David's Relationship to God

Vox Veritatis has some thoughts on the problems with the English expression "Mother of God." (link to comments) Of course, there is an orthodox sense to the term (the orthodox sense is that Mary was the mother of Jesus, who is God incarnate), but the resultant expression is awkward at best.

The only argument for the expression is that Jesus is God, Jesus is the Son of Mary, therefore Mary is the mother of God. But Jesus is also the Son of David. Any takers for calling David "the Father of God" or the "Ancestor of God"?

Unsurprisingly, there are few takers for this kind of expression. The reason why is intuitive. It just sounds inappropriate. It similarly sounds inappropriate to call Mary the Mother of God (to those of us who have not become desensitized to the expression), since she did not provide Jesus' divinity: only Jesus' humanity was taken from Mary.

- TurretinFan

Open Commenting Policy

I'm removing moderation from the comments section on this blog for a bit, to see how it goes. That means your comment will get published right away, in theory. It also means that if you post things that are insulting, off-topic, or whatever, I will need to proactively delete them instead of letting them sit in moderation. If folks abuse it, I'll go back to moderation.

The downside is that I may not notice that someone has commented, and consequently may not answer their comments, as I have tried to do previously. The good news, I guess, is that the number of comments in moderation (presently around 300 or so) should gradually decrease as I clear them out either by publishing them or rejecting them.

Happy commenting.

-TurretinFan

Does Rome Proclaim a False Gospel?

A seemingly simple question. I think a significant chunk of my readers would answer an unequivocal "No," and another chunk would answer a resounding "Yes!" But I've recently encountered some guy (like me, pseudonymous) who uses the nick "Truth Unites ... And Divides" who seems to have extraordinary trouble giving a straight answer to this question (link to discussion).

Rather than answer the question directly, he insisted that I need to imagine how several third parties would answer the question and that take that as his answer. Let's make this easy for TU&D. I'll answer the question directly, and if you can take a minute or two to answer the question directly, using one of the following:

1. Yes, Rome proclaims a false gospel.

OR

2. No, Rome proclaims the Gospel of Christ.

OR

3. There's some third option.

OR

4. I don't know.

OR

5. I can't answer.

My answer is #1. Yes, Rome proclaims a false gospel.

Your turn, readers.

BTW, if Albert Mohler, Ligon Duncan, Tim Keller, or Niel Nielson are reading this blog (which I expect they are not), their answers would be especially appreciated.

Mariolatry Exemplified

Steve Hays (and others) have already pointed out a Roman Catholic Psalter to Mary (link to Steve Hays' post)(link to "psalter"). I'm not sure the depth of the blasphemy involved is fully appreciated by most readers. In the following post, I will give both some high level information as well as a specific example, so that it can be seen just how idolatrous this "Psalter" is.

I. High Level Comparison

Here are a few things to note: the psalter numbers the "psalms" 1-150, including multiple parts for the number corresponding to Psalm 119, as well as additional "canticles" designed to imitate various extra-psalter songs in Scripture. Not content with parodying (that's not really the right word, is it) Scripture, the "psalter" even comes up with a Marian version of the "Te Deum" (an ancient song attributed to Ambrose) and a Marian "creed" imitative of the Athanasian creed. It is not too extreme to say that if you wanted to worship Mary in the same way you worship God, this is how you would go about it.

II. Detailed Comparison By An Example

It is not simply a matter of copying the number of the psalms in the Psalter, but even the content of the Psalms is converted from worship of the LORD to worship of the Lady. Here's one example. First, the Psalm section (Schin from Psalm 119/118):

Psalm 119:161-168 (SCHIN)
Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy word.
I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil.
I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.
Seven times a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments.
Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
LORD, I have hoped for thy salvation, and done thy commandments.
My soul hath kept thy testimonies; and I love them exceedingly.
I have kept thy precepts and thy testimonies: for all my ways are before thee.

I've broken off the Psalm there, because it is the natural breaking point for that particular Psalm, based on the spelling of the first word of each line. In fact, as we'll note below, the author of the Marian "psalm" actually continues on a few verses further.

Below you will find the Marian version (designated Psalm 118J in the translation at this source). I've provided footnotes to assist the reader in further identifying how closely the "psalm" imitates the divinely inspired psalm.

Marian "Psalm" 118J
Princes have persecuted me without cause [FN1]: and the wicked spirit fears the invocation of thy name [FN2].
There is much peace to them that keep thy name [FN3], O Mother of God: and to them there is no stumbling-block [FN4].
At the seven hours I have sung praises to thee, O Lady [FN6]: according to thy word give me understanding [FN7].
Let my prayer come into thy sight [FN8], that I may not forsake thee, O Lady, all the days of my life[FN9]: for thy ways are mercy and truth [FN10].
I will long forever to praise thee, O Lady [FN11]: when thou shalt have taught me thy justifications [FN12].
Glory be to the Father, etc.

[FN1] Direct copy of Psalm 119:161.
[FN2] Seeming allusion to Deuteronomy 28:10 (Douay-Rheims Version) And all the people of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is invocated upon thee, and they shall fear thee. It would seem ironic as an adaptation of the remainder of Psalm 119:161.
[FN3] Adaptation of Psalm 119:165.
[FN4] The fact that this whole line is adapted from Psalm 119:165 becomes more apparent when one looks at the Douay-Rheims version of this verse: Psalm 119:165 (Douay-Rheims Version) Much peace have they that love thy law, and to them there is no stumbling-block.
[FN6] Adaptation of Psalm 119:164.
[FN7] Direct copy from second half of Psalm 119:169 (Douay-Rheims Version) Let my supplication, O Lord, come near in thy sight: give me understanding according to thy word.
[FN8] Adaptation from the first half of Psalm 119:69 (see FN7).
[FN9] The allusion here is not clear, perhaps: Isaiah 38:20 (Douay-Rheims Version) O Lord, save me, and we will sing our psalms all the days of our life in the house of the Lord. or
[FN10] Apparent allusion to Psalm 25:10 (Douay-Rheims Version) All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth, to them that seek after his covenant and his testimonies.
[FN11] Note FN12, but praising God forever may be found in various psalms. One example is Psalm 30:12 (Douay-Rheims Version, where it is numbered as verse 13) To the end that my glory may sing to thee, and I may not regret: O Lord my God, I will give praise to thee for ever.
[FN12] Adaptation from Psalm 119:171 (Douay-Rheims Version) My lips shall utter a hymn, when thou shalt teach me thy justifications.

For the reader's convenience, here is the Douay-Rheims version of the paraphrase/parodied/imitated portion in its entirety.

Psalm 119:161-171 (Douay-Rheims Version)
161 Princes have persecuted me without cause: and my heart hath been in awe of thy words.
162 I will rejoice at thy words, as one that hath found great spoil.
163 I have hated and abhorred iniquity; but I have loved thy law.
164 Seven times a day I have given praise to thee, for the judgments of thy justice.
165 Much peace have they that love thy law, and to them there is no stumbling. block.
166 I looked for thy salvation, O Lord: and I loved thy commandments.
167 My soul hath kept thy testimonies and hath loved them exceedingly.
168 I have kept thy commandments and thy testimonies: because all my ways are in thy sight.
169 Let my supplication, O Lord, come near in thy sight: give me understanding according to thy word.
170 Let my request come in before thee; deliver thou me according to thy word.
171 My lips shall utter a hymn, when thou shalt teach me thy justifications.

(I should point out that this sort of thing is a great example of why Calvin and the Puritans wanted to avoid hymns of human composition - while I should also point out that the abuse of human composition, as here, doesn't prove that the whole category of human composition is bad.)

