Persecution Update - Brother White

This week, my Christian brother Dr. James White has been under a particular load of persecution from Catholics, who have falsely accused him of various things via a number of Internet outlets such as blogs and chat forums.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why they are attacking Dr. White: he has been a faithful witness to the truth against the Mordorian tower of the Vatican. What more needs to be said? Unable to attack the truth of what he has to say, they have made the issue personal, falsely accusing a Christian many of various character defects.

Take courage, brother White! God has chosen to bless your ministry with resistance by those who oppose the gospel. Call to mind Matthew 5:11-12. This opposition may same hard to bear at this time, but God will reward you in heaven. The brethren know that the accusations of these Catholic persecutors are false, and we recognize the reason why such weaponry is being employed.

Recall how it was employed also against Luther and the other Reformers before us! Has not one of your own Team Apologian recently been documenting various of the false accusations leveled against that prominent preacher?

If they did that then, should you be surprised if the spiritual heirs of the deniers of Sola Fida use similar tactics now? Let us give thanks that God has deprived Rome of the strength to inflict physical persecution on its enemies.

Even more, though, be encouraged to cast off your consideration of the vain babbling of those whose hatred of the truth carries over to hatred of those who preach the truth. If you can, redouble your diligence to shine the light of truth on the accreted darkness of Rome, so that perhaps some may be set free. God knows how many of the elect may be under the oppressive shadow of that regime, and how many true Christians may be deluded by the false claims of that apostate body.

You are part of the light of the world, but men prefer darkness to light. Do not be afraid of their cruelty, but rejoice in the truth, with me

Praising the Creator and Provider of All Things for the Good of the Elect,

-Turretinfan

Thanks Be to the Lord

For Coffee (recalling I Timothy 4:4-5 4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.)

A quick comment, though - how many people who drink coffee for its caffeine drink only 8 ounces of coffee at a time?

Don't forget, however, that rest is a blessing from God:

Psalm 127:2 It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he giveth his beloved sleep.

And, should you use coffee, don't try to take away your friend's blessing:

Proverbs 27:14 He that blesseth his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning, it shall be counted a curse to him.

And don't use coffee simply for your own pleasure:

Isaiah 5:11 Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!

-Turretinfan

The Love of God - White on TV

Here's an excellent off-the-cuff presentation in response to an audience question on British television by Reformed Baptists Elder James White (link). Note how shocked the audience member is to hear that God loves even those whom he creates for destruction.

To finish up Dr. White's point, God loves different people in different ways. As we know from other parts of Scripture, "Hate" is typically used to mean "Love less." God hated Esau, but yet God loved Esau: he blessed him with a family and a name that will be remembered. The nation of Edom has been cut off, but Esau had an enormous number of descendants, and many kings were his grandchildren. So, despite the audience member's incredulity, God can love someone and provide them with good things in this life and tolerate their sin for a season, and yet (by comparison) hate them in contrasted to (as Paul puts) the great love (πολλην αγαπην) with which God loved us before the foundation of the earth and consequently sacrificed His own Son for us.

Both are love, but by contrast the former is the hatred of God. Is that truly hard to understand?

-Turretinfan

This Blog's Rating

On a lark, I ran this blog through an automated blog rating program, one linked to by TeamPyro. The result surprised me: the present blog received an NC-17 rating. The apparent source of this rating was the high number of mentions of death, dying, and hell as well as (and perhaps especially) the use of a particular Latin preposition that has a very vulgar (and apparently completely unrelated) use in English.

To confirm, I ran the same analysis on the copy of the book of Isaiah, New Vulgate translation, from the Vatican's website: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_isaiae_lt.html

It received the same NC-17 rating. Depending on the sophistication of the rating engine (and I doubt it was very sophisticated at all), I've just further entrenched my rating by linking to such an "obscene" site as the book of Isaiah in the Latin tongue.

Perhaps this blog's new motto should be: "rated the same as a major prophet." In any event, it just goes to show the uselessness of automated mechanisms for making judgments with respect to obscenity.

Pax Dei vobiscum!

-Turretinfan

Persecution Update

Here's Doug Wilson's report (link) on the local persecution of the church in Moscow, Idaho. Incidentally, that is the kind of response one can expect to receive when one preaches loudly against sin in one's community. Wilson may be ignorant or confused regarding the higher level aspects of theology, but his fundamental opposition to sin and his fearless opposition to it are worthy of praise, even in the midst of chiding regarding his theological shortcomings.

Hopefully Wilson will be able to distinguish between those who persecute him for righteousness sake, and those brethren that seek to correct his errant doctrines as they relate to justification and the sacraments.

-Turretinfan

Murder Update

Usually I reserve murder updates for news regarding the murder of unborn people. In this case, however, the victims are Christians being murdered by Muslims.

True martyrs.

Let's hope the American government uses the opportunity presented by the South Korean government (link) to track down and eliminate these infidels. Since the mainstream American media (including the Associated Press) is trying to conceal the religious aspects of this issue, it may be valuable for the curious reader to check out a more balanced report here (link), with a cynical - though not entirely inaccurate - explanation provided on Doug Wilson's blog (link), though not by him.

Big Surprise

On a related matter, the other most public branch of militant Islam, Al-Quaeda, issued a statement that the West should expect a "big surprise" (link). It may be that the Muslims will succeed in killing, maiming, or otherwise causing suffering to even more people - if they do it will not be a big surprise. The world is aware of the activities of the followers of the false prophet.

The big surprise will be on the judgment day for jihadists who believed that their god will forgive their sin gratutiously or because of their service in his name. Only the Most High can forgive sin, and He only forgives those who trust in His Son for salvation. If any Muslims are reading this, I exhort you: do not delay, repent of following the false prophet, confess your sins to the God who created Heaven and Earth, and throw yourself on His mercy, begging Him to be compassionate toward you.

There is no God but the Triune God, and the false prophet of Islam is not His prophet.

May the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be praised!

-Turretinfan

P.S. Praise be to the Lord for this heroic victory (link)! And these amazing victories as well (link)!

The Efficacy of Good Works

Jim at Oldtruth.com recently posted a thought provoking article (link) entitled "Am I Doing Enough To Get God To Forgive Me?" (although he posted it, it appears it may have been written by a contributing author)

Jim's (or perhaps Chad's?) message responds to a Roman Catholic view that it is necessary to do something positive (good works/acts of penance or contrition) to counteract the negative (sin) in one's life. The view itself (whether actually the official view of Rome or not, I leave for the reader to decide) is based on a faulty premise, namely that good works and sins are somehow together on the same ledger book.

As discussed in a previous post (link) sin is any failure to follow God's law. In contrast, righteousness is following God's law. If one is to construct a ledger book regarding obedience to the law of God, therefore, sin is a violation and righteousness is no violation.

Thus, from the standpoint of the sin ledger book, any righteous deed is a zero, and any sin is a negative. In the garden, before the fall, Adam was innocent. He had not yet sinned, and consequently, his sin ledger book was zero. Once he sinned, he was negative, and nothing he himself could do could ever restore him to a zero position, because perfect righteousness is required by God.

Nothing that we do can negate the effect of sin, namely guilt. The only negation for the guilt of sin is punishment, either of the sinner himself or of an acceptable substitute. Furthermore, the penalty for any sin is death. Thus, eternal life is beyond the reach of anyone who has any sin to their account.

Objections:

Some may object that, from a moral perspective, there is a difference between sleeping and preaching the gospel. This difference, however, is not based on one being more righteous in ipse than the other. As Solomon wrote, there is a time for everything (Ecclesiates 3:1). There is an appropriate place for both ministry of the Word and sleep in the life of a Christian. Failing to sleep at an appropriate time is vain (Psalm 127:2), and sleeping too much is folly (Proverbs 6:6-11).

