Herman Witsius (1636-1708) produced a classic work which is entitled "The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man." In that work, which covers a broad range of subjects, there is a chapter devoted to the Reformed doctrine of Limited Atonement. This chapter is Chapter 9 of Book 2 in Volume 1. It is pages 255-71 of the den Dulke Christian Foundation's reprinting of 1990 (distributed by P&R Publishing), an edition that has a nice introduction by Tom Ascol.
In chapter 9 of Book 2, Witsius provides primarily a positive case for particular redemption, addressing the Remonstrant error of Universal atonement in very general ways, while setting forth the positive arguments with great clarity.
Witsius does not waffle on the issue of Christ's atonement. At section VI, he states " ... Christ, according to the will of God the Father, and his own purpose, did neither engage nor satisfy, and consequently in no manner die, but only for all those whom the Father gave him, and who are actually saved. This is that truth which is controverted, and which we are now to confirm, in a concise but solid manner, from the sacred writings." He goes on to provide just such a confirmation, and I would commend his explanation to those readers interested in a positive Reformed presentation on the issue.
Witsius does use a few words that are not widely used today in his presentation. For example, he speaks of the impetration of Christ, which is the act of obtaining by prayer or petition. One of the helpful points of explanation that Witsius provides is a demonstration that salvation is impetrated by Christ, and not only impetrated but also applied.
Witsius quotes Remigius of Lyons (9th century) as stating, "The blood of Christ is a great price; such a price can, in no respect, be in vain and ineffectual but rather is filled with the super-abundant advantage arising from those blessings for which it is paid." Unfortunately, Witsius himself provides only a quotation to a secondary source (Forbes. Instruct. Hist. lib. 8. c. 16), and I have not been able to track this quotation back to an original source from Remigius at this time.
As noted above, Witsius provides mostly a positive case. At section XXXVI, Witsius politely declines to reproduce all the excellent answers to Remonstrant objections, and instead points the reader to the worthy Dutch theologian, Gomarus. In particular, he points to a dissertation inserted into Gomarus' commentary on Galations. Sadly for us, Gomarus' works are (for the most part) not readily available in any language, and mostly have not been translated into English (as far as I know).
Nevertheless, the reference to and reliance on Gomarus can help to solidify a taxonomy of Witsius as siding with the strict Calvinists against the Remonstrant errors, even on the doctrine of the atonement, for those trying to provide taxonomies of the Calvinists. I realize that the Amyraldian (or quasi-Amyraldian) folks with whom I have been dealing on this doctrine have read at least portions of what Witsius wrote, but I would like to encourage them to read it again, focusing on Witsius' excellent explanations for why he believes as he does.
-TurretinFan
UPDATE: Thanks to a friend, I believe I may have located the Latin original to which Witsius was referring: "Unde penset unusquisque fidelis, cum sanguis ille tanquam Agni incontaminati et immaculati Christi ab Apostolo pretium magnum dicatur esse, utrum possit tale pretium in aliqua parte esse inane et vacuum, an potius illarum mercium pro quibus datum est lucro et cumulo refertum." Remigius of Lyons, De Tribus Epistolis Liber, Chapter XVI, PL 121:1015B-C
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Giordano Bruno
Those outside of Rome may be as surprised to learn about Giordano Bruno, a sort of patron saint of modern, independent Rome. Read all about it (link).
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Bad Exegesis Illustrated
I stumbled across an example of truly terrible exegesis today (link). It's not exegesis of Scripture, but exegesis of another written document, the PCA's Book of Church Order. The author of the post argues that this restriction, "58-2. The ignorant and scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper," should bar all from the Lord's table, because all men are ignorant or scandalous on some level. This is a bizarre reading of the text.
What the PCA BCO is saying is that those unable to "discern the Lord's body" (1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.) and those who are living in open, unrepentant sin (Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.) should not be admitted to the Lord's table.
Now, this bad exegesis is not because the author cannot read, but because he disagrees with what is written. He generally understands that these two restrictions are meant and not that "Nobody's Welcome" as he proclaims.
I am guessing that the author is not opposed to the latter restriction, but only to the former. In fact, I don't have to guess, his railing continues:
-TurretinFan
What the PCA BCO is saying is that those unable to "discern the Lord's body" (1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.) and those who are living in open, unrepentant sin (Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.) should not be admitted to the Lord's table.
Now, this bad exegesis is not because the author cannot read, but because he disagrees with what is written. He generally understands that these two restrictions are meant and not that "Nobody's Welcome" as he proclaims.
I am guessing that the author is not opposed to the latter restriction, but only to the former. In fact, I don't have to guess, his railing continues:
Realistically, this is simply meant to ban two groups of people that Jesus hates from the Table: retarded people and babies. Yeah, those [expletive omitted] babies and retarded people! God surely doesn’t care about them, right? Right.The author's objection is misplaced. 1 Corinthians 11:29 doesn't teach that Jesus hates children and the simple-minded, but rather that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a serious matter, not to be undertaken without proper self-examination. Barring children and the simple-minded from the communion table is not out of hatred for them, but love for them - and concern that they do not eat unworthily.
WRONG.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Response to Nick on Christmas Observance
In response to my previous post (link), Nick has provided some comments:
a) It's not "my logic," it's a question of what Paul says. If Paul (in inspired Scripture) says that we don't have to observe holy days, then we do not.
b) Even if people start from that Scriptural principle, and try to undermine the Lord's Day, that doesn't make the Scriptural principle invalid. People have been misusing Scripture for thousands of years, but Scripture remains true.
c) Part of the problem for those who try to apply this text (not this logic) to try to avoid keeping the Lord's Day holy, is that in doing so they must place Scripture against Scripture. Not so, of course, for arguing that we have Christian liberty not to celebrate the birth of Christ.
d) It is rather absurd to argue that it is an exegesis of Paul's epistle to the Romans that has "played a big role in the secular world for stripping Sunday of an religious significance as well as Major Holidays." Actually, the stripping of Sunday of religious significance in the "secular world" has been mostly accomplished through arguments for the total separation of church and state. It has also been accomplished through an abandonment of Scripture in favor of hedonism. If there has been abuse of Paul's epistle to the Romans, it is a contributing factor only at the lowest level. Mostly, the Lord's Day has been appropriated by men because they are unwilling to acknowledge the creation ordinance of one day of rest in seven, wishing to have all seven days for themselves.
e) Towards the end of the comment, we have something close to an argument (much closer than we saw in Bellisario's post (critiqued here)):
Acts 15:28-29
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
i) These verses certainly don't say that the church has the power to dictate practices Christians are bound to. I think Nick has recognized that they do not, which is why he said they "show" rather than "say."
ii) These verses do not provide an example of Christ's being bound to engage in any practice. In fact, these verses provide a prohibition. What is interesting, though, is that these verses say that this is the outer limit of the burden to be placed on Christians: "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things."
iii) The things with which Christians are burdened in Acts 15:28-29 are "necessary things." Although Nick thinks that these things are not intrinsically sinful, that's not quite what the verse says. Paul elsewhere provides other instructions that help to inform these commands:
1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
1 Corinthians 10:23-31
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. 24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth. 25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. 28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: 29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? 30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
In view of those passages, we can understand the prohibition provided. While eating certain foods is not sinful, appearing to participate in paganism is sinful because it leads the pagans astray.
iv) Those giving the command in Acts 15 are not simply the church, but the apostles. To assume that because the apostles did something, therefore the church can do something is to make an unwarranted assumption. The unique authority of the apostles was testified by sign gifts, such as the ability to raise the dead. The church (if we are to equate the apostles and the church) no longer raises people from the dead, no longer cures people by having a shadow pass over them, and so forth. Those extraordinary gifts have ceased, and the apostles have gone to be with the Lord.
v) Furthermore, the command in Acts 15 has the authority not only of the church, but more importantly, of the Holy Spirit. It is explicitly stated that it "seemed good to the Holy Ghost." This command was provided during the time of inscripturation, while all the things necessary to salvation were still in the process of being written down. These apostles had the prophetic gift. In this case, they were appealing not to their own authority as church leaders, but to the Holy Ghost's authority. Even the so-called Roman Catholic Church has acknowledged that public revelation has ceased. When Trent spoke, it did not claim to have new revelation from the Holy Ghost.
vi) Perhaps, most importantly, the command in Acts 15 is properly viewed as a release! As hard as it may seem to modern observers, Christians did not immediately recognize that the ceremonial law of the Old Testament had been fulfilled in Christ. Recall that even after Acts 15 and even after Simon Peter had received a vision from God and seen the conversion of Cornelius, he didn't fully appreciate that the dietary laws of the Old Testament had generally been done away in Christ.
Acts 15:28-29, which merely prevents us from appearing to join in with pagan worship, is actually a release: it is actually a proclamation of liberty, with only a small reservation of "necessary" restrictions.
vii) Furthermore, even if all of the above were wrong, the restrictions identified in Acts 15 do not relate to the observation of holy days. Even supposing the church can bind the conscience, the church cannot contradict Holy Scripture, and Holy Scripture gives Christians freedom with respect to the observation of holy days, either to observe them to God, or to omit observation of them to God.
So, in view of these things, we can reasonably reject Nick's conclusion that Acts 15 provides warrant for "the Church" to bind the consciences of people in respect to holy days.
-TurretinFan
There are many "home based" non-denominational churches that apply your logic and in effect take away any common day of worship for Christians. The "Lord's Day" on Sunday is no more binding than say Saturday or Tuesday worship. On top of that, any form of weekly worship is technically not binding, so someone could argue for one day a month.I answer:
This logic played a big role in the secular world for stripping Sunday of an religious significance as well as Major Holidays.
Places like Acts 15:28-29 show the Church has the power to dictate practices Christians are bound to (even if those acts are not intrinsically sinful). So based on Scripture, the Church can bind the Christian conscience.
a) It's not "my logic," it's a question of what Paul says. If Paul (in inspired Scripture) says that we don't have to observe holy days, then we do not.
b) Even if people start from that Scriptural principle, and try to undermine the Lord's Day, that doesn't make the Scriptural principle invalid. People have been misusing Scripture for thousands of years, but Scripture remains true.
c) Part of the problem for those who try to apply this text (not this logic) to try to avoid keeping the Lord's Day holy, is that in doing so they must place Scripture against Scripture. Not so, of course, for arguing that we have Christian liberty not to celebrate the birth of Christ.
d) It is rather absurd to argue that it is an exegesis of Paul's epistle to the Romans that has "played a big role in the secular world for stripping Sunday of an religious significance as well as Major Holidays." Actually, the stripping of Sunday of religious significance in the "secular world" has been mostly accomplished through arguments for the total separation of church and state. It has also been accomplished through an abandonment of Scripture in favor of hedonism. If there has been abuse of Paul's epistle to the Romans, it is a contributing factor only at the lowest level. Mostly, the Lord's Day has been appropriated by men because they are unwilling to acknowledge the creation ordinance of one day of rest in seven, wishing to have all seven days for themselves.
e) Towards the end of the comment, we have something close to an argument (much closer than we saw in Bellisario's post (critiqued here)):
Places like Acts 15:28-29 show the Church has the power to dictate practices Christians are bound to (even if those acts are not intrinsically sinful). So based on Scripture, the Church can bind the Christian conscience.Let's examine what those verses actually say:
Acts 15:28-29
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
i) These verses certainly don't say that the church has the power to dictate practices Christians are bound to. I think Nick has recognized that they do not, which is why he said they "show" rather than "say."
ii) These verses do not provide an example of Christ's being bound to engage in any practice. In fact, these verses provide a prohibition. What is interesting, though, is that these verses say that this is the outer limit of the burden to be placed on Christians: "it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things."
iii) The things with which Christians are burdened in Acts 15:28-29 are "necessary things." Although Nick thinks that these things are not intrinsically sinful, that's not quite what the verse says. Paul elsewhere provides other instructions that help to inform these commands:
1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
1 Corinthians 10:23-31
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. 24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth. 25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. 28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: 29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? 30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
In view of those passages, we can understand the prohibition provided. While eating certain foods is not sinful, appearing to participate in paganism is sinful because it leads the pagans astray.
iv) Those giving the command in Acts 15 are not simply the church, but the apostles. To assume that because the apostles did something, therefore the church can do something is to make an unwarranted assumption. The unique authority of the apostles was testified by sign gifts, such as the ability to raise the dead. The church (if we are to equate the apostles and the church) no longer raises people from the dead, no longer cures people by having a shadow pass over them, and so forth. Those extraordinary gifts have ceased, and the apostles have gone to be with the Lord.
v) Furthermore, the command in Acts 15 has the authority not only of the church, but more importantly, of the Holy Spirit. It is explicitly stated that it "seemed good to the Holy Ghost." This command was provided during the time of inscripturation, while all the things necessary to salvation were still in the process of being written down. These apostles had the prophetic gift. In this case, they were appealing not to their own authority as church leaders, but to the Holy Ghost's authority. Even the so-called Roman Catholic Church has acknowledged that public revelation has ceased. When Trent spoke, it did not claim to have new revelation from the Holy Ghost.
vi) Perhaps, most importantly, the command in Acts 15 is properly viewed as a release! As hard as it may seem to modern observers, Christians did not immediately recognize that the ceremonial law of the Old Testament had been fulfilled in Christ. Recall that even after Acts 15 and even after Simon Peter had received a vision from God and seen the conversion of Cornelius, he didn't fully appreciate that the dietary laws of the Old Testament had generally been done away in Christ.