- TurretinFan

Remembering Wrath

Don't forget about the wrath of God. In the King James Version, the phrase "wrath of God" appears ten times. For those of you who think that the wrath of God is primarily an Old Testament concept, prepare to be surprised. Only one of the ten instances is in the Old Testament. Of course, the concept itself does find frequent expression in the Old Testament, it is just that the precise phrase "wrath of God" is rarely used there.

1) Psalm 78:31 The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen [men] of Israel.

2) John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

3) Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

4) Ephesians 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

5) Colossians 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

6) Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

7) Revelation 14:19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast [it] into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

8) Revelation 15:1 And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

9) Revelation 15:7 And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever.

10) Revelation 16:1 And I heard a great voice out of the temple saying to the seven angels, Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

What about the "Wrath of the LORD" instead? That expression is found (in the KJV) only in the Old Testament, in thirteen instances. If you're keeping track, that's now 14 Old Testament references and 9 New Testament references.

11) Numbers 11:33 And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.

12) 2 Kings 22:13 Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.

13) 2 Chronicles 12:12 And when he humbled himself, the wrath of the LORD turned from him, that he would not destroy him altogether: and also in Judah things went well.

14) 2 Chronicles 28:11 Now hear me therefore, and deliver the captives again, which ye have taken captive of your brethren: for the fierce wrath of the LORD is upon you.

15) 2 Chronicles 29:8 Wherefore the wrath of the LORD was upon Judah and Jerusalem, and he hath delivered them to trouble, to astonishment, and to hissing, as ye see with your eyes.

16) 2 Chronicles 32:26 Notwithstanding Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the LORD came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah.

17) 2 Chronicles 34:21 Go, enquire of the LORD for me, and for them that are left in Israel and in Judah, concerning the words of the book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the LORD, to do after all that is written in this book.

18) 2 Chronicles 36:16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

19) Psalms 106:40 Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.

20) Isaiah 9:19 Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother.

21) Isaiah 13:13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

22) Jeremiah 50:13 Because of the wrath of the LORD it shall not be inhabited, but it shall be wholly desolate: every one that goeth by Babylon shall be astonished, and hiss at all her plagues.

23) Ezekiel 7:19 They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the LORD: they shall not satisfy their souls, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumblingblock of their iniquity.

Additionally, there is also usage of "Wrath of the Almighty" and "Wrath of the Lamb" with one instance in each testament, for a running tally of 15 Old Testament references and 10 New Testament references.

24) Job 21:20 His eyes shall see his destruction, and he shall drink of the wrath of the Almighty.

25) Revelation 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

Finally, there are instances of "wrath of our God" and "wrath of Almighty God" - again one in each testament, which brings the total to 16 and 11 instances respectively.

26) Ezra 10:14 Let now our rulers of all the congregation stand, and let all them which have taken strange wives in our cities come at appointed times, and with them the elders of every city, and the judges thereof, until the fierce wrath of our God for this matter be turned from us.

27) Revelation 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

There are, of course, other examples that could be given. One of God's attributes is wrath. And if you have not placed your confidence in the only mediator between God and man, trusting in him alone for salvation, you are under that wrath. The Lamb of God has been slain for the sins of the world, but the Lamb is coming back to judge the world.

Beware the wrath of the Lamb!

-TurretinFan

Shroud News

An ancient shroud has been found (link to story). One passage of the article was especially interesting:

Gibson said the remains of the man covered in the cloth consisted of different wrappings for the body and the head, which was consistent with burial practices of the era. He also said research had shown that the weave of the cloth was a simple one, much different from the more complex Shroud of Turin's.

The reason I thought this was interesting was that we know for a fact that Jesus was wrapped as in the article, not as the shroud depicts things:

John 20:6-7

Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

It should be pointed out that the shroud of Turin is one of those fringe areas of Roman Catholicism where "the Church" makes not guarantees about the authenticity but accepts devotion to the shroud as pious:

The Shroud is a challenge to our intelligence. It first of all requires of every person, particularly the researcher, that he humbly grasp the profound message it sends to his reason and his life. The mysterious fascination of the Shroud forces questions to be raised about the sacred Linen and the historical life of Jesus. Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet, which, according to tradition, wrapped the body of our Redeemer after he had been taken down from the cross. The Church urges that the Shroud be studied without pre-established positions that take for granted results that are not such; she invites them to act with interior freedom and attentive respect for both scientific methodology and the sensibilities of believers.

- John Paul II, 24 May 1998 address at Turin
And again, the same day, in another address:

I am pleased once again to greet everyone present, starting with the Archbishop of Turin, dear Cardinal Giovanni Saldarini, together with the Bishops of Piedmont and the civil authorities present, including the representative of the Italian Government, to whom I extend a special greeting. I greet the clergy, the religious, the committed laypeople and all those present, especially the pilgrims who have come with devotion to pay homage to the Shroud.

- John Paul II, 24 May 1998 address at Turin

-TurretinFan

If You Look Only at the Similarities, They're Exactly the Same!

One area where Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox part ways is over describing what goes on in the consecration of the elements in the Eucharist. For Eastern Orthodox, the transformation that occurs is mysterious and indescribable. For Roman Catholics, the transformation is sacramental and describable - in fact it is described quite specifically by the doctrine of transubstantiation which claims that the whole substance of the bread and wine are miraculously converted in each case (not respectively) to the body, blood, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

This real difference between the two views is something that Roman Catholic Matthew Bellisario would like to pretend doesn't exist. An example of MB's wishful analysis of Eastern Orthodoxy is seen in the following excerpt:

The Eastern Churches simply never adopted that type of Latin, scholastic investigation. They simply accept the fact that it is fully Jesus Christ on the altar after the consecration. Archimandrite Alexander (Mileant) of the Russian Orthodox Church OUtside America writes, "While in other sacraments objects such as water or oil are only sanctified, in Holy Communion the objects of the Sacrament, bread and wine, are not only sanctified but actually transformed into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. As a result, when a Christian receives Holy Communion, he receives Jesus Himself and joins with Him. So great is this mystery that no possible explanation can be found of how this happens, and one can only say with gratitude: "Thank You, my Lord!" There is no real point of disunity on this subject among most Orthodox theologians or churches concerning the Catholic teaching. It is a fact that the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic liturgies are largely the same liturgies (St. Chrysostom, St. James, St. Basil, etc) which profess this Eucharistic doctrine. The Greek Orthodox Church of America writes, "The Eucharistic gifts of bread and wine become for us His Body and His Blood." I personally believe that there is no point of contention on this doctrine, and the Catholic Church itself does not view it be one either.

(source - errors and emphasis in original)

Notice the way that Bellisario hopefully emphasizes what he sees as overlap between the Roman Catholic position and the Eastern Orthodox position. In doing so, however, he misses the point of significant departure, "no possible explanation can be found ... ." The Eastern Orthodox didn't just fail to adopt a scholastic analysis, they apophatically assert that explanation is impossible.

Why is that? One reason is that transubstantiation is not a doctrine that was innovated before the Eastern apostolic sees separated from the Western apostolic see. Thus, transubstantiation is not part of the tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy, despite Roman Catholic attempts to portray it as such. More significantly, the history of Eastern Orthodoxy helps to demonstrate that transubstantiation is not an Apostolic tradition. It's not something that the apostles knew or taught, nor something that they handed down either orally or in written form.

Yes, if you only consider the similarities between any two positions, those two positions are exactly the same. But when you look at the differences, you realize that there is fundamental difference between those who teach the explanation of transubstantiation as a dogma and those who teach that any explanation is impossible.

-TurretinFan

Examining John 17 and Christian Disunity

On his personal blog, Roman Catholic Bryan Cross has a post that consists of a flowchart (link to post). If you examine his flow chart, you'll notice that in the upper right hand corner he asks the reader to "Go read John 17." The reason to go read that chapter, per Bryan's flow chart, is if one thinks that "Christ intended the present disunity of Christians that is due to their interpretive disagreements."

