Gospel Poetry

The following video provides some Gospel poetry. It is in a fairly modern style - what would be considered "frestyle rap."



I am not sure the context where this came from and I don't even know the name of the man bearing witness to the truth of the Gospel. This is a good message, and it may be a way that message of Christ can reach people that the sort of stuffy academic arguments that I tend to present here on my blog may not.

It's not the only gospel poetry out there. Long ago, Ralph Erskine provided this gospel poetry, which perhaps may provide some material for other folks like the rapper/evangelist in the video clip above:

But still say you power to believe I miss
You may but know you what believing is
Faith lies not in your building up a tower
Of some great action by your proper power
For Heaven well knows that by the killing fall
No power nor will remains in man at all
For acts divinely good; 'rill sovereign grace
By powerful drawing virtue turn the chase
Hence none believe in Jesus as they ought
Till once they first believe they can do nought
Nor are sufficient even to form a thought
They're conscious in the right believing hour
Of human weakness and of divine power
Faith acts not in the sense of strength and might
But in the sense of weakness acts outright
It is no boasting arm of power and length
But weakness acting on almighty strength
It is the powerless helpless sinner's flight
Into the open arms of saving might
'Tis an employing Jesus to do all
That can within salvation's compass fall
To be the agent kind in everything
Belonging to a prophet priest and king
To teach, to pardon, sanctify, and save
And nothing to the creature's power to leave
Faith makes us joyfully content that he
Our Head our Husband and our All should be
Our righteousness and strength our stock and store
Our fund for food and raiment, grace and glore
It makes the creature down to nothing fall
Content that Christ alone be all in all.


Praise to our King!

-TurretinFan

H.T. to Take Away the Stone (link), where I first saw this.

James White is Not A Hyper-Calvinist

I am surprised I have to put this in writing. Dr. James White, a leading Calvinist apologist, is not a hyper-calvinist. He is a Calvinist. He is a five point Calvinist. Other Calvinists recognize this.

A few folks who would be classified as "Amyraldians" or "Four-Point Calvinists" because they deny the doctrine of the Limited Atonement have been pestering Dr. White, and insisting (in essence) that the Shibboleth by which one discerns hyper-Calvinism from Calvinism is whether someone is willing to say that "God loves everyone without exception" and that "God desires that everyone be saved."

First of all, those are inaccurate Shibboleths. A more accurate characterization of Hyper-Calvinism (in my opinion) is fatalism, the idea that since God has elected some to everlasting life, there is no duty for evangelists to preach and no duty of the reprobate to believe. The fact that Dr. White is active in evangelism (probably more than most of these Amyraldian critics) is conclusive proof that he is not a hyper-Calvinist.

But let's take a different tack.

One of Dr. White's critics has decided to argue that Phil Johnson (evidently well-respected in Reformed Baptist circles) has called Dr. White a Calvinist, just because the two of them are friends. Let's see whether this is so.

Before this controvery erupted, Phil Johnson provided a "Primer on Hyper-Calvinism." Here's a link to one copy of that document (link). As Mr. Johnson wrote in his primer:

"Hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility."

Dr. White teaches human responsibility. Therefore, Dr. White is not a hyper-Calvinist.

Identifying three critical characteristics of hyper-calvinism, Johnson writes:

First, it correctly points out that hyper-Calvinists tend to stress the secret (or decretive) will of God over His revealed (or preceptive) will. Indeed, in all their discussion of "the will of God," hyper-Calvinists routinely obscure any distinction between God's will as reflected in His commands and His will as reflected in his eternal decrees. Yet that distinction is an essential part of historic Reformed theology. (See John Piper, "Are There Two Wills in God? Divine Election and God's Desire for All To Be Saved" in Thomas R. Schreiner, ed., The Grace of God and the Bondage of the Will, 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995, 1:107-131.)

But Dr. White acknowledges that there is a real distinction between the decretive will and the preceptive will of God. Therefore, Dr. White is not a hyper-Calvinist.

Again, Johnson writes:

Second, take note of the stress the above definition places on hyper-Calvinists' "denial of the use of the word 'offer' in relation to the preaching of the gospel." This is virtually the epitome of the hyper-Calvinist spirit: it is a denial that the gospel message includes any sincere proposal of divine mercy to sinners in general.

But Dr. White affirms the free offer of the Gospel and does not hold that such an offer is insincere. Therefore, Dr. White is not a hyper-calvinist.

Further, Johnson writes:

Third, mark the fact that hyper-Calvinism "encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect." Assurance tends to be elusive for people under the influence of hyper-Calvinist teaching. Therefore, hyper-Calvinism soon degenerates into a cold, lifeless dogma. Hyper-Calvinist churches and denominations tend to become either barren and inert, or militant and elitist (or all of the above).

But Dr. White does not suggest that people ask whether or not they are themselves elect. At any rate, if he does, I've never heard him do so, and none of these critics of Dr. White's can point to him doing so. Therefore, Dr. White is not a hyper-calvinist.

