Here's a timely post on Sola Scriptura (link) that may be of interest those who have been following the debate (link to debate).
-Turretinfan
P.S. And here is some interesting commentary on said post (link).
P.P.S. Linking does not necessarily imply the present author's full approval with the content of the links.
Friday, October 19, 2007
When You Lose Sight of Moses, You Turn to Idols
Thus saith the LORD, by the pen of Moses, in the Second Book of the Law, the Book of Exodus, the Thirty-Second Chapter, First Verse:
Exodus 32:1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
"And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount ..."
Note how the people missed Moses. Moses had become for many of the people the mouthpiece of God. They turned to Moses for advice, for counsel, for guidance and encouragement. To them, Moses was a visual reminder of God's presence.
And consider why Moses delayed to come down: God was giving Moses the law, instructing Moses in how to obey. He had explained the moral law to Moses, and described the creation of the earth in six days. God was providing revelation not so much for Moses' benefit but for the benefit of the people.
Yet the people grew impatient - they wanted a leader.
"... the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron ..."
Notice what happened: the crowd gathered, the mob assembled. The mechanism is not stated: did a few riot leaders sound the horns or did murmurs travel from tent to tent throughout the camp? We do not know. All we know is that Aaron did not call the people, yet the people came to Aaron. Aaron was the good speaker: the man who talked for Moses, though the people knew who was behind the scenes.
The people came to him as the sort of ceremonial head: they recognized his role was ritualistic, not substantive. He did not speak of himself, but reported what Moses told him. Nevertheless, the people - the enormous crowd of work-hardened Egyptian slaves came to Aaron.
" ... and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us ..."
Note the way they phrase their statement, not as a request: "would you please make us gods," but a demand "Up! Make!" The people did not come to Aaron with respect and reverence, but with an order: with a pretty clear implication: do something, or else.
It's worth noting that "gods" here is Elohim: a name of God. It is not "Elohims" (plural) but Elohim itself is already a plural noun. The English translators here followed the custom of providing a literal translation "gods" despite the ambiguity.
Note the purpose of these "gods": to go before the people. That is to say, these "gods" were to provide a visible leadership.
" ... for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt ..."
Notice who the "gods" are supposed to replace: Moses. The people, you see, viewed Moses the miracle-worker as their visible leader. With him out of sight, they were weak. Unable to rely on faith, the evidence of the unseen, they sought an idol: something visible and tangible.
" ... we wot not what is become of him."
For those born in the last 20 years, "wot" means "know." In other words, the people claimed that they did not know what happened to Moses. They seem to be suggesting that Moses is dead, or lost. They are afraid to set foot on the mount to go searching, for a fence has been put up, and it is a capital crime for anyone to set foot on Sinai. But the people are impatient - they want a visible leader, and they want one now.
The underlying problem is significant: we are to walk by faith, not sight. Thomas and the other Apostles were blessed with the tangible presence of Christ. We are not. We must walk by faith in the unseen. We must eschew the error of trying to make God after the image of man: for no painting can represent God. Even a true photograph or hologram of Christ would not suffice, for God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must do so in Spirit and Truth, just as Moses commanded.
Which is what makes this so interesting as a metaphor:
Those who lose sight of Scripture make Icons and Images.
Do you want to see Christ? Look at Genesis! Look at the Psalms! Look at John's Gospel! But don't look at a painted board, or a piece of glazed ceramic, for God is not to be worshiped with the works of men's hands.
Praise be to the Living and True God!
-Turretinfan
Exodus 32:1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
"And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount ..."
Note how the people missed Moses. Moses had become for many of the people the mouthpiece of God. They turned to Moses for advice, for counsel, for guidance and encouragement. To them, Moses was a visual reminder of God's presence.
And consider why Moses delayed to come down: God was giving Moses the law, instructing Moses in how to obey. He had explained the moral law to Moses, and described the creation of the earth in six days. God was providing revelation not so much for Moses' benefit but for the benefit of the people.
Yet the people grew impatient - they wanted a leader.
"... the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron ..."
Notice what happened: the crowd gathered, the mob assembled. The mechanism is not stated: did a few riot leaders sound the horns or did murmurs travel from tent to tent throughout the camp? We do not know. All we know is that Aaron did not call the people, yet the people came to Aaron. Aaron was the good speaker: the man who talked for Moses, though the people knew who was behind the scenes.
The people came to him as the sort of ceremonial head: they recognized his role was ritualistic, not substantive. He did not speak of himself, but reported what Moses told him. Nevertheless, the people - the enormous crowd of work-hardened Egyptian slaves came to Aaron.
" ... and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us ..."
Note the way they phrase their statement, not as a request: "would you please make us gods," but a demand "Up! Make!" The people did not come to Aaron with respect and reverence, but with an order: with a pretty clear implication: do something, or else.
It's worth noting that "gods" here is Elohim: a name of God. It is not "Elohims" (plural) but Elohim itself is already a plural noun. The English translators here followed the custom of providing a literal translation "gods" despite the ambiguity.
Note the purpose of these "gods": to go before the people. That is to say, these "gods" were to provide a visible leadership.
" ... for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt ..."
Notice who the "gods" are supposed to replace: Moses. The people, you see, viewed Moses the miracle-worker as their visible leader. With him out of sight, they were weak. Unable to rely on faith, the evidence of the unseen, they sought an idol: something visible and tangible.
" ... we wot not what is become of him."
For those born in the last 20 years, "wot" means "know." In other words, the people claimed that they did not know what happened to Moses. They seem to be suggesting that Moses is dead, or lost. They are afraid to set foot on the mount to go searching, for a fence has been put up, and it is a capital crime for anyone to set foot on Sinai. But the people are impatient - they want a visible leader, and they want one now.
The underlying problem is significant: we are to walk by faith, not sight. Thomas and the other Apostles were blessed with the tangible presence of Christ. We are not. We must walk by faith in the unseen. We must eschew the error of trying to make God after the image of man: for no painting can represent God. Even a true photograph or hologram of Christ would not suffice, for God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must do so in Spirit and Truth, just as Moses commanded.
Which is what makes this so interesting as a metaphor:
Those who lose sight of Scripture make Icons and Images.
Do you want to see Christ? Look at Genesis! Look at the Psalms! Look at John's Gospel! But don't look at a painted board, or a piece of glazed ceramic, for God is not to be worshiped with the works of men's hands.
Praise be to the Living and True God!
-Turretinfan
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Pretext Illustrated
By this new logo (link). Who was it that said that every heresy seeks to justify itself from Scripture? This is nothing new. The logo is cleverly worded to confuse Protestants (who will think that it means Scripture teaches Catholicism, which it does not) while corresponding to the objective of the author of that blog, namely to tack Scripture onto Catholic dogma that never came from Scripture, as S&S has been demonstrating in his on-going series at Contra Gentes (Against the Heathen) (link).
It's one thing for me to note that the "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" or "Catholic Verses" are all imposition of the heresy of Catholicism on the Bible, and another thing to demonstrate it. Hats off to S&S for the latter.
-Turretinfan
P.S. Meanwhile, of course, most of what appears on the web site is not even pretext at Biblical apologetics, just inflammatory material like this exemplar (link).
It's one thing for me to note that the "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" or "Catholic Verses" are all imposition of the heresy of Catholicism on the Bible, and another thing to demonstrate it. Hats off to S&S for the latter.
-Turretinfan
P.S. Meanwhile, of course, most of what appears on the web site is not even pretext at Biblical apologetics, just inflammatory material like this exemplar (link).
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Baptism Debate
Those who enjoyed the Shishko vs. White debate on baptism may enjoy the debate reported here (link).
-Turretinfan
-Turretinfan
Persecution Update
A martyr in Gaza (link) tortured and killed by those who, if they do not repent, will receive far worse in the life to come. It is a subjectively fearful thing to face torture for Christ, but it is objectively a far more fearful thing to torture someone who is Christ's.
Nevertheless, Saul of Tarsus received mercy, and perhaps the Gazites who did this may yet be turned to the Lord.
May God be Praised!
-Turretinfan
Nevertheless, Saul of Tarsus received mercy, and perhaps the Gazites who did this may yet be turned to the Lord.
May God be Praised!
-Turretinfan
Those following the debate ...
... may be interested to compare the answer I gave (link) regarding how I know Esther and the Johanine epistles to be Scripture, to this answer that I was unaware of (or at least only subconsciously aware of) at the time I wrote my answer. (link) (in accordance with my long-standing policy, since I'm linking to something written by that guy, I'm linking to something roughly the same written by Wesley - link)
-Turretinfan
-Turretinfan
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
JP2 in Flames in the Afterlife
Is this an ironic claim or what (link)?
All humor aside, God alone knows the heart.
Since I don't pray to the dead, I don't have to worry about disembodied spirits trying to motion "stop" (cf. link).
But then again, if I didn't listen to Moses' prohibition of necromancy and idol-worship, I'm not going to believe if someone were raised from the dead.
-Turretinfan
P.S. I note that not all Roman Catholics are equally enthused (link).
All humor aside, God alone knows the heart.
Since I don't pray to the dead, I don't have to worry about disembodied spirits trying to motion "stop" (cf. link).
But then again, if I didn't listen to Moses' prohibition of necromancy and idol-worship, I'm not going to believe if someone were raised from the dead.
-Turretinfan
P.S. I note that not all Roman Catholics are equally enthused (link).
Monday, October 15, 2007
Methodological/Empirical Criticism of Textual Criticism
One of the rules of thumb of modern textual criticism, is that a scribe is more likely to insert than omit. This rule of thumb needs to be reexamined.
1. Methodological Considerations
The rule of thumb does not appear to have been derived empirically. Instead, the rule of thumb seems to have a popular solution to the dilemma that often faces textual critics: did document 1 add or did document 2 omit?
The supportive reasoning is usually that scribes would have been timid to leave anything (even marginal notes) out, because they would not want to subtract from the Holy Writ. Furthermore, there are occasional examples that can be identified in which a scribe apparently inadvertently copied a marginal note into the text.
Another supportive reasoning is that scribes are more likely to explain something hard than to omit the explanation of something simple. Thus, this reasoning argues that scribes are more likely to provide an explanation than to omit it.
Neither of these tenets, however, appears to be readily testable. The warning against subtracting from Scripture is paired with a warning about adding to Scripture. Furthermore, a hurried scribe might omit an explanation that seemed obvious to the scribe. Thus, neither supporting reasoning is motivationally compelling. Neither supporting reasoning is the result of a method of analysis designed to figure out what errors actually do occur, in order to decide what default rule to use in questionable cases.
2. Empirical Considerations
The known subtractions/omissions heavily favor subtractions as the default error. There are few cases that we can identify where a "sleepy scribe" (as the 19th century collators called them) had inadvertently copied in a marginal note. On the other hand, homoioteleuton is a frequent scribal error.
On top of that, it is clear that transcribing texts by hand was tedious. Taking shortcuts rather than long cuts is a well documented observation of human nature.
Finally, especially early on, marginal material was clearly distinguishable, falling outside the relatively neat columns of letters, and varying in size and hand from the original. In some cases there may have been troubles to distinguish between corrections and commentary, but the unusual situation is more likely to have made the scribe pay attention than doze off.
In view of those two considerations, the present author takes a different default position, namely that all things being equal, it is more likely a careless scribe omitted than that a careless scribe inserted material.
This different default position happens to change the preferred reading of many passages from the modern critical text back to the Textus Receptus, restoring (in this author's opinion) the original fullness of the text.
May God Greatly be Praised,
-Turretinfan
1. Methodological Considerations
The rule of thumb does not appear to have been derived empirically. Instead, the rule of thumb seems to have a popular solution to the dilemma that often faces textual critics: did document 1 add or did document 2 omit?
The supportive reasoning is usually that scribes would have been timid to leave anything (even marginal notes) out, because they would not want to subtract from the Holy Writ. Furthermore, there are occasional examples that can be identified in which a scribe apparently inadvertently copied a marginal note into the text.
Another supportive reasoning is that scribes are more likely to explain something hard than to omit the explanation of something simple. Thus, this reasoning argues that scribes are more likely to provide an explanation than to omit it.
Neither of these tenets, however, appears to be readily testable. The warning against subtracting from Scripture is paired with a warning about adding to Scripture. Furthermore, a hurried scribe might omit an explanation that seemed obvious to the scribe. Thus, neither supporting reasoning is motivationally compelling. Neither supporting reasoning is the result of a method of analysis designed to figure out what errors actually do occur, in order to decide what default rule to use in questionable cases.
2. Empirical Considerations
The known subtractions/omissions heavily favor subtractions as the default error. There are few cases that we can identify where a "sleepy scribe" (as the 19th century collators called them) had inadvertently copied in a marginal note. On the other hand, homoioteleuton is a frequent scribal error.
On top of that, it is clear that transcribing texts by hand was tedious. Taking shortcuts rather than long cuts is a well documented observation of human nature.
Finally, especially early on, marginal material was clearly distinguishable, falling outside the relatively neat columns of letters, and varying in size and hand from the original. In some cases there may have been troubles to distinguish between corrections and commentary, but the unusual situation is more likely to have made the scribe pay attention than doze off.
In view of those two considerations, the present author takes a different default position, namely that all things being equal, it is more likely a careless scribe omitted than that a careless scribe inserted material.
This different default position happens to change the preferred reading of many passages from the modern critical text back to the Textus Receptus, restoring (in this author's opinion) the original fullness of the text.
May God Greatly be Praised,
-Turretinfan
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Turn us again, Shine on Us, and We shall be Saved
Psalm 80
1Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth. 2Before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh stir up thy strength, and come and save us. 3Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.
This Psalm is so rich theologically. Asaph begins by calling to God, using the metaphor of "giv[ing] ear." God, of course, has no ears; it is just an anthropomorphism asking God to listen.
Notice that Asaph identifies the Shepherd with God by stating that the Shepherd dwells between the cherubim (or cherubims, if you prefer the KJV spelling). The invisible God, dwelling in a cloud, unseeable and not represented with imagery: he is the Shepherd of Israel. The New Testament makes it clear that this same Shepherd is Jesus.
