John Bugay has lifted two interesting quotations from a recent book entitled, "The Petrine Ministry in the Early Patristic Tradition" (Eerdmans, Nov. 2010).
The first quotation includes "the monepiscopacy replaced presbyterial governance in Rome only in the mid-or late second century" from a Lutheran scholar.
The second quotation includes "The East never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West. It never accepted that the protos in the universal church could claim to be the unique successor or vicar of Peter," from a Roman communion Archbishop.
Hopefully that whets your appetite for more! The context for the quotations can be found via the Amazon.com preview of the book, for those interested.
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Monday, June 06, 2011
Ahab vs. Jeroboam | 1st Command vs. 2nd Commandment
Not all sins are equally heinous in God's eyes. The sin of Jeroboam was to set up a rival worship of God according to his own imagination, with his own priests, and images, namely golden calves. He set up one of those in Dan and the other in Bethel.
1 Kings 12:28 Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
God condemned this evil.
1 Kings 14:9 But hast done evil above all that were before thee: for thou hast gone and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger, and hast cast me behind thy back:
You will notice in our English translation that it says "gods" in both of the verses above. The Hebrew word is "elohim," which can either mean "gods" or "God." In this context, there are two images, so the plural translation seems to make sense. Nevertheless, the reference to "which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" seems to be a reference to a very specific divinity, namely Jehovah.
This was a horrible sin in God's eyes and God wiped out Jeroboam's family for it.
But the following kings of Israel not only copied and continued Jeroboam's bad practices, they did something worse. Read what is said of Ahab:
1 Kings 16:25-33
It wasn't the first time Baal-worship had come to Israel. Jerubbaal (aka Gideon) had wiped out Baal-worship in Israel during his time as judge. But then, later, Samuel had found it necessary to purge the land of Baal-worship again, because as soon as Gideon was dead, the people went right back to Baal-worship (Judges 8:33). And you may recall that Baal-worship goes back to the time of the exodus, where Moab seduced many of the Israelites into Baal-worship apparently through the use of prostitutes (see Numbers 25).
Although God was very angry with Jeroboam for his sin, God was even more angry with Ahab for his sin. Why is that? Part of the explanation may lay in the fact that Ahab had seen the destruction of Jeroboam and Baasha (and their families) for the sins of Jeroboam related to the golden calves. Ahab could look back at the warning of Ahijah the Shilonite and Jehu the son of Hanani (among others) given respectively to those kings.
Another part of it, though, is that Jeroboam and Baasha only engaged in second commandment idolatry: worshiping God by illicit and unauthorized means, especially by means of an unauthorized priesthood and golden calves.
In contrast, Ahab worshiped a false god - first commandment idolatry. Elijah made it plain on Mt. Carmel that Baal was a false deity and that the LORD was the True and Living God - the God who answers with fire.
These things are negative examples for us.
1 Corinthians 10:5-11
As to (2), see Numbers 25:1 (and 9), regarding fornication in connection with Baal-worship, which we also discussed above under the topic of "first commandment idolatry." It was a combination of spiritual and physical fornication. The women were not their wives, and Baal was not their spiritual husband (though "Baal" can have that meaning).
As to (3), see Numbers 21:5, regarding Israel complaining against God's provision for them. It is interesting to note that this is one of many testimonies to the divinity of Christ. It is plain from the text of Numbers 21 that the people complained against God, and here Paul is warning us not to tempt Christ as they did. That means, unmistakably, that Christ is God.
As to (4), see Numbers 14 or 16, with the destruction either being the general destruction of the people of Israel in the wilderness or the special quick destruction of Korah.
Likewise, when it comes to Jeroboam and Ahab, learn from these evil examples. Do not worship like Jeroboam did, according to the worship that "he had devised of his own heart" (1 Kings 12:33) but instead imitate David the Psalmist who worshiped God as God commanded (cf. 1 Kings 14:8).
- TurretinFan
1 Kings 12:28 Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
God condemned this evil.
