Can Papists Properly Call Reformed Churches, Churches?

Mr. Paul Hoffer referred to Reformed churches by the rather modernist/pluralist terminology of "faith communities. Mr. Mike Burgess has come to Mr. Hoffer's aid by suggesting that Mr. Hoffer is just being proper, and that properly Reformed churches cannot be said to be churches because they are not part of the true Church. We deny.

In opposition to this error, I present several arguments:

1. Pius XI, even while distinguishing them from the "true" church, referred to the reformed churches as such.

24. In his Controversies, although the holy Doctor made large use of the polemical literature of the past, he exhibits nevertheless a controversial method quite peculiarly his own. In the first place, he proves that no authority can be said to exist in the Church of Christ unless it had been bestowed on her by an authoritative mandate, which mandate the ministers of heretical beliefs in no way can be said to possess. After having pointed out the errors of these latter concerning the nature of the Church, he outlines the notes of the true Church and proves that they are not to be found in the reformed churches, but in the Catholic Church alone. He also explains in a sound manner the Rule of Faith and demonstrates that it is broken by heretics, while on the other hand it is kept in its entirety by Catholics. In conclusion, he discusses several special topics, but only those leaflets which treat of the Sacraments and of Purgatory are not extant. In truth, the many explanations of doctrine and the arguments which he has marshaled in orderly array, are worthy of all praise. With these arguments, to which must be added a subtle and polished irony that characterizes his controversial manner, he easily met his adversaries and defeated all their lies and fallacies.

(source)

2. "Faith Communities" appears to be a term born out of attempted ecumenical dialog with Judaism. Example (link) (Cardinal Kasper states: "I am committed to work together with you for the reconciliation of our two faith communities, on the basis of a total mutual respect for our respective traditions and convictions.") While it may be viewed as a valid super-category for Church and Synagogue, it is not a "more proper" term for "heretical" and/or "schismatic" churches. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that no one could find a pope using the expression "faith communities" before Vatican II.

3. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 speak of the "synagogue of Satan." If "false Jews" can be said to be of a synagogue (even Satan's synagogue), then "false Christians" could be said to be of a church. Moreover, as Mr. Burgess admits, the claim today is not even that the Reformed churches are full of false Christians, just separated brethren.

On these three points, I'd respectfully disagree with Mr. Burgess' attempted buttressing of Mr. Hoffer on this issue of nomenclature. I can appreciate that Mr. Hoffer's choice of words may have been made with total innocence of any derogatory ring, aiming instead to use the language of ecumenicism (it should be noted that the Vatican now uses "faith communities" to refer not only to Jewish synagogues and the church of Rome, but also to "Protestant" churches, such as the Methodists).

To that, however, I'd add that the Reformed churches are part of the true church, while the Vatican is not. What are the marks of a true church?

See the Real Turretin's comments on this subject.


-TurretinFan

Charimsatic Techniques Exposed

The following video explains some of the connections between parts of the "Charismatic" movement and hypnotism. The video is presented by Todd Friel, with a guest who knows, because he used to be involved.



Hat Tip to Tim Wirth of the Discernment Ministry (link).

(for more, see this link)

-TurretinFan

Mortal Sin of Not Observing Obligatory Holy Days Debate

It hasn't been (I'm not sure whether it is over yet) a formal debate, but there are a series of posts back and forth that started with my rejection of the idea that it is mortal sin not to treat Christmas as a holy day, my affirmation of Christian liberty with respect to regarding days as either alike or holy, and my condemnation of the Roman position as legalism - a sort of modern Judaizing that appoints new supposedly mandatory holy days with even less authority than the Judaizers.

Here's the index (so far - if it progresses, I'll try to udpate):

TurretinFan 1 "To the Lord, I will not be Celebrating Christ's Birth" (link)

Bellisario 1 "Why Protestantism is Theologically Dead! Christ is born! Glorify Him!" (link)

TurretinFan 2 "Bellisario and Rome vs. Paul the Apostle on Christian Liberty" (link)

Bellisario 2 "Defending Christmas- Answering the Spiritually Dead! Romans 14:6 What it really means." (link)

TurretinFan 3 "Bellisario vs. His Own Imagination on Christmas" (link)

Bellisario 3 "Roman's 14 :Holy Days and Answering the Un-identifiable One. II" (link)

TurretinFan 4 "Bellisario Swings Again" (link)

Bellisario 4 "Refuting TF once again. The Fallacy of the Apostolic Age" (link)

TurretinFan 5 "Bellisario Burying Himself in the Carcases of More Straw Men" (link)

Bellisario 5 "Turetin Fan's Crippled Minded Theology on the Apostles Part I" (link)

TurretinFan 6 "Bellisario - Authority Discussion" (link)

Bellisario - Authority Discussion

Bellisario has a new post entitled, "Turetin [sic] Fan's Crippled [sic] Minded Theology on the Apostles Part I"

It's not hard to identify his thesis: My theology is "crippled" in some way. Let's see if he backs it up, or if this is just another case of assertion mania.

Beneath an image of a black tee-shrt with the logo "CRIPPLED" and a stylized image of a handicapped person apparently smoking from a bong (based on the standard U.S. image for "handicapped parking"), Bellisario writes: "Watch out for Crippled Theology ahead!"

Well, this assertion is less error-riddled than the post title (From a grammatical/spelling standpoint) but is just an assertion.

Bellisario continued: "I had to laugh again when I read TFs latest response to my blog. He once again proves that shows us his crippled-minded theology. Lets looks at some of his responses shall we?"

Again ... just assertions.

I had written: "Having prophets around is quite handy. When they go to heaven, all you have is the memory of their teachings. To make sure that we remembered their teachings accurately, the apostles left us the New Testament Scriptures. In fact, the only things we can definitively say that the Apostles taught are those things found in Scriptures."

Bellisario wrote: "Uhh no. We are not left with just a memory. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide His Church, not just memories. And so we see here how naive this guy is. Jesus, nor his apostles never said that they were going to leave us writings for us to remember them by. As I asked the first time, prove it. Where did they say it? Only in Tfs imagination is where. He cannot see past his 21st century clouded Western lenses. He is truly out to lunch here."

a) Jesus did not say, "The Holy Spirit will guide the Church."

b) Jesus did not say something that means that the Holy Spirit will guide an institution known as "the Church."

c) Jesus did promise the Holy Spirit's guidance, but this promise was not made to "the Church."

d) For example:

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

All of these statements were made to the apostles. Bellisario needs them to be, not to the apostles, but to the church. So, he just makes stuff up, and claims that "Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide His Church." Of course, Bellisario doesn't even attempt to identify which of those three verses (or some other verse) supposedly has Jesus saying that the Holy Spirit will guide the church, he just asserts it. Assertion upon assertion, but nothing to back it up - that's all we see from him. Oh, he can accuse (noting how he wrote: "He cannot see past his 21st century clouded Western lenses" and "He is truly out to lunch here," but Bellisario cannot actually demonstrate these things. The reason is simple: Bellisario just makes stuff up.

I had written: "When one stops viewing Sola Scriptura as a prohibitory rule and starts recognizing it as a practical and logical consequence of "you use what you have and you don't use what you don't have," then one sees the relevance of the fact that the apostles (and their prophetic gifts) being in heaven, not among us."

Belliario responded: "It is not a logical consequence. It is logical to follow what has been taught be Jesus and the apostles, and not by making your own false assumptions which cannot be proven. TF seems to imply here that since Scripture is written that the Oral word jusr cannot exist. We know that is not true because as we stated before the apostles did not believe in Scripture Alone."

1) "It is not a logical consequence."

This is an assertion. Want to bet whether Bellisario backs it up?

2) "It is logical to follow what has been taught be Jesus and the apostles, and not by making your own false assumptions which cannot be proven."

I assume that "be" should be "by." Sola Scriptura is the practice of following what was taught by Jesus and his apostles. Bellisario doesn't identify what he views as a false assumption, but not accepting teaches that cannot be demonstrated to have come from God is not a "false assumption" by any reasonable standard. So, theoretically, by Bellisario's own standard of what is logical, Sola Scriptura is logical.

3) "TF seems to imply here that since Scripture is written that the Oral word jusr cannot exist." (error in original)

Of course, that's not true. As I pointed out to him during our debate, we can present the Word of God in oral form, and we do - when we preach. But no one should assume that because a preacher preaches something it is the Word of God. Instead, we should check whether Scripture teaches what is being proclaimed.

4) "We know that is not true because as we stated before the apostles did not believe in Scripture Alone."

