Athanasius, the Canon, and Sola Scriptura against Matthew Bellisario and Rome

Recently, Mr. Bellisario provided comments in a comment box attempting to attack the Reformed position using the issues of the canon and Athanasius (his post here). The following is a detailed reply.

MB wrote: "Turretin, the Church doesn't lie to me, your own flawed intellect deceives you."

It shows your zeal to state this so dogmatically, but you have no way of knowing this. How could you possibly know whether your church is lying to you? Are you competent to read the Scriptures and examine history and test the claims of your church?

MB continued: "The Bible doesn't tell you what the Canon is, does it?"

That's an inane comment, for at least the following reasons:

1) It is non-unique

Your church doesn't tell you what the canon of its teachings is. If it is a problem for me to lack an infallible canon of Scripture, then it is a worse problem for you to lack an infallible canon of "Tradition."

2) It is absurd

Jesus was able to tell the Jews to "Search the Scriptures" without the Jews needing an infallible canon to know what were the Scriptures. Paul was able to talk to Timothy about the Scriptures in the same way, and the whole visible church managed to get by without an infallible canon of Scripture at least until Trent.

3) It is inherent

If you have "the Bible" you can deduce the canon. To say that "The Bible doesn't tell you what the Canon is," is rather like saying that the Pizza doesn't tell you what its ingredients are. Well, there may not be a list of ingredients on the side, but if you have the pizza you can write your own list of ingredients.

4) It Forgets that Sola Scriptura assumes Scriptura

Having Scripture is the antecedent for having Sola Scriptura. First we are given the Scriptures, then we believe what they say. I realize this is boundlessly inconvenient for folks who wish to misrepresent Sola Scriptura, but it is what it is.

MB wrote: "You have no infallible way of knowing what the Canon is, so you, by your own flawed intellect go through Church Father writings trying to justify your own position on what you think the Canon is."

Most of the essence of this is addressed above. Here are the counter questions:

1) Since there was no one claiming to have an infallible canon prior to Trent, it seems the only logical conclusion is that your accusation regarding me is the same accusation you must hurl against Cajetan, Jerome, Paul, although we hope you'd have the shame not to hurl it against the Lord Jesus who spoke of Scripture before anyone claimed to have an infallible canon. Do you really want to make that kind of accusation?

2) But if you see that it is fruitless to make such accusations, then why not let me find the canon the same way they did? Why must I be held to a different standard than them, simply because your church has decided that it wants to make a supposedly infallible canon?

3) Finally, surely you ought to be aware that the Reformed position is not that we "go through Church Father writings trying to justify [our] own position on what [we] think the Canon is." We do certainly examine the Church Fathers and also the Jewish writings. We do so both because the historical record is one of the ways by which the Holy Spirit persuades us that this is His Word (from the positive angle) but also to answer the cavils of Romanists who try to claim that Trent's canon is what "the Church has always taught."

To pick on Trent, the statement that Trent is "following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament" (including the Apocrypha) is something that Trent claims, but is either simple ignorance of the historic record or a lie. The Apocrypha were not (and Jerome provides evidence of this) given equal affection of piety and reverence with the canonical books. We could provide additional historical documentation of this, if history and the truth mattered to you.

MB wrote: "As far as the Church being the Church, it is apparent that you are not as familiar with the Church Fathers as you think you are, or you selectively deciding to pick and choose from what they write based on your own flawed intellect."

1) The very idea of going to the church fathers to decide if modern Roman Catholicism is the "the Church" is at least mildly strange. Perhaps one could go to them for tests of the true church, but when we do, we find them using the test of faith, not walls. But they did not see Trent, or the blasphemies of Vatican I and Vatican II. Their doctrines, teachings, and practices were (in many cases) contrary to those modern councils, but they were not around to witness with horror what folks did while trying to claim the title "Catholic."

2) Furthermore, we conclude that Rome is not part of the church, not based on the church fathers, but on Scripture. It is amazing that you act as though you are unaware of this.

MB wrote: "You have no idea as to what history teaches, or what the Scriptures teach."

1) I suppose I could just take this as a personal insult. As such, it's dumb. I've provided extensive documentation on my blog that demonstrates at least some familiarity with both Scripture and history. Only someone who had never perused my blog would think that I have "no idea" what Scripture or history teach.

2) But perhaps you mean this in a broader sense. Perhaps you are trying to argue that no one can know what history or Scripture teach unless they first trust in your church. That would be consistent with you arguments above, although ...

3) Such an argument would, however, undermine any basis for us to accept your church. If we are unable to know what history or Scripture teach without your church telling us, why should we accept your church in the first place? Just on her say so?

4) Furthermore, Scripture itself teaches (and the Fathers did too) that the Scriptures are able to make a person wise unto salvation. To assert that they cannot is to go against Scripture and Tradition.

5) Moreover, as is plain from Scripture itself and is explicitly taught by many of the church fathers, much of Scripture is quite clear. Your claim that I have "no idea" what Scripture teaches is plainly contrary to both Scripture and tradition if you mean in it in a general sense, which it appears you do, because you continued:

MB wrote: "You are like all of those heretics before you, all using their own flawed intellect to come up with novel teachings on what they think the Scriptures mean."

1) Notice the fluid change in the argument from what the Scriptures are to what the Scriptures mean.

2) Notice the attempt to substitute rhetoric for argument. Instead of saying "heretics coming up with novel teachings on what Scripture means," Bellisario loads down his sentence with useless, pejorative rhetorical flourishes:

a) "their own"

Whose else intellect are they going to use?

b) "flawed"

Whose intellect is flawless?

c) "intellect"

Are we supposed to avoid using our intellects?

d) "they think"

Surely, everyone who has an opinion about Scripture thinks they know what Scripture means.

3) We understand, of course, the reason for these empty rhetorical flourishes. The sentence: "Bellisario doesn't like heretics" sounds more vehement when we phrase it as "Bellisario doesn't like those that he thinks are, using his own flawed intellect, heretics."

4) But the rhetoric distracts from the issue. How can we determine whether "the heretics" got it right or wrong? After all, some of the heretics did not and do not appeal to Scripture alone for their claims. The Gnostics, for example, claimed oral tradition - the Muslims and Mormons claim additional revelation - and so have many other heretical groups. The way that we determine whether heretics got it right or wrong is by appeal to Scripture (and, yes, in the process we have to use our minds, which involves thinking, and using our intellects, even though our intellects are not flawless).

MB wrote: "Do you remember a man named St. Athanasius, who refuted the Arians, who also were quoting Scripture to defend their heresies?"

He wasn't named "St. Athanasius." Yes, the Arians did attempt to quote Scripture - so do Romanists - so do Mormons. Lots of folks do that, once they realize the authority of Scripture. Lots of criminals quote the laws of the land (especially the constitution, in constitutional countries).

Satan himself quoted Scripture - and Jesus rebutted him. How? From Scripture.

MB wrote: "Since you apparently didn't learn anything from our debate (the one that you think you won), let me give you a refresher."

We've only done (you and I) one formal debate. That is the one to which you are referring, and which can be found here (link). The remainder, which can also be found there, are informal debates or conversations or the like. I am just as willing to have them examined by the reader as I am our formal debate.

MB wrote: "The Arians also thought they could take the Scriptures for themselves outside of the Church and interpret it for themselves."

This just shows MB's lack of familiarity with the error of Arianism. Arianism arose within "the church" and gained a majority position there. Athanasius (from whom MB is about to quote) put it this way:

Athanasius (297-373): For if ever God shall give back the churches (for we think He will) yet without such restoration of the churches the Faith is sufficient for us. And lest, speaking without the Scriptures, I should [seem to] speak too strongly, it is well to bring you to the testimony of Scriptures, for recollect that the Temple indeed was at Jerusalem; the Temple was not deserted, aliens had invaded it, whence also the Temple being at Jerusalem, those exiles went down to Babylon by the judgment of God, who was proving, or rather correcting them; while manifesting to them in their ignorance punishment [by means] of blood-thirsty enemies. And aliens indeed had held the Place, but knew not the Lord of the Place, while in that He neither gave answer nor spoke, they were deserted by the truth. NPNF2: Vol. IV, Letters of Athanasius, I. Festal Letters, fragment.

