Response to Bryan Cross at "Called to Communion"

The following is a detailed response to Bryan Cross' comment #441 here (link to the comment) at the Roman Catholic blog, Called to Communion.

Dear Bryan Cross:

Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my comments. I have a few rejoinders, which I'll try to group in some sort of organized way below - not necessarily keeping to the same outline as above (i.e. in the comment box), although with respect to the consequences, I'll maintain the [A]-[E] nomenclature. I realize that the response is a bit long, and so I've posted it on my own blog, rather than cluttering up the (ever growing) comment box with it. I realize sometimes overly long comments can be a drag on a thread. I've tried to use headings as well, to help the weary reader orient himself among the rejoinders offered.

I. Sola/Solo Leads to the Consequences by "Natural Necessity"

I appreciate this clarification to the article, because I did not detect this concept expressed in the article. Certainly it wasn't expressed in so many words, but - of course - perhaps it was an implication that I missed: I will present several examples from the article that perhaps should have alerted me. In any event, I have several objections to this approach.

a) The Concept of Natural Necessity is Incompatible with the World of Ideas

1) Describing Natural Necessity

You provided a classic example of natural necessity[Fn1] with the acorn => oak tree example. The nature of the acorn is to become an oak tree, although (of course) something like a squirrel, a fire, or a lad with a slingshot may intervene to prevent this natural progression. More precisely, it is the nature of an acorn to be a potential oak tree. Every normal acorn is a potential oak tree by natural necessity.

2) Nature of Ideas

While it is easy to speak of the nature of an acorn, it is more difficult to speak of the nature of ideas. Ideas lack, for example, interaction with the so-called laws of nature. When we speak of the nature of ideas, we are typically speaking of the definition of the idea. For example, if we say that it is in the nature of "red" that it is not blue or yellow, we are speaking essentially as to the definition of the idea.

Of course, we may also speak loosely of ideas using the term "nature." Thus, for example, in part I of your article, you write [Fn2]: (a)

... sola scriptura, no less than solo scriptura, entails that the individual Christian is the ultimate arbiter of the right interpretation of Scripture. This implies that what Mathison calls ’solo scriptura‘ is in fact a more clearly distilled manifestation over time of the true nature of sola scriptura.

(ellipsis mine)

I call this a loose use of the term "nature," because it does not appear to be referring either to the laws of nature, or to the definition of the idea, but rather to something else - something difficult to explain, though we will attempt to do so. Before we do so, it may help to see the other instances of your usage in the article.

(b) In section IV(A) you state:

But there are two ways to make oneself one’s own ultimate interpretive and magisterial authority. One is a direct way and the other is an indirect way. The direct way is to subject all theological questions directly to the final verdict of one’s own interpretation of Scripture. That is the solo scriptura position. Because it is direct, the nature of the position is quite transparent; we can see clearly in such a case that the individual is acting as his own ultimate interpretive authority.

(bold emphasis mine)

(c) In section V(A) you state:

Here we should say something about what it means to bind the conscience. It is of the very nature of law to bind the conscience. Law does not coerce the will, but law binds the conscience precisely insofar as reason grasps it as the standard or rule to which our beliefs, words and actions ought to conform.

(emphasis mine)

(d) Later in section V(A) you state:

A book by its very nature has a limited intrinsic potency for interpretive self-clarification; a person, on the other hand, by his very nature has, in principle, an unlimited intrinsic potency with respect to interpretive self-clarification.

(e)And again in the same section:

Civil laws bind the conscience in that we are obligated to obey them, so long as they do not conflict with a higher law, whether that be the natural law, or the law of God as revealed through the Church. Hence the nature of genuine civil authority does not show that the Magisterium cannot bind the conscience of the faithful.

(f) And again immediately afterward:

In addition, the nature of the Church’s Magisterial authority is not rightly determined by determining what nature of authority is sufficient for civil government. Such a method would presuppose both that the Church is equivalent in nature to a civil society and that there is no existing ecclesial authority that provides the definitive answer to questions about the nature of the Church’s authority.

(g) And further (same section again):

For this reason, without apostolic succession, the Church would be a natural society providentially governed by God, another nation among the nations. Only by apostolic succession is she a divine society that does not compete with natural societies, because grace builds on nature. In short, civil authorities acquire their natural civic authority by God’s providence through lawful processes. Since the Church is a supernatural society, ecclesial authorities cannot acquire their authority naturally under providential guidance. Ecclesial authority is not natural authority, but supernatural authority, and therefore requires succession from a supernatural source.

(h) In Section V(B):

Moreover, our argument helps explain the rise over the last one hundred and fifty years of the explicit embrace of a solo scriptura approach within Protestantism. Philosophies and theologies more fully manifest their nature over time. If there is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, then we would expect the sola scriptura doctrine taught by the early Protestant to come to manifest its true nature over time as outright solo scriptura. Sola scriptura could temporarily conceal its true nature, as Protestantism lived on the inertial remnants of Catholic conceptions of sacramental authority. Sacramental magisterial authority is supernatural in origin, as we explained above, because the Church is a divine institution. The denial of sacramental magisterial authority closes a person off to the Church as supernatural, leaving only the possibility of democratic (bottom-up) man-made authority under providential guidance. As Protestants have come to understand more clearly the democratic nature of Protestant ecclesial authority, they have come to see that as Protestants, they themselves as individuals, hold final interpretive authority, and have come to live as such. This explains the widespread solo scriptura phenomenon within Protestantism that Mathison decries.

(bold emphasis is mine)

As you will note, (g) is an exception to the general use of "nature" in the article. In examples (a)-(f) and (h), the term "nature" is being used loosely to describe the idea [Fn3]. More specifically, examples (a), (b), and (h) deal with the "nature" of sola/solo scriptura:
- in example (a) it seems we are being told that the "nature" is "the individual Christian is the ultimate arbiter of the right interpretation of Scripture";
- in example (b) it seems we are being told that the "nature" is "... to subject all theological questions ... to the final verdict of one’s own interpretation of Scripture";
- in example (h) we seem to be told that solo scriptura is the true nature of sola scriptura; and
- again in the same example, it appears that the nature of sola/solo scriptura is being equated to "the democratic nature of Protestant ecclesial authority."

By way of comparison, examples (c)-(f) deal with the nature of other ideas and things:
- in example (c) we are told that "It is of the very nature of law to bind the conscience";
- in example (d) we are told that "A book by its very nature has a limited intrinsic potency for interpretive self-clarification";
- in the same example, we are told that "a person ... by his very nature has, in principle, an unlimited intrinsic potency with respect to interpretive self-clarification"
- in example (e) we can infer that it is in the nature of civil laws to "bind the conscience in that we are obligated to obey them"; and
- in example (f) we can infer that the nature of Ecclesial and Civil authority are capable of comparison and contrast.

We should note, before continuing, that the items in example (d) relate to the natures of things, rather than ideas. Furthermore, in examples (c) and (e) we are dealing, in essence, with the definition of the concept of laws.

What is interesting is that with respect to solo scriptura, it almost appears that the definition of solo scriptura is being used as its "nature." That is to say, the "nature" of solo scriptura (per the article) appears to be able to be summarized as: "the individual Christian is the ultimate arbiter of the right interpretation of Scripture" and consequently is entitled "... to subject all theological questions ... to the final verdict of one’s own interpretation of Scripture" with ecclesial authority (if any[Fn4]) being democratic.

Those things appear to be definitional of solo scriptura, at least as it is defined by Mathison, although it does not appear to be definitional of sola scriptura (again, as defined by Mathison). So, it appears that (at least with respect to sola scriptura) the article is not using the term "nature" in the sense of definition.

