Response to McBee on John 3:16

Introduction

With respect, I think that Mr. McBee (aka “SDM”) seems to have misidentified the point I was trying to make. Perhaps this is because I was too brief. I certainly do not believe, and do not wish to suggest, that Mr. McBee intentionally misrepresented me. On the other hand, each time Mr. McBee wrote “Turretinfan’s position is,” I think he missed the position. Allow me to elaborate.

The Point Restated
Christ died for the express purpose of saving the elect. The point of citing John 3:16 was to point out the third phrase, “ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται,” that is in Latin “ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat” fairly literally rendered “so-that-would all the believing-ones (in him) not perish,” more casually “so that all who believe in him would not perish” or as the KJV so memorably translates it “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish.”

The rest, the question of what does the word kosmos mean, and so forth is all secondary. It is important, but it is secondary. The first thing to understand from the phrase is that God is explaining purpose. The phrase is a so-called “hina” phrase, called because it is introduced by “ινα” (typically pronounced “hina”) as can be seen above.

In this case, the hina phrase is connected to and is explained by the preceding phrase. The preceding phrase is “ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν” in Latin “ut Filium suum unigenitum daret” fairly literally rendered “so (the-[one-who-is]) son his (the-[one-who-is]) onlybegotton he-gave” or more casually “so he gave up his onlybegotten son,” or as the KJV so memorably translates it “that he gave his only begotten Son.”

In other words, grammatically, the feature of all the believers being saved is linked to the feature of God giving His only begotten Son. From the structure of the sentence we can see that the reason why God gave his Son, was to save all the believers.

Finally, of course, the “hoste” (ωστε) similarly connects to the phrase that goes before it. The phrase before it is “ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον” which in Latin is “sic enim dilexit Deus mundum” and can be fairly literally translated “in-this-way for he-loved (the) God (the) world” or more casually “for God loved the world thus” or as the KJV so memorably translates it “For God so loved the world.”

This starts the thought, while showing that the thought is providing an illustration of the thought that precedes it. The “For … God loved the world” connects to the preceding thought, while the “thus” tells us that an explanation follows. As seen above, this explanation is two-fold. First, God gave his onlybegotten Son. And Second, God gave him for the purpose of saving all the believers.

It’s not particularly important to my argument to define the word “world.” Does it mean “the world of the elect” as some have said, or just “men” or perhaps “the natural/created order”? It doesn’t particularly matter for the argument that I’m making positively.

The point is that the verse makes the gift’s purpose clear: to save believers. My point is that this verse is evidence of the fact that such was Christ’s purpose. His purpose always to save the believers, all of the believers, and – while the verse does not say so explicitly – only the believers.

If we had only John 3:17’s comment: “but that the world through him might be saved,” the question would be open, and we’d have to really dig in to figure out what “world” means. Not so with verse 16. Verse 16 is specific. And we have verse 18 as well, which explains that the “believers-in-him” are not condemned, whereas the “unbelievers-in-him” are already condemned.

Now, I would not take the position “God so loved the world, that is, the elect of the world, that He sent His Son.” Why not? There are two reasons: (1) it uses the word “world” equivocally, and (2) the point of the verse is simply: God so loved the kosmos, that He sent His Son to save the elect.

Ok, but what does “Kosmos” mean?
SDM noted that kosmos has a variety of meaning. I would respectfully disagree with one of his claims. He cited Mark 16:15 as being a case of when kosmos means “all of humanity.” Mark 16:15 uses kosmos to mean the actual earth (geo-politically). In fact, with respect, I think SDM would be hard pressed in any of the about 150 verses (or about 180 uses) that use the word kosmos in the New Testament to come up with even one that clearly uses the word to mean all humanity, and not simply the actual world, or the natural/created (sometimes considered as fallen) order generally. Even if SDM could come up with a few such examples, I think SDM would have to admit that the dominant usage in the New Testament and in other ancient philosophical material is of the actual world or the created/natural order.

In other words, I would respectfully submit that using the word as SDM does is mostly based on a philosophical presupposition that SDM brings with him to the text, not based on something in the word itself.

I would expand on what SDM said. In Scripture, kosmos ordinarily is a broad term that conveys a sense of expansiveness. It ordinarily does not carry an exhaustive sense. We use “all” this way frequently (and “world” sometimes) in common parlance. It’s a form of hyperbole. The statement: “He has traveled through the whole world (or all over the world),” means he is a globe-trotter, not that there is no stone his soles have not touched. This too will be significant as we proceed.

SDM, however, wrote: “Turretinfan’s position is that this term, world or “kosmos”, means “elect”.” That’s not quite an accurate representation. I don’t take the position that the word means that, but I think that the word – in context – does refer primarily to the elect as a global group. In other words, the “world” contrasted with just the Jews like Nicodemeus the Pharisee to whom Jesus was speaking. We’ll see how this is true, as we proceed. But this misunderstanding (I assume it is not an intentional straw man), leads to most of SDM’s counter-arguments being irrelevant.

Unraveling SDM’s Counter-Presentation
SDM’s position is fairly clear: to SDM “the world” is composed of two groups: those who will believe and those who won’t. SDM states this position, but I think if we examine his explanation closely we’ll see he hasn’t actually establish this position with exegesis.

SDM indicates that in his view the verse starts by treating one group, each and every person, in the phrase “God so loved the world.” SDM claims that John then turns to another group “those believing will not perish.” SDM correctly notes that this term is implies that there is another group, the unbelievers who will perish. SDM then asserts that those two groups make up the original group of the world.

Based on those premises, SDM concludes that to make “the world” = “the elect” would create a problem, because some of the elect would be unbelievers that perish. The problem, of course, is not in the logic, but in the premises. Specifically, the problem is in assuming that “the believing ones who will not perish” i.e. the elect, is intended to be a sub-category of “world.”

From the grammatical/exegetical analysis we saw above, there is no particular need to make the believing ones a sub-category of the “world.” In fact, it would be more natural to assume that “the believing ones” is a more precise way of expressing the same thing as what is intended by “the world.” Alternatively, we may simply conclude that “world” is a reference to the Creation generally (the natural/created order), and that the phrase about God’s love for what he made is to be understood specifically by his expression of that love: giving his Son for the elect.

To borrow SDM’s Texas analogy, it would be a bit like saying: “I love Texas; so, I moved to Texas and married a lass from Galveston.” Such a comment would not suggest that the speaker plans to play the field with other Texan women, or that his love for Texan women generally is equal to that of his bride. Furthermore, if the same man said that “I didn’t come to Texas to visit, but to live there,” no one would suppose that the speaker meant that he was going to live in every town in Texas, or that he might not visit Dallas or Houston from time to time, but would understand that he lives in Texas by living in a particular town in Texas, and is wed to Texas by his marriage to the particular Galveston gal, not to every woman who lives there. We also wouldn’t assume from his “I love Texas,” that he necessarily likes the desert, the beach, the Rio Grande river, Dallas Fort-Worth airport, or Dr. Pepper, whether or not those are a part of Texas. We let people speak in general terms, and we should give Scripture the same flexibility.

Yes, but what about John 12:47?
SDM appeals to John 12:47, which – of course – is not part of the immediate context. Nevertheless, it uses some similar terms, so we should examine it, as well as the other corresponding Johanine passages.

John 12:47 has its own context, which I’ll show below:
John 12:46-50
46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

It seems to me that if “the world” just means the created order generally, and not all men exhaustively, then the passage makes more sense. Specifically, verse 46 would seem to be a bit odd, for it appears to refer to Christ’s incarnation: his coming into the world, not his coming into the hearts of each and every person.

On the other hand, if we view the word “world” the same way in verse 46 and verse 47, then Christ’s statement is easily understood: he’s here to save the created order not to judge it. That is to say, He’s here as a Savior, not a Judge. He immediately points out, though, that his words do judge those who reject them, because he speaks the words of the Father who sent him, namely the commandments of eternal life.

And John 12:47/John 3:17 is not the only place to find this concept. The same concept also can be found in the fist chapter of John:

John 1:9-14
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Now, unlike John 12, John 1 is the preceding context (even if somewhat removed) of John 3. A reader who is reading John’s gospel (or hearing it read) will have heard this by the time he gets to John 3. How does John 1 use the term “world.” It uses it in the sense of the created order, but it also uses it as a broader term to another group: “his own,” which the reader will soon discover are the Jews.

