Prayers to Saints a Pot-Kettle Scenario

Recently (by the time this has been posted, "recently" will be about three months) Dave Armstrong wrote: "And (very unlike [Dr. White]) I will actually reply to and refute his objections whenever they are offered."

I respond: Actually, Dave, no you don't. To take one recent example, you failed to reply to or refute Dr. White's argument that the keys were given to all the apostles in Matthew 18:18. You did block quote Dr. White's argument, but you never addressed the substance of it. (anyone can see for themselves here)

On top of that, Dr. White could easily point out that unlike you, he has actually refuted the strongest objections presented by the other side.

Furthermore, aside from snide remarks like "fallacy-land" and "like a spouse snoring or a child who lisps or whines," you don't address the argument presented.

You don't establish what you know you need to establish, namely that "asking a dead saint to pray is just as reasonable and biblical as asking a friend on this earth to pray."

Communication with the dead is contrary to common sense (the dead have lost the use of their physical senses, because they have been disembodied) and is a species of necromancy, specifically prohibited in the Old Testament.

The excuse that those in Christ who are dead are alive spiritually is a red herring. Those who are alive but in rebellion against God are dead spiritually - yet there is nothing wrong with communicating with them. The prohibition on consulting with dead is the prohibition on consulting with the spirits of the deceased. The witch of Endor was a bad person, and what she did was wrong. She knew it was wrong, and Saul knew it was wrong. She was afraid to do what Saul asked, because Saul himself had carried out God's just judgment on witches throughout the land.

Dave presents a 7 part argument, of which 7 is the conclusion, 1-2 and 6 are generally acceptable.

The question then revolves around 3, 4, and 5.

Number 3 is based on faulty logic. Just because the prayer of a righteous man avails much, does not mean that prayers are more powerful the more righteous the person praying is. But this is not central to the argument. We can set it aside, even accept that it is true, and it doesn't matter, because ...

Number 4 "Dead saints are 'more alive' than we are," is not only false, but obviously false. They are not "more alive," they are only alive spiritually, whereas we who have received the gift of regeneration are alive both spiritually and physically. No, Dave, we are "more alive" than those who are dead. The problem is this argument is a throw-away. Dave can admit that number 4 is wrong, and still maintain the argument, because the saints are spiritually alive.

Turning to number 5, Number 5 is independently wrong as well. Armstrong wrote: "Dead saints are aware of what happens on the earth (Heb 12:1 etc.), and indeed, are portrayed as praying for us in heaven (Rev 6:9-10)."

The problem, of course, is that Hebrews 12:1 does not say or suggest that dead saints are aware of what happens on earth. On the contrary, Hebrews 12:1 says that we are aware of the lives of dead saints - of their faith while they were here on earth, as set forth in the previous chapter. The "great cloud of witnesses" testify to us, not about us, and Dave's failure to recognize this simply truth is reflection of the detail of his exegesis (none).

Revelation 6:9-10 likewise fails to say what Dave claims, rather it states:

9And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

These dead saints are neither praying for us, nor even about us, but are rather shouting for justice upon the wicked, i.e. for judgment day!

Thus, we can see that Armstrong's claims that Dr. White does not interact with him sufficiently are the pot calling the kettle black: Mr. Armstrong himself not only fails meaningfully to interact with Dr. White's response, Mr. Armstrong misrepresents Scripture and demonstrates the positional weakness of the Roman Catholic position on prayers to the departed.

-Turretinfan

Further Roundup of Kurschner Responses

The present author recently responded to Alan Kurschner's "8 Reasons." (link to the present author's rebuttal and the original article) Assuming, however, that there might be other responses, the present author went looking and found:

One other commenter suggests that Kurschner is unfairly lumping majority text advocates in with KJVO "kooks" (the commenter's word, not mine), and provides detailed responses to each of Kurschner's arguments in a thread format with other commentators interspersed. (link) It's really worth clicking through and reading the detailed response, even if one does not end up agreeing with the author.

I think that Kurschner is actually attempting to respond to KJVO-ism, and is less interested in the remainder of the majority text advocates. Perhaps, in the process, Kurschner fails to recognize the difference between the two, as well as the weakness of the arguments as applied to anything beyond KJV-only-ism.

Other than that, this author hasn't seen too much of a further response to Kurschner's article, though perhaps something is being overlooked. If any reader has links to other treatments of the article, those links would be most welcome.

First Rebuttal in Monergism Debate

The soteriology (monergism vs. synergism) debate (link) is progressing. Matt has now provided his introduction (link), and I am providing a rebuttal to it.

The reader may recall that the present author had previously summarized Monergism as:

"God's grace ensures the salvation of those upon whom God chooses to bestow grace."

Matt has countered by defining Monergism as:

"God has made salvation guaranteed for those he has chosen, having already determined who will perish."

Matt's modification contains a subtle shift that was perhaps not intended, and so the present author would like to address a potential misconception. Monergism teaches that salvation is all the work of God. Monergism does not teach the reverse, that perdition is also all the work of God. Instead, Monergism asserts that perdition is the work of man. Monergism denies "works salvation" but teaches "works perdition." Those who perish do so by their own "merit." (Adam earned death for himself and his children, but Christ earned life for his brethren.)

Specifically, mankind earns perdition by sinning, for as Scripture teaches:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Monergism adopts the asymmetry of Romans 6:23, teaching that perdition is merited, and eternal life is given gratuitously to those upon whom God chooses to bestow favor.

The effect, of course, is that those whom God passes over for eternal life receive what they deserve. Consequently, the point that God's decree determines (albeit negatively) who will perish is not entirely wrong - we certainly would not say that the destiny of the reprobate is uncertain. Nevertheless, the way of expressing that fact as "having already determined who will perish," would seem to be slightly off the mark. Furthermore, some monergists (sublapsarians) would explicitly hold that God first decreed to permit all men to fall, and then decreed to save some. Perhaps, however, that level of detail may be rendered superfluous by consideration of the three questions asked.

To set the stage for the three questions, Matt posed the following hypothetical scenario:

Two boys each have an inflatable raft and a group of kittens which they place into their respective rafts, which are in turn placed into a river. The first boy ties a string to some of the kittens. The second boy uses a plank to create a bridge between the raft and the shore. Both sets of kittens poke holes in their rafts, causing them to begin sinking.

The first question follows.

1.) Assuming there is a very good reason for kittens to be in a raft, is either boy justified in putting more kittens on his sinking raft?

This question is a bit puzzling, because it is unclear whether the "very good reason" extends to rafts in general or to a sinking raft in particular. If the latter, then it seems that the question answers itself: if there is a very good reason, that very good reason would seem to be the justification. If the former, then the answer would seem to be: "it depends." Specifically, it depends on whether this "very good reason" is negated in any way by the fact that these particular rafts are sinking.

For example, if the kittens are being placed into the raft because they love floating about the pond, then the fact that the rafts are sinking would negate that reason. If, on the other hand, the kittens are being placed into the raft because there is a fox on shore that will eat them immediately otherwise, well then perhaps there is still justification - as they will live a little longer in a sinking raft than on the land.

Perhaps this question could be clarified.

The present author supposes that the question may be aimed at the general idea of putting someone into harm's way. Normally (in the absence of justification) we are not permitted to do that to other people. Hopefully this answers the question, but Matt should feel free to clarify in his first rebuttal.

The second question was:

2.) The first boy rescues kittens by pulling on their string and dragging them to shore. The second boy rescues kittens by laying treats along the plank, by coaxing them, and by throwing down additional planks for any kittens who are seeking to escape the raft. Both boys save some kittens and not others. Which boy behaved more appropriately? Why?

Again, the question might seem to require a bit of clarification as to the foregoing issue of the very good reason for putting the kittens in the raft in the first place.

