Tabernacles before 12th Century?

Mr. Bellisario, in a video posted to YouTube, has noted Dr. White's comment that even a Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that the practice of having a "tabernacle" for the consecrated host emerged in the 12th century. Mr. Bellisario states, "I noticed James White getting all his information from the Catholic Encyclopedia and using that as a proof text that no tabernacles existed before the 12th century. I don't know what other sources he's using but, in any effect, he's wrong, I'll just put it plainly." (errors in original)

Mr. Bellisario quotes from an Archbishop discussing the tower and dove arrangement that existed in a few ancient churches.

What Mr. Bellisario overlooks is that the tower and dove are not the tabernacle. They had a similar function, to hold the elements, but they do not represent the tabernacle of modern Catholicism.

In fact, according to Maurice Hassett, "Our present form of tabernacle dates from the end of the sixteenth century." And the very Archbishop from whom MB quotes admits, "One must wait for the 16th century to find the tabernacle fixed on the greater altar and, later still, to see it placed in the middle of the table, the last phase of historical development of the altar." (loose translation of the Italian original)

Furthermore, one can see the development of the tabernacle in the Archbishop's own paper. As the Archbishop noted, during the Gothic period there were a couple of places that the bread could be found. The tower and dove (which were suspended above the altar) might be veiled, but the consecrated host could be found in the armarium more conveniently at hand.

Sometimes you reposed custody under the altar, as indicated by the Statutes Synod of Liege, 1287: "Corpus Domini in honesto loco, sub altari vel in armariolo sub clave custodiant." Usually, however, custody is kept in a cabinet or kiosk, dug into the wall, right or left of the altar.

The Archbishop goes on to explain how these armaria came to have doors with elegant fittings and paintings (particularly in the more glorious churches). The door was provided with essentially a window that allowed the faithful to worship the transubstantiated sacrament from outside, and a lamp was provided in front of the window to show where the sacrament was kept.

Over time, these armaria developed from a simple closet to more elaborate designs. Thus, the Archbishop reports that in the 14th century there emerged "edicole del Sacramento," which seem to eventually have served as the predecessors for the modern tabernacles (though, at first, these edicoles were found exclusively in northern Europe).

The Catholic Encyclopedia (which Bellisario thinks to be such an insignificant source) mentions, "The Fourth Lateran Council and many provincial and diocesan synods held in the Middle Ages require only that the Host be kept in a secure, well-fastened receptacle. At the most they demand that it be put in a clean, conspicuous place. Only a few synods designate the spot more closely, as the Synods of Cologne (1281) and of Münster (1279) which commanded that it was to be kept above the altar and protected by locking with a key."

But, of course, one need not rely on Catholic encyclopedias alone:

Steven Schloeder, in his book, "Architecture in Communion," writes that "Toward the end of the twelfth century the tabernacle began to be used and slowly gained prominence until it was universally legislated in the nineteenth century." (p. 96)

William Thomas Cavanaugh, in his book, "The Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament," writes that "As was said before, the use of the tabernacle began to spread rapidly on the promulgation of the following decree of Pope Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council." (p. 61) The Fourth Lateran Council is normally dated to 1215.

Gerald Ellard likewise writes, in Christian Life and Worship, "The Tabernacle Introduced. Nothing has been said in the foregoing paragraphs about what is now regarded as the central feature of the altar, the tabernacle. The altars then had no tabernacles. The whole realm of non-sacrificial worship of the Eucharist was beginning to manifest itself only in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Moreover, even after this type of devotion developed and was spread rapidly (as a consequence of the establishment of the feast and public procession of Corpus Christi in the thirteenth century), there was still no need of a tabernacle at the altar, because the new devotion was non-sacrificial." (pp. 115-16, emphases in original) (it's worth noting that Ellard views the suspended doves as a form of tabernacle)

So, in conclusion, Dr. White is vindicated against Mr. Bellisario's criticisms. While consecrated bread and wine were stored prior to the introduction of the tabernacle into Catholicism, the tabernacle was a development, as attested by Mauro Archbishop Piacenza, the very Archbishop that Mr. Bellisario relies on in his video. Here is a link to an English version of the essay (UPDATE: here is a link to an English version of Piacenza's article).

Mr. Bellisario's category error is in confusing the genus of casings of the Eucharist with the species of the tabernacle (a particular kind of casing that did not arise until after the innovation of the doctrine of transubstantiation). Unlike the veiled tower and dove (through which, it seems, the consecrated bread and wine would not be visible) the tabernacle provided a display of the bread and wine so that these elements could be worshiped (while still securely locked up). I hope this post will serve to encourage him to rethink his video (link to video) and particularly to apply more thoroughly the principle he lays out at the beginning, namely "I try to be charitable when I do these things ...."

Finally, for the reader's convenience, I have embedded below the video to which Mr. Bellisario was responding:



-Turretinfan

UPDATE: Prior to publishing this, I happened to stop by Mr. Bellisario's blog and noted that he has republished an article by Francis J. Schaefer, which confirms the same thing: (link to MB's republication). As that article states:

As a permanent substitute for all of these receptacles we have the tabernacle, as we see it today; i. e. the small case or cabinet of rectangular or of round shape, placed right above the center of the altar. The name of tabernacle given to it, as well as the object designated by the name, has come into general use in comparatively recent times. The word tabernacle has been used since the middle ages; but its occurrence is not very frequent. It is found in the Constitutiones Synodicae of Odo, Bishop of Paris in the twelfth century; in the Rationale Divinorum Officiorum of William Durandus, a learned canonist of the thirteenth century; and in a decree of a council held in the city of Alix, southern France, in 1585, where detailed regulations are laid down for the construction and maintainance of the tabernacle. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) decreed that the Blessed Sacrament be reserved in the churches (Sess. XIII., Cap. VI., Can. VII.); but in designating the receptacle for it, it has recourse not to the word tabernacle, but to the word Sacrarium. Since then, however, the word tabernacle has been used regularly in ecclesiastical legislation, e.g. in the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, 29 November, 1574) and 10 February, 1579, and also in the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 21 August, 1863, and 6 February, 1875. The liturgical books, such as the Caeremoniale Episcoporum and the Roman Ritual, which give directions regarding reservation of the Blessed Sacrament, also make use of this expression. (emphasis added)

(alternate source)

Cory Tucholski vs. Matthew Bellisario

I was interested to note that Cory Tucholski has provided a response to Mr. Bellisario with respect to the issue of Mary and her innovated and blasphemous title of co-redemptrix (link). Interestingly, I myself plan to provide a rseponse to Mr. Bellisario on another topic tomorrow (stay tuned). Meanwhile, I'm engaging in a long term debate with Mr. Bellisario over at my debate blog (link to debate blog).

-TurretinFan

Experimental Religion

Experimental religion is an easily misunderstood concept. It does not mean that we learn religion in a laboratory. Instead, it means that Christianity is a lived religion.

Sherman Isbell has a pair of excellent addresses on this topic from the 2008 Free Church Conference.

Both are available from SermonAudio.com, which - for some features - requires registration.

(Part 1)

(Part 2)

-TurretinFan

Parody of I will Survive - Humor Alert

This is humor. Don't draw theological conclusions that may be unintended from what amounts, in some instances, to forcing words to fit the rough meter of the song. Parody.

To the tune of Gloria Gaynor's, "I will Survive."


