The first "item" of the Federal Vision Joint Statement is:
Our Triune God We affirm that the triune God is the archetype of all covenantal relations. All faithful theology and life is conducted in union with and imitation of the way God eternally is, and so we seek to understand all that the Bible teaches—on covenant, on law, on gospel, on predestination, on sacraments, on the Church—in the light of an explicit Trinitarian understanding. We deny that a mere formal adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity is sufficient to keep the very common polytheistic and unitarian temptations of unbelieving thought at bay.
I respond:
The Trinity (the triune God) is not the archtype of all covenantal relations. This is something close to the Eastern Orthodox error of theosis ("God became man, so that man could become god(s)"). The relation between God and man is other and unlike the relation among the persons of the trinity. It is not an analogy, it is simply other. Marriage, slavery, monarchy, and the like are typical of the relation of the church and Christ. Adoption is typical of the relation of the church and the Father.
The idea that "all faithful theology and life is conducted in union with and imitation of the way God eternally is," is both vague and imprecise. Knowledge of God is a logical prerequisite for a faithful life and (obviously) of theology, but to mention "union and imitation" is simply to invite imprecise thinking.
Keeping the nature of God (as Trinity, but also as Infinite, Eternal, and Unchangeable in his Being, Wisdom, Power, Holiness, Justice, Goodness, and Truth) in mind is important when understanding theology (especially theology proper).
Obviously mere formal subscription to Trinitarianism is insufficient to ensure proper thinking in theology. Unless there is something behind the denial presented, it is simply trivial.
The second item is:
As the Waters Cover the Sea We affirm that God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but rather so that the world through Him would be saved. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world—He is the Savior of the world. All the nations shall stream to Him, and His resting place shall be glorious. We affirm that prior to the second coming of our Lord Jesus, the earth will be as full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.
We deny that eschatological views are to be a test of fellowship between orthodox believers, but at the same time we hold that an orientation of faith with regard to the gospel’s triumph in history is extremely important. We deny that it is wise to imitate Abraham in his exercise of faith while declining to believe the content of what he believed—that through him all the nations of the world would be blessed, and that his descendants would be like the stars in number.
The title of this section is based on:
Habakkuk 2:14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
The claim that the prophecy of Isaiah 11:9 precedes the second coming would seem to contradict the context of the verse:
Isaiah 11:4-8
4But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. 5And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. 6The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
Smiting the earth with a rod of iron and slaying the wicked with the breath of his lips would seem to be a reference to the final judgment at the second coming. What follows would seem to be a description of heaven.
The context of Habakkuk 2:14 is slightly less clear, yet:
Habakkuk 2:2-20
2And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. 3For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. 4Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. 5Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, he is a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and is as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people: 6Shall not all these take up a parable against him, and a taunting proverb against him, and say, Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! how long? and to him that ladeth himself with thick clay! 7Shall they not rise up suddenly that shall bite thee, and awake that shall vex thee, and thou shalt be for booties unto them? 8Because thou hast spoiled many nations, all the remnant of the people shall spoil thee; because of men's blood, and for the violence of the land, of the city, and of all that dwell therein. 9Woe to him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house, that he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the power of evil! 10Thou hast consulted shame to thy house by cutting off many people, and hast sinned against thy soul. 11For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it. 12Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity! 13Behold, is it not of the LORD of hosts that the people shall labour in the very fire, and the people shall weary themselves for very vanity? 14For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. 15Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness! 16Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD'S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory. 17For the violence of Lebanon shall cover thee, and the spoil of beasts, which made them afraid, because of men's blood, and for the violence of the land, of the city, and of all that dwell therein. 18What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols? 19Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it. 20But the LORD is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him.
This as well would seem primarily to point forward to heaven.
It's good that they do not make their eschatological view (presumably post-millenial?) a test of orthodoxy, but their assertion that "we hold that an orientation of faith with regard to the gospel’s triumph in history is extremely important" coupled with the fact that they included an eschatological position in their joint statement seems to betray a different position. Furthermore, I'm not sure that the statement "extremely important" can be substantiated exegetically.
"We deny that it is wise to ... declin[e] to believe the content of what he believed—that through him all the nations of the world would be blessed, and that his descendants would be like the stars in number."
The thing of which Abraham believed that was of greater significance was the Messiah. The "all nations being blessed" was fulfilled principally in Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. We will not bear Messiahs. Abraham is the father of the faithful, we are not. There are some similes between us and Abraham, but we should not believe the "full content" of what he believed, because not all the promises made to him are made to us.
The Next Christendom We affirm that Jesus Christ is the King of kings, and the Lord of lords. We believe that the Church cannot be a faithful witness to His authority without calling all nations to submit themselves to Him through baptism, accepting their responsibility to obediently learn all that He has commanded us. We affirm therefore that the Christian faith is a public faith, encompassing every realm of human endeavor. The fulfillment of the Great Commission therefore requires the establishment of a global Christendom.
We deny that neutrality is possible in any realm, and this includes the realm of “secular” politics. We believe that the lordship of Jesus Christ has authoritative ramifications for every aspect of human existence, and that growth up into a godly maturity requires us to discover what those ramifications are in order to implement them. Jesus Christ has established a new way of being human, and it is our responsibility to grow up into it.
The main point of this section (that it is impossible to be neutral with respect to Christianity in virtually any sphere of endeavor: politics included) is correct, but it is also important to remember Christ's own words, that his kingdom is not of this world, for if it were, he would not be crucified. Also, "Jesus Christ has established a new of being human," is just wrong. There's no basis for that claim. Furthermore, the emphasis on baptism is odd. They are chiefly called to submission in the form of repentance and faith: baptism is primarily a sign.
Scripture Cannot Be Broken We affirm that the Bible in its entirety, from Genesis to Revelation, is the infallible Word of God, and is our only ultimate rule for faith and practice. Scripture alone is the infallible and ultimate standard for Christians. We affirm further that Scripture is to be our guide in learning how to interpret Scripture, and this means we must imitate the apostolic handling of the Old Testament, paying close attention to language, syntax, context, narrative flow, literary styles, and typology—all of it integrated in Jesus Christ Himself. We deny that the Bible can be rightly understood by any hermeneutical grid not derived from the Scriptures themselves.
Scripture, of course, cannot be broken: meaning that prophecy cannot fail to be fulfilled. Furthermore, the positive statement of Sola Scriptura is generally accurate. The denial is a bit of an overstatement: after all, even a blind squirrel can occasionally find a nut. The fact that a hermeneutic is erroneous does not ensure error, at least not uniformly so.
The Proclamation of the Word We affirm that God's Spirit has chosen the best ways to express the revelation of God and reality, and that the divine rhetoric found in Holy Scripture is designed to strike the richest of all chords in the hearers of the Word of God. For this reason, we believe that it is pastorally best to use biblical language and phrasing in the preaching and teaching of the Bible in the Church.
We deny that it necessarily unprofitable to “translate” biblical language into more “philosophical” or “scholastic” languages in order to deal with certain problems and issues that arise in the history of the Church. At the same time, we do deny that such translations are superior to or equal to the rhetoric employed by the Spirit in the text, and we believe that the employment of such hyper-specialized terminology in the regular teaching and preaching of the Church has the unfortunate effect of confusing the saints and of estranging them from contact with the biblical use of the same language. For this reason we reject the tendency to privilege the confessional and/or scholastic use of words and phrases over the way the same words and phrases are used in the Bible itself.
This condemnation of specialized language is a bit silly, particularly when the writers have already employed such scholastic terms as triune and hermenuetic(al) in their statement. Preachers have the duty, according to Scripture, of explaining the sense. It is lawful, and it may be expedient, to use "hyper-specialized" terminology to do so. From time to time Scripture itself employs specialized terminology, such as when it makes reference to difficult issues such as God's love of the elect before their existence ("foreknowledge") and the like.
The Scriptures were not written in English, and the Old Testament Scriptures were not written in Hebrew. While a faithful translation (note the lack of quotation marks) is important, it is less important to maintain the precise expressions than to convey the sense. A skilled pastor having provided the precise expressions in the reading of the Word, will also provide the sense, which may involve words and phrases that are not used in the Bible itself: including words like "triune" and "hermeneutic" and even "grid."
Creeds and Confessions We affirm that all who subscribe to creeds and confessions should do so with a clean conscience and honest interpretation, in accordance with the plain meaning of words and the original intent of the authors, as can best be determined.
We deny that confessional commitments in any way require us to avoid using the categories and terms of Scripture, even when the confessional use of such words is necessarily more narrow and circumscribed. We deny that creedal or systematic understandings of scriptural truth can ever be given a place of parity with Scripture, or primacy over Scripture. In line with this, we continue to honor and hold to the creeds of the ancient Church and the confessions of the reformational Church.
The term "reformational" is clearly wrong; whether intentionally wrong or not, I'm unsure. The word should be "Reformed." Other than that, the statement itself is innocuous, although (in view of the previous item) the reason for its inclusion begins to be suspect.
The Divine Decrees We affirm that the triune God is exhaustively sovereign over all things, working out all things according to the counsel of His will. Because this necessarily includes our redemption in Christ, God alone receives all the glory for our salvation. Before all worlds, God the Father chose a great host of those who would be saved, and the number of those so chosen cannot be increased or diminished. In due time, Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross, and in that sacrifice He secured the salvation of all those chosen for salvation by the Father. And at some time in the earthly life of each person so chosen, the Holy Spirit brings that person to life, and enables him to persevere in holiness to the end. Those covenant members who are not elect in the decretal sense enjoy the common operations of the Spirit in varying degrees, but not in the same way that those who are elect do.
We deny that the unchangeable nature of these decrees prevents us from using the same language in covenantal ways as we describe our salvation from within that covenant. We further deny this covenantal usage is “pretend” language, even where the language and terminology sometimes overlaps with the language of the decrees. The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children, that we may keep the words of this law. We affirm the reality of the decrees, but deny that the decrees “trump” the covenant. We do not set them against each other, but expect them to harmonize perfectly as God works out all things in accordance with His will.
The comment "Those covenant members who are not elect in the decretal sense enjoy the common operations of the Spirit in varying degrees, but not in the same way that those who are elect do," is the odd comment. It is simply unclear what the FVists mean by "common operations of the Spirit." The non-elect members of the covenant do not receive any different inward working of the Spirit than those outside the covenant. The proof is the Pharisees.
The denial is pejorative. Outward membership in the covenant is not "pretend" and the decrees do not "trump" the covenant in the conventional sense. Thus, it's not clear what precisely the FVists are trying to say here.
We suspect something because of the comments of the FVists in other places in the statement, but we'll address those things in their proper places.
The Church We affirm that membership in the one true Christian Church is visible and objective, and is the possession of everyone who has been baptized in the triune name and who has not been excommunicated by a lawful disciplinary action of the Church. We affirm one holy, catholic and apostolic church, the house and family of God, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. In establishing the Church, God has fulfilled His promise to Abraham and established the Regeneration of all things. God has established this Regeneration through Christ—in Him we have the renewal of life in the fulness of life in the new age of the kingdom of God.
We deny that membership in the Christian Church in history is an infallible indicator or guarantee of final salvation. Those who are faithless to their baptismal obligations incur a stricter judgment because of it.
There are a number of oddities to this statement. The baptism need not be "lawful," but the disciplinary action must be. There is no room for post-excommunication reconciliation in the poorly-worded statement.
"The Regeneration of all things," is also a bit of an odd statement. It's not clear what the FVists mean by it, or how it connects with conventional regeneration. The "new age of the kingdom of God" seems to be based on a misunderstanding (possibly eschatological) about what the kingdom of God is. The kingdom of God is salvation from sins. There is a sense in which the New Testament era is a "new age," but it is not the primary "age" to which we look forward: that is heaven.
