This is the fifth video in the series, of which (for those already weary of the series) there are six videos. This section deals with alleged proof texts of Middle Knowledge:
(1) 1 Samuel 23:11-12
This is the place where David asked God whether the men of the city would deliver David up if David stayed in the city, and God told him they would, so David left the city. Turretin notes that this was simply a question about the men's plans, not specifically about a future contingency.
(2) Matthew 11:21
This is the place where Jesus compares those who failed to believe after many miracles were done in their midst by comparing them to Tyre and Sidon and saying that the men of Tyre and Sidon would have already repented if the miracles done had been done in them. Turretin notes that this is hyperbole, much as one might say that if a person had been beating on rocks as long as he had been beating on a judge for justice the rocks would have been broken, or that if a donkey had been taught as long as a very slow pupil that the donkey would be able to understand already.
(3) 2 Samuel 12:8
This is a place where God notes additional blessings that would have come to David if David had obeyed. Turretin notes that these blessings are conditional promises, and consequently they are based on a decree of God necessarily.
Additionally, we noted that in each case the verses relate to God's knowledge after the decree, and consequently they are not really prooftexts for any kind of middle knowledge, because they do not relate to the knowledge of God before the decree of futurition.
-TurretinFan
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Middle Knowledge - Part 4
This is the fourth section of the discussion of Middle Knowledge taken from Turretin's Institutes. This section deals with Turretin's six main objections to Middle Knowledge:
(1) Two categories of knowledge are enough, because all things are either merely possible or actually future,
(2) Untrue things cannot be foreseen as true,
(3) God's exhaustive providence precludes the possibility that mans' will is indeterminate,
(4) No uncertain knowledge belongs to God, therefore if God foresees men's decision, they must be certain and consequently determinate not indeterminate,
(5) Middle Knowledge would remove God's sovereignty over the creature, and
(6) Gods' freedom to base his decisions solely on his own good pleasure would be undermined.
-TurretinFan
(1) Two categories of knowledge are enough, because all things are either merely possible or actually future,
(2) Untrue things cannot be foreseen as true,
(3) God's exhaustive providence precludes the possibility that mans' will is indeterminate,
(4) No uncertain knowledge belongs to God, therefore if God foresees men's decision, they must be certain and consequently determinate not indeterminate,
(5) Middle Knowledge would remove God's sovereignty over the creature, and
(6) Gods' freedom to base his decisions solely on his own good pleasure would be undermined.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Ray Comfort's (and my) Agenda Revealed!
As is often the case, Ray Comfort has found a succinct way of putting the matter of my objective as an evangelistic apologist (link). The goal is to drive people toward the gospel, toward faith in the crucified and risen Christ alone for salvation.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Middle Knowledge - Part 3
This is the third video in the series on Middle Knowledge. This section presents the "state of the question." That is to say, it helps describe what exactly is under consideration. Thus, in this video we distinguish the issue from the issue of God knowing all possible contingent things, of God knowing necessarily contingent things (like "if the sun rises, it is day" or "if a person heartily repents, he will be saved"), and from the issue of God knowing freely contingent things prior to ALL decrees.
Instead, the question is whether God knows what men or angels (rational creatures) will freely do without a special decree preceding (if placed with these or those circumstances and in such-and-thus an order of things).
-TurretinFan
Instead, the question is whether God knows what men or angels (rational creatures) will freely do without a special decree preceding (if placed with these or those circumstances and in such-and-thus an order of things).
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Word of Caution for Children of all Ages
Micah 7:6 For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house.
Proverbs 30:11 There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
Ezekiel 22:7 In thee have they set light by father and mother: in the midst of thee have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in thee have they vexed the fatherless and the widow.
Proverbs 30:17 The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.
Exodus 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Proverbs 20:20 Whoso curseth his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out in obscure darkness.
Deuteronomy 27:16 Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Proverbs 30:11 There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
Ezekiel 22:7 In thee have they set light by father and mother: in the midst of thee have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in thee have they vexed the fatherless and the widow.
Proverbs 30:17 The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.
Exodus 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Proverbs 20:20 Whoso curseth his father or his mother, his lamp shall be put out in obscure darkness.