The determination of the correct answer to (2) will depend on whether the boys (either or both of them) had a duty to rescue the kittens. If the boys have a duty to rescue the kittens (either because they unjustifiably put the kittens in harm's way, or because they have some kind of general duty to rescue others), then it would seem that the more active attempt at rescuing the kittens would be more appropriate.

There is a bit of twist, though, because there is an open question about whether the string-pulling boy could have pulled all the strings. If he could have, and didn't, and if he had a duty to save as many as he could, then his passing over some of the kittens would seem to be unjust.

Likewise the plank-laying boy would have to be judged according to whether such an approach is a reasonable approach for getting kittens off a sinking raft. In other words, while simply passing over some kittens that the first boy had a duty to save would be bad, it would be worse for the other boy to leave it up to the kittens, if he had a good reason to expect that such an approach would not be successful.

Before a counter-examples are provided, let's address the third question:

3.) You're a kitten. Which raft would you rather be on?

If I were aware of the danger, I'd prefer the raft where I could exert my own effort rather than leaving my salvation from the raft up to the string-pulling boy. If I were unaware of the danger but hungry - probably still the plank raft. If I were neither aware of the danger nor hungry, in hindsight I'd prefer to be on the string-pulling raft.

Counter-examples:

1) The Rich Man

A certain rich man has a large family and a beautiful house. One day, when the man is away taking care of some business, five thieves break into the house, plunder its goods, torture and kill the man's family, and finally burn down his house. Their crime spree, however, is cut short when the men are caught by the authorities.

Suppose that despite all that the five thieves did wrong, the rich man decides to help two of the five thieves in their criminal defense. He hires them the best lawyer, and pleads for mercy to the judge on their behalf, even offering to serve their prison time or receive capital punishment in their place.

Has the man acted unjustly because he has only assisted two of the five, while permitting the others to receive what they richly deserve? Is such an act "cruel" of the rich man? Surely not.

2) The Potter

A certain potter goes out and finds a large clump of clay. He brings it back to his shop and makes from it four pieces. One piece is a beautiful vase, which the potter then paints in gold leaf and enamel and places in his front hall to be shown off for its beauty.

A second part of the lump is used to make a frame for one of the potter's favorite photos. This frame is given little ornamentation, and no gold leaf.

With a third part of the lump, the potter makes a chamber-pot. This too he paints, but mostly to keep its surface smooth so that it can serve its purpose by his bed at night.

Finally, the potter makes from the fourth part of the lump a small disk to be used as a clay pigeon. He does not paint this piece, but leaves it unornamented.

Has the potter been unjust or cruel toward any of the parts of the lump? Does any of the parts of the lump have the right to complain that they were not treated fairly? Is the potter "cruel" towards the clay? Surely not!

3) Two Kittens

Suppose that there are two kittens in a sinking raft. One kitten is given the choice about whether to stay in the raft or go, and the other kitten is pulled out of the sinking raft by the scruff of the neck. Which kitten would you rather be? Surely the latter.

Suppose again that there are two kittens in a raft but that, rather than gradually sinking, the raft is about to be hit be a torpedo. Suppose also that the kittens cannot appreciate the danger the torpedo poses. Would you, as a kitten, prefer a boy who simply tells you about the torpedo and tries to persuade you of the danger, or a boy who grabs you by the scruff of the neck and pulls you to safety? Surely the latter.

4) Two Lifeguards

Suppose you develop a cramp while swimming. Would would you prefer a lifeguard who merely makes your rescue possible, or a lifeguard that grabs out of the water and administers CPR? Surely the latter.

The point of these four counter examples is this:

1) We all richly deserve to perish. We are not fuzzy innocent kittens that someone else has placed in harm's way. We have harmed the rich man, he has not harmed us.

2) God could have made us all for the purpose of having lives of suffering and destruction, without being unjust or cruel. The potter could have operated a clay pigeon factory, or a chamber pot assembly line. It was his clay to do with as he pleased.

3) It is better to be saved without dignity than to perish with dignity. Better a living dog than a dead lion.

4) A savior that saves is better than a savior that merely makes salvation possible. A lifeguard who wants to save tries hard.

Thus, contrary to Matt's assertions, the present author suggests that monergism presents God as powerful and man as weak, but not God as cruel or unjust. Monergism also does not teach that men are bound for eternal damnation "regardless of their choices," but as a punishment for their sin. Monergism teaches works-perdition. Monergism also teaches that men freely choose to rebel against God. The destruction of mankind is caused by the choice of mankind. Salvation of the elect, however, is caused by a choice of God.

Contrary to apparent implicit assertions of Matt (perhaps unintended and colored by the present author's previous interactions with other synergists), God does not have the same relationship to us as we do to our fellow men, or even as we do to little kittens. Instead, God's relationship to mankind is more like the relationship between a Potter and Clay.

God did not have a duty to prevent man from sinning in the first place, and God does not have a duty to rescue mankind from the effects of sin. Consequently, there is nothing unjust or cruel about God choosing to turn some from destruction and leave others on that path.

Matt makes one claim in particular that seems to this author to betray a mistaken assumption about God's duty to man. Matt writes: "Since God is the sole determiner of whether or not a person is created, if God is also the sole determiner of that [person's] eternal state, then justice demands that God saves all those he creates." Justice demands only that people receive what they deserve. No sinner deserves salvation, and all men freely sin. Instead, sinners deserve eternal condemnation. Thus, what justice requires is that all men be eternally condemned.

The gospel is about another way for justice to be satisfied, namely by the substitutionary death of Christ. Christ died to satisfy God's justice and reconcile God to those who Christ represented as federal head. Christ standing in someone's place is gratuitous, and based on love by Christ for that person, not based on that person deserving or meriting escape from judgment in any way.

Even if the synergists were correct about how salvation is administered, God could have permitted all mankind to perish, without making a way of escape possible. It seems hard to believe that Matt would deny such a fact. If he does not deny that, however, it seems as though the remainder of his argument for eliminating monergism unravels. If God does not have to save anyone, then how God chooses to save people is completely up to Him: he could do so out of pre-love (monergism's explanation), arbitrarily (the usual misrepresentation of monergism), or any other way. No matter which way he picks, he is neither cruel nor unjust. In fact, no matter which way he picks he is kind and merciful.

Now, Matt has not presented a positive case for synergism, but let's flip the tables a bit, and take a shot across synergism's bow.

P1) Let us suppose that God wants to save at least some people, and that this was God's purpose in sending Jesus Christ into the world.

P2) Let us further suppose that God wants to save this group of at least some people on the basis of his love for them.

Scripture seems to teach both of those propositions quite clearly. In fact, many (probably most) synergists take the position that God wants to save not only some, but all people. Furthermore, most synergists will attribute this desire to God's love, not - in any way - to God's justice.

If, however, those to propositions are true, something has to give. Because from those two premises, we can conclude:

C1) God will exercise His power to save those whom he loves and wants to save. (By coupling those premises with the idea that God's intent is sincere.)
C2) God's exercise of His power will succeed in its intended purpose. (By coupling those premises and C1 with the idea that God is omnipotent.)
C3) All whom God wants to save, will be saved. (By coupling C2 and P1, with the result of universal salvation of those whom God intends to save.)

Although it is not required as essential to synergism, synergism usually arises from an attempt to explain verses that appear (to some) to suggest that God wants to save each and every person. In essence, synergism denies C2 above. It states that God exercises His power by sending Christ to die and giving prevenient grace, but denies that God's exercise of power will fully succeed. Alternatively, sometimes synergism argues that God has other competing intents besides saving everyone, and that these other intents prevent God from fully exercising His power.

Neither of the two options provided in order to bolster synergism are supported by Scripture. Instead, the former is positively at odds with the doctrine of divine omnipotence, and the latter is special pleading and also tends to undermine the alleged love of God toward those whom He wants to save.

