Helm on Calvin and the Calvinists

In light of the concerted efforts of both Arminians and Quasi-Amyraldians to drive a wedge between Calvin and the Calvinists, I was pleased to read the linked article (link) by Paul Helm, who explains some of the flaws in at least one similar attempt to divide the doctrines of Dordt from those of Calvin.

-TurretinFan

Want More on the Atonement?

The εξο της παρεμβολης blog has provided a somewhat lengthy excerpt from Robert Raymond's New Systematic Theology (link). He makes many good arguments, and frankly many that do not seem to have any answer in the Universal Atonement world.

-TurretinFan

Clarification on the Tri-Partite Division of the Law

I have received a few comments from readers on my previous post on the three-fold division of the law given by Moses (link).

A first comment comes from Stephen Garrett, who asked:

Where is your scriptural support for dividing the law into those three categories of moral, ceremonial, and civil?
Are we under the lawgiver Moses or the lawgiver Christ? The Old Covenant or the New? Or, perhaps a little of both?
Is the sabbath law moral, ceremonial, or civil? How much of the Sabbath laws are binding on Christians of the New Covenant?
Is there a command in the New Testament to observe Sabbath or a condemnation for doing so?

(minor changes for spelling/formatting)I answer:
The three categories are useful bins, as it were, among which the various laws given by Moses can be organized. Many more sub-bins could be created. For example, within the bin of "moral law" there are two sub-bins: "first table" and "second table," and then within those bins, the bins of "first commandment," "second commandment," etc. It's mostly a matter of helpful organization of what the Old Testament provides. If someone wanted to use other labels for these categories, we wouldn't object. If someone wanted to try to understand the Bible without these categories, we think they would have more difficulty, but we wouldn't insist that making these distinctions is a core tenet of orthodoxy.
We are not living in Old Testament Israel. The Nation of Israel was destroyed around A.D. 70 by the Romans. Their civil laws consequently are not binding on us. We are not under Moses in that sense. Recall that Jesus himself told his disciples that the scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses' seat and consequently were to be obeyed. There was not necessarily a tension, therefore, between being obedient to the civil laws of Moses and being a follower (disciple) of Christ. Nevertheless, as I already said, the nation of Israel was destroyed as such, and even if the civil laws of Moses should apply to the modern nation-state of Israel (something I don't want to get into), most of us don't live there and consequently are not under those civil laws.
Christ was not an earthly king. As he said, "My kingdom is not of this world...." (John 18:36). Thus, Christ did not provide a new civil law or usher in a Christian nation-state. Accordingly, with respect to the civil law, there is no "updated" form.
With respect to the moral law, Christ republished the Mosaic law both by identifying as the greatest commandment to love God and as the second commandment to love one's neighbor. Additionally, we find each of the other ten commandments republished in the New Testament, confirming their continued applicability.
With respect to the ceremonial law, Christ fulfilled the law, and on his death "the
the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." (Luke 23:45) Those shadows are gone, since we now have the reality. Accordingly, it is not only not required that we sacrifice animals, it would be an act of impiety for us to do so, since it would suggest that we do not understand that we have a better sacrifice: Christ the Lamb of God.
So, the dichotomy of "Moses the Lawgiver vs. Christ the Lawgiver," doesn't seem proper.
The law of the sabbath (one day in seven to be a day of rest and worship) is not, strictly speaking, a Mosaic provision. It was republished by Moses, but it was a Creation ordinance, like marriage. It does point forward, but it points forward to heaven. It is part of the ten commandments and properly considered "moral," for that reason. It is a blessing, something "made for man." (Mark 2:27) Christ did not come to take away that blessing. The other sabbaths would appear to be mostly civil, relating to land use and slavery. I would love to get into those issues in more detail some other time.
Hopefully, these responses answer Mr. Garrett's questions.
I had written in another (but related) post, "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."
Mr. Gene Bridges responded: "Actually, this would, as I recall, be a concrete instance of the moral law. Wearing clothes of two fibers would have been, in that society, a signal one believed in sympathetic magic. It's on the same level as the prohibition of boiling a kid in it's mother's milk." The main problem with this analysis is that one could say the same thing about the dietary laws, since a number of the Canaanite nations evidently used unclean animals (such as the pig) in their sacrificial systems.
Recall that the New Testament approach is still not to participate in the pagan religions (whether by drinking blood or eating things sacrificed to idols - see Acts 15:20 and 29) although when purchasing food, no investigation was required (1 Corinthians 10:25).

In any event, while there may have been an underlying moral reason for the various separation-related customs, those customs are not themselves moral laws. Keep in mind that, in the first context, the prohibition on mixed-fiber garments was together with a prohibition on making mules and co-mingling crops (Leviticus 19:19) and in the second context was together with not co-mingling seeds in vineyard planting, plowing with an ox and an ass, and making fringes in the four quarters of one's garment (Deuteronomy 22:9-12). This supports the point I had made that these customs relate to the image of separation from impurity.

Recall as well as the mixed-plowing prohibition being used by Paul as an illustration of improper partnership between Christian and non-Christian.

Mr. Bridges continued: "The most severe penalty would, indeed, have been death for the impenitent. There isn't, IMO, as concrete a separation between uses of the law as many think." (minor spelling change) I don't see anything in the Mosaic law permitting death for someone who, for example, stubbornly refuses to stop wearing mixed-fiber clothes. I'm open to being corrected, but so far I haven't seen it.

Hopefully this addresses Brother Bridges' concerns. Next, we have a comment from Nick:

I am [Roman] Catholic, but I think the key problem in discussions with Protestants is that we don't understand each other when it comes to 'faith versus works of the law' (Rom 3:28).
You said the Judaizers looked to impose some/all of the ceremonial law, but I think that is inaccurate.
They pushed circumcision because circumcision was formally subscribing to embrace the whole Mosaic Covenant, not just ceremonial parts (Gal 5:3).
Thus, when Paul said we are saved apart from works of the Law he meant the whole Mosaic Law, not just ceremonial.
I think this issue hits at the heart of the Protestant-[Roman] Catholic dispute, because it clarifies why Paul was arguing for justification apart from the Law. From my reading and discussions with Protestants, they basically propose an 'either/or' message for Paul in the form of: 'Either you obey the whole Mosaic Law or you trust Jesus did it for you.'
This is where the "Righteousness of Christ" comes in, and I think where the Protestant side has it seriously wrong and foreign to Paul's thought process. The issue for Paul was that the Mosaic Covenant cannot save, while only the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit can and does. This makes the notion of imputation and the "righteousness of Christ" non sequitur in Paul's teaching.
I'd like to see your thoughts on this issue, because I think once these issues are clarified the [Roman] Catholic position will agree with the Biblical evidence.
p.s. are you the Tur8in guy from AOmin?