Indeed, we see this same theme in John 3:10-11, repeated just before the verses we are discussing:
John 3:10-11
10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Notice the switch in address from simply Nicodemus (thou … knowest not) to Israel generally or especially the Jewish leaders (ye receive not). “Thou” is singular, but “ye” is plural. Thus, as promised above, we can see that the use of the word “world” as a broad term to indicate more-than-just-Jewish-people is both supported by the precedent set in chapter 1, and the confirming context in verses 10-11.

It’s worth pointing out that Jesus makes similar claims to be the light of the world and the Savior of those who follow him (the light), several times before John 12:

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

(the precipitates an argument with the Pharisees over whether this is just Jesus’ say-so, which Jesus denies, saying that the Father bears witness to the truth of his testimony, but then turns the tables on them, explaining why they do not understand and follow him, that is to say, why they do not see the light, compare Paul’s comments in 2 Corinthians 4:4)

Or again:

John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

(this context is pretty interesting, because Jesus demonstrates how people see the light by curing the blindness of the man born blind, which is a picture of our spiritual blindness before regeneration)

And again:

John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.

(this context is interesting too, because Jesus immediately goes and raises Lazarus from the dead, which is another picture of our spiritual deadness before regeneration)

So also, even if we simply go beyond John 3:18, and get the further explanation in the subsequent verses, we see:

John 3:19-21
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

In other words, the light shining in the world condemns (demonstrates the guilt of) those who hide, but justifies (demonstrates the righteousness of) those who come. It’s an amazing light: first we see our sin, then we see our Savior, and then we come to God in our Savior’s righteousness.

Christ is that light. He came to open the eyes of the spiritually blind, to raise the spiritually dead, and to save them from their sins through faith in himself. He came to save them, he did not come to save the reprobate.

Yes, but what about the Brass Serpent?
The serpent is not quite the analogy that SDM was looking for. Let’s look quickly at the entire original account, since it is short:

Numbers 21:4-9
4And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way. 5And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. 6And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. 7Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. 8And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. 9And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

SDM claims that this is “a direct parallel … [if] you looked, you were saved, if you didn’t look, you died.” Actually, though, the original passage doesn’t make any mention of anyone not looking and dying. That’s not really the parallel at all.

The parallel is two-fold. First, like the serpent, Jesus will be crucified (“as Moses lifted up the serpent … so must the Son of man be lifted up” – see also John 8:28 and John 12:32-33). Second, the point is that in crucifixion, Christ will save those he is intended to save.

I think SDM misreads Numbers 21:8. That verse says: “every one that is bitten, when he looks on it, shall live.” And then the next verse explains, “If a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.” Now, there clearly are some translational differences between SDM’s and mine, but the point of the passage is actually that God is providing salvation to the people who repented of their grumbling against God and prayed to Him. The sense is “everyone who is bitten will live, when he sees the brass serpent,” and “when anyone got bit by a serpent, he looked to the brass serpent, and lived.” There’s really nothing here about a foolish group of Israelites that refused to look at the brass serpent, and consequently died.

Instead, the point is that for those upon whom God had mercy, he provided a serpent, and they looked (everyone and “any man” “if a serpent had bitten” him) and lived.

There’s also no discussion about the serpent being a provision for anyone’s idolatry (after all, they were being punished for grumbling not idolatry), nor being a provision either generally for a particular category of sin, or for the specific sins of the people. Instead, the serpent pictured the punishment, not the crime. Even so, Christ died for our sins, on the cross. On the cross he was punished in our place. Our sins were nailed to the cross, and taken away. We can see from the rest of the law, that atonement was not simply made for categories of sins, but I fear that such a discussion will get us away from the text we are currently debating, and this post is long enough as it is.

Yes, but what about Calvin, Davenport, Ryle, and Dabney?
For now, I’m going to stick with what the text of Scripture says, not the meta-debate about whether Calvin (or the others) was a Calvinist as defined by Article 21 of Belgic Confession; the Second Main Pint of Doctrine of the Canons of Dordt; or Chapter 8, paragraph 8, of both the London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646.

The point is that God provided salvation for his people: that is the gem of his love for the Creation. Thus, Christ is the savior of Creation, or to put it more specifically, the elect. That’s what Scripture says, and that’s what we believe.

N.B. I believe this post has already been published elsewhere as part of a debate that was, at the time, on-going with SDM. I have republished it here, simply for convenience.

Original Sin / Baptism / Free Will / Orthodoxy

The earliest, clearest statement (there also some less clear, earlier statements) on Original Sin among the patristics, as I hinted to Gene in the combox of another thread, naturally relates to the symbolism of baptism (addressed in this case, by the corresponding OT symbol circumcision):

Augustine, "City of God," Book XVI, Chapter 26

And thus, because circumcision was the sign of regeneration, and the infant, on account of the original sin by which God’s covenant was first broken, was not undeservedly to lose his generation unless delivered by regeneration, these divine words are to be understood as if it had been said, Whoever is not born again, that soul shall perish from his people, because he hath broken my covenant, since he also has sinned in Adam with all others. For had He said, Because he hath broken this my covenant, He would have compelled us to understand by it only this of circumcision; but since He has not expressly said what covenant the infant has broken, we are free to understand Him as speaking of that covenant of which the breach can be ascribed to an infant. Yet if any one contends that it is said of nothing else than circumcision, that in it the infant has broken the covenant of God because, he is not circumcised, he must seek some method of explanation by which it may be understood without absurdity (such as this) that he has broken the covenant, because it has been broken in him although not by him. Yet in this case also it is to be observed that the soul of the infant, being guilty of no sin of neglect against itself, would perish unjustly, unless original sin rendered it obnoxious to punishment.

While many "Orthodox" folks may deny the doctrine of original sin, most - if not all - baptize their infants, maintaining the doctrine cloaked in liturgy whose meaning they do not completely understand.

Furthermore, not all "Orthodox" folks deny the doctrine of original sin (link - not recommended for its doctrinal content, just provided as an example: especially this particular link confuses guilt ipse with the feeling or awareness of guilt), and the same "Orthodox" folks note that baptism (including infant baptism) is intended to remit sin, including original sin (link - again, not recommended for its doctrinal content, just provided as an example).

Finally, the underlying concept is locked into the traditional liturgical post-baptismal/chrismal prayer:

Blessed are You, O Lord God Almighty, Source of all good things, Sun of Righteousness, who did shed forth upon them that were in darkness the light of salvation, through the revelation of Your Only-begotten Son and our God; and who have given to us, unworthy though we be, blessed purification through hallowed water, and divine sanctification through life-creating Chrismation; who now, also have been graciously pleased to regenerate Your servant that has newly received Illumination, by water and the Spirit, and do grant unto him/her remission of sins, whether voluntary or involuntary. Do You, the same Master, compassionate King of kings, grant also unto him/her the seal of the gift of Your holy, and almighty, and adorable Spirit, and participation in the holy Body and precious Blood of Your Christ.

(source - similar caveats to the forgoing)

But, as I noted to Gene, although many doctrines may have been locked into the liturgy in various ways, some were locked in more openly or more obscurely than others. For example, note that the prayer asks for forgiveness of "involuntary" sins. Yet talking to a typical lay Orthodox person, especially a "convert" from an Arminian (and KoD will probably whack me over the head with a rubber mallet for using this term too broadly, so I add:) or quasi-Arminian background, you will likely hear the typical "free will" rhetoric as it relates to the nature of sin, and so forth. You especially see this in comments that object to inherited guilt of Adam's sin, which cannot possibly be said to be directly voluntary by any of his seed.

This post is not intended to endorse the sect of Orthodoxy, nor its particular Baptismal liturgy, nor to mock Orthodoxy or its liturgy either. The point is simply to note that there is a legitimate argument from tradition that parallels the argument from Scripture on the issue of Original Sin, as well as on the issue of free will. We could even go to the issue of Baptism, but we won't.

-Turretinfan

P.S. Lucian, as a self-professed "Orthodox" I realize you will be tempted to jump in immediately. Resist the urge. Wait 'till the end of the week, and then - if you like - explain the errors you believe my presentation has. If you do so respectfully and cogently, many may learn something!

Lucian - Temporary Ban

Lucian or whoever is posting in Lucian's name,

I'm tired of hitting "reject" on your invective-laced comments, and I'm not planning to turn off comment moderation.

Please take a break at least until the end of this week. If you want to make it a longer break, I'll be sorry you didn't come back.