To illustrate: consider a sinking raft full of kittens. Suppose that a boy claims to love the kittens very much and to desire their salvation from drowning. Nevertheless, suppose that the boy (a) does not exercise all his power to save them or (b) exercises all his power, and nevertheless some kittens drown. In situation (a), we would question the strength and sincerity of the boy's love or desire to save the kittens. In situation (b), we would chalk up the boy's failure to save all the kittens to a lack of ability: i.e. to the boy's impotence.

In essence, in the absence of universal salvation, those are the choices provided to a synergist who (like the typical synergist) asserts that God loves and desires to save each and every person. So, that should be the counter-question:

Matt, in your view of synergism, is God unable or merely unwilling to save everyone?

Let me be clear about something, monergism asserts that God is not willing (unconditionally) to save each and every person, but that God instead has mercy on whom He will have mercy. The point is not that monergism provides a way to reconcile God's universal desire to save with a limited number of people actually being saved, but that synergism's primary raison d'etre is false: the only escape from an assertion that God is unwilling to save each and every person, is that God is unable to save each and every person, and that assertion denies God's omnipotence.

-Turretinfan

Lunacy - of a different sort

Godith asks:

Totally unrelated to anything:
Ps. 121:6 Why would God assure His people that the moon would not strike them by night? Were they irrationally afraid of the sky falling (Chicken Little Syndrome) or meteors or lunar eclipses? Just a nagging question.

It could also be that they were afraid of becoming lunatics (recall that Latin: luna = moon), werewolves, or the like.

None of those explanations, however, seem to be the most obvious explanation. The most obvious explanation is that in the ancient world, both the sun and the moon were thought to be the most powerful things in the created order. Consider, for example, their prominent roles in most pagan religions. This role is reflected in the English days of the week: "Sunday" took first place, followed by "Monday."

The fact that God is more powerful than the sun and the moon should be a comfort to any Christian, as God is able to protect us not only from wild animals and dangerous men, but even from "the stars" - the influence of the zodiak.

It is - in some sense - lunacy for Christians to be afraid of anything created, for God is the creator.

-Turretinfan

GNRHead Follow-up

A while back, GNRHead (William) had provided some comments to a rebuttal the present author had provided. GNRHead disputed the idea that Tertullian was the first early church father of record to identify Peter as "the rock" in Matthew 16. At that time he referred us to his videos. The present author can report that he has now watched every YouTube video that GNRHead has produced. GNRHead lists six church fathers that alleged identify Peter with Matthew 16's rock.

Without getting into whether these fathers were misquoted, we can dismiss GNRHead's claim on the following basis:

1) Ephraim of Syria lived ca. 306-373;
2) Hillary of Poitier lived ca. 315-367;
3) Cyril of Jerusalem lived ca. 315-387;
4) Gregory of Nazianzus lived ca. 330-390;
5) Jerome lived ca. 347-420; and
6) Augustine of Hippo lived ca. 354-430.

In contrast, Tertullian lived ca. 155-230.

So, no, the alleged testimony of those six men in no way substantiates the claim that "all the church fathers believed Peter was the Rock." The claim remains unproven, as GNRHead remains unable to demonstrate even a single (much less "all") church father who lived before the middle of the third century who believed that Peter was Matt. 16's "Rock" upon which the church was built.

-Turretinfan

On Responding to Critiques

Although it is not perfect, and although I in no way endorse either the author's opinion (on this issue or in general) or any of the substance of his comments, the form of this response (link) was a model that could be adopted by others whom James White has validly criticized (such as D.A., J.P., J.A., or A.S.). It attempts to clarify what was originally intended, while humbly acknowledging error and keeping both the number of "my critic is an idiot" comments and the number of "I've been misrepresented" comments to a minimum.

So Benedict XVI said that, so what?

A couple months ago, the pope made a statement allegedly clarifying what Vatican II meant about the relationship between salvation and the Roman Catholic Church.

Meanwhile, the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) still states:
"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.""

So, the question is, does the CCC say that Muslims are saved or not?
After all, there are two ways to read the statement, either that the plan of salvation includes them as part of the mission field or (more naturally) that the plan of salvation includes people being saved by being devoted Muslims.

This further comment does not particularly help:
"848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.""

I'm inclined to believe that the Official Catholic View (OCV) is that Muslims are saved but stupid (i.e. not Catholics through no fault of their own).

Consider this comment from Cardinal Shen:

As Christians we should not be paralyzed by fear, but should find new ways and means to keep open the doors of dialogue and mutual understanding with different religions. This is especially important with the Muslims who are unjustly perceived as evil by a large majority of people.

Unjustly perceived as evil? Unjustly? Really?

In contrast, Cardinal Sanchez seems to take the extreme opposite view:

Pastoral charity for brother priests and for the faithful should not make the priest forget the missionary requirements of dialogue with and evangelization of the "de-christianized," non-Catholics and non-Christians present in the area where he lives (ecumenical dialogue, dialogue with the Muslims and believers of the traditional religions).

Really? Non-Catholic Christians are "de-christianized"??? They need to be subject to evangelization? Interesting!

Likewise, JP2 canonized Ignatius Maloyan, a Roman Catholic bishop who was allegedly martyred by Turkish Muslims in 1915 for refusing to convert to Islam. Ignatius Maloyan allegedly answered that he would never betray Christ and His Church. His words, according to JP2, were: "It does not please God that I should deny Jesus my Saviour. To shed my blood for my faith is the strongest desire of my heart," to which JP2 added: "May his example enlighten all those who today wish to be witnesses of the Gospel for the glory of God and for the salvation of their neighbour."

So, are the Muslims saved or not? Must they become Christians to be saved or not? And are non-Catholic Christians saved? What truly is the OCV, and isn't this just a little bit important?

-Turretinfan

Catholic Alleged Impenetrability

Impenetrability (lack of understandability to outsiders) can be a real problem in many situations. It is a real problem, for example, to the doctrine of "Total Depravity," which is mistaken by many (such as, apparently, Art Sippo) to mean that everyone is as depraved as they possibly can be.

Nevertheless, in Roman Catholic Apolegetical circles a standard part of the fare has been to assert that virtually all critics have not been able to comprehend Catholicism. That standard response is typified by this quotation that I gleaned from the signature block of an internet poster:

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church...."

-ARCHBISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN

I do not know whether the quotation is genuine or the context of the quotation. I also do not know whether Archbishop Sheen is a Roman Catholic archbishop. The point is that the comment illustrates a typical line of argument by RC apologists today: nobody knows what we believe.

You'd think that the most popular denomination would be able to have at least a couple of hundred critics who really don't like the doctrines of the veneration of Mary and the "Saints," who really don't like the doctrine of papal infallibility, and who really don't like the doctrine of indulgences and the treasury of merit.

There are many misinformed critics, but there are also many sound critics. RC responses that group both camps into one risk exposure, even if they persuade many to come "home to Rome" in the short term, once the converts start to recognize that - in fact - many notable critics are actually more familiar with Catholicism than is their parish priest.

Oh, and there are far more than 100 people in the U.S. (or even in a smaller country like Wales) who hate God and who hate what Christianity universally is, whether or not they hate Roman Catholicism.

-Turretinfan

Human Rights?

The true head of the Roman Catholic Church (unless you ask a sedavacantist RC) recently stated (source):

"It was in Europe that the notion of human rights was first formulated. The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself."

This is interesting on several levels.

1) It is interesting because it affirms the RCC's continued opposition to intentional abortions.

2) It is even more interesting because it implicitly acknowledges that human rights are not a Biblical or Christian concept. After all, the Middle East where the Old Testament and much of the New Testament were written, where the apostles were trained, and where Jesus taught, is not in Europe.

3) The Bible emphasizes human responsibilities, not human rights. Murder is wrong, because man is responsible to preserve life, and is forbidden from taking human life - not because men have a "right" to live. Abortion is wrong because it is the intentional taking of a human life: abortions shed human blood.

4) It is yet more interesting when we reflect on the number of people who were deprived of life by virtue of the edicts, decrees, agents, and associates of previous popes.

