Augustine vs. Rome - Definition of Grace

"Mercy and judgment I will sing to thee, O Lord, for it is only through unmerited mercy that anyone is freed, and only through deserved judgment that anyone is condemned."
(Augustine, On Faith, Hope, & Charity, as provided in Fathers of the Church, Volume 2, p. 447)

The Reformed doctrine of grace, because it is drawn from Scripture, finds resonance in the voice of Augustine, whose love of Scripture lead him to continually study it throughout his life and rely on it as his authority in all matters of doctrine and morals.

Augustine, in the epigraphic quote, does not mention the word "grace" but instead "unmerited mercy." That is simply an equivalent expression. Grace is unmerited favor from God, with the absence of merit being absolutely definitional to the term grace. While this is well recognized in Reformed theology, it is disputed by the theology of Rome.

The following is "Rome's position" (footnote 1) regarding merit:

427. What are the goods that we can merit?
Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods, suitable for us, can be merited in accordance with the plan of God. No one, however, can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion and justification.

- Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Question 427 (associated with items 2010-11 and 2027 of the CCC)(emphasis in original)(footnote 2)

The following is one (footnote 3) of Augustine's comments on grace:

And first of all we must be persuaded how much God has loved us, lest through despair we should not dare to be lifted up to Him. But we needed to be shown what kind of men we were whom He loved, lest being proud as it were of our own merits, we should draw away the more from Him, and fail the more in our own strength. And, therefore, God acted towards us in such a way that we might rather profit by His strength, and so the virtue of charity would be perfected in the weakness of humility. He reveals this in the Psalm, where it is said: "Setting aside, O God, a free rain for thy inheritance, and it was weakened, but thou hast made it perfect."[Ps. 67:10?] By the free rain he would have us understand nothing else but grace, which was bestowed not on account of our merits but given freely, and for this reason it is called grace. For He have it not because we were worthy, but because He willed it. If we realize this we shall not trust in ourselves, and this is to be made weak. But He Himself perfects us, who also said to the Apostle Paul: "My grace is sufficient for thee, for strength is made perfect in weakness."[2 Corinthians 12:9] Man had to be persuaded, therefore, how much God loved us, and what kind of men we were whom He loved: how much, that we might not despair, and what kind, that we might not become proud.

- Augustine, On the Trinity, Book 4, Chapter 1, Section 2 (taken from the translation in volume 45 of the Fathers of the Church series)

Notice the key portion of this quotation "By the free rain he would have us understand nothing else but grace, which was bestowed not on account of our merits but given freely, and for this reason it is called grace."

Here's an alternative translation, notice what is missing:

We must be persuaded how much God loved us so that we don’t shrink from Him in despair. And we need to be shown also what kind of people we are whom He loved so that we also don’t withdraw from Him out of pride. But He dealt with us so that we could profit from His strength, and, in the weakness of humility, our holiness could be perfected.

One of the Psalms implies this. It says, “Thou, O God, didst send a spontaneous rain, whereby Thou didst make Thine inheritance perfect, when it was weary.” The “spontaneous rain” is grace given freely and not according to merit. He didn’t give it because we were worthy, but because He willed. Knowing this, we shouldn’t trust in ourselves. That is what is meant by being made “weak.”

However, He perfects us and says to the Apostle Paul, “My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” We, then, must be persuaded how much God loved us and what type of people we were whom He loved. The former is important, lest we despair; the latter, lest we become proud.

- Day by Day with the Early Church Fathers, edited by Hudson et al. (presented as transcribed here)

The Schaff collection's translation has a slightly different wording:

And first we have had to be persuaded how much God loved us, lest from despair we should not dare to look up to Him. And we needed to be shown also what manner of men we are whom He loved, lest being proud, as if of our own merits, we should recede the more from Him, and fail the more in our own strength. And hence He so dealt with us, that we might the rather profit by His strength, and that so in the weakness of humility the virtue of charity might be perfected. And this is intimated in the Psalm, where it is said, “Thou, O God, didst send a spontaneous rain, whereby Thou didst make Thine inheritance perfect, when it was weary.” [Ps. lxviii. 9.—Pluviam voluntariam.] For by “spontaneous rain” nothing else is meant than grace, not rendered to merit, but given freely, [Gratis.] whence also it is called grace; for He gave it, not because we were worthy, but because He willed. And knowing this, we shall not trust in ourselves; and this is to be made “weak.” But He Himself makes us perfect, who says also to the Apostle Paul, “My grace is sufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” [2 Cor. xii. 9] Man, then, was to be persuaded how much God loved us, and what manner of men we were whom He loved; the former, lest we should despair; the latter, lest we should be proud.

- Augustine, On the Trinity, Book 4, Chapter 1, Section 2 (taken from the translation in NPNF1-03)(footnotes presented within brackets) Essentially the same translation may be found in The Works of Aurelius Augustine, a New Translation, Volume 7 (link)

Notice, however, that while this is a different wording, it is the same concept: "For by “spontaneous rain” nothing else is meant than grace, not rendered to merit, but given freely, whence also it is called grace; for He gave it, not because we were worthy, but because He willed."

This is not an isolated instance of this definition of grace for Augustine, he says much the same thing in his work, On Grace and Free Will:

When God says, “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,” [Zech. i. 3.] one of these clauses—that which invites our return to God—evidently belongs to our will; while the other, which promises His return to us, belongs to His grace. Here, possibly, the Pelagians think they have a justification for their opinion which they so prominently advance, that God’s grace is given according to our merits. In the East, indeed, that is to say, in the province of Palestine, in which is the city of Jerusalem, Pelagius, when examined in person by the bishop, [See On the Proceedings of Pelagius, above, ch. xiv. (30–37).] did not venture to affirm this. For it happened that among the objections which were brought up against him, this in particular was objected, that he maintained that the grace of God was given according to our merits,—an opinion which was so diverse from catholic doctrine, and so hostile to the grace of Christ, that unless he had anathematized it, as laid to his charge, he himself must have been anathematized on its account. He pronounced, indeed, the required anathema upon the dogma, but how insincerely his later books plainly show; for in them he maintains absolutely no other opinion than that the grace of God is given according to our merits. Such passages do they collect out of the Scriptures,—like the one which I just now quoted, “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you,”—as if it were owing to the merit of our turning to God that His grace were given us, wherein He Himself even turns unto us. Now the persons who hold this opinion fail to observe that, unless our turning to God were itself God’s gift, it would not be said to Him in prayer, “Turn us again, O God of hosts;” [Ps. lxxx. 7.] and, “Thou, O God, wilt turn and quicken us;” [Ps. lxxxv. 6.] and again, “Turn us, O God of our salvation,” [Ps. lxxxv. 4.] —with other passages of similar import, too numerous to mention here. For, with respect to our coming unto Christ, what else does it mean than our being turned to Him by believing? And yet He says: “No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” [John vi. 65.]

- Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 10 (Section V in the Latin)(footnotes placed into brackets)

Notice that Augustine places essentially the Roman view in the mouth of Pelagius: "God’s grace is given according to our merits."

And again:

Here surely is at fault the vain reasoning of those who defend the foreknowledge of God in opposition to His grace, and with this view declare that we were chosen before the foundation of the world, [Eph. i. 4.] because God foreknew that we should be good, but not that He Himself would make us good. So says not He, who declares, “Ye have not chosen me.” For had He chosen us on the ground that He foreknew that we should be good, then would He also have foreknown that we would not be the first to make choice of Him. For in no other way could we possibly be good: unless, forsooth, one could be called good who has never made good his choice. What was it then that He chose in those who were not good? For they were not chosen because of their goodness, inasmuch as they could not be good without being chosen. Otherwise grace is no more grace, if we maintain the priority of merit. Such, certainly, is the election of grace, whereof the apostle says: “Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace.” To which he adds: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.” [Rom. xi. 5, 6.] Listen, thou ungrateful one, listen: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Not that thou mayest say, I am chosen because I already believed. For if thou wert believing in Him, then hadst thou already chosen Him. But listen: “Ye have not chosen me.” Not that thou mayest say, Before I believed I was already doing good works, and therefore was I chosen. For what good work can be prior to faith, when the apostle says, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin”? [Rom. xiv. 23.] What, then, are we to say on hearing such words, “Ye have not chosen me,” but that we were evil, and were chosen in order that we might be good through the grace of Him who chose us? For it is not by grace, if merit preceded: but it is of grace: and therefore that grace did not find, but effected the merit.

