Responding to Eastern Orthodox Answers to "Protestant" Objections

An author at The Franciscan Mafia has a post up (incidentally, while I believe the author was previously associated with the Federal Vision group, it appears that he has now switched his allegiance to Eastern Orthodoxy)(link to post). The post is designed to answer an objection to the Eastern Orthodox. Here's the objection:

The Orthodox Church teaches that it is infallible; that is, incapable of any error. The Orthodox Church claims that it is incapable of erring in not only its interpretation of Scripture but also in its teachings, dogmas, canons, and decrees. There is, in other words, no possibility of reform within the Orthodox Church and the Tradition of the Church is therefore not subject to the authority of the Scriptures.

The author responds to this objection in a rather unusual way. He does not directly dispute any part of the objection, instead he asserts that it misrepresents "the origin or source of the Church’s infallibility." With all due respect, the author's assertion is incorrect. In fact, the objection as stated doesn't identify (at all!) any alleged origin or source of the EO church's alleged infallibility.

What the author seems to be trying to argue (without properly establishing the matter) is that the EO church is infallible because she is the mouth of God. Of course, if the EO church were really the mouth of God, how could she err? Can God err? But the idea that the EO church is the mouth of God is not a premise we're willing to concede just because the author asserts it.

The author also asserts: "The major disagreement between Protestants and the Orthodox, for example, is not between one’s view of “tradition” but between one’s view of Truth." This argument doesn't especially support the main thesis of misrepresentation, but it may have some value. Let's explore what the author means:

Since Protestants view Scripture as “objective truth” which we subjectively understand (and leaving the possibility that our understanding can be shown as incorrect in light of future understanding), they not only view Christ as just another “objective truth” which we need to apprehend intellectually (which is how many will define “faith”) but they view tradition and other issues in the same way as well.

The wording of this comment does show the author to be less than thrilled with the academic rigor of "Protestantism." Furthermore, it is the case that some "Protestants" (perhaps even some of the Reformed) can find themselves viewing their faith in Christ as purely intellectual assent (although such is contrary to the teachings of the Reformed churches.

The author's anti-intellectual comment, though, seems to be well connected with the anti-intellectual milieu of Eastern Orthodoxy. But the author wants to drive a wedge between objective truth and what he calls "personal truth," which sounds like pure relativism, especially in light of comments like this:

Therefore, the infallibility claims of the Orthodox Church are related to “objective truth” and not personal Truth as She understands it. Truth can only be personal, for we can only be individuals in the context of a community and so it is with Truth. God’s Truth in His Holy Church is expressed to us by means of People and the faithful life of such community — of such communion. The claim to being capable of infallibility is not about having the best scholarship or the best traditions, it is a claim that what we have been given and what has been preserved by the blood of martyrs is the Personal Truth given by God through Christ and His Apostles and handed down to us through the Liturgy, Councils, Canons, Fathers, Saints, Martyrs, and Icons of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

This sounds for all the world like: "We aren't saying that our traditions are objectively true, but rather that we believe them to be true and we got them from the apostles somehow." When we examine the apostolic teachings handed down to us ("traditioned to us" if you will) in Scripture, we discover that the EO teachings (however strongly they are sincerely held by the EO churches) don't fully align with the teachings of the apostles.

The author continues:

When Protestants approach the Church Fathers, as well, they assume that the infallibility of the Church means that all so-called Fathers of the Church are infallible in everything they say.

This certainly is a common mistake, both in addressing the errors of EO as well as in addressing the errors of Roman Catholicism. Of course Roman Catholicism accepts the concept of objective truth, so the response that the author is about to provide would help them, but both EO and Roman Catholicism recognize that their "saints" were fallible men.

One commenter allied with Rome noted on my blog that his church permits their saints not to agree in every respect with modern Rome. We might likewise say that the EO permit their saints not to agree in every respect with the modern teachings of whichever EO church one is considering (the EO have a much less centralized hierarchy). The author's response:

Many Fathers say things that seem to be at odds with one another, and some Fathers are even later condemned by Ecumenical Councils as heretical in their teachings, or in specific teachings (e.g. Origen, Tertullian). The problem with this approach again lies in the Protestant’s rationalistic approach to truth and understanding; i.e., that of objective truth or subjective truth. They can only conceive of Church Fathers who are making objective truth claims and therefore only approach them as sources of objective truth, forgetting all along to approach them as living people, alive with us in Christ to this very day.

The author's comment here seems misplaced. It is plain from reading the writings of even fairly "Eastern" fathers (such as Gregory of Nyssa) that he thought he was providing objective truth in his writings. He sought to "prove" his positions from Scripture, and he demanded Scriptural proof from his critics. This is also seen from the councils that condemned as heretical some of the teachings of earlier "church fathers" such as Origen. They were not willing to simply accept Origen as a "living person, alive with us in Christ to this very day," but were willing to condemn his doctrines or practices as false in certain aspects.

But the vacillating argument of the author does not stop there. He continues:

The truth of the Church is the life of Christ Himself. Only when one assumes a “rationalistic” or “nominalistic” view of truth and the false dichotomy of “objective” and “subjective” truth would one also have trouble with the truth claims of Holy Orthodoxy. For in Orthodoxy, it is not incumbent upon every person to equally have a full knowledge and understanding of all things theological or doctrinal, as you’ll find encouraged within Protestantism[.] This is simply because Protestants and Westerners view truth as an object to be grasped while the Eastern Church views truth as Christ Himself; a Person to know and be known by through our living of his life again and again in the Liturgy and life of the Church itself. As a result, there can be no “individual” discovery of truth within Orthodoxy in the sense of rational discovery or intellectual accomplishment. The truth of Holy Tradition is found in the conciliatary nature of the Church and our living together as a community united by One Faith and One All-Holy Trinity.

That first sentence sounds quite grand, but it lacks content. What does it mean that the "truth of the Church is the life of Christ"? Well, apparently (and we have to say "apparently" because there is no explicit explanation) the comment is intended to suggest that what the EO church says is true, because the EO church is, in some sense, Christ. This is actually quite the same argument that Catholicism makes, and is as unsupported by EO assertion as it by Roman assertion. While Christ is united with his church, the church is made up of all those who believe, not a particular sect.

There is another and more uniquely EO argument in that string of thought, however. The argument is that we should treat the saints not as individuals but as a collective. There's certainly some intuitive value in this approach. The major problem, of course, is that the "saints" wrote as individuals, not as a collective (leaving aside a small handful of allegedly ecumenical councils). Approaching those writings as a "collective" is a difficult task, to say the least. Indeed, individual inconsistencies within individual fathers can make fully understanding their thought difficult. So likewise, and much more so, it can be difficult to get a strong sense of the shared beliefs of a particular school of patristic thought (such as the Alexandrian, Antiochian, or Cappadocian schools). Trying to say "the fathers believed 'x'" without at least qualifying the statement by century and school seems rash, since there is so much variety of thought among them. In short, the proposal of trying to consider them as a collective is largely untenable.

Well, it is untenable if you hope to discriminate truth from error. The author, however, seems content not to separate truth from error. He quotes approvingly the following statement: "The Church is infallible, not because it expresses the truth correctly from the point of view of practical expediency, but because it contains the truth. The Church, truth, infallibility, these are synonymous."

The danger of the author's approach can be illustrated by an example. Suppose that one has a basket full of wheat and arsenic. It would be absurd to say that the bag was pure wheat simply because it contained wheat. Likewise it is absurd to say that a church which may contain both truth and damnable heresies is infallible. Does EO contain the truth? Well, they have Bibles and those Bibles teach the truth. But that doesn't address the objection.

The objection is about reform. Is reform impossible in EO? Is it impossible that the teachings of the EO are in error? If so, then it seems the objection holds, and if not - then it seems that the objection may be misplaced.

The author claims:

Regardless, the Orthodox Church never claims that She is “in every way and instance” infallible. However, there are truths of the Faith which are considered to be “trustworthy” and “without error,” and fully believed to lead one into salvation and proper devotion to Christ. It is only in these areas that the Church is to be considered infallible and that is appropriately expressed and found in various places within the life of the Church (such as Her liturgy, prayers, psalms, icons, canons, apostolic doctrines, ecumenical councils, etc.).

The “in every way and instance” seems to be a straw man. Not even Rome claims that kind of infallibility.

The author's final argument:

Finally, the idea of the Orthodox Church in its infallibility not being subject to the authority of the Scriptures is a strange objection, as according to Orthodoxy, the Scriptures are truly the authoritative Word of God.

