Mr. Lane Chaplin, who moderated the Latria/Dulia Debate that I had with GNRHead has very kindly hosted it as a full-length video.
In case you would like to follow along by reading the debate, Matthew Lankford has kindly provided a transcript, to which I have made a few minor edits. If anyone sees ways that the transcript can be improved, please let me know.
*** TRANSCRIPT BEGINS ***
Lane Chaplin: Welcome to the Latria-Dulia Debate. Our debate today will attempt to answer the following:
Can dulia and proskuneo be used in a Religious context without being worship?
Our debaters today are William Albrecht taking the affirmative position and TurretinFan taking the negative.
William Albrecht is currently a Catholic Apologist and the webmaster of the Catholic Legate apologetics organization. William was raised into a non-religious practicing household and eventually became a Protestant. After much studying and the undertaking of a religious career William converted to the Catholic faith close to seven years ago. His contact information is Youtube.com/GNRhead or GNRhead@gmail.com.
TurretinFan is a Reformed apologist who operates the blog Thoughts of Francis Turretin. His only relevant qualifications is that he is a believer with a Bible. He makes no claims of being anyone particularly important and he debates pseudonymously in hopes of drawing the attention away form himself. His contact information is turretinfan.blogspot.com and he occasionally posts on AOMin.org.
My name is Lane Chaplin and I will be moderating this debate. The debate will last about an hour in length and will follow the following format:
There will be a first Affirmative Constructive by Albrecht, which will be seven minutes.
A Cross Ex[amination] of the Affirmative by the Negative position, which is three minutes.
One Negative Constructive by Turretin[Fan] which will be eight minutes.
A Cross Ex[amination] of the Negative by the Affermative, which will be three minutes.
One Affirmative Rebuttal, which will be four minutes.
Negative Rebuttal, which will be seven minutes.
And a Second Affirmative Rebuttal, which will be four [minutes].
We do ask each debater to please refrain from making any comments or audible gestures during the opponents allotted time. This will not only show respect for your opponent during this endeavor, it will also allow for there to be meaningful discussion on both ends of this debate. And, as always, if your favorite debater makes a point you agree with audience please hold your applause until the end of his allotted time (heh).
Now we begin with the first Affirmative Construction by Mister Albrecht. Mister Albrecht you have seven minutes; I'll begin the clock when you begin.
[≈ 2.40]
William Albrecht: Alright from the get go, I'd like to say God bless both to Lane and to Turretin[Fan] for making this happen. And let's get down to the issues now.
The contention that I've been hearing from my Protestant brethren is that there simply is no Biblical distinction between latria and dulia in the terms of religious context. Well, the fact of the matter is, what I'm asserting is that dulia and latria are two distinct words -- used differently at times. Sure dulia is and should always be rendered to God, but it's also shown as being rendered elsewhere in references that are not directed towards God. Latria is never shown as proper towards anyone other than God -- and that is clear. But dulia is different. Of course, it should be rendered to God, of course, its service and we are to obey and serve our God -- that is clear. To me, it seems like a silly qualifier to claim that dulia can be given to mankind, but it's never shown as given to mankind in a religious context. This entails our Protestant brethren to begin to claim that since Catholics do give dulia to the Saints, that it is in a religious manner, this then leads them to say that we offer them worship, since this form of dulia is in the religious form. To me, it seems like a game of words that can be confusing to some that don't know the real issues. The reason I believe that AOMin. has to set up this task to set up this false interpretation of Biblical words is because it then allows them to say that dulia is, indeed, [a word?] used toward mankind, but never in a religious context. What AOMin. means to say is that dulia is never used toward mankind in a worship context as it is of God in the Old Testament. We would not argue with that, we do not contend, that we give the religious dulia to Mary -- that amounts to worship -- or to any Saint for that matter. These word games could confuse some, but once examined they seem anything but serious. They are silly little word games that attempt to confuse the mind of the individual. It is also contended that proskuneo, when used in a religious context, is always worship. Therefore, according to AOMin. this all amounts to Catholics worshiping Mary and the other Saints. We'll examine a bit more to see how these claims simply do not hold water. Upon the examination of the Friberg Lexicon, the the Barclay-Newman Greek Dictionary, [inaudible] Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon we see that dulia can be given to mankind and never do we have the qualifier that AOMin. has seemingly adopted from John Calvin. Moving forward, the one Lexicon that Mister White of AOMin. did bring up, the BDA&G, to support his position of not mentioning a distinction, surely does. In fact the BDA&G tells us that dulia is used in many aspects of the Christian life including aspects that are tied in with the religious. Moving forward, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines latria as such:
"As contrasted with dulia, that fullness of Divine worship which may be paid to God alone."
A Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott tells us "The veneration of the Saints is called absolute dulia. The Council of Trent declared in connection with the veneration of Saints, that through images we honor the Saints which they represent."
[this section could be continued as part of the quote] As regards to invocation of the Saints, the council declared:
[this section could be continued as part of the quote too] "It is good and profitable to appeal to help from them."
This can be found on page three hundred and nineteen of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma from Ott.
The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia defines dulia as such:
"[...]a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone[...]" [link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm]
Then we move on and we've got The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia which tells us of latria [link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm] that it is worship called forth by God and given exclusively to Him as God, which is designated by the Greek term latreuo.
So, everywhere you turn you see the clear distinction to the two terms and never the qualifier that we see certain Protestant individuals injecting. And in order to pretty much lay the ground work I've mentioned a couple of lexicons, Greek dictionaries, and I've also defined the terms as put forth by the Catholic encyclopedias.
Okay, that will be it for my opening statement.
[≈ 6:55]
Lane Chaplin: Okay, Turretin[Fan] you have three minutes for cross-examining William.
TurretinFan: Mister Albrecht, do you see any Biblical passage in which latria and dulia are distinguished?
William Albrecht: In which latria and dulia are distinguished? Absolutely. Are you asking me passages in which they both appear?
TurretinFan: No, I guess what I'm asking is this: Is there some passage out there where Scripture says it's okay to give latria to God, but it's not okay to give latria to men?
William Albrecht: Are you referring to the fact that... I'm not quite understanding... Are you trying to ask me to approach this from a theological perspective? Or do you want me to pull out a Biblical passage, which uses both terms and distinguishes between them? I don't quite understand the question.
TurretinFan: Well, the question, I guess, is getting to whether or not the theological position that your advocating is a theological position derived from Scripture. My contention is that it is not... But I'd like to know if you believe there is some Scripture passage, which, in effect, says it's okay to give dulia to men. [question]
William Albrecht: Oh, okay. I understand it a little bit clearer now. Absolutely. I believe that you are of the persuasion... You do believe it is alright to give dulia to man, right? You just don't believe it is right to give dulia in the form of a religious context. Am I correct?
TurretinFan: Well, yes, of course, I'm not saying that it's improper for servants to give service to their masters. What I'm... What I'm asking for is somewhere where the Bibles making the theological distinction that your making.
William Albrecht: You mean that dulia can be... can be used toward mankind in a religious context? Would you like me to show you an example?
TurretinFan: Sure, yeah, please provide an example.
William Albrecht: Well, it's not my cross-examination and I can't ask you a question. I'll simply (pose/post) Galatians, chapter five, verses thirteen to fourteen [Galatians 5:13-14] and I will assert that the Greek term douleuo is used in a religious context in this verse and it is indeed used toward mankind.
TurretinFan: In Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen [Galatians 5:13-14], the verse states:
"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another."
Are you suggesting that this says we can serve one another in this lifetime using douleuo?
William Albrecht: Absolutely.
[≈ 10:00]
Lane Chaplin: Ok, that's the end of the first cross examination. Now we'll have a negative construct by Turretin[Fan], which consists of eight minutes.
[≈ 10:14]
TurretinFan: The debate today is about whether the distinction that modern Catholicism presents between latria and dulia is Biblical or medieval in origin. Where does it come from? I would respectfully submit to you that it is not Biblical. It is a philosophical innovation designed to defend a pagan practice that was introduced into churches [?] after the time of the Apostles.
What I'll do in this speech is:
First, state the position of the Vatican.
Second, contrast that with the Biblical position.
And third, answer Mister Albrecht's arguments.
Catholicism's Position Stated
Although Mister Albrecht provided some definitions of Rome's position [?], allow me to provide what I think is a little clearer explanation. Rome's position is well summarized by philosopher, theologian, Thomas Aquinas, who wrote:
"Since "latria" is due to God alone, it is not due to a creature so far as we venerate a creature for its own sake. For though insensible creatures are not capable of being venerated for their own sake, yet the rational creature is capable of being venerated for its own sake. Consequently the worship of "latria" is not due to any mere rational creature for its own sake. Since, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is a mere rational creature, the worship of "latria" is not due to her, but only that of "dulia": but in a higher degree than to other creatures, inasmuch as she is the Mother of God. For this reason we say that not any kind of "dulia" is due to her, but "hyperdulia.""
This quotation provides the framework: "Latria" which is for God alone. "Hyper-dulia" which is for Mary alone. And "dulia" which is for the Saints. Of course, dulia can also be offered to God, but for the purposes of this discussion, we're focusing on the fact that it is offered to the Saints.
In English this distinction is sometimes expressed in the difference between worship or adoration and veneration. Adoration and worship corresponding to latria and veneration corresponding to dulia. Moving on to the second point.
The Biblical Testimony
This threefold framework is not taught in Scripture. Scripture generally teaches that all religious adoration and veneration is due to God alone. Thus, we, Reformed Christians, do not religiously venerate one another or anyone but God alone. Both the Old and New Testaments agree. Deuteronomy five (Deuteronomy 5) states:
"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments."
Someone might point out that the word "alone" is not in the text. Fair enough. Scripture also gets more specific and more clear. Matthew four (Matthew 4) states:
"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
The same account may be found in Luke's Gospel. But this was not new to the New Testament.
Christ is referencing the Bible to establish this doctrinal position -- that only God should receive religious adoration or veneration. Notice that Jesus doesn't rely on his own authority in rebuking Satan, but says "for it is written[...]" These same themes can be seen in the Old Testament.
First, first Samuel states, in chapter seven (1 Samuel 7):
"And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the LORD, and serve him only: and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines."
Scripture provides no exceptions for men to adore or venerate religiously someone or something other than God with a lesser form of religious adoration.
Having seen these two positions let us, in the third place, examine Mister Albrecht's case.
Mister Albrecht argues that latria and dulia are two different words. Well, not of course the Latin words, but the corresponding Greek words. We agree. We agree that they are different words. Latria is generally used of worship. And dulia can refer not only to worship, but also to a very high degree of service, such as slavery. The question is not whether the Greek words have different definitions in the Greek lexicons, but whether Scripture provides a basis for Rome's claims. It does not. Mister Albrecht also makes reference to [BDA&G] lexicon in support of his position, but again that lexicon and the other lexicons that were mentioned don't state that the latria-dulia distinction -- the philosophical distinction-- the question we're arguing about -- is inherent in the Greek. And, in fact, it isn't inherent in the Greek, as noted above, it's a medieval innovation -- this drawing a distinction between latria and dulia, as far as dulia being acceptable form of veneration for humans is something that didn't exist in Biblical times -- it's not a classical Greek concept that imported it in. Instead, it's a philosophical device to justify what's been done.