Those who apostatize after sitting under the preaching of the word, the sacraments, and so forth receive a greater punishment, because they were given more outward blessings.
Membership, however, in the one true Christian Church is invisible and spiritual. Union with visible church is necessarily union with unbelievers, because there are and will be unbelievers amidst the believers in the visible church.
The Visible and Invisible Church We affirm that there is only one true Church, and that this Church can legitimately be considered under various descriptions, including the aspects of visible and invisible. We further affirm that the visible Church is the true Church of Christ, and not an “approximate” Church.
We deny that such a distinction excludes other helpful distinctions, such as the historical church and eschatological church. The historical Church generally corresponds to the visible Church—all those who profess the true religion, together with their children—and the eschatological Church should be understood as the full number of God’s chosen as they will be seen on the day of resurrection.
This is a very odd way of expressing the matter. The visible church is an approximation of the invisible church. Thus, while the visible church is a church of Christ, it is only approximate to the true, spiritual church of Christ: the church redeemed by the blood of Christ.
Unless the FVists mean something non-traditional by "invisible church," then "invisible church" and "eschatalogical church" are one and the same thing. I suppose we might make one exception. That is to say, the eschatological church includes the elect that do not known exist, whereas - one might argue - the invisible church only (so far) includes the elect that exist and have been justified already.
Likewise, the historical church (unless the FVists are using the term "visible church" non-traditionally) is essentially equivalent to the visible church. Again, one exception may be permitted. That is to say, the historical church might be said to include those who have now died, and who died professing the faith, or as children of those professing the faith.
But the truly strange part of the statement is the assertion that there is "only one true Church" as the lead-in to the discussion. The one true Church is the Catholic, invisible church - which will be complete on the day of judgment.
Reformed Catholicity We affirm that justification is through faith in Jesus Christ, and not through works of the law, whether those works were revealed to us by God, or manufactured by man. Because we are justified through faith in Jesus alone, we believe that we have an obligation to be in fellowship with everyone that God has received into fellowship with Himself. We deny that correct formulations of the doctrine of sola fide can be substituted for genuine faith in Jesus, or that such correct formulations can be taken as infallible indicators of a true faith in Jesus.
The first sentence of this statement is orthodox. The second sentence is disjoint and borderline incoherent. It is disjoint because our manner of justification (to wit, by faith alone) does not directly relate to our duty of fellowship to the brethren. Thus, the "because" seems to be misplaced.
The statement is borderline incoherent, because we do not know the number of the elect: we do not know "everyone that God has received into fellowship with Himself." Thus, we cannot do as the FVists ask. Now, we may presume (from the context) that the FVists mean to suggest that all members of the visible church are those "that God has received into fellowship with Himself." Now, it is generally the case that we ought to have fellowship with the brethren, the members of the visible church. If that is all that the sentence means, then it conveys an orthodox sentiment.
The denial in this section is a rhetorical truism.
The Covenant of Life We affirm that Adam was in a covenant of life with the triune God in the Garden of Eden, in which arrangement Adam was required to obey God completely, from the heart. We hold further that all such obedience, had it occurred, would have been rendered from a heart of faith alone, in a spirit of loving trust. Adam was created to progress from immature glory to mature glory, but that glorification too would have been a gift of grace, received by faith alone. We deny that continuance in this covenant in the Garden was in any way a payment for work rendered. Adam could forfeit or demerit the gift of glorification by disobedience, but the gift or continued possession of that gift was not offered by God to Adam conditioned upon Adam’s moral exertions or achievements. In line with this, we affirm that until the expulsion from the Garden, Adam was free to eat from the tree of life. We deny that Adam had to earn or merit righteousness, life, glorification, or anything else.
The first two sentences of the statement are unobjectionable. The next sentence is clearly mistaken: "Adam was created to progress from immature glory to mature glory, but that glorification too would have been a gift of grace, received by faith alone." Adam was created to fall. That was always God's plan. If Adam had eaten of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, even after the fall. Thus, he was cast out of the garden, and the garden was guarded by an angel bearing a flaming sword.
The next sentence is just strange: "We deny that continuance in this covenant in the Garden was in any way a payment for work rendered." The covenant was: do this and live. Thus, the wage of obedience was life. Of course, perhaps the reference is not to mere life but to some completely speculative "glorification" that the FVists appear to have added into Scripture.
The following sentence is similarly strange: "Adam could forfeit or demerit the gift of glorification by disobedience, but the gift or continued possession of that gift was not offered by God to Adam conditioned upon Adam’s moral exertions or achievements." Again, the covenant was simple: do this and live. No gift of glorification is mentioned, nor was any such glorification planned (since God had decreed the fall). Adam's continued life in the garden was based on Adam's obedience via moral exertion/achievement.
The strangeness continues in the next sentence: "In line with this, we affirm that until the expulsion from the Garden, Adam was free to eat from the tree of life." Adam could have eaten from the tree of life at any time and lived forever. Before the fall, God permitted man to eat from that tree, if man liked. However, after the fall, God prevented many from eating from that tree.
The final sentence is erroneous: "We deny that Adam had to earn or merit righteousness, life, glorification, or anything else." Adam initially received life as a gift from God. Adam, however, was placed under the covenant of life, in which Adam had to obey in order to merit continued life. If Adam had obeyed the command not to eat the forbidden fruit, God would not have been just in punishing Adam with death.
The Sacrament of Baptism We affirm that God formally unites a person to Christ and to His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name, and that this baptism obligates such a one to lifelong covenant loyalty to the triune God, each baptized person repenting of his sins and trusting in Christ alone for his salvation. Baptism formally engrafts a person into the Church, which means that baptism is into the Regeneration, that time when the Son of Man sits upon His glorious throne (Matt. 19:28). We deny that baptism automatically guarantees that the baptized will share in the eschatological Church. We deny the common misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration—i.e. that an “effectual call” rebirth is automatically wrought in the one baptized. Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning. But we deny that trusting God's promise through baptism elevates baptism to a human work. God gives baptism as assurance of His grace to us personally, as our names are spoken when we are baptized.
The first few sentences of the section are orthodox. Then comes the sentence: "Baptism formally engrafts a person into the Church, which means that baptism is into the Regeneration, that time when the Son of Man sits upon His glorious throne (Matt. 19:28)." The first phrase of this sentence is accurate (if "the Church" is understood as the visible church). The explanation is bizarre. Baptism is a symbol of regeneration.
It's unclear what the FVists are trying to assert here. They speak of Regeneration as though it were an event in the life of Christ, but (oddly) not to Christ's resurrection (a regenerative event). Christ is now seated on the right hand of God the Father, but baptism is not "into" a time. The explanation is not really coherent.
Aside from the obviously FVist nomenclature employed (e.g. eschatological church), the paragraph of denials seems generally sound. There is one quite odd turn of phrase: "we deny that trusting ... elevates Baptism to a human work." Baptism is a human work. It is something a minister of the gospel performs, and a person (either a believer or a child of a believer) receives. I'm not sure how something being a human work "elevates" it in any sense. How can it be something less than a human work? It is not an accident.
The final statement is also odd: "God gives baptism as assurance of His grace to us personally, as our names are spoken when we are baptized." Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. There is no Biblical reason a person's name has to be spoken during the baptismal rite. Presbyterian churches name the person's name because that is in the book of church order, not because of a Scriptural requirement. Although it is traditional to name the person, the important name is the triune name of God. Furthermore, many people are baptized as infants, and consequently ought not to have "assurance of grace" (in the sense of assurance of saving grace) simply on account of being baptized. Of course, it is not even clear whether the FVists are speaking of saving grace, common grace, or some other category of grace of their own making.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper We affirm that by faithful use of the humble but glorious elements of bread and wine (remaining such), we are being grown up into a perfect unity with our Head, the Lord Jesus. Unless there has been lawful disciplinary action by the Church, we affirm that any baptized person, children included, should be welcome at the Table. We deny that the Supper is merely symbolic, but we also deny that any metaphysical changes are wrought in the bread or wine. We believe in the real presence of Christ with His people in the Supper, but we deny the local presence of Christ in the elements.
This section does not start out well. There is an eternal union between Christ and the elect. Furthermore, the forensic union between Christ and the elect occurs at justification. There is nothing imperfect about either of those unions. What believers grow in is in sanctification: in imitation of Christ.
This section also does not continue well: children who cannot discern the Lord's body ought not to be welcome at the Table. Likewise, those people who are rebels, outside any body of discipline ought not to be welcomed to the table. Furthermore, those who are members in good standing of bodies that notoriously do not exercise Godly discipline (or who are faultlessly not currently under Godly discipline) ought not to be unconditionally welcomed to the table. Ministers of the word have a duty to the fence the table.
The second paragraph is poorly worded, though it seems to be headed in the right direction. The sacrament is not merely symbolic, and yet the elements are physically unchanged (both as to their essence and substance). Christ is really, spiritually present. Christ's body, however, is in heaven. I don't think the FVists are trying to affirm (via denial) anything other than that.
Union with Christ and Imputation We affirm Christ is all in all for us, and that His perfect sinless life, His suffering on the cross, and His glorious resurrection are all credited to us. Christ is the new Adam, obeying God where the first Adam did not obey God. And Christ as the new Israel was baptized as the old Israel was, was tempted for 40 days as Israel was for 40 years, and as the greater Joshua He conquered the land of Canaan in the course of His ministry. This means that through Jesus, on our behalf, Israel has finally obeyed God and has been accepted by Him. We affirm not only that Christ is our full obedience, but also that through our union with Him we partake of the benefits of His death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement at the right hand of God the Father. We deny that faithfulness to the gospel message requires any particular doctrinal formulation of the “imputation of the active obedience of Christ.” What matters is that we confess that our salvation is all of Christ, and not from us.
The positive side of this section seems mostly correct. One error exists: Christ's resurrection is not credited to us. It was not act of Christ, but of the Father. The Father raised Christ.
The negative side of this section appears to be essentially aimed at anti-intellectualism. However, the cynical person might argue that this denial section is aimed adopting the errors of Norman Shepherd with respect to denial of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience. (Compare this defense of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active imputation.) Indeed, sometimes Norman Shepherd is blamed for the FVist heresy (FVist leader James Jordan, for example, apparently studied under Norman Shepherd).
Law and Gospel We affirm that those in rebellion against God are condemned both by His law, which they disobey, and His gospel, which they also disobey. When they have been brought to the point of repentance by the Holy Spirit, we affirm that the gracious nature of all God’s words becomes evident to them. At the same time, we affirm that it is appropriate to speak of law and gospel as having a redemptive and historical thrust, with the time of the law being the old covenant era and the time of the gospel being the time when we enter our maturity as God’s people. We further affirm that those who are first coming to faith in Christ frequently experience the law as an adversary and the gospel as deliverance from that adversary, meaning that traditional evangelistic applications of law and gospel are certainly scriptural and appropriate.
We deny that law and gospel should be considered as a hermeneutics, or treated as such. We believe that any passage, whether indicative or imperative, can be heard by the faithful as good news, and that any passage, whether containing gospel promises or not, will be heard by the rebellious as intolerable demand. The fundamental division is not in the text, but rather in the human heart.
This is an interesting section. The key potential source of controversy is the statement: "We deny that law and gospel should be considered as a hermeneutics, or treated as such." Hermeneutic means:
HERMENEU'TICS, n. The art of finding the meaning of an author's words and phrases, and of explaining it to others. (source)
Paul pretty clearly explains that the law is a schoolmaster. It is hard to see how the law and the gospel could not be used in hermeneutics. Of course, what they may mean to say is something else, such as that the law and the gospel should not be used to rigidly carve up the text into verses in red highlighting (law verses) and blue highlighting (gospel verses) or the dispensational error of throwing out the Old Testament as "law" in favor of the New Testament "gospel." Who knows what they meant ... they don't manage to communicate themselves clearly.