Acts 15:28-29, which merely prevents us from appearing to join in with pagan worship, is actually a release: it is actually a proclamation of liberty, with only a small reservation of "necessary" restrictions.
vii) Furthermore, even if all of the above were wrong, the restrictions identified in Acts 15 do not relate to the observation of holy days. Even supposing the church can bind the conscience, the church cannot contradict Holy Scripture, and Holy Scripture gives Christians freedom with respect to the observation of holy days, either to observe them to God, or to omit observation of them to God.
So, in view of these things, we can reasonably reject Nick's conclusion that Acts 15 provides warrant for "the Church" to bind the consciences of people in respect to holy days.
-TurretinFan
The Real Turretin on: Sacraments and the True Church
Kyle Borg at Synod of Saints has an interesting post on the importance of the sacraments. It particularly caught my eye because (though he omits Turretin's icon from his synod of saints) he leads with a quotation from the real Turretin on the sacraments and the true church. (link)
Enjoy!
-TurretinFan
Enjoy!
-TurretinFan
Bellisario and Rome vs. Paul the Apostle on Christian Liberty
In a previous post (link), I quoted the words of Holy Scripture penned by Paul the Apostle:
Romans 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
and I noted that I will be exercising my Christian liberty and not specially regarding December 25, 2008, even while Rome imposes on the consciences of its members, contrary to Scripture.
One of my readers brought to my attention a response that Mr. Matthew Bellisario provided against Paul's grant of Christian liberty (link to Bellisario's post).
Bellisario titles his post: "Why Protestantism is Theologically Dead! Christ is born! Glorify Him!" It's a strange title for a very strange post. Not only does his post not go on to establish any sort of theological deadness, his post makes lots of assertions without any supporting arguments.
As for "Christ is born! Glorify Him!" -- the declaration is true, and it is not only proper to glorify him, but mandatory. Nevertheless, Jesus nowhere asks us to glorify him by commemorating his birth. Jesus was more focused on us expressing our love for him, not through invented holy days, but through obedience to his commandments:
John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Bellisario begins and ends his post with the same refrain. The reason is apparent to anyone familiar with "Byzantine Catholicism" (as in "Eastern Rite," not an insult). The refrain is the eastern equivalent to the "Joy to the world! The Lord is come!" found in the Roman liturgy. There's nothing particularly wrong with either refrain, and there is nothing particularly relevant either. The main reason to cite such a refrain in a post such as Bellisario's is as a rallying point to the liturgy of his church: an appeal to the emotions against reason and Scripture.
Bellisario continues his post: "I ran across a sad writing by A "reformed" Protestant today and once again I had to shake my head in disbelief." Sadly, Bellisario does not recognize the irony of his own profession of disbelief. It is, after all, the words of Scripture that Bellisario does not believe. Bellisario does not believe that to the Lord I will not be regarding the day, but that is what Scripture says.
Bellisario continues: "This un-identifiable person chose to use Sacred Scripture to skip out on worshiping our Lord and His incarnation." I don't give out my name or address, but it's not hard to identify me by my pen name, which is how most people identify me on the Internet. More importantly, however, note Bellisario's characterization of the matter: "use Sacred Scripture to skip out on worshiping our Lord and His incarnation." The idea of "skip[ping] out" implies a duty that doesn't exist. One wonders whether Bellisario would think it right to say that he "uses Sacred Scripture to skip out on going on pilgrimage to Mecca." Hopefully, he'd see how foolish a statement like that is. God does not command us to go on pilgrimage to Mecca or Rome, or to celebrate the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord does not ask us to remember his birth with a commemorative holiday or a special liturgy.
Bellisario again: "Without the wonderful incarnation of our Lord all of us would have no Easter, and therefore none of us would have an advocate with the Father to enter into eternal life." The incarnation is wonderful, and without it we would not have the cross, the resurrection, or the resurrection. We (Reformed Christians) commemorate the Resurrection every week, by meeting on the first day of the week, rather than the last day of the week, following the apostolic example.
Bellisario again: "This is another example of why Protestantism is Theologically Dead!" It's a triumphant assertion (I didn't add the exclamation point), but it hasn't been supported by any rationale.
Bellisario again: "This person chooses to act as a pagan, and yet uses Sacred Scripture to act as one." This is about as close as Bellisario comes to trying to back up his assertion. The argument is totally implicit: apparently in Bellisario's mind, not regarding the supposed day of Christ's birth is "act[ing] as a pagan." Yet Paul (in Scripture) unequivocally grants us the liberty to do just what I'm doing. Apparently if I don't take a sharpie and black out part of what Paul wrote, I'm "theologically dead" in Bellisario's eyes, and acting like a pagan.
Ironically, celebrating at the winter solstice is what looks a lot more like what the pagans did. Not celebrating is not acting like a pagan ... but Bellisario is blind to this sort of irony, as he muddles on:
Bellisario: "Here is what this person says on his blog. The hair stands up on my arms when I read it, because something like this can only be from the Devil." I've seen some remarkable appeals to authority from papists, but this appeal to arm-hair as a diviner of demonic origination is a new one. Bellisario's hairy arms may well have tingled, but my post was strictly a legitimate, apostolically approved, expression of the liberty that I have in Christ.
I had written:
Having quoted my words (and those of Scripture that I myself quoted), Bellisario continues: "He then goes on to accuse the Catholic Church as being legalistic in telling people that Christmas is a Holy day of obligation!" Except for the fact that he erroneously refers to his church as "the Catholic Church" (a popular, but inaccurate title for it), his claim is correct. I do so accuse Rome of violating Romans 14:6 by trying to make Christmas an obligatory holy day. But does Bellisario have any answer beyond bodily functions?
Bellisario states: "This is comical since this is anything but legalism if one really understands what is happening at Mass and what our Lord has done, and continues to do for us." This, of course, doesn't answer the issue of legalism. It wouldn't answer it if the issue were what transpires during the Mass, or what Christ has done or continues to do, because it doesn't explain, it just asserts. The issue, however, in this instance is not the idolatry of the Mass, the perfection of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice, or the unique mediatorial role of Christ. Those are all important issues, but they are not the issues presented here. What is presented here is the alleged creation of an instance of a judgment of "mortal sin" for failing to observe a holiday that Scripture specifically grants Christians the liberty not to observe.
Let's get more specific. The "Catechism of the Catholic Church," explains:
Notice that the alleged result of the commission of a "mortal sin" is, to paraphrase, a loss of salvation. It is remediable, but if it is not remedied, it can land a previously "ok" person in hell. Thus, we may loosely say that the holy days of obligation are imposed on the conscience of members of Catholicism as a condition of salvation. That's legalism: the creation of conditions for salvation.
Bellisario, perhaps because his arms were still bothering him, or because he is so busying wagging his head in disbelief, does not seem to be aware of the issues of legalism associated with holy days of obligation, and does not have an answer beyond assertion.
Bellisario continued: "There are many who twist the Sacred Scriptures to their destruction and he is another one." In this particular instance, Bellisario's condemnation is ironic. The accusation of twisting Scripture to one's destruction comes from Scripture, but in this instance Scripture condemns Bellisario.
Maybe it was a bit unfair, but I quoted only the most relevant portion of what Paul said. Perhaps I should have given Bellisario warning to avoid doing exactly what he did. Paul wrote, in context:
Notice how Paul specifically orders Christians not to judge their brethren in regard to these things. Yet, Mr. Bellisario seeks to judge and throws out accusations of Christian liberty being of demonic origin and my own statements being twisting of Scripture. Furthermore, he judges me and those who would join me in exercising our God-given liberty as "skip[ping] out" on worship. Mr. Bellisario truly seems to be one step short of explicitly saying, "Paul was wrong - Christians must celebrate Christmas." I have assumed here that Bellisario considers what he calls "Protestants" to be "separated brethren" as they are identified in post-Vatican-II Catholicism. Given his hostile tone, one could draw a different conclusion, but I'll pass on such speculation at this time.
Bellisario continued: "I have actually witnessed "Protestants" using Sacred Scripture to excuse abortion! Yes folks thats [sic] right. This person who will not identify himself then closes by trying to persuade others from not going to honor our Lord on Christmas as well!" The first sentence (and possibly the second, though it is not clear whether it supposed to provide emphasis to the first or third sentence) is not relevant to this post at all. Intentional abortion of unborn children is murder - and there is no escaping that conclusion. It may be that "Protestants" have misused Scripture to try to justify it ... but the abuse of Scripture is nothing unique to "Protestants," as we have seen from Bellisario's own abuse of 2 Peter 3:16. Moving on to the third sentence, Bellisario's reference to the fact that I don't say what my name is doesn't really have anything to do with the post. I don't rely on my name or credentials, but on Scripture. It is Scripture (not me) who gives liberty, while Rome and Bellisario attempt to impose bondage.
The final part of Bellisario's sentence, and the only really salient part of the section, demonstrates that Bellisario has missed Paul's point. It is not necessary to observe holy days to honor the Lord on December 25. We can, and should, honor the Lord both when we choose to observe such days, and when we choose not to observe such days. Neither is inherently dishonoring to God, which is why Paul says what he says.
Bellisario continues: "Who else but Satan would want to draw people away from the infant of Christ?" Christ was an infant, but he is not an infant any longer. One might suppose that Satan would take delight in the worship of Rome, in which Jesus is treated like a perpetual infant, while his mother is exalted to the practical level of a goddess. If I could have nickel for every blog that has used the expression "Mary Christmas" in the last week or so ... and while some of those may have been honest misspellings, quite a few were not. Satan may delight in the idolatry of the Mass, and in the false hope that Rome gives those who attend to the observance of man-made holy days. But that is not the point.
The point is that Bellisario's argument is not with me at all, but with Paul. If Bellisario is right, what could Paul's comment about people acceptably not regarding days mean? One can just see a Judaizer now, spouting this same nonsense (slightly modified), saying "Who else but Satan would want to draw people away from God's redemption of Israel by not dwelling in a booth one week a year (Lev. 22:42-43)?" And at least the Judaizer would be pointing to a feast of indisputable divine origin! Bellisario is lauding an ancient human tradition, whose practice in the 1st and 2nd centuries is unrecorded (that I know of - and poorly recorded if it is recorded at all). But both Bellisario and the Judaizer are wrong, because it is not Satanic to fail to observe the Feast of the Nativity of Jesus - just as it is not Satanic to fail to dwell in a booth one week out of the year in the New Testament era.
Bellisario continued: "Who hated the incarnation of Our Lord and Savior enough to insult Him by not going to honor His incarnation?" A better question is: who hates the Lord Jesus so much that he refuses to listen to the Words of Scripture and the commands of Jesus' apostle? Bellisario's challenge to the doctrines of Paul is problematic, not my exercise of Christian liberty. Christ has not asked us to honor his incarnation with a holy day, and Christ is not insulted when we work on December 25 (assuming, for the moment, that it does not fall on the Lord's Day, which is the case this year).
Bellisario's entire argument (if we may even call it an argument) rests on his unstated premise that there is something more holy about regarding the day than about not regarding the day. In this, his argument is not with me, but with the Apostle Paul.
Bellisario continued: "It is unbelievable, and once again proves what you get with Scripture Alone and every Tom Dick and Harry constructing their own man-made religion from it." On the contrary, Bellisario's argument against Scripture is exactly the sort of thing one would expect from a person who refuses to let Scripture judge their church. His position is one of Sola Ecclesia. He is blind to the fact that it is "Christmas," which is innovated, and he is unable to engage the text of Scripture that gives Christians liberty not to observe such holy days. Hopefully this post will help him see that both the dogmas and discipline of his church need to be evaluated by Scripture, to see whether they are the true gospel or another gospel.
Bellisario wrote: "I think I will go twice this Christmas to Mass and the Divine Liturgy to honor my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on this Holy Day of His birth." If the Mass were not full of idolatry (which is a separate subject), this would not necessarily be objectionable. There is nothing problematic about spending the entire day going to service of worship after service of worship. There is nothing inherently wrong with celebrating Christ's nativity on December 25.
Bellisario wrote: "As for the pagans who wish to reject Our Lord's birth because of their hatred for the real Gospel, let them be anathema, since they have already committed spiritual suicide." The real Gospel is that taught in Scripture. The real Gospel is the gospel preached by Paul. The real Gospel does not call us to celebrate Christ's birth with an annual feast day, or with mandatory services of worship. The real Gospel does not teach the category of mortal sin (as distinct from venial sins) and does not teach that man's salvation depends on obedience to the law (or to man-made regulations). Paul, a preacher of the true gospel, wrote:
Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
To the message Paul gave (in two epistles, no less), we (the Reformed) are obedient.
On the other hand, we also reject Bellisario's misrepresentation of our position. We do not reject the Lord's birth. We affirm the reality of the miracle of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. We affirm the marvel of the incarnation. Bellisario seems to be confusing the obligation to celebrate the birth with the birth itself. Or perhaps he is just ranting, who knows.
All that remains of the post by Bellisario is a link and a repetition of the refrain from the eastern liturgy. Bellisario never backs up his harsh claims against Reformed Christianity, fails to interact with Paul's explanation of why we Christians have this liberty that Rome (and Bellisario) seeks to deny, and manages to misrepresent the Reformed position, while dragging in irrelevant material.