What is interesting is that Asaph appeals to the strength of Shepherd. He asks him to "stir up" his strength. The image is that the Shepherd will make use of the strength at his disposal. Asaph's request is simple: "Save us."
To this simple request, Asaph appends an explanatory refrain "Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved." It's an almost syllogistic refrain:
1) If God turns us to Him; and
2) If God shines on us, then
3) We will be saved.
Notice how Christocentric Asaph's prayer is: it is not "offer us salvation and we will gladly take it." No, Asaph begs for salvation, even begging to be turned. This simple segment of the prayer is the (1) in the syllogism.
4O LORD God of hosts, how long wilt thou be angry against the prayer of thy people? 5Thou feedest them with the bread of tears; and givest them tears to drink in great measure. 6Thou makest us a strife unto our neighbours: and our enemies laugh among themselves. 7Turn us again, O God of hosts, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.
Now, Asaph turns to (2), the shining of God upon them. Here they have turned, they are praying, but God has not yet showed mercy to them. Instead, they are still suffering under discipline/punishment. Asaph's appeal here is one of begging for pity. Asaph does not demand that God stop punishing immediately. Instead, Asaph humble asks how long this punishment will last, and points out that the punishment is continuing.
8Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it. 9Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land. 10The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. 11She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river. 12Why hast thou then broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her? 13The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it. 14Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; 15And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself. 16It is burned with fire, it is cut down: they perish at the rebuke of thy countenance. 17Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself. 18So will not we go back from thee: quicken us, and we will call upon thy name. 19Turn us again, O LORD God of hosts, cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.
Finally Asaph puts 1 and 2 together begging for 3. Asaph asks God, in essence, to have mercy appealling not to any right of the people of God, but to God's own purpose. Asaph reminds God that he brought the vine up out of Egypt. The immediate reference here is the nation of Israel, which was brought up from Egypt and planted in Canaan (the Canaanites being ejected by genocide). Asaph reminds God of how Israel flourished, but is now in ruins. Asaph asks God to "look down," not as though God has not seen (for Asaph acknowledges that the people are perishing at the "countenance" of God), but to have pity.
But the vine is also Christ, who was brought up from Egypt and raised in Canaan, but then persecuted to death. Yet, God shone his countenance and raised Christ ("the son of man") from the dead.
And of course, we are united with Christ, as the branches of the vine. We died with him (as Baptism reminds us) and will be raised with Him.
Notice the language that Asaph uses: "Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself." For Asaph it is all about the activity ("hand ... madest") of God for his own glory ("for thyself").
So to, Asaph ascribes the whole accomplishment to God: "So will not we go back from thee: quicken us, and we will call upon thy name." That is to say: Regenerate us, and we will call on you. It is the message of Scripture and the message of Calvinism: God regenerates and we worship Him. It is God who turns us to Him - it is God who regenerates us for His own glory. It is God who does the work of salvation from beginning to end. If we are saved, so that we will not perish, it is from Him from start to finish.
It is the prayer not only of the nation in distress, but it should be your prayer, dear reader, if you fear judgment for sin.
"Turn us again, be merciful to us, and we will be saved." Christ is sufficient. Praise be to the Shepherd!
-Turretinfan
1Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth. 2Before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh stir up thy strength, and come and save us. 3Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.
This Psalm is so rich theologically. Asaph begins by calling to God, using the metaphor of "giv[ing] ear." God, of course, has no ears; it is just an anthropomorphism asking God to listen.
Notice that Asaph identifies the Shepherd with God by stating that the Shepherd dwells between the cherubim (or cherubims, if you prefer the KJV spelling). The invisible God, dwelling in a cloud, unseeable and not represented with imagery: he is the Shepherd of Israel. The New Testament makes it clear that this same Shepherd is Jesus.
What is interesting is that Asaph appeals to the strength of Shepherd. He asks him to "stir up" his strength. The image is that the Shepherd will make use of the strength at his disposal. Asaph's request is simple: "Save us."
To this simple request, Asaph appends an explanatory refrain "Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved." It's an almost syllogistic refrain:
1) If God turns us to Him; and
2) If God shines on us, then
3) We will be saved.
Notice how Christocentric Asaph's prayer is: it is not "offer us salvation and we will gladly take it." No, Asaph begs for salvation, even begging to be turned. This simple segment of the prayer is the (1) in the syllogism.
4O LORD God of hosts, how long wilt thou be angry against the prayer of thy people? 5Thou feedest them with the bread of tears; and givest them tears to drink in great measure. 6Thou makest us a strife unto our neighbours: and our enemies laugh among themselves. 7Turn us again, O God of hosts, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.
Now, Asaph turns to (2), the shining of God upon them. Here they have turned, they are praying, but God has not yet showed mercy to them. Instead, they are still suffering under discipline/punishment. Asaph's appeal here is one of begging for pity. Asaph does not demand that God stop punishing immediately. Instead, Asaph humble asks how long this punishment will last, and points out that the punishment is continuing.
8Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it. 9Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land. 10The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. 11She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river. 12Why hast thou then broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her? 13The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it. 14Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; 15And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself. 16It is burned with fire, it is cut down: they perish at the rebuke of thy countenance. 17Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself. 18So will not we go back from thee: quicken us, and we will call upon thy name. 19Turn us again, O LORD God of hosts, cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.
Finally Asaph puts 1 and 2 together begging for 3. Asaph asks God, in essence, to have mercy appealling not to any right of the people of God, but to God's own purpose. Asaph reminds God that he brought the vine up out of Egypt. The immediate reference here is the nation of Israel, which was brought up from Egypt and planted in Canaan (the Canaanites being ejected by genocide). Asaph reminds God of how Israel flourished, but is now in ruins. Asaph asks God to "look down," not as though God has not seen (for Asaph acknowledges that the people are perishing at the "countenance" of God), but to have pity.
But the vine is also Christ, who was brought up from Egypt and raised in Canaan, but then persecuted to death. Yet, God shone his countenance and raised Christ ("the son of man") from the dead.
And of course, we are united with Christ, as the branches of the vine. We died with him (as Baptism reminds us) and will be raised with Him.
Notice the language that Asaph uses: "Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself." For Asaph it is all about the activity ("hand ... madest") of God for his own glory ("for thyself").
So to, Asaph ascribes the whole accomplishment to God: "So will not we go back from thee: quicken us, and we will call upon thy name." That is to say: Regenerate us, and we will call on you. It is the message of Scripture and the message of Calvinism: God regenerates and we worship Him. It is God who turns us to Him - it is God who regenerates us for His own glory. It is God who does the work of salvation from beginning to end. If we are saved, so that we will not perish, it is from Him from start to finish.
It is the prayer not only of the nation in distress, but it should be your prayer, dear reader, if you fear judgment for sin.
"Turn us again, be merciful to us, and we will be saved." Christ is sufficient. Praise be to the Shepherd!
-Turretinfan
More of the Same News
Now it's not just chimps (link), but dogs are making choices too. (link) And, interestingly, dogs are behaving more the way humans should (sometimes even than humans do)!
The articles are interesting from another point of view, though, than just as evidence that "free will" (if you simply mean the ability to make choices) is present in other creatures besides man. The articles are also an interesting form of opposition to evolutionism. How so? Dogs apparently have a choice mechanism that is more similar to humans than the choice mechanism of chimps. This means that evolutionism has to make yet another appeal to parallel ("convergent") evolution or re-nest the hierarchy. Either way, the special pleading becomes more evident.
-Turretinfan
The articles are interesting from another point of view, though, than just as evidence that "free will" (if you simply mean the ability to make choices) is present in other creatures besides man. The articles are also an interesting form of opposition to evolutionism. How so? Dogs apparently have a choice mechanism that is more similar to humans than the choice mechanism of chimps. This means that evolutionism has to make yet another appeal to parallel ("convergent") evolution or re-nest the hierarchy. Either way, the special pleading becomes more evident.
-Turretinfan
Pray for Rain
Apparently the southeast United States is suffering under an unusually severe drought. More than a few Christian brethren live in that part of the World, and a goodly number of them live off the land as farmers. Pray that God will provide for their material need, in this case of water:
(more details) (and especially here)
Such prayer is generally agreeable to God's revealed will:
James 5:16-18
16Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. 17Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. 18And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.
For those of you who try to communicate with dead people, don't you think it is odd that James did not advise here to ask Elias to pray for us, since he was eminently "good" at obtaining answers to prayer? Isn't the easiest explanation that James would never in a million years have thought of such a thing?
Don't get any ideas,
-Turretinfan
(more details) (and especially here)
Such prayer is generally agreeable to God's revealed will:
James 5:16-18
16Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. 17Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. 18And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.
For those of you who try to communicate with dead people, don't you think it is odd that James did not advise here to ask Elias to pray for us, since he was eminently "good" at obtaining answers to prayer? Isn't the easiest explanation that James would never in a million years have thought of such a thing?
Don't get any ideas,
-Turretinfan
A Word of Encouragement
Just a note of encouragement to my Christian brethren over at TeamPyro (link). I notice that they have new blogroll policy (link). It's pretty neat that they have become popular enough to be able to make demands on those who'd like a link-back! Their graphics are great, as are many of the articles. Another nice feature are the frequent (normally weekly) Spurgeon selections (available as a list here).
Fanning the flames,
-Turretinfan
Fanning the flames,
-Turretinfan
Friday, October 12, 2007
Atheist Opposes Sola Scriptura
An atheist has weighed in on the topic of the current debate (which could be roughly characterized as "Sufficiency of Scripture vs. Insufficiency of Scripture").
Here's the atheist's critique ("Scripture Only is a Myth"). I'd wager (rhetorically speaking, of course) that the atheist has some of the same misconceptions of Sola Scriptura as does my antagonist in the current debate. Any thoughts?
-Turretinfan
P.S. The present author notes with chagrin that the original post was marred by following the old "i" before "e" rule to phonetic English spelling. Proposed motto for Atheism: "Even our spelling is rebellious." Obviously if one thinks about the etymology ... but anyway ...
Here's the atheist's critique ("Scripture Only is a Myth"). I'd wager (rhetorically speaking, of course) that the atheist has some of the same misconceptions of Sola Scriptura as does my antagonist in the current debate. Any thoughts?
-Turretinfan
P.S. The present author notes with chagrin that the original post was marred by following the old "i" before "e" rule to phonetic English spelling. Proposed motto for Atheism: "Even our spelling is rebellious." Obviously if one thinks about the etymology ... but anyway ...
A Very Odd Rebuttal
According to the Reformed Covenanter, E. Calvin Beisner wrote:
Regardless of the explanation, it's very odd.
-Turretinfan
Original Arminianism affirmed that Christ died as a substitute to pay for the sins of all people. The Federal Visionists will affirm that Christ died to pay the penalty for the sins of all in “the covenant”, including some who will end up in hell. One’s “election” ultimately depends on whether he is “faithful” to “the covenant”, and one can be “justified” and wind up in hell through apostasy. Foreword to G.P. Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology, Presbyterian and Reformed, p. viiiIn response, Doug Wilson wrote:
As I have pointed out elsewhere, this new "Arminianism" holds to God's exhaustive sovereignty over all things, and teaches absolute predestination and maintains that the number of the decretally elect cannot be increased or diminished. If this is Arminianism, then maybe Arminianism is Calvinistic . . . or something. But that is just by the way, a topic for another time.This is a very odd rebuttal. The accusation is: you teach that Christ's death is partially ineffective, the response is discussion of other issues. What's worse, a Molinist like William Lane Craig would probably be willing to describe his own views as teachings of "absolute predestination and [the position] that the number of the decretally elect cannot be increased or diminished." In other words, it appears that Mr. Wilson either did not read the actual objection, does not understand the historical Calvinism/Arminianism issues, or simply does not take the matter seriously.
Regardless of the explanation, it's very odd.
-Turretinfan
Thursday, October 11, 2007
If it be True, Praise Be to the Lord
It has been reported that the Muslim mastermind of the failed first attack on the World Trade Center buildings has converted to Christianity (link). The warden seems skeptical of the claimed conversion.
May God show similar mercy to all his enemies, as he apparently has to Mr. Yousef and ourselves. Don't forget that we too were once God's enemies, and it is only by God's grace that we can be called (like Abraham) a friend of God.
-Turretinfan
May God show similar mercy to all his enemies, as he apparently has to Mr. Yousef and ourselves. Don't forget that we too were once God's enemies, and it is only by God's grace that we can be called (like Abraham) a friend of God.
-Turretinfan
'Tis Tradition, Stop vs. Thus the Bible Says
"Orthodox" and I are having a debate that could be roughly characterized as a Sola Scriptura vs. Sola Ecclesia debate (though neither of those terms is in the resolution.)
Should this sort of thing interest you, stop by and read up, here:
Resolved: "It is tradition, look no further" is less workable as applied to the theological content of the Westminster Confession of Faith than "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."
(link to debate blog)
Should this sort of thing interest you, stop by and read up, here:
Resolved: "It is tradition, look no further" is less workable as applied to the theological content of the Westminster Confession of Faith than "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it."
(link to debate blog)
Don't Teach Creationism in Science Class
Some of my readers may have a knee-jerk reaction to the title of this post (either pro or con). Both are probably wrong: Creationism should not be taught in science in class, it should be taught in history class. The creation of the world and man should be the first two chapters of any school's history curriculum.
Now, it should be fine to mention the historical fact of Creation in science class, but Science class is not the place for teaching Creationism, or the Fall of Rome, or the colonization of the Americas.
On the other hand, evolutionism should not be taught anywhere: it is a lie. All living things are not the result of common biological descent: much of the variety we see is the result of special creation.
There certainly should be some mention of evolutionism in both science and history class, but that mention should be sharply critical.
Will these proposals be widely adopted? Not in countries where "pluralism" and liberalism have already gained dominance. They can and should, however, be adopted in private and especially home education.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God!
Praise be to the Word by whom ALL things were made,
-Turretinfan
Now, it should be fine to mention the historical fact of Creation in science class, but Science class is not the place for teaching Creationism, or the Fall of Rome, or the colonization of the Americas.
On the other hand, evolutionism should not be taught anywhere: it is a lie. All living things are not the result of common biological descent: much of the variety we see is the result of special creation.