I. Perspicuity and Interpretation

We do appreciate Bryan's implicit assertion that John 17 is perspicuous and his implicit concession that everyone is competent to interpret John 17. Sometimes we find Roman Catholic who argue that one needs the Roman Catholic church in order to properly understand Scripture, or that private judgment is an unreliable way to interpret Scripture.

One wonders, though, whether Bryan is aware of the fact that he is attempting to build the authority of the Roman Catholic church on the authority of private judgment and personal interpretation of Scripture. This ends up being problematic, because Rome demands that the individual submit to Rome's judgment and interpretation - but one who follows Bryan's path to Rome would not have accepted Rome's judgment or interpretation except on the authority of his own private judgment and personal interpretation of Scripture. As such, Bryan is setting up his proselytes to be in a self-undermined position. They have accepted Rome on the basis of private judgment and personal interpretation, but they are told by Rome that they cannot trust their private judgment and personal interpretation any more.

II. Actual Content and Text of John 17

Nevertheless, whether Bryan is strategically wise to encourage folks to read Scripture, reading Scripture is actually good. Here is John 17:

(1) These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: (2)as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. (3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

(4) I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. (5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (6) I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. (7) Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. (8) For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. (9) I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. (10) And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

(11) And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. (12) While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. (13) And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

(14) I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. (15) I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. (16) They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

(17) Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. (18) As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. (19) And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. (20) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; (21) that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (22) And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: (23) I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (24) Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

(25) O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. (26) And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

So, that is the whole chapter. We will proceed to the analysis of the chapter in the following sections.

III. Determining Christ's Intent in General

The passage doesn't come right out and say "I intend [X]." If it did, it would much easier to answer Bryan's question from the text. The text, though, does have several purposive statements. Those purposive statements are statements that are in the form "[Y] so that [X]" or more simply "[Y] that [X] may or should occur."

1. the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee (vs. 1)
2. thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him (vs. 2)
3. keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are (vs. 11)
4. those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled (vs. 12)
5. now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves (vs. 13)
6. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil (vs. 15)
7. for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth (vs. 19)
8. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me (vss. 20-21)
9. the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me (vss. 22-23)
10. I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me (vs. 24)
11. I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them (vs. 26)

Finally, notice that Christ once directly speaks to what he wants. In verse 24 (and at item 10 above), Christ says "I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am," which means essentially that Christ is say that this is what he wants. Nevertheless, in other instances we see implicit that Christ wants something, which should be clear from the fact that Christ is praying to the father for something.

IV. Determining Whether Intent Met in General

Bryan's question asks us to determine whether Jesus intended the way things are today. This raises the general question of how we determine whether Jesus' intent in John 17 is met. There are several ways that we might judge this by comparing the facts of history to various senses in which Jesus might intend or will something.

Having read the passage in general, we note that there are no commands from Jesus to men. After a brief introduction, the entire chapter is a long prayer from Jesus to the Father. Thus, if we are using John 17 as the standard, the question is not whether Christians are obeying Jesus' commands, since there are no commands, as such, to obey stated in the text.

Another way to analyze God's will is from the standpoint of his decree of Providence. God's works of providence are his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures and all their actions. Roman Catholics, at least in theory, agree that everything turns out in God's Providence according as God has foreordained. While open theists might imagine a world where Christ is disappointed by the way things turned out, Roman Catholics have to admit that God is both omniscient and omnipotent, and that consequently things do not turn out in a way that frustrates Providence. Even things that violate God's commands are used by God, in His Providence, for good (Genesis 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.). So it cannot be the case (regardless of what John 17 says) that things have not turned out the way that God wanted in the sense of His Providence.

What other general sense could be meant by Bryan's question? We've already addressed the secret (Providence) and revealed (Commands) wills of God. There doesn't seem to be much left upon which to analyze whether things are the way that Christ intended, at least in general terms. There may, however, be one further consideration.

Jesus is here praying to the Father. Jesus Christ is asking the Father for various things. Bryan's question, viewed in light of the fact that John 17 is a prayer, sounds as though Bryan is asking whether the Father granted the Son's request. If the Father would not grant the prayers of His Only-Begotten Son, whose prayers would the Father grant? It seems impious to even leave open the possibility that the Father might refuse to hear the Son's prayer and grant him these requests.

What would be even more impious, however, would be to suggest that though Jesus was praying to the Father for something, mere mortals could stand in the way and prevent the Father from giving the Son what the Son wanted. Shall we ascribe to mere men a power greater than that of the Father and the Son? Surely such an ascription is nothing short of blasphemous.

It might appear from the demonstrations above that every avenue by which one might ask, even in general, whether God's will had been done has been foreclosed. There is, however, one general sense in which one could ask whether the present scenario is what Jesus Christ intended. That sense is the sense of the timing of the matter. After all, it may be that Jesus' requests will be fulfilled but have not yet been fulfilled. We will discuss this possibility when we consider each of the eleven statements of intent found in the chapter.

V. Considering Each Statement of Intent

1) The first request that Jesus is makes is for the Father to glorify the Son so that the Son may glorify the Father. Given that this request is prefaced by "the hour is come," we may understand that this request was granted by the Father in that Jesus was offered up on the cross, died, was buried, rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven.

2) This statement is not a request. It declares that Jesus has been given universal jurisdiction so that he can save the elect (those that the Father has given Him).

3) This request is that God would keep those given to Christ, so that they would be "one, as we are." This is the first request that relates to unity. More discussion on this request in the next section.

4) This statement is not a request. It declares that Jesus lost Judas so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

5) This statement seems to be a hybrid between a request and a bare statement. Jesus explains that the purpose of his prayer is so that the world might experience the joy of Jesus.

6) This request is that God would keep Jesus' people from the evil without removing them from the world.

7) This statement is not a request. It declares that Jesus sanctified himself so that his people might be sanctified through the truth. This is the first statement that involves the issue of truth, which is as close to interpretation as we are going to get in the passage. More discussion on this in the next section.

8) This is another hybrid, though this statement leans more toward being a request. The point of the statement is that Jesus is not praying only for those who presently believe on him, but for all those who will ever believe on him, that they all may be one. This is the second unity-related request, and we'll address it further in the next section.

9) There are a chain of statements in this section, none of which is specifically a request. First, Jesus indicates that he has passed on the glory he received from the Father to his people so that they would be one, and made perfect in one. Then Jesus indicates the further desire that the world would know that the Father had sent Jesus and loved the world as He loved Jesus. This third unity-related statement will be addressed further in the next section.

10) This request is that the elect would be with Jesus so that they would see the glory the Father gave to Jesus. Notice the similarity between this request and the first statement above, about glory.

11) This statement is not a request. In this statement Jesus declares that he and the love of the Father will be in the elect. Notice the connection as to love between this statement and the request at item 9 above.

VI. Focusing on the "Unity" Statements

Items 3, 8, and 9 each deal with unity. Here they are again:

3. keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are (vs. 11)
8. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me (vss. 20-21)
9. the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me (vss. 22-23)

Notice that the unity is expressed in three different relations: in relation to the Father's preservation (3), in temporal relation (8), and in relation to glory/divinity/love (9).

A. In Relation to the Father's Preservation (vs. 11)

The first of three unity statements in the prayer comes in verse 11. In context, that verse says:

John 17:10-12

(10) And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. (11) And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. (12) While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Notice that in the context, the issue is that Jesus, who has been keeping his people here (except Judas, for whom there was a different plan) is asking that as he goes away out of this world, the Father keep those people. The unity that Jesus is asking for seems to be a unity of love for God. The reason for supposing this is that the only one not kept by Jesus is Judas. Yet Judas departed from unity in betraying Jesus, not in starting a separate sect, or anything like that.