Hopefully, this response will serve to illuminate both the weakness of the Roman position and the weakness of the tactics used to defend the indefensible.
Let us Glorify the Born, Humbled, Executed, Risen, and Exalted Savior!
-TurretinFan
Romans 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
and I noted that I will be exercising my Christian liberty and not specially regarding December 25, 2008, even while Rome imposes on the consciences of its members, contrary to Scripture.
One of my readers brought to my attention a response that Mr. Matthew Bellisario provided against Paul's grant of Christian liberty (link to Bellisario's post).
Bellisario titles his post: "Why Protestantism is Theologically Dead! Christ is born! Glorify Him!" It's a strange title for a very strange post. Not only does his post not go on to establish any sort of theological deadness, his post makes lots of assertions without any supporting arguments.
As for "Christ is born! Glorify Him!" -- the declaration is true, and it is not only proper to glorify him, but mandatory. Nevertheless, Jesus nowhere asks us to glorify him by commemorating his birth. Jesus was more focused on us expressing our love for him, not through invented holy days, but through obedience to his commandments:
John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Bellisario begins and ends his post with the same refrain. The reason is apparent to anyone familiar with "Byzantine Catholicism" (as in "Eastern Rite," not an insult). The refrain is the eastern equivalent to the "Joy to the world! The Lord is come!" found in the Roman liturgy. There's nothing particularly wrong with either refrain, and there is nothing particularly relevant either. The main reason to cite such a refrain in a post such as Bellisario's is as a rallying point to the liturgy of his church: an appeal to the emotions against reason and Scripture.
Bellisario continues his post: "I ran across a sad writing by A "reformed" Protestant today and once again I had to shake my head in disbelief." Sadly, Bellisario does not recognize the irony of his own profession of disbelief. It is, after all, the words of Scripture that Bellisario does not believe. Bellisario does not believe that to the Lord I will not be regarding the day, but that is what Scripture says.
Bellisario continues: "This un-identifiable person chose to use Sacred Scripture to skip out on worshiping our Lord and His incarnation." I don't give out my name or address, but it's not hard to identify me by my pen name, which is how most people identify me on the Internet. More importantly, however, note Bellisario's characterization of the matter: "use Sacred Scripture to skip out on worshiping our Lord and His incarnation." The idea of "skip[ping] out" implies a duty that doesn't exist. One wonders whether Bellisario would think it right to say that he "uses Sacred Scripture to skip out on going on pilgrimage to Mecca." Hopefully, he'd see how foolish a statement like that is. God does not command us to go on pilgrimage to Mecca or Rome, or to celebrate the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord does not ask us to remember his birth with a commemorative holiday or a special liturgy.
Bellisario again: "Without the wonderful incarnation of our Lord all of us would have no Easter, and therefore none of us would have an advocate with the Father to enter into eternal life." The incarnation is wonderful, and without it we would not have the cross, the resurrection, or the resurrection. We (Reformed Christians) commemorate the Resurrection every week, by meeting on the first day of the week, rather than the last day of the week, following the apostolic example.
Bellisario again: "This is another example of why Protestantism is Theologically Dead!" It's a triumphant assertion (I didn't add the exclamation point), but it hasn't been supported by any rationale.
Bellisario again: "This person chooses to act as a pagan, and yet uses Sacred Scripture to act as one." This is about as close as Bellisario comes to trying to back up his assertion. The argument is totally implicit: apparently in Bellisario's mind, not regarding the supposed day of Christ's birth is "act[ing] as a pagan." Yet Paul (in Scripture) unequivocally grants us the liberty to do just what I'm doing. Apparently if I don't take a sharpie and black out part of what Paul wrote, I'm "theologically dead" in Bellisario's eyes, and acting like a pagan.
Ironically, celebrating at the winter solstice is what looks a lot more like what the pagans did. Not celebrating is not acting like a pagan ... but Bellisario is blind to this sort of irony, as he muddles on:
Bellisario: "Here is what this person says on his blog. The hair stands up on my arms when I read it, because something like this can only be from the Devil." I've seen some remarkable appeals to authority from papists, but this appeal to arm-hair as a diviner of demonic origination is a new one. Bellisario's hairy arms may well have tingled, but my post was strictly a legitimate, apostolically approved, expression of the liberty that I have in Christ.
I had written:
As an exercise of my Christian liberty, I will not be celebrating Christ's birthday on December 25, 2008. I will not be attending a "mass" or any substitute thereof. I do not plan to set aside any business concerns that would interfere with such religious exercises.
Instead, by engaging in worldly employments and recreations, I will not treat that day as holy. This is my Christian liberty, as Paul explained:
Romans 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Having quoted my words (and those of Scripture that I myself quoted), Bellisario continues: "He then goes on to accuse the Catholic Church as being legalistic in telling people that Christmas is a Holy day of obligation!" Except for the fact that he erroneously refers to his church as "the Catholic Church" (a popular, but inaccurate title for it), his claim is correct. I do so accuse Rome of violating Romans 14:6 by trying to make Christmas an obligatory holy day. But does Bellisario have any answer beyond bodily functions?
Bellisario states: "This is comical since this is anything but legalism if one really understands what is happening at Mass and what our Lord has done, and continues to do for us." This, of course, doesn't answer the issue of legalism. It wouldn't answer it if the issue were what transpires during the Mass, or what Christ has done or continues to do, because it doesn't explain, it just asserts. The issue, however, in this instance is not the idolatry of the Mass, the perfection of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice, or the unique mediatorial role of Christ. Those are all important issues, but they are not the issues presented here. What is presented here is the alleged creation of an instance of a judgment of "mortal sin" for failing to observe a holiday that Scripture specifically grants Christians the liberty not to observe.
Let's get more specific. The "Catechism of the Catholic Church," explains:
1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.(source)
Notice that the alleged result of the commission of a "mortal sin" is, to paraphrase, a loss of salvation. It is remediable, but if it is not remedied, it can land a previously "ok" person in hell. Thus, we may loosely say that the holy days of obligation are imposed on the conscience of members of Catholicism as a condition of salvation. That's legalism: the creation of conditions for salvation.
Bellisario, perhaps because his arms were still bothering him, or because he is so busying wagging his head in disbelief, does not seem to be aware of the issues of legalism associated with holy days of obligation, and does not have an answer beyond assertion.
Bellisario continued: "There are many who twist the Sacred Scriptures to their destruction and he is another one." In this particular instance, Bellisario's condemnation is ironic. The accusation of twisting Scripture to one's destruction comes from Scripture, but in this instance Scripture condemns Bellisario.
Maybe it was a bit unfair, but I quoted only the most relevant portion of what Paul said. Perhaps I should have given Bellisario warning to avoid doing exactly what he did. Paul wrote, in context:
Romans 14:3-13(emphases added)
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. 10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Notice how Paul specifically orders Christians not to judge their brethren in regard to these things. Yet, Mr. Bellisario seeks to judge and throws out accusations of Christian liberty being of demonic origin and my own statements being twisting of Scripture. Furthermore, he judges me and those who would join me in exercising our God-given liberty as "skip[ping] out" on worship. Mr. Bellisario truly seems to be one step short of explicitly saying, "Paul was wrong - Christians must celebrate Christmas." I have assumed here that Bellisario considers what he calls "Protestants" to be "separated brethren" as they are identified in post-Vatican-II Catholicism. Given his hostile tone, one could draw a different conclusion, but I'll pass on such speculation at this time.
Bellisario continued: "I have actually witnessed "Protestants" using Sacred Scripture to excuse abortion! Yes folks thats [sic] right. This person who will not identify himself then closes by trying to persuade others from not going to honor our Lord on Christmas as well!" The first sentence (and possibly the second, though it is not clear whether it supposed to provide emphasis to the first or third sentence) is not relevant to this post at all. Intentional abortion of unborn children is murder - and there is no escaping that conclusion. It may be that "Protestants" have misused Scripture to try to justify it ... but the abuse of Scripture is nothing unique to "Protestants," as we have seen from Bellisario's own abuse of 2 Peter 3:16. Moving on to the third sentence, Bellisario's reference to the fact that I don't say what my name is doesn't really have anything to do with the post. I don't rely on my name or credentials, but on Scripture. It is Scripture (not me) who gives liberty, while Rome and Bellisario attempt to impose bondage.
The final part of Bellisario's sentence, and the only really salient part of the section, demonstrates that Bellisario has missed Paul's point. It is not necessary to observe holy days to honor the Lord on December 25. We can, and should, honor the Lord both when we choose to observe such days, and when we choose not to observe such days. Neither is inherently dishonoring to God, which is why Paul says what he says.
Bellisario continues: "Who else but Satan would want to draw people away from the infant of Christ?" Christ was an infant, but he is not an infant any longer. One might suppose that Satan would take delight in the worship of Rome, in which Jesus is treated like a perpetual infant, while his mother is exalted to the practical level of a goddess. If I could have nickel for every blog that has used the expression "Mary Christmas" in the last week or so ... and while some of those may have been honest misspellings, quite a few were not. Satan may delight in the idolatry of the Mass, and in the false hope that Rome gives those who attend to the observance of man-made holy days. But that is not the point.
The point is that Bellisario's argument is not with me at all, but with Paul. If Bellisario is right, what could Paul's comment about people acceptably not regarding days mean? One can just see a Judaizer now, spouting this same nonsense (slightly modified), saying "Who else but Satan would want to draw people away from God's redemption of Israel by not dwelling in a booth one week a year (Lev. 22:42-43)?" And at least the Judaizer would be pointing to a feast of indisputable divine origin! Bellisario is lauding an ancient human tradition, whose practice in the 1st and 2nd centuries is unrecorded (that I know of - and poorly recorded if it is recorded at all). But both Bellisario and the Judaizer are wrong, because it is not Satanic to fail to observe the Feast of the Nativity of Jesus - just as it is not Satanic to fail to dwell in a booth one week out of the year in the New Testament era.
Bellisario continued: "Who hated the incarnation of Our Lord and Savior enough to insult Him by not going to honor His incarnation?" A better question is: who hates the Lord Jesus so much that he refuses to listen to the Words of Scripture and the commands of Jesus' apostle? Bellisario's challenge to the doctrines of Paul is problematic, not my exercise of Christian liberty. Christ has not asked us to honor his incarnation with a holy day, and Christ is not insulted when we work on December 25 (assuming, for the moment, that it does not fall on the Lord's Day, which is the case this year).
Bellisario's entire argument (if we may even call it an argument) rests on his unstated premise that there is something more holy about regarding the day than about not regarding the day. In this, his argument is not with me, but with the Apostle Paul.
Bellisario continued: "It is unbelievable, and once again proves what you get with Scripture Alone and every Tom Dick and Harry constructing their own man-made religion from it." On the contrary, Bellisario's argument against Scripture is exactly the sort of thing one would expect from a person who refuses to let Scripture judge their church. His position is one of Sola Ecclesia. He is blind to the fact that it is "Christmas," which is innovated, and he is unable to engage the text of Scripture that gives Christians liberty not to observe such holy days. Hopefully this post will help him see that both the dogmas and discipline of his church need to be evaluated by Scripture, to see whether they are the true gospel or another gospel.
Bellisario wrote: "I think I will go twice this Christmas to Mass and the Divine Liturgy to honor my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on this Holy Day of His birth." If the Mass were not full of idolatry (which is a separate subject), this would not necessarily be objectionable. There is nothing problematic about spending the entire day going to service of worship after service of worship. There is nothing inherently wrong with celebrating Christ's nativity on December 25.
Bellisario wrote: "As for the pagans who wish to reject Our Lord's birth because of their hatred for the real Gospel, let them be anathema, since they have already committed spiritual suicide." The real Gospel is that taught in Scripture. The real Gospel is the gospel preached by Paul. The real Gospel does not call us to celebrate Christ's birth with an annual feast day, or with mandatory services of worship. The real Gospel does not teach the category of mortal sin (as distinct from venial sins) and does not teach that man's salvation depends on obedience to the law (or to man-made regulations). Paul, a preacher of the true gospel, wrote:
Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
To the message Paul gave (in two epistles, no less), we (the Reformed) are obedient.
On the other hand, we also reject Bellisario's misrepresentation of our position. We do not reject the Lord's birth. We affirm the reality of the miracle of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. We affirm the marvel of the incarnation. Bellisario seems to be confusing the obligation to celebrate the birth with the birth itself. Or perhaps he is just ranting, who knows.
All that remains of the post by Bellisario is a link and a repetition of the refrain from the eastern liturgy. Bellisario never backs up his harsh claims against Reformed Christianity, fails to interact with Paul's explanation of why we Christians have this liberty that Rome (and Bellisario) seeks to deny, and manages to misrepresent the Reformed position, while dragging in irrelevant material.
Hopefully, this response will serve to illuminate both the weakness of the Roman position and the weakness of the tactics used to defend the indefensible.
Let us Glorify the Born, Humbled, Executed, Risen, and Exalted Savior!
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Bavinck on Limited Atonement
Volume 3 of Herman Bavinck's "Reformed Dogmatics" addresses the issue of Limited Atonement. Bavinck deals with the matter at #404-08 (pp. 455-75 in the Baker Academic 2008 printing). Bavinck approaches the matter in a way that I found very helpful in light of certain Amyraldian commentators of late, in that he discusses many of the historical aspects of the issues relating to the extent of the atonement.