This foolish red herring has been addressed previously. As noted previously, the apostles believed in the authority of Scripture and the authority of living prophets and Jesus. The circumstances today are that there are no living prophets and Jesus is in heaven. Thus, by process of elimination, there is only Scripture as a divine oracle.

I had written: "Only a moron would deny it. For now, that's my proof of the fact that "their case is not the same as the case today." Should Bellisario decide to deny that not having the apostles around changes things, I will happily try to explain to him why not having living prophets/apostles is of significance. Now, someone might try to claim that things are not very different ... but that would be a different claim, wouldn't it?"

Bellisario wrote: "We can see here who the moron is. It is the one who invents new doctrine and tries to pass it off as authentic. TFs proof is a personal attack. The fact is the means the apostles used to guide the Church and establish it is the same today, other than the fact that they were the last to proclaim Divine Revelation. The means however that God uses to guide the Church, which is by Divine Guidance through his Holy Spirit is the same. The Church wrote some of it down guided by the Holy Spirit which is Sacred Scripture. TF just cannot grasp this concept, so he has to invent a new concept, one which Jesus, nor his apostles ever taught."

1) "We can see here who the moron is."

Finally, something I can agree with.

2) "It is the one who invents new doctrine and tries to pass it off as authentic."

Again, something I can agree with.

3) "TFs proof is a personal attack."

That's not true. My proof is that the apostles and prophets died and went to heaven and Jesus ascended into heaven. Only a moron would not recognize that this is a change from the time of the apostles. On top of that, while I used the word "moron" my comment evidenced the fact that Bellisario had not denied it ("Should Bellisario decide to deny it ...") and my use of "moron" was applied only to such a person as would deny that things have changed. Bellisario admits that things have changed. Apparently, though, careful reading and logic are not the strong points for Mr. Bellisario.

4) "The fact is the means the apostles used to guide the Church and establish it is the same today, other than the fact that they were the last to proclaim Divine Revelation."

I guess to Bellisario, in a debate over the available sources of divine revelation, it is a minor detail that the apostles were in the era when additional divine revelation was being proclaimed. I would hope that most rational people would realize that if there are other sources of special divine revelation then than now, that's an important difference, not just a minor change. But, apparently Bellisario thinks it is small.

5) "The means however that God uses to guide the Church, which is by Divine Guidance through his Holy Spirit is the same."

a) Note that this is an assertion that builds on the previous assertion that Jesus said the the Holy Spirit would guide the church.

b) Note that Bellisario doesn't substantiate this assertion, either.

c) Given that the Holy Spirit and Apostles (by the authority of the Holy Spirit) guided the Church by the Apostles preaching in person and writing letters, and since having them preaching in person is impossible (since they are absent from the body), but we still have their letters, it seems like Bellisario should be advocating Sola Scriptura, if he did not assume that there was some additional way in which the Holy Spirit guided "the Church."

6) "The Church wrote some of it down guided by the Holy Spirit which is Sacred Scripture."

No, individuals (and sometimes groups) wrote down Scripture. For example, most of Paul's epistles were written by him (or by his assistant, with Paul's own personal signature to confirm that it was Paul's letter). But Scripture is a body that goes beyond the New Testament church, for most of the Bible was written before Jesus' incarnation. Those Old Testament books were not written down by the Congregation of Israel, but by the prophets beginning with Moses.

Of course, the individuals who wrote it down (mostly apostles) were guided by the Holy Spirit, indeed the Holy Spirit inspired these writings of theirs. It is the same Holy Spirit who guided the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah that guided the Apostles to pen the completion of Scripture.

7) "TF just cannot grasp this concept, so he has to invent a new concept, one which Jesus, nor his apostles ever taught."

Another of Bellisario's assertions. The only thing (besides' Jesus personal teaching and the personal teaching of those inspired by God as prophets/apostles - which are no longer with us) that the apostles and Jesus relied upon as infallible was Scripture. It was their only other source of infallible authority. The "new concept" here that has been invented is the additional supposed source of authority of the "Holy Spirit guiding the Church."

Bellisario continued: "Then Tf admits that the apostles didn't believe this yet gives a poor excuse. Lets take a look."

Well, we see that Bellisario is not afraid to state his opinion of the explanation given, but it is a lot easier to call an explanation a "poor excuse" than to actually demonstrate such.


I had written, initially quoting Bellisario's own words:

5) "The apostles didn't practice Scripture alone, but, they didn't have to."

They used what they had, just as we do. To say that they didn't practice "Scripture alone" is a bit like saying that Moses didn't accept the book of Hebrews as canonical. It's a trifling evasion of the issue through the employment of anachronism. And even if a Gerry Matatics browbeat me into providing a sound bite that "Moses didn't accept the canonicity of the Book of Hebrews," it really wouldn't change anything.

I think it is important to note the particular rhetorical ploy that Bellisario (and Matatics) have tried to employ. They want to cast the issue in terms of that word "only," as though Scripture should have to expressly say, "and when there are no prophets, you don't use them as a rule of faith," instead of identifying several rules, all of which we accept, when they are available. But we don't have prophets today - we don't have God speaking from the sky, we only have Scripture. What Bellisario seems to overlook is that even though the Apostles accepted the living prophets, Jesus himself, and visions from God, they didn't accept the "Infallible Authoritative Tradition" of alleged ability to generate new doctrines over time. We phrase our doctrine "Sola Scriptura" simply because we don't have Jesus and the Prophets among us. If we did, it would be "Jesus, Scripture, and the Prophets alone.

Bellisario responded: "No they used what Jesus told them they would have for all time and that is the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that He Himself would also guide the Church and never mentioned that once the Church was established we all have a different means to be guided by. This is completely fabrication. Once again there is no reason to believe this. TF seems to forget that Jesus promises these things, but we can see that TF is no Scripture scholar as he claims, but forgets all of the passages that contradict him, or he invents new interpretations of passages that don't pertain to his beliefs at all."

1) "No they used what Jesus told them they would have for all time and that is the Holy Spirit."

a) Again, Bellisario asserts rather than demonstrating. We are left guessing what his claim is based on.

b) We think that he is basing it on the following passage:

John 14:16-18
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

c) If so, Bellisario is wrong. There are two senses in which this prophecy could be understood. Neither of these, however, is directed to "the Church" being infallble in its teachings. One way is that this prophecy refers personally to the Apostles. The other way is that this verse refers to all believers. The Romanist will usually acknowledge that in John 14, Jesus hadn't established his church yet, so whoever Jesus is talking to, it cannot be "the Church." So, the "you" cannot be "the Church" as an institution.

2) "Jesus said that He Himself would also guide the Church and never mentioned that once the Church was established we all have a different means to be guided by."

a) Another of Bellisario's undemonstrated assertions - does anyone view this guy as scholarly?

b) "He Himself would guide the Church"? Does Bellisario mean that the person of Jesus would guide "the Church"? There is certainly no promise of that.

c) Possibly Bellisario is simply referring to the Trinity guiding "the Church," this being a variant on his original claim that the Holy Spirit would guide "the Church." That assertion is already refuted above.

d) Jesus himself taught from the Scripture (Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.), as did Paul (Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,). So - no - teaching from Scripture is not some different means.

3) "This is completely fabrication."

Let the reader judge who fabricates and who demonstrates from Scripture and reason.

4) "Once again there is no reason to believe this."

Let the reader judge who gives reasons to believe what is written, and who boldly asserts with billowing words.

5) "TF seems to forget that Jesus promises these things"

Bellisario seems to conflate what he thinks he remembers Jesus saying. Bellisario doesn't actually point to any promises Jesus made, so that we could check whether they were to the apostles, all believers, or "the church" (as an institution - I keep mentioning this "as an institution" because "all believers" is the Reformed definition of "the church" but it is not the definition that Bellisario is using)

6) "but we can see that TF is no Scripture scholar as he claims,"

I don't claim to be a Scripture scholar. Although I appreciate that Bellisario seems to have unconsciously assumed that I am Scripture scholar from the fact that I continually direct the reader to Scripture, I just claim to be a believer with the Holy Spirit in my heart and a Bible in my hand.

7) "but forgets all of the passages that contradict him,"

Bellisario hasn't identified any such passages. It would be one thing if Bellisario brought up passages that "contradict" what I wrote - it is quite another for Bellisario just to assert bluntly that I have forgotten passages that he cannot (or at least does not) name.

8) "or he invents new interpretations of passages that don't pertain to his beliefs at all."