First I was afraid
I was Petrified
Kept thinking I could never live
without an infallible guide
But I spent so many nights
thinking how you exegeted wrong
I grew wise
I learned how Scripture applies
and so you claim
You dispense grace
I checked my blog to find you there
with that egg upon your face
I should have changed my rule of faith
I should have made you leave the keys
If I had known for just one second
you'd be back to bother me

Go on now go walk out the door
just turn around now
'cause you're not welcome anymore
weren't you the one who tried to burn Wyclif's Bible
you think I'd crumble
you think I'd lay down and die
Oh no, not I
I will survive
as long as i know how to read
I know I will stay alive
I've got all my life to live
I've got the Word of God that's giv'n
and I'll survive
I will survive

It took all the strength God gave
not to fall in heresy
kept trying hard to mend
the pieces of your bad theology
and I spent oh so many nights
pondering the magisterium
I used to cry
Now I hold my Bible high
and you see me
somebody new
I'm not that chained up little layman
still venerating you
and so you felt like dropping in
and just expect me to fear thee
now I'm saving all my loving
for the God who's loving me

I've embedded the original (?) Gloria Gaynor song below via YouTube:



-TurretinFan

Edwards on the Trinity

I enjoyed reading Paul Helm's recent blog article at Helm's Deep on Edwards on the Trinity (link). Prof. Helm defends Edwards from various charges of Heterodoxy in the course of the article. Naturally, as one of the standards for Reformed orthodoxy, Helm and Edwards' critic both refer to Turretin (with Helm placing Turretin in context). The title of the Blog, though reminiscent of Tolkien, is quite appropriate, since Helm's work plumbs great depths.

-TurretinFan

More Effective Rosary Use

On the same Catholic Answers Live episode (May 8, 2008), in which Steve Ray seemingly endorsed 18th Century superstitions (see my previous discussion), Mr. Ray discussed another Rosary-related topic.

A caller (Willie in Fredericksburg, TX) asked:

I tell somebody I'm going to say a rosary for them, and then I do, and in the process I might have told somebody else, and so I end up with two, three, four people - I'm just wondering, is that diluting it some way? Or is better to say individual - well its probably better - but is it diluting it some by combining several people?

Steve Ray responded:

I think that's a good question, but I don't think you have any fear of that, because if you are praying the rosary with sincere intent to pray it for several people instead of just one, the weakness would not be with you, but the weakness would be with God. And God isn't weak. He can make sure that that prayer that you pray is responded to for each of those individuals, because God is perfectly capable of hearing your prayer and reaching out his wonderful fingers to touch 4, 5, 6, or 10 people just as well as one. And as long as its your intent to pray for them, and you say, "Lord, this person has a real need here, and this person there, and this person there, and this person there, and I only have a half an hour to pray Lord, but I really really want you to help every one of those people I'm going to pray for, so when I pray, would you please make up for any of my weakness of mind, and my weakness of memory, and you take care of them for me." I guarantee by my little experience with God, and by knowing who He is and what He wants to do. He actually wants to help those people more than you want Him to help those people. So I think you add as many people as you want, and you pray for them, and then you watch God work in their life.

Let's assume for a second that Steve Ray actually understands Catholicism, and further let's assume that his statements are accurate. After all, he was introduced in the show as "one of the leading proponents of the faith" and he himself stated "if I don't know something, I'm going to be honest and right up front and let you know that."

If Steve Ray is right, isn't it somewhat limited to pray as Steve proposes? Wouldn't the following be a still more generous prayer?

Lord, I only have one half hour to pray, but I really really want you to help every one of the people on Earth who has a need, and each person in Purgatory who is suffering the temporal punishment of their sins. So, when I pray, would you please make up for my finite mind and my finite knowledge of all their particular problems, and their particular names, and take care of them for me.

In fact, if God would like to help all those people, wouldn't God being willing to accept an omnibus request of that sort? I hope that most readers sense intuitively that a rosary prefaced in such a manner would not be used by God for billions of times more good than the same rosary prefaced by "So that Joe, my neighbor, will get a job."

What's wrong with Steve's answer is that he doesn't see the problem in the man's question. Prayers, including collections of prayers, like the rosary, do not have merit. I've seen this problem in other contexts, normally in the context or people talking about requesting the prayers of "Saints."

This problem usually becomes visible to us, Reformed folks, when we see Catholicism interacting with this verse:

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

What James writes is true, of course. The problem that we see is not people taking James at his word, but instead drawing inappropriate conclusions from what James says.

The inappropriate conclusion is that prayers have intrinsic power on God, as it were.

Thus, the improperly adduced formula works out to something like A*B = C

where A = the effort in prayer;
  B = the level of righteousness of the person praying; and
  C = the effectiveness of the prayer.

And even A could be then broken down into categories of length of the prayer, sincerity of the prayer, inconvenience suffered in praying, etc. etc.

This is all a mistaken notion. It is the error into which the heathen fell:

Matthew 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

And we even see an Old Testament example:

1 Kings 18:26-28

26And they [the prophets of Baal]] took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. 27And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. 28And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.

I don't think that there should be any doubt about the sincerity, length, or inconvenience of their prayers. They offered Baal not only the bullock, but their own bodies (leaping on the alter themselves, so that when he answered with fire, they would themselves be consumed - and cutting themselves to spill their own blood and prove their devotion). Obviously one problem was the god to whom they prayed: they prayed to a god that did not exist.

But Elijah did not just pray to a different god, Elijah prayed differently. After building an altar and dousing it in water he simply prayed: "LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word. Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again." (1 Kings 18:36-37)

No long prayer from morning till noon - no shouting - no cutting himself - none of these things marked Elijah's prayer. Why not?

Because, while God is pleased to answer prayer, God cannot be moved. God is the uncaused cause. God is pleased to give good things to those who ask him, but He gives those things freely. Much speaking doesn't impress God. Saying the same from prayer one time, ten times, or a hundred times doesn't impress God.

Recall also Jesus warned against the scribes describing them as those:
Mark 12:40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.
Luke 20:47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.

Be careful not to over-react. The point is not that long prayers are necessarily only for show ... instead the point is that even those wicked people who take houses from widows can make long prayers. Long prayers are not, in themselves, meaningful. They match the world's expectations of religion, but they are not what God sees.

1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

Matthew 6:5-6
5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

What is James saying, he's making clear the same concept that Proverbs describes:

Proverbs 15:29 The LORD is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous.

And the Psalms say:

Psalm 34:17 The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles.

Psalm 69:33 For the LORD heareth the poor, and despiseth not his prisoners.

So then, the primary problem underling both Willie's undoubtedly sincere question and Mr. Ray's sincere answer is that prayer is not something that has power in itself. The power of prayer cannot be "diluted" because prayers do not have intrinsic power or certainly cannot, by its strength, move God.

(I should mention in passing that there is another problem with Mr. Ray's answer - namely that God doesn't have to wait around for people to pray, in order to help them. God does whatever he pleases to do.)

How then should a Christian pray?

God delights in answering prayers, so pray for what is on your heart. Jesus provides what we call "The Lord's prayer," and what used to be called the "Pater Noster." This template for prayer provides us with a way in which we should pray:

"Our Father which art in heaven,"

We pray to God and to Him alone.

"Hallowed be thy name,"

We reverence God in our prayers, not invoking his name lightly or trivially. We place his glory before all else.

"Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"

We pray for things that we know to be agreeable to God's will, including the promotion of His kingdom by the salvation of men. We qualify all our requests with acknowledgment that his will has the preeminence.

"Give us this day, our daily bread"

We pray for those things that are necessary and convenient for ourselves. Notice that Jesus mentions daily bread, not either weekly crumbs or daily feasts.