There certainly should be some mention of evolutionism in both science and history class, but that mention should be sharply critical.
Will these proposals be widely adopted? Not in countries where "pluralism" and liberalism have already gained dominance. They can and should, however, be adopted in private and especially home education.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God!
Praise be to the Word by whom ALL things were made,
-Turretinfan
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Bad News (if true) for Some Arminians
A few Arminians have staked their view of "free will" on the idea that what separates us from the animals is our ability to make rational choices: to wit that this is the "image of God" referred to in Scripture.
Now, with the enormous caveat that the entire study may be rigged, I present the following interesting article which - if true - would be devastating to that Arminian claim (link).
I'm sticking with my claim that "image of God" is authority, as discussed here (link). If you want to argue about what the image of God is, please direct your comments to the combox of that post, rather than this one - so as to keep things tidy.
-Turretinfan
Now, with the enormous caveat that the entire study may be rigged, I present the following interesting article which - if true - would be devastating to that Arminian claim (link).
I'm sticking with my claim that "image of God" is authority, as discussed here (link). If you want to argue about what the image of God is, please direct your comments to the combox of that post, rather than this one - so as to keep things tidy.
-Turretinfan
Psalm 105 - He Did What?
Some folks who read through the account in Psalm 105 may surprised - especially when they get down to verse 25.
The Psalm starts off with a call to thankfulness and worship, on account of the deeds that God has done, calling them "wondrous works" and "marvelous works."
The first item to be selected is God's choice of Abraham and Jacob. God chose them for many blessings: but the most important blessing was their personal salvation.
Second is the covenant and oath he made with Abraham and Isaac, and which God confirmed to Jacob/Israel: namely the inheritance of the land of Canaan. As we learn more clearly in Romans and Hebrews, this inheritance was pointing toward heaven.
The Psalmist points out that this promise was made when they were very few and that God protected them, even reproving kings for their sakes. And likewise, God called for a famine in the land, but sent Joseph in slavery to Egypt until the time was right and Joseph was freed. Notice again that God takes credit for sending Joseph in slavery to Egypt. Was it a sinful thing to sell Joseph, yes. And yet God takes credit for the act without any moral responsibility for the sinful act of betrayal by Joseph's brethren.
Furthermore, God not only freed Joseph but made him second to the king of Egypt, even over the leaders of Egypt.
When Israel came to Egypt, God caused Israel to prosper until they were stronger than the Egyptians.
In verse 25, some folks who had not fainted at God's claim to have sent Joseph into Egypt will have cardiac arrest: God says that he "turned their heart to hate his people and to deal subtilly with his servants." It was sinful for them to hate his people and to deal treacherously with them, and yet God takes credit, saying that He turned their heart to do that.
Furtheremore, God punished this hatred by sending Moses and Aaron (also chosen by God) by whom he did many miracles, which each were some form of destruction on the Egyptians.
Finally, he brought forth his people from Egypt, taking the Egyptian's gold, and giving all of the people physical strength. And in the end the Egyptians were glad that the people were gone, because they were afraid of them.
God also brought Israel through the wildernness with a cloud and fire to provide shade by day and light by night. God provided quails and bread and water. God remembered his promise to Abraham and brought forth his people from Egyptian bondage with joy and gladness, and gave them Canaan, so that they might obey him.
It is a picture of salvation: God brings forth his elect from spiritual Egypt - from bondage to sin - with joy and gladness, providing them with spiritual nourishment and bringing them into the promised land: heaven at the end.
It is hard to imagine a more Calvinistic psalm.
As the Psalmist concludes; "Praise ye the LORD!"
-Turretinfan
The Psalm starts off with a call to thankfulness and worship, on account of the deeds that God has done, calling them "wondrous works" and "marvelous works."
The first item to be selected is God's choice of Abraham and Jacob. God chose them for many blessings: but the most important blessing was their personal salvation.
Second is the covenant and oath he made with Abraham and Isaac, and which God confirmed to Jacob/Israel: namely the inheritance of the land of Canaan. As we learn more clearly in Romans and Hebrews, this inheritance was pointing toward heaven.
The Psalmist points out that this promise was made when they were very few and that God protected them, even reproving kings for their sakes. And likewise, God called for a famine in the land, but sent Joseph in slavery to Egypt until the time was right and Joseph was freed. Notice again that God takes credit for sending Joseph in slavery to Egypt. Was it a sinful thing to sell Joseph, yes. And yet God takes credit for the act without any moral responsibility for the sinful act of betrayal by Joseph's brethren.
Furthermore, God not only freed Joseph but made him second to the king of Egypt, even over the leaders of Egypt.
When Israel came to Egypt, God caused Israel to prosper until they were stronger than the Egyptians.
In verse 25, some folks who had not fainted at God's claim to have sent Joseph into Egypt will have cardiac arrest: God says that he "turned their heart to hate his people and to deal subtilly with his servants." It was sinful for them to hate his people and to deal treacherously with them, and yet God takes credit, saying that He turned their heart to do that.
Furtheremore, God punished this hatred by sending Moses and Aaron (also chosen by God) by whom he did many miracles, which each were some form of destruction on the Egyptians.
Finally, he brought forth his people from Egypt, taking the Egyptian's gold, and giving all of the people physical strength. And in the end the Egyptians were glad that the people were gone, because they were afraid of them.
God also brought Israel through the wildernness with a cloud and fire to provide shade by day and light by night. God provided quails and bread and water. God remembered his promise to Abraham and brought forth his people from Egyptian bondage with joy and gladness, and gave them Canaan, so that they might obey him.
It is a picture of salvation: God brings forth his elect from spiritual Egypt - from bondage to sin - with joy and gladness, providing them with spiritual nourishment and bringing them into the promised land: heaven at the end.
It is hard to imagine a more Calvinistic psalm.
As the Psalmist concludes; "Praise ye the LORD!"
-Turretinfan
Monday, October 08, 2007
Response to Pat Condell - With Asides
Pat Condell is an atheist who more or less openly mocks Christianity. Here's an example (link) NOTE BEFORE CLICKING: Blasphemy is used in the video, so don't click if that will cause you to stumble.
Part of the problem, however, is that Pat Condell, as an atheist is unable to distinguish between Christianity and its imitators.
Pat begins by addressing "angry Christians" who have been telling him that they are looking forward to his perishing in hell. If there are Christians who have been saying that, they should be ashamed. Pat is not so much more (if at all more) deserving of hell than we are. It is only by grace that we are saved. Furthermore, God may still save Pat: after all, God saved a far worse persecutor of the church, Saul of Tarsus.
Pat mocks Christians generally as "crazy." It's not surprising. Jesus was similarly insulted by those to whom He preached the gospel of repentance.
Pat suggests that it must be "galling for religious people to see atheists like me going around ... without a shred of guilt or self-loathing ...." Pat seems to have missed the point. Pat does have guilt, though he may not be aware of it. In contrast, Christians do not have guilt, because we have Christ. Furthermore, we reach out to Pat - even when we tell him of his guilt - nor merely to make him realize his sin, but to lead him to the solution to the problem he has: a problem of which he is currently unaware.
It's almost as though Pat is playing with candles on a pile of gunpowder, and then suggesting our calls for him to extinguish the candles is really to spoil his fun or to make him feel nervous.
Pat points out that he is not inclined to pray "or do penance of any kind." It can be seen from that comment that Pat has not really grasped New Testament Christianity, for the New Testament does not call for penance, but repentance.
Then Pat goes off on a claim that if hell does exist, he thinks it is more of place of eternal regret, rather than of eternal torment. Of course, there is no warrant for this claim, though sadly a number of theological liberals have begun to suggest such a thing.
Next, Pat claims that Jesus died for his sins latching hold of errant views on the work of Christ. Pat says he feels "somewhat guilty" that he's not more grateful to Jesus for that, but he says that he wishes that Jesus had asked him before the fact. He says that he now feels as though he is being billed for something that he didn't order.
This atheist's criticism of the "Jesus died for each and every person" misrepresentation is sad, because it could have been avoided by a better presentation of the gospel. Furthermore, the atheist has a good point, which is that the "Jesus died for you" gospel tries to make a person accept Christianity on the basis of an unwanted act.
The atheist points out that if you are a Christian, you are born already in debt. This is true, of course. If you are one of the elect, you are already indebted to Jesus: he has saved you from death by His work on the cross, the least you can do is obey his commandments. Yet it is a debt of gratitude, not a legal debt.
There is a legal debt that all men are born in: namely a debt incurred by sin.
Pat says that the only way you can repay the debt in full is by dying. Pat's not quite right: we can never repay the debt. As to the debt of gratitude, we can simply be grateful eternally. AS to the legal debt, we can only suffer eternally. There is, however, an escape - for if we trust in Christ, we can be confident that He will pay our debt for us.
Pat continues by pointing out that the "Jesus died for you" gospel is like telling a person that they have to pay off a mortgage for a house they already own outright. Although Pat has muddled things a bit, his basic criticism is valid as applied to the "Jesus died for you" gospel. If Jesus already paid the legal debt, then the person no longer owes eternal suffering as the wages of his sin.
Pat continues by asserting that there is no "hard historical evidence that the Jesus of the gospels even existed." In point of fact, however, there are few people of the same generation about whom there is greater hard historical evidence for their existence than the Jesus of the gospels. Pat's claim here borders on the absurd. The gospels themselves are hard historical evidence, after all.
Pat claims that the records we have were written by people who born long after Jesus died. This, however, is clearly mistaken. We do have such records (for example, the testimony of Josephus), but we also have the gospels - written by men who were and interviewed eyewitnesses.
Pat makes an attempted argument from silence as to other (extra-Scriptural) documentation of Jesus' ministry in the secular records of the day. One wonders what writings Pat has in mind? Does Pat suppose that there was a "Jerusalem Daily Tribune" that has been carefully maintained on 1st century microfiche? Where is all this alleged silence evidenced? In point of fact, the argument from silence is bogus. There is not a wealth of contemporary history that all surprisingly omits mention of Jesus, which would be necessary for the argument to carry any force.
Pat mocks Jesus' miracles, claiming that if they were all true, Jesus should have been as famous as Elvis. In point of fact, however, Jesus was famous in his day.
Matthew 9:31 But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.
Mark 1:28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.
Luke 5:15 But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities.
Pat claims all we have are second and third hand accounts that have been doctored. In fact, however, as noted above, we have first hand accounts by eyewitnesses.
1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Pat also claims that the Word has been edited and translated back and forth so many times that the truth bears no resemblance to itself "if it ever did." Pat's clearly wrong on this again. There are an enormous amount of handwritten copies of the New Testament in essentially unedited form in the original language (and same for the Old), as well as many early and widely various translations into many languages without significant editing. Although there are some (one could even say "many") minor variations in the copies, there can be little serious doubt that the content of the originals is substantially maintained in the collection.
Pat continues by saying that he does not know who we think we are praying to. It's obviously a rhetorical turn, but it's sadly true. Pat does not know God.
Pat suggests that praying to God has not done us much good, and that we should try praying to Elvis and see how that works. Pat's obviously just trying to be funny/inflammatory. The interesting thing, though, is that Pat's somewhat right. Service to God is not particularly rewarding in this life: in fact, because we worship God we get mocked by the likes of Pat. In some parts of the world and some times in history, we can get tortured and killed for worshiping God. Paul says that if we don't consider the afterlife, we are the most miserable of all men.
Furthermore, it should be clear that those who hate God often life good lives and receive many blessings in this life. It's a question that is sometimes addressed in Scripture, simply because it can be discouraging to be following God and seeing no physical benefit for it. Instead, we look forward to a heavenly reward.
After this, Pat suggests that although Jesus is "a storybook character" he still has some wisdom. Pat then calls to mind Jesus' statement that the "kingdom of God is within," and suggests that "angry Christians" don't really believe those words or "turn the other cheek," "forgive trespasses," and "love your enemy." Instead, he suggests that we want punishment, eternal torture, and unimaginable suffering (on this atheist for mocking and blaspheming) for our own satisfaction. Of course, much of these comments are built on the false premises identified above, as well as the misrepresentations of Christianity that are all too common.
The underlying problem, however, is that like certain Roman Catholics (yes, Jonathan, this is the post I had in mind), this atheist views any attempts to present the gospel and warn of eternal damnation as inherently uncharitable. The charge that we are doing so for our own satisfaction is simply a false accusation - or it least it should be: if we bear witness to the truth for reasons of personal antipathy, we should be ashamed.
Then Pat argues that Jesus would not approve of what "people like you [make] of his teachings." Surely, to an extent, that is true. Jesus could not approve of what every person who calls himself a Christian has done with Christ's teachings, for many people have misapplied Christ's teachings. But Pat takes it a step further and suggests that "nobody listened to a word [Jesus] said." Of course, again, this is simply an attempt to be inflammatory. After all, the "keep it to yourself" - "no eternal suffering" - etc. message is what many modern theological liberals teach.
Finally, Pat argues that Jesus consequently wasted his breath and life. If the Arminian position were correct, it would seem to partially validate the atheist's claim, for Jesus would have died in vain for the recalcitrant atheist. But, of course, the Arminian position is mistaken. God sent his son to save "whosoever believeth in Him" i.e. the elect.
Pat signs off the message with "Peace," but there can be no core peace between the atheist and the Christian. We can avoid being at each other's throats - I can buy baked beans from an atheist and hold a pleasant conversation with him. Nevertheless, the gospel is spiritual warfare, and atheism is the spiritual enemy: either Atheism is right or Christianity is right, there is no middle ground (despite the claims of Islam etc. etc.).
Praise be to Our Most High God!
-Turretinfan
Part of the problem, however, is that Pat Condell, as an atheist is unable to distinguish between Christianity and its imitators.
Pat begins by addressing "angry Christians" who have been telling him that they are looking forward to his perishing in hell. If there are Christians who have been saying that, they should be ashamed. Pat is not so much more (if at all more) deserving of hell than we are. It is only by grace that we are saved. Furthermore, God may still save Pat: after all, God saved a far worse persecutor of the church, Saul of Tarsus.