Some may object that it is possible to do more than what the law of God requires, and consequently earn positive merits. As to righteousness, the answer to this objection is an emphatic "certainly not." The law of God requires perfect righteousness, as I have discussed in a previous post (link) and consequently it is not possible to be more righteous than one is required to be. Accordingly, one cannot be more righteous than the law of God requires and consequently obtain merit on account of superfluous righteousness.

Others may object that although it is not possible to be more righteous than God requires, it is possible to provide a sacrifice that God will count in place of righteousness. Thus, for example, one may sacrifice one's money, desires, health, or even life. This mindset is not completely new: note how Paul makes oblique reference to it in I Corinthians 13:3.

But the bottom line is this, no amount of personal sacrifice can take away sin. The ordained sacrifices of the Old Testament could not please God so as to take away sin (Hebrews 10:6, 8, and 18). In contrast, Christ by one offering has taken away the guilt of all the sin of his people forever.

God may reward our sacrifices, but not with remission of sin. For remission of sin, only one sacrifice satisfies God, and that is the sacrifice of His Son.

Praise be to our Great High Priest and Mediator.

-Turretinfan

Young Earth Creationism - Not Young

Perhaps the neophyte will find it ironic that Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is the elder of the two branches of Creationism, the younger of the two being Old Earth Creationism (OEC). Once one has even a cursory knowledge of the issue, however, any surprise immediately dissipates.

A plain reading of the Old Testament and the Gospels makes it clear that the world was created supernaturally by God in the space of a week, and more particularly, in six days each consisting of an evening and morning. This event took place less than 10,000 years ago, which we can calculate more or less accurately from geneologies provided, for example, in Genesis 5 and the gospels.

Frankly speaking, there is no reason for anyone who excludes outside information from the Bible to arrive at any other conclusion. The Bible, on its face, is clear. God created the world, he did so in six days, and rested on the seventh day. In celebration of this fact, we observe the week.

Nevertheless, from time to time, weak Christians are tempted to believe the testimony of scientists (and their acolytes) who claim that they have unshakable evidence (some may even claim "proof") that the earth is older than 10,000 years. These Christians, led astray by the lies, deceit, or simply errors of the "science crowd" believe the testimony of the crowd.

Some do so by disbelieving the testimony of Scripture outright: these are the so-called Theistic Evolutionists. They deny that God created man from the dust of the Earth and woman from the rib of man. Others, however, seek to harmonize the Bible somehow to the old earth claims of the science crowd. These are termed Old Earth Creationists. They create novel and sometimes bizarre interpretations of Scripture to try to justify a timeline that holds the universe to be tens of billions of years old, and biological life to be billions of years old.

The detailed rebuttal of the underlying fanciful expositions of Scripture are a subject I hope to take up at another time. For the moment I want to seize upon one of the more sinister and devious approaches that have been made by those who oppose the plain truth of Scripture.

Specifically, some portion of the anti-YEC movement has been spreading lies regarding the age of YEC, claiming that YEC is a 20th century phenomenon. Seizing upon a grain of truth, namely that one of the foremost advocates for young earth creationism in the 20th century was a Seventh Day Adventist, dishonests oponents of young earth creationism have attempted to claim that it was never the view of Christians before the 20th century that the world had been created only recently.

Amazingly, some professing Christians in the 21st century have actually come to believe these lies. Let us put the lies to rest once and for all.

A few clear examples should suffice:

1. Theophilus of Antioch (3rd Century A.D.) dated the Creation at BC 5509.
2. Julius Africanus (ca. 225 A.D.) dated the Creation at BC 5500.
3. Ephraem Syrus (died 378 A.D.) - adopted LXX Creation date of 5508 and accused the Jews of subtracting 600 years to avoid the conclusion that the Christ had come.
4. James Ussher (died 1656 A.D.) - dated the Creation at BC 4004.
5. William Hales (ca. 1809) - dated the Creation at BC 5411
6. Henry Fynes Clinton (ca. 1824) - dated the Creation at BC 4138

The first (that I have been able to identify) that attempts to make the world older than the Bible indicates is

Martin Anstey, in his 1913 book "The Romance of Bible Chronology." He calculates man's creation at BC 4042. Mr. Anstey, however, asserts that a gap is to be found between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis. This gap is potentially of a great length of time, and the reason for it's appearance is obvious: Darwin's "Origin of Species" (First Edition 1859) had become wildly popular (launching from the platform built by Lamarck who died 1829), and in order to cowtow to the science crowd, it was necessary to avoid the first four chapters of Genesis. Accordingly, Anstey begins his chronology with Adam at Genesis 5, and essentially writes off the historical value of the account of the first week. The theory was not entirely new to Anstey, having been invented earlier by Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), with essentially the same obvious motivation, though to Lamarckian, rather than strictly Darwinian, Evolutionism.

Today, the idea that man was created less than 10,000 years ago is out of vogue with the science crowd, and consequently the gap theory of OEC is no longer widely popular. Even the other school of OEC, the day-age (alone) crowd, is no longer very popular, mostly because the science crowd will not agree that all of humanity descended from a single pair of human ancestors who lived less than 10,000 years ago.

Instead, we see modified old earth creationists holding to ever more erratic views of the text of Scripture, as they attempt to remain popular with the scientific crowd.

Another group has simply given up: their motto is, "There is scientific truth and religious truth, and the two are in different worlds." This is nonsense and confusion. There is only one truth. The Bible reveals that truth to us clearly and testimonially. If foolish scientists derive a conclusion at variance with the revealed truth of Scripture, it is that scientist who is in error.

But perhaps all that can wait for another day.

For now it suffices to say that OEC is essentially new. There are some scattered passages from the fathers that are sometimes pressed into service to attempt to show an older age for the earth, but this distortion is vain.

Perhaps we ought, like the monks who copied Scripture in the middle ages, to date our writings absolutely in testimony to the doctrine of Creation, rather than in testimony to the doctrine of the Incarnation.

If so, then we should consider this to have been written July of 7015 (if we adopt the LXX's chronology).

May the Glory of our Creator-God be praised in this 8th (or however many) millenia of His reign over the Earth!

-Turretinfan

Worthy of Note - Turretin on Discipline

"[E]xcommunication is the rod of a pious mother over a bad son, whom she does not therefore regard as not a son because she whips him, but chastises him severely that he may reform and not cease to be a son altogether."

- Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Fifteenth Topic, Question XVI, Section XL (page 613 of Volume 2, in Giger's translation as recently published)

Original Latin: Excommunicatio est flagellum piae Matris in pravum filium, quem non quia flagellat, ideo habet pro non filia, sed castigat graviter, ut emendet, ne fiat omnino non filius.

We, in this modern age of moral decay, should not be surprised to see that both church and family discipline have been corrupted similarly, such that in churches where severe discipline for the restoration of children is not (or rarely) practiced, severe discipline for the restoration of congregants is not (or rarely) practiced.

The parallel remains, though the Refomers would condemn our generations for failing to heed the Word of God as it pertains to discipline, both ecclesiastical and parental.

-Turretinfan

Is it even worth mentioning? Sippo Update

Sippo in three recent posts:

(a) connects Lutheranism and National Socialism (Do you really want a link?);
(b) thinks his question "Was the Good Samaritan saved?" has an answer other than, "The Good Samaritan was not a real person." (link for those who doubt that Sippo would actually call that answer "a dishonest excuse."); and
(c) denies that the first and great commandment (upon which hangs all the law and prophets) is meant literally (link in which Sippo attaches the adverb "crassly" to the adjective "literal": particularly ironic when you consider his view of the Eucharist), in order to avoid admitting the obvious, namely that we all always fall short of perfect obedience to the great commandment.