Deuteronomy 27:16 Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Response to Albrecht on Augustine on Psalm 34
I heard an interesting argument from Mr. Albrecht regarding a phrase in Augustine's exposition on Psalm 34. First, here is the relevant passage:
Albrecht's argument seems to be that the phrase "Carried in His Own Hands" should be taken literally, and to therefore to refer somehow to the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. But if one takes that view, here's what you get:
Metaphorical Sense: What then is, “He affected”? He was full of affection. For what is so full of affection as the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, seeing our infirmity, that He might deliver us from everlasting death, underwent temporal death with such great injury and contumely?
Metaphorical Sense: “And He drummed:” because a drum is not made, except when a skin is extended on wood; and David drummed, to signify that Christ should be crucified.
Metaphorical Sense: But, “He drummed upon the doors of the city:” what are “the doors of the city,” but our hearts which we had closed against Christ, who by the drum of His Cross hath opened the hearts of mortal men?
Literal Sense: “And was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.”
Metaphorical Sense: “And He fell down at the doors of the gate;” that is, He humbled Himself. For this it is, to fall down even at the very beginning of our faith. For the door of the gate is the beginning of faith; whence beginneth the Church, and arriveth at last even unto sight: that as it believeth those things which it seeth not, it may deserve to enjoy them, when it shall have begun to see face to face. So is the title of the Psalm; briefly we have heard it; let us now hear the very words of Him that affecteth, and drummeth upon the doors of the city.
Do you see what is out of place there? The better way to interpret that middle passage is in a metaphorical sense, not in a literal sense. What confirms this beyond the context? Well look again at the particular section:
“And was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.”
What's the Latin expression behind that "in a manner"? It is "quodam modo", which is a way of saying that something is not being referenced in the literal sense, much as we might say "in a way" or "in a manner" - hence the translation.
So, with respect to Mr. Albrecht and his video (link), I must respectfully disagree. Not only is Augustine's commentary on Psalm 34 consistent with the Reformed position (and even the non-Reformed bare symbolic position) it is more consistent with the Reformed position than with the Roman Catholic position.
-TurretinFan
1. Because there was there a sacrifice after the order of Aaron, and afterwards He of His Own Body and Blood appointed a sacrifice after the order of Melchizedek; He changed then His Countenance in the Priesthood, and sent away the kingdom of the Jews, and came to the Gentiles. What then is, “He affected”? He was full of affection. For what is so full of affection as the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, seeing our infirmity, that He might deliver us from everlasting death, underwent temporal death with such great injury and contumely? “And He drummed:” because a drum is not made, except when a skin is extended on wood; and David drummed, to signify that Christ should be crucified. But, “He drummed upon the doors of the city:” what are “the doors of the city,” but our hearts which we had closed against Christ, who by the drum of His Cross hath opened the hearts of mortal men? “And was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.” “And He fell down at the doors of the gate;” that is, He humbled Himself. For this it is, to fall down even at the very beginning of our faith. For the door of the gate is the beginning of faith; whence beginneth the Church, and arriveth at last even unto sight: that as it believeth those things which it seeth not, it may deserve to enjoy them, when it shall have begun to see face to face. So is the title of the Psalm; briefly we have heard it; let us now hear the very words of Him that affecteth, and drummeth upon the doors of the city.(source)
Albrecht's argument seems to be that the phrase "Carried in His Own Hands" should be taken literally, and to therefore to refer somehow to the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. But if one takes that view, here's what you get:
Metaphorical Sense: What then is, “He affected”? He was full of affection. For what is so full of affection as the Mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, seeing our infirmity, that He might deliver us from everlasting death, underwent temporal death with such great injury and contumely?
Metaphorical Sense: “And He drummed:” because a drum is not made, except when a skin is extended on wood; and David drummed, to signify that Christ should be crucified.
Metaphorical Sense: But, “He drummed upon the doors of the city:” what are “the doors of the city,” but our hearts which we had closed against Christ, who by the drum of His Cross hath opened the hearts of mortal men?
Literal Sense: “And was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.”
Metaphorical Sense: “And He fell down at the doors of the gate;” that is, He humbled Himself. For this it is, to fall down even at the very beginning of our faith. For the door of the gate is the beginning of faith; whence beginneth the Church, and arriveth at last even unto sight: that as it believeth those things which it seeth not, it may deserve to enjoy them, when it shall have begun to see face to face. So is the title of the Psalm; briefly we have heard it; let us now hear the very words of Him that affecteth, and drummeth upon the doors of the city.
Do you see what is out of place there? The better way to interpret that middle passage is in a metaphorical sense, not in a literal sense. What confirms this beyond the context? Well look again at the particular section:
“And was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My Body.”