Bavinck quite correctly notes that "Intensively the work of Christ is of infinite value but also extensively it encompasses the whole world." Standing alone, such a statement could easily be misinterpreted - and the incautious reader is advised to be careful to finish reading the entire selection before reaching hasty conclusions about Bavinck's position. Bavinck goes on to explain what is intended by the terms employed, as well as what is not intended, rejecting Origen's super-universalism and seemingly adopting Augustine's particularism.
Bavinck quotes Augustine as stating "everyone who has been redeemed by the blood of Christ is a human; yet not everyone who is a human has been actually redeemed by the blood of Christ." "Not one person perishes of those for whom Christ died." The footnotes identify Epistle 102 of Augustine as the source, although I have not confirmed that this is the case with reference to the originals.
The work is clearly an academic work, and some of its most valuable contributions are the footnotes, which in some cases point one to source material, and in other cases index important related works, such as Bellarmine's Controversies, Turretin's Institutes, and van Mastricht's Theology.
Bavinck appears to err somewhat on the issue of Creation at the beginning of section 407 (p. 470), where he ascribes the creation of the world distinctly to the Father, rather than the Son. Nevertheless, generally Bavinck's discussion seems reasonable, and was enjoyable. For example, although Bavinck acknowledges Augustine's positive contributions to our understanding of theology, Bavinck is not afraid to identify an error in Augustine's thought (his view that the number of elect men corresponds numerically with the number of fallen angels).
I would commend the twenty pages or so of necessary reading to those interested in further study of the atonement. I'd particularly commend this section to those Amyraldians (or quasi-Amyraldians) that have been trying to make arguments from historical theology, as well as trying to formulate a system of their own.
-TurretinFan
Bavinck quite correctly notes that "Intensively the work of Christ is of infinite value but also extensively it encompasses the whole world." Standing alone, such a statement could easily be misinterpreted - and the incautious reader is advised to be careful to finish reading the entire selection before reaching hasty conclusions about Bavinck's position. Bavinck goes on to explain what is intended by the terms employed, as well as what is not intended, rejecting Origen's super-universalism and seemingly adopting Augustine's particularism.
Bavinck quotes Augustine as stating "everyone who has been redeemed by the blood of Christ is a human; yet not everyone who is a human has been actually redeemed by the blood of Christ." "Not one person perishes of those for whom Christ died." The footnotes identify Epistle 102 of Augustine as the source, although I have not confirmed that this is the case with reference to the originals.
The work is clearly an academic work, and some of its most valuable contributions are the footnotes, which in some cases point one to source material, and in other cases index important related works, such as Bellarmine's Controversies, Turretin's Institutes, and van Mastricht's Theology.
Bavinck appears to err somewhat on the issue of Creation at the beginning of section 407 (p. 470), where he ascribes the creation of the world distinctly to the Father, rather than the Son. Nevertheless, generally Bavinck's discussion seems reasonable, and was enjoyable. For example, although Bavinck acknowledges Augustine's positive contributions to our understanding of theology, Bavinck is not afraid to identify an error in Augustine's thought (his view that the number of elect men corresponds numerically with the number of fallen angels).
I would commend the twenty pages or so of necessary reading to those interested in further study of the atonement. I'd particularly commend this section to those Amyraldians (or quasi-Amyraldians) that have been trying to make arguments from historical theology, as well as trying to formulate a system of their own.
-TurretinFan
To the Lord, I will not be Celebrating Christ's Birth
As an exercise of my Christian liberty, I will not be celebrating Christ's birthday on December 25, 2008. I will not be attending a "mass" or any substitute thereof. I do not plan to set aside any business concerns that would interfere with such religious exercises.
Instead, by engaging in worldly employments and recreations, I will not treat that day as holy. This is my Christian liberty, as Paul explained:
Romans 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Rome has tried to bind the consciences of its members by employing, for example:
As explained at the link (link), "Since a 'grave cause' is needed to excuse one from this obligation it would be a serious or mortal sin to willfully skip Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation, as the Church has always taught." Thus, Catholicism legalistically seeks to bind the consciences of its members to observe holy days that Scripture does not require.
In fact, Scripture gives Christians the freedom that I will (Lord Willing) be exercising to use the day for God's glory through an absence of regard for the day. I would like to encourage my readers to consider doing the same.
Don't get me wrong, if you choose to celebrate Christ's birth tomorrow, there is nothing inherently or intrinsically wrong with that. It is also your liberty to do so, and I won't tell you that it is a serious sin to do so. That's the other side of the Romans 14:6 coin.
Whether you choose to celebrate Christ's birth or not, may December 25, 2008, find you being edified and grown up in the knowledge of the Incarnate Word.
-TurretinFan
Instead, by engaging in worldly employments and recreations, I will not treat that day as holy. This is my Christian liberty, as Paul explained:
Romans 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Rome has tried to bind the consciences of its members by employing, for example:
Canon 1246(emphases added)
1. Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church. Also to be observed are the day of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension and the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Mary Mother of God and her Immaculate Conception and Assumption, Saint Joseph, the Apostles Saints Peter and Paul, and finally, All Saints.
Canon 1247
On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass; they are also to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body.
As explained at the link (link), "Since a 'grave cause' is needed to excuse one from this obligation it would be a serious or mortal sin to willfully skip Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation, as the Church has always taught." Thus, Catholicism legalistically seeks to bind the consciences of its members to observe holy days that Scripture does not require.
In fact, Scripture gives Christians the freedom that I will (Lord Willing) be exercising to use the day for God's glory through an absence of regard for the day. I would like to encourage my readers to consider doing the same.
Don't get me wrong, if you choose to celebrate Christ's birth tomorrow, there is nothing inherently or intrinsically wrong with that. It is also your liberty to do so, and I won't tell you that it is a serious sin to do so. That's the other side of the Romans 14:6 coin.
Whether you choose to celebrate Christ's birth or not, may December 25, 2008, find you being edified and grown up in the knowledge of the Incarnate Word.
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Response to Mike Burgess on Mary and the Rosary
Mr. Mike Burgess has provided some thoughtful responses to my previous post on following Mary to Jesus (link).
I'll respond to his comments line-by-line, leaving off only the last two sentences in which he states his opinion regarding the wisdom of my posting my previous post. I apologize that the reader will note occasional changes between my addressing Mr. Burgess in the third person and in the second person.
Burgess:
Burgess:
There is nothing in the text to suggest that God was Mary's savior from sin in anything other than the usual way of Christ dying for her sins. There's nothing anywhere else in Scripture that would lead us to think that something other than salvation from sin in the ordinary sense is meant. In short, the only reason to explain this text in that way is by imposing on the text from outside. It is a classic, grievous, and heinous example of reading into the text, rather than reading from the text.
Like the Rosary, this interpretation of the verse is not an apostolic teachings handed down from the fathers, but a theological innovation. When was it exactly invented? We'll leave that for Mr. Greco to opine, but suffice to note that even Thomas Aquinas (fairly late into medieval theology - died 1274) denied (against, for example, Chrysostom) that Mary had actual sin, but admitted that she had to be cleansed of original sin.
Aquinas himself puts on a more elaborate case for his position than Mr. Burgess has, and even attempts to provide some Scriptural justification for his view. On the other hand, when one examines the justification of the view, one realizes that is primarily founded on a particular allegorical explanation of Canticles (Song of Solomon) 4:7, "Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee." When one examines the proof critically, one discovers that, naturally, there is not much strength to the assertion that the passage refers to Mary, and even less that "no spot in thee" refers to Mary being free from all actual sin.
Furthermore, the position that Mary was free from all actual sin is directly contrary to Scripture, which states:
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Burgess:
Assuming she did pray the Lord's Prayer (note that this is an assumption), it is more problematic than Jesus praying or Jesus singing the psalms ("reciting the Psalms in the liturgy of the intertestamental synagogue and Temple" being a bit of an awkward anachronism). Jesus praying is not a problem at all. Jesus did not pray the Lord's prayer, instead, he provided the prayer as a model to his disciples for them to use. Jesus is not recorded as having prayed that his own sins would be forgiven, and such a prayer would have been problematic, as it would have implied he had sins.
Jesus singing Psalms is not problematic, because when one sings the Psalms, one is not necessarily adopting the words of the Psalmist. For example, when we sing in Psalm 137,
By Babel's stream we sat and wept,
when Zion we thought on,
in midst thereof we hanged our harps,
the willow trees upon
we do not claim personally to have been to Babylon, to have cried into the Euphrates or to have owned or hung harps. In contrast, however, when we pray we do adopt (or we ought to) the words we are speaking, because we are praying to "let [our] requests be made known unto God." (Philippians 4:6)
Providing a full explanation of the significance of Christ's use of "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me," on the cross would go beyond the scope of this post. Suffice to say that we do believe that Christ was not merely saying words that had no personal relevance to him.
Burgess:
Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
The modern critical texts would ask us to drop (with the Vulgate) the portion "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Perhaps some time it would be interesting to explore the textual testimonies in favor of, and against, inclusion of this text. Nevertheless, it is the presence of this expression in the so-called Textus Receptus that lead to its presentation in Tyndale's Bible and the later English translations (including, of course, the KJV) that relied on the traditional Greek text.
Burgess:
Mary's words to the servants at the wedding are not directed to us, but they do illustrate the attitude that we should have, namely that we should do whatever Jesus tells us to do. And where is the only place where we can reliably find the commands of our Lord? In the pages of Holy Scripture.
Burgess continued:
On the other hand, the single example of Mary participating in worship after Christ's ascension is the mention in passing in Acts 1:14 that she was praying (as were Jesus' brethren) together with the other believers immediately before Pentecost. Yes, we should not forsake the gathering of the believers. On the other hand, while we do see the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper in Scripture, we do not see a rigid or complex liturgy beyond the simple liturgical forms found in, for example, post-exilic Jewish worship.
Burgess continued:
Christ instituted the sacraments of the new economy of the covenant of grace, particularly baptism (which supplants circumcision) and the Lord's Supper, which replaces the Passover.
Burgess continued:
1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
This is the communion that we, the saints, have. It is the Lord's Supper that we have in mind when we speak of the "Communion of Saints," not attempted communication with departed fellow believers, contrary to what some today seem to imagine.
-TurretinFan
I'll respond to his comments line-by-line, leaving off only the last two sentences in which he states his opinion regarding the wisdom of my posting my previous post. I apologize that the reader will note occasional changes between my addressing Mr. Burgess in the third person and in the second person.
Burgess:
You're stretching a wee bit. Obviously, it's anachronistic to believe the Rosary existed in the New Testament era, so asking if she prayed it (or the Hail Mary or the Gloria Patri or the Apostle's Creed) is what's absurd.It's not a stretch, of course. It's simply a fact that Mary didn't pray the Rosary. Burgess is quite correct to note that the Rosary is a later innovation, something unknown to the era of the apostles, much like the "Hail Mary" etc.
Burgess:
That she was personally preserved from sin by her prevenient salvation comports with her words in the Magnificat you cited. Of course she had (and needed to have) a Saviour, the one and only Lord. He saved her by keeping her from sinning. He preserved her graciously. Hers is a gracious sinlessness, showing the fulness of the gratuitous theosis given to us by the Lord, who calls us and prepares our works for us to walk in, and is at work in us both to will and to do, according to His good pleasure.This explanation is one that we widely see used by papists to attempt to explain away the fact that Mary refers to God as her savior, and it is pure eisegesis.
There is nothing in the text to suggest that God was Mary's savior from sin in anything other than the usual way of Christ dying for her sins. There's nothing anywhere else in Scripture that would lead us to think that something other than salvation from sin in the ordinary sense is meant. In short, the only reason to explain this text in that way is by imposing on the text from outside. It is a classic, grievous, and heinous example of reading into the text, rather than reading from the text.
Like the Rosary, this interpretation of the verse is not an apostolic teachings handed down from the fathers, but a theological innovation. When was it exactly invented? We'll leave that for Mr. Greco to opine, but suffice to note that even Thomas Aquinas (fairly late into medieval theology - died 1274) denied (against, for example, Chrysostom) that Mary had actual sin, but admitted that she had to be cleansed of original sin.
Aquinas himself puts on a more elaborate case for his position than Mr. Burgess has, and even attempts to provide some Scriptural justification for his view. On the other hand, when one examines the justification of the view, one realizes that is primarily founded on a particular allegorical explanation of Canticles (Song of Solomon) 4:7, "Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee." When one examines the proof critically, one discovers that, naturally, there is not much strength to the assertion that the passage refers to Mary, and even less that "no spot in thee" refers to Mary being free from all actual sin.
Furthermore, the position that Mary was free from all actual sin is directly contrary to Scripture, which states:
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Burgess:
Your speculation about Mary praying a complete version of the Lord's prayer is no more problematic than our Lord praying and reciting the Psalms in the liturgy of the intertestamental synagogue and Temple. The Lord was quoting Psalm 22 on His cross. Do you suppose He believed the Father had abandoned Him? Or that He was included in the salvation? He did not even need gratuitous prevenience, since He possessed sinlessness by nature.As a preliminary matter, it is good that Burgess has pointed out that my comment about Mary praying a complete version of the Lord's prayer is just speculation. I don't know whether she did or not. The Bible does not tell us.
Assuming she did pray the Lord's Prayer (note that this is an assumption), it is more problematic than Jesus praying or Jesus singing the psalms ("reciting the Psalms in the liturgy of the intertestamental synagogue and Temple" being a bit of an awkward anachronism). Jesus praying is not a problem at all. Jesus did not pray the Lord's prayer, instead, he provided the prayer as a model to his disciples for them to use. Jesus is not recorded as having prayed that his own sins would be forgiven, and such a prayer would have been problematic, as it would have implied he had sins.