Possibly the best explanation for the loose use of the term "nature" is found in the comment: "Philosophies and theologies more fully manifest their nature over time." What this comment means [Fn5] is that the people who hold to a particular philosophy or theology (ideology, for short) reveal the practical consequences of that ideology in time.

Thus, for example, folks take the position that the Soviet Union revealed the practical consequences of Marxism. Likewise, some folks argued that the Peasants Revolt revealed the practical consequences of Lutheranism, and other folks argued that the Inquisition revealed the practical consequences of Roman Catholicism.

In short, such a claim is a claim about the people who hold the ideas, not about the ideas themselves. Consequently the claim isn't really about the nature of the ideas as such, but of the people who hold the ideas.

b) Analytical Problems with Mixing Ideas and People

There are a few main reasons why mixing ideas and people (under a claim of natural necessity) poses analytical and persuasive problems:

1) Free Will

Practically everyone ascribes some form of "free will" to men [Fn6]. This makes it hard to ascribe to a strict causal relation between an ideology and human behavior. To go back to the analogy, the human will is a very active Squirrel that may interfere quite easily with the "natural" progress of a particular ideology.

2) Multitude of Ideologies

In many cases, people subscribe to a variety of different ideologies on different subjects. For example, some people are cautious, other people are more risk-loving. Some people are frugal, others are spendthrifts. Some people are skeptical, some are superstitious. It can be difficult to pin behavior on a single ideology. For example, are Scottish Presbyterians notoriously frugal [Fn7] because of their Calvinism or because of a genetic predisposition toward frugality or perhaps does Calvinism appeal to them because they are frugal?

3) Identifying the End-point

It is hard to say what should be used as the end-point observation for determining the historical outworking of an ideology. It is tempting to use the present time, for obvious reasons. If, however, one was to judge "Christianity"[Fn8] at the time of the crusades by the crusades, or at the time of the Inquisition by the Inquisition, one would get a different result than either before those periods or after those periods. Same goes for "Christianity" before, during, and after Constantine.

4) Properly Characterizing Trends

Associated with (3), there is a problem in determining whether something is a trend or a deviation from a norm. If one took the graph of a heart beat and stopped one's observation at the right place, it could look like the heart is either ready to explode (on the increasing pressure part of the beat) or implode (on the decreasing part of the beat).

5) Shifts in Ideology / Impurity in Ideology / Categorizing an Ideology

One frequent objection one hears from Marxists is that the Soviet Union is not a fair representation of Marxism because it did not embody "true Marxism." Likewise, we are told that the Peasant's Revolt was not genuine Lutheranism, and that the Inquisitors were acting out of accord with their church's theology and/or moral teaching. Whether we accept these items or not, it becomes difficult to persuade someone that (for example) "torture is the natural outworking of Roman Catholicism" if the person will not acknowledge the torturer as a faithful Roman Catholic.

c) Attempted Application of Natural Necessity to Sola/Solo Scriptura Fails to Prove/Persuade

Calling solo scriptura the "true nature"[Fn9] of sola scriptura in the sense of being the practical outworking of it, runs into the problems above. To the extent that people accept "free will" it is tough to ascribe the outworking to the ideology apart from the people. The revitalization of sola scriptura during the time of the Reformation [Fn10] was also accompanied by a number of other sociological factors and the rise of a number of ideologies (such as views on personal liberty and equality) and influences (increased affluence and literacy) that are hard to link to specific causes.

We don't have to stick to general handwaving. The combination of a collapse of feudalism in favor of more democratic forms of government, together with a rise in literacy, can at least intuitively explain a general increase both in lack of respect for authority (both civil and eccelisial) and an increase in confidence in one's own abilities (if one is an illiterate serf one may not feel as qualified to interpret Scripture as if one is a merchant who can read and write in three languages).

In fact, while it is difficult to attribute weight to various forces, those forces on their face have more explanatory power with respect to the changes seen in the Reformation and post-Reformation period in terms of attitude toward authority than does sola scriptura, as such - since sola scriptura has to do with infallible authority, not authority in general.

II. “Hermeneutical chaos and anarchy” is not a characteristic of the sola position.

Your response, Bryan, in this regard was to argue that by considering only a single church that practices this method, I have created an artificial abstraction. However, of course, if disagreement among churches that allege adherence to the sola position are counted as "hermeneutical chaos and anarchy" then the disagreement among churches that allege adherence to the "apostolic succession" position should be counted the same way. Furthermore, of course, grouping many churches together is no less (and perhaps is more) of an artificial abstraction than examining a single church.

III. “Multiplication of schisms” – this allegation is counter-intuitive.

Your response to this allegation is to claim that although it may be counter-intuitive it is reality. You state: "The existence of all these (thousands) of different Protestant sects is indisputably true." No one denied that there are many different denominations of "Protestants." What is counter-intuitive is that this is characteristic of an ideology that is (by nature) relativistic. Relativism promotes unity, in that it promotes tolerance of different views, since no one's view is any better than anyone else's view. It is an absolute view of truth that promotes schisms.

You noted that sometimes churches split over things like the color of the carpeting. That may well be, and that has nothing to do with faith or morals. Such a split is not a split that relates to the subject matter of sola scriptura and consequently simply serves to demonstrate that other factors than sola scriptura are at play in the multiplication of schisms. In short, your example is undermining evidence with respect to your contention.

IV. The claim that “the creeds have no 'real authority,'” is logically impossible

Your response, Bryan, in this regard was to allege, in essence[Fn11], to say that you don't view the authority as "authentic" if its authority grounded in a particular way and/or if submission is conditioned in a particular way. There are two responses:

1) Insisting that authority isn't authentic unless it is grounded in particular way etc. appears simply to beg the question. One might paraphrase your objection as, "the creeds lack real authority because their authority is not strong enough." However, that's not a valid objection unless the creeds (or confessions, or whatever) must have stronger authority than they do in sola scriptura churches.

2) Your characterization of authority in sola scriptura churches isn't accurate. The idea that "a so-called authority that has as its basis of authority that it agrees with me" is an unrecognizable caricature of the sola scriptura position.

3) Your reasoning could be applied to argue that a bishop in Roman Catholicism lacks any "real authority." Why? Because the same reductionism to "my interpretation of" applies to the teachings of the Church, which are a greater authority than the authority of an individual bishop. In fact, your reasoning amounts to saying that no authority is a "real authority" unless it is - in essence - the ultimate authority.

4) Your reasoning further implies a radical sola eccelesia position. That is to say, you deny the Scripture any "real authority" (by your definition) because in the event that you conclude that there is an apparent difference between (your interpretation of) the teachings of Scripture and (your interpretation of) the teachings of your church, you accept (your interpretation of) the teachings of your church.

V. “A practical relativism concerning the content of Scripture” Conflates Proper and Improper Flexibility

As noted in my previous comment, it is proper to have charity in the non-essentials. Since the objection doesn't differentiate, it only creates confusion.

VI. "“Destroys” the authority of Scripture “by making the meaning of Scripture dependent upon the judgment of each individual,”" misrepresents the Sola position

I am thankful for the clarification provided in your comment. However, when you say things like, "In other words, each person is his own pope," you are seriously mischaracterizing the sola scriptura position.

Your comparison to a land without judges is not persuasive. The reason it is not persuasive is that even in a land where we have judges that interpret the laws, we don't feel compelled to agree with their interpretations. Sometimes we openly (more or less, depending on the land) state that the judges misinterpreted the law. We live with the consequences of the decisions of the judges, but we don't (always) agree with them. We abide by their decisions for the sake of keeping the peace, because of threat of force for disobedience, or simply because they must be obeyed as long as conscience permits it.