Additionally, Johnson writes:

Hyper-Calvinism is sometimes defined as the view that God will save the elect apart from any means. Some, but very few, modern hyper-Calvinists hold such an extreme view. Those who do hold this view oppose all forms of evangelism and preaching to the unsaved, because they believe God will save whomever He chooses, apart from human means.

Of course, as noted above, Dr. White does not fall into this category.

Johnson further writes:

Another common but incorrect definition equates hyper-Calvinism with fatalism. Fatalism is a mechanistic determinism, antithetical to the notion of a personal God. While it is true that the most extreme varieties of hyper-Calvinism tend to depersonalize God, it is not accurate to portray all hyper-Calvinists as fatalists.

Likewise, for the reasons identified above, Dr. White doesn't fall into this category either.

Finally, after examining these and other tests for hyper-calvinism, Johnson settles on a five-part test:

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

As to (1), Dr. White does not deny the universality of the gospel call;
As to (2), Dr. White does not deny that faith is the duty of every sinner;
As to (3), Dr. White does not deny the free and universal offer of salvation;
As to (4), Dr. White affirms that there is such a thing as "common grace;" and
As to (5), I think it would be fair to say that Dr. White would agree that there is a kind of love (corresponding to common grace) that God has even for the reprobate, thought it is distinguishable from the special love God has for the elect.

In short, Dr. White is not a hyper-calvinist according to Phil Johnson's primer on the subject. That, not the friendship between the men, is the reason that Phil Johnson attests to the same truth that I attest to (even if I disagree with the broad tests that Mr. Johnson uses), namely that Dr. White is a Calvinist, not a hyper-calvinist.

-TurretinFan

What Has Rome to Do With Mecca?

Occasionally, I point out that one of the biggest reasons to reject the doctrines of Rome, is that Vatican II dogmatically taught that God and Allah are the same: that Muslims worship the one true God. As well, Vatican II teaches the Jews worship the one true God. This doctrine is false. Those who reject the Son of God reject God, and both religious Jews and Muslims do reject the Son of God.

I get a variety of reactions from those who are part of the Roman church when I point this out. Sometimes the reaction is disbelief that Vatican 2 actually taught that. Other times the reaction is an argument suggesting that Vatican 2 actually taught something else, such as that the Muslims are right to be monotheists. A few agree and try to come up with some way in which Muslims worship God by worshiping the fictional conception of Allah (an interesting squirm, but not particularly availing). Finally, a few acknowledge that it is what Vatican II taught, and accept it.

Below, I will point evidence supporting my contention that the Roman church teaches the God and Allah are one and the same - and that Muslims and Jews worship the same God as Rome does. I hope that this will give those readers of mine who identify themselves with the church of Benedict XVI some pause. I hope they will consider the fact that this is not a true doctrine: that it is contrary to Scripture.

The following is my evidence from the mouth of your two most recent popes, John Paul II (JP2) and Benedict XVI (Ben16).

"As I have often said in other meetings with Muslims, your God and ours is one and the same, and we are brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham."

JP2 1985 (source")

Nevertheless, neither religious Jews nor Muslims have the faith of Abraham, for they reject the Son of Abraham.

"We are all children of the same God, members of the great family of man. And our religions have a special role to fulfil in curbing these evils and in forging bonds of trust and fellowship. God’s will is that those who worship him, even if not united in the same worship, would nevertheless be united in brotherhood and in common service for the good of all."

JP2 1985 (source")

Notice that JP2 acknowledges that the worship itself is different, but asserts that it is worship of the same God.

"In the final analysis, prayer is the best means by which all humanity can be united. It disposes people to accept God’s will for them. It also affects the relationship of those who pray together, for by coming together before God in prayer people can no longer ignore or hate others. Those who pray together discover that they are pilgrims and seekers of the same goal, brothers and sisters who share responsibility for the same human family, children of the same God and Father. It is my ardent hope that the Day of Prayer for Peace to be held in Assisi, at which Christians of all Communions and believers from all the great religions have been invited to participate, will be a beginning and an incentive for all believers in God to come often before him united in prayer."

JP2 1986 (source")

Nevertheless, those who have not received adoption are not the children of the Father. Likewise, Muslims and Christians have different and competing goals - not the same goal.

"I thank you for your visit, all representatives, leaders, of the Muslim community here in Uganda. Archbishop Wamala said that you are cooperating and that in doing so, you are also accomplishing the will of God, our Creator, our Father. God has created all of us, men and women, the whole human race, to cooperate–to cooperate in order to improve the world. He, our God, committed us, the world, to being inhabited, to being used, not abused, not abused, used, and to serving the human being, human existence. It is necessary to cooperate all together, for the riches of the world are sometimes in danger and the human community is many times is in danger. It requires the cooperation of all of us who believe in the same God, the one God of Abraham, the Father who gave us his son Jesus Christ. Thank you very much for your visit."

JP2 1993 (source")

Nevertheless, the Muslims do not believe in the same God, for they do not even know God.