Jesus singing Psalms is not problematic, because when one sings the Psalms, one is not necessarily adopting the words of the Psalmist. For example, when we sing in Psalm 137,
By Babel's stream we sat and wept,
when Zion we thought on,
in midst thereof we hanged our harps,
the willow trees upon
we do not claim personally to have been to Babylon, to have cried into the Euphrates or to have owned or hung harps. In contrast, however, when we pray we do adopt (or we ought to) the words we are speaking, because we are praying to "let [our] requests be made known unto God." (Philippians 4:6)
Providing a full explanation of the significance of Christ's use of "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me," on the cross would go beyond the scope of this post. Suffice to say that we do believe that Christ was not merely saying words that had no personal relevance to him.
Burgess:
Speaking of the complete version of the Lord's prayer, why do you add words to it by appending the doxological ending "for thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory forever and ever"? (This is part of the prayer in all of the Presbyterian versions, so far as I know.) So often, we're chided for supposedly adding traditions of men and so forth that your ironic example here begs to be pointed out.The reason for including it is the testimony of Matthew 6:13:
Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
The modern critical texts would ask us to drop (with the Vulgate) the portion "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Perhaps some time it would be interesting to explore the textual testimonies in favor of, and against, inclusion of this text. Nevertheless, it is the presence of this expression in the so-called Textus Receptus that lead to its presentation in Tyndale's Bible and the later English translations (including, of course, the KJV) that relied on the traditional Greek text.
Burgess:
At any rate, we should imitate our Lady, as she said at Cana: "Do whatever He tells you." We should imitate St. Paul, as he said in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere. We should follow them to Jesus. We come to faith by hearing; by living as they and other saints did, we shall come to Him. This is what Scripture tells us to do.I interrupt this paragraph of Burgess to agree in the main, and to add what is most important: we come to Christ not by works but by faith. It is not by living well that we come to Christ, but by coming in faith to Christ, we will live well.
Mary's words to the servants at the wedding are not directed to us, but they do illustrate the attitude that we should have, namely that we should do whatever Jesus tells us to do. And where is the only place where we can reliably find the commands of our Lord? In the pages of Holy Scripture.
Burgess continued:
Participating in the liturgical life of the Church, and in so doing receiving sacramental grace in both the sacraments and the use of sacramentals such as the Rosary, is an essential part of imitating or following the example of Mary and Jesus.Again, I interrupt Burgess' paragraph, but this time to disagree. Worshiping Jesus as Mary did is one thing, but following the liturgical novelties of Rome (such as the "sacramentals" including the Rosary, the various Scapulars, etc.) is quite another. Saying the Rosary cannot be essential to following the example of Mary, at least because she (quite obviously) didn't say it. "Participating in the liturgical life of the Church," is too vague to be helpful. We do not participate in the worship life of the Church in the way that Jesus did, as its head, as its sacrifice, as its high priest.
On the other hand, the single example of Mary participating in worship after Christ's ascension is the mention in passing in Acts 1:14 that she was praying (as were Jesus' brethren) together with the other believers immediately before Pentecost. Yes, we should not forsake the gathering of the believers. On the other hand, while we do see the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper in Scripture, we do not see a rigid or complex liturgy beyond the simple liturgical forms found in, for example, post-exilic Jewish worship.
Burgess continued:
He, ultimately, showed us that even the Lord participated in the liturgy of the Church, and so we should, too.Again, an interruption. Same comment above about the vagueness of "liturgy of the Church." Christ during his earthly ministry didn't engage in the Traditional (or Tridentine) Latin Mass (TLM) or the new liturgy of the Vatican II era. We worship God somewhat differently from the way in which Jesus gives honor to His father, since we are not members of the Trinity. Getting into the nuances of this distinction would go beyond the scope of this post, but it is sufficient to note that our worship of God is more like that of Mary and other believers than like that of the God-man for God the Father.
Christ instituted the sacraments of the new economy of the covenant of grace, particularly baptism (which supplants circumcision) and the Lord's Supper, which replaces the Passover.
Burgess continued:
I'm sure I don't need to remind you of official teaching on sacramentals, their attachment to sacraments, the necessity of the sacraments for the life of the Church, the necessity of the communion of saints in liturgy (service) to the Lord, and so forth.No, you don't need to remind me of your church's teachings on that point. I suppose I don't need to remind you that "communion of saints" has taken on a highly modified meaning in modern Catholicism from that which it had in ancient times. The Scriptures (from which the creed was obtained) speak of:
1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
This is the communion that we, the saints, have. It is the Lord's Supper that we have in mind when we speak of the "Communion of Saints," not attempted communication with departed fellow believers, contrary to what some today seem to imagine.
-TurretinFan
Does Mary's Non-Rosary Usage Miss the Issues?
In a previous post (link), I had mentioned the fact that Mary never prayed the Rosary. It is a point that I made to help folks recognize that the Rosary is a non-apostolic innovation.
I got a most peculiar comment on this post from Mr. Greco. The salient part of his comment was:
1) Mr. Greco thinks that my making a true and accurate statement about Mary "betrays ... ignorance of the issues." There is just no answer to such silliness. I can appreciate that Mr. Greco may wish that I were ignorant of the issues, but when I make accurate statements that he only reinforces (note that he agrees that the Rosary was not around until much later), he should have the wisdom not to accuse his theological opponent of ignorance.
2) Assuming that Mr. Greco's dating for the Rosary is correct (and it is always dangerous trying to pin dates on innovations in church history), this only reinforces one of the points that my original post was making, namely that the Rosary is foreign to the Bible. It was unknown to Mary - it was unknown to the Apostles - and (per Greco) it was unknown to a thousand years of the universal church.
3) Mr. Greco's own comments, furthermore, seem to miss the point of the post. The post noted that although Mary didn't pray the "Hail Mary," (how silly would that be?!) she may well have prayed the "Our Father," which would have included her acknowledgment of her own sinfulness. Mary, the greatly blessed mother of Jesus, was a sinner who needed a savior, and she quite properly called God her Savior.
4) Casting the Rosary as, "the Rosary is a meditation on the Gospel...and I do think that Mary meditated on her son's life and the wondrous things God had done for her," (ellipsis in original) misses the issues and objections to the Rosary.
a) We do not object to people meditating on the Gospel, in fact we encourage them to do so;
b) We agree that Mary meditated on her son's life and the wondrous things God had done for her and for His people;
c) But the Rosary is not in the form of meditation, but prayer;
d) And the prayers of the Rosary are objectionable both as to the fact that at least one prayer (the "Hail Mary") is not directed to God, and because the method of successive repetition is a heathen practice specifically condemned by Jesus (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.)
Hopefully, in the next post, I will be addressing the much more detailed and thoughtful comments of Mr. Mike Burgess.
-TurretinFan
I got a most peculiar comment on this post from Mr. Greco. The salient part of his comment was:
Turretinfan stated: One thing seems fairly certain: Mary never prayed the Rosary.I answer:
Me: Now why would you say something like this? This comment truly betrays your ignorance of the issues. For starters, the Rosary was not around until the time of St. Dominic (late 1100s early 1200s). So no, Mary would not have been praying the Rosary.
Secondly, the Rosary is a meditation on the Gospel...and I do think that Mary meditated on her son's life and the wondrous things God had done for her.
1) Mr. Greco thinks that my making a true and accurate statement about Mary "betrays ... ignorance of the issues." There is just no answer to such silliness. I can appreciate that Mr. Greco may wish that I were ignorant of the issues, but when I make accurate statements that he only reinforces (note that he agrees that the Rosary was not around until much later), he should have the wisdom not to accuse his theological opponent of ignorance.
2) Assuming that Mr. Greco's dating for the Rosary is correct (and it is always dangerous trying to pin dates on innovations in church history), this only reinforces one of the points that my original post was making, namely that the Rosary is foreign to the Bible. It was unknown to Mary - it was unknown to the Apostles - and (per Greco) it was unknown to a thousand years of the universal church.
3) Mr. Greco's own comments, furthermore, seem to miss the point of the post. The post noted that although Mary didn't pray the "Hail Mary," (how silly would that be?!) she may well have prayed the "Our Father," which would have included her acknowledgment of her own sinfulness. Mary, the greatly blessed mother of Jesus, was a sinner who needed a savior, and she quite properly called God her Savior.
4) Casting the Rosary as, "the Rosary is a meditation on the Gospel...and I do think that Mary meditated on her son's life and the wondrous things God had done for her," (ellipsis in original) misses the issues and objections to the Rosary.
a) We do not object to people meditating on the Gospel, in fact we encourage them to do so;
b) We agree that Mary meditated on her son's life and the wondrous things God had done for her and for His people;
c) But the Rosary is not in the form of meditation, but prayer;
d) And the prayers of the Rosary are objectionable both as to the fact that at least one prayer (the "Hail Mary") is not directed to God, and because the method of successive repetition is a heathen practice specifically condemned by Jesus (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.)
Hopefully, in the next post, I will be addressing the much more detailed and thoughtful comments of Mr. Mike Burgess.
-TurretinFan
Homosexuality and Ethiopia
It is reported that religious leaders in Ethiopia are pushing for a constitutional ban on homosexuality (link). While it is great that a nation would condemn sin, governmental action is not enough. The church needs to be active in preaching the true Gospel of repentance and faith in Christ. While the government does have a role in restraining sin, the primary responsibility for transforming the heart of the nation, so that sins like homosexuality will continue to be detestable, is on the ministers of God.
May God give Ethiopia greater reformation of its Christianity,
-TurretinFan
May God give Ethiopia greater reformation of its Christianity,
-TurretinFan
Monday, December 22, 2008
Follow Mary to Christ
Certain of those who engage in Marian devotion, insist that Mary leads them to Christ. Allow me to suggest that Mary's example is better followed than anything else, if one wishes to be led by Mary to Christ. One thing seems fairly certain: Mary never prayed the Rosary. On the other hand, do you suppose she prayed the Lord's prayer?
If so, she admitted her lack of sinlessness. As the church father Tertullian explained:
And Tertullian is right: no one was without sin, save God alone. Mary never prayed the Rosary (the very idea of her praying to herself is absurd), but we have no reason to suppose that she did not pray the Lord's prayer, or prayed it incompletely. Indeed, Mary acknowledged that she needed a saviour:
Luke 1:46-47
46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
So, by all means, do follow the greatly blessed mother of our Lord, to the Lord. Repent of your sins and place all your trust for eternal life in him alone, and you will be saved.
-TurretinFan
If so, she admitted her lack of sinlessness. As the church father Tertullian explained:
Having considered God's generosity, we pray next for His indulgence. For, of what benefit is food if, in reality, we are bent on it like a bull on his victim? Our Lord knew that He alone was without sin. Therefore, He taught us to say in prayer: 'Forgive us our trespasses.' A prayer for pardon is an acknowledgment of sin, since one who asks for pardon confesses his guilt. Thus, too, repentance is shown to be acceptable to God, because God wills this rather than the death of the sinner.Tertullian, On Prayer, Chapter 7
And Tertullian is right: no one was without sin, save God alone. Mary never prayed the Rosary (the very idea of her praying to herself is absurd), but we have no reason to suppose that she did not pray the Lord's prayer, or prayed it incompletely. Indeed, Mary acknowledged that she needed a saviour:
Luke 1:46-47
46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
So, by all means, do follow the greatly blessed mother of our Lord, to the Lord. Repent of your sins and place all your trust for eternal life in him alone, and you will be saved.
-TurretinFan
30 Seconds on God's Knowledge of the Future
30 Seconds to Think About the Moon
It is Monday still in much of the world, and by coincidence, Ray Comfort has a very brief but interesting blog post on the moon, which I think is 30 seconds of reading well spent (link).
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Friday, December 19, 2008
Reading Material for Mr. David Armstrong
It may be that, for some reason or other, Mr. Armstrong still pops by my blog. If so, I think he'll get get a kick out of this post (link). Mr. Armstrong's policy of labeling those who say that Rome teaches another gospel "anti-Catholics," leads to a conflation between what the author of the linked article calls "good anti-catholicism" and "bad anti-catholicism." I don't agree with the article, but I think it should provide those who are quick to apply the "anti-Catholic" label with some food for thought.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Criticism of Rome's Celibate Priesthood - Rebuttals to Objections
A while back I had blogged a post on the Married Priest Movement (link), which garnered a variety of criticism, from one guy who insists that I must use the word "dissent" the way he says his church does - to several more interesting comments that I'd like to discuss below.
The people are being addressed in reverse chronological order of when they commented, but their comments are (I hope) presented in the order in which the respective person wrote them.
Mike Burgess wrote:
1) Burgess is claiming that 1 Corinthians 7:28-35 (perhaps he means to through vs. 38) does teach that a chaste life of marriage is less holy than chaste life of celibacy; and
2) Burgess is claiming that 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 justifies the prohibition on priestly marriage for reasons of "good order."
First things first, let's look at the text itself. Despite Burgess' reasonable confidence in the Biblical literacy of the readership of this blog, we should still take a look at what the text says:
1 Corinthians 7:28-38
28But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. 29But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; 30And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; 31And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. 32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. 36But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. 38So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
As to Burgess' first claim with respect to this passage, the key part of the passage would seem to be "he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better."