Pat mocks Christians generally as "crazy." It's not surprising. Jesus was similarly insulted by those to whom He preached the gospel of repentance.
Pat suggests that it must be "galling for religious people to see atheists like me going around ... without a shred of guilt or self-loathing ...." Pat seems to have missed the point. Pat does have guilt, though he may not be aware of it. In contrast, Christians do not have guilt, because we have Christ. Furthermore, we reach out to Pat - even when we tell him of his guilt - nor merely to make him realize his sin, but to lead him to the solution to the problem he has: a problem of which he is currently unaware.
It's almost as though Pat is playing with candles on a pile of gunpowder, and then suggesting our calls for him to extinguish the candles is really to spoil his fun or to make him feel nervous.
Pat points out that he is not inclined to pray "or do penance of any kind." It can be seen from that comment that Pat has not really grasped New Testament Christianity, for the New Testament does not call for penance, but repentance.
Then Pat goes off on a claim that if hell does exist, he thinks it is more of place of eternal regret, rather than of eternal torment. Of course, there is no warrant for this claim, though sadly a number of theological liberals have begun to suggest such a thing.
Next, Pat claims that Jesus died for his sins latching hold of errant views on the work of Christ. Pat says he feels "somewhat guilty" that he's not more grateful to Jesus for that, but he says that he wishes that Jesus had asked him before the fact. He says that he now feels as though he is being billed for something that he didn't order.
This atheist's criticism of the "Jesus died for each and every person" misrepresentation is sad, because it could have been avoided by a better presentation of the gospel. Furthermore, the atheist has a good point, which is that the "Jesus died for you" gospel tries to make a person accept Christianity on the basis of an unwanted act.
The atheist points out that if you are a Christian, you are born already in debt. This is true, of course. If you are one of the elect, you are already indebted to Jesus: he has saved you from death by His work on the cross, the least you can do is obey his commandments. Yet it is a debt of gratitude, not a legal debt.
There is a legal debt that all men are born in: namely a debt incurred by sin.
Pat says that the only way you can repay the debt in full is by dying. Pat's not quite right: we can never repay the debt. As to the debt of gratitude, we can simply be grateful eternally. AS to the legal debt, we can only suffer eternally. There is, however, an escape - for if we trust in Christ, we can be confident that He will pay our debt for us.
Pat continues by pointing out that the "Jesus died for you" gospel is like telling a person that they have to pay off a mortgage for a house they already own outright. Although Pat has muddled things a bit, his basic criticism is valid as applied to the "Jesus died for you" gospel. If Jesus already paid the legal debt, then the person no longer owes eternal suffering as the wages of his sin.
Pat continues by asserting that there is no "hard historical evidence that the Jesus of the gospels even existed." In point of fact, however, there are few people of the same generation about whom there is greater hard historical evidence for their existence than the Jesus of the gospels. Pat's claim here borders on the absurd. The gospels themselves are hard historical evidence, after all.
Pat claims that the records we have were written by people who born long after Jesus died. This, however, is clearly mistaken. We do have such records (for example, the testimony of Josephus), but we also have the gospels - written by men who were and interviewed eyewitnesses.
Pat makes an attempted argument from silence as to other (extra-Scriptural) documentation of Jesus' ministry in the secular records of the day. One wonders what writings Pat has in mind? Does Pat suppose that there was a "Jerusalem Daily Tribune" that has been carefully maintained on 1st century microfiche? Where is all this alleged silence evidenced? In point of fact, the argument from silence is bogus. There is not a wealth of contemporary history that all surprisingly omits mention of Jesus, which would be necessary for the argument to carry any force.
Pat mocks Jesus' miracles, claiming that if they were all true, Jesus should have been as famous as Elvis. In point of fact, however, Jesus was famous in his day.
Matthew 9:31 But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country.
Mark 1:28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.
Luke 5:15 But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him: and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities.
Pat claims all we have are second and third hand accounts that have been doctored. In fact, however, as noted above, we have first hand accounts by eyewitnesses.
1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
Pat also claims that the Word has been edited and translated back and forth so many times that the truth bears no resemblance to itself "if it ever did." Pat's clearly wrong on this again. There are an enormous amount of handwritten copies of the New Testament in essentially unedited form in the original language (and same for the Old), as well as many early and widely various translations into many languages without significant editing. Although there are some (one could even say "many") minor variations in the copies, there can be little serious doubt that the content of the originals is substantially maintained in the collection.
Pat continues by saying that he does not know who we think we are praying to. It's obviously a rhetorical turn, but it's sadly true. Pat does not know God.
Pat suggests that praying to God has not done us much good, and that we should try praying to Elvis and see how that works. Pat's obviously just trying to be funny/inflammatory. The interesting thing, though, is that Pat's somewhat right. Service to God is not particularly rewarding in this life: in fact, because we worship God we get mocked by the likes of Pat. In some parts of the world and some times in history, we can get tortured and killed for worshiping God. Paul says that if we don't consider the afterlife, we are the most miserable of all men.
Furthermore, it should be clear that those who hate God often life good lives and receive many blessings in this life. It's a question that is sometimes addressed in Scripture, simply because it can be discouraging to be following God and seeing no physical benefit for it. Instead, we look forward to a heavenly reward.
After this, Pat suggests that although Jesus is "a storybook character" he still has some wisdom. Pat then calls to mind Jesus' statement that the "kingdom of God is within," and suggests that "angry Christians" don't really believe those words or "turn the other cheek," "forgive trespasses," and "love your enemy." Instead, he suggests that we want punishment, eternal torture, and unimaginable suffering (on this atheist for mocking and blaspheming) for our own satisfaction. Of course, much of these comments are built on the false premises identified above, as well as the misrepresentations of Christianity that are all too common.
The underlying problem, however, is that like certain Roman Catholics (yes, Jonathan, this is the post I had in mind), this atheist views any attempts to present the gospel and warn of eternal damnation as inherently uncharitable. The charge that we are doing so for our own satisfaction is simply a false accusation - or it least it should be: if we bear witness to the truth for reasons of personal antipathy, we should be ashamed.
Then Pat argues that Jesus would not approve of what "people like you [make] of his teachings." Surely, to an extent, that is true. Jesus could not approve of what every person who calls himself a Christian has done with Christ's teachings, for many people have misapplied Christ's teachings. But Pat takes it a step further and suggests that "nobody listened to a word [Jesus] said." Of course, again, this is simply an attempt to be inflammatory. After all, the "keep it to yourself" - "no eternal suffering" - etc. message is what many modern theological liberals teach.
Finally, Pat argues that Jesus consequently wasted his breath and life. If the Arminian position were correct, it would seem to partially validate the atheist's claim, for Jesus would have died in vain for the recalcitrant atheist. But, of course, the Arminian position is mistaken. God sent his son to save "whosoever believeth in Him" i.e. the elect.
Pat signs off the message with "Peace," but there can be no core peace between the atheist and the Christian. We can avoid being at each other's throats - I can buy baked beans from an atheist and hold a pleasant conversation with him. Nevertheless, the gospel is spiritual warfare, and atheism is the spiritual enemy: either Atheism is right or Christianity is right, there is no middle ground (despite the claims of Islam etc. etc.).
Praise be to Our Most High God!
-Turretinfan
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Murder Update
So, Texas plans to execute just judgment on a man convicted of two capital offenses (two murders, under particularly heinous circumstances - a factor that matters under Texas law). The former governor of Texas, and now president of the U.S. wants to prevent this execution, because he claims it will harm U.S. interests abroad. (source)
This may seem strange. After all the "Black and Whites" gang has less international sympathy than Al Quaeda, yet the president has sent troops abroad to kill members of the latter murderous group.
What's the problem? Texas police apparently failed to assist the criminal by telling him that he could seek the help of the Mexican consulate. The "International Court of Justice" a body with no jurisdiction in the U.S. (and with whose interpretation of the relevant treaty, the president disagrees), has decided that the execution would be improper.
Let us pray that justice will prevail, and that Texas will do what is right.
Let us also pray for this young man who has given strong indication of need for salvation.
-Turretinfan
This may seem strange. After all the "Black and Whites" gang has less international sympathy than Al Quaeda, yet the president has sent troops abroad to kill members of the latter murderous group.
What's the problem? Texas police apparently failed to assist the criminal by telling him that he could seek the help of the Mexican consulate. The "International Court of Justice" a body with no jurisdiction in the U.S. (and with whose interpretation of the relevant treaty, the president disagrees), has decided that the execution would be improper.
Let us pray that justice will prevail, and that Texas will do what is right.
Let us also pray for this young man who has given strong indication of need for salvation.
-Turretinfan
Unlocking James, Scripture WAS Fulfilled
James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
In the midst of misconceptions regarding the justifying role of works in James writing, it is easy to overlook four small words. Note how James says: "the Scripture was fulfilled." It is easy to rush past these words and on to the imputation of righteousness and the calling of Abraham the "Friend of God."
What does James mean that Scripture was fulfilled? James means that Scripture's truth was verified, that Scripture's claim that Abraham was justified by faith and that Abraham was considered God's friend were proved by Abraham's obedience: by the works that Abraham did.
It may seem like a strange claim, for the two Scriptural records of Abraham being God's friend are long after Abraham's life. 2 Chronicles 20:7 and Isaiah 41:8 recall God's friendship toward Abraham.
Even the account in Genesis 15, where it is written:
Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
was penned by the hand of Moses long after the event.
It is even more strange if we will examine the chronology of Abraham's own life: for the promise mentioned was that God would give Abraham more children than the number of stars Abraham could see in the sky - but Abraham was childless and was asking that God would bless Abraham's favorite slave. Yet it is said at the moment that Abraham believed God: and that it was counted to Abraham for righteousness.
So then, if we are to ask when Abraham was justified before God, we would say then, before Isaac was born. Yet, James refers us not to the moment, but later:
James 2:21-22
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
In other words you could see Abraham's trust in God demonstrated by the works that Abraham did. A man who did not trust God like this:
Genesis 22:10-18
10And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 11And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 14And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen. 15And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
could not sacrifice his only son.
But in virtue of these promises:
Genesis 15:1-5
1After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. 2And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
Genesis 17:1-4
1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 3And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, 4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
Abraham believed, and his trust in God was confirmed ("perfected") by his obedience.
For Scripture tells us:
Hebrews 11:17-19
17By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
God brought forth Isaac from the dead, 99 year old loins of Abraham, and Abraham trusted God so much that Abraham even believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead - though God had not previously done so in the history of man. Thus, Abraham obeyed - and by obedience demonstrated his faith on account of which righteousness was imputed to him, and he was called God's friend.
This then is what we should learn from those four small words (three in Greek): "επληρωθη η γραφη" (the Scripture was fulfilled), that Abraham's justification was made manifest by His works: not so much so that God might know, for God knows the heart, but that we might know. Thus, Abraham is part of that "great cloud of witnesses" that testify to us of their faith on the pages of Scripture: one of those people who faith in God is demonstrated in acts performed by faith, namely by works.
They are justified by faith, and they are justified by works: the former to God and the latter to us. Justification by faith is judicial, but by works is practical.
Thus James writes:
James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
And James compares faith that is unaccompanied by works to a corpse:
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Just as he said before:
James 2:14-17
14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James point is that an indemonstrable faith is not faith. Faith is demonstrated in works - a faith of mere assertion ("be warmed and filled") without demonstration ("ye give them not [food and shelter]") is worthless.
Thus, John says the same thing:
1 John 3:14-19
14We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. 15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 16Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? 18My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. 19And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
And again:
1 John 4:20 - 5:3
20If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. 5:1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
Our deeds of love show our heart of love. Hypocrisy is possible: we can pretend to be good while hating our brethren; nevertheless, it is our works that confirm our heart.
The apostles did not invent this principle, though, it is Jesus' own teaching:
Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Thus, works justify us in the eyes of man, and Christ's work in which we trust justifies us before God.
Great is Our Lord, and Worthy to be Praised, Let us Praise Him!
-Turretinfan
In the midst of misconceptions regarding the justifying role of works in James writing, it is easy to overlook four small words. Note how James says: "the Scripture was fulfilled." It is easy to rush past these words and on to the imputation of righteousness and the calling of Abraham the "Friend of God."
What does James mean that Scripture was fulfilled? James means that Scripture's truth was verified, that Scripture's claim that Abraham was justified by faith and that Abraham was considered God's friend were proved by Abraham's obedience: by the works that Abraham did.
It may seem like a strange claim, for the two Scriptural records of Abraham being God's friend are long after Abraham's life. 2 Chronicles 20:7 and Isaiah 41:8 recall God's friendship toward Abraham.
Even the account in Genesis 15, where it is written:
Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
was penned by the hand of Moses long after the event.
It is even more strange if we will examine the chronology of Abraham's own life: for the promise mentioned was that God would give Abraham more children than the number of stars Abraham could see in the sky - but Abraham was childless and was asking that God would bless Abraham's favorite slave. Yet it is said at the moment that Abraham believed God: and that it was counted to Abraham for righteousness.
So then, if we are to ask when Abraham was justified before God, we would say then, before Isaac was born. Yet, James refers us not to the moment, but later:
James 2:21-22
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
In other words you could see Abraham's trust in God demonstrated by the works that Abraham did. A man who did not trust God like this:
Genesis 22:10-18
10And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 11And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. 12And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. 14And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen. 15And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
could not sacrifice his only son.
But in virtue of these promises:
Genesis 15:1-5
1After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. 2And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. 4And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
Genesis 17:1-4
1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 3And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, 4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
Abraham believed, and his trust in God was confirmed ("perfected") by his obedience.
For Scripture tells us:
Hebrews 11:17-19
17By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
God brought forth Isaac from the dead, 99 year old loins of Abraham, and Abraham trusted God so much that Abraham even believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead - though God had not previously done so in the history of man. Thus, Abraham obeyed - and by obedience demonstrated his faith on account of which righteousness was imputed to him, and he was called God's friend.
This then is what we should learn from those four small words (three in Greek): "επληρωθη η γραφη" (the Scripture was fulfilled), that Abraham's justification was made manifest by His works: not so much so that God might know, for God knows the heart, but that we might know. Thus, Abraham is part of that "great cloud of witnesses" that testify to us of their faith on the pages of Scripture: one of those people who faith in God is demonstrated in acts performed by faith, namely by works.
