Jerome Regarding the Septuagint

I recently happened to stumble across this interesting translation of Jerome's Prologue to Chronicles (link). Jerome makes a number of interesting comments about the Septuagint:

1) Jerome begins by noting that the Septuagint is not a pure translation:

If the version of the Seventy translators is pure and has remained as it was rendered by them into Greek ... Now, in fact, when different versions are held by a variety of regions, and this genuine and ancient translation is corrupted and violated, you have considered our opinion, either to judge which of the many is the true one, or to put together new work with old work, and shutting off to the Jews, as it is said, "a horn to pierce the eyes."

- Jerome, Prologue to Chronicles

2) Jerome continues by noting that in his day it was famous that there were three regional varieties of the Septuagint:

The region of Alexandria and Egypt praises in their Seventy the authority of Hesychius; the region from Constantinople to Antioch approves the version of Lucian the Martyr; in the middle, between these provinces, the people of Palestine read the books which, having been labored over by Origen, Eusebius and Pamphilius published.

- Jerome, Prologue to Chronicles

3) Jerome argues that although Jesus knew the Septuagint translation, he used the Hebrew, arguing from various passages:

I have recently written a book, "On the best kind of translating," showing these things in the Gospel, and others similar to these, to be found in the books of the Hebrews: "Out of Egypt I called my son," and "For he will be called a Nazarene," and "They will look on him whom they have pierced," and that of the Apostle, "Things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, and had not arisen in the heart of man, which God has prepared for those loving Him." The Apostles and Evangelists were certainly acquainted with (the version of) the Seventy interpreters, but from where (were) they (supposed) to say these things which are not in the Seventy?

- Jerome, Prologue to Chronicles

4) Jerome notes that the church of his day did not accept the apocrypha, but only the Hebrew books, as can be seen from the middle of Jerome's punchline for his argument about the Septuagint:

Certainly, whatever is witnessed by the Savior to be written, is written. Where is it written? The Seventy don't have it; the Church ignores the apocrypha; thus the turning back to the Hebrew (books), from which the Lord spoke and and the disciples took forth texts.

- Jerome, Prologue to Chronicles

5) In the conclusion of the prologue, Jerome explains the fact that he was coming under a lot of fire for his new translation, since popular opinion was fond of (their own version of) the Septuagint:

In peace I will say these things of the ancients, and I respond only to my detractors, who bite me with dogs' teeth, slandering me in public, speaking at corners, the same (being) both accusers and defenders, when approving for others what they reprove me for, as though virtue and error were not in conflict, but change with the author. I have recalled another edition of the Seventy translators corrected from the Greek to have been distributed by us, and me not to need to be considered their enemy, which things I always explain in the gatherings of the brothers.

- Jerome, Prologue to Chronicles

Thanks very much to Kevin P. Edgecomb who provided this translation and released it into the public domain.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE:

One Roman Catholic reader (I'm not sure whether he'd want attribution or not, so I've not given it to him for now. If he wants it, he knows how to let me know) pointed me to the fact that one can find translations of many of the prologues to the Vulgate books (link). Some have suggested that the later prologues show Jerome softening in his opposition to the apocrypha, though you will note:

Also included is the book of the model of virtue Jesus son of Sirach, and another falsely ascribed work which is titled Wisdom of Solomon. The former of these I have also found in Hebrew, titled not Ecclesiasticus as among the Latins, but Parables, to which were joined Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, as though it made of equal worth the likeness not only of the number of the books of Solomon, but also the kind of subjects. The second was never among the Hebrews, the very style of which 18is redolent of Greek speech. And several of the ancient scribes affirm this one is of Philo Judaeus. Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.

- Jerome, Prologue to the books of Solomon

Similarly:

This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is to be set apart among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon. I have found the First Book of the Maccabees is Hebrew, the Second is Greek, which may also be proven by their styles.

- Jerome, Prologue to the Book of Kings

Yet it was demanded of Jerome that he translate the Apocrypha, to which command he grudgingly complied:

I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in the Chaldean language into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words.

- Jerome, Prologue to Tobias

Likewise:

Among the Hebrews the Book of Judith is found among the Hagiographa, the authority of which toward confirming those which have come into contention is judged less appropriate. Yet having been written in Chaldean words, it is counted among the histories. But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work translating more sense from sense than word from word. I have removed the extremely faulty variety of the many books; only those which I was able to find in the Chaldean words with understanding intact did I express in Latin ones.

- Jerome, Prologue to Judith (It's not clear to me whether Jerome was being confused or sarcastic. Nicaea did not decide the canon, and had they done so, one would hardly expect the later councils of Hippo and Carthage to omit reference to this fact.)

A Word of Thanks

This post is simply a quick word of thanks to those who read this blog. I am very thankful that you stop by and read what I post. I am also thankful when you post comments, even comments that challenge what I wrote. If you'd like to see certain topics discussed, remember that you can easily obtain my e-mail address through my blogger profile. Thanks again for reading this blog. May God use it to your edification (if you are a believer) and to your conversion (if you are not).

Only to the Glory of God,

-TurretinFan

David's Son - an Unworkable Argument

One of David's sons died in infancy. David mourned him before he died, but stopped grieving when the child died. This puzzled the servants of David. When asked about his odd behavior:

2 Samuel 12:22-23
And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

A large number of people use this as a prooftext for the idea either that infants of believers (or all infants) who die in infancy will be saved. There are three main problems with that argument:

1) Go to him in Heaven?

The verse just says "go to him." It doesn't say "go to him, in heaven." It does not indicate that David thinks he will join his son in Paradise. Furthermore, David's calm is not produced by joy. David does not rejoice that his son is in heaven. He just submitted to the providence of God and went about his business:

2 Samuel 12:19-20
But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, "Is the child dead?"
And they said, "He is dead."
Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.

As one of my friends who uses the handle "Hobster," recently pointed out. David may simply have meant that he was going to be joining his son in the grave. In the Hebrew mind, we see this kind of thought. For example:

1 Kings 2:10 So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.

In case you think this is a good thing, note that it is also said of wicked king Ahab:

1 Kings 22:40 So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.

2) Go to him in Hell?

As noted above, David doesn't say where he thinks the child is going. He also doesn't say where he thinks he himself is going. He has just sinned grievously, and we are not specifically told whether David has assurance of salvation at this time. I suppose he ought to, but we are not told that he does have such assurance. If David does not have assurance of salvation, then this verse would seem to have either same general "go to the grave" concept, or perhaps a more sinister concept of going to the place of the damned.

3) Is David Inspired?

The text of Scripture is inspired, but the text is an historical narrative. It tells us what David said, but it does not specifically endorse what David said. Even if David meant he would see his child in heaven, we could not necessarily conclude that David was right as opposed simply to David being optimistic.

Conclusion

We don't know for sure where David's son went. It would not be wise, therefore, to build a doctrine regarding the salvation of infants on this verse alone. David's resignation and lack of joy (ending his weeping and fasting, not putting on a celebration) suggest that he had simply accepted the punishment of God, rather than having any particular hope as to the salvation of his son.

That is not, of course, to say that I think I've proved that David definitely didn't mean what so many softhearted folks would like to think he means. David thinking that his son was in heaven hasn't been proved wrong, and perhaps the comments by David were put there for us to adopt.

Regardless of whether one adopts the highly optimistic view that David thought his son was saved, one should heed David's argument. While a child is alive, pray for its health and welfare. Once it is dead, it is too late. Accept the chastisement of God (if it is that, as it was in David's case) and resist the temptation placed before you to be angry with God. Go, wash up, clean your face, worship God and go about your business. That's easy for me to say, but it is also the right thing to do.

-TurretinFan

Does God Blind the Blind?

The title of this post is the title of a post by William Watson ("Billy") Birch who thinks that he has found a weakness in Calvinism (though, as he admits, he's not actually responding to a Calvinist)(link to his post).

His essential argument is this (I am paraphrasing): "Reformed theology says God blinds the reprobate. But Reformed theology says that everyone is totally depraved. Therefore, God is placed in the odd position of blinding the blind."

But Mr. Birch cannot deny that God does harden the heart of some men. God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, for example. Furthermore, virtually every time we mention this to any Arminian who is opposed to Calvinism (there are Arminians who are simply ignorant of Reformed theology) they invariably insist that the man has to harden his own heart first. How exactly is this supposed to be different? God hardens the hard? God blinds the blind?