Notice how Athanasius views the faith itself as more fundamental than the churches. Furthermore, he proves his position from Scripture, rather than from "the Church" (at least for the obvious reason, namely that "the churches" had been taken over by Arians).

MB wrote: "But St. Athanasius told them they were interpreting the Scriptures incorrectly and not as they had been handed on to them in the Church."

We tell you that same thing, namely that your views of Scripture are incorrect and novel. And you try to tell us that too. To answer those questions, one would expect to then find some sort of umpire by which to decide whose interpretation is correct.

MB wrote: "You know, the one you reject."

I reject the church of Rome, which anathematized the gospel at Trent. I don't "reject" the church as defined by the faith (which gets us back to what Athanasius said above).

MB continued: "The great Saint wrote,"

As an aside, it is interesting how he is "The great Saint" when he writes things that Bellisario thinks he agrees with, and merely an individual church father and private theologian when he writes things that Bellisario disagrees with. All rhetoric aside, let's examine the quotations that Bellisario provided.

First: "“However here too they (Arians) introduce their private fictions, and contend that the Son and the Father are not in such wise 'one,' or 'like,' as the Church preaches, but as they themselves would have it" Orat 3,10”"

1) The extra quotation marks there are because Mr. Bellisario cut and pasted this quotation from somewhere else on the Internet. I'm confident that Mr. Bellisario originally borrowed this particular quotation from Phil Porvaznik's website, and Phil got it (apparently) from Joe Gallegos. I don't know whether Phil or Joe ever bothered to read the context of the quotations, but I would be surprised if Bellisario did. Incidentally, these are the same quotations that have already been addressed in our debate. But we'll look at them again.

2) Athanasius does mention the "the Church" and talks about the church preaching. He is arguing that the Arians' view is out of line with what the church teaches, but he does not think that this concludes the argument. In fact, he treats it as simply a statement of the disagreement between the Arians and "the Church."

The part that Bellisario has quoted comes from the opening of chapter 25 of Discourse 3 against the Arians. The word "church" is used in that one instance in the opening section (section 10 of Discourse 3) and the word "church" is not used again until section 67, at the conclusion of the discourse, about five chapters later, where Athanasius says: "Therefore call not the Son a work of good pleasure; nor bring in the doctrine of Valentinus into the Church; but be He the Living Counsel, and Offspring in truth and nature, as the Radiance from the Light." (Athanasius, Discourse III against the Arians, Chapter 30, Section 67)

There is no reference to "tradition" as such, aside from a single reference to the church fathers very briefly at one point: "And yet, needless though it be to refine upon these passages, considering their so clear and religious sense, and our own orthodox belief, yet that their irreligion may be shown here also, come let us shortly, as we have received from the fathers, expose their heterodoxy from the passage." (Athanasius, Discourse III against the Arians, Chapter 25, Section 18)

This quotation itself highlights and illustrates Athanasius' approach. He thought that the Scriptures were "clear" as to their "sense," and he relied extensively on them. Discourse 3 against the Arians refers to Scripture over 100 times. So, yes, Athanasius claimed that his position was what "the church" taught, and he viewed the Arians' teachings as something properly foreign to "the church," but he did argued from the authority of Scripture.

And not only from Scripture, but from his own flawed intellect (I use this description simply to honor Bellisario's rhetorical flourish above, not to insult Athanasius or to suggest, as Bellisario was trying, that the conclusions reached are wrong). In fact, in Chapter 25, Section 11, from which Bellisario quoted, Athanasius goes on to apply reason to Scripture in this way:

For they say, since what the Father wills, the Son wills also, and is not contrary either in what He thinks or in what He judges, but is in all respects concordant with Him, declaring doctrines which are the same, and a word consistent and united with the Father's teaching, therefore it is that He and the Father are One; and some of them have dared to write as well as say this. Now what can be more unseemly or irrational than this? For if therefore the Son and the Father are One and if in this way the Word is like the Father, it follows immediately that the Angels too, and the other beings above us, Powers and Authorities, and Thrones and Dominions, and what we see, Sun and Moon, and the Stars, should be sons also, as the Son; and that it should be said of them too, that they and the Father are one, and that each is God's Image and Word. For what God wills, that will they; and neither in judging nor in doctrine are they discordant, but in all things are obedient to their Maker. For they would not have remained in their own glory, unless, what the Father willed, that they had willed also. He, for instance, who did not remain, but went astray, heard the words, 'How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning [Isaiah 14:12]?' But if this be so, how is only He Only-begotten Son and Word and Wisdom? Or how, whereas so many are like the Father, is He only an Image? For among men too will be found many like the Father, numbers, for instance, of martyrs, and before them the Apostles and Prophets, and again before them the Patriarchs. And many now too keep the Savior's command, being merciful 'as their Father which is in heaven,' and observing the exhortation, 'Be therefore followers of God as dear children, and walk in love, as Christ also has loved us [Ephesians 5:1-2];' many too have become followers of Paul as he also of Christ. [1 Corinthians 11:1] And yet no one of these is Word or Wisdom or Only-begotten Son or Image; nor did any one of them make bold to say, 'I and the Father are One,' or, 'I in the Father, and the Father in Me;' but it is said of all of them, 'Who is like You among the gods, O Lord? And who shall be likened to the Lord among the sons of Gods?' and of Him on the contrary that He only is Image true and natural of the Father. For though we have been made after the Image, and called both image and glory of God, yet not on our own account still, but for that Image and true Glory of God inhabiting us, which is His Word, who was for us afterwards made flesh, have we this grace of our designation.

- Athanasius, Discourse III against the Arians, Chapter 25, Section 11

Notice how Athanasius argues from reason and Scripture there. This is not surprising, when we discover the context of these writings of Athanasius. Athanasius explains the point of the four discourses against the Arians in the first section of the first chapter of the first discourse:

Of all other heresies which have departed from the truth it is acknowledged that they have but devised a madness, and their irreligiousness has long since become notorious to all men. For that their authors went out from us, it plainly follows, as the blessed John has written, that they never thought nor now think with us. Wherefore, as says the Savior, in that they gather not with us, they scatter with the devil, and keep an eye on those who slumber, that, by this second sowing of their own mortal poison, they may have companions in death. But, whereas one heresy, and that the last, which has now risen as harbinger of Antichrist, the Arian, as it is called, considering that other heresies, her elder sisters, have been openly proscribed, in her craft and cunning, affects to array herself in Scripture language, like her father the devil, and is forcing her way back into the Church's paradise,— that with the pretence of Christianity, her smooth sophistry (for reason she has none) may deceive men into wrong thoughts of Christ—nay, since she has already seduced certain of the foolish, not only to corrupt their ears, but even to take and eat with Eve, till in their ignorance which ensues they think bitter sweet, and admire this loathsome heresy, on this account I have thought it necessary, at your request, to unrip 'the folds of its breast-plate,' and to show the ill savor of its folly. So while those who are far from it may continue to shun it, those whom it has deceived may repent; and, opening the eyes of their heart, may understand that darkness is not light, nor falsehood truth, nor Arianism good; nay, that those who call these men Christians are in great and grievous error, as neither having studied Scripture, nor understanding Christianity at all, and the faith which it contains.

- Athanasius, Discourse I against the Arians, Chapter 1, Section 1

I'm not sure I could say it any more clearly than Athanasius says it for himself, so I'll leave aside Mr. Bellisario's flawed reliance on a quotation bereft of its context from the third discourse and consider Mr. Bellisario's other quotation.

"But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power" Festal Letter 2"

1) Again, that odd quotation mark after "Festal Letter" is simply an artifact of Mr. Bellisario's cutting and pasting.

2) Mr. Bellisario has oddly quoted a text that teaches exactly contrary to his position. Since Mr. Bellisario provides no commentary on the quotation, one is left guessing as to the source of his confusion. Perhaps Mr. Bellisario mistakenly thinks that the "them" in "receiving them as the traditions of men" refers back to "opinions as the saints have handed down" as opposed to "the Scriptures." However, the Scriptures are what is in view. We know this, because Athanasius is making a Biblical allusion:

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Mark 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

Those verses are crystal clear as to what Jesus is referencing, and that clear verse resolves the ambiguity in Athanasius' sentence.