They are justified by faith, and they are justified by works: the former to God and the latter to us. Justification by faith is judicial, but by works is practical.
Thus James writes:
James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
And James compares faith that is unaccompanied by works to a corpse:
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Just as he said before:
James 2:14-17
14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James point is that an indemonstrable faith is not faith. Faith is demonstrated in works - a faith of mere assertion ("be warmed and filled") without demonstration ("ye give them not [food and shelter]") is worthless.
Thus, John says the same thing:
1 John 3:14-19
14We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. 15Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 16Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? 18My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. 19And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
And again:
1 John 4:20 - 5:3
20If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. 5:1Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
Our deeds of love show our heart of love. Hypocrisy is possible: we can pretend to be good while hating our brethren; nevertheless, it is our works that confirm our heart.
The apostles did not invent this principle, though, it is Jesus' own teaching:
Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Thus, works justify us in the eyes of man, and Christ's work in which we trust justifies us before God.
Great is Our Lord, and Worthy to be Praised, Let us Praise Him!
-Turretinfan
Revelation 17:17
Revelation 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
This verse demonstrates that God can put things in peoples hearts so that they do what He wants them to do, without destroying their will: for we see that they do not just give their kingdom unto the beast but agree. And also that God can sinlessly put it in the heart of man to sin: for the beast is an enemy of God:
Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
And we say that their union with the beast is not just union together, but union against the Christ:
Revelation 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Revelation 19:11-13
11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
It is by union with the beast that kings will be destroyed, and yet it is God who put it in their heart to agree and give their kingdom to the beast. Will someone ask how God can set them up for destruction and then destroy them? The answer is that God is the Creator: He can do whatever he pleases with his creation. For it is written:
Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
-Turretinfan
This verse demonstrates that God can put things in peoples hearts so that they do what He wants them to do, without destroying their will: for we see that they do not just give their kingdom unto the beast but agree. And also that God can sinlessly put it in the heart of man to sin: for the beast is an enemy of God:
Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
And we say that their union with the beast is not just union together, but union against the Christ:
Revelation 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Revelation 19:11-13
11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
It is by union with the beast that kings will be destroyed, and yet it is God who put it in their heart to agree and give their kingdom to the beast. Will someone ask how God can set them up for destruction and then destroy them? The answer is that God is the Creator: He can do whatever he pleases with his creation. For it is written:
Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
-Turretinfan
Saturday, October 06, 2007
The Decalogue - Logical Prioritization of the First Table
First Table
Intro: I am the Lord => God is and who God is
1. Thou shalt have no other Gods => WHO must be worshipped
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image => HOW he must be worshiped
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain => MANNER of worship
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy => HOW MUCH/WHEN we worship
It is required that we obey all of the law of God, but there is a beautiful logical priority to the first table going from most essential (intro) to least essential (Sabbath).
-Turretinfan
Intro: I am the Lord => God is and who God is
1. Thou shalt have no other Gods => WHO must be worshipped
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image => HOW he must be worshiped
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain => MANNER of worship
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy => HOW MUCH/WHEN we worship
It is required that we obey all of the law of God, but there is a beautiful logical priority to the first table going from most essential (intro) to least essential (Sabbath).
-Turretinfan
Another Triumph for Creationism
Scientists have apparently discovered the function of the appendix (link). The precise function may come as a surprise to some people, but it is yet another item that can be crossed off the list of allegedly unnecessary parts of the human anatomy: an early "proof" of evolution.
The Potter knew His craft.
QED
Praise be to Him who formed us,
-Turretinfan
The Potter knew His craft.
QED
Praise be to Him who formed us,
-Turretinfan
Status Report
This blogger is officially inundated. Please don't take it personally if your comment has not been moderated yet.
One quick point of interest. One reader pointed me here (link), and asked for my reaction. Aside from the rather obvious "Mary cannot hear you, she doesn't speak Latin or English, and she's with the Lord, while her body remains in the grave," there's little to say that has not already been said by "Josh" in the comments section of that post.
Some of the metaphors are more of a stretch than others, and the Ezekiel metaphor is practically obscene in context (take my word for it, or disgust yourself). As Josh aptly notes, some of the metaphors ought to point to Christ, not Mary. In any event, the blessed mother of our Lord was the recipient of grace not reward.
Whoever believes on His Name, those are His mother and brethren,
-Turretinfan
One quick point of interest. One reader pointed me here (link), and asked for my reaction. Aside from the rather obvious "Mary cannot hear you, she doesn't speak Latin or English, and she's with the Lord, while her body remains in the grave," there's little to say that has not already been said by "Josh" in the comments section of that post.
Some of the metaphors are more of a stretch than others, and the Ezekiel metaphor is practically obscene in context (take my word for it, or disgust yourself). As Josh aptly notes, some of the metaphors ought to point to Christ, not Mary. In any event, the blessed mother of our Lord was the recipient of grace not reward.
Whoever believes on His Name, those are His mother and brethren,
-Turretinfan
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Notable Quotable - Non-Responsiveness
The Testimony of the Man
"if a man is not willing or able to defend his own arguments, he is not worth all that much time dealing with publicly" (source)Thrice (at least) the man's arguments were rebutted by the present author
(link) (link) (link) (link)The man's unwillingness or inability to defend his own arguments was demonstrated
(link).Thus, according to the man, the man is not worth all that much time dealing with publicly.
On the other hand, the man finds plenty of pretexts (link) (link) (link) to mention a certain elder whom he claims has "ignore[d] literally a dozen or more of my in-depth critiques of his work" (source).
Finally, from the same man comes the claim: "Two times refuting his charges is more than enough. He wouldn't deserve any further attention or publicity if he wants to engage in a one-way monologue / preaching exercise. He can always preach to his buddies. Why should I waste my valuable time?" (source)
One assumes that the elder about whom the man is fond of complaining has reached a similar conclusion. Indeed, the man himself states (speaking about the elder):
"If he chooses not to respond to a critique (or to my two challenges to engage in debate in his chat room), it's because his critics are idiots. If I choose to not respond to some [opposing] screed, it is because I am supposedly an idiot and a coward. See how it works (the [other side] is always at fault, any way you look at it)? Very convenient double standard there, isn't it?" (source) (side identification and link to the two challenges omitted)
The present author notes that this creates an interesting (is it triple or quadruple?) standard.
-Turretinfan
A Brief Challenge to Orthodox
Dear Orthodox,
You've been providing a lot of comments to this blog recently, most of them in disagreement with things I've offered.
How about we formalize the disagreement in the form of a debate?
I would happy to defend the thesis: "Resolved: 'It is tradition, look no further' is less workable as applied to the theological content of the Westminster Confession of Faith than 'The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.'"
You'll recognize that the former mantra is attributed to an early Greek father, and the latter mantra is attributed to "fundamentalist" adherents to Sola Scriptura.
I'm open to counterproposals as well.
-Turretinfan
You've been providing a lot of comments to this blog recently, most of them in disagreement with things I've offered.
How about we formalize the disagreement in the form of a debate?
I would happy to defend the thesis: "Resolved: 'It is tradition, look no further' is less workable as applied to the theological content of the Westminster Confession of Faith than 'The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.'"
You'll recognize that the former mantra is attributed to an early Greek father, and the latter mantra is attributed to "fundamentalist" adherents to Sola Scriptura.
I'm open to counterproposals as well.
-Turretinfan
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Textual Criticism Reading Suggestions
Someone asked where a good place to start in studying textual critical issues is. Here are my recommendations:
1. "Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism," by Dr. Gordon Clark (link). This is a great introduction piece, and not a major reading assignment. Written by a Reformed philosophy professor who is know with the Lord, this article addresses some serious flaws in the basic assumptions of modern textual criticism.
2. "Textual Criticism of the New Testament," by Prof. B. B. Warfield (link). This is a somewhat legnthier work, designed for the introduction of seminary students to the field of textual criticism. As far as a description of the "science" up to the point when Warfield wrote, it is an excellent work, which fairly describes the work being performed. Warfield is a noted Reformed author, though not the present author's favorite. A weakness of this particular work is its seeming acceptance of textual critical first principles as established matters of scientific fact, rather than assumptions that have been customary in New Testament work.
3. "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of Biblical Students," by F. H. Scrivener (link). This book comes recommended by Prof. Warfield, and really seems to be perhaps the best way to get thoroughly acquainted with the state of textual cricism immediately prior to the work of Messrs. Wescott and Hort. Scrivener contributed enormously to the field of textual criticism. Reading his work can really give one a feel for many of the pressures and complications involved in the process of textual criticism. This book was apparently designed for student use, and Scrivener includes many interesting anecdotes scattered among the lengthy and thorough discourse.
None of the authors above are KJV-O, nor truly is the following:
4. "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels," by Dean Burgon. Sadly, none of Dean Burgon's major books have been scanned (or at least the scans have not been made public) by the Google archiving teams, and no other site appears to have performed any similar service. Nevertheless, a summary of the book can be obtained here (link). Whether one is in favor of or opposed to the traditional text, Dean Burgon's writings are worth persual. The Dean Burgon Society seems to have become even more attached (if that is possible) to the traditional text than their namessake, but they are certainly one noted source of counter-argument in the textual critical debate.
5. Finally, I'd be remiss as a Fan of Turretin, to omit mention of this interesting article discussion Textual Criticism as it relates to Prof. Turretin (link). I cannot possibly recommend this article without allegations of improper bias, so I will simply note that the article is available, and includes the writings of one of the Reformation's great authors.
Praise be to God who has preserved the truth over time,
-Turretinfan
1. "Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism," by Dr. Gordon Clark (link). This is a great introduction piece, and not a major reading assignment. Written by a Reformed philosophy professor who is know with the Lord, this article addresses some serious flaws in the basic assumptions of modern textual criticism.
2. "Textual Criticism of the New Testament," by Prof. B. B. Warfield (link). This is a somewhat legnthier work, designed for the introduction of seminary students to the field of textual criticism. As far as a description of the "science" up to the point when Warfield wrote, it is an excellent work, which fairly describes the work being performed. Warfield is a noted Reformed author, though not the present author's favorite. A weakness of this particular work is its seeming acceptance of textual critical first principles as established matters of scientific fact, rather than assumptions that have been customary in New Testament work.
3. "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of Biblical Students," by F. H. Scrivener (link). This book comes recommended by Prof. Warfield, and really seems to be perhaps the best way to get thoroughly acquainted with the state of textual cricism immediately prior to the work of Messrs. Wescott and Hort. Scrivener contributed enormously to the field of textual criticism. Reading his work can really give one a feel for many of the pressures and complications involved in the process of textual criticism. This book was apparently designed for student use, and Scrivener includes many interesting anecdotes scattered among the lengthy and thorough discourse.
None of the authors above are KJV-O, nor truly is the following:
4. "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels," by Dean Burgon. Sadly, none of Dean Burgon's major books have been scanned (or at least the scans have not been made public) by the Google archiving teams, and no other site appears to have performed any similar service. Nevertheless, a summary of the book can be obtained here (link). Whether one is in favor of or opposed to the traditional text, Dean Burgon's writings are worth persual. The Dean Burgon Society seems to have become even more attached (if that is possible) to the traditional text than their namessake, but they are certainly one noted source of counter-argument in the textual critical debate.
5. Finally, I'd be remiss as a Fan of Turretin, to omit mention of this interesting article discussion Textual Criticism as it relates to Prof. Turretin (link). I cannot possibly recommend this article without allegations of improper bias, so I will simply note that the article is available, and includes the writings of one of the Reformation's great authors.
Praise be to God who has preserved the truth over time,
-Turretinfan
Armstrong Correctly Predicts ...
"... I will hear the usual droning complaints about the length of this paper, and a bunch of hooey about my supposedly straying from the topic, as it is ..." (source) (consider it commented, that's 27 pages if printed on normal paper and adjusting font size up from 8.5 to 12, and there were plenty of off-topic excursions)
What's even more impressive, though, Dave managed to keep the personal issues largely minimized. Good work!
Having dealt with the matters of form (mostly in Dave's favor), let's turn to substance:
1) In the first few paragraphs, Dave provides a brief excursus on the term "bishop." It's an interesting topic, but not particularly germane here.
2) Then in the next two-and-half paragraphs (and table list of Bible versions), Dave defends against an imaginary argument in which S&S supposedly accuses Dave of importing "bishop" into the text. Of course, unless S&S edited the post between then and now, the argument simply isn't there. And Dave does not quote any such argument from S&S.
3) Next, in a paragraph (and block quote of - who else - Dr. White) Dave suggests that S&S's use of cross-referencing is similar to Dave's own cross-referencing.
4) Subsequently, in one paragraph Dave asserts that the explanation above showed that S&S was engaging in "eisegesis" because S&S used "overseer/elder" rather than "bishop" in explaining the sense of the text. The reader is left wondering if Dave recalls what the word "eisegesis means.
5) After that, in a paragraph Dave argues that S&S is presenting a biased interpretation, while from the other side of the paragraph, asserting that everyone does. Point of the paragraph? Apparently Dave wants to point out that everyone has biases.
6) Next, Dave claims that S&S is all over the map, and that - while this is ok by Dave - Dr. White would consider it improper.
7) Then, Dave spends a paragraph on YEC (the relevance being that S&S recognizes the truth of YEC). Apparently, Dave thinks his readers will find YEC distasteful.
8) Subsequently, Dave essentially agrees with the rest of S&S's own exegesis of the verses.
9) Dave then makes an argument to the effect of: "suppose we grant the "invisible church" explanation: how does it work?" This is a strange question. Does Dave not know how Reformed churches (whether Presbyterian or Congregational) work? Dave also "what is this truth?" (emphasis removed) We refer Dave Armstrong to the answer Pilate received to the same answer in John 18:38.
10) Next, Dave asserts that he asked a similar question to Dr. White in 1996 and that Dr. White has not answered the question since. Perhaps Dr. White was following Jesus' example, or perhaps Dave missed Dr. White's answer. In any event, Dave continues with a block quote from Dr. White, and an assertion that Dr. White's commentary is vague.