I'm not sure why this seems odd to the author. Rome makes the same kind of claim. Both Rome and the EO churches say that Scripture is the authoritative Word of God, yet both view reform of official church teachings in light of the Word an impossibility. That's not "a very sincere reverence for the Scriptures" (as the author claims) but lip service.

The author also included, in his concluding paragraph, a reference to the creed:

Indeed, the meaning of the words “I believe in,” found within the Symbol of Faith (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) imply trust, and when we confess our faith/trust in the Church alongside our faith in the All-Holy Trinity (and strikingly, not in the Scriptures alone or separate from our faith in the Trinity and the Catholic Church), there should be no confusion left about how we are to view the Church.

Sadly, there is much confusion in this description of the creed.

First of all, it's worth noting that the clause including reference to the church is part of the additions made at the Council of Constantinople. It's not part of the core Nicene creed, but that's at least implicitly recognized by the name the author gives it.

Second, the creed as a "symbol of faith" is a summary of Scripture teachings, not some new teachings. As Augustine (circa A.D. 354-430) explained:

We have, however, the catholic faith in the Creed, known to the faithful and committed to memory, contained in a form of expression as concise as has been rendered admissible by the circumstances of the case; the purpose of which [compilation] was, that individuals who are but beginners and sucklings among those who have been born again in Christ, and who have not yet been strengthened by most diligent and spiritual handling and understanding of the divine Scriptures, should be furnished with a summary, expressed in few words, of those matters of necessary belief which were subsequently to be explained to them in many words, as they made progress and rose to [the height of] divine doctrine, on the assured and steadfast basis of humility and charity.

Augustine, Of Faith and the Creed, Chapter 1

Note that it is especially for novices, for those not yet familiar with Scripture.

Third, while the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed may be confusingly worded, the historic understanding was not that we believe "in the church" as the object of our trust, but rather that we believe in the existence of one church.

Rufinus (circa A.D. 344-410) explains with reference to the Apostles' creed:

36. “The Holy Church; The Forgiveness of Sin, the Resurrection of This Flesh.” It is not said, “In the holy Church,” nor “In the forgiveness of sins,” nor “In the resurrection of the flesh.” For if the preposition “in” had been added, it would have had the same force as in the preceding articles. But now in those clauses in which the faith concerning the Godhead is declared, we say “In God the Father,” and “In Jesus Christ His Son,” and “In the Holy Ghost,” but in the rest, where we speak not of the Godhead but of creatures and mysteries, the preposition “in ” is not added. We do not say “We believe in the holy Church,” but “We believe the holy Church,” not as God, but as the Church gathered together to God: and we believe that there is “forgiveness of sins;” we do not say “We believe in the forgiveness of sins;” and we believe that there will be a “Resurrection of the flesh;” we do not say “We believe in the resurrection of the flesh.” By this monosyllabic preposition, therefore, the Creator is distinguished from the creatures, and things divine are separated from things human.

Rufinus, A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, Section 36

The author also throws out another interesting claim:

Nowhere do we read in the Scriptures that the “Bible” (which didn’t exist until the 4th century and wasn’t readily available to Christians even up until the 17th or 18th centuries at the earliest) is the “pillar and foundation of truth” — only the Church.

What the author seems to be unaware of is that there have been various interpretations of the verse he identifies. For example, the earliest implicit interpretation (of which I'm aware) is this one from Irenaeus (circa A.D. 115-202):

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 1

Notice that Irenaeus considers the "ground and pillar of our faith" to be the Scriptures, not the church. In fact, he goes on to say that Gospels are ground and pillar of the church (not vice versa):

It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 11

Irenaeus provides one interpretation, but Gregory of Nyssa provides another, he says that Paul is speaking of Timothy personally (link). Gregory of Nazianzen seems to have a similar view in that he refers to his father (link) and Eusebius Bishop of Samosata (link) each as a "pillar and ground of the Church." And, of course, the apostles were viewed as pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.) so it should be no surprise that the writings of the apostles, together with the other Scriptures should be the foundation of the Church whose who object and purpose it is easy to support and defend the truth.

Thus, we in Augustine's response to Petilianus' question the same thing:

Petilianus said:

David also said, ‘The oil of the sinner shall not anoint my head.’ Who is it, therefore, that he calls a sinner? Is it I who suffer your violence, or you who persecute the innocent?

Augustine answered:

As representing the body of Christ, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth, dispersed throughout the world, on account of the gospel which was preached, according to the words of the apostle, "to every creature which is under heaven:" as representing the whole world, of which David, whose words you cannot understand, has said, "The world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved;" whereas you contend that it not only has been moved, but has been utterly destroyed: as representing this, I answer, I do not persecute the innocent.

Augustine, Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist, Chapter 104, Sections 236-37

Notice how Augustine views the Church as the pillar and mainstay of the truth, not in itself but by virtue of "the gospel which was preached."

Before commending himself to Christ at the intercession of the saints, the author provides one last jab:

Indeed, if the Church was in any way successful in infallibly preserving the true Faith of Christ, then that should be made evident, and the blood of the Martyrs and lives of the Saints who have gone before us and “finished the race set before them” are proof enough for this very fact.

To which I respond:
1) The Faith of Christ is passed down in Scriptures, which are able to make one wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:16);
2) Scriptures are able to furnish one for martyrdom and for every good work (2 Timothy 3:17); and
3) Martyrs are a powerful testimony, but do not forget that four hundred fifty priests of Baal were slain in one day by Elijah's command (1 Kings 18) who Jehu subsequently imitated (2 Kings 10). Dying for one's faith may show sincerity, but it does not prove particular doctrines to be correct. And do not forget, there have been no shortage of martyrs who have confessed the name of Jesus but have not been in communion either with Constantinople or Rome.

In Conclusion

Every church ought to recognize that it is a church, not the church. As such, it ought to be willing to modify its positions if it can be shown from Scripture that those teachings are wrong. Conversely, a church ought not to bind men's consciences with doctrines not taught in Scripture. Any church who seeks to be a pillar and ground of the church should have no problem with such requests, just as any teacher who wishes to be a pillar should obtain his own foundation in the Holy Scriptures.

-TurretinFan

Response to Challenge to Calvinists

Jamsco at The Responsible Puppet has a challenge for Calvinists: "Show me any passage in the bible [sic] that says that God allowed or permitted something to happen." (source)

Answer:

Two immediately come to mind.

Job 1: God permitted Satan to variously hurt Job in his possessions, servants, and children but without touching Job himself.

Job 2: God permitted Satan to hurt Job so long as Satan did not take Job's life.

-TurretinFan

Can We Say "God Bless You" To Roman Catholics?

The subject question is one that is posed by Mr. William Albrecht's latest video (link). The question is an interesting one. On the one hand, we certainly do wish and pray and act for the good of Roman Catholics. A substantial number of the posts on this blog of late have been directed toward Roman Catholics and Roman Catholicism with the aim of doing them good, and they are accompanied by prayers to the same end. Let there be no doubt about this.

Let there be no doubt, we are addressing the claims of Roman Catholicism primarily for the good of those who are in that religion or tempted to become a part of that religion. It is not for our benefit, and it is certainly not out of any hostility for the people who make up that religion.

And that is not just true of Roman Catholicism, but of Atheism, Islam, Mormonism, and all men of whatever creed or anti-creed they may have, with whom we engage. We do not challenge the claims of others out of any negative animus but out of love for them and concern for their souls.

On the other hand, we do not want to give them the impression that God is favorably inclined to them while they remain opposed to the gospel. Thus, while we proclaim the gospel of salvation through faith in Christ alone, we do not suggest that God presently is favorably inclined on those who oppose the gospel: He is not.

Recall the words of the prophet:

Jeremiah 6:14 They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.

This is why we do not normally say "God bless you" to an enemy of the faith, although we do wish God to bless them with the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith, because the expression is typically viewed as suggesting that we view them as already in God's favor where they are.

But yes, I do wish for God's blessing on you, Mr. William Albrecht, and I will (as you asked) pray for you: not that you will continue on in opposition to the gospel that Paul preached, but that you will be overwhelmed by the Scriptures and brought to faith in Christ alone for salvation.

-TurretinFan

GreenBaggins on Theonomy - A Response

Lane Keister at GreenBaggins has a post in which he argues that "Theonomy is Biblically-Theologically Wrong" (link). I can summarize it thus: "redemptive-historical theology removes the O.T. civil laws while natural law replaces them."