5) Finally, it is interesting to see that it is this admittedly innovative concept of "human rights" that places the modern RCC in conflict with the government's use of capital punishment to execute judgment on deserving wrong-doers.

None of the above should be taken to suggest that the concept of "human rights" is not a useful concept, or that it was not used to good effect to limit the power of governments in the past.

God gives and God takes away, blessed be the name of God!

-Turretinfan

Evangelism - Islam Style

Osama bin Ladin has released a new video. The present author has no plans to link to it, nor to any transcript of it.


The summary is:


America is bad,
Bush is bad,
Christians are bad,
Capitalism is bad,
Corporations are bad,
Democracy is bad,
Globalisation is bad,
Islam is good,
Terrorism is justified,
Muslims don't incinerate Jews and Christians,
The Qaran and the Gospel are from the same source, and
The Qaran has been preserved from the alterations of men.


And, of course, key quote:


"[T]he greatest mistake one can make in this world and one which is uncorrectable is to die while not surrendering to Allah, the Most High, in all aspects of one's life - ie., [sic] to die outside Islam."


May God have mercy on Bin Ladin, and convert him from the error of his way, before it is too late.


As for his specific claims:


- As a matter of historical fact, the Qaran was subject to alteration and standardization by various people. Furthermore, early Muslims famously acknowledged that much of the Koran was permanently lost: " 'Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost." (source)


- As a matter of theology, the path of salvation in Christianity is different from that of Islam, and the doctrines of the Evangelists are not the doctrines of Islam. Christ is the I AM, and the Muslim denial of that truth is blasphemy.


- Not all Muslim incinerate every Christian or Jew that they meet. Nevertheless, Muslim terrorists routinely incinerate both themselves and the Christians, Jews, and other Muslims they attack. Those young men who foolish follow Bin Ladin and the false prophet of Islam demonstrate that incineration is a weapon that Muslims use. Furthermore, whether or not they use incineration, Muslims are notorious for the use of the sword (whether literally or with reference to modern hand weapons like the gun). Only in the last week it has been reported that Christian missionaries in Pakistan were martyred by Muslims who used a gun.


- Bin Ladin claims that there are no taxes in Islam, but instead "a limited Zakaat totaling only 2.5%." Of course, Muslims famously eradicated Christianity in North Africa not only by the sword but also by confiscatory taxation.


- Terrorism is justified how exactly? Bin Ladin hints that the Christian west, especially America, Britain and France, deserves to be attacked. Why? Apparently because of our continued warfare against Iraq. Huh? It should be fairly obvious to those who read the news that the population of Iraq has accepted the regime change and is fighting a war against radical Muslim extremists who, like Bin Ladin, seek to spread Islam by the sword. We're there to help Iraq - we're not waging war against Iraq. Oh yes, one other thing. Were we at war with Iraq or any other Muslim nation when Bin Ladin attacked on September 11? (He notes that he cannot reasoanbly claim to be innocent of the September 11 attacks.)


- Ironically, Bin Ladin asserts that "our [Muslim] rulers in general abandoned Islam many decades ago." That should make it clear that Bin Ladin is advocating a particular - rather strict - variety of Islam.


- Bin Ladin claims to be "winning ... the war against you despite the fewness of our numbers and materiel." In contrast, however, about 75% of Al Quaeda has been destroyed, and the 25% that remains is mostly either hiding or incarcerated.


- Bin Ladin may be right that democracy is a bad idea (and this blog is not taking a position on that issue), but if it were not for democracy, he would have been long ago destroyed by the Russians. In any event, Bin Ladin is probably confusing democracy with pluralism.


- Bin Ladin uses the communist propaganda against capitalism, asserting that it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. History has shown that capitalism made the Christian world rich when the Muslim world suffered in gross poverty, so that obesity (not starvation) has become the afflication of the poor in Christian nations throughout the world.


- Bin Ladin lumps in globalization with capitalism and democracy - an odd combination, but apparently an appeal to the anti-globalization radicals in America. Interestingly, the forces of globalization have been the major visible cause of improvement in the health and welfare of developing countries.


- Bin Ladin notes "abject poverty and tragic hunger" in Africa, but this occurs mostly in Muslim, former Communist, and pagan societies.


- Bin Ladin asserts that the war has aided "major corporations." What Bin Ladin does not seem to recognize is that "major corporations" are virtually all publicly owned. If Lockheed Martin benefitted, all its stockholders benefitted, and anyone who has money can buy stock in that corporation. Have "major corporations" benefited from the eradication of Al Quaeda? Probably yes. And that benefit has been transferred on to the stockholders, the American and global public.


- Bin Ladin blames Rumsfield for the Vietnam war, yet Rumsfield was a "dove" in the Nixon administration. (source)


- Bin Ladin blames Christianity for the Spanish Inquisition and the "holocaust of the Jews," when he should be blaming athiesm and Catholicism. On top of that, has Bin Ladin forgotten why the Spanish Inquisition was formed? One of the reasons was the invasion by militant Islam in Southern Europe.


- Bin Ladin claims that Bush is try to win the war by turning sect against sect in Iraq. In fact, Bush has already succeeded in uniting multiple sects against Al Quaeda in Iraq.

Finally, a summary of Bin Ladin's soteriology.

Bin Ladin writes (well, the transcript of his speech reads): "And all praise is due to Allah, who awakened His slaves' desire for the Garden, and all of them will enter it except those who refuse. And whoever obeys Him alone in all his affairs will enter the Garden, and whoever disobeys Him will have refused."

This is not so different from an Arminian or Pelagian soteriology.

But compare it to a Reformed soteriology:

All praise be to The One Triune God! He has redeemed His children from out of every land, nation, tribe, and tongue. He will open their eyes to the glory of His name, and they will follow Him. He will riase them to spiritual life from spiritual death, and they will dwell with Him in Heaven forever!

-Turretinfan

Pope Repents of Nazi Genocide

See this article (link), key words: "Pope Benedict XVI paid solemn tribute to Holocaust victims Friday, extending his “sadness, repentance and friendship” to the Jewish people as he began a three-day pilgrimage to Austria." (emphasis added)

One wonders whether the Albigensians, Hussites, Lollards, Covenanters, etc. can expect a similar and more well-deserved apology.

-Turretinfan

A Second Debate - Monergism vs. Synergism

In the background, one Orthodox Christian is preparing to respond to the Exegesis Challenge I previously presented (link). Meanwhile, an Internet poster (Matt) from BeyondFundamentalism.com has accepted a challenge to debate Monergism vs. Synergism. Here's a link to the debate page (link), as well as the present author's introduction, below:

The present debate is one that is of great importance and interest in the church today, as it has been for many years. The issue is the administration of salvation: is it monergistic or synergistic? The present author will advocate for monergism and respond to Matt's advocacy of synergism.

There are, in essence, three views of salvation with respect to the role of God and man in its administration. The first view (which neither the present author nor Matt will advocate) is a view that man saves himself - help from God is not needed. This view is usually classified under the heading of Pelagianism, whether or not the historical figure Pelagius actually held such a view. For the sake of completeness, we could label such a view anergism, though such a term has not been academically accepted. This view suggests that grace is not necessary: man has the ability unassisted to avail himself of salvation, and any grace from God is superfluous. In other words, anergism argues that the grace of God has no essential role in salvation. Conversely, anergism either denies that God can positively influence man's saved/unsaved status, or that God chooses not to. Anergism can handily be identified as the view that "Salvation is possible for the unassisted, and God has left the decision up to man as to whether he will perish."

A second view is a view that man cooperates with God in order to be saved. This view is held by - among others - Arminians, Semi-Pelagians, and modern-day Roman Catholics. It is also held by others that are usually grouped outside of Christianity, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. This is the view that the present author identifies as synergism. This view acknowledges that grace is necessary, but asserts that grace is not sufficient. Conversely, synergism denies that God can entirely determine man's saved/unsaved status, or that God chooses not to. Synergism can handily be identified as the view that "God has made salvation possible, has provided assistance to man, but has left the final decision up to man as to whether he will perish."