Athanasius is criticizing those who don't give proper respect to Scripture. It is in failing to give proper respect to Scripture that these folks depart from the opinions of the saints. We can see this further from the context.

3) The context itself refers to the Scriptures as divine tradition:

Therefore Paul justly praises the Corinthians [1 Cor. xi. 2.], because their opinions were in accordance with his traditions. And the Lord most righteously reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Wherefore do ye also transgress the commandments of God on account of your traditions [Matt. xv. 3.].’ For they changed the commandments they received from God after their own understanding, preferring to observe the traditions of men. And about these, a little after, the blessed Paul again gave directions to the Galatians who were in danger thereof, writing to them, ‘If any man preach to you aught else than that ye have received, let him be accursed [Gal. i. 9.].’

- Athanasius, Festal Letter 2, Section 6

Notice not only that Athanasius is himself relying on the authority of Scripture, but that he is contrasting the Scriptures with human traditions.

And in case there was any ambiguity in what Athanasius says in section 6, see how he continues in Section 7:

For there is no fellowship whatever between the words of the saints and the fancies of human invention; for the saints are the ministers of the truth, preaching the kingdom of heaven, but those who are borne in the opposite direction have nothing better than to eat, and think their end is that they shall cease to be, and they say, ‘Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die [Is. xxii. 13.].’ Therefore blessed Luke reproves the inventions of men, and hands down the narrations of the saints, saying in the beginning of the Gospel, ‘Since many have presumed to write narrations of those events of which we are assured, as those who from the beginning were witnesses and ministers of the Word have delivered to us; it hath seemed good to me also, who have adhered to them all from the first, to write correctly in order to thee, O excellent Theophilus, that thou mayest know the truth concerning the things in which thou hast been instructed [Luke i. 1.].’ For as each of the saints has received, that they impart without alteration, for the confirmation of the doctrine of the mysteries. Of these the (divine) word would have us disciples, and these should of right be our teachers, and to them only is it necessary to give heed, for of them only is ‘the word faithful and worthy of all acceptation [1 Tim. i. 15.];’ these not being disciples because they heard from others, but being eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, that which they had heard from Him have they handed down.

- Athanasius, Festal Letter 2, Section 6

Notice what is handed down: Scripture. That is contraasted with "the fancies of human invention" and identifies the testimonies of these saints who were "eye-witnesses" with the canonical gospels, particularly Luke's gospel. Nothing could be more helpful to the Reformed position and more undermining of Rome's and Bellisario's position, yet because (we must guess) Bellisario is unfamiliar with the context of the quotation, he has been kind enough to provide a quotation that refutes his own position.

Mr. Bellisario concluded: "You sir are sadly in the same boat."

Well, I'm certainly not an Arian. But even the Arians recognized the authority of Scripture. Athanasius recognized it too, and persuaded the Arians from Scripture to abandon their error and many did repent as Athanasius had hoped for (see the quotation from his first discourse, above). Perhaps you will similarly examine Scripture and join the boat of those who rely upon Scripture, rather than human tradition, as their authority: repenting of your errors and trusting in Christ alone for salvation.

-TurretinFan

P.S. On a rather ironic note, it is from Athanasius (without the benefit of any infallible canon) that we find our first preserved list of the 66 books of the Bible, in his 39th Festal letter.

UPDATE: It should be noted that Dr. White already provided a similar response to a similar attempt to misuse Athanasius, in an early post (link to the earlier post).

More not Less Church as the Day of the Lord Approaches

One of the questions that Mr. Arnzen asked Mr. Harold Camping, during the four-day discussion on Iron Sharpens Iron between Dr. James White and Mr. Harold Camping, was about whether the listeners of Family Radio have their own gatherings. Mr. Camping indicated that, aside from a small group in Almeda, California (where Mr. Camping resides), he does not encourage his listeners to gather together. As we will see below, this practice of abandoning the fellowship and communion of the saints is not only contrary to the historic creeds of the church, but also (and much more importantly) contrary to Scripture itself. In the current post we will see this shown from Hebrews 10:23-25.

Hebrews 10:23-25
Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Harold Camping admits that Judgment Day is in view here: "We know that Judgment Day is in view in this verse ... ." (source) Mr. Camping is right because we see from the context that the "day" mentioned here is the day of the Lord, the day of judgment:

Hebrews 10:30-31
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Nevertheless, Harold Camping argues that:

Returning to Hebrews 10, verses 24 and 25, we read a very curious comment. Verse 25 declares:

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner is...

This is indeed curious language. One would think that it would be more logical to say, "not forsaking the assembling of the congregation" or "not forsaking the assembling of the church." Why does God use the strange language, "assembling of ourselves"? As we have already noted, God is focusing on the time when Judgment Day is very near. We understand this by the phrase, "so much the more, as ye see the day approaching." Another curiosity is the usage of the Greek word episynagogen which is translated "assembling together." This Greek word is used in only one other instance in the Bible. That citation is II Thessalonians 2:1, where we read:

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him.

The phrase "gathering together" in this verse is translated from the same Greek word episynagogen. When we look at the context of II Thessalonians 2:1, we know who is assembling or gathering together. This passage is speaking of those individuals who are gathering together to meet Christ at his coming. The only people who are ready to meet Christ at his coming are true believers. Churches will not be ready to meet Christ. Whole congregations are not ready to meet Christ. Even if Christ had come before the church age was over, only a remnant of the congregation would have been ready to meet Him.

The point God is making is that the Greek word episynagogen emphasizes the gathering together of individuals. It is not in any way looking at a body of people who are all members of one local congregation.

This agrees with the usage of the same Greek word, episynagogen, which we find in Hebrews 10:25, where God emphasizes that individuals are in view as indicated by the usage of the word "ourselves." Thus, a body of people, like a local congregation, cannot be in view in Hebrews 10:25 any more than a local congregation could be in view in II Thessalonians 2:1.

(same source)
This argument is absolutely absurd. Allow me to elaborate, though, because my simply saying it is absurd will have little weight with Harold Camping's listeners.

The term "episynagogen" is a word that combines "epi" (a primary preposition that has, in this case, a directional sense) and "sunagoge" (the word from which we derive "synagogue" meaning the meeting or meeting place). To "episunagoge" means to get to synagogue, or to use modern terminology "go to church."

Someone may point out that the term might have a broader sense of simply coming together as an assembly in Greek. While that is true, the context cannot be ignored. This is an epistle to the Hebrews, and must be understood within that context: as being written to Hebrews.

The attempted imposition of the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:1 is also wrong. Even if we understand 2 Thessalonians 2:1 to refer to the gathering unto Christ at the second coming (something of which the church is a foreshadow), that is certainly not the sense that is being used in Hebrews 10:23-25.

We know that it is not the sense of Hebrews 10:23-25, because Hebrews tells us two things:

(1) "as the manner of some is"

While the verb "is" is implied (not stated) in the Greek, the point of the phrase is to compare what the Hebrews should not do with what others have or are doing. But the coming of Christ is not something that has already come, and consequently there would be nothing to which to compare if the sense of "assembling of ourselves together" is a reference to the gathering at the second coming rather than the weekly gathering.

(2) "and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching"

Again, this provides a comparison. The comparison is between the present and the future. This serves to demonstrate that the verse is talking about something that the Hebrew believers were already doing.

It is not just a comparison, but a comparison of enhancement. They are not to get to church less and less as they see the day of the Lord approaching. Instead, they are to assemble more and more. This practice of fellowship is to increase until Jesus' return.

Finally, the argument is absurd because the idea that "ourselves" should be contrasted to "church" is itself absurd. The focus is on the activity of the individuals in going to the assembly. That individual action is contrasted with the action of some people who don't go to church. The usual sense of the text is not that the individuals are supposed to get others to go to church, but that they themselves should go to church.