-Turretinfan

The Simple Gospel - Four Suggestions

The Simple Gospel

Advice for Parents and Evangelists

In recent dialogue with an internet friend of mine, who goes by the handle Doveflight, I was reminded of the need to express the gospel in clear, understandable (but correct) terms to those who listen.


DoveFlight wrote:

I am finding myself stumbling all over how to explain to my children salvation faith without saying the words "make a decision." I have presented the gospel many times before my 'reformation' but now can't seem to find the right words in correlation with God's election.

My first two suggestions to parents and evangelists are these:


1. Keep it Simple: the discussion of the issue of election is not a simply issue that should necessarily come up in every presentation of the gospel. While it may come up in some gospel presentation, and especially if someone has mistaken ideas about the strength of their sin to separate them from God, nevertheless, in most cases, the glorious truth of individual election is more properly classified as meat than milk, and is something that believers should be grateful for, not something that convicted sinners should be fretting about.


2. Keep it Real: don't try to suggest that it is a choice, because it is not a free choice: God is applying the most powerful possible coercive, eternal punishment. You'd have to be incredibly stupid or insane to refuse God's "offer" once you realize the reality of your predicament. It's not so much an offer as a command: "Worship Me!" says God, "Or Die!"



DoveFlight continued:

Anyway, the best I can come up with is repent of your sins, believe Christ alone is the answer and confess Him as your Lord and Savior.

DoveFlight's solution is very Biblical, after all that's the very message Christ preached: "Repent and Believe!"


That's my third suggestion to parents and evangelists (including missionary-evangelists):


3. Keep it Biblical: preach Repentence and Faith


If you're looking for other ways to express it:

• Acknowledge the guilt of your sins to God and trust in the Son for mercy.
• Turn from your evil and worship the living God.
• Confess your wrong-doings, and cast yourself upon Him.

Another Internet poster, TheoJunkie, whose site is linked over on the left, chimed in:

Terms like "turn from evil" and "repent" have gone the way of "evangelical" and "born again" in meaning (that is, they may or may not mean what you meant for them to mean (more likely not), depending on the ears they fall on).

TJ makes a great point, and this leads me to my fourth suggestion:


4. Keep it Clear: try to avoid using terms that are laden with connotation that will confuse, and stick with unambiguous words, especially if they contradict the person's preconceptions. If the person has been fed a steady diet of pluralism, make it clear that God's name is Jealous: He demands to be worshipped alone, and that he declares that all the other gods are dumb idols, the works of mens imagiantions and hands, or else demons. If the person has been fed a diet of works-righteousness, point out the requirement of perfect obedience, and the consequent impossibility of doing works of supererogation.

After all, the key is to convey what you mean - that can mean not speaking in Latin to Americans nor in baggage-laden terminology to post-modern pluralalists. With that in mind, you might be able to make the alternative expressions above even plainer by adding more words:

Admit to God (and yourself) that you have broken God's law, and deserve eternal punishment for (each of) those violations; beg God for mercy[, and learn to loathe breaking the law of God, because you know it offends Him (not because you can ever make the violations right yourself)].

I put the last part in brackets, not because it should be omitted, but to point out that sanctification is not a part of justification.

I would love to hear what other suggestions readers may have for relatively simple, real, Biblical, and clear expressions of the Gospel message.

May our Holy and Just God be praised in the Glory of His Excellency!

-Turretinfan

Sin: any failure to perfectly follow God's law

What is Sin?

Sin is any failure to perfectly follow God's law.

Sin, according to the Westminster Shorter Catechism is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God.

The Westminster Larger Catechism slightly expands and clarifies, by stating that sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.

The Westminster Confession of Faith treats the matter implicitly: "Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal."

The first twenty questions of the Heidelberg Catechism (link) do a great job of discussing sin, its effect, and its cure. In fact, any Roman Catholic who concerns Reformed Theology to be in error should be prepared to respond to those twenty questions and answers.

Why belabor this point? Because there are certain folks running around these days claiming that sin is only voluntary violation of the law of God: i.e. that only conscious, volitional infractions are sins, namely that one can only sin by choosing to sin.

Before we prove that point, it is important to point out the voluntary, intentional sins are still sins and they are particularly heinous sins. We will return to this in a moment.

The moral law of God, as summarily comprehended (i.e. summarized) in the ten commandments, does not include a "volitional" component, especially as some of its commands are positive. More especially, the most famous summary of the moral law:

Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Quoted here:

Matthew 22:35-40
35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Both of these are phrased positively, namely by stating what we must do, not what we are forbidden to do. Failure to do what are supposed to do can be attributed to many factors, but it should be readily apparent that one can fall short of loving God or of loving one's neighbor without voluntary act: in fact, failure to act may itself be a violation of the law of God, where loving God or one's neighbor requires action.

A second argument against a requirement that sin be positively voluntary are the references to sins of ignorance in Scripture:

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

Deuteronomy 19:4 And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;

1 Timothy 1:13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

The first verse identified above makes it clear that sins done in ignorance are still sins, are still in need of atonement, and consequently are something that can be forgiven. The second verse shows the breadth of ignorant sin, in that it encompasses the unintentional. The third verse provides confirmation that sins of ignorance are still justly to be punished, and that mercy is the way of escape from punishment for such sins.

Some may object that sins are described as willing or willful (Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, ). It should be understood, however, that willing sin is more heinous than done in ignorance, thus premeditated killing (punished by execution) is more serious than accidental killing (punished by exile to a city of refuge). Thus, some sins are more heinous than others, with willful sins being more heinous than ignorant sins.

Perfection

One non-Calvinist poster named "FreeGrace" has challenged not that God prohibits sin, but has suggested that God does not require perfect obedience. On the contrary, yes, God requires perfect obedience.

Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Deuteronomy 18:13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

-Turretinfan

Christian Miracle-Working Has Ceased

Christian, But Not Necessarily All Miracle-Working, Has Ceased

Introduction

In a variety of contexts, the question of alleged miraculous gifts comes up. Some amazing things have been reported to me, in terms of alleged psychics and their ability to reveal secrets and predict the future; of the healing power of idols (Christian and pagan); and so forth. I recently met a self-proclaimed "Master of Raki" (Raki is apparently a Tibetan ritualistic practice that claims to be able to heal using an impersonal lifeforce), and was recently reminded (on the TeamPyro website) of similar (although less amazing) claims by the fraud Benny Hinn.

There is a wide variety of claims to the ability to work miracles, ranging from snake handling in the Appalachian Mountains - to Benny Hinn's claims to cure invisible sicknesses - to Raki claims to cure visible injuries - to many claims to the ability to speak prophetically (tell the future) - to the ability to speak in languages that are not one's own by upbringing or study - to the ability to raise the dead. The alleged miracle working is not always positive, some claim to be able to injure and kill at a distance, and not a few people are mortally afraid of jinxes and evil eyes that are thought to be able to be cast by ill-wishing miracle-workers.

Miracle-working in Christianity

In Christianity, the purpose of miracle-working was primarily to testify to the inspiration of the miracle-worker. That is to say, the purpose of Paul being able to miraculously cure people was in order that those around him would have immediate, unmistakable confirmation that he was a messenger (apostle) of God, and that God was with him. The prophets, beginning at Moses, in general (and perhaps without exception) had the ability to do miracles and these miracles were confirmation that the Spirit of God had been given to them. In any event, the prophets had the gift of prophecy, which is self-confirming to the generations that follow. Thus, we no longer can witness the miracle-working of Isaiah or Jeremiah, but we can still read their prophecies and the fulfillment thereof.