Your analogy fails to persuade, in short, because it compares submission to judicial orders with belief about truth. I realize that I run the risk of falling foul of a counter-objection that I am conflating the objection with the antetype. Nevertheless, the comparison made was to the fact that we need judges to keep order rather than each just interpreting the laws as we see fit. Thus, the comparison was laws=> Scripture and judges => church. Nevertheless, we are supposed to agree (in your proposed world) with the church, whereas we need only obey the judges.

VI. If Sola Scriptura Should be Blamed for Solo Scriptura, then Apostolic Succession Should be Blamed for Sola Scriptura

Your response here is to rebut the idea that a good thing should be blamed for an evil thing that comes from it. I don't necessarily disagree with your argument. In fact, I'll reproduce it here:

That would be like saying that since God made Lucifer, therefore God is to blame for Lucifer’s sin. But while Lucifer’s being comes from God, Lucifer’s sin does not come from God, even though Lucifer’s sin depends upon Lucifer’s being. All evil comes from good in this way, as Aquinas explains in Summa Theologica I Q.49 a.1. Protestantism came out of the Catholic Church not by an essential continuity with its intrinsic principles, but as a discontinuity, a rupture with the principles of sacramental authority and apostolic succession that had been operative in the Church from the first century.

But your argument is also a rebuttal to the use of historical progression to blame sola for the solo position. I realize that in your final sentence you attempt to argue that Sola Scriptura is continuous with Solo Scriptura, but the difference between subordinate authority and no authority is a real difference (not withstanding the discussion you've made above to the effect that a subordinate authority is not an authentic authority).

VII. It is not fair to pitch inconsistently practiced [X] against consistently practiced [Y]

You answered my question about whether you agree that it is unfair to pitch inconsistently practiced [X] against consistently practiced [Y] with a "no." That's perplexing to me, since I can't see how it is fair for you to make such a comparison.

Perhaps you intended your "no" to mean that you don't think you're making a comparison between inconsistently practiced [X] and consistently practiced [Y]. However, with due respect, I think you'll find that you are making such a comparison. You refuse, from what I can see, to permit me to abstract a group of consistent practitioners of sola scriptura, but you insist on abstracting a group of consistent practitioners of apostolic succession.

VIII. There Are Other Ways to Avoid Anarchy / Many Schisms / etc. without Either Apostolic Succession or Sola Scriptura

I had noted that there are other ways to avoid alleged consequences [A]-[E] besides either sola scriptura or apostolic succession. Your response doesn't really seem to address this objection. Instead, it tries to blame the JWs and Mormons on "Protestantism." Whether or "Protestantism" should be blamed for their existence[Fn12], they provide other ways to avoid the supposed problems. The point is that whether or not something avoids particular problems is not determinative of the worth of the ideology. It's unclear whether you missed this objection entirely or not.

The attempt to blame the JWs and Mormons on "Protestantism" while plainly not blaming them on sola scriptura gets us back up to Section I(b)(2) of this response. There are other ideologies besides sola scriptura at play within "Protestantism" making it difficult to demonstrate that the historical progression is the result of natural necessity as opposed to historical accident.

IX. The Cost of "Apostolic Succession" May Not be Worth the Benefit of Solving the Problems

You responded to my criticism that "Apostolic Succession" may solve the alleged consequences at too high a price with two responses:

Your first response was that "speculation is cheap and easy." But my comment is not simply idle speculation. The existence of trade-offs is simply an aspect of any decision-making event. Your article attempts to identify the negatives of an alternative to sola scriptura but does not address the negatives to "apostolic succession."

Your second response was that "authority is not control or force." This response seems absurd on its face. The "Catholic Encyclopedia," for example, speaking of the laity in Roman Catholicism states:

Consequently they are not allowed to preach in church, or to undertake to defend the Catholic doctrine in public discussions with heretics. But in their private capacity, they may most lawfully defend and teach their religion by word and writing, while submitting themselves to the control and guidance of ecclesiastical authority.

Similarly, under the topic of "Acceptance," the encyclopedia states:

Acceptance by the faithful is not required for the binding force of ecclesiastical laws. The Apostles received from Christ the power of binding and loosing, and the hierarchy (i.e. the Pope, bishops and other prelates) have inherited this power, as has always been recognized in the Church.

The rigidity of the Roman Catholic system may be thought to be a strength in terms of avoiding alleged consequences [A]-[E], but there are tradeoffs to rigidity - tradeoffs that the article seems to refuse to recognize [Fn13].

X. Conclusion

I hope the above discussion has demonstrated what I think are some of the weaknesses in the approach of the article. The assertion that solo scriptura proceeds by natural necessity from sola scriptura hasn't been established but merely asserted. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate nature necessity with respect to an ideology, particularly because it involves mixing human beings and the ideas.

The alleged consequences don't actually seem to be tied to sola scriptura in any concrete way. In fact, it seems that to tie the consequences to sola scriptura the deck must be stacked against sola scriptura by creating a multi-church abstraction to compare to a single church. Similarly, the arguments presented to deny that the creeds (or whatever) have any real authority are demonstrably wrong in that they would imply that any subordinate authority is not a real authority.

With respect, most of the criticisms of the article seem to be missed, such as the criticism that the article fails to address the trade-offs of the Roman Catholic system. The cost of avoiding anarchy to Hobbes was tyranny. He thought it was worth it, but most folks today disagree. At any rate, one must at least consider the trade-offs before one can conclude in favor of an alternative.

Consequently, I continue to think the article has a significant number of holes at critical points.

-TurretinFan


Footnotes:

1. Of course, there are other varieties (or at least nuances) of "natural necessity" in the literature. For example, as used in Jonathan Edwards, natural necessity refers to the necessity imposed by natural causes: "Thus men, placed in certain circumstances, are the subjects of particular sensations by Necessity: they feel pain when their bodies are wounded; they see the objects presented before them in a clear light, when their eyes are opened: so they assent to the truth of certain propositions, as soon as the terms are understood; as that two and two make four, that black is not white, that two parallel lines can never cross one another; so by a natural Necessity men's bodies move downwards, when there is nothing to support them."

2. There are a bunch of examples, so I'm designating them with small Roman letters.

3. I'm tempted here to say that the terms "spirit" or "essence" could be interchanged with "nature" in most places in examples (a)-(f) and (h). I'm not sure whether that truly does justice to the usage, however.

4. There seems to be some tension in the article as to whether the ecclesial authority in "Protestantism" is properly characterized as democratic or anarchical. Possibly the authors of the article view the two as equivalent, though, of course most democracies (whether broadly or narrowly defined) would beg to differ. The article never says that anarchy itself is in the nature of solo scriptura, though perhaps we should infer that from the explanation that "natural necessity" is what leads to anarchy. If so, one wonders whether the article's authors think that democracy in the civil sphere also naturally proceeds to anarchy, or whether this observation is limited to the ecclesial sphere.

5. If I may be so bold as to claim to know the meaning that was intended by the authors!

6. There are different formulations of free will among different groups. In Calvinism, for example, a person makes choices according to the person's nature and circumstances. In other views, man acts with absolute or curbed autonomy. A full discussion of the difference between Calvinistic Free Will and Libertarian Free Will is beyond the scope of this post.

7. Hopefully this example is an inoffensive stereotype. No offense to my Scottish brethren is intended.

8. I'm using the term "Christianity" here as it is typically used in sociological circles, not with theological connotations.

9. Quotation here is not necessarily a quotation of something Bryan Cross wrote, but rather what I take the gist of the article's point to be.

10. For the reasons set forth by Webster and King in their 3-volume series, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of the Faith, I view the Reformation as a revitalization of the ancient practice of sola scriptura not a theological innovation. That debate is also beyond the scope of this response.

11. I am boiling things down quite a bit here, but it seems to me a fair characterization. I hope you don't disagree.

12. Certainly, it would be unfair to try to blame sola scriptura for their existence. It is good that Bryan does not attempt to make that accusation, but his accusation is even less relevant in view of the fact that he blames some other alleged aspect of "Protestantism."