The argument may have a superficial appeal to Mr. Birch's fan base, but it lacks substance as evidenced by how easily it is turned on his own argument.

The problem, of course, is that Mr. Birch fails to appreciate the way in which God blinds the blind. God refuses to open their eyes - refuses to provide them with a cause that would lead to the effect of their seeing.

Jesus explained:

Matthew 13:13-15
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: for this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Mark 4:11-12
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Furthermore, contrary to the theology of Mr. Birch, God is quite willing to take credit for concluding all in unbelief:

Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

How does one conclude (i.e. enclose or shut) in unbelief an unbeliever? The same way one blinds the blind. Without God's grace we can do nothing:

John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

-TurretinFan

ISI Discussion Regarding Harold Camping

I was recently on the "Iron Sharpens Iron" (ISI) radio program. Here's a link to the ISI page about the call (link) and here is direct link to the mp3 (link).

The following is an outline of some of the topics discussed. This is not a transcript, but more or less notes for the discussion.

I. In General - Regarding Harold Camping

a) False Teacher

He has been seen to be a false teacher at least since his date setting book "1994?" (which was demonstrated by history to be false).

Now, he teaches annihilationism and some form of Modalism.

Perhaps, worst of all, he severs himself and his followers from communion, declaring the church age to be over and discouraging his followers from gathering together.

1 Corinthians 11:25-26
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Jesus has not come, and consequently we continue to show (symbolically) the Lord's death in the Lord's Supper, whereas Mr. Camping and his followers have excommunicated themselves.

b) Familiar with the Bible

Mr. Camping is obviously quite familiar with the text of the Bible. He's been studying it for many years. Unfortunately, his studies are misdirected in that he applies Scripture for purposes for which it was not intended.

II. Regarding Amram and Moses

During the call-in segment of Mr. Camping's debate with Dr. White, I had an opportunity to ask one question of Mr. Camping. My question was:"What was the name of Moses' father?"

Why did I ask the question?

I knew that his answer would demonstrate that he was unwilling to submit to Scripture.

What does Scripture tell us is the name of Moses father?

Scripture tells us:

Exodus 6:20 And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.

Numbers 26:59 And the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt: and she bare unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister.

1 Chronicles 6:3 And the children of Amram; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. The sons also of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.

1 Chronicles 23:13 The sons of Amram; Aaron and Moses: and Aaron was separated, that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons for ever, to burn incense before the LORD, to minister unto him, and to bless in his name for ever.

Mr. Camping is fond of saying that things are doubled to emphasize their importance. This statement of paternity is not simply doubled but doubled twice - that is to say - it is quadrupled. There are four Scriptural testimonies all agreeing that Moses' father was Amram, and no Scripture suggesting any other name for Moses' father.

Why does Camping not follow this plain teaching of Scripture?

Camping needs to avoid following this plain teaching of Scripture, in order for his date-setting method to work. One of Mr. Camping's methods of calculating the end times is to place it exactly 7000 years from the date of Noah's flood. One sees this in his articles and books. For example he writes: "Because the year 2011 A.D. is exactly 7,000 years after 4990 B.C. when the flood began, the Bible has given us absolute proof that the year 2011 is the end of the world during the Day of Judgment, which will come on the last day of the Day of Judgment." (source)

To give you a sense of contrast, Archbishop Ussher in his "Annals of the World" gives a date for the flood of about 2350 B.C. I'm aware that there is a lot modern scholarship that suggests that disputes Ussher's date, but the point is simply to give you a sense of contrast between a more literal reading of the text and Mr. Camping's view.

How does Camping date the flood so much earlier (about 2500 years earlier)?

As you can imagine, it is not easy to fit an additional 2500 years into the text, and there is no chance that Mr. Camping is going to date the end of the world to be about 2500 years from now. To accomplish his purposes, Mr. Camping has to rely on what he calls a "clue phrase" in the text.

What is this clue phrase?

The clue phrase is "called his name." In some of the genealogical accounts there is a statement that father called the name of his son "Seth" (or whatever the child's name is). Camping asserts that when such a phrase is used, the literal son is being mentioned. Otherwise, in Camping's view, the father-son relationship should not be assumed, and consequently we should be free to view the genealogies another way, such that the "father" is simply an ancestor, and that the "son" is simply a descendant that happened to be born the year his father died.

What are the problems with this?

At first this may seem like a fairly reasonable system. After all, there sometimes some inconsistencies in the biblical genealogies (a matter we can perhaps address a little later). However, there are some real problems:

1) This idea of a "clue phrase" is wrong from a positive usage sense.

Camping writes: "A more careful examination of the Scriptures reveals why the phrase "called his name" which is the Hebrew qara, was used. In every place where this phrase is employed, there can be no doubt of the existing relationship; invariably it is indicative of parent and child." (link)

Mr. Camping's claim about this supposed clue phrase is wrong:

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

It should be plain that Eve is not Adam's child.

1 Samuel 7:12 Then Samuel took a stone, and set it between Mizpeh and Shen, and called the name of it Ebenezer, saying, Hitherto hath the LORD helped us.

Plainly, an inanimate object is not a child.

Ruth 4:17 And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

Obed was the son of Boaz and Ruth not of Naomi's female neighbors.

Exodus 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

Moses was not biologically the son of Pharaoh's daughter: he held that relationship only by adoption.

2) This idea of a "clue phrase" is wrong from a negative usage sense.

Genesis 4:1-2
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Both Cain and Abel were the direct children of Adam and Eve without any "clue phrase" being provided. In fact, Seth is the first one where it is said that someone "called his name" Seth.

Exodus 2:2 And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months.

This is a report of Moses' conception and birth. His mother (Jochebed) is not said to have "called his name" Moses, but she was nevertheless his biological mother.

Even if the "clue phrase" is off, isn't it possible that the Hebrew genealogy works this way?

As far as I can recall, Mr. Camping is not the first to come up with this idea that Hebrew genealogies might sometimes be based on dating from the death of an ancestor to a descendant born about the same time. There are at least two serious problems applying such a principle to Amram and Moses though:

1) Aaron AND Moses

Amram is called the father both of Aaron and Moses. This might be fine if those were twins, but they were three years apart:

Exodus 7:7 And Moses was fourscore years old, and Aaron fourscore and three years old, when they spake unto Pharaoh.

2) And Miriam

Furthermore, they had an older sister, Miriam who (when Moses was three months old - Exodus 2:3) was resourceful enough to persuade the princess of Egypt to hire Moses' mother as a nurse for him (Exodus 2:7). Amram can't have died in three different years (one for Miriam, then again for Aaron, and finally for Moses).

What other reasons does Camping give?

There is one other main argument that Mr. Camping presents, namely that adding a speculative generation (or more than one) between Amram and Moses is necessary to make the stay in Egypt 430 years.

Camping provides the following breakdown:

Levi 77 years in Egypt
Kohath 133 years in Egypt
Amram 137 years in Egypt
Aaron 83 years in Egypt
------------------------
430 years total time

(source)

This enumeration is alleged to correspond to the 430 years that Scripture says ended the day of the Exodus.

What are the problems with this analysis?

1) The 430 years should be measured from the Promise to Abraham

Galatians 3:16-17
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Notice that Paul is explicit that the giving of the law was 430 years from the promise to Abraham. Since Abraham died before the entry into Egypt, it is impossible that there could have been 430 years in Egypt.

2) Kohath wasn't born in Egypt

Genesis 46:8-26, especially vs. 11 let us know that Kohath was one of the sons of Levi who came into Egypt with Levi and Jacob as one of the "seventy souls" mentioned in Genesis 46. It states:

Genesis 46:11 And the sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.

So then how long was the stay in Egypt?

The stay in Egypt itself was 215 years. It was 215 years from the promise until the entry into Egypt, as we can determine from Genesis, and we know the total time was 430 years, so we can deduce that the time in Egypt was 215 years.

Does the 215 year view fit the genealogies?

Yes, the genealogies have Levi and Kohath coming into Egypt. Amram is the only one in the series who lives his entire life in Egypt and that was 137 years. Some of the time before his birth and after his death were also time in Egypt, of course.