"We Christians joyfully recognize the religious values we have in common with Islam. Today I would like to repeat what I said to young Muslims some years ago in Casablanca: “We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection” (Insegnamenti, VIII/2, [1985], p. 497)."

JP2 1999 (source")

What joy is there in the fact that there are those on the road to hell who happen to acknowledge some parts of the truth? This truth partially known will not save - it will only increase the condemnation of those who, like the Muslims, reject the one true God.

"This year is also the 40th anniversary of the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, which has ushered in a new season of dialogue and spiritual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as esteem for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them. Its followers worship the same God and willingly refer to the Patriarch Abraham."

Ben16 2005 (source")

But James said:

"Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." James 4:4

I'm not suggesting that we cannot be kind to Muslims. We can, should, and must. Nevertheless, we need to distinguish between being kind and respectful to them as people and endorsing or esteeming their religion. Islam is a path to judgment, part of the broad road that leads to destruction. Friendship with Islam as such is an unkindness not a kindness to the members of that religion. Those siding with Islam are siding against Christianity.

To parody an old saw, we must love the Muslim not Islam: the man not his religion.

Hopefully, this settles the matter of what Rome teaches, as well as illustrating some reasons why what Rome teaches is wrong. You will notice that in each case, the quotation is taken from the English translation provided at the Vatican's official web site. These are not my own translations. Now, I call on those of you in the Roman communion to consider whether Scripture teaches that one can both be one who worships God and who rejects the Son of God. If you see that the Scriptures do not teach that, I urge you to come out from the Roman communion and into fellowship with an Evangelical body that maintains not only the historic but Scriptural distinction between the followers of Christ and all other religions, including the religions of Mecca and modern Jerusalem.

-TurretinFan

Imaginary Patristic Quotation Regarding Mary?

Sometimes I like to read what "the other side" has to say about issues like the so-called Immaculate conception. I happened to come across the following argument in a book by Cardinal Lambruschini, who nearly became pope but was beaten out by Pius IX:

St. Cyril of Alexandria, who flourished in the fifth century, expresses himself in a manner still more decisive. Here are his words: "All men, except Him who was born of a Virgin, and that same most holy Virgin of whom was born the Man-God, are born in original sin, and we come into this world afflicted with the most grievous blindness, which indeed we inherit from our first parent, the origin of our race." And he gives, moreover, the motive for this exception, since he goes on to say: "Who ever heard of an architect, building a house for himself, and giving possession of it to his greatest enemy?"

Evidently, the anonymous clergyman who translated the corresponding Latin felt it fit to include the Latin provided by Lambruschini:

Omnes homines, excepto illo, qui de Virgine natus est, et sacratissima etiam Virgine, ex qua Deus homo prodiit in mundum, exempta, cum peccato originali nascimur, et gravissima caecitate depressi in mundum venimus, quam quidera caecitatem de radice primi parentis contraximus.

His citation was as follows:

In Evang. Joan. lib. VI, adjecto explanationi Cyrilli per Judocum Clichtoveum Neoportuensem, Docterum Theologum, cap. XV, Oper. S. Cyrilli Alexandrini. Basileae, 1566.

The above, of course, is only the Latin and citation for the main portion of the quotation. The part quoted as explanation has the following Latin:

Quis unquam audivit architectum, qui sibi domum aedificavit, ejus occupationem et possessionem primo sui inimico cessisse.

with the following citation: "In. Conc. Eph. N. VI." (see this link for some interesting discussion regarding the variant issues for this quotation)


Several issues came to mind:

1) The supposed explanation comes from an entirely different and unrelated work.

2) Upon checking the standard collections of Cyril, I noticed two problems. First, Book VI, cited by the cardinal, is a book of a single chapter in all the standard bodies of Cyrillic literature. Second, whether or not one divided that book into multiple chapters, the commentary in question is not to be found in the book. It's just not there.

3) So, how did the cardinal err? He relied on Josse Clichtove, a Romanist theologian who was not the best academic.

In fact, upon further investigation, I discovered that Josse Clichtove, unable to find a copy of Books V to VII of Cyril's works, inserted instead the works of other ancient writers, without informing the reader. Erasmus made fun of him for this in Responsio ad annotationes Lei. It wasn't the only time that Clichtove made such substitutions. See pp. 317-318 of "Contemporaries of Erasmus," by Bietenholz et al.

I don't bring this up simply to make fun of the cardinal's blunder. After all, the Reformed writers of the day also occasionally misquoted a source, particularly when they relied on the work of Romanist scholars in providing the allegedly patristic material.

What is even more interesting is that upon reading the genuine Book VI, I found that Cyril of Alexandria actually said what amounts to the precise opposite, namely that he provided no exclusion whatsoever for Mary:

And yet we could not grant that they [i.e. the parents of the man born blind] were altogether free from sin. For, inasmuch as they were human, it is I suppose in every way likely or rather it of necessity follows that they fell into errors.