While you are on a break, if you are looking for other ways to occupy your time, let me suggest reading Scripture, especially the major prophets.

-Turretinfan

UPDATE: I have now had to hit "reject" once more. In case the above was not clear, Lucian, "please take a break," means "don't comment on this blog until the end of the week." I appreciate the many positive and helpful comments that you have made, and I hope that the break will restore your previous tone.

Wait a Tick ... Pope head of Orthodoxy too?

According to this article, Orthodoxy is willing to conceded that the pope is its head (link).

Oh, and for certain naive folks, the following quotation from the article should be enlightening:

"The meeting was marred at the start when delegates from the Russian Orthodox Church walked out over a territorial dispute with a rival Orthodox church."

Meanwhile, Reformation theology continues to deny that the pope is the head of Christianity, and to question whether the pope's profession of faith is credible.

-Turretinfan

Christology 101

Since, apparently, at least one reader has become hopelessly confused by posts on Christ's headship, here's a little primer on some of the very basic Christological doctrines, drawn from the WLC:

Q. 36. Who is the mediator of the covenant of grace?

A. The only mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, of one substance and equal with the Father, in the fullness of time became man, and so was and continues to be God and man, in two entire distinct natures, and one person, forever.

Q. 37. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?

A. Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance, and born of her, yet without sin.

Scripture says that (not in those words) and I believe that.

-Turretinfan

TJP - Calvinists Denounce Public Professions of Faith?

TJP has asserted that Calvinists refuse to let people publicly profess faith in Christ.

I would say that this has to be one of the most outlandish claims against Calvinists that TJP has made. The underlying rationale is that Calvinists (most of them anyway) do not engage in the practice of the "altar call."

On the other hand, however, Calvinist churches publicly receive members, and - for communicant members - either have the person themselves publicly profess faith, or publicly announce a profession of faith previously made to the session. For previously unbaptized communicant members, the profession of faith is ordinarily accompanied by a public baptism.

So, I was somewhat puzzled to see TJP's comment, and I really wonder whether TJP is actually unaware of the practice of Calvinist churches, or whether TJP has some agenda.

-Turretinfan

Resources on the Atonement

Monergism.com has recently updated its page on the Atonement (link), which would seem to be providential coincidence rather than having any connection to the ongoing debate at Contend Earnestly.

May our Savior be praised,

-Turretinfan

All in Christ will be Quickened (a sur-response to Anonymous)

Apparently the same Anonymous commenter pointed out that the verse says "all" and stated:

"you don't beleive that "in Christ shall all be made alive" spiritually ... ."

Actually I do. Re-read the post, particularly the part that explains who "in Adam" and "in Christ" modify two different "all"s.

The "all in Adam" is the human race descending from him naturally, and the "all in Christ" are the elect.

You would understand that "all" was being modified if I said "all who have Christ as their savior," wouldn't you? or if I said "all in the Lamb's Book of Life"? I wonder why you have trouble understanding that here.

It's a simple Scriptural concept: if you died with Christ (i.e. if He represented you on the cross) then you will be raised with Christ.

-Turretinfan

Did Jesus Die in Adam? (A response to Anonymous)

Anonymous wrote:
In Adam all died, Jesus included. Thus you would have to admit ... to go along with your [position] of everyone dying in Adam. The fact is that Scripture does not teach that anyone died in Adam, not spiritually. Physically all die (future and present tense) in Adam per 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Spiritually, however, all may say with Paul "I was alive apart from the Law once, but when the commandment came sin sprang to life and I died" per Romans 7:9. All are born spiritually alive, yet only Jesus lived an entire adult life that way and died sinless.

I answer:

Let me go through this one line-by-line.

A: "In Adam all died, Jesus included."

I answer: No, Jesus was not "In Adam," and consequently Jesus did not die "in Adam." This is actually important to recognize, because it is Adam's sin that placed the entire human race in need of a Savior.

Because Jesus did not die in Adam, Jesus could die FOR Adam.

Moreover, just as surely as all those in Adam died in Adam, so also surely all those in Jesus (those for whom Jesus died) will be quickened in Jesus. This, of course, is important and relates back to the original atonement post.

A: "Thus you would have to admit ... to go along with your [position] of everyone dying in Adam."

I answer: "In Adam" qualifies "all," just as "in Christ" modifies the other "all." So, of course, no one would "have to admit" such a thing.

A: "The fact is that Scripture does not teach that anyone died in Adam, not spiritually."

I answer: Sure it does, as has already been established.

A: "Physically all die (future and present tense) in Adam per 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.""

I answer: I Corinthians is speaking of both spiritual and physical death, but the primary emphasis is on spiritual death.

A: "Spiritually, however, all may say with Paul "I was alive apart from the Law once, but when the commandment came sin sprang to life and I died" per Romans 7:9."

I answer: Paul's comment is about his self-perception. When he did not understand the law, he thought he was alive. When he realized what the law required, he realized he was dead. The law did not "come" into existence in Paul's lifetime, but rather came into Paul's awareness in his lifetime. Thus Paul writes:

Romans 7:10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

A: "All are born spiritually alive, yet only Jesus lived an entire adult life that way and died sinless."

I answer: No, only Christ was born spiritually alive. See John 3.

-Turretinfan

Election Based on What?

Manuel Cullwell wrote:

Now for my answer... God does not elect men based on "nothing"but rather, he elects men based on their faith and obedience,yes he gives faith How through the preaching of the word and that is how they are elected

I answer:

Your position is directly contrary to Scripture.

Scripture says that, for example, Jacob was chosen over Esau without regard to works.

Thus, God does elect men based on nothing in the men themselves, but rather based on something (fore-love - His purpose - etc.) in God.

Men are elected before the foundation of the world, but are called through (outwardly) the preaching of the gospel and (inwardly) the effectual working in the heart, by the Holy Spirit.

-Turretinfan

Hats Off to King Juan Carlos

His royal majesty, King Juan Carlos of Spain, recently had the guts to tell Venezula's dictator, Hugo Chavez, to shut up. Considering Chavez is a powerful and well-connected man, such a comment took courage, even if it was born from frustration at Chavez' churlish behavior.

May God save the King!

-Turretinfan

UPDATE: Now Chavez wants an apology, while claiming that he didn't hear the comment, but if he had, he would have "stared him down like an Indian" (i.e. the way South American Indians stare people down). No seriously, read for yourself (link).

Love-Based Discipline - A Negative Perspective

From Thomas Watson, "The Comforting Rod," brought to my attention by Blueridge Baptist

"As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten." Revelation 3:19

God's afflicting rod has comfort in it--as it is a token of the special favor He bears towards us. We think that God cannot favor us--unless He pampers us in His lap. Yet He loves and favors us--when He gives us the bitter drink of affliction. God's chastening rod and God's love both stand together. The rod is a token of God's love. It is no love in God, to let men go on in sin--and never smite. Is it love to your child--to let him run into the water and drown? To be without the rod of God's discipline--is a sign of a bastard child, a mark of reprobation. "But if you are without chastisement, then you are bastards, and not sons." Hebrews 12:8. God's rod whips us to heaven!

If God will let any fall upon the rock of ruin, then He will allow them to go on in sin and not correct them. "I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom." Hosea 4:14. Take notice:God spares the rod--in anger! God's hand is heaviest--when it is lightest! God punishes most--when He does not punish!

But God smites His people--that He may save them, and is that not love? Let me feel God's smiting hand--so that I may have His loving heart.

The Lord comes down with a murdering axe to hew down His enemies--but He has only a rattling rod forHis children. This is all the hell they ever shall feel.1 Corinthians 11:32, "We are judged and disciplined by the Lord--that we should not be condemned with the world." Is not this comfort to know--that this is the worst we shall have? God lays upon us a light affliction--and saves us from wrath to come! What is the drop of sorrow which the godly taste--compared to the bottomless sea of wrath, which the damnedendure forever?

"Blessed is the man whom God corrects; so do not despise the discipline of the Almighty." Job 5:17

A Quick Response to TJP's "Infant Damnation" Series

T.J. Pennock has provided a series of posts aimed at (apparently) suggesting that Calvinists either:
1) all believe in "infant damnation"; or
2) tend to believe in such a doctrine.

A. W. Pink (a Reformed writer who clearly did not hold such a view) has already addressed this particular emotional criticism of Calvinism. Given the number of Reformed authors from which TJP quotes, one has to wonder whether TJP is aware of Pink's work.