11) Dave continues by asking "how can they speak of one church unified in truth, given their own ecclesiological chaos and doctrinal relativism, brought on by innumerable competing truth claims amongst themselves?" This question, of course, is loaded. Dave's charges of "ecclesiological chaos" and "doctrinal relativism" are simply his assertions -- not something that he established. Dave follows the question with a lengthy block quotation of a dialogue of his with Dr. White some time ago.
12) After the block quotation, Dave concludes that his "what is this truth" question remains unanswered. Dave ironically accused Dr. Erik Svendson, saying that he "hemmed and hawed and switched the topic, and obfuscated and indulged in obscurantism and other forms of evasion." The irony of that charge can be seen from the leading quotation of this post, as well as the conclusion below.
13) Dave then, in another paragraph, reasks the question, "What is this truth?" and adds to it: "So what good is a "church" that cannot answer this question? In what sense is it a "pillar and foundation of the truth" at all?" Of course, Dave's argument is non-unique. He does not offer an alternative in which the question can be answered better than Jesus answered it.
14) This apparently reminds Dave of something he wrote in earlier remarks on the perspecuity of Scripture, and consequently he provides a lengthy block quotation of himself.
15) Finally, Dave disagrees with S&S's conclusion, asserting: "I have just shown that this is an impossible position for a Protestant to take, because it has no discernible meaning and content. Protestants are forever condemned to theological relativism (in many areas, not all) because of their false first premises (sola Scriptura, private judgment, supremacy of "conscience" over against the authority of received Christian Tradition)." Unfortunately for Dave, he has not "shown" any such thing. Dave has asserted such charges, but has not provided the reader with any reason to accept them as true.
16) In a four paragraph flight, Dave argues that S&S assumes certain definitions without demonstration. Dave argues that both "truth" and "church" have a degree of semantic range in Scripture. Dave, however, seems to have forgotten that these are "his verses," and consequently the burden of production is on him. The semantic range arguments, consequently, actually enhance S&S's critique. Dave concludes by asserting that the sense of the words is of little consequence because, "In what sense does the doctrinal chaos and inability to unify on so many doctrines in Protestantism constitute supporting (the one) "truth"?" Again, this is a loaded and non-unique question, and consequently cannot constitute a meaningful rebuttal.
17) Next, in two paragraphs, Dave asserts that the "High Church Misinterpretation" identified by S&S is derived from the text of Scripture (which S&S has demonstrated is not the case), and asks the same questions noted above.
18) After a block quote from the introduction portion of S&S's post, Dave argues that the book is being treated as something which it was not, stating, "I merely stated the Catholic belief, as here. I wasn't trying to defend it."
We assume Dave will contact his publisher who describes Dave's book thus:
As well, we can assume that Dave will revise his own summary/introduction of his book, which states: "I will be asserting - with all due respect and hopefully a minimum of "triumphalism" - the ultimate incoherence, inadequacy, inconsistency, or exegetical and theological implausibility of the Protestant interpretations, and submitting the Catholic views as exegetically and logically superior alternatives."
It would also be good for Dave to kindly move "Catholic Verses" from the "Apologetics" category if it is true that: "I merely stated the Catholic belief, as here. I wasn't trying to defend it."
19) Dave nevertheless continues by attempting some form of defense against S&S's critique. Blockquoting TheoJunkie (who called it), Dave agrees that he does not claim that the church is the source of truth, but merely a "preserver" of truth. Dave mentions that he used the term "ground," and points out other people who arrived at the same conclusion.
20) Next, in three paragraphs, Dave asserts that he gets infallibility of the church from the Jerusalem council. Of course, as Dave notes, this really goes to another section of his book.
21) Dave denies that the church is the clerical orders, and states: "Catholics believe also in the consent of the faithful or the sensus fidelium." One wonders whether Dave accepts Vatican I as one of the ecumenical councils of the Roman church. If so, what remaining value does sensus fidelium have, if the pontiff's authority does not depend on it? We could go further with this, but a lampoon is unnecessary. The sensus fidelium is an inherently unworkable tenet within modern Catholicism.
22) Finally, in a further paragraph, Dave admits that the verse may mean what S&S says, but reiterates the questions posed above about alleged Protestant lack of unity.
23) After rehashing a couple points noted above, Dave distinguishes the OT priests from NT clergy, because the OT priests were - according to Dave - not given infallibility. One wonders what Dave thinks the Umim and Thumim were for. It's rather ironic that Dave has it backward: the High Priest and the Prophets did have access to a divine oracle (High Priest) and were verbally inspired (the Prophets): Ben16 does not have such an oracle and is not inspired.
24) After a lengthy block quotation from a previous dialogue Dave had with a Baptist, Dave asserts that the Saducees were the "Bible Alone" folks of the Old Testament time (which is neither relevant to the discussion, nor true).
25) In the words of Armstrong, "The rest is of little importance, or reiteration of topics already dealt with" and consequently there is no need to rehash it any further.
Conclusion:
The primary argument that Dave makes is to ask questions: "What is this truth?" (which has been answered, though not the way Dave would like, by Jesus) If Dave will complain that he did not mean "what is truth," but rather "what is the truth on such-and-such an issue," then Dave's question defeats both Roman Catholics and Protestants alike: for neither claims to have provided answers to every conceivable question. If Dave will further complain that he did not mean on every conceivable question, but only on say some particular question of his choosing, we are ready to give an answer, and Dave knows that.
Dave's lengthy, frequently off-topic post does not establish 1 Timothy 3:15 as a "Catholic Verse." It shows that Dave did not build his ecclesiology on 1 Timothy 3:15, but attempted to impose his ecclesiology on 1 Timothy 3:15. It demonstrates that S&S's charge of eisegesis was justified.
(link to S&S) (link to Dave)
Praise be to God who has provided us with a columna et firmamentum of truth.
In firm defense of the truth, against the ipse dixit-al errors of Sola Ecclesia,
-Turretinfan
What's even more impressive, though, Dave managed to keep the personal issues largely minimized. Good work!
Having dealt with the matters of form (mostly in Dave's favor), let's turn to substance:
1) In the first few paragraphs, Dave provides a brief excursus on the term "bishop." It's an interesting topic, but not particularly germane here.
2) Then in the next two-and-half paragraphs (and table list of Bible versions), Dave defends against an imaginary argument in which S&S supposedly accuses Dave of importing "bishop" into the text. Of course, unless S&S edited the post between then and now, the argument simply isn't there. And Dave does not quote any such argument from S&S.
3) Next, in a paragraph (and block quote of - who else - Dr. White) Dave suggests that S&S's use of cross-referencing is similar to Dave's own cross-referencing.
4) Subsequently, in one paragraph Dave asserts that the explanation above showed that S&S was engaging in "eisegesis" because S&S used "overseer/elder" rather than "bishop" in explaining the sense of the text. The reader is left wondering if Dave recalls what the word "eisegesis means.
5) After that, in a paragraph Dave argues that S&S is presenting a biased interpretation, while from the other side of the paragraph, asserting that everyone does. Point of the paragraph? Apparently Dave wants to point out that everyone has biases.
6) Next, Dave claims that S&S is all over the map, and that - while this is ok by Dave - Dr. White would consider it improper.
7) Then, Dave spends a paragraph on YEC (the relevance being that S&S recognizes the truth of YEC). Apparently, Dave thinks his readers will find YEC distasteful.
8) Subsequently, Dave essentially agrees with the rest of S&S's own exegesis of the verses.
9) Dave then makes an argument to the effect of: "suppose we grant the "invisible church" explanation: how does it work?" This is a strange question. Does Dave not know how Reformed churches (whether Presbyterian or Congregational) work? Dave also "what is this truth?" (emphasis removed) We refer Dave Armstrong to the answer Pilate received to the same answer in John 18:38.
10) Next, Dave asserts that he asked a similar question to Dr. White in 1996 and that Dr. White has not answered the question since. Perhaps Dr. White was following Jesus' example, or perhaps Dave missed Dr. White's answer. In any event, Dave continues with a block quote from Dr. White, and an assertion that Dr. White's commentary is vague.
11) Dave continues by asking "how can they speak of one church unified in truth, given their own ecclesiological chaos and doctrinal relativism, brought on by innumerable competing truth claims amongst themselves?" This question, of course, is loaded. Dave's charges of "ecclesiological chaos" and "doctrinal relativism" are simply his assertions -- not something that he established. Dave follows the question with a lengthy block quotation of a dialogue of his with Dr. White some time ago.
12) After the block quotation, Dave concludes that his "what is this truth" question remains unanswered. Dave ironically accused Dr. Erik Svendson, saying that he "hemmed and hawed and switched the topic, and obfuscated and indulged in obscurantism and other forms of evasion." The irony of that charge can be seen from the leading quotation of this post, as well as the conclusion below.
13) Dave then, in another paragraph, reasks the question, "What is this truth?" and adds to it: "So what good is a "church" that cannot answer this question? In what sense is it a "pillar and foundation of the truth" at all?" Of course, Dave's argument is non-unique. He does not offer an alternative in which the question can be answered better than Jesus answered it.
14) This apparently reminds Dave of something he wrote in earlier remarks on the perspecuity of Scripture, and consequently he provides a lengthy block quotation of himself.
15) Finally, Dave disagrees with S&S's conclusion, asserting: "I have just shown that this is an impossible position for a Protestant to take, because it has no discernible meaning and content. Protestants are forever condemned to theological relativism (in many areas, not all) because of their false first premises (sola Scriptura, private judgment, supremacy of "conscience" over against the authority of received Christian Tradition)." Unfortunately for Dave, he has not "shown" any such thing. Dave has asserted such charges, but has not provided the reader with any reason to accept them as true.
16) In a four paragraph flight, Dave argues that S&S assumes certain definitions without demonstration. Dave argues that both "truth" and "church" have a degree of semantic range in Scripture. Dave, however, seems to have forgotten that these are "his verses," and consequently the burden of production is on him. The semantic range arguments, consequently, actually enhance S&S's critique. Dave concludes by asserting that the sense of the words is of little consequence because, "In what sense does the doctrinal chaos and inability to unify on so many doctrines in Protestantism constitute supporting (the one) "truth"?" Again, this is a loaded and non-unique question, and consequently cannot constitute a meaningful rebuttal.
17) Next, in two paragraphs, Dave asserts that the "High Church Misinterpretation" identified by S&S is derived from the text of Scripture (which S&S has demonstrated is not the case), and asks the same questions noted above.
18) After a block quote from the introduction portion of S&S's post, Dave argues that the book is being treated as something which it was not, stating, "I merely stated the Catholic belief, as here. I wasn't trying to defend it."
We assume Dave will contact his publisher who describes Dave's book thus:
Armstrong shows that a fair-minded reading of each of these passages (and of the whole Bible) supports the Catholic position on the key issues that divide Protestants from Catholics. Here is Biblical evidence that Catholicism is right about the nature of baptism, the communion of saints, the Eucharist, and the Church; the authority of the Pope, the Bible, and tradition; the salvific role of faith, good works, relics, purgatory, and Mary; the immorality of divorce and contraception; and much more.After all, we would not want them to falsely advertise or misrepresent the purpose of his book.
As well, we can assume that Dave will revise his own summary/introduction of his book, which states: "I will be asserting - with all due respect and hopefully a minimum of "triumphalism" - the ultimate incoherence, inadequacy, inconsistency, or exegetical and theological implausibility of the Protestant interpretations, and submitting the Catholic views as exegetically and logically superior alternatives."
It would also be good for Dave to kindly move "Catholic Verses" from the "Apologetics" category if it is true that: "I merely stated the Catholic belief, as here. I wasn't trying to defend it."
19) Dave nevertheless continues by attempting some form of defense against S&S's critique. Blockquoting TheoJunkie (who called it), Dave agrees that he does not claim that the church is the source of truth, but merely a "preserver" of truth. Dave mentions that he used the term "ground," and points out other people who arrived at the same conclusion.
20) Next, in three paragraphs, Dave asserts that he gets infallibility of the church from the Jerusalem council. Of course, as Dave notes, this really goes to another section of his book.
21) Dave denies that the church is the clerical orders, and states: "Catholics believe also in the consent of the faithful or the sensus fidelium." One wonders whether Dave accepts Vatican I as one of the ecumenical councils of the Roman church. If so, what remaining value does sensus fidelium have, if the pontiff's authority does not depend on it? We could go further with this, but a lampoon is unnecessary. The sensus fidelium is an inherently unworkable tenet within modern Catholicism.
22) Finally, in a further paragraph, Dave admits that the verse may mean what S&S says, but reiterates the questions posed above about alleged Protestant lack of unity.
23) After rehashing a couple points noted above, Dave distinguishes the OT priests from NT clergy, because the OT priests were - according to Dave - not given infallibility. One wonders what Dave thinks the Umim and Thumim were for. It's rather ironic that Dave has it backward: the High Priest and the Prophets did have access to a divine oracle (High Priest) and were verbally inspired (the Prophets): Ben16 does not have such an oracle and is not inspired.
24) After a lengthy block quotation from a previous dialogue Dave had with a Baptist, Dave asserts that the Saducees were the "Bible Alone" folks of the Old Testament time (which is neither relevant to the discussion, nor true).
25) In the words of Armstrong, "The rest is of little importance, or reiteration of topics already dealt with" and consequently there is no need to rehash it any further.
Conclusion:
The primary argument that Dave makes is to ask questions: "What is this truth?" (which has been answered, though not the way Dave would like, by Jesus) If Dave will complain that he did not mean "what is truth," but rather "what is the truth on such-and-such an issue," then Dave's question defeats both Roman Catholics and Protestants alike: for neither claims to have provided answers to every conceivable question. If Dave will further complain that he did not mean on every conceivable question, but only on say some particular question of his choosing, we are ready to give an answer, and Dave knows that.
Dave's lengthy, frequently off-topic post does not establish 1 Timothy 3:15 as a "Catholic Verse." It shows that Dave did not build his ecclesiology on 1 Timothy 3:15, but attempted to impose his ecclesiology on 1 Timothy 3:15. It demonstrates that S&S's charge of eisegesis was justified.