B. In Temporal Relation (vss. 20-21)

The second of the three unity statements comes in verses 20-21. Those verses state:

John 17:20-21
(20) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; (21) that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

The new feature that is brought into this discussion of unity is one that transcends time. Jesus is not asking simply for the current believers to be unified, nor that future generations of believers be unified, but that all believers both then and now be unified. What is interesting about this is that the unity that Jesus is talking about is something that is not specifically tied to this present life. If it were, death would destroy the unity that Jesus is requesting, but Jesus is asking that "they all may be one," which suggests that death does not terminate it.

Furthermore, we can see why death does not terminate, when we observe that the unity is not necessarily unity of physical location, but unity in the Godhead: "in us" Jesus says. That kind of unity is a unity of love for the Father and the Son, a unity that is visible to the world, yes, but not a unity that is specific to this life.

C. In relation to Glory/Divinity/Love (vss. 22-23)

The third statement about unity comes in verses 22-23. In fact, this immediately follows the statement above, so I will simply continue from where I left off above, with the context immediately following:

John 17:22-24
(22) And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: (23) I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (24) Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Notice that the way in which Jesus had brought about unity was by giving the glory that the Father gave to the Son, and that the aim of this glory giving was the process of being made perfect in unity. Again we see mention of the world seeing what has happened, and in this case they are specifically to see the love relation between Jesus and the Father reflected in the love relation between Jesus and his people. Notice as well that verse 24 ties the love and glory together again.

What then is the unity that Jesus is talking about here? It is a unity of love for the Father and the Son. It is a unity in which we are growing, and which will have its ultimate fulfillment in heaven.

VII. Going Back to the Big Picture

Focusing on the statements about unity can cause one to lose site of the big picture. It is important to remember that the statements about unity are part of a bigger picture. They are part of an overall flow of a prayer in which Jesus is thanking God for giving him some men, asking that God would keep them, stating his own intention to fill them with the love of the Father, and asking that they eventually be brought to where Jesus is so that they may see His glory. The overall theme is highly Calvinistic, but even if one seeks to find some other view of the text, the overall theme is one whose highest fulfillment is found in the life to come. It is in the life to come that we will find perfect unity, perfect love, perfect joy, perfect knowledge of the truth, and complete glory. All those things go together in the text. Here on earth those things are not complete, but we are still kept by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from the evil until we are made perfect in love, joy, knowledge of the truth, and unity.

This big picture is clear, when we do not seek to impose Roman Catholic ecclesiology on the text, and when we do not seek to treat portions of the text in isolation from the entire prayer. The prayer as a whole is practically triumphal. Jesus is aware of the glory that he will presently receive with respect to the cross, and wishes out of great love to give a good gift to his people, those whom the Father has given Him.

VIII. Conclusion

The unity that Jesus is talking about in the text is specifically a unity of love for the Father and the Son among believers. This is what Jesus intended, and what Jesus intended is being fulfilled. In this life, that love is still imperfect, but it will be made perfect in heaven, when Jesus' request that his people join him in heaven is granted. Thus, the unity that Jesus has in mind has nothing to do with forming sects, having large numbers of denominations, or the like. In fact, the unity that Jesus is talking about is perfectly consistent with a large number of denominations, provided that believers in any denomination love the Father and the Son and glorify them. With Bryan Cross, I encourage people who disagree to read John 17. If one reads it without imposing one's ecclesiology on the text, it becomes clear that the text has nothing to do with ecclesiology.

Textual Critical Resource - Old Testament Variants

De Rossi's remarkable Variae Lectiones Veteris Testamenti (various reading of the Old Testament) is now available in full on Google Books including both the original four volumes (1784-88) and the Supplement (1798):

Volume 1: Prologue, Index of Manuscripts, Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus
Volume 2: Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1st Book of Samuel/Kings
Volume 3: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 12 Minor Prophets, Song of Solomen, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther
Volume 4: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Kings, Chronicles, and Appendix
Volume 5: Supplement

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

What does "Keep Under" Mean?

I love the KJV. Sometimes, however, it uses terms or phrases that are archaic or otherwise hard to understand. One of those expressions is "keep under." The expression appears twice:

2 Chronicles 28:10 And now ye purpose to keep under the children of Judah and Jerusalem for bondmen and bondwomen unto you: but are there not with you, even with you, sins against the LORD your God?

1 Corinthians 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

In both instances the expression means "to subdue." Today we might use the similar expression "hold down."

-TurretinFan

Hugh Martin on the Duty of the Civil Magistrate

A beloved family member recently brought to my attention the following passage from Hugh Martin's (1822-85) Commentary on Jonah, Chapter 19, on Jonah 3:6-8, 10, pp. 277-81 (1995 Banner of Truth reprinting, but I think the pagination is unchanged from the first edition). The passage is relevant to the issue of whether or not the government should call for days of prayer and fasting. Martin is presenting this from a British standpoint, but the same reasoning should apply to any nation.

---

There are many such instances in Scripture history of great national fasts called by royal decree, and observed by general consent. In our own land, and in our own day, there have been not a few instances of a practice so laudable and impressive -- a whole nation at the monarch's call humbling itself before God, confessing provocations, and deprecating His wrath.

Some, indeed, would object to national recognitions of religion, and such royal calls and injunctions to observe its duties. Civil magistracy, they tell us, is a civil, temporal, earthly institution, having under its regulation the affairs of time and the world, and having nothing to do with religion; -- and the civil magistrate, or chief ruler, they would accordingly prevent from in any way intromitting with religious matters -- matters belonging, not to time, but eternity, not to this world, but the world to come.

There are a number of grievous errors wrapt up here in one. It seems to imply that the affairs of this world may and ought to be carried on apart from the affairs and obligations of religious truth and duty; -- thus shutting up religion to a territory of its own, beyond which it must not be suffered to trespass. But apart from this; how can religious obligation lie upon the separate individuals of a nation, and yet the nation as a nation be exempt from it? It is certain that nations as a whole may please or provoke God; just as a family may do; just as an individual may do. God deals with a community as a whole, just as He deals with a household as a whole. And as when God is angry with a family, He deals with them in His wrath for their family provocations, so He deals with communities and kingdoms. If a family, therefore, ought to be religious; -- in the sense that not only are its individuals to be religious, but unitedly, and as in their mutual relations, they are to observe the duties of family religion; -- it ought to be the same in a kingdom. The father of a family is not only to be a pious man himself, but he is to see that in the united worship of his household, and in religious principles being brought to bear on all its movements, there be a household piety -- a family recognition of God. For true religion is not a thing to be kept secret between a man's own conscience and God. No doubt the springs of it are deep seated in the inmost soul; and the Christian life is a hidden life. But for that very reason, -- by reason of the inmost secrecy, and therefore irrepressible power of its principles, -- it will assert and vindicate its influence in all circumstances, and over all the relations in which men stand towards one another. It will, therefore, guide those in whom it dwells, not merely in their own private relation to God, and in their worship and more immediate duty towards Him, but in the whole influence they can exert of their fellow-creatures, -- in all their relations, whether as superiors, inferiors, or equals. But especially as superiors, -- where authority belongs to them, -- where they have it in their power to "command their households after them," -- they will arrange that in all the ongoings of these households God shall be recognised, and His authority and will obeyed. They will say with Joshua, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."
It is this element, however, of command, of authority, against the introduction of which in religious observances a few reclaim. I would advise with my household, or any irreligious and wayward member of it; I would advise; I would exhort; I would instruct and entreat: but I can go no farther. I can't make them religious, and I won't command or compel them. But all this sophistry is utterly laughed to scorn by the simple perusal of the fourth commandment: -- "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates;" -- by the which terms thou art held of God guilty of Sabbath desecration all the same, whether it be "thou, or thy son, or thy daughter, or thy manservant, or thy maidservant, or thy stranger that is within thy gates." Thou wilt not be held guitless on the plea that thou didst instruct, didst entreat, didst plead. Didst thou command? Didst thou bring out, for securing obedience to God, all the authority with which thou art endowed as head of thy household, and which thou dost not scruple, if need be, to bring forth for securing obedience to thine own will? To "the stranger that is within thy gates," thou are bound, -- when advice, entreaty, exhortation fail, -- to give forth thy command; backed by the penalty that, if it be not obeyed, he can be "within thy gates" no longer. With "thy manservant, and thy maidservant," thou art to deal, if need be, in like manner also. Yea, "thy son and thy daughter" are not to abide "within thy gates" and despise the commandments of God. Thou art to command them; and, failing obedience, then thou art to disown them, to cast them off, and cast them out. Eli, alas! acted on the principle that a parent may advise in religious things, but may not imperatively command and threaten. And his house and his name were blotted out for ever!