1) Limited Agreement on the Church-State Distinction

I agree that the church and state are not one and the same thing in the New Testament.

a) However, I should note that Mr. Keister (because of his Redemptive-Historical framework) has failed to notice that church and state were not one and the same thing in the Old Testament. A redemptive-historical approach is so focused on the earthly ministry of Christ that it tends to lose sight of the original context of Old Testament passages. While there are redemptive-historical themes and a significant amount of typology in Scripture, we must never permit these themes to prevent us from understanding the literal sense of Scripture.

b) Additionally, I should note that Mr. Keister has failed to notice that even in the New Testament the civil government (whether that be king, governor, or whatever) is considered a "minister of God" (just as in the Old Testament, see Exodus 24:13 and Romans 13:4). In fairness, Mr. Keister does mention Romans 13 (and even mentions that the magistrate is ordained by God), but argues that there is nothing in Romans 13 that cannot be argued on the basis of natural law, which brings us to the second point of limited agreement.

2) Limited Agreement on the Natural Law

I agree that God has provided information about himself through the created order and especially through the conscience, which we can refer to as "Natural Law" and that we must not go contrary to Natural Law any more than to any other divine revelation.

a) However, Mr. Keister overlooks that the Natural Law is necessarily universally applicable. That is to say, God's revelation of himself through Nature and Conscience was also applicable to Old Testament Israel.

b) Additionally, Mr. Keister overlooks that the Natural Law tends not to be propositional. Thus, for example, Natural Law can tell us that crime must be punished, but it may not be able to tell us whether theft should be a capital offense. This actually brings us to a point of disagreement with Mr. Keister.

3) Mr. Keister's Arguments Against Capital Punishment for Violation of Second-Table Commandments are Unsupported and Unsupportable Either from Scripture or Natural Law

Mr. Keister states:

However, it is not the civil magistrate’s job to execute a boy for cursing his parents (as was true in the Old Testament civil laws). It is the church’s job to instruct and to exercise church discipline.

There are two problems with this claim:

a) Mr. Keister is arguing for church discipline to handle the affairs of civil government. Although he doubtless does not intend to do so, Mr. Keister is violating the two-kingdoms principle that civil affairs are within the authority of the civil magistrate: attempting to take this away from the civil magistrate and give it to the church. However, the church is not charged with punishing crime: that is not within its sphere of authority.

b) The issue of insubordination of children to parents is an issue of civil law, as is recognized by the Old Testament and in the Natural Law. The Old Testament explicitly ordains the death penalty for cursers of parents and places it, contextually in this list:

i) Regulation of Slavery (Exodus 21:1-11);
ii) Capital Punishment for Premeditated Murder and Relief for Accidental Homicide (Exodus 21:12-14);
iii) Capital Punishment for Battery of Parents (Exodus 21:15);
iv) Capital Punishment for Kidnap (Exodus 21:16);
v) Capital Punishment for Cursing of Parents (Exodus 21:17);
vi) Restitution for Battery (Exodus 21:18-19);
vii) Application of (ii) and (vi) in the case of slaves (Exodus 21:20-21);
viii) Punishment for Battery of Pregnant Woman (Exodus 21:22-25);
ix) Further application of (vi) in the case of slaves (Exodus 21:26-27);
x) Punishment of Homicide by Chattels (Exodus 21:28-32);
xi) Punishment for Damage to Chattels by Pit-digging (Exodus 21:33-34); and
xii) Punishment for Damage of Chattels on Chattels (Exodus 21:35-46).

Within that context it should be fairly clear that cursing one's parents is part of the civil code of Israel, and it is the responsibility of the civil magistrate (the "judges" mentioned, for example, in Exodus 21:6) to address these issues. It is not a matter governed through the church (i.e. through the priests) and it is not a matter connected with the ceremonial law or with an issue unique to the nation of Israel (as, for example, the land of Canaan).

c) It is worth noting that, in this instance, Mr. Keister has gone beyond even many fairly radical non-theonomists in suggesting that a second table offense should not be governed by the civil government.

d) Mr. Keister does not provide any real argument from the Natural Law in support of his contention that the Natural Law does not suggest such a penalty. On the contrary, Natural Law teaches that men must obey their parents, that parents deserve a special dignity, and that the greater the dignity of the offended party the worse the punishment should be on the offender. In short, while someone might argue that the specific punishment of death for cursers of parents cannot be gleaned from the Natural Law (given the inspecific nature of Natural Law), nevertheless the Old Testament civil law provides an example well within the bounds of Natural Law and fully consistent with it and certainly Mr. Keister's opinion that death penalty is inappropriate cannot be supported by natural law, even if the natural law does not clearly require such a penalty.

4) Mr. Keister's Situation-Specific Dismissal Is Too Unspecific

Mr. Keister asserted: "Now, the theonomist will probably reply that the civil law of Old Testament Israel is of a piece with and is the outworking of the moral law given in the Ten Commandments. True, it is. But it is an outworking of the Ten Commandments for a particular place and people." (emphasis in original)

I certainly agree that it was for a particular place and people. That's a very true statement, and yet it does not follow that therefore the civil law of Israel would not be a good law for other places or peoples. There's nothing in the Bible or in the Natural Law to suggest that the hearts of post-Pentecost men are less hard than the hearts of the Jews from the time of Moses to the time of Pentecost (or till A.D. 70 or whenever it is alleged that the civil law of Israel ceased to have effect by those who reject what they refer to as "theonomy"). Furthermore, the Bible does tell us that the civil laws of Israel were given good laws:

Nehemiah 9:13 Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments:

In fact, they are set forth in Scripture as the paragon of all laws for governing nations:

Deuteronomy 4:8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

In principle, I agree that where the judgments are specific to Israel they are naturally not applicable to us - but judgments like those on honoring one's father and mother are not specific to Israel.

5) Mr. Keister Overstates His Point in Abandoning Old Testament Principles

Mr. Keister stated:

In other words, Jesus Christ is the apex of the trajectory of Old Testament Israel, and the church is in Christ. Therefore, it does not make sense to say that modern-day governments should run themselves according to principles that were given to Old Testament Israel as Old Testament Israel.

Surely, Mr. Keister is right that Jesus Christ is the focal point of the Bible. It does not follow, however, that the good laws given to Old Testament Israel are not based on principles that must be followed by any government that wishes to follow the law of God.

Mr. Keister has plainly overstated his point here, since Mr. Keister acknowledges the role of Natural Law. Nevertheless, since God cannot be inconsistent with Himself, and since the Natural Law is a Creation ordinance (at the latest, upon the Fall and the obtaining of the knowledge of good and evil), therefore the "principles" of the civil law of Israel must be the same principles found in the Natural Law (otherwise the civil law of Israel would not be good laws).

6) Mr. Keister's Redemptive-Historical Framework Causes Him to Conflate Categories

We see a conflation of categories in Mr. Keister's comment:

And yet the principles in the New Testament for church government say nothing of the sword. Instead, the weapons are spiritual, for we fight not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual enemies. Ephesians 6, by the way, is one reason why I believe the application of Old Testament Israel’s holy wars draws a straight line to spiritual warfare today in the church.

(emphasis in original, link omitted)

Mr. Keister is right in one way: the church (either of the Old or New Testament) was not entrusted with the sword. That's the duty of the civil magistrate - the king, governor, judges, etc. depending on the applicable form of government. On the other hand, in both the Old and New Testament the civil magistrate does bear the power of the sword (See Romans 13:4).

The roles and duties of the church and the state are different, just as the roles and duties of the parents and the state are different and the roles and duties of the parents and the church are different (although there are various overlaps at pints).

This leads me to the final point (prior to the conclusion).

7) Mr. Keister's Conflation Actually Undermines the Proper Two(or Five) Kingdoms Distinctives

Elsewhere I've discussed how there are not just two, but actually five, kingdoms (link). Each has its own proper sphere of authority, and the existence of one sphere of authority does not negate or invalidate the other spheres. Mr. Keister's emphasis on the duties of the church with respect to sin (i.e. church discipline) seem to suggest that because the church has some responsibilities with respect to sin "X" that therefore the civil government does not also, and in parallel, have responsibilities.

Specifically (so the argument seems to go), because the church is called on to excommunicate those who curse their parents, the civil government has no responsibility to put such villains to death. This flawed reasoning would seem to destroy the proper multiple kingdoms distinctives and cause the church to usurp the roles of the other spheres, especially the civil sphere.

Let me give some illustrative counter-examples.

Example 1: Man commits adultery, two witnesses observe this, and the offended wife brings the matter before the judges.

Reaction by State: It would be appropriate for the state to punish this man for his crime. I see no reason (notwithstanding the Pericope Adulterae) why that punishment must not be death.

Reaction by Church: Discipline, up to and perhaps including excommunication (upon following the appropriate protocols).