What's the Latin expression behind that "in a manner"? It is "quodam modo", which is a way of saying that something is not being referenced in the literal sense, much as we might say "in a way" or "in a manner" - hence the translation.
So, with respect to Mr. Albrecht and his video (link), I must respectfully disagree. Not only is Augustine's commentary on Psalm 34 consistent with the Reformed position (and even the non-Reformed bare symbolic position) it is more consistent with the Reformed position than with the Roman Catholic position.
-TurretinFan
Middle Knowledge - Part 2
This is part 2 of the series. The first part of the series can be found here (link). The first part discussed the true doctrine of the knowledge of God, but this section defines the erroneous doctrine of middle knowledge and describes its history. As is discussed in the video, Molinism was the brainchild of Lessius, Fonseca, and/or Molina (three Jesuits who couldn't decide among themselves who invented the doctrine) in opposition to Dominicans who held to a view of free will that is similar to that of Calvinists.
The Jesuits were seeking to make God's election to be based on foreseen faith and good works, as well as to defend their view of man's free will as autonomous. The only way they saw around the Dominicans' observation that God's will consists of natural and free knowledge was to invent a third category of knowledge that they designated "middle knowledge."
This "middle knowledge" is allegedly different from natural knowledge in that it is indeterminate, not being based on the nature of God, but on a decree. This "middle knowledge" is allegedly different from free knowledge, however, in that it is not about things certainly future, or - to put it another way - it is not based on God's decrees but on the decrees of creatures.
-TurretinFan
The Jesuits were seeking to make God's election to be based on foreseen faith and good works, as well as to defend their view of man's free will as autonomous. The only way they saw around the Dominicans' observation that God's will consists of natural and free knowledge was to invent a third category of knowledge that they designated "middle knowledge."
This "middle knowledge" is allegedly different from natural knowledge in that it is indeterminate, not being based on the nature of God, but on a decree. This "middle knowledge" is allegedly different from free knowledge, however, in that it is not about things certainly future, or - to put it another way - it is not based on God's decrees but on the decrees of creatures.
-TurretinFan
Can We Say "God Bless You" To Roman Catholics?
The subject question is one that is posed by Mr. William Albrecht's latest video (link). The question is an interesting one. On the one hand, we certainly do wish and pray and act for the good of Roman Catholics. A substantial number of the posts on this blog of late have been directed toward Roman Catholics and Roman Catholicism with the aim of doing them good, and they are accompanied by prayers to the same end. Let there be no doubt about this.
Let there be no doubt, we are addressing the claims of Roman Catholicism primarily for the good of those who are in that religion or tempted to become a part of that religion. It is not for our benefit, and it is certainly not out of any hostility for the people who make up that religion.
And that is not just true of Roman Catholicism, but of Atheism, Islam, Mormonism, and all men of whatever creed or anti-creed they may have, with whom we engage. We do not challenge the claims of others out of any negative animus but out of love for them and concern for their souls.
On the other hand, we do not want to give them the impression that God is favorably inclined to them while they remain opposed to the gospel. Thus, while we proclaim the gospel of salvation through faith in Christ alone, we do not suggest that God presently is favorably inclined on those who oppose the gospel: He is not.
Recall the words of the prophet:
Jeremiah 6:14 They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
This is why we do not normally say "God bless you" to an enemy of the faith, although we do wish God to bless them with the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith, because the expression is typically viewed as suggesting that we view them as already in God's favor where they are.
But yes, I do wish for God's blessing on you, Mr. William Albrecht, and I will (as you asked) pray for you: not that you will continue on in opposition to the gospel that Paul preached, but that you will be overwhelmed by the Scriptures and brought to faith in Christ alone for salvation.
-TurretinFan
Let there be no doubt, we are addressing the claims of Roman Catholicism primarily for the good of those who are in that religion or tempted to become a part of that religion. It is not for our benefit, and it is certainly not out of any hostility for the people who make up that religion.
And that is not just true of Roman Catholicism, but of Atheism, Islam, Mormonism, and all men of whatever creed or anti-creed they may have, with whom we engage. We do not challenge the claims of others out of any negative animus but out of love for them and concern for their souls.
On the other hand, we do not want to give them the impression that God is favorably inclined to them while they remain opposed to the gospel. Thus, while we proclaim the gospel of salvation through faith in Christ alone, we do not suggest that God presently is favorably inclined on those who oppose the gospel: He is not.
Recall the words of the prophet:
Jeremiah 6:14 They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.