But let's assume that TJP was right.

1. No one, not even a baby, deserves heaven.
2. Because of Original Sin, all deserve hell.
3. If God has mercy on even one baby, that is his perogative.
4. Scripture reveals no other way to heaven than by faith in Christ.
5. Scripture reveals that the ordinary way to faith is by hearing the preaching of the word.
6. That way seems largely unavailable to infants, but John the Baptist seems to supernaturally have had faith in his mother's womb.
7. If God chooses to save infants some other way, he has not explained that in Scripture.
8. God would be just to send every person, infant or not, to hell.
9. If God sends all or every infant who dies in infancy to hell, God is just.
10. If God sends even one infant who dise in infancy to heaven, God is gracious and merciful to that infant.
11. God decides whether an infant dies in infancy or not.
12. God decides whether such an infant goes to heaven.
13. God is the God who wrote (at least once himself personally in stone):
Exodus 20:5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exodus 34:7Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
Numbers 14:18The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Deuteronomy 5:9Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

And of course:
Psalm 137:9Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Children are not "innocent." Their judgment - if they are judged - is just. If they escape judgment, it is only because God mercifully covers their guilt with Christ's righteousness.

That shocks TJP, or he thinks it will shock his readers.

But tell me what is more shocking:
1) That God justly punishes a person for inherited guilt; or
2) That God permits a truly innocent child to die a horrible and painful death.

If children are truly innocent, number 2 is true; if the law of Moses is true and just, then number 1 is true.

You decide whether to buy the emotional argument of TJP, or the exegetical argument of Reformed theology.

-Turretinfan

Response to Manuel Cullwell: Children born Innocent?

Manuel Cullwell wrote:

... babies are born innocent and are not depraved therefor born sheep, it
is then after they lose innocence by sin that they become goats or lost sheep
...

I answer:

In Adam all died, babies included. They are conceived in sin, and come forth out of the womb, speaking lies. No one is innocent, no one is righteous, save one: Christ Jesus.

The sheep are those depraved sinners on whom God has mercy. They were lost sheep before he called them and drew them to himself.

As the popular song goes, I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see.

-Turretinfan

P.S. Of course, the metaphor of "sheep" can be used other ways, such as to contrast with goats, or to represent a relationship other than a saving relationship (such as a king being the shepherd and the citizens of his nation, the sheep).

Response to Anonymous: How does Jesus Sort the Sheep from Goats?

An Anonymous reader wrote:

The Calvinistic assumption, however, changes the argument altogether. How
does Jesus separate the sheep from the goats? The sheep clothed and fed on of
the least of these, the goats did not. He doesn't say they are rejected for not
being chosen but they are not chosen for what they didn't do. Calvinism cannot
intelligently deal with this.

I'll address this line-by-line.

A: "The Calvinistic assumption, however, changes the argument altogether."

I answer: This sentence makes little sense. It seems to be an attempt to call some aspect of Calvinism an "assumption." The aspect, however, is not identified. I welcome clarification on this from the anonymous reader. (incidentally, it would be helpful if anonymous readers used pseudonyms so that we could distinguish one from the other.

A: "How does Jesus separate the sheep from the goats?"

I answer: He knows the sheep, he never knew the goats. The sheep are in the book of life, the goats are not. I suppose we could go on and on.

A: "The sheep clothed and fed on of the least of these, the goats did not. "

I answer: I suspect the problem with that sentence is that the "on" is an erroneous insertion. The answer, though, is no: works are not what separate the goat from the sheep on the day of judgment.

A: "He doesn't say they are rejected for not being chosen but they are not chosen for what they didn't do."

I answer: On the day of judgment, the goats are rejected because they are unclean. It's that simple. From all eternity, some were chosen to be sheep, some to be goats, and consequently some live as sheep and some as goats. It's also that simple.

A: "Calvinism cannot intelligently deal with this."

I answer: With all due respect, I'm not persuaded that an intelligent objection has been raised here. However, the door is open for clarification of what was intended.

-Turretinfan

Response to Orthodox: Unfair if Man Unable (and misc.)

Orthodox wrote:

T: 1. God says: "Anyone who repents and believes will be saved."

O: He says more than that, he also says "repent and believe". Which remains
a false offer even if you think they can't do it.

Ro 1:20 says that the entirety of creation is designed so that men are
without excuse. To give men an excuse at the last minute of (a) they weren't
able to repent and (b) there was no atonement for them, would be quite a
contradiction.

And another thing: reformed folks think that there are people who repent
and believe but their faith was deficient in some way that it wasn't caused by
regeneration and was thus a false faith, even though in the mind of the actual
person was sincere.

So the promise is again made null, because these people who believed and
repented have no atonement. So reformed have to come up with this wholly
unbiblical category of people and just kind of wave their hands and say they
don't count.

T: 1. As to the syllogism, item (2) is a non-existent thing. In other
words, there is no hypothetical world in which a reprobate person would repent
and believe.

O: And here we are dependant on the reformed ordo-salutus which is again at
best something not explicitely taught in scripture.

I answer:

I'll take this one line-by-line:
"He says more than that, he also says "repent and believe". Which remains a false offer even if you think they can't do it."

A command is not an offer. The imperative command to repent and believe is consequently neither false, nor an offer. Furthermore, no one is able to be sinless, and yet the law does command that. The law is not a "false offer" because it commands what man cannot do.

An affirmation of man's ability to obey the commands is an affirmation of Pelagianism. If one recognizes that grace is necessary for man to obey, then one must realize that man's ability to obey commands has nothing to do with whether the commands are fair, reasonable, or the like. By rejecting Pelagianism, therefore, we reject this particular objection.

O: "Ro 1:20 says that the entirety of creation is designed so that men are without excuse. To give men an excuse at the last minute of (a) they weren't able to repent and (b) there was no atonement for them, would be quite a contradiction."

I answer:

a) Men are condemned for their sins. It would be no excuse if salvation were not offered, just as it is no excuse that not all have the gospel preached to them, or as well and as clearly to them, as others do. It is no excuse that they were unable to repent, because their inability is intrinsic to them. Man's depravity is an aggravating, not a mitigating, factor.

b) Men are condemned for their sins. Lack of atonement is simply the fact of the matter for those who are not "at one" with God. It's not an excuse, any more than lack of third party payment of debt is an excuse for a debtor.

O: "And another thing: reformed folks think that there are people who repent and believe but their faith was deficient in some way that it wasn't caused by regeneration and was thus a false faith, even though in the mind of the actual person was sincere."

I answer: That's not an accurate picture of Reformed theology. If anyone truly repents and believes, they will be saved. End of story.

O: "So the promise is again made null, because these people who believed and repented have no atonement."

I answer: People misunderstanding the offer to mean something it does not, does not change the offer. The offer is an objective reality. If you truly repent and truly believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be saved.

O: "So reformed have to come up with this wholly unbiblical category of people and just kind of wave their hands and say they don't count."

I answer: That's a misrepresentation of the Reformed position as well as of Scripture.
a) The categories of hypocrites, self-deceived, and wolves-in-sheep's-clothing are Biblical categories; and
b) The parable of the sower provides a great lesson in the distinction between false and true faith.

O: "T: 1. As to the syllogism, item (2) is a non-existent thing. In other words, there is no hypothetical world in which a reprobate person would repent and believe. O: And here we are dependant on the reformed ordo-salutus which is again at best something not explicitely taught in scripture.

I answer: It's really not dependent on any Reformed order of salvation, but even if it were, that would be fair game, given the nature of the counter-objection. In other words, Reformation theology must be criticized for what it is, not what is not. The former approach is a critique, the latter a straw man.

-Turretinfan

P.S. I wonder whether Mr. McBee would concede the relationship between the Reformed order of salvation and the counter-objection to the fairness objection.

Atonement Debate on Contend Earnestly

The Atonement Debate on Contend Earnestly is underway.

Here is the opening post (link).

And my opening (brief per the host's request) argument (link).

May God be glorified, and the people of God edified,

-Turretinfan

Response To Manuel Culwell - Sheep were Goats?

Manuel Culwell wrote:

the sheep were first Goats

I answer:

That's as ridiculous as it sounds. Goats becoming sheep? Ha.

Of course, God could miraculously transform goats into sheep, but that's not quite what MC has in mind.