1 Kings 14:9 But hast done evil above all that were before thee: for thou hast gone and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger, and hast cast me behind thy back:
You will notice in our English translation that it says "gods" in both of the verses above. The Hebrew word is "elohim," which can either mean "gods" or "God." In this context, there are two images, so the plural translation seems to make sense. Nevertheless, the reference to "which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" seems to be a reference to a very specific divinity, namely Jehovah.
This was a horrible sin in God's eyes and God wiped out Jeroboam's family for it.
But the following kings of Israel not only copied and continued Jeroboam's bad practices, they did something worse. Read what is said of Ahab:
1 Kings 16:25-33
But Omri wrought evil in the eyes of the LORD, and did worse than all that were before him. For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin, to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger with their vanities. Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he shewed, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria: and Ahab his son reigned in his stead.Notice that it is Ahab (via his wife Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal) that brings Baal-worship to Israel.
And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the son of Omri to reign over Israel: and Ahab the son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty and two years. And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the LORD above all that were before him. And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him. And he reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria. And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him.
It wasn't the first time Baal-worship had come to Israel. Jerubbaal (aka Gideon) had wiped out Baal-worship in Israel during his time as judge. But then, later, Samuel had found it necessary to purge the land of Baal-worship again, because as soon as Gideon was dead, the people went right back to Baal-worship (Judges 8:33). And you may recall that Baal-worship goes back to the time of the exodus, where Moab seduced many of the Israelites into Baal-worship apparently through the use of prostitutes (see Numbers 25).
Although God was very angry with Jeroboam for his sin, God was even more angry with Ahab for his sin. Why is that? Part of the explanation may lay in the fact that Ahab had seen the destruction of Jeroboam and Baasha (and their families) for the sins of Jeroboam related to the golden calves. Ahab could look back at the warning of Ahijah the Shilonite and Jehu the son of Hanani (among others) given respectively to those kings.
Another part of it, though, is that Jeroboam and Baasha only engaged in second commandment idolatry: worshiping God by illicit and unauthorized means, especially by means of an unauthorized priesthood and golden calves.
In contrast, Ahab worshiped a false god - first commandment idolatry. Elijah made it plain on Mt. Carmel that Baal was a false deity and that the LORD was the True and Living God - the God who answers with fire.
These things are negative examples for us.
1 Corinthians 10:5-11
But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.As to (1), see Exodus 32:6, regarding the golden calf. This is an example of the "second commandment idolatry" I mentioned above, though with the original golden calf, not with Jeroboam's golden calves.Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
- Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
- Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
- Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
- Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
As to (2), see Numbers 25:1 (and 9), regarding fornication in connection with Baal-worship, which we also discussed above under the topic of "first commandment idolatry." It was a combination of spiritual and physical fornication. The women were not their wives, and Baal was not their spiritual husband (though "Baal" can have that meaning).
As to (3), see Numbers 21:5, regarding Israel complaining against God's provision for them. It is interesting to note that this is one of many testimonies to the divinity of Christ. It is plain from the text of Numbers 21 that the people complained against God, and here Paul is warning us not to tempt Christ as they did. That means, unmistakably, that Christ is God.
As to (4), see Numbers 14 or 16, with the destruction either being the general destruction of the people of Israel in the wilderness or the special quick destruction of Korah.
Likewise, when it comes to Jeroboam and Ahab, learn from these evil examples. Do not worship like Jeroboam did, according to the worship that "he had devised of his own heart" (1 Kings 12:33) but instead imitate David the Psalmist who worshiped God as God commanded (cf. 1 Kings 14:8).
- TurretinFan
If not "can" then "could"? Response to LFW Objection
I had written: If God knows that X will happen, it is certain to happen, and thus cannot be otherwise.
In the comment box, "Dan" (profile not available) provided a proposed response from a non-Calvinist advocate of "Libertarian" free will (I assume that this is a hypothetical objection, not Dan's own objection):
The result, though, is a strange hybrid of moods. It is not "X would happen ... X could not fail to happen" or "X will happen ... X cannot fail to happen" but "X will happen ... X could not fail to happen."
Usually "would" or "could" are subjunctive mood forms that allow us to speak about hypothetical situations: "If someone hit me on the shins, that would hurt," as opposed to actual future situations for which we use "will": "When he hits me on the shins, that will hurt."