But I have left out the most obvious argument in the discussion above. The text says:

Not Forsaking

That means "don't stop." The Greek is "μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες," which means to leave something behind. We see it used in several places in Scripture:

Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Romans 9:29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

2 Timothy 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

2 Timothy 4:16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.

Hebrews 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

As you can see, in every instance it refers to a pre-existing condition that is then either (positively) maintained by the thing remaining, or (negatively) altered by the thing being discontinued. In this case, the pre-existing condition is that the Hebrew believers are going to "synagogue" (first to the synagogue of the Jews and later to the Christian church which corresponds thereto).

The undeniable conclusion is that the author of Hebrews, God himself who inspired it, is telling the Hebrews to continue doing what they were already doing, namely assembling together to worship God. Moreover, God is telling them not to stop doing this but to continue this more and more as the day of judgment approaches. The end of the church age, if we wish to call the New Testament period by that name, is Judgment Day. That day has not yet come, and consequently we are called to continue to assemble together.

-TurretinFan

Have I Offended You, Dear Reader?

I appreciate the many folks who read this blog. Some of them I necessarily offend, because I affirm that men are sinners and that the gospel is that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone. That message in itself is bound to offend sinners who don't wish to be identified as such and those who preach other gospels. That offense is simply inevitable. Nevertheless, I may also inadvertently offend others. This blog post is designed to serve as a clearinghouse for your complaints that I've offended you. You can submit a comment here, and I'll read it. If I can, I'll try to remedy the offense.

By the way, don't assume that I know I offended you. At the present, I'm blissfully unaware of any such cases. Nevertheless, I realize that they may exist despite my best efforts not to give unnecessary offense. So please - if I have offended you, please let me know.

Arminius' Impact on Calvinism

Dan ("GodIsMyJudge") has an interesting post in honor of the 400th anniversary of Arminius' death (link). One criticism I have, is that I think he overstates the significance of the infralapsarian wording of Dordt's discussion of election. In fact, one could walk away from GodIsMyJudge's post thinking that Arminius was an infralapsarian Calvinist who prevailed at Dordt against the supralapsarians, rather than having his errant views condemned by that synod. In context, the point of Dordt is to deny foreseen merit, something upon which both supralapsarians and infralapsarians agree.

-TurretinFan

Die Like Men? A Response to Dr. Michael Heiser

We are all going to die. I don't mean that in an imminent way, though perhaps some of us will pass shortly, but instead in a general sense. It is the condition of humanity that all men die. You and I will both die one day. If you are not righteous in God's eyes when you come before His holy judgment, you will be sentenced to hell. Now, while there is time, repent of your sins. Ask God for mercy, and seize hold of Christ as your mediator. But that's not the primary reason I wrote this post. After all, many of the readers of this blog already believe.

Instead, I wanted to focus on responding to something Dr. Michael Heiser has written. I hope to add a few points to the excellent points already presented by Dr. White in his earlier post (link). You may recall that Dr. Heiser wrote: "If these elohim are humans, why are they sentenced to die “like humans”? A clear contrast is intended by both the grammar and structure of the Hebrew text (Prinsloo; Handy, “Sounds”)."

Dr. Heiser is referring to Psalm 82.

Background

Psalm 82 is a warning to unjust judges. God is the judge of judges, just as he is elsewhere described as the King of kings and Lord of lords. (1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14; and Revelation 19:16)

God accuses these judges of judging unjustly, and particularly accepting the bribes of the wicked. He tells them to defend the poor and fatherless, the afflicted and needy. Specifically he urges them to defend the weak from the powerful wicked.

Then, God changes voices and talks about these unjust judges, saying that they do not understand. God says that he has called them gods, and that they are children of God. Nevertheless, he warns them that they will die like men and princes die. The Psalm ends with the singer calling forth God's judgment on all nations.

These judges are referred to as "elohim" (as Dr. Heiser notes), but there are a few significant problems in Dr. Heiser's analysis.

I. Meaning of "Like Humans"
Dr. Heiser seems to insist that "like humans" must be translated in a way that distinguishes these unjust judges from humans. He's a credentialed professor in the area of Semitics, and I don't provide any credentials. Nevertheless, I'd like to encourage the reader to consider the evidence.

a) The other usages of the expression
The expression translated "like men" in the KJV is "כְּאָדָ֣ם". The precise form of this word is unique to Psalm 82:7, but very similar forms may be found in Job 31:33 ("כְאָדָ֣ם") and Hosea 6:7 ("כְּאָדָ֖ם").

i) Job 31:33

Job 31:33 If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom:

Notice that in this instance, the speaker is Job. There is really no denying that Job is human. In this instance, while Job is not admitting to being like Adam, he is discussing the matter hypothetically. Thus, the expression is not only not a denial of Job's humanity, but also not a way of distinguishing (at least not directly) Job from Adam. Of course, Job is not Adam, though Job is human.

ii) Hosea 6:7

Hosea 6:7 But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

God here is speaking about people. There's really no serious question that the context is God talking about the wickedness of his chosen nation. I do wonder whether the better translation here might be (as in Job) "like Adam." Namely, they are transgressing the Covenant of Moses, just as Adam transgressed the Covenant of the Garden. Regardless, essentially the same analysis as in Job follows. They are not Adam, but they are men.

b) The immediate context
The immediate context of the expression "die like men" is a Hebrew parallelism to the expression "fall like one of the princes." The term "fall" here is a synonym for "die." Which princes are in mind here is somewhat of a difficult question.

Hosea 7:6 refers to the princes of Israel falling by the sword and 2 Samuel 3:38 refers to Abner's death as the falling of prince. While some have suggested that Satan's fall from heaven (Luke 10:18) is in mind, this seems somewhat strained, particularly given the parallel in play here. The "princes" (we must note) among the Israelites were the elders of the people, not the sons of the king (as in western monarchies). Thus, we see references to the princes of Israel both before (Numbers 21:18 and Judges 10:18) and after (Ezra 9:1-2 and Nehemiah 9:32) the monarchy, as well as during it (Jeremiah 26:16).

Notice as well that is not "like the princes" but "like one of the princes." This usage weighs in favor of translating "die like men" as "die like a man" or "die like Adam" (Adam means man, in Hebrew, so it is sometimes hard to distinguish the two). In any event, the Hebrew expression translated "like men" is a singular expression, and so is the expression "one of the princes."

These singular expressions do, in fact, contrast with "ye" (the plural pronoun in English - expressed in the Hebrew by the conjugation of the two verbs in the sentence). Thus, if Dr. Heiser is simply noting that there is a comparison being made, he's right. Yet it is an equivalent comparison to those in Job and Hosea mentioned above.

c) best sense
The best sense of the text is that God is warning these judges of their impending doom. We might paraphrase God's comment as: "Everyone dies (both ordinary men and princes), and you won't be an exception." Dr. Heiser views the comment from God as a sentence imposed on the judges, and - of course - death is a sentence for sin. It is sufficient, however, to simply view this as a proclamation of the doom that awaits unjust judges. They must die and come before the Judge of judges to answer for their injustice.

II. Backward Reference to the Pentateuch
In addition to the local context of the expression and the other uses of the expression, there is also the question of the relationship of meaning of this text with other texts. Dr. White has already addressed more than sufficiently the relationship of this text with the New Testament. That by itself should be a sufficient basis for rejecting Dr. Heiser's position. Nevertheless, the Old Testament also provides additional light.

Specifically, verse 6 does not simply refer to the judges as "gods" (elohim) but states that God has said this:

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

The question is, where did God describe these unjust judges as "gods" (elohim)? It seems unlikely that this is simply a reference back to verse 1 of the psalm, though we cannot completely eliminate the possibility.

There are several places where judges are referred to as "elohim" in the Pentateuch:

Exodus 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges (elohim); he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exodus 22:8-9

If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges (elohim), to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges (elohim); and whom the judges (elohim) shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

Exodus 22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods (elohim), nor curse the ruler of thy people.