(Proverbs 30:8 Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me:)

"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors"

We pray that God will forgive our sins, and we forgive those who sin against us.

"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"

We further pray that God will sanctify us, enabling us to avoid sin.

"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever."

We again acknowledge that all things are under the rule of God, controlled by the power of God, and directed to the glory of God, both in this life, and in that which is to come.

"Amen"

We pray the prayer sincerely, assenting to the words that come either from our own mouth, or - if we add our amen to another's prayer - to the words of that other person.

That is the form of prayer that is honoring and acceptable to God. A prayer that is not simply reciting rote what the beads say comes next, but a prayer that expresses our true desires to God.

In conclusion, allow me to leave you with an example. If you are parent, consider what request from your child you would prefer to hear: a request made clearly and tailored specifically to the item the child wants, "Father, may I play baseball with my friends?" or rote recitation of some formula? Surely you'd rather simply hear his request than the rote recitation or the combination of the two.

Hopefully, this example, and the Scriptural evidence above should help you see that praying the Rosary - even if the Rosary were limited to prayers to God - is not the proper practice of Biblical Christianity. It's not what God has asked from us, and it is not how God wants us to pray. Our prayers do not have merit, but instead are like incense that we offer before God.

Thus, we sing:

Psalm 141:2 Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.

-TurretinFan

The real Turretin on: Old Testament Salvation

JetBrane at Iron Ink has a nice post providing a quotation from the real Francis Turretin on the topic of the salvation of believers in the Old Testament (link). Although their temporal relationship to the true atonement was different than ours, Old Testament saints were saved the same way that we, New Testament saints, are.

-TurretinFan

Steve Ray - Wearing Rosary Keeps Away Demons?

On the May 8, 2008, edition of Catholic Answers Live, I was amazed to hear Steve Ray reference (seemingly approvingly) a book called, "The Secret of the Rosary," for the idea that wearing a rosary "around your neck keeps the Devil away - it keeps the evil powers away, because they hate the rosary and they hate the crucifix ... ." I can safely say that wearing a rosary has about equal efficacy in keeping demons away as does wearing a scapular or dousing oneself in "holy water." In short, it has no power at all.

Meanwhile, enjoy the ecumenical flavor of that most lovely work:

The heretics, all of whom are children of the devil and clearly bear the sign of God's reprobation, have a horror of the Hail Mary. They still say the Our Father but never the Hail Mary; they would rather wear a poisonous snake around their necks than wear a scapular or carry a rosary.

And truly, I would rather (as Louis de Montfort claims) have a king cobra round my neck than participate in the superstitious and anti-Christian tradition of the rosary or the scapula. I think the portion Steve Ray was referring to was this:

Blessed Alan relates that a man he knew had tried desperately all kinds of devotions to rid himself of the evil spirit which possessed him, but without success. Finally, he thought of wearing his rosary round his neck, which eased him considerably. He discovered that whenever he took it off the devil tormented him cruelly, so he resolved to wear it night and day. This drove the evil spirit away forever because he could not bear such a terrible chain. Blessed Alan also testifies that he delivered a great number of those who were possessed by putting a rosary around their necks.

This may be from an eighteenth century book, but make no mistake, these superstitious beliefs are alive today, as evidenced by Mr. Ray's comment.

-TurretinFan

Free Apologetics Course

The Parchment and Pen blog has made available for free an apologetics course taught by Rob Bowman (link). That would appear to be Rob Bowman, president of the Center for Biblical Apologetics, not Rob Bowman the noted filmmaker. While I would certainly not be able to endorse absolutely every aspect of Bowman's viewpoints, and while I am particularly concerned by the apparent lack of historical awareness of the course (as evidenced by the dearth of recommended readings from notable Reformers or early churchmen and the fact that the KJV is not even an acceptable version for Scripture memorization for his course), nevertheless given the price, it may be worth checking out.

-TurretinFan

Response to Paul Hoffer - Salvation of Muslims

This article is in response to one by Paul Hoffer (link to PH's article). I had written:

Question for my readers who follow Vatican 2's proclamation that "the plan of salvation includes" Muslims: Can you see from the example above that zealously following Islam leads to eternal destruction? If so, how do you justify to yourself your church's claim? Can you not admit that your church has erred on this point?

Mr. Hoffer has characterized my statement by claiming that "TF suggests that Catholics believe that Islam is salvific." Let's leave aside whether Mr. Hoffer's ability to extract suggestions is correct, for now.

Assuming this to be the case, Mr. Hoffer complains for a full paragraph about how this is an "prime example" of "plurium interrogationum." Again, for the moment, we will leave aside whether Mr. Hoffer has actually found a p.i. or not.

Mr. Hoffer proceeds by stating what he believes to be my motive: "Turretinfan hopes to create the impression in the minds of his audience that the Catholic Church teaches that Islam is salvific ...," meanwhile disputing as untrue this impression that he supposes I intended to convey. Again, let's set aside, for the moment, whether he has correctly divined my intent.

Mr. Hoffer then offers "Proof" of his "contention that TF's questions are based on a false premise ... ."

Mr. Hoffer first confirms that my quotation "plan of salvation" is accurate, and provides a context for that quotation. I appreciate the fact that he has acknowledged that I accurately quoted the document, and I think it is fair to observe that the quotation must be understood as it was intended in context, and not simply according to what serves one's apologetic or polemic needs.

Mr. Hoffer provides the following excerpt:

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention. (Emphasis Mr. Hoffer's).

The first sentence that Mr. Hoffer highlighted makes sense: it is the sentence from which my quotation was taken. I found Mr. Hoffer's second highlighting an odd choice. I would have thought in fairness he should highlight second, "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience."

I would think that sentence, and particularly that phrase, and most especially that word "also" would inform the reader that the comment about the people in the two previous sentences (1) "in the first place" the Muslims and (2) "those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God ... ," were comments about people who "can attain to salvation."

Mr. Hoffer, however, argues that the reason is that "they claim to profess a belief in the God of Abraham" and that this is "a step closer to accepting the fullness of His Gospel even if there is much error in what a Muslim may otherwise believe." Mr. Hoffer goes on to claim that, "If we accept that Muslims do in fact believe in the God of Abraham, then such a belief would make them more receptive to accepting the Gospel of Jesus Christ and thus be saved." We'll return to this briefly.

Mr. Hoffer then tries to support the idea that truth contained in a pagan religion can prepare adherents to accept the Gospel of Christ. Of course, I don't think anyone doubts this. That is to say, God can use truth contained in anything to prepare people for the Gospel.

Mr. Hoffer, however, does not rest on this argument, but quotes from Dominus Jesus (2000), which states that "It would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her." I found it a bit odd that Mr. Hoffer (after seemingly chastising me for providing only a snippet) does not even quote the whole sentence. Since he would doubtless not be opposed, I provide the entire paragraph:

21. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.83 Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship”84 which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God. (emphasis in original, though form of emphasis changed from italics to bold)

What is especially interesting is the tail of the sentence that Mr. Hoffer snipped off, the part about these other religions "converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God." Also of note is the initial sentence of paragraph, "With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”."

Mr. Hoffer also provides another quotation, from the next paragraph, "If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation" (emphasis omitted by Hoffer restored). This quotation seems rather helpful to the idea that in fact followers of other religions receive divine grace, even if they do not have the fullness of the means of salvation.

Mr. Hoffer provides a further quotation from John Paul II, in which the pope notes that "Islam is not a religion of redemptino." Mr. Hoffer, however, appears not to appreciate the fact that JP2 is simply describing Islam for what it is (forgiveness of sins in Islam is arbitrary, not based on redemption), not suggesting that Islam cannot serve as a means of divine grace.