The phrase, "The fundamental division is not in the text, but rather in the human heart," is a nice sentiment, but doesn't really convey any useful information. We assume the FVists do not mean that the law/gospel distinction is entirely subjective, although that is one possible understanding of this phrase. If they did mean that, then we would reject it as erroneous.
Justification by Faith Alone We affirm we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone. Faith alone is the hand which is given to us by God so that we may receive the offered grace of God. Justification is God’s forensic declaration that we are counted as righteous, with our sins forgiven, for the sake of Jesus Christ alone.
We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of faith which God gives, which is to say, a living, active and personally loyal faith. Justifying faith encompasses the elements of assent, knowledge, and living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer. We deny that faith is ever alone, even at the moment of the effectual call.
The first sentence is clearly orthodox. The second sentence is generally orthodox, and appears to be borrowed from Cyril Lucar or a similar theologian (ironically, the "faith is a hand" metaphor is not a Biblical metaphor). The third sentence is also clearly orthodox.
The remaining sentences are mostly orthodox. The idea that "faith is [not] ever alone, even at the moment of the effectual call" is a bit odd. It is not necessarily the case that at that moment there will already be works to testify to the faith, which is the normal sense in which we speak of faith that is not alone. Nevertheless, since the effectual call is a work of the Spirit, therefore, inherently faith at the time of the effectual call is not alone, in the sense that it is accompanied by God's grace.
Assurance of Salvation We affirm that those who have been justified by God’s grace through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are saved to the uttermost and will spend eternity with Christ and his saints in glory forever. We affirm also that though salvation is granted through the instrument of faith alone, those who have been justified will live progressively more and more sanctified lives until they go to be with God. Those believers for whom this is true look to Christ for their assurance—in the Word, in the sacraments, in their fellow believers, and in their own participation in that life by faith.
We deny that anyone who claims to have faith but who lives in open rebellion against God and against his Christ has any reason to believe that he will be saved on the last day.
This section appears to be generally orthodox.
Apostasy We affirm that apostasy is a terrifying reality for many baptized Christians. All who are baptized into the triune Name are united with Christ in His covenantal life, and so those who fall from that position of grace are indeed falling from grace. The branches that are cut away from Christ are genuinely cut away from someone, cut out of a living covenant body. The connection that an apostate has to Christ is not merely external.
We deny that any person who is chosen by God for final salvation before the foundation of the world can fall away and be finally lost. The decretally elect cannot apostatize.
This statement is erroneous and objectionable for several reasons:
A) "Final Salvation"
Salvation is binary. There are different kinds of salvation to be sure, but salvation from hell is an either/or proposition. Christ saves "to the uttermost" not just for a time. To distinguish the salvation of one's soul into "final" and "something else" is to confuse salvation. Salvation is deliverance. There remains no condemnation to anyone who is justified, who has put on Christ's righteousness.
B) "The connection that an apostate has to Christ is not merely external."
1) Yes, it is merely external. The church is an external body. Union with the body of Christ via baptism provides external union: baptism of the Spirit (regeneration) is necessary for more than merely external union. They went out from us, because they were not of us. The apostate were only ever part of Christ outwardly and formally, not inwardly and really. Thus, apostacy is demonstration of a lack of real union with Christ.
2) Additionally, the verb tense is surely wrong. It should state "had."
In other words, surely the writers of the FV JS made a typographic error in stating that apostates presently have a connection to Christ. Even according only to the remainder of the paragraph, it should be clear that the connection that they had was cut off.
C) "Indeed falling from grace"
This terminology "fallen from grace" appears to be taken from:
Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
There it is used to convey the effect that those who seek justification from works are out of God's favor (grace), and Christ is of no use to such a person:
Galatians 5:2-3
2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
It seems, however, that the FVists have misunderstood Galatians 5:4 as suggesting some sort of fall from a state of saving (or perhaps prevenient?) grace.
D) "Apostasy is a terrifying reality for many baptized Christians"
The term "baptized Christians" is one loaded with potential for error. A Christian is one that is one inwardly, and the baptism that matters is of the heart. Apostasy may be a legitimate concern for a weak Christian struggling with sin, but it is not a "terrifying reality." Christians (true Christians) do not apostatize, and just because someone is baptized does not make him a Christian.
The present author has been enjoying Hoeksema's "Righteous by Faith Alone" (link). His commentary on Romans 2 applies marvellously to defeat the FV error with respect to the effect of baptism.
To paraphrase Romans 2:
Romans 2:26-29 (modified to substitute baptism for circumcision)
26Therefore if the [unbaptized man] keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his [lack of baptism] be counted for [baptism]? 27And shall not [lack of baptism] which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and [baptism] dost transgress the law? 28For he is not a [Christian], which is one outwardly; neither is that [baptism], which is outward in the flesh: 29But he is a [Christian], which is one inwardly; and [baptism] is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant. My Baptist brethren err by denying that sign to unregenerate children of believers, while my FV brethren err by asserting that the sign ipse actually provides grace to the children (though whether that is alleged to be the grace of regeneration, I cannot discern from the FV's joint statement).
(see my original post on this particular section - here)
Some Points of Intramural Disagreement The “Federal Vision” is not a monolithic movement. It has been variously described as a conversation, a broad school of thought, a series of similar questions, and so on. As the statements above would indicate, there are a number of common themes held by those who signed this statement.
But there are also important areas of disagreement or ongoing discussion among those who are identified as “Federal Vision” advocates. Some of these areas would include, but not be limited to whether or not the imputation of the active obedience of Christ (as traditionally understood) is to be affirmed in its classic form. Some of us affirm this and some do not. Another difference is whether or not personal regeneration represents a change of nature in the person so regenerated. Some of us say yes while others question whether we actually have such an “essence” that can be changed. All of us would affirm that we should have a high view of covenant renewal liturgy, but this does not necessarily mean that we all agree on how “high” the liturgy should actually be. Some of us are comfortable using the language of justification to describe the “deliverdict” of the last day, while others would prefer to describe it in other ways. That said, we are all agreed that no one is justified at any time because they personally have earned or merited anything. Some of us robustly affirm Christ's unique merit in His person and work as the answer to our demerit. Others think there are better words to describe the value and worthiness of Christ's sacrifice without recourse to the term "merit" because it is not biblical language and its use in the history of the church and currently shows that it can cause confusion.
Any doctrine mentioned in the sections before this one can be fairly represented as part of the Federal Vision. Issues in this last section cannot be fairly represented as the view of the whole. Our prayer is that this statement will help to bring clarity to a subject that been confused because of the noise of controversy. “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace . . .” (Eph. 4:3).
The last line is the most offensive aspect of the document, precisely because the FV movement is not endeavoring to keep unity, but is actually dividing.
Leaving that aside, the disclaimer is useful. Some FVists are further from the truth than others. Having this statement, as poorly worded and - in places - as vague as it is, is helpful. It helps to provide a basis to decide whether something is or is not "Federal Vision" per se. It also makes it possible to identify some of the critical errors in FVism, although we suspect that there may still be FV distinctives lurking behind the statement.
For those concerned about the accuracy of the quotations from the statement, here's a link (link to fvstatement (pdf)). The men who signed this statement were originally:
John Barach (minister, CREC)
Randy Booth (minister, CREC)
Tim Gallant (minister, CREC)
Rich Lusk (minister, CREC)
Ralph Smith (minister, CREC)
Douglas Wilson (minister, CREC)
Jim Jordan (member CREC)
Peter Leithart (minister, PCA - serving in a CREC church now)(Pacific Northwest Presbytery)
Steve Wilkins (minister, was PCA when he signed, now CREC)
Mark Horne (minister, PCA) (Missouri Presbytery)
Jeff Meyers (minister, PCA) (Missouri Presbytery)
One really wonders whether the PCA will turn next to the Missouri Presbytery to address Ministers Horne and Meyers. The Missouri Presbytery's report seems generally sound, but it does not seem to really address the Federal Vision problem, or the issues identified above (here is a link to the MO Presbytery report on Federal Vision in (pdf)).
-Turretinfan
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Matthew Poole on John 3:16
In the following passage, extracted from the abbreviated form of his exhaustive commentaries, the noted commentator Matthew Poole expounds on John 3:16.
John 3:16
For God the Father, who is the Lord of all, debtor to none, sufficient to himself, so loved the world, that is, Gentiles as well as Jews. There is a great contest about the signification of the term, betwixt those who contend for or against the point of universal redemption; but certain it is, that from this term no more can be solidly concluded, than from the terms all and every, which in multitudes of places are taken in a restrained sense for many, or all of such a nation or kind. As this term sometimes signifies all persons, so, in 1 John 2:21, the Gentiles in opposition to the Jews. Nor, admitting that the world should signify here every living soul in the place called the world, will any thing follow from it. It is proper enough to say, A man loved such a family to such a degree that he gave his estate to it, though he never intended such a thing to every child or branch of it. So as what is truth in that so vexed a question cannot be determined from any of these universal terms; which must, when all is said that can be said, be expounded by what follows them, and by their reconcilableness to other doctrines of faith. God so loved the world that he gave his Son to die for a sacrifice for their sins, to die in their stead, and give a satisfaction for them to his justice. And this Son was not any of his sons by adoption, but his only begotten Son; not so called (as Socinians would have it) because of his singular generation of the virgin without help of man, but from his eternal generation, in whom the Gentiles should trust, Psalm 2:12, which none ought to do, but in God alone, Deuteronomy 6:13; Jeremiah 17:5. That whosoever, etc.: the term all is spoken to above; these words restrain the universal term world, and all, to let us know that Christ only died for some in the world, viz. such as should believe in him. Some judge, not improbably, that Christ useth the term world in this verse in the same sense as in 1 John 2:2. Our evangelist useth to take down the pride of the Jews, who dreamed that the Messiah came only for the benefit of the seed of Abraham, not for the nations of the world, he only came to destroy them; which notion also very well fitteth what we have in the next verse.
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: Andrew Meyers informs us that the above passage, while in Poole's commentary, is actually a posthumous addition by Collinges. Mr. Meyers is associated with (part of?) the Matthew Poole Project, so we're willing to take his word for it.
John 3:16
For God the Father, who is the Lord of all, debtor to none, sufficient to himself, so loved the world, that is, Gentiles as well as Jews. There is a great contest about the signification of the term, betwixt those who contend for or against the point of universal redemption; but certain it is, that from this term no more can be solidly concluded, than from the terms all and every, which in multitudes of places are taken in a restrained sense for many, or all of such a nation or kind. As this term sometimes signifies all persons, so, in 1 John 2:21, the Gentiles in opposition to the Jews. Nor, admitting that the world should signify here every living soul in the place called the world, will any thing follow from it. It is proper enough to say, A man loved such a family to such a degree that he gave his estate to it, though he never intended such a thing to every child or branch of it. So as what is truth in that so vexed a question cannot be determined from any of these universal terms; which must, when all is said that can be said, be expounded by what follows them, and by their reconcilableness to other doctrines of faith. God so loved the world that he gave his Son to die for a sacrifice for their sins, to die in their stead, and give a satisfaction for them to his justice. And this Son was not any of his sons by adoption, but his only begotten Son; not so called (as Socinians would have it) because of his singular generation of the virgin without help of man, but from his eternal generation, in whom the Gentiles should trust, Psalm 2:12, which none ought to do, but in God alone, Deuteronomy 6:13; Jeremiah 17:5. That whosoever, etc.: the term all is spoken to above; these words restrain the universal term world, and all, to let us know that Christ only died for some in the world, viz. such as should believe in him. Some judge, not improbably, that Christ useth the term world in this verse in the same sense as in 1 John 2:2. Our evangelist useth to take down the pride of the Jews, who dreamed that the Messiah came only for the benefit of the seed of Abraham, not for the nations of the world, he only came to destroy them; which notion also very well fitteth what we have in the next verse.