(link to S&S) (link to Dave)
Praise be to God who has provided us with a columna et firmamentum of truth.
In firm defense of the truth, against the ipse dixit-al errors of Sola Ecclesia,
-Turretinfan
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Remembering September 11, 2001
In a more timely article (than this one) remembering September 11, 2001, the authors of one website wrote that the emergency was not due to Muslim terrorists who were out to destroy our freedom but was a far more sinister one.
The authors were right, though not in the way they imagined. (Sadly, the otherwise respectable men who run that site seem to have become ensnared in conspiracy theorizing.)
The danger of Al Quaeda is not about their ability to kill large numbers of people quickly. The danger of Al Quaeda is that they promote Islam. Many folks have it backwards: they are scared of the spread of Islam because Islam brings radical Islam in its wake.
Do not fear them: fear God.
Islam is a threat, because it is inherently anti-Christian. It denies the doctrine of the Trinity. It denies the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. It denies the deity of Christ. While it claims to call Jesus the Christ, it denies that Jesus is begotton of God.
Those who follow Islam are on the road to hell: one cannot be a Muslim and a Christian. Truth is mutually exclusive, and one must choose. Al Quaeda's biggest threat is their "evangelization" - their attempt to seduce men to follow their false prophet.
While many Muslims are peace-loving men (Praise be to God for His restraining mercy!), radical Islam seeks to proselytize by force, and by threat of force. The libertarians fear Shariah law, liberals fear theocracy, and feminists are frightened by the prevailing Muslim attitude toward women. The problem is this: every Muslim is an enemy of God, just as we were, before God changed our hearts. There is no salvation in Islam (no matter what Vatican II did or didn't say) - only eternal destruction.
Let us pray for God's grace to move powerfully among the Muslims so that they can cast of the shackles of human tradition, false prophecy, and darkness to serving the One True God, Jehovah, the Lord of Hosts, Our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ!
-Turretinfan
The authors were right, though not in the way they imagined. (Sadly, the otherwise respectable men who run that site seem to have become ensnared in conspiracy theorizing.)
The danger of Al Quaeda is not about their ability to kill large numbers of people quickly. The danger of Al Quaeda is that they promote Islam. Many folks have it backwards: they are scared of the spread of Islam because Islam brings radical Islam in its wake.
Do not fear them: fear God.
Islam is a threat, because it is inherently anti-Christian. It denies the doctrine of the Trinity. It denies the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. It denies the deity of Christ. While it claims to call Jesus the Christ, it denies that Jesus is begotton of God.
Those who follow Islam are on the road to hell: one cannot be a Muslim and a Christian. Truth is mutually exclusive, and one must choose. Al Quaeda's biggest threat is their "evangelization" - their attempt to seduce men to follow their false prophet.
While many Muslims are peace-loving men (Praise be to God for His restraining mercy!), radical Islam seeks to proselytize by force, and by threat of force. The libertarians fear Shariah law, liberals fear theocracy, and feminists are frightened by the prevailing Muslim attitude toward women. The problem is this: every Muslim is an enemy of God, just as we were, before God changed our hearts. There is no salvation in Islam (no matter what Vatican II did or didn't say) - only eternal destruction.
Let us pray for God's grace to move powerfully among the Muslims so that they can cast of the shackles of human tradition, false prophecy, and darkness to serving the One True God, Jehovah, the Lord of Hosts, Our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ!
-Turretinfan
Reformed Theology Confronted by Prophecy
As most people are aware, one of the five sola's of the Reformation is Sola Scriptura. (Ok, maybe not most people, but lots of people.) For a number of reasons, Reformation theology - particularly Calvinist soteriology - has been adopted by a number of groups who claim to have and use various "Charismatic" gifts: such as prophecy and prophetic tongues. It is those two gifts in particular that the present author will briefly address.
Those two gifts create a conflict with Sola Scriptura because:
- If a prophet is from God, his word would have equal authority with Scripture. (That's why one could not have Sola Scriptura during the time of inscripturation.)
- If whatever-it-is that "prophets" have is not a message from God (like prophets in the Bible), then why call whatever gift they have prophecy? God does still reveal things to his people, but no one is inspired according to the Petrine formulation, because Scripture is complete.
Holy men of God still speak, and speak powerfully.
-Turretinfan
Those two gifts create a conflict with Sola Scriptura because:
- If a prophet is from God, his word would have equal authority with Scripture. (That's why one could not have Sola Scriptura during the time of inscripturation.)
- If whatever-it-is that "prophets" have is not a message from God (like prophets in the Bible), then why call whatever gift they have prophecy? God does still reveal things to his people, but no one is inspired according to the Petrine formulation, because Scripture is complete.
Holy men of God still speak, and speak powerfully.
-Turretinfan
Muscovite Mockers
If you stand up for Christ in your community, you may receive the treatment described by Doug Wilson in this update on the persecution of Christians in Moscow (link). That is to say, you may be mocked in the most senseless ways imagineable.
He may not have some theological errors (who doesn't?), but it is His consistent preaching against sin and for Christ that provoke the antithetical reaction that Doug receives in his community.
Blessed is Doug Wilson, when people say all manner of things falsely against him, because of his service to Christ.
-Turretinfan
He may not have some theological errors (who doesn't?), but it is His consistent preaching against sin and for Christ that provoke the antithetical reaction that Doug receives in his community.
Blessed is Doug Wilson, when people say all manner of things falsely against him, because of his service to Christ.
-Turretinfan
Limited Atonement - John 17
One reader noted the following comment:
The Judas Exception
Unless you understand Jesus' comment as excluding Judas from the given group, you have Jesus failing in whatever it is that the passage is discussing. Thus, I think most people who study the passage will come to the conclusion that Jesus mentions Judas here to make it clear that it was always God's plan that Judas would be lost. After all, it would be strange for Scripture to prophesy that Judas would be lost, and for Jesus to try to fight that prophecy. We actually have examples where Jesus specifically acted so that Scripture would be fulfilled. To put it simply the Trinity is one God.
In other words, the Father did not send Jesus to save the son of perdition, whom the Spirit had declared would be lost. Judas was one of the given outwardly, but not inwardly.
Thus, no matter what the passage means, Judas cannot be an objection to Christ's efficacy, unless you think that God sent Jesus for the purpose of contradicting Scripture. If you think that, you have a "house divided against itself" problem.
Salvation is under Discussion in the Text
As to whether Jesus is talking about eternal life (salvation), see verses 2-3.
John 17:2-3
2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Although the current Disciples are the Primary Focus all Disciples are Envisioned
I agree that Jesus mentioned the disciples he made during his earthly ministry primarily, but then extended the reference to "them also that shall believe on me through their word."
John 17:20-21
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Furthermore, that extension was not merely an afterthought:
John 17:2-3
2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Let me ask you, dear reader, whether you believe that Christ has "power" (εξουσιαν) over all flesh to save those given Him by the Father, or whether all Jesus can do is hope to be asked? Does Jesus have the right, authority, and privilege to save those given him by the Father, or is it up to the individual?
Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory (δοξα) and majesty (μεγαλωσυνη), dominion (κρατος) and power (εξουσια), both now and ever. Amen.
-Turretinfan
"Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9). Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28). Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25)." (source)The reader responded:
The above quote lists John 17 in support of Christ dying only for those "whom God gave Him to save", however this is not the context of the entire verse. In this section Jesus is talking to His disciples. He prays specifically for these men that they be "one" and that "they also may be sanctified". Jesus then also prays for those who will believe because of the witness of these men, "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me." The most glaring verse however is 12, "While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." If this section is talking about salvation then Christ was not able to keep one.I respond:
What think you?
The Judas Exception
Unless you understand Jesus' comment as excluding Judas from the given group, you have Jesus failing in whatever it is that the passage is discussing. Thus, I think most people who study the passage will come to the conclusion that Jesus mentions Judas here to make it clear that it was always God's plan that Judas would be lost. After all, it would be strange for Scripture to prophesy that Judas would be lost, and for Jesus to try to fight that prophecy. We actually have examples where Jesus specifically acted so that Scripture would be fulfilled. To put it simply the Trinity is one God.
In other words, the Father did not send Jesus to save the son of perdition, whom the Spirit had declared would be lost. Judas was one of the given outwardly, but not inwardly.
Thus, no matter what the passage means, Judas cannot be an objection to Christ's efficacy, unless you think that God sent Jesus for the purpose of contradicting Scripture. If you think that, you have a "house divided against itself" problem.
Salvation is under Discussion in the Text
As to whether Jesus is talking about eternal life (salvation), see verses 2-3.
John 17:2-3
2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Although the current Disciples are the Primary Focus all Disciples are Envisioned
I agree that Jesus mentioned the disciples he made during his earthly ministry primarily, but then extended the reference to "them also that shall believe on me through their word."
John 17:20-21
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Furthermore, that extension was not merely an afterthought:
John 17:2-3
2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Let me ask you, dear reader, whether you believe that Christ has "power" (εξουσιαν) over all flesh to save those given Him by the Father, or whether all Jesus can do is hope to be asked? Does Jesus have the right, authority, and privilege to save those given him by the Father, or is it up to the individual?
Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory (δοξα) and majesty (μεγαλωσυνη), dominion (κρατος) and power (εξουσια), both now and ever. Amen.
-Turretinfan
Monday, October 01, 2007
Saint and Sinner Fires, Armstrong Dodges
Saint and Sinner has begun a critique of Armstrong's "Catholic Verses" (link)
Mr. Armstrong has found some time to respond in a limited way (link). Mr. Armstrong notes that the title of S&S's post is "The Eisegeted Verses." What is interesting is that Mr. Armstrong does not directly dispute S&S's assertion that he employs eisegesis. In fact, Mr. Armstrong in no way denies that fact.
Nor, of course, Mr. Armstrong does not address any of the nine fallacies that S&S identifies. Instead, the bulk of Mr. Armstrong's post is in comparisons to other Reformed posters (first paragraph), self-discussion and general criticism of Armstrong's critics (second paragraph), complaints about Dr. White and supposed unkind treatment of Mr. Armstrong (third paragraph), a one-paragraph summary of S&S post (fourth paragraph), a one paragraph summary of the title criticism (fifth paragraph), and an ad-hominem - suggesting that S&S is saying so because S&S is a "presuppositionalist" Calvinist and because he has read Dr. White's writings (sixth and seventh paragraphs).
After all that, a block quote summarizing S&S's list of the 9 fallacies identified in DA's writing so far is followed by a sarcastic-sounding best-wishes-hope-it-don't-blow-up-in-your-face paragraph.
After that, the remainder of the post is four paragraphs of criticizing Dr. White's rebuttal of DA's position with a lengthy block quote with color coded comments interspersed, and two paragraphs of conclusion in which DA points out that DA will ignore S&S if S&S refuses to accept DA's correction (no really: "I will tire of it if he doesn't accept correction" - with the shocking kicker "as in White's case" - as if DA had given any credible indication of being "tired" of interaction with Dr. White) and then paints S&S in colors aimed to make S&S's writings unpalatable to Dave's readers (such as Jonathan Prejean).
Keep up the good work, S&S!
-Turretinfan
Mr. Armstrong has found some time to respond in a limited way (link). Mr. Armstrong notes that the title of S&S's post is "The Eisegeted Verses." What is interesting is that Mr. Armstrong does not directly dispute S&S's assertion that he employs eisegesis. In fact, Mr. Armstrong in no way denies that fact.
Nor, of course, Mr. Armstrong does not address any of the nine fallacies that S&S identifies. Instead, the bulk of Mr. Armstrong's post is in comparisons to other Reformed posters (first paragraph), self-discussion and general criticism of Armstrong's critics (second paragraph), complaints about Dr. White and supposed unkind treatment of Mr. Armstrong (third paragraph), a one-paragraph summary of S&S post (fourth paragraph), a one paragraph summary of the title criticism (fifth paragraph), and an ad-hominem - suggesting that S&S is saying so because S&S is a "presuppositionalist" Calvinist and because he has read Dr. White's writings (sixth and seventh paragraphs).
After all that, a block quote summarizing S&S's list of the 9 fallacies identified in DA's writing so far is followed by a sarcastic-sounding best-wishes-hope-it-don't-blow-up-in-your-face paragraph.
After that, the remainder of the post is four paragraphs of criticizing Dr. White's rebuttal of DA's position with a lengthy block quote with color coded comments interspersed, and two paragraphs of conclusion in which DA points out that DA will ignore S&S if S&S refuses to accept DA's correction (no really: "I will tire of it if he doesn't accept correction" - with the shocking kicker "as in White's case" - as if DA had given any credible indication of being "tired" of interaction with Dr. White) and then paints S&S in colors aimed to make S&S's writings unpalatable to Dave's readers (such as Jonathan Prejean).
Keep up the good work, S&S!
-Turretinfan
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Reminder to Guardian
An Internet poster named Guardian wrote this post (link) in response to which Dr. White asked him to call into the Dividing Line radio program. Guardian did so, and was much more respectful and reasonable than the brief post linked above would suggest.
When Guardian called in on July 17, 2007, and suggested that he would have a list of Dr. White's scholarly failures within three months or so. Three months will have elapsed on October 17, 2007. Hopefully Guardian has not forgotten. I know that many of us are waiting to see what the allegations will be.
Guardian seemed very reasonable on the phone, and I hope that he will have the time and interest to follow through on his planned documentation. It will be very instructive as to what are perceived to be the weak links in Dr. White's exposés of Catholicism.
-Turretinfan
When Guardian called in on July 17, 2007, and suggested that he would have a list of Dr. White's scholarly failures within three months or so. Three months will have elapsed on October 17, 2007. Hopefully Guardian has not forgotten. I know that many of us are waiting to see what the allegations will be.
Guardian seemed very reasonable on the phone, and I hope that he will have the time and interest to follow through on his planned documentation. It will be very instructive as to what are perceived to be the weak links in Dr. White's exposés of Catholicism.