(minor spelling and formatting change; the "Roman" in brackets is, of course, my own insertion) I answer:
Last things first, yes, I am the same Tur8inFan from the Team Apologian blog at Alpha and Omega Ministries (link).
Nick said, "I think the key problem in discussions with Protestants is that we don't understand each other when it comes to 'faith versus works of the law' (Rom 3:28)." This can occur. Of course, it is important to distinguish between some sort of broad category like "Protestants," and focus on the Reformed position here, because "Protestants" has become more of a basket for non-Roman Catholic than anything else.
The Reformed position is that it is not anything that man does that saves man. This seems to be the point of Paul in Romans 3:28.

After all, Paul declares, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." This conclusion is the conclusion to the fact that boasting is excluded (Romans 3:27) by the law of faith. Rather than working for our salvation, we trust in the finished work of Christ.

This is where we part ways from the Roman and Arminian views of salvation. We hold that by faith we trust in the work of another: Christ. Thus, we view "works of the law" as broadly corresponding to all activity undertaken by men to please God.

Nick wrote, "You said the Judaizers looked to impose some/all of the ceremonial law, but I think that is inaccurate. They pushed circumcision because circumcision was formally subscribing to embrace the whole Mosaic Covenant, not just ceremonial parts (Gal 5:3)." I don't see anything to suggest that they also wanted to impose the civil law. One would have to check to be sure, but I think the diaspora Jews did not attempt to enforce the full scope of the civil laws of Moses on their host communities (and how could they, being a minority?). I doubt the Judaizers would have exceeded the diaspora Jews in that regarded. Obviously, the Palestinian Jews continued to live under the civil laws of Moses (in a somewhat modified form in view of the Roman laws) until around 70 A.D. (in Jerusalem). Circumcision was a token of the ceremonial parts of the law.

Nick wrote, "Thus, when Paul said we are saved apart from works of the Law he meant the whole Mosaic Law, not just ceremonial." It's even broader than that, I think. He meant not just by obedience to the Mosaic law itself, but by any obedience. Obedience is not what saves. Recall that it is not that there was a defect in the law of Moses. If any law could have saved, it was that law.

Nick wrote, "I think this issue hits at the heart of the Protestant-[Roman] Catholic dispute, because it clarifies why Paul was arguing for justification apart from the Law. From my reading and discussions with Protestants, they basically propose an 'either/or' message for Paul in the form of: 'Either you obey the whole Mosaic Law or you trust Jesus did it for you.'" Perhaps an even more important clarification should be made here. There are various types and forms of "Protestant." I certainly don't speak for them all. I am Reformed. The Reformed alternatives are either you perfectly obey the moral law of God, or you trust in Christ to save you by his righteousness. Since one cannot perfectly obey the moral law of God, one must trust in Christ to save one.

That is Paul's point: either one must perfectly obey God's law, thereby seizing the Covenant of Works by his own acts, or one must trust in the Perfect Mediator of the New Covenant, and him alone, for salvation.

Nick wrote: "This is where the "Righteousness of Christ" comes in, and I think where the Protestant side has it seriously wrong and foreign to Paul's thought process. The issue for Paul was that the Mosaic Covenant cannot save, while only the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit can and does. This makes the notion of imputation and the "righteousness of Christ" non sequitur in Paul's teaching." The issue of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is clear in Paul's teaching. For example:

Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

And elsewhere:

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a blessing.

Psalm 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

The Holy Spirit's indwelling is a token or promise of blessings to come:

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Ephesians 1:13-14
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Notice that word "earnest." That is sort of the downpayment or bond on the inheritance of glory to come. The Holy Spirit is also consequently referred to an official stamp or seal, testifying to the same purpose:

2 Corinthians 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

And evidence of the Spirit can be seen in the fruit that Spirit brings forth in our lives:

Galatians 5:22-23
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Ephesians 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Nick concluded, "I'd like to see your thoughts on this issue, because I think once these issues are clarified the [Roman] Catholic position will agree with the Biblical evidence." Actually, the Biblical evidence is rather one-sided in favor of the Reformed position. There is a genetic reason for this: the Reformed doctrines were derived from Scripture, whereas the Roman Catholic position was not. The Roman Catholic approach to theology has not been exegesis, leading to some serious concerns particularly beginning at the start of the 20th century regarding the relationship between exegesis and dogma. Even now, there is still work being done to try to harmonize the work (in Catholicism) of theologians and exegetes. As you may or may not know, in Catholicism, the theologians role is to find support for doctrines of the church in the sources of revelation. In contrast, the exegete (and theologian in Reformed theology) begins with Scripture and derives doctrine therefrom.

That's why the Reformed churches have the Biblical edge.

-TurretinFan

150 Comments to be Moderated and 140 Draft Posts

That is the current state of affairs. For the last half of December, it is my goal to reduce the numbers above. It would be lovely if I could push both to zero, but I'd settle for cutting the numbers both down to double-digits.

Thanks to my readers for providing me with so much for food for thought!

(And please don't stop submitting comments)

-TurretinFan

Phillip Johnson and Amyraldianism

Phillip Johnson has an article (to which Trey Austin thoughtfully directed me) in which he provides a fairly helpful and quick guide to some distinctions among Evangelical views of the order of decrees, ranging from Supralapsarianism to Arminianism.

In the section on what Johnson prefers to call Amyraldism (as opposed to Amyraldianism), Johnson states: "Puritan Richard Baxter embraced this view, or one very nearly like it. He seems to have been the only major Puritan leader who was not a thoroughgoing Calvinist. Some would dispute whether Baxter was a true Amyraldian. (See, e.g. George Smeaton, The Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991 reprint], Appendix, 542.) But Baxter seemed to regard himself as Amyraldian." (emphases omitted)

He also cautions: “But Amyraldism probably should not be equated with all brands of so-called "four-point Calvinism." In my own experience, most self-styled four-pointers are unable to articulate any coherent explanation of how the atonement can be universal but election unconditional. So I wouldn't glorify their position by labeling it Amyraldism. (Would that they were as committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty as Moise Amyraut! Most who call themselves four-pointers are actually crypto-Arminians.)”

(source) “Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism”

It is very interesting to me that the same folks Tony Byrne, David Ponter, and some of their associates that have been so anxious to misuse Phillip Johnson’s primer on Hyper-Calvinism are completely unwilling to use his notes on Calvinism.

And, of course, when we see Tony’s chart that he handed out to Dr. Allen for the so-called John 3:16 conference, guess who pops up in the “Moderate/Classical Calvinist” column of the chart:

Amyraut – the very person for whom Amyraldianism is named
Baxter – one of the very few Puritan Amyraldians
Dr. Alan Clifford – The Pastor of the Norwich Reformed Church, which has been holding yearly Amyraldianism conferences for at least three years.

Now, certainly, Tony throws other men into the list, some more or less justifiably. Bunyan, for example, may belong there, but Jonathan Edwards almost certainly does not. Here's some evidence in support of my position on Edwards:

'Tis Absurd to suppose that Christ Died for the salvation of those that he at the same time Certainly knew never would be saved. What Can be meant by that expression of Christ dying for the salvation of any one, but dying with a design that they should be saved by his death. or dying hoping that he they will be saved or at Least being uncertain but that they will be saved by his death. When we say that one Person does a thing for another, that which is Universally Understood by such an expression is that he does it with a design of some benefit to that other Person. 'Tis nonsense to say that Any Person does any thing to the End that Another thing that may be done and 'tis Impossible that he should design Any benefit to Another person that he Certainly knows will have no benefit by it.

'Tis Nonsense to say that Any thing [is done] with a design that Another thing should be done and to that End that it may be Done, at the same time that he has not the Least expectation that that other thing Ever will be done. and much more when he perfectly knows it never will. It matters not in this Controversy whether we suppose an absolute decree or no if we only allow that God knows all things that he knows future things before they Come to Pass as he declares he does in his word and no Christians pretend to deny But if we don’t deny this it implies a plain Contradiction to suppose that Christ died for in a proper sense.

If it Replied that no other is Intended when they say Christ died for all then that by his death all have the offer of salvation so that they may have salvation if they will accept of salvation – without any expectation or design of Christ that they should be saved by his death. if that be all that is Intended they Are Against no body – all that are Called Christians own that By Christ’s death all that live under the Gospel have the offer of salvation.

- Edwards, Jonathan - Sermon on Galatians 2:20

-TurretinFan

What John Murray and I believe About the Atonement

Since a few folks have apparently been trying to present John Murray as though he were not a consistent, five-point Calvinist, I thought it would be valuable to provide a quotation from Prof. Murray, on the subject:

The criticism that the doctrine of limited atonement prevents the free offer of the gospel rests upon a profound misapprehension as to what the warrant for preaching the gospel and even of the primary act of faith itself really is. This warrant is not that Christ died for all men but the universal invitation, demand and promise of the gospel united with the perfect sufficiency and suitability of Christ as Saviour and Redeemer. What the ambassador of the gospel demands in Christ’s name is that the lost and helpless sinner commit himself to that all-sufficient Saviour with the plea that in thus receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation he will certainly be saved. And what the lost sinner does on the basis of the warrant of faith is to commit himself to that Saviour with the assurance that as he thus trusts he will be saved. What he believes, then, in the first instance is not that he has been saved, but that believing in Christ salvation becomes his. The conviction that Christ died for him, or in other words that he is an object of God’s redeeming love in Christ, is not the primary act of faith. It is often in the consciousness of the believer so closely bound up with the primary act of faith that he may not be able to be conscious of the logical and psychological distinction. But nevertheless the primary act of faith is self-committal to the all-sufficient and suitable Saviour, and the only warrant for that trust is the indiscriminate, full and free offer of grace and salvation in Christ Jesus.

(source)
There is more of value in the article, to be sure, such as this:

That the non-elect, those who do not become the actual partakers of salvation and are therefore finally lost, are not included within the scope of the redemption purchased by Christ, we may and must even from that which we have already quoted infer to be the teaching of the Confession. But it is interesting to observe that not only does the Confession imply this; it also expressly states it. "Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." (III.vi.) The Confession is using the phrases "redeemed by Christ" and "purchased redemption" synonymously. Here it is said that redemption by Christ or the purchase of redemption is for those who as a matter of fact are saved and for those only. It is exclusive of those who are not called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved. Redemption is defined not only extensively but exclusively.

If we may recapitulate then, the teaching of the Confession can be summed up in these three propositions. (1) Redemption is purchased for the elect. (2) Redemption is applied to all for whom it is purchased. (3) Redemption is not purchased for those who finally perish, for the non-elect.

Atonement is defined therefore in the Confession in terms of sacrifice, reconciliation, redemption, satisfaction to divine justice, discharge of debt, and states clearly that atonement thus defined is for those whom God hath predestinated to life, namely the elect. They are saved because Christ by his redemptive work secured their salvation. The finally lost are not within the embrace of that salvation secured, and therefore they are not within the embrace of that salvation secured, and therefore they are not within the embrace of that which secures it, namely the redemption wrought by Christ. It is just here that the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism may be most plainly stated. Did Christ die and offer Himself a sacrifice to God to make the salvation of all men possible, or did He offer Himself a sacrifice to God to secure infallibly the salvation of His people? Arminians profess the former and deny the latter; our Standards in accordance, as we believe, with Holy Scripture teach the latter.

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

So You Want to Root Out Calvinism?

Here's a video that humorously (or at least that is the intent) illustrates a number classic errors that are frequently used by opponents of Calvinism.



There is some nice marching music in the background, but no verbal material in the audio - so if you need to turn off the audio, you won't miss any of the substance. I obviously don't endorse the use of a purported image of Christ in the video.

Hat tip to JM of the Puritanboard for pointing this video out to me (link).

-TurretinFan

Acorn Located!

You know that saying that even a blind squirrel eventually finds a nut? After two documented failures (one) (two), Mr. Matthew Bellisario has finally done it! He has located a "Protestant" service with some inappropriate material (in this case a mime show - link to Bellisario's post) Mr. Bellisario finds this sort of thing absurd, and states: "By the way, if this nonsense, or anything like it is going on in any Catholic Church, it is equally absurd! I pray no bishop would allow such foolishness."

Naturally, similar nonsense can be found in Catholicism (as evidenced by this passion mime from "St. Luke's Catholic Church"):


You're thinking, "But maybe the YouTube video has just been mislabeled?" No, the web page for St. Luke's currently advertises that Good Friday 2009 will include "Stations [of the Cross] in Mime" (link). So, it seems safe to say that the labels for the video are correct. And Mr. Bellisario is right (did I just say that?), it is absurd in both cases.

What Mr. Bellisario doesn't explain is why this miming is not proper worship of God. It's "absurd" to him, but it mostly seems as though he can only express its supposed absurdity as a matter of taste: and a lot of people will actually find the performance at the "Protestant" church to be musically and artistically superior to the performance at "St. Luke's" above. They are not equally absurd because of similar artistic value.

Why then are such forms of worship improper and absurd? There is an answer: the Second Commandment: "Thou shalt not make unto they any graven image ... ." The Second Commandment forbids explicitly the worship of God by images, and using this metonymy forbids worshiping God in any way not appointed in his Word.

The worship of God must be regulated by the Word of God, not the creativity of man. We must worship God as he desires to be worshiped, not as we desire to worship him. We are supposed to go to church to meet with God, not to be entertained. I know I will step on a lot of toes by pointing this out, but there is no Biblical sanction for the worshiping of God by the use of drama, for miming, or the like in Scripture. There is no call in Scripture to burn candles as an act of worship. There is no call in Scripture to ring bells as an act of worship. There is no call in Scripture to use icons or other images in worship. There is no call in Scripture to offer prayers to anyone but God.

