Open Letter to Frank Turk

Dear Centuri0n,

What's the deal with all the open letters? (such as this one)(and this one)(and this one)(and this one)(and this one)(and this one)(and this one) Have you forgotten how to write regular letters?

Yours truly,

T-Fan

Second Incarnational Defense of Idols Rebutted

Subsequent to my last post, Frank Turk (aka Centuri0n) has submitted a new argument into the comment box of his his own post (link to post). Frank Turk argues:

One of the pillars of Tom's argumentation is that any image of Jesus is necessarily, by definition, a "false image" of Jesus. And the reason for this is that the Law in Israel says explicitly that Israel was [a] not to make graven images to worship, and [b] not to seek to represent the invisible YHVH with visible objects.

Tom's view relies heavily on continuity between Israel and the Church, and between Old Covenant and New Covenant. The problem is that, becuase of Christ as incarnation, there is a significant discontinuity between OT and NT.

There is some discontinuity and some continuity between the old and new administrations of God's grace. There is not discontinuity on this point. We see that a few ways.

I. Old Testament Prophecy

Micah 5:13 Thy graven images also will I cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee; and thou shalt no more worship the work of thine hands.

Micah points forward to the coming time, and specifically identifies the issue of idols as one of the points of continuity/reform to God's word.

II. End-Times Prophecy

Revelation 9:20-21
And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

The use of idols is listed among the things that the wicked do, among the serious crimes like murder, sorcery, fornication, and theft.

III. Paul's Ministry

Acts 17:24-31
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

This is part of Paul's famous sermon on Mar's hill. Notice that there is a discontinuity - the Gentiles are now called to serve God, whereas before only the Jews were called. All men every where are commanded to repent. But Paul does not say "Jesus doesn't look like that, he looks like this (holding up a little icon or statue)." No, Paul specifically teaches the Greeks that God is not worshiped with the works of man's hands, nor is he properly represented even by such elevated metals as gold and silver.

IV. Paul's Epistles

1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Notice that while Paul acknowledges Jesus as Lord, without a doubt, he still refers to his King as invisible. Paul did not have a flannel-graph Jesus that he carried around with him. He preached Jesus, not pictures. Before I get too much more into Paul's epistles, let me provide some more of Frank Turk's argument. He writes:

Consider it:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. [NASB]

Right? Heb 1:1-4, with a special emphasis on this phrase: "He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature". That Greek word under "exact representation" ("χαρακτήρ"), ironically, is a word used to describe the engraving in a coin -- it is specifically an engraving term.

This speaks to us about the nature of the incarnation, doesn't it? Somehow, because Jesus was exactly like God, there's a discontinuity between the OT demand that there are no created images which can represent God and the NT fact that Jesus, conceived in Mary's womb as a man in the form of a servant, is actually God.

Let me provide the KJV for the passage that Frank Turk quoted:

Hebrews 1:1-4
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; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

What does it mean that Jesus is "the express image of his person" (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ) It means that Jesus is God. It means that Jesus and the Father are of one and the same divine being. It does not mean that Jesus is a picture of what God looks like. Jesus flesh and blood, his humanity, is not a representation of God, nor was that the intent. Jesus took on flesh, not to represent God, but - as a man - to represent men!

Yes, there was a discontinuity, God became flesh and dwelt among us. But there was not a discontinuity with respect to make representations of God.

Thus, for example, we see Paul use a similar expression in Colossians.

Colossians 1:12-17 ... giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 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: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Notice that here it calls Jesus the "image of the invisible God" (εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου) that first word in the Greek is the root for our word "icon." It would be absurd to read that literally, as though Jesus were a literal icon of something that is invisible. What it means instead is that Jesus is God. He is of the same substance with the Father.

Notice how in both the Colossians passage and the Hebrews passage, this likeness to the Father is contextually connected with power: "upholding all things by the word of his power" and "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: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Going back to Hebrews, we see that the author of Hebrews recognizes the invisibility of God, but provides this interesting metaphorical language:

Hebrews 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

How is it that we see our invisible God? It's not by painting pictures - it's by faith. It's trusting in the promises of God like Moses and the other witnesses of Hebrews 11.

Furthermore, in what should be a very interesting twist for Frank Turk, we see that the Scriptures teach that we can see the invisible things of God through the visible creation.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Of course, we are not seeing the power and Godhead of God itself, we're seeing their effects in the Creation. We're seeing what God made, and consequently seeing Him through that - not a purported similitude, but an illustration and demonstration of His power.

- TurretinFan

Response to the Manhattan Declaration

Frank Turk has an interesting response to the Manhattan Declaration (link)(link to declaration). Unfortunately, for a few reasons, there a few points where I'd take a somewhat different tack. His biggest point is correct:

The declaration should be opposed because it obscures the gospel. The wording of the document is ecumenical. It uses expressions like "We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians ..." and "It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade ... ."

