Thoughts of Francis Turretin

Christian Liberty, the Roman Communion, and Inerrancy

2012-01-27T18:46:00.002Z

As Christians, we have a lot of liberty. We can eat meat or abstain from eating it. We can drink or abstain from drinking. Moreover, in things about which Scripture has nothing to say, we have the Christian liberty to have a variety of opinions.

In theory, Rome's communion has a similar policy. They have more rigid rules about eating (sorry guys, it's Friday, can't have the bacon cheeseburger), but in theory they have a lot of leeway in theology. If there is no "defined dogma" then those in Rome's communion are (generally speaking) allowed to believe whatever they like. Moreover, if there is no "official teaching," those in Rome's communion are (again, generally speaking) allowed to express their opinion.

So, it is with some amusement that I have been watching a certain e-pologist for the Roman communion who has been spending his time in an extended blog war with one of Rome's actual apologists over the latter's promotion of some video. The video speculates about whether the NASA footage of the moon landing is genuine.

Let's be clear about something - Rome has no official teaching or dogmatic definition regarding whether the moon landings happened, or whether the footage of them is real. So, in theory, members of Rome's communion should be free to hold various opinions about the subject.

I feel a little sorry for the real apologist who finds himself at the receiving end of the abuse from e-apologist over his views on the moon landing. The only apparent motivation for the abuse from the e-pologist is to make the real apologist look bad for holding views that a lot of people will think are kooky. Maybe the views are kooky, but he's supposedly allowed to hold those views.

What's amusing is that this same e-pologist claims that it's "not liberal" for people to hold the documentary hypothesis! ("Is it liberal to adopt the documentary hypothesis? Dogmatically, I don't think so, from a Catholic perspective." source)

Whether the documentary hypothesis is correct isn't something that we Christians have liberty about - it touches on and denies inerrancy. But what is Rome's view on inerrancy?

In summary, the following can be said with certainty: ... with regards to what might be inspired in the many parts of Sacred Scripture, inerrancy applies only to "that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" (DV 11)

(Nikola Eterovic, General Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, "The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church" in an Instrumentalis Laboris form, 2008)(but note that this portion of the working paper was not ultimately approved, as per this report)

Of course, previously, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had stated without qualification that "the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts" (15 July 1998) was something to be believed De Fide on a par with "the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff." Of course, "without qualification" is the way that a traditionalist would view it. "Without clarification" is how a modernist would view it.

I understand that the CDF has been given the task of further clarifying the Roman position on inerrancy, but whether they adopt the modernist view espoused in the working paper above, or the orthodox view of full inerrancy, it's truly remarkable that Rome's e-pologist(s) (I understand Mark Shea has added to the pile of abuse as well) find it appropriate to bash one more noble than themselves for holding views that are perfectly acceptable within their own communion.

It seems like a classic case straining at the gnat (holding to an unusual view of America), whilst swallowing the camel (the documentary hypothesis).

- TurretinFan

Discussing the Bible with Roman Catholics

2012-01-26T22:29:00.001Z

John Lollard (which I presume is a psuedonym) has provided the following dialogue between a hypothetical truthseeker and a Roman Catholic:

Roman Catholic (RC): "Here, this book came from God. Read it and believe it."
Truth Seeker (TS): "Okay! Hey, this book says X is true."
RC: "What? Give me that!"
TS: "Right there, 'X is true'."
RC: "It doesn't actually mean that. What it means is that X is false and Y is true."
TS: "But, you said this book came from God?"
RC: "It did. But you should just listen to me, and not worry about what this book says."
TS: "What? Why should I listen to you?"
RC: "Why, it says right there in the book, 'the true believers' - meaning me of course - 'will never teach falsely'."
TS: "But this book teaches X and you teach Y. Doesn't that mean you do teach falsely?"
RC: "Look, I'm the one who gave you the book in the first place."
TS: "Then thank you very much for the book that you claim came from God, please read it yourself and obey it."

I have one criticism of this dialog, though. How many savvy Roman Catholics would suggest to a truth seeker to read and believe the Bible? Reading the Bible is not going to lead you Romeward, and I think most RC proselytizers realize that.

-TurretinFan

To Whom Should we Entrust Baptized Infants?

2012-01-25T23:21:00.000Z

I realize a lot of my friends who read my blog are baptists. For the sake of discussion, assume with me that infants of believers are to be baptized. Benedict XVI recently baptized XVI babies in the Sistine chapel. Vatican Information Service (VIS) reports (January 9, 2012) that:

The Pope concluded by entrusting the newly baptised infants to the Blessed Virgin, "that they may grow in age, wisdom and grace, and become true Christians, faithful and joyful witnesses of the love of God".

There is a gnat and a camel here.

The gnat first. Aren't newly baptized infants "true Christians" already? What sort of theology does Benedict XVI have, in which newly baptized infants are not true Christians? This is a gnat because it may be simply a slip of the tongue or a translation glitch.

Now, the camel. What is Benedict XVI doing entrusting them to Mary? On what basis does Benedict XVI suppose that Mary can have any influence on their ability to

grow in age
grow in wisdom
grow in grace
become (remain?) true Christians
become faithful witnesses of the love of God; or
become joyful witnesses of the love of God?

What this looks like is just more Mariolatry - treating Mary as though she were a goddess, capable of doing what only God can do. Does Benedict XVI use the word "goddess"? No. Functionally though, where a Presbyterian minister would entrust a child to God or a Baptist might "dedicate" the child to God, Benedict XVI is entrusting the babies to Mary.

-TurretinFan

Do Muslims Have the Whole Koran?

2012-01-25T02:06:00.001Z

The punchline is this - "a goat ate it." In discussions regarding Qur'anic preservation, the following hadith is sure to come up:

Reported ‘Aisha (RA): ‘the verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) expired and we were occupied by his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.’ (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1944)

(See also, Musnad Ahmad 6/269 Hadith 26359, if you don't like the chain of narration in Sunan Ibn Majah)

Notice the following about that hadith.

1) Shortly after Mohamed's death, a goat came into Aisha's sleeping area and ate the paper that she had placed under her pillow.

2) The paper had "the verse" on it.

3) This verse was about (a) stoning and (b) suckling an adult ten times.

While the Koran that the Muslims have today mentions stoning, there is no verse regarding suckling an adult ten times, much less any verse about both together (both suckling and stoning).

Sometimes the authenticity of the above hadith is challenged. Perhaps more needs to be said about that, but it is not the only relevant hadith.

Here is another hadith that has more attestation (these three ahadith are related, as you will see):

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims). (Sahih Muslim, Book #008, Hadith #3421)

'Amra reported that she heard 'A'isha (Allah he pleased with her) discussing fosterage which (makes marriage) unlawful; and she ('A'isha) said: There was revealed in the Holy Qur'an ten clear sucklings, and then five clear (sucklings). (Sahih Muslim, Book #008, Hadith #3422)

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Hazm from Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman that A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Amongst what was sent down of the Qur'an was 'ten known sucklings make haram' - then it was abrogated by 'five known sucklings'. When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died, it was what is now recited of the Qur'an." Yahya said that Malik said, "One does not act on this." (Malik's Muwatta, Book #30, Hadith #30.3.17)

Notice that in these accounts, it is again stated that the "ten sucklings" were in the Qur'an. There is a claim that this was then abrogated in favor of five sucklings.

But there is more!

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Salim ibn Abdullah ibn Umar informed him that A'isha umm al-muminin sent him away while he was being nursed to her sister Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr as-Siddiq and said, "suckle him ten times so that he can come in to see me." Salim said, "Umm Kulthum nursed me three times and then fell ill, so that she only nursed me three times. I could not go in to see A'isha because Umm Kulthum did not finish for me the ten times." (Malik's Muwatta, Book #30, Hadith #30.1.7)

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Safiyya bint Abi Ubayd told him that Hafsa, umm al-muminin, sent Asim ibn Abdullah ibn Sad to her sister Fatima bint Umar ibn al-Khattab for her to suckle him ten times so that he could come in to see her. She did it, so he used to come in to see her. (Malik's Muwatta, Book #30, Hadith #30.1.8)

This seems to be an example of the application of the "ten sucklings" principle. Why would Aisha suggest that an adult go be suckled ten times? Doing so would, in her mind, make the person a foster relative. And a foster relative (while prohibited from marriage) would be permitted to see her unveiled.

It seems clear that all this testimony provided above regarding the missing verse of the Qur'an is linked back to Aisha. Was she lying or mistaken? Perhaps she was. If Muslims want to insist she was lying or mistaken, how can I prove she was telling the truth?

On the other hand, why assume Aisha was lying? From a historical standpoint, is there any record of anyone challenging Aisha's claim during her lifetime? She was one of Muhammad's wives. If she was lying, wouldn't one of Muhammad's companions be able to say so and have that testimony preserved amongst the ahadith?

In short, why isn't the above historical evidence - as such - credible? Do you accept that your Koran is short at least one verse, or do you reject that idea based on presuppositions that have nothing to do with history?

-TurretinFan

P.S. Incidentally, there is at least one attempted Muslim response to the issues above (example). That response relies on questioning the authenticity of the narration. However, the response is honest enough to admit that there is an alternate chain of narration that does not have the flaw above. Moreover, the response highlights the existence of other narrations with different words (presumably referring to some of the second category I identified above). These other narrations, however, just highlight the problem.

Secondly, the response suggests that Mohammed said that the verse about stoning couldn't be written. It's not clear what this is supposed to prove. It seems to further support the idea that the written Qur'an is not complete.

Thirdly, the response points out that in some of the narrations, the verse is described as abrogated. However, why should the abrogated verse be omitted from the Koran?

The response's conclusion is even more puzzlingly odd:

Moreover ‘Aisha (RA) lived through the whole period of Qur’an compilation during the time of Abu Bakr (RA) and Usman (RA) while she was unanimously considered an authority for herself so if she had any thought about some verses missing she would have brought it to attention of other Companions of the Prophet (PBUH). Infact we have evidence of Usman (RA) making special endeavor of consulting ‘Aisha (RA) and her records for verifying the official compilation. See Ibn Shabba’s Tarikh Al-Madina p.997. Despite all this she never raised the issue supporting our conclusion that no part of the Qur’an was lost even if the narration is considered reliable.

What is odd is that the respondent thinks this helps his case. Aisha is deemed by Usman as a reliable authority on the Qur'an during the period of compilation, yet her uncontested testimony is that part of the Qur'an was lost. To say she "never raised the issue" begs the question at best - more to the point there is a record of her raising the issue, and supporting evidence that she really believed it to have been revealed, or at least really claimed to believe it to have been revealed. Her testimony also explains why she couldn't hand over the verse to Usman during the period of compilation.

Why I Love Jesus and Keep His Commandments

2012-01-22T01:13:00.001Z

I understand that my friend, Dr. James White, may be preparing a better response to "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Muslim Version," but I want to chime in now, while it is fresh on my mind (rather than waiting 24 years - just sayin'). I'll respond in chunks to the lyrics. The production quality was pretty good - though (in my opinion) not as impressive as the production quality of the original video. I've taken the liberty of spelling out words that are abbreviated in the rap, especially words ending in "ing."

Look, what if I told you there was something you were missing
What if I told you that Jesus doesn't really fit into your description
What if I told you that "follower of Christ" doesn't automatically mean "Christian"
And just because you believe in Faith doesn't mean Jesus didn't believe in submission and conviction

The brief answer is that a Christian does mean a follower of Christ. The term "Christian" was coined in the first century in Antioch to describe the disciples (followers) of Christ.

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

And this name caught on, so that even King Agrippa knew and used the term.

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

Regarding submission and conviction, James (Jesus' brother) teaches us explicitly to "Submit yourselves therefore to God" (James 4:7). But submission doesn't mean Islam, even if Islam means submission (as some have suggested).

Listen, you say that Jesus was God and that God had descended
We say that Jesus was man, for Jesus was dependant
Our god is all great and cannot be comprehended

You say that God was murdered or do you believe that he pretended?

Jesus was (and is) both God and man in two distinct natures and one person. Jesus did descend:

Ephesians 4:9-10 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

That descent (which we call the descent into hell, meaning the descent into the place of the dead) is not quite the same as the descent from heaven. John describes that descent this way:

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.

And this is not unique to John, of course. Paul says the same:

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Perhaps the most concise explanation is this:

Philippians 2:6-8
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Jesus Christ, you see, has two natures: God and man, but he is one person. That person submitted to death on the cross.

We recognize that some Muslims may think that Jesus only pretended to die on the cross, or that Allah simply made it appear that Jesus died on the cross. Nevertheless, the Scriptures inform us that Jesus died on the cross.

See god gave us brains and god gave us logic
But I guess god wanted us to use them in everything else except for this topic
It's like wearing a cross and proclaiming that you love Jesus
When if God was murdered on the cross, the cross really shouldn't please us
I mean would you be wearing an axe if it was used to chop your mother up into pieces?
See this is what happens when you believe in faith, but fail to believe in reason.

Of course, the Reformed churches have traditionally frowned upon wearing crosses, but for a completely different reason. Likewise, some fundamentalists object to wearing crosses and make essentially the exact argument posed above in terms of comparing it to some object that killed one's mother.

Of course, there is a major difference. The death of one's beloved mother brings sadness. The death of Christ brought sadness at the time, but Christ did not stay dead. He rose from the dead and ascended up into heaven.

The death of Christ now brings joy - because by death Christ conquered death.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

The Paschal Troparion has a powerful way of expressing it:

Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And upon those in the tombs
Bestowing life!

This was indeed prophesied:

Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

The death of Christ is something valuable and precious. It's not a tragedy, though it was very upsetting (of course) to Christ's followers at the time.

See, we used to worship the creator until Satan turned us to the creation
We began to worship the people and neglect the one who made them
We began to believe that god had died, but how could a god even be created?

Jesus has two natures - one divine and uncreated - one human and created. We don't worship Jesus because he is man - we worship Jesus because he is God. He is the only begotten son of God:

Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
John10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

but he is also the son of man

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Moreover, Jesus was not created - he is the Creator.

Hebrews 1:1-2
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

A miraculous birth and therefore the son of God was begotten,
You see the creation of Jesus was easy, but you seem to have forgotten,
That God says "be" and it is, just like with Adam
A concept to complex for the church to merely fathom

Jesus was miraculously born, but Jesus existed before then.

Colossians 1:13-16
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

The Son always existed, you see - but became flesh by taking on the flesh of Mary in her womb.

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.

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

You see, Jesus himself confirmed both his divinity and the fact that he existed before Abraham:

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

But he was the creator of the universe (for all we know even more)
And so what if we can't see him, I mean what you acting like our universe is small
I mean there's still so much we still yet to explore
I mean there's still so many things as human beings we still haven't seen touched heard or saw
Our eyes can't even handle the sight of the sun, so how can we possibly handle the sight of our lord

The Father created all things by Christ. As it is written:

Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Nehemiah 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

But yes - it takes something miraculous for anyone to see God and live. So, this objection is a reasonable one, though mistaken.

Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Judges 13:22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.

Exodus 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

And the Jews could not even bear to look at Moses face after he had talked with God.

Exodus 34:29-35
And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses wist not that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. And Moses called unto them; and Aaron and all the rulers of the congregation returned unto him: and Moses talked with them. And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai. And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face. But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded. And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses' face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.

But Jesus, who is both God and man, bridges this gap.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

You see Jesus used to pray, but in your opinion who'd he pray to?
I mean if Jesus was God, surely prayer would be of no use.

Jesus prayed to the Father. Why should such a prayer be no use? The Father loves the Son. As Jesus taught:

John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

Or did he only require it when he needed to know the truth
Like when god wasn't sure whether it was the season of the fruit

Jesus, as to his divinity, knows all things:

John 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Of course, our Muslim rapper is referring this occasion:

Mark 11:13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

And the rapper seems to think that this implies that Jesus was ignorant. Yet, Jesus is both God and man. Not all of God's divine knowledge is imputed to Jesus' humanity. Moreover, a person with more understanding will read the passage and discover that Jesus had a purpose in going to a fig tree that was leaves only - the purpose was to illustrate the spiritual state of Jerusalem when he came to them. They were leaves only.

Remember that they had just done this:

Mark 11:8-10
And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed them in the way. And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.

But soon enough they were going to kill him. They were leaves only - no fruit. Therefore, like the fig tree, they were destroyed. The fig tree, therefore, portrayed the destruction of Jerusalem, which was soon to come.

Or maybe he prayed when there was something he couldn't do
Like when he said, "I of myself can do nothing," but you took it as there's nothing he couldn't do

Our Muslim rapper has not properly understood Jesus words. Look at what Jesus said:

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

You see, the point is that Jesus is not alone - he is doing what he was sent by the Father to do. Notice that here Jesus prophesied his own death by being lifted up (on the cross). Of course, our Muslim rapper denies that Jesus was crucified, but that's just because he does not follow even the prophecies of Jesus.

See no one used to worship Jesus, so ask yourself why do you?
A concept so straightforward, but has left so many confused

When exactly did no one worship Jesus? It seems our Muslim friend is unfamiliar with parts of the Bible that are not quoted by deceptive people like Deedat.

He was worshiped both at the time of his birth:
Matthew 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Matthew 2:11 And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.

During his earthly ministry:

Mark 5:6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,

Matthew 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

Matthew 9:18 While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

Matthew 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Matthew 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

Matthew 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

John 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

And even after the Resurrection, before the ascension:

Matthew 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Matthew 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Luke 24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

You see, Jesus preached one god, but the church has failed to practice
And I mean you don't have be that dumb to know that 1 + 1 + 1 equaling 1 isn't necessarily going to give you a pass in mathematics

Three persons is not the same as three beings. It's easy to misapply mathematics. After all, there are many molecules of oxygen and hydrogen in a glass, but how many "water"? I'm not saying that the three persons are atoms making a molecule of divinity, but I am saying that if you want to have "three gods" on the right hand side of your mathematics equation, you can't get it from merely showing that there are three persons who are all the same God on the left hand side of the equation. An apple plus an orange does not yield two pears, even though 1 + 1 = 2.

But yes, Jesus preached one God, and so do we.

You see the church said "three" and Jesus said "one"

We also say "one" (in fact, isn't that what the Muslim rapper was dissing us for in his misapplication of mathematics?)

1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

but the three persons were identified by Jesus himself:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Jesus said "God" and the church said "Son"

Jesus actually said that all men should honor the Son the same way that they honor the Father, and that if they don't honor the Son they don't honor the Father.

John 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Jesus never said "worship me" rather he said "pray"

John 5:23 (just above) is awfully close. It's not the exact words "worship me," but how does one honor the Father? Besides all that, in all the cases where people worshiped Jesus in his presence, when did he ever correct them?

Moreover, what difference does it make if Jesus himself did not say that, when the Father commanded the angels to worship Jesus?

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Remember that when John made the mistake of worshiping a mere angel, the angel corrected him:

Revelation 22:8-9
And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

But Jesus accepted the worship of his disciples.

But you've chosen to worship Jesus, despite everything he used to say

One of the problems for our Muslim rapper is that he doesn't seem to have a very complete knowledge of what Jesus used to say.

You began to think with your emotion and forgot to think with your mind
I guess you didn't pay attention when Jesus says "our father" yet never says "mine"

Who is not paying attention?
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 10:32-33 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Matthew 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Matthew 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Matthew 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Matthew 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

Matthew 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Luke 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

Luke 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
Luke 22:29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;

Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

John 2:16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.

John 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

John 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

John 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

John 8:49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.

John 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

John 10:17-18 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

John 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

John 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

John 12:26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

John 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

John 14:20-21 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

John 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

John 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

John 15:23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

John 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

Revelation 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Revelation 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

You claim to be a follower of Christ yet you still choose to eat swine

Jesus taught, during his earthly ministry:

Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Moreover, a vision was given to Peter:

Acts 10:13-16
And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

And finally, the apostles at Jerusalem recognized that the gift of the Holy Spirit had come to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and therefore did not place an onerous burden on them:

Acts 15:28-29
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Moreover we are expressly told that we do not have to adhere to the clean/unclean distinctions in foods any more:

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Likewise, people like Mohamed were prophesied to come:

1 Timothy 4:1-4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

So, you can refuse the swine - but while we dine, keep in mind that the old dietary laws came to the end of the line.

And call yourselves Christians, but in your churches you're busy drinking wine

Wine was never even forbidden to the Jews, much less to the Christians. In fact, that was Jesus first public miracle.

John 4:46 So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.

Referring to this:

John 2:1-11 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

You see, Jesus manifested his glory in making water into wine.

And just to clarify, I do love Jesus.
Matter of fact, I love him more than you.
Because when Jesus says do something, I actually do

You don't do this:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

And you don't do this:

1 Corinthians 11:23-26
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

So, no - Muslim rapper - you don't do what Jesus says. That would show love for Jesus, who taught:

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

However, I'm not connected with the church nor with the Bible

Indeed you are not. But the church is the body of Christ. You can't very well have a severed-head Christ with no body.

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Likewise, the Bible is His Word.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

See, I love Jesus as my prophet, but refuse to worship him as an idol
Just like he wants it and proclaimed it as sin

Jesus never proclaimed that worshiping him was a sin - and Jesus (the true Jesus) is not an idol. There are many idols given the name of Jesus, but those are not the true Jesus. The true Jesus is at the right hand of God the Father, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead.

And while you claim to love Jesus as your prophet, you reject what he said about himself. You do not honor him the same way you honor the father (John 5:23, quoted above). You don't love his teachings but reject them as shirk - as polytheism. You don't baptize as he commanded and you don't commune as he commanded. You are not his followers - we are.

So it doesn't really matter if they don't let him in
Because Jesus wouldn't even want to be in the presence of people worshiping an idol of him.

I completely agree. Jesus would break down the idols of him that many churches have erected, just as he drove out the money changers from the temple. But Jesus did accept the worship of his disciples and the title of the Son of God.