Have you any influence, any power, any authority over children and dependants which you may use in your own service and work, but which you would refrain from bringing forth on the side of God? What were this, but selfishly to surround the accomplishment of your own will with securities, which you refuse to adopt to secure observance in your household to God's will? And can it be that in such a case you really honour God? Nay: it is not whole-hearted, sincere, thorough-going, and true honouring of God where your government of your household does not call into exercise, when needful, on the side of God, every influence which you can rightly use on your own side. If there be a principle of authority -- an element of command -- vested anywhere in a family at all, religion lays it under contribution to the cause of the Most High -- under call to uphold and promote the observance of His will.

And the same principle holds in a nation. So far forth as a monarch's authority goes, it goes all the length of entitling him to enjoin a fast and a solemn assembly -- a public, universal, national recognition of God -- the God who is dealing with the nation as a whole, and summoning the nation as a whole to acknowledge him. Nature itself teaches this truth. It rises up to view in its own native reasonableness in the hour of solemn thoughtfulness, the hour of sad national calamity. All sophistical objections about the impossibility of making men religious by Act of Parliament then disappear. The truth comes obviously to light, and commends itself to reason and conscience. Well was it for Ninevah that its king was not embued with certain modern notions about magistrates and kings having nothing to do with religion. The city's doom had been sealed by them!

An Ancient Misquotation

I previously noted a large number of post-Reformation folks misquoting Matthew 23:37 and/or Luke 13:34. Such misquotation is apparently not unique to the modern times. As a friend recently pointed out to me, around the third century (A.D. not B.C.) the author of the first two chapters 4 Esdras wrote:

4 Esdras 1:28-30
Thus saith the Almighty Lord, "Have I not prayed you as a father his sons, as a mother her daughters, and a nurse her young babes, that ye would be my people, and I should be your God; that ye would be my children, and I should be your father? I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face."

Obviously, it is not a direct quotation but it does seem to be an allusion, and it makes the same error of replacing "gather your children" with "gather you."

-TurretinFan

The Distinction Gets Narrower Again - Further Response to Bryan Cross

In previous posts, we have seen that there is a principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura (link to post), as well as that there is a principled difference between Mathison's view and the Roman Catholic view with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority (link to post).

I. Introduction to Bryan's Argument

Now, Mr. Bryan Cross has suggested that we look specifically to his "argument." Section IV(A) of Bryan's post contains a section titled "the argument." I reproduce that section here:

1. According to solo scriptura, Scripture is the only ecclesial authority. [def]
2. If solo scriptura is true, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [1]
3. According to sola scriptura, Scripture is the only infallible ecclesial authority. [def]
4. If sola scriptura entails that each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential, then in this respect there is no principled difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura.
5. If apostolic succession is false, then no one’s determination of the marks of the Church is any more authoritative than anyone else’s.
6. If no one’s determination of the marks of the Church is any more authoritative than anyone else’s, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential.
7. If apostolic succession is false, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [(5),(6)]
8. The doctrine of apostolic succession is false. [A]
9. If sola scriptura is true, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential. [(7),(8)]
10. There is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. [(4),(9)]

(source)

II. Most Obvious Problem - Improper Generalization to obtain 10

Right off the bat, one will notice that conclusion 10, does not follow from the premises. Conclusion 10 is an invalid generalization.

Premise 4 stated: "If sola scriptura entails that each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential, then in this respect there is no principled difference between solo scriptura and sola scriptura." (bold emphasis supplied)

Conclusion 10, however, drops the necessary qualification "[with respect to] each individual [being] his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential." Notice that this qualification significantly narrows "no principled difference" and even further narrows "no principled difference with respect to the ultimate holder of interpretive authority."

III. Some Less Obvious Problems

Even if we correct Bryan's argument to make 10 read: "There is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to each individual being his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential," there remain some less obvious problems.

A. "Final Interpretive Authority"

No matter who one's final authority is, one is necessarily the final interpretive authority of that authority. That is true whether one uses oneself, Scripture, tea leaves, or the Roman Catholic magisterium as one's final authority. If one looks to oneself for guidance, one has to read one's own mood. If one looks to Scripture for guidance, one has to interpret Scripture. If one looks at tea leaves - one has to interpet their significance. Even if one has a "living magisterium" one must interpret what that magisterium tells someone. That's so, because we must interpret information in order to understand information. That's just the way that humans work.

In some cases, of course, the interpretation involved seems trivial. If one's authority is an oracle (like the Urim and Thummim or - to pick a more familiar example - a magic eight ball) it may be that you ask a specific question and the oracle provides you with a yes/no answer. In that case, the interpretation involved seems trivial, particularly if one has chosen one's question well (As in the cases of Achan and Jonah).

Even if such an oracle provided an example of an authority that needed no interpretation, that's not one of the available options today. Even the Roman Catholic church does not claim that one get an infallible answer to a yes/no question posed to the magisterium. So, all of the available options require the individual to be the "final interpreter" or, as Bryan prefers to express it, "the final interpretive authority."

This issue ends up plaguing premises 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9. In each of 2, 6, and 9, there is a statement that is in the form "If [x] is true, then each individual is his own final interpretive authority [as to y]." In 7, the same form is used, except that it is introduced by "if [z] is false ... ." Premise 4 begins with "If each individual is his own final interpretive authority [as to y] ... ."

The impact of the fact that each individual is always his own final interpretive authority as to every source of information that he receives is significant with respect to these premises. Each of the premises is in the form If A, then B. However, since B is always the case, premises 2, 6, 7, and 9 are trivial. Furthermore, premise 4 is in the form If B, then C. Premise 4, therefore, is simply reduced to an assertion of C, which ends up being modified 10 (as modified above).

B. "Concerning what he considers to be essential"

This expression ends up creating ambiguity. I believe that Bryan is trying to avoid conceding that the Reformed person can know what is essential and what is not essential. As such, the whole phrase: "each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential" probably is intended to mean that each person is the final interpreter on those points where the matter is an essential matter (in the judgment of the individual), in contradistinction to those points where the matter is a non-essential matter (again, in the judgment of the individual). The alternative sense, however, is that the individual is interpreting his own opinion of what is essential, i.e. the individual is simply the one who decides what is essential. The lack of clarity as to the intended sense could have been avoided if the expression had simply been "concerning essential doctrines."

That would mean that a modified 10 would be "There is no principled difference between sola scriptura and solo scriptura with respect to each individual being his own final interpretive authority concerning essential doctrines."

Since, as we noted above, the individual finally interprets all information he receives, essential doctrines are no exception. That's true regardless of whether one employs the category of essential doctrines. That suggests that the "essential doctrines" issue is really a red herring.

C. Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent (Almost ...)