Additionally, it should be noted that Jochebed is described as being the daughter of Levi.

Exodus 6:20 And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.

Numbers 26:59 And the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt: and she bare unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister.

This evidence again suggests that Levi was not dead over a century before Amram was born, but rather that there was some overlap between Amram and his grandfather Levi (though both Amram and Jochebed were born in Egypt and apparently died in Egypt).

Is Mr. Camping the only one who holds to the 430 year theory?

No. In fact, we find many modern scholars who have a similar view, and even many of the modern translations translate one of the key verses in such a way as to require the 430 year theory. For example, the King James Version states:

Exodus 12:40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

Whereas the more modern English Standard Version states:

Exodus 12:40 The time that the people of Israel lived in Egypt was 430 years.

Are you a King James Version Only-ist?

No. I simply think that the KJV better preserves the ambiguity of the original text here.

What is the historical view of the text?

Both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint provide an additional phrase "and in the land of Canaan" that clarify that the 430 years is not to be understood as simply the time in Egypt.

Eusebius of Caesarea, who got his information from the Jewish historian Alexander Polyhistor (who flourished in the first century before Christ) took the 215 year view. In at least one place Joseph adopted the 215 year view:

They left Egypt in the month Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt. It was the eightieth year of the age of Moses, and of that of Aaron three more. They also carried out the bones of Joseph with them, as he had charged his sons to do.

-Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book II, Chapter 15, Section 2 (I am told that in another place Josephus disagrees with his opinion stated here, although I could not locate that other place.)

The Reformed commentators whom I checked on this matter (John Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Gill, and Matthew Poole) all likewise agreed with the 215 year view as well. Even Luther appears to agree.

More recently, however, there has been some debate over the topic.

Do you have any other significant issues with Camping's Theology?

Yes, I think his view of the atonement is seriously flawed (see my post: link)

-TurretinFan

Don't Be Surprised if You Make Some Mistakes

Jerome wrote:

And if the ingenuity of perverse men finds something which they may plausibly censure in the writings even of evangelists and prophets, are you amazed if, in your books, especially in your exposition of passages in Scripture which are exceedingly difficult of interpretation, some things be found which are not perfectly correct?

- Jerome, (to Augustine) Letter 72 in Augustine's Letters, Chapter 3 (Section 5 in the Latin)

Jerome is being something of a grouchy old man in this letter, but his points are important.

1. Perspicuity is About the Necessary Things

Not every passage of Scripture is equally clear, and we should not be surprised if sometimes our understanding of the relatively difficult parts is sometimes mistaken. The necessary things, however, are clear, as the early church recognized:

What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain. But because ye are hearers for pleasure’s sake, for that reason also you seek these things.

- Chrysostom, Homily 3 on 2 Thessalonians, at 2 Thessalonians 1:9-10

2. What's more, each of us has sin.

Jerome's argument seems to be that wicked men intentionally twist even the simplest Scriptures. Thus, if we have some degree of sin in us, we should not be surprised that we may sometimes err in our interpretation of a difficult passage. Jerome's comment reminds one immediately reminded of Peter's warning:

2 Peter 3:16 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.

Incidentally, this verse explains the primary reason why we have so many varied interpretations of the Scriptures. Note that Peter does not simply say that the perverse men twist the difficult portions of Paul's epistles, but "the other scriptures" as well. Yes, there are some difficult things in Paul's epistles. And we should not be surprised if we sometimes ignorantly err with respect to their interpretation. Nevertheless, we ought to avoid the path of the unlearned and ungodly.

Athanasius provides us with an example of such men twisting the Scriptures:

But since those whose only pleasure is to gainsay what is said aright, or rather what is made by God, pervert even a saying in the Gospels, alleging that 'not that which goes in defiles a man, but that which goes out [Matthew 15:11],' we are obliged to make plain this unreasonableness,— for I cannot call it a question— of theirs. For firstly, like unstable persons, they wrest the Scriptures [2 Peter 3:16] to their own ignorance.

- Athanasius, Letter 48

Augustine provides us with another example:

“From Thy Temple in Jerusalem, to Thee kings shall offer presents” (ver. 29). Jerusalem, which is our free mother, [Gal. iv. 26.] because the same also is Thy holy Temple: from that Temple then, “to Thee kings shall offer presents.” Whatever kings be understood, whether kings of the earth, or whether those whom “He that is above the heavens distinguisheth over the dove silvered;” “to Thee kings shall offer presents.” And what presents are so acceptable [Oxf. mss. “more acceptable than.”] as the sacrifices of praise? But there is a noise against this praise, from men bearing the name of Christian, and having diverse opinions. Be there done that which followeth, “Rebuke Thou the beasts of the cane” [Or, “pen” (of cane), calami.] (ver. 30). For both beasts they are, since by not understanding they do hurt: and beasts of the cane they are, since the sense of the Scriptures they wrest according to their own misapprehension. For in the cane the Scriptures are as reasonably perceived, as language in tongue, according to the mode of expression whereby the Hebrew or the Greek or the Latin tongue is spoken of, or the like; that is to say, by the efficient cause the thing which is being effected is implied. Now it is usual in the Latin language for writing to be called style, because with the stilus it is done: so then cane also, because with a cane it is done. The Apostle Peter saith, that “men unlearned and unstable do wrest the Scriptures to their own proper destruction:” [2 Pet. iii. 16.] these are the beasts of the cane, whereof here is said, “Rebuke Thou the beasts of the cane.”

- Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 68 (Latin Psalm 67), at Psalm 68:29 (editor's footnotes placed in brackets)

Clement of Alexandria too has some examples to provide. He states:

But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin. [A reference to the sickening and profane history of an apocryphal book, hereafter to be noted. But this language is most noteworthy as an absolute refutation of modern Mariolatry.]

Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth. “And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth,” [Tertullian, who treats of the above-mentioned topic, attributes these words to Ezekiel: but they are sought for in vain in Ezekiel, or in any other part of Scripture. [The words are not found in Ezekiel, but such was his understanding of Ezek. xliv. 2.]] says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself, and not from conjunction. Wherefore the Scriptures have conceived to Gnostics; but the heresies, not having learned them, dismissed them as not having conceived.

Now all men, having the same judgment, some, following the Word speaking, frame for themselves proofs; while others, giving themselves up to pleasures, wrest Scripture, in accordance with their lusts. [2 Pet. iii. 16.] And the lover of truth, as I think, needs force of soul. For those who make the greatest attempts must fail in things of the highest importance; unless, receiving from the truth itself the rule of the truth, they cleave to the truth. But such people, in consequence of falling away from the right path, err in most individual points; as you might expect from not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false, strictly trained to select what is essential. For if they had, they would have obeyed the Scriptures. [Nothing is Catholic dogma, according to our author, that is not proved by the Scriptures.]

- Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book 7, Chapter 16 (Editors' footnotes placed in brackets - note that the "sickening and profane history of an apocryphal book" is a reference to the Protoevangelium of James)

Finally, for I would not wish to burden you with too many examples, we see something similar in Tertullian's writings. Note well how he recognizes that this twisting of Scripture is not simply an unintended consequence of Scripture but one of the purposes God has for His Holy Word:

These were the ingenious arts of “spiritual wickednesses,” [See Eph. vi. 12, and 1 Cor. xi. 18.] wherewith we also, my brethren, may fairly expect to have “to wrestle,” as necessary for faith, that the elect may be made manifest, (and) that the reprobate may be discovered. And therefore they possess influence, and a facility in thinking out and fabricating [Instruendis.] errors, which ought not to be wondered at as if it were a difficult and inexplicable process, seeing that in profane writings also an example comes ready to hand of a similar facility. You see in our own day, composed out of Virgil, [Oehler reads “ex Vergilio,” although the Codex Agobard has “ex Virgilio.”] a story of a wholly different character, the subject-matter being arranged according to the verse, and the verse according to the subject-matter. In short, [Denique. [“Getica lyra.”]] Hosidius Geta has most completely pilfered his tragedy of Medea from Virgil. A near relative of my own, among some leisure productions [Otis.] of his pen, has composed out of the same poet The Table of Cebes. On the same principle, those poetasters are commonly called Homerocentones, “collectors of Homeric odds and ends,” who stitch into one piece, patchwork fashion, works of their own from the lines of Homer, out of many scraps put together from this passage and from that (in miscellaneous confusion). Now, unquestionably, the Divine Scriptures are more fruitful in resources of all kinds for this sort of facility. Nor do I risk contradiction in saying [Nec periclitor dicere. [Truly, a Tertullianic paradox; but compare 2 Pet. iii. 16. N.B. Scripture the test of heresy.]] that the very Scriptures were even arranged by the will of God in such a manner as to furnish materials for heretics, inasmuch as I read that “there must be heresies,” [1 Cor. xi. 19.] which there cannot be without the Scriptures.

- Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 39 (editor's footnotes placed in brackets)

To God then be the glory, for His Word that accomplishes exactly what He intended (Isaiah 55:11),

-TurretinFan

Corpus Reformatorum - Index Page

Google seems to have pulled the Corpus Reformatorum from their library. I have no idea why, and I'd rather not speculate. Hopefully, some day they will be back up again. Thankfully, Archive.org has images of many of the volumes, although the emphasis seems to be on Melancthon's works. I suspect that many of the volumes of Calvin's and Zwingli's works are possibly available under another title (such as under the sub-series title).

Series I: Philip Melanchthon, Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia - Volumes 1- 28
Volume 1
Volume 2
Volume 3
Volume 4
Volume 5
Volume 6
Volume 7
Volume 8
Volume 9
Volume 10
Volume 11
Volume 12 (Copy 2)
Volume 13
Volume 14
Volume 15
Volume 16
Volume 17
Volume 18
Volume 19
Volume 20
Volume 21
Volume 22
Volume 23
Volume 24
Volume 25
Volume 26
Volume 27
Volume 28
Series II: Ioannis Calvini, Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia – Volumes 29- 87
Volume 29
Volume 30
Volume 31
Volume 32
Volume 33
Volume 34
Volume 35
Volume 36
Volume 37
Volume 38
Volume 39
Volume 40
Volume 41
Volume 42
Volume 43
Volume 44
Volume 45
Volume 46
Volume 47
Volume 48
Volume 49
Volume 50
Volume 51
Volume 52
Volume 53
Volume 54
Volume 55
Volume 56
Volume 57
Volume 58
Volume 59
Volume 60
Volume 61
Volume 62
Volume 63
Volume 64
Volume 65
Volume 66
Volume 67
Volume 68
Volume 69
Volume 70
Volume 71
Volume 72
Volume 73
Volume 74
Volume 75
Volume 76
Volume 77
Volume 78
Volume 79
Volume 80
Volume 81
Volume 82
Volume 83
Volume 84
Volume 85
Volume 86
Volume 87
Series III: Huldreich Zwinglis, Sämtliche Werke - Volumes 88-101
Volume 88
Volume 89
Volume 90
Volume 91
Volume 92
Volume 93
Volume 94
Volume 95
Volume 96
Volume 97
Volume 98
Volume 99
Volume 100
Volume 101

Athanasius Praising the Psalms

The man who was God's instrument to bring me to faith in Christ recently brought to my attention a letter from Athanasius. The letter is Athanasius' Letter to Marcellinus. If it were not in the form of a letter, I'd be tempted to call it has work "In Praise of the Psalms." Here are some excepts that I found particularly interesting:

Briefly, then, if indeed any more is needed to drive home the point, the whole divine Scripture is the teacher of virtue and true faith, but the Psalter gives a picture of the spiritual life. And, just as one who draws near to an earthly king observes the formalities in regard to dress and bearing and the correct forms of words lest, transgressing in these matters, he be deemed a boor, so he who seeks to live the good life and learn about the Saviour's conduct in the body is by the reading of this holy book first put in mind of his own soul's condition and then supplied with fit words for a suppliant's use.

- Athanasius, Letter to Marcellinus

Isn't it nice how Athanasius manages to work in a reference to the unique teaching role of Scriptures in his letter? It is hard for him to talk about his sole rule of faith and consequently we see it bursting forth, even though the subject matter at hand does not really require it. Isn't it also nice how, in effect, he works in the concept of the regulative principle, reminding his readers that we should learn from the Scriptures how God wishes to be worshiped? After all, the regulative principle of worship is the other side of the coin of Sola Scriptura.

Yet Athanasius is not content simply with praising the Psalms. Athanasius seems to have been one who would not have been fond of Watts' attempted improvements of the Psalms, just as doubtless he would have been opposed to the modern tendency to derogate the Psalms to a relatively minor role in worship:

There is, however, one word of warning needed. No one must allow himself to be persuaded, by any arguments what-ever, to decorate the Psalms with extraneous matter or make alterations in their order or change the words them-selves. They must be sung and chanted in entire simplicity, just as they are written, so that the holy men who gave them to us, recognizing their own words, may pray with us, yes and even more that the Spirit, Who spoke by the saints, recognizing the selfsame words that He inspired, may join us in them too. For as the saints' lives are lovelier than any others, so too their words are better than ever ours can be, and of much more avail, provided only they be uttered from a righteous heart. For with these words they themselves pleased God, and in uttering them, as the Apostle says, they subdued kingdoms, they wrought righteousness, they obtained promises, they stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, waxed mighty in war, turned to flight armies of aliens, women received their dead by resurrection. [Heb 11:33-36]

- Athanasius, Letter to Marcellinus

For those interested in reading more, including some very exact suggestions as to which Psalms are particularly fitting for various occasions, see the following link (link).

To the Glory of God, whose mercies endure forever and whose grace never fails (Psalm 136),

-TurretinFan

Augustine vs. Rome - Definition of Grace

"Mercy and judgment I will sing to thee, O Lord, for it is only through unmerited mercy that anyone is freed, and only through deserved judgment that anyone is condemned."
(Augustine, On Faith, Hope, & Charity, as provided in Fathers of the Church, Volume 2, p. 447)

The Reformed doctrine of grace, because it is drawn from Scripture, finds resonance in the voice of Augustine, whose love of Scripture lead him to continually study it throughout his life and rely on it as his authority in all matters of doctrine and morals.

Augustine, in the epigraphic quote, does not mention the word "grace" but instead "unmerited mercy." That is simply an equivalent expression. Grace is unmerited favor from God, with the absence of merit being absolutely definitional to the term grace. While this is well recognized in Reformed theology, it is disputed by the theology of Rome.

The following is "Rome's position" (footnote 1) regarding merit:

427. What are the goods that we can merit?
Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods, suitable for us, can be merited in accordance with the plan of God. No one, however, can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion and justification.

- Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Question 427 (associated with items 2010-11 and 2027 of the CCC)(emphasis in original)(footnote 2)

The following is one (footnote 3) of Augustine's comments on grace:

And first of all we must be persuaded how much God has loved us, lest through despair we should not dare to be lifted up to Him. But we needed to be shown what kind of men we were whom He loved, lest being proud as it were of our own merits, we should draw away the more from Him, and fail the more in our own strength. And, therefore, God acted towards us in such a way that we might rather profit by His strength, and so the virtue of charity would be perfected in the weakness of humility. He reveals this in the Psalm, where it is said: "Setting aside, O God, a free rain for thy inheritance, and it was weakened, but thou hast made it perfect."[Ps. 67:10?] By the free rain he would have us understand nothing else but grace, which was bestowed not on account of our merits but given freely, and for this reason it is called grace. For He have it not because we were worthy, but because He willed it. If we realize this we shall not trust in ourselves, and this is to be made weak. But He Himself perfects us, who also said to the Apostle Paul: "My grace is sufficient for thee, for strength is made perfect in weakness."[2 Corinthians 12:9] Man had to be persuaded, therefore, how much God loved us, and what kind of men we were whom He loved: how much, that we might not despair, and what kind, that we might not become proud.

- Augustine, On the Trinity, Book 4, Chapter 1, Section 2 (taken from the translation in volume 45 of the Fathers of the Church series)

Notice the key portion of this quotation "By the free rain he would have us understand nothing else but grace, which was bestowed not on account of our merits but given freely, and for this reason it is called grace."

Here's an alternative translation, notice what is missing:

We must be persuaded how much God loved us so that we don’t shrink from Him in despair. And we need to be shown also what kind of people we are whom He loved so that we also don’t withdraw from Him out of pride. But He dealt with us so that we could profit from His strength, and, in the weakness of humility, our holiness could be perfected.