Before I move on, there's something I need to mention
The worshiping of Jesus is a man-made invention.
He never asked for your worship so he can grant you protection
rather he asked you to alternate your prayers towards another direction
to god and god only and pray that he accepts them
and know that just because you love Jesus, doesn't mean he feels the same way about your affection
see what you believe in is exactly what he resented
matter of fact its everything he despised
see the worship of the creation goes against the very message he supplied
see you began to follow a religion and called it love in disguise
because love can be good, but love can be blind

The worshiping of Jesus is an explicit divine ordinance (Hebrews 1:6, quoted above). Jesus did not pray towards Mecca. Indeed, while during Jesus earthly ministry, people prayed toward Jerusalem, Jesus prophesied that this directional prayer would end.

John 4:19-26
The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

You see, now we worship in Spirit and Truth. Jesus, the Messiah, has told us all things. We did not and do not await some greater prophet.

Colossians 2:8-10
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

So, dear Muslim rapper - will you submit yourself to the word of God? Will you kiss the Son? or will you in refuse to obey the Father?

Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Therefore, listen - take heed to yourself - and trust in Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God, while there is still time.

-TurretinFan

Responding to Karl Keating

2012-01-17T06:39:00.001Z

My posts are timely, if nothing else. Back in 1987, at the Bayview Baptist Church, Karl Keating engaged in a debate against Peter Ruckman. Keating hasn't done a lot of debates since then (that I can find a record of, at any rate), so perhaps despite the passage of 24 years, this reply will still be deemed timely.

After some pleasantries, Keating begins his presentation with an argument regarding inspiration. He asks the question: "How do you know that the Bible is inspired?" He then offers several options and tries to knock them down. He identifies the following as inadequate reasons:

1. Cultural Reasons

2. Family Tradition
3. Inspirational - It Moves Me
4. The Bible's Own Claim to Inspiration
5. The Holy Spirit Tells Me So

Before we get to Keating's proposed alternative to these allegedly inadequate reasons, let's consider his five "inadequate reasons." The first three reasons look a lot like straw men. Maybe someone somewhere thinks that the Bible is inspired because it is inspirational, or because their family told them so, or because society deems the Bible to be important. These, however, are hardly very serious arguments.

Exactly the opposite is the case for numbers 4 and 5. The ideas that the Bible proclaims its own inspiration (and indeed it does) and that the Holy Spirit confirms that inspiration to us (and He does) are actually the historic Reformed and "Protestant" position on the subject.

Keating claims that these are "inadequate." Consider the implication, though. The implication is that even if God himself tells you that the Bible is inspired, that's not a sufficient basis upon which to believe that the Bible is inspired. That implication borders on blasphemous. What could be more sufficient as a basis than that the Bible claims inspiration and that the Holy Spirit confirms it? Of course, there cannot be - but before we proclaim that dogmatically, let's see if Keating has located something better.

Keating's alternative is to provide his "spiral argument" (which I've previously critiqued here).

The steps he proposes are as follows:

1. Look at the Bible as though it were a non-inspired book.
2. Discover the Bible's historical reliability.
3. Discover that Jesus said he would found a church.
4. Conclude that the church must have the gift of infallibility.
5. Conclude that the church must have the look of the Roman church.
6. When Rome tells us that the Bible is inspired, we can know that it is inspired, because the church is infallible.

Keating calls this his spiral argument, but that may just be a distraction. In addition to the question of circularity, there are at least two other problems.

First, we can adopt his (1) and (2) and then discover that Paul was a true Apostle of Christ and explicitly taught the inspiration of Scripture. There's no need to go to (3), much less to the rest of the series.

Second, even if we go to (3), there's no teaching in the Scriptures that the church is or will be infallible, or even that "the church" will be in a position to speak as "the church." There's nothing about the church (as described by Jesus during his earthly ministry, or otherwise throughout Scripture) that requires the church to be infallible. Therefore, there is nothing to get us from (3) to (4).

To those two strong points, we could also add a weak third point, namely that (5) is likewise easily rejected. The Roman church doesn't look like the Apostolic church as described in the New Testament. It doesn't have a plurality of elders in every city. It has a limited priesthood where the New Testament church had a universal priesthood. Most significantly, it has a papacy, whereas the only head of the Apostolic church is Christ.

I call this point weak, because if you have already concluded that "the church" must be infallible, you've conceded a point that you should not. Indeed, on that hypothesis you would have nowhere to go - because there are no churches that look like the Apostolic church and also claim to be infallible (to my knowledge - at least).

- TurretinFan

What Should be Spent on Wine and Gambling?

2012-01-08T13:59:00.002Z

Others have noted that there is inconsistency in the Koran regarding alcohol. One of these passages comes from Surah 2. The particular ayah is 219

219. They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs." Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider-

The usual point is that here there is no command toward total abstinence, and there is an indication that there is some profit in them. That is, they are not simply sin. There is another point that can be made, though. Suppose we ask how much should be spent on wine and gambling? This ayah seems to indicate that the answer that should be given by Muslims is "Your disposable income" (that is, what you have beyond what you need).

In analyzing this point, of course, one has to assume that the context interprets the text -- an assumption that is not necessarily valid. We know, for example, that order of the ayat in the Koran is not the order in which the ayat were allegedly revealed to Mohammed.

Nevertheless, in order to avoid making the sentence (They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs.") a floating maxim, we need to try to interpret it contextually. After all, the object of this spending is not identified in the sentence itself and so need to be supplied from the context. There are basically two options for context. Context precedent and context subsequent. Context precedent suggests that the Koran is talking about spending on wine and gambling. This approach makes sense, particularly because the very next sentence alleges perspicuity. ("Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider-(Their bearings) on this life and the Hereafter.")

Some may point out that "They ask thee..." may introduce a subject change. After all, in the next Ayah, we see this:

220. (Their bearings) on this life and the Hereafter. They ask thee concerning orphans. Say: "The best thing to do is what is for their good; if ye mix their affairs with yours, they are your brethren; but Allah knows the man who means mischief from the man who means good. And if Allah had wished, He could have put you into difficulties: He is indeed Exalted in Power, Wise."

Notice that "They ask thee concerning orphans ..." seems to introduce a new topic. Yet this is not a rigid rule in the Koran, even in this Surah. For example, only a few ayat earlier, the Koran states:

215. They ask thee what they should spend (In charity). Say: Whatever ye spend that is good, is for parents and kindred and orphans and those in want and for wayfarers. And whatever ye do that is good, -(Allah) knoweth it well.

216. Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

217. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.

Notice that here there is a shift from discussing spending on charity to fighting. Note in particular that "They ask thee concerning fighting ..." does not introduce a new topic. It provides a specific detail about the immediately preceding topic. Moreover, notice that the new topic of fighting was introduced without the use of "They ask ... ."

Others may point out that in this Surah, spending often refers to charitable or devotional spending. For example:

3. Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;

177. It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah.fearing.

195. And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction; but do good; for Allah loveth those who do good.

215 (already presented above)

261-265 The parable of those who spend their substance in the way of Allah ...

270. And whatever ye spend in charity or devotion, be sure Allah knows it all. But the wrong-doers have no helpers.

274. Those who (in charity) spend of their goods by night and by day, in secret and in public, have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

This larger context certainly might seem to lend credibility to the idea that spending is not spending on wine and gambling, but on charity. On the other hand, 215 already answered the question about what should be spent on charity. So, interpreting 219 as referring to spending on charity seems to make it redundant with 215.

Moreover, there is another pattern that emerges from a study of this Surah.

The expression "Thus doth Allah make clear His Signs to men" is introduced to wrap up one topic and move on to a different topic in 187. Then a similar expression is used in a similar way in 221 and then again in 242 and 266.

A similar approach is also used in 3:103, Surah 4 ends in that way, and 5:89 uses the expression to separate a discussion on how to cure the moral damage from breaking an oath from a discussion on gambling and drinking.

Specifically:

90. O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper.

91. Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?

What was previously some profit and great sin is now an "abomination" from Mohamed's followers must abstain.

Of course, the above understanding isn't the understanding of the Sunni. They don't interpret 2:219 as suggesting that people should spend only their disposable income on wine and gambling. They likewise are reluctant to see "abomination of Satan's handwork" (5:90) as being in conflict with "some profit" (2:219). That isn't their view of the Koran, and their scholars do not (to my knowledge) agree with my analysis above.

But the Koran calls itself the "Qur'an that makes things clear" (15:1) and claims "We sent down the Book to thee for the express purpose, that thou shouldst make clear to them those things in which they differ, and that it should be a guide and a mercy to those who believe." (15:64)

-TurretinFan

The Real Turretin on Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant

2012-01-06T09:58:00.000Z

Kerux, Volume 24, Number 3, p. 76, FN70 (Dennison et al.):

[O]ur editors have summarized Turretin as teaching that “the form of the Mosaic covenant was the covenant of works, but its substance was the covenant of grace” (12). This muddles Turretin’s otherwise careful distinctions regarding the administration of the covenant of grace under Moses, and oversimplifies his rather complex formulation. It is true that Turretin argues that the Mosaic administration contained a restatement of a “form of the covenant of works” to remind Israel of the broken covenant of works and to lead them to Christ (2:263). But Turretin later clarifies that by “form of the covenant of works,” he is referencing “the law in itself” apart from the Mosaic covenant (2:269). This he distinguishes from “the Mosaic covenant itself, in which the law was enacted” (ibid.). This administration included not only this “legal relation” but also an “evangelical relation,” which was “sweeter” in that it led them to Christ (2:227). Thus, Turretin calls this administration a “mixture of both the law and the Gospel” (2:263). As he says elsewhere: “And thus in sweet harmony the law and the gospel meet together in this covenant. The law is not administered without the gospel, nor is the gospel without the law. So that it is as it were a legal-gospel and an evangelical-law; a gospel full of obedience and a law full of faith” (2:268). In short, our editors summary of Turretin’s view of the Mosaic covenant is at best severely truncated, and at worst, misleading. It fails to grapple with Turretin’s own stated definitions, and oversimplifies Turretin’s complex (though very precise) views.

I don't post this comment to endorse it (I haven't carefully enough studied Turretin's relevant writings to form a conclusion), but simply as an interesting point worthy of further consideration. Turretin's careful distinctions are one of his principle advantages and following them is critically important in understanding his writing.

-TurretinFan

Guest Post: The Insufficiency of T. David Gordon’s Argument Against the Bible as a Sufficient Guide For Faith and Life

2012-01-05T00:31:00.001Z

[A beloved and anonymous family member wrote the following article. It seems timely in view of Dr. Frame's recently released book.]

In his provocatively titled article, “The Insufficiency of Scripture,” [Updated link] T. David Gordon argues that the failings of modern evangelicals are essentially due to too high a view of Scripture—a view of Scripture that says that Scripture is relevant for all of life, not just life as “covenant community members” (the latter being Gordon’s position). Without much consideration for logic, Gordon suggests that wisdom should inform practice, and that wisdom most importantly, “does not come exclusively or perhaps even primarily, through Bible study.”

Simply reading the Bible will not bring wisdom, says he, a statement with which none but the most obtuse believer would quibble. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, is needed to bring forth godly behavior, but surely the Bible must be read and apprehended in order to be applied. Yet his emphasis is not on the word, “reading,” but on the words “the Bible”. We are urged to read other things because the Bible cannot inform us for life.

Neglecting to discuss verses like Psalm 19:7-8, “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;” and “in Christ in whom are hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3) and II Tim. 3:16, Scripture “is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” Gordon advises Christians to seek wisdom outside God’s holy Word, which he repeatedly calls inadequate to the task of teaching anything but how to live as a member of the covenant community (while never explaining what such membership entails).

Taking the Westminster Confession of Faith (1.6) statement that worship has circumstances that may be regulated according to the light of nature, Dr. Gordon ignores the proviso in the same section that even these circumstances are subject to Christian prudence, and the general rules of the Word which are always to be observed [emphasis mine], and generalizes illogically that this section therefore proves the insufficiency of Scripture for life in general. Apparently Gordon does not understand the regulative principle of worship which states that only that which the Bible commands is allowed in worship. The Westminster Divines wisely added there are circumstances which do not fall under this precise regulation. No Reformed theologian defends what might be called “the regulative principle of life” in which only those things commanded by the Word are allowed in life.

Gordon rightly notes that Scripture recommends obtaining wisdom from those older than us, and even from nature. However, since he seeks to divorce these sources from The Source (the Word of God), Gordon is left with a problem: how will he know when he has received wise counsel? Will the wisdom of Socrates do? How about the wisdom of one’s Unitarian grandfather? Or in the created order, shall the industrious man “go to the sloth” and be wise? Or shall the submissive wife look to the black widow spider or praying mantis? This over-the-top silliness is intended to highlight Gordon’s knot: without the Bible as a standard of truth, how can he know when he has received wisdom? The reason why we go to the ant (one of the creatures he mentions) is that the Bible tells us to do so, and it tells us what to look for in the nature of the ant; the way in which we assess what we hear from older people, is whether what they say is in accord with the teaching of Scripture.

Gordon also bashes "theonomy" not merely as the error du jour, but the error par excellence. Reading Dr. Gordon’s article, one would think that the whole Christian world had gone over to theonomic thinking when, in fact, huge tracts of evangelicalism have never heard the word "theonomy," much less adopted the tenets thereof. The Bible is insufficient, warns Gordon, to instruct and inform the “human-as-legislator” or the “human-as-physician” or the “human-as-mechanic,” as if the most ardent Bible-thumpers (as he calls them) ever tried to discover in Scripture the number of amendments to the U. S. Constitution, or the number of chambers in the human heart, or the number of spark plugs in an engine. He’s tilting at windmills.

Gordon admits that the basis for this article is not Scripture but a Gallup poll revealing high rates of divorce among evangelicals. Dr. Gordon declares “Scripture is manifestly not sufficient” (presumably the Gallup poll has made it manifest to him) “to teach people how to attain” a lifelong marriage. He reasons thus:
1. Evangelicals read the Bible.
2. Evangelicals have a high divorce rate
3. Therefore, the Bible is insufficient for any purpose outside of life as a covenant community member.

This is a leap of logic by any standard. Accordingly, Dr. Gordon’s case against the sufficiency of the Bible has proved itself to be insufficient.

- Anonymous
[Posted by TurretinFan on Anonymous' behalf]

.

Responding to "Gabriel Serafin" Regarding the Religion based on the Word

2012-01-04T00:50:00.001Z

A poster using the handle "Gabriel Serafin" wrote:

Protestantism is a religion based on a book. But Jesus Christ did not hand out Bibles, He established a Church and gave her authority to teach. God gave us the Bible through His Church; thus the Catholic Church defined the Canon of Scripture in the first place. "Bible-only Christians" who dismiss the teachings of the Catholic Church are simply living in a state of ignorance and false understanding of Christianity. James White is merely one voice among thousands of voices spreading a cacophony of noise and confusion against the Church that was established by Christ. Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible..

I reply:

The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible. The fact that Jesus himself did not "hand out Bibles" is hardly a compelling point, given that he frequently quoted from the old testament Scriptures and commanded his theological opponents to "Search the Scriptures."

Moreover, the final book of Scripture is the Apocalypse, which describes itself as "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him ... ." (Revelation 1:1) Us folks who follow the Book know this, or at least we should. So, while it would be inaccurate to say Jesus "handed out Bibles" he certainly gave us the Bible, not only by virtue of being the Word made Flesh, and the capstone of the prophets ("God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son" Hebrews 1:1-2) but also by delivering this final Revelation to John by the hand of an angel ("... sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw." Revelation 1:1-2) just as also the Pentateuch was delivered ("it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator" Galatians 3:19).

You may say that Jesus established a church, and indeed Jesus did. But Jesus did not establish a church headed by some other man, but rather he is the head ("gave him to be the head over all things to the church" Ephesians 1:22; "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church" Ephesians 5:23; "he is the head of the body, the church" Colossians 1:18). Jesus did not tell us that the bishop of Rome is to be a second head - as though when a husband is bodily absent some other man can fulfill that husbandly role with his wife.

In fact, the apostolic writings provide us with zero documentation of any papacy. There wasn't one. Christ did establish his church, but modern Rome is not that church.

In fact, the implied conception of "the church" is foreign to the New Testament scriptures. The expression "the church" in Scripture can refer to various things, such as the local body of believers or to the entire category of all believers. It is faith that defines the church, though - not the other way 'round.

Christ built his church on himself, the Rock and our only Rock:

"He is the Rock" Deuteronomy 32:4;
"he forsook the God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation" Deuteronomy 32:14;
"Of the rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee" Deuteronomy 32:18;
"except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?" Deuteronomy 32:30;
"There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God." 1 Samuel 2:2;
"The LORD is my rock" 2 Samuel 22:2;
"The God of my rock, in him will I trust" 2 Samuel 22:3;
"who is a rock, save our God?" 2 Samuel 22:32;
"the LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation." 2 Samuel 22:47;
"The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me," 2 Samuel 23:3;
"The LORD is my rock" Psalm 18:2;
"who is a rock save our God?" Psalm 18:31;
"The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted" Psalm 18:46;
"O LORD my rock" Psalm 28:1;
"be thou my strong rock" Psalm 31:2;
"thou art my rock" Psalm 31:3;
"I will say unto God my rock" Psalm 42:9;
"He only is my rock and my salvation" Psalm 62:2;
"He only is my rock and my salvation" Psalm 62:6;
"In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God" Psalm 62:7
"thou art my rock" Psalm 71:3;
"they remembered that God was their rock" Psalm 78:35;
"Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation" Psalm 89:26;
"the LORD is upright: he is my rock" Psalm 92:15;
"my God is the rock of my refuge" Psalm 94:22;
"O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation" Psalm 95:1;
"he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel" Isaiah 8:14;
"thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength" Isaiah 17:10;
"whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24;
"Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: he is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock" Luke 6:47-48;
"This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." Acts 4:11;
"Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed" Romans 9:33;
"for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4;
"To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, " 1 Peter 2:4; and
"Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." 1 Peter 2:6-8.

Yet against that backdrop, you will foolishly assert that Peter is the Rock of Matthew 16:18? Why, because Peter's name means "rock"? Do you not know that Peter is called "Bar Jona" because of his relationship to his fleshly father Jona? If so, then why do you not understand that Peter is called Peter because of his faith in the Rock, namely in Christ.

The foundation stone is Christ, as it is written:

"Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste." Isaiah 28:16
"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 3:11

Yes, there is some secondary sense in which we are built on the apostles (all of them, together with the prophets): "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" (Ephesians 2:20) but notice who is the one rock on which everything else is built: it is Christ.

The Bible did not come from "the Catholic church" it was delivered to the prophets and the apostles. Most of the books were delivered in the Old Testament period, before "the Catholic church" even claims to have existed. The rest of the books were delivered by the apostles and the evangelists. The claim the Scriptures make about themselves is that they are God-breathed ("given by inspiration of God" 2 Timothy 3:16) not church-breathed.

When Paul wrote the epistle to the Galatians he expressed it this way: "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)" (Galatians 1:1). Those are not the words of someone who needs to run it past the church, or even past some imaginary 1st century pope. Instead, Paul received divine revelation from Christ and was inspired to hand it on to us in writing.

God used many people, including unbelieving Jews, to preserve the text of the Bible for us. We are thankful for God's providence in that regard. Nevertheless, their role in preservation of the Scriptures is no endorsement of their theology.

Indeed, those in the English-speaking world ought rather to say that we received the Scriptures despite Rome, rather than because of Rome. Wycliffe's translation of the Bible (from the Vulgate!) was suppressed, as was Tyndale's translation from the Greek. To be a Bible translator in those days was to risk persecution, yet men did the work necessary to get God's word into the language of those in England.

The idea that "the Catholic Church defined the Canon of Scripture in the first place" is laughable. Rome's first "infallible" definition of the canon of Scripture was at Trent - after Luther's death. That's hardly "in the first place." Moreover, even if one goes back all the way to the North African Councils that came the closest to the Tridentine canon, they weren't the first canons of Scripture to be provided. Athanasius managed to provide a canon of Scripture before the north Africans. Moreover, it is plain that others before him (such as Origen) had a canon of the Scripture.

Who is living in a state of ignorance about Christianity? Those who follow the teachings of Christ and the apostles, which are set forth in Scripture? Or those who instead following the teachings of Rome, whether or not they contradict what Scripture teaches?

James White is merely one voice among thousands of voices, one witness amongst a great cloud of witnesses. Yet referring to his appeals to the authority of Scripture as "cacophony" suggests that the author of the comment has a confused idea about Scripture.

Would that "Gabriel Serafin" would cast aside his mistaken idea that Christ's church is founded upon Peter and instead recognize that Christ's church is founded upon Christ, the true Rock of our salvation.

-TurretinFan

Hubner's Recommended Reading

2011-12-30T00:36:00.001Z

My friend Jamin Hubner has posted a list of books (from "both sides") regarding, in his terms, "Economics and Christian Zionism." Feel free to check out the list. He makes one remark that I'll address and let the rest pass: "they will at least pause when Tur and Hays’ [sic] essentially point a finger and say “propaganda” – especially as one reads all sides ... ." Some of these authors (for example, Alan Dershowitz) would be a better choice as a source when accusing Israel of "atrocities" as Hubner manages to do twice in this post. He's a more credible source on those issues than regular Sojourner's contributor, Burge, who Hubner lumps in with O. Palmer Robertson.

-TurretinFan

Response to Cursilista Regarding Church History

2011-12-26T17:00:00.000Z

Cursilista wrote:

The one thing that bugs me is that the question I would ask is for a protestant explanation of how did Christianity move forward through time after Christ died.

We have a pretty clear answer to that. Read the book of Acts. It says zero about a Roman-centered Christianity. Rome is part of Paul's mission field, it's not the locus of a papacy. We see churches being planted all over the world, wherever Paul and other missionaries go.

Cursilista continued:

Give an explanation of what form of organization did Christianity take that survived since the time of Christ to today.

The form of the organization was initially elders in every city (Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:), accompanied by deacons (Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:). The terms bishop and elder were originally synonymous.

Eventually, a monarchical episcopate emerged, in which one of the elders became designated as "the" bishop. Later, certain bishops gained a preeminence over others, particularly in cities that were important in the Roman empire. I could go on, and recite the tale of the development of a variety of different organizational forms that have existed from ancient times down to modern times, but suffice to say that there have been a significant number of different organizational forms that have existed, both in ancient times and - of course - in modern times.