But miracle-working in Christianity was not only a testimony, it was usually useful and practical. Jesus' first recorded miracle was the transformation of water into wine, not to wow those of Cana, but to provide for the lack of wine at the feast.

Moses' first miracles were an exception: they were purely demonstrative, but almost immediately the miracles were both demonstrative and purposeful. The plagues upon Egypt were miraculous and punitive. The dividing of the Red Sea provided a path, the collapse killed the pursuers.

We may be able to find other purely demonstrative miracles: the fire from heaven that consumed the offerings to the Lord, but not to Baal would be another such example.

Nevertheless, the bulk of the miracle-working gifts were practical. Perhaps the most practical were the gifts of prophecy (to reveal the word of God) and the gift of tongues (to reveal the word of God to the nations).

Those special gifts were given during the time prior to the completion of the Bible. Now the testimony in the Bible of the miracles performed is all the witness we have. We must trust God and believe His word.

Miracle-working Outside of Christianity

There are also numerous reports of miracle-working outside of Christianity. The Raki master I alluded to above reported that he saw a Tibetan woman heal a serious skin injury immediately and visibly before his eyes. Many have reported that psychics told them secrets that ordinary human intuition could not have revealed. Roman Catholic exorcists have reported that demoniacs have spoken to them in Latin, though the one possessed never studied that language.

Not all of the alleged miracle-workings outside of Christianity are real. There are many frauds, many hoaxes, and many devious tricksters. Harry Houdini notable exposed most of the alleged psychics of his own day as mere charlatans. As far as I know, none of the famous magicians of the present day claim to use supernatural ability: all purport to be (and it is reasonable to believe that they are) merely illusionists and prestidigitators.

Almost certainly the vast majority of modern Tarot readers, Palmists, Numerologists, and Astrologers fall into the hoax category: many even delude themselves in this regard. One has only to go into a large bookstore in any major city in the Western world to find a large section on the occult - not just novels that capture the public's fascination with the occult, but also practical "how to" guides for determining the future and so forth.

On the other hand, it may be that there are some real miracle-workers outside of Christianity. After all, we are told that the Egyptians had magicians who were able to perform small wonders, and we are told about more than one demoniac with revelatory power in the New Testament.

Furthermore, we know that the fallen angels have much strength: recall what Satan was able to accomplish (by God's permission) against Job, including bringing sickness and death of his family members.

Alleged Christian Miracle-working in the Post-Apostolic Era

There are numerous allegations of miracle-working, particular among Pentecostals/Charismatics but also among Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The former group asserts that miracle-working gifts are widespread, and the latter group views miracles as isolated events, typically performed by the exceptionally righteous.

The former group's testimony is marred by numerous frauds and hoaxes. Prominent in the former group is the deceiver Benny Hinn. Others have adequately documented the fraud that he practices. He claims to heal people, but the vast majority of his claims are to heal illnesses that cannot be seen by the audience. When serious investigation is made of his claims, the result is that no or only an amount attributable to a placebo effect are the result.

The latter group's testimony is fraught with superstition, old wive's tales, exaggerations, and even lies. Claims that the relics of the saints have wrought numerous miracles are alleged, but confirmation of these miracles is impossible. Where investigation of the supposed wonder-working effects of the relics has been investigated, it has usually been positively established that the effects are mythical or fraudulent. Francis Turretin himself records the investigation that was made of two celebrated relics that had been held at Geneva: the brain of St. Peter and the arm of St. Anthony. Upon inspection, the former was discovered not only to be powerless, but to be a pumice stone: the latter, the leg of a stag.

These days both churches zealously conceal their relics, and it is unlikely that all will be exposed to the same investigation. Anyone reading the account of the Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches would be amazed at the vast multitude of miracle-workers that have filled their ranks. It seems that every generation until the last hundred years had some miracle-worker or other, and yet now that we can travel to the far reaches of the globe to check, the "saints" have ceased to work miracles.

Possibly some Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox person, however, can correct me - pointing out some place where miracle-workers are still at work. I understand, for example, that it is generally alleged that the monks on Mt. Athos are supposed to be particularly holy, and even that some there have prophetic gifts, though I have not seen a shred of copy of their supposed prophecies.

Application of the Principles Above

Not every miracle-worker is what they say they are. Some are frauds and hustlers. There have, however, been genuine miracle-workers. As should be deduced from the principles above, those who today claim to be miracles-workers may generally be categorized as follows:

• Frauds (e.g. Benny Hinn)
• Self-Deceived (e.g. Many followers of the frauds, and perhaps even some of the frauds themselves.)
• Miscategorized (e.g. Illusionists are not miracle-workers, nor do they claim to be.)
• Myths (e.g. The legendary acts of the "saints" of the Eastern and Roman churches.)
• Demoniacs (e.g. Legion)
• Witches/Wizards/Warlocks (e.g. the Endorian Witch)

It is possible that a person may be a Christian and fall into very grievous sin. Accordingly, I would not encourage anyone to automatically judge another simply because that person has a tarot deck or has been attending a Pentecostal church full of the gibberish jabbering of exuberant attendees, just as we should not automatically judge another simply because their denomination openly violates the second commandment in its most heinous way, by making and worshipping idols of what men imagine to be God Incarnate.

Conclusion

The gifts of working miracles disappeared when Scripture was complete, because there was no longer any need of miracle-working for its primary purpose (although the secondary purpose continues to be of great need).

God also continues to maintain the world by His miraculous Providence, which may include many marvellous and unexplainable answers to prayer. Furthermore, God acts in this world miraculously transforming God-haters to God-lovers.

Miracles themselves have not ceased, but the time of the prophets and apostles is past, and their gifts are not with us today. The only physical miracles wrought by men today are either fraud, mistake, or evil. Beware, dear Christian.

Recall that it was because of occult practices that many of the nations of Canaan were punished by God, at the sword of Joshua, with genocide.

Deuteronomy 18:9-12
9When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. 10There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, 11Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

For some readers this passage may strike home more than one way. In both the Eastern and Roman churches righteous men and women who devoted their lives to service of the Lord are doubly dishonored both by superstitious ascription of wonder-working to them, and by necromantic attempts to communicate with them whose ears have long decomposed, whose souls are in glory with the Lord.

Communication with the dead is tied to the occult: both are pagan, and both particularly anger God. Don't do it - don't try to practice magic, don't claim to have gifts you don't, don't imagine that God has made you a wonder-worker, don't accuse righteous man of participating in such schemes, and don't attempt to communicate with the dead. If you happen to be around someone who can do legitimate supernatural things, beware: such an one is not of God.

Referring back to the Raki master I mentioned above, this man attempted to suggest that the impersonal force was the Holy Ghost is the impersonal force he channels to perform his healings, and that Jesus was a very high level Raki master of some sort. Such blaspheme is shocking to this author, but as Christian culture declines, we must be prepared to hear such claims. When we do, do not be impressed by their magic, do not join in their rituals, and do not make the mistake that many fathers of the Roman and Eastern churches did of trying to Christianize them. Instead eschew evil, and cling to Christ. Pray with me that the light of God's truth will shine both about the darkness of the occult and the darkness of the hoaxes unauthorizedly perpetrated in His Holy name.

May God have Mercy Abundantly,

He is a Compassionate God, let us praise Him!

-Turretinfan

Centuri0n Grabs Some Low-Hanging Fruit

In a post earlier today, Centuri0n responds to an argument that believers-only baptism is reflective of an anti-sovereigntist mindset (Source).