Well, at least Bellisario can be said to have tried to back up this claim with his last few posts. But the problem is, Bellisario's posts were mostly just assertions, as we have demonstrated. Although the application of the text to Romanism may not have been made before there was Romanism, nevertheless the text of Romans 14 does relate to Christian liberty in things indifferent - and the celebration of days and the eating of meats are things indifferent, according to God (though not according to Rome, as we have demonstrated).

I had written: "The claim is not that the "use what you have and don't use what you don't have" principle changed, but that it remained the same. The only thing that changed is that the apostles and prophets stopped providing us with prophecy, and consequently all we have today (in terms of revelation from God) is the Scriptures."

Bellisario wrote: "Once again prove this absurd assumption. I see a Church that has been left guided by God Himself. No the Scriptures are not all we have today. Can you see how crippled this theology is? There is nothing in the Scriptures that tells us any of these assumptions Tf is trying to get us to buy into."

1) "Once again prove this absurd assumption."

Are we supposed to think that "use what you have and don't use what you don't have" is absurd? I will let the reader judge. This common sense principle is reflected in Scripture:

Ecclesiastes 1:15 That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.

2) "I see a Church that has been left guided by God Himself."

I see God guiding his church (all believers) infallibly by the completed Bible, and fallibly by the teachers of the church. That human teachers are fallible is taught in Scripture, and that the Scriptures are infallible is taught in Scripture. There is, however, no Scriptural doctrine of "institutional infallibility" for "the Church."

3) "No the Scriptures are not all we have today."

It is true that it is not all we have today, but it is all we have that is infallible (which is what Bellisario meant to dispute, we hope). We have teachers, but teachers are fallible - there are even false teachers, like Benedict XVI.

4) "Can you see how crippled this theology is?"

The implicit argument here is that a theology that has only the Bible (and not the teachings of Rome) is "crippled." But Scripture says that Scripture is able to thoroughly furnish the man of God unto every good work. It sounds like God thinks Scripture is pretty enabling. So which is it? A throughly furnished (2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.) theology that is able to make one wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ) through faith in the Jesus of the 4-in-1 gospel? or a crippled theology? What does Scripture say? What does Romanism say? Let the reader test the spirits, which is of God, and which opposed to his revelation ("1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.").

5) "There is nothing in the Scriptures that tells us any of these assumptions Tf is trying to get us to buy into."

One has to admire Bellisario's boldness in making assertions. On the one hand, he knows full well that all my doctrines are derived from Scripture (and from no other source of authority) and yet he tries to assert that I get doctrines from somewhere else. It is a very bold unfounded assertion, but it is an unfounded assertion, nonetheless.

I had written: "The church today is still guided by the Scriptures, as it was then. The apostles themselves no longer personally guide the church. So, no - it is not "the same means today" as then, at least in respect to the personal guidance of the apostles. Still, since the Apostles left behind the New Testament, and since they did so for our instruction, it is almost as if they were still here."

Bellisario replied: "Wow, this guy is really delusional. No the apostles did not believe in Scripture Alone. No the Church which is an extension of the apostles is still guided by God's direction and they never told us they were leaving only a written testimony behind to remember them by. It sounds as if TF is comparing God's Divine Revelation and the Holy Spirit to his Grandmother's memoirs or something as if its just some written diary we have of a of what was once a living person. This type of rationalisation is typical from the rationalist, modernist, secular thinkers of our day. They deny anything they cannot see. If you look at TF, he holds onto his Scripture because it is all he can see. HE forgets that Jesus is living, and that the Holy Spirit is living, and they are not dead nor mute. What did Jesus teach to us while He was here? He taught Himself. What did He give to the apostles to pass down? They gave the living Jesus Himslef. That is why the Church teaches that Jesus is the Word and the living Word is what has been given to us. It just so happens that TF redefines the Word into a written one only."

1) "Wow, this guy is really delusional."

Now, that is an example of using a personal attack in place of an argument. It amounts to another of Bellisario's blustering assertions, but - as usual - he does not back it up.

2) "No the apostles did not believe in Scripture Alone."

This canard has been addressed several times above.

3) "No the Church which is an extension of the apostles is still guided by God's direction and they never told us they were leaving only a written testimony behind to remember them by."

a) The church is an extension of the apostles? That may be Rome's claim, but it is not the teaching of the apostles.

b) "The Church" (i.e. Rome) claims to be "guided by God's direction" but there is no Biblical basis to accept their claim.

c) One wonders why Bellisario thinks that the apostles need to tell us that they are leaving only a written testimony behind to remember them by. Does Bellisario think that the apostles had some other available medium? Furthermore, of course, for the first generation that survived the apostles, they could remember what the apostles personally told them. They could even communicate that to other people, just like I can communicate (orally) what the Bible says to other people. It can happen that way, but oral transmission isn't a reliable way to pass down information over generations. That's generally why people write important things down.

4) "It sounds as if TF is comparing God's Divine Revelation and the Holy Spirit to his Grandmother's memoirs or something as if its just some written diary we have of a of what was once a living person."

Justin Martyr wrote, in his Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 106:

“The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: ‘I will declare Thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise Thee. Ye that fear the Lord, praise Him; all ye, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.’ And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs. And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, ‘A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;’ and another Scripture says, ‘Behold a man; the East is His name.’ Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

Look at that, Justin Martyr calling the inspired Gospels the "memoirs of the Apostles." Will Bellisario say that "It sounds as if TF is comparing God's Divine Revelation and the Holy Spirit to his Grandmother's memoirs or something as if its just some written diary we have of a of what was once a living person." Furthermore, in Chapter 105, Justin explains that various things he knows about Jesus were "learned from the memoirs." It's not surprising then that the first order of business in Justin's home church was "the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits ... ." (First Apology, Chapter 67) Furthermore Justin asserted that apostles delivered what was enjoined to them (particularly with respect to the Lord's Supper) "in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels ... ." (First Apology, Chapter 66) Was Justin Martyr "delusional" and suffering "crippled theology" too, in Bellisario's opinion? But surely Bellisario will blush to employ his antics against Justin Martyr.

5) "This type of rationalisation is typical from the rationalist, modernist, secular thinkers of our day."

See above. Furthermore, Bellisario knows that my views on this having nothing to do either with modernity or secularism. His previous accusation of affiliation with Calvin and Turretin demonstrate his (at least subconscious) knowledge of this fact. Apparently, though this is an attempt to assert that something must be wrong, because bad people do it. That logical fallacy is so weak I think even Bellisario could defeat it.

6) "They deny anything they cannot see."

Interesting. As an iconoclast, I am obviously not in that category - in fact one of my criticism of idolaters is that they can only worship what they can see.

7) "If you look at TF, he holds onto his Scripture because it is all he can see."

I like the fact that Bellisario makes Scripture my personal possession. I don't think Bellisario gets, however, that I accept Scripture because of faith in the unseen God, not in a visible church.

8) "HE forgets that Jesus is living, and that the Holy Spirit is living, and they are not dead nor mute."

Bellisario forgets that the Scripture itself is living, or he would not make this comparison:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

("quick" here is the opposite of dead, as in 1 Peter 4:5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.)

But of course, I don't forget that Jesus and the Comforter and the Father are all living, and able to speak. I don't deny them the ability to communicate everything that they want us to know, propositionally through Scripture. Bellisario seems to think it is impossible that the Bible is all God wants us to know - calling such an approach "cripple-minded" (spelling corrected by myself).

9) "What did Jesus teach to us while He was here?"

The only way to be sure you know the answer to that question is to open your Bible. If you get the information second hand, they could (like Bellisario) be changing what Jesus actually taught in order to fit their theology. If you go straight to the Bible, you eliminate the middle man.

10) "He taught Himself."

Actually Jesus said:

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

And Jesus (as already proven above) taught out of the Scriptures. Jesus constantly relied on Scriptures, even when facing the devil himself after fasting for 40 days straight.

11) "What did He give to the apostles to pass down?"

Again, the only definitive way to answer this question is from Scripture itself.

12) "They gave the living Jesus Himslef." (error in original)

This is confusion. The idea that they pass on Jesus is a figure of speech. Jesus is in heaven. What they have passed down to us is Scripture. Scripture is about Him - about Jesus. So, figuratively speaking, they can be said to have passed on Jesus. Paul spoke, for example, of preaching Christ and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;), and also of preaching the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?). That latter verse especially illustrates what it means to "preach Christ." It means to preach about him - preach that Jesus was the Christ, and so forth.

13) "That is why the Church teaches that Jesus is the Word and the living Word is what has been given to us."

The way we know that Jesus is the Word is because the Bible tells us:

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

14) "It just so happens that TF redefines the Word into a written one only."

Not true ... see above.