- Augustine, Tractate 86 on the Gospel of John, Section 2 (footnotes placed in brackets)

The key sentence in the above quotation is: "Otherwise grace is no more grace, if we maintain the priority of merit." Rome's view, which permits grace to be on the priority of merit calls something grace that is not grace.

And yet again:

He commendeth the grace whereby He calleth according to His own purpose. Of which purpose the apostle says, “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to those who are called according to the purpose of God,” [Rom. viii. 28.] to wit, the purpose of Him that calleth, not of those who are called; which is put still more clearly in another place in this way, “Labor together in the gospel according to the power of God, who saveth us and calleth us with His holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace.” [2 Tim. i. 8, 9.] For if our thoughts turn to the nature wherein we have been created, inasmuch as we were all created by the Truth, who is there that is not of the truth? But it is not all to whom it is given of the truth to hear, that is, to obey the truth, and to believe in the truth; while in no case certainly is there any preceding of merit, lest grace should cease to be grace. For had He said, Every one that heareth my voice is of the truth, then it would be supposed that he was declared to be of the truth because he conforms to the truth; it is not this, however, that He says, but, “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” And in this way he is not of the truth simply because he heareth His voice; but only on this account he heareth, because he is of the truth, that is, because this is a gift bestowed on him of the truth. And what else is this, but that by Christ’s gracious bestowal he believeth on Christ?

- Augustine, Tractate 115 on the Gospel of John, Section 4 (footnotes placed in brackets)

In the above quotation, we see the similar expression: "while in no case certainly is there any preceding of merit, lest grace should cease to be grace."

Still further:

Now this election the Apostle demonstrating to be, not of merits going before in good works, but election of grace, saith thus: “And in this time a remnant by election of grace is saved. But if by grace, then is it no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.” [Rom. xi. 5, 6] This is election of grace; that is, election in which through the grace of God men are elected: this, I say, is election of grace which goes before all good merits of men. For if it be to any good merits that it is given, then is it no more gratuitously given, but is paid as a debt, and consequently is not truly called grace; where “reward,” as the same Apostle saith, “is not imputed as grace, but as debt.” [Rom. iv. 4] Whereas if, that it may be true grace, that is, gratuitous, it find nothing in man to which it is due of merit, (which thing is well understood in that saying, “Thou wilt save them for nothing,” [Psalm lvi. 7, Lat. and LXX. ὑπšρ τοῦ μηθενὸς σὡσεις αὐτούς. But Heb. and E.V. “shall they escape by iniquity?”]) then assuredly itself gives the merits, not to merits is given. Consequently it goes before even faith, from which it is that all good works begin. “For the just,” as is written, “shall live by faith.” [Habak. ii. 4] But, moreover, grace not only assists the just, but also justifies the ungodly. And therefore even when it does aid the just and seems to be rendered to his merits, not even then does it cease to be grace, because that which it aids it did itself bestow. With a view therefore to this grace, which precedes all good merits of man, not only was Christ put to death by the ungodly, but “died for the ungodly.” [Rom. v. 6] And ere that He died, He elected the Apostles, not of course then just, but to be justified: to whom He saith, “I have chosen you out of the world.” For to whom He said, “Ye are not of the world,” and then, lest they should account themselves never to have been of the world, presently added, “But I have chosen you out of the world;” assuredly that they should not be of the world was by His own election of them conferred upon them. Wherefore, if it had been through their own righteousness, not through His grace, that they were elected, they would not have been chosen out of the world, because they would already not be of the world if already they were just. And again, if the reason why they were elected was, that they were already just, they had already first chosen the Lord. For who can be righteous but by choosing righteousness? “But the end of the law is Christ, for righteousness is to every one that believeth. [Rom. x. 4] Who is made unto us wisdom of God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” [1 Cor. i. 30, 31] He then is Himself our righteousness.

- Augustine, On Patience, Section 17 (footnotes placed in brackets)

Again note Augustine's explanation: "For if it be to any good merits that it is given, then is it no more gratuitously given, but is paid as a debt, and consequently is not truly called grace ... ."

Further still:

Read with a little more attention its exposition in the treatise of the blessed martyr Cyprian, which he wrote concerning this matter, the title of which is, On the Lord’s Prayer; and see how many years ago, and what sort of an antidote was prepared against those poisons which the Pelagians were one day to use. For there are three points, as you know, which the catholic Church chiefly maintains against them. One of these is, that the grace of God is not given according to our merits; because even every one of the merits of the righteous is God’s gift, and is conferred by God’s grace. The second is, that no one lives in this corruptible body, however righteous he may be, without sins of some kind. The third is, that man is born obnoxious to the first man’s sin, and bound by the chain of condemnation, unless the guilt which is contracted by generation be loosed by regeneration. Of these three points, that which I have placed last is the only one that is not treated of in the above-named book of the glorious martyr; but of the two others the discourse there is of such perspicuity, that the above-named heretics, modern enemies of the grace of Christ, are found to have been convicted long before they were born. Among these merits of the saints, then, which are no merits unless they are the gifts of God, he says that perseverance also is God’s gift, in these words: “We say, ‘Hallowed be Thy name;’ not that we ask for God that He may be hallowed by our prayers, but that we beseech of Him that His name may be hallowed in us. But by whom is God sanctified, since He Himself sanctifies? Well, because He says, Be ye holy because I also am holy, we ask and entreat that we, who were sanctified in baptism, may persevere in that which we have begun to be.” [Cyprian, On the Lord’s Prayer; see The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. v. p. 450.] And a little after, still arguing about that self-same matter, and teaching that we entreat perseverance from the Lord, which we could in no wise rightly and truly do unless it were His gift, he says: “We pray that this sanctification may abide in us; and because our Lord and Judge warns the man that was healed and quickened by Him to sin no more, lest a worse thing happen unto him, we make this supplication in our constant prayers; we ask this, day and night, that the sanctification and quickening which is received from the grace of God may be preserved by His protection.” [Cyprian, On the Lord’s Prayer, as above.] That teacher, therefore, understands that we are asking from Him for perseverance in sanctification, that is, that we should persevere in sanctification, when we who are sanctified say, “Hallowed be Thy name.” For what else is it to ask for what we have already received, than that it be given to us also not to cease from its possession? As, therefore, the saint, when he asks God that he may be holy, is certainly asking that he may continue to be holy, so certainly the chaste person also, when he asks that he may be chaste, the continent that he may be continent, the righteous that he may be righteous, the pious that he may be pious, and the like,—which things, against the Pelagians, we maintain to be God’s gifts,—are asking, without doubt, that they may persevere in those good things which they have acknowledged that they have received. And if they receive this, assuredly they also receive perseverance itself, the great gift of God, whereby His other gifts are preserved.

- Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, Chapter 4 (Section II in the Latin)(footnotes placed in brackets)

Notice how in the above quotation, Augustine speaks exactly contrary to the Roman catechism. He declares that "perseverance in sanctification" is gracious and (consequently) not on account of merit. I don't expect anyone to agree with Augustine's definition of grace, simply because Augustine said it. Read Scripture (as Augustine would have wanted you to do) and see for yourself whether Augustine or the Roman Catholic Church is right about this issue.

Augustine tells us where he gets his ideas about grace: "From these and similar passages of Scripture, we gather the proof that God's grace is not given according to our merits." (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 13, (Section 6 in the Latin)) So, search the Scriptures and see whether these things be as we have told you. Scripture is what proved it to us and to Augustine, perhaps it will prove it to you as well, dear reader, if you do not already agree.

-TurretinFan

Footnote 1: "Official" in the sense of being a public teaching in an official document. The document itself, however, like the overwhelming majority of documents in Catholicism, does not purport to be infallible.

Footnote 2: Note that this compendium serves to explain how simultaneously Rome claims: "Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life." (CCC1996) If that statement were taken by itself, Rome would sound nearly orthodox in its theology of grace. The fact of the matter, however, is that such a definition is applied exclusively to what Rome calls "initial grace."

Footnote 3: Augustine's works are massive and imposing. I don't make this blog post out to be the last scholarly word on the subject. Perhaps I've missed something in my reading of Augustine that ends up undoing the force of the material he provides here.

Jonathan Prejean on John Calvin

Roman Catholic (calls himself "Crimson Catholic") Jonathan Prejean provides the following description of Calvin:

In my opinion, Calvin's Institutes is the equivalent of spiritual pornography, worse than anything you hear in 99% of Beatles' songs, and most people who read it aren't doing it as an example of Middle French theological literature or as a purely historical document. There's no doubt in my mind that God hates that book in terms of its theological content, because he hates evil, and that book teaches blasphemy and all sorts of other evils.