And beyond the Pentateuch:

1 Samuel 2:25 If one man sin against another, the judge (elohim) shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

It should be noted, of course, that although that is the KJV's translation of the verses, as is so often the case, many of the modern translations disagree, using "God" instead of judges. Probably the strongest of these verses is Exodus 22:28, in that it provides a parallel between "reviling the gods" and "cursing the ruler of thy people," which serves to demonstrate that the two concepts are analogous. Furthermore Paul, in Acts 23:5, makes application of this verse (at least the second half of it) to the human rulers of Israel.

It is interesting to observe that while Dr. Heiser has attempted to dismiss Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:8-9, he has not provided a similar response to Exodus 22:28 (link).

Conclusion
Much of Dr. Heiser's argument with respect to the text relies on a higher critical framework that is repulsive to the traditional evangelical scholar. This makes interacting with Dr. Heiser difficult from the standpoint of finding any common ground upon which to premise discussions. I am not sure, for example whether the second part of this post (the other Old Testament references to human rulers as elohim) would have any particular significance for Dr. Heiser, because I'm not sure that Dr. Heiser would necessarily hold that the Scriptures have been providentially preserved for us, such that we might look for this prior statement of God in Scripture.

On the other hand, Dr. Heiser should be willing to accept the lexical grounds on which the first of the two points (i.e. the grammatical question of the expression "die like a man") is premised. I do not know whether Dr. Heiser will read this discussion, but - if he does - I would be very curious as to how he would seek to continue his argument that "die as humans do" (translation used by Heiser) is something that clearly distinguishes these elohim from humans.

Dr. Heiser's comment that "This sounds as awkward as sentencing a child to grow up or a dog to bark," seems to fail to appreciate the very different negative consequences of dying as opposed to growing up (unless one is Peter Pan) or barking. A better comparison would be the comparison in the Proverbs:

Proverbs 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

Cautioning the fool that he will return to his folly or a dog to his vomit is not an empty statement devoid of negative connotation. Indeed, the apostle Peter refers us to this very proverb:

2 Peter 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Even so, contrary to Dr. Heiser's suggestion that "The point of verse 6 is that, in response to their corruption, the [elohim] will be stripped of their immortality at God's discretion and die as humans die," the point is that these judges should be aware of their mortality and the impending judgment of God. They should repent of their ways in order, at a minimum, to seek to avoid the punishment they deserve for their injustice. Dr. Heiser's attempted explanation might seem to work if the text only mentioned dying like a man, but it also mentions falling (a synonym for dying) like one of the princes. The concept emphasized by the parallel is not a stripping of immortality, but a reminder of existing mortality: every man and every prince will die and face judgment, these unjust judges being no exception.

I'll conclude with a similar warning from another Psalm:

Psalm 2:10-12
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

-TurretinFan

Wayne Grudem on the Atonement

Wayne Grudem has provided his Systematic Theology: an enormous (1291 pages) and apparently popular (the cover of one recent printing claims sales of over 1/4 million) tome. Chapter 27 (pp. 568-607 in what appears to be the 2000 printing) addresses the topic of the atonement. Much of the material serves as a helpful general introduction to the atonement from a broadly Calvinistic perspective. There are a number of helpful explanations in the chapter that are geared toward frequently asked contemporary questions, such as the question "did Christ endure eternal suffering."

There were also, however, a few disappointments with the chapter. Pages 582-94 include a very lengthy discussion of the credal phrase "he descended into hell." While this may be an important discussion, it seemed out of place at least as to the proportion of emphasis in the chapter. Grudem's discussion is quite detailed and provides an uncharacteristically (for Grudem on the atonement) deep look into history. Although it was quite detailed, I think I still prefer the explanation provided by Danny Hyde, which I discussed previously (link).

The chapter was especially weak in its defense of particular redemption, also called "limited atonement." The exegetical analysis of the passages relied upon by Amyraldians and Arminians seemed cursory at best, and omitted some of the best explanations of the sense of those passages. Furthermore, while little space was devoted to establishing the doctrine from Scripture many times more space was devoted to accommodating those who disagree with this doctrine.

Especially disappointing was Grudem's naive assertion that "It seems to be a mistake to state the question [of the extent of the atonement] as Berkhof does and focus on the purpose of the Father and the Son, rather than on what actually happened in the atonement." What actually happened, after all, depends largely on the intent and purpose of the Father and the Son.

In his ecumenical efforts, Grudem ends up providing a number of confused statements regarding characterizations of the atonement, such as affirming that it is proper to say that "Christ died to bring the free offer of the gospel to all people" or "Christ died to make salvation available to all people." The problem with these statements becomes clear when we realize that Grudem's statements are statements about the purpose and intent of the atonement (and statements that get that purpose and intent wrong, at least formally), rather than about what the atonement actually did.

The above criticism should not be taken as suggesting that Grudem is an Amyraldian. He is insistent that the atonement only paid for the sins of the elect. Nevertheless, his chapter contains a number of significant weaknesses, which prevent it from receiving the highest praise. Lest we end on a sour note, it should be observed that Grudem provides an interesting (if somewhat incomplete) bibliography at the end of the chapter, as he does at the end of many (perhaps all) of the chapters of his Systematic Theology. All in all, it is a good introduction to the topic, but you can get a more accurate and more detailed explanation in a number of the books to which Grudem refers his readers.

Pope Michael

David Bawden (aka pope Michael) claims to be the successor to pope Pius XII (link to story). Like many folks, Mr. Bawden recognizes that modern Catholicism (post Vatican II) represents a break with more traditional Roman Catholic beliefs. In the quotations provided in the article, Mr. Bawden points to an alleged change in the view of the atonement from essentially a limited atonement view to a general atonement view. He apparently broke away from the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) back in the 70's and in 1990 was elected to the papacy (apparently by six of his followers). According to the article, he excommunicated pope John Paul II, though the article doesn't indicate what action (if any) he has taken toward Benedict XVI.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rome's devoted children soon tell us that this (like so many disputes over the papacy over the years - including the new splinter formed by pope Michael's former follower Teresa Stanfill Benns) is the result of Sola Scriptura. Don't ask me how that is supposed to be logical, since these groups probably think that Rome is to accommodating toward Sola Scriptura. But if Roman apologists can blame Sola Scriptura for Mormonism, (so-called) Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostalism, and so forth, they cannot reasonably draw the line at the variant versions of their own religion.

Introduction to God from the Psalms

Thanks for reading this short discussion of the amazing God whom we worship.

Of Him we say:

Psalm 8:9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!

Psalm 9:11 Sing praises to the LORD, which dwelleth in Zion: declare among the people his doings.

Why do we say this?

Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psalm 95:5 The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands formed the dry land.

Psalm 94:9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?

God made the world from nothing. He spoke and it came to be. He even made us human beings.

Psalm 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

But that's not all:

Psalm 74:17 Thou hast set all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.

Psalm 104:19 He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.

God made time itself, and the measurements of time. God is not only powerful, having created the earth, but holy as well:

Psalm 22:3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

Psalm 145:17 The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.

One of the aspects of God being holy is that God judges between righteousness and wickedness:

Psalm 1:6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Psalm 138:6 Though the LORD be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off.

God is not only able to see what people do, but God even knows what is in man's heart:

Psalm 44:21 Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth the secrets of the heart.

Psalm 94:11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.

Indeed, sin is the state of all men by nature:

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

And the anger of God is powerful against sin and those who do sin:

Psalm 38:3 There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin.

Psalm 90:7 For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled.

Psalm 90:11 Who knoweth the power of thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath.

Psalm 56:7 Shall they escape by iniquity? in thine anger cast down the people, O God.

Psalm 69:24 Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.

Psalm 21:9 Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them.

God is not all anger, however. There is mercy in God as well:

Psalm 103:8 The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.

Psalm 145:8 The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy.

Psalm 78:38 But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.

Psalm 30:5 For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.

Psalm 25:8 Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.

What then is necessary for one to receive mercy from God rather than anger? The first answer is obvious. Ask for mercy.

Psalm 130:7 Let Israel hope in the LORD: for with the LORD there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption.

In hope, then, one must repent of sin or face destruction:

Psalm 90:3 Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men.

Psalm 119:79 Let those that fear thee turn unto me, and those that have known thy testimonies.

Psalm 78:34 When he slew them, then they sought him: and they returned and enquired early after God.