(source)

Migne's corresponding Latin from PG73:942 is "Atqui non omnino concesserimus eos immunes peccati. Quippe homines cum essent, necesse fuit ut in peccatum inciderent." (If you are interested in the Greek, see the facing portion of Migne at column 941, or volume two of Pusey, p. 187, lines 24-27, 1872 ed.)

In point of fact, the supposed sinlessness of Mary was not the universal consent of the ancient fathers. From everything I have seen, the universal consent of the ancient fathers that addressed the issue was that Jesus was the only human not to sin, and this was because he was no mere man, but God incarnate. Only Jesus' conception was immaculate. He was born of a physically immaculate virgin, but he was made after the likeness of sinful flesh, as the Scriptures teach. Mary had sin, which is why she recognized Christ as her savior.

-TurretinFan

Married Priest Movement on the Rise

One of the standard objections to the Papists has been that they violate Scriptures by forbidding their "priests" and bishops from marrying. Scripture not only permits the marriage of ordinary folks but of elders/bishops and deacons, the servants of the church. Scripture not only permits such marriage, but views it as the norm: not that every elder and deacon must be married, but that this is the ordinary course of events.

Now, in England this issue is coming to something of a bubble, because of the influx of married former Anglican clergy into the papist ranks. Anglicans, because of the historic (and largely dissipated) influence of the Reformation, do not forbid their clergy from marriage. This influx of married clergy creates tension, because the married clergy are not required to give up their wives when they join, while their newly acquired colleagues must remain unmarried.

One expects similar tension may also exist within other parts of Romanism, as some of the "Eastern rite" priests that have joined Rome's communion also included married clergymen. The Eastern Orthodox traditions, while generally forbidding bishops to marry, do permit their priests to marry (UPDATE: this sentence apparently confuses some who conclude that I'm suggesting that sometimes men who are already ordained in EO churches go from being single to being married - with that in mind, I should point out that I'm not aware of examples of either of those things happening).

The following linked article, from Sify news (which seems fond of pop-ups), describes the views of the apparent future head of Romanism in England and Wales, a certain "Bishop McMahon." (link)

McMahon claims, "There is no reason why priests shouldn't be allowed to marry. It has always been a matter of discipline rather than doctrine." We agree with him that there is no good reason. There are purported reasons, though, that were previously set out. "The Church" (as his comrades are fond of calling it) did not impose celibacy without some pretext. If someone wants the pretext, they need only turn to the polemical sites of any number of papists. The usual answer, framed against modern Evangelicals, is that celibacy frees one up to serve God. The more traditional answer is a perception that the sexual act itself is somehow unholy: i.e. that it is more holy to be single than to be married.

That is to say, while the practice certainly is disciplinary, it is one imagined (by its supporters) to be based on doctrinal arguments. It is interesting to see that within the ranks of papalism there is dissent even on these matters. One wonders what is next? He supports marriage for "priests:" will he support marriage for bishops too?

Finally, one wonders what "Joe Roman Catholic Lay Apologist" thinks about these things. Such a guy is typically himself married, but in favor of a celibate priesthood. Such a guy typically appreciates the fact that Rome's position on this matter of discipline cannot rationally be defended as simply an arbitrary decision with "no reason" (McMahon's words). On the other hand, against him is the Bishop of Nottingham - someone with far better credentials within the Roman hierarchy. What can this poor Joe do? Disagree with a bishop? or admit that there is no good reason for required celibacy?

We'll have to wait and see.

-TurretinFan

The Video Everyone is Watching

The following is a reaction video provided by Dr. White regarding the recent election. It has had a surprising (to me) resonation within the blogosphere. If you haven't already seen it, I would encourage you to watch it. I don't endorse everything he has to say, but he makes a lot of good points.




-TurretinFan

Ridiculous Accusations Refuted

I read a touching testimonial today about the apparent conversion of a four-year-old child (link). There would be no particular reason for me to blog this (as wonderful as it is), except for the fact that those under the power of sin have responded by accusing this woman of "child abuse." Why?

Because:

a) She explains to her children that they are sinners.

But this is both the truth and the woman's Christian duty to tell them.

b) She *might* be spanking her children.

But this is both the proper and loving way to discipline children according to the Bible.

Critique:

The problem with the folks launching these ridiculous accusations against this Christian woman is that they do not know the truth. These accusers are not followers of God, nor are they students of His Word. Their eyes have not been opened to see the truth of the Gospel. That's the reason they reject the Word of God and accuse this poor woman as they do.

They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

What's interesting is that they lob the accusation "child abuse" for convicting a child of sin from an early age. On the other hand, these people have no moral basis for denouncing even actual child abuse (much less saving a child's soul). Furthermore, in their false accusation they actually wish to bring about child abuse in the form of parents neglecting the spiritual state of their children.

The true child abuse is neglecting to tell children of their sin. The true child abuse (by way of neglect) is failing to speak of things of God to one's children. It is truly abusive (by way of neglectfulness) to refuse to give corporeal discipline to a child that needs it.