Yeah, Centuri0n, we all know that there are Reformed baptists, and that Reformed baptists don't baptize believers-only for that reason. On the other hand, the "your mama" part of the critique is dead wrong. You wrote: "So while LongShot here wants to pin some kind of crypto-pelagianism on baptists, he's a crypto-pelagian as well because of the value he hangs on bad works." You should know better, Centuri0n: bad works do have actual demerit, for which men receive all the blame. Works are not symmetrical.

Perhaps, next you'll go after other low-hanging fruit in the covenantal tree, like Doug Wilson's reason inane statement that: "Although Christians have their differences over infant baptism, we need to remember that in a certain sense all baptisms are infant baptisms" (Source).

No, Doug, they are not all infant baptisms unless one just equivocates over the meaning of infant. Equivocation, however, is not "a certain sense," but two conflated senses. Furthermore, it is precisely such equivocation over the term "infant" that leads to the undermining of the doctrine of justification by faith and provides fodder for Reformed Baptist critiques.

Fortunately, for Presbyterians and Congregationalists (and Reformed Anglicans, if there are any left), there are far more able advocates on this particular subject. I would exhort Centuri0n to respond to them instead.

-Turrretinfan

Petrine Primacy or Etymological Error?

Why did people start to think Peter was the head of the church?

The question that is the subject of this post is one that should be of interest to those who have heard the many claims of papal primacy. Scripture nowhere indicates or suggests that Peter was the head of the church. How then, could people have begun to think so?

Papal Invention Hypothesis

There is always the possibility that the motivation was simply self-serving. The alleged successor of St. Peter created a story that Peter was the head of the apostles, and used political connections in Rome to force the story on the rest of the church within the Roman empire. That may be the most likely and reasonable explanation.

But there is a way that the legend could come to be, and this way is much more interesting.

False Cognate Hypothesis

The Aramaic name for Peter is transliterated Cephas in our English Bibles, and that name is usually pronounced with a soft "c". Nevertheless, a more accurate transliteration calls for a hard "c" or K. Thus, a better transliteration is Kephas.

In Greek, the word for head is κεφαλη which would be transliterated to Kephaleh. It is easy to imagine that someone with no knowledge of Armaic might mistakenly think that Kephas was etymologically related to Kephaleh. Thus, a group of Christians for whom Latin was their first, Greek their second, and Aramaic an unknown language, might easily misunderstand the appellation of Peter as "Kephas" to mean that he had been made the head of the apostles.

This kind of false cognate mistake is not without precedent. It is on the basis of a similar false cognate (this time within a single language) that Moses is sometimes depicted in ancient images with horns. This was the result of mistaking Kaeren (horn) and Karan (to shine).

Likewise the legend that the forbidden fruit was an apple arose (apparently) from a confusion between the Latin word malus (apple) and malum (evil).

Hybrid Hypothesis

Another option, of course, is that an enterprising pope or papal advocate took advantage of the false cognate to bolster an argument in favor of Petrine primacy.

Conclusion - Further Study

So far this is just a hypothesis that struck me as I was reading through Scrivener. What would be interesting would be to see if there is any record of the false cognate argument actually being used. Although I think it is unlikely that any such argument would have survived to present, if it was ever committed to paper.

Objections

I recognize that there are various arguments for Petrine Primacy, but those are really quite aside. If Peter is assumed to be the head of the church, there are various passages that can be pressed into service to try to support that hypothesis. There is, however, no reason within Scripture to suppose that Peter was the head of the church.

I also recognize that there are various extrascriptural sources that assert Petrine Primacy. The problem is this: most (and probably all) of those are folks who wrote significantly after the fact, and at a time when the bishop of Rome had begun to play imperial politics.

Exegesis Challenge - Calvinism vs. Non-Calvinism

This challenge goes out to any and all non-Calvinists.

1. Pick five passages that you believe support your view on soteriology, and I will do the same.

2. Write a thorough, detailed exegesis of those five passages (no limit on how long it can be ... make it as long as you need), and I will do the same.

3. Then I will critique and/or provide an alternative exegesis for each of the exegeses you provided, and you will have the responsibility to do the same for mine.

4. Write a rebuttal to each of the critique/alternative exegeses I present, and I will do the same for your critiques/alternative exegeses.

5. Provide comments back and forth in the footnotes of the rebuttals (both yours and mine) until all the arguments have been made.

If you are interested, you can either post a comment here, or you can send me an email. A link to my email address is available through my Blogger profile, which (at present) you can get by clicking on the "About me" information on the left side of this blog.

My preference would be initially to do the papers by email, and then we are both satisfied, to post the final collection as a whole to this blog or another internet site.

Negotation/variation of the proposal is certainly welcome.

Any takers?

-Turretinfan

Why I am not an Evidentialist

Why I am not an Evidentialist

Introduction

There are many available epistemologies. One that is popular in many circles is the epistemology of evidentialism. This epistemology is the favored approach by many, and can be summarized as the view that one believes what one believes because that is what the weight of the evidence indicates is true. I am not an evidentialist, and I believe that evidentialism is a fundamentally flawed epistemology.

The Attraction of Evidentialism

Despite the fundamental weaknesses of Evidentialism, Evidentialism has blossomed in popularity. The primary reason for the attraction is that evidentialism typically presents itself as Science.

Those who dare to challenge Science are viewed today as fools or Luddites: locked in the middle ages and flat earth geography. Scientists are regarded as the most intelligent portion of society, busily improving life on earth through the application of the Scientific Method.

If Science says, "X," that is enough for many people to believe it. Thus, for example, you will hear arguments in public fora that it is absurd to call Homosexuality a deviant practice rooted in mental and spiritual illness, because the science of Psychiatry has not listed homosexuality as a mental disorder in its most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

One will hear that a young child in his mother's womb is not a person, because the science of biololgy has labelled the child a "fetus." One will likewise hear that the Great Flood could not have happened as described, because Science says otherwise.

Appeals to Science are becoming an entrenched part of the fabric of public discourse. The use of DNA evidence in court has led people to place even more confidence in the ability of Science to provide truth.

On the coattails of this popularity, evidentialism in its most popular form, Naturalism, arrives. Naturalism claims to be the result of scientific investigation, and holds nothing to be known unless it has been verified scientifically. Their opponents are not arguing with them, they will say, but with the evidence.

Some Christians, perhaps even without thinking, have adopted to one degree or another the same epistemology and suggest that they hold what they hold, because the weight of the evidence supports it. Thus, for example, one will hear of apparently Christian apologists claiming to be able to prove that the balance of evidence proves that there is a God, or that the world is intelligently designed, or that rules of morality are good.

Evidentialism and the Scientific Method

As noted above, evidentialism has gained ground because it purports to be scientific. The usual way that something has been viewed as scientific is by whether it applies the scientific method. The scientific method is normally thought to proceed:

1. Guess/Hypothesis/Formulation/Theory


2. Testing/Data/Empirical Analysis


3. Theorization/Verification/Validation/Canonization or Rejection/Rewriting/Reformulation/Revision/Invalidation

The Scientific Method, thus, begins with uncertainty, and proceeds toward (at least this is the goal) greater certainty. The more testing a hypothesis has undergone, the stronger its verification, until it is eventually validated or even canonized as a scientific principle or law. The Scientific Method is also usually cyclical. A guess can turn into a hypothesis, and then a theory.

Evidentialism tries to imitate this principle. It begins with a hypothesis, and then attempts to validate the hypothesis by testing. Thus, evidentialism seeks to wear the mantle of the scientific method, even when some of its hypthothesis are not scientifically testable in the usual sense of the word.