How does one seek for mercy? Here are some example:

Psalm 85:4 Turn us, O God of our salvation, and cause thine anger toward us to cease.

Psalm 27:9 Hide not thy face far from me; put not thy servant away in anger: thou hast been my help; leave me not, neither forsake me, O God of my salvation.

Psalm 6:1 O LORD, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.

Psalm 25:7 Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness' sake, O LORD.

Psalm 26:11 But as for me, I will walk in mine integrity: redeem me, and be merciful unto me.

Psalm 44:26 Arise for our help, and redeem us for thy mercies' sake.

Psalm 86:16 O turn unto me, and have mercy upon me; give thy strength unto thy servant, and save the son of thine handmaid.

Psalm 6:4 Return, O LORD, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies' sake.

Psalm 80:3 Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.

Psalm 85:4 Turn us, O God of our salvation, and cause thine anger toward us to cease.

More mechanically speaking the way is sacrifice:

Psalm 50:5 Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.

But that sacrifice is the sacrifice that God himself made in the person of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, we do not any longer offer those burnt offerings of former times:

Psalm 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

Instead, we offer sacrifices of joy:

Psalm 27:6 And now shall mine head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me: therefore will I offer in his tabernacle sacrifices of joy; I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto the LORD.

Sacrifices of thanksgiving:

Psalm 107:22 And let them sacrifice the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and declare his works with rejoicing.

Psalm 116:17 I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the LORD.

Sacrifices of Repentance and Contrition:

Psalm 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

and Sacrifices of Righteousness:

Psalm 4:5 Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust in the LORD.

Psalm 51:19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

Another way to characterize the mechanism is by redemption. After all, there is a sense in which sacrifice can be a payment for sins. We cannot, however, do this for ourselves or for one another:

Psalm 49:7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

Instead, God - through Christ - redeems:

Psalm 49:15 But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.

Psalm 72:14 He shall redeem their soul from deceit and violence: and precious shall their blood be in his sight.

Psalm 130:8 And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.

Specifically, the Lord Jesus Christ is the redeemer:

Psalm 19:14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.

Psalm 31:5 Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.

So, the most particular way to seek mercy through the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus is to place your trust in Jesus Christ, the Son of God:

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

Jesus is the only-begotten Son of God:

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Yet for the salvation of His people God turned the hand of his power upon the Son, Jesus Christ:

Psalm 80:17 Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself.

This was done for us, his people:

Psalm 68:28 Thy God hath commanded thy strength: strengthen, O God, that which thou hast wrought for us.

Psalm 126:3 The LORD hath done great things for us; whereof we are glad.

God did this because the redemption of His people is precious to Him:

Psalm 49:8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)

Psalm 111:9 He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name.

Psalm 78:35 And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

If you trust in Jesus Christ, you may find mercy, as others have:

Psalm 34:22 The LORD redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate.

Psalm 85:3 Thou hast taken away all thy wrath: thou hast turned thyself from the fierceness of thine anger.

Psalm 36:7 How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.

Psalm 13:6 I will sing unto the LORD, because he hath dealt bountifully with me.

Psalm 71:23 My lips shall greatly rejoice when I sing unto thee; and my soul, which thou hast redeemed.

This has just been a small sampling of what the Psalms tell us about God and about Jesus Christ, and the Psalms are just a part of the whole Bible, which provides much more information about not only the greatness of God who created and governs all things, who is holy and before whom sinners cannot stand on the day of judgment, but also about the way of escape through repentance of sin and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone. So hear this now, while there is time, for judgment is coming:

Psalm 9:8 And he shall judge the world in righteousness, he shall minister judgment to the people in uprightness.

Psalm 96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Psalm 96:13 Before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.

Psalm 98:9 Before the LORD; for he cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity.

Praise be to His Glorious name, both now and forever,

-TurretinFan

Does Scripture Commend Roman Practices? A response to Steve Kellmeyer

Steve Kellmeyer (Roman Catholic) has provided some comments in response to my post on Forbidding to Marry (link to my post).

Mr. Kellmeyer asks:

Didn't Christ tell the apostles that eunuchs who made themselves so for the kingdom of God were blessed?

I answer: No, Christ did not tell them that. In the passage to which you are attempting to refer, Christ told the apostles that there are "eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." (Matthew 19:112) Nevertheless, he neither calls them "blessed" nor encourages folks to emulate them. He certainly does not suggest that it should be a requirement for bishops/elders, apostles, or deacons that they be self-made eunuchs. Thus, this passage would be essentially irrelevant to the question, even if it were more blessed to make oneself a eunuch (but compare what the early church thought of self-made eunuchs)

Mr. Kellmeyer continues:

Doesn't Revelation have a those who refrained from intercourse with women sing a special song to the Lamb that only they can sing?

I answer: again, no. The passage to which you are referring. Revelation 14:1-5 refers to the 144,000. Here's the passage:

Revelation 14:1-5
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: and they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

The part to which Mr. Kellmeyer was trying to refer says that these 144,000 "were not defiled with women." It does mean "defiled," that's not a gloss on the Greek word ἐμολύνθησαν. The verse also clarifies that these 144,000 are "virgins." So, if one is going to try to argue that this verse is speaking in favor of general celibacy, one must also take the position that marriage is an example of defilement. Such a position is plainly contrary to Scripture, which declares:

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

The better understanding of this text is, of course, a figurative understanding. The 144,000 represent the elect. We saw them previously in chapter 7, when they were sealed in their foreheads. Notice that this appears again in the current passage where the men have "his Father's name written in their foreheads." One hopes that Mr. Kellmeyer would not take this literally, whether or not he would consider the beasts in the passage literal beasts.

The sense of the purity and virginity of these men has to do with their faithfulness to their betrothed, the lamb to whom they are to be married as the bride of Christ. Thus, they are depicted as not being fornicators who defile themselves, such as with the whore of Revelation 17.

Mr. Kellmeyer continues:

And isn't it the case that the early Christians who were witnesses to the writing of Scripture, or taught by witnesses to the writing of Scripture, are in the best position to interpret that same Scripture?

I answer:

The Scripture is not only the New Testament, but Old and New together. Some of those who were taught by the Apostles had the same problems understanding the apostles that the apostles had understanding Jesus.

Mark 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Nevertheless, even if we did accord a special place of prominence to those so-called apostolic fathers who were allegedly taught by the apostles themselves, or the second generation fathers who were allegedly taught by someone who was taught by an apostle, we find only a few of their writings extant, those that are extant existing with rather troubling textual transmission histories, and even then those mostly addressing issues that don't have much to do with topic of mandatory celibacy of bishops/elders and deacons.

Mr. Kellmeyer concluded:

You know neither Scripture nor the power of God. You are quite wrong.

I answer:

I've demonstrated to the contrary. Mr. Kellmeyer's rebuke is, of course, paraphrased from either Matthew 22 or Mark 12 (parallel passages) in which Jesus points out that there will be no marriage in heaven:

Matthew 22:29-30
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

One wonders if Mr. Kellmeyer appreciates the impact of this verse on his attempted literal interpretation of the book of Revelation. Recall:

Revelation 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

There is a marriage supper there, and a bride, but not after a corporal and carnal manner. Revelation is full of figurative language which should be understood as such, and should be understood consistently with other passages of Scripture, such as:

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

-TurretinFan

Am I Safe from Rome's Anathemas?

A pseudonymous blogger under the penname Reginald de Piperno (RdP), responding to my opening post in my series on Trent (link to post), stated:

For example, TF claims that he is under the anathema of Trent. But unless he is or was formally Catholic, this is flatly impossible. I do not understand the seeming fondness of some Protestants for wanting to be condemned by the Catholic Church. Perhaps it is some sort of projection issue: these folks despise the Catholic Faith, and so maybe they think that naturally Catholics or the Church ought to despise them in turn. Their protests notwithstanding, it's just not so, as I've said before. This fact does not mean that Protestant error is no longer reckoned to be erroneous. On the contrary: Trent has in no way been rescinded (of course). It simply means that most Protestants today are incapable of being the subject of any Catholic anathema whatever, because they do not meet a fundamental condition: they have never been Catholic. If he wishes to say that his beliefs have been condemned by the Catholic Church, then he would get no argument from me (to the extent that his views are in fact false and actually under formal condemnation).