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: Andrew Meyers informs us that the above passage, while in Poole's commentary, is actually a posthumous addition by Collinges. Mr. Meyers is associated with (part of?) the Matthew Poole Project, so we're willing to take his word for it.
John Murray on Pictures of Christ
As John Murray explains:
-Turretinfan
The question of the propriety of pictorial representations of the Saviour is one that merits examination. It must be granted that the worship of Christ is central in our holy faith, and the thought of the Saviour must in every instance be accompanied with that reverence which belongs to his worship. We cannot think of him without the apprehension of the majesty that is his. If we do not entertain the sense of his majesty, then we are guilty of impiety and we dishonor him.Find out Murray's answer and explanation and reasons in this well-written article provided by Sherman Isbell, and originally printed in the Reformed Herald (link to article).
It will also be granted that the only purpose that could properly be served by a pictorial representation is that it would convey to us some thought or lesson representing him, consonant with truth and promotive of worship. Hence the question is inescapable: is a pictorial representation a legitimate way of conveying truth regarding him and of contributing to the worship which this truth should evoke?
-Turretinfan
Monday, February 18, 2008
The real Turretin on: Imputation vs. Infusion
Turretin, on the topic of whether Justification is by imputation or infusion writes:
"Unde colligitur vocem hanc esse forensem quae non est intelligenda physice de infusione justitiae sed judicialiter et relative de gratuita acceptione in judicio dei."
Turretin's Works, Edinburgh edit., vol. ii., p. 570.
Which, being interpreted is:
"Whence it may be inferred that this word (to impute) is not to be understood physically of the infusion of righteousness (or unrighteousness), but judicially and relatively regarding gratuitous acceptance in the judgment of God."
(source)
-Turretinfan
"Unde colligitur vocem hanc esse forensem quae non est intelligenda physice de infusione justitiae sed judicialiter et relative de gratuita acceptione in judicio dei."
Turretin's Works, Edinburgh edit., vol. ii., p. 570.
Which, being interpreted is:
"Whence it may be inferred that this word (to impute) is not to be understood physically of the infusion of righteousness (or unrighteousness), but judicially and relatively regarding gratuitous acceptance in the judgment of God."
(source)
-Turretinfan
The real Turretin on: Verbal Inspiration
On the topic of verbal inspiration, Francis Turretin had the following comments:
"Quaeritur . . . an in scribendo ita acti et inspirati fuerint, a Spiritu Sancto, et quoad res ipsas et quoad verba, ut ab omni errore immunes fuerint, et scripta ipsorum vere sint authentica et divina? Adversarii negant; Nos affirmamus."
Turrettin's Works, Edin. edit., vol. i., p. 60.
Which, being translated, is:
"It is a matter of inquiry whether in writing they (the sacred writers) were so influenced and inspired by the Holy Spirit, both as to the things themselves and as to the words, as that they were free from all error, and that their writings are truly authentic and divine. Our adversaries deny this; we affirm it."
Again, in another place:
"Nec facile credi potest, Deum, qui omnia et singula verba viris θεοπνευστοις dictavit et inspiravit, de omnibus conservandis non curasse."
Ibid, vol. i., p. 67. "
Which, being translated, is:
"Nor can it be easily believed that God, who, to men divinely inspired, dictated and inspired all and every several word, has not taken care for the preservation of them all."
(source)
"Quaeritur . . . an in scribendo ita acti et inspirati fuerint, a Spiritu Sancto, et quoad res ipsas et quoad verba, ut ab omni errore immunes fuerint, et scripta ipsorum vere sint authentica et divina? Adversarii negant; Nos affirmamus."
Turrettin's Works, Edin. edit., vol. i., p. 60.
Which, being translated, is:
"It is a matter of inquiry whether in writing they (the sacred writers) were so influenced and inspired by the Holy Spirit, both as to the things themselves and as to the words, as that they were free from all error, and that their writings are truly authentic and divine. Our adversaries deny this; we affirm it."
Again, in another place:
"Nec facile credi potest, Deum, qui omnia et singula verba viris θεοπνευστοις dictavit et inspiravit, de omnibus conservandis non curasse."
Ibid, vol. i., p. 67. "
Which, being translated, is:
"Nor can it be easily believed that God, who, to men divinely inspired, dictated and inspired all and every several word, has not taken care for the preservation of them all."
(source)
Sunday, February 17, 2008
As Wise as Sheep
Sheep are not wise. It is no great compliment to be called a sheep. Nevertheless, in Chapter 10 of John's Gospel, Christ proclaimed the parable of the Shepherd and the sheepfold, in which he compared us to sheep, and Himself to the Shepherd.
John 9:35-10:29
35Jesus heard that they had cast him [the man who was born blind, whom Jesus miraculously healed] out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
36He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
38And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
39And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. 1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
6This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. 7Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
19There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. 20And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
21Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?
22And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 24Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
There are many things that can be gleaned from the passage. One is the fact that Jesus is divine. If we were going to emphasize that, we'd continue down the passage, for Jesus is shortly afterward explicitly accused of blasphemy.
In this post, though, we are going to focus on the soteriological aspects of the passage. The sheep are the elect, those who will be saved from judgment on judgment day. We know this because Christ says "I give unto them eternal life."
1. Once a Sheep, Always a Sheep
This would seem to be an obvious fact from the nature of things. Sheep do not change their species. Sheep do not become goats, they do not become wolves, they do not become dogs. A wolf may slip in disguised as a sheep or a goat may get caught up in a sheep stampede. But a sheep is a sheep, and a non-sheep is not a sheep. There is no more saddening condemnation to hear than to hear: "ye are not of my sheep" from the mouth of God. On the other hand, to know that one is a sheep is the most encouraging thing we can know. We know that the sheep will never stop being a sheep, because Christ says: "they shall never perish."
2. Once a Sheep of Christ's, Always a Sheep of Christ's
Again, this would seem to be an obvious fact. Christ is God. He cannot be robbed by thieves. No one is stronger than God to be able wrestle sheep away from him. Furthermore, sheep are not self-determiners of their ownership. No one asks a sheep for his permission to own the sheep. A sheep cannot decide to become someone else's sheep. A sheep can wander off from the flock, but the Shepherd will bring him back. Furthermore, Christ explains this in the passage above: "neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (and likewise, "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all.")
3. The Sheep Come Because they are Sheep
Some people have suggested that people become sheep because they come. This is absurd. Sheep are sheep before they come. A lost sheep is a sheep. A sheep cannot hear his master's voice, unless he is a sheep. This also leads us to the second suggestion we sometimes hear: that a sheep become's Christ's by hearing his voice.
But that is not how ownership of sheep works. Furthermore, that's not how the matter is described in the passage. Instead, the passage states: "the sheep follow him: for they know his voice, and a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." You see, there is a reason why the sheep follow the shepherd and not a stranger, it is because they know his voice. They follow the shepherd because they are his sheep, not the other way around.
4. The Sheep are Called Particularly
It is often overlooked that the sheep are not called en masse. One sees people discussing the passage as though the Shepherd is standing out in a huge field of sheep yelling, "Here Sheep!" That fits with the mistaken view above that sheep become sheep (or Christ's sheep) by coming. That's not the picture here. The picture here is Christ calling his sheep particularly, individually, by name: "he calleth his own sheep by name," "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep."
5. The Sheep will be Saved
There is no doubt, no uncertainty about sheep of Christ's that are still outside the fold. Christ declares the certainty of their salvation. This conflicts both with an open theistic view of God, and with a universalistic intent theory of the atonement. Christ aim is to save the sheep ("My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all") and he will save the sheep ("other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice").
6. The Sheep are Given to the Shepherd and the Shepherd for the Sheep
The Shepherd's duty is to save the sheep. Christ states: "Them also I must bring." Likewise, He states "My Father, which gave them to me." They are his sheep, with Him leading the way: "when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him." And furthermore, "I lay down my life for the sheep." We can also see the same thing negatively put here: "But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not."
7. The Sheep are the Blind that Now See, the Others Think they See, but do not
Recall how this passage begins. The man born blind is healed, so that he sees and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. The Pharisees do not see, and mockingly ask whether they are blind. Jesus tells them in essence that if they realized they were blind, they would be given sight, but since they think they see, they remain dead in sins.
8. What do the Sheep do right?
- the sheep hear his voice
- the sheep follow him: for they know his voice
- a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
- the sheep did not hear them.
- they shall hear my voice;
- My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me
9. Why don't others do the same?
"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep."
10. Conclusion
That's the simple truth of monergistic salvation. The sheep do hear and follow, but they do so because they are the sheep. The others do not, because they are not Christ's sheep. Christ is our Good Shepherd, who was prophesied by Jacob:
Genesis 49:24 "...from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:"
David also prophesied of Jesus in Psalm 23:
Psalm 23:1 (A Psalm of David.) The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
(Its worth noting as an aside against the Ebionites that this is Jesus being referred to as Jehovah.)
Asaph likewise prophesied of Jesus in Psalm 80:
Psalm 80:1 (To the chief Musician upon Shoshannimeduth, A Psalm of Asaph.) Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth.
Isaiah, that great prophet of God, likewise prophesied:
Isaiah 40:10-11
10Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. 11He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.
(again, Jesus is identified with Jehovah)
The weeping prophet, Jeremiah prophesied the same thing:
Jeremiah 31:10 Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.
Ezekiel also:
Ezekiel 34:12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.
It is this Shepherd whom John and the other evangelists preach to you, and which confirmed by the other Scriptures:
Hebrews 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
Let us give thanks unto the Lord Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd of the Sheep through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
-Turretinfan
John 9:35-10:29
35Jesus heard that they had cast him [the man who was born blind, whom Jesus miraculously healed] out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
36He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
38And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
39And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. 1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
6This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. 7Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
19There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings. 20And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
21Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?
22And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 24Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
There are many things that can be gleaned from the passage. One is the fact that Jesus is divine. If we were going to emphasize that, we'd continue down the passage, for Jesus is shortly afterward explicitly accused of blasphemy.
In this post, though, we are going to focus on the soteriological aspects of the passage. The sheep are the elect, those who will be saved from judgment on judgment day. We know this because Christ says "I give unto them eternal life."
1. Once a Sheep, Always a Sheep
This would seem to be an obvious fact from the nature of things. Sheep do not change their species. Sheep do not become goats, they do not become wolves, they do not become dogs. A wolf may slip in disguised as a sheep or a goat may get caught up in a sheep stampede. But a sheep is a sheep, and a non-sheep is not a sheep. There is no more saddening condemnation to hear than to hear: "ye are not of my sheep" from the mouth of God. On the other hand, to know that one is a sheep is the most encouraging thing we can know. We know that the sheep will never stop being a sheep, because Christ says: "they shall never perish."
2. Once a Sheep of Christ's, Always a Sheep of Christ's
Again, this would seem to be an obvious fact. Christ is God. He cannot be robbed by thieves. No one is stronger than God to be able wrestle sheep away from him. Furthermore, sheep are not self-determiners of their ownership. No one asks a sheep for his permission to own the sheep. A sheep cannot decide to become someone else's sheep. A sheep can wander off from the flock, but the Shepherd will bring him back. Furthermore, Christ explains this in the passage above: "neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (and likewise, "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all.")