Mr. Bellisario (though I am picking on him a bit - particularly with the blind squirrel analogy) is not alone, which is the greater pity. Most "Protestants" today do not seem to understand that the one authorized representation of our Lord Jesus Christ is the bread and cup in the Lord's supper. Few "Protestants" openly employ images of God in their worship, but there are certainly numerous "Protestant" churches that are nearly as guilty as the papists in innovating new elements into their worship, whether it be miming or other performance art.

It is only with the Reformed doctrine of the Regulative Principle of Worship as an outgrowth of the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura, that we can explain why the very beautiful performance provided by Mr. Bellisario's example video is not proper in God's sight, and why it would be inappropriate for a Christian elder to permit such activity. God has not asked for us to mime in worship to him. If you or your church does this, on what grounds do those who offer such worship hope to have it accepted? For those in Catholicism, what makes you think that saying the "Hail Mary" is pleasing to God? For those in Eastern Orthodoxy, what makes you think that lighting a candle in front of an icon, whether of Jesus, Mary, or anyone else, is pleasing to God?

-TurretinFan

John Gill and Hyper-Calvinism (?)

One oft-repeated charge against the great theologian, John Gill, has been that is a "hyper-Calvinist." Leading the way amongst the crowd of folks levying such a charge would seem to be Dr. Curt Daniel, whose 900 page doctoral thesis was titled "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill." I was pleased to see that at least one person has found the time to provide a detailed review of the thesis (link). It seems to me that the most valuable part of the book review is found in a few short paragraphs:

By failing to make this fundamental distinction, Daniel labels all who deny the "offer" as hyper-Calvinists, regardless what specific doctrine of the offer they have in mind. The result is that those whose rejection of the "offer" consists of a denial of universal love dependent on the will of the sinner are tarred with Daniel's broad brush of hyper-Calvinism, even though they preach to all and call all to believe in Jesus Christ.

The second fault is gross. Daniel argues that genuine Calvinism is the doctrine of a saving love of God and a death of Jesus Christ for all without exception. On this basis, the proper "offer" is, in fact, the "bold declaration" to all who hear the gospel, "God loves you, Christ died for you, and now God pleads with you to believe so that you may be saved" (p. 459). Accompanying this offer is "a sufficient common grace" that enables all to accept the offer, if only they will (pp. 161, 162).

It is Daniel's basic thesis that hyper-Calvinism began to develop when, after Calvin, the Reformed faith adopted limited atonement. This jeopardized the offer. What is necessary for the warding off of hyper-Calvinism is the embrace of universal atonement. This involves repudiating the decree of reprobation.

This is the remedy for hyper-Calvinism! This exotic mixture of Arminianism and Amyraldianism, Daniel calls, with a kind of fetching modesty, "Low Calvinism." It is, indeed, low - very low. It is abased and debased "Calvinism." The glory of salvation in this gospel belongs to the sinner. Using his "sufficient common grace" rightly, he not only saves himself by accepting the offer but also makes the death of Christ atoning and the love of God successful.

Nevertheless, I encourage the reader to check out the entirety of the book review for himself.

Undoubtedly, Gill made errors - but to label Gill a Hyper-Calvinist is really quite imbalanced and inappropriate. I submit as evidence this commentary by John Gill on Matthew 11:28:

Mat 11:28 - Come unto me,.... Christ having signified, that the knowledge of God, and the mysteries of grace, are only to be come at through him; and that he has all things relating to the peace, comfort, happiness, and salvation of men in his hands, kindly invites and encourages souls to come unto him for the same: by which is meant, not a local coming, or a coming to hear him preach; for so his hearers, to whom he more immediately directed his speech, were come already; and many of them did, as multitudes may, and do, in this sense, come to Christ, who never knew him, nor receive any spiritual benefit by him: nor is it a bare coming under the ordinances of Christ, submission to baptism, or an attendance at the Lord's supper, the latter of which was not yet instituted; and both may be performed by men, who are not yet come to Christ: but it is to be understood of believing in Christ, the going of the soul to him, in the exercise of grace on him, of desire after him, love to him, faith and hope in him: believing in Christ, and coming to him, are terms synonymous, Joh_6:35. Those who come to Christ aright, come as sinners, to a full, suitable, able, and willing Saviour; venture their souls upon him, and trust in him for righteousness, life, and salvation, which they are encouraged to do, by this kind invitation; which shows his willingness to save, and his readiness to give relief to distressed minds. The persons invited, are not "all" the individuals of mankind, but with a restriction,

all ye that labour, and are heavy laden; meaning, not these who are labouring in the service of sin and Satan, are laden with iniquity, and insensible of it: these are not weary of sin, nor burdened with it; not do they want or desire any rest for their souls; but such who groan, being burdened with the guilt of sin upon their consciences, and are pressed down with the unsupportable yoke of the law, and the load of human traditions; and have been labouring till they are weary, in order to obtain peace of conscience, and rest for their souls, by the observance of these things, but in vain. These are encouraged to come to him, lay down their burdens at his feet, look to, and lay hold by faith on his person, blood, righteousness, and sacrifice; when they should enjoy that true spiritual consolation, which could never be attained to by the works of the law.

And I will give you rest; spiritual rest here, peace of conscience, ease of mind, tranquillity of soul, through an application of pardoning grace, a view of free justification by the righteousness of Christ, and full atonement of sin by his sacrifice; and eternal rest hereafter, in Abraham's bosom, in the arms of Jesus, in perfect and uninterrupted communion with Father, Son, and Spirit. The Jews say (y), that מנוחת תורה, "the law is rest"; and so explain Gen_49:15 of it: but a truly sensible sinner enjoys no rest, but in Christ; it is like Noah's dove, which could find no rest for the soles of its feet, until it returned to the ark; and they themselves expect perfect rest in the days of the Messiah, and call his world מנוחה, rest (z).

(y) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 39. 3. (z) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 150. 2.

-TurretinFan

Real Varieties of Calvinism

Can there be real, recognizable varieties of Calvinism? My previous post may have suggested that there could not be such recognizable varieties. That's not the case. There are several ways in which Calvinism could be divided. For example, with respect to the salvation of infants who die in infancy, there are four Calvinist views, namely that all, some, or none such infants are saved, the fourth position being that because Scripture does not tell us, we simply don't know. Dordt adopted an apparent position of "some," namely such children of believing parents. Others, out of a great tenderness of heart, have suggested that all infants (regardless of their parents) who die in infancy are saved.