Bryan's syllogisms form three chains:

א(aleph)
5 (If A, then B)
6 (If B, then C)
∴ 7 (If A, then C)

ב(bet)
2 (If D, then C)

ג(gimel)
9 (If E, then C)

Where A = "apostolic succession is false"
B = "no one’s determination of the marks of the Church is any more authoritative than anyone else’s"
C = "each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential"
D = "solo scriptura is true"
E = "sola scriptura is true"

In view of aleph, bet, and gimel, premise 4 is constructed, which in essence asserts that in principle A, D, and E are the same, because they all entail the same thing. But, of course, the following is an invalid syllogism:

7 (If A, then C)
2 (If D, then C)
9 (If E, then C)
∴ A = D = E

After, as we've noted above, we could construct a further item:

11 (If notA, then C)

which would then yield the odd result:
∴ A = notA

The reason we could construct 11 is that even if apostolic succession is true, each individual is still going to be the final interpreter of his source(s) of authority.

I will note, however, that Bryan does not explicitly state that 4 is supposed to derive from 2, 7, and 9. Instead, he simply states the premise. However, 4 is based on the reasoning that if D and E both entail C then "in this respect there is no principled difference between" D and E, to which we might as well add A, though Bryan neglects to do so. Since we've proven above that C is always the case, when apply the rationale behind 4, we obtain not just our modified 10, but the further addition that there is no principled difference as to C with respect to notA (apostolic succession is true), D(solo is true), and E (sola is true).

This demonstration is what Bryan mislabels a tu quoque objection. Section V(A) of his article attempts to address this objection, but fails. I explain why in the following part.

IV. Bryan's Response to III(C)

Of course, Bryan hasn't read this article yet (at the time of my writing it) but I can reasonably anticipate that he'll respond to III(C) of my comments above, by referring to V(A) of his own article. That's where he attempts to argue that an individual following apostolic succession avoids C ("each individual is his own final interpretive authority concerning what he considers to be essential"). In symbolic terms, Bryan is disputing my:

11 (If notA, then C)
with
12 (If noA, then notC)

In that section of the article he claims:

But when a person finds the Magisterium, and recognizes it for what it is, he immediately ceases to be his own final interpretive authority. He recognizes that his interpretation of Scripture ought to be conformed to the teaching and interpretation of the Magisterium, and that to reject the teaching of the Magisterium would be to reject Christ ... .

(source)

What Bryan has overlooked is that nothing has fundamentally changed about the way in which the person mentally functions. The choice to submit to "the Magisterium" does not change the fact that the person will still have to interpret what the magisterium says.

Bryan essentially anticipates this objection describing it thus:

This objection can also take the following form. Even if the Church possesses final interpretive authority, yet because the individual must nevertheless interpret the Church’s dogmatic pronouncements, therefore, the individual must be the final interpretive authority of the Church’s dogmatic pronouncements.

Bryan replies to the objection he has stated by responding:

This objection conflates two senses of the term ‘final.’ ‘Final’ can mean the terminus of a movement or of a series of movements, as an airplane has a final destination, the terminus of a series of flights for the day. ‘Final’ can also mean the terminus in an order or hierarchy, as the Commander in Chief is for the military. In a communication, the individual receiving that communication is, by definition, the terminus of the movement whereby knowledge is transmitted. He is, in that sense, the final interpreter. But he is not thereby the final interpretive authority in the sense of a terminus in an order or hierarchy. He may be the terminus of the motion of the communication, while remaining subordinate in the order of interpretive authority. The exercise of interpretive authority by the Magisterium, say, at an ecumenical council, does not prevent believers from interpreting Scripture or any other communication. Nor does it withhold from them the skill by which to interpret Sacred Scripture. On the contrary, the exercise of this teaching and interpretive authority provides a supernatural light by which the believer ought to interpret Scripture. We ignore or disregard that interpretive authority at our peril, because it is God-given authority, for our good.

(footnotes omitted)
There are four rebuttals to Bryan's response:

1) In sola scriptura and Mathison's position, the individual is only the "final" interpreter in the sense of communication. Scripture itself is the final authority for the sola scriptura position and scripture plus the ecumenical creeds (in essence) is for Mathison. Even in solo scriptura, it is not necessarily the case that the individual grants himself any authority over the text (though it appears that Mathison thinks this does happen in solo scriptura). So to the extent that Bryan's escape from lack of principled distinction works for the RC position, it proves too much, in that it undermines premises 2, 7, and 9.

2) Mathison explicitly selects the ecumenical creeds as his extrinsic grid to which he submits. That's the same as Bryan's example. If submitting to the outcome of an ecumenical council liberates you from matching the solo position, Mathison is liberated in the exact same way.

3) The key weakness (and perhaps I ought to have placed it first, so bored readers would find it) to Bryan's response is that he is comparing the whole governing authority of the solo person to a part of the governing authority of the RC person. In other words, where he ought to compare (Scripture, Oral Tradition, and the Magisterium) to (Scripture) he compares (Scripture, Oral Tradition, and the Magisterium) to (Scripture), hiding the Oral Tradition and Magisterium from consideration. In the process, Bryan himself conflates the finality of communication with the finality of authority, as noted above. The true comparison would be that for the solo person the Scriptures are the final authority, whereas for the RC person (per Bryan) the final authority is the Magisterium.

4) Does Bryan really mean to say that the Magisterium is above Scripture in a military-like hierarchy? Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 86 states:

"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith." (Quoting from Dei Verbum, Section 10, paragraph 2)

Interestingly, Bryan's analogy is the usual Reformed criticism of the RC position, whereas CCC 86 is the usual response by Roman Catholic proselytizers and apologists.

V. Conclusion

Bryan's argument is plainly invalid on its face since conclusion 10 is an invalid generalization. Furthermore, even when corrected, Bryan's conclusion can be just as legitimately expanded to include the RC position. And if the RC position is permitted to escape by distinguishing between finality of communication and finality of authority, the sola scriptura position (whether in the classical reformed sense or in the Mathisonian form - and even solo scriptura) also escapes.

-TurretinFan

Leithart and the SJC of the PCA

The Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA has ruled that the Presbytery of the Northwest (PNW) erred with respect to Peter Leithart:

The error made by PNW was twofold. First, PNW erred in judging Leithart's views "to be not out of accord with the fundamentals of our system of doctrine." Second, PNW also erred in not finding a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of Leithart are "out of accord with the fundamentals of the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards."

(source)

As you may be aware, Leithart is one of the signers of the Federal Vision Joint Statement. The expectation is that if Leithart continues to maintain the same positions and continues to remain in the PCA he will come under discipline.

Principled Distinctions - Again - This Time in a Narrower Category

Tim Troutman (here) and Bryan Cross (here) have each responded to my previous post (here). My previous post pointed out that there is, indeed, a principled distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. Tim and Bryan have both responded, albeit somewhat differently.

I. Introduction - Bryan and Tim Respond

Bryan and Tim end up with similar-sounding responses, so I'll provide both and then answer them:

In our article we explain carefully how there can be subordinate authority, both of the civil government, and even within heretical sects. See also comment #149.

The conclusion of our argument is not that there is no [conceptual] distinction between solo and sola, but that there is no principled distinction between them with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority. And that is why in essence they are the same, even though they are defined differently. Sola is merely the indirect form of solo. I can either directly act as my own ultimate interpretive authority (that’s solo), or I can pick people who agree with my interpretation, and then ’submit’ to them (that’s sola). The underlying principle or essence is the same in both cases (i.e. the individual is his own ultimate interpretive authority), but in the latter case this essence is hidden by a layer of customized secondary ‘authority.’

(source - from Brian - bracketed and parenthetical comments in original)\
And:

I went to those posts earlier but I confess I did not read them. I’ll let Bryan respond directly if he wants to; I’m more interested in the direct refutation of the article.