These anti-God critics need to think again, for on the side of this woman is God and His Word. They may not like to believe it, and they may prefer to listen to the mockery of the likes of Dawkins. Nevertheless, God does exist and He has spoken. Those who stop their ears will only be able to do so for so long. Eventually everyone passes on and goes to meet their maker.

Repent and believe now, while their is time.

-TurretinFan

Free Sermons from a Famous Pastor

I'm not a big fan of John MacArthur because of my concern for accurate, precise theology. Nevertheless, he is a very powerful preacher and many people have been blessed by his ministry. Now, I have learned (thanks to Matthew Kratz and The Truth Will Set You Free) that one can now get free sermons of his - maybe as much as forty years worth. Enjoy (discerningly)! (link)

-TurretinFan

Eastern Orthodox Monks (Again)

We've reported on this sort of thing before. Eastern Orthodox monks sparring with each other. Here are two reports of a clash (one clash, two reports) between Greek and Armenian monks in Jerusalem (first report - second report). Why even mention it?

a) Because people forget that there is disunity both among those who claim to hold to Sola Scriptura and those who claim to deny it;

b) Because the monks, being some of the most zealous members of their religions, are fair representatives, not merely nominal adherents;

c) Because, today, disagreements between Evangelical denominations (even if fierce) are not addressed by violence.

-TurretinFan

Status - Back Shortly

I've been away from the blog a bit, working on several projects. Lord Willing new posts should appear within the next day or two.

Clarification of Mariolatry Accusation

Introduction

Dr. White, on yesterday's special edition of the Dividing Line, provided answers and some cross examination of one of the critics of an article I wrote a while ago on the worship of Mary in Catholicism. Dr. White did an excellent job, I write here simply to briefly summarize two of the relevant points, for those listeners who, like the caller, were confused.

1. External Critique

This critique of Catholicism is an external critique. We are not saying that Roman Catholicism today says, "We worship Mary." Instead, we are saying that actions and attitudes expressed by Benedict XVI and others amount to worship: they are worship. Shakespeare wrote that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

2. External Judgment

This critique of Roman Catholicism is based on the actual events and expressed opinions of the members of Roman Catholicism identified. It is not based on reading their minds. We are not suggesting that the average person at the Vatican kneels in front of a statue and says to themselves, "Time to worship Mary." No, instead, we are saying that the expressed attitudes towards Mary (such as asking Mary to turn their hearts or the hearts of others) are inappropriate - that they amount to worship of Mary.

Conclusion

Our goal here is to warn folks that what they are doing is wrong. We are not trying to suggest that "Joe Roman Catholic" knows that he is worshiping Mary when he recites the Ave Maria, when he bows to a statue of Mary, and when he otherwise venarates Mary and deparated believers.

-TurretinFan

Reformed Website in Indonesian

I happened to come across a Reformed Website from Singapore, presented in the Indonesian language (link to site). For those whose first language is Indonesian, this resource may provide some further assistance.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: Corrected "Malay" to "Indonesian" thanks to helpful comments (see the comment box).

The Bright Side of Yesterday's Election

It is important to see the silver lining in clouds.

At least:
a) Mrs. Clinton will have to wait 8 years before running for president;
b) Mrs. Palin will be able to spend more time with her children; and
c) America was spared from having a woman Vice President (although America has an even-more-firmly-entrenched female Speaker of the House).

-TurretinFan

Note to Blasphemer

Someone (presumably the same guy who is also the forger mentioned in a previous post) has been busy blaspheming God in the comboxes of this blog, and having his posts speedily rejected for publication. This is not a light matter in God's eyes, sir. Forsake your evil ways, and turn in repentance unto the Maker and Provider of the Universe:

"one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

This is the word of that same God, which should make your heart tremble at the judgment that awaits you, unless you repent:

Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

You who blaspheme: that's you with the evil heart that brings forth that blasphemy. Seek God's forgiveness and mercy. Recall that Jesus said, "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." Matthew 12:31 So then, seek God earnestly in prayer that you may be forgiven of your sins, that your heart may be changed, so that from the treasure of a good heart, you may be forth "fruits meet for repentance." Matthew 3:8

I realize that may not be what you want to hear, but that's what you need to hear right now. Those words of God connect and resonate in your heart, for you know that they are true. You cannot escape them, so hear them, fear your Maker, repent, and believe the gospel to the saving of your soul.

-TurretinFan

Only Slightly Less Spooky Than Voting in America

Americans today have a number of unpleasant voting options that I've already discussed. Hopefully, by the time any Americans who read this blog are reading this (if not, they may enjoy this link), they will have already voted. For them, and for the the rest of the world, perhaps something a little less spooky, but still American will provide a bit of relief from the political dilemma.

Pumpkin Carvings!

The following round-up (ha) provides some of the leading pumpkin carvings out there:

Turretin

Via Matthew Lankford - Daylight
Via Matthew Lankford - Illuminated by Interior Candle
Via Matthew Lankford - Artist with Creation, Vectorized

Luther

Via Reformation 21

Graven Images, Supposedly of Jesus (not recommended)

Via Purgatorio

Poe Raven (and other designs)

Via Glenn Hendrickson

TurretinFan does not endorse using any of these images in worship, does not endorse the holiday of "Halloween," and is not out of his gourd (ha) - he just wants to get his mind off of American politics for a bit.

May God have mercy on America today,

-TurretinFan

Dealing with Forger

Some forger has posted a comment on GreenBaggins using my nick. (link to fake comment) I would appreciate it if GreenBaggins would delete that comment, as it was not written by me and does not represent my position. I don't seem to be able to locate any email address for GreenBaggins, so I'm posting this here, until I can track them down.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: Wow! That was fast. My hat is off to GB for acting so quickly on the matter! Incidentally, to the forger (whoever he may be), be advised that your unethical behavior is something for which you will have to give an account one day.

Responding to Loftus' argument

Atheist John Loftus has the following argument against Christianity. I don't bring it up because Loftus is any kind of a genius of argumentation, but because we see this same argument in various forms from various atheists. Here is the argument:

If God is perfectly good, all knowing, and all powerful, then the issue of why there is so much suffering in the world requires an explanation. The reason is that a perfectly good God would be opposed to it, an all-powerful God would be capable of eliminating it, and an all-knowing God would know what to do about it. So the extent of intense suffering in the world means for the theist that either God is not powerful enough to eliminate it, or God does not care enough to eliminate it, or God is just not smart enough to know what to do about it. The stubborn fact of intense suffering in the world means that something is wrong with God’s ability, or his goodness, or his knowledge. I consider this as close to an empirical refutation of Christianity as is possible.

(source) I answer:
a) God is perfectly good, he is all knowing, and he is all powerful.
b) God is also perfectly just.
c) There is suffering the world, and there is happiness in the world.
d) The answer to why there is suffering is easy: there is sin and God is just.
e) The more puzzling thing is why there is any happiness in the world.
f) The reason is that God is not only perfectly good and perfectly just, but also merciful.

JL claims: "The reason is that a perfectly good God would be opposed to it, an all-powerful God would be capable of eliminating it, and an all-knowing God would know what to do about it."

JL doesn't know what "good" is. That's the problem. JL seems to think that the goodness of God is measured by what God does for him! How foolish! God is the creator and we are the creature. We exist for His pleasure, not the other way around. When sin is punished by suffering and death, that is God being good. JL may not like it, but what JL likes is not the standard of good.

JL claims: "So the extent of intense suffering in the world means for the theist that either God is not powerful enough to eliminate it, or God does not care enough to eliminate it, or God is just not smart enough to know what to do about it."

JL's dichotomy (well, "di-" is not technically correct prefix because he provides more than two options) is false. God is powerful enough to eliminate all suffering and to eliminate all happiness. God is smart enough to know what to do to eliminate either suffering or happiness. The reason for God not eliminating either of these is not an insufficient degree of care. God does care what goes on in the world, and what goes on is precisely what He has decreed.

But again, notice the premise in JL's reasoning: if God does not care to eliminate JL's suffering, God does not care enough. This characterization makes sense only from the backwards viewpoint of anthropocentrism: a man-centered view of the universe.

JL claims: "The stubborn fact of intense suffering in the world means that something is wrong with God’s ability, or his goodness, or his knowledge." As noted above, however, the problem is actually with JL's apparent view that "goodness" is measured by man's standard, not God's standard. JL seems to overlook the possibility that something is wrong with the standards he's using, and instead points a crooked finger at God. Furthermore, since JL overlooks the problem of sin, JL hasn't seen that the real difficulty is not suffering, but happiness.

For more, see the interesting video from Pastor Voddie Baucham that I previously embedded (link).

Let me be clear, there may be some for whom Loftus' internal critique would work. There are some for whom their conception of God is as anthropocentric as Loftus'. I hope, dear readers, that you are not among them. If you are, I would exhort you to obtain a copy of Dr. White's "The Potter's Freedom," and read it. In that book, Dr. White powerfully explains the fact of God's sovereignty. It's available at the Alpha and Omega Ministries bookstore (link) and probably a number of other venues.

-TurretinFan

Sola Scriptura Debate Update

The Sola Scriptura debate I am having with Matthew Bellisario, editor of Catholic Champion, has continued to the penultimate round of submissions, with my provision of Answers to his Cross-Examination questions (link to debate). The final round of submissions, due December 1, 2008, are our conclusion essays. Presumably, by now, the weary readers have had enough. Nevertheless, since it is only one more essay each, it looks like we'll be able to complete this debate on schedule.