13. For example, one of the tradeoffs is that error once promulgated as a definition is irreformable.

Lucifer and Angels' Names

JohnFrancis left this comment on an earlier blog post:

Harold Camping has recently taught that Jerome translated the Hebrew word "hyll" to be the angel "Lucifer" when it should read "praise"(root word) or "boaster(er)". "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
I think I am beginning to understand that this "son of the morning" is the same "son of perdition (or "Boaster" /"Lucifer"(?) who did not (at least at the time of the 7 seals being opened by Christ) know the time of the end. "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father." Since Jesus said that if you have seen Him (Jesus) you have seen the Father, this scripture cannot refer to the Son of man but the "son of perdion or "Boaster" Besides, Jesus told HIS disciples the sign to look for and what to do,so Christ had to know, but obviously this passage was not for them to know as they were commanded to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (begin the churches task).
So the angels in Heaven could not know,neither mankind, and certainly NOT Satan. Can it be any clearer that Jerome obscured the "son" by naming Lucifer" incorrectly? Mr. Camping has stated that the Bible does not give angels proper names??? Any rebuttal?? Thanks - John

In context, Isaiah 14:12 is referring to the king of Babylon. See verses 4 and 22.

The Hebrew word translated "Lucifer" in the KJV (because of the Vulgate, no doubt) is "הילל" (hêylêl). It is a hapax word, that is to say, it occurs only once (here) in the Old Testament. Most translators that I've heard of think that it means brightness/morning star. But yes, it does come from "הלל" (hâlal) which can mean, among other things, "to boast."

The prophecy's immediate fulfillment was on the king of Babylon, but it may have an ultimate fulfillment against the man of sin. I don't pretend to have special insight on this matter.

As for naming angels, Jude 9 states: "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

And Luke reports:

Luke 1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

Which angel we had seen before:

Daniel 8:16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.

Daniel 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

Furthermore "Satan" is the proper name of a fallen angel (there are too many passages here that use that name, to list them all). And he may be the same or different (it is sometimes hard to be sure) from another fallen angel named Abaddon (Hebrew) or Apollyon (Greek).

Revelation 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Some have claimed that Michael is actually another name for Jesus. Regardless of that, Gabriel is certainly the name of an angel and Satan and Apollyon are names of fallen angels (or of just one fallen angel), notwithstanding Mr. Camping's teachings.

-TurretinFan

Thanksgiving Verses - Part 30

This is the conclusion post to the series on thanksgiving in Scripture. It may be possible to add a few more passages where thanksgiving is implied rather than stated. However, I think that this series should provide the reader with a very thorough overview of the treatment of thanksgiving in Scripture. The key is this: thank God in Psalm and prayer regularly. Thank God for your food before eating. Thank God especially for your salvation and the salvation of your Christian brethren. Integrate thanksgiving into all your prayers, so that you can thank unceasingly, as the Scriptures command.

Part 1 - Institution of Thank Offering
Part 2 - Joab Thanks David for David's Grace to Him
Part 3 - David's Thanksgiving Song for Deliverance from Saul - Prose and Poetry Versions
Part 4 - David's Thanksgiving Song for the Return of the Ark - Prose and Poetry Versions
Part 5 - Levites' Duty to Thank God Twice Daily in Song
Part 6 - Specialization Among the Levites - Special Thanksgiving Group
Part 7 - David Giving Thanks At Solomon's Coronation
Part 8 - Thanks at Ark Entering Solomon's Temple
Part 9 - Thanks at the Re-Opening of the Temple under Hezekiah
Part 10 - Thanks at the Opening of the Ezra/Nehemiah Temple
Part 11 - Continued Specialization in the Giving of Thanks Among the Levites
Part 12 - Psalms of Thanksgiving (other than those previously mentioned)
Part 13 - Psalms that Mention Thanksgiving
Part 14 - God Calls People to Joy and Thanksgiving in Isaiah
Part 15 - Jeremiah Prophesies Thanksgiving
Part 16 - Daniel Giving Examples of Thanksgiving
Part 17 - Thanksgiving in the Minor Prophets
Part 18 - Jesus Thanking the Father for Concealing from Wise and Showing to Babes
Part 19 - Jesus and Paul Thanking God for Food
Part 20 - Other People Giving Thanks in the Gospels
Part 21 - Thanks Not Given for Simply Doing Duty
Part 22 - Thanks at the Resurrection of Lazarus
Part 23 - Examples of Thanks in Acts (other than what has already been mentioned)
Part 24 - Paul Giving Thanks
Part 25 - The Unthankfulness of the Ungodly
Part 26 - Paul's Commands to Give Thanks
Part 27 - Remaining Mentions of Thanks and Thanksgiving in Paul's Epistles
Part 28 - Thanks in the Catholic Epistles
Part 29 - Thanks in Revelation

Manhattan Declaration - Partial Roundup

Much has been said on the 'net regarding the Manhattan Declaration. This is a partial roundup, with my brief thoughts on the thoughts of others, in no particular order (though, perhaps, there is a generally newest-to-oldest bias):

1. William Watson Birch (Arminian) Birch unsurprisingly signed. He oddly wrote:

By holding hands with other followers of Christ in this endeavor, I am only committing myself to do what is right, not forming an alliance on doctrinal issues or of the proper understanding of the Gospel with others with whom I may disagree. We all may debate doctrinal issues with one another. But the one thing that is not up for debate is to "promote justice, to be faithful, and to live obediently before your God" (Micah 6:8 NET Bible).

Apparently for Birch the gospel is debatable, while the sense of Micah 6:8 is not.

2. Ronald di Giacomo (Reformed and Presbyterian) Mr. di Giacomo won't sign, but he's willing to respect the liberty of others to sign. (UPDATED April 11, 2011)

3. Daniel J. Phillips (Calvinistic Baptist) Mr. Philips won't sign because signing appears to compromise the gospel.

4. Alistair Begg (Calvinistic Baptist) Pastor Begg refuses to sign saying (among other things), "Are we wise to lay aside crucial historical differences of eternal significance so as to secure temporal advantages? George Smeaton, in his classic work on the atonement observes, “To convert one sinner from his way is an event of greater importance than the deliverance of a whole kingdom from temporal evil.”"

5. John MacArthur (Calvinistic Baptist) Pastor MacArthur refuses to sign, noting (among other things): "the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel."

6. Brian Maclaren (Emergent) He doesn't particularly like the document because it's signed by old white males and it minimizes the things that are important to him. The word "gospel" naturally does not appear in his article.

7. Steve Camp (Calvinistic Baptist) He won't sign it because "It is nothing more than ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) and Justice Sunday revisited."

8. Dr. James White (Reformed Baptist) He won't sign it, noting (among other interesting things): "Great damage has been done to the cause of Christ by those who have sought to promote the Kingdom by compromising the gospel, the only power given to the church that can change hearts, and hence change societies. "

9. Tim Challies (Calvinist Baptist) Challies won't sign, noting (in addition to large quotations from others): "It is good to speak of the gospel, but what does the term mean if used by Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox? Each has their own understanding of the term—the term that stands at the very heart of the faith. I just cannot see past this issue."

10. Albert Mohler (Calvinistic Baptist) He signed the declaration because he "believe[s] we are facing an inevitable and culture-determining decision on the three issues centrally identified in this statement." However, he insists:

My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent -- and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground.

11. Mark aka johnMark (Reformed and Southern Baptist) Mark will not sign and explains, "If these “ecclesial” lines can line up together in the Gospel without confusion then this statement and the others make sense. If not, where does the real agreement lie? My vote based on the way the MD is written brings confusion rather than clarity."