-Turretinfan
Friday, September 28, 2007
Communications to the Departed
From time to time, one hears folks claim that they hold to their views because they found them in the Bible. For example, one hears claims from Roman Catholic apologists that they figured out that Roman Catholic theology was scriptural, and consequently became Roman Catholics.
One area where such a claim cannot be true (and there are doubtless many such areas) is in the area of prayers/communications/call them what you like, to departed Christians. The source of such doctrines is not the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.
Here are some questions to demonstrate:
1. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person who did not know your language during life, what makes you think that the person will understand your language now?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people gain knowledge of new human languages.
2. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person whose body is far away from you, what makes you think that the person will hear you?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people can hear people who are talking far away from their corpses.
3. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person who is very popular - such as Jude or Seraphim of Saratov, what makes you think that the person has the ability or availability to hear you?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people can hear many communications that are made at the same time, or that can be available to hear communications in general.
4. If you are trying to communicate with someone who you believe is bodily in heaven, other than Christ, what makes you think that such communication is possible?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that anyone in heaven beside Christ can hear our communications.
Let's see how one Roman Catholic apologist (a lay apologist named Dave Armstrong) responded on similar issues:
Similar to (1) & (4):
Dave writes: "If it is objected that the dead saints cannot hear us, we reply that God is fully able to give them that power ...."(source) The problem with this response is that it is special pleading. There is no question that God can give the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues, and even that he has done so. Likewise, there is no question that God can enable communication between the living and the dead. The question is whether there is a reason to suppose that God does give dead saints (or those who are bodily in heaven) such an ability. It should be clear that the answer to that question remains "not the Bible."
Similar to (2):
DA writes cites the "Cloud of Witnesses" of Hebrews 12:1 (source). The problem with DA's citation is that "witnesses" in that verse does not mean spectators, but testifiers. In other words, DA's citation is based on misconstruing an ambiguity that is present in English but not present in Greek or Latin. In English, a witness can be an observer or the one who is observed. In fact, the first sense has slightly predominated our usage. Nevertheless, the cloud of witnesses of Hebrews 12:1 are a cloud of the latter kind of witness - the kind we see (not in graven images, but in the pages of Scripture) and who testify to us (not by voices in our heads, but from the pages of Scripture). Of course, while the principle witnesses were taken from Scripture, we could add additional ones not listed in Scripture, to the same effect. We are surrounded by their testimony and it should encourage us. They stand as a memorial, not as judges.
DA, however, cites a contrary opinion: DA cites Marvin Vincent (calling his work "a famous, standard Protestant reference work") who acknowledges that witnesses do not mean observers, but who asserts that the idea that they are spectators is implied. This is the classic "argument from authority" fallacy. DA cites a broad reference work that is supposedly "standard" and uses that in place of a reasoned exegesis of the text. There's a reason why such an approach is taken: whether it is Vincent or DA making the claim, the claim cannot stand on the text of Scripture, because it fundamentally relies on the English ambiguity. DA (by Vincent) asserts that the idea of spectators is "the principal idea," but that assertion is not correct. The idea of encouragement is the main idea - and that encouragement is gained by the footprints of those who have run before, not by their observation from the stands, as DA/Vincent portrays the matter.
Similar to (3): How can Mary, as a human being, hear millions of daily prayers simultaneously, much less process millions of daily prayers?
DA's Response: "Very simple: the saints, being with God in heaven, are outside of time. That being the case, they simply have no problem of number and sequence as we do, since we are temporal creatures, and hence, severely limited in that sense." (source)
There are several important problems with the response, but the point to be made here is that the only aspect of the response that is derived from Scripture is that the saints are with God in heaven. The other aspect, that they are outside of time, is contrary to Scripture. Recall that the martyrs in heaven will ask the question: "How long ... before... ?" (Revelation 6:9-10) Such a question presumes both time and the martyrs' subjection to it.
It should be clear from the examples above that those who try to communicate with the departed do so without Biblical warrant. The practice of attempting to communicate with the departed is both futile and sinful, even though it is doubtless done with excellent intentions by many Christians who so practice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It should be noted that a rebuttal to DA's multi-part argument for prayer to the saints has already been rebutted here (link).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May God be glorified by those whom He has made holy!
-Turretinfan
One area where such a claim cannot be true (and there are doubtless many such areas) is in the area of prayers/communications/call them what you like, to departed Christians. The source of such doctrines is not the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.
Here are some questions to demonstrate:
1. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person who did not know your language during life, what makes you think that the person will understand your language now?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people gain knowledge of new human languages.
2. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person whose body is far away from you, what makes you think that the person will hear you?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people can hear people who are talking far away from their corpses.
3. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person who is very popular - such as Jude or Seraphim of Saratov, what makes you think that the person has the ability or availability to hear you?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people can hear many communications that are made at the same time, or that can be available to hear communications in general.
4. If you are trying to communicate with someone who you believe is bodily in heaven, other than Christ, what makes you think that such communication is possible?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that anyone in heaven beside Christ can hear our communications.
Let's see how one Roman Catholic apologist (a lay apologist named Dave Armstrong) responded on similar issues:
Similar to (1) & (4):
Dave writes: "If it is objected that the dead saints cannot hear us, we reply that God is fully able to give them that power ...."(source) The problem with this response is that it is special pleading. There is no question that God can give the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues, and even that he has done so. Likewise, there is no question that God can enable communication between the living and the dead. The question is whether there is a reason to suppose that God does give dead saints (or those who are bodily in heaven) such an ability. It should be clear that the answer to that question remains "not the Bible."
Similar to (2):
DA writes cites the "Cloud of Witnesses" of Hebrews 12:1 (source). The problem with DA's citation is that "witnesses" in that verse does not mean spectators, but testifiers. In other words, DA's citation is based on misconstruing an ambiguity that is present in English but not present in Greek or Latin. In English, a witness can be an observer or the one who is observed. In fact, the first sense has slightly predominated our usage. Nevertheless, the cloud of witnesses of Hebrews 12:1 are a cloud of the latter kind of witness - the kind we see (not in graven images, but in the pages of Scripture) and who testify to us (not by voices in our heads, but from the pages of Scripture). Of course, while the principle witnesses were taken from Scripture, we could add additional ones not listed in Scripture, to the same effect. We are surrounded by their testimony and it should encourage us. They stand as a memorial, not as judges.
DA, however, cites a contrary opinion: DA cites Marvin Vincent (calling his work "a famous, standard Protestant reference work") who acknowledges that witnesses do not mean observers, but who asserts that the idea that they are spectators is implied. This is the classic "argument from authority" fallacy. DA cites a broad reference work that is supposedly "standard" and uses that in place of a reasoned exegesis of the text. There's a reason why such an approach is taken: whether it is Vincent or DA making the claim, the claim cannot stand on the text of Scripture, because it fundamentally relies on the English ambiguity. DA (by Vincent) asserts that the idea of spectators is "the principal idea," but that assertion is not correct. The idea of encouragement is the main idea - and that encouragement is gained by the footprints of those who have run before, not by their observation from the stands, as DA/Vincent portrays the matter.
Similar to (3): How can Mary, as a human being, hear millions of daily prayers simultaneously, much less process millions of daily prayers?
DA's Response: "Very simple: the saints, being with God in heaven, are outside of time. That being the case, they simply have no problem of number and sequence as we do, since we are temporal creatures, and hence, severely limited in that sense." (source)
There are several important problems with the response, but the point to be made here is that the only aspect of the response that is derived from Scripture is that the saints are with God in heaven. The other aspect, that they are outside of time, is contrary to Scripture. Recall that the martyrs in heaven will ask the question: "How long ... before... ?" (Revelation 6:9-10) Such a question presumes both time and the martyrs' subjection to it.
It should be clear from the examples above that those who try to communicate with the departed do so without Biblical warrant. The practice of attempting to communicate with the departed is both futile and sinful, even though it is doubtless done with excellent intentions by many Christians who so practice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It should be noted that a rebuttal to DA's multi-part argument for prayer to the saints has already been rebutted here (link).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May God be glorified by those whom He has made holy!
-Turretinfan
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Mutual Exclusivity
This popular Internet poster (link) recently realized that one cannot please both Roman Catholicism and Reformed Theology (iMonk writes: "If the answer to my blogging is Olson’s “Why I’m Not A Protestant,” I think my answer to Olson is…….completely irrelevant. If I call him my brother, I’m a damnable heretic with the truly reformed, and if I call myself a “Not a Catholic”, then the best I can be is just one more deficient, defective Protestant, outside of the true church with no authority to say anything anyway and never getting the real Jesus because I refuse to recognize transubstantiation."). Sadly, this was disheartening for the writer when it should have been an encouragement: there is absolute truth. Either Rome is right or the Reformation was right. Both cannot be right.
-Turretinfan
P.S. again, Jonathan, not the one I had mind...
-Turretinfan
P.S. again, Jonathan, not the one I had mind...
Apparently You Still Can Get Excommunicated ...
Although it is the first time it happened in Little Rock in 165 years, a few nuns have been excommunicated (according to the journalists it was for heresy ...) (source).
One of the nuns' comments:
"We are at peace and we know that for us we are doing the right thing. We pray that the church will open their eyes before it is too late. This is God's work through Mary, the blessed mother, and we're doing what we're asked to do. She [the founder of the group] is doing only what God and Mary tells her to do."
What was their heresy? Allegedly they believe that an 86 year old nun in their midst is a reincarnation of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and that God speaks directly through her.
That would seem to give her authority independent of the church, which - of course - cannot be tolerated by Rome. If there is one lesson to be learned from Rome's opposition to Sola Scriptura, that is the lesson.
An affilliated group, the "Sons of Mary," was apparently not excommunicated for heresy, though its spokesman said: "The Virgin Mary took possession of her soul. I would rather say it that way."
Bizarre stuff, but Mary speaking would not be God speaking, and consequently would not be divine revelation. Thus, apparently, such a view is tolerable within Roman Catholicism (however odd it may be).
I would not be the least surprised if the woman was possessed, but it is shame that the blessed Mother of Christ would be accused of possessing her.
-Turretinfan
P.S. No, Jonathan, this is not the post I was referring to.
One of the nuns' comments:
"We are at peace and we know that for us we are doing the right thing. We pray that the church will open their eyes before it is too late. This is God's work through Mary, the blessed mother, and we're doing what we're asked to do. She [the founder of the group] is doing only what God and Mary tells her to do."
What was their heresy? Allegedly they believe that an 86 year old nun in their midst is a reincarnation of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and that God speaks directly through her.
That would seem to give her authority independent of the church, which - of course - cannot be tolerated by Rome. If there is one lesson to be learned from Rome's opposition to Sola Scriptura, that is the lesson.
An affilliated group, the "Sons of Mary," was apparently not excommunicated for heresy, though its spokesman said: "The Virgin Mary took possession of her soul. I would rather say it that way."
Bizarre stuff, but Mary speaking would not be God speaking, and consequently would not be divine revelation. Thus, apparently, such a view is tolerable within Roman Catholicism (however odd it may be).
I would not be the least surprised if the woman was possessed, but it is shame that the blessed Mother of Christ would be accused of possessing her.
-Turretinfan
P.S. No, Jonathan, this is not the post I was referring to.
Poor Gen. Pace
General pace recently made headline news for stating that homosexual behavior is sinful, and that he will not condone it (link). He immediately got labelled a "bigot" by those who either don't recognize that homosexual behavior is sinful or who do not care.
The reason that I use the adjective "poor," though is not so much because Gen. Pace is the target of name-calling - but because Gen. Pace seems to have been so battered by it that he is ready to compromise.
Currently, U.S. military law prohibits both adultery and homosexual relations. These are excellent rules that are enforced, and should continue to be enforced. The U.S. military is one of the last places in America where the 7th commandment's prohibition on adultery and homosexual activity is enforced, largely because of action's taken by America's Supreme Court and by the apathy towards sexual immorality felt by most Americans.
Let's be clear: Adultery and homosexual acts are both sinful, and both deserve severe criminal consequences. God justly authorized Moses to use capital punishment for both offenses, and it would be just for any modern government to do the same. I'm not taking this opportunity to say that a lesser punishment would necessarily be wrong, just pointing out that capital punishment would be just.
There are a lot of folks who don't like that view: they hate the truth that sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful, and for them it is headline news when a General stands up and says (even heavily qualified, the way poor Gen. Pace put it) that such actions are wrong.
Gen. Pace, in the unlikely event that you read this, be strong! Don't be afraid to state without qualification as to your upbringing that sex outside of marriage is wrong, is sinful, and is immoral. Don't feel compelled to compromise just because many people who were guilty of such sins have contributed much (in other regards) to America. Surely they have, and so have many others who do immoral acts.
I can tell from your comments that you will not, but I wish to exhort you, sir, not to compromise on moral issues. Ever, sir.
-Turretinfan
The reason that I use the adjective "poor," though is not so much because Gen. Pace is the target of name-calling - but because Gen. Pace seems to have been so battered by it that he is ready to compromise.
Currently, U.S. military law prohibits both adultery and homosexual relations. These are excellent rules that are enforced, and should continue to be enforced. The U.S. military is one of the last places in America where the 7th commandment's prohibition on adultery and homosexual activity is enforced, largely because of action's taken by America's Supreme Court and by the apathy towards sexual immorality felt by most Americans.
Let's be clear: Adultery and homosexual acts are both sinful, and both deserve severe criminal consequences. God justly authorized Moses to use capital punishment for both offenses, and it would be just for any modern government to do the same. I'm not taking this opportunity to say that a lesser punishment would necessarily be wrong, just pointing out that capital punishment would be just.
There are a lot of folks who don't like that view: they hate the truth that sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful, and for them it is headline news when a General stands up and says (even heavily qualified, the way poor Gen. Pace put it) that such actions are wrong.
Gen. Pace, in the unlikely event that you read this, be strong! Don't be afraid to state without qualification as to your upbringing that sex outside of marriage is wrong, is sinful, and is immoral. Don't feel compelled to compromise just because many people who were guilty of such sins have contributed much (in other regards) to America. Surely they have, and so have many others who do immoral acts.
I can tell from your comments that you will not, but I wish to exhort you, sir, not to compromise on moral issues. Ever, sir.
-Turretinfan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