I should point out that the section on Religious Liberty is remarkably less objectionable than one might expect. The statement, "No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions," for example, arguably does not leave room for Muslims, Jews, Oneness Pentecostals, or pagans to be covered.

In fact, however, I suspect that the understanding of the document by the other is broader and more relativistic than a strict reading of the document might suggest. As I've pointed out before, I'm not a pluralist.

But that's a minor objection. Much of the "main point" of the declaration is not objectionable:

1) Abortion, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia are evils

2) Marriage between Man and Man or Woman and Woman is a perversion

3) Atheist Attempts to Persecute Christians for holding (1) and (2) are improper.

It is sad to see that a few prominent "evangelical" names have been attached to this gospel-obscuring document:

Dr. Wayne Grudem Research Professor of Theological and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary (Phoenix, AZ)

Rev. Tim Keller Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (New York, NY)

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY)

Ravi Zacharias Founder and Chairman of the board, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (Norcross, GA)

Dr. Daniel Akin President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, NC)

Dr. Bryan Chapell President, Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis, MO)

Jim Daly President and CEO, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)

Dr. James Dobson Founder, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)

Dr. Michael Easley President Emeritus, Moody Bible Institute (Chicago, IL)

Rev. Jonathan Falwell Senior Pastor, Thomas Road Baptist Church (Lynchburg, VA)

-TurretinFan

Frank Turk and the Concession Speech

This article by Frank Turk on the gospel is worth the 2-3 minutes it takes to read it (link). I'm not saying I agree with every last jot and tittle of what he writes, but the main points he makes are the main points that need to be made, especially to the folks with whom he's dealing. He's responding to some extent both to Broad Path Evangelicalism and to Roman Catholicism in the same post.

Important Clarification

No: I am not Frank Turk. This is Frank Turk.
He's a famous blogger. I'm just a blogger.
No: I am not Frank Turek. This is Frank Turek.
He's a reputable person; published author. I'm just a blogger.
No: I am not Francis Turretin (read about his life here).
He's a famous theologian. I'm just a blogger and a fan of his.

-TurretinFan

Frank Turk on Apologetics with Romanism

Apparently Frank Turk, aka Centuri0n, thinks that engaging in apologetics with those of the Roman Catholic Church is a waste of time (link) and (thinks he) he's got the statistical data to prove it.

With all due respect to the wise Turk, I'm not persuaded by his argument from web traffic. I'll keep on giving an answer for the hope that is within me, trusting in God to bring the increase.

-TurretinFan

Centuri0n is an Anti-Catholic? (I am not!)

In a recent post, Centuri0n (Frank Turk) has declared that he is an "anti-Catholic" (link) or at least why he's ok with being called that. While I appreciate his basic rationale (which could be paraphrased as: "they've anathematized me, so - yeah - we are anti-one-another"), I am certainly not interested in adopting the title.

Why is that? Because the term is usually associated with nutcases like the college professor discussed here (link), who go out of their way to offend other people for the point of offending them. That's not me.

I realize that some of things I say are going to offend, and there's just no way around that:

1) Telling people that their religion is based on a false gospel that will not save them, is not something most people like to hear, even if it is the truth.

2) Telling people that the church they were raised in is not a pure church of Christ is something that bothers people who have been taught (and have believed) that it is such a church.

3) As we have discovered, even using a word other than their preferred title (e.g. not using "Catholic") to describe them (even when done to avoid theological and historical confusion) is something that can upset people (see here for example).

4) In fact, telling people generally that they are in sin offends them. People don't like to hear: "Repent and believe."

That message is offensive, but it is offensive incidentally, just as calling one's church "the universal church" is offensive to other churches that are part of the true universal church. Moreover, the message is truly "Catholic" in the original and proper sense of the word: it is the message of the universal Christian church. All who come to Christ do so in repentance and faith in Christ. This, of course, makes the whole "anti-Catholic" slur that much more inapplicable to folks like Centuri0n who in fact hold to what is properly (though not popularly today) designated the Catholic faith, though not to the doctrines of Rome.

The nutcase above, in contrast, aims to offend (and particularly to offend those who are transubstantionists - although he also has tried to offend many other groups). Others who would be properly labeled "anti-Catholic" hate people who call themselves "Catholics" (the KKK comes to mind). These are the folks that can properly be labeled for what they are.

We need to remember not to be like those groups. The Vatican has set itself against us and against the gospel. In past ages, it openly persecuted and had put to death many of our spiritual forefathers. Today, it opposes the gospel in other ways. It is not a good institution, and it is especially evil in arrogantly claiming to be "the Church."

That said, Scriptures tell us to love those who persecute us (and frankly, while modern Rome doesn't like what we have to say, "persecute" is a rather strong word for what they do in most English-speaking parts of the world today).

Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Thus, to associate ourselves with the likes of vicious, godless mockers and haters simply because we oppose the doctrines and practices of the Vatican is wrong. That's one reason I object to being mislabeled by certain hostile Vatican-friendly apologists as an "anti-Catholic," and why I think Frank Turk should do the same.

I don't think Centuri0n should be considered an "anti-Catholic," because I am quite sure he doesn't hate "Catholics," because I am fairly confident that he doesn't do things especially to offend them, and because the main source of offense between him and them is the Gospel. In fact, I think if you asked Frank if he loves "Catholics," his sincere answer (like mine) would be, "yes" - as well it ought to be.

To those of you who happen to read this blog and who happen to consider yourselves "Catholics." As strongly as I am opposed to the doctrines and practices of your church, I do care for you as a person. In fact, one reason I spend time trying to demonstrate the errors of the Vatican is for your benefit.

-TurretinFan

P.S. This is an issue that comes up from time to time. Accordingly, I may end up date bumping this post either to the top of the blog in the event that it needs to be said again, or to the back of the blog, if it needs to go to a reference post status.

I read it on the Internet

I put in Disney's website (link) and got this result:


I put in Centuri0n's blog (link) and got this result:


I put in Dr. James White's blog (link) and got this result:



I put in the present blog (link) and got this result:



So, anyways, since I (and now you) read it on the internet, it must be true.

Or, more likely, it just goes to show the weakness of computer-based techniques.

-Turretinfan

Federal Vision - Heresy not anti-Paedo-Baptistic Reductio

In this recent post from GreenBaggins, one can almost see froth on the fingertips of James B. Jordan, a profane pastor some have started calling the "godfather" of the Federal Vision movement (link) (update, apparently Jordan has apologized in part). Meanwhile, well-meaning but misinformed Reformed Baptists over in the comment thread of Centuri0n's blog have the gumption to view the Federal Vision problem as a reductio ad aburdum of Presbyterianism! (link) (hosting page) (yikes!)

Frankly, while I appreciate the need for the PCA to act in an orderly manner, the sooner the matter of closing this open scandal of Federal Vision within the PCA is concluded, the better.

-Turretinfan

Part V of my Response of my Response to Centuri0n on Christmas

This is the fifth, and final, post in my series of posts to Centuri0n. As I've pointed out in each of the last three posts, one should really start with the first post and read sequentially.

(part 1)
(part 2)
(part 3)
(part 4)

In this part, I'll be tackling Centuri0n's conclusion:
*** Centuri0n's Conclusion, including embedded quotations ***
It is your answer to that question, and the ones above it, which leads me to accuse you of mopery. So when you say this:

Your assertion, sir, that: "You are, in fact, wanting mopery in order to avoid popery. You want no sign that we smile, and no opportunity by which we can show people something they can taste and see as goodness -- especially if it's a time when they would have been enjoying themselves."

is false. I repudiate that sentiment, and if you continue to repeat your assertion that such is my position, you are illustrating that you are not hearing what I'm saying.

That's very daunting language, I am sure – the problem is that you do advance mopery – you advance the elimination of all kinds of cultural and social means of interaction in order to do what Jesus told us to do.

I'd encourage you to reconsider putting words in my mouth, let alone avatars in my avatar window.

There's no need to put words in your mouth: you say everything that needs to be said in order to discredit your view. The clowning merely points out that you are unwilling to see how bad your logic works out in real time and space.

Happy New Year – unless the Catholics are having mandatory mass tomorrow, in which case forget I said anything. We don’t want to be confused with them, right?

*** End of Conclusion ***

I'll break it down line-by-line, this time:

1. "It is your answer to that question, and the ones above it, which leads me to accuse you of mopery."

There's simply no connection between any of the foregoing discussion and mopery. There's no support to the charge. Christian liberty is not mopery. Avoiding confusing the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Rome is not mopery. Griping that someone is not joining you in your artificial holiday is the closest we come in the discussion to mopery, but that's not from my side of the aisle, Centuri0n!

2. "the problem is that you do advance mopery – you advance the elimination of all kinds of cultural and social means of interaction in order to do what Jesus told us to do."

That simply is not true. It might be true if I suggested that we should all become hermits and live in caves far from other people, but of course I do not. Simply holding that it is permissible not to celebrate Christmas is in now way equivalent to or convertable to "eliminat[ing] all kinds of cultural and social means of interaction." Furthemore, suggesting that there may be some value in exercising that freedom is likewise not equivalent or convertable to such nonsense.

This can be seen from the facts that:
a) religiously celebrating Christmas requires no or little cultural/social means of interaction with our unconverted neighbors ("I'm headed to church for Christmas," provokes no reaction from the crowd); but
b) contrariwise "I'm going to go into the office/out to my field/to open my shop on Christmas" does tend provoke a crowd reaction and provide a starting place for conversation.