I had written:

This kind of claim just shows that Bellisario hasn't read William Webster and David King's trilogy, "Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith," or William Whitaker's "Disputations on Holy Scripture," or William Goode's work on the same subject. In short, the only person who would claim that there is "not one ounce of proof that anyone after [the Apostles]" held Sola Scriptura, is someone unfamiliar with the mountains of proof provided.

Frankly, even if Bellisario did not read those works, he ought to have read my posts in the recent Sola Scriptura debate we had (he and I). In those posts, he would have found oodles of evidence, amounting (at a minimum) to more than a mere ounce. (Link to Debate)

(actual link omitted by Bellisario but reinserted by me)

Bellisario replied: "We all saw the lame evidence provided by him in the debate. The funny thing is, there was no evidence, just many unproven presumptions made by Tf that he never backed up."

I can only give Bellisario the credit that he was clever enough to remove the link to the debate, so that people could not easily see just how much of a liar he is. I encourage the reader to go and check. May I especially exhort the reader to consider the Cross-Examination Questions and Answers portion of the debate. (UPDATE: I should point out that this comment about Bellisario being clever enough to remove the link is tongue-in-cheek. If he were clever enough to do that, he'd also be clever enough to remove the archive of the debate from his own blog, which evidently he did not. He also would have been clever enough to properly use bold to distinguish between his words and mine in his original post. In all likelyhood, Bellisario simply used "cut and paste" to copy over the part of my words that he wanted to dispute, and didn't realize that the link didn't transfer across. Thanks to Mr. Greco for pointing out the potential for people to take this comment of mine as something other than tongue-in-cheek, as well as for detecting a typo in my post, which I have now corrected. Thanks, as well, to Mr. Lankford who found a second typo in the post. Finally, I should point out that I realize that who makes (or leaves up) the most typos is not really the debate at hand. I hope my observation of a few of Mr. Bellisario's grammatical and/or spelling struggles does not unduly district the reader from the issues under discussion.)

I had written: "Those who want to be accused of making their church an idol should use exactly that expression "blasphemers of the Church." If accusing Bellisario's church of erring is equivalent to "blaspheming his church" then I am guilty as charged - and so are Calvin and Turretin (in whose company I am not worthy to be included). The question, though, is this: am I right? Bellisario doesn't seem even to be willing to consider the possibility that his church could make a mistake: even the suggestion is apparently "blasphemy," just as I would consider it blasphemy for someone to say that is possible God made a mistake. For Bellisario, then, "the Church" occupies the place that the Holy Spirit and Scripture occupy in my theology. It is the difference between the anti-Biblical doctrine of Sola Ecclesia and the Scriptural doctrine of Sola Scriptura."

Bellisario replied: "No the Scriptures say that the Holy Spirit guides the Church. We know that Christ's Church cannot error, so it is Tf that blasphemes by saying that it can. What we know to be a fact is that TF will not admit that he makes mistakes because we have seen it time and time again. We all remember the contraception debacle where he and his buddy Bridges tried to change the meaning of contraception and what the Catholic Church taught about it. Look back to my archives in August to see that."

1) "No the Scriptures say that the Holy Spirit guides the Church."

No, they do not (at least not in the sense that Bellisario means). I've discussed this above. The fact that Bellisario repeats his assertion several times doesn't make it any less of an assertion.

2) "We know that Christ's Church cannot error," (error in original)

How Bellisario thinks he knows either (a) that Rome is Christ's church or (b) that Christ's church (as an institution) cannot err, he does not say. It's his assertion, but not a valid argument.

3) "so it is Tf that blasphemes by saying that it can."

Bellisario's apparent rationale is that any error is "blasphemy." Of course, Bellisario should first try to demonstrate that his own position is truth. Upon further investigation, and actually reading the Bible, Bellisario may come to discover both that churches err (and even Rome is not immune) and that not every error is blasphemy, properly speaking (which is good, because all men err).

4) "What we know to be a fact is that TF will not admit that he makes mistakes because we have seen it time and time again."

a) This is another of Bellisario's lies. An example of a mistake I made was my conflating Wycliff with other Reformed Bible translators during the debate. I learned of my mistake, and I even used up some of my limited words in my rebuttal essay during the debate to correct this mistake.

b) Although Bellisario says "we have seen it time and time again," the careful reader will note just that Bellisario has claimed it and asserted it time and time again. Bellisario doesn't seem to see the difference between his assertions and reality, or at least it seems he doesn't wish his readers to see the difference.

5) "We all remember the contraception debacle where he and his buddy Bridges tried to change the meaning of contraception and what the Catholic Church taught about it. Look back to my archives in August to see that."

At some point I'll have to provide an index for that dialog, to permit the reader to see what transpired. If I had more time now, I'd do it right here. However, for the other side of the dialog, the reader may refer to my own August archive. Each of my posts should have a working link to the corresponding posts at Bellisario's blog. So, the reader can see whether Bellisario's report is accurate or inaccurate.

Bellisario concluded: "I will continue the rest of my response later. I am trying to enjoy my vacation rather than wasting more of my time on this guy."

We'll see ... can we look forward to serious, reasoned exegesis of Scripture - or more insulting rhetoric-driven piles of assertions?

-TurretinFan

Atheism to be Taught to Victorian Youth

I was rather disturbed to read this article (link), provided to me by a very dear reader. The article suggests that primary schools in Victoria (the second most populous state of Australia) are expected to begin indoctrinating children with the idea that there is no evidence of God. Apparently, the universe (which he made) and the Bible (which he spake) do not count as evidence of their maker's and author's existence. What utter foolishness. I hope that Christians in Melbourne (and the rest of Victoria) will be able to oppose this proposal, but the proposal demonstrates the fact that Christians should not rely on the state to educate their children well.

Psalm 118:9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.

-TurretinFan

A.A. Hodge on the Atonement

In A.A. Hodge's "Outlines of Theology," there is a chapter (Chapter XXV) on the Atonement (pp. 401-25 in the 1999 Banner of Truth Printing). The chapter is well organized and provides a good introduction to the subject. It seems to be designed to serve as a seminary textbook, and while it varies somewhat from the style of modern textbooks, it is quite systematic in its presentation, including general subjects, exegetical issues, responses to various objections, and even an historical discussion of the various positions and expressions of the issues.

I found A.A. Hodge's definition of impetration interesting:

Impetration signifies the purchase, or meritorious procurement by sacrifice, of that salvation which God provides for his own people, and Application signifies its subsequent application to them in the process commencing with Justification and Regeneration, and ending in Glorification.

John Owen's classic "The Death of Christ," is not forgotten. A.A. Hodge brings it up as the definitive answer to the errors of Amyraldians such as those of the French School of Saumur and Richard Baxter. It appears again in the "Literature" section of the chapter.

A.A. Hodge devotes a short passage to the so-called "Marrow Men." These were a group who A.A. Hodge somewhat overly emphatically assert were "perfectly orthodox" in their view of the atonement. They denied that Christ died for all, but asserted that Christ was dead for all, i.e. available.

A.A. Hodge describes the universal effects of the atonement, such as the removal of all legal obstacles out of the way of all men, and the rendering of salvation to any hearer of the gospel objectively possible (and so forth), as being incidental effects of the atonement, but holds that the design of the atonement was specifically to impetrate the actual salvation of the elect. Furthermore, A.A. Hodge describes this specific design as "his real motive" for dying, and cites in support of his view, Calvin's comments on 1 John 2:2.

A.A. Hodge's summary seems very good exegetically. The influence of Turretin can be seen almost immediately. One area where A.A. Hodge is relatively weak is in answering objections. Although A.A. Hodge identifies the positions of the Amyraldians, Romanists, Lutherans, etc., he does not provide very thorough answers to those objections himself. For a positive presentation of the Reformed doctrine of the atonement, however, A.A. Hodge is worth reading.

-TurretinFan

Dr. Morey on Religulous

In the following video, Dr. Robert Morey picks apart the movie Religulous. I think any atheist should consider what Dr. Morey has to say about the subject.



I think one of the most frequent problems for atheists is that they have trouble finding true Christianity. The place to find it, in its purest form, is in the Bible. If you are an atheist, and you want to know what Christianity is, pick up a Bible (KJV is a great translation, but if you cannot handle the archaic declensions and conjugations, the NKJV, ESV and NASB are also reasonably accurate English translations).

-TurretinFan

Bellisario Burying Himself in the Carcases of More Straw Men

More response from Bellisario has come in. I'll try to address it as thoroughly as possible, in the hopes that he'll carefully read it and stop attacking straw men. Surely, eventually such wanton destruction of scarecrows will cause some sort of rhetorical carbon footprint problem, and we certainly don't want that:

I had written: a) The apostles (aside from Judas) are in heaven today. They are not among us any more. So, their case is not the same as the case today.