Reaction by the Adulterer's Father: Condemnation of his son's misdeed, and exhortation to repentance.

Reaction by the Adulterer's Spouse: In this case, the offense has destroyed this particular sphere of authority. Thus, the woman is not required to "submit" to the adultery, although she ought to seek to forgive this man who has sinned against her.

Reaction by the Adulterer's Employer: Condemnation of his employee's misdeed, and exhortation to repentance.

Example 2: Man (out of hate) kills someone who works for him, two witnesses observe, and the family of the deceased brings it before the judges.

Reaction by State: Death for the murderer.

Reaction by the Church: Discipline, up to and perhaps including excommunication (upon following the appropriate protocols).

Reaction by the Murderer's Father: Condemnation of his son's misdeed, and exhortation to Repentance.

Reaction by the Murderer's Spouse (if applicable): Exhortation to Repentance.

Reaction by the Murderer's Employees: Exhortation to repentance.

We could go on and on with other examples. The point of these examples would simply be to show that each sphere of authority generally can react to any given sin. That reaction may be different in one sphere of authority or another. Thus, the fact that the state is going to execute the death penalty for murder does not preclude the church from acting to discipline the man, perhaps even excommunicating him if the circumstances warrant. Likewise, a father need not remain silent when his son does something wrong, but can condemn him for his sin and exhort him to repentance.

In some spheres, the ability to exhort to repentance may be limited: for example, one may be able to exhort one's employer or husband to a godly life of repentance largely through example. Nevertheless, each violation of God's law should provoke the appropriate reaction from each of the sphere's of authority.

Conclusion

Accordingly, I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Keister's contention regarding theonomy (in general - as opposed to a specific flavor of theonomy) being Biblically and/or Theologically Wrong. I must, of course, qualify that disagreement. If theonomy causes one to lose sight of the preeminent role of Jesus in the Bible, then theonomy (in that instance) is wrong. If one is so focused on the duties of the civil magistrate that one commits the opposite error from that identified above, and places all the responsibility for reacting to sin in the hands of the state, then that species of theonomy is wrong.

But a true, Biblical theonomy embraces the multiple (two, five, or however many) kingdoms and the ministers of each of those kingdoms: the father has his duties, as does the parent, the spouse, the employer/employee, the elder/deacon/layman, and the king/subject. One does not trump the other, and one does not usurp or supplant the other. The King must be honored, so must the master, the father, the husband, and the elder. Each is to be honored and obeyed and each has certain responsibilities. God has given these spheres of authority, and each should be governed according to the word and law of God, as revealed both in Nature and Conscience but also in Scripture.

-TurretinFan

John of Damascus vs. An Allegedly Ecumenical Council

This is a video response (as usual, audio only) to a post by Matthew Bellisario (link). Although Bellisario starts off his post by saying "Once again we see that Turretin Fan is clueless when it come to Biblical exegesis," he fails to back it up, not identifying any exegetical errors or even providing any of his own exegesis, but simply quoting from a work attributed to John of Damascus.



In addition to what is in the video, let me add this:

According to Bellisario, John of Damascus wrote this:

I worship the image of Christ as the Incarnate God; that of Our Lady (thV qeotokou), the Mother of us all, as the Mother of God's Son; that of the saints as the friends of God. They have withstood sin unto blood, and followed Christ in shedding their blood for Him, who shed His blood for them.

(the Greek transliteration there is for the term "the Theotokos")

One question for Bellisario, since he quoted these words, does he accept them? Does Bellisario worship "the image of Christ" and the image of "Our Lady" and the images of "the saints"?

Notice that I said "worship" just as Bellisario has quoted John of Damascus. I'll even give Mr. Bellisario a bit of a break, since John of Damascus seems to suggest that he does not worship the image itself but the the thing the image represents. So, does Mr. Bellisario worship (in addition to Jesus) Mary and the martyrs? Because most Romanists won't actually admit this - they'll claim that they only worship God.

-TurretinFan

Hebrews 1:8 - A Proof of Jesus' Divinity

This is a response to a video (link) that seems to suggest that we cannot use Hebrews 1:8 to establish the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. I respectfully but firmly disagree, for the reasons I set forth in more detail in video (sorry, audio only, plus a slideshow in case you must watch something).



Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

Princes of this World?

An anonymous reader asked: In 1st Corinthians 2:7-8 who do you think are the "princes of this world"? and what is their goal? Thanks in advance.

I answer:

1 Corinthians 2:6-8
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

The princes of this world refers either specifically to the Jewish leaders or to both the Jewish and Roman leaders. Either way, the point is that those with power in this world did not, when Christ came, recognize who he was. Thus, the bigger point is that not only are the general masses of the world spiritually unwise, but so also are the elite of this world.

Their goals are not mentioned specifically in the passage. Generally, the princes of this world seek for themselves power, riches, and glory in this life. In contrast, in this life we receive persecution and sometimes death, but we seek good things in the life to come, because we seek the city of God.

-TurretinFan

Response to Jay Dyer's Audio Remarks

Mr. Dyer has provided an audio response (audio - corresponding page at Dyer's blog) to several of the comments I have provided to his critique of Calvinism. For the bigger context, including my thirteen-part series defending Calvinism from his accusations, see my index of interactions with Mr. Dyer (link).

I've broken up the response into three parts, since it is around 30 minutes long (compared to about 50 minutes for Mr. Dyer's audio response).

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


In the series I challenge a number of significant assertions by Mr. Dyer. To put it very briefly, I think Mr. Dyer's claims seem to hang on what he thinks are the logical consequences of Reformed doctrines, but it seems that Mr. Dyer has erred in understanding what the Reformed authors teach, at least some of the time.

-TurretinFan

Response to Nick Regarding Spiral Argument and Private Judgment

Nick has provided a response to my rebuttal of Karl Keating's "Spiral Argument" (link).

Nick wrote: "I think you should distinguish between private judgment and a circular argument. Each of those terms correspond to different issues."

That's true. They do often correspond to different issues. The come together, however, because the spiral argument employs private judgment.

Nick wrote: "Private judgment involves looking at some data and coming to a personal conclusion. You are right to point out that everyone must engage in private judgment."

Thanks.

Nick wrote: "A circular argument is when something that is trying to be proven true is in fact (re)stated as it's own evidence/witness."

That's more or less the case. It could be worded other ways.

Nick wrote: "Private judgment, at least to some degree, is necessary and alright. A circular argument, which is not the same thing, is neither necessary nor alright."

ok ...

Nick wrote: "The "spiral argument" is not circular, but does require private judgment."

I explained why it is circular in my original article. Unfortunately, your comment does not address the explanation found there.

Nick wrote: "Basing the Bible's inspiration on it's own testimony is circular and no different than what a Mormon does with the Book of Mormon."

a) The reason why the Bible says that it is inspired is so that we will believe it. Any other reason for why the Bible says it is borderline irrational. The reason that the Bible makes statements is so that they will be believed, as can be seen for example, from John's Gospel:

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

b) Believing that the Bible is inspired because the Bible says it, isn't employing a circular argument. It's not an argument at all. It's a proclamation. The Bible proclaims the truth, and it can be believed or not.

c) If one calls that a circular argument, though, then - as I pointed out in my post, it turns out that similar circularity exists within the spiral argument.

d) The comparison to the Mormons is irrelevant. We don't accept things based on whether Mormons reject them, and we don't reject things based on whether Mormons accept them. Getting into what Mormons actually believe to dispute this is a waste of time that I won't bother with, right now.

Nick: "When you said: "Rather than simply accepting the Bible as Inspired Word of God based on one private judgment, this "spiral" argument requires one to employ private judgment over and over and over again." This is a mixing of circular argument and private judgment."

No, it's not. It's a comment that focuses on the advantage of a "smaller circle" if a "circle" must be used and if "private judgment" is bad.

Nick: "Catholics are not deriving Church authority nor Scripture's inspiration from a circular argument, but we are engaging in private judgment."

I explained how circular reasoning is used in the original article.

Nick: "We are looking at the historical evidence and coming to a conclusion."

The Bible is itself the primary historical evidence relied upon. Why not just say, "We are looking at the Bible and coming to a conclusion"? I think it is partly because that is what "Protestants" are being faulted for.

Furthermore, the Bible (or equivalent evidence) as historical evidence doesn't lead one to the issue of infallibility/inspiration. What I mean to say is that the Bible as historical evidence can substantiate a claim that Jesus told the apostles to found churches. Even if we assume (for the sake of the argument) that the Bible disclosed Jesus founding a single, globally-scoped institutional church, that doesn't get us to infallibility/inspiration of that entity - and it cannot. The infallibility/inspiration is not, strictly speaking, a question of history.