The very first counter-observation to be made is that the verse doesn't say "holy" vs. "more holy" but "well" vs. "better." The question is, in what way "better"? If the answer is "better in the sense of more holy," then the distinction makes no difference.
Unfortunately, Burgess doesn't provide us with much of a positive case for his position here. He seems to assume that "better" means "more holy." Perhaps his concise comment is the rational result of my policy of publishing comments slowly, perhaps because he hasn't considered the issue, either way we can evaluate the passage and determine whether it is holiness or something else that is under consideration.
The comparison of "well" to "better" is really a comparison between καλως (kalos = well) and κρεισσον (kreisson = better). Kreisson is rarely used in the New Testament. Its two other NT uses are 1 Corinthians 11:17 and Philippians 1:23.
1 Corinthians 11:17 states that when the Corinthians assemble, it is not for better (κρεισσον) but for worse, and the word for worse here is ηττον (hetton - worse), which does not seem have any particular moral significance.
Philippians 1:23 states that to be with Christ is a thing far better (κρεισσον), but that it is needful for Paul to be with Philippians, and consequently he is "in a straight betwixt two" as the King James version puts it or "hard pressed from both directions" as the NAS puts it.
Nevertheless, there are a few additional uses in the LXX:
1) In Exodus 14:12, the Israelites say it would have been better (κρεισσον) to serve in Egypt than die in the wilderness.
2) In Judges 8:2, Gideon praises the vintage of Ephraim as better (κρεισσον) than that of Abiezer.
3) In Psalm 36:16, it is said that a little is better (κρεισσον) to the righteous than great wealth is to the wicked.
4) In Psalm 62:4, it is said that God's mercy is better (κρεισσον) than life.
5) In Proverbs 21:9, it is said that it is better (κρεισσον) to live in a corner of a housetop, than to live in a plastered house with unrighteousness.
6) In Proverbs 21:19, it is said that is is better (κρεισσον) to live in the wilderness than with a militant, talkative, and angry woman.
7) In Proverbs 25:7, it is said that it is better (κρεισσον) that it be said to you "come up hither" in the eyes of your prince (than to be told to take a lesser seat)
In short, what we can infer from these uses is that the word κρεισσον doesn't have any intrinsic moral significance. It can mean simply more pleasant or more convenient. In this case, the sense of "more convenient" is one obvious sense. Why might one not agree?
Verse 37 states that "he that has decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, does well (καλως)," and then verse 38 adds that he who gives his virgin in marriage does well (καλως)," but that he who does not, does better. What is interesting, to me, is that there is a comparative form of καλως, namely καλλιον (kallion - better) but it is not used. I think this is significant, but at a minimum it does not support the view that the comparison between giving and not giving has to do with which one is more righteous or holy.
That it is a matter of convenience and practicality can be seen from:
1 Corinthians 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
and
1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
and finally
1 Corinthians 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
The point of the passage has to do with it being inconvenient to be married, thus, Paul explains:
1 Corinthians 7:32-33
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
That is to say, single people have more time for explicitly serving the kingdom of God than married people do. Thus, he concludes the thought:
1 Corinthians 7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
With that in mind, it should be apparent that "better" does not mean "more holy" or "more righteous," but rather "more convenient." Accordingly, we can reject the first of Mr. Burgess' contentions, namely that the chaste single life is somehow more holy than the chaste married life.
Mr. Burgess' second contention, related to "good order" is again unfounded. The Apostle Paul occupies the field of marital restrictions by insisting that bishops and deacons be husbands of one wife. Further limitations on the marital status of bishops and deacons are consequently instances of forbidding what Scripture permits. Additionally, given that Scripture clearly teaches:
Proverbs 18:22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.
Consequently, we also reject Mr. Burgess' second contention, that there is a valid "good order" reason to forbidding clergy from marrying.
From Mr. Burgess, we can turn to Mr. Greco.
Alexander Greco wrote:
Obviously, there is no real disagreement on (a). With respect to (b), as I mentioned in my response to Mr. Burgess, Paul is talking about the fact that single people have more time to give explicitly to the service of the kingdom of heaven. With respect to (c), this gets us right back to (a). An analogy between angels and the elect would be proper (or vice versa), but for the same reasons, the "elect are not as holy as God" comparison relates to being, not actions. The issue here is actions.
From Mr. Greco, we can turn to Mr. Douglass.
Ben Douglass wrote:
As to (b), I've provided a detailed answer above, in my response to Mr. Burgess.
As to (c):
i) The difference between privation of good and absence of good is something that is not agreed by the Reformed, even if it is taught from the Vatican. Scripture commands the believer to be perfect:
Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
You see, we believe that the standard of holiness that God requires is perfect righteousness. Thus, any absence of good in a person's life is identical to a privation of good. Furthermore, since we believe that perfect obedience is required, we do not leave room for works of supererogation. Thus, either a person is as good as they ought to be, or they fall short by some measure greater or less.
In other words, whether an act is more or less good depends on how close it comes to approximating the duty God requires of man. Accordingly, there is no bear absence of good in a man's life - instead it is privation. There are sins both of commission and omission, of course, but both are sins. The former involve a positive act, the latter the failure to act.
ii) Douglass quoted NatAmLLC: "According to the "insight" the Holy Ghost gave Paul, we will know the time is close to the end when we are forbidden to marry!"
Paul actually wrote:
1 Timothy 4:1-3
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Those who impose celibacy and fasting (sound familiar at all?) are those that depart from the faith. I'm not sure what Mr. Douglass (or NatAmLLC) was trying to reference. There will be no marriage between humans in heaven:
Luke 20:34-36
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
iii) Douglass stated: "The Catholic Church doesn't force anyone to take a vow of celibacy. It is purely voluntary."
They force anyone who wants to be a bishop to take that vow, as far as I know. Obviously, they don't force people (these days) to become bishops, but for those that do wish to become bishops, it is not voluntary or optional - it is mandatory.
-TurretinFan
UPDATE: Updated 22 December 2008 to indicate where Mr. Douglass was quoting NatAmLLC.
The people are being addressed in reverse chronological order of when they commented, but their comments are (I hope) presented in the order in which the respective person wrote them.
Mike Burgess wrote:
TF said "There is no basis for saying that a chaste life of marriage is less holy than chaste life of celibacy from Scripture."There are two main claims here:
Untrue. See 1 Corinthians 7, particularly vv. 28-35. This is clear Scriptural warrant for the discipline, and it follows the spirit of St. Paul's inspired words: the one who is celibate seeks to be holy in body and spirit, he is concerned with the things of the Lord, and it is good to be married but "better" to remain celibate.
And, to follow up, vv 36-38 make it clear that the Bishop you quoted is correct: there is no doctrinal reason, and the Church has always allowed priests in some particular Churches to marry. She has chosen to impose a discipline for reasons of "good order," as St. Paul says, in the Latin Rite Churches of the One Church.
I presume I shouldn't need to quote St. Paul's words in full to such a biblically literate audience.
1) Burgess is claiming that 1 Corinthians 7:28-35 (perhaps he means to through vs. 38) does teach that a chaste life of marriage is less holy than chaste life of celibacy; and
2) Burgess is claiming that 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 justifies the prohibition on priestly marriage for reasons of "good order."
First things first, let's look at the text itself. Despite Burgess' reasonable confidence in the Biblical literacy of the readership of this blog, we should still take a look at what the text says:
1 Corinthians 7:28-38
28But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. 29But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; 30And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; 31And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. 32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. 36But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. 38So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
As to Burgess' first claim with respect to this passage, the key part of the passage would seem to be "he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better."
The very first counter-observation to be made is that the verse doesn't say "holy" vs. "more holy" but "well" vs. "better." The question is, in what way "better"? If the answer is "better in the sense of more holy," then the distinction makes no difference.
Unfortunately, Burgess doesn't provide us with much of a positive case for his position here. He seems to assume that "better" means "more holy." Perhaps his concise comment is the rational result of my policy of publishing comments slowly, perhaps because he hasn't considered the issue, either way we can evaluate the passage and determine whether it is holiness or something else that is under consideration.
The comparison of "well" to "better" is really a comparison between καλως (kalos = well) and κρεισσον (kreisson = better). Kreisson is rarely used in the New Testament. Its two other NT uses are 1 Corinthians 11:17 and Philippians 1:23.
1 Corinthians 11:17 states that when the Corinthians assemble, it is not for better (κρεισσον) but for worse, and the word for worse here is ηττον (hetton - worse), which does not seem have any particular moral significance.
Philippians 1:23 states that to be with Christ is a thing far better (κρεισσον), but that it is needful for Paul to be with Philippians, and consequently he is "in a straight betwixt two" as the King James version puts it or "hard pressed from both directions" as the NAS puts it.
Nevertheless, there are a few additional uses in the LXX:
1) In Exodus 14:12, the Israelites say it would have been better (κρεισσον) to serve in Egypt than die in the wilderness.
2) In Judges 8:2, Gideon praises the vintage of Ephraim as better (κρεισσον) than that of Abiezer.
3) In Psalm 36:16, it is said that a little is better (κρεισσον) to the righteous than great wealth is to the wicked.
4) In Psalm 62:4, it is said that God's mercy is better (κρεισσον) than life.
5) In Proverbs 21:9, it is said that it is better (κρεισσον) to live in a corner of a housetop, than to live in a plastered house with unrighteousness.
6) In Proverbs 21:19, it is said that is is better (κρεισσον) to live in the wilderness than with a militant, talkative, and angry woman.
7) In Proverbs 25:7, it is said that it is better (κρεισσον) that it be said to you "come up hither" in the eyes of your prince (than to be told to take a lesser seat)
In short, what we can infer from these uses is that the word κρεισσον doesn't have any intrinsic moral significance. It can mean simply more pleasant or more convenient. In this case, the sense of "more convenient" is one obvious sense. Why might one not agree?
Verse 37 states that "he that has decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, does well (καλως)," and then verse 38 adds that he who gives his virgin in marriage does well (καλως)," but that he who does not, does better. What is interesting, to me, is that there is a comparative form of καλως, namely καλλιον (kallion - better) but it is not used. I think this is significant, but at a minimum it does not support the view that the comparison between giving and not giving has to do with which one is more righteous or holy.
That it is a matter of convenience and practicality can be seen from:
1 Corinthians 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
and
1 Corinthians 7:25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
and finally
1 Corinthians 7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
The point of the passage has to do with it being inconvenient to be married, thus, Paul explains:
1 Corinthians 7:32-33
32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
That is to say, single people have more time for explicitly serving the kingdom of God than married people do. Thus, he concludes the thought:
1 Corinthians 7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
With that in mind, it should be apparent that "better" does not mean "more holy" or "more righteous," but rather "more convenient." Accordingly, we can reject the first of Mr. Burgess' contentions, namely that the chaste single life is somehow more holy than the chaste married life.
Mr. Burgess' second contention, related to "good order" is again unfounded. The Apostle Paul occupies the field of marital restrictions by insisting that bishops and deacons be husbands of one wife. Further limitations on the marital status of bishops and deacons are consequently instances of forbidding what Scripture permits. Additionally, given that Scripture clearly teaches:
Proverbs 18:22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.
Consequently, we also reject Mr. Burgess' second contention, that there is a valid "good order" reason to forbidding clergy from marrying.
From Mr. Burgess, we can turn to Mr. Greco.
Alexander Greco wrote:
Turretinfan: a) The analogy [to the idea that God is holier than angels] is distinguishable because the difference in holiness between God and angels relates to their being, not their actions. The issue here, however, is actions.(brackets show my edits for clarity)
[Greco]: Good point.
Turretinfan: b) There is no basis for saying that a chaste life of marriage is less holy than chaste life of celibacy from Scripture.
[Greco]: But what do you make of Paul's words when he describes those who live the celibate life are of the affairs of the Lord, etc? (I'm not dealing with the terminology of "holy" versus "unholy")
Turretinfan: c) Leaving aside the issue of differences between beings (addressed under {a} above), "thing A is less holy than thing B" is logically equivalent to "thing A is more more unholy than thing B."
[Greco]: Would this really be the case though? The elect in heaven are not as holy as God, but would you say that God allows the unholy to exist in heaven?
Obviously, there is no real disagreement on (a). With respect to (b), as I mentioned in my response to Mr. Burgess, Paul is talking about the fact that single people have more time to give explicitly to the service of the kingdom of heaven. With respect to (c), this gets us right back to (a). An analogy between angels and the elect would be proper (or vice versa), but for the same reasons, the "elect are not as holy as God" comparison relates to being, not actions. The issue here is actions.
From Mr. Greco, we can turn to Mr. Douglass.
Ben Douglass wrote:
[Turretinfan:] b) There is no basis for saying that a chaste life of marriage is less holy than chaste life of celibacy from Scripture.(brackets show my edits for clarity/spelling)
[Douglass:] 1 Cor 7:1-2, 7-9, 26-28, 32-40.
"So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better" (1 Cor 7:38).
[Turretinfan:] c) Leaving aside the issue of differences between beings (addressed under {a} above), "thing A is less holy than thing B" is logically equivalent to "thing A is more unholy than thing B."
[Douglass:] I deny. "Unholy" implies evil, which is a privation of good. "Less holy" implies mere absence of good. Not every absence of good is a privation, and hence not every absence of good is evil.