The Scentific Method, despite its foundation on guesses and hunches, gives its holders an aura of objectivity. The reason why this is so, is that the Scientific Method has been used with great success in the applied sciences: engineering and medicine. People assume that technological success is the result of discovery of truth, and consequently they believe the Scientific Method to be a revealer of objective truth.

Presuppositions in Evidentialism

One reason that Evidentilists pick Evidentialism is a belief that by choosing that epistemology, they are beginning with a blank slate. This is false. There are presuppositions in Evidentialism. One standard presupposition of Science, for example, is Naturalism.

Specifically, science normally presupposes that every cause is the result of a purely natural effect. Usually, scientists do not consider this a very problematic presupposition. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that it is a presupposition.

There are other presuppositions as well: that the world is orderly, that there is a connection between perception and reality, that experience is transitive, and a host of other presuppositions. These presuppositions are not items that can be either established or rebutted by evidentialism, whether in the form of science or in any other form.

A response from a typical beaker-filler or spectrum-analyzer is often to blow off this issue, as though it were not an epistemic weakness: "So you're saying that experience might not be transistive?" Such replies are simply belligerant, they do not defend the choice of presuppoisitons - nor (more importantly) recognize that the entire Scientific, Naturalistic, and Evidentialist epistemology is piggy-backed on a presuppositional epistemology.

Result of Adherence to Strict Evidentialism - No Beginning

The result of adherence to strict Evidentialism, denying whatever cannot be proved by appeal to sensory experience and other evidence, is to deny the fundamental presuppositions of Evidentialism. Evidentialism cannot prove (or even test) that experience is transisitive, that the world is orderly, or that the natural is all that there is.

In short, Evidentialism is self-contradictory. Because Evidentialism, strictly taken, is self-contradictory, it is an improper and invalid epistemology from the very beginning. Evidentialism cannot stand on its own to ensure that it has started from the right place, and consequently the Evidentialist can never have any knowledge that has the confidence of a foundation.

Result of Adherence to Strict Evidentialism - No Certainty

The results of Evidentialism are always tenuous; its adherence have no certainty that what is a law today will be a law tomorrow. Newton's laws are a prime example of this phenomena. Until Einstein, Newton's laws enjoyed widespread general acceptance in the scientific community. Now, Newton's laws are viewed as a helpful approximation under certain conditions. There is no reason to fill this account with more examples, though certainly more could be given.

The historical fact is that Science's body of knowledge has always been in flux, and that not even the greatest scientist is unable to be corrected. Aristotle's Physics was a widely accepted work for many centuries, but later Science rejected it, and you will find it rare than any college class (in Physics) will spend more than an hour on the entire body of Aristotle's work.

With such a track record, an Evidentialist might have a hunch that he could could verify by testing that the body of Scientific knowledge at the beginning of each decade for the last hundred years has been different from the body of Scientific knowledge at the end of each such decade. Upon that ground, an Evidentialist may conclude that there are numerous unknown items that are Science today, but will be labelled "error" in the scientific community tomorrow.

Result of Adherence to Strict Evidentialism - No End

Not only can Evidentialism not assure its adherence that it has started from the right place or that it is in the right place now, it cannot assure its adherents that it is converging to the right answer. Because Evidentialism cannot see the end in sight, Evidentialism cannot assure its followers that they are converging to the truth. Evidentialism may currently be converging toward something, but there is no way for the Evidentialist to be sure that this something is the truth.

What Guess has not been Made?

This is the nagging question in evidentialism. Until Einstein, no one had presented his own hunch about the way the universe is supposed to operate. Einsteinian descriptions of the world are very useful, but are they correct? Is there a better guess about the universe that has not been investigated? This is the nagging question that distracts from the beauty of any "truth" of Evidentialism.

Evidentialism tries to silence this nagging question as unfounded speculation. Evidentialism teaches its advocates that the prevailing wisdom should simply be accepted. At the same time, and conflictingly, Evendentialism rewards skeptics who can come up with guesses that test better than the guesses in the prevailing position.

Fundamentally Dishonest

The claims of Evidentialism are fundamentally dishonest: the beginning of Evidentialism must be borrowed from a presuppositional (or similar) framework; it promises truth but delivers constantly changing guesswork; and it promises improvement without any reason for supposing that can provide improvement.

Open to Skepticism

In addition to narrow skepticism regarding particular scientific theories, Evidentialism is open to attack by general skepticism. If there are two ways of interpreting evidence, it is impossible for Evidentialism to decide between them.

Evidentialism tries to resolve this problem by resort to Occham's razor. Occham's razor states that the simpler explanation should be accepted over the more complex explanation. There is, however, no Evdiential reason to adopt Occham's razor. Instead, the mechanism is yet another stop-gap presupposition.

Evidentialism also tries to resolve the problem (sometimes in combination with the razor above) that the more probable of the explanations should be accepted. There is a real problem, however, with this approach. It is often (if not always) difficult to assign a priori probabilities. Accordingly, the resort to probabilitic arguments frequently ends up with mere emotive arguments or, worse, arguments that make up the probabilities from thin air.

Responses to Skepticism are Self-Destructive

Whatever approach Evidentialism takes in responding to Skepticism is self-destructive. An appeal to a presupposition that favors simple explanations betrays the non-evidential underlying epistemology; an appeal to probability betrays both uncertainty and weakness at arriving at the alleged probability.

In short, Evidentialism cannot stand on its own two feet against the Skeptics.

Objections

One objector might object that I myself use evidentialist techniques! I'm not afraid to apply the Scientific method to everyday life, when my car breaks down, my faucet drips, or my dog gets ill. That's certainly an objection with a touch of truth. I do use the scientific method in such circumstances.

I do so, however, recognizing that it is piggy-backed on my dogmatic presuppositionalism. I know why I can trust my senses and the scientific method: because God has revealed Himself to be an orderly God and the world to be a place run by law.

Another objector may complain, "If you can't trust your senses, you can't trust the Bible!" This frequent objection is misplaced. I can trust my senses - I know that I can because the Bible tells me so. God has revealed the truth of His Word to me, and consequently I know that I can trust it. From that, I can deduce that I can also trust my senses, to a degree.

Another objector will argued that if I can use evidentialist techniques, I am not in a position to forbid Evidentialists from doing so. My response is that Evidentialists do not have an epistemic basis for their use of the techniques; they cannot know anything certaintly, and consequently cannot know whether they know anything at all.

Yet another objector might assert that that the Bible uses an evidentialist epistemology. Such an objector would point to the reliance of certain authors in Scripture to tangible evidence. Nevertheless, as the Apostle Peter explained, all the writers of Scripture spoke according to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They spoke the words of God. And the most frequent appeal by all the prophets and apostles is that they are speaking the Word of the LORD, the Gospel. Their appeal is to the authority of God, and their epistemology is dogmatic and revelation-based.

One last objector may state that he considers himself an Evidentialist, but that he grounds his reason for believing "evidence" in "transcendentals." This is not true Evidentialism, but a slightly modified form of Evidentialism that I will deal with, God Willing, under the separate head of Van-Tillianism / Transcendentalism.

-Turretinfan

Germany Identifies Scientology as a Cult

The good news is that Germany recognized Scientology as a cult/scam (link). The bad news is that Germany does not officially recognize (to my knowledge, anyhow) that Islam is an even worse cult/scam. Scientology may ruin someone financially, but Islam has killed and continues to kill. Maybe we'll see some progress in time.