The third view is monergism, the view that God by grace alone saves man. This view is held by those within the "Reformed" and "Calvinist" communities as well as by many pre-Reformation Christians, most notably Augustine. This view is also the view of the present author and his namesake Francis Turretin. Monergism holds that grace is both necessary and sufficient for salvation. Consequently, Monergism affirms that God ultimately determines who will be saved and who will perish, and denies that God either cannot save some or that God restrains Himself from saving those whom He wants to save. Monergism can handily be identified as the view that "God's grace ensures the salvation of those upon whom God chooses to bestow grace."

Anergism and synergism, to the extent that they attempt Scriptural justification, both rely on the Scriptures that focus on man's need to do various things such as confess, repent, believe, and persevere. Synergism goes further and recognizes the Scripture that teaches that grace is necessary - that man cannot be saved apart from grace.

Monergism completes the Scriptural testimony by recognizing that even man's good actions: confession, repentance, faith, and perserverence are gifts of God and the fruit of the Spirit's work in a person. Monergism concludes from these Scriptures that man is unable to do good of himself (sometimes referred to as "total depravity"), that man is changed from unable and unwilling to able and willing by an act of God's regeneration (sometimes referred to as "irresistable grace"), that God exercises His grace to preserve the sonship of His children (sometimes referred to as "perseverance of the saints"), that God chooses His children without regard to their merit (sometimes referred to as "unconditional election"), and that Christ's sacrificial work was offered for all and only the chosen children, whom God alone knows (sometimes referred to as "limited atonement").

The philosophical considerations noted above are typically with respect to the issue of "free will," with anergists and synergists viewing man's will as essentially autonomous from God's will, and monergists viewing man's will as subordinate to God's will. Scripture, of course, is typically brought to bear on the issue, with the anergists and synergists emphasizing the requirements made of man and certain general statements of God's interest in salvation, and monergists emphasizing the omniscience, wisdom, and omnipotence. Synergists and monergists also typically appeal to God's love, though in different respects: synergists claiming that they understand God's love to be broader, and monergists that they undestand God's love to be deeper.

The present author believes that monergism is the purest expression of Scriptural truth as to the administration of salvation: it is all of God. We do act, but we are not the cause of our salvation: we run as though we have not seized the object, and yet we have already been seized by Christ. We trust in Him to save us, and we trust in Him because He has converted us.

Scripture says:

Psalm 3:8 Salvation belongeth unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah.

Psalm 68:20 He that is our God is the God of salvation; and unto GOD the Lord belong the issues from death.

Therefore, the present author affirms monergism as the truth of Scripture.

As agreed, the following three questions are presented to challenge Matt to consider the issues. In order to set the stage for the questions, I present the following account:

In 1950 a man named Osama and his twin sister Theresa are born. He lives and dies in 2010 without ever having had faith in Christ. He does not inherit eternal life. She comes to faith in Christ in 2009 and dies in faith in 2010 with her twin brother. She does inherit eternal life.

1) In what way and at what time did God desire to save each of these twins?
2) Did God love these twins differently (from each other) at any time?
3) Did God get what He wanted with respect to each of these twins?

I hope that this provides a good platform for this informal debate, and I welcome any comments, clarification, and so forth. [Incidentally, I welcome comments by any readers of this blog on the questions presented, particular readers who are synergist or anergist in their soteriology.]

May God use this debate to the edification of all those who pass by,

-Turretinfan

A Modern Abomination

Human/animal hybrids (link). It's not a new idea, but it raises some interesting issues in terms of the protection of human life, and the definition of "human." Does the substitution/insertion of a short "alien" genetic sequence render a human embryo non-human? Does the substitution/insertion of a short human genetic sequence render a non-human embryo human?

Obviously, the scientists are not going to treat the hybrids as though they are people, and yet are interested in them precisely because of their genetic derivation from people.

-Turretinfan

Centuri0n on Kurschner - Some Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TurretinFan responds:

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

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

-Turretinfan

God Gives - Infidel Misattributes

Here's a story (link) about a neo-pagan falsely claiming that his false gods gave him a lottery win. It would be unsurprising if the man actually believed his own press: so strong is the delusion of the corruption of man's nature.

But it is God, not the demons of Wicca that disposes the lottery, and determines its winners.

The man should thank God, but instead he gives credit to folly.

If that man is reading, here is a special message: turn from the darkness of Wicca: those false gods are either nothing or demons. The LORD, he is the Great God above all Gods. It is He who created all things, and it is He who provides. He has greatly blessed you with a small fortune. Turn now from the wickedness of paganism and bend the knee to the one Triune God!

May God be pleased to turn many to Himself!

-Turretinfan

Question for Kurschner Regarding

"If You Understand One Thing About The "King James Only" Phenomenon it is Imperative to Know This ... The textual end justifies the textual means. They are motivated only in defending a modern printed text and any questions of methodology are irrelevant because they are governed by their a priori that the Textus Receptus (the Greek printed edition that lies behind the KJV) is without error. " (source)

Brother K,

Is it really their position that the Textus Receptus (i.e. one of Stephens' editions of the Greek testament) is without error, or is it rather that the English translation is without error?

I've always had the impression in my discussions with folks who consider themselves KJVO that it is the translation that is without error, not the underlying Greek (or Hebrew, for that matter). Take, for example, this comment: "the pure and whole Word of God, the traditional text (in English) Authorized Version, 1611.," from "Plain Path Puritan" (source).

Did you have a different impression, or what?

As to the underlying point of the article linked above (namely, don't take your sources out of context), that's a perfectly valid criticism and something I see all the time not only from KJVO advocates but from armchair theologians of these Internet times.

-Turretinfan

Response to Kurschner's "8 Reasons"

Brother Alan Kurschner has posted an article entitled, "8 Reasons Why It Is Fallacious for KJVO Advocates to Invoke the Majority Rule" (link)

Turretinfan Responds:

As a preliminary matter it is important to note that the present author is not a KJVO advocate, but rather a KJV-preferred advocate. With that caveat, the present author commends Kurschner for pointing several important weaknesses in the KJVO position, but recommends several refinements.

1. The first reason AK proposes is that the Greek text behind the KJV is not the "Majority Text," but the Textus Receptus. AK's underlying point is valid: the KJV translators did not count the number of Greek manuscripts on each side of a reading and side with the majority of available manuscripts. So, to claim that the KJV should be accepted on a democratic principle of majority rule does not fully fly.

Several clarifications should be made, though:
a) the raw number of differences between the "Majority Text" and the TR may seem pretty large. Nevertheless, the vast bulk of those differences are inconsequential (spelling differences/word order differences/typographic ommissions) to translation.
b) both the raw number and number of significant differences is higher between the majority text and the Westcott & Hort (WH) text (or its modern offshoots, such as the Nestle-Aland text, and what I assume is AK's preferred text at the moment, the NA27). Thus, if failure to conform to the MT is supposed to be a criticism of the TR, it applies with greater force to the NA27.
c) the KJV was not simply a translation from the Hebrew and Greek testaments and manuscripts. Both AK and (to be fair) the KJVO advocates seems to have overlooked that the KJV translators relied not only the Greek documents but the available versions: most notably the Latin Vulgate.

2. The second reason AK provides is five examples of passages where the differences allegedly matter for translation purposes, and where the KJV reads in accordance with the minority of Greek texts. AK provides one example, Ephesians 3:9, where he asserts that the KJV follows a variant found in only one half of one percent of the Greek documents (there is apparently at least one typo in AK's article: he either intends to say what the present author has reported, or the more extreme claim of five hundreths of one percent of the Greek documents).