One of the Psalms implies this. It says, “Thou, O God, didst send a spontaneous rain, whereby Thou didst make Thine inheritance perfect, when it was weary.” The “spontaneous rain” is grace given freely and not according to merit. He didn’t give it because we were worthy, but because He willed. Knowing this, we shouldn’t trust in ourselves. That is what is meant by being made “weak.”

However, He perfects us and says to the Apostle Paul, “My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” We, then, must be persuaded how much God loved us and what type of people we were whom He loved. The former is important, lest we despair; the latter, lest we become proud.

- Day by Day with the Early Church Fathers, edited by Hudson et al. (presented as transcribed here)

The Schaff collection's translation has a slightly different wording:

And first we have had to be persuaded how much God loved us, lest from despair we should not dare to look up to Him. And we needed to be shown also what manner of men we are whom He loved, lest being proud, as if of our own merits, we should recede the more from Him, and fail the more in our own strength. And hence He so dealt with us, that we might the rather profit by His strength, and that so in the weakness of humility the virtue of charity might be perfected. And this is intimated in the Psalm, where it is said, “Thou, O God, didst send a spontaneous rain, whereby Thou didst make Thine inheritance perfect, when it was weary.” [Ps. lxviii. 9.—Pluviam voluntariam.] For by “spontaneous rain” nothing else is meant than grace, not rendered to merit, but given freely, [Gratis.] whence also it is called grace; for He gave it, not because we were worthy, but because He willed. And knowing this, we shall not trust in ourselves; and this is to be made “weak.” But He Himself makes us perfect, who says also to the Apostle Paul, “My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” [2 Cor. xii. 9] Man, then, was to be persuaded how much God loved us, and what manner of men we were whom He loved; the former, lest we should despair; the latter, lest we should be proud.

- Augustine, On the Trinity, Book 4, Chapter 1, Section 2 (taken from the translation in NPNF1-03)(footnotes presented within brackets) Essentially the same translation may be found in The Works of Aurelius Augustine, a New Translation, Volume 7 (link)

Notice, however, that while this is a different wording, it is the same concept: "For by “spontaneous rain” nothing else is meant than grace, not rendered to merit, but given freely, whence also it is called grace; for He gave it, not because we were worthy, but because He willed."

This is not an isolated instance of this definition of grace for Augustine, he says much the same thing in his work, On Grace and Free Will:

When God says, “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,” [Zech. i. 3.] one of these clauses—that which invites our return to God—evidently belongs to our will; while the other, which promises His return to us, belongs to His grace. Here, possibly, the Pelagians think they have a justification for their opinion which they so prominently advance, that God’s grace is given according to our merits. In the East, indeed, that is to say, in the province of Palestine, in which is the city of Jerusalem, Pelagius, when examined in person by the bishop, [See On the Proceedings of Pelagius, above, ch. xiv. (30–37).] did not venture to affirm this. For it happened that among the objections which were brought up against him, this in particular was objected, that he maintained that the grace of God was given according to our merits,—an opinion which was so diverse from catholic doctrine, and so hostile to the grace of Christ, that unless he had anathematized it, as laid to his charge, he himself must have been anathematized on its account. He pronounced, indeed, the required anathema upon the dogma, but how insincerely his later books plainly show; for in them he maintains absolutely no other opinion than that the grace of God is given according to our merits. Such passages do they collect out of the Scriptures,—like the one which I just now quoted, “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,”—as if it were owing to the merit of our turning to God that His grace were given us, wherein He Himself even turns unto us. Now the persons who hold this opinion fail to observe that, unless our turning to God were itself God’s gift, it would not be said to Him in prayer, “Turn us again, O God of hosts;” [Ps. lxxx. 7.] and, “Thou, O God, wilt turn and quicken us;” [Ps. lxxxv. 6.] and again, “Turn us, O God of our salvation,” [Ps. lxxxv. 4.] —with other passages of similar import, too numerous to mention here. For, with respect to our coming unto Christ, what else does it mean than our being turned to Him by believing? And yet He says: “No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” [John vi. 65.]

- Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 10 (Section V in the Latin)(footnotes placed into brackets)

Notice that Augustine places essentially the Roman view in the mouth of Pelagius: "God’s grace is given according to our merits."

And again:

Here surely is at fault the vain reasoning of those who defend the foreknowledge of God in opposition to His grace, and with this view declare that we were chosen before the foundation of the world, [Eph. i. 4.] because God foreknew that we should be good, but not that He Himself would make us good. So says not He, who declares, “Ye have not chosen me.” For had He chosen us on the ground that He foreknew that we should be good, then would He also have foreknown that we would not be the first to make choice of Him. For in no other way could we possibly be good: unless, forsooth, one could be called good who has never made good his choice. What was it then that He chose in those who were not good? For they were not chosen because of their goodness, inasmuch as they could not be good without being chosen. Otherwise grace is no more grace, if we maintain the priority of merit. Such, certainly, is the election of grace, whereof the apostle says: “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace.” To which he adds: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.” [Rom. xi. 5, 6.] Listen, thou ungrateful one, listen: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Not that thou mayest say, I am chosen because I already believed. For if thou wert believing in Him, then hadst thou already chosen Him. But listen: “Ye have not chosen me.” Not that thou mayest say, Before I believed I was already doing good works, and therefore was I chosen. For what good work can be prior to faith, when the apostle says, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin”? [Rom. xiv. 23.] What, then, are we to say on hearing such words, “Ye have not chosen me,” but that we were evil, and were chosen in order that we might be good through the grace of Him who chose us? For it is not by grace, if merit preceded: but it is of grace: and therefore that grace did not find, but effected the merit.

- Augustine, Tractate 86 on the Gospel of John, Section 2 (footnotes placed in brackets)

The key sentence in the above quotation is: "Otherwise grace is no more grace, if we maintain the priority of merit." Rome's view, which permits grace to be on the priority of merit calls something grace that is not grace.

And yet again:

He commendeth the grace whereby He calleth according to His own purpose. Of which purpose the apostle says, “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to those who are called according to the purpose of God,” [Rom. viii. 28.] to wit, the purpose of Him that calleth, not of those who are called; which is put still more clearly in another place in this way, “Labor together in the gospel according to the power of God, who saveth us and calleth us with His holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace.” [2 Tim. i. 8, 9.] For if our thoughts turn to the nature wherein we have been created, inasmuch as we were all created by the Truth, who is there that is not of the truth? But it is not all to whom it is given of the truth to hear, that is, to obey the truth, and to believe in the truth; while in no case certainly is there any preceding of merit, lest grace should cease to be grace. For had He said, Every one that heareth my voice is of the truth, then it would be supposed that he was declared to be of the truth because he conforms to the truth; it is not this, however, that He says, but, “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” And in this way he is not of the truth simply because he heareth His voice; but only on this account he heareth, because he is of the truth, that is, because this is a gift bestowed on him of the truth. And what else is this, but that by Christ’s gracious bestowal he believeth on Christ?

- Augustine, Tractate 115 on the Gospel of John, Section 4 (footnotes placed in brackets)

In the above quotation, we see the similar expression: "while in no case certainly is there any preceding of merit, lest grace should cease to be grace."