(source)

It's truly amazing how folks will rant against Calvin, but when you search their blog (link) for substantiation, you find it completely absent. Obviously, Mr. Prejean is stating his opinion, and yet one would hope that such a harshly negative opinion would have at least some relationship to reality.

Read a copy of the Institutes of the Christian Religion today and see for yourself whether Calvin blasphemes God in that book (html format - multiple formats at Archive - volume 1 - volume 2), or whether Mr. Prejean's opinion, while not slanderous (since it is only a statement of his opinion, not an assertion of fact - and since Calvin is dead), is gravely mistaken. And yes, this is one of the books that was on Rome's "Index of Prohibited Books" back when Rome thought such attempts might work.

-TurretinFan

Offered Often or Once?

We're sometimes told that it an incorrect "either/or" mentality that causes us to reject the sacrifices of the mass on the basis that Christ was offered only once and not often. Yet Scripture itself has that mentality.

Hebrews 9:24-28
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Notice that there is a continual either/or mentality exhibited in the text. Jesus is not in a holy place that men built (sorry, my Roman Catholic friends, he is not in your golden tabernacles) but in heaven itself. It is an either/or.

Again, it is not "often" like the priests of old but "once in the end of the world." It is not both, but either/or.

He will appear a second time, coming from heaven to judge the world in righteousness on the last day. That is when he will come back to earth, not pulled down by priestly incantations however biblical the words are that they utter.

The Bible expresses it in either/or terminology. You cannot have it both ways. The Bible says Jesus offered himself once. Rome says that Jesus offers himself daily, even while elsewhere inconsistently affirming the Biblical truth.

Example:

Of course, the most excellent prayer of all is the one offered daily at the altar by Christ Jesus, the High Priest, to God the Father when the holy sacrifice of Redemption is renewed.

- Pius XII, Fidei Donum, Section 52, 21 April 1957

And likewise:

Above all, you will be ministers of the Eucharist: you will receive this sacrament as a priceless inheritance in which the mystery of Christ’s sacrifice is renewed daily and the decisive event of his Death and Resurrection for the world’s salvation continues. You will celebrate the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine, as he himself offered it for the first time in the Upper Room, on the eve of his Passion. You will thus be personally associated with the mystery of the Good Shepherd, who lays down his life for his sheep.

- John Paul II, Priestly Ordinations, Section 2, 3 May 1988

And again:

The third end proposed is that of expiation, propitiation and reconciliation. Certainly, no one was better fitted to make satisfaction to Almighty God for all the sins of men than was Christ. Therefore, He desired to be immolated upon the cross "as a propitiation for our sins, not for ours only but also for those of the whole world" and likewise He daily offers Himself upon our altars for our redemption, that we may be rescued from eternal damnation and admitted into the company of the elect.

- Pius XII, Mediator Dei, Section 73, 20 November 1947

Alternatively, the priestly role is given to the church and specifically the priests, but still it is a daily thing:

Example:

There is one amongst all others, the loss of which is more deplorable than words can express; We allude to the most holy Sacrifice in which Jesus Christ, both Priest and Victim, daily offers Himself to His Father, through the ministry of His priests on earth. By virtue of this Sacrifice the infinite merits of Christ, gained by His Precious Blood shed once upon the Cross for the salvation of men, are applied to our souls.

- Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium, Section 9, 25 July 1898

And again:

Without priests the Church would not be able to live that fundamental obedience which is at the very heart of her existence and her mission in history, an obedience in response to the command of Christ: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Mt. 28:19) and "Do this in remembrance of me" (Lk. 22:19; cf. 1 Cor. 11.24), i.e:, an obedience to the command to announce the Gospel and to renew daily the sacrifice of the giving of his body and the shedding of his blood for the life of the world.

- John Paul II, Pastores Dabo Vobis, Section 1, 25 March 1992

And similarly:

Most abundant, assuredly, are the salutary benefits which are stored up in this most venerable mystery, regarded as a Sacrifice; a Sacrifice which the Church is accordingly wont to offer daily "for the salvation of the whole world."

- Leo XIII, Mirae Caritatis, Section 17, 28 May 1902

And consequently we even see this embodied in Canon law:

they are to nourish their spiritual life from the two-fold table of sacred scripture and the Eucharist; therefore, priests are earnestly invited to offer the eucharistic sacrifice daily and deacons to participate in its offering daily;

- Code of Canon Law, Book 2, Part 1, Title, 3, Chapter 3, Canon 276, Section 2, Subsection 2

Offered once or offered often? You can pick the Bible or you can pick Roman Catholic theology, but since the Bible expresses itself in a mutually exclusive way, you cannot have it both ways. It is not both once and often, but only either once or often. The Old Covenant sacrifices were often, the New Covenant sacrifice is once for all time. While Roman Catholic theology will affirm that Christ is offered once for all (in some places), in many other places (some of which are illustrated above) Rome makes the offering of Christ a daily event, not a once-for-all event. As such, Rome's theology is unbiblical and ought to be rejected and/or reformed.

-TurretinFan

Non Sequitur Illustrated

Here is a classic non sequitur: "The biggest reason I think that Protestantism lies at the heart of relativism is this. Protestants are in the awkward position of saving, 'All of Christendom c. 1516 and before, you all misunderstand Christianity!'" (Joe Heschmeyer at Shameless Popery) Leaving aside the ridiculous claim that Protestantism has to make such an assertion, there is simply no connection between that assertion and relativism. Quite to the contrary, claims that we understand correctly and someone else understands incorrectly is an absolutist claim, not a relativist claim. The blog is aptly titled, no doubt, and despite the link for those wishing to verify the accuracy of the quotation, I don't endorse his post or blog in any way.

-TurretinFan

The real Francis Turretin on: The Mosaic Covenant

Michael Brown at Pilgrim People has an interesting post in which he discusses the real Francis Turretin's view of the Mosaic covenant (aka Siniatic Covenant)(link). I believe that the Thomas Goodwin blog actually delved into this subject a bit more deeply a while back (post 1 - post 2), nevertheless it is still an interesting topic. Brown is in the midst of an ongoing (I think) series on the topic of the relationship of the Mosaic covenant to the covenant of grace and the covenant of works. His blog seems to have a bit of the two-kingdoms and redemptive-historical influence, but there is a lot of interesting reading material to be found there.

-TurretinFan

Allah said it?

Muslims sometimes (see footnote 1) make the claim:

We should read the Quran believing this is Allah speaking to us, because that is what it is. It is Allah talking to us directly.

(source)

Similarly:

Islam is unique among the Abrahamic religions in its understanding of sacred scripture. While the Hebrew and Christian scriptures contain an occasional direct quotation by the divinity (e.g., “And I heard the voice of the L-rd, saying, . . . ‘ Isaiah 6.8; “but [the Lord] said to me, . . . “ Galatians 12.9), these scriptures contain primarily narration, poetry, wisdom, sermon, instruction and epistle written in the third person. Only the Glorious Qur’an consists entirely of Allah speaking for himself in the first person. This direct identification of the Arabic words of the Qur’an with Allah has profound implications for communication and rhetoric in the Islamic world.

(source)

This kind of claims create serious problems from the very start of the Koran. Recall that the Koran begins with a chapter called "Al-Fatiha" (The Opening).

That chapter includes the following verse:

إِيَّاك نَعْبُدُ وإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِين

The translation of this is: "You alone we worship, and You alone we ask for help"

Everyone who reads this recognizes that there are essentially two options:

1) These are the words of a man worshiping Allah; or

2) These are the words of Allah worshiping someone else.

Given the rest of Islamic theology (2) is wrong, and consequently (1) is really the only option. But if (1) is the option, then this is not the literal words of Allah, but the words of someone speaking to Allah. You might think (see footnote 2) that this would be readily admitted by everyone, but surprisingly I have observed this issue be disputed. The response given was "you can see it's a prayer, you can see it's a prayer," which is not really a matter of any dispute.

It is alleged (though I have not been able to find confirmation of this) that some copies of the Koran inserted the word "say" at the beginning of this chapter, so that the words would be Allah's words telling people how to praise him. No "say," however, is found in the most popular edition of the Koran today.

It is also alleged that the entire surah "Al-Fatiha" (the Opening) is a later (yet pre-Uthmanic) addition to the Koran. Even if we left out "Al-Fatiha" from our consideration, one does find "Allah" speaking in the third person (not just the first person) in other places in the Koran, such as:

From Surah 2, "The Cow,"
243 Have you not considered those who went forth from their homes, for fear of death, and they were thousands, then Allah said to them, Die; again He gave them life; most surely Allah is Gracious to people, but most people are not grateful.