Nick wrote: "We could be very wrong in our conclusion, either because the evidence is bad or we miscalculated, or both, but that is not at all the same as a circular argument."

No, the circularity comes in as I stated in my original article.

Nick wrote: "The real issue is who can present the stronger argument and that usually rests upon who's argument requires us to assume the least."

One real issue is whether the Bible requires an infallible interpreter in order to be reliably understood.

Another real issue is whether the Bible anywhere teaches that "the church" is infallible.

The truth of the matter is the real issue, not the "strength of the argument."

Nick: "An element of faith (private judgment) is certainly always present, but not all arguments are equal."

Yes.

Nick: "A Mormon accepting the Book of Mormon on 'burning in the bosom' is not as strong an argument as a Christian looking to historical evidence that the Scriptures were preserved (among other factors)."

There is some faulty parallelism here. The historical evidence of the Scripture's preservation tells us that we know what it said when it was written. It doesn't tell us whether the Scripture is inspired or not. Since the Book of Mormon was only recently written, that's essentially a non-issue. There's no historical way to investigate the golden plates claim to any earlier authorship date than Joseph Smith's own life.

But this "strength of the argument" issue is rather subjective. Some people find one argument strong (i.e. it persuades them better) and another weak - for others it is reversed.

Certainly, we could probably agree on certain defects that make arguments less persuasive in general. If reliance on private judgment is bad or if faith is bad, we can evaluate two arguments to see whether one of the two arguments uses "more" faith or "more" private judgment.

Nick: "Moving onto a specifically Catholic-Protestant issue, the canon of Scripture, each side must engage in private interpretation."

Each person must exercise private judgment. It's not necessarily a question of interpretation, as such.

Nick: "The 'deciding issue' is which side presents a more coherent case for why one canon is accepted over another."

The deciding issue should be "which side is right." The argument is the demonstration of that issue.

Nick: "Pointing to Fathers and Councils who share a particular canon is far more of an argument/evidence from which to based your private judgment on than claiming the various books give a inner conviction of their inspiration."

The argument on the canon is virtually never "I have an inner conviction." So, again, there is faulty parallelism being employed. I assume that you intend to address "Protestant" position from the context of your comment, but your comment doesn't actually address the arguments used by "Protestants" regarding the canon.

Additionally, there is conflation of categories here. The ultimate answer to the question, "How do you know that Isaiah is canonical?" for the Reformed believer is that the Holy Spirit persuades him. On the other hand, the ultimate answer to the same question from the perspective of someone within Catholicism would seem to be, because Trent said so. But if we then pressed that issue back further, we start running into the same problem (if it is a problem), that some things are accepted by faith.

Nick wrote: "Again, a Catholic could be totally wrong when it comes to interpreting evidence, but that does not make it circular."

That was never my argument in the original article.

-TurretinFan

No Escape from Circularity for Karl Keating

One common attack used by the apologists of Rome is to assert that a Protestant's ultimate authority is private judgment or, as they sometimes pejoratively label as being "protestant personalism" or a person being his own "mini-pope." Supposedly, this problem of private judgment is solved by referring to an infallible magisterium. In fact, however, the recourse to the infallible magisterium is just further application of private judgment.

This argument against private judgment can take various forms. One form of the argument is a syllogism in the form:

1. If God gave us a way to know the truth, that way would give us knowledge of the truth with reasonable certainty.

2. Private judgment doesn't provide reasonable certainty, because reasonable people differ in the application of private judgment.

3. Therefore, private judgment is not the way God gave us to know the truth.

There are several problems with this argument. The number one problem is that it employs the fallacy of skepticism. The way that it employs the fallacy of skepticism is in establishing the minor premise, i.e. private judgment doesn't provide reasonable certainty.

This is a logical fallacy for a couple of reasons. The most obvious reason is that private judgment is necessarily used to deny that private judgment provides reliable conclusions. If the conclusion is correct (i.e. that private judgment does not provide reliable conclusions) then the conclusion itself is not reliable since it obtained by private judgment.

Second, this is a logical fallacy in the sense of simply being a universal denial of knowability of information. That is to say, this argument lacks uniqueness. It is not particularly a criticism of the "Protestant" position. It is a modus tolens argument that can be applied mutatis mutandis to any epistemology.

Specifically, this same argument can be applied to the epistemology of Catholicism, because Catholicism too requires, at some link in the chain, one to use private judgment. This is illustrated in the attempt of certain of Rome's apologists to escape the apparent circularity of Rome's epistemology.

The apparent circularity is this:

1. The Bible is right because the Church says it is.
2. The Church is right because the Bible says it is.

There, the circularity is obvious. It is bigger than the circle of:

1. The Bible is right because the Bible says it is.

... but it is still a circle.

To try to escape this circle, some apologists for Catholicism use what they call a "spiral argument" that was apparently developed by Karl Keating, one of the more prominent apologists for Catholicism (although I cannot recall him debating anyone from the Reformed side of the Tiber river in a long time).

Here's one presentation of the argument:

A Spiral Argument
Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.

(link to source) (Notice how, unlike Mr. Patrick Madrid, we're not afraid to let the reader see the writings to which we're responding.)

Let's assess this argument. The core of the argument is:

1. [W]e argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.
2. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.
3. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.

We could reasonably expand this argument to the following:

1. The Bible is an historically reliable document.
2. The Bible records the founding of a church.
3. The Bible indicates that this church is infallible.
4. This infallible church is the church headed by the pope.
5. This infallible church teaches that the Bible is inspired.

It could probably be expanded even further, but this is enough for the purposes of illustrating the problems with this supposedly spiral argument.

Problem 1: Private Judgment Vastly Multiplied

Rather than simply accepting the Bible as Inspired Word of God based on one private judgment, this "spiral" argument requires one to employ private judgment over and over and over again.

First, one uses private judgment to answer the question of historical reliability.

Second, one uses private judgment to decide the meaning of Scripture as to whether a single, institutionally unitary church or many institutionally separate churches were founded.

Third, one uses private judgment to decide that this single church is taught as being infallible rather than as being fallible.

Fourth, one uses private judgment to identify this single church as the Roman Catholic church instead of, say, the Eastern Orthodox church or the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Fifth, one uses private judgment to decide that the Roman Catholic church teaches that the Bible is inspired, as opposed to teaching that the Bible simply contains God's word.

This is a vast multiplication of private judgment over, for example, simply accepting the Bible on historical grounds and then accepting that the Bible says that the Bible is inspired, or simply accepting the Bible's claim of inspiration as true in the first and only step of the process.

If private judgment is inherently bad, the "spiral argument" uses more of it.

Problem 2: Bootstrapping Error

The Spiral argument attempts to avoid the obvious "jump" from nothing to accepting the Bible's claim of inspiration by steps. But each (or at least several) of the steps are "jumps" in themselves.

There is a jump from nothing to accepting the historical method as providing reliable conclusions.

There is a jump from using the historical method to confirm the general reliability of the Bible, to accepting a particular historical account in the Bible.

There is a jump from accepting an account as historical to accepting the doctrine taught in the event as truth.

There is a jump from accepting the general idea that a church was founded to accepting that a particular church is that church.

If making jumps is bad, breaking up a big jump into several smaller jumps doesn't solve the problem, it just distributes it.

Problem 3: Inspiration Smuggled Back In

In fact, the "spiral argument" is circular, because inspiration is smuggled into step 3 of my expanded formulation of the argument, or step 2 of the original formulation of the argument. That is to say, the teaching of an "infallible church" is accepted allegedly because the Bible as a historically accurate document is accepted. But the claim of infallibility is a theological claim, not an historical claim, and it is accepted either because of the authority of the Bible or the person speaking in the Bible.

Problem 4: Church Infallibility Smuggled Back In

Furthermore, the "spiral argument" has a second circularity, in that the infallibility of the church is smuggled back into the argument twice. It is smuggled back once in telling people which church to accept as "the church," and again (more importantly) in interpreting Scripture as teaching an infallible church in the first place.

Specifically, the claim that the Scriptures disclose the founding of "an infallible church" requires loads of eisegesis - of reading into the text, rather than of obtaining teachings from the text.

Problem 5: Scripture Promotes Private Judgment

Worse (for Catholicism) than the issue simply being a matter of silence, Scripture actually encourages the use of private judgment. For example, the Scripture many times and in various ways encourages people to apply personal judgment to arrive at the truth. For example, the Bereans are commended for using private judgment and Scripture to judge Paul, and Paul tells Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make one "wise unto salvation." Furthermore, John tells us that his gospel was written so that we would believe it and have life through faith in Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.