-Turretinfan

Response to Kurschner on Revelation 5:9-10

Response to Mr. Alan Kurschner

On Revelation 5:9-10

The Present Author Slightly Favoring

The Reading of the Authorized Version

Introduction

In a recent article (link), Mr. Kurschner argued that the Authorized Version (aka the KJV) has several incorrect readings at Revelation 5:9-10. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Kurschner, and I believe that the Authorized Version generally has the better reading, based both on the internal and external evidence. Before I continue, I should point that although I believe that the KJV (in the 1792 edition) is the present paragon of excellence in translation of the Bible in the English language, I am not a KJV-only (KJVO) advocate. I have explained why I am not, previously (link). It is possible that some readings of the KJV could be improved, but this is not such a case, in my opinion, although I leave open the possibility that I could be wrong.

Reference English Readings

For reference, the Authorized Version's reading of the disputed passage is:

Revelation 5:9-10
9And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 10And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.


In contrast:

Revelation 5:9-10 (NASB, notes omitted, italics and quotation marks original)
9And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. 10"You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

For further comparison, here is the Westcott & Hort translation, "The Twentieth Century New Testament," (revised ed. 1904) for comparison (formatting omitted):

And they are singing a new song -- 'Thou art worthy to take the book and break its seals, for thou wast sacrificed, and with thy blood thou didst buy for God men of every tribe, and language, and people, and nation, and didst make them at Kingdom of Priests in the service of our God, and they are reigning upon the earth.'

Analysis

For reasons that will be clear rather quickly, Mr. Kurschner begins with the second, rather than the first verse. I'll proceed in the order in which the verses would be read.

With respect to verse 9, Mr. Kurschner takes the position that the omission of "us" is the better reading, with the sole external evidence being the lone testimony of "A". The problem with Mr. Kurscher's view here is that it fails to account properly for the transcriptional evidence. The harder reading is "us" (not its omission). It appears that A (in the Apocalpyse) was copied by ear.

In evidence of the auditory copying of A, note, for example, who A also has a unique spelling of αδουσιν as αδωσιν. Two obvious explanations for this error spring to mind. One would be an error of the eye, the other of the ear. A, if it is as old as is claimed, was copied from an Uncial manuscript written in all capitals. If so, it would be difficult to confuse omicron-upsilon with omega. Accordingly, we can discard the error of eye hypothesis. Instead, it seems more that is simply an itacism, and that the scribe misheard the vowel pair as omega, and copied phonetically. (It is interesting to note, by way of comparison, that A alone likewise omits ημων in the phrase "our God" in verse 10, at which point Mr. Kurshner, Messrs. Westscott and Hort, and the NASB do not follow A.)

Once we recognize that A was copied by hearing, it would be reasonable, then for A simply to fail to hear the word ημας composed, as it is, entirely of vowels and soft consonents, and accidentally omit it.

Mr. Kurschner provides a counter argument that:

there was a scribal tendency to "clarify" ambiguous readings. And in this case, it makes much more sense that a scribe would add an object to clarify who is being purchased, rather than a scribe omitting the object of God's purchasing.

There is a significant problem with Mr. Kurschner's argument here. While it may be possible that a scribe would attempt to clarify who is being purchased, it is unclear why (if the scribe had before him) a text reflected by the NASB, the scribe would choose to insert "us" rather then "men" or "them," unless the scribe had a reason for believing that "us" was intended by the context. If one accepts NASB text as accurately reflecting the context, one is left wondering how "us" could have been the intent.

Furthermore, the internal evidence favors the reading from the standpoint of difficulty. Omission creates no serious difficulty, but insertion creates the difficulty that one must explain how (apparently and on its face) the twenty four enders and four beasts were redeemed out of every kindred, etc.

Furthermore, the versional testimony in favor of "us" is overwhelming. The Vulgate (all versions and old translations I could find except the Vatican II edition), Horner's translation of the Coptic, all the translations of the Peshitto I have (Murdoch's, Lamsa's, and Etheridge's translations), and my copy of the Slavonic.

When we come to verse 10, the reason for Mr. Kurschner's opposition with respect to verse 9 becomes apparent. In verse 10, there is a mixture in the external evidence as to whether the pronoun should be "us" or "them." The majority of the early Greek texts have "them." There are, however, very few early Greek texts of the Apocolypse. Unlike most of the Bible, there are no lectionaries of the Apocalypse presumably because it was not read in church, and accordingly there is no lectionary data at all for the text of the Apocalypse. Thus, the remaining evidence are patristic quotations (which favor "us") and versional evidence, which is mixed with the Coptic, Peshitto, and Armenian favoring "them" and the Slavonic and Vulgate favoring "us."

Furthermore, if we have established that reading of 9 is "us," then the internal evidence favors "us," because it makes more sense. This, of course, raises a slight transcriptional argument in favor of corruption of the text to smooth between 9 and 10, and this raises a slight amount of evidence that "them" could be the original in 10.

However, I'm not persuaded by that transcriptional argument, because the more likely transcriptional variation would flow from the verb "shall reign" (which, in many instances, is 3rd person plural), which is more directly connected with being made kings, than is the foregoing redemption.

This brings us to the final textual variant, the conjugation of the verb "to reign" in verse 10. Again, the same versional information applies in favor, the Vulgate and the Slavonic favoring the third person singular. There is a further split among the Greek witnesses and versions on this very verb, however. At least the following are presented among the various witnesses and versions: basileian, basileis, basileusousin, and basileuiusin (in addition, of course, to basileusomen).

Mr. Kurschner selects basileusousin, but this is not the reading provided by A (his favored text elsewhere in this same argument). A has basileian.

In view of the variety of textual evidence for and against the conjugation of "to reign," I leave open the possibility that the KJV may have the wrong tense expressed. Nevertheless, I'm inclined to believe that the verb conjugation has been corrupted, and that we should restore the verb ending by the context. In the context, the preferred verb ending is first person plural, future.

Conclusion

Accordingly, I conclude that the KJV reading is slightly preferably here, primarily on the weight of the versional testimony of the Vulgate and Slavonic versions, against the apparently accidentally corrupted Greek text.

Almost by way of an afterword, it is important to note that Mr. Kurschner includes an argument that would be better omitted, as it can only weaken his position. That is Mr. Kurschner's argument that suggests that KJVO advocates insist on the KJV's reading here because of an a priori commitment to pretribulation premillenial theology. It seems completely unreasonable to suppose that such a commitment would force one to adopt the KJVO position - it would be sufficient simply to dispute the translation of the text (as, for example, the present author has done above). On the other hand, Mr. Kurschner could more readily be accused (and the accusation would be a false one, in my own estimation) of seeking to maintain a corrupt reading in the text in order to oppose pretribulation premillenialism. Because the KJVO position does not permit monkeying with text, suggesting that it is motivated by the readings of particular passages is not a reasonable critique.

I would encourage Mr. Kurschner to omit this argument in future versions of this same presentation, reserving it instead, for posts such as this one of his, on another site (link).

I would also continue to encourage Mr. Kurschner to address the actual problems with the KJVO position, rather than trying to find fault with Authorized Version. In most, if not all, of the cases of alleged incorrect readings of the KJV there is going to be a substantial argument in favor of the KJV, even when that substantial argument is wrong.

It would seem better to go after the root of the problem: the lack of a reason to suppose that the KJV (in any of its edititions) is entirely free from even the most trivial errors of reading.

-Turretinfan

Clarkian Epistemology - Contra Van-Tillian Objections

Clarkian Epistemology Distinguished

Against Van Tillian Responses

There has been a recent spat of comments flowing out of a discussion generally related to TJH's post (link) and my response (link).

In particular, TJH, Keith, and an internet poster who has adopted the handle "John Calvin" (JC), have provided some comments worthy of further discussion.

TJH's first comments (link) require me to dig through the disarray of tomes that I call my library to try to locate my copy of the relevant book. I have not yet found time to do so. I'll try to do so soon, rather than rely on my memory.

Keith's comments (link) ask:

You say that science collectively says R. In reality, the truth is R’. This is trivial. Who wouldn’t agree with that? Are there people out there who think that science has always given us the truth? The whole idea behind science is that we keep modifying our “knowledge”.
Nevertheless, this makes more sense of Clark’s claim that science is “false.” Collectively, yes it probably is, but once again, if he’s concerned about epistemic certainty then he still can’t say its truly false, only probably false.
By the way, how does Clark know that the Bible says what he thinks it says given the uncertainty of language?

I respond:

As to the first paragraph, that's an intermediate step of the argument, not the final point. I do think that virtually everyone would agree that the truth is R'. Nevertheless, evidentialism does not have the tools either to say with certainty that the truth is R', or even that R is close, far, or converging to R'. In other words, evidentialism is without an anchor. Evidentialism can convince us that the R of science is changing, but cannot tell us with certainty that it is approaching truth.

This does not mean that science is not useful, but that that science ALONE is not an epistemology of any value.

As to the second paragraph, all that is necessary for Clark to prevail is that we agree that evidentialism is an undesirable epistemology. Clark can easily demonstrate that Science collectively includes assertions that are contrary to the truth (for example, in the area of cosmology), but that is not based on evidentialism, but on Clark's own epistemology.

It's important to point out the evidentialism cannot only not show that R is not R' with certainty, but even that R is not R' with probability. There's no a priori way of assigning probabilities to the position. If one jumps out of evidentialism for a second, and presupposes that historical observations are a probable predictor of future events, then whatever you presuppose as that probability that historical observations will predict future events will correspond to the probability that Science is false. I'm not sure how helpful that would be.

As to the final question, Clark (like the Reformers) deduces from Scripture that the important things in Scripture are perspicuous.

TJH's second comments (link) follow on Keith's comments (above).

TJH writes:

Also, that applies to theology as well. I’m sure that Clark’s theology underwent tweaks over the course of his life, and there was probably at least one false proposition left in there. Say it is certainly so. Then, by the same reasoning, can we not say that Clark’s theology was false?

(underscore substituted for italics in original)

I respond:

Clark would agree that the entire body of Clarkian theology (even as it stood on his moment of death) undoubtedly contained some error or other, and consequently is not a suitable presuppositional basis. Clark would, therefore, agree that Scripture, not Clarkian theology, should be our epistemological starting point.

JC's comments (link) are lengthier, more vehement, and seem to reflect a personal stake in the debate, but are not remarkably different from Keith's.

JC wrote:

[1] And of course you don’t know that my conclusion proves the absurdity of trying to argue like a Van Tillian, do you? It’s just your mere opinion, isn’t it?
[2] I see you *assert* that the sun’s heat is being spoken of literally, but you don’t know that, do you? Sure you can “presuppose it,” but whopp-dee-doo.
[3] Then I can prove God is a bird by “presupposing” that it is speaking literally? No. So, just “presupposing” anything willy-nilly is a bit unwise. And, of course you don’t even know that Scripture says “sun.” That word could be “oven,” and so your eyes are tricking you. How would you know otherwise?
[4] So, no free lunches. I want to know how the Clarkian doesn’t commit epistemological suicide every time he opens his mouth. Your saying “just grant me that I know what the Bible says,” sems like the evolutionist asking me to grant him that “life evolved from non-life just once,” and then he’ll show me how everything else follows. Like Tim said above, “of where one cannot speak, one should be
silent.”
[5] You don’t know Clark existed, and you don’t know he had a high standard of knowledge, either. That’s another mere opinion. Also, you don’t know that you don’t need to know. So that was another opinion. A mere assertion. Why do you expect “Van Tillians” to grant you your unjustified opinions? Is it because it’s “absurd” to reason like us so you think you can pass assertions on as substantive answers and we won’t “get it” because we’re “absurd.”
[6] You don’t know that Clark existed, that’s right. But, you also don;t know that eh
should have been ordained because you don’t know if he was a man. You don;t even
know if you’re a man, how much more then do you not know that Clark is?
[7] I mean, you don’t even know that Scripturalism is the case! If all knowledge is either found in Scripture, or able to be deduced from Scripture, then since *that proposition* cannot be deduced from Scripture, you don’t know it! So, the Scripturalist can’t even know his own Scripturalist package. Thus it looks like you have in-house problems in your backyard that needf cleaning before you tell me to clean up my own backyard.

(all errors in original, numbering added for convenient reference)

I respond:

As to [1], as I had previously stated (link), your conclusion demonstrates the absurdity of arguing like a Van Tillian. I'm not interested in proving that, or establishing to your satisfaction that I know it. If you don't see the absurdity of your previous argument (link), so be it. I think others can and will see the absurdity, but if not - I'll have to look for a more clear example. Perhaps the remainder of your present argument will provide such an example.

As to [2], the answer is that I do know that it is being spoken of literally; I have deduced that from Scripture.

As to [3], if you presuppose that God is a bird, it is your presupposition against mine. Yours are foolish presuppositions that will place you in the lake of fire, if you really hold to them. But I doubt you do. You only suggest such presuppositions to be argumentative.

As to [3] (cont'd), I do know that the word there is "sun," and you know it too. Your objection is not something you believe, but simply an attempt to be argumentative. I know otherwise by deduction from Scripture. If you would pay attention to the arguments presented previously (link), you would understand that.

As to [4], a better choice for comparison would have been the context of the recent PCA debate on justification. The elders have agreed that the WCF is Scriptural, and, thus, the debate centers around whether the FV doctrines are confessional. Nevertheless, yes, evolutionists are frequently trying to persuade people to accept their presupposition of Naturalism. If you do, you're not left with a lot of other choices besides evolution. As for epistemic suicide, Clark is not an evidentialist, and his epistemology is not evidentialism. His rebuttal of evidentialism, consequently, does not damage his epistemology. Your perception that it does appears to be a similar mistake to that made by Keith above.

As to [5], the questions of whether or not Clark existed or had a high standard for "knowledge" are not serious questions. If refusing to engage in puerile games is "taking a free pass," so be it. If the presentation of objections that are not one's own is all that Van Tillianism has to offer, I will let people decide for themselves whether it is worth anyone's time. Furthermore, "mere opinion" and "mere assertion" are not the only alternative to Clark's high standard of "knowledge." Your own assertions reflect your adoption of a false dichotomy.

As to [6], this argument relies on an implicit equivocation between the high standard of knowledge (absolute certainty) and ordinary knowledge. No one has suggested that we should act only on the basis of things for which we have absolute certainty, or that certainty is necessary in every aspect of life.

As to [7], despite the claims of many anti-Reformed apologists, Sola Scriptura is, in fact, a doctrine of Scripture. Here, at least, I think you go beyond any reasonable scope of Van Tilianism, if you deny that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of Scripture. Perhaps, on the other hand, you simply either do not know what the doctrine is, or you are again equivocating between the high definition of knowledge and the ordinary definition of knowledge.

-Turretinfan

P.S. A response by JC with respect, primarily, to number 7 can be found here (link). In summation, JC falsely accused me of not understanding what Sola Scriptura is.

I respond:

The only things we can know with the highest confidence are the things that God himself reveals. That is the reason behind the use of Scripture as the supreme judge. Once one has grasped that, the rest should fall into place, as long as one commits oneself to abandon consistent implicit equivocation over the words “know” and “knowledge.” So far, I don’t see the VT side doing that.

-Turretinfan