12. T at First Word (Reformed and Presbyterian) He opposes the declaration and adds: "I would only add, that if the particular points of this manifesto are all they could come up with, then why not become even more ecumenical and invite like-minded Unitarians and atheists? True, they sign it “as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” but that comes at the end of the short statement, there is no attempt to show implication, and they are not signing it as authorized agents of the representative church of any of their branches."

13. L P Cruz (Lutheran) He mischaracterize's Dr. White's and Pastor Macarthur's reasons for not signing, but would prefer not to sign because it would label him an "Evangelical."

14. Kevin DeYoung (RCA) Mr. DeYoung wishes he hadn't signed it, but still abides by his decision. He thinks: "The debate is about whether The Manhattan Declaration implies that there are no essential core-gospel differences among us. After reading the criticisms that have come out I understand how the Declaration could be seen as minimizing our differences. I have great respect for those who read the document in that way. But I still think the Declaration can be read as a statement that simply says “We all as individuals stand in the tradition of Nicene Christianity and we speak together on these three crucial issues of our day.”"

15. Doug Wilson (CREC) Says he applauds the document, but cannot sign it. He does not cite doctrinal reasons, but strategic reasons:

The second strategic concern has to do with the actual deployment of the gospel (if I may speak that way), as distinct from mere abstract definitions of it. The only way our nation is going to be saved is if preachers of the gospel get out there and start preaching it in a way that calls this nation to true repentance and sincere faith in Jesus Christ. In order for that to happen, the gospel that we train young men to preach must be studied, lived, taught, defined, and preached. If we want the Word to cut between joint and marrow, then our task should be one of sharpening, not dulling and blunting. Please note that the concern here is not how accurate a man must be in his understanding of the gospel to be saved (an interesting doctrinal question), but rather how much anointed precision must come upon the preaching of the gospel such that a preacher becomes an effective servant in a day such as ours. This is the strategic question.

16. Jason Engwer (Reformed, I think) He thinks it is "a mostly good document that probably will do more good than harm."

17. Steve Hays (Reformed) He thinks: "The basic problem with the Manhattan Declaration is that it has more than one target audience. As the document itself says, the framers are speaking both “to and from” their respective faith “communities.”"

Thanksgiving Verses - Part 29

This segment provides the references to thanksgiving in Revelation. There are three such references. It is interesting to note that in each case the twenty-four elders are involved in giving thanks to God.

In the first passage the elders give the thanks together with glory and honour - they also ascribe power to God. Technically, the four beasts are explicitly described as giving thanks, but it should be clear from the context that the elders are joining in with the beasts. In the second passage the elders give not only thanks, glory, and honour to God but also ascribe wisdom, and power, and might to him. In the third passage the elders give thanks to God for having power and reigning.

These passages should remind us that our thanksgiving should never cease - not only in this life, but in the life to come as well.

Revelation 4:6-11
And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind. And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, the four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Revelation 7:9-12
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 11:15-17
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.

Regeneration - Baptism - Circumcision

In a recent post responding to some comments from R. Scott Clark, Dr. White states:

In the same way, once we see that fulfillment of circumcision in the New Covenant is regeneration, not baptism, the consistency of the biblical revelation is seen.

(source)

I have heard Dr. White make this claim repeatedly, but it seems odd to me for two reasons:

1) The claim from his Presbyterian brethren is not that baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision, but that it is the replacement. The unbloody sign of baptism replaces the bloody sign of circumcision (just as the unbloody Lord's Supper replaces the bloody Passover).

2) Regeneration is the the thing symbolized by both Circumcision and Baptism. I guess one could call it the "fulfillment" of the sign, but it is properly speaking the antitype of which both circumcision and baptism are the type. Both the type and the antitype coexisted in the Old Testament, and there was an incomplete overlap then as now. For example, Abraham believed (demonstrating regeneration) before he was circumcised, whereas we can question whether Ishmael ever believed - yet he was circumcised.

So, I find Dr. White's claim puzzling. It doesn't make sense to me to say that "fulfillment of circumcision in the New Covenant is regeneration" because on the one hand it would be more appropriate to say "fulfillment of circumcision in the Old Covenant was regeneration" or on the other hand "fulfillment of baptism in the New Covenant is regeneration."

-TurretinFan

Is Jesus' Divinity Clearly Revealed in Scripture?

Over in the ever-growing comment box at Called to Communion (a Roman Catholic blog), there is at least one man, Mr. Ciatoris, who is trying to argue that the Scriptures do not clearly teach that Jesus is God. (link to the comment box in question)

John Cassian (lived about A.D. 360 – 435) thought differently:

As we have finished three books with the most certain and the most valuable witnesses, whose truth is substantiated not only by human but also by Divine evidences, they would abundantly suffice to prove our case by Divine authority, especially as the Divine authority of the case itself would be enough for this. But still as the whole mass of the sacred Scriptures is full of these evidences, and where there are so many witnesses, there are so many opinions to be urged— nay where Holy Scripture itself gives its witness so to speak with one Divine mouth— we have thought it well to add some others still, not from any need of confirmation, but because of the supply of material at our disposal; so that anything which might be unnecessary for purposes of defense, might be useful by way of ornamentation. Therefore since in the earlier books we proved the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ while He was in the flesh by the evidence not only of prophets and apostles, but of evangelists and angels as well, let us now show that He who was born in the flesh was God even before His Incarnation; that you may understand by the harmony and concord of the evidences from the sacred Scriptures, that you ought to believe that at His birth in the body He was both God and man, who before His birth was only God, and that He who after He had been brought forth by the Virgin in the body was God, was before His birth from the Virgin, God the Word.

- John Cassian, On the Incarnation, Book IV, Chapter 1

John Cassian goes on to give this as his first example:

Learn then first of all from the Apostle the teacher of the whole world, that He who is without beginning, God, the Son of God, became the Son of man at the end of the world, i.e., in the fullness of the times. For he says: "But when the fullness of the times had come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law." [Galatians 4:4] Tell me then, before the Lord Jesus Christ was born of His mother Mary, had God a Son or had He not? You cannot deny that He had, for never yet was there either a son without a father, or a father without a son: because as a son is so called with reference to a father, so is a father so named with reference to a son.

- John Cassian, On the Incarnation, Book IV, Chapter 1

After some discussion of the text, John Cassian states:

And so as it is clear from the above testimony that God sent His own Son, and that He who was ever the Son of God became the Son of man, let us see whether the same Apostle gives any other testimony of the same sort elsewhere, that the truth which is already clear enough in itself, may be rendered still more clear by the light of a twofold testimony. So then the same Apostle says: "God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." [Romans 8:3] You see that the Apostle certainly did not use these words by chance or at random, as he repeated what he had already said once— for indeed there could not be found in him chance or want of consideration as the fullness of Divine counsel and speech had taken up its abode in him.

- John Cassian, On the Incarnation, Book IV, Chapter 3

But even leaving aside the fact that Mr. Ciatoris has a different view of Scripture than the fathers did, one has to wonder how Mr. Ciatoris cannot clearly see the divinity of Christ in this verse:

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Or in the comparison of Jesus' teachings here:

Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

With the practices here:

Mark 5:6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him,

Matthew 28:9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

Matthew 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Scriptures do clearly teach the divinity of Christ, which is why they are sometimes accused of corruption by our Muslim opponents, who refuse to accept Jesus' claim to be the "I AM."

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: Mr. Ciatoris thinks I'm posting a "flimsy straw man" of his position. His own words, however, were: "I suppose I’m glad that Nicene orthodoxy is perspicuous to you. Without the Church’s authoritative guidance, it’s not to me."