3. The Sheep Come Because they are Sheep
Some people have suggested that people become sheep because they come. This is absurd. Sheep are sheep before they come. A lost sheep is a sheep. A sheep cannot hear his master's voice, unless he is a sheep. This also leads us to the second suggestion we sometimes hear: that a sheep become's Christ's by hearing his voice.
But that is not how ownership of sheep works. Furthermore, that's not how the matter is described in the passage. Instead, the passage states: "the sheep follow him: for they know his voice, and a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." You see, there is a reason why the sheep follow the shepherd and not a stranger, it is because they know his voice. They follow the shepherd because they are his sheep, not the other way around.
4. The Sheep are Called Particularly
It is often overlooked that the sheep are not called en masse. One sees people discussing the passage as though the Shepherd is standing out in a huge field of sheep yelling, "Here Sheep!" That fits with the mistaken view above that sheep become sheep (or Christ's sheep) by coming. That's not the picture here. The picture here is Christ calling his sheep particularly, individually, by name: "he calleth his own sheep by name," "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep."
5. The Sheep will be Saved
There is no doubt, no uncertainty about sheep of Christ's that are still outside the fold. Christ declares the certainty of their salvation. This conflicts both with an open theistic view of God, and with a universalistic intent theory of the atonement. Christ aim is to save the sheep ("My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all") and he will save the sheep ("other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice").
6. The Sheep are Given to the Shepherd and the Shepherd for the Sheep
The Shepherd's duty is to save the sheep. Christ states: "Them also I must bring." Likewise, He states "My Father, which gave them to me." They are his sheep, with Him leading the way: "when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him." And furthermore, "I lay down my life for the sheep." We can also see the same thing negatively put here: "But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not."
7. The Sheep are the Blind that Now See, the Others Think they See, but do not
Recall how this passage begins. The man born blind is healed, so that he sees and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ. The Pharisees do not see, and mockingly ask whether they are blind. Jesus tells them in essence that if they realized they were blind, they would be given sight, but since they think they see, they remain dead in sins.
8. What do the Sheep do right?
- the sheep hear his voice
- the sheep follow him: for they know his voice
- a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
- the sheep did not hear them.
- they shall hear my voice;
- My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me
9. Why don't others do the same?
"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep."
10. Conclusion
That's the simple truth of monergistic salvation. The sheep do hear and follow, but they do so because they are the sheep. The others do not, because they are not Christ's sheep. Christ is our Good Shepherd, who was prophesied by Jacob:
Genesis 49:24 "...from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:"
David also prophesied of Jesus in Psalm 23:
Psalm 23:1 (A Psalm of David.) The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
(Its worth noting as an aside against the Ebionites that this is Jesus being referred to as Jehovah.)
Asaph likewise prophesied of Jesus in Psalm 80:
Psalm 80:1 (To the chief Musician upon Shoshannimeduth, A Psalm of Asaph.) Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims, shine forth.
Isaiah, that great prophet of God, likewise prophesied:
Isaiah 40:10-11
10Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. 11He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.
(again, Jesus is identified with Jehovah)
The weeping prophet, Jeremiah prophesied the same thing:
Jeremiah 31:10 Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.
Ezekiel also:
Ezekiel 34:12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.
It is this Shepherd whom John and the other evangelists preach to you, and which confirmed by the other Scriptures:
Hebrews 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
Let us give thanks unto the Lord Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd of the Sheep through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
-Turretinfan
The real Turretin on: the Misery of that Estate whereunto man Fell
Standing Solus Christus has kindly transcribed a very brief (three paragraphs or so) portion of the real Turretin's thoughts on the misery of fallen man (link). Those who have been catechized in the Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) will recall the important difference between the sinfulness and misery of fallen man.
I read it on the Internet
I put in Disney's website (link) and got this result:
I put in Centuri0n's blog (link) and got this result:
I put in Dr. James White's blog (link) and got this result:
I put in the present blog (link) and got this result:
So, anyways, since I (and now you) read it on the internet, it must be true.
Or, more likely, it just goes to show the weakness of computer-based techniques.
-Turretinfan
I put in Centuri0n's blog (link) and got this result:
I put in Dr. James White's blog (link) and got this result:
I put in the present blog (link) and got this result:
So, anyways, since I (and now you) read it on the internet, it must be true.
Or, more likely, it just goes to show the weakness of computer-based techniques.
-Turretinfan
PCUSA Draws the Line
Apparently, although the PCUSA will continue to permit women to be ordained, they have drawn the line at allowing practicing homosexuals from being ordained. (link) This is a defeat for the ultra-liberals in the PCUSA. I wonder whether this will bring a welcome split within the PCUSA that would extract the most extreme liberal elements within that church.
-Turretinfan
-Turretinfan
Saturday, February 16, 2008
The Real Turretin on: Marks of a True Church
Charles J. Paul, at Truth Matters, Inc., has kindly provided a lengthy transcription on the real Turretin's thoughts on the Marks of a True Church (link).
Friday Menu: Rotini with Meat Sauce
I recall some years ago visiting a hotel, and encountering a young man wearing a yarmulke. We met in the lobby of the hotel. After we got on the elevator, he asked me for a favor. He asked me if I would unlock the door of his hotel room for him. You see, the hotel has electronic locks, and operating the hotel's lock was, in the view of this Jewish man, a violation of the Sabbath.
Oddly, he had not the least compunction in asking me to violate the Sabbath for him. I disagreed with the man's theonomy, and so I agreed to assist. I pressed the elevator button for him, and I unlocked his door for him. I thought it would be pointless to dispute the matter with him.
Later I investigated whether this was normal or not. After all, normally if something is wrong, it is wrong to ask someone else to do that wrong thing for you. One cannot ask a stranger on a train to murder one's father, nor (thought I) could one ask a stranger in a hotel lobby to violate the Sabbath. It turns out that the standard Jewish response to the latter question is to distinguish.
Apparently, the standard Jewish answer is that the Sabbath is only for the Jews, not for the Gentiles. Thus, it's perfectly ok for me (who the young man assumed to be a Gentile) to break the Sabbath, but not ok for me to kill (since prohibitions on murder are more universal).
Why do I bring this up now? The reason I bring it up is because I had a tasty dinner of Rotini with Meat Sauce on a Friday during Lent. I'm interested in Catholic opinion on the matter. Do Catholics think that Lent applies to Christians that are not Catholics? What about to formal/material heretics? In other words, is Lent to Catholics as the Sabbath is to Jews?
On the other side of the spectrum, I am aware that Ramadan in some Muslim countries is enforced by the police. It is not a defense to a charge of breaking Ramadan in any public place that you are not a Muslim.
Furthermore, such a view is not entirely outside Catholicism. Recall that the Fourth Lateran Council decreed:
68. Jews appearing in public
A difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians in some provinces, but in others a certain confusion has developed so that they are indistinguishable. Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen women, and Jews or Saracens with christian women. In order that the offence of such a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind, we decree that such persons of either sex, in every christian province and at all times, are to be distinguished in public from other people by the character of their dress -- seeing moreover that this was enjoined upon them by Moses himself, as we read. They shall not appear in public at all on the days of lamentation and on passion Sunday; because some of them on such days, as we have heard, do not blush to parade in very ornate dress and are not afraid to mock Christians who are presenting a memorial of the most sacred passion and are displaying signs of grief. What we most strictly forbid however, is that they dare in any way to break out in derision of the Redeemer. We order secular princes to restrain with condign punishment those who do so presume, lest they dare to blaspheme in any way him who was crucified for us, since we ought not to ignore insults against him who blotted out our wrongdoings.
So then, the simple question is: is my consumption of Rotini with meat sauce on Friday during Lent a mortal sin for me, or only for my Catholic neighbors? Is Lent more like Ramadan or the Jewish Sabbath? And if the latter, would you please pass the meatballs?
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: I realize that Orthodox views on Lenten fasting are somewhat diferent. I'd be interested in Orthodox thoughts on whether it is sin for Reformed Christians to violate the various prohibitions on eating, drinking, and sex during that period.
Further Update: Thanks to Reginald for his well-reasoned response from a Catholic perspective here (link). If I may summarize his answer: in his view it is more like the Jewish Sabbath, in that it is permitted for non-Catholics to ignore the fast, because the moral basis of obligation is dependent on the duty of Catholics to obey their church.
Oddly, he had not the least compunction in asking me to violate the Sabbath for him. I disagreed with the man's theonomy, and so I agreed to assist. I pressed the elevator button for him, and I unlocked his door for him. I thought it would be pointless to dispute the matter with him.
Later I investigated whether this was normal or not. After all, normally if something is wrong, it is wrong to ask someone else to do that wrong thing for you. One cannot ask a stranger on a train to murder one's father, nor (thought I) could one ask a stranger in a hotel lobby to violate the Sabbath. It turns out that the standard Jewish response to the latter question is to distinguish.
Apparently, the standard Jewish answer is that the Sabbath is only for the Jews, not for the Gentiles. Thus, it's perfectly ok for me (who the young man assumed to be a Gentile) to break the Sabbath, but not ok for me to kill (since prohibitions on murder are more universal).
Why do I bring this up now? The reason I bring it up is because I had a tasty dinner of Rotini with Meat Sauce on a Friday during Lent. I'm interested in Catholic opinion on the matter. Do Catholics think that Lent applies to Christians that are not Catholics? What about to formal/material heretics? In other words, is Lent to Catholics as the Sabbath is to Jews?
On the other side of the spectrum, I am aware that Ramadan in some Muslim countries is enforced by the police. It is not a defense to a charge of breaking Ramadan in any public place that you are not a Muslim.
Furthermore, such a view is not entirely outside Catholicism. Recall that the Fourth Lateran Council decreed:
68. Jews appearing in public
A difference of dress distinguishes Jews or Saracens from Christians in some provinces, but in others a certain confusion has developed so that they are indistinguishable. Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen women, and Jews or Saracens with christian women. In order that the offence of such a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind, we decree that such persons of either sex, in every christian province and at all times, are to be distinguished in public from other people by the character of their dress -- seeing moreover that this was enjoined upon them by Moses himself, as we read. They shall not appear in public at all on the days of lamentation and on passion Sunday; because some of them on such days, as we have heard, do not blush to parade in very ornate dress and are not afraid to mock Christians who are presenting a memorial of the most sacred passion and are displaying signs of grief. What we most strictly forbid however, is that they dare in any way to break out in derision of the Redeemer. We order secular princes to restrain with condign punishment those who do so presume, lest they dare to blaspheme in any way him who was crucified for us, since we ought not to ignore insults against him who blotted out our wrongdoings.
So then, the simple question is: is my consumption of Rotini with meat sauce on Friday during Lent a mortal sin for me, or only for my Catholic neighbors? Is Lent more like Ramadan or the Jewish Sabbath? And if the latter, would you please pass the meatballs?
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: I realize that Orthodox views on Lenten fasting are somewhat diferent. I'd be interested in Orthodox thoughts on whether it is sin for Reformed Christians to violate the various prohibitions on eating, drinking, and sex during that period.
Further Update: Thanks to Reginald for his well-reasoned response from a Catholic perspective here (link). If I may summarize his answer: in his view it is more like the Jewish Sabbath, in that it is permitted for non-Catholics to ignore the fast, because the moral basis of obligation is dependent on the duty of Catholics to obey their church.
Monergism vs. Synergism Debate
As a followup to the post below, I should point out that my Monergism vs. Synergism debate with Matt Shapman from BeyondFundamentalism has been put on indefinite hold (due to his lack of availability for the debate). If someone would like to take his place, please let me know.
Monergism vs. Synergism Discussion
In the video below, Dr. James White discusses monergist salvation with a synergist.
I mostly agree with Dr. White's answers. However, as to the answer regarding the burning house, I'd have something else to say.
The analogy about the burning house is inaccurate, because the synergist does not assert that total passivity is the way that man is rescued from sin. Instead, the synergist asserts that man cooperates with God in order to be saved.
In other words, the situation is more like people hearing the voice of the fire marshall sounding through the smoky haze and some carefully follow his instructions and escape, and others ignore his instructions and perish.
Still, one might ask, do those who escape have any ground for boasting?
The intuitive answer is "no," but it is important to understand why that is.
Imagine there is no fire marshall at all. Some manage to escape the fire by strenuously exerting themselves to escape the blaze, and others die because they make bad attempts.
No, again, one might, do those who escape have any ground for boasting?
I still think the intuitive answer is "no," even though in this instance their salvation from the fire is entirely their own work. We wouldn't think people who bragged about how they escaped when others perished to be very nice people.
So, perhaps that's not quite what we mean by boasting. In other words, maybe what we mean by boasting is having any part in the credit for our salvation. In the last case, the escapees clearly can take credit. They used their wits or their muscles, or just their bravery to escape the fire.
But when we then reflect that back to the middle analogy where people cooperate with the fire marshall, we see that again those who are saved are those who are more obedient, more attentive, or have the good judgment to listen when others try to find their own way out. While they cannot take all the credit for their escape, it is a difference between them and the others that is the critical reason why they are saved and the others are not.
Even so in synergistic salvation. In synergistic salvation, man gets some of the credit, because man does some of the work. This detracts from the glory of God and contradicts Scripture. The former reason is enough to make the doctrine suspect, but the latter is the reason we reject synergism.
Scripture says:
Romans 3:24-28
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Praise be to the God who Justifies!
-Turretinfan
I mostly agree with Dr. White's answers. However, as to the answer regarding the burning house, I'd have something else to say.
The analogy about the burning house is inaccurate, because the synergist does not assert that total passivity is the way that man is rescued from sin. Instead, the synergist asserts that man cooperates with God in order to be saved.
In other words, the situation is more like people hearing the voice of the fire marshall sounding through the smoky haze and some carefully follow his instructions and escape, and others ignore his instructions and perish.
Still, one might ask, do those who escape have any ground for boasting?
The intuitive answer is "no," but it is important to understand why that is.
Imagine there is no fire marshall at all. Some manage to escape the fire by strenuously exerting themselves to escape the blaze, and others die because they make bad attempts.
No, again, one might, do those who escape have any ground for boasting?
I still think the intuitive answer is "no," even though in this instance their salvation from the fire is entirely their own work. We wouldn't think people who bragged about how they escaped when others perished to be very nice people.
So, perhaps that's not quite what we mean by boasting. In other words, maybe what we mean by boasting is having any part in the credit for our salvation. In the last case, the escapees clearly can take credit. They used their wits or their muscles, or just their bravery to escape the fire.
But when we then reflect that back to the middle analogy where people cooperate with the fire marshall, we see that again those who are saved are those who are more obedient, more attentive, or have the good judgment to listen when others try to find their own way out. While they cannot take all the credit for their escape, it is a difference between them and the others that is the critical reason why they are saved and the others are not.
Even so in synergistic salvation. In synergistic salvation, man gets some of the credit, because man does some of the work. This detracts from the glory of God and contradicts Scripture. The former reason is enough to make the doctrine suspect, but the latter is the reason we reject synergism.
Scripture says:
Romans 3:24-28
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Praise be to the God who Justifies!
-Turretinfan
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Superstition or Sacramental?
American Papist reports (link), you decide.
My own two cents: this is plainly superstition. The Giants' victory had nothing to do with a scrap of metal in someone's pocket. I doubt the American Papist would be willing to debate the topic of: "Resolved: that blessed medals are effective for winning football games."
Nevertheless, we have amazing anecdotal evidence to support that resolution. The Giants were thought by the masses (hoi polloi) to be the underdogs, and yet they won. One could point out that the other team's star player had been nursing an ankle injury in the week prior to the game, but that would just show lack of faith in the church. So don't. Instead, believe that rubbing the medals and praying to whoever is depicted on them won the biggest sports game of the year.
I wonder if they work for Hockey too?
-Turretinfan
My own two cents: this is plainly superstition. The Giants' victory had nothing to do with a scrap of metal in someone's pocket. I doubt the American Papist would be willing to debate the topic of: "Resolved: that blessed medals are effective for winning football games."
Nevertheless, we have amazing anecdotal evidence to support that resolution. The Giants were thought by the masses (hoi polloi) to be the underdogs, and yet they won. One could point out that the other team's star player had been nursing an ankle injury in the week prior to the game, but that would just show lack of faith in the church. So don't. Instead, believe that rubbing the medals and praying to whoever is depicted on them won the biggest sports game of the year.
I wonder if they work for Hockey too?
-Turretinfan
Charitable Prayers Unwelcome
According to a Reuters article, thoughtfully brought to my attention by the American Papist (link), some Jews are suprised and offended by prayers by Roman Catholics for the "conversion of the Jews."
I'm quite sure that these prayers are meant by many Roman Catholics in a positive way. That is to say, they really sincerely believe that conversion is something that would be benenficial for the Jews. They would not consider themselves "anti-Semites" for making such a prayer, and they shouldn't consider themselves as such.
We too, as Reformed Christians, prayer for the conversion of the Jews, and the conversion of Mormons, Muslims, Ebionites, Gnostics, and Satanists. We pray for them not because of some antipathy or hostility to them, but because we desire their salvation.
We Reformed Christians also pray for the salvation of those within the chuch that are not saved: those who profess Christ's name with their tongue, while their heart is far from him. One group that particularly concerns us is the Roman Catholic Church, because her official teachings point people away from the pure gospel message:
Repent of your sins and trust in Christ alone for salvation.
Of course, expressing those sorts of concerns could cause the same reaction in Roman Catholics that their prayer caused to the Jews in the article. It could cause that reaction if we were not clear that there is a fundamental difference between the gospel we preach and the gospel they preach.
Some Roman Catholics will still call us names like "anti-Catholic" (see this example). Nevertheless, such characterizations show that they missed the point of the dialog as much as the Jews missed the point of the Catholic-Jewish dialog.
May God bring to faith and repentance all those who have not repented and trusted in Christ alone, whether they be hypocrites in our midst, Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Ebionites, Gnostics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, or Satanists.
-Turretinfan
I'm quite sure that these prayers are meant by many Roman Catholics in a positive way. That is to say, they really sincerely believe that conversion is something that would be benenficial for the Jews. They would not consider themselves "anti-Semites" for making such a prayer, and they shouldn't consider themselves as such.
We too, as Reformed Christians, prayer for the conversion of the Jews, and the conversion of Mormons, Muslims, Ebionites, Gnostics, and Satanists. We pray for them not because of some antipathy or hostility to them, but because we desire their salvation.
We Reformed Christians also pray for the salvation of those within the chuch that are not saved: those who profess Christ's name with their tongue, while their heart is far from him. One group that particularly concerns us is the Roman Catholic Church, because her official teachings point people away from the pure gospel message:
Repent of your sins and trust in Christ alone for salvation.
Of course, expressing those sorts of concerns could cause the same reaction in Roman Catholics that their prayer caused to the Jews in the article. It could cause that reaction if we were not clear that there is a fundamental difference between the gospel we preach and the gospel they preach.
Some Roman Catholics will still call us names like "anti-Catholic" (see this example). Nevertheless, such characterizations show that they missed the point of the dialog as much as the Jews missed the point of the Catholic-Jewish dialog.
May God bring to faith and repentance all those who have not repented and trusted in Christ alone, whether they be hypocrites in our midst, Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Ebionites, Gnostics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, or Satanists.
-Turretinfan
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Problems Unlikely to Beset the Reformed Churches
How to react when God sends his lightening bolts against your graven images? Rio's answer seems to be repair it: (link).
Let's hope that they get the message more quickly than the Philistines did!
1 Samuel 5
1And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Ebenezer unto Ashdod. 2When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon. 3And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the LORD. And they took Dagon, and set him in his place again.
4And when they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the LORD; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him. 5Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day. 6But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof. 7And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god.
8They sent therefore and gathered all the lords of the Philistines unto them, and said, What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel? And they answered, Let the ark of the God of Israel be carried about unto Gath. And they carried the ark of the God of Israel about thither. 9And it was so, that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts.
10Therefore they sent the ark of God to Ekron. And it came to pass, as the ark of God came to Ekron, that the Ekronites cried out, saying, They have brought about the ark of the God of Israel to us, to slay us and our people.
11So they sent and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and said, Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go again to his own place, that it slay us not, and our people: for there was a deadly destruction throughout all the city; the hand of God was very heavy there. 12And the men that died not were smitten with the emerods: and the cry of the city went up to heaven.
Praise be to the God who is not worshipped with the works of men's hands, as though He needed anything,
-Turretinfan
Let's hope that they get the message more quickly than the Philistines did!
1 Samuel 5
1And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Ebenezer unto Ashdod. 2When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon. 3And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the LORD. And they took Dagon, and set him in his place again.
4And when they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the LORD; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him. 5Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day. 6But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof. 7And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god.
8They sent therefore and gathered all the lords of the Philistines unto them, and said, What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel? And they answered, Let the ark of the God of Israel be carried about unto Gath. And they carried the ark of the God of Israel about thither. 9And it was so, that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts.
10Therefore they sent the ark of God to Ekron. And it came to pass, as the ark of God came to Ekron, that the Ekronites cried out, saying, They have brought about the ark of the God of Israel to us, to slay us and our people.
11So they sent and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and said, Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go again to his own place, that it slay us not, and our people: for there was a deadly destruction throughout all the city; the hand of God was very heavy there. 12And the men that died not were smitten with the emerods: and the cry of the city went up to heaven.
Praise be to the God who is not worshipped with the works of men's hands, as though He needed anything,
-Turretinfan
Canine Heroism
This news story (link) is both sad and happy. Dogs rescued their owners from death by fire, but lost their own lives in the process. Read the story. It may make you cry, particularly if you are fond of dogs.
The final sentence of the article really struck me:
"Everything I lost is nothing compared to them," she said.
The analogy between the situation and our salvation is amazingly complete. We are saved from death by fire through the death of Christ, and that should endear him to us greatly. Furthermore, in the process, we will lose everything that we have. All our earthly possessions will be destroyed by fire. But our sentiment should be the same as that woman's namely, that we everything we lose we should count as nothing compared to Christ.
And one can imagine the faithful dogs saying the same thing: they did not count their own lives worth saving, but considered that as nothing compared to saving those whom they loved. Now perhaps that is not the case, here. Perhaps here the dogs incidentally sacrificed themselves, or were simply trapped and coincidentally saved their owners. Furthemore, the dogs could have no assurance of success.
Not so with Christ. Christ considered the loss of his life for the salvation of the elect to be "joy." Christ is God, so he knew he could no fail to accomplish what the Father sent him to do. Christ endured not only the loss of his life, but the wrath of God in our stead. He finished the work of salvation.
Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
How much greater our Savior than the canine saviors in the news article! How much more greatly should we love Him who died for us!
Praise be to glorious name!
-Turretinfan
The final sentence of the article really struck me:
"Everything I lost is nothing compared to them," she said.
The analogy between the situation and our salvation is amazingly complete. We are saved from death by fire through the death of Christ, and that should endear him to us greatly. Furthermore, in the process, we will lose everything that we have. All our earthly possessions will be destroyed by fire. But our sentiment should be the same as that woman's namely, that we everything we lose we should count as nothing compared to Christ.