Next, Mr. Hoffer links to an argument from Mr. Armstrong, which I plan to address some other time. Since Mr. Hoffer does not reproduce the argument, and since it appears to reflect Mr. Armstrong's rather unique views on the subject, I trust Mr. Hoffer will not mind me passing it by for now.

Mr. Hoffer concludes his line of thought by stating in bold capital letters (not shown here): "The Catholic Church does not believe that a person can be saved through adherence to Islam." Even if that is true, it is somewhat moot. After all, a good adherent of Catholicism will insist, consistent with the following, that the "Catholic Church does not believe that a persona can be saved by adherence to" Catholicism:

However, “all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged”.93 (Dominus Jesus, 22)

The question is whether God graciously rewards those who follow Islam, not whether adherence to Islam is itself meritorious in the sense mentioned in the above block quotation. Catholicism claims not to believe in such salvation through meritorious adherence to religion.

Now, let's return to some of those issues we previously deferred.

1) "TF suggests that Catholics believe that Islam is salvific."

In response, I should point that many Roman Catholics do actually believe that following Islam will save you. "I believe that all roads lead to the same place," is the way I once heard a very elderly Roman Catholic put it. That, however, is a moot point. Inclusivism, as popular as it may be amongst the laity, is not (as such) official church dogma, at least not yet.

Next, I should point out that saying that Muslims who practice Islam faithfully will be saved is different from saying that Islam itself is salvific. In fact, given the emphasis on grace, a consistent, conservative Roman Catholic would be hard-pressed to argue that even Catholicism itself is salvific (since salvation is by grace, not adherence to religion).

Finally, I should note that Mr. Hoffer doesn't ever seem to dispute that Muslims who are Muslims (not Muslims who become Christians) are able to be saved as such. Furthermore, that is the best and plainest sense both of Vatican 2's Lumen Gentium and JP2's Dominus Jesus (which, again, Mr. Hoffer does not seem to expressly dispute).

2) This is an "prime example" of "plurium interrogationum."

No. This is not a prime example. Even if it were what Mr. Hoffer suggests, it would not be a prime example, because of the fact that (at a minimum) Mr. Hoffer seems to have overlooked an alternate premise upon which the questions can be founded, namely that practicing Muslims (as such) can be saved (i.e. that Muslims can be saved without becoming Christians). That lesser premise Mr. Hoffer only reaffirms via his quotation of church documents. Thus, even if I were guilty of what Mr. Hoffer tries to charge (i.e. loading the question), this is not a prime example.

3) "Turretinfan hopes to create the impression in the minds of his audience that the Catholic Church teaches that Islam is salvific ... ."

No. I actually directed the question to those who hold to Vatican 2. I was assuming that my audience would be familiar with Lumen Gentium, and consequently place the snippet quotation I provided in its proper context. I assumed (perhaps rashly) that the reader would recognize that modern Catholicism does seem to teach that non-Christians can be saved, without becoming Christians, as demonstrated above.

In fact, popular apologist for Catholicism, Jimmy Akin recently (about two years ago) stated:

Thus any atheist who could say, "I don't think that God exists, but if I was shown convincing reasons to believe that he does then I would go and get baptized immediately and become one of his devout followers" then this person's heart is such that God will not hold his ignorance against him and will allow him to be saved.

On the other hand, if an atheist says, "Even if there is a God, I'll still refuse to believe in him and I'll spit in his face when I die" then this person is toast.

Between the two would be atheists who display some openness to God but who also to one degree or another resist compelling reasons to believe that he exist when they encounter such reasons. These individuals would seem to be in an ambiguous condition. If their openness to believing in and following God is their more fundamental motive then they would be open to his grace and be saved. If their resistance to believing in or following God is their more fundamental motive then they would be closed to his grace and thus lost.(emphasis changed from italics to bold)

(source)

At the end of the day, I'm afraid I feel that Mr. Hoffer's comment in his first paragraph, "I have been accused at times of reading things into what people write," is supported by the present illustration. Mr. Hoffer read something into what I wrote, and got it somewhat wrong.

Against Mr. Akin and Vatican 2, I insist that the only way to be saved is by explicitly believing on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. Thus, I deny that non-Christians can be saved as such. Of course, the only sense in which "the plan of salvation includes" non-Christians is in the sense that there are some non-Christians today who are among the elect: men for whom Christ died, who will - some day - come to a saving faith in Him and be justified by faith alone in Christ alone, thereby being saved by grace alone.

Glory to the One Name under Heaven whereby men are saved, Jesus,

-TurretinFan

P.S. It is something of a pet peeve of mine to note that what Mr. Hoffer has called "Begging the Question," is more properly called the fallacy of the "complex question" or more colloquially, "asking a loaded question." In logic, the fallacy of "begging the question" normally refers to petitio principii, where an argument is made in which the conclusion is smuggled in as a premise. I am especially sensitive to this, because of the rampant abuse of the phrase "begging the question" to mean simply "raising the issue." Mr. Hoffer, thankfully, does not fall into that ditch. Likewise, the example of the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a prime example of the plurium interrogationum fallacy, although it can take several forms. Incidentally, "plurium interrogationum" literally conveys the idea of "many questions" - hence the English "complex question."

Update: Mr. Hoffer, in a new post (link) seems to miss the point of my correction of his irregular use of the term "begging the question" to describe plurium interrogationum. So that things are clear for him, I'm saying that his accusation/objection should have been to "complex question" or "loaded question" if he was objecting to a fallacy of plurium interrogationum (and I have assumed that it was his intent to object to plurium interrogationum, as petitio principii would be an even less appropriate, for the formal reasons Mr. Hoffer outlines in his post). The phrase "begging the question" derives from the petitio principii fallacy, not the plurium interrogationum fallacy. As well, the preferred spelling of petitio principii is ending with two "i"s (i.e. four total "i"s in the word).

Update: In yet another new post (link), Mr. Hoffer has tried to continue to insist on his nomenclature. The fact that "begging the question" derives from the petitio principii fallacy, not the plurium interrogationum fallacy is something that would be obvious to anyone who knows Latin. I commend to Mr. Hoffer's reading the following:

• "Fallacies" by Alfred Sidgwick (link), particularly p. 175
• "The Laws of Discursive Thought, Being a Text-book of Formal Logic" by James McCosh (link) particularly p. 184
• "An Elementary Treatise on Logic" by William Dexter Wilson (link) particularly p. 184
• "Logic" by George Hugh Smith (link) particularly pp. 174 and 189

Additional rudimentary books on Logic could be brought to bear to establish by authority what should be plain to everyone by now.

Wes White - Thoughts on Church Music

I enjoyed reading Wes White's interesting discussion of Church music - and mostly agreed with it (link). The major point he makes regarding the fact that singing is to be congregational singing is an important one that is overlooked by many folks.

-TurretinFan

On the Exercise of Charity

I was recently told (by someone who was there), of a certain elderly Roman Catholic lady, unwilling to be so uncharitable as to pray that the unhelpful bank teller be damned in hell, compromised by indicating her intention to pray that the teller would be stuck in Purgatory.

I don't bring this up to suggest that the woman was in any way expressing proper Roman Catholic doctrine or approved practice. I suppose that most Roman Catholic bishops would acknowledge that such a prayer would be improper.

I bring it up to highlight the need to distinguish between our own perceptions of Charity and true Charity. True Charity is turning the other cheek, not punching the villain with only 50% of your strength. It's a lesson we can all learn, not just this otherwise sweet old lady.