But what does this strange hybrid mood sentence mean: "God's infallibly knowing (with absolute certainty) that X will happen does not imply that X could not fail to happen (could not be otherwise), strictly speaking"?
How does changing the mood make a difference? It does not seem to have any obvious effect on the logic of the argument. In other words, just as the fact that it is absolutely certain that X will happen implies that X cannot be otherwise, so also the absolute certainty of X happening also implies that X could not be otherwise.
There's possibility that the "could" could be in reference to a situation other than the actual world. In which case, the point seems moot. In this actual, real world, it cannot be otherwise, whether or not it could be otherwise in some other imaginary world.
The proposed objection continues:
(C) probably holds the key to understanding and rebutting this objection. In (C), the mood is indicative throughout. The claim is that John has (not would have) the power to refrain from doing X. But given (B), it is not possible for John to refrain from doing X. He does not have that power. Thus, (C) cannot be held together with (B).
(D) is a hypothetical situation that doesn't really affect (C). If John were going to refrain from doing X, then God would have known that John was going to refrain from doing X. That may be true, but it is not our situation.
I suspect that (D) is raised, because we attempt to prove that (C) is wrong by pointing out that if John refrained from doing X, then God's knowledge would be wrong. The response is that God's knowledge would not be wrong, it would be different.
But our point is really more limited. Our point is not whether in a world where God had foreseen that John would refrain from doing X, John could refrain from doing X (we agree that John could refrain in such a world), but whether in this world where God has foreseen that John will do X, John can refrain from doing X. We could full agree with (A), (B), and (D), it's just (C) that is problematic.
In other words (D) does not allow (B) and (C) to be brought into harmony with one another. Instead, (D) suggests that (C) can be true so long as (B) is false. But that's close to being the very definition of a contradiction. Thus, it is incoherent to hold those four propositions, since holding to (C) contradicts (B), as can be seen from (D).
-TurretinFan
In the comment box, "Dan" (profile not available) provided a proposed response from a non-Calvinist advocate of "Libertarian" free will (I assume that this is a hypothetical objection, not Dan's own objection):
God's infallibly knowing (with absolute certainty) that X will happen does not imply that X could not fail to happen (could not be otherwise), strictly speaking.The selection of the subjective mood "could" as opposed to the indicative mood "can" here is interesting. I suppose it is intentional.
The result, though, is a strange hybrid of moods. It is not "X would happen ... X could not fail to happen" or "X will happen ... X cannot fail to happen" but "X will happen ... X could not fail to happen."
Usually "would" or "could" are subjunctive mood forms that allow us to speak about hypothetical situations: "If someone hit me on the shins, that would hurt," as opposed to actual future situations for which we use "will": "When he hits me on the shins, that will hurt."
But what does this strange hybrid mood sentence mean: "God's infallibly knowing (with absolute certainty) that X will happen does not imply that X could not fail to happen (could not be otherwise), strictly speaking"?
How does changing the mood make a difference? It does not seem to have any obvious effect on the logic of the argument. In other words, just as the fact that it is absolutely certain that X will happen implies that X cannot be otherwise, so also the absolute certainty of X happening also implies that X could not be otherwise.
There's possibility that the "could" could be in reference to a situation other than the actual world. In which case, the point seems moot. In this actual, real world, it cannot be otherwise, whether or not it could be otherwise in some other imaginary world.
The proposed objection continues:
[T]here is nothing incoherent about holding these four claims:Notice the mood change again from (A) and (B) which have the indicative mood to (D), which has subjunctive mood.
A) John will choose X.
B) God knows that John will choose X.
C) Although John will choose X, he has the power to refrain from choosing X (securing a key libertarian condition for freedom).
D) If John were going to refrain from choosing X, then God would have always known that John will refrain from choosing X (instead of knowing that John will choose X, as he in fact does).
(C) probably holds the key to understanding and rebutting this objection. In (C), the mood is indicative throughout. The claim is that John has (not would have) the power to refrain from doing X. But given (B), it is not possible for John to refrain from doing X. He does not have that power. Thus, (C) cannot be held together with (B).