Additionally, during cross examination, Mister Albrecht cited to Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen (Galatians 5:13-14) Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen (Galatians 5:13-14) states,
"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Now, seeing in context what's stated there we can see the fulfillment of Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen, has nothing at all to do with the idea of kneeling down before icons or statues, lighting incense and candles; it has to do with showing practical love to the brethren. It has... An example would be the Good Samaritan, he's someone who loved his neighbor. This is the kind of thing [?] Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen talks about. It's not talking about the religious context of dulia that's used in the Vatican's theology. Consequently Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen, can't provide support for the distinction that's been presented. Accordingly, we are left with the, just the, Scriptural position, already stated, which is 'that we can serve God only'. Religious veneration, religious adoration, these things are for God only.
[≈ 18:00]
TurretinFan: And when we give them to anyone except for God we are in violation of the word of God and therefore in sin.
I'm not ready for cross examination.
Lane Chaplin: Okay, thank you for that Turretin[Fan] we will now have a cross examination with Mister Albrecht cross examining TurretinFan. You have three minutes you may begin when you are ready.
William Albrecht: Okay. My contention is that latria and dulia are two distinct words. I'm aware that you also agree with such, but you place a qualifier that dulia can never be used in a religious context towards mankind. Now, as such is the case,can you please explain to me why Galatians chapter five, verses thirteen or [?] fourteen, tells us to serve one another in love (using the the second person, plural form of douleuo). I believe love being the chief religious context of the whole New Testament; and this simply doesn't get more religious than this, Tur, being used in a religious context.
TurretinFan: Well, yes, I think the answer is that the 'loving our neighbor as our self' is fulfillment of the second table of the Law. And the example I gave in my last speech about the Good Samaritan with the example how someone could serve another person without it being in a religious context. Of course, if you make all of life, which should all be about obedience, if we should make all of life a religious context, means that the word 'religious' has lost its sense.
William Albrecht: I would agree with you, but it's clearly being used in a religious context in Galatians five verse thirteen, fourteen, at least that is what I would contend. I would... I would like to ask you another question. Your contention is also is that the word proskuneo cannot be used in a religious context towards mankind, because each time it is worship. Is that your contention?
TurretinFan: Well, with my contention with regard to proskuneo is that Jesus Himself said that we should only serve God, so that's the basis for my contention.
William Albrecht: So you would...
TurretinFan: But
William Albrecht: Ok, excuse me, excuse me...
TurretinFan: But, yes, I do understand the word, that word has a broad semantic range. So, for example it can mean to stoop, or to duck down, and to bow before someone. So you see some people bowing before kings, for example. And in Acts seven, seven (Acts 7:7), with which you're familiar, you see someone bowing before a centurion, to provide another example. It's possible for people to do this without it being involved in a religious context.
William Albrecht: Okay, well, how would you interpret one Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty [1 Chronicles 29:20)]? Which reads:
"[...]they bowed low and fell prostrate before the LORD and the king."
Is not the third person form of proskuneo used here?
And would you contend that that is not in a religious context?
TurretinFan: Well, there were a lot of "not"s in there, but the word proskuneo is used, the appropriate form of the word, as you described. But the, the question, the interesting thing, is that it is used equally of God and of the King. So, the first question I would want to know is whether God and the king there are two different people or if God is being described both as the LORD and as the King.
[≈ 21:30]
Lane Chaplin: Okay, this ends our second cross examination session. Mr. Albrecht you'll now have a four minute affirmative rebuttal. You may begin when you are ready.
[≈ 21:45]
William Albrecht: Alright, I think what we find here is, we find TurretinFan's, as well as anybody else who uses the arguments, in a bit of a bind here, because they've got to try to read away the plain meaning of Scripture. I've used Galatians chapter five verse thirteen to fourteen, [Galatians 5:13-14] which uses douleuo in a religious context. It shows us that we can serve one another in love; love being the chief religious context of the whole New Testament. It simply doesn't get any more religious than this. I would imagine love to be the most important Biblical concept of the Bible. We read in Matthew chapter twenty-two, verses thirty-six to forty [Matthew 22:36-40], that love is what encompasses the greatest commandments. And in Romans thirteen, nine to ten, [Romans 13:9-10], love is the fulfillment of the whole Law. So, it is a theme that cannot be escaped. It doesn't get any more religious than this. Even Galatians chapter five, verse six, [Galatians 5:6] tells us that the only thing that matters is faith working through love.
Moving on, I then posed one Chronicles chapter twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20] to TurretinFan, which, indeed, does use proskuneo here in a religious context. And what is most interesting about this passage is the clear evidence that the whole assembly falls to bow and worship God, but they also bow in (reverence/reference?) to the king. I'm not sure if TurretinFan actually read the passage, I'm sure he's read it before, he probably, maybe, didn't read it at this moment, because he erroneously, I don't know if he asserted or was questioning, whether the bowing down and the proskuneo was given to the LORD and the LORD was the King as well. Well, the fact of the matter is, the direct reading is in reference to the LORD and to the king. Therefore the proskuneo that is used here is used in a religious context towards a man.
Moving fourth I would simply disagree with lexicons and dictionaries that Turretin[Fan] basically asserts that they do not use the distinction that I am speaking of and I would suggest that he read those lexicons and dictionaries again, because they do speak (on/of/about) all of the different usages. So, I would disagree with him there and I would suggest that he read those that I had mentioned.
Turretin[Fan] also argues 'this distinction which I have shown is not Biblical, because of the fact that Catholics kneel before statues and light incense and candles' -- it is simply a caricature of the Catholic position to basically say that we have reduced all of these terms and the meanings to this kneeling down and lighting incense and candles -- it's simply much more than that. And those words that he said were nearly exactly the words that I've heard from other people use. It's an argument that's used over and over. The simple fact of the matter is douleuo is used in a religious context toward mankind and proskuneo is used in a religious context toward mankind as well. This is Biblical it can be shown in the Greek. And I, I believe if Turretin[Fan] cannot find a way to answer Galatians chapter five, verse thirteen to fourteen, [Galatians 5:13-14] away, or one Chronicles chapter twenty-nine, verse twenty, he is in a bit of a bind. There are, indeed, more passages that do use these terms and I believe that I can find more passages that use these terms in a religious context, but I'm particularly, I'm holding myself to use these terms at this moment. And I think if he can't... I truly believe Galatians chapter five, verse thirteen to fourteen, [Galatians 5:13-14] is a clear religious context. Therefore, I believe the definitions the Catholic church gives these two terms are, indeed, Biblical and I believe they are sound with the Christian faith.
[≈ 25:15]
Lane Chaplin: Okay, thank you Mister Albrecht. TurretinFan you now have seven minutes for a rebuttal.
[≈ 25.22]
[≈ 25.26]
TurretinFan: Alright, I will now try to sum up this debate and explain why I continue to believe that religious adoration and religious veneration should be given to God only. Albrecht keeps seeming to try to push the burden on me to prove that Scriptural point, which I've already made, that as Jesus has said that we should serve and worship God only. He seems to be pushing it back on me to show that there isn't a distinction. Of course, my position here is the negative; he is the affirmative and the initial burden of proof for the case, for this distinction, is on him. If he wants to use Scripture to prove his point -- and he relied on a few Scriptural verses in his last speech -- then its on him to show that those verses that he's relying on actually demonstrate the point he's trying to make.
Let's address the contentions he made. First, the contention from Galatians. He states: 'It doesn't get any more' ... 'that something doesn't get any more religious than love'. And that's interesting, but love should mark our whole life. I don't think Mister Albrecht disagrees. And, in fact, because love if the fulfillment of the Law, and our whole live must be a life of obedience to God, this would mean that our whole life was a religious context, and in short, the qualification that its a religious context is simply a meaningless qualification. But if Mister Albrecht is saying that, then it becomes clear why he doesn't see the Reformed position yet. The Reformed position is that the religious context has to do with, you know, things like church. It's maybe a little hard to put our fingers on it, if someones trying to tell us our whole life is a religious context, but I think that Mister Albrecht sees the difference between what he does in church and what he does at his work -- (or) at his office. In any event, we can move on from that, because his contention has just been very general. There's nothing in Galatians, the verse that he cited, that set out dulia in a religious context; it just sets it out in the context of life.
Moving on to the first Chronicles (1 Chronicles) passage. Mister Albrecht had cited first Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20], but this verse doesn't help him much. Why not? Because, for one thing, there's no distinction made between latria and dulia there. It's not as though they give latria to God and dulia to the king. Even worse, for Mister Albrecht's position, the verse just reports that the people did this -- it doesn't condemn it -- it doesn't condone it -- it just reports it. So, even assuming that the verse said that the -- that king David was the king here -- that was being referenced -- and that they did bow down to king David, they did exactly the same thing they did to king David as they did to the LORD, which wouldn't support the idea of a distinction at all. It would simply point out that they were doing the same thing to both. The, of course, it is possible the people recognized the distinction and that the people were doing one thing to the king and another thing to God. It's very interesting that the Greek here uses a construction such that both the LORD and the king can be the same person; there's an article used before the LORD and there's and article used before the king, but it doesn't specify king David and it doesn't force it to be a reference to king David, so there's some ambiguity there -- it's not a black and white case. Look, this same construction using an article before both is, is found in John twenty, twenty-eight [John 20:28] where Thomas, where Thomas answers and says 'My LORD and my God' -- in that case, there's... it's not expressed in English, but the article is there before both "LORD" and "God." And so, although, of course, Thomas is talking about just one person. So, the fact that the word "and" is used there isn't inclusive. What's very interesting is the Vulgate -- of course, the Vulgate takes the position that they are two different people -- but the Vulgate adds in a word and (says/said) 'they bowed to God and then to the king' which suggests they were engaging in two different activities. But, nevertheless, as I already mentioned in my cross examination, bowing down before a king is one kind of respect that we can show that's different from respect in a religious context. It's unclear how Mister Albrecht believes that this religious context is applied to king David. As far as I know, there isn't any teaching in Aquinas that we are to give religious dulia to living, or excuse me, to non-glorified human beings. In fact, it's sort of unclear to me why either Galatians or first Chronicles [1 Chronicles] is being cited as an example of why would we, why we would give dulia to Mary or the Saints, because, of course, these are both examples of what were [?] being given to living people -- people in this life -- before they're glorified. David, in fact, is a sinful man and God wouldn't allow David to build the temple, but, apparently, if we understood the argument that's made from first Chronicles verse twenty-nine, twenty [1 Chronicles 29:20] -- it's being suggested that religious dulia is appropriate for such a sinful man. This doesn't seem to be fully consistent with the doctrines of Catholicism. It leaves me somewhat confused, but the bottom line is this: we haven't seen from Scripture a distinction where Scripture approves, or condones, the religious veneration of departed believers. It doesn't approve, or condone, the religious veneration of Mary. In fact, it doesn't provide even one example, in the whole of Scripture, of anyone giving religious veneration to Mary. It doesn't give even one example in all of Scripture of religious veneration being given to the Saints -- once they're departed from this life. Even if we would grant that Galatians permits religious veneration in this life, which is, which is not [inaudible] something [inaudible] say that all of our life, or to say that love is very important and it doesn't get an more religious than love, then we've shown that love is a requirement for all of our life. But, in any event, based on these illustrations from the verses that have been cited, I would respectfully submit that no case for a distinction between latria and dulia, in a religious context, has been established.