Cursilista continued:

Christ said that his church would not be overcome by the gates of hell. Satan would not prevail over his church, therefore Christ's church had to have existed since his death to current time and will continue to exist forever.

This is a non sequitur, premised on a misunderstanding of what Christ said.

First of all, the organizational form of the apostolic era church (with a plurality of elders accompanied by deacons in every city) was quite not carefully maintained. Even historians within the Roman communion (such as Robert Eno and Francis Sullivan) acknowledge this fact.

Second, the apostasy of individual churches (even very many of them) does not entail victory of Satan over Christ's church. Recall that during the time of the Old Testament, it seemed to God's prophet Elisha that he was the last follower of God on earth, but God replied that there were 7000 others. Thus, even if for a few years - or even a few hundred years - there were only 7000 scattered followers of Christ, it would be Satan's error to think he had the victory over the church.

We need not, however, assume that apostasy was so complete that there were only 7000 believers. Certainly there were many errors that crept into the churches, even from a very early time. Nevertheless, salvation is not obtained by having perfect doctrines or perfect practices, but rather by trusting in Christ alone for salvation.

Third, the reference to the gates of hell is a reference to death, not Satan. Recall that Wisdom 16:13 states: "For thou hast power of life and death: thou leadest to the gates of hell, and bringest up again." The promise that Jesus is making in Matthew 16 is not some kind of victory in spiritual defense against Satan (after all, in warfare gates are themselves defensive not offensive) but rather victory over death: resurrection. The "church" that Christ is talking about here is all believers. As Christ explains: "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. ... No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. ... Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:39, 40, 44, and 54)

Cursilista continued:

So name that church, name the leaders of that church, show a succession of those leaders, there is a 2000 yr. span of time which has to be accounted for.

This request proceeds from the faulty premises identified above. Christ does not promise that every apostle would be faithful, much less that those who came after them would be faithful. The head of Christ's church is one: Christ, as it is written: "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church," (Ephesians 1:22), "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." (Ephesians 5:23), "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (Colossians 1:18).

It is true that Christ died, but Christ was raised again on the third day and continues to live even until this day. So, the two thousand year time span is fully accounted for.

Moreover, while Christ is bodily absent from us, he has provided us with both the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. Thus, we can learn what we need to believe to be saved from them. The churches are an aid to that, but they are (and must be) subordinate to both.

Cursilista wrote:

What churches did the Apostles start. They should still be around today.

Why would one assume such a thing? Look at the letters to the seven churches in Revelation (sorry, Rome didn't make that list). There is no promise to those churches, which were started in the apostolic era that they would endure forever, or that they would endure without apostasy. Indeed, can you find those seven churches now?

Cursilista continued:

For 1500 years, my only knowledge of such a Christian church is the Catholic Church.

There are other churches that claim an ancient lineage. The Eastern Orthodox churches are the most visible alternative, but there are others as well - such as the Copts in Egypt and the Ethiopian Orthodox. The fact that a church claims an ancient lineage does not demonstrate that the church teaches what the apostles taught. We can know what the apostles taught from the Scriptures, and we can compare the teachings of churches like Rome to those teachings to see whether they have maintained or departed from the apostolic faith.

Moreover, Rome's claims to being ancient are easily challenged. Events like the Council of Constance or the move from election by the people of Rome to election by the Cardinals suggest that the modern papacy is disconnected from the older Roman bishoprics. The fact that men have obtained the papacy by simony similarly negate the idea that somehow the Roman bishopric has been maintained against Satan's attacks. Do we even need to mention mention men like Julius III and Alexander VI who occupied the papacy but demonstrated by their way of life that they were not Christians?

Cursilista wrote:

The protestant reformation took place in the early 1500’s.

That's a typical sociological date. However, of course, at the time Luther was treated as being a continuation of what Huss (1369-1415) and Wycliffe (1328-1384) had started before him, in terms of opposing Rome. And we could back even prior to Wycliffe to the Waldensians, who trace their roots to Peter Waldo (1140-1218). Of course, this is only in the West. An East-West division occurred in 1054. So, while the Protestant Reformation was a very notable and important event, it's more of a continuation of lots of people disagreeing with the bishop of Rome, and the bishop of Rome (at least from the 11th century) acting as an autocrat (see the power struggle between Emperor Henry IV and the pope of his day, for example).

Cursilista continued:

The protestants need to fill in a 1500 yr. gap as to what was Christ's church, other than the catholic church, here on earth for those 1500 yrs. If they cannot, then, they have to admit that the Catholic church is the church that was established by Christ. If Christ said he church would endure forever then, either his church started at Pentecost and continues to today or Jesus waited 1500 yrs. to start his church during the protestant reformation. The later proposition is hard to believe.

Mostly, this is already addressed above. The faulty presupposition behind this argument is that Christ came to establish a single denomination. Instead, the rock upon which Christ's church is built is a confession of faith in Christ alone ("Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God"). That is to say, "the church" is whoever trusts in Christ alone for salvation. It's not an organization with a headquarters in Rome, ruled by men in fancy clothes who sit on thrones.

Cursilista again:

Also in this debate, my two cents would be to ask the question and make this supposition . Is god a god of order or disorder. In order to organize men, there needs to be a committee and a head of that committee that controls the debate with authority.

Cursilista assumes too much. In the Old Testament era, there was no pope, yet the same God ruled his people then. Now, we have Christ as the head of our church, and we have his official word, the Scriptures, to guide and rule us. That, however, is not enough for some, it seems.

Cursilista wrote:

When Jesus left this earth , he left his church in the hands of the apostles, humans, his committee, to organize and keep intact all of his teachings.

Actually, when Jesus left, he sent the Holy Spirit who inspired the apostles and evangelists to write Holy Scripture.

Cursilista continued:

Some of those teachings were not written down, so the bible says, because, all that Jesus taught his apostles couldn’t be written down, it would fill up the earth with books.

Cursilista may have misunderstood the verse in question, but let us suppose that not all of Jesus' teachings were included in the Bible. If so, how could we reliably know what those other teachings were? We would have to examine the historical record to see what else the apostles were teaching, beside those things that were included in Scripture. But when we examine the historical record, we don't see the distinctively Roman teachings (like papal infallibility, the bodily assumption of Mary, or the immaculate conception) being taught in the earliest period.

Moreover, the distinctively Roman dogmas are not that hard to put into book form. So, it is not the case that these were simply not included because the amount of dogma was too much for the New Testament to fit it all. Indeed, certain Roman advocates attempt to allege that Rome's distinctive dogmas actually are found in Scripture.

On top of that, we see that the early Christians plainly did not hold to things like papal infallibility. While many people say nice things about Rome, and many people even seek the wisdom or authority of the bishop of Rome at various times in the patristic era, where does anyone argue that the bishop of Rome is infallible? It's absurd to think that such a doctrine is apostolic or from Christ himself, yet we see people try to argue that today.

Cursilista again:

Therefore, The apostles with someone as the , lets call it chairman of the board of the committee, was the governing authority of the faith.

The book of Acts does not reflect this. On the contrary, the seeming "chairman" of the council described in Acts 15 is James, not Peter (who was living in Antioch or Samaria at that time, not Rome), and certainly not Linus (who is not even mentioned). Likewise, as noted above, Rome's own historians dispute the idea the Roman papacy is something that was from the beginning.

Cursilista concluded:

How else would the faith survive intact if not for some form of human organizational body in place to keep the teachings intact and without error or human interpretation to twist the teachings to cultural changes as time went by.

The answer should be obvious: Holy Scripture and the Holy Spirit preserve and persuade us of the apostolic faith. There is no promise all believers will have beliefs totally free from error. But our faith does not depend an organization of men or a particular denomination of believers.

-TurretinFan

A Christmas Message from the Head of the Church of England

2011-12-26T15:00:00.000Z

I set aside my views of patriarchy and the appropriate relation of church and state to praise the evangelical tone of this message from one of the last outspoken Christian monarchs.

Long live her royal majesty, Queen Elizabeth II!

-TurretinFan

A Trivium of Responses to Jamin

2011-12-26T09:11:00.000Z

Let's tackle Jamin's recent post in three parts, which we will style rhetoric, grammar, and logic. Those familiar with classical education will catch the allusion. The labels don't perfectly fit, but we'll shoe-horn the arguments into those labels. We'll also take them out of the traditional order, addressing Jamin's rhetoric first (but immediately I will start abusing my outline by using rhetoric in a more conventional sense).

Rhetoric

Jamin begins his post by what appears to be an appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam fallacy). He claims he will try to clarify the record "without repeating Tur’s condescending tone ... ." Of course, that doesn't stop him from using a form of "absurd" and "silly" twice each in his post as a substitute for an argument. But leaving aside any hypocrisy of the tone complaint, the tone of my criticisms of Jamin is totally irrelevant to the truth of the criticisms. Moreover, in this case, Jamin sounds like the parricide who seeks the court's mercy because he's now an orphan. He's complaining about something he brought on himself.

As for the tone, what exactly does Jamin want the tone of my criticism to be? He gets upset when Steve Hays lampoons him with sharp criticism and he gets upset when I criticize him "condescendingly". Is there some tone of criticism that Jamin would accept?

I recognize that a few people who - like myself - appreciate and value Jamin and Jamin's effort may get upset that my criticism is now taking a more sharp turn. And, they may rightly point out that Jamin's ability (or lack thereof) to take criticism is not relevant to the validity of arguments.

And that's mostly true. Whether Jamin is dispassionate rock or a crybaby (he's not at either extreme) is irrelevant to whether his conclusions follow from his premises. On the other hand, Jamin seems to want to make it an issue by bringing it up from the very outset of the post. So, he made it an issue - we're just responding.

Grammar

Except that these points seem rather fundamental, they do not really fit the "grammar" tag well, as they have little to do with the mechanics of language. Perhaps you could say that they have to do with the mechanics of knowledge, but that might seem a stretch.

Jamin asks:

But seriously, can you imagine if our judgments on people’s character and the reliability of their work was based solely on the reading of other people‘s opinions of them?

Yes, that is one reason why people write book reviews, because other people wish to form judgments solely based on reading other people's opinions of the work, without having to read the work themselves. We have an expression, "Don't judge a book by its cover," but people quite often do.

Jamin again:

Take for example Dr. James White and his work. Could you imagine the kind of picture of his work and character that would emerge if all I were to read were what other people online wrote?

Yes, I can imagine that. Dr. White has both critics and fans on-line. The critics criticize, the fans praise. In point of fact, some of Dr. White's books have reviews/endorsements printed on the outside cover for the very purpose of leading people to form a (positive) conclusion about what Dr. White wrote, so that they will be inclined to purchase and/or read the book.

Jamin himself has three posts under his "book review" tag on his blog, in which he has reviewed five books (three in one post). So, you might think he'd understand the concept of people forming judgments about books based solely on reviews. It's not as though reading any of those reviews intellectually commits the reader to subsequently buying and reading the work. And if one does not have such an intellectual commitment, then it follows that people can and do (in many cases) form conclusions based solely on reviews.

Logic

One might think "logic" would better fit my identification of Jamin's fallacy above. However, I have selected the following points for the "logic" tag, because they deal with how Jamin actually addresses the substance of the argument regarding his use of sources.

As for the problem with Jamin's sources (something that Steve Hays has dogged him about for a while), Jamin gets the closest yet to actually dealing with what Steve has presented. Don't get your hopes too high, though, for Jamin admits: "I haven’t addressed any of the reviews Steve proffered ... ."

Jamin, however, offers several reasons, justifications, or excuses for why he hasn't addressed any of the reviews Steve proffered.

1) Steve's Thesis "is absurd"

Jamin begins his argument by asserting that Steve's contention (he often seems to attribute that contention to me, but we'll leave that problem aside for now) that Jamin's source is essentially propaganda for Hamas is "absurd."

He claims that it is absurd because "The book is little more than a good Bible study on “Israel” (!), with some middle-eastern history on the side ... " (emphasis and exclamation point in the original) How that's supposed to render a propaganda thesis "absurd" is not explained. Such a book falls within the genre of books that a Hamas' propagandist (even a knowing, intentional one, though that wasn't Steve's claim) would produce.

Jamin further supports his claim by vouching for the history in the book: "the vast majority of which is accurate by other historians’ (Israeli!) accounts ... ." Jamin seems here to be grasping the concept of source bias. Had he cited to the Israeli accounts, Steve wouldn't be able to allege source bias. As for Jamin's vouch, that rests on his credibility.

As for whether the book is a "good" study, we simply are given Jamin's own vouching for the matter.

2) "Anyone who has read the book knows that."

Then one would expect that all the on-line reviews would reflect that, no? I mean, assuming those reviewers read the book. Otherwise, this just seems like Jamin vouching more dogmatically.

3) "But that’s just the problem: Tur and Hays haven’t read it, don’t intend to, and remain at the mercy of online reviewers"

Of course, it is totally irrelevant to the criticism that Jamin is receiving whether or not Steve or I read the book. Neither Steve's arguments nor my criticism require such a premise. Jamin is fallaciously reasoning when he insists that "the problem" is that his critics haven't read the book he cites.

Even Jamin's own review of the book suggests that middle eastern history is just a side topic of the book, and that some unspecified portion of that history is not accurate according to other historians (perhaps the portion cited by Jamin, perhaps some other portion, we're not told).

Most importantly, though, whether or not Jamin's source is biased is true whether or not Steve or I ever read the book, much less whether we intend to read the book. Do I have to read "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to know that it is an anti-Semitic propaganda piece? Do I have to intend to do so? Certainly not.

Jamin knows that, he's just not reasoning logically.

4) "online reviewers – certainly many who are as biased as Burge or anyone else"

Huh? So, is Burge biased or not? Are his critics biased or not? Is no one biased? This seems to be an attempted "your mother is too" argument without the actual support for the assertion about your mother. In other words, Jamin does not identify any particular bias of any particular online (or offline) reviewer, but simply waves his hands.

5) "The burden of proof is to demonstrate that so-called pro-Hamas’ propaganda actually is pro-Hamas propaganda – if that’s what all of this is really about."

Steve already offered evidence in support of that contention. That shifts the burden back to Jamin to revitalize his source by addressing the evidence (something Jamin admits he has refused to do). While Steve cannot just claim that Jamin's source is biased, Steve didn't just claim - he also provided supporting evidence.

6) "For me, it’s obviously more than that, esp. since I know that Burge’s assertions can/could have been substantiated by a number of other sources, as Burge says nothing profoundly new in the larger scheme of things."

a) That's a demonstration of why it was not particularly wise to cite Burge for this particular point. Jamin didn't have to cite him for that point, and Burge isn't really "the authority" on that point. As Jamin seems to concede above, middle east history wasn't even the focal point of Burge's book.

b) Jamin's attempt to get past this issue would proceed a lot more smoothly if he would just say to to Steve, "You're right - that was a bad source for that point. However, here is a good source for that point." Then Steve would have nothing left except to drag up a mistake that Jamin has already acknowledged. I can understand Jamin's desire to deal with other topics, but he keeps posting about this one, leading to reply posts.

7) "It’s about the truth of what I was discussing in that original article the first place: the atrocities behind and consequences of the establishment of Israel and that the Israel of today is the Israel of the OT"

No doubt that is the subject Jamin would prefer to discuss, rather than whether his source was bad a source, but see above.

8) "Tur says “people are capable of knowing what an author’s intention was without having read the original book.” Then perhaps Tur should inform us about what Burge’s intention really is in Whose Land?"

Of course, this is a non sequitur. Just because it is true that in general one can know an author's intention without having read the original book does not mean that I personally know it in every case or in any particular case. Also, see below.

9) "if not simply to briefly portray middle-eastern conflict from the eyes of Palestinians (that’s primarily a geographical group, not ethnic group) and examine what Scripture has to say about “Israel.”"

I'm not sure if Jamin knows this, but we now have Jamin's thesis conveyed to us about the author's intention (without us having to read the book). That supports my contention that people are capable of knowing what an author's intention was without having read the original.

10) "If there is some hidden pro-terrorist agenda behind this Wheaton NT professor’s work that we should know about, then perhaps that should be demonstrated before going any further."

a) "Hidden pro-terrorist agenda" puts too intentional a turn on the matter.
b) But Steve has already provided the demonstration that Jamin has refused to address.
c) Given that Steve has already proffered evidence and Jamin refuses to address it, it's disingenuous for Jamin to continue to demand demonstration.

11) "I haven’t addressed any of the reviews Steve proffered because it’s entirely unnecessary: I’ve read the book!"

Jamin's confused. Reading the reviews might be unnecessary if one has already read the book. However, if the reviews are presented as the evidence that the book is biased, and if Jamin wants to maintain that the book is not biased, based on more than just his personal vouching, he needs to address the evidence.

Obviously, Jamin is free to vouch for the book himself (as he seems to be doing over and over again), but simply vouching for the book himself isn't really addressing the opposing reviews.

12) "I know what’s in it. I don’t have to consult secondary sources on the work since I’m one to produce them."

This is just a continuation of the same confusion already addressed at (11).

13) "Nevertheless, it is certainly possible that other people see things that slip my attention and expertise."

Expertise? In any event, this is just a concession that reading of the reviews might be helpful even to a person who read the book. However, this line of thought is confused, as explained at (11).

14) "But do any of these “reviews” (which I have looked at) really establish through adequate facts and documentation that this college professor is intentionally helping terrorists ... through his work or otherwise?"

a) Jamin adds in a layer of intentionality and specific intentionality that's not really necessary (As Steve explained: "Obviously Burge doesn't see it that way. That's the nature of dupery. If you knew you were being duped, you wouldn't be a dupe."). And Steve further suggests just looking at Burge's recent blog posts (link) with topics like "Five Frustrations When You Debate Israel and the Palestinians" and "When Will 3.5 Million Palestinians Get Their Chance For Freedom?" Burge (or whoever titles his blog posts) does not seem to try to present himself as an unbiased source on the matter.

b) More importantly, until Jamin actually addresses the reviews, we won't have a counter-argument as to why they fall short of meeting the standard that is necessary (whether the standard is that Burge is an unwitting or intentional propagandist for Hamas).

15) "That’s why I ignored this tangent on sources and sought to address the underlying presuppositions behind Hays’ violent reaction by asking him 3 simple questions, all three of which Hays (to my knowledge) has not to this day answered himself."

a) Why on earth should Hays answer three admittedly irrelevant questions? This is a gigantic red herring.

b) What Jamin has actually done is to impugn Steve's motive. But, of course, Steve's motives are not relevant to the truth of Steve's arguments. Whether Steve is an evil "Zionist" or not does not make his criticism of Jamin's sources true or false.

16) "I wanted to get past the silly (and I mean silly) assertions about Hamas shills, Britney Spears, man-crushes and Lord knows what else (recount some of it here) and hopefully have a meaningful discussion on something substantive."

a) Hays' raised an objection to a use of a source. It seems like Jamin has three options: (1) to address the criticism by rebutting the source; (2) to withdraw the source; or (3) to ignore the criticism. But to respond to the criticism by trying to force the critic to talk about something else is just irrational.

b) Calling the criticism he receives "silly" isn't really a substitute for an argument as to why it is silly. Steve's lampoon regarding the overly sympathetic fan of Britney Spears may well have been over the top, but that is the nature of lampoons.

17) "But it has been clear that anything but that will happen – whether Tur’s mockery or Hays’ absurd comparison of Dr. White to Norman Geisler."

Hubner would rather discuss "anything but" Hubner's mistakes. We get that. That's totally natural. However, that doesn't justify styling criticism "mockery" and "absurd." The comparison of Dr. White to Dr. Geisler was just that neither seems to hold their protege accountable. As Steve's post put it: "Geisler syndrome is when a mentor automatically covers for his protégé" As Steve's latest comment states: "Jamin continues to suffer from lack of responsible mentoring." That comparison could be made absurd by suggesting that Jamin's use of sources is the moral equivalent of Caner's behavior, but Steve did not make that suggestion. Perhaps Dr. White took it that way, which would be unfortunate, but if you carefully read Steve's post (as Dr. White himself suggested) it becomes clear what Steve's very narrow criticism was. Namely: "Because Caner isn’t White’s own protégé, White can clearly see the problem with Geisler. But because Hubner is White’s protégé, he lacks the same objectivity in that case." Incidentally, you'll find me disagreeing with some of Steve's points in the comment box of that post. Moreover, whether or not Steve's comparison is correct is different from whether or not it is absurd.

18) "How unfortunate, indeed, that any of this has to be written."

You might think that Hays had a gun to Hubner's head, forcing him to double down on his mistakes instead of retracting them. Or even forcing Hubner to respond to the criticism of his position. That's not the case. Ultimately, "this" gets written because Hubner doesn't want to just say, "Sorry, it was a bad source. However, the same points can be documented from Israeli sources X, Y, and Z." "This" gets written because (apparently) Hubner wants to write about it.

19) "Oh, and I did just notice that this ‘Hamas Shill’ and Hamas ‘propagandist’ just wrote a new book endorsed by Craig Blomberg, Marshall, Longenecker and others"

Ironically, those are the concluding words of Jamin's post. I'm not sure whether the tone police will be asking for his badge and gun.

More significantly, of course, he's referring us to the endorsement/review of the book by three men, so we can form a judgment about the author without having to have read the book, conceding the very point he disputes above.

Conclusion

Where can we go from here? It's up to Jamin. He can continue to complain that he's getting criticized, he can retract, he can address the evidence Steve has presented, or he can just let it go. I don't really see what point there would be in my continued involvement in the discussion, unless - of course - Jamin drags me back into the discussion of Jamin.

-TurretinFan

Idolatry Defined

2011-12-23T16:39:00.001Z

"IDOL, 'i-dol [1 Kings xv. 13], IDOLATRY. [Acts xvii. 16.] Whatever receives the worship which is due only to God is an idol. In a figurative sense the word denotes anything which draws the affections from God [Col. iii. 5]; and, in a restricted sense, it denotes the visible image or figure to which religious worship is paid [Deut. xxix. 17.] Idolatry consists (1) In worshipping as the true God some other person or thing besides Jehovah; and (2) Worshipping the true God under some image, as the golden calf. [Exod. xxxii. 4, 5.]