And one can imagine the faithful dogs saying the same thing: they did not count their own lives worth saving, but considered that as nothing compared to saving those whom they loved. Now perhaps that is not the case, here. Perhaps here the dogs incidentally sacrificed themselves, or were simply trapped and coincidentally saved their owners. Furthemore, the dogs could have no assurance of success.
Not so with Christ. Christ considered the loss of his life for the salvation of the elect to be "joy." Christ is God, so he knew he could no fail to accomplish what the Father sent him to do. Christ endured not only the loss of his life, but the wrath of God in our stead. He finished the work of salvation.
Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
How much greater our Savior than the canine saviors in the news article! How much more greatly should we love Him who died for us!
Praise be to glorious name!
-Turretinfan
Monday, February 11, 2008
Augustine vs. Modern Catholicism
Augustine, as demonstrated in the video below had a view of the Real presence that was more similar to the Reformed (or Orthodox) view, than to the Lutheran or Roman Catholic view. Skip to 5 minutes, 30 seconds, for the relevant material. The first five and half minutes are interesting, but mostly relevant to the attacks on Dr. White posted on Youtube by GNRHead (William Albrecht).
You see, Augustine explained that it was foolishness to suppose that Christ was to be carnally consumed.
Thanks be to our Risen and Ascended Lord Jesus!
-Turretinfan
You see, Augustine explained that it was foolishness to suppose that Christ was to be carnally consumed.
Thanks be to our Risen and Ascended Lord Jesus!
-Turretinfan
Doctrinal Innovation on the Horizon
As reported here (link - link to the source), and previously predicted by Dr. James White, five cardinals have begun the process necsesary to persuade Benedict XVI to dogmatize certain Marian dogmas that are (in some cases) clearly contrary to Scripture and (in those and in other cases) without exegetical Scriptural warrant.
The blasphemous proposed wording is as follows:
Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of man, gave to humanity from the Cross his mother Mary to be the spiritual Mother of all peoples, the Co-redemptrix, who under and with her Son cooperated in the Redemption of all people; the Mediatrix of all graces, who as Mother brings us the gifts of eternal life; and the Advocate, who presents our prayers to her Son.
I hope that God will have mercy on the Roman Catholic Church and preserve them from this blasphemous further descent into Mariolatry. I don't have great confidence that He will do so, and if He does not, it will be a judgment against what remains formally and in name a church of Christ, but which has long ceased to preach with purity the gospel of Christ.
-Turretinfan
The blasphemous proposed wording is as follows:
Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of man, gave to humanity from the Cross his mother Mary to be the spiritual Mother of all peoples, the Co-redemptrix, who under and with her Son cooperated in the Redemption of all people; the Mediatrix of all graces, who as Mother brings us the gifts of eternal life; and the Advocate, who presents our prayers to her Son.
I hope that God will have mercy on the Roman Catholic Church and preserve them from this blasphemous further descent into Mariolatry. I don't have great confidence that He will do so, and if He does not, it will be a judgment against what remains formally and in name a church of Christ, but which has long ceased to preach with purity the gospel of Christ.
-Turretinfan
News from the Front
Praise be to the Lord for this encouraging word about the continued success of the allied forces against Al-Qaeda in Iraq (link).
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
-Turretinfan
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
-Turretinfan
Backwoods Presbyterian on Instruments in Worship
The Backwoods Presbyterian has some interesting insights on the historical Christian view of the role (or not) of instruments in worship. He begins by making the important distinction between stated and occasional worship services, relying in part on the real Turretin. (source)
-Turretinfan
-Turretinfan
The Real Turretin on: The Atonement
The Real Turretin on: The Will of God in Salvation
Ismael Hilerio has provided a some reading from the real Turretin on the Will of God in Salvation. (link) This title may whet your theological appetite: "God acts seriously in the calling of reprobates, although he does not intend their salvation"
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Defining the word Covenant
The Reformed Reader presents some historic definitions of the word "covenant" by various authors, including the real Turretin (link). It's really only a very short snippet of Turretin, but it is worth checking out to see many facets of the Christian jewel, "Covenant."
Judged According to Works?
Dave Armstrong has a new post (at least it seems to be new, perhaps it is just an old post he has redated) of Scriptural pretexting (I'd say prooftexting, but Dave is not an advocate of Sola Scriptura) for the idea that "Final Judgment" will be on the basis of works and not faith.
In some ways it is an interesting post. You see, he analyzes thirty (count 'em) passages to arrive at the conclusion that Scripture "always" associate works and Final Judgment, never faith and final judgment.
It would be a sufficient rebuttal simply to quote:
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
But we should go further, because Dave has asked a slightly different question than the justification question. In the process, though, he has stumbled about a bit, striking out a doctrines that are not representative of the Christian position that he openly opposes (calling it names, like "anti-Catholicism," on many of his web pages). Here Dave is picking on a professing Christian, Matt Slick, whose views about salvation are succinctly put here (link). He has not addressed Matt's views, nor the views of Christians generally.
You see, it seems that Dave has misunderstood the Christian position. The Christian position is that Christ is our substitute. Thus, we too will be judged on the last day according to works. But it will not be according to our own works, but according to His works. We will be clothed with Christ's righteousness (Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:). Thus, we will be counted as righteousness because of Christ's righteousness.
Thus, when Dave sets out to prove that we will not be judged according to our faith, he's partly right. That's not the basis of judgment. The basis of judgment is righteousness. Anyone who lacks the substitutionary atonement of Christ will perish for their sins, however small they are, for the wages of sin is death, but eternal life is a gift. It is not earned, but given.
Those who seek justification by works, need to be very afraid, because their works will not be enough. It would be nice to comfort such people, telling them that if they call Jesus, Lord, they are ok. It would be nice, if it were true.
Sadly, it is not. Jesus said:
Matthew 7:21-23
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Christ is the escape. If you will be saved, repent of your sins and trust in Him alone for salvation. Your works will only condemn you, but Christ has offered a perfect sacrifice for sins!
Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Yes, the final judgment will be on the basis of works, not on the basis of "Faith alone." Men will be judged according to their works, and it would be a defense to judgment to truthfully say that one is righteous. But you have to be more perfectly righteous than Paul the Apostle to merit salvation:
Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Furthermore, when it comes to the end of the day, if your testimony before God is, "I have no sin," you are liar.
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Therefore, your only hope is to have a righteous man stand in your place. There is only one person who can do that, for there is only one perfect man, the God-man Jesus Christ. If you appropriate his righteousness by faith in Him alone, you will be saved.
-Turretinfan
In some ways it is an interesting post. You see, he analyzes thirty (count 'em) passages to arrive at the conclusion that Scripture "always" associate works and Final Judgment, never faith and final judgment.
It would be a sufficient rebuttal simply to quote:
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
But we should go further, because Dave has asked a slightly different question than the justification question. In the process, though, he has stumbled about a bit, striking out a doctrines that are not representative of the Christian position that he openly opposes (calling it names, like "anti-Catholicism," on many of his web pages). Here Dave is picking on a professing Christian, Matt Slick, whose views about salvation are succinctly put here (link). He has not addressed Matt's views, nor the views of Christians generally.
You see, it seems that Dave has misunderstood the Christian position. The Christian position is that Christ is our substitute. Thus, we too will be judged on the last day according to works. But it will not be according to our own works, but according to His works. We will be clothed with Christ's righteousness (Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:). Thus, we will be counted as righteousness because of Christ's righteousness.
Thus, when Dave sets out to prove that we will not be judged according to our faith, he's partly right. That's not the basis of judgment. The basis of judgment is righteousness. Anyone who lacks the substitutionary atonement of Christ will perish for their sins, however small they are, for the wages of sin is death, but eternal life is a gift. It is not earned, but given.
Those who seek justification by works, need to be very afraid, because their works will not be enough. It would be nice to comfort such people, telling them that if they call Jesus, Lord, they are ok. It would be nice, if it were true.
Sadly, it is not. Jesus said:
Matthew 7:21-23
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Christ is the escape. If you will be saved, repent of your sins and trust in Him alone for salvation. Your works will only condemn you, but Christ has offered a perfect sacrifice for sins!
Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Yes, the final judgment will be on the basis of works, not on the basis of "Faith alone." Men will be judged according to their works, and it would be a defense to judgment to truthfully say that one is righteous. But you have to be more perfectly righteous than Paul the Apostle to merit salvation:
Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Furthermore, when it comes to the end of the day, if your testimony before God is, "I have no sin," you are liar.
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Therefore, your only hope is to have a righteous man stand in your place. There is only one person who can do that, for there is only one perfect man, the God-man Jesus Christ. If you appropriate his righteousness by faith in Him alone, you will be saved.
-Turretinfan
Sam Duncan's Comment
It seems Sam Duncan has created no small stir by pointing out the obvious fact that the PCA's SJC has already been considering the facts of the case of Wilkins' promotion of, and the LAP's failure to prosecute Wilkins for, Federal Visionism.
Apparently he made the mistake of using the phrase that no one in the LAP could expect to have a "fair trial" before the SJC. The Federal Vision advocates leaped on this:
Example 1
Example 2
Even Doug Wilson, who seems to have known better, partly jumps on it.
GreenBaggins sets the record straight.
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: Reformed Musings provides some context (link).
Apparently he made the mistake of using the phrase that no one in the LAP could expect to have a "fair trial" before the SJC. The Federal Vision advocates leaped on this:
Example 1
Example 2
Even Doug Wilson, who seems to have known better, partly jumps on it.
GreenBaggins sets the record straight.
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: Reformed Musings provides some context (link).
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Followup to the Holy Water Debate
Gene Bridges has provided a rebuttal (link) to the response (which I addressed at item 2 here) to his previous comments hosted on his own blog. I don't know whether PhatCatholic will continue that dialog. Obviously, the official portion of the Holy Water Debate is complete, but that doesn't mean that we have to stop discussing the matter.
-Turretinfan
-Turretinfan
Beware of Wikipedia
This first article (link) and this second article (link) about the first article, which were brought to my attention by Jim West, note that Wikipedia - while useful - should not be considered definitive. On certain matters, for example, one can expect to see the editors of Wikipedia conflicted against presenting the truth. In other instances, the force of the mob (hoi polloi) can have similar detrimental effects. One would not turn, for example, to Wikipedia for theological truth.
There is one infallible source of theological truth: the Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
Thanks be to God for Providing such truth to us!
-Turretinfan
There is one infallible source of theological truth: the Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
Thanks be to God for Providing such truth to us!
-Turretinfan
Predestination Briefly Explained
There's an interesting explanation of the word Predestination over at Puritanism Today (link). It's the seventh part of a series there. See the intro. The other Bible words discussed in the series include Redemption, Justification, Faith, Repentance, Sanctification, and Salvation.
Reasons to Read Good Christian Books
Reading Christian blogs is good, but reading good Christian books is better. The Unashamed Workman explains why (link).
God Forces His Will?
One of my readers recently commented to the effect that (paraphrased), "Some people reject the gospel preached and others accept the gospel preached. This is how they are elected or not elected. Election is not some random forcing of God's will on people. Only murderers and rapists force their wills upon others."
I answer:
This reader seems to have confused several issues.
1. Election is Unconditional
Election is not based on our good or bad actions, such as accepting/rejecting the gospel. Election is based on God's foreknowledge, his precreative love of certain people, and his desire to provide them with good things in the life to come. The doctrine of election, therefore, works humility, because we recognize that we have been chosen without regard to merit, but solely on the basis of God's love.