The Bible is superior to the Koran in many ways. One way is that it teaches that prophecy does not have its origins in man's will, but yet it is the product of men speaking. As Scripture says:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Where is any teaching like that in the Koran? Where is a proper understanding of the way by which God's revelation is conveyed through the prophets?

-TurretinFan

Footnote 1: There are a very large number of Muslims. Some say 1 billion. There is simply no way that the positions identified above are held by all 1 billion of them.

Footnote 2: Most of the usual readers of my blog are not Muslims.

Internet Calvinism or Internet Lumpkinsianism

Peter Lumpkins claims that:

The situation has improved somewhat on both sides now. However, websites like Triablogue offer the worst possible example of sectarian Reformed theology and thinking. The recent post entitled "The neo-Manicheans" surely stands as the quintessential rubbish plaguing otherwise sound Calvinistic thinking today (//link). To argue as does the author that James Arminius in particular and contemporary Arminianism in general are essentially Manichean is too historically ignorant for words.

(source)

Of course, Mr. Lumpkins doesn't care to include things like supporting arguments. That would be far too Calvinistic.

Nor does he care to actually delve into an analysis of the article that goes beyond reading the headline. That type of depth of reading and analysis, no doubt, would be far too much like those evil Internet Calvinists.

No, Internet Lumpkinsianism is so much better: you just insult someone with colorful verbiage, demonstrating that the extent of your perusal was the title of their post, and go merrily on your way. Why "Lumpkinsianism" instead of Arminianism? Because most Internet Arminians are at least able to demonstrate that they read articles that they flame.

-TurretinFan

N.B. For the reading-impaired - this post relies heavily on mockery of a flaming post with no substance. I'm not seriously suggesting that anyone should engage in Lumpkinsianism. I'm also not disagreeing with the idea that if one wants to learn about Calvinism, one should not rely solely on the blogosphere, but one should get a book (such as Turretin's Institutes, Calvin's Institutes, Witsius' Economies, or Hodge's Systematic Theology.

A Day in God's Courts is Better than 1000 Elsewhere

A friend recently asked, in the comment box, for me to comment on the following verse:

Psalm 84:10 For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

For context, I provide the entirety of Psalm 84 below:

{To the chief Musician upon Gittith, A Psalm for the sons of Korah.}

How amiable are thy tabernacles, O LORD of hosts! My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God. Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King, and my God. Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah.

Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them. Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools. They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God. O LORD God of hosts, hear my prayer: give ear, O God of Jacob. Selah.

Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed. For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness. For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly. O LORD of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee.

It's important to recall who the sons of Korah were:

1 Chronicles 9:19 And Shallum the son of Kore, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah, and his brethren, of the house of his father, the Korahites, were over the work of the service, keepers of the gates of the tabernacle: and their fathers, being over the host of the LORD, were keepers of the entry.

These were the sons of Korah. They were men who had very administrative tasks within the tabernacle worship in the Old Testament. They were not priests. In fact, when these roles were announced, Korah became famous because he tried to rebel against this menial role, suggesting that his family was just as holy as Aaron's. God judged him and his fellow rebels dramatically, the earth opening up and swallowing them.

The sons of Korah are designated in the headings of Psalms 42, 44-49, 84-85, and 87-88. Of those only Psalm 84 makes specific mention of the occupation of the sons of Korah, and yet one wonders whether this designation in the heading means that these Psalms were sung specifically by the door-keepers of the tabernacle and later temple.

In fact, what is interesting is that of all the titles, the only other personal designation is the heading of Psalm 72, namely "for Solomon," with the designation of Psalm 92, "A Psalm or Son for the sabbath day," being (it would seem) an occasional - not an anthropomorphic designation. This understanding seems to be confirmed by the designation "To the chief musician" which appears in the title of all of the Korahite psalms except 48 and 87, whereas the designation "To the chief musician" appears in just under a third of the psalms (forty six have that designation).

Some view this psalm as mournful, but it seems from what I can see that this psalm is jubilant. The psalm beings with rejoicing over how pleasant it is to be in God's tabernacle, in the symbolic place of his presence. That theme is mentioned again in verse 3 (the altars were in the tabernacle), then in verse 4 (house = tabernacle), and again in verse 10 (our focus). The title "LORD of hosts" is one of high praise for the might and power of God.

Verse 2 conveys in strong terms the desire (kâsaph) which is described as one that brings about fainting (kâlâh) and that causes one to shout (rânan) for the living God.

Verse 3 emphasizes the safety of being near God. The swallow and sparrow are timid birds, and consequently if they build their nests on the altar of God, that must be a safe place.

Verse 4 reiterates the them of verse 1 about it being wonderful to be in God's house.

Verse 5 takes the same idea and turns it a bit, pointing out that it is blessed to trust in God and to follow the paths of God.

Verse 6 points out that God provides for those following the path of God, and

Verse 7 completes that thought by teaching perseverance of the saints, namely that all those that follow God go to Zion, the picture of heaven.

Verse 8 seems to mark the end of the first prayer of the psalm with a request that God would hear the prayer.

Verse 9 begins the second prayer of the psalm, noting the protection that God provides and asking him to look on the face of "thine anointed." The primary significance of this "annointed" may be David. While this Psalm does not state its human author, it is frequently David, in the Psalms, to which that expression refers. (See Psalm 18:50, Psalm 89:20, and Psalm 132:10) Possibly, alternatively, though they were not priests, the sons of Korah may have been anointed when they came to serve the tabernacle. Nevertheless, the spiritual significance would seem to be Christ (which is translated as "anointed"). When God looks upon the face of Christ, he shows mercy.

Verse 10, as worded in the KJV, is a bit confusing to an English-speaker. Surely the idea is not that one day in God's courts are better than to be in God's courts for a thousand days. Instead, the idea is that one day in God's courts is better than a thousand elsewhere. We see this from the Hebrew parallelism in the second half of the verse, where the explanation is provided that the person would rather be a doorkeeper in God's house than to dwell in "tents of wickedness."

Verse 11 provides the explanation, which ties back to the beginning of the second prayer, namely that God is a shield as well as adding that God is a sun (in contrast to God being water in the valley of Baca). The verse continues by pointing out how God gives every good thing to those who "walk uprightly" which ties back to the earlier verses about following God's ways.

Verse 12 concludes by noting that those who trust in God are blessed.

Praise be to the Lord!

-TurretinFan

J.C. Ryle on the Idolatry of the Golden Calves

J.C. Ryle in his comments on idolatry, provided the following discussion relevant to my recent posts about the golden calves:

It is not necessary for a man to formally deny God and Christ, in order to be an idolater. Far from it. Professed reverence for the God of the Bible, and actual idolatry, are perfectly compatible. They have often gone side by side, and they still do so. The children of Israel never thought of renouncing God when they persuaded Aaron to make the golden calf. "These by thy gods," they said (thy Elohim), "which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." And the feast in honour of the calf was kept as a "feast unto the Lord" (Jehovah) (Exodus 32:4-5). Jeroboam, again, never pretended to ask the ten tribes to cast off their allegiance to the God of David and Solomon. When he set up the calves of gold in Dan and Bethel, he only said, "It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel (thy Elohim), which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" (1 Kings 12:28). In both instances, we should observe, the idol was not set up as a rival to God, but under the pretense of being a help—a steppingstone to His service. But, in both instances, a great sin was committed. The honor due to God was given to a visible representation of Him. The majesty of Jehovah was offended. The second commandment was broken. There was, in the eyes of God, a flagrant act of idolatry. Let us mark this well.

- J.C. Ryle, Knots Untied: Being Plain Statements on Disputed Points in Religion, pp. 401-02 (see a modernized version of this specific essay)

-TurretinFan

Antinomianism - The Other Side of the Island

If on one side of the island of Christianity there is the dangerous water of Legalism as taught not only by Rome but many others, there is also on the other side of the island the danger of Antinominianism. Mark Jones at Meet the Puritans provides a more complete explanation, including a quotation from the real Francis Turretin to assist the reader in distinguishing between Justification and the entirety of the New Covenant (link). Legalism suggests that men are justified by works, whereas Antinomianism has no use at all for the law in the life of a Christian. Both errors ought to be avoided.