And later:

I was not giving examples of proof-texting, but taking examples of possible pro-Nicene proof-texts (one of which you’d used yourself in a pretty proof-text-y way in #290, the other of which, I admit, I tacked on gratis) and showing that an Arian could answer these. The possibility that an Arian could respond coherently and plausibly demonstrates the insufficiency of proof-texting. I was by no means endorsing the practice, though I can understand why you might have taken me to mean that proof-texting was a legitimate theater for theological battle—I didn’t mean that.

Another comment of his that seems relevant is this:

I’m having trouble seeing a principled difference between you and an Arian who might say, “Look, guys, we all agree that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior of the world through His cross and resurrection. He’s the Son of God, the perfect image of the Father, indeed he is God – just not in the same way the Father is, you know, not consubstantial. You’re all obsessing about non-essentials when you insist on this silly homoousios language. It’s not biblical – we Arians stick with biblical language – and I’m not going to let these bishops try to tell me that their reading of Scripture is guided by the Holy Spirit.” What’s the difference, lojahw? Why draw the line in the fourth century? Why pick on all those poor Bible-reading Arians but give a free pass to the Bible-reading reformers of the 16th century?

Thanksgiving Verses - Part 28

This segment deals with thanksgiving in the catholic epistles, so called because they are universally directed. The only time some version of the English word "thank" shows up in these epistles is in 1 Peter 2.

In this passage, Peter is commanding servants (slaves, he means, of course) to obey not only their good masters but also their evil masters. He points out that what is worthy of thanks is when a slave suffers wrongfully because of his obedience of God in his conscience.

Peter mentions the example of Christ who suffered for wrong that he did not commit. It should be noted that Peter mentions that Christ bore in his body our sins. This is one of the many verses that help to establish the doctrine of the penal substitutionary atonement.

If servants who put up with bad masters are thankworthy, how much more Christ who bore the punishment due to our sins! Let us thank and praise Him!

1 Peter 2:17-24
Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Thanksgiving Verses - Part 27

This post addresses the remaining mentions of thanks and thanksgiving in Paul's epistles. In 2 Corinthians 1, Paul comes close to one of those introductory thanksgivings we saw before. Paul essentially indirectly gives thanks for their salvation, attributing it solely to grace.

In 2 Corinthians 4, there is related mention of thanksgiving. Here, however, we note that Paul connects us giving thanks and God being glorified. Furthermore, the thanksgiving is motivated by the grace of God - his unmerited favor of us.

In the final passage, in 1 Thessalonians 3, Paul asks how enough thanks can be given to God for the Thessalonians - and that is even despite their imperfect faith! All of these relate to the same theme as the introductory passage: Paul's thanksgiving to God for the salvation of those to whom he preached.

2 Corinthians 1:8-12
For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life: but we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead: who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us; ye also helping together by prayer for us, that for the gift bestowed upon us by the means of many persons thanks may be given by many on our behalf. For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

2 Corinthians 4:13-16
We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

1 Thessalonians 3:6-10
But now when Timotheus came from you unto us, and brought us good tidings of your faith and charity, and that ye have good remembrance of us always, desiring greatly to see us, as we also to see you: therefore, brethren, we were comforted over you in all our affliction and distress by your faith: for now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord. For what thanks can we render to God again for you, for all the joy wherewith we joy for your sakes before our God; night and day praying exceedingly that we might see your face, and might perfect that which is lacking in your faith?

Thanksgiving Verses - Part 26

This set of passages are focused on Paul's (counting Hebrews' as Paul's for simplicity's sake) commands explicit or implicit to give thanks.

The first passage is from Romans 14. This passage mentions that we are to give thanks when we eat. It does so implicitly by assuming that that those who eat give thanks.

The second passage, from 1 Timothy 4, makes the matter more specific. It explains that God has created food to be received with thanks. Furthermore, we are told that the thanksgiving sanctifies the food to us. This provides something of a rationale for the giving of thanks, which we would still do without a reason being provided, but much more so seeing the reason. When you eat, give thanks for the food and thereby render it appropriate for your consumption.

The next passage turns to another topic, namely the salvation of men. We have seen that Paul gives thanks to God for everyone's salvation in a previous segment. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul commands that we not only offer "supplications, prayers, [and] intercessions," but also "giving of thanks," for all men. This reinforces to us the fact that we have a duty to thank God when He answers our prayers of salvation for men. He is the one who changes the heart, and he deserves the thanks when men are saved.

The passage from Colossians 1 has a similar theme. We are to thank God not only for the salvation of others, but for our own salvation as well.

The remaining passages generally commend thanksgiving to us: we are to thank God "always for all things" (Ephesians 5); "in every thing" (Philippians 4; accompanying "whatsoever ye do in word or deed" (Colossians 3); and 1 Thessalonians 5); and "continually" (Hebrews 13). Lastly, two passages in Colossians similarly commend thanksgiving in general without more specific qualification.

Nevertheless, we can still learn additional information about thanksgiving from these passages. In the first of the Colossians passages, we see that thanksgiving abounds out of the root of Christ. Thanksgiving is the fruit of the root of Jesus. We are thankful because of Him.

Finally, the second of the Colossians passages links thanksgiving integrally with prayer. While, of course, there are other ways that we can give thanks (such as by singing psalms), our prayers should not omit thanksgiving. It is an important aspect of prayer to thank God. If possible, we should do so naturally, out of the root of gratitude in us. However, one may train this in oneself by making it a practice never to end one's prayer without thanking God for something, no matter how dire the situation. In this way, one will become accustomed to giving thanks to God unceasingly and it will become more natural.

Romans 14:1-9
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 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.

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. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

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.

For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 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. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

1 Timothy 4:1-5
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; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 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. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

1 Timothy 2:1-4
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Colossians 1:9-17
For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; that ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Ephesians 5:1-21
Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

Philippians 4:6-7
Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:15-17
And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

1 Thessalonians 5:16-18
Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

Hebrew 13:12-16
Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come. By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name. But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

Colossians 2:6-7
As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

Colossians 4:2-3
Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving; withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds: that I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak.

-TurretinFan

Thanksgiving Verses - Part 25

Today's passages commend thanksgiving to us by way of negative example, namely the unthankfulness of the ungodly.

The first passage, from Romans, is a condemnation of men who do not worship God. They, in some sense, knew God, but they did not give him thanks. Instead, they worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator.

The second passage is similar. It describes certain men whom we should avoid as being, among many other things, unthankful. These are men who "hav[e] a form of godliness but deny[] the power thereof."

If we understand the power of God we should give thanks to Him. We should thank Him for his works of Creation and Providence and general, for his salvation of his elect, and for his mercies to us in particular. Such thanksgiving is a proper recognition of the power of God.

Romans 1:18-25
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

2 Timothy 3:1-5
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

-TurretinFan

Unity vs. Disunity - Round 2

Dr. White has responded (link to Dr. White's response) to some comments found at a Roman Catholic blog (link to source of comments).

Dr. White points out that Reformed Baptists worldwide are far more unified than Roman Catholics. He's right, of course. But he could have taken the matter further.

He's being far too fair to the Roman Catholics.

After all, the Roman Catholic approach is to contrast the unity within their sect to the unity among either "all other groups" or "all other groups of some particular category." They are not willing to compare themselves to Reformed Baptists (where they would lose the unity battle) but instead they try to compare themselves to a bundle of many different groups.

The Roman Catholic argument works for every group. Eastern Orthodoxy is far more unified than the collection of all groups that are not Eastern Orthodox. Anglicans are far more unified than the collection of all groups that are non-Anglican - or even all Protestants that are non-Anglican. And so on, and so forth. Reformed Baptists are more unified than all non-Reformed Baptists.

-TurretinFan

Thanksgiving Verses - Part 24

In this segment we see the thanks given by Paul in his epistles. There are a few subcategories here.