Bellisario:

My response.

I'm not sure what the apostles being in heaven has to do with anything. My response to the later is, prove it. There is no place in Scripture that tells that their case is not the same today as it was then. And once again TF has to fall into a circular argument to prove his case. The apostles didn't practice Scripture alone, but, they didn't have to. Well prove that that changed after the apostles. It is quite clear that it never changed and the Church still is guided by the same means today as it was then. Sure we have no new Divine Revelation, but that in no way means that God changed the way the Church operated based on the fact the the New Testament was written. Next...

Having present his paragraph as a whole, let me break it down, line by line:

1) "I'm not sure what the apostles being in heaven has to do with anything."

Having prophets around is quite handy. When they go to heaven, all you have is the memory of their teachings. To make sure that we remembered their teachings accurately, the apostles left us the New Testament Scriptures. In fact, the only things we can definitively say that the Apostles taught are those things found in Scriptures.

When one stops viewing Sola Scriptura as a prohibitory rule and starts recognizing it as a practical and logical consequence of "you use what you have and you don't use what you don't have," then one sees the relevance of the fact that the apostles (and their prophetic gifts) being in heaven, not among us.

2) "My response to the later is, prove it."

Only a moron would deny it. For now, that's my proof of the fact that "their case is not the same as the case today." Should Bellisario decide to deny that not having the apostles around changes things, I will happily try to explain to him why not having living prophets/apostles is of significance. Now, someone might try to claim that things are not very different ... but that would be a different claim, wouldn't it?

3) "There is no place in Scripture that tells that their case is not the same today as it was then."

Sure it does:

2 Corinthians 5:1-8
1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. 5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. 6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

This passage proves that the case of the apostles is different now than it was then. They are now absent from the body and present with the Lord. I suppose that an exceedingly stubborn person could point out that the Bible doesn't specifically mention the death of all of the apostles - but no reasonable person thinks that the apostles (aside from Judas) are not absent from the body and present with the Lord. More importantly, Bellisario's own church acknowledges that all of the 12 apostles have passed on. If Bellisario would like to disagree, let it be with his own church.

But that's not really the issue - the issue isn't whether "their case is not the same today as it was then," but whether their case is the same as the case today. The case today is that we do not have apostles in our midst - we do not having living prophets walking amongst us. Instead, we have the Scriptures that they left us, whose purpose it was to instruct us in all things necessary for salvation.

4) "And once again TF has to fall into a circular argument to prove his case."

Nope. Another of Bellisario's breezy assertions, but nothing to back it up.

5) "The apostles didn't practice Scripture alone, but, they didn't have to."

They used what they had, just as we do. To say that they didn't practice "Scripture alone" is a bit like saying that Moses didn't accept the book of Hebrews as canonical. It's a trifling evasion of the issue through the employment of anachronism. And even if a Gerry Matatics browbeat me into providing a sound bite that "Moses didn't accept the canonicity of the Book of Hebrews," it really wouldn't change anything.

I think it is important to note the particular rhetorical ploy that Bellisario (and Matatics) have tried to employ. They want to cast the issue in terms of that word "only," as though Scripture should have to expressly say, "and when there are no prophets, you don't use them as a rule of faith," instead of identifying several rules, all of which we accept, when they are available. But we don't have prophets today - we don't have God speaking from the sky, we only have Scripture. What Bellisario seems to overlook is that even though the Apostles accepted the living prophets, Jesus himself, and visions from God, they didn't accept the "Infallible Authoritative Tradition" of alleged ability to generate new doctrines over time. We phrase our doctrine "Sola Scriptura" simply because we don't have Jesus and the Prophets among us. If we did, it would be "Jesus, Scripture, and the Prophets alone."

6) "Well prove that that changed after the apostles."

The claim is not that the "use what you have and don't use what you don't have" principle changed, but that it remained the same. The only thing that changed is that the apostles and prophets stopped providing us with prophecy, and consequently all we have today (in terms of revelation from God) is the Scriptures.

7) "It is quite clear that it never changed and the Church still is guided by the same means today as it was then."

The church today is still guided by the Scriptures, as it was then. The apostles themselves no longer personally guide the church. So, no - it is not "the same means today" as then, at least in respect to the personal guidance of the apostles. Still, since the Apostles left behind the New Testament, and since they did so for our instruction, it is almost as if they were still here.

8) "Sure we have no new Divine Revelation, but that in no way means that God changed the way the Church operated based on the fact the the New Testament was written."

It sure looks and quacks like a change, not to have new Divine revelation. For some reason, though, Bellisario doesn't think it is a change. Or perhaps he doesn't think that the delivery of new revelation was a church operation. Regardless, the essential operations of the church are unchanged, but the church operated subservient to revelation from the start - now the only available reliable source of special revelation is the Scriptures, since we no longer have the Apostles and prophets in our midst.

In the next section, I had written: "b) To say that the 'apostles were being guided by the Church' is a bit odd. We never see any examples of the apostles saying that they believed something on the testimony of 'the Church'."

Bellisario replied:

Uhmm, they were establishing the Church, they however were members of it guided by the Holy Spirit, in which they passed down the same practices to their followers, which also by the admittance of James White himself (See his debate with Matatics) did not practice Sola Scriptura. And there is not one ounce of proof that anyone after them did either. The Scriptures of the NT themselves don't attest to it and in fact fall in line with that of the apostles telling us (the Church) to follow both the Oral and written Word of God. Keep grasping at straws...this is fun..

Again, I'll go line by line.

1) "Uhmm, they were establishing the Church, they however were members of it guided by the Holy Spirit, in which they passed down the same practices to their followers, which also by the admittance of James White himself (See his debate with Matatics) did not practice Sola Scriptura."

This is rather a run-on. Christ established his church. The apostles were simply servants of Christ. I'm glad Bellisario has abandoned his claim that the Apostles were "guided by the church." They were guided by the Spirit in two ways (as I mentioned): (i) in the prophetic gifts, and (ii) in the way in which all believers are guided by the Holy Spirit. They passed down their teachings (at least those that the Holy Spirit decided were important enough to commit to writing) to us in Scripture. The apostles had the gift of prophecy and were personally taught by Jesus, and consequently they did not rely solely on Scripture. Dr. White acknowledged that truth, as do we. If we had living prophets and Jesus himself in our midst, we also would rely on those resources. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura, after all, is a practical doctrine: you use what you have, and you cannot use what you don't have.

2) "And there is not one ounce of proof that anyone after them did either."

This kind of claim just shows that Bellisario hasn't read William Webster and David King's trilogy, "Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith," or William Whitaker's "Disputations on Holy Scripture," or William Goode's work on the same subject. In short, the only person who would claim that there is "not one ounce of proof that anyone after [the Apostles]" held Sola Scriptura, is someone unfamiliar with the mountains of proof provided.

Frankly, even if Bellisario did not read those works, he ought to have read my posts in the recent Sola Scriptura debate we had (he and I). In those posts, he would have found oodles of evidence, amounting (at a minimum) to more than a mere ounce. (Link to Debate)

3) "The Scriptures of the NT themselves don't attest to it and in fact fall in line with that of the apostles telling us (the Church) to follow both the Oral and written Word of God."

This assertion was addressed at greater length in the debate I've linked to, above. It's silly to note that the Scriptures don't attest to what happened after they were written. It's just a relevant as noting that that December 1, 2008, Jerusalem Post makes no mention of the fighting in Gaza that has taken place over the last week. Writings (aside from prophecy) generally speak about what has already taken place.

Interestingly, Scripture does speak to its own closure, though some try to dispute it:

Prophecy that prophecy will cease when that which is complete has come:

1 Corinthians 13:8-10
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Notification that the book of prophecy is completed:

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

As for being guided by the written and oral Word of God, no one disputes that the Word of God is any less authoritative when spoken than when written. On the other hand, we don't have prophets today delivering the Word of God orally, and the only sure testimony that we have to what their oral teachings were are their written teachings (the New Testament) and the Old Testament Scriptures whose authority they confirmed and from which they taught.

4) "Keep grasping at straws...this is fun.."

Just another of Bellisario's hollow assertions. Moving on ...

I had previously written: "c) The apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit in two ways. In one way they were guided just as all believers (myself included) are guided. In a second way, the apostles had prophetic gifts - they were the voicepieces of God, just like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and so on. That is not the case today - there are no more such prophets. Even Bellisario's own church acknowledges that there is no more public revelation."