2. Regeneration is Logically Consequent to Election
In other words, in a sense, we are regenerated because we were elected. God regenerates the elect, not others. It is those who God intends to save in whom he begins the work of salvation. It is the grace of regeneration that is irresistible. It is saving grace being irresistible that would seem to be the basis for this reader's misplaced objection.
3. Irresistible Grace is not God "Forcing" Anything
In regeneration, God changes a man's heart. There is no direct human analog. It is like the action of God in curing blindness, deafness, lameness, and leprosy, and in raising the dead. God opens our spiritual eyes and ears so that we become aware of our state of sin and misery. He makes us realize the truth of the gospel of Repentance and Faith in Christ alone. Consequently we repent and believe and God justifies us on the basis of Christ's righteousness.
There is no "forcing" in that. There certainly is a coercive aspect to the gospel message. If you do not turn to Christ, you will burn in hell. Nevertheless, the preached word is for the audient's good. If a man repents and believes on Christ alone for salvation, he will be saved. God will show mercy to that man: He has promised to do so, and God cannot lie.
But God does not "force" people to believe. He opens their eyes to the truth. The blasphemous comparison of God to a rapist or murderer is wrong on many levels. If one wishes to make such comparisons it is better to liken God to a man who grabs a child from the train tracks. God does exercise his power, but he does so for our benefit, not our harm.
Praise be to our Mighty King!
-Turretinfan
I answer:
This reader seems to have confused several issues.
1. Election is Unconditional
Election is not based on our good or bad actions, such as accepting/rejecting the gospel. Election is based on God's foreknowledge, his precreative love of certain people, and his desire to provide them with good things in the life to come. The doctrine of election, therefore, works humility, because we recognize that we have been chosen without regard to merit, but solely on the basis of God's love.
2. Regeneration is Logically Consequent to Election
In other words, in a sense, we are regenerated because we were elected. God regenerates the elect, not others. It is those who God intends to save in whom he begins the work of salvation. It is the grace of regeneration that is irresistible. It is saving grace being irresistible that would seem to be the basis for this reader's misplaced objection.
3. Irresistible Grace is not God "Forcing" Anything
In regeneration, God changes a man's heart. There is no direct human analog. It is like the action of God in curing blindness, deafness, lameness, and leprosy, and in raising the dead. God opens our spiritual eyes and ears so that we become aware of our state of sin and misery. He makes us realize the truth of the gospel of Repentance and Faith in Christ alone. Consequently we repent and believe and God justifies us on the basis of Christ's righteousness.
There is no "forcing" in that. There certainly is a coercive aspect to the gospel message. If you do not turn to Christ, you will burn in hell. Nevertheless, the preached word is for the audient's good. If a man repents and believes on Christ alone for salvation, he will be saved. God will show mercy to that man: He has promised to do so, and God cannot lie.
But God does not "force" people to believe. He opens their eyes to the truth. The blasphemous comparison of God to a rapist or murderer is wrong on many levels. If one wishes to make such comparisons it is better to liken God to a man who grabs a child from the train tracks. God does exercise his power, but he does so for our benefit, not our harm.
Praise be to our Mighty King!
-Turretinfan
Be A Man!
Not just a "human" or a "person" but a "man." Obviously, this post is not for the ladies and girls who may stop by: you should not be men.
1. Rejoice in what you have been given.
If God made you a man, rejoice! It is a great blessing to be a man. Men are blessed with greater physical and emotional strength and greater intellect. Men are better thinkers and protectors and men make better governors. You may be equal in the eyes of the law, but in many real and important ways, you are not equal.
2. Be aware of your weaknesses.
If God made you a man, beware! There is great temptation in being a man. Men are more prone to violence, to sexual sin, and to abuse of substances than women. The testosterone that makes men strong can also tempt men to be inappropriately violent and unnecessarily aggressive. The wisdom God gives man can make men vain. Men's nature seems more prone to turning to alcohol and other things God has provided to be used moderately and to abuse such things. Men also can have great weakness when it comes to overactive sexual desire.
3. Take appropriate steps to control your weaknesses.
If you find that you are prone to abuse substances, find a man or men who you know are stronger in this regard, and enlist their aid and support. Friends support one another. If you find that you are violent exercise self-discipline. Remember that sometimes it takes more strength to control yourself than to control those around you. If you burn with sexual desire, marry. If you are vain, keep a catalog of your mistakes to remind yourself.
4. Take appropriate measures to enhance your strengths.
Exercise. Study. Protect the weak. Defend the truth. Find godly examples of men to emulate. Hopefully such men are your elders, but whether or not God has blessed you with such elders, you can look to the men of Scripture.
5. Use your strengths to God's glory
If God has called you to dig ditches, do so with your might and to the glory of God. If God has called you to be a judge, administer justice appropriately, not taking bribes. If God has called you to be a soldier follow your vocation and profession honestly and with attention to God's law. If God has called you to the ministry, minister eagerly to the flock of Christ. If God has called you to be the head of a wife, love your wife as Christ loves the church. If God blesses you with a family by that wife, be a loving father raising your children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
May God give Christian men grace and courage to act like men,
-Turretinfan
1. Rejoice in what you have been given.
If God made you a man, rejoice! It is a great blessing to be a man. Men are blessed with greater physical and emotional strength and greater intellect. Men are better thinkers and protectors and men make better governors. You may be equal in the eyes of the law, but in many real and important ways, you are not equal.
2. Be aware of your weaknesses.
If God made you a man, beware! There is great temptation in being a man. Men are more prone to violence, to sexual sin, and to abuse of substances than women. The testosterone that makes men strong can also tempt men to be inappropriately violent and unnecessarily aggressive. The wisdom God gives man can make men vain. Men's nature seems more prone to turning to alcohol and other things God has provided to be used moderately and to abuse such things. Men also can have great weakness when it comes to overactive sexual desire.
3. Take appropriate steps to control your weaknesses.
If you find that you are prone to abuse substances, find a man or men who you know are stronger in this regard, and enlist their aid and support. Friends support one another. If you find that you are violent exercise self-discipline. Remember that sometimes it takes more strength to control yourself than to control those around you. If you burn with sexual desire, marry. If you are vain, keep a catalog of your mistakes to remind yourself.
4. Take appropriate measures to enhance your strengths.
Exercise. Study. Protect the weak. Defend the truth. Find godly examples of men to emulate. Hopefully such men are your elders, but whether or not God has blessed you with such elders, you can look to the men of Scripture.
5. Use your strengths to God's glory
If God has called you to dig ditches, do so with your might and to the glory of God. If God has called you to be a judge, administer justice appropriately, not taking bribes. If God has called you to be a soldier follow your vocation and profession honestly and with attention to God's law. If God has called you to the ministry, minister eagerly to the flock of Christ. If God has called you to be the head of a wife, love your wife as Christ loves the church. If God blesses you with a family by that wife, be a loving father raising your children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
May God give Christian men grace and courage to act like men,
-Turretinfan
What Zanchius and I believe about the Atonement
In Confession of the Christian Religion, Chapter XI, Zanchius writes:
For we acknowledge one only Redeemer, Jesus Christ, without whom, as there is no true God, so no true salvation. And one only sacrifice, the oblation or offering whereof being once made, not only all the sins of the elect were once washed away in the person of Christ, but also being yet continually washed away even unto the end of the world, are remitted to them that believe.
(source)
Likewise, in The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination Stated and Asserted, Chapter "Observations on the Divine Attributes," Position 9:
As God doth not will that each individual of mankind should be saved; so neither did he will that Christ should properly and immediately die for each individual of mankind; whence it follows, that though the blood of Christ, from its own intrinsic dignity, was sufficient for the redemption of all men, yet, in consequence of his Father's appointment, he shed it intentionally, and therefore effectually and immediately, for the elect only.
This is self-evident. God, as we have before proved, wills not the salvation of every man: but he gave his Son to die for them whose salvation he willed; therefore his Son did not die for every man. All those, for whom Christ died, are saved; and the divine justice indispensably requires that to them the benefits of his death should be imparted; but only the elect are saved; they only partake of those benefits; consequently, for them only he died and intercedes. The apostle, Rom. viii. asks, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? it is God that justifies," i.e. his elect, exclusively of others: "who is he that condemned? It is Christ that died" for them, exclusively of others. The plain meaning of the passage is, that those whom God justifies, and for whom Christ died, (justification and redemption being of exactly the same extent,) cannot be condemned. These privileges are expressly restricted to the elect: therefore God justifies and Christ died for them alone.
In the same chapter, Paul asks; " He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, (i. e. for all us elect persons) how shall he not, with him, also freely give us all things ?" i.e. salvation, and all things necessary to it. Now, it is certain that these are not given to every individual; and yet, if Paul says true, they are given to all those for whom Christ was delivered to death; consequently, he was not delivered to death for every individual. To the same purpose St. Austin argues, in Johan. tract. 45. col. 335. Hence that saying of Ambrose, "si non credis, non tibi passus est," i.e. if you are an unbeliever, Christ did not die for you. Meaning, that whoever is left under the power of final unbelief, is thereby evidenced to be one of those for whom Christ did not die: but that all for whom he suffered, shall be, in this life, sooner or later, endued with faith. The church of Smyrna, in their letter to the diocese of Pontus, insist every where on the doctrine of special redemption. Bucer, in all parts of his works, observes, that "Christ died restrictively for the elect only; but for them universally."
(source)
-Turretinfan
For we acknowledge one only Redeemer, Jesus Christ, without whom, as there is no true God, so no true salvation. And one only sacrifice, the oblation or offering whereof being once made, not only all the sins of the elect were once washed away in the person of Christ, but also being yet continually washed away even unto the end of the world, are remitted to them that believe.
(source)
Likewise, in The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination Stated and Asserted, Chapter "Observations on the Divine Attributes," Position 9:
As God doth not will that each individual of mankind should be saved; so neither did he will that Christ should properly and immediately die for each individual of mankind; whence it follows, that though the blood of Christ, from its own intrinsic dignity, was sufficient for the redemption of all men, yet, in consequence of his Father's appointment, he shed it intentionally, and therefore effectually and immediately, for the elect only.
This is self-evident. God, as we have before proved, wills not the salvation of every man: but he gave his Son to die for them whose salvation he willed; therefore his Son did not die for every man. All those, for whom Christ died, are saved; and the divine justice indispensably requires that to them the benefits of his death should be imparted; but only the elect are saved; they only partake of those benefits; consequently, for them only he died and intercedes. The apostle, Rom. viii. asks, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? it is God that justifies," i.e. his elect, exclusively of others: "who is he that condemned? It is Christ that died" for them, exclusively of others. The plain meaning of the passage is, that those whom God justifies, and for whom Christ died, (justification and redemption being of exactly the same extent,) cannot be condemned. These privileges are expressly restricted to the elect: therefore God justifies and Christ died for them alone.
In the same chapter, Paul asks; " He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, (i. e. for all us elect persons) how shall he not, with him, also freely give us all things ?" i.e. salvation, and all things necessary to it. Now, it is certain that these are not given to every individual; and yet, if Paul says true, they are given to all those for whom Christ was delivered to death; consequently, he was not delivered to death for every individual. To the same purpose St. Austin argues, in Johan. tract. 45. col. 335. Hence that saying of Ambrose, "si non credis, non tibi passus est," i.e. if you are an unbeliever, Christ did not die for you. Meaning, that whoever is left under the power of final unbelief, is thereby evidenced to be one of those for whom Christ did not die: but that all for whom he suffered, shall be, in this life, sooner or later, endued with faith. The church of Smyrna, in their letter to the diocese of Pontus, insist every where on the doctrine of special redemption. Bucer, in all parts of his works, observes, that "Christ died restrictively for the elect only; but for them universally."
(source)
-Turretinfan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