Another way in which a taxonomy of Calvinism has been proposed is with respect to the logical (not temporal) order of decrees. The following chart may help, in which in addition to the two Calvinist positions, I've also included the Arminian and classical Amyraldian positions:

Arminian	Amyraldian	Infra-Lapsarian	Supra-Lapsarian
Permission of Fall	Permission of Fall	Permission of Fall	Election of Some to Glory
Death of Christ	Death of Christ	Election of Some to Mercy	Permission of Fall
Universal Prevenient Grace	Election of Some to Moral Ability	Death of Christ	Death of Christ
Predestination of Those who Make Good use of Grace	Holy Spirit to Work Moral Ability in Elect	Holy Spirit to Save the Elect	Holy Spirit to Save the Elect
Sanctification of the Predestined	Sanctification of the Elect	Sanctification of the Elect	Sanctification of the Elect

(For Warfield's more detailed chart, click here)

It should be noted that there are Calvinists in both the "Infra" and "Supra" lapsarian camps. The descriptions Infra-Lapsarian and Supra-Lapsarian refer to the relation of the decree of Election to the decree of the fall (the "lapse" in "lapsarian"). Infra-Lapsarians believe that God elected some fallen men to Salvation/Mercy (infra = after), whereas Supra-Lapsarians believe that God elected men first to Glory (supra = before), and then decreed the fall as a means to that end. Of course, both camps are discussing the logical order, not the temporal order. There have been notable reformers in both camps.

Turretin was a notable Infra-Lapsarian. Twisse, on the other hand, was a notable Supra-Lapsarian. The Synod of Dordt seems to have favored the infra view, while the Westminster Assembly seems to have favored the supra view, while neither council addressed the issue as such in so many words (i.e.neither body specifically stated that God first in the logical order decreed the fall, or first in the logical order decreed to bring some men to glory).

It's generally held in Calvinist circles that both views (infra and supra) are within the bounds of orthodoxy, although, of course, both views cannot be correct. Some people wishing to include Amyraldians as Calvinists have proposed a three-fold division of Calvinism, with Supra being "high," Infra being "moderate," and classical Amyraldianism being "low." There are a number of problems with this view, the greatest being that the classical Amyraldian position has a fundamental error with respect to the atonement, namely that it makes the atonement, with respect to the decrees, indefinite. This error is not present in a "lesser degree" in the infra view and likewise is not mirrored by an excessively definite (is such a thing even possible?) view of the atonement in the supra view. In short, the problem can be expressed as their being no single variable that permits scaling across the three groups.

Instead, the attempted justification for the scaling lies in the fact that the decree of election is earliest in the logical order in the supra view, then the infra, then the Amyraldian, and logically latest (among evangelical groups) in the Arminian view. This justification seems rather artificial, but at least is not totally arbitrary. In any event, though it would tend to provide a way of categorizing people that does not rely simply on buzz-words.

It should be noted that there are a number of Calvinists who don't take a particularly emphatic (or explicit) view with respect to the order of decrees. Thus, for example, Dr. White has mentioned that he has a "modified supralapsarian" position, but I haven't seen a detailed explanation of what means by that (link to source) (I should note that the link itself is a good example of Dr. White distinguishing his own position from hyper-Calvinism long before the recent slander-fest on that topic -- see also this further discussion). The reason for such lack of discussion is that this issue, whether the decree to permit the fall precedes or follows the decree of election, is a relatively minor point. It is not something that would require men to divide fellowship, at least that is my position.

-TurretinFan

Five Points Compared to a Few Soteriologies

For those interested, I thought it would fun to provide a tableshowing acceptance of TULIP's various petals (T = Total Depravity, U =Unconditional Election, L = Limited Atonement, I = Irresistible Grace,P = Perseverance of the Saints).

	T	U	L	I	P
Pelagian	No	No	No	No	No
Pelagian ES	No	No	No	No	Yes
Arminian	Yes*	No	No	No	No*
Arminian ES	No	No	No	No	Yes
Amyraldian	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Calvinism	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

There is an asterisk by two items in the Arminian chart. The first asterisk is because many Arminians claim to hold to Total Depravity.What they mean by that is not what Calvinists mean by it, though,hence the asterisk. The second asterisk is because some Arminians reject, some affirm, and some leave open the question of whether true believers persevere. The "ES" stands for "eternal security." Oddly,some Pelagians hold to eternal security.-TurretinFan

Not Something One Would Have Seen in Calvin's Geneva

Vatican politically supports construction of additional mosques in Italy (first link) (second link). One would not see Calvin's Geneva supporting mosque construction. Frankly, I don't think one would even see Leo X (author of Exsurge Domine, against Luther) supporting mosque construction. Who would like to claim that this view expressed by the Vatican is fully consistent with 2000 years of New Testament tradition?

-TurretinFan

Calvinism Distinguished Historically

Nomenclature is important. Generally speaking, Calvinism as distinct from Arminianism is the result of the controversy provoked by the Remonstrants and addressed by the Synod of Dordt. People seem to lose site of this important historical concept. This controversy essentially provided a definition of Calvinism as distinct from Arminianism, characterized by five points.

The "five points" were originally brought forth as the five points of the Remonstrants/Arminians, not the five points of Calvinism. Calvin (1509-64) wasn't around for the Arminian controversy, and Arminius himself (1560-1609) was not around for the Synod of Dordt (1618-19).

The Synod of Dordt took what has come to be called the "Calvinist" view. The "Canons of Dordt" (link) never make reference to Calvin, but always to Scripture.

The five main points, or "headings" of the Council of Dordt were:

1) Divine Election and Reprobation
2) Christ's Death and Human Redemption Through It
3 and 4) Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs
5) The Perseverance of the Saints

These five points or headings are popularly identified using the acronym TULIP, both because it is a beautiful flower and because it is something of a national symbol for Holland, the place where the controversy took place.

T = Total Depravity
U = Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement
I = Irresistible Grace
P = Perseverance of the Saints

Hopefully it is apparent that TULIP does not follow the order of the 5 headings of the Canons of Dordt. The alignment of point to point is as follows:

1 => U
2 => L
3 & 4 => T & I
5 => P

There is an historical sense in which the canons of Dordt may be said to help define what is and what is not Calvinism. This would seem to be the best for understanding the "Continental" brand of Calvinism. In Great Britain and Ireland the definition of what the Reformed view is would come to be known by means of three standards:

I) The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) (link)
II) The Savoy Declaration (1658) (link)
III) The London Baptist Confession (1689) (link)

These three documents, which largely track one another (with issues relating to Baptism and Church Government being notable points of difference), were not addressed primarily to the Arminian controversy. Nevertheless, these documents were presented with the Arminian controversy already having occurred. Each of these documents rejects the Arminian error in favor of the Calvinistic view. None of these documents, however, specifically designates the "five points."

Nevertheless, the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints are clearly presented in the following sections:

T => WCF Chapter 6, Paragraphs 2-4
U => WCF 3:5
L => WCF 8:8
I => WCF 9:4
P => WCF 17:1

The corresponding sections of the Savoy Declaration and the London Baptist Confession have the same chapter and paragraph number, and generally present the same material, albeit sometimes in a slightly modified/expanded form.

It should be pointed out that while the "five points" are old, the acronym "TULIP" is a more modern development. The earliest reference I've seen to it is a reference in 1913 to a certain Dr. McAfee (apparently a professor of theology) using the acronym. The acronym was intended as a memory aid to recall the five points. It works.