Conclusion

So, next time a person tries to tell you that the difference between Protestant interpretation and Romanist interpretation is that the Protestant makes himself his own ultimate authority, be prepared to challenge that deceptive claim. Everyone uses private judgment. If private judgment is inherently untrustworthy, the Roman position is actually worse off than the "Protestant" position.

Furthermore, while it might be nice to hand over one's brain to the church, so that one doesn't have to think about the meaning of Scripture, that's just not how God ordained things. The fact that it would be convenient or handy doesn't make it so.

Instead, God provided fallible churches with fallible elders over them. These fallible teachers are to teach the Scriptures to their people, but the unchanging Scriptures serve as the rule and measure of the Christian faith, with the fallible churches serving as guides.

-TurretinFan

Follow-Up Response to Jay Dyer

Introduction

I have recently had the pleasure of going through an 11-point set of accusations against Calvinism by Mr. Jay Dyer. He has responded to several of the posts in my series and directed me to other posts that he has written that he thinks are relevant to the issues under discussion. The Jay Dyer Index provides a full set (at least I believe it is full) of the relevant posts in this interaction.

As one of the commenters on Mr. Dyer's blog indicated, Mr. Dyer is not your average Romanist. This is true on several levels, but the most relevant levels are those connected to having an Eastern Orthodox background and being a "Byzantine Rite Catholic" these days, as well as previously having been associated with a Reformed church. More than that, Mr. Dyer has clearly spent a lot of time reading and studying the issues, and cites not only to the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils (though he pretty much sticks to the first seven - perhaps a hangover from his EO days) but also the some of the church fathers (particularly those of the East - perhaps another artifact of his journey).

These things place Mr. Dyer in somewhat of a unique position, which both makes reading his material interesting, but also reduces the value in addressing his position. That is to say, because his views are so unique, they are interesting, but a response to them is pretty much just a response to Mr. Dyer. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if some of Mr. Dyer's accusations get repeated, especially by people who are simply looking for a cattle prod with which to zap Calvinists, even though they themselves do not understand Mr. Dyer's methodology or arguments. In this respect (the desire to label Calvinism a heresy) I think Mr. Dyer is more creative than others, but not completely unique.

So, perhaps a further response is justified. After carefully reviewing all of the material that I've identified at the Index post linked above, I think I may have identified a number of core issues that are at the heart of Mr. Dyer's criticisms of Calvinism. I will try, in this post, to identify those issues and provide a suitable response. Mr. Dyer's postings have been voluminous, and I apologize in advance that I will not be providing specific citations to his comments in support of the items I identify. I do invite Mr. Dyer to provide a response (at his own blog) to this, in the event that he feels I have mischaracterized his position.

1. Luther Was Not a Calvinist/Systematic Theologian

Mr. Dyer in several places makes reference to Luther, as though Luther were a Calvinist and/or a Systematic Theologian. Neither of these is correct. Although Luther had many powerful insights, and though Luther did a lot to aid the awakening of Europe to the truth of the Scriptures, Luther was neither fully Calvinistic nor systematic.

2. Question in Responses to Accusations is Calvinism not Romanism

Mr. Dyer seemed to have the impression that my responses were directed to showing distinctives of Calvinism in contrast to Romanism. Although each of the responses had an "accusation redirected" section, those sections were the only ones dealing specifically with Romanism. Just because Rome presents a false gospel doesn't mean that every aspect of Roman theology is necessarily wrong. There are certainly points of at least apparent formal agreement between Calvinism and Romanism, where Romanism embraces the truth. Thus, when (in my responses) I state the Calvinist position, this may or may not be accepted by Rome. That's not the point: the point is that Calvinism's position is the Scriptural position. If others agree, great.

3. Monergism Means God Alone Saves

A few times Mr. Dyer seemed to rely on a sort of play on words to suggest that monergism, the doctrine that God alone saves, is equivalent to monothelitism, the idea that Jesus had only one will. There's no logical connection, however, just a verbal similarity. Mr. Dyer nowhere (that I could find) presents any good reason for making this jump, and this sort of analysis via play on words is not a valid criticism.

4. Paul Says It - We Believe It

In a couple of instances, Mr. Dyer seemed to take issue with the fact that I quoted Paul. For example, Paul says

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:

and

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Mr. Dyer seems to treat my quotation of these passages as implying what he perceives to be a Manichean view of God. If so, however, Mr. Dyer's issue is not really with me, but with Paul.

In fairness, I should point out that Mr. Dyer does elsewhere rely on things that Paul says, so Mr. Dyer is just being obtuse or inconsistent here. What Mr. Dyer doesn't do, however, is get beyond a reaction to expressions like "sinful flesh" and "by nature the children of wrath" to explain what he believes Paul means, and how he think that what Paul is saying differs from what Calvinists believe. In other words, the combination of exegesis and application isn't there on these texts.

5. Atonement Issues

Mr. Dyer seems to have a number of issues relating to the atonement. In Mr. Dyer's criticisms of the Calvinist position, the issues connected to the atoning work of Christ on the cross arise repeatedly. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether Mr. Dyer himself has a clear understanding both of the necessity and manner of Christ's atoning work. For Mr. Dyer, the emphasis seems to be (as with remaining writings of a few of the Early Church Fathers) more on the incarnation itself than on the atonement. There does not seem to be a "sacrifice for sin" concept present in his explanations regarding the saving work of Christ. This is an unfortunate gap in Mr. Dyer's theology, and may be one of the sources of his objections, though it is not made explicit in his critiques.

5a. In the Atonement, the Trinity Had One Purpose

Mr. Dyer repeatedly makes the claim that (in effect) if Jesus suffered the wrath of God on the cross for the sins of the elect, this implies that Jesus' divine will was somehow separate from the Father's divine will. There is, however, no logical link. Christ suffered the cross and the wrath of God voluntarily. Not only was there no disunion in the divine will over this, the Son and the Father were of one purpose, will, and intention in the cross. Christ's human will was made subservient and obedient to the divine will, which is one reason we can refer to the death of Christ as the "passive obedience" of Christ (though that label is not the most useful).

In short, there is no merit to the claim that the Calvinist view of the atonement implies a severance of the divine will. Mr. Dyer appears simply to assert this, and does not provide a supporting argument or explanation to back it up (although he makes a vague reference to "legal imputation"). There's no logical reason why Jesus would have to have a different will in order to experience the wrath of God on the cross on our (the elect's) behalf, nor for legal imputation to take place. Quite to the contrary, it is the unity of the divine will that is important to show that Jesus' death for our sins was not unjust, since he voluntarily offered himself on our behalf.

5b. Invalid Appeal to Perichoresis - Confusion of Persons

Mr. Dyer further objects to the Calvinistic doctrine of the atonement based on reference to perichoresis: the eternal mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity. It seems as though rather than properly affirming the relationship of the persons of the trinity, in trying to criticize Calvinism Mr. Dyer is flirting with Sabellianism, as though there were no distinction between the persons (though, of course, Mr. Dyer is not a modalist).

Mr. Dyer appears to believe that the Calvinistic view of the atonement necessarily involves a termination of perichoresis, but he provides no real argument in support of this contention. Mr. Dyer frequently refers to the expression "cut off" but the Calvinistic position is not that the Son was removed from the Trinity, but that he was crucified, died, and was buried - and continued under the power of death for a time.

6. Relation of Human Nature to Salvation

Another central problem that seems to crop up is the relation of human nature to salvation. Mr. Dyer seems to have a confused idea (or at least his comments are confused or confusing) about the way in which human nature relates to salvation. It is people (individual people) that are saved, not "human nature" as such. Salvation is about turning away the judgment of God from individual people, which people are consequently referred to as "saved."

There is an important relation of human nature to salvation, and this was highlighted in Anselm's Cur Deus Homo. The basic issue is that it was necessary that a human being be punished for sin. The blood of bulls and goats was insufficient. Furthermore, that human being had to be undeserving of the punishment himself. Finally, the human being had to be of such great personal dignity as to, by his death, satisfy justice for all those whom God wished to save. Thus, Jesus took on human nature: that is to say, he became a man, even while still being God. Thus, he was and is, God and man, in two distinct natures and one person, as he will be forever.

6a. By Nature, Children of Wrath

The fall brought about a change in mankind, such that all men under Adam's headship are, by nature, depraved in their spiritual faculties, so that they love darkness rather than light. They are, as Paul describes it, by nature children of wrath. This is the natural state of man, after the fall. One thing that saving grace does is, in regeneration, that it begins to restore the spiritual faculties of man. Man begins to love God rather than hating him. This is a restoration of man's nature. The restoration begins in and continues in sanctification. In glorification (upon death or translation), the restoration is complete, and (one might say) gloried man is better off than Adam was before the fall, since the glorified man will not sin.