-TurretinFan

Serious Question for my Readers

Question for my Muslims readers: When you read this article (link), does your conscience tell you that this sort of behavior is wrong? If so, are you aware that this sort of activity is a natural consequence of zealously following the teachings of the Koran?

Question for my readers who follow Vatican 2's proclamation that "the plan of salvation includes" Muslims: Can you see from the example above that zealously following Islam leads to eternal destruction? If so, how do you justify to yourself your church's claim? Can you not admit that your church has erred on this point?

Question for my readers who are Evangelical: What steps are you taking to convert Muslims to Christianity? Muslims are an increasing fraction of society, and they desperately need the gospel, without which they will be lost.

These are mostly rhetorical questions. I'm not looking for debate in the comment box, just asking people to think seriously about eternal matters.

-Turretinfan

Escape from the Flooding Mine

"What a jerk," thought Mike as he headed steadily westward along the mine's tunnel, stomping angrily in the rising floodwaters.

Mike felt insulted. He had been traveling westward at a good clip, in the company of a sizable crew of his fellow miners. They were covered with various patches of dust, and the light from their helmets created an ever-shifting pattern of shadows on the tunnel wall.

The cause of Mike's hurt feelings was the message on a shirt of a single minor headed eastbound. "Go East," screamed the shirt in bright yellow letters on a black background, "Westward Escape Route Not Open."

What was worse, on the back of the shirt - this time in neon orange - the shirt announced that the Eastern Escape Route was the way designed by the engineer of the mine, and that the Western Escape Route was simply wishful thinking that had gained group appeal.

"Who does this guy think he is?" thought Mike. "His shirt screams out hatred for me and my friends." Even as Mike thought this, though, he realized that it wasn't quite fair: the shirt was about a position, not a person.

"Well," continued Mike's thoughts, "if not hatred for me, hatred for everything I and my group of miners stand for: all of our hopes of escape and all of the effort we have put into making sure each other continue successfully on our Western path."

What aggravated Mike even more was that the miner hadn't been content to let Mike's group pass in peace and quiet. Instead, the lone miner had shouted out that he had found a source of knowledge - a map - that showed the one true path of escape. The miner had insisted that all the other paths, including the Western path led only to doom and drowning.

Mike tried to point out the size of his group, but the man just kept pointing to the map. Mike had even tried pointing out how the map supported the Western path, but the man had insisted that he knew better, and that in fact - when properly read - the map indicated that the Eastern path was better - in fact was the only way.

Eventually, the lone miner continued on his way through the rising floodwaters to the East, while the group of miners with Mike at their lead continued to the West. "Stupid Anti-Westerner," Mike complained to his colleagues, and they all assented, joking about the fact that the lone miner cut a sad sight trudging in such a lonely manner and trusting in some map.

One may have already guessed how things turned out. There was but one survivor that day: the man who followed the map provided by the engineer of the mine. It was by this revelation of the design of the mine that the man was able to get to safety. It was not hatred of his fellow miners, but love of them, that motivated that miner's shirt and his message to them. But alas, they called him names, questioned his motives, and refused to listen. In the end, they perished.

(inspiration for this allegory)

-TurretinFan

The Real Turretin on: Covenant of Works - Reward for Obedience

Joshua Lim at Reformed Blogging has provided an interesting quotation from the real Turretin on the Reward of Life that would have been given to Adam for his obedience for as long as he continued in obedience (link).

-TurretinFan

Piper Answers WSC #1

In the following video, Piper both in effect answers the first question to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and also reminds us that Missions is a means to an end, not an end in itself:



May God bring in a rich harvest of worshipers,

-TurretinFan

Only One Way to Heaven

The Bible is clear that there is only way to heaven:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Thus, the idea that the plan of salvation includes Christ-rejecting followers of Judaism or Christ-rejecting Muslims (and yes, if you deny Christ's divinity, you are rejecting Christ, even if you do not mean to do so) is clearly wrong and contrary to Scripture.

-TurretinFan

Response to Comments/ Objections - Children Punished for Parents' Sins

I have received a few comments regarding yesterday's post on Original Sin (link). In some cases, I'm not sure whether they are intended simply as comments or as objections. Nevertheless, I've tried to address each, below.

Anonymous states:
You never dealt with a very important passage, Ezek. 18.

I dealt with that passage at some significant length in an earlier post (link to Ezekiel 18 discussion).

Godith states:
John 9 is another passage to deal with in regard to this topic. The man born blind.

John 9 is an interesting passage.

John 9 (the entire chapter)
1And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. 4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
6When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, 7And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
8The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?
9Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.
10Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?
11He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.
12Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.
13They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. 14And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. 15Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.
16Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
17They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet. 18But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
19And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
20His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: 21But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself. 22These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. 23Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.
24Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
25He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
26Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?
27He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?
28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. 29We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 31Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. 32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
34They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
35Jesus heard that they had cast him 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.

For our discussion, the key part would seem to be:

2And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?
3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. 4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

It is interesting that the disciples seemed to recognize that blindness was something that could be viewed as a punishment for sin. Furthermore, the it is interesting that the disciples recognized that the blindness might be a punishment on the parents' sin (since the man was born blind).

Jesus' response is quite surprising. He tells them that the blindness is not a punishment for sin, but is instead simply there to show God's glory.

If the doctrine of original sin is a smack in the face to individualism, this is a blow straight to the gut. Here is a terrible infirmity imposed on a man through his whole childhood and into his adult years for the primary purpose of showing God's greatness.

He was not disadvantaged in this way primarily on account of his own sin, or on account of the sins of his parents, but simply so Jesus could heal him!

In short, while this passage is not (in my view) particularly germane to the issue of children being punished for the sins of their parents (since that was not the primary reason for this man's congenital blindness), it does have themes that similar undermine the autonomous view of "every man for himself."

Theojunkie states:
Do any of the scriptures you presented (or any others that you would like to add), suggest that the punished children were free of personal sin?

There are certainly several verses presented that indicate that the children did not personally participate in the sin for which the punishment was incurred. That is not the same thing as saying that they were free from personal sin. Given the former feature, I don't think the latter issue is of particular significance.

-TurretinFan

Reformed Theology en Espanol (in Spanish)

I recently came across a blog for the National Presbyterian Church of Mexico (link). My Spanish is not excellent, but it appears that this blog could become an excellent resource for those who are interested in Reformed theology, and who speak Spanish (particularly if they speak Spanish better than English). I particularly enjoy the on-going series that is being hosted providing translations various important reformed works on the church's Systematic Theology blog (link).

The real Turretin on: Effectual Calling

Michael at Pot and Torch has provided an interesting blog post on Irresistible Grace, in which he leads off with a short quotation from the Real Turretin on Effectual Calling (link).

-TurretinFan

Children Punished for a Parent's Sins

Introduction

Some folks who hold to a nearly dogmatic form of rugged individualism do not like the idea of federal headship, especially when it comes to punishments. I much more rarely hear people complain that they will be judged righteous for the deeds of their federal head. It is when guilt and punishment are concerned that the objections seem to come in. There are several rebuttals.