-Turretinfan

Response to Magnus Limited Atonement / Fairness

Magnus wrote:

If I understand the Universal [Atonement] folks then they would say that it's a question of fairness. To them in order for the offer to be genuine then God had to have provided salvation for all or else it is a [hollow] offer. It would be like offering $1,000,000 from a bank account, but the $1,000,000 not being in the bank. It always goes to fairness with the ones I have spoken [to].

I answer:

I have heard something like this before.

The syllogism for this counter-objection to Limited Atonement seems to be:

1. God says: "Anyone who repents and believes will be saved."

2. If Limited Atonement is true, then (1) would not be true in a hypothetical world in which a person for whom Christ did not die repented and believed.

3. Therefore, the statement "anyone" is not genuine/sincere/well-meant/honest/etc.

The analogy to support this is something like the following:

A man builds an ice cream store and, to drum up business, puts a big sign outside that says: "one free scoop of Bubble Gum Ice Cream to anyone who comes in and asks for it." However, the man secretly has a list of people to whom the man plans to give ice cream, and he plans only to give it to those people, and to no one else.

Our intuition would seem to tell us that this offer is not particularly sincere. If a person on that list walks through the door, they get the scoop, but if a person not on the list walks through the door, they would not get the scoop. Thus, a priori (without considering who actually ends up walking through the door) the offer seems to have been presented in a dishonest fashion.

This is basically - I think - the same kind of analogy as the "free million to whoever asks" when in fact there are insufficient funds in the bank to cover the hypothetical situation of everyone asking.

Magnus wrote his comment as though he was not part of the "Universal [Atonement]" crowd, and I certainly am not part of that crowd either. Nevertheless, I hope that those who read will agree that I gave a fair presentation of the syllogism and analogy that is typically used for this counter-objection.

Now allow me to rebut:

1. As to the syllogism, item (2) is a non-existent thing. In other words, there is no hypothetical world in which a reprobate person would repent and believe. You see, the Holy Spirit decides who comes and who does not come. All that the Father gives to the Son are enabled and persuaded by the Holy Spirit to respond to the gospel call. All the others continue along the path to destruction. The only way (2) could occur would be if the Holy Spirit contradicted the Father and the Son, which is - of course - impossible.

2. As to the analogy, the flaw is similar. The ice cream man has no causal connection with people on his list coming through the door. For the ice cream man, the list is a filter, designed to cover the scenario where an unwanted customer asks for the freebie. Not so with the Lamb's Book of Life. The list of the elect is not a filter, to screen out those who are undesired, but a net to catch those who are desired! Those who God loved (in a particular, enormous way) before the foundation of the earth are on the list, not just to be given eternal life, but to be enabled and persauded to embrace the gospel. The analogy breaks down, because the Spirit does not just put the gospel "offer" out there, he changes hearts: making those who had no interest in repentance and faith, repent and believe!

The gospel has been designed in such a way that it is unappealling to natural man, yet powerfully and irresistably persuasive to the regenerated man. To the natural man what greater foolishness could there be than to sacrifice the life we know we have for hope of a future life that cannot be proven?! To the regenerate man, what greater foolishness could there be than to sacrifice eternal glory in favor of eternal punishment to enjoy the transient and ethereal pleasures of this life?!

You see, the offer is true/sincere/etc. Anyone who comes to God will not be cast out. On the other hand, that does not mean that God leaves it "up to man" to come. God calls and God draws. God offers and God brings. God ensures that the sheep hear the voice of the shepherd. No one could come who did not want to, no one would want to who was not drawn, and no one is drawn but those elected by the Father from all eternity to be the object of the Son's work on the cross, and the Spirit's work in the heart.

Praise be to our glorious God!

-Turretinfan

Excellent Thoughts on Death

From Sojourner. Summary: You're going to die. Live each day to the glory of God. Scorn death, but be cognizant of it.

McGrath's "In the Beginning"

The present author recently had the pleasure of reading Alister McGrath's "In the Beginning," subtitled, "The Story of the KING JAMES BIBLE and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture." (capitalization as on dust jacket)

The subtitle conveys the gist of the book well. The book presents many interesting nuggets of historical trivia about the KJV, and especially about its origins.

One particularly interesting point is that McGrath points out that "its" was just becoming used in English speech at the time the KJV was translated, (previously "his" served as the neuter singular possessive pronoun).

McGrath noted that the KJV translators found ways to avoid using "his" where "its" should be, but often did so with awkward constructions like "thereof." This suggests that a good new edition of the KJV could find some semantic improvement by the use of "its" in suitable places.

The one place "its" is found in the KJV is:

Leviticus 25:5 That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather the grapes of thy vine undressed: for it is a year of rest unto the land.

Those opposed to interaction between church and state in America will have their noses tweaked by the closing portion of the book's historical account, which notes that the Continental Congress authorized the KJV after review by the two chaplains thereof.

Another interesting nugget of information was the fact that the KJV translators themselves used quotations from the Geneva Bible in the preface to the original printing of the KJV!

In general, the book is written in a popular style, and it is consequently sometimes difficult to discern well-documented historical fact from weakly-documented historical view from mere opinion or speculation. The few footnotes included are clustered in a short section where McGrath feels it necessary to explain the meaning of certain archaic or at least unfamiliar words.

Because McGrath is a popular historian, it would be worthwhile for any KJVO advocate to read the book, simply to see the perspective from the other side. McGrath is plainly not particularly fond of the KJV, but he is not a rabid anti-KJV critic.

On the whole, however, despite a lengthy appendix of works consulted (for the whole book, not divided even by chapter), the book is not particularly useful to a scholar attempting to verify McGrath's claims.

-Turretinfan

Response to TJP's Comments on Particular Redemption

TJP wrote:

If Christ did not die for all men, then...

(1) there never was a possibility that all could be saved and hope was limited only to some;

(2) obviously some cannot avoid damnation;

(3) we must feel the insincerity of inviting all to be saved;

(4) unbelief is no longer a sin, especially for those who have no cross to believe on;

(5) it would be a sin for those for whom Christ did not die to believe on Him, because they would be believing a lie, a false hope;

(6) those who preach the gospel to every creature SIN because they preach good tidings to all men when in fact there aren't good tidings for all men in the cross;

(7) God would be insincere in commanding all men to repent, seeing if they did repent, they'd have no provision in the cross;

(8) why does He say He's not willing that any should perish?

(9) all for whom He did not die come into the world with the irrevocable sentence of damnation upon them;

(10) why should the Devil do anything, seeing God will hand over to him the largest portion of humanity without his lifting a finger?

I respond:

1) From God's perspective, yes, "there never was a possibility that all could be saved and hope was limited only to some," and further that was not just "hope" but "certainty." God is omniscient, which means that there can be no mere possibilities with him.
2) From God's perspective, yes, "obviously some cannot avoid damnation," and furthermore, not even one person can avoid damnation, except for the saving grace of God.
3) No, the statement "we must feel the insincerity of inviting all to be saved," is not the case, because we only proclaim salvation to all who believe, that is to say, we do not tell anyone that they will be saved apart from believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.
4) No, the statement "unbelief is no longer a sin, especially for those who have no cross to believe on," is not the case, because faith was never "believing that Jesus died for my sins," but rather repenting from sin, and casting oneself on the mercy of God.
5) No, the statement "it would be a sin for those for whom Christ did not die to believe on Him, because they would be believing a lie, a false hope," is not the case, because it paradoxical: Christ died for all the believers.
6) No, the statement "those who preach the gospel to every creature SIN because they preach good tidings to all men when in fact there aren't good tidings for all men in the cross," is not the case, because the gospel is not "Jesus died for you," but rather "Repent and Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!" There are good tidings for those who believe.
7) No, the statement "God would be insincere in commanding all men to repent, seeing if they did repent, they'd have no provision in the cross," is not the case, at least because God is not taking any chances, since He is omniscient.
8) The answer to "why does He say He's not willing that any should perish" is that the verse is referring to classes of people, such as - especially - politicians/rulers. The gospel is not just for the poor of this world.
9) While it is true that "all for whom He did not die come into the world with the irrevocable sentence of damnation upon them," that is the result and reward of sin, and consequently it is a just sentence.
10) The answer to "why should the Devil do anything, seeing God will hand over to him the largest portion of humanity without his lifting a finger?" is the same as the question: "why did the Devil tempt Christ if Christ is God?" The answer is that the devil hates God and God's creation, especially mankind. The devil doesn't have to do anything to receive the company of the reprobate, and the devil cannot do anything that will prevent the elect from obtaining heaven. Nevertheless, the devil does seek to do what he can to hinder the gospel, ruin the happiness of Christians, and so forth. Even so, he is under God's control, as the Book of Job illustrates.