It is unclear from Mr. Dyer's remarks whether he simply does not understand these Scriptural doctrines, or whether he objects to them. For example, Mr. Dyer alleges that Calvinism teaches that "nature" is inherently evil. This is misleading at best. Fallen human nature is depraved, but not human nature in the abstract.

Mr. Dyer seems to treat human nature as though it were a thing. Such that (in his view) when we say that in the fall human nature became depraved, we are referring to this "thing" of human nature being corrupted, as opposed to the manifestation of the concept being corrupted (as is the actual position). If we meant what Mr. Dyer said, the idea of human nature being restored wouldn't make much sense - the concept of the restoration of human nature, in an individual, only makes sense from the standpoint of a concept of human nature with individual corrupt manifestations, rather than from the standpoint of a "thing" that stands alone.

6b. Christ's Human Nature Not Corrupted

There are a number of odd things that Mr. Dyer suggests regarding Christ's human nature. For example, Dyer asserts that Christ assumed "universal human nature." While this is not necessarily wrong, Mr. Dyer emphasizes "universal" to the point of apparently suggesting that the manifestation of human nature in individual people cannot suffer the effects of the fall in terms of depravity, or that if it does, then Jesus two must necessarily similarly be depraved to be truly human.

This is nonsensical for two reasons. First, Mr. Dyer himself realizes that Jesus did not have original sin (which all men after the fall have at birth, save Christ alone) or concupiscence (proclivity to sin). This is one way in which Jesus is just like the rest of humanity, but without experiencing the spiritual effects of the fall.

A second reason that this is nonsensical is Mr. Dyer's recognition that grace alters nature. That is to say, Mr. Dyer appears to recognize that God's grace can transform the nature of a man. Mr. Dyer even refers to deification/divinization which - at least to a degree - relates to this concept. If, however, any improvement in nature rendered the person outside of humanity, then we would cease to be human if we experienced grace. This, however, is an absurd outcome.

Consequently Mr. Dyer's allegation is demonstrably false. Jesus can take on human nature in a pure form, without the depravity introduced in Adam's heirs by the fall, while still being as truly human as Adam was before the fall.

6c. Jesus Was Raised For of Our Justification

Mr. Dyer seems to suggest that Jesus' nature inherently needed to die and be "raised/deified." This is a very strange claim. Jesus' death was for our sins. Jesus did not die because it was intrinsic to his human nature, but because the wages of sin are death. Jesus was raised by the Father because our righteousness had been accomplished and the Father was satisfied with the work of Christ.

Jesus' humanity was not itself deserving of death. He took our sins upon himself. Thus, from his birth he suffered (though he did not deserve to suffer), he was humbled (though he deserved to be exalted), and he was eventually cruelly killed (though he deserved life). These things he did to satisfy God's justice and liberate us from the deserved judgment for our sins.

7. Confusion of Nature and Person

One accusation that Mr. Dyer makes is that Calvinism confuses nature and person. Actually, though, it appears that the shoe is on the other foot. Mr. Dyer himself seems to confuse person and nature, or at least to confuse the relation of nature to person.

In particular, Mr. Dyer doesn't seem to appreciate that certain things that Christ did, he did "as man" or "with respect to his humanity." This is simply a necessary consequence of the fact that humanity can do some things that divinity cannot. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. In contrast, man is body and soul, he is finite, he had a beginning, and he can change.

This is actually an important issue, particular with respect to responding to the errors of Islam. Muslims seem to make a similar in respect to the Incarnation. They will make comments to the effect that when Jesus relieved himself, are we claiming that God was sitting on the toilet?

The answer to be given to these sorts of objections, as well as to Mr. Dyer's objections, is that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. Nevertheless, Jesus was omniscient and eternal in his divinity, not in his humanity. Jesus' humanity had a beginning and Jesus' humanity changed. Jesus was born as a baby, and he grew in stature over time. God (as divine) was never a baby and never grows. Jesus, as man, was hungry and thirsty. As God, Jesus did not need anything.

Many more examples could be given. The point, however, is that although Jesus had two natures, not everything about each nature is communicable to the other nature. Thus, Jesus was conceived in his humanity, not in (or as to) his divinity. Jesus is eternally divine. Before Abraham was, Jesus was the I AM. Jesus created the world and all that is in it. But Jesus condescended to take on human nature: he became a man.

The fact that there are incommunicable aspects of Jesus' humanity does not convert Jesus' human nature into a separate person. Mr. Dyer, however, seems to think that it would - and seems to assert that it would, without providing any supporting reasoning or argumentation to demonstrate it.

Conclusion

I hope that this post answers all (or virtually all) of the points that Mr. Dyer has raised in response to my series. I trust that I have fairly characterized his criticisms, but welcome his comments (via his own blog) if I have mischaracterized them. Calvinism doesn't fall into (or logically lead to) any errors with respect to the Trinitarian relationship or the person of Jesus Christ. The reason that it does not is that it is a system of theology properly derived from Scripture, and Scripture is an infallible rule of faith (the only one we have today).

-TurretinFan

Response to Jay Dyer on Calvinism (Part 13 of 13)

This is part 13 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link).

Throughout the series, we have seen the Calvinist position explained with respect to each of the eleven accusations leveled against Calvinism, we have seen the accusation refuted in most cases (the exception being labeling us, like Moses and Gideon, as iconoclasts), and we have seen that generally the accusations lead to greater headaches for those within Catholicism.

It should be clear that the headaches for Catholicism are not strictly speaking either an inversion of the accusation (just because, for example, there was a Monothelite pope doesn't make modern Catholicism consist of Monothelitism) nor are they themselves a rebuttal of the accusations (just because Catholicism has some ideas that are similar to those of the Gnostics doesn't - as a matter of logic - tell us whether Calvinists similarly err).

I hope that I have steered clear of making the same indefensibly inflammatory comments that I have been correcting with this series. That is to say, I hope I have not only demonstrated that Mr. Dyer's comments were inflammatory and indefensible, but I hope that in the process of redirecting those accusations, I have limited myself to legitimate critiques of Catholicism, Mr. Dyer's present affiliation.

For me the bottom line is that the Doctrines of Grace, a soteriology of monergism, as summarized against the Remonstrant errors with the acronym TULIP (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints), is what the Bible teaches about salvation. It leads to the position of "compatibilism" namely that God is sovereign in ordaining everything that comes to pass even while man is responsible for what he does. Calvinism is not and does not lead to heresies, precisely because it has been properly derived from Scripture.

After all, that is the one way in which we may avoid error: careful, prayerful consideration and examination of the Bible. Careful consideration of the Bible can include asking our fellow believers for their thoughts and going to commentators (including folks like John Calvin, John Owen, and Francis Turretin) that are steeped in the Word of God. Those writings of our fellow men, however, must always be placed beneath Scripture, since they are fallible, but the Word of the LORD is infallible.

Thus, in conclusion, Calvinism is orthodox because Calvinism is Scriptural. The measuring stick of Scripture is the umpire that shows whether John Calvin or Benedict XVI is the false teacher on any given doctrine.

As Gregory of Nyssa (circa A.D. 335–395) said: "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." It is my hope that the preceding series of responses have demonstrated to you, the reader, that the vote of truth with respect to each of the issues presented is to be given to the dogmas of Calvinism because of their agreement with, and derivation from, the Holy Scriptures.

-TurretinFan

Sur-Response Regarding Paul the Apostle

The anonymous critic of Paul has provided a new attack on the apostle. The new attack is this:

so why does he say it doesn't matter to him what Peter James and John are? and why does he false accuse Peter of compelling Gentiles to live as Jews when Peter did not such thing but only accommodated the weaker brothers who came from James by not eating meat that would offend them, in good keeping with Paul's own doctrine? is the Paul of Galatians ignorant of Paul's own doctrine from Romans 14?

1) "so why does he say it doesn't matter to him what Peter James and John are?"

He doesn't say precisely that. Instead, he indicates that his commission is a divine one, not an apostolic one. Paul is not under Peter or James or John as a head (either any one of them or all of them together), but is instead an apostle of Jesus Christ by virtue of a special commission from God.

2) "and why does he false accuse Peter of compelling Gentiles to live as Jews when Peter did not such thing but only accommodated the weaker brothers who came from James by not eating meat that would offend them, in good keeping with Paul's own doctrine?"