This is why we do not normally say "God bless you" to an enemy of the faith, although we do wish God to bless them with the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith, because the expression is typically viewed as suggesting that we view them as already in God's favor where they are.
But yes, I do wish for God's blessing on you, Mr. William Albrecht, and I will (as you asked) pray for you: not that you will continue on in opposition to the gospel that Paul preached, but that you will be overwhelmed by the Scriptures and brought to faith in Christ alone for salvation.
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Plunder the Philistines or Join them?
Benedict XVI used (N.B. Benedict XVI was the one whose meditations these were, yet he did not write them, nor did he actually read the aloud - for more details about this situation - see the letter from the Vatican, explaining - link) the following line in his "Good Friday" meditations: "Lead me from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, from death to immortality." That line is apparently taken from Brahadaranyakopanishad an Hindu writing. He also used a line from Tagore's Gitanjali: "Give me the strength to make my love fruitful in service." Furthermore, he made reference to Mahatma Ghandi. (source) None of this is wrong in itself, as long as we are plundering the Philistines, not joining them.
But the Hindu leaders praised Benedict XVI for this, rather than criticizing him for taking their scriptures in another sense than they were intended. Will we see clarification from the Vatican? I am guessing not. The zeitgeist of Vatican II is of meta-ecumenicism, which would avoid noting the fact that Catholicism must take these lines in a different sense, while promoting a semblance of unity.
I should note that Paul the Apostle plundered from the Greek poets, but when he did so he made clear that he was using these things either in the same or a different sense, depending on the context. He was not promoting ecumenicism with the Greek pagans, he was trying to convert them.
The reader can decide for themselves whether Benedict XVI was following in Paul's footsteps or departing from them.
-TurretinFan
UPDATE: Reginald di Piperno (Roman Catholic) has provided some factual corrections to the article linked above. (link to RdP's post) The basic point remains, as apparently it is not disputed that the various lines were spoken and that the references were welcomed by the Hindus. I'm also not sure whether RdP got the idea that plundering the Philistines is a good thing, whereas joining them is a bad thing.
UPDATE: In view of an amusing post at Ichabod, I've updated the post above a bit further (link).
But the Hindu leaders praised Benedict XVI for this, rather than criticizing him for taking their scriptures in another sense than they were intended. Will we see clarification from the Vatican? I am guessing not. The zeitgeist of Vatican II is of meta-ecumenicism, which would avoid noting the fact that Catholicism must take these lines in a different sense, while promoting a semblance of unity.
I should note that Paul the Apostle plundered from the Greek poets, but when he did so he made clear that he was using these things either in the same or a different sense, depending on the context. He was not promoting ecumenicism with the Greek pagans, he was trying to convert them.
The reader can decide for themselves whether Benedict XVI was following in Paul's footsteps or departing from them.
-TurretinFan
UPDATE: Reginald di Piperno (Roman Catholic) has provided some factual corrections to the article linked above. (link to RdP's post) The basic point remains, as apparently it is not disputed that the various lines were spoken and that the references were welcomed by the Hindus. I'm also not sure whether RdP got the idea that plundering the Philistines is a good thing, whereas joining them is a bad thing.
UPDATE: In view of an amusing post at Ichabod, I've updated the post above a bit further (link).
Middle Knowledge - Part 1
This is the first part of what is planned as a multi-part discussion on middle knowledge and free will. This part discusses the fact that God's knowledge is intrinsically simple (undivided) but can be divided extrinsically (as to its objects) into two categories: natural and free. These two categories exhaust all the objects of God's knowledge.
To summarize what I've put in the video, the following are the main points:
1) God's knowledge is, in and of itself, simple and undivided.
2) God's knowledge can be, however, considered by us (theologians) in relation to its objects as either natural or free.
3) Natural Knowledge is God's knowledge of the extent of his own power without considering how God plans to exercise this power. Thus, God knows what God could do, if God so chose to do it. He knows every way that he could exercise his own power, if he wished to exercise it.
4) Free Knowledge is God's knowledge of the actual exercise of his power. That is to say, Free Knowledge is God's knowledge about the world that he has made and the history that he has brought into being, as well as the future that remains to be seen.
-TurretinFan
To summarize what I've put in the video, the following are the main points:
1) God's knowledge is, in and of itself, simple and undivided.
2) God's knowledge can be, however, considered by us (theologians) in relation to its objects as either natural or free.