Defining Hyper-Calvinism

John Sneed at Ministerial Meanderings provides a good (and much better, imho, than Phil Johnson's) definition of hyper-calvinism in a recent re-post (link). Also important is his post's emphasis on the need to be Biblical Christians, recalling that for us the Scripture is not just a rule of faith, but the rule of faith.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: Mr. Sneed mentions the "love of God for the non-elect" issue that is sometimes brought into the hyper-Calvinism discussion, normally without warrant. He doesn't really make that his definition (that I could see) and I didn't think it worthwhile mentioning that minor issue in his post. That said, plainly the two major points of his definition:

1) Teaching that God attains ends without means; and

2) Teaching that there is no need for evangelism,

hit two of the three main areas of hypercalvinism.

A third area would be teaching providence-favoring incompatibilism: the error of asserting that moral choice and divine Providence are incompatible, accepting Providence and consequently denying moral responsibility.

There are several things that are not properly classified as hypercalvinism:

1) Scrupling over words such as:
a) "Offer" of the Gospel (as long as one proclaims the gospel, refusal to use the word "offer" may make one unconfessional, but it does not make one an heretic);
b) "Common grace" (as long as one proclaims that God's providential dealings extend to both the elect and reprobate, one is not a heretic simply because one refuses to use the term "grace" for things other than saving grace);
c) "love of the reprobate" (there is no rule that says people have to use the adjective "love" to describe God's relationship toward those to whom he may give riches in this life but hell forever); and
d) "duty faith" (as long as one does not deny that faith is commanded by God, refusal to use the expression "duty faith" cannot be considered heretical).

2) Denying that non-Calvinists are unsaved. This is a rather extreme view, no doubt, but it is not what hyper-Calvinism is.

3) Being a big meanie. Remarkably, in some circles, I've seen this used. Don't be a big meanie, but if you are one, that doesn't make you a hyper-calvinist.

Hays on the Atonement

Steve Hays at Triablogue has a succinct response to a commonly heard Wesleyan argument against limited atonement (link).

What About King Saul?

In response to my post regarding the one true shepherd (Christ) as contrasted with the Roman bishop who seeks essentially to usurp that role (link to my post) I have received a rather typical response. Rather than beginning by characterizing the response, let me provide it to you:

In my reading of Catholic literature, I have never came across any author/theologian/bishop who has denied the fact that our Lord, Jesus Christ is the “single chief Shepard” of His Church. Yet with that said, I also do not of know any Catholic author/theologian/bishop who would deny that there is one true King of God’s Kingdom; and yet, Scripture speaks of many who were anointed as kings of God’s earthly Kingdom. If the one, true, single King can (and did) appoint earthly representatives to the position of king, why is the notion that He has appointed an earthly chief shepherds such a difficult concept for you?

(Comment by Roman Catholic David Waltz - spelling, grammar, and any other errors are his)

Now that you've already read the comment, I'll provide my commentary on it. As I will show below, the comment contains misdirection/misinformation, scriptural confusion, ecclesiastical confusion, and confusion of reasoning. What's sad is that this response (while it comes from someone who has not, to my knowledge, promoted himself as an apologist for his church) is not far from the typical response we see on this matter, and consequently worthy of a thorough response.

I. Misdirection / Misinformation

The first stage of the comment is misdirection and/or misinformation. No one, we are told, denies that Jesus is the single chief Shepherd. Here's the problem, while there may be folks who claim that Jesus is the chief Shepherd, an official position ("official" in the sense that it is to be found in a papal encyclical, which - of course - is different from it being a de fide dogma) is that, on earth, the pope replaces Jesus:

Whoever, by Divine Commission, takes the place on earth of Jesus Christ, becomes thereby the Chief Shepherd who, far from being able to rest content with simply guiding and protecting the Lord's Flock which has beer; [sic for "been"] confided to him to rule, fails in his special duty and obligations if he does not strive by might and main to win over and to join to Christ all who are still without the Fold.

- Pius XI, Rerum Ecclesiae, Section 1, 28 February 1926

That was not a one-time slip-up. We see the same title applied again to the Roman bishop (by himself):

Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion.

- Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, Section 11, 1 June 1928

This is not something that has disappeared with Vatican 2:

It is in friendship and brotherhood that I come to you today, desiring to strengthen the respect and love that unites us. But I come especially as chief Shepherd of the Catholic Church, to make a pastoral visit in this land.

- John Paul II, Address of John Paul II at the Arrival in Papua New Guinea, Section 2, 7 May 1984 (emphasis in original)

Perhaps even more clearly than in any of the above quotations, we see the matter expressed in an approved quotation from Bernard of Clairvaux (lived about A.D. 1090 – 1153), sometimes called "the last of the fathers":

Then he addresses to him these powerful words: "Who art thou.? [sic] Thou art the High Priest and the Sovereign Pontiff. Thou art the prince of pastors and the heir of the apostles . . . by thy jurisdiction, a Peter; and by thy unction, a Christ. Thou art he to whom the keys have been delivered and the sheep entrusted. There are indeed other gate-keepers of heaven, and there are other shepherds of the flock; but thou art in both respects more glorious than they in proportion as thou hast inherited a more excellent name. They have assigned to them particular portions of the flock, his own to each; whereas thou art given charge of all the sheep, as the one Chief Shepherd of the whole flock. Yea, not only of the sheep, but of the other pastors also art thou the sole supreme Shepherd."[34] And again: "He who wishes to discover something which does not belong to thy charge, will have to go outside the world."[35]
[34] Ibid. [De Consid.], II, c. 8; Migne, P. L., CLXXXII, 751-c, d.
[35] Ibid., III, c. L; Migne, P. L., CLXXXII, 757-b.

- Pius XII, Doctor Mellifluus (aka Bernard of Clairvaux), Section 25, 24 May 1953 (quotations taken from Bernard - elipsis in original)

Without a doubt, while Roman bishops (and others in that church) may often refer to Jesus as the "chief shepherd" they also claim that title for themselves, even to the point of acknowledging that they view themselves as being in the place of Christ. As with so many issues, they may attempt to deny that it is a contradiction that both they and Jesus be the "sole supreme Shepherd" but eventually folks see through that charade.

II. Scriptural Confusion

Next, we are presented with Scriptural confusion. We are given an argument from analogy, namely that Saul, David, and Solomon were kings over Israel, and consequently that a single earthly sovereign over the church is acceptable to God. The thickets of error are thick here. Let's try to cull through them:

(1) Analogy to Israel's Kings is Correct

1 Samuel 8:4-9
Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him, "Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations." But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, "Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them."

Israel's human kings were a symbol of their rejection of God. We agree with the analogy to the appointment of a human pontiff over the church. It too is a sign of a rejection of God. Because they will not truly have Jesus to be the head of their church, they seek an earthly head when they should be content with rule by elders and God.

(2) Why not High (or "chief") Priest Analogy?

What is odd about the analogy to the kings is not so much the ignorance of the Scriptural condemnation of Israel's human regime, but overlooking the more obvious parallel of chief priest. There was a chief priest in the Old Covenant, why couldn't there be one in the New?

After all, the title of "chief priest" is also not something that Roman pontiff has failed to appropriate for himself:

But since the successor of Peter is one, and those of the Apostles are many, it is necessary to examine into the relations which exist between him and them according to the divine constitution of the Church. Above all things the need of union between the bishops and the successors of Peter is clear and undeniable. This bond once broken, Christians would be separated and scattered, and would in no wise form one body and one flock. "The safety of the Church depends on the dignity of the chief priest, to whom if an extraordinary and supreme power is not given, there are as many schisms to be expected in the Church as there are priests" (S. Hieronymus, Dialog, contra Luciferianos, n. 9).

Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, Section 14, 29 June 1896

(As an aside, Jerome's reference to "chief priest" there is not to the Roman Bishop but to every bishop: "The well-being of a Church depends upon the dignity of its chief-priest, and unless some extraordinary and unique functions be assigned to him, we shall have as many schisms in the Churches as there are priests. Hence it is that without ordination and the bishop's license neither presbyter nor deacon has the power to baptize." (Jerome, Dialog Against the Luciferians, Section 9) Thus, it is a misleading use of the quotation. In the text of the dialog itself, moreover, Jerome refers to orthodoxy (not a man) as the chief priest: "For the Holy Ghost must have a clean abode: nor will He become a dweller in that temple which has not for its chief priest the true faith." (Jerome, Dialog Against the Luciferians, Section 9))

Nevertheless, notice that Leo XIII plainly applies the title his own office. So, it would not be totally surprising if the commenter had made this analogy likewise. Why, then, did he not use it?