Bellisario responded:

One thing is clear, you are not guided by anything holy. I am sorry if this offends anyone, but lets call a spade a spade here. This guy is as bad as his heroes Turretin and Calvin who were both blasphemers of the Church. Let me continue. We still have gifts of the Holy Spirit and that is self evident being that the Saints have many revelations to guide them, not in new revelation, but in hearing God and doing His will, and are given similar gifts that the apostles themselves had. So no, there are still certain prophetic gifts that have never been taken away to keep the Church teaching infallibly. And once again God never changed the way the Church operated later on after the apostles were gone and then started a new form of doctrine called Sola Scriptura. This is a pure delusional and theological fantasy that TF is living in. What kind of fool does he think he is going to convince on such a poor un-apostolic teaching that has no historical basis whatsoever, including the lacking testimony of Scripture?

Again, I'll respond line by line.

1) "One thing is clear, you are not guided by anything holy."

This is another of Bellisario's vacuous assertions, and he cannot back it up. I'm guided by the Holy Spirit and Holy Scriptures. Bellisario would be more prudent to focus on the arguments from Holy Scripture, and to avoid this kind of remark, which starts to look like blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

2) "I am sorry if this offends anyone, but lets call a spade a spade here."

I do appreciate that Bellisario does not hide his emotions, but lays them right out there. On the other hand, Bellisario's only got his emotions to back up his claims - so they are just as unfounded as his emotional responses are.

3) "This guy is as bad as his heroes Turretin and Calvin who were both blasphemers of the Church."

Those who want to be accused of making their church an idol should use exactly that expression "blasphemers of the Church." If accusing Bellisario's church of erring is equivalent to "blaspheming his church" then I am guilty as charged - and so are Calvin and Turretin (in whose company I am not worthy to be included). The question, though, is this: am I right? Bellisario doesn't seem even to be willing to consider the possibility that his church could make a mistake: even the suggestion is apparently "blasphemy," just as I would consider it blasphemy for someone to say that is possible God made a mistake. For Bellisario, then, "the Church" occupies the place that the Holy Spirit and Scripture occupy in my theology. It is the difference between the anti-Biblical doctrine of Sola Ecclesia and the Scriptural doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

4) "Let me continue."

Indeed.

5) "We still have gifts of the Holy Spirit and that is self evident being that the Saints have many revelations to guide them, not in new revelation, but in hearing God and doing His will, and are given similar gifts that the apostles themselves had."

Chrysostom says that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit had long since ceased in his day. He is considered a "saint." Does Bellisario want to accuse him of "blasphemy" against "the Church"?

Bellisario makes oblique reference to certain of the "saints" (mostly in the medieval period) allegedly having more or less private revelations from God and allegedly performing various miracles. This kind of comment is a distraction. The "Saints" teachings may be held in high regard in Catholicism, but they are recognized as fallible. Furthermore, the "Saints" who supposedly (in their lifetimes) performed "similar" miracles were generally not the ones who were most active in teaching doctrine.

Bellisario also fails to appreciate that as "self evident" as it may be to him, we don't simply accept the claims of his church that the various alleged miracles of these "saints" actually happened. Instead, we attribute a lot (if not all) of these alleged medieval miracles to legend and superstition. One should really read B. B. Warfield's, "Counterfeit Miracles," to get a more involved discussion on this matter.

More importantly, the church councils of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II were not composed of wonder-workers. The bishops who (by majority vote) decided doctrinal matters did not have "similar gifts [to those] that the apostles themselves had." The teachings of Rome are not supported by wonders done by the teachers of Rome.

6) "So no, there are still certain prophetic gifts that have never been taken away to keep the Church teaching infallibly."

Notice that this is a non sequitur on the tail of Bellisario's last claim about the saints. The saints aren't the teachers. But Bellisario seems to be waving his hand and trying to say that "the church" has saints (who allegedly exhibit similar gifts to those of the apostles) and "the church" teaches infallibly.

But the sign gifts that Jesus and the prophets and apostles had were gifts exercised by the prophets themselves. Moses raised his staff and the Red Sea was divided by God. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Paul raised Eutychus from the dead. And so on, and so forth.

What's more - there is nothing in Scripture about a prophetic gift that is going to make the church teach infallibly. It's just something that got made up as things went along. It's one of innumerable innovations that crept in over time. It's a lovely example of wishful thinking, but wishing the church would be infallible isn't the same as proving that "the church" is infallible.

7) "And once again God never changed the way the Church operated later on after the apostles were gone and then started a new form of doctrine called Sola Scriptura."

Scripture has always been authoritative. The only thing different between the apostles time and now is that we no longer have those living prophets. We use what we have. When we have the Scriptures we use them. Before there were Scriptures, people used what they had. When there were Scriptures and prophets, people used what they had.

But though the Scripture is infallible, and though true prophets when uttering divine revelation are infallible, even true prophets were judged by Scripture, once Scripture was given in part! Furthermore, while Scripture tells us that Scripture is God-breathed, and Scripture praises true prophets of God, Scripture does not tell us that teachers in the church never err, or that "the church" as such teaches infallibly.

Like the innovation of Christmas, so also is the innovation of the "infallible teaching of the church." The latter is much more serious, however, since it undermines the unique authority of Scripture.

8) "What kind of fool does he think he is going to convince on such a poor un-apostolic teaching that has no historical basis whatsoever, including the lacking testimony of Scripture?"

As far as "historical basis," see above. Bellisario's refusal to hear the fathers doesn't mean that they don't speak to the issue. Bellisario's refusal to acknowledge the practical nature of Sola Scriptura doesn't change the nature of the doctrine. Furthermore, the only sense in which Bellisario's claim makes any sense is in taking the words "Sola Scriptura" and ignoring the qualifications. If Jesus is in front of a person, Jesus' words are authoritative. If God gives a prophet revelation, that revelation is authoritative. We just don't happen to have Jesus here among us, though he will return. Also, we don't have prophets any more giving public revelation from God. And Bellisario's church admits these two things. In Scripture, the ONLY thing that has infallible authority, aside from Jesus himself and the oral revelation of God through prophets, is Scripture. There's nothing else. When Bellisario starts looking at it that way, perhaps he'll understand how it is that Scripture does teach Sola Scriptura, just not the doctrine caricatured (as though the Reformed were teaching that the Apostles should have ignored Jesus, or something like that).

I had written: "Creating new doctrines and rules that were unknown to the apostles is different from asserting the authority of Scripture (which the apostles did) and recognizing the historical fact that we don't have living prophets as they did during the apostolic times. MB's complaint here is sophistical rather than sophisticated."

Bellisario replied:

Uhh no, the apostles did not assert Scripture as the ultimate authority. That is plain, and that teaching is something the apostles did not teach, and that is obviously a new doctrine. I think even your buddy James White disagrees with you there when he readily admits that the apostles did not teach Sola Scriptura, nor live by it.

This is all addressed above. Bellisario's repetition of his assertions is just that.

Bellisario continued:

This guy isn't even using rational arguments now. It is his interpretation and he stands there screaming like a child because someone challenges him and his incorrect interpretation. I will continue later if I get a chance and go back to Saint Paul one more time in Romans 14, since TF seems to hellbent on making Saint Paul a condemner of all Holy days, in which we anyone reading the text honestly has to admit that St Paul never even addresses this and is referencing the Jews in these passages. This is a perfect example of what you get if everyone is to interpret the Scriptures to their own liking. They interpret a passage to extend way beyond what the original writer intended it to say. And so we see nothing new under the sun. The same old heresies of old.

I answer:

1) "This guy isn't even using rational arguments now."

See above, as to who is using rational arguments. I am quite happy with the record as it stands.

2) "It is his interpretation and he stands there screaming like a child because someone challenges him and his incorrect interpretation."

Presumably, the children around the Bellisario household scream by writing lengthy essays explaining the errors of their critics' papers. Either that or Bellisario just makes up stuff, because of a mental or moral deficiency of his own. I'll let the reader decide.

3) "I will continue later if I get a chance and go back to Saint Paul one more time in Romans 14, since TF seems to hellbent on making Saint Paul a condemner of all Holy days, in which we anyone reading the text honestly has to admit that St Paul never even addresses this and is referencing the Jews in these passages."

More assertions. There is some irony in his following an obviously dishonest description of the situation with an attempt to impugn the honesty of anyone who reaches a conclusion different from his own.

4) "This is a perfect example of what you get if everyone is to interpret the Scriptures to their own liking."

On the heels of that last comment, of course, this makes no sense. Either the Scripture is clear (in which case no honest person can reach another conclusion) or it is not (in which case it can be interpreted lots of different ways). There's a reason for Bellisario's inconsistency - his position is logically indefensible, so he just piles on the rhetoric. The problem is that the rhetoric itself has meaning. In this case, the rhetoric creates contradictions within Bellisario's own essay.

5) "They interpret a passage to extend way beyond what the original writer intended it to say."

This is an assertion. Bellisario is full of them, as we've demonstrated. Notice how we demonstrate and Bellisario asserts. That's the biggest difference between our two positions.

6) "And so we see nothing new under the sun."

Again, the rhetoric ends up resulting in conflicts. One minute, Sola Scriptura is a novelty, the next minute there is nothing new. Poor Bellisario! If only he could set aside the rhetoric and try to deal with matter rationally!

7) "The same old heresies of old."

This assertion is very interesting. I wonder if Bellisario wouldn't mind pointing to the council or pope that first condemned the supposed heresy of arguing that Christians are free not to celebrate holy days? I wonder if Bellisario wouldn't mind pointing to the council or pope that first condemned the supposed heresy of Sola Scriptura? Anyone want to take a bet as to when that happened?

Bellisario continued:

I will add one other fact in before I conclude. Isn't it amazing that all of these ancient churches, all over the world for over 1300 years or so celebrated these Holy days, and they obviously were not reading Saint Paul in the same way that TF is doing were they? If TF is right, then why does every Church in existence celebrate Christmas until the "Reformation" and then even only a handful of those rebels were crazy and delusional enough to try and abolish these Holy days? I think that speaks for itself doesn't it? TF is certainly in the minority of even his Protestant Scripture Alone brethren, let alone the churches in existence before his.

I answer:

1) "I will add one other fact in before I conclude."

Notice that Bellisario just blithely assumes that his assertions are facts. He hasn't actually established facts, just made a pile of assertions, but now he wants to "add one other fact." Let's see what it is:

2) "Isn't it amazing that all of these ancient churches, all over the world for over 1300 years or so celebrated these Holy days, and they obviously were not reading Saint Paul in the same way that TF is doing were they?"

Bellisario seems to think that I'm arguing that this passage forbids Christians to celebrate Christmas. Well, either he mistakenly thinks that, or he's just brought up an irrelevant assertion! How so? Even supposing churches all over the globe celebrated Christmas, that's not problematic.

If Bellisario wanted to make an argument from the consensus of church history, what he'd really need to try to do is find some evidence that "all these ancient churches" held that failing to go to a Christmas "mass" was a "mortal sin" that caused a person to fall from grace - i.e. that celebration of Christmas by attending a "mass" is necessary for salvation.

Does anyone have any expectation that such evidence will be forthcoming? Not I. I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of fresh assertions though.

I would add this: the 1300 year number is apparently based on assuming that because the earliest references to celebrations of Christ's birth occur in the 200's (A.D., of course), that consequently the celebrations were immediately globally practiced and then continuously maintained until a few mavericks shook things up in the 1500's. Can Bellisario really document the 3rd-8th century practices of Christianity in the Eastern portions of India? Has Bellisario examined when Ethiopic churches began their celebration? It may well have caught on quickly (initially it would have provided a valuable teaching aid for reminding people of the life of Christ), but the reader should catch on to the fact that what Bellisario says is often not well supported by evidence, though boldly asserted.

-TurretinFan

Common Grace vs. Prevenient Grace

One reader asked, "How does the Arminian concept of prevenient grace differ from the Calvinist concept of common grace? It seems to me that they each describe one and the same thing."

In Calvinist circles, the term "common grace" is used to describe a number of things. One definition provides three aspects:

1) "a certain favor or grace of God which He shows to His creatures in general;"
2) "the restraint of sin in the life of the individual man and in the community;" and
3) an influence in which, "God, without renewing the heart, so influences man that he is able to perform civil good" and, thus, "the unregenerate, though incapable of doing any saving good, can do civil good." (source)

In contrast, Wesley (one of the most influential Arminian writers) defined prevenient grace thus (I'm not sure whether these are Wesley's own words or a distillation of his thought ... they seem to be accurate, and I could not find a more pithy quotation directly from him.):

Human beings are totally incapable of responding to God without God first empowering them to have faith. This empowerment is known as "Prevenient Grace." Prevenient Grace doesn't save us but, rather, comes before anything that we do, drawing us to God, making us want to come to God, and enabling us to have faith in God. Prevenient Grace is Universal, in as much as all humans receive it, regardless of their having heard of Jesus. It is manifested in the deep-seated desire of most humans to know God.

(source)

One could loosely compare the two by saying that common grace simply places a limit on the depth of man's depravity, whereas prevenient grace removes man's depravity. Common grace makes man not as wicked as he otherwise would be, but prevenient grace makes man essentially morally neutral.

The two are quite different. It's worth noting that some Calvinists use the term "common grace" to refer more broadly to things like the fact that God sometimes gives common physical goods to both regenerate and unregenerate alike (for example, God may give rain to water the crops of both a god-fearing farmer and his neighbor the god-hating farmer). Other times, people use the term "common grace" to refer to the outward restraints on human wickedness, such as civil government and parents.

Likewise, prevenient grace is sometimes given a range of meanings. I've heard the preaching of the gospel referred to, by an Arminian, as prevenient grace. Indeed, some Arminians would say that every favor or opportunity that God gives to man before he believes, prevenes (goes before) that faith, and consequently can be labeled prevenient grace.

Thus, while the central meanings of the two terms are largely unrelated, there is occasionally overlap, where a Calvinist might loosely refer to something as "common grace" and an Arminian might loosely refer to it as "prevenient grace."

I should point out that not all Calvinists agree with using the term "common grace." I understand the historical, linguistic, and logical rational for that disagreement (I think), but I view it as a scruple. I'm not going to debate the issue here, and I hope that I won't unnecessarily offend my scrupulously Calvinistic friends by referring to their views that way. On the other hand, I don't endorse the idea of saying that a person is a "hyper-Calvinist" if they don't use the term "common grace," or find the three points above to be an inaccurate statement of doctrine. I realize that puts me at odds with such notable contemporary bloggers as Phil Johnson, but that's just something I'll have to live with. And I'm not going to debate that issue here, either.

Having explained the differences between "common grace" and "prevenient grace," I hope I will have answered my reader's question.

-TurretinFan

Response to Hoffer's Inquiries on Christian Liberty

PH wrote:

I would like to get your thoughts on the role of the Church in deciding whether to [celebrate] certain holidays or not.

PH went on to provide the following:

Chapter 21 of The Westminster Confession titled "Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day," states in part:

"The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths, and vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasion; which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner."

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) Chapter 24 captioned, "The Festivals of Christ and the Saints." states:

"Moreover, if in Christian Liberty the churches religiously celebrate the memory of the Lord’s nativity, circumcision, passion, resurrection, and of his ascension into heaven, and the sending of the Holy Spirit upon his disciples, we approve of it highly."

Article 67 of Church Order of the Synod of Dordt (I hope that I got that right) states:

"The congregations shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter and Pentecost, with the following day; and since in most cities and provinces of the Netherlands, besides these there are also observed the day of Circumcision and Ascension of Christ, the ministers everywhere, where this is still not the custom, shall put forth effort with the authorities that they may conform with the others."

Turretin seemed to approve of the celebration of Christmas in his commentary on the Fourth Commandment set forth in his Institutes:

"The question is not whether anniversary days may be selected on which either the nativity, or circumcision, or passion, or ascension of Christ, and similar mysteries of redemption, may be commemorated, or even on which the memory of some remarkable blessing may be celebrated. For this the orthodox think should be left to the liberty of the church. Hence some devote certain days to such festivity, not from necessity of faith, but from the counsel of prudence to excite more to piety and devotion."

Then, Mr. Hoffer asked:

You talked of Christian liberty, yet all the authorities above provide (at least in these texts)that such liberty resides in the churches, not in the individual.

I answer:
These documents speak of the liberty of churches. They do not deny the liberty of Christians. For example, in the Westminster Confession, the section on liberty of conscience is found in Chapter XX. Likewise, the Second Helvetic Confession addresses "things indifferent" in Chapter XXVII. Similar the Belgic Confession (which is one of the "three forms of unity" in churches that use Dordt as a Normed Norm) contains Article 32, which identifies limits on the authority of the church. I'll leave Turretin out of it, for now.

PH continued:

If your particular faith community had decided to exercise its Christian liberty and decide to celebrate Christmas would you be obligated to adhere to such a decision?