Introduction Passages

The first subcategory is the largest group: the group of thanksgiving statements provided by Paul at the start of his epistles. Most of Paul's epistles have this form of introduction. Hebrews does not, which is one reason we might conclude that Hebrews is not one of Paul's epistles.

The introductory passages of thanksgiving themselves have an interesting theme. Paul is thanking God for the people to whom Paul is writing. Thus, for example, in the introduction to Romans, Paul thanks God for the Romans and for their faith. Paul thanking God for this is Paul giving God the credit for the faith of the Romans.

The same thing transpires in the introduction to 1 Corinthians. Paul thanks God for the Corinthians and for the things that they have received, especially the gifts of utterance and knowledge, by the grace of God.

Similarly, in the introduction to Ephesians, Paul says that he thanks God because he heard of the faith and love of the Ephesians. Likewise, Paul thanks God for the fellowship in the gospel that the Philippians had, in the introduction to that epistle. The introduction to Colossians is, on this point, almost identical to that to the Ephesians. Philemon's introduction similarly mentions, as the ground for giving God thanks, the believer's faith and love. Paul's introduction to 2 Timothy mentions the thanks Paul gives for Timothy's faith. In the first epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul expands the faith and love couplet seen in many of the other introductions to include hope as well. The introduction to the second epistle to the Thessalonians mentions faith and love again. Furthermore, in the fist Thessalonian epistle's introduction, Paul makes explicit mention of their election.

It is frequent in connection with these mentions of thanksgiving for the faith and love of the believers to mention the grace of God, the calling of God, and - as we've just seen, the election of God. The result is a completely monergistic view of salvation. Whatever good thing in the people, Paul thanks God for it. He effectively gives God the full credit for the faith, hope, and love of the believers, ascribing it to the work of God in them, as opposed to being the product of their good use of grace.

Another theme in the introductory passages is prayer. Generally, Paul connects giving thanks to God for the people with mentioning them in prayer. We too ought to do the same. When we hear of fellow believers, and of the work God has done in their lives, we ought to give thanks to God for this work of His. It God who brings men to faith and love, and we should thank and glorify God (not man) for this.

Notice as well the emphasis on Christ in these introductory passages. It is easy to miss this emphasis, because we tend to take it for granted that Paul is a Christian. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the thanks that Paul gives is connected with Christ: "in the gospel of his Son" (Romans); "the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians); "the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ" (Ephesians); "he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians); "we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus" (Colossians); "thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus" (Philemon); "patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thessalonians); "the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thessalonians). It is a pervasive theme - it is always about Christ. The only exceptional passage is the introduction to 2 Timothy, but you would only have to look a verse or two before or a verse or two after to find Christ in the context.

Paul Thanking God for Grace to Believers

After the introductory passages, as the second sub-category, we have a group of passages in which Paul thanks God for grace to believers. In the passage from Romans 6, for example, Paul thanks God for taking the Romans who were servants of sin and making them servants of God by His grace. In the passage from 2 Corinthians 8, Paul thanks God for putting care in the heart of Titus.

The passages in 2 Corinthians 9 is a two-for-one. Not only does Paul give thanks for God's grace, but specifically the grace that gives good works and leads to bounty, which causes thanksgiving to God. Thus, not only is this an example of Paul giving thanks, but also a reminder that we ought to give thanks God for the good things we have received.

The 2 Thessalonians 2 passage is similar to the introductory passages. Paul gives thanks not simply that the Thessalonians believed, but that they were chosen to salvation through the gospel. If I may speak frankly, I am baffled how someone could read this passage and conclude that Paul is giving thanks either (1) that God chose them based on foreseen faith or (other?) merit; or (2) that God chose a way of salvation. It seems abundantly clear from the context that Paul is thanking God that the Thessalonians are differentiable from others, he ascribes that to the grace and election of God.

Finally, the 1 Thessalonians 2 passage shows Paul giving thanks to God for the way in which the Thessalonians received the gospel: namely as the word of God, not of man. If the distinction between believing and not were in the hands of man, it would seem to be odd for Paul to thank God for this. However, when we recognize that it is God who, by His Spirit, opens the eyes of the mind to see the divine nature of the message, Paul's thanksgiving makes sense.

Paul Thanking God for Blessings on Himself and Others

A third subcategory is Paul giving thanks to God for blessings on himself and others. In some sense this category is broad enough to encompass the first two sub-categories as well, but we will treat here those examples of such thanksgiving that do not fit neatly within the first two sub-categories.

The Romans 7 passage in this subcategory shows Paul giving thanks to God for deliverance from the body of death. I think that those Arminians and others who would seek some way around the plain sense of the thanksgiving in the previous two categories would have no problem (at first) reading this passage in its plain sense. They are willing to give God thanks for deliverance. But actually, one should note that this a freedom from bondage of the will. Paul is thanking God for delivering his will from bondage, something that then forces the Arminian to try to find some explanation (such as universal prevenient grace) to get around the fact that man is naturally unable to come to God. It is hard to get around, however, the plain statement that "in me ... there is no good thing."

In the 2 Corinthians 15 passage, Paul gives thanks to God for giving us the victory over death. This passage, acceptable to Arminians, defeats the Pelagian position in which men merit victory over death.

The 2 Corinthians 2 passage, however, returns us to a specifically monergistic view. Paul thanks God for causing us to triumph and for making our testimony a savour (or smell) of life to some and of death to others. It is God, not man, in Paul's view, that sets one man apart from another even though the same message is preached to all.

Finally, in 1 Timothy 1, Paul thanks God for giving him the ministry. While this example is less explicitly monergistic than some of the others, notice how Paul writes: "the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." As we've seen in the other examples, what Paul is doing is saying that his faith and love come from God who shows favor to him and gives him these good things.

Miscellaneous Thanksgiving

There are a few additional miscellaneous passages where Paul gives thanks. The first such passage is in Romans 6. There Paul gives thanks for Priscilla and Aquila. It may be ambiguous (in the Greek) as to whether Paul is giving thanks to them or to God. Assuming that (as it states in the English) Paul is giving thanks to them, it would seem to be about the only place where Paul gives thanks to men rather than to God.

The remaining three examples of Paul giving thanks come from 1 Corinthians. In the first chapter, Paul gives thanks to God that he did not baptize many of the Corinthians. This is an implicit reference to God's Providence. After all, it is by God's Providence that Paul only baptized a small number of the Corinthians. Notice as well, that Paul here mentions household baptism (I'll resist the urge to turn this into a paedobaptism argument). It is interesting to note, however, that Paul makes a distinction between being called to preach the gospel and being called to baptize. Many folks, focusing on the so-called "Great Commission" seem to view evangelism and baptizing as inextricably interconnected. Those of us evangelizing by the Internet are thankful that they are separable.

In the tenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul mentions giving thanks, this time for food. We've seen that Jesus provided an example of giving thanks for food, and we will see this theme again in a later section as well. Here Paul notes that he should not be judged for the food for which he gives thanks to the true God, simply because someone else has used the food in sacrifice to a false god. However, for the sake of the conscience of the other person, if the food is identified as part of the communion of a false god, we should abstain from it.

The same principle applies to partaking in communion at an apostate church. Although we are permitted to eat bread and wine, if we are told that this is part of their worship we ought not to partake, for their conscience's sake, lest they believe that we willing take part in their idolatry.

In the final passage, Paul gives thanks for tongues. He thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than all the Corinthians. However, Paul also says he would rather speak five words that people can understand than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. The gift of speaking in foreign tongues was one of the most remarkable gifts of the Spirit that was given during the apostolic age: one that enabled the spread of the gospel to many lands. It is good to note that Paul does not attribute this gift in any way to himself or his own ability or faithfulness to God, but rather gives God thanks.