[Douglass quoting NatAmLLC:] According to the "insight" the Holy Ghost gave Paul, we will know the time is close to the end when we are forbidden to marry! Hmmmmmm?
[Douglass:] The Catholic Church doesn't force anyone to take a vow of celibacy. It is purely voluntary. Quoting 1 Tim 4:3 against Catholicism is one of the silliest arguments in the Protestant [repertoire].
As to (b), I've provided a detailed answer above, in my response to Mr. Burgess.
As to (c):
i) The difference between privation of good and absence of good is something that is not agreed by the Reformed, even if it is taught from the Vatican. Scripture commands the believer to be perfect:
Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
You see, we believe that the standard of holiness that God requires is perfect righteousness. Thus, any absence of good in a person's life is identical to a privation of good. Furthermore, since we believe that perfect obedience is required, we do not leave room for works of supererogation. Thus, either a person is as good as they ought to be, or they fall short by some measure greater or less.
In other words, whether an act is more or less good depends on how close it comes to approximating the duty God requires of man. Accordingly, there is no bear absence of good in a man's life - instead it is privation. There are sins both of commission and omission, of course, but both are sins. The former involve a positive act, the latter the failure to act.
ii) Douglass quoted NatAmLLC: "According to the "insight" the Holy Ghost gave Paul, we will know the time is close to the end when we are forbidden to marry!"
Paul actually wrote:
1 Timothy 4:1-3
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Those who impose celibacy and fasting (sound familiar at all?) are those that depart from the faith. I'm not sure what Mr. Douglass (or NatAmLLC) was trying to reference. There will be no marriage between humans in heaven:
Luke 20:34-36
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.
iii) Douglass stated: "The Catholic Church doesn't force anyone to take a vow of celibacy. It is purely voluntary."
They force anyone who wants to be a bishop to take that vow, as far as I know. Obviously, they don't force people (these days) to become bishops, but for those that do wish to become bishops, it is not voluntary or optional - it is mandatory.
-TurretinFan
UPDATE: Updated 22 December 2008 to indicate where Mr. Douglass was quoting NatAmLLC.
Same Church? We report, you decide.
Example 1
Pope John Paul II: "[It] is everyone's duty to work to ensure that the poor have access to credit on equitable terms and at affordable interest rates." (source) (1 January 1998)
Example 2
Pope Sixtus V famously declared interest to be "detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity" (secondary source, page 7) (1586)
I know some people will immediately try to distinguish Sixtus V's comments by noting that he was referring to "usury" and then applying the modern definition of "usury" as "excessive interest."
Example 3
Pope Benedict XIV anticipated this kind of attempt and wrote:
Benedict XIV argued that his position was not merely his personal private opinion or a theological innovation, and prohibited teachings against his teaching:
Was John Paul II the "successor" of Sixtus V and Benedict XIV? We report, you decide.
Nevertheless, I think a few people will recognize that JP2's view on interest (while apparently motivated by a concern for the poor) is not only different from, but expressly condemned by, Sixtus V and Benedict XIV. Popes make mistakes. Either JP2 was right or S5 and B14 were right, but they are not both right. Either taking interest on loans is a sin or it is not.
But some will complain that all this is trivial, because none of the staments involved are ex cathedra statements. Consequently, there is no impact on papal infallibility, even where (as here) popes seem to contradict one another. That kind of response (while it reveals a recognition of part of the problem) misses the thrust of the issue.
To get at the issue, let me ask a few further thought-questions for my papist readers. Do you believe you can decide who was right and who was wrong between JP2 and S5/B14? If so, what is your standard? Are you making yourself a mini-pope by deciding? If not - do you see why we are not making ourselves mini-popes when evaluate Trent or Vatican I or Vatican II? And our standard is the unshakable standard of Scripture, which is the only authenticable tradition of the apostles.
-TurretinFan
Pope John Paul II: "[It] is everyone's duty to work to ensure that the poor have access to credit on equitable terms and at affordable interest rates." (source) (1 January 1998)
Example 2
Pope Sixtus V famously declared interest to be "detestable to God and man, damned by the sacred canons and contrary to Christian charity" (secondary source, page 7) (1586)
I know some people will immediately try to distinguish Sixtus V's comments by noting that he was referring to "usury" and then applying the modern definition of "usury" as "excessive interest."
Example 3
Pope Benedict XIV anticipated this kind of attempt and wrote:
One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one's fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions. The law governing loans consists necessarily in the equality of what is given and returned; once the equality has been established, whoever demands more than that violates the terms of the loan. Therefore if one receives interest, he must make restitution according to the commutative bond of justice; its function in human contracts is to assure equality for each one. This law is to be observed in a holy manner. If not observed exactly, reparation must be made.(source) (1745)
Benedict XIV argued that his position was not merely his personal private opinion or a theological innovation, and prohibited teachings against his teaching:
4. This is how the Cardinals and theologians and the men most conversant with the canons, whose advice We had asked for in this most serious business, explained their opinions. Also We devoted our private study to this matter before the congregations were convened, while they were in session, and again after they had been held; for We read the opinions of these outstanding men most diligently. Because of this, We approve and confirm whatever is contained in the opinions above, since the professors of Canon Law and Theology, scriptural evidence, the decrees of previous popes, and the authority of Church councils and the Fathers all seem to enjoin it. Besides, We certainly know the authors who hold the opposite opinions and also those who either support and defend those authors or at least who seem to give them consideration. We are also aware that the theologians of regions neighboring those in which the controversy had its origin undertook the defense of the truth with wisdom and seriousness.(same source - same date)
5. Therefore We address these encyclical letters to all Italian Archbishops, Bishops, and priests to make all of you aware of these matters. Whenever Synods are held or sermons preached or instructions on sacred doctrine given, the above opinions must be adhered to strictly. Take great care that no one in your dioceses dares to write or preach the contrary; however if any one should refuse to obey, he should be subjected to the penalties imposed by the sacred canons on those who violate Apostolic mandates.
Was John Paul II the "successor" of Sixtus V and Benedict XIV? We report, you decide.
Nevertheless, I think a few people will recognize that JP2's view on interest (while apparently motivated by a concern for the poor) is not only different from, but expressly condemned by, Sixtus V and Benedict XIV. Popes make mistakes. Either JP2 was right or S5 and B14 were right, but they are not both right. Either taking interest on loans is a sin or it is not.
But some will complain that all this is trivial, because none of the staments involved are ex cathedra statements. Consequently, there is no impact on papal infallibility, even where (as here) popes seem to contradict one another. That kind of response (while it reveals a recognition of part of the problem) misses the thrust of the issue.
To get at the issue, let me ask a few further thought-questions for my papist readers. Do you believe you can decide who was right and who was wrong between JP2 and S5/B14? If so, what is your standard? Are you making yourself a mini-pope by deciding? If not - do you see why we are not making ourselves mini-popes when evaluate Trent or Vatican I or Vatican II? And our standard is the unshakable standard of Scripture, which is the only authenticable tradition of the apostles.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Comparing John Calvin and James White
Someone (http://www.puritanfellowship.com/2008/12/calvin-disagrees-with-james-white-on.html) has suggested that Calvin and Dr. White disagree about John 3:16.
I thought it would be helpful to provide some comments on the following text, which is Pringle's translation of what Calvin wrote (in Latin) on John 3:16. The particular portion of the text on which Calvin is commenting is, "That whosoever believeth on him may not perish ... ."
Calvin (according to Pringle): It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction.
White (as I imagine he might respond): As Calvin meant this, agreed. For more on this topic, see Mr. Swan's discussion (http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1937).
Calvin (according to Pringle): For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us.
White (as I imagine he might respond): Agreed: that is the gospel offer.
Calvin (according to Pringle): And he has employed the universal term "whosoever," both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers.
White (as I imagine he might respond): Of course Calvin did not use the word "whosoever," that's inserted in Pringle's translation. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the univesality of the expression "all the believing ones" cuts off every excuse from the unbeliever. He cannot say, if I were to believe, I would not be saved, for all who believe will be saved.
Calvin (according to Pringle): Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
White (as I imagine he might respond): Again, "to be reconciled" is Pringle's gloss, for Calvin does not use a form of the Latin word "reconciliare" from which we derive our word "reconcile," but "propitium" from which we derive the word "propitious" which means "favorable." A better translation might be "yet he shows favor to the whole world," for indeed the gospel offer itself is not deserved by the world, as Calvin himself explains. And indeed, entrance by faith is nothing else than an entrance into everlasting life.
***
Please note that each of those statements for "White" are simply things that I imagine Dr. White might say, based on things I've read and heard from him, they are not his actual words.
In conclusion, the report that Calvin disagrees with White (quite an anachronism in itself) is most likely false, at least with respect to John 3:16. There are naturally points on which Dr. White and Calvin disagree, such as on topics of the relation between church and state and issues relating to the mode and subjects of baptism. On the free offer of the gospel and the fact that it cuts off the excuses of unbelievers, however, Calvin and Dr. White are (or at least appear to be) shoulder to shoulder.
-TurretinFan
I thought it would be helpful to provide some comments on the following text, which is Pringle's translation of what Calvin wrote (in Latin) on John 3:16. The particular portion of the text on which Calvin is commenting is, "That whosoever believeth on him may not perish ... ."
Calvin (according to Pringle): It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction.
White (as I imagine he might respond): As Calvin meant this, agreed. For more on this topic, see Mr. Swan's discussion (http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1937).
Calvin (according to Pringle): For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us.
White (as I imagine he might respond): Agreed: that is the gospel offer.
Calvin (according to Pringle): And he has employed the universal term "whosoever," both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers.
White (as I imagine he might respond): Of course Calvin did not use the word "whosoever," that's inserted in Pringle's translation. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the univesality of the expression "all the believing ones" cuts off every excuse from the unbeliever. He cannot say, if I were to believe, I would not be saved, for all who believe will be saved.
Calvin (according to Pringle): Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
White (as I imagine he might respond): Again, "to be reconciled" is Pringle's gloss, for Calvin does not use a form of the Latin word "reconciliare" from which we derive our word "reconcile," but "propitium" from which we derive the word "propitious" which means "favorable." A better translation might be "yet he shows favor to the whole world," for indeed the gospel offer itself is not deserved by the world, as Calvin himself explains. And indeed, entrance by faith is nothing else than an entrance into everlasting life.
***
Please note that each of those statements for "White" are simply things that I imagine Dr. White might say, based on things I've read and heard from him, they are not his actual words.
In conclusion, the report that Calvin disagrees with White (quite an anachronism in itself) is most likely false, at least with respect to John 3:16. There are naturally points on which Dr. White and Calvin disagree, such as on topics of the relation between church and state and issues relating to the mode and subjects of baptism. On the free offer of the gospel and the fact that it cuts off the excuses of unbelievers, however, Calvin and Dr. White are (or at least appear to be) shoulder to shoulder.
-TurretinFan
Reciprocal Blog Links
You may note that on the left-hand side of this blog (under the current template) there is a section providing links back to folks who have kindly linked to this blog. As far as I know, this is a comprehensive list. Nevertheless, it would not surprise me to discover that I had inadvertently left someone out. If you have been left out, please don't hesitate to let me know, as I'd like to correct that error post-haste.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Rob Lundberg at The Real Issue has the inside scoop on how you can get the subject film for free (link).
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Three Part Series on Reformed Theology
I recently came across this three-part series on Reformed Theology, specifically focusing on Sola Scriptura. I believe the speaker is R. C. Sproul. Unfortunately, the sound is not well synchronized with the video, or wasn't when I watched it.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
While I didn't catch any glaring errors in the presentation, I wouldn't suggest listening to these presentations uncritically. Hat Tip to Michael Patton at Parchment and Pen for bringing this to my attention (link).
-TurretinFan
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
While I didn't catch any glaring errors in the presentation, I wouldn't suggest listening to these presentations uncritically. Hat Tip to Michael Patton at Parchment and Pen for bringing this to my attention (link).
-TurretinFan
Question to Romanists
Given the statement: "Religious minorities are entitled to be respected in their own religious convictions and practices. They are also entitled to their own places of worship, and their founding figures and symbols they consider sacred should not be subject to any form of mockery or ridicule."
a) Do you agree with the statement?
b) Do you consider the Reformed churches "religious minorities"?
c) Do you consider Luther and/or Calvin to be "founding figures" of the Reformed churches, within the sense of this statement?
d) If you answered "yes" to each of (a)-(c), do you condemn the mocking of Luther and/or Calvin that is provided by so many Romanists?
-TurretinFan
a) Do you agree with the statement?
b) Do you consider the Reformed churches "religious minorities"?
c) Do you consider Luther and/or Calvin to be "founding figures" of the Reformed churches, within the sense of this statement?
d) If you answered "yes" to each of (a)-(c), do you condemn the mocking of Luther and/or Calvin that is provided by so many Romanists?
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
William Binnie on The Pslams: Their Teaching, History, and Use
I was happy to learn (I cannot recall from where) that Binnie's classic work on the Psalms is now available freely at Archive.org (link).
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Evangelicals - Could This be Your Child?
I was directed by Mark Shea to the blog of someone who Mr. Shea claims is "Another Protestant Start[ing] on the Whole 'Going Deeper into History and Ceasing to be a Protestant' Thing" (link to the person's blog) (link to Shea's blog). This person is someone who married a Romanist and is now in the process of "converting," presumably through the RCIA process.