-Turretinfan

Particular Redemption - Christ Died for the Elect Alone

Limited Atonement

I. Definition

The doctrine of limited atonement states that Christ died for the elect in contrast to the reprobate. Sometimes this doctrine is also called particular redemption.

II. Point of Controversy

Aside from Muslims and Jews, no one has much of a problem with the first half of the equation, it’s the second half that makes some people uneasy. It’s also the case that the second half is less clearly revealed in Scripture.

In general, anyone who denies that Christ died for the elect is a non-Christian. The question is, did Christ also die for the non-elect. We deny, the Amyraldians, Arminians, and many others affirm.

III. Burden of Proof

The opponents of the doctrine of limited atonement seem to want to place the burden of proof on the Reformed to prove that Christ did not die for the reprobate. This seems odd. Normally, the advocates of the positive doctrine have the burden of proof. Now, we could draft a resolution to try to place the burden on the Reformed theologian, but the ordinary rules of reasoning suggest the opposite.

Because this doctrine is negative, and the burden is really on the proponent of alleged universality of the atonement, the main arguments “for” the doctrine will be presented as objections to universality.

IV. Grounds of Objection

1. Grammatical Objections

The word atonement is essentially synonymous with reconciliation. If the atonement is universal, the reconciliation between God and man is also universal. Reconciliation is bringing together things that were separated. We were separated from God by sin. Those who are reconciled to God are those whose sins are removed. Those whose sins are removed cannot be condemned, and consequently are – or will be – saved. The Word of God, however, is clear that not all men will be saved.

Likewise, the word “redeem” from which we get the word “redemption” has to do with purchase. If something is purchased, it is owned. If a debt is paid, the debtor is free of the debt. If Christ paid for the sins of the world, then God cannot condemn men to hell for their sins.

2. Exegetical Objections

There are a number of verses that specify the purpose of Christ’s work, namely to die for the elect (those who will believe).

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Luke 1:68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 6:38-39

38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Because of these verses, we can see that Christ died for a specific group of people: and from other verses we can see that the group of people is not limited to a specific race or ethnicity.

3. Logical Objections

If one accepts the other petals of TULIP (namely, total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints), it makes little sense to insist that Christ died for those people whom he left in total depravity, did not elect, and did not apply irresistible grace towards. In other words, the “L” of TULIP is logically and intuitively connected as part of the whole.

4. Typological Objections

Christ’s atoning sacrifice was typified by the Old Testament sacrifices. Those sacrifices brought (outwardly) forgiveness for those for whom they were offered.

Leviticus 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Leviticus 4:26 And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

Leviticus 4:31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

Leviticus 4:35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

Leviticus 5:10 And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner: and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.

Leviticus 5:13 And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.

Leviticus 5:16 And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.

Leviticus 5:18 And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance wherein he erred and wist it not, and it shall be forgiven him.

Leviticus 6:7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.

Leviticus 19:22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

Numbers 15:25 And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it is ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their ignorance:

Numbers 15:28 And the priest shall make an atonement for the soul that sinneth ignorantly, when he sinneth by ignorance before the LORD, to make an atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him.

Likewise, the atonement ceremonially cleansed (since ceremonial uncleanness points to sin):

Leviticus 12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

Leviticus 12:8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

Leviticus 14:19 And the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed from his uncleanness; and afterward he shall kill the burnt offering:

Leviticus 14:20 And the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the meat offering upon the altar: and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and he shall be clean.

Leviticus 14:31 Even such as he is able to get, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, with the meat offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed before the LORD.

Numbers 8:21 And the Levites were purified, and they washed their clothes; and Aaron offered them as an offering before the LORD; and Aaron made an atonement for them to cleanse them.

In short, the work of the atonement is to make clean the unclean, to purify, and to make holy:

Numbers 6:11 And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, and make an atonement for him, for that he sinned by the dead, and shall hallow his head that same day.

So then, Christ’s sacrifice has a better effect: it accomplishes what the old sacrifices only pictured. Christ’s sacrifice actually brings about the forgiveness of sins, actually brings about justification, actually brings about sanctification, and ultimately brings about glorification. If Christ atoned for the sins of each and every person, then all will be forgiven, cleansed, etc. by analogy.

It’s also interesting to note that the atonement sacrifice was offered for the elect nations, not for all the nations. That may to be a trivial thing, but if the blood of bulls and goats ceremonially cleansed the entire nation and only the nation, then the blood of Christ actually cleansed the entire church invisible and only the church invisible, namely the elect of all generations.

5. Theological Objections

The Nature of God must be considered, and a limitless atonement would seem to be contrary to the nature of God.

a) God’s Omnipotence

Most explanations of a reason for believing that the atonement includes those who are not ultimately saved, are based on the idea that God would like to save them, but he simply cannot. This tends to deny the omnipotence of God. God is God, he can do what he wants, and no one can stop him. If he wants to save, he will.

So, what was God’s intent? Was it to save everyone? If so, why did He fail? And if he failed, how can he be viewed as omnipotent?

b) The Perfection of God

If Christ died for the reprobate, it would seem that he died in vain for them, that his work on their behalf was a waste, which would seem to attack the perfection of God. What was inadequate in Christ’s work, that it did not accomplish its objective (assuming its objective was universal salvation)? Can God really be frustrated and thwarted in his attempts? Surely not.

c) God’s Love

Some explanations respond to objection 4(a) (about God’s omnipotence) by asserting that God restrains himself from acting on his desire to save everyone. This then calls into question the depth of God’s love for those people. Particular atonement makes God love deeper, by suggesting that God’s love is the motive for his saving those he saves, which is a much greater blessing than simply leaving folks without an excuse.

d) God’s Simplicity

There is no contradiction in God. Many explanations of universal atonement, however, end up creating a conflict in God: God really wants to save people, but he is conflicted, because He also wants to avoid interfering with their “free will.” Thus, such explanations challenge the simplicity of God.

e) God’s Omniscience

God knows everything that will happen. While few explanations of universal atonement would explicitly deny that God knows the future, the idea of making salvation “possible” (typically used to explain universal atonement) makes no sense if one is omniscient with respect to the future. If one knows the future with certainty, then one cannot hold to “possibility” or “probability” in the normal sense of the words. From God’s point of view, the future is certain: the events in the future are not simply possible future events, but definite, concrete events that will occur as he has foreseen. Accordingly, from God’s point of view Christ’s death does not make anyone’s salvation “possible,” because God does not think in mere possibilities.

f) God’s Wisdom

Rather than deny God’s omniscience, some explanations of universal atonement will simply assert that God sent Jesus to make salvation possible from our perspective. Of course, this reason is starting to support limited atonement as well as it does universal atonement, because if we do not know who the elect are, then salvation is possible from our perspective. Nevertheless, such an explanation coupled with universal atonement calls God’s wisdom into question. Wouldn’t an all-wise God recognize that Jesus dying for the elect would be sufficient to make salvation possible for all mankind from our perspective?

g) God’s Sovereignty

Normally, explanations of universal atonement rely on a theory that Jesus died for all mankind, but that only man can decide whether to accept or not the atonement. This explanation takes away from the sovereignty of God, since it suggests that God’s will is not decisive in the matter. Obviously, there is significant overlap with (a), (b), and (d) here.

6. Practical Objections

a) The Love of God

Practically, knowing that Christ’s death was intended specifically for a person strengthens one’s appreciation of the love of God, particularly when one recognizes that this is special favor (grace) that was not given to everyone. It must, of course, be coupled with a recognition that one in no way deserved the special favor. But, properly understood, it heightens and strengthens one’s love of God.

b) Assurance of Salvation

If one recognizes that Christ died for the purpose of accomplishing the salvation of his flock, one’s assurance of salvation based on the sacrifice is enhanced. That’s much of the reason for the explanation provided in the Epistle to the Hebrews, particularly around the eighth chapter. It’s because Christ is our sacrifice that we can be sure we will be saved. But if some will be lost for whom Christ died, then our assurance would be weakened.

V. Arguments from Universal Atonement Folks

Normally this is the section where “objections” would be placed, but the proponents of universal atonement are the ones making a positive assertion, and consequently are the ones with the burden of proof.

1) There is no place where Scripture specifically says: “Christ died only for the elect.”