Found in Beeton's Bible dictionary (1870). Also found in A Biblical Cyclopædia (1868), The Union Bible Dictionary (1839), Schaff's Dictionary of the Bible (1880) and The Student's Illustrated Bible Dictionary (1881).

Why Pray to Anyone Else?

2011-12-23T01:50:00.001Z

God declares:

Hosea 13:4 Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Mary declares:

Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

The angel declares:

Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

And remember what Jesus himself taught us about how to pray:

Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, ...

So, my dear friends, why entreat Mary to save you?

Why utter this kind of prayer? "O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying."

Why refer to her by the title, "Salvation of the Roman People" as did John Paul II?

Turn from this idolatry and serve God alone.

As Jesus rebuked Satan:

Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Your service to Mary is an offense to God. What better time to turn from Mary to Her Son than when men around the world are remembering Jesus birth?

-TurretinFan

The Gospel for Islam

2011-12-22T15:31:00.000Z

In the following video, Dr. White provides a gospel presentation aimed at trying to reach Muslim listeners.

If you have Muslim friends or relatives, consider either providing this to them, or sharing the gospel with them yourself, using this as an aid in your effort.

-TurretinFan

Maybe Hubner Needs to Look Up "Shill" in a Dictionary

2011-12-21T02:39:00.002Z

Jamin Hubner responds to my recent post by writing:

Turretinfan criticizes a recent post, saying, “ using a source that is a shill for Hamas is still using a bad source.” It seems Tur is suggesting that because a source is used as a Hamas shill, than in and of itself means the source is bad.

But, obviously this isn’t true. Hamas could use a dictionary and that doesn’t mean the dictionary is “bad source.” It is ironic that in the procesess [sic] of trying to reveal a fallacy, brother Tur seems to commit one (a source fallacy).

The only way that Jamin Hubner's post makes any sense is if he does not understand what the word "shill" means. Perhaps he should look it up in ... a dictionary.

In the meantime, let me reword my sentence in terms he is more liable to understand: "using a source that is Hamas propaganda (or is written by a Hamas propagandist) is using a bad source."

Later on in the same post, Jamin wrote:

We have to ask in situations like these: how does the author intend the source to be used? Since Tur (and Hays, who made the original accusation about Burge’s work being pro-Hamas) have not even read the original source themselves, they are incapable of even knowing what the author’s intention really is. Hence the lack of any kind of refutation of this supposed Hamas-shill source (Burge’s Whose Land?), and hence the lack of any demonstration that Burge and/or his work is actually a shill or Hamas – and to what extent and in what sense he/his work is.

Yes, in fact, people are capable of knowing what an author's intention was without having read the original book. Steve Hays addressed this point a long time ago. We can read reviews of books and learn all sorts of things that way. In fact Steve Hays has already thoroughly demonstrated this point. Jamin hasn't bothered to address any of the reviews Steve proffered.

But again, let me put this in terms that Jamin cannot help but grasp. Suppose that the work is a work by Adolph Hitler. Am I incapable of knowing what Hitler's intention was in writing Mein Kampf, unless I read the book? Is that the only way for me to find out? Or can I read a review of the book? Can I maybe possibly get some idea by reading the Cliff's notes? Or is that a hopeless endeavor?

Moreover, since Steve's claim was about the man, isn't it sufficient to read some of his shorter pieces to see that he's a propagandist or "shill" and not simply a relatively neutral source like a dictionary? Of course it is.

Surely Jamin is not so dense as to really imagine that the only way one can learn about the content of a book is by personally reading that book or that the only way one can find out about an author's character is by reading that particular book.

Right? So, then Jamin should (a) either address the issue of the credibility of his source by addressing the evidence Steve already presented against it or (b) acknowledge that Steve was correct about the source bias problem of that particular source.

-TurretinFan

P.S. Hubner's concluding paragraph begins: "All of this is a distraction from the truth and the main concerns that I’ve tried and contiually [sic] try to raise ... ." But the problem is that Steve has seemingly caught him trying to promote his view about Israel by citing/promoting a work that is itself little better than Hamas propaganda. Perhaps I agree with Hubner's ultimately conclusions about Israel, but that doesn't change the fact that Hubner is shooting himself in the foot by citing to Mein Kampf for a supposedly historical report of facts of the bad things Jewish people have done. Oh, wait. Of course he didn't do that. He would know better than to do that. But he doesn't see the problem with the source he did cite (the one Steve described as a shill for Hamas) regarding the bad things the Israelis have supposedly done. Even if the MK truthfully reports the facts of a particular instance, there is a good reason one wouldn't cite it.

Mark Driscoll vs. Genesis 7:1

2011-12-19T23:55:00.003Z

Mark Driscoll has a sermon segment (I hope it is just a segment) regarding Noah. The thesis is that Noah wasn't a righteous man.

Driscoll makes some good points about the fact that Noah was saved by grace, the same way Moses, Abraham, and David were saved. However, in his eagerness to make his point, he overlooks a crucial verse:
Genesis 7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

And this, at first blush, appears to have reference to this:

Genesis 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Scripture says Noah was a righteous man. So, we can too. That does not mean that Noah was saved because he was righteous. It simply means that all those children's Bibles, which say "Noah was a righteous man," are not in need of white-out, Sharpies, or whatever Driscoll has in mind - at least not until the moral of the story.

In fact, the New Testament enlightens:

2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

And perhaps more significantly:

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

So, while much of Driscoll's point about salvation by grace through faith is right, his application is wrong.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: A dear reader points out that Driscoll goes on to discuss (in a portion of the complete sermon just after the video clip above):

Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

This does soften my view of Driscoll's comments considerably. I still don't like the clip, but I think the clipper would have been better to include a little more. With this greater context, it appears that while it sounds like Driscoll is saying Noah wasn't righteous, he is just guilty of careless expression.

Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est - Debunked Some More

2011-12-16T03:00:00.000Z

Advocates of the papacy frequently allege that Augustine said, "Roma locuta est, causa finita est." Augustine did not say this. My friend Dr. White debunked this urban legend some time ago. Others have also debunked it. I'd like to add my own two cents.

After all, I've recently encountered a couple of advocates of the papacy who argue that, although Augustine didn't say "Roma locuta est," he did say "causa finita est" (the cause is ended). This is true.

Here's the relevant portion from Sermon 131 in context:

For already two councils have, in this cause, sent letters to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts have come back. The cause is ended: would that the error might some day end! Therefore we admonish so that they may take notice, we teach so that they may be instructed, we pray so that their way be changed.

Although he did say "the cause is ended," this sound bite doesn't actually help the papal advocate, for at least the following three reasons:

1) The appeal is to settled conciliar authority (not papal authority as such). So, "Rome has spoken, the case is closed" is not a very accurate summary. A more accurate summary would be "two councils have spoken - the case is closed." That's not to say that the rescripts weren't from Rome - they were.

2) The reference to rescripts is a reference to a response from Rome regarding the decisions of the councils. Such a rescript neither has its own infallibility nor gives infallibility to the decrees of the councils, whether considered by Roman standards of that day or this day.

3) Notice that there were two councils, not just one. This is part of Augustine's point. His point is that, in terms of church court process, continuing this debate is beating a dead horse. He's not saying that two councils is a magic number, just as he's not saying that getting a response from Rome magically makes the conciliar decisions correct.

- TurretinFan

Deedat and Jonah

2011-12-15T02:13:00.002Z

I just listened to two Ahmed Deedat debates (contra McDowell and contra Douglas), both of which featured a very similar pair of arguments regarding the sign of Jonah. Each debate features both arguments, with largely the same flourishes - though there were some differences.

The first argument is presented with a great deal of showmanship and buildup, but it boils down to this: Jesus said he would be like Jonah, Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale, therefore Jesus could not be dead in the tomb. The flaw of the argument is fairly obvious: Jesus did not say that the similarity was that he would be alive for three days, but that he would be buried for three days.

Matthew 12:39-42
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

As you can see from reading the argument itself, the point is not that Jesus would be alive, but that he would be buried. This argument is about as weak as they come.

The second argument is that Jesus was not in the tomb for three full days and nights, but only only two full nights (Friday and Saturday) and one full day (Saturday). This argument is slightly stronger. Yet it is still problematic.

This argument is premised on understanding Jesus to be using the expression "three days and three nights" to mean "three full days and three full nights." However, that is simply the same term taken from Jonah 1:17, and there is no indication there that the term means precisely 72 hours. Indeed, there is no particular indication from the context of Jonah 1:17 as to what time of day Jonah was cast into the sea. We might surmise it was evening because he had gone to sleep, but the text does not tell us.

What else could the term mean? Well, it could mean "three consecutive days." The places where we find this idiom is in the context of the rain of the flood (40 consecutive days Genesis 7:4 and 12), Moses' fast during the time of the reception of the law and intercession for the people (Exodus 24:18 and 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:9, 11, 18, and 10:10), the fast of the captured slave (1 Samuel 30:12); Elijah's fast on the way to Horeb (1 Kings 19:8); Job's seven days of silence with his friends (Job 2:13); and Jesus forty day fast (Matthew 4:2). In each of these cases, the point of the idiom is the fact of an unbroken succession of days.

Thus, the forty day fast of Jesus (and Moses and Elijah) was not the like fast of the Muslims, who break their fasts in the evening. Instead, it was unbroken. The rain that flooded the whole world was not a month and a third of Seattle-like weather, it was 40 days of constant rain.

We even see a similar usage in the singular:

Esther 4:16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.

Psalm 1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

Isaiah 34:10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Many other passages have the same usage. See Leviticus 8:35, Deuteronomy 28:66, Joshua 1:8, 1 Kings 8:29 and 59, 1 Chronicles 9:33, 2 Chronicles 6:20, Nehemiah 1:6 and 4:9, Psalm 32:4, 42:3, 55:10, and 88:1, Ecclesiastes 8:16, Isaiah 27:3, 60:11, and 62:6, Jeremiah 9:1, 14:17, and 16:13, Lamentations 2:18, Mark 4:27 and 5:5, Luke 2:37 and 18:7, Acts 9:24, 20:31, and 26:7, 1 Thessalonians 2:9 and 3:10, 2 Thessalonians 3:8, 1 Timothy 5:5, 2 Timothy 1:3, Revelation 4:8, 7:15, 12:10, and 20:10.

The point is not 24 hour periods, but rather unbroken continuity. Deedat has misinterpreted "three days and three nights" to mean 72 hours, when rather it means three successive days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday).

There is more to the rebuttal to Deedat, though. Part of the sign of Jonas is that Jesus is greater than Jonah. In fact, in the Luke account, the days in the tomb are not even mentioned. How was Jonah a sign to the Ninevites? He was like a man who had come back from the dead, having been spit out by the great fish that swallowed him.

Christ however, is much greater than Jonah, in that he really did come back from the dead. Likewise, while Solomon was the wisest man, Jesus is greater than Solomon for Jesus is God.

Luke 11:29-32
And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

If only Deedat had read the Scriptures with eyes opened by the Holy Spirit. But he did not. Dear readers, do not follow his bad example of misunderstanding of the Sacred text. Instead, properly understand the Scriptures and learn from them about the sign given to that adulterous generation and handed down to our adulterous day.

-TurretinFan

P.S. It was interesting to see that Dr. Douglas used some arguments around 1 hour, 42 minutes into the debate regarding the use of skeptics by Muslims - it reminded me of the arguments my friend Dr. White (who pointed me to the McDowell debate) uses.

Google+ Integration?

2011-12-14T16:53:00.001Z

Blogger seems to indicate that there is some new integration with Google+. So, if you are one of the millions of people who use Google+, you should be able to get my blog posts in my Google+ stream, if you have appropriately included me in your circle(s). We will see how that goes.

Hubner Compares Self to O. Palmer Robertson

2011-12-10T13:48:00.000Z

Evidently, Jamin Hubner and O. Palmer Robertson share a similar view regarding Israel on some points. Hubner seems to think that consistency demands that if he (Hubner) is a "dupe for the jihadists" and is "supporting Arabs with unsound arguments," then the same must be true of Robertson.

There's a fundamental flaw in Hubner's reasoning. Hubner has some "main points" in mind, and he thinks that Robertson shares his opinion on those main points. Perhaps Robertson does. Yet it wasn't the "main points" with respect to which "dupe for the jihadists" and "supporting Arabs with unsound arguments" were used.

In fact, Hubner himself had complained that his critics were not addressing his main points. So, one might think he would realize that it doesn't resuscitate his use of bad sources and bad arguments to find someone who agrees with the points he was trying to make.

Let me try to simplify the point for Hubner: if you argue Man is mortal; Socrates is an ox; therefore Socrates is mortal, you have reasoned fallaciously and from an untrue premise. If you come along and say "Einstein agrees with me that Socrates is mortal," that does not revitalize either your claim that Socrates is an ox, or your fallacious reasoning. Consistency doesn't demand that we criticize Einstein, because Einstein didn't reach his conclusion the same way you did. Capisce?

Analogously, using a source that is a shill for Hamas is still using a bad source and using an invalid argument that supports Arab claims is still supporting Arabs with unsound arguments, whether or not O. Palmer Robertson thinks that “Never can the promise of the land be properly claimed by those who fail to exercise true faith and faithfulness in the Redeemer provided by the Lord of the Covenant.”

So, when Hubner asks, in his article: "…But, for some reason I don’t suspect Robertson and those who endorsed his book (RC Sproul, Robert Reymond, Richard B. Gaffin) will earn any terrorist associations, titles of mockery or titles of supporting any particular race (e.g. Arabs) for saying the same things I’ve said. I wonder why?" The reasons may be several: they don't actually say the same thing, they don't say it the same way, and they don't have the same emotional reaction to criticism of their arguments and sources.

- TurretinFan

One God and One Lord

2011-12-09T16:58:00.000Z

In Dr. White's recent debate with Patrick Navas, I was struck by Navas' attempt to say that Paul is distinguishing between Lord and God in 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Keep in mind that the Shema actually begins:

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Mark 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

And one of God's titles is "Lord God"

Ezekiel 5:8 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.

Revelation 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

So, to say that we have only "one Lord" to exclude the Father from that title seems blasphemous, at best. Moreover, later in Jude this very title ("Lord God") is applied to Jesus:

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Of course, Navas may attempt to view the "and" there as disjunctive, but if he does there are now seemingly two lords.

So, it seems that Navas cannot consistently maintain this argument.

-TurretinFan

Sex Abuse Scandals and the Roman Communion

2011-12-08T13:21:00.000Z

Another case of a sex abusing priest who was shuffled off to another parish without the police being alerted was recently report (link to story)(Updated link provided by a diligent reader). There are doubtless some people who will be glad to learn that this abuser was neither a pedophile nor a homosexual (though the priest's sexual preferences seem to have been for acts that don't require an adult woman). Two archbishops are implicated by the story: former archbishop Harry Flynn (now Archbishop Emeritus) and his successor archbishop John Nienstedt. In an interesting ironic twist, Harry Flynn is (or at least was) chairman of a United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) committee on sexual abuse (of course, there's an even worse irony that recently came to light with respect to the investigation of paedophilia by Rome's finest).

But what of it? After all, we recently heard about a story of sexual abuse by men from a college football program. What's the difference? One difference is that Rome claims to be a divinely ordained organization, "the Church," and not simply a self-perpetuating institution seeking worldly fame and glory. A football program fits the latter category.

Another difference is that this is the first such scandal for that college. It's not the first such scandal for Rome.

A third difference is that, from what we can tell, those in the football program actually did report the abuse to the appropriate authorities.

Perhaps we could go on and on. The bottom line, however, is that both scandals illustrate institutions that seem to think that they are not required to play by the same rules as the rest of society - which think that they are above the law, for lack of a better term.

I don't think Christ came to establish a denomination. That said, if Christ had established a denomination, would we expect it to be better or worse than a college football program?

-TurretinFan

Joseph - Widower with Older Children? Nieces and Nephews?

2011-12-07T14:12:00.000Z

A friend of mine pointed me to an interesting exchange of the blind leading the blind over at the "Catholic Answers" forums.

A first poster ("Glomung") wrote:

A very simple explanation for the whole scenario is that Joseph was a widower, who already had several children. This explains Jesus' brothers and sisters. Joseph happened to be the only bachelor in town, so when Mary came of age, the local Rabbi pushed Joseph to marry her, [Joseph] was not too thrilled with the idea (been there/done that, don't need another mouth to feed) explains Josephs' reluctance. Also when she turns up pregnant Joseph is not overly irked (she's just a kid, you know how they get into mischief).He doesn't take all of it too seriously until the angel has a chat with him.

He never has sex with her because of "pick one", too old, not interested, she's God's gal, like a daughter, whatever the reason that explains the "ever virgin". That is also why he is not present in any of the rest of Jesus' life, he has died of old age.

Then, a second poster ("ConstantineTG") replied:

He wan't the only bachelor in town. The priests of the temple wanted had to remove Mary from the temple because she was of age, and the concern is that women of age may lose their virginity which then would defile the temple. But they wished to preserve the virginity of the temple virgins so they sought older widowers who have no interest in having children (and probably have no ability to do so anyway) to take her as a wife (but in reality be more of a guardian). So they called all the old widowers in town to the temple, and the Holy Spirit showed the priests a sign that Joseph is the chosen one (a dove landed on Joseph). And thus Mary was betrothed to Joseph.

Joseph was indeed irked that Mary was pregnant because of the trouble it would bring to him. After reading the Protoevangelium of James, Joseph's reactions and emotions in the Gospels made sense to me. Also it seems that Joseph handled the situation more maturely. A younger man would have made a big fuss of the issue and ratted Mary out to the pharisees who would have stoned her to death. Joseph seemed to proceed cautiously even though he was distraught by the events.

As to Glomung's comments, nowhere in Scripture is Joseph described as widower. There is no reliable basis upon which to assert that Josephus was a widower. Likewise, there is no mention of Joseph having any prior children.

There is a good reason to think Joseph didn't have other children from a previous marriage. Recall that in both the flight to Egypt and the return from Egypt, only Joseph, Mary, and Jesus are mentioned: there is no mention of step-siblings coming along.

Matthew 2:13-23

And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him." When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt have I called my son."
Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not."
But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, "Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life." And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

As for whether Joseph was irked, he was ready to divorce her, as it is written:

Matthew 1:18-19

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

Joseph was not willing to overlook the assumed adultery. Instead, he wanted to divorce Mary, although he wanted to do so quietly.

As for Joseph's age, there is no indication that he was particularly old.

As for being in Jesus' life, Joseph was in Jesus' life at least until he was 12:

Luke 2:41-52

Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.

And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing."

And he said unto them, "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"

And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Moreover, recall that during Jesus' ministry, people knew of Joseph and of his occupation:

Matthew 13:55-56

Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Turning to CTG's comments, whatever makes him think Mary was in the temple? The Scriptures do not say this, nor is there any reliable evidence she was. There was no divine appointment for there to be "temple virgins" and virginity was not prized over matrimony in Jewish times.

You will notice to the reference to the Protoevangelium of James. This is a thoroughly worthless and unreliable source, which was rightly rejected by Christians from the patristic era through the medieval era (as I have previously documented). Even if it had not been traditionally rejected, consider that it's account in sections 13 and 14 (here is a copy of the text) contradicts the Scriptural account of Joseph's reaction to discovering Mary's pregnancy. In Scripture, Joseph (being a just man - not as a coward) wants to quietly divorce her. In the Protoevangelium of James, Joseph wants to divorce her quietly because he is afraid.

Even leaving aside the bizarre sign of a dove emerging from the end of a rod and landing on Joseph's head as a sign that he's supposed to be Mary's guardian in this work, the author of the work shows his only passing familiarity with Hebrew customs, by suggesting that the "waters of ordeal" were to be administered by the priest's order both to Joseph and Mary (whereas the law prescribed the waters only for a woman and only upon the suspicion of infidelity to her husband, at her husband's demand).

And it only gets weirder. In section 19, Salome meets the midwife, and in section 20 Salome demands to investigate Mary's private parts with her hand to see if she is still a virgin after having given birth. Her hand then starts to drop off as if being burned by fire until it is cured by holding Jesus.

And yet again, in section 22, the account contradicts the Scriptural account in terms of Herod's slaughter of the children. Instead of a flight to Egypt, Mary hides Jesus in an ox stall.

There is not really any reason to suppose that anything in the so-called Protoevangelium of James has any reliability of any sort, beyond those parts which are obviously derived from the gospel accounts. Yet that is what is being relied upon by those who are looking for straws to grasp in defense of the fiction of perpetual virginity.

-TurretinFan

Cheung and Olson

2011-12-03T17:03:00.000Z

Daniel has posted an interesting response to Roger Olson's attempted use of material from Vincent Cheung. On this topic of God being the "author of sin," the one positive point that Cheung has brought to the table is that he makes (or ought to make) folks like Olson stop and try to explain why it is wrong to call God the "author of sin."

For example, if by "author of sin," you mean that God permits sin to happen for some higher reason, then how would that be a wrong view? Of course, that's not the objection. The objection is typically raised against a view that God decrees sin to occur.

But is such a view equivalent to making God the author of sin? Again, it depends how you define that term. If you define it to mean that God has moral culpability for the sin, then no - Calvinists don't believe that, Calvinism doesn't teach that, and Calvinistic views don't imply that.

Or is something else meant? In any event, in these debates we need to force the opponents of Calvinism to explain their objections for the sake of clarity, rather than getting caught up with ambiguous or equivocally understood expressions.

-TurretinFan

Abuse of Power in a Broken Home

2011-12-02T02:08:00.001Z

I read with sorrow the report of a four-year-old boy who was beaten to death. It's sad because it is a small boy. It's sad because it happened to be the boy's birthday. It's sad because the mother of this child is apparently also going to be charged with a crime of concealing a homicide.

It is also sad because there is no mention of the boy's father. Where was the boy's father? The man who beat this child to death was the woman's "boyfriend," not her husband. He's never described as the boy's father, and - in fact - one might think that the boy did not have a father.

Granted that the man who beat this child is portrayed as being "anti-social." Still, would he have done this if he knew he would answer to the boy's father? Bullies tend to be less eager to beat up on those 1/10th their size when they have to deal with someone their own size.

In fact, if the woman were with a husband, would this boyfriend even have been in the home?

Who knows what happened to the boy's father - why he was not in the picture. My purpose in writing this is not to point the finger of blame at anyone other than the murderer. It is only the murderer's fault, and the murderer should be executed.

This post, however, is a word of encouragement to fathers of children to stay with their wives - to stay involved in the lives of their children. It is also a word of encouragement to women not to have children out of wedlock, and not to leave their husbands. This sort of tragedy appears avoidable.

Let us not simply mourn the death of the boy, but let us learn from this tragedy. Let us strive to follow the familial pattern laid out in Scripture. Wait for marriage to have children, and then don't break up the marriage. In this way, you will be there to protect your children.

God's law is good.

-TurretinFan

Images of Jesus - A Response to Hank Hanegraaff's Site

2011-11-30T18:02:00.001Z

A friend recently directed me to a discussion of images of Jesus found at equip.org, which I understand to be the website of Hank Hanegraaff (the article itself is anonymous).

The article begins:

In the fourth-century AD Emperor Leo III ordered the abolition of icons (revered images or sculptures) of Jesus, Mary, angels, and saints. This sparked the great Iconoclastic controversy, so called because those who supported the eradication of icons, often on the grounds that they violated the second commandment’s prohibition of “graven images,” were known as iconoclasts or “image breakers.” The controversy sparked in the fourth century persists to this very day. Do images of Jesus really violate the second commandment?

Actually, Leo III (also known as Leo the Isaurian) was born in the 7th century and reigned exclusively in the 8th century. Leo III did attempt to abolish (legislatively) the use of images, which had crept into use over time. This met with some theological opposition, chiefly by John of Damascus (c. 645 or 676 – 4 December 749), who is sometimes referred to as the last of the church fathers.

More could be said, and perhaps ought to be said, but the long and short of it is that the use of icons, statues, and other images are corruptions of the apostolic faith, which ultimately lead to the iconoclastic controversy, as a minority attempted to maintain the purity of God's worship in the 8th century, at the very end of the patristic era.

Hanegraaff's page continued:

First, if the second commandment condemns images of Jesus, then it condemns making images of anything at all. Therefore, God would have been guilty of contradicting himself because he commanded the Israelites to adorn the ark of the covenant with the images of cherubim (Exodus 25:18–20).

This is a surprisingly common argument. In fact, though, it merely forbids images of God. Images of Jesus, the Father, or the Spirit - all are forbidden. This false dichotomy/straw man is simply mistaken. Indeed, the images of the cherubim demonstrate that the command is not broadly against all making of images, but only of those that purport to represent God or gods.

Furthermore, in context, the commandment is not an injunction against making “graven images,” but an injunction against worshiping them. As such, God warns, “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4–5, emphasis added).

There are actually two commands there. The second is about worshiping the idols. The first is about making them. It is amazing how someone can claim that the commandment is not an injunction against making graven images and then quote something that explicitly says just that.

The commandment is not an injunction against making “graven images,” but an injunction against using these carved images as objects of worship.

That is a false dichotomy. Both are forbidden.

Finally, if viewing an image necessarily leads to idolatry, then the incarnation of Christ was the greatest temptation of all. Yet, Jesus thought it appropriate for people to look on him and worship him as God (Matthew 28:9; Luke 24:52). That worship, however, was to be directed to his person, not his appearance. Indeed, idolatry lies not in the making of images, but in the worship of manmade images in place of the “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15).

a) Jesus wasn't a graven image. He was both God and man in two distinct natures and one person.

b) Jesus was the image of the invisible God, but not by virtue of his appearance. That "image of the invisible God" line is actually a powerful testimony to Jesus' divinity as my friend, Dr. White, recently pointed out in a debate against Patrick Navas.

-TurretinFan

Republication of the Covenant of Works

2011-11-29T15:54:00.001Z

There is a sense in which the Mosaic law (or a portion thereof) is a republication of the covenant of works. More could be said about that point, but it has recently come to my attention that there is an overture to create an OPC study committee (for a single presbytery, if I understand the overture) to study the issue of republication (link to page). While I think it is a profitable study, and one that may help (when properly understood and explained) resolve the differences between Presbyterians and covenantal Reformed Baptists, I'm not sure whether the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest has sufficient manpower for the job. I hope that others will rise to the occasion to assist in this task of studying this important issue. Please pray that this study, if approved, will benefit both the particular presbytery but also the body of Christ at large.

-TurretinFan

Steve Ray Thinks Spurgeon was "Dillusional"

2011-11-29T14:50:00.000Z

Yes, Steve Ray spelled it "Dillusional," though I suspect he meant "Delusional." But what is the basis for Ray's complaint? Ray quotes Spurgeon as saying:

It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.

Ray does not provide the context. Here is the statement in its original context:

In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have labored before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others. My chat this afternoon is not for these great originals, but for you who are content to learn of holy men, taught of God, and mighty in the Scriptures. It has been the fashion of late years to speak against the use of commentaries. If there were any fear that the expositions of Matthew Henry, Gill, Scott, and others, would be exalted into Christian Targums, we would join the chorus of objectors, but the existence or approach of such a danger we do not suspect. The temptations of our times lie rather in empty pretensions to novelty of sentiment, than in a slavish following of accepted guides. A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might have saved many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences. Usually, we have found the despisers of commentaries to be men who have no sort of acquaintance with them; in their case, it is the opposite of familiarity which has bred contempt.

(Commenting and Commentaries, Lecture I)

Ray tries to justify his claim with the following argument:

But isn’t it ironic that Spurgeon is guilty of what he accuses others of neglecting? The Holy Spirit spoke through the Apostles and early bishops and their writings and practices are easily accessible.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't justify calling the great evangelist "delusional." In point of fact, though, Spurgeon is accusing others of neglecting the use of commentaries. He himself did not neglect their use. So, no - Spurgeon is not guilty of what he accuses others of neglecting.

Moreover, the way in which the Holy Spirit spoke through the Apostles and other prophets (not "early bishops" in anything like the modern Roman sense of "bishops") is not what Spurgeon is talking about. Spurgeon is not, for example, suggesting that modern day Charismatics have an insufficient respect for Scripture. Instead, Spurgeon is talking about people who engage in "Solo Scriptura," and literally ignore what other exegetes have found in Scripture.

Ray has completely missed the mark with his usage of Spurgeon's quotation.

Ray then stated:

They practiced the primacy of Rome, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, new birth through water baptism, a church structure with bishops, priests and deacons.

They didn't "practice" papal infallibility, transubstantiation, or the papacy. The apostles themselves didn't provide a church structure of bishops, priests, and deacons. Steve Ray is being awfully selective in his description of what things some of the fathers taught or practiced.

Moreover, it is one thing to "ignore" what the early fathers taught, and another to disagree with them. What is interesting is that we can justify our departure from their teachings (where we depart from them), whereas Mr. Ray cannnot. Why? Because oral tradition is not one of our sources of authority. We don't assume that important things - things necessary for salvation - were omitted from Scripture.

If, however, what the early fathers taught they taught because of oral tradition, why doesn't Mr. Ray agree with them on everything? The answer, of course, is that in reality and in practice the "magisterium" trumps both Scripture and tradition for a member of the Roman communion. It doesn't matter that not one church father taught, held, believed, or practiced (for example) papal infallibility, transubstantiation, or the bodily assumption of Mary. It doesn't matter that Scripture doesn't teach those things. Rome says it, they believe it, and that settles it. Sola Ecclesia.

Ray continues:

The 2nd century “church service” was a perfect blueprint of the Mass today and does not even remotely resemble the “Baptist church” of today.

Quite the opposite. While there would certainly be differences from what one might think of at a "Baptist church" (which one does Ray even have in mind), there would have been a complete absence of Roman missals from a second century church - and an absence of idols, as well.

Ray concludes:

Why does Spurgeon think so much of what he supposes the Holy Spirit showed him (a tradition unknown before the 16th century) while he ignores what the Holy Spirit universally revealed to the early Church and which has been taught and practiced in an unbroken line in the Catholic Church for 2,000 years?

In point of fact, of course, Spurgeon didn't ignore what Rome claims to teach. Moreover, Rome's historical claims to teach what was revealed 2000 years ago are lies. Ray knows very well that the early church didn't hold to papal infallibility, transubstantiation, prayers to Mary, the bodily assumption of Mary, and so forth. That's why he words his claims in squirrely ways, as we saw above.

For example, he claims that they "practiced the primacy of Rome." How exactly does he think they did that? They didn't take that to mean that the bishop of Rome was infallible. They were comfortable conducting large councils that were not called by - or even attended by - the bishop of Rome (councils like Nicaea). They settled theological disputes by appealing to Scripture, not to some papal ruling.

Rome didn't even have a singular bishop in the beginning of the church at Rome. Once Rome came to the point where it had only a single bishop, he may have received a lot of respect. But that's hardly all Rome requires people to believe - nor does Rome deserve the respect it once did. It no longer has the kind of track record it did when some of the early fathers praised it.

- TurretinFan

Annihilationism / "Conditionalism" Debate

2011-11-26T01:31:00.001Z

I recently debated the topic of Annihilationism in the specific form of "Conditionalism." The debate can found in two sections (link to first part)(link to second part). Thanks very much to Chris Date (the moderator) as well as to Ronnie (my opponent) for this debate.

Trent's Anathemas Removed?

2011-11-26T00:44:00.001Z

The White Horse Inn posted a program in which Michael Horton interviewed Christian Smith regarding, among other things, his conversion to the Roman communion. Mr. Smith alleged that the Roman church moved toward the Lutheran position on justification and removed the anathemas that had been placed on the Lutherans in the Joint Declaration on Justification.

Mr. Smith is wrong, of course. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see him make those kinds of claims. It seems to show that despite alleging that his reasons for joining the Roman communion are "doctrinal," Mr. Smith himself doesn't really understand Rome's doctrines.

Rome itself has, in a fairly official way, explained that the Lutheran view still appears to be within Trent's anathemas:

The major difficulties preventing an affirmation of total consensus between the parties on the theme of justification arise in paragraph 4.4 The Justified as Sinner (nn. 28-30). Even taking into account the differences, legitimate in themselves, that come from different theological approaches to the content of faith, from a Catholic point of view the title is already a cause of perplexity. According, indeed, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in baptism everything that is really sin is taken away, and so, in those who are born anew there is nothing that is hateful to God.³ It follows that the concupiscence that remains in the baptized is not, properly speaking, sin. For Catholics, therefore, the formula "at the same time righteous and sinner", as it is explained at the beginning of n. 29 ("Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament.... Looking at themselves ... however, they recognize that they remain also totally sinners. Sin still lives in them ") is not acceptable. This statement does not, in fact, seem compatible with the renewal and sanctification of the interior man of which the Council of Trent speaks.⁴ The expression "opposition to God" (Gottwidrigkeit) that is used in nn. 28-30 is understood differently by Lutherans and by Catholics, and so becomes, in fact, equivocal. In this same sense, there can be ambiguity for a Catholic in the sentence of n. 22, ..."God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love", because man's interior transformation is not clearly seen. So, for all these reasons, it remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on "simul iustus et peccator" is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin and justification.

(Responses of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity - bold and underline emphasis added)

Horton provides some probing questions that gently expose some of the problems with Mr. Smith's claims. It's not necessarily the style I would use (nor do I think it is the best style), but I think Horton does a good job within his own paradigm of interviewing.

-TurretinFan

Pray for Turkey

2011-11-25T19:57:00.001Z

The timing of this post was probably more than a little ambiguous (coming so close to American Thanksgiving), but there is a video posted at Heavenly Wordliness requesting prayer for the nation of Turkey.

-TurretinFan

Comparing My Brother to Abraham and Elisha

2011-11-24T02:41:00.001Z

One of my brethren recently has been criticized by a number of people because he did not accept one or more gifts. There is a lot more that could be said about people whose pride is offended when their gifts are refused, but my brother's own attitude was the thing that caught my eye. It reminded me of this:

Genesis 14:22-24

And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

I suppose I could have thought instead of another gift refusal:

2 Kings 5:15-16 & 26-27

And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant. But he said, As the LORD liveth, before whom I stand, I will receive none. And he urged him to take it; but he refused.
...
And he said unto him, Went not mine heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? Is it a time to receive money, and to receive garments, and oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and maidservants? The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.

Is my brother Abraham or Elisha? Obviously not. His circumstances differ, as do the circumstances of his refusal. That said, I think that only a Biblically illiterate person could think that there cannot be good reasons for refusing gifts.

-TurretinFan

Responding to Ryrie regarding John Edwards and Dispensations

2011-11-22T19:35:00.001Z

Someone wrote in to Jamin Hubner the following question:

In Ryrie's book he mentions the dispensational scheme that Jonathan Edwards [sic] (not that Edwards was necessarily a dispensationalist) put forth in his work "A Compleat History or Survey of All the Dispensations". Would this not pre-date Darby? As I have not read this work by Edwards, perhaps I am missing the context, but Edwards' dispensational scheme has some similarities to the seven dispensations espoused by modern day dispensationalists.

The author of the comment is referring to the discussion of John Edwards (not Jonathan Edwards) in Ryrie's book, "Dispensationalism." To answer the exact question, yes - it predates Darby. On the other hand, as Ryrie himself points out, Edwards didn't believe in a literal 1,000 year physical reign of Jesus on Earth. There may be some similarities.

There is an important answer to these questions: it is not the designation "dispensation" or the recognition that God has dealt with people differently in different epochs of time that is controversial about dispensationalism. So, whether or not Edwards' scheme of dispensations or dealings has some similarities to the schemes advocated by dispensationalists is a moot point.

Ryrie himself seems to recognize the mootness of such historical appeal.

Ryrie writes (shortly prior to his reference to John Edwards):

Dispensationalists recognize that as a system of theology it is recent in origin. But there are historical references to that which eventually was systematized into dispensationalism. There is evidence in the writings of men who lived long before Darby that the dispensational concept was part of their viewpoint.

After discussing some patristic and medieval authors, Ryrie explains:

It is not suggested, nor should it be inferred, that these early church fathers were dispensationalists in the later sense of the word. But it is true that some of them enunciated principles that later developed into dispensationalism, and it may be rightly said that they held to primitive or early dispensational-like concepts.

So, Jamin Hubner's own response to the question seems a little strange:

Dispensationalists typically play the pre-Darby card in an effort to justify their system, but is rarely an adequate appeal. The idea is to make associations and draw similarities between Darby and previous thinkers (e.g. Ireneaus, Edwards, some Reformers, etc.) to say Dispensationalism goes back (for some, they would say to the Apostles, while others would say back to the Reformers, etc.). But in reality, the thinkers are simply not teaching Darbyism. Resemblances, vague parallels and similarities are not enough to dismount Darby as essentially the Father of Dispensationalism (nor dismount Scofield as perhaps the chief popularizer). But that's not to say we shouldn't acknowledge that Darby had previous influences and that attempts have been made to try and systematize redemptive history, address the application of biblical law, and solve various hermeneutical issues. Certainly there have been such attempts.

And again:

One could list countless other references. But, it's obviously absurd (and anachronistic) to say Calvin, Bavinck, or Spurgeon were Dispensationalists just because they speak of dispensations in redemptive history, and baseless to say from these facts that Darby's specific thought found its ultimate origins in these particular thinkers (since Christians from virtually every period have been talking about changes in redemptive history and various epochs; perhaps the author of the Hebrews was the first to put it so starkly). Even organizing such Dispensations into a structure does not add up to the profound and distinctive marks of Darby and Scofield's Dispensationalism (e.g. stark Israel/Church separation, hermeneutic regarding prophecy, premil pretrib eschatology including rapture of believers, etc.) - which is precisely what we mean by "Dispensationalism" today.

While there may be dispensationalists who make such claims, it seems pretty clear that Ryrie himself explicitly disavows such claims. Instead, Ryrie makes much softer claims about doctrinal development, claims that don't claim that the "profound and distinctive marks" of dispensationalism were present in the pre-Darby era.

Ryrie instead argues:

There is no question that the Plymouth Brethren, of which John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was a leader, had much to do with the systematizing and promoting of dispensationalism. But neither Darby nor the Brethren originated the concepts involved in the system, and even if they had, that would not make them wrong if they can be shown to be biblical.

Indeed, under the title of "Straw Men," Ryrie explains:

In discussing the matter of the origins of dispensationalism, opponents of the teaching usually set up two straw men and then huff and puff until they are destroyed. The first straw man is to say that dispensationalists assert that the system was taught in postapostolic times. Informed dispensationalists do not claim that. They recognize that, as a system, dispensationalism was largely formulated by Darby, but that outlines of a dispensationalist approach to the Scriptures are found much earlier. They only maintain that certain features of what eventually developed into dispensationalism are found in the teachings of the early church.

Another typical example of the use of a straw man is this line of argument: pretribulationalism is not apostolic; pretribulationalism is dispensationalism; therefore, dispensationalism is not apostolic. But dispensationalists do not claim that the system was developed in the first century; nor is it necessary that they be able to do so.

So, in fact, folks like Ryrie (and I assume Fred Butler would fall in this camp) are not claiming that the early or even Reformation-era church held to a pre-mil, pre-trib rapture.

It may be useful in dealing with dispensationals, therefore, to be careful in distinguishing. On the one hand, we grant that the use of the term and even a difference in dealings (on some level) are concepts that pre-existed Darby. Indeed, using that same standard, it seems that we might be classified as "primitive dispensationalists" (using Ryrie's standards) if we hold to covenant theology. On the other hand, the more objectionable aspects of dispensationalism do not have the same noble lineage.

Ultimately, though, we agree with Ryrie that the test of history is not the ultimate test: the ultimate test is the test of Scripture. If the teachings of dispensationalism are the teachings of Scripture, then we ought to hold them regardless of whether anyone held them between the time of the apostles and now.

-TurretinFan

Failure to Understand both Calvinism and One's Own Doctrine ...

2011-11-14T22:06:00.001Z

I saw the following comment from a lay apologist of the Roman communion recently, directed at one of my fellow Calvinists:

If I am going to hell and presdestined to do so, then you don't have to pray for me or even have any love at all, according to your warped, hideous, grotesque version of Christianity. You can even hate me.

If THIS is what Christianity means, I would rather be an atheist.

Of course, Thomism (which is supposedly acceptable within Rome's communion) and even Molinism also teach that certain people are going to hell and predestinated to do so. That's not a unique aspect of Calvinism.

Moreover, as in Thomism and Molinism, in Calvinism one is not relieved of one's obligations to pray for someone or love them simply because of God's secret decree of reprobation.

The comment quoted above reflects a fundamental failure to understand Calvinism. It shows that the person does not grasp even the simple concept that, in this life, we do not know who the elect are. Just because someone is currently a Saul of Tarsus does not mean that they will not one day be a Paul the Apostle (to take an extreme example).

So, the Roman apologist has (a) identified a first set of views that his church deems acceptable, and (b) drawn unfounded conclusions from them. What should we conclude? Shall we assume he's just being silly? Probably not. The tone of this comment was harshly serious (the apologist even cursed at my fellow Calvinist in a portion of the comment that I haven't reproduced). It could be that he's just deliberately lying about Calvinism, but what purpose would that serve? We know what we believe, so we're not likely to be fooled by his mischaracterization. All that's left is that this poor soul doesn't understand.

We should pray for him, that God would open his eyes.

-TurretinFan

Into the Church or Into the Visible Church?

2011-11-10T00:28:00.001Z

Rob Rayburn (in his closing argument in the Leithart trial) stated: "Baptism is a means of grace. It brings a person into the church, the family of God as the Confession itself says."

Actually, the Confession says "Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church ... ." There is an important qualifier there: "visible." It is a merely external admission. But is that what Leithart teaches? Or does Leithart affirm that all those who are baptized have more than a merely external union with him? The Federal Vision Joint Statement (which Leithart signed) seems to suggest the latter in its section on apostasy.

-TurretinFan

Does Allah Commit Shirk by Inappropriate Swearing?

2011-11-07T13:45:00.000Z

David Wood has a video in which he makes the point that using Muslim standards, Allah himself would be guilty of the Islamic sin of shirk:

I would like to add a brief further point.People normally swear by something greater than themselves. Thus, because there is nothing greater than God, the true God swore by himself:Hebrews 6:13-16 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, saying, "Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee." And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. But Allah in the Koran repeatedly swears by lots of other things.May I encourage my Muslim friends to consider that perhaps this is evidence that the Allah of the Koran is not real, for if he were real he would swear only by himself.-TurretinFan

Introduction to Islam

2011-11-05T21:43:00.001Z

Dr. James White recently presented two lectures on Islam:

Islam A to Z: Session 1 and Q & A .

Islam A to Z: Session 2 and Q & A.

The lectures are lengthy, but may be informative as an introduction to Islam.

-TurretinFan

Iran, East Timor and Vatican

2011-11-04T20:31:00.000Z

Responding to Ireland's decision to close "for economic reasons" its embassies in Iran and Vatican City, as well as its office of representation in East Timor, Federico Lombardi, S.J. (as Vatican spokesman) declared:

The Holy See takes note of the decision by Ireland to close its embassy in Rome to the Holy See. Of course, any State which has diplomatic relations with the Holy See is free to decide, according to its possibilities and its interests, whether to have an ambassador to the Holy See resident in Rome, or resident in another country. What is important are diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the States, and these are not at issue with regard to Ireland.

Vatican Information Service (4 November 2011)

If the Vatican thinks its diplomatic relations with Ireland are on good terms, it may want to consider what other nations were on Ireland's list of closures. It may also want to consider the reaction of the Irish primate, Sean Brady:

“This decision seems to show little regard for the important role played by the Holy See in international relations and of the historic ties between the Irish people and the Holy See over many centuries,” said Cardinal Sean Brady.

(The Star, 4 November 2011)

The Vatican should also take notice of the official denials by the Prime Minister:

Ireland’s Prime Minister Enda Kenny rejected claims Friday that the government’s decision to close its embassy in the Vatican had anything to do with recent child abuse scandals involving the Catholic Church.

(same source)

-TurretinFan

Reviewing Roger Olson's "Against Calvinism"

2011-11-04T01:43:00.002Z

Dr. James White reviewed Roger's Olson's "Against Calvinism" on the November 3, 2011, Dividing Line. Meanwhile, independently Paul Manata has prepared a detailed written review.

I think both reviewers would agree with the following from Manata:

In any event, Olson's book leaves much to be desired. It isn't anything like a "case" against Calvinism. Rather, it's more of a constantly repetitious list of unargued for complaints. There is weak theological argumentation, zero exegesis, unfamiliarity with critical issues discussed, and one self-excepting fallacy after another.

The two reviews make many of the same points, but ultimately the problem is that Olson demonstrates a lack of serious engagement with the subject matter.

-TurretinFan

Ergun Caner Debate Challenge from Adnan Rashid

2011-11-03T13:21:00.001Z

Adnan Rashid has issued a debate challenge to Ergun Caner. The point of the challenge, presumably, is to demonstrate Dr. Caner's alleged personal lack of knowledge regarding Islam. This blog has previously noted a number of errors in Dr. Caner's presentations on Islam. However, I am not sure what particular value there would be to a debate whose central purpose is to establish or debunk the credibility of one of the debaters. Nevertheless, if Dr. Caner considers himself an expert on Islam, and thinks he can demonstrate that, this debate challenge provides an opportunity for him to do so.

Adnan uses an interesting turn of phrase in describing Caner's books. He states: "you have claimed authorship of several books against Islam, such as 'Unveiling Islam' and 'More than a Prophet'." I wonder whether Adnan is trying to suggest that Caner only claims authorship but did not actually write those books. Adnan further accuses Dr. Caner of presenting a "deliberately distorted caricatured picture of our way of life."

Adnan Rashid is an experienced Muslim debater who has debated some of the prominent Christian debaters in Muslim apologetics: Jay Smith, David Wood, and James White. Ultimately, my advice to Dr. Caner would be not to take the debate challenge. While Dr. Caner is an experienced speaker and could doubtless provide an entertaining performance, it may be better for Dr. Caner to leave the debating to people who have that gift.

-TurretinFan

Expert or Not? Jason Stellman Then and Now

2011-11-02T14:23:00.000Z

In the first part of 2011, Jason Stellman solicited for contributions for the expenses of "expert witnesses" (the description used at the time) who were to testify at the trial of Peter Leithart (evidence here). During the trial, as reported by Stellman himself, Stellman identified his witness as an expert witness:

MODERATOR O’BAN: Well, let me ask the prosecutor, why, what’s the nature of this witness’ testimony if it’s not expert testimony?

STELLMAN: Well, he has read every single theological piece of literature or writing that Leithart has written. He’s read every single book, every single journal article, every single theological book I should say, every journal article. He probably has read as much of Dr. Leithart’s work as anyone else except perhaps Dr. Leithart himself. And so why his competence is called into question here is an answer I would like to hear.

MODERATOR O’BAN: No, I think the question more narrowly framed is in what capacity is this witness being called. He didn’t overhear a statement made by Dr. Leithart that no one else would know but for this witness and in that sense he would be a fact witness. It seems to me you’re calling him because he is conversant on Dr. Leithart’s theology through his writings

STELLMAN: Yes.

MODERATOR O’BAN: And you’re asking him not just simply to regurgitate those writings, but in fact to render and opinion on the nature of those writings vis-à-vis the standards. Correct?

STELLMAN: Correct.

MODERATOR O’BAN: Well, that, that is, I’ll just simply rule, is the capacity of an expert witness. So the question is, is he an expert witness that, it just simply may be that your witness doesn’t, didn’t understand maybe that fine distinction. So you’re calling him here as an expert witness, correct?

STELLMAN: Insofar as I understood what you just said. Yes.

(source)

The cross-examination of Stellman's witness, however, seems not to have gone as Stellman would have liked, in that the defense suggested that Stellman's witness was not particularly more expert in theology than anyone else in the presbytery before whom was testifying.

Now Stellman has post talking about how there are no expert witnesses in PCA courts (link to post). That is all well and good, and perhaps - after the fact - he is right. But what was he doing soliciting for contributions for a role that doesn't exist in the PCA? Why didn't he know that there are no expert witnesses in PCA courts during this trial that was so important that he flew what he then considered an "expert witness" to be a part of the trial? I thought Stellman was the prosecutor for the trial? Shouldn't he have familiarized himself with the rules of the PCA before the trial began?

It may not be a lost cause. Stellman's witness was really called as a fact witness - someone who had carefully read everything that Leithart wrote and could report on that. Stellman was simply outwitted by those sympathetic to Leithart in his own presbytery.

Whether or not Stellman knew the rules, the presbytery is charged with following the rules, and while the presbytery's error in discounting the testimony of a fact witness on grounds that are not really relevant to the fact witness's role may be in some sense an understandable error under the circumcstances, it is still an error.

One question that the presbytery needed to consider was whether Stellman's witness or the defense's witness had a better understanding of Leithart's teachings. While theologically training may not be entirely irrelevant to that question, having actually read what Leithart has written seems like a very important consideration, and Stellman's witness actually read what Leithart wrote.

-TurretinFan

Calvinism is Wrong Because Love Must Be Free?

2011-11-02T13:30:00.001Z

I've heard an objection to Calvinism along the lines of the title of this post many times. The argument is that "irresistible grace" is at odds with the nature of God, since God wants us to love Him freely. Paul Manata has a succinct answer to that kind of argument.

I would like to build a little on my friend Paul's point. Often we are told that Calvinism's teaching on irresistible grace is some equivalent to divine rape. This analogy is necessarily wrong. First, rape involves violation of the will of the rape victim. However, God's efficacious grace does not violate man's will, it transforms it. God's transforming act of regeneration is not coercion of the will (like a rapist), nor is it a fooling of the will (like a hypnotist). God actually changes the desires of a person so that they not only no longer hate God, nor imagine they love God, but actually love God.

Second, in addition to the fact that God commands love (which is my friend Paul's point, and he makes it effectively), God also threatens punishment to those who do not love. Roger Olson technically may be able to maintain his position that "it must be factually possible for both [parties] to a possible loving relationship to be able to say 'no' to the other" (p. 167 per Paul's post) even in the face of a command. After all, people in fact do say "no," to God's commands that we love God and love our neighbor. However, if this escape is employed the analogy breaks down. After all, we would still consider someone a rape victim if they gave consent only after a gun was pointed at their head, even if they technically could have said "yes." But the coercive power of the message of Jesus is even stronger than that: "But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." (Luke 12:5)

So, on the one hand, irresistible grace is not coercion and on the other hand God does (undeniably) employ coercion. So, the objection posed by Olson cannot stand both because it misses the mark and because it strikes a point that Olson must accept as true. Olson (and other non-Calvinists) have to admit that God employs coercion by threatening punishments on those who do not do as they are told. Yet irresistible grace is a means that God uses that does not itself involve coercion, but transformation.

-TurretinFan

Ergun Caner "The Secret of Islam"

2011-11-01T13:16:00.001Z

Apparently, on October 29, 2011 (link to partial audio)(notes from an attendee) Dr. Ergun Caner presented a talk on Islam. The audio recording is only the last twenty minutes or so of the presentation. If someone has a more complete recording, I'd be interested to hear it.

A lot of the presentation was on making parallels between Islam and Mormonism, many of which are legitimate and interesting. It was a humorous presentation with plenty of jokes, including some self-deprecating humor. Nevertheless, there were at least two points where I think Caner was inaccurate in his account of Islam:

1. Ergun Caner says: "As a matter of fact, one of the keys, one of the celebrations at the end of Ramadan, you take the child, you take the commemoration of Ibrahim (Abraham) taking his son, placing him on the altar, bringing down the knife, at the last moment, Allah saves the life of Ishmael." (2:53 - 3:11)

The celebration of Abraham's sacrifice of his son in Islam (Eid al-Adha) takes places two months and ten days after the end of Ramadan (see here). It seems that Caner has accidentally confused Eid al-Adha with the other, lesser "Eid" of Islam, Eid al-Fitr (aka Eid as-Saghir), which does take place about three days after the end of Ramadan.

2. Ergun Caner says: "What is Shahada in Islam, what is Kalima, what is the creed? 'There is only one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his final prophet.'" (3:52 - 4:00)

While most Muslims may believe that Mohammed is the final prophet, that's not what the Shahada says. The Sunni Shahada says simply that "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God." There is no "final" in the Shahada. Even the longer Shia Shahada does not include that "final" characterization (see discussion here).

On the bright side, it seems that Caner is now confirming the story his blogger critics had presented: "And when I first came to America in 1969, and Emir was born in 1970 ... " (15:02 - 15:05)

It's good that he's being frank about that. I don't know Caner's heart and I don't know whether there is some reason he cannot overtly repent of his prior autobiographical claims. There is more than can and maybe should be said, but I'll leave it at that.

-TurretinFan

Who Killed Mohammed?

2011-10-30T00:31:00.000+01:00

David Wood has a powerful new video:

The video makes a serious point, although it uses a lot of "pop culture" clips. It's the sort of video that would get David Wood in a lot of trouble in Muslim countries. Hopefully our Muslim friends, relatives, and neighbors will consider the serious point, notwithstanding the fact that the video is critical of Mohammed and his claim to be a prophet.

-TurretinFan

God's Commands vs. Victor Reppert

2011-10-27T23:37:00.002+01:00

Victor Reppert wrote:

No, I do not hold that YHWH commanded the slaughter of the Amalekites. I hold that either God didn't do that, or there are unknown reasons why He did.

1 Samuel 15:1-3

Samuel also said unto Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD of hosts, 'I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'"

There is absolutely no question that the Lord commanded the slaughter of the Amalekites. Moreover, the explicitly stated reason for this slaughter is that they attacked Israel during the Exodus. That does not mean that God did not have other reasons.

Victor continues:

I can see some reason why God might have commanded such a thing, so that in my view the case against it isn't a slam dunk. So I would not call someone a moral monster who thought that God had given such a command, I think it morally possible that God might have done so, but on the other hand treating someone anyone as outside the pale of moral consideration strikes me as problematic and not in accordance with what I know about God in the New Testament. In other words, I don't see how these actions could be justified without putting some limits on who is my neighbor, and the parable of the Good Samaritan says we can't really draw such limits.

But Victor does not need to speculate. God gives a reason. The reason is retaliation for prior treachery. Of course, the sucklings were not a part of that treachery, but the crime was performed by the nation and they are in a federal relationship with respect to the nation. Absent God's mercy, the judgment on the nation extends even to those who had no personal part in it. Indeed, given the lapse of time between the Exodus and Saul, it seems unlikely that there were any alive in Amalek who had been in any personal way involved in the attack on Israel. So, it is not only the sucklings who are receiving judgment from God for the sins of their fathers, but also the adults of Amalek as well.

One of Victor's problems is that he is attempting to impose an external moral framework on the situation, instead of trying to extract a moral framework from the situation. What God does is right. That should be the premise. Examples like the commanded destruction of the children of Amalek teach us about the heritability of guilt for sin.

Victor continues:

I'm not committed to a theory of inspiration that would require me to defend such a thing. In another part of Deuteronomy, the Blessings and the Cursings, it indicates that people will get earthly blessings if they are obedient to the Covenant, and earthly cursings if they are not obedient. But you only have to look as far as Job and Ecclesiastes to see that that's questionable even within the Bible.

There's a double problem with Victor's "theory of inspiration." This particular justification is not just part of Scripture, but is a part of Scripture reporting the verbatim words of God. So, it is not as though the command or justification can be attributed to the narrator of the book.

Victor's skepticism does not extend simply to the unidentified narrator, but also to Samuel the seer himself and ultimately to the Lord.

I'm not so naive as to be oblivious to the fact that we know that this is the word of the Lord because Samuel tells us, and we know Samuel tells us because the author of 1 Samuel tells us. Ultimately, we know that 1 Samuel is inspired because the Holy Spirit persuades us - we the sheep hear our master's voice. Nevertheless, my point is to observe the depth of Victor's skepticism. How can his "theory of inspiration" have any value if it permits him to doubt the most clearly articulated statements in the text?

Ultimately, Victor and I stand on two opposite camps. I'm in the camp that - you know - believes what the Bible says and proceeds from there. Victor is in another camp, one that should be scrupulously avoided.

-TurretinFan

Jesuit Historian Fitzmyer on the Perpetual Virginity

2011-10-26T09:11:00.000+01:00

... one’s understanding of the doctrine of the continuous or perpetual virginity of Mary. Such church teaching was formulated by early Christians in the post-Apostolic era, making use of an interpretation of some passages in the New Testament that passed over others that were problematic, such as Jn. 1:45; 6:42; Lk. 4:22 (quoted above). The result was that that teaching was not universally accepted at first. Even though that teaching is thought sometimes to be implied in the second-century writing, Protevangelium Jacobi, it eventually became crystallized in the longstanding belief about Mary as aeiparthenos or semper virgo, “ever virgin,” in creeds from the fourth century on.

- Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J., America Magazine, "Whose Name is This?" (November 18, 2002)

What is particularly interesting about the above is how candid Fitzmyer is that this doctrine is post-Apostolic. Many apologists of Rome's communion like to try to claim that Rome's doctrines are apostolic in origin and part of an unwritten tradition. Fitzmyer's acknowledgment is the result, one supposes, of his view that there is no need for the doctrine to be Apostolic. Thus, the quotation highlights a tension that exists between Rome's historians and her apologists.

-TurretinFan

Tom Brown's Response to David VanDrunen on Change and Rome

2011-10-25T21:04:00.000+01:00

Rome's Teaching Has Obviously Changed

Dr. VanDrunen recently made the unremarkable assertion:

For many years, the Roman Catholic Church taught that people could enjoy eternal life and escape everlasting damnation only by being received into its membership. In recent generations, that teaching has changed. Rome now embraces a very inclusive view that extends the hope of salvation to people of many different religions or even no religion at all, provided they sincerely follow the truth and goodness that they know in their own experience.

This is one of those statements that is obviously true. The point of the statement is that there has been a massive paradigm shift in Rome's external relations. Mr. Tom Brown, of the Roman communion blog, "Called to Communion," was bothered by this statement. What bothered Tom Brown, though, was not the obvious paradigm shift, but Dr. VanDrunen's statement characterizing Rome's teaching as having "changed."

"Change" in "Teaching" = Sky is Falling

You see, one of the things that some recent "converts" to Rome like to imagine is that Rome gives them certainty. You can't very well have certainty if Rome changes its teachings from time to time. So, comments like VanDrunen's are very much a fly in the ointment.

Salvation Outside the Church is compatible with No Salvation Outside the Church?

Tom Brown has a long row to hoe in order to persuade the reader that Rome's teaching hasn't changed. Dr. VanDrunen naturally cited the Council of Florence (1438), and that council states the matter fairly explicitly (bold added by me):

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

(Cantate Domino (1441))

Vatican II on the other hand wrote:

For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation.

(Lumen Gentium, II, 16)

It seems that the only ways this contradiction could be clearer is if Vatican II had explicitly said "Cantate Domino was wrong," yet Mr. Brown tries to argue that the two positions are consistent.

But Mr. Brown's argument amounts to just asserting that Vatican II is consistent with a thread of historical dogma going back to Justin Martyr. Whether or not this is the case, it hardly makes the positions of Florence and Vatican II any less contradictory. Indeed, had Florence itself taught both positions, Florence would have been internally inconsistent.

Mr. Brown needs to demonstrate how someone being saved while not living and remaining within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church is consistent with Florence. His appeal to Pius IX (identified for him by VanDrunen) is not compelling. Pius IX states (the bold, added by me, is the part that Mr. Brown quotes, whilst the normal print is the context he does not include):

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]

(Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 7-8 (1863))

Tom Brown describes the bold part of that statement as "Here Blessed Pope Pius IX simply and skillfully articulates these two Catholic beliefs ... ." Perhaps the statement is simple and skillful, but it does not resolve the conflict between Florence and Vatican II.

It is interesting to note how Pius IX suddenly finds Scripture to be perspicuous when it comes to the authority of the church and the result of rejecting that authority. Nevertheless, Pius IX has staked out a position different from that of Florence. Florence enunciates a position that being within the fold of the church is necessary. Pius IX suggests that rejecting church authority is lethal. However, Pius IX finds room for people who don't embrace unity with the church.

While Tom Brown's line of argument that argues that there is a long history of teachings that there can be salvation outside the church is not a meaningful answer to the problem of the conflict between Florence and Vatican II, he does pose an interesting comment:

As explained by St. Augustine and maintained through to the present by the Catholic Church, unbaptized martyrs who shed their blood for the sake of Christ are saved nonetheless, receiving the fruits of Baptism. Baptism of blood is an extraordinary method of fulfilling the soteriological prerequisite of being ‘inside the Church’ when Baptism is impossible.

Mr. Brown, however, does not explain how this alleged teaching of Augustine is consistent with "no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." That reference to shedding blood for the name of Christ appears on its face to be a reference to undergoing martyrdom.

Does Mr. Brown resolve this further apparent conflict that he has introduced? No, he does not. Instead he jumps on to the issue of baptism of desire. Of course, baptism of desire (whether or not it conflicts with Florence - and it certainly appears to) is not what Vatican II is talking about. In Vatican II, the person does not know about the church.

Mr. Brown raises the point that Trent endorsed baptism by desire. He quotes Trent as saying (bold added by me):

This translation [from the state of birth to the state of Grace] however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the washing of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

(See, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4)

False Accusation of Ambiguity

Mr. Brown argues as follows:

For VanDrunen, Catholic doctrine “has indeed changed,” and he believes this change refutes modern Catholic appeals to the “unchanging character” of the Catholic Church. The fallacy of his logic is in his amphibolous use of the term ‘change.’ By using the term ‘change’ ambiguously, VanDrunen leads the reader to the false conclusion that the Catholic Church has contradicted herself.

Mr. Brown has not established that there is harmony between Florence and Vatican II. The former says that there is no salvation outside the church, the latter says there is. Moreover, Mr. Brown has not established that VanDrunen has used the term "change" in an ambiguous way. So, Mr. Brown has not harmonized the councils, nor has he shown any error in VanDrunen's account.

Development Hypothesis

Mr. Brown sets forth a sort of development hypothesis on this point:

However, by distinguishing between change as organic development and change as contradicting what was previously held, the conclusion that the Catholic Church has contradicted herself no longer follows. In other words, if Catholic doctrine has changed by developing, this change does not lead to the conclusion that the Vatican II teaching (regarding the possibility of salvation for those not in full communion with the Church) contradicts what was previously held.

The problem is that Vatican II does contradict Florence. It is not merely a problem that Rome's doctrine has changed (which it certainly has) but that it is has changed from "no salvation outside the church" to "salvation outside the church."

Mr. Brown continues:

This notion that Christian doctrines have developed should be no surprise. Major theological and religious doctrines have developed, such as the Trinity, the nature and canon of Sacred Scripture, or the two natures of Christ.

The canon of Scripture is not a doctrine per se, though Rome has made acceptance of a particular erroneous canon a matter of faith. The canon changed because God inspired more books. There have been different periods of recognition of the canon, but that issue of canon recognition is not a doctrinal development.

The discussion of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ has greatly increased over the years, but the doctrines themselves have not changed. The Scriptures themselves teach the doctrines of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ.

Mr. Brown continues:

While Reformed believers implicitly accept the notion of doctrinal development in those instances, they reject modern developments out of hand. But this acceptance of primitive developments while rejecting modern developments is ad hoc. There is no principled reason to accept development of Trinitarian doctrine while simultaneously denying the possibility of development on extra Ecclesiam after centuries of careful study and reflection.

Up front, Mr. Brown is wrong. We don't explicitly or implicitly accept the idea that there has been "doctrinal development" in the sense that we now hold to things that our forefathers in the faith didn't. We may use technical terms we didn't before (like the term "trinity") but the doctrines are the same.

Moreover, there's a severe non-analogy between the doctrine of the Trinity developing a technical vocabulary and Rome's position changing from "no salvation outside the church" to "some salvation outside the church." There's simply no reasonable comparison between the two.

We don't agree with Nicaea, for example, because Nicaea said it, just as we don't disagree with Ariminum because they said it. Instead, we agree with the former and not the latter because the former teaches what Scripture teaches. The Word of God is our ultimate standard, not the traditions of men.

A Strange Conclusion

Mr. Brown concludes with: "The authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church are not contradictory on this matter, but carefully elucidate Sacred Scripture and our understanding of God’s mercy and justice." Carefully elucidate? Scripture is briefly cited in a few of Mr. Brown's quotations, but hardly elucidated. What Scripture does the error of invincible ignorance "elucidate"? One couldn't know either from the documents themselves or from Mr. Brown's paper.

In short, Mr. Brown's conclusion, like most of the rest of his paper, should be rejected. Dr. VanDrunen was right to point out the paradigm shift between Florence and Vatican II, and Dr. VanDrunen is right to describe that as a "change" in teaching, even though Vatican II lacks the same authority as Florence (since there were no dogmatic definitions in Vatican II).

It is surprising, indeed, that Mr. Brown did not attempt to evade the problem of change by simply appealing to the fact that Vatican II does not claim to be an infallible document. Instead, Mr. Brown falsely charged Dr. VanDrunen with fallacy and ambiguity, when Dr. VanDrunen simply provided an accurate historical assessment.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: It seems there is no intuitive way to find Dr. VanDrunen's original article. Here is a link that Steve Hays provided recently on Triablogue (link).

Matthew 5 and Sexual Sin

2011-10-25T16:40:00.003+01:00

Matthew 5:27-32
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

One of Rome's laymen e-apologists recently tried to argue that "if thy right hand offend thee" refers to acts associated with sexuality. I hope that my readers can discern what this layman has in mind without my spelling it out. (link, caution - discussion is more explicit there)

There are reasons not to accept this theory. For example, in a similar passage, Christ says:

Matthew 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

It seems that Christ is simply listing important body parts.