The idea that Peter was not guilty of what Paul accused him is simply without any evidence. There is no reason to deny that Paul's accusation was true. Indeed, the formulation of this particular challenge is especially odd, since (as the objector notes) it would require Paul not only to challenge Peter (and indirectly, James) but also for Paul to contradict his own expressed views. This objection cannot stand.

3) "is the Paul of Galatians ignorant of Paul's own doctrine from Romans 14?"

No. Indeed, Paul is consistent in Galatians and Romans. The only supposed inconsistency is introduced by the critic who supposes both that Peter wasn't guilty as charged, and that Paul somehow forgot what he wrote in one epistle or the other. No, the same Paul was inspired to write both epistles.

-TurretinFan

Paul's Conversion Chronology

One reader of this blog has recently provided some comments asking why it is that I believe Paul to be an apostle, and questioning the accounts of Paul's conversion as being inconsistent. Let me first address Paul's status as an apostle, and why I accept that. Afterward, I will provide a harmony of the Biblical accounts of Paul's conversion.

Why do I believe that Paul is an apostle? The short answer is that it is because I believe the Bible and the Bible declares Paul to be an apostle. For example, Paul is called an apostle in each of the following verses:

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:

Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Colossians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,

1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

2 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

One might object that these are all from Paul's epistles. Of course, Paul's epistles are part of the Bible. Nevertheless, if one wanted additional demonstration, the Acts of the Apostles refers to Paul as an apostle:

Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,

Furthermore, while Peter does not explicitly call Paul an apostle in his general epistle, Peter does refer to Paul's writings as Scripture:

2 Peter 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Turning from the issue of why I believe that Paul was an apostle, let's consider the accounts of his conversion. There are four accounts of Paul's conversion, three in the book of Acts (Chapters 9, 22, and 26), and one in Paul's epistle to the Galatians (Chapter 1-2). It is important to recognize that none of the conversion accounts are designed to provide a comprehensive chronological biography of Paul. Thus, each account includes details not found in the other accounts.

Accordingly, it is sometimes challenging to try to convert the Scriptural evidence into a chronological list to show the relation among the passages. Nevertheless, I have provided a preliminary chronology below. This is not a comprehensive chronology, although I think it does show one way in which the details of the accounts can be chronologically arranged. In particular, I should note that I have identified two visits to Jerusalem. None of the accounts specifically identifies (that I noticed) that there were two visits two Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the combination of the accounts seems (to me, and so far) to suggest that there was a first brief visit to Jerusalem that was terminated by God giving Paul a vision, and a second visit to Jerusalem later.

Without further ado, here is the chronology:

1. Paul Persecuting Church

Acts. 9:1-2
Galatians 1:13-14
Acts 22:4-5
Acts 26:10-11

2. Paul’s Conversion and Beginning Time at Damascus

Acts 9:3-25
Galatians 1:15-16
Acts 22:6-16
Acts 26:12-18, 20

3. Paul’s Trip to Arabia and back to Damascus

Galatians 1:17

4. Paul’s Departure from Damascus

Acts 9:22-25

Galatians 1:18

5. Paul’s First Visit to Jerusalem

Galatians 1:18-19
Acts 22:17-21
Acts 26:21

6. Paul’s Trip to Syria and Cilicia

Galatians 1:21-24
Acts 26:20

7. Paul’s Second Trip to Jerusalem

Galatians 2:1-3

Acts 9:26-29

8. Paul’s Trip to Caesarea and Tarsus

Acts 9:30

That is not the end of Paul's life or of his missionary journeys. It is, however, the end of this particular harmonious recounting of the conversion and subsequent travels of Paul.

-TurretinFan

Response to Nick on Christmas Observance

In response to my previous post (link), Nick has provided some comments:

There are many "home based" non-denominational churches that apply your logic and in effect take away any common day of worship for Christians. The "Lord's Day" on Sunday is no more binding than say Saturday or Tuesday worship. On top of that, any form of weekly worship is technically not binding, so someone could argue for one day a month.

This logic played a big role in the secular world for stripping Sunday of an religious significance as well as Major Holidays.

Places like Acts 15:28-29 show the Church has the power to dictate practices Christians are bound to (even if those acts are not intrinsically sinful). So based on Scripture, the Church can bind the Christian conscience.

I answer:
a) It's not "my logic," it's a question of what Paul says. If Paul (in inspired Scripture) says that we don't have to observe holy days, then we do not.

b) Even if people start from that Scriptural principle, and try to undermine the Lord's Day, that doesn't make the Scriptural principle invalid. People have been misusing Scripture for thousands of years, but Scripture remains true.

c) Part of the problem for those who try to apply this text (not this logic) to try to avoid keeping the Lord's Day holy, is that in doing so they must place Scripture against Scripture. Not so, of course, for arguing that we have Christian liberty not to celebrate the birth of Christ.

d) It is rather absurd to argue that it is an exegesis of Paul's epistle to the Romans that has "played a big role in the secular world for stripping Sunday of an religious significance as well as Major Holidays." Actually, the stripping of Sunday of religious significance in the "secular world" has been mostly accomplished through arguments for the total separation of church and state. It has also been accomplished through an abandonment of Scripture in favor of hedonism. If there has been abuse of Paul's epistle to the Romans, it is a contributing factor only at the lowest level. Mostly, the Lord's Day has been appropriated by men because they are unwilling to acknowledge the creation ordinance of one day of rest in seven, wishing to have all seven days for themselves.

e) Towards the end of the comment, we have something close to an argument (much closer than we saw in Bellisario's post (critiqued here)):

Places like Acts 15:28-29 show the Church has the power to dictate practices Christians are bound to (even if those acts are not intrinsically sinful). So based on Scripture, the Church can bind the Christian conscience.

Let's examine what those verses actually say:

Acts 15:28-29
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 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.

i) These verses certainly don't say that the church has the power to dictate practices Christians are bound to. I think Nick has recognized that they do not, which is why he said they "show" rather than "say."

ii) These verses do not provide an example of Christ's being bound to engage in any practice. In fact, these verses provide a prohibition. What is interesting, though, is that these verses say that this is the outer limit of the burden to be placed on Christians: "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things."

iii) The things with which Christians are burdened in Acts 15:28-29 are "necessary things." Although Nick thinks that these things are not intrinsically sinful, that's not quite what the verse says. Paul elsewhere provides other instructions that help to inform these commands:

1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

1 Corinthians 10:23-31
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. 24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth. 25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. 28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: 29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? 30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

In view of those passages, we can understand the prohibition provided. While eating certain foods is not sinful, appearing to participate in paganism is sinful because it leads the pagans astray.

iv) Those giving the command in Acts 15 are not simply the church, but the apostles. To assume that because the apostles did something, therefore the church can do something is to make an unwarranted assumption. The unique authority of the apostles was testified by sign gifts, such as the ability to raise the dead. The church (if we are to equate the apostles and the church) no longer raises people from the dead, no longer cures people by having a shadow pass over them, and so forth. Those extraordinary gifts have ceased, and the apostles have gone to be with the Lord.

v) Furthermore, the command in Acts 15 has the authority not only of the church, but more importantly, of the Holy Spirit. It is explicitly stated that it "seemed good to the Holy Ghost." This command was provided during the time of inscripturation, while all the things necessary to salvation were still in the process of being written down. These apostles had the prophetic gift. In this case, they were appealing not to their own authority as church leaders, but to the Holy Ghost's authority. Even the so-called Roman Catholic Church has acknowledged that public revelation has ceased. When Trent spoke, it did not claim to have new revelation from the Holy Ghost.

vi) Perhaps, most importantly, the command in Acts 15 is properly viewed as a release! As hard as it may seem to modern observers, Christians did not immediately recognize that the ceremonial law of the Old Testament had been fulfilled in Christ. Recall that even after Acts 15 and even after Simon Peter had received a vision from God and seen the conversion of Cornelius, he didn't fully appreciate that the dietary laws of the Old Testament had generally been done away in Christ.

Acts 15:28-29, which merely prevents us from appearing to join in with pagan worship, is actually a release: it is actually a proclamation of liberty, with only a small reservation of "necessary" restrictions.

vii) Furthermore, even if all of the above were wrong, the restrictions identified in Acts 15 do not relate to the observation of holy days. Even supposing the church can bind the conscience, the church cannot contradict Holy Scripture, and Holy Scripture gives Christians freedom with respect to the observation of holy days, either to observe them to God, or to omit observation of them to God.

So, in view of these things, we can reasonably reject Nick's conclusion that Acts 15 provides warrant for "the Church" to bind the consciences of people in respect to holy days.

-TurretinFan