My main question for you evangelicals is this: could this be your child?
Have you raised your children to understand what is the matter with Romanism, to understand not just that "Roman Catholicism is bad" or that "the Pope is the Antichrist" but what is wrong and anti-Biblical in the theology of Rome?
In studying Augustine with a group of believers the other day, I was surprised to hear one claiming that Augustine held such-and-such a view because of "Roman Catholic influences." The person making this statement was not young - and really should have known better than to make such a vast anachronism.
Unfortunately, I doubt that this person is alone in imagining that Roman Catholicism was around in Augustine's time. There are doubtless countless folks who are simply uninformed regarding what the early believers and medieval churchmen taught and believed regarding various doctrines.
Contrary to Mr. Shea's claim, the deeper I've delved into church history, the more clearly I've seen that "Protestant" principles like Sola Scriptura were taught and believed in the early church.
In this particular case, I'm afraid that whoever educated this person did not provide a full tool-bag of epistemology and hermeneutics to understand and evaluate Scriptural doctrine and the claims of Rome.
Let's take a few examples:
(1) In a recent post entitled "Beginning to Understand Indulgences," this person writes: "I don't claim to fully understand indulgences or why the church has chosen to make use of them, but I'm not going to reject it based on the already tenuous Protestant concept of "saved once and for all"."
The major reason to reject them is the fact that Scripture does not teach this doctrine.
But as well, the idea that we are "saved once and for all" is not just a "Protestant" concept, it is an explicitly Biblical concept:
Hebrew 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Perhaps even more relevant to the topic of this post, indulgences are an innovation. The use of indulgences was something unknown to, and unused by, the apostles. One does not arrive at indulgences by diving deeply into history, but only by walking about in the shallows.
(2) In another post called, "The Beginning of My Mental Conversion," the person addresses the issue of contraception. As this person points out, the person's views against the teachings of Catholicism on this point were "from eugenic propaganda."
Again, on this topic, the major objection is that the teachings of Catholicism on this matter are not in keeping with Scripture. Not only is it legalistic of Catholicism to insist that all artificial methods of contraception are wrong, but it is violative of Scripture for Catholicism to encourage couples to cheat one another of marital relations for the purposes of avoiding conception.
Every Christian parent should, at the appropriate age, sit down with their children and explain the meaning of:
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Having recreational intimacy with one's spouse is honorable and undefiled - having "unitive and procreative" relations outside of marriage is a heinous sin. That's the teaching of Scripture, whether one's church teaches otherwise or not.
(This particular post also addresses the issue of infant baptism. The person ties in the rejection of once-for-all for salvation to the rejection of believers-only baptism, so I must say that the reasons this person had for rejecting the sola-credo view were not entirely the right reasons.)
(3) In a third post, entitled, "Then who, Luther? You?" the person provided some comments on reading about Luther. The person wrote:
The person goes on to argue:
(4) Finally, a post entitled, "So I married a Catholic," provides the context that explains part of the reason for this change of views. The Scripture teaches:
1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
We need to teach our children to be careful about how and with whom they communicate. This particular person evidently was attracted to the Romanist now-spouse for what probably seemed very good reasons: the now-spouse was defending a theistic position against an atheist/agnostic. The problem is this, the now-spouse (whether or not a Christian) is and was a part of a church that rejects the authority of Scripture, placing itself (as a result) against the Word of God.
We can be friends with and friendly towards members of an apostate church, but we must be aware of the person's allegiances. A Christian young person needs to recognize the importance of choosing a spouse who is willing to submit his/her beliefs to the authority of Scripture.
Furthermore, Christian parents need to encourage their children not to view those within Catholicism as potential spouses, and why that is the case. I cannot say whether this person's parents provided such instruction, but it does not appear to have "taken," as this person never considered that a factor.
In this case, it seems that the person got married to a very dogmatic and insistent papist, and has been influenced by the spouse to adopt many of the doctrines of Catholicism. This is not the result of getting deep into history, but rather of failing to be grounded in a proper understanding of our source of knowledge about God and the way to obtain that knowledge.
Conclusion
I've tried to use this particular person (brought to the public light by Mr. Shea) as an example, not to pick on this particular person or the person's parents, but to serve as a warning to Evangelicals who are raising their children in a religious diverse world. While your children are young, you may be able to shelter them from the world and worldly religions, but there will come a time when they have to go out into the world, whether that is in college, in a job, or whatever it may be. Prepare your children now to understand what the Scripture teaches about itself, about God, and about man. Catechize your children well, so that they understand both what they believe and why they believe it.
As Scripture says:
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
-TurretinFan
My main question for you evangelicals is this: could this be your child?
Have you raised your children to understand what is the matter with Romanism, to understand not just that "Roman Catholicism is bad" or that "the Pope is the Antichrist" but what is wrong and anti-Biblical in the theology of Rome?
In studying Augustine with a group of believers the other day, I was surprised to hear one claiming that Augustine held such-and-such a view because of "Roman Catholic influences." The person making this statement was not young - and really should have known better than to make such a vast anachronism.
Unfortunately, I doubt that this person is alone in imagining that Roman Catholicism was around in Augustine's time. There are doubtless countless folks who are simply uninformed regarding what the early believers and medieval churchmen taught and believed regarding various doctrines.
Contrary to Mr. Shea's claim, the deeper I've delved into church history, the more clearly I've seen that "Protestant" principles like Sola Scriptura were taught and believed in the early church.
In this particular case, I'm afraid that whoever educated this person did not provide a full tool-bag of epistemology and hermeneutics to understand and evaluate Scriptural doctrine and the claims of Rome.
Let's take a few examples:
(1) In a recent post entitled "Beginning to Understand Indulgences," this person writes: "I don't claim to fully understand indulgences or why the church has chosen to make use of them, but I'm not going to reject it based on the already tenuous Protestant concept of "saved once and for all"."
The major reason to reject them is the fact that Scripture does not teach this doctrine.
But as well, the idea that we are "saved once and for all" is not just a "Protestant" concept, it is an explicitly Biblical concept:
Hebrew 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Perhaps even more relevant to the topic of this post, indulgences are an innovation. The use of indulgences was something unknown to, and unused by, the apostles. One does not arrive at indulgences by diving deeply into history, but only by walking about in the shallows.
(2) In another post called, "The Beginning of My Mental Conversion," the person addresses the issue of contraception. As this person points out, the person's views against the teachings of Catholicism on this point were "from eugenic propaganda."
Again, on this topic, the major objection is that the teachings of Catholicism on this matter are not in keeping with Scripture. Not only is it legalistic of Catholicism to insist that all artificial methods of contraception are wrong, but it is violative of Scripture for Catholicism to encourage couples to cheat one another of marital relations for the purposes of avoiding conception.
Every Christian parent should, at the appropriate age, sit down with their children and explain the meaning of:
Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Having recreational intimacy with one's spouse is honorable and undefiled - having "unitive and procreative" relations outside of marriage is a heinous sin. That's the teaching of Scripture, whether one's church teaches otherwise or not.
(This particular post also addresses the issue of infant baptism. The person ties in the rejection of once-for-all for salvation to the rejection of believers-only baptism, so I must say that the reasons this person had for rejecting the sola-credo view were not entirely the right reasons.)
(3) In a third post, entitled, "Then who, Luther? You?" the person provided some comments on reading about Luther. The person wrote:
Luther tells Eck, "I give St. Peter the highest honor, but not the greatest power. For he does not have the power either to create, to send forth, to govern, or to ordain the Apostles." From the context, he seems to be talking about appointing successors to the apostles.But this belies a category error. Luther's answer would not be that Luther had such a power, but simply that no mere mortal has such a power.
My immediate reaction to this is to say, "Then who has this power, Luther? You?"
The person goes on to argue:
Christ is gone until he returns at the end of time. Eleven men ordained by Christ did not reach all the Earth with their teachings before they died. Those of us who have come after need guidance. I have often heard Luther's assertion that Christ is the head of the church even now defended by saying the Holy Spirit is our liaison with Christ, and the Bible is the sole authority because people are unreliable. Honestly, every unreliable person depending on their own individual understanding as opposed to that of a structured, trained, and blessed leadership seems a lot more flawed.The problem with this argument is that the Apostles did provide guidance to be handed down, namely the New Testament. Another problem is that it is simply a matter of fact that humans are unreliable. We see popes and councils erring when we study church history. Finally, the comparison between each person being on their own compared with a "blessed leadership" is a doubly-false dichotomy. The choice is between a believer indwelt by the Holy Spirit and leaders that claim to be blessed. And even that believer is not on his own. While humans are not infallible guides, they can be of assistance. Thus, the Holy Spirit does provide the church as an invaluable aid to believers.
(4) Finally, a post entitled, "So I married a Catholic," provides the context that explains part of the reason for this change of views. The Scripture teaches:
1 Corinthians 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
We need to teach our children to be careful about how and with whom they communicate. This particular person evidently was attracted to the Romanist now-spouse for what probably seemed very good reasons: the now-spouse was defending a theistic position against an atheist/agnostic. The problem is this, the now-spouse (whether or not a Christian) is and was a part of a church that rejects the authority of Scripture, placing itself (as a result) against the Word of God.
We can be friends with and friendly towards members of an apostate church, but we must be aware of the person's allegiances. A Christian young person needs to recognize the importance of choosing a spouse who is willing to submit his/her beliefs to the authority of Scripture.
Furthermore, Christian parents need to encourage their children not to view those within Catholicism as potential spouses, and why that is the case. I cannot say whether this person's parents provided such instruction, but it does not appear to have "taken," as this person never considered that a factor.
In this case, it seems that the person got married to a very dogmatic and insistent papist, and has been influenced by the spouse to adopt many of the doctrines of Catholicism. This is not the result of getting deep into history, but rather of failing to be grounded in a proper understanding of our source of knowledge about God and the way to obtain that knowledge.
Conclusion
I've tried to use this particular person (brought to the public light by Mr. Shea) as an example, not to pick on this particular person or the person's parents, but to serve as a warning to Evangelicals who are raising their children in a religious diverse world. While your children are young, you may be able to shelter them from the world and worldly religions, but there will come a time when they have to go out into the world, whether that is in college, in a job, or whatever it may be. Prepare your children now to understand what the Scripture teaches about itself, about God, and about man. Catechize your children well, so that they understand both what they believe and why they believe it.
As Scripture says:
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
-TurretinFan
A Sad Metaphor - Church Stolen But No One Noticed
Russian church stolen by thieves (link). Unfortunately, while it can happen that an entire church building can be taken by thieves without anyone noticing, it can also happen that a church hierarchy can be taken by thieves without people noticing.
The remedy in the first case is vigilance and attendance at the church building.
The remedy in the second case is vigilance and attendance on the Word of God found in the Holy Scripture.
John 10:1-18
1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. 6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. 7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
This also ties in with my previous post on the voluntary nature of Christ's death.
-TurretinFan
The remedy in the first case is vigilance and attendance at the church building.
The remedy in the second case is vigilance and attendance on the Word of God found in the Holy Scripture.
John 10:1-18
1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. 4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. 5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. 6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. 7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
This also ties in with my previous post on the voluntary nature of Christ's death.
-TurretinFan
Christ's Voluntary Death
I greatly enjoyed the following video by Dr. James White, explaining to a Muslim antagonist the voluntary nature of Christ's death on the cross:
I would add that there is more revelation that declares that Jesus' sacrifice was voluntary, namely in the prophecy of that great prophet, the prophet Isaiah (prophecying of Jesus the Messiah):
Isaiah 53:7-8
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
It Jesus who was slain for the transgressions (sins) of the elect. And the prophecy continues:
Isaiah 53:9-10
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
You see, Jesus was an offering for sins, by which obtained his seed - his children purchased by his blood. And still the prophecy continues:
Isaiah 53:11-12
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
It was not an easy thing to do, but He did it and was satisfied. Through his knowledge (love) many are justified, by his bearing their iniquities (sins). He poured out his soul unto death, it was his choice, and yet he is great by virtue of this humiliation.
The sins of the elect were imputed to Christ, and he bare those sins, and now makes intercession for the elect in heaven.
He is our God and our hope for eternal life. He is the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy.
-TurretinFan
I would add that there is more revelation that declares that Jesus' sacrifice was voluntary, namely in the prophecy of that great prophet, the prophet Isaiah (prophecying of Jesus the Messiah):
Isaiah 53:7-8
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
It Jesus who was slain for the transgressions (sins) of the elect. And the prophecy continues:
Isaiah 53:9-10
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
You see, Jesus was an offering for sins, by which obtained his seed - his children purchased by his blood. And still the prophecy continues:
Isaiah 53:11-12
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
It was not an easy thing to do, but He did it and was satisfied. Through his knowledge (love) many are justified, by his bearing their iniquities (sins). He poured out his soul unto death, it was his choice, and yet he is great by virtue of this humiliation.
The sins of the elect were imputed to Christ, and he bare those sins, and now makes intercession for the elect in heaven.
He is our God and our hope for eternal life. He is the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy.
-TurretinFan
A Challenge for Reformation Scholarship
While many important Reformation works were printed, there remains much handwritten material. There are several projects that have taken on the challenge of converting handwritten material to printed and/or electronic form. For an example of the challenge involved, check out this recent post at Evangelical Textual Criticism (link) and try your hand at transcribing this short (half page?) note apparently by the famous textual scholar Tischendorf.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Excellent Recent Posts on Calvinism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