1. General Revelation - Nature Itself

a. Nourishment

The general revelation of nature should make it apparent that the children receive what comes from their parents, as a general rule. An unborn child (fetus, if you will, though that sounds so dehumanizing) obtains nourishment from its mother via the marvelously designed placenta. The infant obtains nourishment from the mother's breast. The children generally eat the grown/hunted/gathered or purchased by their parents even once they could hypothetically fend for themselves.

b. Class

Children of poor parents are usually also poor, and children of rich parents are usually well off. To describe it in statistical terms, there is a high correlation between the state of a child and the state of a child's parents - not only socioeconomically, but genetically. A child of two short parents is unlikely to be tall, and a child of two tall parents is unlikely to be short.

c. Human Justice

The laws of men too bare testimony to the fact that children are punished for their parents' sins. Most societies have laws whereby evildoers are punished in their persons or property. If a father is imprisoned or fined for a crime, his children generally suffer financially: even more so if justice is rendered against the father in a capital case. It is not that the law sets out to punish the children of law-breakers: it just happens that way.

d. Fornication / Adultery

When men and women engage in extramarital sexual relationships, it often results in procreation. The children of such unions are often stigmatized, but even more significantly they often come into the world without a father to provide for them, or without a mother that wants them. In ancient Rome, such children were sometimes murdered through exposure to the elements after birth. In modern societies, such children are often murdered by their mothers in ways that sicken at least this author. Even if a child survives birth, its a statistical observation that such children tend to have a more difficult time in life.

2. Special Revelation - Scripture

a. Examples of Children being punished for the sins of their parents.

(i) The Great Deluge

We are not specifically told that there were any infants in Noah's day, but God brought the Flood on account of the sinfulness of the world 120 years prior to the Flood. Men lived longer in those days, but they did have children, and they did not give up their usual marital relations in view of Noah's preaching.

Luke 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Genesis 6:1-7
1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

(ii) Sodom and Gomorrah

Especially considering the form of sexual immorality for which Sodom is famous, we cannot be absolutely sure that there were young infants in the city, nevertheless, there is no particular reason to suppose that they had been so exclusively consumed by illicit lust that there were none. The fire God sent against the city, however, did not discriminate according to age.

Genesis 19:24
24Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; 25And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

(iii) Firstborn of Egypt - 10th Plague

You may recall that the tenth plague, the plague that permitted the Israelites not only to leave but to plunder the Egyptians, was the death of the firstborn of all the Egyptians. This plague is couched in such universal terms that we may safely assume that it included infants and not only the firstborn that had grown somewhat.

Exodus 11:4-6
4And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: 5And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. 6And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.

(iv) Ham's Mockery

As you may recall, our grandfather Noah got drunk and lay naked in his tent. His son Ham found him in this inebriated condition and mocked him, calling his brothers Shem and Japheth. They, however, did not join his mockery but took a sheet with them and walked backwards into the tent covering Noah in the process. When Noah discovered what had happened, he cursed Ham, but especially Ham's son, Canaan.

Genesis 9:24-27
24And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

(v) The Unborn Child of the Middianitish Woman

You may recall that the women of Moab were a temptation to the men of Israel. So much so that they began to go after the false gods of Moab. God was angry against Israel for this unfaithfulness to Him, and smote them with a plague. But what stopped the plague was the action of Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, who killed one of the most open philanderers with a javelin. He skewered the man and the woman - in her case, the Bible specifies that it was through her belly, from which may infer that she had a belly - i.e. was pregnant.

Numbers 25:1-9
1And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. 2And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. 3And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. 4And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel. 5And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor. 6And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 7And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; 8And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. 9And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

(vi) Achan's Theft

You may recall Achan. He was passing through the wreckage and rubble of Jericho, a city that was cursed by God. He decided that despite God's specific prohibition, he would take several items of value that he found in Jericho. He took the items and hid them in his tent. God then defeated Israel at the hands of the tiny forces of Ai.

The fact that others were punished for Achan's sin became a sort of by-word among Israel, at least for a time:

Joshua 22:20 Did not Achan the son of Zerah commit a trespass in the accursed thing, and wrath fell on all the congregation of Israel? and that man perished not alone in his iniquity.

More to the point, however, when Joshua had discovered that Achan the son of Zerah had disobeyed God, the punishment was his death, but not only his death. Also executed were his family, and even his cattle.

Joshua 7:24-26
24And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. 25And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. 26And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day.

His children were killed with him, though we are not explicitly told that any of them were infants.

(vii) Solomon's Older Brother

Solomon's older brother is not named in Scripture. He is the child of the adultery of David with Bathsheba. As you may recall, David's seduction of Bathsheba and murder of her husband greatly displeased God, and God punished David for this. God spared David's own life, but he cursed David's line, such the sword would not depart from it, and more relevant to the point of this article, he slew David's infant son.

2 Samuel 12:7-23
7And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. 9Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 10Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. 11Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 13And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. 14Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. 15And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. 16David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. 17And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. 18And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? 19But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead. 20Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. 21Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. 22And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? 23But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

This list of examples is not exhaustive. For example, we could also add Korah (Numbers 16), Saul's sons (2 Samuel 21), or Jericho both a first (Joshua 6) and a second time (1 Kings 16), but perhaps the seven examples above suffice to prove the point.

b. God's Own Self-Description

God does not hesitate to describe himself as a God who punishes the fathers by also punishing their children. We may subsume within that description of course the specific instances where God killed or had killed the children of those who sinned, for the sins of their fathers.

On top of those, we may list the four times God specifically states that he visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children:

(i) Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

(ii) Exodus 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

(iii) Numbers 14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

(iv) Deuteronomy 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

3. General Revelation 2 - Conscience, Culture, and Reason

Perhaps this is a bit redundant, but children generally feel responsible for their parent's failures. Some children respond to this by working twice as hard to avoid doing what their parents did, and other children respond to this by fatalistically resigning themselves to follow in their parents' footsteps. While the latter approach is wrong, both approaches implicitly recognize a principle of the children being in some way held responsible for what their parents have done.

Culture to a degree reinforces this. The sometimes popular "reparations" movement among descendants of former slaves in America has it its roots a view that the descendants of slave owners should be responsible for what their ancestors did. Slavery itself (in many cultures the result of some personal failure) was passed on to children in many places. Likewise, a degree of cultural opposition to Jews (especially religious Jews) is based on (in some places and at some times in history) on the fact that their ancestors killed Christ (who, in fact, did call down God's wrath on themselves and their children, Matthew 27:25).

Furthermore, Reason applying itself to culture commends the same. For culture generally permits inheritances of goods to children (as Scripture confirms to be proper). Reason, favoring symmetry, suggests that not only positive things but negative things should be transmitted from parents to children, thus favoring the idea that guilt too may be inherited.

Conclusion

For all these reasons, it should be clear that it is just for children to be punished for their parents' sins. It may violate the principles on which modern pluralistic society is built - specifically the value of rugged individualism - but it is Scriptural, it is in accordance with the light of nature, and it is in accordance with the light of conscience and reason. Thus, we properly affirm it.

-TurretinFan

Sunday is not a Day for Football or Olympics

The Westminster Confession states:

Chapter XXI, Section, VIII.

This Sabbath is to be kept holy unto the Lord when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their wordly employments and recreations, but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

The London Baptist Confession (1689) states:

Chapter XXI, Section, VIII.

The sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe a holy rest all day, from their own works, words and thoughts, about their worldly employment and recreations, but are also taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

Even the Baltimore Catechism (a Roman Catholic document) states:

"Not satisfied with doing only what the Church obliges us to do on Sundays and holy days, those who really love God will endeavor to do more than the bare works commanded. Sunday is a day of rest and prayer. While we may take innocent and useful amusement, we should not join in any public or noisy entertainments. We may rest and recreate ourselves, but we should avoid every place where vulgar and sometimes sinful amusements, scenes, or plays are presented." (source) (cf. also the catechism of Pious X)

I have not included anything from the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," because it has taken a more liberal attitude toward the Sabbath day.

