers over the Earth. It is ours to enjoy, ours to subjugate, and ours to rehabilitate.
God made us garderners not so that we would be enslaved by the land, but so that we would enjoy the good things of creation, with his blessing. It is only because of Adam's sin that fulfilling this creation mandate has become laborious.
You'll hear a lot of other explanations for the "image of God," but the bottom line is that the only exegetical explanation is: dominion.
Genesis 1:26-31
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
In the original reference, the immediate context is authority/dominion, enjoyment, and responsibility. Man was to subdue the earth, enjoy the garden, and care for it.
1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
And again, the "image of God" is about authority, dominion, right of enjoyment, and responsibility for care. The woman was created for the man, and, thus, the husband/wife relationship is itself an image of the God/man relationship.
I note there are two other passages that mention the phrase, "image of God," but they are not especially relevant to this particular discussion:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
-Turretinfan
We were created in a position of authority, enjoyment, and responsibility over the physical world.
God is ruler over all, but we were made rulers over the Earth. It is ours to enjoy, ours to subjugate, and ours to rehabilitate.
God made us garderners not so that we would be enslaved by the land, but so that we would enjoy the good things of creation, with his blessing. It is only because of Adam's sin that fulfilling this creation mandate has become laborious.
You'll hear a lot of other explanations for the "image of God," but the bottom line is that the only exegetical explanation is: dominion.
Genesis 1:26-31
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
In the original reference, the immediate context is authority/dominion, enjoyment, and responsibility. Man was to subdue the earth, enjoy the garden, and care for it.
1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
And again, the "image of God" is about authority, dominion, right of enjoyment, and responsibility for care. The woman was created for the man, and, thus, the husband/wife relationship is itself an image of the God/man relationship.
I note there are two other passages that mention the phrase, "image of God," but they are not especially relevant to this particular discussion:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
-Turretinfan
Monday, September 24, 2007
Getting the Contrast Wrong
In a recent post, Doug Wilson wrote:
"Islamic law has its own ways of dealing with adultery. Jesus had another." (with a photo apparently showing a Muslim woman about to be stoned for adultery, and a quotation of the pericope adulterae)
The problem is, DW has drawn the wrong contrast - at least in the minds of many of those commenting on his thread - through his inclusion of the term "Islamic."
It is not merely Islamic law, but the Law of Moses that deals with adultery by stoning. Stoning for adultery is perfectly just, though severe. Jesus did not come to redefine justice, and His first coming was not as a judge. Christianity does not call for governments to punish crimes differently than Moses appointed, and Christianity should commend, not condemn, Muslim governments in cases where they adminster justice - there are so many areas where they do not.
Nevertheless, there is a contrast between the law and the gospel. The law condemns sinners, but Jesus forgives sinners. The law punishes sinners, but Jesus bears the punishment for sinners. That is the contrast: Jesus is our advocate, our sacrifice, our mediator, the one in whom we trust for salvation. He did not come into the world to condemn the world, but to save His people from their sins.
Jesus will come again as a judge, and on that day He will not hesitate to condemn sinners who have not turned to God. For the (apparently) Muslim woman shown in the picture on DW's blog, the situation is doubly grim. Such a woman has very little time to turn from her sin and cast herself on the mercy of the one Triune God. And you, dear reader, may have even less time - for life is short.
If you are reading this and have not begged Almighty God to accept you, do so today. Pray to the Father, trusting in the finished work of Christ on the cross and you will be saved. Put it off, and you may be lost forever. That should be a far more terrifying prospect than to be struck about the head with stones for a few minutes by an angry mob of men. All have sinned, and no one will escape the punishment for sin, but those who trust in Christ for salvation.
May God's light shine more and more unto the perfect day!
-Turretinfan
"Islamic law has its own ways of dealing with adultery. Jesus had another." (with a photo apparently showing a Muslim woman about to be stoned for adultery, and a quotation of the pericope adulterae)
The problem is, DW has drawn the wrong contrast - at least in the minds of many of those commenting on his thread - through his inclusion of the term "Islamic."
It is not merely Islamic law, but the Law of Moses that deals with adultery by stoning. Stoning for adultery is perfectly just, though severe. Jesus did not come to redefine justice, and His first coming was not as a judge. Christianity does not call for governments to punish crimes differently than Moses appointed, and Christianity should commend, not condemn, Muslim governments in cases where they adminster justice - there are so many areas where they do not.
Nevertheless, there is a contrast between the law and the gospel. The law condemns sinners, but Jesus forgives sinners. The law punishes sinners, but Jesus bears the punishment for sinners. That is the contrast: Jesus is our advocate, our sacrifice, our mediator, the one in whom we trust for salvation. He did not come into the world to condemn the world, but to save His people from their sins.
Jesus will come again as a judge, and on that day He will not hesitate to condemn sinners who have not turned to God. For the (apparently) Muslim woman shown in the picture on DW's blog, the situation is doubly grim. Such a woman has very little time to turn from her sin and cast herself on the mercy of the one Triune God. And you, dear reader, may have even less time - for life is short.
If you are reading this and have not begged Almighty God to accept you, do so today. Pray to the Father, trusting in the finished work of Christ on the cross and you will be saved. Put it off, and you may be lost forever. That should be a far more terrifying prospect than to be struck about the head with stones for a few minutes by an angry mob of men. All have sinned, and no one will escape the punishment for sin, but those who trust in Christ for salvation.
May God's light shine more and more unto the perfect day!
-Turretinfan
Steve Ray - Double Minded? You decide
Example (1)
Steve Ray wrote this blog post:
Example (2)
Then, in the combox, Steve Ray wrote:
Notice that Steve Ray has taken the "label 'anti-Catholic' rather than debate sensibly" page from Dave Armstrong's book.
But look at the lack of positional stability:
In (1), James White is not to be taken seriously.
In (2), James White should be taken seriously or "others might think [he] cannot be refuted."
In (1), "If I had nine lives I might waste some time refuting his latest rantings, but this time his preaching is not worth responding to. Let him prattle on."
In (2), "there are some innocent folks who might be influenced by such nonsense," and consequently James White should not be ignored.
In (1), James White is a nobody: "I have better things to do that to respond to every pontificating anti-Catholic that sets up a blog."
In (2), James White is a significant Roman Catholic apologetic tool: "I know many people that have become more convinced of the Catholic Church by listening to arrogant folks like him," and "James White does more for good for the Catholic Church right where he is!"
In (1), it would take a lot of time to refute James White, "If I had nine lives I might waste some time refuting his latest rantings."
In (2), it would be easy to refute James White, "guys like White and his kind are very easy to refute."
About the only commonality between the two is the vitriol exuded against Dr. White:
(1) "He's really just a little man full of himself — an angry know-it-all who's really just a tempest in a teapot."
(2) "Such petty, self-important know-it-alls need to be refuted" and "arrogant folks like him"
Yes, Steve Ray hates James White - that's easy enough to see. It's also easy to see why Steve Ray hates James White, and that is because Dr. White preaches the Truth and exposes the errors and delusions of Rome.
May we all be labelled and despised by those who hate the truth, but
May God be praised whose servants we are, for whose sake we endure these things,
To God be the Glory!
-Turretinfan
Steve Ray wrote this blog post:
Someone informed me that James White the Baptist was continuing his rant concerning my blog on the Assumption of Mary. The guy continues to take me far more seriously than I have ever taken him. He's really just a little man full of himself — an angry know-it-all who's really just a tempest in a teapot. The only reason I have ever responded to him in the past is for the sake of others reading the material. If I had nine lives I might waste some time refuting his latest rantings, but this time his preaching is not worth responding to. Let him prattle on. I have better things to do that to respond to every pontificating anti-Catholic that sets up a blog.
Example (2)
Then, in the combox, Steve Ray wrote:
Steve Ray here: I agree with you completely, but there are some innocent folks who might be influenced by such nonsense and it is good for them to see that guys like White and his kind are very easy to refute. If someone does not refute them, like saints have refuted heretics in the past, then others might think they cannot be refuted. Such petty, self-important know-it-alls need to be refuted so others don't fall prey to them.
Actually James White does more for good for the Catholic Church right where he is! I know many people that have become more convinced of the Catholic Church by listening to arrogant folks like him.
Notice that Steve Ray has taken the "label 'anti-Catholic' rather than debate sensibly" page from Dave Armstrong's book.
But look at the lack of positional stability:
In (1), James White is not to be taken seriously.
In (2), James White should be taken seriously or "others might think [he] cannot be refuted."
In (1), "If I had nine lives I might waste some time refuting his latest rantings, but this time his preaching is not worth responding to. Let him prattle on."
In (2), "there are some innocent folks who might be influenced by such nonsense," and consequently James White should not be ignored.
In (1), James White is a nobody: "I have better things to do that to respond to every pontificating anti-Catholic that sets up a blog."
In (2), James White is a significant Roman Catholic apologetic tool: "I know many people that have become more convinced of the Catholic Church by listening to arrogant folks like him," and "James White does more for good for the Catholic Church right where he is!"
In (1), it would take a lot of time to refute James White, "If I had nine lives I might waste some time refuting his latest rantings."
In (2), it would be easy to refute James White, "guys like White and his kind are very easy to refute."
About the only commonality between the two is the vitriol exuded against Dr. White:
(1) "He's really just a little man full of himself — an angry know-it-all who's really just a tempest in a teapot."
(2) "Such petty, self-important know-it-alls need to be refuted" and "arrogant folks like him"
Yes, Steve Ray hates James White - that's easy enough to see. It's also easy to see why Steve Ray hates James White, and that is because Dr. White preaches the Truth and exposes the errors and delusions of Rome.
May we all be labelled and despised by those who hate the truth, but
May God be praised whose servants we are, for whose sake we endure these things,
To God be the Glory!
-Turretinfan
Miscellaneous Web Site
In an attempt to find some texts on the Internet, I stumbled across a web site that is rich in Reformation writings, as well as writings of church fathers, and oddly a few of the Arminian notables (such as Arminius and Wesley).
I was about to recommend the web site as a resource for downloads, when I came across two things that gave me pause:
1) The first was a very mild eye-brow arching over a critique of Codex Vaticanus - and particular the marginal notes therein. The critique made the claim that the marginal notes show the ancient character of the Textus Receptus, because the marginal notes (at least sometimes, and/or in important places) follow the TR. As a TR-preferred writer, I found these comments disturbing, because I have also read the work of palaeographers, who provide some instruction on how to date such marginal notes, and who would not necessarily reach the same conclusion as the web site owner/editor did. The website cited "research beginning in 1995," which again reinforced a worry that this author has that the author/owner/editor of the web site may not be fully equipped in the arena of textual criticism. What was especially interesting were some claims that the TR (apparently Stephanus' 1550 edition) represents the pure original autograph text! If this were the only issue, I would just issue a mild caveat.
2) The more serious concern was raised (in my mind) over the disclaimer provided one of the web pages:
Wow! I had no idea that there were still followers of that alleged prophet. At least for now, I don't plan to directly link to the site. Perhaps some other time, or for some of the specific books (including Calvin's Institutes and the Works of Arminius) that can be found there.
-Turretinfan
I was about to recommend the web site as a resource for downloads, when I came across two things that gave me pause:
1) The first was a very mild eye-brow arching over a critique of Codex Vaticanus - and particular the marginal notes therein. The critique made the claim that the marginal notes show the ancient character of the Textus Receptus, because the marginal notes (at least sometimes, and/or in important places) follow the TR. As a TR-preferred writer, I found these comments disturbing, because I have also read the work of palaeographers, who provide some instruction on how to date such marginal notes, and who would not necessarily reach the same conclusion as the web site owner/editor did. The website cited "research beginning in 1995," which again reinforced a worry that this author has that the author/owner/editor of the web site may not be fully equipped in the arena of textual criticism. What was especially interesting were some claims that the TR (apparently Stephanus' 1550 edition) represents the pure original autograph text! If this were the only issue, I would just issue a mild caveat.
2) The more serious concern was raised (in my mind) over the disclaimer provided one of the web pages:
Inclusion of a work on this Archives page does not imply any endorsement of particular views and doctrines contained in that work, except in the case of the inspired teaching of Brother William M. Branham, which is endorsed by the Lord Jesus Himself, and recommended to every soul who hungers and thirsts after righteousness.
Wow! I had no idea that there were still followers of that alleged prophet. At least for now, I don't plan to directly link to the site. Perhaps some other time, or for some of the specific books (including Calvin's Institutes and the Works of Arminius) that can be found there.
-Turretinfan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