It may be worth digging in a bit on this verse:

(KJV - 1769) And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

The variant in question is "fellowship" as opposed to "administration/dispensation/stewardship." The two words sound much a like in Greek, but have a somewhat different spelling. Furthermore, in some cases, the sense between the two words is not that different (see, for example, 2 Corinthians 8:4).

As a matter of clarification, the present author is suspicious of Mr. Kurschner's statistical claim. Tischendorf acknowledges this reading to be found in the margin of 37 (a cursive manuscript) , and suggests that all other manuscripts and versions have the majority reading. Obviously, though, not all of the manuscripts had been collated in Tischendorf's day. Furthermore, somehow "fellowship" got into the English text.

It did not get there from the Wycliffe translation (because Wycliffe translated from the Vulgate). It was not in the Rheims New Testament, because the RNT also primarily translated from the Vulgate (though, clearly, from a later Vulgate than Wycliffe used).

The minority reading is found in Tyndale's Bible, the Coverdale Bible, (the Matthew-Tyndale Bible and the Great Bible were not checked, but almost certainly contain the reading - any reader who has ready access and can verify, please do), the Bishops' Bible, and the Geneva Bible.

The variant is also found in Beza's New Testament (in Latin) and in Stephens' printed Greek Testament (though not in the Complutensian Polyglott, according to the testimony of Gill).

Tyndale apparently relied on Erasmus' 1516 translation as one source of his English translation of the New Testament. Sadly, the present author does not have a copy of Erasmus' 1516 translation to confirm whether it contained the variant.

In any event, the most apparent source of the variant in the English Bible is Erasmus' printing, and the adoption of Erasmus' reading in Beza's Latin, Stephens' Greek (aka Textus Receptus), and Tyndale's English Bibles.

Nevertheless, there is no indication that Erasmus had access to manuscript 37 of Paul's epistles, and there is no reason to suppose that Erasmus would have gleaned such a reading by reverse translation from the Vulgate. Accordingly, there are two other hypotheses: either Erasmus had access to another manuscript (now lost, inaccurately collated, or uncollated) that included such a reading, or Erasmus made the same "error" that was made in manuscript 37.

So, in any event, there is at least one and probably two or more Greek manuscripts that support the variant reading. Thus, 99.5% of the manuscripts against the reading may be a bit of an extreme claim (that would mean that there are 199 manuscripts that have the majority reading, and I'm not confident that there are even 199 manuscripts of Paul's epistle to the Ephesians that include the 9th verse of the 3d chapter.

But, frankly, the precise statistical claim is really a minor detail compared with the main point here. The main point is that the vast weight of the textual evidence from handwritten manuscripts and versions suggests that the original text was "dispensation/stewardship" not "fellowship." Thus, while "fellowship" is an excellent translation of the text of the TR, the TR itself may be incorrect in its transcription, on account (perhaps) of following Erasmsus' printed edition.

Nevertheless, while this may provide a point on which the KJV translation could be improved, it's not a reason to adopt the modern translations. For example, the modern translations typically omit "by Jesus Christ" at the end of verse 9, while the KJV properly retains that phrase and the doctrine that phrase teaches. In contrast, the semantic difference between fellowship and stewardship/dispension is small both in English and Greek.

3. AK's third reason is to assert that the "Byzantine text-form" has more Greek manuscripts attesting it than the "Alexandrian" and "Western" text-forms because historical reasons: Alexandria was taken by the evil forces of Islam, and Western Europe abandoned Greek for Latin. AK asserts that but-for those historical reasons, the copying of the other text forms would have continued apace. This point is just speculation on AK's part. AK does not know (and cannot establish) that those events are the cause for the disappearance of the Alexandrian and Western text-forms. Nevertheless, if this argument is going to be used, one might add that there was more intense persecution of Christians in Western Europe and North Africa under the pre-Christian Roman empire, and consequently more Bible-burnings there. If one is going to speculate - the sky is the limit.

4. AK's fourth objection is: why should we conclude that more attestations of a reading is better than fewer attestations? This question has a rather obvious answer. We expect that scribes tried to copy well from good sources, and not from just any manuscript that they could find. We don't expect to see many copies of the mutilated gospels produced by early heretics. Also, even if a scribe could not tell a good copy from a bad copy, we have no reason to suppose that bad copies were generally used as sources more often than good copies. Accordingly, if a reading is found in a majority of the manuscripts, we would ordinarily expect that such a reading would be more likely to represent the correct reading. Of course, the use of a majority principle cannot be a rigid rule, and there certainly may be cases (the Johanine comma is one) where the majority of texts may have been corrupted.

5. AK's fifth reason is the fact that many KJVO advocates "incessantly denounce" the use of "rational principles" by modern critics. Clearly such a denunciation is inappropriate. And AK is quite right to point out that KJVO advocates attempt to use "rational" principles of their own. Clearly, the problem is that there is a vocal anti-intellectual movement that is reacting emotionally to the mutilation of Scriptures by modern "scholars." Don't throw the baby of scholarship out with the bathwater of modern textual critical trends and theories. It is important to be reasonable in the discussion, and one cannot do that without rational prinicples.

6. Next, AK argues that the Majority Text was not the majority before 900 A.D. This assertion, however, is uninformed speculation. AK simply does not have the data to support it. The Majority Text is not the majority among texts that were written before 900 A.D. that survive to the present day, but virtually all such texts have perished. To imagine that the handful of pre-900 texts we have today is a valid statistical sample of the then-extant texts is to betray one's lack of familiarity with history, geography, and statistics.

7. AK's seventh point relies on his flawed sixth point.

8. AK's eighth point is to note that there are additional problems with respect to the transmission of the Old Testament. That's an interesting topic, but without examples, it doesn't really add much to the debate. It is instructive to consider some of the recent work that is being done in critical reassambly of the LXX translation of the OT by Prof. Pietersma (link) and others.


Finally, AK's conclusion is a bit different from what I would suggest. There is value in a majority principle of textual criticism. Of course, mere quantity absolutely alone is not a textual critical technique that makes sense. Nevertheless, a majority principle is a useful tool for providing some kind of default position in a textual analysis.

AK's underlying apparent view that one should not ignore the quality of the texts is also important, though perhaps not in the way that AK intends. Having W&H's stamp of approval does not make a manuscript good, nor does (necessarily) having homogenous readings making a manuscript bad.

Furthermore, AK should be aware that (at least some) KJVO advocates do consider the quality of the texts. In fact, it is a frequent criticism of the Alexandrian family of texts that they are of low quality. If there are KJVO folks who claim that the only way to decide whether a text is good whether it conforms to the majority, then they are inconsistent (or simply bootstrapping) when they argue at a later time that Alexandrian manuscripts are of low quality.

This inconsistency feeds back into the comment above about what AK is probably thinking. AK seems to have largely adopted the late 19th century principles and attitudes of New Testament textual criticism. If so, when he speaks of a manuscript being good, he may just mean "old," because a number of facile assumptions have led the modern textual critical community to equate "old" and "good."

Old can be a good thing for a text, but other considerations can vastly outweigh the age of text in considering its importance for the purposes of textual criticism. Furthermore, in some instaces, age can be a negative factor: it can indicate disuse, which can suggest contemporary distrust.

So, on the whole, hats off to AK for highlighting some inconsistencies of argument among KJVO advocates, for highlighting a verse (Ephesians 3:9 "fellowship") where the KJV might reasonably be amended to conform more closely to the original text (apparently "stewardship/dispensation" or perhaps "administration" as the NASB and NIV have), and for providing an illustration of the importance of knowing the history of the text.

I would encourage AK to consider that Ephesians 3:9 provides an illustration of how our English text came to us: not by a work of magic by the KJV translators, but by the translators standing on the shoulders of previous translators and copyists. Occassionally, as a result of overreliance on the work of others, the KJV translators may have erred. Nevertheless, of the versions widely available in print, the KJV is the best English translation available for overall faithfulness to the original.