May the God of the Sabbath, who has given us rest, bless us,

-TurretinFan

Covenantal Divide Between Presbyterians and non-Dispensational Reformed Baptist

I enjoyed reading a recent post at the Thomas Goodwin blog, where the pseudonymous (like the present author) author provided some interesting commentary on the minority position held by Owen in contrast to that of the other major Reformed writers (Witsius, van Mastricht, and Turretin). (link) I would tend to see Owen's view as being consistent with Reformed Baptist (of the non-dispensational variety) position, whereas the other major Reformers would tend to favor the Presbyterian view. This is of particular interest in view of recent dialog and debate on the issues of infant baptism between Reformed Baptists and conservative Presbyterians.

-TurretinFan

Dabney on J.A. Alexander

Joshua Lim at Reformed Blogging has provided an interesting quotation from Dabney about Hodge (link). It's worth noting that the idiom Dabney employs is a bit outdated and might seem confusing to modern readers. "Man of the closet" means someone who studies a lot, which we might today refer to as a person who lives in an ivory tower.


UPDATE: It turns out that it is not Hodge, but J.A. Alexander that was being discussed. Joshua has removed the post, so I'll just post the relevant description, below:

"I was much struck with the fact that one who was so mach a man of the closet as he should have so much practical knowledge of society and human nature. During the day I remarked that there seemed to be a great difficulty in combining practical knowledge of men and affairs with thorough scholarship in our young men because the study which secured the latter necessarily shut them out of the publicity chich taught the former. He very quietly replied that there was a way by which the recluse in his study might acquire a correct knowledge of nature; by the study of his Bible and his own heart. I have no doubt that this remark gave the key to his own character as concerned this trait of it. There was a remarkable absence of egotism and dogmatism for one who must have been conscious of powers and acquirements and who had been so much complimented and applanded. This unhappily for me, happily for him, was my last interview for the good man was taken away from the evil to come." The Life of Joseph Addison Alexander By Henry Carrington Alexander, pp. 798-99.

εξο της παρεμβολης addresses Purgatory using Turretin

Danny at εξο της παρεμβολης has provided an interesting three-part series on Purgatory relying (especially in part 2) on the real Turretin to provide some solid criticism of the innovated doctrine of Purgatory and its impact on the doctrine of sola fide.

Part 1 (link)
Part 2 (link)
Part 3 (link)

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

Think of a Better Headline - Ecumenical Patriarch and Pope

The real headline was something about the two leaders of their respective religions (Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism) kissing. I'm sure this sort of thing gives ecumenicists the warm fuzzies.

One cannot fail to notice, however, the EP's enormous, highly ornate, crown. Especially in view of the pope's choice of going with much more low-key garb for the event (though one assumes that the mitre shown worn here by John 23rd is still kicking around the Vatican somewhere), the EP's regalia stands out.

So, since humor is so rarely expressed on this blog, I thought it might be nice to have a little fun with recaptioning the image shown above.

My proposals:

1) "This really was not a mitre-optional event, Ben."

2) "I'd have worn a zucchetto too, but it would not cover my enormous brain."

Any thoughts from my readers?

-TurretinFan

When does life begin?

The Bible does not specifically say when life begins. It is clear that life begins before birth, despite some claims to the contrary. Before birth, there are essentially three "bright lines" that can be drawn:

1) Viability

This line is a moving target as technology for supporting very untimely babies improves. The current earliest viability date is around 21-22 weeks from conception. That's significantly earlier than what it would have been about 50 or 100 years ago. In another 50 or 100 years, that age may be pushed back further, perhaps all the way back to conception - we just don't know.

Using viability as a criterion is unsatisfying because of its reliance on technology, and because it means that a baby exactly physically the same but placed 50 years ago or 50 years from now is considered to be alive (or not) differently. Intuitively, most people recognize that this cannot be correct.

2) Quickening/Ensoulment

A second line that has sometimes been drawn is a line based on what is termed the quickening of the child or what is called the ensoulment of the child. The two are not necessarily exchangeable.

Quickening is sometimes viewed as the first time the child shows signs of life that the mother can detect. This normally occurs around 18-21 weeks, but can occur as early as 14 weeks from conception. Evidently quickening had significance in the English common law, especially as an aggravating circumstance with respect to the homicide of fetal humans.

Ensoulment is the time when an infant's body gains a soul. Certain theologies would actually extend the child's soul indefinitely back to Adam, essentially viewing the soul as being transmitted via the sperm. This would seem to be based at least in part on a defective understanding of Scripture relating to Adam's federal headship.

Sometimes the time of quickening is identified as the time of ensoulment, but Scripture does not specify such a thing.

Quickening is partly counter-intuitive because it basically depends on the sensitivity of the mother. Furthermore, primiparous women usually feel this movement later than multiparous women, which would mean that a physically identical infant that was simply the first to be conceived would gain life later than a corresponding infant that was third to be conceived.

Furthermore, other signs of life are now visible with machine much earlier than when a child begins to kick from within. For example, after only 2 or 3 weeks, a heartbeat can be detected with the right equipment.

One solution is to push back ensoulment to the formation of the heart or brain (around 18 days from conception) or the formation of lungs (slightly later). One issue with such an approach is that there is no compelling Biblical data to suggest one option over another one.

3) Conception

Conception is normally identified as the moment at which a sperm cell and ovum cell combine to form a single diploid cell. This is the most widely accepted (among Christians) date for the beginning of life. There are, however, several objections:

a) Identical Twins
Identical twins are the result of a division of the original diploid cell. If they divide very early, they will have separate placentas. If they divide somewhat later, they will have one placenta with two amniotic sacs. It is believed the conjoined twins divide much later.

Often one objection is that since a given zygote has the biological potential to split after conception, the soul cannot yet be present. In short, the soul cannot be present until after twinning is impossible.

The usual response is either that:

i) the original zygote has two souls (this approach assumes a deterministic view of the world); or
ii) the soul of one of the twins is created upon the splitting (this, in essence, makes one of the twins the ancestor of the other twin).

b) Too Many Deaths

Another argument against the view of life starting at conception is that it results in a large number of deaths, since it is imagines that a significant number of human zygotes fail to embed in the uterus, and consequently die. Additionally, in the production of "test tube babies" a number of zygotes are produced and normally only one or a few is ever introduced into the mother's womb.

This argument mostly appeals to the emotions. If life starts at conception, than infant mortality is much higher than if life starts at birth, but that does not seem to have any rational basis.

c) It's not in the Bible

The Bible does not say that life starts at the moment of conception. The counter-argument here would seem to be that the Bible does speak of people being conceived:


Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

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

Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

2 Samuel 11:5 And the woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child.

Job 3:3 Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived.

Song of Solomon 3:4 It was but a little that I passed from them, but I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother's house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me.

Hosea 1:6 And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.

Leviticus 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

Hosea 2:5 For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink.

The following essentially make the comment that a woman "conceived (sometimes adding "again"), and bare a son (or the name of the son)"

Genesis 4:1 and 17; Genesis 29:32-35; Genesis 30:5, 7, 17, 19, and 23; Genesis 38:3-5; Exodus 2:2; 1 Samuel 1:20; 1 Samuel 2:21; 2 Kings 4:17; 1 Chronicles 7:23; Isaiah 8:3; and Hosea 1:3 and 8.

The following mention something essentially along the lines of "shall conceive and bear a son"

Judges 13:3, 5, and 7; Isaiah 7:14; and Luke 1:31.

So, the Bible does not explicitly say that conception is when life starts, but it makes a pretty strong connection that way.