I answer line by line.

RdP wrote: "For example, TF claims that he is under the anathema of Trent."

Yes. It's not just a claim, there is really no reasonable doubt about it.

RdP wrote: "But unless he is or was formally Catholic, this is flatly impossible."

I don't give out my background, but I will acknowledge that I have received Trinitarian baptism with water. I think most Roman Catholics would accept that baptism as "valid" whether or not it was performed by a Roman Catholic cleric.

The Code of Canon Law states: "By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way." (Canon 96)

It furthermore states: "The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each." (Canon 204 §1.)

Thus, despite any desire on my part to be affiliated with Rome and her prelate, I am considered by Rome's current definitions to be a "Catholic" and part of the "Christian faithful."

I am not, however, in full communion with Rome: "Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance." (Canon 205)

RdP appears to lack this rather fundamental understanding of the scope of Rome's claims regarding herself. She claims for the pope a recognized headship over the Roman Catholic Church but an unrecognized headship over all those who have been validly baptized. That's part of the Roman Catholic Church trying to call itself the "catholic church." The "catholic church" by definition includes within it all Christians, and Rome recognizes as Christians all those who have been validly baptized.

Even if the pope did not claim to be my head, however, there is no limit in Trent's anathema as to it applying only to the Christian faithful. It says, quite plainly, "If any one saith" not "If any Roman Catholic saith" or "If any Christian saith."

RdP wrote: "I do not understand the seeming fondness of some Protestants for wanting to be condemned by the Catholic Church."

I have no particular desire either to be included within Rome's claims of jurisdiction or to be placed under her condemnation. The facts simply are what they are. I can understand that those seeking to proselytize "Protestants" might like to downplay the condemnation side (for the same reason that some "Protestant" proselytizers don't like to mention sin) but the facts remain.

RdP wrote: "Perhaps it is some sort of projection issue: these folks despise the Catholic Faith, and so maybe they think that naturally Catholics or the Church ought to despise them in turn."

One wonders whether RdP thinks that placing someone under an anathema means "despising" that person. If not, one wonders how RdP's amateurish psycho-analysis is supposed to connect to the matter at hand. It is clear that Rome is attempting to anathematize someone, and that someone is someone who says what I say. Despising or loving is not the issue under discussion.

RdP: "Their protests notwithstanding, it's just not so, as I've said before."

RdP's link is to a prior occasion on which he attempted to argue with me about whether Rome considered the Reformers to be Christians. That they did not so consider them could hardly be more clear. I am not going to re-argue that point now. Yet RdP ought to have read the sources he himself relied-upon more closely. For example, the so-called "Catholic Encyclopedia" that he himself quoted notes that: "The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church." (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, volume 7, p. 261, in the sub-section of the section on Heresy entitled "Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over Heretics.")

RdP wrote: "This fact does not mean that Protestant error is no longer reckoned to be erroneous."

"Error" sounds nicer than "heresy," doesn't it? One wonders, though, how RdP would answer the question as to whether holding a damnable heresy is still damnable?

RdP wrote: "It simply means that most Protestants today are incapable of being the subject of any Catholic anathema whatever, because they do not meet a fundamental condition: they have never been Catholic."

See above.

RdP wrote: "If he wishes to say that his beliefs have been condemned by the Catholic Church, then he would get no argument from me (to the extent that his views are in fact false and actually under formal condemnation)."

What is interesting is that Trent's anathema (at least the one I've already discussed) is not against particular beliefs, nor even against particular statements but against the people who make those statements. RdP seems to have missed this fact in his analysis.

Aside from an introductory note, the remainder of RdP's comments in his post deal with the issue of Trent's bad faith or ignorance of the Reformed position. He doesn't offer any arguments on the merits of the issue, and so I'll simply leave that alone. As to his introductory question regarding being the inspiration for the series, the answer is that he is not. Nevertheless, he may end up being implicated in the discussion, since he has done a number of relatively recent posts on the topic of Trent and Justification.

-TurretinFan

The Triune God of Scripture Lives

The following is a trailer for Dr. James White's first debate this year with Dan Barker, on the topic: "The Triune God of Scripture Lives."

The DVD of this debate is available in the Alpha & Omega Ministries Bookstore (link).

Oral Tradition, The Early Church, and Paul Pavao's Astonishment

I had written (in this previous post):

That's rather the point about the early church fathers - they did not transmit an oral apostolic tradition to us, rather they were our predecessors in trying to search out the meaning of Scripture. Where they do a good job they are to be commended, and where they err they are to be corrected.

Paul Pavao (affiliation unstated, but not Roman Catholic) responded:

I'm a little astonished you can say this. I'm not Roman Catholic, but the early church's appeals to the rule of faith/rule of truth are common. Irenaeus (A.H. III:2:2, I think) makes it clear that they referred gnostics to both the Scriptures and the traditions derived from the apostles.

The rule of faith/rule of truth for the early church fathers was normally either Scripture or the creed (which was derived from Scripture). The creed itself was not in ipse an apostolic tradition, though it was based on the Scriptures (the only authentic apostolic traditions that we have). Irenaeus did refer the gnostics both to Scripture and tradition, as we ourselves do when we point back to what Irenaeus did. Irenaeus comment about heretics claiming to follow Scripture and tradition is a dead-on criticism of Roman Catholicism.

Paul Pavao continued:

There was obviously a rule of faith. It's summarized by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and later writers. Justin refers to it by talking about teachings that came from the apostles. (He even gives a reason for baptism that he said came from the apostles.)

See above regarding the rule of faith. For more discussion, see J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 88 et seq.

Paul Pavao continued:

There was an oral apostolic tradition passed down to the church, as well as an attempt to be Scriptural. So your statement's confusing because no one familiar with the pre-Nicene writings would agree with you. (There's a couple summations of the idea of the rule of faith in BakerAcademic's Evangelical Ressourcement Series; those are Evangelical and they treat the oral apostolic tradition as obvious as well.)

There were, of course, men to whom the apostles preached the gospel. What they preached was not in substance different from the Scripture. However, and this is key, no reliable report of their oral teachings has come down to us apart from Scripture. There are some (extremely scattered) alleged oral traditions handed down from the apostles that we find recorded in the earliest centuries of the writings of the church fathers. Generally speaking, though, we find them relying (as do we) solely on the authority of the written tradition of the apostles (i.e. Scripture) to settle doctrinal disputes among themselves. The untrustworthiness of oral transmission can be seen not only in the Rabbinic traditions that made void the Scripture but also in examples from the early church fathers (example here).

Paul Pavao concluded:

I haven't even brought up 2 Thess. 2:15.

I have:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

-TurretinFan

Augustine on the "We Gave You the Scriptures" Argument

One argument that we sometimes hear from Roman Catholic apologists is an argument that Roman Catholicism gave us the Scriptures, in the sense of preserving them for us over the centuries. This claim is, of course, anachronistic (the folks who preserved the Scriptures from the 4th decade to the 4th century, for example, could hardly be called "Roman Catholic" in their doctrines and practices). Nevertheless, for some folks the argument seems to have some bite.

Like so many arguments, though, it is not a new argument. In the times of persecution there were times when the government attempted to destroy the Scriptures and commanded Christians to hand over the sacred writings for destruction. Christians, viewing the Scripture as inspired by God and absolutely necessary, did not willingly cooperate with these commands.

In fact, many were persecuted and even martyred for failing to turn over their Bibles to the government. Not everyone was equally willing to suffer and die for the Word of God. Some folks turned over the Scriptures to the government, and these were known as traditores (meaning someone who hands over), from which we get our word "traitor."

Later, in theological disputes, some folks attempted to use the faithfulness of their spiritual forebearers against the spiritual unfaithfulness of their oponenents' spiritual forebearers with respect to the preservation of Scripture. They essentially would say that theirs preserved Scripture, while their opponents' turned it over. Augustine addresses this argument in a powerful way in the following quotation that Pastor King brought to my attention.