With or without the acronym, the five points have served as a dividing line between Calvinistic monergism and Arminian Synergism. An example from 1700 can be seen in this work by Christopher Ness (link).

Not everyone is happy with this line.

A number of folks reject the doctrine of Limited Atonement, arguing that Christ died not only for the elect, but for each and every person. These folks are generally lumped into the category "Amyraldian" despite various objections as to differences among those who reject Limited Atonement. This group is the one that most dislikes the use of the five points to define Calvinism as distinct from Arminianism.

Some folks in this category have engaged in a campaign to redefine Calvinism away from the five points. Their apparent reason for doing so, is in order to be included under the Calvinistic umbrella. Whatever the reason, their approach has been to try to divide up Calvinism into various camps, from "Low" to "Moderate" and even "High" Calvinism. Worse still, they create a camp of Calvinism that they confusingly label "Hyper-Calvinism."

These divisions are rather artificial, to say the least. There is no major controversy to help make the lines bright, but, instead, the divisions tend to be drawn either along the use of certain buzz-words or minor controversies.

Worse yet, the filling of the ranks of the various divisions is done by the use of quote-mining: taking quotations from various authors and removing them from their historical context. Leading the way, of course, is the quote-mining Calvin himself. Essentially, the program is "Calvin vs. the Calvinists." Despite the fact that Arminius was mere toddler (4 years old) when Calvin died, quotations from Calvin are taken as though spoken in the context of the Arminian controversy.

I've dealt with this anachronistic nonsense in other posts already, and I don't plan to rehash all of that here. The main point to be recognized is that the Calvinism/Arminianism divide is an important one, whereas the "Hyper"/"High"/"Moderate"/"Low" classifications are neither important nor accurate. They are misleading and tend to obscure the important points.

This matter comes to a head under the use of "hyper-Calvinism."

A useful division between Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism exists when Hyper-Calvinism is differentiated from Calvinism on a substantive line, such as:

1) fatalism;
2) refusal to evangelize;
3) denial of human responsibility; or
4) denial that men have wills or make choices.

These bright line errors are rejections of the Synod of Dordt in the opposite direction of Arminians. These errors are serious, and should be avoided.

Other definitions of "hyper-Calvinism" tend to center around buzz-words. These definitions tend to focus on things like whether or not someone is willing to say that God "loves" the reprobate in some sense or whether God gives "common grace" to the reprobate.

I do think that refusing to use the term "common grace" may be the result of a scruple rather than a legitimate objection. To call them "hyper-Calvinists" is, in my view, an unnecessary offense to the brethren. It is simply a pejorative label. The issue of "common grace" does not relate to the gospel - it does not change the way that the men preach the gospel. Furthermore, it muddies the waters.

Here's a handy way to divide up the three camps:

	Arminianism	Calvinism	Hyper-Calvinism
God's Sovereignty	Denies	Affirms	Affirms
Man's Responsibility	Affirms	Affirms	Denies

Calvinism, as illustrated, is the balanced view between Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism. It affirms both the real sovereignty of God and the real responsibility of man.

This same chart can be provided another way:

	Arminianism	Calvinism	Hyper-Calvinism
Man's Will Compatible with Divine Foreordination	Denies	Affirms	Denies

In a nutshell, what this chart aims to show is the philosophical dividing line of compatibilism. Compatibilism is the view that both man making choices and God foreordaining what those choices will be are compatible concepts. In essence, both the Arminian and the Hyper-Calvinist agree that they are not compatible concepts. One picks man's will, the other picks divine foreordination.

The recent controversy centered around whether to label the Calvinist, Dr. White, as an "hyper-Calvinist" tends to major on the details, obscuring the larger picture. The larger picture is that Dr. White is a consistent Calvinist who affirms monergism and compatibilism. Dr. White is a Calvinist as it would be defined by the relevant sections of the London Baptist Confession of 1689, identified above.

For all but the most contentious or mischievous people, that should be enough. I can understand Amyraldians feeling excluded from such charts. With respect to the Arminian/Calvinist/Hyper-Calvinist division, Amyraldians would normally fall in the Calvinist camp. The problem with Amyraldianism is that it is internally inconsistent. Whether they feel excluded or not, however, creating confusing and unnecessary divisions of "Calvinism" using buzzwords is not productive and not conducive to edification. I would gently but firmly encourage those who have been doing so, to consider desisting.

-TurretinFan

The Non-Identity of Peter and the Rock

One verse commonly argued as supporting the papacy is the following:

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

One frequent rebuttal of the claim that this verse is stating that the church will be built upon Peter is the fact that although there is some similarity between the Greek words for "Peter" and "rock," nevertheless they are different Greek words.

I've seen a number of attempted counter-arguments from those supporting the papacy (which, in a word, are properly called "papists"). The papists argue:

1) While the words are different words in Greek, the words are the same in Aramaic and Jesus was speaking Aramaic, not Greek. This is the "speculative reconstruction of the original" argument.

This is probably one of the better objections. There are, however, several reasonable rebuttals:

a) We have no good reason to suppose that the statement was made in Aramaic rather than in Greek. In other words, we don't know that the text we have is a translation. Although Jesus doubtless knew Aramaic, nevertheless Greek was also spoken in Judea at the time, and there is no particular reason to favor one language over the other in this instance (aside from wishful thinking on the part of the papists). Since Jesus and his earthly parents had lived in Egypt for a time, it would not have been surprising if they knew Greek - since it was the international language of the day.

b) Even if the original language spoken had been Aramaic, the inspired words penned by Matthew were in Greek. Although a few people have tried to argue that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, the historical consensus is that the original language was Greek. Furthermore, this historical consensus is confirmed by the translation at Matthew 1:23:

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

The provision of this translation provides evidence that the original was Greek. If the original was in Aramaic, there would have been no need to provide a translation of the name "Emmanuel," and there would have been no clue to the translator from Aramaic to Greek to insert such a translation rather than simply transliterating the name.

2) Other times, the papists argue that πετρος (petros = Peter) and πετρα (petra = rock) are used because one is the right word for a man and the other is the right word for a rock. Sometimes this is phrased as saying that Jesus couldn't have called Simon "Petra" because that would have been like calling him "Mary" or some other feminine name. Alternatively, they say that Jesus couldn't have said that he was going to build his church upon "petros" because that wouldn't be the right Greek word for "rock." I call this the "God is boxed-in by Greek" argument.

a) Although this argument may have some appeal, there is an obvious way Jesus could have avoided the Petros/petra distinction. Jesus could have said, "thou art Peter, and upon thee I will build my church." Jesus did not say this. Instead, Jesus said "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."

For the "God is boxed-in by Greek" argument to work, one has to speculate that Jesus spoke the first half the sentence to Peter and the second half of the sentence about Jesus - he has to change audiences mid-sentence, even though (as though to avoid the papist misconception) Jesus begins the sentence by saying, "And I say also unto thee." Notice the "thee." That means that he is (again) addressing Peter, just as had been addressing Peter in the previous verse.