Perhaps the reason is that Hebrews makes clear that Christ fulfills the role of the Old Testament high priest. We see this several times:

Hebrew 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 3:1-2
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

Hebrews 4:14-15
Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews 5:10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 7:26-27
For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Hebrews 8:1-2
Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

Hebrews 9:11-12
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Hebrews 10:19-22
Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

These passages make it abundantly clear that Christ himself is the high priest of the New Covenant, and that consequently there is no room for another high priest, and especially not a merely human high priest. This presumably explains why our Roman Catholic commentator was reluctant to make such a claim and analogical comparison.

(3) Christ our King

What the commenter has overlooked, however, is that Christ is likewise the fulfillment of the kings of Israel. He is not only the high priest but he is also the King. Jesus has not only the Melchizedek priesthood but the Davidic throne.

Luke 1:32-33
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.

This was a fulfillment of God's promise to David:

Psalm 132:11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.

As also prophesied by the great prophet Isaiah:

Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

And Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 33:14-21:

"Behold, the days come," saith the LORD, "that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, 'The LORD our righteousness.'" For thus saith the LORD; "David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually."
And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, "Thus saith the LORD; 'If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.'"

Jesus is that "Branch" that fulfills the promise to David and the priests. Jesus is both our King and High Priest, the fulfillment of both those types and shadows.

We see the same thing prophesied in Zechariah.

Zechariah 6:9-13:

And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, "Take of them of the captivity, even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon, and come thou the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah; then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest; and speak unto him, saying, 'Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD: even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.'"

This prophesy had its first fulfilment in a man named Joshua the son of Josedech, but its primary fulfillment was in Jesus Christ, who rebuilt the temple of his own body in three days and is now seated at the right hand of God the Father.

As Peter preached, Acts 2:30-32:

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

We also find confirmation in other passages:

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Hebrews 8:1-2
Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

Hebrews 10:12-13
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Indeed, Jesus is our eternal King:

Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

III. Ecclesiastical Confusion

(1) Limits on the Pride of the Popes

Now while the popes have exalted themselves, thinking to place themselves as governors over the Church of God, I have yet to find a place where one referred to himself as "King" of the church. Perhaps it is there in some place that I have yet to find, but none has been so bold in recent memory. Was David a divinely ordained king? Yes. Is the pope? Certainly not, nor (apparently) does he even blasphemously take such a title on himself, whatever analogies his servants may use.

(2) Chief Steward Analogy?

More frequently, Rome's apologists will attempt to make the analogy that although perhaps the pope cannot be the king of the church, he can be a sort of vice-roy or prime minister. They attempt to assert that the "power of the keys" has something to do with this notion, attempting to make a connection to a reference in Isaiah regarding someone who had the "key of David." I've discussed this more fully in a previous post (link), but suffice to say that this old testament prophecy:

Isaiah 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

had a preliminary fulfillment at the time, and a primary fulfillment in Christ, as it is written:

Revelation 3:7-8
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.

IV. Confusion of Reasoning

I was going to call this section "rational confusion," for the sake of parallelism, but the connotation in English would be wrong. The confusion of reasoning in this comment lies in trying to change the question from "did" to "could." Since, by now, the comment may no longer be fresh in your mind, I'll remind you what he said: "If the one, true, single King can (and did) appoint earthly representatives to the position of king, why is the notion that He has appointed an earthly chief shepherds [sic] such a difficult concept for you?"

Notice how the comment seems to argue (implicitly, of course) from the idea that God could appoint a king while still being the one true King, to the idea that God did (just assumed, not demonstrated) appoint an earthly chief shepherd. From a logical standpoint, that misses the main argument by simply assuming what needs to be demonstrated. It needs to be demonstrated that God did appoint such a chief shepherd.

What's worse about this argument is that it opens a really unnecessary can of worms, but doesn't close it. Is it really possible for there to be one earthly head of the church? The argument from analogy has failed, as we saw above. Furthermore, while God is omnipotent, if appointing such an earthly monarch over the church would tread on Christ's unique prerogatives, then it would certainly be impossible for God to do what our commenter suggests, because it would violate God's character.

The final confusion of reasoning is the commenter's attempt to suggest that non-acceptance of Rome's claims is the result not of Rome having a weak argument, but of a flaw in the critic. While a comment such as, "such a difficult concept for you?" may sometimes be justified (particularly after a thorough and logical explanation has been provided) it is easy to abuse it, substituting this kind of remark for an argument in support of the thesis being considered.

Conclusion

The comments have been addressed, and it has been shown that they were misleading, confused (both Scripturally and ecclesiastically), and illogical. There is no reasonable defense for the Roman bishop's attempted usurpation either of Christ's unique role as Shepherd, nor of his unique role of King and Priest, which are connected to that Shepherdly role. Likewise, as well, though we have not discussed it above, we might add that the Roman magisterium (by adding to the Word of God) treads also on Christ's prophetic role. Hopefully the demonstration above will help to shed some light on the errors in the typical response to the idea that the pope is somehow analogous to the kings of Israel, and perhaps it will open some eyes as to the usurpation in which the papacy is involved.

-TurretinFan

John XXIII on the Sacraments, the Mass, and the Priesthood

The following are a pair of consecutive items (quoted in full) from the papal encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram, by pope John XXIII, on 29 June 1959. J23 writes:

74. As for unity of worship, the Catholic Church has had seven sacraments, neither more nor less, from her beginning right down to the present day. Jesus Christ left her these sacraments as a sacred legacy, and she had never ceased to administer them throughout the Catholic world and thus to feed and foster the supernatural life of the faithful.

75. All this is common knowledge, and it is also common knowledge that only one sacrifice is offered in the Church. In this Eucharistic sacrifice Christ Himself, our Salvation and our Redeemer, immolates Himself each day for all of us and mercifully pours out on us the countless riches of His grace. No blood is shed, but the sacrifice is real, just as real as when Christ hung from a cross of Calvary.

(source - official Vatican website)

I. Exactly Seven Sacraments - 12th Century not 1st Century

As for J23's claim "As for unity of worship, the Catholic Church has had seven sacraments, neither more nor less, from her beginning right down to the present day," the claim is so historically untenable as to be naive at best. The "exactly seven sacraments" idea is the product of the 12th century, with Peter Lombard receiving the credit or blame for that doctrinal innovation (with Otto of Bamberg sometimes being given some secondary credit).

II. One Sacrifice - Many Sacrifices - Repetition - Perpetuation

J23's claim that "only one sacrifice is offered in the Church" has become popular these days among Roman Catholic apologists. Indeed, it is so emphasized that one can scarcely find a Roman Catholic these days who will acknowledge the concept of the "sacrifices of the mass" (plural).

What does J23 mean by what he says?

What he says in that sentence has to be harmonized with his other statement in the same section: "Christ Himself ... immolates Himself each day for all of us." That's where we encounter the repetition of the sacrifice. Most people don't have the word "immolate" in their daily vocabulary. Here's a standard definition:

IM'MOLATE, v.t. [L. immolo, to sacrifice; in and mola,meal sprinkled with salt, which was thrown on the head of the victim.]

1. To sacrifice; to kill, as a victim offered in sacrifice.

2. To offer in sacrifice.

(Webster's 1828 Dictionary)

To immolate means to slay - to kill - as a sacrificial victim. The idea that Christ is sacrificing himself daily is basis for viewing each mass as a sacrifice. The result is that Christ is immolated not once on Calvary but innumerable times.

In what sense then is there one sacrifice in Catholicism? You will be hard-pressed for a detailed explanation from the Roman pontiff. One way of looking it at is as there being only one category of sacrifice: there is no sacrifice of sheep, goats, or oxen, only of Christ.

Another way of looking at it is as a repetition of Christ's sacrifice. While this terminology is currently disfavored in Roman Catholic theology, we find it expressed plainly even in the fairly recent writings:

28 Just as Moses with the blood of calves had sanctified the Old Testament, (Cf. Ex 24,8) so also Christ Our Lord, through the institution of the Mystery of the Eucharist, with His own Blood sanctified the New Testament, whose Mediator He is. For, as the Evangelists narrate, at the Last Supper "He took bread, and blessed and broke it, and gave it to them, saying: "This is My Body, given for you; do this for a commemoration of Me. And so with the cup, when supper was ended. This cup, he said, is the New Testament, in My Blood which is to be shed for you.'" (Lc 22,19-20; cf. Mt 26,26-28 Mc 14,22-24) And by bidding the Apostles to do this in memory of Him, He made clear His will that the same sacrifice be forever repeated.