We need to more carefully define what we mean by “principle of distinction” since the obvious meaning seems to be in question now (for the sake of winning a debate I guess). We mean a principle of distinction in regard to the principle of the thing in question. For example, is there any principle of distinction whatsoever in any way between solo scriptura and sola scriptura? Sure, 1. the former is spelled “solo” and the latter is spelled “sola.” We can always distinguish them by inspecting the last letter of the word. That is a principle of distinction as regards spelling. Another principle distinction: The former is improper Latin and the latter is proper Latin. That is a principle of distinction as regards grammar. If we examine the concepts themselves, there might be principles of distinction in one regard, but not in regard to the principle of the things in question. The principle here is authority. So while there is a principled distinction in regard to spelling, there is no principled distinction in regard to authority.

Suppose a government started an education lottery. “We will raise $1 million and all of it will go to education” they said. Having raised the money, the tax payers realized that the $5 million education spending stayed the same. They question it, and the authorities reply that they indeed used the $1 mil from the lottery to pay for education, but that freed up $1 mil of the education money to be used elsewhere. We can say without qualification that what the government did is no different in principle than if they had directly misappropriated the fund. They rebut: “No there is a principle of distinction in what we did, we respected the law and we did everything according to the book. The $1 mil was designated to education exactly as promised.” So there is a principle of distinction in the action of the government, but not in regard to the principle of the things in question, namely whether or not the government misappropriated the funds. One way does it directly; the other does it indirectly. But they both do the same thing in principle.

There are some accidental differences and those differences could be considered principles of distinction but only in regard to a certain aspect of the question. For example, in regard to the question, per se, of whether or not the money was designated according to the law, is there a distinction between the government designating 1 mil and then moving other funds and them not designating 1 mil? Yes there is. But there still is no principle of distinction in regard to the very thing in question: whether the funds were misappropriated.

We can probably think of many examples. But to tie it into your argument, the question is whether or not one’s private interpretation of Scripture is authoritative for a believer. In regard to this, there is no principle of distinction between sola and solo scriptura. Your argument shows that there is a principle of distinction in regard to an accidental aspect, namely whether one acknowledges church authority in any way whatsoever, but not in regard to the very thing in question: whether one’s private interpretation of Scripture holds more authority than the Church.

(source - from Tim)

Both Bryan and Tim attempt to make the issue more specific. Bryan suggests that there is no principled distinction "with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority" whereas Tim says there is none "in regard to authority" (in fairness, the introduction section of the original article says there is none "with respect to the locus of “ultimate interpretive authority:”") In the conclusion, Tim returns to the opening theme and indicates that he thinks "the question is whether or not one’s private interpretation of Scripture is authoritative for a believer," which does not really seem to be the question at all. Even Roman Catholics formally admit that a believer is bound to obey Scripture.

More interestingly, Tim's example of government spending suggests that "in principle," to Tim means "in effect" or "in practice." That's not an obvious meaning to the expression "in principle," in fact, Tim has elsewhere attempted to distinguish between differences in practice and differences in principle.

Nevertheless, I wonder if this is also the sense that Bryan intends. After all, the original article quotes approvingly from Mathison who says of solo scriptura: "What this means in practice is that the individual is to measure his teacher’s interpretation of Scripture against his own interpretation of Scripture."

Indeed earlier in the same comment box, Tim had written in response to the comment "2) Even if in principle they are the same, in practice they can be different.":

I agree that there is a practical difference between Reformed and many other denominations on the subject of Church authority. The point of this article isn’t to try and paint the Reformed as if there is no difference whatsoever between their approach to ecclesial authority and the ‘me & Jesus’ evangelical. But this article does show that without a principle of distinction between solo and sola, their position amounts to the same thing. As you said above, it might still be a viable position, but we agree with Mathison that it is not.

(source)

Interestingly, in response to the same comment, Bryan answered:

See section IV of the article. That’s where we respond to the claim that sola scriptura allows one to appeal to “the church.”

(source)

Returning to Tim, he not only provided that comment in the comment box, but also provided a whole post, entitled "But is There a Practical Difference" (link to post). In that post Tim asserts: "That practical difference that I saw previously, though real in certain limited respects, was ultimately an illusion." However, the proof that it was an illusion seems to be summed up as: "Logically then, since Bryan and Neal actually demonstrated there to be no principled difference between solo and sola scriptura, an appeal to a practical difference is insufficient."

Furthermore, I had previously suggested to Bryan that perhaps he meant that there was no practical difference, and he responded with his now-debunked argument in favor of an explanation of natural necessity. Likewise, he now distinguishes between "no [conceptual] distinction" (his brackets) and no distinction as to the ultimate interpretative authority.

II. Simplifying the Response

Although there is some mixture of ideas in the response, giving Bryan's comments the greatest weight, I don't think they really mean to argue that there is a difference in theory (rather than in practice) between sola and solo scriptura. Instead, I think that they simply mean that "the holder of ultimate interpretive authority" in both is the same, and that consequently there is not even a theoretical ("in principle" or "principled") distinction between the two on this point. Furthermore, apparently, any apparent practical distinction between the two is illusory in view of the lack of difference in theory on this particular point between the different ideas of sola scriptura and solo scriptura.

III. Altering the Way to Refute

One effect that this clarification (assuming it is) of the article has is that it leads us to a short form of direct refutation of the article. Since, apparently, the article stands for the idea that "the holder of ultimate interpretive authority" in both approaches is the same, the only direct refutation of the article would be to argue that the holder of ultimate interpretive authority is different. There are also indirect ways, as we'll discuss below.

IV. Considering Whether Direct Refutation is Desirable

Recall that the article started by stating (in the opening paragraph) that "The direct implication of solo scriptura is that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority." The argument, as presently explained by Bryan and Tim, is that the indirect implication of sola scriptura is that each person is his own ultimate interpretive authority.

However, this leaves open the possibility that there are other important differences (both in theory and practice) between sola scriptura and solo scriptura. The fact that there may be some commonality between them isn't necessarily troubling. In fact, both views agree that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and life. That's a commonality, and there is no way to distinguish the two views with respect to that particular issue.

Assuming, for the moment, that the alleged ultimate holder of interpretive authority commonality is a real commonality, it doesn't follow (without more) that we should be concerned that there is no principled distinction with respect to that aspect, since there are important principled distinctions with respect to other aspects.

V. Disposing of a Red Herring or Two

If the real claim is that both sola scriptura and solo scriptura share the common trait that in both cases the ultimate holder of interpretive authority is the individual, then claims about solo scriptura being a natural consequence of sola scriptura is essentially a red herring. It's irrelevant to the question. So also, if we've identified the question, are the issues of there being many denominations of "Protestants." Those issues aren't germane to the question of whether in both the solo and sola formulations the ultimate holder of interpretive authority is the same.

VI. But What About Mathison?

The careful reader has probably noticed that I ended section IV hanging on a "without more." The "more" here that I think Bryan and Tim would try to argue for is what they assert Mathison is arguing against solo scriptura. I suspect that Bryan is likely to take the position that Mathison has essentially conceded that placing ultimate interpretive authority in the hands of the individual is intrinsically bad. Actually, though, Mathison criticizes neglecting the fallible "interpretive ministerial authority" (p. 140) of the church, although some comments that Mathison makes (for example, describing solo scriptura advocates as "claiming that the reason and conscience of the individual believer is the supreme interpreter") could be viewed as coming close to that. We'll discuss this more, below.

VII. Distinguishing Mathison

I've made it clear elsewhere that I don't agree with everything that Mathison says. I do agree with him that there is an error of solo scriptura that involves a neglect of the subordinate authority of the church. I don't agree with his analysis at pp. 246-47, and particularly with his claim "It renders the universal and objective truth of Scripture virtually useless because instead of the Church proclaiming with one voice to the world what the Scripture teaches, every individual interprets Scripture as seems right in his own eyes." (p. 246) I believe that here, as at a few other places in his book, Mathison departs from the Reformed view. Nevertheless, I don't think that necessarily makes a difference to this particular discussion with Bryan.