(D) is a hypothetical situation that doesn't really affect (C). If John were going to refrain from doing X, then God would have known that John was going to refrain from doing X. That may be true, but it is not our situation.
I suspect that (D) is raised, because we attempt to prove that (C) is wrong by pointing out that if John refrained from doing X, then God's knowledge would be wrong. The response is that God's knowledge would not be wrong, it would be different.
But our point is really more limited. Our point is not whether in a world where God had foreseen that John would refrain from doing X, John could refrain from doing X (we agree that John could refrain in such a world), but whether in this world where God has foreseen that John will do X, John can refrain from doing X. We could full agree with (A), (B), and (D), it's just (C) that is problematic.
In other words (D) does not allow (B) and (C) to be brought into harmony with one another. Instead, (D) suggests that (C) can be true so long as (B) is false. But that's close to being the very definition of a contradiction. Thus, it is incoherent to hold those four propositions, since holding to (C) contradicts (B), as can be seen from (D).
-TurretinFan
Free Will, Advance Knowledge, and God
At Triablogue, Paul has posted an item on free will and God's advance knowledge including an answer to the popular non-Calvinist argument: "Just because God knows in advance that X will happen doesn't mean God causes or controls that X to happen." (my paraphrase)
As Paul points out, that argument misses the point. While I like aspects of what Paul wrote, let me put my own spin on this, namely - how can you respond to your friend who uses this argument with you?
First, you can provide some disclaimers. These disclaimers can help remove any straw men that may exist between the two of you. Those disclaimer can be, for example:
1) God's knowledge of future event X is not itself the cause of the future event X. If God's knowledge of the future caused the future to be, then God's knowledge of the future would necessarily entail the future existing as known. We don't allege this. We don't claim God's knowledge causes the future to be.
2) Simply person A knowing the future doesn't entail person A causing the future to be. We know this, because sometimes God tells men what the future will be. At that point, the men know the future, but - of course - this doesn't mean that the men cause the future event of which they have advance knowledge.
Once these disclaimers have been provided, you can go on to explain the force of the argument.
1) God's infallible knowledge of future event X implies that future event X will happen with absolute certainty. God can't be wrong. Thus, God's infallible knowledge of future event X means that future event X is guaranteed to happen.
2) If an event is absolutely certain to happen, it cannot be otherwise. This may seem trivial, but it is an important point. If God knows that X will happen, it is certain to happen, and thus cannot be otherwise.
3) An event's absolute certainty implies an inability of actors to do otherwise. If an event cannot be otherwise, a person cannot bring about the event being otherwise; for if a person could bring about the event being otherwise, then the event could be otherwise. But the event cannot be otherwise, because the event is absolutely certain to be as foreseen.
4) An event's absolute certainty implies an absence of "Libertarian" Free Will with respect to the event. If we take as an example a particular choice of a free agent, such as man, and if we say this particular choice is known in advance to God and consequently is absolutely certain to happen, then - as we have shown above - the person making this choice will not be able to choose otherwise. But this absence of ability to choose otherwise contradicts the "Libertarian" account of free will. In other words, such a choice is not "free" according to the "Libertarian" model.
Some Immediate Conclusion
1) Because God's knowledge of the future is absolutely complete, we know that there is no such thing as Libertarian Free Will. There may be free will of some kind, but not of the Libertarian kind, because people are not able to do otherwise than has been foreseen.
2) But, per our earlier disclaimer, God's knowledge is not itself the cause of the absence of Libertarian Free Will. In other words, what ensures that people cannot do otherwise is not simply God's knowledge of what will happen. After all, we can have advance knowledge, but no one would reasonably say that our advance knowledge is the cause.
Larger Conclusions
1) Whatever kind of free will we have, it cannot be "Libertarian" free will. There's no reason that the term "free will" has to be thrown out, just because we can demonstrate that we lack an ability to do otherwise. There's still a very real sense in which some human acts are "free will" acts, and others are either involuntary or coerced. This would be a definition of "free will" that is compatible with extensive Divine sovereignty, not one that is opposed to it.