[≈ 32:37]
Lane Chaplin: Okay, thank you TurretinFan. Mister Albrecht you'll have the last rebuttal session and this will be four minutes you may begin when you're ready.
[≈ 32:47]
[≈ 32:49]
William Albrecht: Alright. In conclusion, we find that the Catholic claims are once again vindicated by Scripture. I wish we would have been able to delve into the early church, where I believe the Catholic ever so powerful also. But it was important that we were able to stick mainly to the Scriptures. We see that latria and dulia are two distinct words. What we also see that the usage of dulia in a religious context does not equal that of worship. The cold hard facts are there. The Bible distinguishes between latria and between dulia. Dulia can and is and always should be used in a worship context when referring to God. Latria, no doubt, is to be directed to God and to God alone. But dulia is also shown to be proper [?] towards mankind. Even if one sets up the false parameters of a religious context -- dulia is still offered to men. The same can be said of proskuneo as well. And to briefly touch upon something I, some comments that Turretin[Fan] made -- he says that Jesus does say that we should serve and worship God only. And that is also the Catholic position, which I have already shown in the Bible. Douleuo in Galatians chapter five, verse thirteen to fourteen, [Galatians 5:13-14] is used toward mankind -- it is in a religious context. And as far as me not understanding the Reformed position as Turretin[Fan] claims, I'd rather stick to the Biblical position, which is as I have already shown several times proskuneo and dulia are used toward mankind in a religious context. In one Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20] TurretinFan briefly attempted to deal with it. He... He said this was intended -- that this did not deal with latria and dulia. Well, I was specifically dealing with the Greek term proskuneo, which is used in the Septuagint rendering of one Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20] and I, indeed, showed how this term is used in a religious context. I would contend that Turretin[Fan] is incorrect about the Greek being clear -- clearly referencing somebody else; I think that the whole context is clear that this is in reference to the king. The passage in... [?] the passage is also mentioned in the Matthew Henry commentary -- pointed out that this is in reference to the God and to the king -- and the Matthew Henry commentary is far from a Catholic commentary. And I believe the passage that [?] TurretinFan brought up in John chapter twenty, verse twenty-eight, [John 20:28] where Thomas calls Christ his LORD and his God -- in the Greek we literally read and we are able to tell that he is calling Him his LORD and his God -- the LORD of him and the God of him. The Greek construct is completely different as I, I just looked at it right now -- and the passage in John is clear that this is in reference to Christ being his LORD and his God. Therefore, Turretin[fan] has shown that in order to try and answer away a religious context, as I have shown, he must try and answer away a passage or try to claim the passage has some ambiguity. But I believe clearly that one Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20] is in clear reference to a religious context given to, to mankind as well. Someone would not be able to contend that proskuneo is never offered to anyone in a religious context. We would agree that proskuneo is never given to mankind in a worship sense -- ever -- it is not acceptable. But to claim that all religious context in the Bible deal with worship is simply plain silly. This is a religious context and the people are not worshiping the king in any sense whatsoever. They bow down before God and offer respect to the king. To me, it doesn't get any more of a religious context than this -- context-wise of course. So, it's important to understand the way a Catholic worships God and God alone and gives honor and respect to the Saints. No Saint usurps the role of God in the Catholic faith. And I believe this debate is very important, because it, if anything helps us understand our positions in a clearer fashion. And [?] any debate is profitable. And I would like to end by saying God bless and I really appreciate this debate and I think its been very helpful.
[≈ 36:38]
[≈ 36:40]
Lane Chaplin: Thank you for that Mister Albrecht. This now concludes the Latria-Dulia debate with Mister William Albrecht and TurretinFan of AOMin.org. Thank you Mister Albrecht and TurretinFan for taking the time to debate the issues today. My name is Lane Chaplin, thank you for listening.
[end @ 37:08]
*** TRANSCRIPT ENDS ***
Thanks very much to Lane and Matthew for their assistance, and to Mr. Albrecht for debating this important issue.
Enjoy! And may God be glorified!
-TurretinFan
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Child Discipline Conversation
Recently, in a computer chatroom, I had a conversation about child discipline. Someone started the topic by asking what a "rod" should be in terms of giving the "rod of correction" to a 16 month old child. I started providing some of the caveats that really need to be given, such as that (1) it must be for the child's good, not to satisfy one's own anger; (2) the severity of the chastisement must be tailored to the child's age / personality and the offense; (3) the discipline provided must be consistent; and (4) the punishment must follow as soon as practical upon the infraction. Those things said, the "rod" is the general term for any means of measured, reasonable physical correction: aka corporal discipline.
About this time in the conversation, someone jumped in who had fairly strong opinions on the topic. He (I say, "he" because I don't know whether this person was a man, woman, or child) jumped in to argue against using the rod.
His first argument was, "My parents didn't use the rod on me, and I turned out fine." (I am paraphrasing throughout this discussion)
I tried to steer the conversation back to Scripture, but I was surprised (it was a Christian chatroom after all) to find that the person wasn't much interested in what Scripture had to say about the topic. Instead, the person seemed to think the idea of spanking children was barbaric, and the Scriptural testimony was largely irrelevant.
I say "seemed to think" because he wouldn't really say what he thought about the Bible, even after being asked about a dozen times. Instead, he got increasingly hostile, eventually telling folks in the chatroom that they shouldn't reproduce and that if they'd give him their addresses he'd come over and neuter them!
When he got too insulting, he got kicked from the room (not by me), but it was an interesting experience.
The most painful irony was the fact that the guy tried to argue from his experience at the beginning, but at the end I think the crowd probably was thinking to themselves that this guy was someone who would have benefited from having his hide tanned when he was younger.
I don't mean to make it personally about this guy. It really shouldn't be that way. There are much more gracious and temperate anti-rod folk out there. Ultimately, though, they cannot make a Biblical case for their position. That's because in Scripture, corporal discipline (spanking one's children) is the norm.
That doesn't mean we have resort to the rod as the very first resort in every case, while trying to inflict a maximum amount of pain. That's a caricature. On the other hand, what the Bible tells us is that a loving father physically disciplines his son, while a foolish father coddles his son.
There are some people that try to interpret the "rod" as being things like "time outs" and revoking privileges - but believers have consistently interpreted Scripture to mean actually, you know, giving your son a few whacks with a wooden stick. Here's what one ancient commentator wrote:
Sirach 30:1-13
1 He that loveth his son causeth him oft to feel the rod, that he may have joy of him in the end. 2 He that chastiseth his son shall have joy in him, and shall rejoice of him among his acquaintance. 3 He that teacheth his son grieveth the enemy: and before his friends he shall rejoice of him. 4 Though his father die, yet he is as though he were not dead: for he hath left one behind him that is like himself. 5 While he lived, he saw and rejoiced in him: and when he died, he was not sorrowful. 6 He left behind him an avenger against his enemies, and one that shall requite kindness to his friends. 7 He that maketh too much of his son shall bind up his wounds; and his bowels will be troubled at every cry.
8 An horse not broken becometh headstrong: and a child left to himself will be wilful. 9 Cocker thy child, and he shall make thee afraid: play with him, and he will bring thee to heaviness. 10 Laugh not with him, lest thou have sorrow with him, and lest thou gnash thy teeth in the end. 11 Give him no liberty in his youth, and wink not at his follies. 12 Bow down his neck while he is young, and beat him on the sides while he is a child, lest he wax stubborn, and be disobedient unto thee, and so bring sorrow to thine heart. 13 Chastise thy son, and hold him to labour, lest his lewd behaviour be an offence unto thee.
This may be a little extreme: "no liberty" seems to be excessive. The point is that this ancient (perhaps 2nd or 3rd century before Christ) commentary clearly understood the Scriptural teaching regarding how children are to be raised as implying physically training them, noting that this is for the child's good, for the parents' good, and against the interest of one's enemies.
This last observation, "He that teacheth his son grieveth the enemy" (vs. 3 above) is quite good. The enemy absolutely hates to see us properly training our children - he loves lax discipline, because it makes his job of turning them from the right way easier.
Grieve the devil, use the rod of correction diligently.
-TurretinFan
About this time in the conversation, someone jumped in who had fairly strong opinions on the topic. He (I say, "he" because I don't know whether this person was a man, woman, or child) jumped in to argue against using the rod.
His first argument was, "My parents didn't use the rod on me, and I turned out fine." (I am paraphrasing throughout this discussion)
I tried to steer the conversation back to Scripture, but I was surprised (it was a Christian chatroom after all) to find that the person wasn't much interested in what Scripture had to say about the topic. Instead, the person seemed to think the idea of spanking children was barbaric, and the Scriptural testimony was largely irrelevant.
I say "seemed to think" because he wouldn't really say what he thought about the Bible, even after being asked about a dozen times. Instead, he got increasingly hostile, eventually telling folks in the chatroom that they shouldn't reproduce and that if they'd give him their addresses he'd come over and neuter them!
When he got too insulting, he got kicked from the room (not by me), but it was an interesting experience.
The most painful irony was the fact that the guy tried to argue from his experience at the beginning, but at the end I think the crowd probably was thinking to themselves that this guy was someone who would have benefited from having his hide tanned when he was younger.
I don't mean to make it personally about this guy. It really shouldn't be that way. There are much more gracious and temperate anti-rod folk out there. Ultimately, though, they cannot make a Biblical case for their position. That's because in Scripture, corporal discipline (spanking one's children) is the norm.
That doesn't mean we have resort to the rod as the very first resort in every case, while trying to inflict a maximum amount of pain. That's a caricature. On the other hand, what the Bible tells us is that a loving father physically disciplines his son, while a foolish father coddles his son.
There are some people that try to interpret the "rod" as being things like "time outs" and revoking privileges - but believers have consistently interpreted Scripture to mean actually, you know, giving your son a few whacks with a wooden stick. Here's what one ancient commentator wrote:
Sirach 30:1-13
1 He that loveth his son causeth him oft to feel the rod, that he may have joy of him in the end. 2 He that chastiseth his son shall have joy in him, and shall rejoice of him among his acquaintance. 3 He that teacheth his son grieveth the enemy: and before his friends he shall rejoice of him. 4 Though his father die, yet he is as though he were not dead: for he hath left one behind him that is like himself. 5 While he lived, he saw and rejoiced in him: and when he died, he was not sorrowful. 6 He left behind him an avenger against his enemies, and one that shall requite kindness to his friends. 7 He that maketh too much of his son shall bind up his wounds; and his bowels will be troubled at every cry.
8 An horse not broken becometh headstrong: and a child left to himself will be wilful. 9 Cocker thy child, and he shall make thee afraid: play with him, and he will bring thee to heaviness. 10 Laugh not with him, lest thou have sorrow with him, and lest thou gnash thy teeth in the end. 11 Give him no liberty in his youth, and wink not at his follies. 12 Bow down his neck while he is young, and beat him on the sides while he is a child, lest he wax stubborn, and be disobedient unto thee, and so bring sorrow to thine heart. 13 Chastise thy son, and hold him to labour, lest his lewd behaviour be an offence unto thee.