Thus, in fact, going with the flow does not provide much opportunity for meaningful social interaction, whereas bucking the flow does.

And of course, Jesus did not tell us to celebrate his birth, or to celebrate the holidays of our society. So the "Jesus told us to do" line is just rhetorical puffery.

3. "There's no need to put words in your mouth: you say everything that needs to be said in order to discredit your view."

If that were true, one would expect you to simply post what I said without further commentary. But, of course, my actual position is not self-discrediting. In fact, my position is simply Paul's position in the Epistle to the Romans.

4. "The clowning merely points out that you are unwilling to see how bad your logic works out in real time and space."

The clowning is a substitute for reasoned argumentation, and useful in situations (unlike this one) when reasoned argumentation is unnecessary. The idea of "logic work[ing] out in real time and space" is a confusion of doctrine with practice. Regardless, however, the way the doctrine is practiced is simple, we celebrate if we want to, and we don't if we don't want to. We're not obliged either to celebrate (even if there are salutory reasons for doing so) and we're not obliged to abtain (even if there are salutory reasons for abstaining, such as those I presented).

5. "Happy New Year – unless the Catholics are having mandatory mass tomorrow, in which case forget I said anything. We don’t want to be confused with them, right?"

I do often celebrate a feast on the New Year, and I give God thanks, but I don't suggest that it is obligatory for anyone else. Doing so in my cultural environment (which is well post-pagan and post-Jewish) doesn't seem to be likely to confuse my celebration with religious observances of a false religion.

But you weren't really worried, you were mocking.

As demonstrated above, however, your mockery is crockery.

But Happy New Year to you too, Centuri0n, may God bless you and all who pass by,

-Turretinfan

Part IV of my Response of my Response to Centuri0n on Christmas

This is the fourth part of a series of response to a recent post from Centuri0n. I suggest that you read the first three parts first, in order to gain a proper perspective and context.

(part 1)
(part 2)
(part 3)

In this part, I'll be addressing Centuri0n's claim that: "Here's a short list of things that we have to stop doing if we have to stop doing all the things "Rome" does to make sure we don't confuse people about what the Gospel is: ... -- eradicate all iconography of crosses from our architecture and art."

I had answered: "I don't see any particular problem eliminating the iconography of the cross from our architecture. Our art? I'm not sure what you mean there. Plenty of both Reformed and Fundamentalist non-Reformed Baptistic churches avoid the iconography of the cross."

Based on Centuri0n's further explanation, he apparently just meant architecture and building decorations. Centuri0n provides some examples of churches that incorporate crosses, and I could simply reply by providing examples of fundamentalist and reformed churches that do not incorporate crosses in their architecture. Here's one such example, in case anyone thinks it doesn't happen (link). I should point out, interestingly, that while the church itself does not employ cross iconography, the web site for the church has something that arguably is supposed to be a cross (though it does not have the typical dimensions associated with Catholic crosses).

I could also point out that using the particular cross found in Russian Orthodox architecture (example) would be confusing (note the extra piece for the title above the main crossbar, and the slanted piece towards the base, which looks something like a place to stand). It's not sinful to use such a cross in one's architecture, but it might confuse, in a way that a typical simply cross does not.

In some parts of the world, that may not be the case. Perhaps in some parts of the world, it would be valuable to avoid cross iconography in church architecture specifically to avoid the appearance of being a Catholic church. But, in general, churches are free to decorate their church in any way that does not violate God's law, and a cross in ipse does not violate God's law.

That said, again, there is no Scriptural requirement that we incorporate crosses into our architecture and building decorations. So, Christians are free to include it or not, and it would be wrong for Centuri0n to insist that Christians must use crosses in their architecture.

I found this particular topic interesting, because Mormons have conventionally not put a cross on top of their churches, specifically to avoid being connected with conventional Christianity. These days, they want to be called Christians, so we can probably expect to see cross architecture/decorations start to appear (compare the current look of the St. George Temple, look closely, that's a weather vane on top, or this more modern Mormon temple, where you can see a golden statue of what the Mormons think is an angel holding a trumpet). I doubt a weather vane would confuse anyone for long, but placing a golden statue holding a trumpet on the pinnacle of the roof of one's church would be a really bad idea for a Christian church in, say, Utah, Idaho, or Oregon.

Major Objections

1. Of course, a major objection is that the matter simply does not follow. There may be some marginal value in avoiding crosses to avoid a connection with popery, but - as I think Gene Bridges has pointed out - the cross is an ancient symbol of Christianity, and one that predates the sect of Roman Catholicism. While avoiding cross iconography may be helpful in some places and at some times, to distinguish the true gospel from the gospel of Rome, the situation is not similar to observance of a church holiday, because the informational content associated with the form of a cross is quite minimal compared with the informational content associated with the holiday held December 25.

2. Whether we place a cross on our buildings, or not, is of relatively little consequence. Thus, even if the logical conclusion of my position on Christian freedom was that it would be wise to avoid crosses in our architecture, that would not be an "over the top" action to take. Worship does not subsist in pictures, but in ideas.

3. This is the big one. Centuri0n's apparent line of reasoning is that if we do one thing to set ourselves apart from Catholicism, we must do everything possible to set ourselves apart from Catholicism. That simply doesn't follow. Centuri0n does not provide any analytical link, and there is not one to be made.

-Turretinfan

Part III of my Response of my Response to Centuri0n on Christmas

This is the third part of a series of responses to post by Centuri0n. If you haven't read the first two posts in the series, you should really read those first (part 1) (part 2).

In this part, I'll address Centuri0n's contention that: "Here's a short list of things that we have to stop doing if we have to stop doing all the things "Rome" does to make sure we don't confuse people about what the Gospel is: -- stop calling our list of holy books "the Bible"."

I had pointed out that:

a) "there is already a relatively clear notion in the public's mind that the "Protestant Bible" and the "Catholic Bible" are two different things. No real concern of confusion there."

and

b) "Also, there is a problem that there is not really a substitute word in English. We could use the term "Scriptures" but that word is also used by the Catholics."

Minor Quibbles
With respect to (a), Centuri0n pointed out that few printed editions of the Bible specify "Catholic" on the cover (and, he could have pointed out, even fewer specify "Protestant" on the cover). I suppose he may be right about the statistics, but I don't think they particularly help him. The reason that the various Bibles are not labeled with "Catholic" and "Protestant" is that the consumers know the difference. They are typically labeled with a translation name (the "NASB" or "KJV" etc.), which ends up being a proxy for whether the translation is Catholic or Protestant.

With respect to (b), Centuri0n argues that we could simply call ours the "Holy Book." But (a) Catholics already sometimes call Scripture that (see here), so Centuri0n's uncreative alternative label would not help.

Furthermore, it was Protestants popularized the English word "Bible" over the Latin word "Biblia." It was Protestants in England that championed placing the Bible in the Vulgar tongue. In other words, the label was a Protestant label to begin with. The fact that Catholics have adopted the same label for their book (rather than simply translating Biblia Sacra into English) is hardly a compelling reason to change our label.

Major Disagreement

More importantly, the comparison between Christmas and the Bible is non-analogous. I was not suggesting that we should keep a holy day of obligation on December 25, but call it "Jesus' Birthday Party." I was suggesting that we should feel free to disregard December 25 entirely. I think Christians should also feel free to call the Bible the "Holy Book" as you point out, and that we would be rank legalists to insist that it must be called "The Bible," in order to capture conventional public sentiment associated with the word "Bible."

In other word, the attempted reduction to absurdity only demonstrates a similar analytic disconnect to that set forth in part 1 of this series.

May God be glorified,

-Turretinfan

Part II of my Response of my Response to Centuri0n on Christmas

Part I of my response is provided above, and should be read first (link).

In Part II, I will discuss very briefly Centuri0n's comments on Lord's Day worship:

Centuri0n seems to think that if one took my position to its logical conclusion, one would have to "-- stop worshipping on Sundays" to avoid having the gospel of Scripture be confused with the gospel of the Vatican.

I responded that this "is out, because (a) Rome itself no longer emphasizes Sunday worship, and (b) Scripture requires it."

Centuri0n surprisingly insisted that Rome continues to emphasize Sunday worship (which seems dubious, to anyone who has seen the difference in attendance on days of obligation versus a typical Sunday). Nevertheless, let us suppose out of charity that Centuri0n is right, and that I was mistaken about Rome's deemphasis of Sunday worship. No problem, my second point was sufficient.

Even more surprisingly, Centuri0n challenges the fact that Scripture requires Sunday worship!

I simply point Centuri0n to

The Heidelberg Catechism, Question 103. What does God require in the fourth commandment?

Answer: First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained; (a) and that I, especially on the sabbath, that is, on the day of rest, diligently frequent the church of God, (b) to hear his word, (c) to use the sacraments, (d) publicly to call upon the Lord, (e) and contribute to the relief of the poor. (f) Secondly, that all the days of my life I cease from my evil works, and yield myself to the Lord, to work by his Holy Spirit in me: and thus begin in this life the eternal sabbath. (g)

(a) Tit.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: 2 Tim.3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 2 Tim.3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 1 Tim.5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 1 Cor.9:11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 1 Cor.9:13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 1 Cor.9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. 2 Tim.2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (b) Ps.40:10 I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation. Ps.40:11 Withhold not thou thy tender mercies from me, O LORD: let thy lovingkindness and thy truth continually preserve me. Ps.68:27 There is little Benjamin with their ruler, the princes of Judah and their council, the princes of Zebulun, and the princes of Naphtali. Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (c) 1 Tim.4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 1 Cor.14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. 1 Cor.14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 1 Cor.14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. (d) 1 Cor.11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. (e) 1 Tim.2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 1 Tim.2:2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 1 Tim.2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 1 Tim.2:8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 1 Tim.2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 1 Tim.2:10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 1 Tim.2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 1 Cor.14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? (f) 1 Cor.16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. (g) Isa.66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

See also Chapter XXI of the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646, Chapter XXII of the Savoy Declaration of 1658, and Chapter XXII of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689.

This is not advanced theology, but part of ordinary Reformed catechesis.

See:

Questions 86-90 of the Catechism for Young Children
Questions 57-62 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism
Questions 115-121 of the Westminster Larger Catechism

These various sources, and the Reformed churches that have variously endorsed them are an adequate explanation of the Scriptural doctrine.

-Turretinfan

Part I of my Response to Centuri0n on Christmas

This is part I. There will, Lord willing, be more parts.

I preface this series by indicating my sincere appreciation of Centuri0n taking his time to interact with what I have written, and to state that I consider Centuri0n to be a brother in Christ. The tone may get a little hot and heavy, but I hope people will remember that. Also, I'm not going to beat his graphics. He's much more graphically inclined than I, and his blog is way cooler. I'd have to be a clown (HT: Centuri0n for that graphic) to imagine otherwise.

With that, here's the first few things.

1. My position is the position of Christian liberty, and it has explicit Scriptural warrant.

I say that individual Christians should be free to celebrate Christmas or not, free from any obligation, whether imposed by the Roman Catholic Church or prominent bloggers.

My warrant is:

Romans 14:1-6
1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

2. Among other things, I have been charged with being a "killjoy" because of this stance on Christian liberty. This violates God's word.

Centuri0n writes: "As we kick this off, let me say this: one is not a damned sinner if one doesn't celebrate Christmas. One is simply a killjoy – someone who is afraid of enjoying the Gospel because someone might confuse that with the sins of prostitutes, publicans or (in the case of T-Fan) Catholics." (source)

a. The labeling is sinful and contra-Scriptural.
The killjoy label is clearly a violation of Romans 14:5 as well as Romans 14:4. Centuri0n is unwilling to let each man be persuaded in his own mind, and Centuri0n is judging this blogger, Christ's servant. The fact that Centuri0n does not call me a "damned sinner" makes his labeling less heinous, but it does not make it right, proper, or even acceptable.

b. The labeling is a non-sequitur.
It does not follow from the fact that one does not celebrate Christmas with Roman Catholics that one is "afraid of enjoying the Gospel." There is nothing that brings greater joy to a Christian or even an elect angel, than the Gospel. All of heaven rejoices when any sinner is brought from death to life by the power of God, and we rejoice most of all at the fact that this was done for us.

(i) To suppose for one instance that failure to celebrate an artificial, man-made holiday suggests a lack of enjoyment in the Gospel simply doesn't follow. Of course those of us who, like the Puritans, do not celebrate Christ's birth on December 25, do not lack enjoyment of the gospel.

(ii) Those who are actually celebrating Christmas do not necessarily enjoy the gospel at all. I dare say that the vast bulk of Americans who celebrate Christmas do not even have a real knowledge of the gospel. These days, even many Jews celebrate Christmas. Mormons celebrate Christmas. And, as we all know, Catholics celebrate Christmas. I wouldn't be surprised if Muslims celebrated Christmas, all the while filling the air with their (mpbuh's). Thus, actually celebrating Christmas is no guarantee that it will be done as a celebration of the gospel. And let me perfectly clear: if one is going to celebrate Christ's birth, one ought to do so with reference to the gospel, that Christ came to save his people from their sins.

Thus, there is no link: one can enjoy the gospel without celebrating a man-made holiday, and one can (though he ought not, we might note) observe the man-made holiday without enjoying the gospel.

c. The labeling is being misused.
Normally a killjoy is one who spoils the fun of others. Scrooge was a killjoy who shoved a ruler at the nose of the caroler, who insisted on spoiling the enjoyment of others. But, of course, that's not what is happening here. I have not told Centuri0n he may not celebrate the day, or even that it would be better for him to desist. I've simply insisted on my own liberty, and the liberty of every Christian. If I've spoiled Centuri0n's joy, it is only the joy of lording over others - a joy he ought to be deprived of.

Now, there is doubtless more that needs to be said, but it will have to wait for another post.

-Turretinfan

Is Christimas a Catholic Holiday?

In a recent discussion with Centuri0n (the wise Turk), he noted with apparent surprise my curious insistence, as a Puritan, that Christmas is a vestige of Catholicism, and is primarily objectionable for that reason, not for its more ancient connection with paganism.

Let's be clear about one thing: just because one celebrates the birth of Christ does not make one a crypto-Catholic, and Centuri0n has the honor of having his photo posted in a popular Catholic apologist's "Anti-Catholics" web page. Indeed, the Bible gives us the freedom, individually, to celebrate holy days according to our choosing.

Furthermore, let's be clear that giving gifts, spending time with family, eating figgy pudding and honey-glazed ham, and drinking spiced cider, eggnog, or (if your conscience permits) a little brandy, is perfectly fine - whether the occasion is the birthday of Her Majesty, Elizabeth II (may God save the Queen!), Independence Day, Bastille Day, International Women's Day, or a day you have set aside to remember Christ's incarnation. Those things are not religious activities. For most folks, even etymologically questionable things like mistletoe and a conifer have lost their original druidic connotation, and are essentially just winter seasonal decorations. Bereft of original pagan significance, these two can be enjoyed as God's gifts.

But Christmas was a Catholic holiday. While misguided modern evangelicals are busy trying to put the "Christ" back in "Christmas," they are joined in that task by Catholics who are anxious to put not only the "Christ" back in, but the "mass" back in as well. Why? Because it was their holiday first.

One perfectly acceptable reason for an evangelical not to celebrate the Birth of Christ on December 25 each year is to say to the world: "My religion is not Catholicism. I do not honor their holy days, and I do not follow their traditions. The Scripture alone is my rule of faith and life."

Now, I realize there is a counter-argument that we can Evangelical-ize Christmas, just as Catholics Christianized Christmas away from the pagans in the first place. I hate to be a sourpuss on this, but It's not going to work. Too many false gospels with their false Christs are willing to be a part of almost every American child's favorite holiday, and Catholicism is right there, leading the way, and pointing out that they came up with the idea of celebrating a mass to honor Christ's birth.

Furthermore, in order to outnumber those who make Christmas a holy day of obligation, we'd practically have to make it obligatory on the people of our churches as well. Doing so would violate God's law by unlawfully binding the consciences of men to a human invention.

Sorry, Centuri0n - it is a Catholic holiday, it is associated with Catholicism, and its only the influence of secularism/paganism that is likely to decatholicize it. We see that happening in America today, where the holiday is largely "secular" and humanist, despite Congressional attempts to declare it a Christian holiday (which, as you may have heard, got a surprising 9 votes against!). Feel free to celebrate it if you like, but don't insist that we join you.

I have freedom in Christ to treat the day, for religious purposes, like any other, and I plan to exercise that freedom, without stepping on your freedom to set it aside as a holy day for yourself.

May God Incarnate be glorified,

-Turretinfan

Centuri0n on Kurschner - Some Comments

Brother Centuri0n has posted a brief article (link) commending Kurschner's eight reasons (link), which the present author had previously addressed (link).

I'm not sure whether Centuri0n actually read the article (he mistakenly claims that AK lists 10 reasons), and Centuri0n's post may be taken as representing support of the anti-KJV position more than anything else.

Nevertheless, the present author wishes to clarify a few things in response to Centuri0n's comments:

1) Yes, in Western Europe the primary language in which the Bible was preserved was Latin, and the Latin Bible transformed Western Europe. This is actually a significant argument in favor of the KJV preferred and "majority" argument and especially the Textus Receptus argument, as the Latin tends to frequently align with the Textus Receptus and to be reflected in the KJV translation.

2) History does matter, and it is important to recognize that the English Bible was first a translation from the Latin (first with a partial translation by Bede and later a New Testament translation by Wycliffe) and only after printed Greek Testaments were made available in the form of Erasmus' 1516 edition did the Bible get translated with reference to the Greek. The Latin influenced the English translators resolution of many Greek ambiguities, as well it should.

3) Centuri0n makes a great point, which is that God has a plan for His word, and that God preserves His word. Francis Turretin (the original, not the present author) made the same point before there was a KJVO movement.

4) The Vulgate may have defects, but it gained traction because it was an excellent translation, not despite being an inferior translation. That traction was assisted by the fact that it was given assistance by the bishops of Rome. Nevertheless, the very reason that Jerome's work was commissioned was to improve on the various Latin translations that were in circulation in his day.

5) Centuri0n's last paragraph is a tad bit off-target. He writes:

This is not an argument against integrity in translation, or having right methods -- because we are receivers of the text, and we ought to receive it with some kind of faith-fortified, Christ-exalting humility. But the purpose of right methods is discipleship and evangelism (not necessarily in that order). Right methods ought to lead us to the right view of what God is doing and has done, rather than replacing one human work with another and then arguing which is really the least-errant.

TurretinFan responds:

That sounds great, but the only way to try to achieve high integrity in translation and collation is by replacing one human work with another and debating the relative merit of each. The purpose of the right methods is to maintain the text in as close to its original, unaltered state as possible. It is the purpose of commentaters and evangelists to expound upon the text for the purpose of edifying and adding to the flock (not in that order).

6) Finally, it is worth noting that there are other important ecclesiastical texts besides the Vulgate, the KJV, and the Byzantine Greek. There are also the Slavonic, Armenian, Syriac, Georgian, the Coptic, and even the Ethiopic (and others in addition to those). They are not all equally good, and they are not necessarily good in proportion to the number of Christians who used them. Nevertheless, they play a role in reconstructing the original text, a role that many anti-KJV advocates tend to overlook.

-Turretinfan

Centuri0n Grabs Some Low-Hanging Fruit

In a post earlier today, Centuri0n responds to an argument that believers-only baptism is reflective of an anti-sovereigntist mindset (Source).

Yeah, Centuri0n, we all know that there are Reformed baptists, and that Reformed baptists don't baptize believers-only for that reason. On the other hand, the "your mama" part of the critique is dead wrong. You wrote: "So while LongShot here wants to pin some kind of crypto-pelagianism on baptists, he's a crypto-pelagian as well because of the value he hangs on bad works." You should know better, Centuri0n: bad works do have actual demerit, for which men receive all the blame. Works are not symmetrical.

Perhaps, next you'll go after other low-hanging fruit in the covenantal tree, like Doug Wilson's reason inane statement that: "Although Christians have their differences over infant baptism, we need to remember that in a certain sense all baptisms are infant baptisms" (Source).

No, Doug, they are not all infant baptisms unless one just equivocates over the meaning of infant. Equivocation, however, is not "a certain sense," but two conflated senses. Furthermore, it is precisely such equivocation over the term "infant" that leads to the undermining of the doctrine of justification by faith and provides fodder for Reformed Baptist critiques.

Fortunately, for Presbyterians and Congregationalists (and Reformed Anglicans, if there are any left), there are far more able advocates on this particular subject. I would exhort Centuri0n to respond to them instead.

-Turrretinfan

Centuri0n Makes a Good Point

This post (link) provides an excellent warm-up. If you have time, I encourage you to read it. It won't take long.

After you've read it, consider whether your evangelism technique mentions only love and heaven, or whether it also mentions wrath and hell ... but more importantly if it mentions, persecutions, trials, and difficulties.

Our spiritual ancestors, many of them, were martyred for their faith. Our brothers, in some lands, are being martyred and imprisoned even today. John the Baptist was imprisoned and eventually beheaded for preaching that someone's lifestyle was ungodly.

Guess what! Today, those whose lifestyles are even more depraved than those of the Herod family are trying to label John the Baptist-style preaching "hate speech," and trying to push for criminal sanctions. I doubt beheading is coming any time soon, but fines and imprisonment is definite possibility.

There can be real cost in terms of standing up for the truth of God's word - if you forget to mention this in your discussion with unbelievers, aren't really giving them a short 20?

-Turretinfan

Regulative Principle of Worship

I have agreed to do a blog-based debate of the Regulative Principle of Worship. I will update this blog with more details as the debate progresses. Timothy, this means that I will probably have a bit of delay in responding to your comments regarding the Lord's Supper. Nevertheless, certain aspects of the debate may touch on Roman Catholic issues, and I certainly plan to explain how a consistent Reformed worldview (as contrasted with a Roman Catholic worldview) ought to embrace the Regulative Principle, although my debate opponent will be a Reformed apologist who does not, to my knowledge, currently embrace the Regulative Principle.

Here's a link to the debate, for which my opening statement has been made:

http://q-and-a-blog.blogspot.com/

Any comments, questions, and especially criticisms are welcome.


Since you bothered to come to this blog, here's a couple extra links for further reading on the subject:

http://www.reformed.com/pub/sola.htm

http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1998HartDebate.htm

And here's one slightly critical view in a four-part series. I don't plan to directly respond at this time, and I don't know whether it is this line that Centuri0n, with whom I'm debating, will be taking this poster's line:

http://aspiringtheologian.blogspot.com/search/label/Worship

And here's a link to a very low quality presentation of an attempted rebutal of RPW by a supporter of the Normative Principle of Worship (NPW) using the typical, ad hominem arguments and failing either positively to establish NPW, or to address the standard RPW rebuttals of the arguments presented.

http://www.training-resources.org/regulative_worship.htm

I trust that Centuri0n will present something much more thoughtful, and I look forward to the debate.

May God's blessing rest on all who pass by,

-Turretinfan

UPDATE:

My conclusion is posted here:
http://q-and-a-blog.blogspot.com/2007/04/conclusion-of-regulative-principle.html

I will try to edit this page (or similar pages here) to provide links for further information for folks who are wondering about the topic.