With this in mind, the most natural sense of Jesus' words is to understand "this rock" as referring to the same thing as Jesus had already referred to in the previous statement to Peter. Recall that Jesus' first response to Peter was:

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

The word "it" there in the center of the sentence is a word added by the translators to help convey the sense of the sentence. The "it" referenced (implicitly, in the original Greek) is Simon Peter's confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This is what was not revealed to Simon Barjona by flesh and blood, but by God the Father. This rock is what the church will be built upon.

Interestingly, even the council of Trent acknowledged this interpretation of the text:

For which cause, this council has thought good, that the Symbol of faith which the holy Roman Church makes use of,--as being that principle wherein all who profess the faith of Christ necessarily agree, and that firm and alone foundation against which the gates of hell shall never prevail,--be expressed in the very same words in which it is read in all the churches.

And again, later:

Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

In both quotations, the emphasis has been added. It is worth noting that Trent foreclosed an argument that the symbol of faith is just one foundation by the use of the word "alone." But I digress.

The key to this first rebuttal is to note that Jesus' use of the third person makes more sense viewed as simply referring to someone other than Peter rather than as an audience switch mid-sentence.

b) In the second place, if Jesus had wanted to use a Greek word that would permit a direct relation between Simon and that upon which the church is built, Jesus could have surnamed him θεμέλιος (themelios = foundation), which is a masculine Greek noun.

What would have been interesting about this word is that in Revelation 21:14 the heavenly city is described has having walls with twelve foundations, in which the names of the twelve apostles are written. Paul likewise describes believers as being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Paul is careful, however, to note that Jesus Christ himself is the chief corner stone. Likewise Peter himself, in exhorting his readers to the desire of the Word of God, states:

1 Peter 2:2-8
2As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: 3If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. 4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Notice that like Paul, Peter points to Jesus himself as the corner stone upon which the church is built. So, although Jesus could have performed a mid-sentence audience shift without introducing a distinction by surnaming Simon Themelios instead of Petros, nevertheless, Jesus did not do so - and Jesus' failure to do so is understandable in view of the other testimony of Scripture above, which describes Jesus as the cornerstone.

In fact, there is an even closer word than Themelios that Jesus could have picked: he could have picked λίθος (lithos - stone). But, again, it is Jesus himself that is the chief corner lithos in those verses above.

c) God is in control of all things. When Jesus wanted to pay the temple tax, he was able to arrange that the first fish Peter caught on a particular occasion would have in its mouth a particular coin that would be sufficient to pay the temple tax for both Peter and Jesus (Matthew 17:24-27). Furthermore, as Moses was reminded:

Exodus 4:11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

So then, if God had wanted to, God could have arranged the Greek language to avoid the distinction provided in Matthew 16:18, if God had wanted to avoid that distinction. Since the distinction is there, it is reasonable to presume that the distinction is intentional. That is to say, God is not limited by human language.

-TurretinFan

A Natural Progression

It should not come as a complete surprise that "Catholic" schools are aiming to encourage the religious practices of Muslims (link). After all, it has become the view of Catholicism that Muslims worship the same god (link to discussion) - therefore what is the problem with accomodating Muslim worship?

-TurretinFan

Update on Dr. White and God's Desire

On today's Dividing Line radio program, Dr. White provided Tom Ascol's discussion regarding the decrees of God, and the sense in which we can say that God desires that his commands be obeyed. Ascol also apparently noted that repenting and believing are God's commands. Dr. White indicated that he agreed with Ascol's comments. Presumably, this puts to bed any continued assertions that Dr. White denies that repentance and faith are desired by God in the sense of being within God's decretive will, although Dr. White continues to agree with Phil Johnson and others that to use the word "desire" in such limited senses can lead to confusion. Will this satisfy those who have been accusing him? Who knows. I think it may help to persuade some of the more moderate of them.

UPDATE: here is a video clip to watch the statements:



-TurretinFan

Sola Scriptura Debate Complete

I'm pleased to announce that the very prolonged debate with Matthew Bellisario on Sola Scriptura is now complete (link to debate).

-TurretinFan

Seers, Choice, Open Theism, Molinism, and Calvinism

The recent vampire movie, Twilight, contains a cinematic element that is frequently employed: a seer, a character in the movie that can see the future. Most movies that I've seen generally treat the visions of seers in one of two ways:
1) As projections based on a current but mutable stream of events; and
2) As inevitabilities.

Twilight is a type 1 film. The seer in the film is able to see the future, but her visions are subject to change if people make different choices. Other stories employ type 2 seers. An example of such a story is the famous ancient tale of Oedipus. In that story, the king is told that his newborn son will commit various heinous acts. He tries to prevent these acts by leaving the child to death by exposure. However, despite the king's attempts to prevent the inevitable from happening (and, indeed, even in part as a result of the fact that the grown son does not know who his parents are), the seer's vision comes true.

Most people - the average Joe, if you will - would view the type 2 situation as essentially fatalistic. "X" will happen, and there is no way to prevent it from happening. Thus, the average Joe prefers the kind of seer found in Twilight, in which the future is somewhat predictable, but still subject to change at the leisure of the common man.

Now, the charge of "fatalism" to type 2 seers is not necessarily appropriate. Fatalism, properly expressed, views some force as ensuring the important thing seen in the vision, quite without regard to (or perhaps "despite") the way in which the thing comes about. Thus, one could view the chronology of a particular person as a string that is generally loose, but pinned down at one particular point. By their choices, a person can try to to avoid arriving at that particular point, but all they will do is change how they arrive at that point.

To provide a specific example, in a fatalistic outlook, a man be told that he will die in Paris. Consequently, in an attempt to prolong his life, the man may purposely never go to Paris. Nevertheless, fate will bring it about that the man will have a wreck in the French countryside and be airlifted to Paris while unconscious and then die in a Parisian hospital.

The concept of "fate" is not a Christian concept. Christianity does not posit an impersonal force that brings about certain important events essentially in isolation. Instead, Christianity describes a God, who "of him, and through him, and to him, are all things" (Romans 11:36) and "we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28) Thus, Christianity does not view history as a bunch of mostly loose strings pinned down at certain points, but as a tapestry woven together by an Almighty Artist.

Nevertheless, from the standpoint of a person simply learning the seer's vision, the two positions are interchangeable. Unless the seer explains exactly how event "x" will occur, the person listening to the vision cannot distinguish the fatalistic worldview from the Biblical worldview. We see the same thing in Biblical prophecies. For example, the Scriptures clearly teach that Christ will come again in judgment. Still, some people treat that prediction as though it were a fatalistically determined event pinned to the end of the string of history, while others view it as the final act of a most well-written play. It is important to note that either of those views is consistent with the bare prophecy itself.