Still further:

Now this election the Apostle demonstrating to be, not of merits going before in good works, but election of grace, saith thus: “And in this time a remnant by election of grace is saved. But if by grace, then is it no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.” [Rom. xi. 5, 6] This is election of grace; that is, election in which through the grace of God men are elected: this, I say, is election of grace which goes before all good merits of men. For if it be to any good merits that it is given, then is it no more gratuitously given, but is paid as a debt, and consequently is not truly called grace; where “reward,” as the same Apostle saith, “is not imputed as grace, but as debt.” [Rom. iv. 4] Whereas if, that it may be true grace, that is, gratuitous, it find nothing in man to which it is due of merit, (which thing is well understood in that saying, “Thou wilt save them for nothing,” [Psalm lvi. 7, Lat. and LXX. ὑπšρ τοῦ μηθενὸς σὡσεις αὐτούς. But Heb. and E.V. “shall they escape by iniquity?”]) then assuredly itself gives the merits, not to merits is given. Consequently it goes before even faith, from which it is that all good works begin. “For the just,” as is written, “shall live by faith.” [Habak. ii. 4] But, moreover, grace not only assists the just, but also justifies the ungodly. And therefore even when it does aid the just and seems to be rendered to his merits, not even then does it cease to be grace, because that which it aids it did itself bestow. With a view therefore to this grace, which precedes all good merits of man, not only was Christ put to death by the ungodly, but “died for the ungodly.” [Rom. v. 6] And ere that He died, He elected the Apostles, not of course then just, but to be justified: to whom He saith, “I have chosen you out of the world.” For to whom He said, “Ye are not of the world,” and then, lest they should account themselves never to have been of the world, presently added, “But I have chosen you out of the world;” assuredly that they should not be of the world was by His own election of them conferred upon them. Wherefore, if it had been through their own righteousness, not through His grace, that they were elected, they would not have been chosen out of the world, because they would already not be of the world if already they were just. And again, if the reason why they were elected was, that they were already just, they had already first chosen the Lord. For who can be righteous but by choosing righteousness? “But the end of the law is Christ, for righteousness is to every one that believeth. [Rom. x. 4] Who is made unto us wisdom of God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” [1 Cor. i. 30, 31] He then is Himself our righteousness.

- Augustine, On Patience, Section 17 (footnotes placed in brackets)

Again note Augustine's explanation: "For if it be to any good merits that it is given, then is it no more gratuitously given, but is paid as a debt, and consequently is not truly called grace ... ."

Further still:

Read with a little more attention its exposition in the treatise of the blessed martyr Cyprian, which he wrote concerning this matter, the title of which is, On the Lord’s Prayer; and see how many years ago, and what sort of an antidote was prepared against those poisons which the Pelagians were one day to use. For there are three points, as you know, which the catholic Church chiefly maintains against them. One of these is, that the grace of God is not given according to our merits; because even every one of the merits of the righteous is God’s gift, and is conferred by God’s grace. The second is, that no one lives in this corruptible body, however righteous he may be, without sins of some kind. The third is, that man is born obnoxious to the first man’s sin, and bound by the chain of condemnation, unless the guilt which is contracted by generation be loosed by regeneration. Of these three points, that which I have placed last is the only one that is not treated of in the above-named book of the glorious martyr; but of the two others the discourse there is of such perspicuity, that the above-named heretics, modern enemies of the grace of Christ, are found to have been convicted long before they were born. Among these merits of the saints, then, which are no merits unless they are the gifts of God, he says that perseverance also is God’s gift, in these words: “We say, ‘Hallowed be Thy name;’ not that we ask for God that He may be hallowed by our prayers, but that we beseech of Him that His name may be hallowed in us. But by whom is God sanctified, since He Himself sanctifies? Well, because He says, Be ye holy because I also am holy, we ask and entreat that we, who were sanctified in baptism, may persevere in that which we have begun to be.” [Cyprian, On the Lord’s Prayer; see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. p. 450.] And a little after, still arguing about that self-same matter, and teaching that we entreat perseverance from the Lord, which we could in no wise rightly and truly do unless it were His gift, he says: “We pray that this sanctification may abide in us; and because our Lord and Judge warns the man that was healed and quickened by Him to sin no more, lest a worse thing happen unto him, we make this supplication in our constant prayers; we ask this, day and night, that the sanctification and quickening which is received from the grace of God may be preserved by His protection.” [Cyprian, On the Lord’s Prayer, as above.] That teacher, therefore, understands that we are asking from Him for perseverance in sanctification, that is, that we should persevere in sanctification, when we who are sanctified say, “Hallowed be Thy name.” For what else is it to ask for what we have already received, than that it be given to us also not to cease from its possession? As, therefore, the saint, when he asks God that he may be holy, is certainly asking that he may continue to be holy, so certainly the chaste person also, when he asks that he may be chaste, the continent that he may be continent, the righteous that he may be righteous, the pious that he may be pious, and the like,—which things, against the Pelagians, we maintain to be God’s gifts,—are asking, without doubt, that they may persevere in those good things which they have acknowledged that they have received. And if they receive this, assuredly they also receive perseverance itself, the great gift of God, whereby His other gifts are preserved.

- Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, Chapter 4 (Section II in the Latin)(footnotes placed in brackets)

Notice how in the above quotation, Augustine speaks exactly contrary to the Roman catechism. He declares that "perseverance in sanctification" is gracious and (consequently) not on account of merit. I don't expect anyone to agree with Augustine's definition of grace, simply because Augustine said it. Read Scripture (as Augustine would have wanted you to do) and see for yourself whether Augustine or the Roman Catholic Church is right about this issue.

Augustine tells us where he gets his ideas about grace: "From these and similar passages of Scripture, we gather the proof that God's grace is not given according to our merits." (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 13, (Section 6 in the Latin)) So, search the Scriptures and see whether these things be as we have told you. Scripture is what proved it to us and to Augustine, perhaps it will prove it to you as well, dear reader, if you do not already agree.

-TurretinFan

Footnote 1: "Official" in the sense of being a public teaching in an official document. The document itself, however, like the overwhelming majority of documents in Catholicism, does not purport to be infallible.

Footnote 2: Note that this compendium serves to explain how simultaneously Rome claims: "Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life." (CCC1996) If that statement were taken by itself, Rome would sound nearly orthodox in its theology of grace. The fact of the matter, however, is that such a definition is applied exclusively to what Rome calls "initial grace."

Footnote 3: Augustine's works are massive and imposing. I don't make this blog post out to be the last scholarly word on the subject. Perhaps I've missed something in my reading of Augustine that ends up undoing the force of the material he provides here.

Jonathan Prejean on John Calvin

Roman Catholic (calls himself "Crimson Catholic") Jonathan Prejean provides the following description of Calvin:

In my opinion, Calvin's Institutes is the equivalent of spiritual pornography, worse than anything you hear in 99% of Beatles' songs, and most people who read it aren't doing it as an example of Middle French theological literature or as a purely historical document. There's no doubt in my mind that God hates that book in terms of its theological content, because he hates evil, and that book teaches blasphemy and all sorts of other evils.

(source)

It's truly amazing how folks will rant against Calvin, but when you search their blog (link) for substantiation, you find it completely absent. Obviously, Mr. Prejean is stating his opinion, and yet one would hope that such a harshly negative opinion would have at least some relationship to reality.

Read a copy of the Institutes of the Christian Religion today and see for yourself whether Calvin blasphemes God in that book (html format - multiple formats at Archive - volume 1 - volume 2), or whether Mr. Prejean's opinion, while not slanderous (since it is only a statement of his opinion, not an assertion of fact - and since Calvin is dead), is gravely mistaken. And yes, this is one of the books that was on Rome's "Index of Prohibited Books" back when Rome thought such attempts might work.

-TurretinFan

Offered Often or Once?

We're sometimes told that it an incorrect "either/or" mentality that causes us to reject the sacrifices of the mass on the basis that Christ was offered only once and not often. Yet Scripture itself has that mentality.

Hebrews 9:24-28
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Notice that there is a continual either/or mentality exhibited in the text. Jesus is not in a holy place that men built (sorry, my Roman Catholic friends, he is not in your golden tabernacles) but in heaven itself. It is an either/or.

Again, it is not "often" like the priests of old but "once in the end of the world." It is not both, but either/or.

He will appear a second time, coming from heaven to judge the world in righteousness on the last day. That is when he will come back to earth, not pulled down by priestly incantations however biblical the words are that they utter.

The Bible expresses it in either/or terminology. You cannot have it both ways. The Bible says Jesus offered himself once. Rome says that Jesus offers himself daily, even while elsewhere inconsistently affirming the Biblical truth.

Example:

Of course, the most excellent prayer of all is the one offered daily at the altar by Christ Jesus, the High Priest, to God the Father when the holy sacrifice of Redemption is renewed.

- Pius XII, Fidei Donum, Section 52, 21 April 1957

And likewise:

Above all, you will be ministers of the Eucharist: you will receive this sacrament as a priceless inheritance in which the mystery of Christ’s sacrifice is renewed daily and the decisive event of his Death and Resurrection for the world’s salvation continues. You will celebrate the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine, as he himself offered it for the first time in the Upper Room, on the eve of his Passion. You will thus be personally associated with the mystery of the Good Shepherd, who lays down his life for his sheep.

- John Paul II, Priestly Ordinations, Section 2, 3 May 1988

And again:

The third end proposed is that of expiation, propitiation and reconciliation. Certainly, no one was better fitted to make satisfaction to Almighty God for all the sins of men than was Christ. Therefore, He desired to be immolated upon the cross "as a propitiation for our sins, not for ours only but also for those of the whole world" and likewise He daily offers Himself upon our altars for our redemption, that we may be rescued from eternal damnation and admitted into the company of the elect.

- Pius XII, Mediator Dei, Section 73, 20 November 1947

Alternatively, the priestly role is given to the church and specifically the priests, but still it is a daily thing:

Example:

There is one amongst all others, the loss of which is more deplorable than words can express; We allude to the most holy Sacrifice in which Jesus Christ, both Priest and Victim, daily offers Himself to His Father, through the ministry of His priests on earth. By virtue of this Sacrifice the infinite merits of Christ, gained by His Precious Blood shed once upon the Cross for the salvation of men, are applied to our souls.

- Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium, Section 9, 25 July 1898

And again:

Without priests the Church would not be able to live that fundamental obedience which is at the very heart of her existence and her mission in history, an obedience in response to the command of Christ: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Mt. 28:19) and "Do this in remembrance of me" (Lk. 22:19; cf. 1 Cor. 11.24), i.e:, an obedience to the command to announce the Gospel and to renew daily the sacrifice of the giving of his body and the shedding of his blood for the life of the world.

- John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, Section 1, 25 March 1992

And similarly:

Most abundant, assuredly, are the salutary benefits which are stored up in this most venerable mystery, regarded as a Sacrifice; a Sacrifice which the Church is accordingly wont to offer daily "for the salvation of the whole world."

- Leo XIII, Mirae Caritatis, Section 17, 28 May 1902

And consequently we even see this embodied in Canon law:

they are to nourish their spiritual life from the two-fold table of sacred scripture and the Eucharist; therefore, priests are earnestly invited to offer the eucharistic sacrifice daily and deacons to participate in its offering daily;

- Code of Canon Law, Book 2, Part 1, Title, 3, Chapter 3, Canon 276, Section 2, Subsection 2

Offered once or offered often? You can pick the Bible or you can pick Roman Catholic theology, but since the Bible expresses itself in a mutually exclusive way, you cannot have it both ways. It is not both once and often, but only either once or often. The Old Covenant sacrifices were often, the New Covenant sacrifice is once for all time. While Roman Catholic theology will affirm that Christ is offered once for all (in some places), in many other places (some of which are illustrated above) Rome makes the offering of Christ a daily event, not a once-for-all event. As such, Rome's theology is unbiblical and ought to be rejected and/or reformed.

-TurretinFan

Non Sequitur Illustrated

Here is a classic non sequitur: "The biggest reason I think that Protestantism lies at the heart of relativism is this. Protestants are in the awkward position of saving, 'All of Christendom c. 1516 and before, you all misunderstand Christianity!'" (Joe Heschmeyer at Shameless Popery) Leaving aside the ridiculous claim that Protestantism has to make such an assertion, there is simply no connection between that assertion and relativism. Quite to the contrary, claims that we understand correctly and someone else understands incorrectly is an absolutist claim, not a relativist claim. The blog is aptly titled, no doubt, and despite the link for those wishing to verify the accuracy of the quotation, I don't endorse his post or blog in any way.

-TurretinFan

The real Francis Turretin on: The Mosaic Covenant

Michael Brown at Pilgrim People has an interesting post in which he discusses the real Francis Turretin's view of the Mosaic covenant (aka Siniatic Covenant)(link). I believe that the Thomas Goodwin blog actually delved into this subject a bit more deeply a while back (post 1 - post 2), nevertheless it is still an interesting topic. Brown is in the midst of an ongoing (I think) series on the topic of the relationship of the Mosaic covenant to the covenant of grace and the covenant of works. His blog seems to have a bit of the two-kingdoms and redemptive-historical influence, but there is a lot of interesting reading material to be found there.

-TurretinFan

Allah said it?

Muslims sometimes (see footnote 1) make the claim:

We should read the Quran believing this is Allah speaking to us, because that is what it is. It is Allah talking to us directly.

(source)

Similarly:

Islam is unique among the Abrahamic religions in its understanding of sacred scripture. While the Hebrew and Christian scriptures contain an occasional direct quotation by the divinity (e.g., “And I heard the voice of the L-rd, saying, . . . ‘ Isaiah 6.8; “but [the Lord] said to me, . . . “ Galatians 12.9), these scriptures contain primarily narration, poetry, wisdom, sermon, instruction and epistle written in the third person. Only the Glorious Qur’an consists entirely of Allah speaking for himself in the first person. This direct identification of the Arabic words of the Qur’an with Allah has profound implications for communication and rhetoric in the Islamic world.

(source)

This kind of claims create serious problems from the very start of the Koran. Recall that the Koran begins with a chapter called "Al-Fatiha" (The Opening).

That chapter includes the following verse:

إِيَّاك نَعْبُدُ وإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِين

The translation of this is: "You alone we worship, and You alone we ask for help"

Everyone who reads this recognizes that there are essentially two options:

1) These are the words of a man worshiping Allah; or

2) These are the words of Allah worshiping someone else.

Given the rest of Islamic theology (2) is wrong, and consequently (1) is really the only option. But if (1) is the option, then this is not the literal words of Allah, but the words of someone speaking to Allah. You might think (see footnote 2) that this would be readily admitted by everyone, but surprisingly I have observed this issue be disputed. The response given was "you can see it's a prayer, you can see it's a prayer," which is not really a matter of any dispute.

It is alleged (though I have not been able to find confirmation of this) that some copies of the Koran inserted the word "say" at the beginning of this chapter, so that the words would be Allah's words telling people how to praise him. No "say," however, is found in the most popular edition of the Koran today.

It is also alleged that the entire surah "Al-Fatiha" (the Opening) is a later (yet pre-Uthmanic) addition to the Koran. Even if we left out "Al-Fatiha" from our consideration, one does find "Allah" speaking in the third person (not just the first person) in other places in the Koran, such as:

From Surah 2, "The Cow,"
243 Have you not considered those who went forth from their homes, for fear of death, and they were thousands, then Allah said to them, Die; again He gave them life; most surely Allah is Gracious to people, but most people are not grateful.

The Bible is superior to the Koran in many ways. One way is that it teaches that prophecy does not have its origins in man's will, but yet it is the product of men speaking. As Scripture says:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Where is any teaching like that in the Koran? Where is a proper understanding of the way by which God's revelation is conveyed through the prophets?

-TurretinFan

Footnote 1: There are a very large number of Muslims. Some say 1 billion. There is simply no way that the positions identified above are held by all 1 billion of them.

Footnote 2: Most of the usual readers of my blog are not Muslims.

Internet Calvinism or Internet Lumpkinsianism

Peter Lumpkins claims that:

The situation has improved somewhat on both sides now. However, websites like Triablogue offer the worst possible example of sectarian Reformed theology and thinking. The recent post entitled "The neo-Manicheans" surely stands as the quintessential rubbish plaguing otherwise sound Calvinistic thinking today (//link). To argue as does the author that James Arminius in particular and contemporary Arminianism in general are essentially Manichean is too historically ignorant for words.

(source)

Of course, Mr. Lumpkins doesn't care to include things like supporting arguments. That would be far too Calvinistic.

Nor does he care to actually delve into an analysis of the article that goes beyond reading the headline. That type of depth of reading and analysis, no doubt, would be far too much like those evil Internet Calvinists.

No, Internet Lumpkinsianism is so much better: you just insult someone with colorful verbiage, demonstrating that the extent of your perusal was the title of their post, and go merrily on your way. Why "Lumpkinsianism" instead of Arminianism? Because most Internet Arminians are at least able to demonstrate that they read articles that they flame.