2) There is a larger explanation for both God's knowledge and our actions. Since God's knowledge itself does not explain why we choose X and not Y, we should look to a larger explanation. The larger explanation is one that explains both God's knowledge and our actions. The correct explanation to this is God's Providence, his most holy and wise and powerful preserving and governing all His creatures and all their actions.
-TurretinFan
As Paul points out, that argument misses the point. While I like aspects of what Paul wrote, let me put my own spin on this, namely - how can you respond to your friend who uses this argument with you?
First, you can provide some disclaimers. These disclaimers can help remove any straw men that may exist between the two of you. Those disclaimer can be, for example:
1) God's knowledge of future event X is not itself the cause of the future event X. If God's knowledge of the future caused the future to be, then God's knowledge of the future would necessarily entail the future existing as known. We don't allege this. We don't claim God's knowledge causes the future to be.
2) Simply person A knowing the future doesn't entail person A causing the future to be. We know this, because sometimes God tells men what the future will be. At that point, the men know the future, but - of course - this doesn't mean that the men cause the future event of which they have advance knowledge.
Once these disclaimers have been provided, you can go on to explain the force of the argument.
1) God's infallible knowledge of future event X implies that future event X will happen with absolute certainty. God can't be wrong. Thus, God's infallible knowledge of future event X means that future event X is guaranteed to happen.
2) If an event is absolutely certain to happen, it cannot be otherwise. This may seem trivial, but it is an important point. If God knows that X will happen, it is certain to happen, and thus cannot be otherwise.
3) An event's absolute certainty implies an inability of actors to do otherwise. If an event cannot be otherwise, a person cannot bring about the event being otherwise; for if a person could bring about the event being otherwise, then the event could be otherwise. But the event cannot be otherwise, because the event is absolutely certain to be as foreseen.
4) An event's absolute certainty implies an absence of "Libertarian" Free Will with respect to the event. If we take as an example a particular choice of a free agent, such as man, and if we say this particular choice is known in advance to God and consequently is absolutely certain to happen, then - as we have shown above - the person making this choice will not be able to choose otherwise. But this absence of ability to choose otherwise contradicts the "Libertarian" account of free will. In other words, such a choice is not "free" according to the "Libertarian" model.
Some Immediate Conclusion
1) Because God's knowledge of the future is absolutely complete, we know that there is no such thing as Libertarian Free Will. There may be free will of some kind, but not of the Libertarian kind, because people are not able to do otherwise than has been foreseen.
2) But, per our earlier disclaimer, God's knowledge is not itself the cause of the absence of Libertarian Free Will. In other words, what ensures that people cannot do otherwise is not simply God's knowledge of what will happen. After all, we can have advance knowledge, but no one would reasonably say that our advance knowledge is the cause.
Larger Conclusions
1) Whatever kind of free will we have, it cannot be "Libertarian" free will. There's no reason that the term "free will" has to be thrown out, just because we can demonstrate that we lack an ability to do otherwise. There's still a very real sense in which some human acts are "free will" acts, and others are either involuntary or coerced. This would be a definition of "free will" that is compatible with extensive Divine sovereignty, not one that is opposed to it.
2) There is a larger explanation for both God's knowledge and our actions. Since God's knowledge itself does not explain why we choose X and not Y, we should look to a larger explanation. The larger explanation is one that explains both God's knowledge and our actions. The correct explanation to this is God's Providence, his most holy and wise and powerful preserving and governing all His creatures and all their actions.
-TurretinFan
Friday, June 03, 2011
The Koran, Dr. James White, and the Idea of Repenting
Recently, a Youtube video came to my attention, in which my friend Dr. James White is accused of lying about the Koran. Specifically, Dr. White had made essentially the following argument:
1) Our Muslim friend alleges that the Bible is wrong, because the Bible says that God repented.
2) But, the Koran (at 2:37) teaches that Allah repented.
3) Therefore, if our Muslim friend is to be consistent, he would have to say that the Koran is wrong.
The video alleges that the Koran, at 2:37, does not say that Allah repented. The Online Quran Project provides a number of English translations. Here are the translations I found there of that particular ayah of surah 2.
But the fundamental error of the person in the video seems to be his assumption that if the term "repenting" is not used by the translators, the sense of the word is not there. That's a mistaken argument.