We agree, but Scripture sometimes reveals things inferentially.

2) There is no place where Scripture specifically says about anyone that “Christ did not die for them” or to anyone that “Christ did not die for you.”

We agree, but Scripture was written for the elect, not for the reprobate. Scripture was written to encourage and lift up, not to tear down. Again, though, see the comment regarding (1).

3) Scripture seems to state that some for whom Christ died will not be saved.

Of course, as a matter of logic, this falls short of establishing universal atonement. In other words, if we could find an example from Scripture of someone being damned for whom Christ died, we would only have shown that the elect plus one were the intended beneficiaries of Christ’s atoning sacrifice.

Nevertheless, this argument seems to be the strongest (or second strongest) argument that universal folks have, because it would seem to strike at many the objections to universal atonement.

4) There are some verses that, standing alone, seem to suggest that Christ died for everyone.

This would seem to be the other strongest argument, namely that there are a few verses that – standing alone – and read with universal atonement on the brain might seem to suggest that Christ died for each and every person.

The double-whammy (if you will) is to try to couple this argument with argument (3) above.

5) Limited atonement lessens the love of God because it reduces the breadth of that love.

This argument is rather easily refuted. Loving more people is not necessarily better (or more loving) than loving fewer people. To make an easy illustration of this fact: From a wife’s perspective, a husband loving many women in the same way he loves his wife is worse, not better.

As for (3) and (4), the present author has previously addressed all of the verses that have been alleged to support those arguments, and has concluded that they cannot support the argument. Nevertheless, perhaps those who have previously provided proof texts for universal atonement have done a poor job of locating the best verses, or have done a poor job of explaining them, or perhaps the present author simply has not yet received the forthcoming rebuttal.

Nevertheless, I stand ready to give a defense of the dogma that Christ died for the elect, and only for the elect.

Questions for Micah

Dear Micah,

It seems we may be talking past each other. Let's see if we can agree (or not) on a few basic things.

1. It seems you try to distinguish between the Old and New Covenants on the basis that everyone in the New Covenant is saved. Is that a fair statement or not?

(If the answer is "no," please explain.)

2. In Hebrews 8-9 are any of the advantages of the new covenant over the old covenant related to the blessings extending (or not) to the children of believers, or the recipients of the sign of the covenant?

(If the answer is "yes," please identify.)

3. Do you agree that baptism is the sign of membership in the new covenant, just as circumcision was the sign of membership in the old covenant?

(If the answer is "no," please explain.)

4. Was circumcision a picture of regeneration by the Holy Spirit?

(If the answer is "no," please explain.)

5. Was circumcision given to Abraham on account of his faith?

(If the answer is "no," please explain.)

6. Does Peter say that Baptism is the like figure unto circumcision?

(If the answer is "no," please explain.)

7. Do you agree that not everyone who receives Baptism is regenerate, just as not everyone who received circumcision was regenerate.

(If the answer is "no," please explain.)

-Turretinfan

Works of Necessity and Mercy Permitted on the Lord's Day

Jesus explained it this way:

John 7:21-23
21Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. 22Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. 23If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

Notice Jesus' contrast: they are willing to chop off part of a person's body on the Sabbath, but they did not want Jesus restoring a man's body on the same day (recall that Jesus healed on the Sabbath day in John 5). That's counterintuitive: if they are willing to do harm to flesh on the Lord's Day because it was necessary to obey the Mosaic law, why should they be opposed to Jesus restoring flesh on the same day?

-Turretinfan

Thoughts on Yesterday's Baptism Debate

I had the pleasure of listening to most of Yesterday's Baptism between Dr. White and Mr. Strawbridge.

Some thoughts:

1) I don't think that Dr. White was consistent in his exegetical method. Dr. White (it seemed to me) insisted that we have to read the New Testament first, and then go back and read the Old Testament. Normally, however, Dr. White would encourage people to read the writings in the order they were written. Dr. White himself set the bar that if he uses different methods on this doctrine than other doctrines, he is imposing tradition on the text. With respect, I think he may have fallen afoul of his own standard in this case. Possibly, though, I simply misunderstood the argument he was trying to make.

2) Dr. White made much of the fact that the new covenant is "not like" the old covenant, and that the new covenant is better than the old covenant. Dr. White seemed to suggest that this difference was faith, with the implication - not always made explicit - being that only those with faith (evidence of regeneration) should be given the sign of the new covenant.

This argument has several flaws.

a) The difference between the old and new covenant is in the priesthood and sacrifices in the context of the passages upon which Dr. White relies;

b) Faith is not the difference: for Abraham was circumcised after faith, just like first generation believers under the new covenant, and just like old covenant proselytes; and

c) Circumcision and Baptism picture the same thing, the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, but the recipients of circumcision were not necessarily regenerate; nevertheless they were given the sign of the covenant.

I listened with a number of sola-credo-baptists (or anti-paedo-baptists - or simply "baptists"), who seemed to think that Dr. White's point about "not like" the old covenant was a very good and very strong argument. I didn't really see why they thought it was strong. In fact, I'm going to listen to the debate a few more times to see if I missed something, because it seemed quite weak to me.

3) Mr. Strawbridge started well, but did not really seem to be able to concentrate and make good use of his time during the debate. Unfortunately, he got distracted by his cell phone going off mid-debate, and lost track of his allotted time. He made a few good points, but as far as debating ability goes, I really feel he was outgunned by Dr. White. Dr. White spoke significantly faster, and focused much better.

Also, it was suggested to me (by the folks I was listening with) that Mr. Strawbridge may be part of the "Federal Vision" (FV) movement. If so, of course, that would be a reason for me to distance myself from Mr. Strawbridge's presentation, as the FV movement has some questionable views when it comes to the issues connected with the sacraments.

-Turretinfan

Warning: Limited Atonement Ahead

Interestingly, a few (apparently three) or so folks have agreed to discuss the doctrine of what is sometimes referred to as "Limited Atonement" with me. One would like to see my strongest argument first, one would like to see my strongest proof text first, and one would like me to show the doctrine clearly from Scripture. I'll be providing a first response shortly, D.V. within the next week.

Meanwhile, I'm finishing up my conclusion to the Sola Scriptura vs. Eastern Orthodoxy debate over at the debate blog. Once I've posted my conclusion, that debate will finally be over, and I can turn to these two/three.

Considering that Dave Armstrong continues to falsely assert that I have declined to debate his topic, I plan on treating Dave's misrepresentation as a constructive withdrawal of the offer from his side. No further comment is needed at this time.

The Monergism debate is currently on hold, because the other participant has temporarily become too busy. Hopefully, that debate will continue to progress before the end of the year.

Additionally, GodIsMyJudge has offered to debate on Romans 9, and I hope to take up that offer in the new year, once I have responded to Paul and KoD, as well as a few other readers on a few other things.

To God be the glory!

-Turretinfan

The following will occur to no one else ...

... no one but the present author will see this photo as somehow related to the crusades, and certainly no radical Muslims will react in such a way (especially in view of the clarifying comments in the post, that compare the photo to Iwo Jima) (link).

Ok, enough sarcasm.

Maybe the symbol of the cross offends some Muslims, but it is not principally the symbol of the cross, but the reality of the cross that offends them.

Islam denies that Christ was God, and that Christ died on the cross.

The idea that a person of the godhead could suffer and die is unimaginable to the Koranic mindset: it is offensive.

But a building ornament: that's trivial, even if it is superstitiously venerated by Christians.

-Turretinfan

Would it make a difference?

Suppose I can show you that Scripture teaches some particular doctrine (for example, that Jesus died only for the elect, that it is wrong to make images of God, or that we should not try to communicate with the dead). Would it make a difference? Would you be willing to submit to God's word on that issue? Would your church's opinion matter if Scripture was clear?

If the answer is "yes," to the first question great. If the answer is "no," please let me know what your answers to the other questions are.

-Turretinfan

Compare These Two Bad Web Sites

Compare this site, by Mormons: (link)

With this site, by a non-Mormon: (link).

Notice something in common? Both attempt to use labels to discredit (in at least one case - to discredit the same person).

The problem is this: Reformation Theology is opposed to every false gospel, whether that be the false gospel of Salt Lake City, or the false gospel of Rome.

-Turretinfan

YEC Challenge

Open Challenge on the topic of YEC.

Thesis:

Resolved, that Scripture conveys that the Earth was created in week, less than 10,000 years ago.