Moreover, there is no particular reason that the use of the hand must be as this apologist suggests, but may instead refer to the act of grabbing or hailing the woman in order to act on or further the lust described.

Nevertheless, let's assume that our Roman acquaintance is on to something in Matthew 5, for the sake of the argument.

Suppose that the reference to the right hand relates to sexual desire with respect to a woman. But is it any woman? No, it is to a woman that is not one's wife. The same goes for the eye that looks on the woman.

Is there anything wrong with a man looking on his wife to desire her sexually? Surely not, notwithstanding the error of ascetics and those influenced by them. Indeed, we are taught in Scripture:

Proverbs 5:18-19
Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

So then it is not the sexual desire itself that is condemned, nor the looking or touching that is condemned, but the lust directed at one who is not one's wife that is condemned. But this does not fit contemporary Rome's argument on this topic. It is not a blanket condemnation of non-procreative acts, but merely a call to abstain not only from adultery in the act but also adultery in the heart.

May God preserve us from temptations to adultery in the heart and in the act!

-TurretinFan

James White vs. Abdullah Kunde - Can God Become a Man?

2011-10-18T22:28:00.002+01:00

One person has provided a summary of the debate that recently took place in Australia between Dr. James White and Abdullah Kunde. (link to summary) The topic of the debate was, "Can God Become a Man?" It's not a transcript of the debate, but there is a lot of detail provided.

- TurretinFan

Trinitarian Universalism Debate

2011-10-17T22:44:00.001+01:00

I recently engaged in a debate with Jason Pratt who heavily emphasized that he is a Trinitarian, and who considers himself an "Evangelical Universalist." I argued from five passages that judgment is coming, that it will be eternal, and that some people will experience it. Chris Date moderated the debate and has hosted the debate in the form of three podcasts:

Resolved: Some people will not be saved from their sins according to the following passages and their contexts: 2 Thess. 1:9, Matt. 25:41/46, Matt. 18:8, Romans 9:22 and Jude 1:6.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Chris Date's own podcast pages can be found here (first, second, third), which also contains links to the "raw" audio and other information.

-TurretinFan

Defining "Church"

2011-10-17T14:42:00.000+01:00

John Bugay's recent post, "Whatever else the “definition of the word church” contains, it must be purged of Roman conceptions of Rome " led me to consider this question: Suppose you were to ask one of the apostles to define the term "the church." Would that definition have any reference to Rome or her bishop?

If not, isn't Rome's concept of "the church" at odds with that of the apostles?

Read the New Testament for yourself. Learn what the apostles believed and taught about "the church." You won't find any reference to the papacy, and certainly not to Roman papacy amongst those pages.

-TurretinFan

Response to Fred Butler - John MacArthur and the Second Commandment

2011-10-15T22:26:00.002+01:00

My friend Fred Butler has recently responded to my other friend Matthew Lankford's video, which was titled: "The Idolatry of John MacArthur."

Fred writes:

I was recently alerted to a video by a fellow named Matthew Lankford. You only need to concern yourself with the first 7 or 8 minutes:

What's interesting is that the remaining minutes of the video are John MacArthur himself speaking. That's the part you needn't be concerned with, according to my friend Fred Butler. That misses the point of Mr. Lankford's video. Lankford was calling MacArthur to be consistent with his own teachings and providing a lengthy excerpt of good material from MacArthur.

The Idolatry of John MacArthur

Oh my. You gotta love these Puritan lynch mobs.

I get that "Idolatry" sounds harsh, particularly since some forms of idolatry involve worshiping false gods. But considering that the video is an exhortation to repentance and consistency, "lynch mobs" seems more than a little over the top. I'm sure it's just meant to be a humorous remark, but it seems to represent a view that Mr. Lankford's is extremely hostile, which was certainly not Mr. Lankford's intent. Again, I think Mr. Butler's response may be visceral, rather than intellectual. I'm not sure he got the full point of the video.

It’s hard to figure out where to begin.

ok ...

I will say that I can sympathize a bit with Matthew’s consternation with regards to pictures of Jesus. As I have argued elsewhere, I don’t believe pictures of Jesus are even close to being the idolatry Matthew condemns in his video and that he is misapplying the second commandment.

They are exactly what Mr. Lankford condemns in his video. Let's be clear about this. Mr. Butler may disagree with the historic Reformed position on images of Jesus (which I think is what he's trying to say), but Mr. Lankford's objection is to MacArthur promoting the making and use of images of Jesus.

That stated, however, I am not particularly fond of all the modern displays of Jesus, because I don’t believe they capture accurately what He looked like. IOW, I don’t think Jesus looked anything like Kenny Loggins or Dan Haggerty. Nor do I like sacrilegious Precious Moments-like figurines that cheapen who Jesus truly is and what He did.

Mr. Lankford focused mostly on the theological/moral objections to images of Jesus. There are also practical/pragmatic/utilitarian objections. I'm sure Mr. Butler and Mr. Lankford would agree on those points. I appreciate that Mr. Butler has chosen to emphasize this common ground.

Before offering a response, it may be helpful to read what John has actually said about images of Jesus in Christian artwork. The more comprehensive comment linked by Matthew is from a Q&A session done, from what I can gather, in 1980:

That's always good. It is good to put material in context.

MacArthur (per Butler) said:

The text, "thou shalt not make any carved image" is based upon the prior verse: "thou shalt have no other gods before Me." "Thou shalt not make thee any carved image or any likeness of anything that is in Heaven above or in the earth beneath." The assumption is that you're not to worship the stars, the sun, the birds, the animals, man, any other thing. But once God invaded the world in a human form, He gave substance or image, didn't He? And that's exactly what Hebrews 1 says, that He is the express, what?...image of God. God...God gave us an icon. And I hate to use that sense, but God gave us an image. God gave us a model and a pattern. So I don't think that it is outside...I don't think it violates this intent to make an image which is constituted as another god. You could never make an image of a spirit being. Right? So He couldn't be talking about an image of Himself. I mean, not essentially. But there was a case where they did this. You know, in the golden calf incident, I don't know if you've thought this through, but if you read the text, in the wilderness when the people made the golden calf, you remember Moses was up on the mountain getting the law and the people were down with Aaron making the golden calf. They made the golden calf as a representative of the true God. It was not a pagan idol. It was...it was the representation of their own God. They were still, in some sense, monotheistic. They were trying to represent God, and that's what the text indicates, in that calf. And at that point, God judged them. The only proper manifestation that God has ever permitted of His Person is in the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

This is mostly correct, but a few corrections are needed. MacArthur has forgotten about the various Old Testament epiphanies. People could have made images of those epiphanies, even though they could not make an image of a pure spirit. For example, God appeared to Abraham, to Joshua, and so on. Those epiphanies were visible and could have been used as the model for an artistic representation. When I say "could have" I don't mean "without violating the second commandment," but rather "technologically possible."

Thus, the Incarnation did not change anything in that regard. Jesus was the image of God, but not in the sense that his human body was a likeness of the invisible spirit of God. And while Jesus was visible, he was not made by man - he was incarnate by the will of God. We living humans are all said to be "made in the image of God" in a different but related sense. That sense has nothing to do with what we look like.

MacArthur writes: "God gave us an icon. And I hate to use that sense, but God gave us an image. God gave us a model and a pattern." God gave us Jesus himself, but not to serve as a model for paintings and statues. The New Testament did not contain any pictures in the originals. Jesus is the Word made flesh. The New Testament passes on to us God's self-revelation in Jesus.

MacArthur (per Butler) continued:

Now, there's one other thing that I might just mention. God has used a lot of symbols of His Person. In the Old Testament I can think of one major thing was a serpent on the rod, which, in a sense, pictured Christ. And there's much language imagery as well. Every lamb that was slain was, in a sense, prefiguring Christ. But I think you're safe in saying that since God has revealed Himself, this is the bottom line, God has revealed Himself in the image of man, the man Christ Jesus, that God allows us that one representation. I don't have a problem with that. He allows us that one representation so that we see God in human dimension.

No doubt there is a sense in which those things were representations of God. But they were not purported likenesses. They were types and shadows. We have such representations today too! "This is my body," and 'This is the blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many." As the Iconoclastic council of 754 indicated, those are the only authorized icons of Christ. Those are our representations, but they are not likenesses. Jesus doesn't look like a loaf of bread, and while his blood might somewhat resemble wine, we can easily tell the difference, particularly in terms of taste.

MacArthur (per Butler) continued:

Now, having said that, let me say this. We do not have in our house a picture of Jesus of any kind because I don't think any of them look like Him, probably, and I would rather have Him be who He really is than me to assume that He is someone He's not. That's just a personal thing. So what we do is, without having a picture of Jesus, we still encourage our children to read many, many Christian books and all of them have pictures of Jesus, but all of them have pictured Him differently. And I think you're pretty safe if you approach it that way. If you get some great big head of Christ slammed in the middle of your house, I'm not against that. That's okay if you like that but I perceive Christ in my own mind and I'm very comfortable with that and I've never yet seen the picture that looks like what I believe He is. So that's just a personal preference. But I really don't think the spirit of Deuteronomy 5:8 is broken when we have representation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

That, of course, represents the crux of the disagreement between us. It is not merely a matter of personal preference. There's nothing in the New Testament that tells us that we can or should make imagined likenesses or Christ, any more than the Old Testament permitted imagined likenesses of the theophanies. In that regard, as noted above, the Incarnation changed nothing.

The letter of Deutoronomy 5:8 is broken when we have such a representation. Appeal to the "spirit" of the law can be useful. For example, I don't think for a second it was contrary to the spirit of the law for the disciples to remember what Jesus looked like. Then, it wasn't really contrary to the letter either. Those memories were made by Jesus. But our images are not God-made. They are man-made. The same goes for reflections of Jesus in mirrors and bodies of water. (The same goes for the images in the memory of the theophanies, as well as the reflections of those theophanies in mirrors or water.) Those images that Jesus himself made, either before, during, or after the Incarnation and whether through an apparition, true human body, or vision are all permitted.

A wise person once suggested to me that "sometimes the spirit of the law is that the letter of the law be obeyed." In general, that is the case. You need to provide some good justification for violating the letter of the law if you want to say that you are still within the spirit of the law.

In fact, the word imagery of the New Testament paints for us marvelous pictures of Christ. And you can never, I don't know about you, you can never, I can say for myself, I can never really read an account in the Gospels of Christ without vivid imagery of His Person; can you? I mean, when I see Him, for example, reach down and touch a leper, if that was just God doing that, I don't know that I could even focus on that. When you think of God, do you think of something? Do you think of a form or a shape? I don't. I don't think of...I don't know that I think of anything. But when I think of Christ, immediately I have this image of the robe and His hands and you know... So I really think that the spirit of the person who simply has in his mind or perceives Christ in human form is not in violation of that.

There's no physical description of Christ's appearance in the gospels. We're not told whether he was thin or fat, short or tall, bald or bushy-haired. We're not told how handsome he was, though Isaiah's prophecy suggested "no beauty that we should desire him." We are told what he did and said, but not what he looked like. Thus, while the NT may point marvelous pictures of Christ, the NT does not paint representations or likeness of Christ.

That's the end of the quotation from MacArthur. Butler continues:

Now. Returning to the video, I believe there are a couple of glaring problems I see with what Matthew thinks is idolatry.

Not just problems, but "glaring" problems. Let's check them out.

First, the second commandment prohibits idolatry as it relates to the worship of God the Father, the only true God. As John pointed out in his response, the prohibition builds upon the first commandment that forbids the worship of any other gods. Idols were considered the home of the so-called deity, or it had attributed to it some supernatural power that governed the people in a superstitious manner. Thus, an idol represents a god that is worshiped at the center of a pagan, socio-religious worldview.

The second commandment prohibits idolatry as it relates to the worship of all three persons of the Trinity. I'm not sure why Mr. Butler singles out the Father, but the commandment does not. Is Christ worshiped at the center of Butler's worldview? I trust He is. So, idols (such as the rather insultingly effeminate one - which raises a third commandment issue - found on Butler's blog post) of Christ are purported representations of the God who is worshiped at the center of our worldview. Thus far, no glaring error on Mr. Lankford's part.

So at the outset, his objection to John’s views of images in artwork is misplaced and exegetically unsound.

a) Mr. Butler hasn't identified a basis upon which Mr. Lankford's objection could be said to be misplaced; and
b) Mr. Butler hasn't done a lick of exegesis, much less show that any argument by Lankford is exegetically unsound.

Second. The main problem with Matthew’s view of idolatry, is that if we work his conclusion to its logical end, he would be setting up God to be violating His own commandment when God the Son became incarnate.

This argument supposes that the commandment that we refrain from making images of God also prohibits God from making images of God. But why should "thou shalt not make unto thee" prohibit God from making unto us?

Think about it: Jesus was a man – God becoming flesh. He was seen by thousands of people. He spoke and taught. As the apostle John says in the opening of his first epistle, “That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hand have handled, concerning the Word of life.” I believe John is speaking literally here. This isn’t his flowery words describing a really strong spiritual experience. He truly saw, heard, and touched the Lord of Glory, because He was in the “image of a man.”

Who knows what Butler is quoting with "image of a man." Jesus was both God and man. He was not merely the image of a man. But Jesus' physical appearance is not what revealed the Father to us. It is the Word and Spirit that revealed the Father, not the flesh as such.

After all, even after the Incarnation, Paul reviles the pagan Romans in this way:

Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Butler seems to be guilty of doing that by his argument, and worse he seems to be accusing God of doing that too! But God did not send Jesus into the world to serve as a model for icons and statues. That is not how Jesus revealed himself to us. It is the words which Jesus spoke that profit us.

Now generally, one of the arguments thrown out is that God did not inspire the NT writers to describe Christ’s physical appearance. Perhaps God did; but Jesus was still a real, historical man who lived in space and time, just like Justin Martyr, John Calvin, and Abraham Lincoln. He was “veiled in flesh, the Godhead see,” as the classic Christmas carol goes.

And we have very little to go on as far as what Jesus looked like. We know he was male and Jewish and probably not very handsome. That's about it.

More to the point, so what? The theophanies were real appearances of God that took place in time and space as well. There's nothing that makes us revisit the second commandment, just because Jesus was truly man.

Additionally, Jesus received worship on numerous occasions, the most notable example is Thomas in John 20:28 who exclaimed, “My Lord and My God.” These people were worshiping a visible, flesh and blood person. Obviously it was not idolatry, because Jesus was God in the flesh, but He was still real, sinewy, sweaty flesh.

Again, so what? They were worshiping Jesus himself, not a representation of him. There's no record of Paul carrying around a painting of Jesus in his pocket. Instead, the one authorized representation of Jesus is not a likeness, but is instead the elements of the Lord's Supper: the bread of which it was said "this is my body" and the cup of which it was said, "this is the blood" etc.

Matthew takes a cheap shot at John by saying he naively embraces a Roman Catholic view of images that allows them to worship Mary and the saints. Honestly, is that what John is advocating? Even though no physical description of Jesus exists that is not a violation of the second commandment nor does it forbid Christians from representing Jesus in artwork or passion plays because, once again, He was a real, historical man and those representations do not have anything supernatural attributed to them.

Of course, the second commandment does not require that we attribute supernatural attributes to the idols themselves. Only the most gullible of the pagans would do this. Our Romanist friends are the same way - only the most gullible of them attribute supernatural attributes to their images. The question is whether you claim that your picture is a picture of one person of the Trinity. But surely Butler cannot deny that is his intent in having such pictures.

Now. Where I would say the second commandment is violated is with some art work like “The Creation of Man” as depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Not only do you have the image of God the Father, but He reclines on what looks to be a flying sea shell with a topless woman and a bunch of corpulent children. And, I don’t think God look anything like John Brown.

On the one hand, I certainly agree that the "Incarnation" argument suggested by Butler and MacArthur (and long ago by John of Damascus) cannot be legitimately extended to defend pictures purporting to be of the father. Moreover, there are third commandment issues that arise when God is irreverently portrayed. Nevertheless, that point of agreement (welcome as it is) of course does not address the underlying problem of having images of the second person of the Trinity.

Such pictures are forbidden by the terms of the second commandment and not authorized by Jesus, the apostles, or anyone else who could authorize them in the New Testament. It's not merely a matter of every picture of Christ being untrue (since it is a false representation) but is a matter of failing to heed the commandments of God. God does not wish us to show him religious reverence and honor (what we generally call "worship") through the use of images. And it is only and exactly Jesus' religious significance as God that motivates the making and using of these images. So, these images violate both the letter and the spirit of the commandment. We ought to abstain from them. I hope Butler and MacArthur will be encouraged to join the Reformed in this regard.

I'd like to conclude by pointing out that there is a range of seriousness of violations of the second commandment. While the error of MacArthur is within that range, it's not at the same place as the Romanists with their open adoration of the bread and devotion to the images. While we think this is an important issue worth pressing, it does not mean that we can't see the difference between Ratzinger and MacArthur. We can. Finally, we are calling MacArthur to be consistent. We worship an unseen God, and we ought to do so without the use of images. MacArthur seems to realize that in some of his materials, as Mr. Lankford has quoted at length.

-TurretinFan

P.S. As noted above, Mr. Butler posted an idol as the graphic for his post. You've been warned, but should you wish to go to his post, you can find it here.

Answering Skeptics' Questions

2011-10-13T01:34:00.001+01:00

Steve Hays provided concise and useful responses to 22 (he didn't select the number, I'm not sure the significance of that number to the questioner) questions from skeptics. They are posted courtesy of Monergism.com.

-TurretinFan

Recent Email from a Friend's Account

2011-10-13T00:47:00.003+01:00

Someone claiming to be my friend and writing from my friend's account wrote:

We're writing this with tears.My family and i made a quick trip to Madrid Spain on a short vacation and we got mugged at the park of hotel where we stayed. Worse of it was that our bags, cash and credit cards were all stolen at GUNPOINT leaving us penniless right now.

It's was a horrible experience for us and we need help flying back home,the authorities are not being 100% supportive but the good thing is that we still have our passports. we need some cash to settle our bills and get on flight back home. please let us know if you can help.

We're freaked out at the moment..

[name of victim and his wife]

Now, I know for a fact this friend is perfectly well and sitting at home on the other side of the world. There's no possible way this email is true. It's the work of someone resourceful attempting to trick my friend's friends into sending money under false pretenses. It's fraud. Very serious and disturbing fraud.

It's not as bad fraud as claiming to be the earthly head of Christ's church, but it's fraud nonetheless.

Beware!

-TurretinFan

Why An Old-Looking Earth? Five Possible Answers

2011-10-10T23:35:00.001+01:00

In a comment box at Triablogue, Alex B. wrote:

Care to actually answer the question as to why your god would create a universe that looked old if he know that it would lead people from him?

I answer:

Alex didn't explain why he wants this question answered. First, however, let's consider a few possible answers:

1) God did so, because he wanted it to lead people from him.
2) God did so, despite the fact that it would lead people from him because of a greater good.
3) God did so, despite the fact that it would lead people from him because of an equal good.
4) God did not do so, the premise that it leads people from him is wrong.
5) God did not do so, the premise that the universe looked old when God created it is wrong.

Second, let's place an important caveat on this discussion. Alex's question may not be directly answered by Scripture. Not every question has an answer in Scripture, even if it is a question that vexes the mind of a person who does not want to believe that his Creator exists.

Third, let's consider the options.

First, possibly God specifically made the world to look old so that many people would not believe in God. This contradicts the unspoken premise that God's main purpose in life is to win over as many people as possible. Nevertheless, surely it is obvious that God isn't trying to do that. So, the contradiction of that unspoken premise is hardly of much significance.

Second, possibly God specifically made the world to look old for some greater good. Perhaps an old-looking universe is more comfortable to live in than a new-looking universe. After all, a new-looking universe would be extremely hot, using contemporary scientific models for what constitutes appearance of youth in universes.

Third, possibly God specifically made the world to look old for some equal good. After all, God could have made people more heat resistant and still made the universe look younger. But then again, perhaps in this scenario, the heat resistance would have led an equal number of people from God. This is all just speculation, of course - but since the question calls for speculation, why not speculate?

Fourth, there isn't really any evidence that what leads people away from God is the appearance of age of the universe. After all, people turned away from God even before modern cosmologies began claiming that the world was 13 billion years old. So, the apparent age of the Earth may simply be an excuse of contemporary atheists and agnostics rather than the actual reason.

Fifth, the idea that the world "looks" old is largely subjective. It depends on the presuppositions that one brings to the table. 21st century naturalistic assumptions lead one to conclude 13 billion years or so as the age of the universe. Yet God has not left us to make assumptions. Genesis provides a cosmology. Using that cosmology as one's starting point, the world doesn't "look" 13 billion years old.

-TurretinFan

By the way, Fred Butler has provided his own thoughts relevant to the question.

Matthew Lankford: "The Idolatry of John MacArthur"

2011-10-10T19:43:00.000+01:00

My friend Matthew Lankford has posted a new video in which he addresses John MacArthur's position on images.

One thing I like is that while Matthew responds firmly to MacArthur's position, he also shows (quoting from MacArthur himself) that this should be a matter of consistency for MacArthur, rather than being a matter of a fundamental change.

-TurretinFan

Questions Steve Ray Thinks "Bible Chrisians" Can't Answer - Answered

2011-10-04T20:01:00.002+01:00

Steve Ray seems to think that there are questions that we Bible Christians cannot answer. (Link to his post)

Not only can we answer them, we have answered them. For the most part, they are a bunch of loaded questions that are actually not that hard to unload and answer. The answers I provided below may not even be the only or best answers. Nevertheless, so as to bring to Mr. Ray's attention the answers that were provided over a year ago, the following provides an easy index of the responses.

Just click on the question for the answer.

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

TurretinFan's Criticism "May Be True" Per Hubner

2011-10-04T16:02:00.001+01:00

Jamin Hubner has posted a response to my post that criticized his unsound argument.

His post is something of a goulash of various points, from which I've extracted the parts seemingly related to my post.