-TurretinFan

Response to Anonymous Diatribe against Theonomy

Some anonymous person wrote the following diatribe. It's worth reviewing it, since the spirit behind the diatribe walks to and fro and up and down in the Earth, ensuring that this won't be the last time we hear these sorts of things:

theonomists believe in following the OLD LAW rather than the NEW TESTAMENT, and in murdering blasphemers, heretics, idolators [sic]. And yes, its murder, because the New Testament has removed any and all religious authority for this type of action. "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone" condemns all theonomists to hell. Now, TF says he wouldn't kill someone for wearing wool and linen together.....but that's only because the American government won't let him, not because he doesn't want to. Admit it, TF, just like all your buddy theonomists you wish that Calvinists were in control of the government so they could flay Hindus alive, bore the tongues of Arminians through with hot irons, crucify Roman Catholics, and burn people at the stake for "breaking the sabbath" or wearing wool and linen together. Just admit it. Any theonomist is an extreme theonomist, because the New Testament nowhere tells Christians to take control of the government and punish people for not being Christian. Calvinists just love to persecute, however, and convert by threat of death or injury, because they are Judaizing scum on the worst sort.

First of all, it should be clear that I don't endorse anything that this anonymous person (who sounds more or less like Beowulf2k8) has to say. We'll call this poster just "the Accuser" for short. Let's pick apart his rant, piece by piece, expose it to the light of truth, and watch it dematerialize.

Accuser's Accusation: "theonomists believe in following the OLD LAW rather than the NEW TESTAMENT, and in murdering blasphemers, heretics, idolators [sic]."

Answer:
a) One God gave both testaments. There's not a disunity between them. They are two edges of the same sword of the spirit.
b) Blasphemers are worthy of death, according to the law of God. A civil government that executes them (or murderers, or anyone else worthy of death) is not "murdering" them. If the Accuser has a problem with that, he needs to take it up with God, under whose law blasphemers were put to death.
c) Heretics and idolaters, as such, were not subject to capital punishment under the law of Israel. So, one would not expect theonomists to support capital punishment of such folks. A civil government that kills people simply for being heretics and/or idolaters would not seem to have any Biblical justification for their judgment.

Accuser: "And yes, its murder, because the New Testament has removed any and all religious authority for this type of action."

Answer: The Accuser is a bit vague in his accusation here. The question of whether something is "murder" or proper execution is a moral question. Questions of morality are religious questions - or at least have a significant religious aspect. If it was just under the Old Testament law (and it was) for someone to be stoned to death, one wonders whether the accuser imagines that justice itself changed.

Accuser: "'Let him that is without sin cast the first stone' condemns all theonomists to hell."

Answer:
Even if we moderate the Accuser's comment to say that the phrase "contradicts the theonomists":
a) This is not a verse to which a "two kingdoms" kind of person could appeal for that kind of concept, because the punishment of death here was not for a violation of the first table of the law (crimes against God) but the second table of the law (crimes against man).
b) This is not a verse to which those fond of modern textual criticism could appeal for that kind of concept, because most modern textual critics deny the originality of this passage, since it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts that we have today.
c) This is not a verse to which any person who believes that crimes should be punished (but only that capital punishment is out) can appeal to for that kind of concept, because Jesus does not fine the woman, or sentence her to life in prison, but simply lets her go free.
d) This is not a verse to which any person that values consistency of Scripture could appeal to for that kind of concept, because Paul clearly states:
Romans 13:3-4
3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
e) So who could appeal to this kind of verse for that concept? Someone who has only a cursory understanding of the Scriptures and/or someone who wishes to justify his conclusion ex post facto. There are a thousand better ways to understand the comment, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her," than to view it as a condemnation of capital punishment.

Accuser: "Now, TF says he wouldn't kill someone for wearing wool and linen together.....but that's only because the American government won't let him, not because he doesn't want to."

Answer:
a) Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:11 both proscribe (forbid) garments made from a mixture of wool and linen. There is not, however, any sentence of death proclaimed on people who violate this law. In fact, the law of Moses doesn't indicate any punishment for violation of this law.
b) The prohibition on garments of mixed fibres was a ceremonial law pointing to separation and physical purity. It was fulfilled in Christ, who was free from impurities.
c) I am in favor of the death penalty, for example, for rape of a married woman, although "the American government won't let" the state governments execute this just punishment for that particular form of the general category of adultery. I do not suggest that Christians should take the law into their own hand in this matter, or the matter of punishment for murder. In short, my position with respect to what is just is framed by the Word of God, not the opinion of the American (or any other) government. If I thought people should be sentenced to death for wearing garments of diverse sorts, I'd just say so.

Accuser: "Admit it, TF, just like all your buddy theonomists you wish that Calvinists were in control of the government so they could flay Hindus alive, bore the tongues of Arminians through with hot irons, crucify Roman Catholics, and burn people at the stake for "breaking the sabbath" or wearing wool and linen together. Just admit it."

Answer: See above. I don't have any problem speaking clearly. I have elsewhere identified what the Old Testament laws were that carried the penalty of death. Simply being a Hindu (pagan) or Romanist (heretic) would not qualify. Wearing mixed garments clearly wouldn't qualify. Breaking the sabbath would qualify as a capital crime. Torture (such as burning holes in people's tongues - even those of "Arminians" who Arminius would not recognize as his followers) is not part of the Mosaic administration of justice.