This may be a little extreme: "no liberty" seems to be excessive. The point is that this ancient (perhaps 2nd or 3rd century before Christ) commentary clearly understood the Scriptural teaching regarding how children are to be raised as implying physically training them, noting that this is for the child's good, for the parents' good, and against the interest of one's enemies.
This last observation, "He that teacheth his son grieveth the enemy" (vs. 3 above) is quite good. The enemy absolutely hates to see us properly training our children - he loves lax discipline, because it makes his job of turning them from the right way easier.
Grieve the devil, use the rod of correction diligently.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Pink on Care in Reading Material
A friend of mine brought to my attention an interesting article by A.W. Pink on the importance of being careful what we read (link). In the busy and bustling blogosphere, these important points should not be forgotten!
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Christianity and Politics
I don't usually listen to the White Horse Inn. I happened to come across this episode regarding Christianity and politics (link).
Charles Hodge apparently said that having an American flag in one's church is the equivalent of singing the Star Spangled Banner at the administration of the Lord's Supper!
I enjoyed the presentation, but I found a theme that seemed odd. It seemed that the participants were suggesting that preachers cannot speak to issues of sin with respect to the political sphere. It almost sounds as though they are saying that the church can only talk about the gospel, and not the law.
On the other hand, Scripture seems to be chock full of admonitions to kings and those in authority. So, while I appreciate their concern for a clear demarcation of the roles of church and state, I think it's not quite as clear-cut as they may like.
One example I typically use is this: very often churches own property. When this is the case, they tend to get advised (more or less authoritatively) by the state with respect to temporal things, such as whether they have to pay taxes on the property, how they can use their property (zoning laws and the like), and who owns the property (if there is a dispute). It's very rare to hear that this is not proper.
If so, why shouldn't it be proper for the church to be advising the state in things moral? Why should the church-state relation be one in which the state tells the church what to do, but the church doesn't tell the state what to do?
-TurretinFan
Charles Hodge apparently said that having an American flag in one's church is the equivalent of singing the Star Spangled Banner at the administration of the Lord's Supper!
I enjoyed the presentation, but I found a theme that seemed odd. It seemed that the participants were suggesting that preachers cannot speak to issues of sin with respect to the political sphere. It almost sounds as though they are saying that the church can only talk about the gospel, and not the law.
On the other hand, Scripture seems to be chock full of admonitions to kings and those in authority. So, while I appreciate their concern for a clear demarcation of the roles of church and state, I think it's not quite as clear-cut as they may like.
One example I typically use is this: very often churches own property. When this is the case, they tend to get advised (more or less authoritatively) by the state with respect to temporal things, such as whether they have to pay taxes on the property, how they can use their property (zoning laws and the like), and who owns the property (if there is a dispute). It's very rare to hear that this is not proper.
If so, why shouldn't it be proper for the church to be advising the state in things moral? Why should the church-state relation be one in which the state tells the church what to do, but the church doesn't tell the state what to do?
-TurretinFan
Is Mormonism Christian?
In this short (less than 15 minutes) clip, Dr. White explains clearly some important distinctions between Mormonism and Christianity.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Sur-Response Regarding Paul the Apostle
The anonymous critic of Paul has provided a new attack on the apostle. The new attack is this:
1) "so why does he say it doesn't matter to him what Peter James and John are?"
He doesn't say precisely that. Instead, he indicates that his commission is a divine one, not an apostolic one. Paul is not under Peter or James or John as a head (either any one of them or all of them together), but is instead an apostle of Jesus Christ by virtue of a special commission from God.
2) "and why does he false accuse Peter of compelling Gentiles to live as Jews when Peter did not such thing but only accommodated the weaker brothers who came from James by not eating meat that would offend them, in good keeping with Paul's own doctrine?"
The idea that Peter was not guilty of what Paul accused him is simply without any evidence. There is no reason to deny that Paul's accusation was true. Indeed, the formulation of this particular challenge is especially odd, since (as the objector notes) it would require Paul not only to challenge Peter (and indirectly, James) but also for Paul to contradict his own expressed views. This objection cannot stand.
3) "is the Paul of Galatians ignorant of Paul's own doctrine from Romans 14?"
No. Indeed, Paul is consistent in Galatians and Romans. The only supposed inconsistency is introduced by the critic who supposes both that Peter wasn't guilty as charged, and that Paul somehow forgot what he wrote in one epistle or the other. No, the same Paul was inspired to write both epistles.
-TurretinFan
so why does he say it doesn't matter to him what Peter James and John are? and why does he false accuse Peter of compelling Gentiles to live as Jews when Peter did not such thing but only accommodated the weaker brothers who came from James by not eating meat that would offend them, in good keeping with Paul's own doctrine? is the Paul of Galatians ignorant of Paul's own doctrine from Romans 14?
1) "so why does he say it doesn't matter to him what Peter James and John are?"
He doesn't say precisely that. Instead, he indicates that his commission is a divine one, not an apostolic one. Paul is not under Peter or James or John as a head (either any one of them or all of them together), but is instead an apostle of Jesus Christ by virtue of a special commission from God.
2) "and why does he false accuse Peter of compelling Gentiles to live as Jews when Peter did not such thing but only accommodated the weaker brothers who came from James by not eating meat that would offend them, in good keeping with Paul's own doctrine?"
The idea that Peter was not guilty of what Paul accused him is simply without any evidence. There is no reason to deny that Paul's accusation was true. Indeed, the formulation of this particular challenge is especially odd, since (as the objector notes) it would require Paul not only to challenge Peter (and indirectly, James) but also for Paul to contradict his own expressed views. This objection cannot stand.
3) "is the Paul of Galatians ignorant of Paul's own doctrine from Romans 14?"
No. Indeed, Paul is consistent in Galatians and Romans. The only supposed inconsistency is introduced by the critic who supposes both that Peter wasn't guilty as charged, and that Paul somehow forgot what he wrote in one epistle or the other. No, the same Paul was inspired to write both epistles.
-TurretinFan
Multi-Apostolic Defense of Paul Washer
I had written: "This objector's works-salvation is showing itself: note how this objector indicates that God makes a first move and then it is man that fails or succeeds. That is a great definition of works-salvation. It is to be contrasted with a salvation in which God is both the author (first mover) and finisher (last mover) of our faith." (link)
A kind reader, styling himself "Another Anonymous in America" has provided a response to this comment of mine. His response is as follows:
I'll go line-by-line, responding to these allegations.
A) "Calvinism has a works-salvation as well, even though it is concealed."
No, that's not the case. Calvinism is the pure gospel of salvation by grace alone.
B) "For example, consider the sermons of Paul Washer."
I have considered a number of them. Although Washer does not tend to call himself a Calvinist (for his own reasons), his sermons tend to be quite Calvinistic.
C) "More than anyone else in the calvinistic movement, he emphasizes what he calls the signs of a genuine conversion by means of a very suspicious works-oriented self-introspection."
Washer's apparent emphasis on introspection is likely the result of so-called "easy believism" that suggests people should focus their attention on a decision they made, or on their holding to a certain collection of doctrines. Washer is quite right to call people to make sure that they really have been converted, as opposed to recklessly assuming.
D) "'If God has started a work in you, then he will continue it.'"
That's quite right. Scripture says so:
Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
E) "How will He continue this work? By your works."
This is not quite an accurate characterization. One's works are the evidence of God's working in a person. It is not that God continues the process of sanctification by our works, but that our works are the fruit, or evidence, of the Spirit working in our lives. They are the result of a changed heart that loves God rather than ourselves.
F) "In the final analysis, calvinistic "sanctification" boils down to the real payment of what was first handed over as a "free gift of grace"."
No, that's not an accurate picture. Our works can be thought to be a payment of a debt to God, in the sense of a debt of gratitude. They cannot, however, in any way contribute to our salvation. Nevertheless, they are not worthless to us, because they demonstrate to us that God is working in our lives. The works that we do show that the faith that we have is a lively and true faith, as opposed to a dead and false faith.
G) "And there is much talk about the Perseverance of Saints. How do they persevere? Well, by persevering on their own!"
That's neither the Biblical nor the Calvinistic teaching on this subject. The Saints do persevere, but not on their own. God is described this way:
Jude 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy ...
Unless one thinks that this is just a trivial recitation of an ability God doesn't use, the point is not just that God can keep us from falling, but that he does use this power. Why? Because he loves us.
H) "How does calvinistic sanctification work? By their own subjective judgmental opinions."
This is rather odd and inaccurate. Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness. That is how it is expressed in the very Calvinistic Westminster Shorter Catechism.
The Larger Catechism spells it out even more fully: Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they whom God has, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.
That's the Calvinist and Biblical position, not that we are sanctified by our own judgmental opinions.
I) "Where is the line between "sheep" and "goats"? Well, again a matter of subjective, personal guess work, personal attitude and opinion."
No. The line between "sheep" and "goats" is a line drawn by God, not by man. Nevertheless, we are told:
2 Peter 1:10-11
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
We need to worry about believing on the Son of God. The way to test our faith is by our works. Thus, Jesus said:
Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Why? Because the fruits show the person's nature.
J) "So the only "salvation" in calvinism is ultimately not without works on the part of the recipient of God's grace."
A saved person will not be without works, but it is not those works that save them. Works show us that faith is real and living. Thus, James explains:
James 2:17-24
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
K) "While I know that Calvinists vehemently deny this conclusion, I haven't seen anyone clearing up what the significant difference between a "true conversion" and a "counterfeit conversion" is supposed to be."
I am sorry that no one has explained it to you before. Hopefully this explanation is helping. A counterfeit conversion is when someone is not truly changed in their heart, by God. It is when someone does not have true faith in the Son of God. A person with a counterfeit conversion has dead faith: his life does not bear fruit of the work of the Spirit. Such a person should be afraid for their soul - they should turn to God in repentance and cast themselves on the mercy of God in faith, trusting in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
L) "Folks like Washer do not contribute any more clarity here but promote the idea of salvation by works more and more in the reformed minds."
I certainly haven't heard absolutely everything that Washer has preached, but I haven't seen any evidence from the videos I have seen to think that this claim about him is true. Perhaps some more explanation in certain areas would be helpful, and clarity is always a good thing. Nevertheless, I am comfortable that what I have heard Washer preach is the testimony of Jesus himself and of his apostles: Paul, Peter, and James. It is the doctrine of Scripture and the faith of Abraham.
-TurretinFan
A kind reader, styling himself "Another Anonymous in America" has provided a response to this comment of mine. His response is as follows:
Calvinism has a works-salvation as well, even though it is concealed. For example, consider the sermons of Paul Washer. More than anyone else in the calvinistic movement, he emphasizes what he calls the signs of a genuine conversion by means of a very suspicious works-oriented self-introspection. "If God has started a work in you, then he will continue it." How will He continue this work? By your works . In the final analysis, calvinistic "sanctification" boils down to the real payment of what was first handed over as a "free gift of grace". How does a believer know that he is a believer? Because of his works. And there is much talk about the Perseverance of Saints. How do they persevere? Well, by persevering on their own!(all errors and emphases in original)
How does calvinistic sanctification work? By their own subjective judgmental opinions. Where is the line between "sheep" and "goats"? Well, again a matter of subjective, personal guess work, personal attitude and opinion. So the only "salvation" in calvinism is ultimately not without works on the part of the recipient of God's grace. While I know that Calvinists vehemently deny this conclusion, I haven't seen anyone clearing up what the significant difference between a "true conversion" and a "counterfeit conversion" is supposed to be. Folks like Washer do not contribute any more clarity here but promote the idea of salvation by works more and more in the reformed minds.
I'll go line-by-line, responding to these allegations.
A) "Calvinism has a works-salvation as well, even though it is concealed."
No, that's not the case. Calvinism is the pure gospel of salvation by grace alone.
B) "For example, consider the sermons of Paul Washer."
I have considered a number of them. Although Washer does not tend to call himself a Calvinist (for his own reasons), his sermons tend to be quite Calvinistic.
C) "More than anyone else in the calvinistic movement, he emphasizes what he calls the signs of a genuine conversion by means of a very suspicious works-oriented self-introspection."
Washer's apparent emphasis on introspection is likely the result of so-called "easy believism" that suggests people should focus their attention on a decision they made, or on their holding to a certain collection of doctrines. Washer is quite right to call people to make sure that they really have been converted, as opposed to recklessly assuming.
D) "'If God has started a work in you, then he will continue it.'"
That's quite right. Scripture says so:
Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
E) "How will He continue this work? By your works."
This is not quite an accurate characterization. One's works are the evidence of God's working in a person. It is not that God continues the process of sanctification by our works, but that our works are the fruit, or evidence, of the Spirit working in our lives. They are the result of a changed heart that loves God rather than ourselves.
F) "In the final analysis, calvinistic "sanctification" boils down to the real payment of what was first handed over as a "free gift of grace"."
No, that's not an accurate picture. Our works can be thought to be a payment of a debt to God, in the sense of a debt of gratitude. They cannot, however, in any way contribute to our salvation. Nevertheless, they are not worthless to us, because they demonstrate to us that God is working in our lives. The works that we do show that the faith that we have is a lively and true faith, as opposed to a dead and false faith.
G) "And there is much talk about the Perseverance of Saints. How do they persevere? Well, by persevering on their own!"
That's neither the Biblical nor the Calvinistic teaching on this subject. The Saints do persevere, but not on their own. God is described this way:
Jude 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy ...
Unless one thinks that this is just a trivial recitation of an ability God doesn't use, the point is not just that God can keep us from falling, but that he does use this power. Why? Because he loves us.
H) "How does calvinistic sanctification work? By their own subjective judgmental opinions."
This is rather odd and inaccurate. Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness. That is how it is expressed in the very Calvinistic Westminster Shorter Catechism.
The Larger Catechism spells it out even more fully: Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they whom God has, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.
That's the Calvinist and Biblical position, not that we are sanctified by our own judgmental opinions.
I) "Where is the line between "sheep" and "goats"? Well, again a matter of subjective, personal guess work, personal attitude and opinion."
No. The line between "sheep" and "goats" is a line drawn by God, not by man. Nevertheless, we are told:
2 Peter 1:10-11
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
We need to worry about believing on the Son of God. The way to test our faith is by our works. Thus, Jesus said:
Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Why? Because the fruits show the person's nature.
J) "So the only "salvation" in calvinism is ultimately not without works on the part of the recipient of God's grace."
A saved person will not be without works, but it is not those works that save them. Works show us that faith is real and living. Thus, James explains:
James 2:17-24
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
K) "While I know that Calvinists vehemently deny this conclusion, I haven't seen anyone clearing up what the significant difference between a "true conversion" and a "counterfeit conversion" is supposed to be."
I am sorry that no one has explained it to you before. Hopefully this explanation is helping. A counterfeit conversion is when someone is not truly changed in their heart, by God. It is when someone does not have true faith in the Son of God. A person with a counterfeit conversion has dead faith: his life does not bear fruit of the work of the Spirit. Such a person should be afraid for their soul - they should turn to God in repentance and cast themselves on the mercy of God in faith, trusting in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
L) "Folks like Washer do not contribute any more clarity here but promote the idea of salvation by works more and more in the reformed minds."
I certainly haven't heard absolutely everything that Washer has preached, but I haven't seen any evidence from the videos I have seen to think that this claim about him is true. Perhaps some more explanation in certain areas would be helpful, and clarity is always a good thing. Nevertheless, I am comfortable that what I have heard Washer preach is the testimony of Jesus himself and of his apostles: Paul, Peter, and James. It is the doctrine of Scripture and the faith of Abraham.
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Paul's Conversion Chronology
One reader of this blog has recently provided some comments asking why it is that I believe Paul to be an apostle, and questioning the accounts of Paul's conversion as being inconsistent. Let me first address Paul's status as an apostle, and why I accept that. Afterward, I will provide a harmony of the Biblical accounts of Paul's conversion.
Why do I believe that Paul is an apostle? The short answer is that it is because I believe the Bible and the Bible declares Paul to be an apostle. For example, Paul is called an apostle in each of the following verses:
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
Colossians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
2 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
One might object that these are all from Paul's epistles. Of course, Paul's epistles are part of the Bible. Nevertheless, if one wanted additional demonstration, the Acts of the Apostles refers to Paul as an apostle:
Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
Furthermore, while Peter does not explicitly call Paul an apostle in his general epistle, Peter does refer to Paul's writings as Scripture:
2 Peter 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Turning from the issue of why I believe that Paul was an apostle, let's consider the accounts of his conversion. There are four accounts of Paul's conversion, three in the book of Acts (Chapters 9, 22, and 26), and one in Paul's epistle to the Galatians (Chapter 1-2). It is important to recognize that none of the conversion accounts are designed to provide a comprehensive chronological biography of Paul. Thus, each account includes details not found in the other accounts.
Accordingly, it is sometimes challenging to try to convert the Scriptural evidence into a chronological list to show the relation among the passages. Nevertheless, I have provided a preliminary chronology below. This is not a comprehensive chronology, although I think it does show one way in which the details of the accounts can be chronologically arranged. In particular, I should note that I have identified two visits to Jerusalem. None of the accounts specifically identifies (that I noticed) that there were two visits two Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the combination of the accounts seems (to me, and so far) to suggest that there was a first brief visit to Jerusalem that was terminated by God giving Paul a vision, and a second visit to Jerusalem later.
Without further ado, here is the chronology:
1. Paul Persecuting Church
Acts. 9:1-2
Galatians 1:13-14
Acts 22:4-5
Acts 26:10-11
2. Paul’s Conversion and Beginning Time at Damascus
Acts 9:3-25
Galatians 1:15-16
Acts 22:6-16
Acts 26:12-18, 20
3. Paul’s Trip to Arabia and back to Damascus
Galatians 1:17
4. Paul’s Departure from Damascus
Acts 9:22-25
Galatians 1:18
5. Paul’s First Visit to Jerusalem
Galatians 1:18-19
Acts 22:17-21
Acts 26:21
6. Paul’s Trip to Syria and Cilicia
Galatians 1:21-24
Acts 26:20
7. Paul’s Second Trip to Jerusalem
Galatians 2:1-3
Acts 9:26-29
8. Paul’s Trip to Caesarea and Tarsus
Acts 9:30
That is not the end of Paul's life or of his missionary journeys. It is, however, the end of this particular harmonious recounting of the conversion and subsequent travels of Paul.
-TurretinFan
Why do I believe that Paul is an apostle? The short answer is that it is because I believe the Bible and the Bible declares Paul to be an apostle. For example, Paul is called an apostle in each of the following verses:
Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
Colossians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
2 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
One might object that these are all from Paul's epistles. Of course, Paul's epistles are part of the Bible. Nevertheless, if one wanted additional demonstration, the Acts of the Apostles refers to Paul as an apostle:
Acts 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
Furthermore, while Peter does not explicitly call Paul an apostle in his general epistle, Peter does refer to Paul's writings as Scripture:
2 Peter 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Turning from the issue of why I believe that Paul was an apostle, let's consider the accounts of his conversion. There are four accounts of Paul's conversion, three in the book of Acts (Chapters 9, 22, and 26), and one in Paul's epistle to the Galatians (Chapter 1-2). It is important to recognize that none of the conversion accounts are designed to provide a comprehensive chronological biography of Paul. Thus, each account includes details not found in the other accounts.
Accordingly, it is sometimes challenging to try to convert the Scriptural evidence into a chronological list to show the relation among the passages. Nevertheless, I have provided a preliminary chronology below. This is not a comprehensive chronology, although I think it does show one way in which the details of the accounts can be chronologically arranged. In particular, I should note that I have identified two visits to Jerusalem. None of the accounts specifically identifies (that I noticed) that there were two visits two Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the combination of the accounts seems (to me, and so far) to suggest that there was a first brief visit to Jerusalem that was terminated by God giving Paul a vision, and a second visit to Jerusalem later.
Without further ado, here is the chronology:
1. Paul Persecuting Church
Acts. 9:1-2
Galatians 1:13-14
Acts 22:4-5
Acts 26:10-11
2. Paul’s Conversion and Beginning Time at Damascus
Acts 9:3-25
Galatians 1:15-16
Acts 22:6-16
Acts 26:12-18, 20
3. Paul’s Trip to Arabia and back to Damascus
Galatians 1:17
4. Paul’s Departure from Damascus
Acts 9:22-25
Galatians 1:18
5. Paul’s First Visit to Jerusalem
Galatians 1:18-19
Acts 22:17-21
Acts 26:21
6. Paul’s Trip to Syria and Cilicia
Galatians 1:21-24
Acts 26:20
7. Paul’s Second Trip to Jerusalem
Galatians 2:1-3
Acts 9:26-29
8. Paul’s Trip to Caesarea and Tarsus
Acts 9:30
That is not the end of Paul's life or of his missionary journeys. It is, however, the end of this particular harmonious recounting of the conversion and subsequent travels of Paul.
-TurretinFan
Monday, January 12, 2009
van Genderen and Velema on the Atoment
In their massive work, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, van Genderen and Velema provide a section (Section 32) within their chapter on Christ, the Mediator (Chapter 10), called "Aspects of the Work of Christ," which includes a subsection on "Atonement (reconciliation)" and a sub-section on "Victory." These subsections may be found at pages 511-38 of 2008 printing of the Bilkes and van der Maas translation of this work.
The book provides a relatively recent discussion (the Dutch original published in 1992) of the Reformed view of the atonement as it is held in the conservative Dutch reformed churches. In general, the discussion is descriptive. While certain erroneous views are identified as errors, generally only a cursory response to the error is provided. There is little attention paid to the patristic data - although there is a surprising amount of attention paid to modern erroneous views of the atonement.
The presentation appears generally to be sound. One interesting aspect of the book's presentation is the reliance on a significant number of Dutch writers, whose works are not presently accessible in English or whose works have only recently become available in English. For example, looking through the "Some Literature" section, at the conclusion of Chapter 10, the number of English writings identified are scant.
As hinted at in the book's prefaces (both the publisher's preface and the authors' preface), Bavinck is heavily relied-upon. In this section, the work of Bavinck is supplemented with John Murray, Wentsel and others.
One particularly interesting discussion provided by van Genderen and Velema is with respect to the issue of the relation between the atonement and the gospel offer. After explaining that Dordt explicitly rejects the idea that the gospel is only for some, not for all, van Genderen and Velema explain:
As one would expect, given such a clear statement of the classical, confessional Reformed doctrine of limited atonement and the consistency of the universal qualified gospel offer with the limited atonement, van Genderen and Velema identify as error the school of Samaur including Amyraut and Cameron, which (relying on Graafland) they identify as closer to Arminius than to Calvin.
-TurretinFan
The book provides a relatively recent discussion (the Dutch original published in 1992) of the Reformed view of the atonement as it is held in the conservative Dutch reformed churches. In general, the discussion is descriptive. While certain erroneous views are identified as errors, generally only a cursory response to the error is provided. There is little attention paid to the patristic data - although there is a surprising amount of attention paid to modern erroneous views of the atonement.
The presentation appears generally to be sound. One interesting aspect of the book's presentation is the reliance on a significant number of Dutch writers, whose works are not presently accessible in English or whose works have only recently become available in English. For example, looking through the "Some Literature" section, at the conclusion of Chapter 10, the number of English writings identified are scant.
As hinted at in the book's prefaces (both the publisher's preface and the authors' preface), Bavinck is heavily relied-upon. In this section, the work of Bavinck is supplemented with John Murray, Wentsel and others.
One particularly interesting discussion provided by van Genderen and Velema is with respect to the issue of the relation between the atonement and the gospel offer. After explaining that Dordt explicitly rejects the idea that the gospel is only for some, not for all, van Genderen and Velema explain:
It is not, however, the mandate of the church to tell everyone: Christ has died in your place; all your sins have been atoned for and forgiven (cf. Bavinck, R.D., 4:36). The apostolic proclamation is: "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them . . . . We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 5:19-20).(pp. 528-29)
No one may conclude from the gospel of atonement that Christ has reconciled him or her with God, without more ado. This can only be confessed in faith. "I can receive . . . the satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ ... and apply to myself in no other way than by faith alone" (Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 23). This agrees with Scripture. There we continually encounter the first person singular or plural: "I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20). "We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement" (Rom. 5:11).
As one would expect, given such a clear statement of the classical, confessional Reformed doctrine of limited atonement and the consistency of the universal qualified gospel offer with the limited atonement, van Genderen and Velema identify as error the school of Samaur including Amyraut and Cameron, which (relying on Graafland) they identify as closer to Arminius than to Calvin.
-TurretinFan
Friday, January 09, 2009
Piper and the God we Worship
David at Thirsty Theologian has republished Piper's thoughts relative to the issue of the God we worship (link). As David points out, Piper's explanation is the reason Vatican II cannot possibly be right.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
John Gill on God's Love
John Gill, sometimes falsely accused (particularly by Amyraldians, and quasi-Amyraldians) of being a hyper-Calvinist, had this to say about God's love:
Read this and more of Gill's powerful insight into the love of God at the following link (link).
-TurretinFan
2. As to the objects of God’s love, it is special and discriminating. He loves some, and not others. It is true, he has a general love and regard to all his creatures. He is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works. They all share in the bounties of his providence. He makes his sun to shine on the evil and on the good. He sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. But then, he has chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure. Hence he bestows peculiar blessings on those to whom he bears a peculiar love. David says, Psalm 106:4, Remember me with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: very plainly intimating, that it was special and discriminating; of a different nature from that which he bore to others. A full instance of this distinguishing love, we have in Mal. 1:2, 3, I have loved you, saith the Lord; yet ye say, wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and hated Esau. And, as I said before, no other reason can be given of this distinction, which God makes among the lost sons of Adam, but his own sovereign will; who will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and will be gracious to whom he will be gracious, let a wrangling world say what they please.
Read this and more of Gill's powerful insight into the love of God at the following link (link).
-TurretinFan
Response to Benedict XVI on Christmas
No, Benedict XVI did not visit this humble blog. No head of state (to my knowledge) has visited this blog. Nevertheless, on December 31, 2008, Benedict XVI provided some comments that are (perhaps) worth addressing:
A few counter-points:
1) To say that the birthday of Christ is "suffused with light of Mary" is to miss the significance of the Incarnation. The significance of the Incarnation is about Christ, not about Mary. Surely, Mary was blessed to be the mother of Christ, but when He was born and laid in a manger, the shepherds came to see Him, not Mary and Joseph. Mary bore witness to the events that happened, but she was not what the shepherds came to see. When the Angel announced, it was "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."
Unto whom was born Jesus? Did the angel say "unto Mary"? No! The angel declared "unto you" (pluaral, i.e. the shepherds) this child was born. What was the sign? A child bathed in Marian suffuse light? No! A child lade in the manger. Mary did wrap up Jesus and lay him in the manger, to be sure - but they shepherds were not directed to Mary but to Jesus. The angel mentioned Jesus, but not his mother.
2) To say "our gaze cannot but turn with recognitions toward his Mother" provides some important insight. It is possible to turn one's eyes from Jesus to other things. When Mary is the one to whom we turn our eyes from Jesus, this should be to our shame.
When the shepherds arrived, their eyes had an opposite path: they found Mary, and Joseph, and at last they found the babe in the manger. And when they had seen it, what did they talk about? They talked, says Luke, about the child - "glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them." Did they mention Mary and Joseph? Probably so - they mentioned the manger too no doubt - but the focus was on Jesus - not on Jesus and his mother.
3) To say "who with her 'yes' made the gift of Redemption possible," is to perpetuate a legend. Scripture does not tell us Mary said "yes" to anything. To be the mother of our Lord was not offered to Mary as a queen, but announced to her as servant, a handmaiden. She was certainly a willing servant, but she was not offered a choice. Instead, Scripture tells us that the Angel came and said: "Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."
"Thou shalt!" It is an imperative. It is not a question. It is not, "Would you mind?" It is an imperative - a command. Mary didn't disobey, but she wasn't given a choice. It is not as though Mary had anything voluntary to do with conceiving anyway. She was not a man whose physical consent is required for conception. In conception she was acted upon - not against her will, but not with any cooperation on her own part.
Mary's first response was not, "Yes, you may," but rather "How can this be?" Once it was explained, Mary did accept the fact, not by saying, "yes," but by stating: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." Mary recognized her place as servant (handmaid) of God. She did not stand there "making things possible," she resigned herself (not gloomily, but humbly) to her task. She was assenting, but her assent was not necessary for God, but for herself.
4) "This is why Christmastide has profoundly Marian connotations." In one sense, this is backwards. One of the reasons for the popularity of Christmas in Catholicism is its appeal to those devoted to Mary, since it is one of the few feast days involving her in some way. Surely there is a baby in the manger, and Joseph is hanging about someplace, but Mary is often the improper focus of attention.
In another sense, of course, the real reason for celebration is Jesus escape from Mary's womb! His separation from her. We are not told that the shepherds bowed down, but if they did, they did not bow down to a woman holding a child, but to the child himself in the manger. Kings of the earth have thrones, but our King was in something used for the animals.
5) "The birth of Jesus, the man-God, and Mary's divine maternity are indissoluble realities." Mary's maternity is of Christ, the God-man. But Mary is not the mother of Christ's divine nature - she is only the mother of his human nature. Before you call me a Nestorian, consider something:
Mary gave life, in some sense, to Jesus - and Pilate took that life away.
But Pilate could only take away what Mary gave: Pilate could kill the God-man, but Pilate could not kill God. Even so Mary could not give what Jesus already had: his divinity. Jesus does not derive his divinity from Mary, only his humanity. His human relationship of son to Mary does not communicate to the Trinity, just as Jesus death did not communicate to the Trinity.
Truly Mary was the Theotokos - she carried the God-man in her womb - but Mary was not the Mother of Christ's divinity. When Jesus was conceived, it was only his humanity that began to be. Jesus was before Abraham, whose daughter Mary was. To say that Mary had "divine maternity" is to confuse categories and to misunderstand the true mystery of the hypostatic union.
6) "The mystery of Mary and the mystery of the only-begotten Son of God, who becomes man, form a single mystery, in which one helps to better understand the other."
There is no parity between Jesus and Mary. Jesus is Mary's Saviour, just as Jesus is the Shepherds' Saviour. Mary is the handmaid, but Jesus is the King. Luke seems to suggest that the account we have of the shepherds is partly provided by Mary. She treasured the memories of her Savior's youth and, we are led to think, relayed them to the evangelist. In that sense, she helps us to understand Jesus better. But there is nothing mysterious about a virgin. What is mysterious is the fact that she is pregnant - that she gives birth to a son without knowing a man. It's a Christological mystery, not a Marian mystery.
Benedict continued:
1) "It is Mary, the Star of Hope, who leads us to Him."
The star that lead the wise men to Jesus was not Mary. Our hope is not in Mary - she is not our star of hope. Our hope is in the Lord alone.
Psalm 31:24 Be of good courage, and he shall strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in the LORD.
Psalm 33:22 Let thy mercy, O LORD, be upon us, according as we hope in thee.
Mary was our fellow human being. She was created as we are. She was only human, not divine, though she bore the God-man in her womb.
2) "It is [Mary], with maternal love, who can lead to Jesus, especially the young, who bear in their heart irrepressible questions about the meaning of human existence."
It is the Word of God that leads men to Jesus. Mary has passed out of this world. She no longer acts in it directly. Yes, some of her words are provided to us in Holy Scripture, but she herself has gone on. The Holy Spirit leads men to Jesus, not Mary. It is the outward call of the Gospel, and the inner conviction of the Holy Spirit that saves.
The answers about human existence are to be found in Scripture, not in Marian devotion. Scripture, beginning in Genesis, teaches what man is to believe concerning God and the duty God requires of Man. It explains the purpose of our existence - to worship our Creator-God.
3) "Our greatest hope as believers is in eternal life in the company of Christ and the entire family of God."
This misses the point that Scripture makes. Our greatest hope is in Christ himself - in his person and work on the cross. Our greatest hope is not in the life to come. Our greatest hope is in God, not in what God gives.
4) "The maternal presence of Mary ensures tonight that God shall never abandon us if we entrust ourselves to Him and follow his teachings."
No. The token of God's promise is the Holy Spirit, not the maternal presence of Mary. She is not present, she is absent. She has gone on to be with her Savior in heaven. What is at the front of so many churches is a painting or statue - it is not Mary. This may seem obvious, but it is important. Mary is no longer among us. She does not have a presence here.
And Mary was a mother to Jesus and to Jesus' brethren, and like a mother to John, but she is not our mother. We were not in her womb, and we did not care for her in her old age. She does not have a redemptive relationship to us. She is not our Savior, and she is not our Mediator: we have one Mediator, Jesus Christ.
Don't get me wrong. She was important to Jesus coming into the world, yet so likewise was Pilate important in murdering Christ, without which we would not be saved. You will say, "But any Roman governor would have sufficed!"
I answer you, "Likewise, so would any virgin of the line of David have done in Mary's place, if it had pleased God." Mary was greatly blessed, not greatly deserving. Mary's relationship to Christ as mother is unique biologically, but not unique spiritually.