VIII. Looking at Mathison's Shadow

Even if Mathison thinks that ultimate interpretive authority is in the hands of the individual in solo scriptura in some way, Mathison also thinks that solo scriptura is somehow distinguishable from sola scriptura. In fact, it is much more clear that Mathison distinguishes between the two positions than what Mathison means by his comments regarding the individual and interpretation.

I call this looking at Mathison's shadow, because Mathison doesn't clearly spell out what distinguishes sola and solo at the level of interpretation. However, in matters of interpretation, Mathison commends a particular hermeneutic principle:

1) "The regula fidei was the necessary context for the correct interpretation of Scripture." (p. 23, describing - seemingly favorably - the practice of Irenaeus)

2) "The traditional apostolic rule of faith is the foundational hermeneutical context of Scripture. To reject the rule of faith on the basis of an appeal to Scripture is to immediately read Scripture outside of its Christian context." (p. 277)

More examples could be provided, but it seems that repeatedly Mathison suggests that part and parcel of sola scriptura is the use of the regula fidei or "rule of faith" as an hermeneutic principle.

IX. What is the "Rule of Faith" for Mathison?

It is challenging to get a precise definition of the "rule of faith" from Mathison. He describes it as follows:

• "that rule of faith is the apostolic faith" (p. 137)
• "Christian orthodoxy – as defined for example in the Nicene Creed" (p. 150)
• "the apostolic gospel" (p. 275)
• "outlined in the ecumenical creeds" (p. 278)
• "expressed in the ecumenical creeds" (p. 280)
• "expressed in written form in the ecumenical creeds of Nicea and Chalcedon" (p. 321)
• "the essential truths of Christianity" (pp. 321-22)
• "has found written expression in the ecumenical creeds of the Church. The Nicene Creed and the definition of Chalcedon are the creedal confessions of all orthodox Christians and serve as the doctrinal boundaries of orthodox Christianity." (p. 337)

These statements suggest that Mathison's view of the rule of faith is different from that of the Reformers, who taught that the rule of faith is Scripture. At one place, Mathison seems to cite to Hilary of Poitiers as a positive patristic example, while mentioning that “The apostolic rule of faith and the Holy Scripture are essentially one and the same for Hilary.” (p. 31)

X. Mathison's Sola Scriptura Distinguishable from Solo Scriptura

Getting back to the challenge at hand, Mathison's Sola Scriptura is distinguishable from solo scriptura in that the individual must essentially make his interpretations consistent with the ecumenical creeds (apparently Mathison only views the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian definition to be ecumenical) and, in theory, with any future ecumenical creeds that may emerge. Thus, while the individual's interpretive authority is broad for Mathison, it is not unbounded.

XI. Mathison's Position Compared with the Roman Catholic Position and the Eastern Orthodox Position

The Roman Catholic position essentially takes Mathison's interpretive grid further. Rather than limiting the grid to the ecumenical creeds, the Roman Catholic position makes the grid a vast array of canons and decrees from twenty-one allegedly ecumenical councils and additionally the ex cathedra definitions of the popes and any items that are de fide by universal consent of the faithful. Within that grid, the Roman Catholic layman is permitted to interpret Scripture, but he is not permitted to interpret Scripture so as to contradict the grid. The same goes for Mathison, though the grid is much more bare-bones. The Eastern Orthodox position is somewhere in the middle, accepting only seven councils as ecumenical, the EO position has far fewer dogmatic definitions.

XII. The Multi-Pronged Rebuttal

The above points lead us to a multi-pronged rebuttal to Bryan and Tim.

First, Mathison's interpretive authority is not simply the individual, but the individual looking through the grid of the ecumenical creeds. Thus, there is a principle with respect to the ultimate holder of interpretive authority that distinguishes Mathison's view from solo scriptura in which the creeds are not binding.

Second, Mathison's methodology is functionally the same as the methodology of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions, with respect to the way in which the individual interprets the Scripture. In Mathison's, the RC's and the EO's positions, the individual is not permitted interpret Scripture in any way contrary to the rule of faith. Thus, if Mathison's position shares a commonality with solo scriptura as to the ultimate holder of interpretive authority, then so do the RC and EO positions, in which case, who cares.

Third, it may be objected that Mathison's methodology is submission to a grid that one has selected based on what one already agrees with, and that one will abandon if one ceases to agree with it. However, of course, the same is true of any grid - whether Mathison's or the RC or EO. One assents to the grid as a requirement for communion, and one who rejects the grid is (at least in theory) excommunicated. In other words, the objection that because the submission to the grid is voluntary, it is not true submission, is an invalid objection.

Fourth, the absence of a binding extrinsic hermeneutic grid is not the chief or main problem of solo scriptura. Accordingly, the fact that neither sola scriptura (in the Reformed sense as distinct from Mathison's sense) nor solo scriptura has such a grid is a commonality that does not cause us concern.

Fifth, the absence of a binding extrinsic hermeneutic grid does not preclude the presence of a binding intrinsic hermeneutic grid. In other words, Scripture interprets Scripture as both the Reformers and the early church fathers taught. Consequently, Scriptures must be understood harmoniously with one another, the more clear helping us to understand the less clear. Thus, the absence of a binding extrinsic hermeneutic grid does not mean the death of hermeneutics.

XIII. Conclusion

It has been demonstrated that there is a principled distinction between Mathison's view and Solo Scriptura with respect to the holder of ultimate interpretive authority in that the individual is not subject to a binding extrinsic hermeneutic grid in the solo position, but is subject to such a grid in Mathison's position, as well as in the RC and EO positions. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that if the sense in which the Reformed position of sola scriptura and the erroneous view of solo scriptura overlap is in not applying a binding external hermeneutic grid, that is an overlap we are comfortable with.

-TurretinFan

Where in the Golden Rule is That?

Someone (I'd use their name or handle, if they had left one) asked where in "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (sometimes called the "Golden Rule") did Jesus authorize "religious persecution," which (one supposes) is the pejorative term that folks these days us to refer to the Reformed position on the civil magistrate.

The simple answer is that the golden rule is not relevant to the government (I mean of course, the government of the state, though the same could be said of any government, as such), it wasn't intended to be, and we get God's instructions for the government elsewhere.

However, that may sound a bit glib, so let's look at Jesus' words in context first:

Luke 6:30-31
Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

If you think that "as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" is supposed to be applied to the government, do you think that giving to everyone who asks is also to be applied to the government? Is this the welfare verse? Surely you can recognize that it is not intended that way. Nor is it a uniform principle that we must always give whatever anyone asks from us, nor that we must always do unto others as we would want done to us.

But that's just a start. From the slightly extended context, we learn that this is an exposition of the command to love our neighbour as ourselves:

Luke 6:27-29 & 32-35
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
[The passage above]
For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

The whole thrust of the passage is toward doing good to those who personally injure you. It's not an absolute mandate that you can never seek legal recourse, but rather a general principle of how we should treat people who are our personal enemies.

In a parallel account of this teaching in Matthew, we see an additional point which shows that this teaching is part of an exposition on the law: "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Matthew 5:43-44
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That law was not new. It was an Old Testament law:

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

And yes, the same Old Testament law authorized:

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Numbers 33:52-53
Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: and ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it.

Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Exodus 31:14-15
Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Obviously, the government can't make anyone believe (nor prevent them from coveting). Obviously, as well, the government executing witches, destroying idols, stoning blasphemers, and enforcing the sabbath will not, in itself, save anyone (just as punishing rebellious children, murderers, adulterers, and thieves cannot save anyone). Nevertheless, it is consistent for the government to enforce such laws and for the duty of believers to be that they love their neighbor as themselves.

-TurretinFan