-Turretinfan

God Disposes the Lot the Same Way Twice

Or, why one should not assume that arguments from probabilty provide truth: link.
Sometimes God arranges it that unexpected things happen. What is probably even more surprising to the average Joe is that this is not the first time something like this has happened: it's the third time a jackpot winner has won a second jackpot in New York Lotto history.

None of the above should be misconstrued as encouraging people to gamble.

Work for a living, don't throw money down the drain hoping to get something for nothing.

May God give us diligence,

-Turretinfan

Several Birds with One Stone

The following passage of Scripture addresses several topics that have come up lately in this author's work on the blog.


First, it relates to soteriology generally, and thus can be addressed toward the challenge I have already issued.

Second, it relates to human merit, and thus can be addressed to Godith's comments regarding the RCC.

Third, it relates to another topic that I have been working on, for this blog, but have not presented yet. That topic will be a long time in coming. Nevertheless, this tidbit for now.


Having discussed his faithful adherence to the outward constraints of the law of Moses, Paul continues with the passage under discussion:


Philippians 3:7-14
7But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. 12Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, 14I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.


In this passage, Paul speaks of the inadequacy of man's "righteousness." Paul was a zealous adherent of the most outwardly strict sect of the Jews. His outward adherence to the Mosaic law began on the eighth day of his life with circumcision, and continued with unparallel zeal until his vision on the road to Damascus. Nevertheless, all that "righteousness" Paul considers dung.


If verse 7 were the last verse of the discussion, many who hold to a view of work's righteousness salvation would be content. "The works of Judaism - they were the problem," such folks might say. That, however, is not Paul's point.


Paul clarifies by stating that he considers everything loss (i.e. a negative) because the knowledge of His Lord Jesus Christ is exceeding it. Paul explains that for Christ Paul lost (i.e. subtracted) everything and considers all such dung, so that he can obtain Christ and be found in Christ.


At this point it is worth taking a brief excursis to explain what Paul means. What does he mean by "to be found in Christ"? Paul is referring to the day of judgment, when men will be judged as either worthy of eternal life, or of eternal death. Paul is willing to give up all earthly righteousness in order to be found in Christ on that day. And what does it mean to be found in Christ? It means to have Christ's righteousness on one's account.


As Paul explains, he wants to be found in Christ, not having his own (i.e. Paul's) righteousness (depending on obedience to the commands of the law), but that righteousness of Christ that comes through faith, in other words, the righteousness that is of God and by faith:


- the knowledge of Christ and the power of his resurrection
- the fellowship of his suffering
- assimilation into his death


so that, in that way, he can arrive at the resurrection of the dead.



But Paul is quick to point out that Paul has not arrived and is not perfect at the present time. (Wesleyean perfectionists, beware) Instead, Paul states that he chases, so that he may grasp the thing for which he is being grasped by Jesus Christ.

In other words, contrary to the assertions of the RCCs and the consistent Arminians, Paul is not saying that he is perfect now, but may risk falling away later, instead Paul is saying that his sanctification is not complete. He has not been resurrected with Christ.

Nevertheless, Paul is confident that he has been grasped by Christ. Paul runs, but not as though he only hoped to obtain: he is reaching out to grasp, but Christ has already grasped him. Paul explains that he does not consider himself to have grasped already, but instead presses on toward the goal of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.


In the context immediately following the passage above, Paul goes on to explain that this should be the mindset of all believers: Christ has grasped us in his resurrection, but we - living out our lives - are running toward that goal, admitting that we have done is nothing, and placing all our confidence in Christ.


After a brief excursis regarding those who have a different mentality, Paul explains that our mentality is different because our citizenship is in heaven, the place from which we expect our deliverer, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our vile selves like unto his glorious self, according to the operation by which he can subordinate everything to himself.

In other words, Paul recognizes that he will be made righteous only by the power of God, not by his effort. In short, we are vile, but Christ is glorious: our hope is not in our merit, but in Christ's ability to transform our meritless selves into the likeness of his glory. We run - not motivated by a mere wishful desire to attain - but by a recognition that Christ has already attained for us. We live unto Him, because we are citizens of Heaven, looking forward to the resurrection - the power of God - not at ourselves, but at Him.

A final note is worthy of mention: the Christ whom Paul worships has the power to subdue all things to himself, and Paul's confidence is in that ability. That trust is inconsistent with any view either that Christ is unable or unwilling to subdue man's will to himself: in short Paul's trust in the Power of God is a refutation of synergism.

Praise be to our Risen, Ascended, and Coming-Again Savior!

-Turretinfan

GNRHead Responds - TurretinFan Rebuts

In a previous post, the present blogger had posted a response to a video by GNRHead (link to TurretinFan's response). Now, GNRHead has provided comments regarding that posting. His comments are reproduced using block quotations below. His response is line-by-line with respect to much of the original post, and accordingly, his quotation of the original post has been retained.

GNRHead writes:

Now if I had been directed to this post earlier I would have done a good job to it, but I was barely shown it so here goes my quick response:

TF responds:
Thanks for your response.

GNRHead writes:

what he posted: A internet poster named William, going by the handle GNRHead, has posted a series of videos on the internet, in which he defends Roman Catholic theology, with an emphasis on patristic issues. This is a response to his most recent video here (link here, warning, near profanity employed).
My response:Near profanity is NEVER in my videos. A complete lie.

TF responds:
A rose by any other name.
Around 45 seconds into your video you use two abbreviated profanities, in summarizing the responses you have received. Hence my warning.

GNRHead writes:

what he says: I also appreciate his apparently sincere belief that the Early Church Fathers held to Roman Catholic doctrines. On the other hand, I firmly disagree.
My response: Good for you, too bad the Early Church was Catholic in it's decrees and all it's beliefs. Not Protestant

TF responds:

Such a claim is both obviously false, a bit of a red herring, and undermines GNRHead's position.

The allegation is obviously false, because the Early Church was not "Catholic" either in the sense of having universal agreement or in the sense of holding to the dogma of the modern Roman Catholic Church.

The allegation is a bit of a red herring, because Protestantism is defined by references to various corruptions in the Roman Catholic Church that were "protested" by the Reformers. Before those corruptions entered, naturally no one protested them. Thus, one does not see an outcry over the use of Indulgences in the Early Church, not because everyone agreed with the modern and/or medieval Roman Catholic views on Indulgences, but because no one had heard of either of those views yet.

The allegation undermines GNRHead's position, because the Early Church may not have been - to take an example - part of the PCA (or any other modern Protestant body), but they were also not part of the modern Roman Catholic Church.

GNR writes:

what he says:GNRHead states that "every single early church father agrees that Peter was the rock" in Matthew 16:18. That's simply not true.
My response:It is true, as I demonstrated in my responses to Protestant apologist Moses Flores sloppy videos.

TF responds:

Substantively: no it is not true. But feel free to attempt demonstrate it, if you feel you can.

Formally: calling someone else's presentation "sloppy" is obviously not a substantive refutation. Calling their presentation "sloppy" in a sentence that contains a grammatical error is at least mildly ironic.

GNRHead writes:

what he says:In my own research, every time before the third century that an Early Church Father explains a metaphorical use of the term "Rock" they make that refer to Christ, not Peter.
My response:Well maybe you should study a bit more, cause your studies are sloppy at that. I have a full video response to this completely uneducated stance on Youtube in video format already. That is an utterly fallacious and sloppy position to hold and I name many many many Fathers that believed otherwise.

TF responds:

Formally: see above, calling something "sloppy," is not a refutation. The same principle applies to labelling things pejoratively and exhorting one's opponent to further study. The mild irony above is amplified here, where you use "cause" in place of "because," misuse the term "fallacious," and engage in a run-on sentence.
Quasi-Substantively: The thrice repeated "many" with reference to the number of Fathers that believed otherwise is not a substitute for simply enumerating the "Fathers" that supposedly "believed otherwise."
Substantively: In fact, as your own response below demonstrates, you yourself appear to recognize that many Fathers identified the use of the figure "Rock" in Scripture as pointing to Christ Himself. Thus, your disputation on this point appears to be internally inconsistent. Perhaps you would care to clarify. Do you mean to claim that early Fathers did not identify the figure of "Rock" with Christ, or do you have another claim in mind?