-TurretinFan

N.B. For the reading-impaired - this post relies heavily on mockery of a flaming post with no substance. I'm not seriously suggesting that anyone should engage in Lumpkinsianism. I'm also not disagreeing with the idea that if one wants to learn about Calvinism, one should not rely solely on the blogosphere, but one should get a book (such as Turretin's Institutes, Calvin's Institutes, Witsius' Economies, or Hodge's Systematic Theology.

A Day in God's Courts is Better than 1000 Elsewhere

A friend recently asked, in the comment box, for me to comment on the following verse:

Psalm 84:10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

For context, I provide the entirety of Psalm 84 below:

{To the chief Musician upon Gittith, A Psalm for the sons of Korah.}

How amiable are thy tabernacles, O LORD of hosts! My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God. Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King, and my God. Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah.

Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them. Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools. They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God. O LORD God of hosts, hear my prayer: give ear, O God of Jacob. Selah.

Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness. For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly. O LORD of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee.

It's important to recall who the sons of Korah were:

1 Chronicles 9:19 And Shallum the son of Kore, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah, and his brethren, of the house of his father, the Korahites, were over the work of the service, keepers of the gates of the tabernacle: and their fathers, being over the host of the LORD, were keepers of the entry.

These were the sons of Korah. They were men who had very administrative tasks within the tabernacle worship in the Old Testament. They were not priests. In fact, when these roles were announced, Korah became famous because he tried to rebel against this menial role, suggesting that his family was just as holy as Aaron's. God judged him and his fellow rebels dramatically, the earth opening up and swallowing them.

The sons of Korah are designated in the headings of Psalms 42, 44-49, 84-85, and 87-88. Of those only Psalm 84 makes specific mention of the occupation of the sons of Korah, and yet one wonders whether this designation in the heading means that these Psalms were sung specifically by the door-keepers of the tabernacle and later temple.

In fact, what is interesting is that of all the titles, the only other personal designation is the heading of Psalm 72, namely "for Solomon," with the designation of Psalm 92, "A Psalm or Son for the sabbath day," being (it would seem) an occasional - not an anthropomorphic designation. This understanding seems to be confirmed by the designation "To the chief musician" which appears in the title of all of the Korahite psalms except 48 and 87, whereas the designation "To the chief musician" appears in just under a third of the psalms (forty six have that designation).

Some view this psalm as mournful, but it seems from what I can see that this psalm is jubilant. The psalm beings with rejoicing over how pleasant it is to be in God's tabernacle, in the symbolic place of his presence. That theme is mentioned again in verse 3 (the altars were in the tabernacle), then in verse 4 (house = tabernacle), and again in verse 10 (our focus). The title "LORD of hosts" is one of high praise for the might and power of God.

Verse 2 conveys in strong terms the desire (kâsaph) which is described as one that brings about fainting (kâlâh) and that causes one to shout (rânan) for the living God.

Verse 3 emphasizes the safety of being near God. The swallow and sparrow are timid birds, and consequently if they build their nests on the altar of God, that must be a safe place.

Verse 4 reiterates the them of verse 1 about it being wonderful to be in God's house.

Verse 5 takes the same idea and turns it a bit, pointing out that it is blessed to trust in God and to follow the paths of God.

Verse 6 points out that God provides for those following the path of God, and

Verse 7 completes that thought by teaching perseverance of the saints, namely that all those that follow God go to Zion, the picture of heaven.

Verse 8 seems to mark the end of the first prayer of the psalm with a request that God would hear the prayer.

Verse 9 begins the second prayer of the psalm, noting the protection that God provides and asking him to look on the face of "thine anointed." The primary significance of this "annointed" may be David. While this Psalm does not state its human author, it is frequently David, in the Psalms, to which that expression refers. (See Psalm 18:50, Psalm 89:20, and Psalm 132:10) Possibly, alternatively, though they were not priests, the sons of Korah may have been anointed when they came to serve the tabernacle. Nevertheless, the spiritual significance would seem to be Christ (which is translated as "anointed"). When God looks upon the face of Christ, he shows mercy.

Verse 10, as worded in the KJV, is a bit confusing to an English-speaker. Surely the idea is not that one day in God's courts are better than to be in God's courts for a thousand days. Instead, the idea is that one day in God's courts is better than a thousand elsewhere. We see this from the Hebrew parallelism in the second half of the verse, where the explanation is provided that the person would rather be a doorkeeper in God's house than to dwell in "tents of wickedness."

Verse 11 provides the explanation, which ties back to the beginning of the second prayer, namely that God is a shield as well as adding that God is a sun (in contrast to God being water in the valley of Baca). The verse continues by pointing out how God gives every good thing to those who "walk uprightly" which ties back to the earlier verses about following God's ways.

Verse 12 concludes by noting that those who trust in God are blessed.

Praise be to the Lord!

-TurretinFan

J.C. Ryle on the Idolatry of the Golden Calves

J.C. Ryle in his comments on idolatry, provided the following discussion relevant to my recent posts about the golden calves:

It is not necessary for a man to formally deny God and Christ, in order to be an idolater. Far from it. Professed reverence for the God of the Bible, and actual idolatry, are perfectly compatible. They have often gone side by side, and they still do so. The children of Israel never thought of renouncing God when they persuaded Aaron to make the golden calf. "These by thy gods," they said (thy Elohim), "which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." And the feast in honour of the calf was kept as a "feast unto the Lord" (Jehovah) (Exodus 32:4-5). Jeroboam, again, never pretended to ask the ten tribes to cast off their allegiance to the God of David and Solomon. When he set up the calves of gold in Dan and Bethel, he only said, "It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel (thy Elohim), which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" (1 Kings 12:28). In both instances, we should observe, the idol was not set up as a rival to God, but under the pretense of being a help—a steppingstone to His service. But, in both instances, a great sin was committed. The honor due to God was given to a visible representation of Him. The majesty of Jehovah was offended. The second commandment was broken. There was, in the eyes of God, a flagrant act of idolatry. Let us mark this well.

- J.C. Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion, pp. 401-02 (see a modernized version of this specific essay)

-TurretinFan

Antinomianism - The Other Side of the Island

If on one side of the island of Christianity there is the dangerous water of Legalism as taught not only by Rome but many others, there is also on the other side of the island the danger of Antinominianism. Mark Jones at Meet the Puritans provides a more complete explanation, including a quotation from the real Francis Turretin to assist the reader in distinguishing between Justification and the entirety of the New Covenant (link). Legalism suggests that men are justified by works, whereas Antinomianism has no use at all for the law in the life of a Christian. Both errors ought to be avoided.

Defining Hyper-Calvinism

John Sneed at Ministerial Meanderings provides a good (and much better, imho, than Phil Johnson's) definition of hyper-calvinism in a recent re-post (link). Also important is his post's emphasis on the need to be Biblical Christians, recalling that for us the Scripture is not just a rule of faith, but the rule of faith.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: Mr. Sneed mentions the "love of God for the non-elect" issue that is sometimes brought into the hyper-Calvinism discussion, normally without warrant. He doesn't really make that his definition (that I could see) and I didn't think it worthwhile mentioning that minor issue in his post. That said, plainly the two major points of his definition:

1) Teaching that God attains ends without means; and

2) Teaching that there is no need for evangelism,

hit two of the three main areas of hypercalvinism.

A third area would be teaching providence-favoring incompatibilism: the error of asserting that moral choice and divine Providence are incompatible, accepting Providence and consequently denying moral responsibility.

There are several things that are not properly classified as hypercalvinism:

1) Scrupling over words such as:
a) "Offer" of the Gospel (as long as one proclaims the gospel, refusal to use the word "offer" may make one unconfessional, but it does not make one an heretic);
b) "Common grace" (as long as one proclaims that God's providential dealings extend to both the elect and reprobate, one is not a heretic simply because one refuses to use the term "grace" for things other than saving grace);
c) "love of the reprobate" (there is no rule that says people have to use the adjective "love" to describe God's relationship toward those to whom he may give riches in this life but hell forever); and
d) "duty faith" (as long as one does not deny that faith is commanded by God, refusal to use the expression "duty faith" cannot be considered heretical).

2) Denying that non-Calvinists are unsaved. This is a rather extreme view, no doubt, but it is not what hyper-Calvinism is.

3) Being a big meanie. Remarkably, in some circles, I've seen this used. Don't be a big meanie, but if you are one, that doesn't make you a hyper-calvinist.