Accuser: "Any theonomist is an extreme theonomist, because the New Testament nowhere tells Christians to take control of the government and punish people for not being Christian."

Answer:
a) Christians are not commanded to try to "take control of the government."
b) I certainly don't, and I think most theonomists would agree, think that people should be punished "for not being Christian."

Accuser: "Calvinists just love to persecute, however, and convert by threat of death or injury, because they are Judaizing scum on the worst sort."

Answer:
a) Calvinists, in general and especially these days, are not necessarily theonomists. Furthermore, even among Christian theonomists, I've never seen a love of persecution.
b) Calvinists deny the possibility of conversion through threat of death or injury. Unlike Arminians, who imagine that conversion is simply a decision of man, Calvinists believe that it is grace (not the sword) that converts.
d) Conversely, one could deny TULIP and be an Arminian or Amyraldian theonomist. I cannot think of any off hand. There are, however, Federal Visionists (I would not consider them to be Calvinists, because of at least a formal rejection of the "P" in TULIP) who also appear to be theonomists of some kind.

-TurretinFan

The Old Testament Law - Tripartite Analysis

To provide some background for discussion of the law of God, it is important to understand the categories involved:

Categories

The law of God in the Old Testament is of three kinds:

1. Moral

Moral law, because it reflects the character of God, is enduring and immutable. It never was and it never will be permissible to worship any god but God, it never was and never will be permissible to worship God other ways than He ordains, it never was and never will be permissible to dishonor God's name, it never was and never will be permissible to appropriate all seven days of the week for our work, it never was and never will be permissible to dishonor the authorities over us, to kill, to steal, to lie, to covet, and so forth. In short, it is always the case (for all history) that we must love the Lord our God wholeheartedly and love our neighbor as we love ourselves.

2. Ceremonial

Under the Adamaic, Noahic, Abramic, Mosaic, and Solomonic administrations of the covenant of grace, the worship of God was manifested in certain outward ceremonies that were designed to point to Christ. Eminent among these ceremonies were the rite of animal sacrifice, the practice of tabernacle and later temple worship, and in some cases a specialized priesthood. These things all have been fulfilled in Christ, the one true and perfect sacrifice. He is our high priest and his sacrificial work is finished. Consequently there is no more sacrifice and no more priestly class among us. There were other associated ceremonies as well, such as dietary laws and laws related to physical cleanliness as a picture of spiritual cleanliness. All these ceremonial laws, being fulfilled in Christ, have been done away.

3. Civil / Judicial / Juridical

This third category of laws were the laws specific to the Mosaic administration of the nation of Israel. They are the laws by which the country was run. They are not binding on all humanity. Nevertheless, they are important as to their "general equity," by which I mean that they show to us a just system of government. There are moral aspects of the civil law of Israel, and these moral aspects remain significant. There were circumstantial aspects, and these aspects necessarily vary under different circumstances. Finally, there were ceremonial aspects, and these aspects have been fulfilled or supplanted in the New Testament.

Errors Distinguished

There are four major (and numerous minor) errors that arise from holding to expired portions of the law (Judaizers and "Extreme" Theonomists) or to disposing of still-relevant portions of the law ("Extreme" Two-Kingdomists and "Extreme" Dispensationalists / Antinomians).

1. Judaiziers

Judaizers seek to impose part (or perhaps all) of the ceremonial law on Christians. Thus, for example, the Judaizers argue that it is necessary for Christians to be circumcised.

2. "Extreme" Theonomists

The term "theonomist" has a wide range of meanings. In some cases, folks who call themselves "theonomists" will insist that virtually all and every detail of the Mosaic law with respect to the Nation of Israel must be followed. The problem with this approach is that it overlooks the fact that the Mosaic law was tailored to two particular forms of government and accompanied a nation-state that has ceased to be.

3. "Extreme" Two-Kingdomists

I am using the term "extreme" here because I'm not sure all "two-kingdom" folks would say this description applies to them. In some cases, it appears that "two-kingdoms" folk treat the civil law of Israel as though it were entirely ceremonial. Thus, these folks say that the civil law is essentially done-away-with and consequently for instruction on how governments should be just, we must appeal exclusively to "natural law," the light provided by God in general revelation.

4. "Extreme" Dispensationalists / Anti-Nominians

"Extreme" Dispensationalists and also Anti-Nominians take the view that all the laws of the Old Testament are done away with, including the moral law. This error arises from a failure to understand the nature of the moral law, and the relation of God to the law of God. God does not change, and consequently the definition of morality does not change.

Conclusion

The issue of God's law is not a simple one to be handled carelessly or callously. We must be careful to observe to do all that God has commanded us, and yet we need to be careful not to bind men's consciences beyond what the Word of God states. Excess in the first regard leads to legalism, excess in the second regard leads to antinomianism. There is one way to see the path to stay on it, without going either to the left or to the right: that one way is by careful attention to the Word of God in the Holy Scriptures.

-TurretinFan