Jesus himself stated:
"Who is my mother, or my brethren?" And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, "Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."
Mary did the will of God, yes. And Mary is a part of the story of the nativity of Christ, certainly. But Mary is not to be religiously venerated for her role. She is a handmaiden of the Lord, not the Queen of Heaven.
-TurretinFan
The birthday of Christ, which we are currently celebrating, is entirely suffused with the light of Mary and, even as we pause to contemplate the child in the manger, our gaze cannot but turn with recognitions toward his Mother, who with her 'yes' made the gift of Redemption possible.(source)
This is why Christmastide has profoundly Marian connotations. The birth of Jesus, the man-God, and Mary's divine maternity are indissoluble realities. The mystery of Mary and the mystery of the only-begotten Son of God, who becomes man, form a single mystery, in which one helps to better understand the other.
A few counter-points:
1) To say that the birthday of Christ is "suffused with light of Mary" is to miss the significance of the Incarnation. The significance of the Incarnation is about Christ, not about Mary. Surely, Mary was blessed to be the mother of Christ, but when He was born and laid in a manger, the shepherds came to see Him, not Mary and Joseph. Mary bore witness to the events that happened, but she was not what the shepherds came to see. When the Angel announced, it was "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."
Unto whom was born Jesus? Did the angel say "unto Mary"? No! The angel declared "unto you" (pluaral, i.e. the shepherds) this child was born. What was the sign? A child bathed in Marian suffuse light? No! A child lade in the manger. Mary did wrap up Jesus and lay him in the manger, to be sure - but they shepherds were not directed to Mary but to Jesus. The angel mentioned Jesus, but not his mother.
2) To say "our gaze cannot but turn with recognitions toward his Mother" provides some important insight. It is possible to turn one's eyes from Jesus to other things. When Mary is the one to whom we turn our eyes from Jesus, this should be to our shame.
When the shepherds arrived, their eyes had an opposite path: they found Mary, and Joseph, and at last they found the babe in the manger. And when they had seen it, what did they talk about? They talked, says Luke, about the child - "glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them." Did they mention Mary and Joseph? Probably so - they mentioned the manger too no doubt - but the focus was on Jesus - not on Jesus and his mother.
3) To say "who with her 'yes' made the gift of Redemption possible," is to perpetuate a legend. Scripture does not tell us Mary said "yes" to anything. To be the mother of our Lord was not offered to Mary as a queen, but announced to her as servant, a handmaiden. She was certainly a willing servant, but she was not offered a choice. Instead, Scripture tells us that the Angel came and said: "Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."
"Thou shalt!" It is an imperative. It is not a question. It is not, "Would you mind?" It is an imperative - a command. Mary didn't disobey, but she wasn't given a choice. It is not as though Mary had anything voluntary to do with conceiving anyway. She was not a man whose physical consent is required for conception. In conception she was acted upon - not against her will, but not with any cooperation on her own part.
Mary's first response was not, "Yes, you may," but rather "How can this be?" Once it was explained, Mary did accept the fact, not by saying, "yes," but by stating: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." Mary recognized her place as servant (handmaid) of God. She did not stand there "making things possible," she resigned herself (not gloomily, but humbly) to her task. She was assenting, but her assent was not necessary for God, but for herself.
4) "This is why Christmastide has profoundly Marian connotations." In one sense, this is backwards. One of the reasons for the popularity of Christmas in Catholicism is its appeal to those devoted to Mary, since it is one of the few feast days involving her in some way. Surely there is a baby in the manger, and Joseph is hanging about someplace, but Mary is often the improper focus of attention.
In another sense, of course, the real reason for celebration is Jesus escape from Mary's womb! His separation from her. We are not told that the shepherds bowed down, but if they did, they did not bow down to a woman holding a child, but to the child himself in the manger. Kings of the earth have thrones, but our King was in something used for the animals.
5) "The birth of Jesus, the man-God, and Mary's divine maternity are indissoluble realities." Mary's maternity is of Christ, the God-man. But Mary is not the mother of Christ's divine nature - she is only the mother of his human nature. Before you call me a Nestorian, consider something:
Mary gave life, in some sense, to Jesus - and Pilate took that life away.
But Pilate could only take away what Mary gave: Pilate could kill the God-man, but Pilate could not kill God. Even so Mary could not give what Jesus already had: his divinity. Jesus does not derive his divinity from Mary, only his humanity. His human relationship of son to Mary does not communicate to the Trinity, just as Jesus death did not communicate to the Trinity.
Truly Mary was the Theotokos - she carried the God-man in her womb - but Mary was not the Mother of Christ's divinity. When Jesus was conceived, it was only his humanity that began to be. Jesus was before Abraham, whose daughter Mary was. To say that Mary had "divine maternity" is to confuse categories and to misunderstand the true mystery of the hypostatic union.
6) "The mystery of Mary and the mystery of the only-begotten Son of God, who becomes man, form a single mystery, in which one helps to better understand the other."
There is no parity between Jesus and Mary. Jesus is Mary's Saviour, just as Jesus is the Shepherds' Saviour. Mary is the handmaid, but Jesus is the King. Luke seems to suggest that the account we have of the shepherds is partly provided by Mary. She treasured the memories of her Savior's youth and, we are led to think, relayed them to the evangelist. In that sense, she helps us to understand Jesus better. But there is nothing mysterious about a virgin. What is mysterious is the fact that she is pregnant - that she gives birth to a son without knowing a man. It's a Christological mystery, not a Marian mystery.
Benedict continued:
In such times as ours, marked by uncertainty and concern for the future, it is necessary to experience the living presence of Christ. It is Mary, the Star of Hope, who leads us to Him. It is [Mary], with maternal love, who can lead to Jesus, especially the young, who bear in their heart irrepressible questions about the meaning of human existence.(same source - elipsis in source)
...
Even though quite a few dark clouds are gathering over our future, we must not be afraid. Our greatest hope as believers is in eternal life in the company of Christ and the entire family of God. This great hope gives us strength to face and overcome the difficulties of life in this world. The maternal presence of Mary ensures tonight that God shall never abandon us if we entrust ourselves to Him and follow his teachings.
1) "It is Mary, the Star of Hope, who leads us to Him."
The star that lead the wise men to Jesus was not Mary. Our hope is not in Mary - she is not our star of hope. Our hope is in the Lord alone.
Psalm 31:24 Be of good courage, and he shall strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in the LORD.
Psalm 33:22 Let thy mercy, O LORD, be upon us, according as we hope in thee.
Mary was our fellow human being. She was created as we are. She was only human, not divine, though she bore the God-man in her womb.
2) "It is [Mary], with maternal love, who can lead to Jesus, especially the young, who bear in their heart irrepressible questions about the meaning of human existence."
It is the Word of God that leads men to Jesus. Mary has passed out of this world. She no longer acts in it directly. Yes, some of her words are provided to us in Holy Scripture, but she herself has gone on. The Holy Spirit leads men to Jesus, not Mary. It is the outward call of the Gospel, and the inner conviction of the Holy Spirit that saves.
The answers about human existence are to be found in Scripture, not in Marian devotion. Scripture, beginning in Genesis, teaches what man is to believe concerning God and the duty God requires of Man. It explains the purpose of our existence - to worship our Creator-God.
3) "Our greatest hope as believers is in eternal life in the company of Christ and the entire family of God."
This misses the point that Scripture makes. Our greatest hope is in Christ himself - in his person and work on the cross. Our greatest hope is not in the life to come. Our greatest hope is in God, not in what God gives.
4) "The maternal presence of Mary ensures tonight that God shall never abandon us if we entrust ourselves to Him and follow his teachings."
No. The token of God's promise is the Holy Spirit, not the maternal presence of Mary. She is not present, she is absent. She has gone on to be with her Savior in heaven. What is at the front of so many churches is a painting or statue - it is not Mary. This may seem obvious, but it is important. Mary is no longer among us. She does not have a presence here.
And Mary was a mother to Jesus and to Jesus' brethren, and like a mother to John, but she is not our mother. We were not in her womb, and we did not care for her in her old age. She does not have a redemptive relationship to us. She is not our Savior, and she is not our Mediator: we have one Mediator, Jesus Christ.
Don't get me wrong. She was important to Jesus coming into the world, yet so likewise was Pilate important in murdering Christ, without which we would not be saved. You will say, "But any Roman governor would have sufficed!"
I answer you, "Likewise, so would any virgin of the line of David have done in Mary's place, if it had pleased God." Mary was greatly blessed, not greatly deserving. Mary's relationship to Christ as mother is unique biologically, but not unique spiritually.
Jesus himself stated:
"Who is my mother, or my brethren?" And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, "Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."
Mary did the will of God, yes. And Mary is a part of the story of the nativity of Christ, certainly. But Mary is not to be religiously venerated for her role. She is a handmaiden of the Lord, not the Queen of Heaven.
-TurretinFan
Sodom and Archaeology
I found the following video on archaeology performed in the Dead Sea Valley to be fascinating. Until more certain proof is presented, I would be hesitant to draw overly strong conclusions, but the view that the city of Sodom, as well as the other valley cities, have been located is reasonably persuasive.
-TurretinFan
UPDATE: Take the video with a grain of salt, in view of the criticism found at the following link (link). Thanks to Daniel's Place for noting this issue.
-TurretinFan
UPDATE: Take the video with a grain of salt, in view of the criticism found at the following link (link). Thanks to Daniel's Place for noting this issue.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
The Real Turretin on: The Three-Fold Office of Christ
Los at Already and Not Yet, has provided a short but concise explanation from the real Turretin on the three-fold office of Christ and its relation to the three-fold misery of man (link).
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Myths and Realities about Arminianism
Paul Manata of Triablogue has provided a thorough and detailed (and consequently lengthy) review of and response to Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, by Roger E. Olson (link to review). Olson is a self-described Arminian responding to what he views as various misconceptions about Arminianism both those of Calvinists and those of self-identified Arminians. I hope that the more serious Arminians out there will take the time to consider what Manata has written. His precise explanations, in many cases, cut right to the heart of the matter. I am thankful for this sort of piece, since it can promote understanding by clearly stating points of difference, while providing supporting explanation.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
The Eucharist
The Thirsty Theologian has pointed me to an excellent article by William Webster on the Romanist view of the Eucharist (link to Webster's article).
Webster provides a very interesting historical analysis of the Eucharist, tracing it from ancient times, through to Trent. In the process, Webster demonstrates that Trent has departed not only from Biblical but also historical theology with respect to the Eucharist.
-TurretinFan
Webster provides a very interesting historical analysis of the Eucharist, tracing it from ancient times, through to Trent. In the process, Webster demonstrates that Trent has departed not only from Biblical but also historical theology with respect to the Eucharist.
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Calvin on the "Free Offer"?