Of course, there's a possible alternative error. Some poor deluded person might think that when the KJV says that God "repented," they mean that God turned from sins. Such a notion would be the result of someone simply not understanding English very well. That would be excusable in the case of someone who is not a native English speaker, as perhaps may be the case for the person in the video. But such a notion is completely wrong and unfounded.
In any event, someone who wants a more thorough, detailed discussion can peruse Sam Shamoun's articles at the links above.
-TurretinFan
1) Our Muslim friend alleges that the Bible is wrong, because the Bible says that God repented.
2) But, the Koran (at 2:37) teaches that Allah repented.
3) Therefore, if our Muslim friend is to be consistent, he would have to say that the Koran is wrong.
The video alleges that the Koran, at 2:37, does not say that Allah repented. The Online Quran Project provides a number of English translations. Here are the translations I found there of that particular ayah of surah 2.
Abul Ala MaududiFor the purists, the Arabic is this:37. At that time Adam learnt appropriate words from his Lord and repented, and his Lord accepted his repentance, for He is very Relenting and very Merciful.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali
37. Then learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration[37], and his Lord Turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
Ali Quli Qara'i
37. Then Adam received certain words from his Lord, and He turned to him clemently. Indeed He is the All-clement, the All-merciful.
Arthur John Arberry
37. Thereafter Adam received certain words from his Lord, and He turned towards him; truly He turns, and is All-compassionate.Wahiduddin KhanAhmed Ali
37. Then his Lord sent commands to Adam and turned towards him: Indeed He is compassionate and kind.
Aisha Bewley
37. Then Adam received some words from his Lord and He turned towards him. He is the Ever-Returning, the Most Merciful.
Ali Ünal
37. (Aware of his lapse and in the hope of retrieving his error, rather than attempting to find excuses for it,) Adam received from his Lord words that he perceived to be inspired in him (because of his remorse, and he pleaded through them for God’s forgiveness). In return, He accepted his repentance. He is the One Who accepts repentance and returns it with liberal forgiveness and additional reward, the All-Compassionate (especially towards His believing servants).
Amatul Rahman Omar
37. After that Adam received from his Lord certain (useful) commandments and He turned to him with mercy. He, indeed is Oft-returning with compassion, the Ever Merciful.George Sale
Bijan Moeinian
37. [Out of mercy] Adam received from his Lord some words of supplication. [Once he returned to his Lord with those words of supplication,] God forgave Adam as He is the most forgiving and merciful.Abdul Majid Daryabadi
37. Then Adam learnt from his Lord certain Words, and He relented toward him, verily He! He is the Relentant, the Merciful.
Edward Henry Palmer
37. And Adam caught certain words from his Lord, and He turned towards him, for He is the compassionate one easily turned.
Faridul Haque
37. Then Adam learnt from his Lord certain words (of revelation), therefore Allah accepted his repentance; indeed He only is the Most Acceptor of Repentance, the Most Merciful.
37. And Adam learned words of prayer from his Lord, and God turned unto him, for He is easy to be reconciled and merciful.Hamid S. Aziz
37. And Adam obtained certain words (revelations) from his Lord, and He relented towards him, for He is the Relenting, the Compassionate.Mahdi Pooya
37. not yet included, see Chapter 90-114
Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din al-Hilali & Muhammad Muhsin Khan
37. Then Adam received from his Lord Words. And his Lord pardoned him (accepted his repentance). Verily, He is the One Who forgives (accepts repentance), the Most Merciful.
John Medows Rodwell
37. And words of prayer learned Adam from his Lord: and God turned to him; for He loveth to turn, the Merciful.
Muhammad Ahmed & Samira
37. So Adam received from his Lord words/expressions, so (He) forgave on him, that He is, He is the forgiver , the most merciful .Muhammad Aqib Farid Qadri
37. Then Adam learnt from his Lord certain words (of revelation), therefore Allah accepted his repentance; indeed He only is the Most Acceptor of Repentance, the Most Merciful. (See Verse 7:23)Muhammad Asad
37. Thereupon Adam received words [of guidance] from his Sustainer, and He accepted his repentance: for, verily, He alone is the Acceptor of Repentance, the Dispenser of Grace.
Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali
37. Then Adam received (some) Words from his Lord; so He relented towards him; surely He, Ever He, is The Superbly Relenting, The Ever-Merciful.
Muhammad Sarwar
37. Adam was inspired by some words (of prayer) through which he received forgiveness from his Lord, for He is All-forgiving and All-merciful.
Muhammad Taqi Usmani
37. Then ‘Adam learned certain words (to pray with) from his Lord; so, Allah accepted his repentance. No doubt, He is the Most-Relenting, the Very-Merciful.Maulana Muhammad Ali
37. Then Adam received (revealed) words from his Lord, and He turned to him (mercifully). Surely He is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall
37. Then Adam received from his Lord words (of revelation), and He relented toward him. Lo! He is the relenting, the Merciful.
Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah & Ahmad Darwish
37. Then Adam received Words from his Lord, and his Lord relented towards him. He is the Receiver of Repentance, the Merciful.
Rashad Kalifa
37. Then, Adam received from his Lord words, whereby He redeemed him. He is the Redeemer, Most Merciful.
Shabbir Ahmed
37. (The solution to this catastrophe was beyond human intellect.) Then Adam received Words of guidance from his Lord and He accepted his repentance. Behold, He is the Acceptor, the Most Merciful. (Adam = Man. His wife = Woman. She also repented and Allah treated both of them equally (7:23-24))Shakir
37. Then Adam received (some) words from his Lord, so He turned to him mercifully; surely He is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.Syed Vickar Ahamed
37. Then Adam received the words of inspiration, from his Lord, and his Lord forgave him; For He is One Who accepts Repentance (Tawwab), Most Merciful (Raheem).Tahir al-Qadri
37. Then Adam learnt some words (of humility and repentance) from his Lord. So Allah accepted his repentance. Surely He is the One Who is Most Relenting, Ever-Merciful.T. B. Irving
37. Adam received words [of inspiration] from his Lord and he turned towards Him. He is the Relenting, the Merciful!"Umm Muhammad (Sahih International)
37. Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.37. Then Adam received some words [of prayer] from his Lord and He accepted his repentance. He is the Forgiving One, the Merciful.
[Al-Muntakhab]
37. Prompted by the sense of guilt, Adam felt shame, but because guilt did not reside in the intention, Allah in mercy inspired him with a prayer for invoking His forgiveness, and in turn did Allah give up resentment against him and pardon his offence: it is He Who always accepts true repentance and the atonement made by the people, He is AL-Rahim.[Progressive Muslims]
37. Adam then received words from His Lord, so He forgave him; He is the Forgiver, the Merciful.
37 فَتَلَقَّىٰٓ ءَادَمُ مِن رَّبِّهِۦ كَلِمَتٍۢ فَتَابَ عَلَيْهِ ۚ إِنَّهُۥ هُوَ ٱلتَّوَّابُ ٱلرَّحِيمُ
Note that, of course, not all of the translations are equally literal or equally authoritative. The purpose in presenting them all is two-fold. First, I want to affirm that none of them (not one!) says "Allah repents." Not one uses those exact words. On the other hand, many of them identify Allah as "oft-returning" or "oft-turning" or the like, which has the same sense. Obviously, some take a different tack completely. The point, though, is that there is a reasonable basis for the idea that Allah "turns" whether one uses the word "repent" or not.
That reason is the reason given by Paul Rezkella in the comments section of the post where I found the video:
If you read the arabic in Surah 2:37, you read the word “tawwabu”, which means “repenting”. “…and his Lord repented (fataba) towards him; for He is Oft-Repenting (huwa al-tawwabu), Most Merciful.” S. 2:37Of course, Sam Shamoun has already written about this. He points out that there at least four more such places. Also Sam Shamoun has already explained about the idea in the Bible of God repenting, with comparisons to the Koran.
But the fundamental error of the person in the video seems to be his assumption that if the term "repenting" is not used by the translators, the sense of the word is not there. That's a mistaken argument.