Augustine (354-430) commenting on Psalm 58:3:

But they [i.e., the Donatists] grow too deaf to hear the gospel, and will not allow us to read them the words of God. How ironic: they boast of having saved those words from the fire, but try to delete them with their tongues! Instead they speak words that are their own, and therefore empty. “That fellow handed over the books,” they say, “and that other one too.” Yes, all right; I will say the same: “That fellow handed them over, and so did that other,” and I am speaking the truth. But what has that to do with me? You can’t find the names of those you accuse in the gospel, can you? Nor can I read out to you from the gospel the names of those I mentioned. Let our documents be moved out of the way and God’s book take center stage. Listen to what Christ says, listen to truth speaking: And for repentance and forgiveness of sins to be preached in his name throughout all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. “No,” they reply, “listen to what we have to say. We don’t want to hear what the gospel says.” Sinners have been alienated even from the womb, they have gone astray even from the belly, they have spoken falsehoods. Let us speak the truth, because we have heard the truth, the truth that the Lord speaks, not what humans tell us. A human being can lie, but it is not possible for Truth to lie. From the womb of truth I recognize Christ, who is Truth itself, and from the words of Truth I recognize the Church, which participates in the Truth. Let no one who has strayed away from that matrix in the bowels of the Church speak falsehoods to me; I would wish to find out first what he wants to teach me. I see him as alienated from the womb, astray even from the belly; so what am I likely to hear from him, except falsehoods? They have gone astray even from the belly, they have spoken falsehoods.

John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms 51-72, Part 3, Vol. 17, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2001), Exposition of Psalm 57 (58), p. 128 (editor's footnotes omitted)(read for yourself here).

I realize that there will be many Roman Catholics who would like to focus only on the womb/church analogy. Furthermore, it should be noted that Augustine viewed himself as "Catholic" (not Roman Catholic) as distinct from the sectarian Donatists. He viewed them as having left the Catholic church and consequently as having spoken lies. That is the context for this discussion, and we realize that Rome would like to assert that the Reformed churches are in the same position as the Donatists (although there are numerous reasons to reject such a comparison).

Nevertheless, note that Augustine is quite willing to set aside the personalities (since they are not mentioned in Scripture) and to focus on the Scripture. Let Scripture take center stage, and let all the other things stand aside. Another friend of mine has stated that "I happen to agree with Warfield when, evaluating Augustine's theology, he concluded that the Reformation, inwardly considered, was just the victory of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the church." That may be the case (I'm less convinced that Augustine's doctrine of the church was accurately represented by the Romanists), but it should be noted that Augustine was willing to submit his doctrine of the church to the authority of Scripture: to let Scripture take precedence over history and to let the issue be "what does the Scripture say," as opposed to "who preserved the Scriptures."

-TurretinFan

Spurgeon on Crosses in Worship

The following is something from Charles Spurgeon, who is not always a careful theologian, but certainly has a way with words:

I. First, let us enquire, WHAT IS THIS CROSS OF CHRIST to which some men are sadly said to be enemies?

Of course, it is not the material cross. It is not anything made in the shape of the cross. There are some who can fall down and adore a cross of wood, or stone, or gold, but I cannot conceive of a greater wounding of the heart of Christ than to pay reverence to anything in the shape of a cross, or to bow before a crucifix! I think the Savior must say, “What? What? Am I the Son of God and do they make even Me into an idol? I who have died to redeem men from their idolatries, am I, Myself, taken and carved, and chiseled, and molten, and set up as an image to be worshipped by the sons of men?” When God says, “You shall not make unto you any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in Heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them,” it is a strange fantasy of human guilt that men should say, “We will even take the image of the Son of God, or some ghastly counterfeit that purports to be His image, and will bow down and worship it, as if to make the Christ of God an accomplice in an act of rebellion against the commandment of the holy Law.” No, it is not the material cross to which Paul alludes—we have nothing to do with those outward symbols! We might have used them much more, but they have been so perverted to idolatry that some of us almost shudder at the very sight of them!

(source)(Courtesy of my friend Matthew Lankford)

There may be some rhetorical excesses in his words, but his point is quite right. The cross of Christ that we preach is a metonym for Him who died on the cross, namely Christ Jesus the crucified, buried, and risen.

-TurretinFan

The real Francis Turretin on: Propitiation and Chastisement

Don Bryant, at From My Heart, Out of My Mind, has a post consisting of a nice quotation from the real Francis Turretin on the complete propitiation that Christ has made as well as the relation of chastisements to the scheme of propitiation (link). This quotation is taken from material found in volume 4 of Turretin's works, rather than from his Institutes.

-TurretinFan

Unconditional Love and Obedience

God loves his elect unconditionally and consequently gave His only-begotten Son to be their ransom. We who are loved unconditionally cannot earn that love, either by faith or works. It is simply bestowed upon us out of the riches of his grace (Ephesians 2:7), mercy, and compassion (Romans 9:15). Nevertheless, we ought not only to believe on the Son, but also unconditionally to obey the commands of God. We do so, not hoping for any eternal reward, but simply loathing and detesting the sin for which our Savior died. Perfect love, Scripture tells us, casts out fear (1 John 4:18). Show your love of God and your appreciation for the Son of God by avoiding sin. You will neither merit heaven nor increase your justification, but you will be walking as children of light (Ephesians 5:8).

Not Everything Trent Says about Justification is Wrong

Before I get into the bad parts of what Trent says about Justification, it is worth noting that not everything Trent says in its canons on Justification is bad:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

This canon correctly rejects salvation by works alone without grace. Its unnecessary qualification of "without the grace of God" is part of the reason we would not use this formulation ourselves, but in itself it is not wrong.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

The thrust of this canon is similar to that of canon 1. This one emphasizes that grace doesn't simply make it easier for a man to justify himself through works. Again, we would tend not to formulate things this way, because we would deny that man's works have any role in justification. Nevertheless, this canon is not wrong in itself.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

This canon rightly rejects the idea that without God's aid man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought or obtain justification. We would never word the canon this way, because it suggests that man obtains justification on account of works that are simply encouraged by prevenient grace. Nevertheless, in itself this canon is not wrong.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.

As with a number of the canons of Trent, this one seems to be aimed in the general direction of the Reformed churches, but does not actually direct itself to what the Reformed churches teach. As such, what it condemns is error, and it s right to condemn it. It condemns the idea that God is directly active in sin or that man is inactive in sin.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

This one is only half right. The first half that affirms the necessity of the justice (righteousness) of Christ for justification. That part is correct, while the second part is not (we will deal with that in another post).

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

This is another one of those canons that appears to be aimed at the Reformed churches, but which misses. There is no requirement that one be absolutely free from wavering, although (of course) such wavering bad.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

This is another one of those canons that appears to be aimed at the Reformed churches, but which misses. Justification is by faith in Christ, not in justification by faith in justification.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

This is another one of those canons that appears to be aimed at the Reformed churches, but which misses. The key phrase here is that phrase "bound of faith" which describes the matter as being a necessary thing to be believed. Those who are born again and justiifed should be assured of their place among the predestinate. Nevertheless, that is not an essential doctrine.

CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

This canon properly condemns antinomianism.

CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

Aside from the explanation "as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments," this canon simply similarly condemns antinomianism. That additional explanation suggests that Trent mistakenly viewed the Reformed position as antinomianism by mistakenly creating a dichotomy between the Gospel promise being absolute and unconditioned on works, and antinomianism. The Reformed position lies in the middle. The error of conditioning the Gospel on works will be addressed in another post.

CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.

Again, this is a proper condemnation of antinomianism.

CANON XXII.-If any one saith, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God, in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema.

This canon properly condemns the ideas either that perseverance is possible without God's aid or impossible with God's aid.

So, as you can see, just because Trent said it doesn't make it bad. I'm following a rather abbreviated format here, because I'm agreeing with Trent on these issues (with various qualifications). Nevertheless, we do not simply use an ad hominem standard that because Trent was a bad council, therefore everything it says was wrong. No, Trent sometimes anathematized errors, such as the errors of Pelagianism (denying the necessity of grace) and Antinomianism (denying any continued value to the law).

- TurretinFan