(Mysterium Fidei, Paul VI, 3 September 1965)

However, in "ecumenical" materials we find explicit disclaimer of this sort of claim:

In other words, we are sacramentally united with Christ, as his body, in the great single act of his sacrifice, by which he entered into glory.[108] There can never be any repetition of that act; it happened once and for all (Hebrews 10:10).

- The Grace Given You in Christ, (connected to dialog with World Methodist Council), Section 131, 2006

And previously in the same dialog:

Roman Catholics can happily accept all these senses of the term, but they are also accustomed to speak of the sacrifice of the Mass as something which the church offers in all ages of her history. They see the eucharist not as another sacrifice adding something to Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, nor as a repetition of it, but as making present in a sacramental way the same sacrifice.

- The Dublin Report (connected to dialog with World Methodist Council), Section 66, 1976

Similarly:

We agree that the Eucharist is the memorial (anamnesis) of the crucified and risen Christ, of the entire work of reconciliation God has accomplished in him.[84] By memorial, Anglicans and Catholics both intend not merely a calling to mind of what God has done in the past but an effectual sacramental proclamation, which through the action of the Holy Spirit makes present what has been accomplished and promised once-and-for-all. In this sense, then, there is only one historical, unrepeatable sacrifice, offered once for all by Christ and accepted once for all by the Father, which cannot be repeated or added to.[85] The eucharistic memorial, however, makes present this once-and-for-all sacrifice of Christ. It is therefore possible to say that “the Eucharist is a sacrifice in the sacramental sense, provided that it is clear that this is not a repetition of the historical sacrifice.”[86] “In the Eucharistic Prayer, the Church continues to make a perpetual memorial of Christ’s death, and his members, united with God and one another, give thanks for all his mercies, entreat the benefits of his passion on behalf of the whole Church, participate in these benefits, and enter into the movement of his self-offering.”[87] The action of the Church in the eucharistic celebration “adds nothing to the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross” but is rather a fruit of that sacrifice. In the eucharistic celebration Christ’s one sacrifice is made present for us.[88]

- Growing Together in Unity and Mission (connected with dialog with Anglicans), Chapter 5, Section 40

Yet we see much the same thought even after the dialog, although the word choice has changed so that we see it expressed as a "renewal":

He also instituted the priesthood as a sacrament of the New Covenant, so that the one sacrifice he offered to the Father in a bloody manner might be continually renewed in the Church in an unbloody manner, under the appearances of bread and wine.

- John Paul II, Homily of 1 April 1999, Section 2

and as a "perpetuation":

This union of the Mother and the Son in the work of redemption(57) reaches its climax on Calvary, where Christ "offered himself as the perfect sacrifice to God" (Heb. 9:14) and where Mary stood by the cross (cf. Jn 19:25), "suffering grievously with her only-begotten Son. There she united herself with a maternal heart to His sacrifice, and lovingly consented to the immolation of this victim which she herself had brought forth"(58) and also was offering to the eternal Father."(59) To perpetuate down the centuries the Sacrifice of the Cross, the divine Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice, the memorial of His death and resurrection, and entrusted it to His spouse the Church,(60) which, especially on Sundays, calls the faithful together to celebrate the Passover of the Lord until He comes again.(61) This the Church does in union with the saints in heaven and in particular with the Blessed Virgin,(62) whose burning charity and unshakable faith she imitates.

- Marialis Cultis, Paul VI, 1974

Likewise:

The Eucharist is the very sacrifice of the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus which he instituted to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until his return in glory.

- Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Question 271

The preferred method of expression currently is that the Eucharist "makes present" the one sacrifice:

The Eucharist is a memorial in the sense that it makes present and actual the sacrifice which Christ offered to the Father on the cross, once and for all on behalf of mankind. The sacrificial character of the Holy Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution, “This is my Body which is given for you” and “This cup is the New Covenant in my Blood that will be shed for you” (Luke 22:19-20). The sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one and the same sacrifice. The priest and the victim are the same; only the manner of offering is different: in a bloody manner on the cross, in an unbloody manner in the Eucharist.

- Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Question 280

Similarly:

The Mass makes present the sacrifice of the Cross; it does not add to that sacrifice nor does it multiply it. What is repeated is its memorial celebration, its “commemorative representation” (memorialis demonstratio), which makes Christ's one, definitive redemptive sacrifice always present in time. The sacrificial nature of the Eucharistic mystery cannot therefore be understood as something separate, independent of the Cross or only indirectly referring to the sacrifice of Calvary.

- John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Chapter 1, Section 12 (17 April 2003)

But I have digressed. Consider the absurdity of the matter. Why would you need a memorial for something that is there? No one visits the memorial of a battle during the battle, and everyone recognizes that recreations or memorial representations of battles are not the real thing but a symbol or sign of the thing.

The reason for this bizarre claim that the sacrament is both the reality and a memorial is caused by Roman unwillingness to acknowledge her mistake in viewing each mass as a literal sacrifice of Christ. That view is wrong and inconsistent with there being only one sacrifice. The Scriptures plainly teach the "one sacrifice" view and Rome ought simply to submit to that, instead of trying to hold onto both views at the same time.

-TurretinFan

Rufinus on the Creed, the Canon, and the Church

Further to my previous post (link), it is probably worthwhile providing a much longer extract from Rufinus with respect to his discussion of the Creed (capitals are found in the translation from which this is taken, and seems to indicate where Rufinus is quoting the creed):

35. Let this be enough on this subject. Next in the order of belief comes, AND IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. The detailed, rather lengthy account of Christ recorded above has reference to the mystery of His incarnation and passion. Being taken in connection with His person, it has formed an interruption which has held up my discussion of the Holy Spirit. If our theme were exclusively the Godhead, we should say at the outset, I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, and then, IN JESUS CHRIST, HIS ONLY SON, OUR LORD: then in exactly the same way we should, without more ado, append, AND IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. All the intervening allusions to Christ, as I have pointed out, are concerned with His incarnate state. Consequently, we complete the mystery of the Trinity with our mention of the Holy Spirit. Just as we speak of the Father as one, there being no other Father, and of the only-begotten Son as one, there being no other only-begotten Son, so the Holy Spirit is also one, and there can be no other Holy Spirit. In order to bring out the distinction of Persons, you see, we employ separate terms expressive of relationship. Thus, He is to be taken as Father from whom are all things, and who Himself has no Father. The Third is the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as He proceeds from the mouth of God and sanctifies all things. At the same time, to emphasize the unity and identity of the Godhead in the Trinity, just as we say we believe IN GOD THE FATHER, prefixing the preposition IN, so we use the form IN CHRIST, HIS SON, and also IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. The meaning of what I have said will, however, be made plainer in the sequel.

36. Immediately after this clause follow the words, THE HOLY CHURCH, THE REMISSION OF SINS, THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH. The creed does not say: IN THE HOLY CHURCH, or IN THE REMISSION OF SINS, or IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH. Had the preposition been IN inserted, the force of these articles would have been identical with that of their predecessors. As it is, in the clauses in which our faith in the Godhead is laid down, we use the form, IN GOD THE FATHER, IN JESUS CHRIST HIS SON, and IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. In the other clauses, where the theme is not the Godhead but created beings and saving mysteries, the preposition IN is not interpolated. Hence we are not told to believe IN THE HOLY CHURCH, but that the Holy Church exists, speaking of it not as God, but as a Church gathered together for God. So Christians believe, not IN THE REMISSION OF SINS, but that there is a remission of sins, and not IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH, but that there is a resurrection of the flesh. Thus the effect of this monosyllabic preposition is to distinguish the Creator from His creatures, and to draw a boundary line between things divine and things human. It was this Holy Spirit, then, who inspired the Law and the Prophets in the Old Testament, and the Gospels and the Apostles in the New. So the Apostle remarks: All Scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach. Consequently, it seems appropriate at this point, basing myself on the records of the Fathers, to enumerate the books of the Old and New Testaments which, according to the tradition of our forefathers, are believed to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself and to have been entrusted by Him to the churches of Christ.

37. In the Old Testament, then, first of all five books by Moses have been handed down―Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; then Josue, the son of Nun, and Judges, together with Ruth; then four books of Kings, reckoned by the Jews as two, Paralipomenon [Chronicles], otherwise called the Book of Days; two books of Esdras, which the Jews count as one; and Esther. Of prophets we have Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, and, in addition, a single book of the Twelve Prophets. Job, also, and the Psalms of David are each of them one book. There are three which Solomon bequeathed to the churches, namely, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticle of Canticles. With these they completed the list of books belonging to the Old Testament. In the New there are four Gospels, those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles, composed by Luke; fourteen Epistles by the Apostle Paul; two by the Apostle Peter; one by James, brother of the Lord and Apostle; one by Jude; three by John; and the Apocalypse of John.

38. These are the writings which the Fathers included in the canon, and on which they desired the affirmations of our faith to be based. At the same time we should appreciate that there are certain other books which our predecessors designated ‘ecclesiastical’ rather than ‘canonical.’ Thus, there is the Wisdom of Solomon, as we call it; and another Wisdom, ascribed to the son of Sirach. This latter is known by the general title Ecclesiasticus among Latin-speaking people, the description pointing, not to the author of the book, but to the character of the writing. The Book of Tobias belongs to the same class, as do Judith and the books of the Machabees. In the New Testament we have the little work known as The Book of the Shepherd, or Hermas, and the book which is named The Two Ways, and The Judgment of Peter. They desired that all these should be read in the churches, but that appeal should not be made to them on points of faith. The other writings they designated ‘apocryphal,’ refusing to allow them to be read out in church. Such, the, is the traditional canon handed down to us by the Fathers. As I remarked above, I have thought this the proper place to draw attention to it for the information of catechumens receiving their first lessons in the Church and its faith, so that they may be in no doubt about the wellsprings from which their draughts of the word of God must be taken.

39. The next clause in the ordered statement of our faith runs, THE HOLY CHURCH. I have already explained in what precedes why they did not say IN THE HOLY CHURCH at this point too. So the faithful, having had the belief in one God mysteriously triune inculcated in the foregoing sections, are now in addition required to believe in the existence of one holy Church, a Church, that is, in which there is one faith and one baptism, and in which we believe in one God the Father, one Lord Jesus Christ His Son, and one Holy Spirit.

- Rufinus, A Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 35-39. (pp. 71-74 of J.N.D. Kelly's translation in Ancient Christian Writers, Volume 20)

(Thanks to David King for his assistance in identifying and transcribing this quotation.)

Believing About the Holy Catholic Church

Introduction

A perennial issue in our discussions with Roman Catholics is the issue of whether, in addition to believing God's word in Scripture, we ought also to trust (in a similar way) in the church. While nothing in Scripture suggests that the church is another rule of faith in addition to Scripture, such that we would accord the church the same credence we give to God and his written word, we are sometimes presented with folks who want to latch onto the creeds.

The so-called Apostles' Creed (not formulated by them, as some have supposed, but taken from the Scriptures that they left behind for us) includes a phrase regarding the "Holy Catholic Church," which is often seen as problematic for those who are unfamiliar with the meaning of the creed. The usual way in which this section of the creed is recited in English-speaking churches that recite it is thus:

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.

Grammar of the Creed
The grammar of the creed makes a distinction that is not immediately apparent in English. What we "believe in" is God. He is the one in whom we trust. Thus, we "believe in" the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In contrast, we believe that there is a holy catholic church (not the Roman Catholic church, but the universal body of Christ: all those who believe on the name of the Lord), that the saints (by which mean again those who believe) ought to commune together until the Lord's return, that sins are forgiven by God on the merits of Christ, that the body will be resurrected and re-united to the soul, and that heaven will be eternal. Thus, we are not saying that we trust in the church despite the ambiguity of the English wording (as well as the ambiguity of the wording of the Constantinoplean Creed).

Schaff's Explanation

Perhaps it would be helpful to have more than the word of a pseudonymous blogger on this grammatical point. In Creeds of Christendom, historian Philip Schaff explains it this way:

Then, changing the language (credo in for credo with the simple accusative), the Creed professes to believe 'the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.'

- Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Volume 1, Chapter 2, Section 7

Paschasius' or Faustus' Testimony

The significance of this distinction was not lost on the ancients. Indeed, when we draw this distinction (which today we refer to as Sola Scriptura) we are in agreement with those ancient Christians whose writings have survived (even one from the Rome of that day, which had not descended to the depths of Rome today):

Paschasius, Deacon of Rome (flourished about A.D. 491 - 512) wrote:

Therefore thou sayest, ‘I believe in the Holy Catholic Church,’ because, in supplying the little syllable in, dost thou attempt to produce great darkness? We believe the Catholic Church as the mother of regeneration; we do not believe in the Church as in the Author of salvation. For when the universal Church confesses this of the Holy Ghost, can she also believe in herself? ... He who believes in the Church believes in man. For man is not of the Church, but the Church began to be from man. Desist therefore from this blasphemous persuasion, to think that thou oughtest to believe in any human creature: since thou must not in anywise believe in an angel or archangel ... We believe the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, everlasting life ... The unskillfulness of some have drawn, and taken the preposition ‘in’ from the sentence going next before, and put it to that which follows, imprudently adding thereto more than needed.

- Paschasius, Deacon of Rome, Two Books on the Holy Spirit, Book 1, Chapter 1 (This work is sometimes alternatively ascribed to Faustus of Riez who flourished from about A.D. 433 - 485)

Rufinus' Testimony

We see the same thing from Rufinus, about a century earlier, who made roughly the same point.

Tyrannius Rufinus (lived about A.D. 344 - 410) explains with reference to the Apostles' creed:

“The Holy Church; The Forgiveness of Sin, the Resurrection of This Flesh.” It is not said, “In the holy Church,” nor “In the forgiveness of sins,” nor “In the resurrection of the flesh.” For if the preposition “in” had been added, it would have had the same force as in the preceding articles. But now in those clauses in which the faith concerning the Godhead is declared, we say “In God the Father,” and “In Jesus Christ His Son,” and “In the Holy Ghost,” but in the rest, where we speak not of the Godhead but of creatures and mysteries, the preposition “in ” is not added. We do not say “We believe in the holy Church,” but “We believe the holy Church,” not as God, but as the Church gathered together to God: and we believe that there is “forgiveness of sins;” we do not say “We believe in the forgiveness of sins;” and we believe that there will be a “Resurrection of the flesh;” we do not say “We believe in the resurrection of the flesh.” By this monosyllabic preposition, therefore, the Creator is distinguished from the creatures, and things divine are separated from things human.

- Rufinus of Aquileia, A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, Section 36

(for a larger context, see here)

Aquinas' Testimony

While we would certainly have some disagreements with the much later writings of Thomas Aquinas, we find some similar sentiments in his discussion:

Objection 5. Further, Augustine (Tract. xxix in Joan.) expounding the passage, "You believe in God, believe also in Me" (John 14:1) says: "We believe Peter or Paul, but we speak only of believing 'in' God." Since then the Catholic Church is merely a created being, it seems unfitting to say: "In the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."
...
Reply to Objection 5. If we say: "'In' the holy Catholic Church," this must be taken as verified in so far as our faith is directed to the Holy Ghost, Who sanctifies the Church; so that the sense is: "I believe in the Holy Ghost sanctifying the Church." But it is better and more in keeping with the common use, to omit the 'in,' and say simply, "the holy Catholic Church," as Pope Leo [Rufinus, Comm. in Sym. Apost.] observes.

- Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 2b, Question 1, Article 9

Notice how Aquinas agrees with the substance of the objection while seeking to find an acceptable sense for the words.

Conclusion

The idea of arguing that one should be "believe in" the church from the creed is an anachronistic misuse of the creed. It is as anachronistic as supposing that the term "Holy Catholic Church" was supposed to refer to the Roman Catholic church. Both the grammar of the creed (as noted by Schaff) as well as early Christian authors and even the most notable medieval scholastic.

With Alexander of Alexandria (died about A.D. 326), we affirm that we believe in the existence of only one body of Christ, relying on the authority of Scripture:

“And in addition to this pious belief respecting the Father and the Son, we confess as the Sacred Scriptures teach us, one Holy Ghost, who moved the saints of the Old Testament, and the divine teachers of that which is called the New. We believe in one only Catholic Church, the apostolical, which cannot be destroyed even though all the world were to take counsel to fight against it, and which gains the victory over all the impious attacks of the heterodox; for we are emboldened by the words of its Master, ‘Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world [John xvi. 33].’ After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God (ἐκ τῆς Θεοτόκου Μαρίας); in the fulness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead. He rose from the dead, was taken into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

- The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret, Chapter III, The Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople.

How can we know whether a church is part of the Church? If it is apostolical. How can we tell if something is apostolical? Look at the books left behind by the apostles. Human successors can pervert the path of those who went before them, but the unchanging Word of God found in Scripture is the alone reliable measure of apostolicity and catholicity (in the true sense of the term).

-TurretinFan