UPDATE: I get to AFFIRM the resolution.

Anyone wish to deny the resolution?

-Turretinfan

Evidence for Young Earth Creationism

There is no need for further evidence for Young Earth Creationism (YEC), since Scripture speaks clearly via the Creation account (one week) and the Old Testament genealogies. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see evidence of YEC, such as this article and especially the photograph contained therein (link).

What does this demonstrate? It demonstrates that parallel divergence within a kind is part of the inherent genetic (and genomic) flexibility God created animals to have. The remarkable difference in size (about a factor of ten in the single dimension of height, and much greater of consider the true three-dimensional difference) is attributable to dogs having very flexible genetics.

Ah well, the problem with evidence is that one needs a framework in which to view it.

The best framework is inspired revelation, namely (for us, living in these last days) Scripture.

-Turretinfan

Wilson on Wilkins

I was rather disappointed by this parody (link).

The issue of whether Wilkins has erred on the issue of election and whether his local presbytery has not properly applied church discipline on the issue, are both serious issues.
While making Monty Python jokes may be all in good fun, the topic is a serious one, and this blogger would exhort Wilson to take the matter more seriously.

Charges of heresy are serious charges, as are charges that a presbytery has failed to address heresy in its midst. Comparing the matter to the ridiculous - or suggesting that the charges are an attempt to change reality - may please Wilkins' supporters, and may amuse those who are unfamiliar with the issues, but such a comparison is fundamentally inappropriate in this situation.

Wilkins, his presbytery, and his supporters need to take the matter seriously. A better response would be a simple statement from Wilkins (and/or Wilson) negating each of the alleged positions.

-Turretinfan

Persecution or Sound Judgment

The motivation behind this investigation (link) is unclear. I'd like to think that it is a proper recognition that those under investigation are not true ministers of the gospel, but I'm concerned that it may be an attempt to go after what is perceived to be Christianity.

What think ye?

-Turretinfan

Justification by Works

1. The Christ (for there is only one for the whole world) was justified in God's sight by works, because He perfectly obeyed the law.

It seems odd that Jonathan Prejean would think otherwise. See this post (link) and the comments following including those from "Crimson Catholic" (i.e. Mr. Prejean).

2. No one else can be justified in God's sight by works, for all have sinned (yes, that includes the Christokos) and come short of the glory of God, for there is only one God-man, Christ Jesus.

3. Because of (2), the only way to be justified is by the substition of the clean white garment of (1) for one's filthy rags. That is to say, the only way to be justified in God's sight is by faith in Christ.

4. True and saving faith evidences itself, however, in works. Thus, we may be justified in our own and our brethren's sight by works, though in God's sight only by Christ's righteousness.

-Turretinfan

Response to an Anonymous Criticism of Psalmody

An anonymous commenter provided essentially five interrelated criticisms of Psalmody, which are produced (with added numbering and italic face) below. My response is in plain face.

1. "Recall what Jesus told James and John when they wanted to call down fire from heaven like Elijah? "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." I think he would say the same to those singing most of the Psalms, seeing they call for vengeance against enemies and beating them small as the dust and so on."

Respectfully, I'm not sure how familiar the commenter is with the Psalms. Surely there are some Psalms that call for God's victory over his enemies. Likewise, I think that the commenter is assuming that Christ's ministry brought a shift rather than a fuller revelation of what was already known by faith in Old Testament times. The Psalms are balanced, and divinely so.

2. "Not only that, but the Psalms also speak of animal sacrifice as still accepted by God (because it was when they were written).

I haven't done an exhaustive survey, but surely the Psalms mention animal sacrifices, but also mention their insufficiency, for example:

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


3.

a) "Not only that, but Paul says that Christians are to speak the gospel boldly, "not as Moses, which put a veil over his fac[e]" and does that not also apply to singing?"

2 Corinthians 3:12-15
12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

This argument is actually interesting, and it is the first time I've heard it made. Still, the way that we can readily take away that veil is by - in addition to the singing - read from and preach the New Testament.

God could have inspired a new or expanded Psalter, but he did not. Furthermore, in many cases the Psalms speak the Gospel more clearly than the Law does.

b) "Should we sing in shadows and figures or in reality?"

Well, when we sing Psalm 23's "The Lord is my Shepherd," we certainly know that this psalm speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ. We may not use the name Jesus, but from the remainder of the sermon, the type does testify to the antetype.

4. "I have seen also a very good argument against exclusive Psalmody based on Col 3:16, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." in which it is asked if perhaps it should be read thus "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom teaching and admonishing..." Isn't he commanding them to use their wisdom to compose songs that can teach the message of the gospel?"

That's a very orginal argument, but I wouldn't call it strong.
As you should be aware, there is a parallel instruction in Ephesisans:

Ephesians 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

That passage would be more helpful to this particular argument in some ways, because the parallelism in Colossians 3:16 is between "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom;" on the one hand and "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." One might even argue that the verse has been incorrectly punctuated, but we need not reach that issue, because no one would suggest that "word of Christ" is something that we compose, as compared with Scripture.

It's interesting to note that the parallel includes the "wisdom" component, but also includes another component that is perhaps unexpected:

Ephesians 5:17-23
17Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. 18And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; 21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. 22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Colosians 3:16-19
16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 17And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. 18Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. 19Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

What are the parallels:

1. Be wise;
2. Sing the Psalter (its historic divisions were the Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, as Michael Bushell adequately proved in Songs of Zion) as your way of exhorting one another;
3. Give thanks to God in prayer through Christ's mediation;
4. Wives submit to their husbands; and
5. Husbands love their wives.

When you look at the parallels, the point of the passage almost immediately pops out! It's a recipe for Christian unity. How can we argue when we are singing the Psalms? How can we seek the preeminence we acknowledge one mediator betweeen God and man? Surely, there is some hierarchy (after all, wives submit to their husbands - which lends itself to peace as well), but there is also to be charity (for husbands are to love their wives - which also lends itself to peace).

In short, the passage is a recipe for peace. And look at the preceding context in each case:

Ephesians 5:1-2 & and 15-16
1Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; 2And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. ...
15See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, 16Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

and likewise:

Colossians 3:12-15
12Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; 13Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. 14And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. 15And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.

So, that ought to make it clear that the point of the passages is that we should join in the fellowship of unified Psalm-singing corporate prayer and mutual submission/love, rather than ceaseless strivings and contentions.

There is a place for debate, but there is more to life than debate.

-Turretinfan

A Brief Argument in Favor of Exclusive Psalmody

Read this brief quotation hosted by Oldtruth.com (link).

Note especially the headline, that hymns are an effective way of transmitting Christian doctrine.

Then consider that they are also - for the same reasons - an effective way of perpetuating heresy.

Finally, admit that singing all and only the Psalter is a way of transmitting Christian doctrine taught therein, while minimizing the perpetuation of unscriptural heresy.

-Turretinfan

The Results of Forbidding to Marry

I note that while Roman Catholic readers may be scandalized by the content of this link (link), it is worth noting that there is nothing inherently wrong in romantic attraction between a single man (even a man serving God) and a widow. In fact, Paul commanded young widows to marry, and ordained that bishops be husbands of one wife.

Now, presumably there is something darker hinted-at behind what is written, but I think that consistent Roman Catholics would be dissatisfied by "Fr." Francis Mary on account of merely what is written, and not what is hinted-at. It is the logical result of the heresy of forbidding men who purportedly serve God from marrying.

-Turretinfan

Join me in Celebrating Guy Fawkes Day

Everyone who has been reading is probably aware that I'm not a big fan of Halloween. On the other hand, Guy Fawkes Day is a great chance to commemorate the defeat of a treacherous Roman Catholic plot to kill King James and much of Parliament.

Proposed mode of celebration:

1) The traditional fireworks in mockery of the papist explosive and incendiary plot;

2) Masquerade parties in mockery of the deceit of the traitors; and

3) The giving and receiving of candy, in joy for God's providential preservation of King James and the reformation in England.

4) Non-mandatory in nature: no one is required to stop working for this holiday, and no one is to be condemned who chooses to "profane" the day by failing to observe it, yet those who do so, do so by giving glory to God.

As an added bonus, if we celebrated this holiday along the lines discussed above, Christian non-participation in Halloween would serve as an even greater distinction between Christian and non-Christian and an added reason to discuss with our neighbors our reasons for celebrating the triumph of good over evil, rather than a commercialized version of an ancient celebration of evil.

What think ye?

-Turretinfan