GNRHead writes:

what he says:Likewise, in the Shepherd of Hermas, the rock is Christ, the tower is the church, and the tower is built upon the rock.
My response:No one denies that Christ is the eternal Rock. We agree with that, just as Peter is the vicarious rock. In the Shepherd of Hermas we are not dealing with a refutation of the passage of Mt.16, so your parallelism fails and is sloppy at that.

TF writes:
Formally: See above regarding the "sloppy" argument, with a hint of irony regarding your use of "refutation."
Substantively: The Shepherd of Hermas is the earliest Christian writing that addresses the church being built on a rock, and explicitly identifies that rock with Christ. The writing does not explicitly reference Matthew 16, but then again, SoH doesn't refer to any Scripture at all, except, arguably to Moses' writings: "'The Lord is near to them who return unto Him,' as it is written in Eldad and Modat, who prophesied to the people in the wilderness."
Nevertheless, the Shepherd of Hermas is significant because of its use of the same church-built-on-a-rock figure, and because it explicitly identifies the rock as Christ.
GNRHead writes:

what he says:Indeed, the first time an "Early Church Father" that might be taken to support the view you suggest is Turtullian in his letter against Marcion, some time around the the turn of the 3rd century.
My response: This simply is not true and if anyone wants quotes as proof I will show it, not just blow smoke up your nose.

TF responds:

This author is waiting on tenterhooks for the smoke-free proof. Obviously, there is no way I could demonstrate that there is not some earlier relevant writing, so let's see some quotations, GNRHead.

GNRHead writes:

what he says:Yet even Turtullian in later writing comments that Peter was called Peter in order to typify Christ, the Rock. And we look back more carefully at what Turtullian wrote in the single passage where Turtullian makes the connection, you will see that Turtullian writes not that Peter was the rock, but that Peter was called the rock.
My response:This is so sloppy it doesn't deserve a response. First off, it's TERTULLIAN, as the correct spelling, secondly no one claims Peter was actually a rock in the sense of a Rock you can hold, so your assertion is a failure and makes no sense at all.

TF responds:

I did misspell Tertullian's name. (And I have no corrected that error in the original post. Thank you for pointing it out to me.)

As for the reply that Peter was not literally a rock, that's irrelevant: you've missed the point of the argument. The point is that Peter was called the rock, but Jesus IS the rock. Of course, Jesus is human, not granite.

GNRHead writes:

what he says:Then Cyprian applies the term rock to Peter, but not just to Peter but to all the bishops of the Church.
my response:I covered this and there's no disagreement here nor does that contradict the Primacy of the Pope, which Cyprian affirms many times over even out of this quotation.

TF responds:
The alleged primacy of the pope would be an interesting topic for another time.
The point was simply to observe that Cyprian did not uniquely identify Peter with the rock. Since that point appears to be granted, we can move on.

GNRHead writes:

what he says:Firmillian, in contrast, applied the term only to Peter, and mocked Stephen for claiming to sit in the chair of Peter. Both would have been writing toward the middle of the third century.
My response:Looks like someone is desperately grasping at James White arguments, I already fully responded to this in a youtube posting.

TF responds:

Substantively: While the present author will certainly diligently read all of GNRHead's youtube videos, it would be more useful if the full response (or even an abbreviated response) were provided here, in a media that is more readily searchable.

Formally: Thanks for the James White association. He is a much more well known debunker of RCC myths than I am.

GNRHead writes:

what he says:If you are reckoning Early Church Fathers as those before the council of Nicea, I wonder what makes you think that "all" of them held your view: the vast majority make no reference at all to the subject, and the few who mention it do so in very few places.
My response:you are simply incorrect, the majority make clear reference to this and that direct passage saying that Peter was indeed the Rock, so you are once again in ERROR.

TF responds:
GNRHead's contentions here are clearly wrong. As noted above, the vast majority of ante-nicean fathers make no mention of the issue. That's simply a matter of fact. The appropriate rebuttal would be to list the ante-nicean fathers who do address the subject, and (if possible) cite where they address the subject, so the claim could be verified.
There is a simple reason that GNRHead does not provide such a list: the list would not support GNRHead's exagerated claims.
Capitalizing "ERROR" is not a rebuttal that works here, citing fathers is really the only way to establish the claims that have been made.
Note, however, that GNRHead has switched from "all" to "the majority." That alone should be enough of a concession to convince any fair-minded person that GNRHead's original claims were untenable.

GNRHead writes:

what he says:So here's the challenge to you:Back up your claim that "every single early church father agrees that Peter was the rock" and then reconcile that with Augustine, who explicitly stated that it was mistaken to say that Peter was the rock.
my response:I already proved that each time a Protestant attempts to point to a Father and claim he didn't view Peter as the Rock that it's simply untrue. In my video response to a youtuber I pointed out that Augustine held that Christ was also the Rock, but never abandoned his claim to Peter being the Rock, as he STILL calls Peter the Rock in a quotation AFTER the one you are thinking of!

TF replies:
Again, oblique references to youtube videos are not that helpful. Furthermore, rather than simply asserting that "Augustine ... never abandoned his claim to Peter being the Rock" it would be helpful if you would provide a citation, so that the reader could confirm whether there is merit in what you have to say. Perhaps, in any event, it would be safer for you not to assume that you know what quotation I'm thinking of, and just present your own demonstration.

The challenge still stands: back up your claim with patristic quotations.

GNRHead writes:

what he says:Finally, note that even Trent does not have your back. After all Trent writes:"For which cause, this council has thought good, that the Symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church makes use of,--as being that principle wherein all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agree, and that firm and alone foundation against which the gates of hell shall never prevail,--be expressed in the very same words in which it is read in all the churches."Faith, not Peter, is described as being the foundation by Trent, which if you are to remain RCC, you must be bound to accept as true.
My response:It is true that Faith is the foundation, but unlike your sloppy and sad misreadings, the Church never disavows that Peter is the Rock. You simply are neither an apologist or someone well read in Early Church History or Biblical teachings. Simply because Faith is called a foundation that does not make it that Peter was not the Rock of the Church. Where is your logic. Is illogicality your true armor?

TF responds:
a) Trent does not explicitly say "Peter is not the Rock." Instead, Trent says that "Faith" is the foundation, and that it is so "alone." Please feel free to disagree, but please explain how it can be so "alone" and how Peter can also be the foundation?
b) The logical principle involved is the law of the excluded middle. Either faith alone is the foundation, or faith not alone is the foundation: both cannot be true.
c) Formally: "illogicality" - that's good for a chuckle.
d) No, I use a sword.

GNRHead writes:

what he says:What will it be then? Is Peter or Faith in Christ the Rock in Matthew 16:18?
My response:My response is the LOGICAL one buddy, you cannot SEPARATE Peter's FAITH from his person nor can you separate the Fact that Christ calls Peter the Rock upon which he will build his Church! It is because of Peter's revelation from GOD and faith in Christ that he is entrusted with the Keys of the Kingdom and called the Rock! Refute that!

TF responds:

Sure you can separate Peter's faith from his person. Why couldn't you? It's easy to do: I have the faith of the apostle, though I am not him. I believe that Jesus is the Christ, and yet I am not Simon Peter Barjona.

As for the requested refutation, Peter himself refers to Jesus as the Rock, and the keys were given to all the Apostles.

I realize that the fact that Jesus was speaking of Faith in Himself, not about the fisherman from Galilee, may be hard for a Roman Catholic to accept, but it is the truth.

-Turretinfan