Reverting for the moment to the type 1 seers, one can see that this form of prognostication is really the only kind fully consistent with view of complete human autonomy. Thus, this view (like modern Arminianism) appeals to the humanistic side of man: the side of man that likes to think that he is the master of his own destiny. It is the view, one might say, of Open Theism. Certain Open Theists would object that God can make fatalistic prognostications, because he can bring about certain outcomes he wants regardless of what happens in the near term. Nevertheless, unless the Open Theist is to deny that God himself has the same kind of autonomy they attribute to man, they must assert that any future prediction that God makes is based on the contingency that he does not decide to do otherwise.

On the other hand, both Molinists and Calvinists acknowledge that God has complete knowledge of the actual future, knowledge that is not subject to being changed. Thus, both Molinist and Calvinist seers see an inevitable future - they fall into the second category.

This may seem a bit odd. Molinism claims to hold to the autonomy of man, and asserts that it holds that man has Libertarian Free Will (LFW). Nevertheless, Molinism also is forced to acknowledge that God's omniscience includes future events, and that consequently, God has advance knowledge of what will be.

There is sometimes an attempt by proponents of Molinism to argue that God's knowledge of the future does not convert to God being a causal influence on the future. While this attempt is doubtless important to the philosophical defense of LFW, it does not address the psychological difficulty that the Average Joe has with what he perceives to be a fatalistic future.

The Average Joe is not fond of the idea that the length of his life is already known and cannot be changed, particularly if that time is short. The idea that the future is - in effect - already written, poses a psychological problem for the autonomous man. If a seer comes to him and says, "You will die in a plan crash tomorrow," you can imagine that the Average Joe would not immediately go and board a plane, but would try to get as far as possible from planes.

Of course, if the seer is a true seer, the event will come to pass. What the Average Joe has overlooked is that the seer has seen what will be, and what will be, will be. What would be more puzzling for the Average Joe is if the seer not only announced the day and means of death, but also all the events leading to that death.

A sufficiently knowledgeable seer could even tell our Average Joe whether Average Joe will like the fact that events will unfold just as the seer said. Imagine yourself in the Average Joe's shoes. One feels a bit helpless knowing what will happen, without being able to bring it about that the seer's prognostication is wrong.

Indeed, between the two extremes of simply knowing the date and manner of death, and knowing every event leading to that death, the Average Joe would really rather not know what will transpire, so that he can maintain the illusion that what will be is not a fixed concept.

One might even note that while knowledge of the day of one's death is useful for planning other things (such as when to write one's will, whether to invest in a long-term investment, or the like), having an exhaustive knowledge of the future doesn't seem to have any particular use from a planning purpose.

From a Molinist standpoint, this result is somewhat paradoxical. Knowledge of the actual future doesn't help one to plan - more importantly it doesn't even help God to plan. Molinists try to avoid the idea that God causes the actual future to be the actual future, but they cannot escape the fact that God has exhaustive knowledge of the actual future.

Calvinism has a ready explanation for this difficulty. God's exhaustive knowledge of the actual future is logically the consequence of God's decision. That is to say, God knows what the actual future is, because he planned it to be that way. The exhaustive knowledge of the actual future is as useless for God's planning purposes as it would be for us. Nevertheless, this is not problematic because the actual future is logically the result of God's plan, not the premise of God's plan.

Molinism relies on this same explanation, but attempts to evade the impact of God's deciding what the future will be, by asserting that God has a special category of knowledge known as "middle knowledge." The basic premise of middle knowledge is that God knows what a particular person would do in a particular situation, prior to God's decision as to what the future will be.

In other posts we have discussed (for example, here) and will discuss how "middle knowledge" is not only an unbiblical concept, but also an incoherent philosophical concept. Suffice to say, however, for the purposes of this article, that whether "middle knowledge" is correct, Molinism does not and cannot escape the "Average Joe" concept of fatalism, since now - after the decree - God has an exhaustive knowledge of the future.

Molinism (like Calvinism) does not permit type 1 seers, and consequently movies like Twilight should be recognized as portraying a mistaken (albeit) popular view of "free will" in contrast either to LFW of Molinism or the simple Calvinistic model of free will.

-TurretinFan

More Batting About On the Blind Quest to Besmirch "Protestantism"

Bellisario, not the biggest fan of rap music (as discussed previously), has decided to try to remedy his previous deficient selection of a rap music video. He now claims,

When I posted my last blog article on bad Sacred Music I had several Protestants try and [sic] tell me that it was never used in Church, but that it was just for entertainment. Well here it is being used by two clowns in a Protestant "church". I guess they think it is edifying to have people watch them act like two fools in a "church" with bad music playing. The one below has a guy rapping in a "church" service.

(source) Let's examine these statements.

1) The criticism to which Bellisario is referring is the criticism that the rap music video he posted was entertainment, not worship. Neither of the two videos that Bellisario has now posted are worship either. Both are for entertainment rather than worship. So, unfortunately, Bellisario hasn't found a solution to his problem.

2) Yes, both videos are taken from within a Baptist (or at least it appears to be Baptist) church sanctuary. However, neither is during a worship service. What Bellisario may not realize is that many folks don't view the interiors of church buildings as though they possessed some special aura of spirituality, such that they can never be used for anything but worship. One wonders whether Bellisario would think that even Catholicism was so rigid.

3) Bellisario's claim with regard to the second video in his post just isn't even true, as he would have discovered if he had taken the 30 seconds necessary to check out the information associated with the video, which explains that the performance was during an annual Thanksgiving talent show. Likewise, the first video's information also indicates that it is from a non-worship service, namely the end of a kids' summer camp.

4) Given Bellisario's apparent view that rap music is such a degradation, one wonders whether Bellisario has bothered to note that rap music is not the exclusive domain of non-papists. Upon whom will Bellisario blame the following video, and to what will Bellisario attributes its degradation from that ultimate expression of musical genius, the Gregorian chant?

Here's another video that demonstrates that the video above is not an isolated case:

Oh, and could this be an example of someone actually rapping inside of a "Catholic" church? I could be wrong, but that big metal object in the background looks rather like a tabernacle.

5) If Bellisario searched long enough he could probably find someone who had decided to incorporate a rap performance into a church service. In my view, that would be a travesty indeed - there is no place for performance in the middle of worship service. It would indeed be a degradation of worship, not because rap is such an inferior kind of music, but because God has not asked to be worshiped through performance art. On the other hand, given the lunacy one sees among the "Call to Action" types (and the like - do I even need to post the videos?) within Catholicism, I wouldn't be surprised if some folks who are still part of the Roman communion have done the same thing.

-TurretinFan

Latria/Dulia Debate - Technical Problems

Apparently, Mr. Albrecht had some serious Internet connection difficulties that precluded the scheduled debate from occurring, although I waited 3 hours from the time he had picked out. If he is still interested in debating, we could try again in two weeks, once he has had time to address the technical issues involved.