Of course, there's a possible alternative error. Some poor deluded person might think that when the KJV says that God "repented," they mean that God turned from sins. Such a notion would be the result of someone simply not understanding English very well. That would be excusable in the case of someone who is not a native English speaker, as perhaps may be the case for the person in the video. But such a notion is completely wrong and unfounded.
In any event, someone who wants a more thorough, detailed discussion can peruse Sam Shamoun's articles at the links above.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Grace in Cyril's Commentary on the Book of Exodus (First Discourse)
The Orthodox Research Institute has published an English translation of the first discourse of Cyril of Alexandria's Commentary on the Book of Exodus. It's not a massive volume (about 50 pages of English text). Nevertheless, it serves to illustrate some aspects of Cyril's teachings on topics related to the doctrines of grace. Most of the following will be quotations from this single work. Any bolding is my own, whereas material in brackets is added by the translator:
The State of Fallen Man
The following interestingly seems like some form of recognition of original sin, at least of concupiscence, and its universal applicability to the human race, as well as its source in God's withholding grace:
Bondage of the Will
In the following, Cyril appears to argue that it is the knowledge of God that brings true freedom of will.
Justification of the Impious by Faith in Christ
In the following, Cyril appears to argue for justification by grace through faith:
Plain and Direct Style of Scripture
Finally, here is one quotation from Evie Zachariades-Holmberg, editor/translator, which is of interest as it relates to the perspicuity of Scripture:
- TurretinFan
The State of Fallen Man
The following interestingly seems like some form of recognition of original sin, at least of concupiscence, and its universal applicability to the human race, as well as its source in God's withholding grace:
But let the word of the narrative pause at this point. Let us say presently bringing the mind into the innermost spectacles, that because the thought of man is persistently devoted to evil things since his youth because of lack of good things from above, the whole human race, so to speak, was being corrupted and something like a famine was devouring the heavenly lessons; It was exactly as we could observe the prodigal who is also drawn as a model of a parable, who devoured the paternal fortune in foreign lands, and wished to satisfy his hunger with the fruit of the carob tree from which the pigs were eating.(Chapter 3 at p. 13)
Bondage of the Will
In the following, Cyril appears to argue that it is the knowledge of God that brings true freedom of will.
"But God," he says, "considered them, and looked upon the children of Israel, and was made known to them." When, therefore, we live in ignorance of God {ignoring God or being ignored by God} then we all will also fall under those who do us injustice, and we roll around into the mires of sin, having as bitter and raw {cruel} supervisors of such things the unclean demons. But the grace of freedom will always follow the knowledge of God (knowing God will always be followed by the freedom of will}.(Chapter 8, at p. 75)
Justification of the Impious by Faith in Christ
In the following, Cyril appears to argue for justification by grace through faith:
For {the fact that} those who do not move away from the worship according to the law are being held under the power of corruption, Christ himself will make clear. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink the blood, ye have no life in you." And this was the mystery, not from those under the law from some place or other, but from those who have accepted the faith and have been justified in Christ and {have accepted} the education which is better than the one under the law, and I mean the evangelic one. Those, therefore, who did not become free of the burden through faith, or under the {power of} corruption, and as in a mall, {which is} the mother of death, and I mean, indeed, the same, and they are away from Christ. But if they would wish to untie the sample, that is the corruption, which {corruption} does not have the power to justify them, and {if they would wish} to approach the grace which truly produces life, then they will approach the one who justifies the impious one, {they will approach} Christ, that is, through whom and with whom the glory belongs to the Father together with the Holy Spirit to the centuries of centuries. Amen.(Chapter 8, at p. 87)
Plain and Direct Style of Scripture
Finally, here is one quotation from Evie Zachariades-Holmberg, editor/translator, which is of interest as it relates to the perspicuity of Scripture:
There are, of course examples in the early Christian literature, where the authors achieve masterpieces with the use of the simple or the sophisticated / artificial style in the language. St. Paul's mode of expression for example in chapters 12 and 13 of the first epistle to the Corinthians is amazing in its directness, vivacity, power and simplicity, especially when compared to the epistle of Clement of Rome who is also addressing the Corinthians on the same subject.(p. xv)
- TurretinFan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