Conclusion

Conception is the easiest bright line to use, notwithstanding the objections. Since we have a duty to protect human life, it is preferable to draw the line earlier (perhaps protecting non-life) rather than later (perhaps not protecting life). Birth itself is an absolutely ludicrous standard for the beginning of life, particularly in view of the fact that some children are conceived outside of the body, and the fact that an unborn child can be taken from the womb without the mother giving birth in the conventional sense(Cesarean Section, for example). Furthermore, birth is clearly not the beginning of life according to the Biblical evidence (John the Baptist and Christ being two immediately apparent examples).

There's no particular reason to draw the line before conception, because there is no biological identity of a person before conception. However, the scientific evidence is conclusive that at conception a new biological entity is formed, distinct from both the mother and the father, and remains the same biological entity that is (if all goes well) eventually born.

All in all, therefore, the king (the one who has been given authority by God to rule the nation) has the responsibility of protecting human life including unborn human life. The king, therefore, would be wise to fulfill this responsibility by protecting human life from the moment of conception.

May God persuade the rulers of this earth to do their duty,

-TurretinFan

Two Sola Scriptura Debate Transcripts

My own debate on Sola Scriptura with Mr. Bellisario is progressing at a snail's pace (link to debate) - the latest news being that late last night my cross-examination questions for Mr. Bellisario were posted.

For those champing at the bit (or chomping at it, if historical etymology is not important), here are two Sola Scriptura debate transcripts - both of which are rather substantial in terms of reading length.

Gerry Matatics vs. James White (1992)

James White vs. Patrick Madrid (1993)

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

Plantinga on Naturalism and Evolutionism

Melinda at Stand to Reason, has posted an interesting quotation from Alvin Plantinga on the relation between Naturalism and Evolutionism (link). Prof. Plantinga makes an excellent point regarding the fact that naturalism and evolutionism are not allies but enemies.

Steve and Turretin vs. Bryan Cross

I enjoyed a recent article by Steve Hays of Triablogue taking Bryan Cross to task on the issue of the perspicuity of Scripture, and relying on Turretin's excellent summary of that issue. (link)

-TurretinFan

Arminianism and Natural Birth

Joshua Lim at Reformed Blogging has an interesting post on Arminianism and Natural Birth (link) (Mitch has pointed out that there is something wrong with the link. The post can be found via the following link, about 3/4 of the way down the page - backup link). He states fairly succinctly this particular problem that is posed for Arminianism. More could be said, of course, but the main point is articulated, and worth reading.

Learn a Word: Aseity (Self-Existence)

As one wise pastor recently pointed out to me, "very few people even know what aseity means." He's right, of course. So, what does aseity mean?

In general it refers to God's property of being self-existent. By way of background, I provide the following explanation:

By self-existence we mean
(a) That God is "causa sui," having the ground of his existence in himself. Every being must have the ground of its existence either in or out of itself. We have the ground of our existence outside of us. God is not thus dependent. He is a se; hence we speak of the aseity of God.
But lest this should be be misconstrued, we add
(b) That God exists by the necessity of his own being. It is his nature to be. Hence the existence of God is not a contingent but a necessary existence. It is grounded, not in his volitions, but in his nature.

Augustus Hopkins Strong, Outlines of Systematic Theology, p. 72 1908 ed.

-TurretinFan

Shedd - On the Atonement

Shedd writes:

Before leaving the subject of vicarious atonement, it is in place here to notice its relation to the soul of man. For, while Christ's atonement has primarily this objective relation to the Divine nature, it has also a secondary subjective relation to the nature of the guilty creature for whom it is made. The objective atonement is intended to be subjectively appropriated by the act of faith in it.

Dogmatic Theology, page 409 (emphasis in original)

Likewise, Shedd explains that

Unfallen man was a member of the heavenly family merely by the fatherhood of creation and providence; but after his rebellion and apostasy this ceased to be the case. Redemption was needed in order to restore him to membership. The whole human family are not now God's heavenly family. Only a part of it are the dear children of God. Those only are members of God's family who are members of Christ, "of whom the whole family in heaven and earth [the church above and below] is named," Eph. 3:15. All others "are bastards, and not sons," Heb. 12:8.

Dogmatic Theology, page 422 (footnote omitted)

While Shedd does say that "It does not mean that Christ's vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man ..." (Dogmatic Theology, page 437) but Shedd goes on to explain that "The atoning Mediator can demand upon principles of strict justice, the release from penalty of any sinful man in respect to whom he makes the demand."

Common Research Tool Mistakes

The Internet is a great source of information. With the advent of large-scale book scanning projects like Gallica, Archive.org, and Google Books, a wealth of information that was formerly available only to those with books has become easily accessible. There are also web discussion boards, some of which attract experts and amateurs alike. Wikipedia and numerous copycats have provided public encyclopedias. YouTube and copycats have provided video discussions of various topics. Search engines such as Google, Yahoo, Kart00, Cuil, and Alltheweb have made searching the Internet easier. Some Internet service providers, like AOL, have provided additional tools for extracting information from the Internet. This wealth of available information is a rich blessing. It has also lead to a number of problems.

1) Consider the Sources

When one locates a source of information, it is important to consider what the source is. Anybody can make their on Geocities web site, or start their own Blogger.com or Wordpress.com blog. Critical reading skills are important in order to sort it all out. The same goes, though, for books written in the 19th century. There are many good books that have been scanned, but there are also many books that are worse than useless. Simply because it got placed on the Internet, in your local paper, or even in a book, doesn't mean it's true.

2) Learn the Basics

If you want to understand something complicated, you are going to have start with something simpler. Trying to jump from basic algebra to partial differential equations is likely to lead to some serious math problems. Trying to jump from rudimentary Bible study to a study of the order of decrees is similarly likely to lead to some serious theology problems. Trying to jump from no knowledge of Greek to a complicated Greek question involves a similar leap.

3) Know your Limitations

Not everyone is equally good at critical thinking. Learn your own weaknesses. This can be an enormously difficult task. Women may not appreciate my saying this, but women need to bear in mind that they are the weaker vessel not just physically. Women are more easily deceived, which is why God has given men the responsibility and duty of caring for them. One of a husband's duties is the spiritual care of his wife.

Men also need to know their limitations though. The elders of the church are there for the edification especially of the men (who in turn are to teach their wives and children). One of the Biblical qualifications for the eldership is that a man is apt to teach. Churches that follow the Scriptures take this into consideration.

Even elders need to know their limitations. There is true danger in being a teacher, because one is held to a higher standard. A wise teacher relies on his fellow teachers, both his living colleagues, but especially the great teachers of the past.

4) Always Go Back to Scripture and Prayer

No matter what your research may turn up, go back to Scripture and prayer to God for wisdom. Scripture is the revealed Word of God and the only infallible source of knowledge that we have. Prayer to God is the way we have to beg Him for divine assistance to illuminate our understanding.

Research tools are good, and useful, but they need to be kept in their appropriate place, subservient to Scripture and prayer. There have been many who have forgotten this important fact and wandered off into idle speculation.

May God give us Wisdom according to the pleasure of His will,

-TurretinFan

Psalm 147

For those who enjoy music - for those who are merry - for who simply wish to worship God - here's a beautiful rendition of the first part of Psalm 147 - feel free to sing along:



It is a comely thing to Praise God,

-TurretinFan

Archibald Alexander on the Study of Theology

Joshua Lim at Reformed Blogging has provided some useful thoughts of Archibald Alexander on the study of theology. (link)

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan