I recently did two very different debates:
1. Is the Father Alone Almighty God? David Barron vs. TurretinFan (link to debate page)(direct link to mp3)
2. Intercession of the Saints - William Albrecht vs. TurretinFan (link to debate page)(direct link to mp3).
I'd like to provide more comments on the debates, but I lack time at present.
-TurretinFan
Monday, May 25, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
TF, just finished listening to the debate with you and David Barron. I'm waiting to hear your take on this debate.
A couple of things I wanted to note. There was in one of David's times to speak where it seemed to me he said none of the Apostles addressed or laid out any idea of the Trinity. Well I immediately thought of that portion of Romans 1, here:
Rom 1:3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh
Rom 1:4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
Clearly this Apostle shows with those words he is making a distinction between God and "His" Son by virtue of Him being resurrected from the dead by the Spirit of holiness.
And to add to that we also see a similar distinction being made by the Apostle Peter, here, in an entirely different context which shows there were varying views of the Lord being the Christ, the Son of the Living God, by the Apostles and which parenthetically Peter confessed when asked by Jesus "who the people believed He was"?
1Pe 5:10 And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.
1Pe 5:11 To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Clearly Peter is making the distinction between our being "called" to the God of all Grace and to His ETERNAL GLORY IN CHRIST.
The other thing is there is the idea and concept of the Trinity found in the Old Testament. I see it clearly being distinguished by Nathan the Prophet speaking to King David at 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17. There is a slight variation in each of these chapters but the essential thing is there is clearly two kingdoms and two kings in heaven and one of those two is represented by King David and his throne on earth and his earthly reign.
I thought this was an ok debate. I thought things could have been clearer and a bit more formal but overall it was clear to me which side I was pulling for! :)
Well TF, just finished the second debate. This was of interest to me even more so than the first debate with David Barron.
Mr. Albrecht seems to be even more mild mannered than in previous debates I've listened to between you and him?
That's a good sign. Your patience may be paying off. I'm not going to hold my breath though! :)
I did want to point to this matter of a mediator and point to some passages of Scripture found in the book of Job.
There is one incident where one of Job's friends describes the death of the wicked. See Job 18. When you comprehend what is being described you might be filled with fright? It's not a pleasant situation the wicked person finds them self, being torn from their tent and marched before the king of terrors and to be torn up and ripped apart by this tyrant.
Then later on in Job 33 we find these words:::>
Job 33:22 His soul draws near the pit, and his life to those who bring death.
Job 33:23 If there be for him an angel, a mediator, one of the thousand, to declare to man what is right for him,
Job 33:24 and he is merciful to him, and says, 'Deliver him from going down into the pit; I have found a ransom;
Job 33:25 let his flesh become fresh with youth; let him return to the days of his youthful vigor';
Job 33:26 then man prays to God, and he accepts him; he sees his face with a shout of joy, and he restores to man his righteousness.
Job 33:27 He sings before men and says: 'I sinned and perverted what was right, and it was not repaid to me.
Job 33:28 He has redeemed my soul from going down into the pit, and my life shall look upon the light.'
What we can see from these two points of view is the death of the wicked and the death of a sinner who dies into a "decree" or a "sentence" so that the "mediator" intervenes or intercedes for him. He passes into the afterlife clothed with the clothes of the "mediator".
It also shows us just how fluid and bleek and swift this human life is. I know. I'm now 61 years old and am amazed how quickly this sojourn has been since being made alive "with" Christ back in July of 1975, being born again after being born into the world back in 1953! I've lived most of my life and all of my adult life in ministry serving the Lord and the Lord's people as well a few others, even my enemies as I have been so led to do good to them too.
I do believe in this instance both the moderator and Mr. Albrecht got it wrong about prayers and intercession. I found it odd the moderator's comments at the closing Q and A portion of the debate. He seems a bit misinformed about Daniel 9, 10 and 11 and what exactly was going on with Daniel praying and having a visitation and visions from Gabriel and warfare in the heavenlies that included Michael.
Again, you and your voice in this debate were the clear eyed clear sounding voice of Grace and Truth and sola scriptura and many who take the time to listen to this debate between you and Mr. Albrecht should be able to see and understand the realities being discussed to understand that?
One final thing I want to point out has to do with Mr. Albrecht's anachronistic approach to prayer and the prayers of the Saints. Here again, it bears repeating that Thee Church, that is, ALL True Believers, from both the Old and New Testament periods have stayed the course, staying on the straight and narrow way of the Lord and what was being protested from well before Martin Luther and Zwingli, like Tyndale and Wycliffe, then after, John Calvin and the list of other reformational fathers we can list down through the centuries is this one organization, the RCC, has gotten away from what is straight and narrow and gotten into the weeds and muck and mire of spiritualities that have produced such dogmas as praying to the Saints, to Mary and believing they, too, are praying to us and for us. It's a long stretch to build into the words from Matthew 25:23 just what it is we will be doing in Heaven. It isn't made plain what that is. The purpose of that story is to give us "hope" for our futures and to anticipate what will happen AFTER the day of judgment at the end of time when the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
It is at that time when these present heavens and earth burn up. To imply those who pass into the "afterlife" are now actively participating in what is going on on earth after they too pass is a stretch. That there is something going on and then being specific about it to the point to then build a dogma around the speculation of these matters seems to me to be akin to building one's house upon sand and not on the sound foundation of the Rock of our salvation. Really what you pointed to from 1 Corinthians 2 is in my view the best response to his anachronism. And ironically considering just how Off the rails the RCC has gone and is still in leading people of their faith into that ditch, these Words too from 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 seem apropos that led to your citation to respond to his claim he knows what Scripture doesn't reveal as to us in what we shall enter into, that that the Lord has prepared for us when we pass out of this life, into the afterlife,
One wonders why the RCC or even Mr. Albrecht would focus on these matters and not focus, as the Apostle Paul exhorts, on Jesus Christ and him crucified, living the rest of his life in weakness, in fear and much trembling demonstrating the things of the Spirit and power of the Lord by the gift of Faith once delivered to the Saints so that others as well will strive to enter into rest in this life in the wisdom and power of God not men?
Thanks, TurretinFan! If anybody is interested, I've compiled some resources documenting how inaccurate William Albrecht's claims are concerning prayers to the dead. See here.
In response to Barron I would say that the interestamental and 2nd Temple period literature was trying to explain the previous cryptic passage of Dan. 7:13-14 as well as the other passages in the OT that dealt with the Angel/Messenger of YHVH and the Word of YHVH. The Jews interpreted it in at least to main opposing ways. Some groups interpreted, explained and expanded on the concepts in a way that denied the full deity of those persons or that person [assuming, ad arguendo, all three personages was the same person], while others affirmed the full deity of that figure [or nearly so]. You find the latter among those Jews who affirmed the "Two Powers in Heaven" view that even Jewish Alan Segal acknowledged existed among Jews before, during and for some time after the time of Christ. Only later was it deemed a heresy [likely in response to Christianity].
In fact, both groups were not entirely consistent with their own selves. Sometimes veering to one side of the spectrum in some of their statements to deny the deity of the 2nd godlike figure, and other times veering toward the other end of the spectrum in affirming the figure as approaching the identity or attributes of YHVH. That's because they were struggling to explain how God could be one and transcendent, YET at the same time the OT suggesting that there's at least one other person who is also divine to such an extent that it borders on encroaching on and violating God's transcendence and singularity.
So, the way to interpret the New Testament statements regarding Christ's identity is not by going to the intertestamental and 2nd Temple period literature as Barron argues, but by going back to what the OT teaches. When one does that, it strengthens a Trinitarian interpretation. The OT is inspired teaching and revelation, while the 2nd Temple period literature is uninspired speculation that often bordered on the truth of the Trinity, and sometimes fell short or denied it. Barron's method of interpretation is backwards. See the YouTube videos and articles by Anthony Rogers on the Trinity and the Messenger/Angel of the LORD. Also, the A/V and written materials by Tony Costa, Jonathan McLatchie, Sam Shamoun, Michael Heiser et al.
Post a Comment