Faith community? What sort of talk is that? Reformed Christians have churches. If my church decided to celebrate Christmas, there are various ways it could do so. One way would be through holding a Christmas-day service, and exhorting (or encouraging) the faithful to attend. That's the usual way I've seen it done.

What if they tried to require everyone to come? It's an interesting dilemma. In general, the commands of the church should be obeyed if they do not cause one to sin. On the other hand, the churches ought not to insist on unnecessary things. Unless (as in Romanism) the command were phrased as a condition for salvation, it would be obligatory for Christians who could conscientiously comply.

PH wrote:

And if you are free to disregard the decision of your church on something like celebrating Christmas, does your liberty as a Christian extend to other doctrines as well?

Christian liberty extends to indifferent things.

PH wrote:

For example, purely as a hypothetical, what if you became convinced through your studies of Scripture that 2nd Maccabees should be included in the canon because Jesus celebrated Hanukkah (Jn 10:22), a holiday that is found only in that deuterocanonical/apocryphal text and nowhere else in the OT, would you be allowed to disregard the authority of your church that says that such book does not belong in the canon and hold to the contrary?

There are a number of issues tangled together in that question:

1) John 10:22 doesn't say that Jesus celebrated the feast identified, but rather that it was that time of year, and that Jesus was walking in the temple in Solomon's porch.

2) The feast identified is the feast of the dedication (today, in Judaism, Hanukkah corresponds).

3) The feast identified was appointed during the inter-testamental time, as recorded in the apocryphal works of 1st and 2nd Maccabees (1 Mac 4:52-59, 2 Mac 10:5-8).

4) The Reformed churches do not accept 1st and 2nd Maccabees as canonical.

5) The proper identification of the canon, however, is not a thing necessary to salvation - and one is not required to deny that the books of the Maccabees are canonical in order to receive the sacraments. Accordingly, the Reformed churches would not ordinarily excommunicate someone for mistakenly thinking that 1&2 Mac were canonical. Nevertheless, in an ideal world, the elders would make time to counsel them and show them that those books are not canonical.

PH continued:

To posit a different hypothetical, let's say that your particular Church now authorizes homosexual unions and permits the ordination of homosexual men to become ministers and you disagree with that decision, are you allowed according to the traditions or rules of your Church to dissent?

It depends what you mean by "dissent." The issue of who can marry and who can be ordained to the ministry is not a matter necessary to salvation. So, if the church taught those things, it would normally be permitted in the church for members to disagree.
However, in these particular examples, the teachings of the church are so clearly contrary to Scripture, that it might be the duty of Christians not simply to disagree, but after attempted reformation (if unsuccessful) to leave.

PH concluded:

I am asking these questions so I can get a handle on your understanding of the limits of Church authority. I thank you in advance for your reply to this query.

I nearly didn't respond, but at least now I can have the pleasure of saying "you're welcome." I hope it is helpful.

-TurretinFan

Amyraldianism and the Canons of Dordt

Someone raised the question of why I would think that the Amyraldian position is at odds with the teachings of the Synod of Dordt. The following hopefully explains.

The Amyraldian position, per Dabney, is that "God decreed from eternity, to create the human race, to permit the fall; then in His infinite compassion, to send Christ to atone for every human being’s sins, (conditioned on his believing); but also foreseeing that all, in consequence of total depravity and the bondage of their will, would inevitably reject this mercy if left to themselves ... ." (source)

The relevant parts of the Canons of Dordt are as follows (all references are within the topic of the Second Main Point of Doctrine):

Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.

(emphases are my own)

Also, Rejection of Errors 1 states as the error:

Who teach that God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ's death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual.

and provides as the answer:

For this assertion is an insult to the wisdom of God the Father and to the merit of Jesus Christ, and it is contrary to Scripture. For the Savior speaks as follows: I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them (John 10:15, 27). And Isaiah the prophet says concerning the Savior: When he shall make himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand (Isa. 53:10). Finally, this undermines the article of the creed in which we confess what we believe concerning the Church.

Further, Rejection of Errors 3 states as the error:

Who teach that Christ, by the satisfaction which he gave, did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation, but only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary will to relate in a new way with men and to impose such new conditions as he chose, and that the satisfying of these conditions depends on the free choice of man; consequently, that it was possible that either all or none would fulfill them.

and provides as the answer:

For they have too low an opinion of the death of Christ, do not at all acknowledge the foremost fruit or benefit which it brings forth, and summon back from hell the Pelagian error.

Further, Rejection of Errors 6 states as the error:

Who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ's death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves.

and provides as the answer:

For, while pretending to set forth this distinction in an acceptable sense, they attempt to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism.

Analysis

The issue created by Amyraldianism is its making the atonement universal, by placing it before the decree of election in the order of decrees. It's impossible, under the Amyraldian scheme (as it is presented by Dabney) for the atonement to be particular, because the election of people is logically subsequent to the decree of atonement. Accordingly, Christ dies for all mankind universally in an undifferentiated way, on the condition of faith. However, God recognizes that no one can fulfill this condition and consequently God elects to give some grace to fulfill the condition. Consequently, while the atonement itself (in the Amyraldian scheme) is universal, the application of that atonement is particular (as also in the Arminian scheme, although the way in which it becomes particular is different in the Arminian scheme).

Article 8 of Heading 2 of the Canons of Dordt is inconsistent with this view of the atonement. Article 8 states that "In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father ... ." (emphases my own) This statement limits the scope of the atonement to the elect, through the explicit use of "only those."

I realize that an Amyraldian who wished to agree with Dordt, for whatever reason, might try to latch hold of the word "effectively" and/or "redeem" to try to find a way to agree with Dordt without sacrificing their own view of the atonement. With respect to "redeem" the argument would amount to arguing that redemption is one thing, and presentation is another thing. Thus, the atonement was presented to God for all, but only the elect were redeemed by it. The argument with respect to "effectively" would be similar: only the elect are effectively redeemed, all the rest are ineffectively redeemed.

Each of these attempted end-runs are problematic. First, it should be obvious that the Arminian/Remonstrant should be able to say the same thing, and yet it is apparent from the historical context that the heading was opposed to the errors of the Remonstrants. Second, we see further clarification via the Rejection of errors sections.

The synod described, as an error, the position that "God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ's death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual." Nevertheless, if the Amyraldian position were held, it would be the case that God so appointed his Son, and the worth of what Christ's death obtained could have stood whole even if the obtained redemption was never applied to any individual. Indeed, since - in the Amyraldian position - the atonement is suspended on the hypothesis of faith, if no one has faith, the atonement is perfect with zero scope.

Error 3 is less directly relevant to Amyraldianism, but is still illustrative: "[It is an error to] teach that Christ, by the satisfaction which he gave, did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation, but only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary will to relate in a new way with men and to impose such new conditions as he chose, and that the satisfying of these conditions depends on the free choice of man; consequently, that it was possible that either all or none would fulfill them." Again, if Amyraldianism is correct, the atonement merely enabled faith as the condition of salvation. Now, perhaps Amyraldians would deny that faith is a condition of salvation in their system (and perhaps they are right in that denial), but the practical result of their system is that they make the atonement merely a doorway, and not the definite purchase of salvation for the elect. On the other hand, they make election the definite application of the atonement for the elect. In other words, an Amyraldian might be able to distinguish themselves from this precise error, but they could not do so in the way described, namely by asserting that the atonement was specifically for the elect.

Error 6 is probably the least relevant of the errors I've identified, but I think it helps to provide a last piece of the puzzle: "[It is an error to] make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ's death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves."

The Amyraldians would distinguish themselves from this error by denying that man's own free choice applied to indiscriminately offered grace is what effectively works in them the grace of the atonement. Instead, the Amyraldian would say that it is grace that causes man to have faith that effectively works in the elect the grace of the atonement. Nevertheless, the Amyraldians would tend to use the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to argue that Christ died for all on the hypothesis of faith.

There is a real distinction between the obtaining of the redemption and the applying of the redemption, but the difference is not one of scope. The redemption is obtained for those to whom it is to be applied. Article 8 tries to make that clear by providing a chain (much like that found in Romans 8):

• [It] was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant)
  
• should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father;
  
• that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death);
  
• that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith;
  
• that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and
  
• that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.

It's worth noting one final point that sinks the Amyraldian ship (at least as defined by Dabney's presentation of it): the article states that faith was acquired for the elect by Christ's death ("faith (which ... he acquired for them by his death)"). It would seem absurd to say that Christ universally acquired faith for all conditioned on faith.

-TurretinFan