3) Natural Knowledge is God's knowledge of the extent of his own power without considering how God plans to exercise this power. Thus, God knows what God could do, if God so chose to do it. He knows every way that he could exercise his own power, if he wished to exercise it.
4) Free Knowledge is God's knowledge of the actual exercise of his power. That is to say, Free Knowledge is God's knowledge about the world that he has made and the history that he has brought into being, as well as the future that remains to be seen.
-TurretinFan
Monday, April 13, 2009
Easter Eggs and Jesus' Rebirth?
Mr. Lankford recently directed me to the following statement that betrays a misunderstanding of the connection between Easter and eggs:
I'd like to take a second to clarify a couple of things. For those atheists who have no idea what Christianity teaches, we do not teach that Christ was reborn. Christ died and was resurrected from the dead on the third day. That resurrection was of the same body that died, not a new body.
Christianity also speaks of a rebirth or regeneration, but this is a spiritual rebirth, and it is something all those who believe in Christ have already experienced. It is a transformation of the spiritual faculties of man so that he turns from a hatred of God and disbelief in His Son, to a love of God and belief in His Son.
But what about the eggs? Everyone knows that Easter eggs are a popular tradition around Easter time. What's that about?
The eggs may get tagged by various folks with various theological explanations, but the fact of the matter is more straightforward. During Lent (a fasting period of 40 days before Easter) the traditional fast included abstinence from a number of things, including eggs.
Chickens, however, continue to lay eggs during this time of year, since they are unaware of this tradition, which did not come from their creator. Thus, by the time Easter comes around one has potentially a large number of eggs that have been laid that are just sitting around. The result is a glut of eggs on the market around Easter time, making them quite cheap for a short amount of time, as well as making them available for such frivolities as painting etc.
It is simply a tradition that arose out of someone's desire to turn eggs into something more interesting and decorative than they were. Also, hard-boiled and painted, an egg can last quite a while, even without refrigeration (please don't test this and don't view this blog as medical or dietary advice). Once Easter arrives and the Lenten fast is over, the painted eggs can be cracked up and eaten, and other egg-intensive foods (such as pastries and "pascha breads") can be made at a relatively affordable cost.
The eggs, therefore, may have been tagged with significance by some folks (some parish priests seem fond of tagging everything with significance) - but such a significance is ex post facto, with more practical and aesthetic considerations being chief.
-TurretinFan
Easter means nothing to me. Which is why I bought all these eggs.(source)
Eggs aren't religious symbols to me. I'm not a Christian recognising the death and rebirth of Jesus. Not a Jew celebrating the triumph of life over death as told in the Passover Haggadah. Not a pagan invoking springtime and life's renewal. (I approve of springtime and life's renewal, just not in a spiritual way.)
I'd like to take a second to clarify a couple of things. For those atheists who have no idea what Christianity teaches, we do not teach that Christ was reborn. Christ died and was resurrected from the dead on the third day. That resurrection was of the same body that died, not a new body.
Christianity also speaks of a rebirth or regeneration, but this is a spiritual rebirth, and it is something all those who believe in Christ have already experienced. It is a transformation of the spiritual faculties of man so that he turns from a hatred of God and disbelief in His Son, to a love of God and belief in His Son.
But what about the eggs? Everyone knows that Easter eggs are a popular tradition around Easter time. What's that about?
The eggs may get tagged by various folks with various theological explanations, but the fact of the matter is more straightforward. During Lent (a fasting period of 40 days before Easter) the traditional fast included abstinence from a number of things, including eggs.
Chickens, however, continue to lay eggs during this time of year, since they are unaware of this tradition, which did not come from their creator. Thus, by the time Easter comes around one has potentially a large number of eggs that have been laid that are just sitting around. The result is a glut of eggs on the market around Easter time, making them quite cheap for a short amount of time, as well as making them available for such frivolities as painting etc.
It is simply a tradition that arose out of someone's desire to turn eggs into something more interesting and decorative than they were. Also, hard-boiled and painted, an egg can last quite a while, even without refrigeration (please don't test this and don't view this blog as medical or dietary advice). Once Easter arrives and the Lenten fast is over, the painted eggs can be cracked up and eaten, and other egg-intensive foods (such as pastries and "pascha breads") can be made at a relatively affordable cost.
The eggs, therefore, may have been tagged with significance by some folks (some parish priests seem fond of tagging everything with significance) - but such a significance is ex post facto, with more practical and aesthetic considerations being chief.
-TurretinFan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