He writes:

The last few posts on this blog have generated a flurry of responses. But unfortunately, very little is directed at the central concerns I have raised. Virtually none are written out of an interest in seeking the truth with love, nor from an understanding of what I myself even believe regarding Middle-Eastern conflict (Israel, Palestinians, etc.) as a whole, nor from a perspective that is even close to what a common man would say is “fair” or “balanced.” Middle-Eastern history can be a complex subject and I have much to learn. But it is unfortunate that in attempts to publicly untangle even small portions of history and draw a handful of conclusions, some usually fair-minded readers are hasty to generalize in ways that I think are very misleading (blog titles of “Supporting Arabs,” and such statements as “Hubner…is just a dupe for jihadists,” etc.), or just hasty to criticize in general.

That’s why I left a short annotated bibliography in the last post – so that if you’re truly interested in the truth, and not in the latest blogosphere drama, you can read some good books and draw your own conclusions. I don’t live on the internet folks. I hardly have time to read, let alone respond to those who critique my work. And this blog is but a small part of this ministry. That’s something to keep in mind as I make the following observations.
...
For one reason or another, Turretinfan (an able mind on Roman Catholicism and Reformed scholasticism) joined the discussion and believes I am making unsound arguments “supporting Arabs.” Of course, the title itself is loaded (“Supporting the Arabs with unsound arguments”). In principle, I do not support “Arabs” today or yesterday any more or any less than “Asians,” “Africans,” or “Germans.” I support whatever party is in the right/not in the wrong in any given context, and condemn the party that is in the wrong in any given context, regardless of ethnicity (shouldn’t we all?). Even, so, I don’t see my material “supporting Arabs” inasmuch as it tries to do history with more balance than the average Zionist/pro-Israel Christian. Turretin says that the McMahon correspondence didn’t actually promise the Arabs a state. This may be true, depending on what is meant by “assist them to establish what may appear to be the most suitable forms of government in those various territories,” and what is being asserted by the British in general during this period. Perhaps the Commissioner never intended to promise an Arab state, and Sykes (British diplomatic advisor) in the Sykes-Picot agreement (which undoubtedly did promote an Arab state) wasn’t really in step with the opinion of British Commissioner McMahon. Turretin can make that argument and it would lead to some interesting conclusions, though I’m presently not persuaded that the assertions in/behind the two documents are that different. Turretin says I am “blissfully unaware” of “the perceived English need to have the Arabs fight the Turks during World War I.” That’s odd, because Tur just quoted me a few paragraphs earlier where I said, “This promise was given in hopes of gaining Arab support for the British war efforts against Turkey.” Not sure if Tur was just sleeping at the wheel on that one, or misunderstood me, or what.

Time does not allow for a further response. I’d like to finish my response to Feldman but I fear that in this environment, it honestly wouldn’t be helpful to many (send me an email if you wish). And given how much energy has been invested in the blogosphere to not merely criticizing my material, but trying to cast a shadow on my integrity, character, etc., let it simply be said that if you have any serious doubts about my character, please, stop guessing and do the obvious: call my pastor, my parents, my siblings and cousins, my employer, my landlord, my current and former professors, my friends; go to RealApologetics.org and listen to my public lectures, debates, podcasts, and sermons; read my published books and essays; watch the youtube videos…and after all that, read my public profile, my blog, my google+ updates and then draw your own conclusions. I might be a Calvinist and I might believe the state of Israel has no religious significance today. But I can assure you, I don’t hate or favor any particular ethnicity over others, I don’t desire the destruction of present day Israel, and I don’t eat babies or Dispensationalists for breakfast. Go serve God and love your neighbor.

As to the actual issue I raised in my response, namely that Hubner's salesmanship of the evidence "promised that the Arabs would have their own state in Palestine" and "promised the Arabs an independent stable state – presumably the land/or within the land of Palestine," does not match the facts, Hubner's central response seems to be:

1. This may be true.
2. It depends on what a particular expression means.
3. Maybe Sykes was not in step with McMahon.
4. I (TurretinFan) "can make that argument and it would lead to some interesting conclusions.
5. He is not persuaded that the assertions "in/behind the two documents are that different."

I don't see how any of this is supposed to serve as a rebuttal to the argument that I did already make in my post. His response appears to amount to saying that maybe I'm right, but he's not convinced. This hardly seems blog-worthy. There's no counter-argument that he's offered that I need to refute. My original post stands.

As to the remainder of his post, what value is it? He impugns his critics' motives and character and waxes on and on about himself. Many of his accusations are vague, but I'll address one of the trifling points he raises that seems clearly directed at me:

... some usually fair-minded readers are hasty to generalize in ways that I think are very misleading (blog titles of “Supporting Arabs,” ...
...
Of course, the title itself is loaded (“Supporting the Arabs with unsound arguments”). In principle, I do not support “Arabs” today or yesterday any more or any less than “Asians,” “Africans,” or “Germans.” I support whatever party is in the right/not in the wrong in any given context, and condemn the party that is in the wrong in any given context, regardless of ethnicity (shouldn’t we all?). Even, so, I don’t see my material “supporting Arabs” inasmuch as it tries to do history with more balance than the average Zionist/pro-Israel Christian.

The only one generalizing here is Hubner. The arguments I addressed were those supportive of the Arabs and their claim that Britain promised them a Palestinian state. That title does not indicate Hubner supports Arabs in general or that he supports them more or less than Asians, Africans, or Germans. It doesn't indicate that he has ethnic prejudice. Finally, won't a balanced treatment sometimes support one side and sometimes another? If so, then there is no conflict between the title of the post and Jamin's claim to balance. After all the title of my post didn't say that Hubner always supports the Arab position against the Jewish people.

In short, Hubner's complaint over the title of the post was unfounded and guilty of the very thing he accused me of - generalization. I note that Hubner indicated that he hardly has time to read those who critique his work and that "Time does not allow for a further response." Perhaps if he squandered less of it attacking the motives and character of his critics, he'd have more time for considering the arguments and revising his position.

-Turretinfan

Supporting the Arabs with Unsound Arguments

2011-10-01T16:22:00.000+01:00

Suppose someone argues this:

The first is McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, which promised that the Arabs would have their own state in Palestine. This promise was given in hopes of gaining Arab support for the British war efforts against Turkey. The British High Commissioner Sir Henry McMahon promised the following to the Arabs (Oct 24, 1915) in a letter to Hussein Ibn Ali, Sherif of Mecca: (quotation) So the British promised the Arabs an independent stable state – presumably the land/or within the land of Palestine.

Notice that I've omitted the quotation that was in the original. We'll come to it in a second. If this use of sources is proper, what should the quotation show?It should show:

A promise.
To "the Arabs"
That they would have "their own state"
That it would be "in Palestine."
That it would be "independent"
That it would be "stable"

After all, that is how this evidence is being sold: "promised that the Arabs would have their own state in Palestine" and "promised the Arabs an independent stable state – presumably the land/or within the land of Palestine."

What does the quotation actually say?

(1) Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca.
(2) Great Britain will guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression and will recognise their inviolability.
(3) When the situation admits, Great Britain will give to the Arabs her advice and will assist them to establish what may appear to be the most suitable forms of government in those various territories…
I am convinced that this declaration will assure you beyond all possible doubt of the sympathy of Great Britain towards the aspirations of her friends the Arabs and will result in a firm and lasting alliance, the immediate results of which will be the expulsion of the Turks from the Arab countries and the freeing of the Arab peoples from the Turkish yoke, which for so many years has pressed heavily upon them.

So, it actually promises the Arabs freedom from the Turks (one group of Muslims from another group of Muslims). Does it promise to build any Arab states? No. What about anything Palestinian? Palestine isn't even mentioned as such.

It seems that that author of the argument is blissfully unaware of the reality of the massively powerful and expansive Ottoman Empire (based in Turkey, but expanded all over) and the perceived English need to have the Arabs fight the Turks during World War I. Whether the author of the argument is unaware or not is hard to be sure, but his argument does not seem to recognize the difference between declaring that the Ottoman empire has to let a region go (what the cited McMahon-Hussein Correspondence was all about) and some kind of Arab nation-building (which wasn't the topic of the correspondence).

The author of the article writes:

Of course, “Palestine” isn’t specifically mentioned. 22 years later the High Commissioner 22 would say he never technically promised a Palestinian Arab state with these words (see McMahon’s letter in London Times, 1937), even though that’s how the Arabs understood it.

But the letter he references actually states:

I feel it my duty to state, and I do so definitely and emphatically, that it was not intended by me in giving this pledge to King Hussein to include Palestine in the area in which Arab independence was promised. I also had every reason to believe at the time that the fact that Palestine was not included in my pledge was well understood by King Hussein.

So, the author of the letter didn't say X, later says he didn't mean X, and also claims that his correspondent understood that.

(original article to which this post responds)

-TurretinFan

Justification as Declaration of Righteousness

2011-09-30T14:22:00.001+01:00

Here are some thoughts on Justification from the early church father John Chrysostom, courtesy of the great Reformer Thomas Cranmer and my friend (and fellow heir to the legacy of Chrysostom and Cranmer) David King:

Chrysostom (349-407): What does he mean when he says: “I have declared your justice?” He did not simply say: “I have given,” but “I have declared.” What does this mean? That he has justified our race not by right actions, not by toils, not by barter and exchange, but by grace alone. Paul, too, made this clear when he said: “But now the justice of God has been made manifest independently of the Law.” But the justice of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ and not through any labor and suffering.

Greek text: Τί ποτέ ἐστιν, Εὐηγγελισάμην δικαιοσύνην; Οὐκ εἶπεν ἁπλῶς, Ἔδωκα, ἀλλ', Εὐηγγελισάμην. Τί δήποτε; Ὅτι οὐκ ἀπὸ κατορθωμάτων, οὐδὲ πόνων, οὐδὲ ἀμοιβῆς, ἀλλʼ ἀπὸ χάριτος μόνης τὸ γένος ἐδικαίωσε τὸ ἡμέτερον. Ὅπερ οὖν καὶ ὁ Παῦλος δηλῶν ἔλεγε· Νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ πεφανέρωται· δικαιοσύνη δὲ Θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὐ διὰ καμάτου τινὸς καὶ πόνου.

Adversus Judaeos, VII, §3, PG 48:919; translation in Fathers of the Church, Vol. 68, Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, Disc. 7.3.2 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1979), pp. 186-187.

Hans Küng and the Roman System

2011-09-27T22:48:00.001+01:00

Hans Küng is not allowed to teach "Catholic theology," but he remains with the Roman communion, apparently teaches ecumenical theology at the University of Tübingen, and is still a priest (i.e. he has not been defrocked). Unlike most priests, he has been invited to the pope's summer palace and corresponds occasionally with the pope.

However, Küng has a less Roman perspective than his former colleague Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI). As reported by Spiegel, Küng stated:

Küng: In my view, the Catholic Church as a community of faith will be preserved, but only if it abandons the Roman system of rule. We managed to get by without this absolutist system for 1,000 years. The problems began in the 11th century, when the popes asserted their claim to absolute control over the Church, by applying a form of clericalism that deprived the laity of all power. The celibacy rule also stems from that era.

SPIEGEL: In an interview with the respected weekly German newspaper Die Zeit, you were sharply critical of Pope Benedict, saying that not even King Louis XIV was as autocratic as the leader of the Catholic Church, with his absolutist style of government. Could Benedict truly change the Roman system if he wanted to?

Küng: It's true that this absolutism is an essential element of the Roman system. But it was never an essential element of the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council did everything to move away from it, but unfortunately it wasn't thorough enough. No one dared to criticize the pope directly, but there was an emphasis on the pope's collegial relationship with the bishops, which was designed to integrate him into the community again.

SPIEGEL: Was it successful?

Küng: I wouldn't say that it was. The shamelessness with which the Vatican's policy has simply hushed up and neglected the concept of collegiality since then is beyond compare. An unparalleled personality cult prevails once again today, which contradicts everything written in the New Testament. In this sense, one can state this very clearly. Benedict has even accepted the gift of a tiara, a papal crown, the medieval symbol of absolute papal power, which an earlier pope, Paul VI, chose to surrender. I think this is outrageous. He could change all of this overnight, if he wanted to.

There's plenty more in the article, but it interesting to hear Küng speak for himself, particularly considering how "conservative" (the way he would describe them) members of the Roman communion seem to portray him as some sort of monster.

-TurretinFan

Debate Announcement - Conditionalism Debate

2011-09-25T01:15:00.001+01:00

Lord willing, I will be debating Ronnie of Consuming Fire on the topic of what he calls "Conditionalism" (Debate announcement and chance to submit "audience questions" here.), which evidently holds to the idea that those in hell will eventually be consumed by the fire there (leading others to describe it as "annihilationism").

Ratzinger vs. Hitler

2011-09-24T21:22:00.000+01:00

The Pope went on: "In this place, remembrance must also be made of the 'Kristallnacht' that took place from 9 to 10 November 1938. Only a few could see the full extent of this act of contempt for humanity, like the Berlin Cathedral Provost, Bernhard Lichtenberg, who cried out from the pulpit of St. Hedwig's Cathedral: 'Outside, the Temple is burning - that too is the house of God'. The Nazi reign of terror was based on a racist myth, part of which was the rejection of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Jesus Christ and of all who believe in Him. The supposedly 'almighty' Adolf Hitler was a pagan idol, who wanted to take the place of the biblical God, the Creator and Father of all men. Refusal to heed this one God always makes people heedless of human dignity as well. What man is capable of when he rejects God, and what the face of a people can look like when it denies this God, the terrible images from the concentration camps at the end of the war showed".

(Vatican Information System, 23 September 2011)

A few separate points:

1. It is interesting to contrast the rhetoric that Ratzinger quotes approvingly ("Outside, the Temple is burning - that too is the house of God") with that of Christ (as revealed to John):

Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

2. Remarkably, it appears that Rome never formally excommunicated Hitler. It's very nice to say nasty things about him now that he's dead and gone, but when he was actually killing the Jews, Gypsies, and others, Rome apparently didn't think it was appropriate to actually excommunicate this "pagan idol."

3. I suppose it is obligatory at this point to observe that Ratzinger was evidently conscripted into the Hitler Youth, was drafted into service in an anti-aircraft corps during the war, and was briefly made an American Prisoner Of War. There's nothing that I'm aware of that suggests that Ratzinger was particularly supportive of Hitler, even despite his (apparently involuntary) participation in those organizations.

4. Moreover, it is actually Benedict XVI who wants to take the place of the Biblical God. I can't say whether Hitler ever called himself the very vicar of Christ and earthly head of the church, but Benedict XVI certainly claims that for himself. I can't say whether Hitler ever set up headquarters in what purported to be the temple of God, but the pope certainly attempts to exalt himself over all that is God's and seats himself on a throne. (see 2 Thessalonians 2)

5. The concentration camps were filled with death and horror, I am sure. What if we compare those few years of Nazi cruelty with the cruelty with which Rome sought to persecute and kill European believers from the time of the Waldensians until the defeat of the Spanish Armada? Were the Nazis as cruel as the Inquisition? While there are no photographs to document the acts of cruelty perpetuated by Rome, one can read Foxe's Book of Martyrs to get some sense of what happened. Perhaps Benedict XVI's conscience will persuade him to accept the fact that the Roman church that authorized the slaughter of the Albigensians was one that denied God as much as the Nazi regime did.

All which shows why we must not put our confidence in princes or in the sons of men. Instead, our hope must be in the name of the Lord, who made the heavens and the earth.

-TurretinFan

Contrasting Ecumenism

2011-09-24T16:25:00.000+01:00

"For this reason", the Pope added, "I am very grateful to our Protestant brothers and sisters who have made it possible to hold this highly significant meeting in the convent where Luther began his theological journey, to pray ... and talk together about our responsibility as Christians today. I am delighted to be able to express our fundamental unity as brothers and sisters who work together for the good of humankind, announcing the joyful message of Christ, of God Who has a human face and Who speaks to us".

(Benedict XVI, Vatican Information Service, 23 September 2011)

In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:

...

25. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, is not the vicar of Christ over all the churches of the entire world, instituted by Christ Himself in blessed Peter.

...

28. If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council.

...

33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

...

37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon.

...

No one of sound mind is ignorant how destructive, pernicious, scandalous, and seductive to pious and simple minds these various errors are, how opposed they are to all charity and reverence for the holy Roman Church who is the mother of all the faithful and teacher of the faith; how destructive they are of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience. This virtue is the font and origin of all virtues and without it anyone is readily convicted of being unfaithful.

(Leo X, Ex Surge Domine, 15 June 152)

In addition to the contrast between Benedict XVI and Leo X in general, I selected a few of the alleged "errors" of the Reformation that Leo X singled out. Papal supremacy, of course, made the last. But so did the idea that it is ok to disagree with the pope and the majority of the church, even when the matter has not been defined. According to Leo X, capital punishment of heretics is not just ok, it's "the will of the Spirit." And Leo X actually thought one could prove purgatory from the canonical Scriptures.

One might say that in some ways there has been substantial progress between the time of Leo X and the time of Benedict XVI. But Rome has not officially repudiated its own earlier teachings - it has not said it was wrong, even after nearly half a millenium of demonstration of those errors.

-TurretinFan

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 4a

2011-09-24T13:41:00.002+01:00

Jerome wrote a response to Helvidius regarding the virginity of Mary. This post is the first part of a fourth in a series of responses to what Jerome wrote.

Jerome wrote:

4. Let us take the points one by one, and follow thetracks of this impiety that we may show that he has contradictedhimself. He admits that she was betrothed, and in the next breath willhave her to be a man’s wife whom he has admitted to be hisbetrothed. Again, he calls her wife, and then says the only reason whyshe was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And, for fearwe might not think that enough, “the word used,” he says,“is betrothed and not intrusted, that is to say,not yet a wife, not yet united by the bond of wedlock.”

We should definitely seek to avoid self-contradiction. But is this a self-contradiction? Why else is a woman betrothed except in order to become a wife? Moreover, Joseph was minded to put her away, which is what one does with an unfaithful wife, but was encouraged to "take" her by the angel of the Lord,

Jerome seems to be attempting to score some kind of rhetorical points here, but it isn't working. Helvidius' and our position is pretty straightforward and non-contradictory. Mary was betrothed to Joseph, which was - at that time and in that culture - the first stage of the marriage, but it was prior to cohabitation. Nevertheless, as set forth in the previous sections, the legal status of a betrothed woman was like that of a married woman, in that any fornication would be adultery. Thus, Mary is sometimes called Joseph's wife even though they had not yet come together. It may be imprecise, but it is not really self-contradictory.

Jerome doesn't attempt to revitalize the "intrusted" alternatively, seemingly granting that Helvidius is right. Mary was betrothed (not intrusted) to Joseph. She was to be his wife.

- TurretinFan

God Just Wants to Make You Happy, Says Pope

2011-09-24T13:30:00.000+01:00

Benedict XVI said:

When the Blessed Virgin rescues us from plight, "with a mother's tenderness, she wants to make us understand that our whole life should be a response to the love of our God, Who is so rich in mercy. 'Understand,' she seems to say to us, 'that God, Who is the source of all that is good and Who never desires anything other than your true happiness, has the right to demand of you a life that yields unreservedly and joyfully to His will, striving at the same time that others may do likewise'.

(Vatican Information System, 24 September 2011)

Let's leave aside the adoration of Mary issue and consider the doctrine that Ratzinger puts in her mouth. According to the pope, God "never desires anything other than your true happiness." This is so typical of man-centered religions. God just wants to make you happy. But is that what Scripture says? In fact, it does not.

Romans 9:22-23
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Even if Scripture were silent on this topic, though, one really has to wonder. If God really desired nothing other than the "true happiness" of anyone, why would hell exist? Does hell bring any men "true happiness"? What about purgatory? Is unnecessary suffering in purgatory something that brings men "true happiness"?

These questions alone should be enough to reject the errors of Benedict XVI.

-TurretinFan

Guess Which of These Popes is German and Which is Not

2011-09-24T00:39:00.002+01:00

"Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric:" Benedict XVI

"Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected." - Leo X

Response to Jerome's Response to Helvidius - Part 3

2011-09-23T17:15:00.001+01:00

Jerome wrote a response to Helvidius regarding the virginity of Mary. This post is the third in a series of responses to what Jerome wrote.

Jerome wrote:

3. His first statement was: “Matthew says, [Matthew 1:18-20] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was onthis wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, beforethey came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. AndJoseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make hera public example, was minded to put her away privately. But when hethought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto himin a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take untothee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the HolyGhost.” “Notice,” he says, “that the word used is betrothed,not intrusted as you say, and of course the only reason why shewas betrothed was that she might one day be married. And the Evangelistwould not have said before they came together if they were notto come together, for no one would use the phrase before hedined of a man who was not going to dine. Then, again, the angelcalls her wife and speaks of her as united to Joseph.” Weare next invited to listen to the declaration of Scripture: [Matthew 1:24-25] “And Joseph arose from his sleep,and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him hiswife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her son.”

Finally, Jerome is getting around to an actual argument, and kudos to Jerome, he is presenting his opponent's position first. Specifically, what Jerome has done here is to present what Helvidius argued, apparently as a quotation from or at least a paraphrase or summary of Helvidius. Considering that Jerome had accused Helvidius of being loquacious, one suspects that this may be a summary of Helvidius' argument, rather than the entirety of it.

Helvidius argued from Matthew 1 that the word used is "betrothed" not merely "entrusted" and the reason for the betrothal was ultimately marriage. Helvidius further argued that Matthew wouldn't have written "before they came together" unless they were going to come together. Likewise, the angel calls Mary Joseph's wife and speaks of her as being united to Joseph, according to Helvidius. Finally, there seems to be implied that "knew her not till ..." implies that Joseph eventually knew Mary.

All of these seem to be sound arguments. To them, we may add the argument we mentioned in the previous section, namely that Joseph was minded to put away Mary, not to seek out her seducer or to return her to her father or elsewhere. Putting away implies divorce, which implies a marriage (of which betrothal is a first step), not merely an entrustment.

-TurretinFan