This passage also makes mention of thanksgiving as being a part of prayer. Note how Paul assumes that these languages will be used to give God thanks on the part of the person praying, which assumes that they contain rational content. Notice as well, the same theme that we noted above, namely that thanksgiving and prayer are interconnected.

---

Introduction Passages

Romans 1:7-10
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.

1 Corinthians 1:1-8
Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; that in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: so that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 1:15-23
Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Philippians 1:3-7
I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now; being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.

Colossians 1:3-8
We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, for the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth: as ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ; who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit.

Philemon 1:4-6
I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers, hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints; that the communication of thy faith may become effectual by the acknowledging of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 1:3-5
I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day; greatly desiring to see thee, being mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy; when I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.

1 Thessalonians 1:2-4
We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.

2 Thessalonians 1:3-10
We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth; so that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure: which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Paul Thanking God for Grace to Believers

Romans 6:14-23
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

2 Corinthians 8:16-21
But thanks be to God, which put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you. For indeed he accepted the exhortation; but being more forward, of his own accord he went unto you. And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; and not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind: avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us: providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.

2 Corinthians 9:8-15
And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever. Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness;) being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving to God.

For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God; whiles by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men; and by their prayer for you, which long after you for the exceeding grace of God in you. Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.

2 Thessalonians 2:11-14
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 2:10-13
Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: as ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, that ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Paul Thanking God for Blessings on Himself and Others

Romans 7:14-25
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

1 Corinthians 15:51-58
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

2 Corinthians 2:14-17
Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: to the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

1 Timothy 1:12-14
And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Miscellaneous Thanksgiving

Romans 16:3-4
Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.

1 Corinthians 1:9-17
God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1 Corinthians 10:25-33
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. 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.

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: conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?

For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

1 Corinthians 14:13-19
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

-TurretinFan

Mark Shea on Me on Hitchens and Fry

Mark Shea seems unhappy (link to his post). He states:

Speaking of weird partisanship, here's yet another Calvinist sitting in the peanut gallery and cheering on the atheists because they happen to be quarreling with Catholics. Better that God be blasphemed than that any slight pettiness of the 16th Century quarrel be abandoned for one second. We must have our priorities!

He's complaining because I posted a link to a debate in which a Roman Catholic archbishop and a Roman Catholic member of the British parliament got trounced in a debate with Hitchens and Fry (link to my previous post).

He didn't make the same complaint when I posted a link to a debate between Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza (link to my previous post).

Perhaps that's because I had positive things to say about Dinesh's performance and negative things to say about the performance of Archbishop Onaiyekan. That is a bit odd, though, because I didn't see Shea complain when Patrick Madrid posted this same debate and said negative things about Archbishop Onaiyekan's performance (link to Madrid's post).

Shea mentions something about cheering from the peanut gallery, but frankly if you read my post, there isn't actually any "cheering" going on there. In fact, there was more cheering in the Dinesh post than in the Onaiyekan post.

What makes Shea's botched potshot more amusing is that so far no atheists have complained about "weird partisanship" because of my comments about Dinesh. Although, in fairness, Roman Catholic Dave Armstrong did mock me for my post saying something nice about Dinesh's performance (link to Dave Armstrong's mockery).

So, when I post a debate that went poorly for Rome, I get targeted by Shea while he leaves Madrid alone; meanwhile when I post a debate that goes well by a Roman Catholic debater I get targeted by Armstrong.

The moral of the story: you can't make folks with double standards happy.

Thanksgiving Verses - Part 23

This segment addresses thanks in Acts. We've already looked at one passage in Acts where Paul thanks God for the food that he's about to eat. There are two other examples of thanks in Acts as well.

The first example is Tertullus' thanks of Felix - an attempt to flatter Felix and win him over so that Paul could be attacked. The second example is Paul giving thanks to God for the brethren who joined them on the journey to Rome.

The first example illustrates for us the fact that kings liked to be thanks for doing a good job governing. We are not to try to flatter God, but we ought to glorify and give him praise for his excellent governance of this world. While we may not always fully appreciate it, God governs the world well.

The second example further reminds us to give thanks to God for his providences, even those involving the "free" acts of men. Notice that Paul does not simply thank the brethren for joining him, but thanks God. This kind of thanks to God makes sense if we adopt a Calvinistic viewpoint of the free will of men, but not if we adopt a Libertarian view of freedom. If man is under God's providence, it makes sense to thank God for the actions of men. If man is autonomous, thanking God for men's actions makes no more sense than thanking your fellow man for a third man's actions.

Acts 24:1-9
And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul. And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying,

Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence, we accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness. Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.

And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.

Acts 28:11-16
And after three months we departed in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the isle, whose sign was Castor and Pollux. And landing at Syracuse, we tarried there three days. And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli: where we found brethren, and were desired to tarry with them seven days: and so we went toward Rome.

And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii forum, and The three taverns: whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage. And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.

-TurretinFan

Response to the Manhattan Declaration

Frank Turk has an interesting response to the Manhattan Declaration (link)(link to declaration). Unfortunately, for a few reasons, there a few points where I'd take a somewhat different tack. His biggest point is correct:

The declaration should be opposed because it obscures the gospel. The wording of the document is ecumenical. It uses expressions like "We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians ..." and "It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade ... ."

I should point out that the section on Religious Liberty is remarkably less objectionable than one might expect. The statement, "No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions," for example, arguably does not leave room for Muslims, Jews, Oneness Pentecostals, or pagans to be covered.

In fact, however, I suspect that the understanding of the document by the other is broader and more relativistic than a strict reading of the document might suggest. As I've pointed out before, I'm not a pluralist.

But that's a minor objection. Much of the "main point" of the declaration is not objectionable:

1) Abortion, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia are evils

2) Marriage between Man and Man or Woman and Woman is a perversion

3) Atheist Attempts to Persecute Christians for holding (1) and (2) are improper.

It is sad to see that a few prominent "evangelical" names have been attached to this gospel-obscuring document:

Dr. Wayne Grudem Research Professor of Theological and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary (Phoenix, AZ)

Rev. Tim Keller Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (New York, NY)

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY)

Ravi Zacharias Founder and Chairman of the board, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (Norcross, GA)

Dr. Daniel Akin President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, NC)

Dr. Bryan Chapell President, Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis, MO)

Jim Daly President and CEO, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)

Dr. James Dobson Founder, Focus on the Family (Colorado Springs, CO)

Dr. Michael Easley President Emeritus, Moody Bible Institute (Chicago, IL)

Rev. Jonathan Falwell Senior Pastor, Thomas Road Baptist Church (Lynchburg, VA)

-TurretinFan

Thanksgiving Verses - Part 22

The final passage regarding thanksgiving from the gospels is from John's gospel on the occasion of the raising of Lazarus. Only John's gospel mentions the raising of Lazarus.

In this passage, Jesus thanks the Father for hearing Him. Jesus clarifies that He already knew that the Father had heard him, but said this for those standing by (and ultimately for those of us reading).

Lazarus was someone who Jesus loved as friend. Therefore, Jesus raised him from the dead. The Father heard the Son's request to raise Lazarus, because the Father loves the Son. This is an illustration for us of Jesus' mediatorial role.

Jesus loves his people and will raise them from the dead. He does this by sacrificing himself on their behalf. The Father accepts the Son's sacrifice, not because He must, but because he loves the Son. Thus, it is appropriate for Jesus to thank the Father for raising Lazarus.

We too, of course, should thank God for our regeneration, which is accomplished by the work of the Spirit on account of the merits of Christ, by the mercy of the Father to whom be the glory, now and forever.

John 11:39-44

Jesus said, Take ye away the stone.

Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid.

And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin.

Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.