I found R. Scott Clark's very brief post (link) puzzling. He asserts, "Yes, that’s right, Calvin said “offer” (not demand) as in “free” or “well-meant” offer of the gospel." That's a rather odd way of putting it.
a) Calvin obviously didn't use English.
b) Calvin did use the Latin cognate word to our English word "offer."
c) In this place, however, Calvin used the word "offer" as a verb, not a noun - much as it is used in WSC Answer to Question 31 or WCF VII:III (7:3).
d) It's not clear whether RSC is aware of the controversy that exists over the use of the expression "well-meant offer" as contrasted to the Reformed doctrine of the freely offered gospel. If so, it is mischievous of RSC to suggest that Calvin using the word "offer" is Calvin taking a position on one side or the other of that controversy.
e) The fact that Calvin doesn't (in the particular instance to which RSC points) use the word "demand" is inconsequential. Calvin naturally agrees with Paul who states that God "commandeth" all men everywhere to believe (Acts 17:30). Thus, even though we gospel preachers offer salvation to the masses, we do not necessarily refrain from preaching that it is men's duty to repent of their sins and appropriate Christ's sacrifice by faith.
I suspect that RSC just intended to tweak the nose of one or more of his regular readers who have a scruple against using the term "offer" because of its association (via the afore-mentioned controversy) with liberal tendencies towards synergism. I wish he wouldn't do that.
-TurretinFan
a) Calvin obviously didn't use English.
b) Calvin did use the Latin cognate word to our English word "offer."
c) In this place, however, Calvin used the word "offer" as a verb, not a noun - much as it is used in WSC Answer to Question 31 or WCF VII:III (7:3).
d) It's not clear whether RSC is aware of the controversy that exists over the use of the expression "well-meant offer" as contrasted to the Reformed doctrine of the freely offered gospel. If so, it is mischievous of RSC to suggest that Calvin using the word "offer" is Calvin taking a position on one side or the other of that controversy.
e) The fact that Calvin doesn't (in the particular instance to which RSC points) use the word "demand" is inconsequential. Calvin naturally agrees with Paul who states that God "commandeth" all men everywhere to believe (Acts 17:30). Thus, even though we gospel preachers offer salvation to the masses, we do not necessarily refrain from preaching that it is men's duty to repent of their sins and appropriate Christ's sacrifice by faith.
I suspect that RSC just intended to tweak the nose of one or more of his regular readers who have a scruple against using the term "offer" because of its association (via the afore-mentioned controversy) with liberal tendencies towards synergism. I wish he wouldn't do that.
-TurretinFan
A Quick Editorial Note - Quotations
When I quote people who make typos, I generally have five options:
1) Reproduce what they said and don't comment on their mistake.
The positive side of this approach is that I don't get dragged into silly wars over spelling and grammar.
The negative side of this approach is that it looks as though I may have introduced an error into the comment I am quoting.
2) Reproduce generally what they said but fix their mistakes without telling the reader.
The positive side of this approach is that the end product is clean.
The negative side of this approach is that, technically, that's not what they said, and if I make a mistake in correcting, it may appear I am trying to misrepresent.
3) Reproduce generally what they said but fix their mistakes, telling the reader, but not telling the reader where the mistakes were.
This has roughly the same positives as (2), and roughly the same negatives, although if it is clear that the comment has been altered, there should be less concern that any changes were supposed to secret.
4) Reproduce generally what they said but fix their mistakes, telling the reader where the mistakes were.
This is almost as clean as (2) or (3), and removes the concerns about secret changes.
5) Reproduce what they said, without fixing their mistakes, but comment on the mistakes.
This has the advantage of avoiding introducing my own interpretation of the spelling/grammatical issues in the item I'm quoting.
This has the disadvantage of not being a very clean product.
An additional downside to (3)-(5) is that they can make me look like a linguistic snob, which is (of course) not the point.
In general, I favor (5) in contexts where it is hard for the reader to go back and check the original and (4) in contexts like comment boxes, where the reader can easily go back and check the original. I know I've used (3) a few times, and I have used (2) once or twice. I generally try to avoid (1), but I'm sure I must have used it (either intentionally or unintentionally) at least once when speed was more important to me than quality.
Obviously, there are a few people out there who post supercilious screeds. If someone argues, "Don't listen to TurretinFan because he's an ignorent fool," it's a pretty safe bet I'm going to throw a "[sic]" in right behind "ignorent" - if only to make a minor rhetorical point (not to score points, but to make a point).
-TurretinFan
1) Reproduce what they said and don't comment on their mistake.
The positive side of this approach is that I don't get dragged into silly wars over spelling and grammar.
The negative side of this approach is that it looks as though I may have introduced an error into the comment I am quoting.
2) Reproduce generally what they said but fix their mistakes without telling the reader.
The positive side of this approach is that the end product is clean.
The negative side of this approach is that, technically, that's not what they said, and if I make a mistake in correcting, it may appear I am trying to misrepresent.
3) Reproduce generally what they said but fix their mistakes, telling the reader, but not telling the reader where the mistakes were.
This has roughly the same positives as (2), and roughly the same negatives, although if it is clear that the comment has been altered, there should be less concern that any changes were supposed to secret.
4) Reproduce generally what they said but fix their mistakes, telling the reader where the mistakes were.
This is almost as clean as (2) or (3), and removes the concerns about secret changes.
5) Reproduce what they said, without fixing their mistakes, but comment on the mistakes.
This has the advantage of avoiding introducing my own interpretation of the spelling/grammatical issues in the item I'm quoting.
This has the disadvantage of not being a very clean product.
An additional downside to (3)-(5) is that they can make me look like a linguistic snob, which is (of course) not the point.
In general, I favor (5) in contexts where it is hard for the reader to go back and check the original and (4) in contexts like comment boxes, where the reader can easily go back and check the original. I know I've used (3) a few times, and I have used (2) once or twice. I generally try to avoid (1), but I'm sure I must have used it (either intentionally or unintentionally) at least once when speed was more important to me than quality.
Obviously, there are a few people out there who post supercilious screeds. If someone argues, "Don't listen to TurretinFan because he's an ignorent fool," it's a pretty safe bet I'm going to throw a "[sic]" in right behind "ignorent" - if only to make a minor rhetorical point (not to score points, but to make a point).
-TurretinFan
Many "Saints" Were Wicked Men
The title of this post, "Many 'saints' were wicked men," was one of the Reformers charges against the saint-venerating papists of the day. Off hand I cannot recall the Reformers providing many specific examples. Allow me to provide one: San Simon of Guatemala (reasonably full background).
San Simon is an example of a wicked man who lived a very colorful life. You can read more about it at the link above, if you like. His veneration started with friends, and caught on over time. Today, his veneration is not only clearly contrary to Reformed Christianity but even to conservative Catholicism (note that the blog I link to above is a Romanist blog, not a Reformed blog).
Is San Simon a "canonized" saint? No - I don't think so (I hope I'm not wrong about that). But he is venerated within a significant part of practical, real Catholicism. I don't mean that this practice matches the official doctrines of Catholicism, but actual baptized, communicant papists are buying San Simon's candles and making unChristian requests of this dead man.
What differentiates San Simon from other "saints" whose lives come down to us in legends? Perhaps the main differentiation is the preservation of his life history by virtue of the printing press. If there were less writing on the candle, or the prayer were a bit less ridiculously unorthodox, why would the memory of his wickedness be remembered? Is it hard to believe that legends sprang up about wicked men of the middle ages if it could happen in the modern age? Surely not.
I realize this doesn't fully vindicate the Reformers, but I hope it demonstrates that what the Reformers noted is not implausible, and is not just cranks complaints.
-TurretinFan
San Simon is an example of a wicked man who lived a very colorful life. You can read more about it at the link above, if you like. His veneration started with friends, and caught on over time. Today, his veneration is not only clearly contrary to Reformed Christianity but even to conservative Catholicism (note that the blog I link to above is a Romanist blog, not a Reformed blog).
Is San Simon a "canonized" saint? No - I don't think so (I hope I'm not wrong about that). But he is venerated within a significant part of practical, real Catholicism. I don't mean that this practice matches the official doctrines of Catholicism, but actual baptized, communicant papists are buying San Simon's candles and making unChristian requests of this dead man.
What differentiates San Simon from other "saints" whose lives come down to us in legends? Perhaps the main differentiation is the preservation of his life history by virtue of the printing press. If there were less writing on the candle, or the prayer were a bit less ridiculously unorthodox, why would the memory of his wickedness be remembered? Is it hard to believe that legends sprang up about wicked men of the middle ages if it could happen in the modern age? Surely not.
I realize this doesn't fully vindicate the Reformers, but I hope it demonstrates that what the Reformers noted is not implausible, and is not just cranks complaints.
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Responding to Scientology
Tommy Davis from Scientology International stated:
I respond:
Christianity rejects Scientology, and these doctrines of man. The Bible is the Christian's source of authority when it comes to the nature of man.
1. Reincarnation is False
The Christian doctrine of man is that man lives once, dies once, and will be raised on the day of judgment.
Scripture teaches that man has one life on earth, and after that the judgment:
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Scripture teaches also that the resurrection is general:
Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
Although the resurrection is general, there will be a division - some will be raised to life, other will be raised to the second death: hell.
John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
2. Our Body is a Part of Us
As noted above, we await a bodily resurrection. Although we will have the same body, it will be changed. The mortal body we have now will be changed into an immortal body.
I Corinthians 15:35-44
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
We can also see that our bodies are a part of us from other places in Scripture, such as the following:
1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thus, God told Adam:
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
3. Our Spirits are Immortal in a Limited Sense, but are not eternal.
Men come into being. They are not eternal beings. Thus, Jesus said he was before Abraham.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Furthermore, although our souls will never cease to exist, if we do not now repent and trust in Christ, there will come a time when both our body and soul will perish (eternally) in hell.
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Conclusion
We reject the errors of Scientology, because they are contrary to the revealed word of God, our Creator and Redeemer. If one follows Scientology, one will eventually discover its errors. Man does not have an infinite number of lives to "get it right" - this life is it.
Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
-TurretinFan
In Scientology, we believe that you have lived before and that you will live again. The spirit, which is you, is immortal and you are not your body. You as an individual are an immortal spiritual being and simply put, you have lived before and will live again, lifetime after lifetime. In Scientology, these past existences are simply referred to as past lives.(as reported at MSN News)
I respond:
Christianity rejects Scientology, and these doctrines of man. The Bible is the Christian's source of authority when it comes to the nature of man.
1. Reincarnation is False
The Christian doctrine of man is that man lives once, dies once, and will be raised on the day of judgment.
Scripture teaches that man has one life on earth, and after that the judgment:
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Scripture teaches also that the resurrection is general:
Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
Although the resurrection is general, there will be a division - some will be raised to life, other will be raised to the second death: hell.
John 5:29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
2. Our Body is a Part of Us
As noted above, we await a bodily resurrection. Although we will have the same body, it will be changed. The mortal body we have now will be changed into an immortal body.
I Corinthians 15:35-44
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
We can also see that our bodies are a part of us from other places in Scripture, such as the following:
1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thus, God told Adam:
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
3. Our Spirits are Immortal in a Limited Sense, but are not eternal.
Men come into being. They are not eternal beings. Thus, Jesus said he was before Abraham.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Furthermore, although our souls will never cease to exist, if we do not now repent and trust in Christ, there will come a time when both our body and soul will perish (eternally) in hell.
Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Conclusion
We reject the errors of Scientology, because they are contrary to the revealed word of God, our Creator and Redeemer. If one follows Scientology, one will eventually discover its errors. Man does not have an infinite number of lives to "get it right" - this life is it.
Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
-TurretinFan
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
