Loraine Boettner: "Roman Catholicism"

Here are some quick thoughts on Loraine Boettner's famous book, Roman Catholicism. They are just a few considerations that come to mind about the book.

First, the book is obviously a top seller. You can still buy it new (link) and versions (pirated or not, I do not know) appear for free on the Internet.

Second, this book drives Roman apologists nuts. It's one of the books they love to hate. If they had to name any dead "anti-Catholic" from after 1700, I suspect many would pick Boettner (died 1990). A quick and informal search of the "catholic.com" website turns up hundreds of hits on his name (fewer than the thousands of hits for "James White" or tens of thousands for "Calvin" but far more than a lot of others).

A third consideration is the book's timing. It was first published in the 1960's. Some of the pre-Vatican II issues may not be as useful today as when they were written. For example, the Latin mass is no longer mandatory. Also, Rome has adopted more ecumenical-sounding wordings in many of its documents, which may appear to require some additional explanation (as well as providing room for further rebuttal). Additionally, concern over issues like Communism have waned significantly (though Boettner seems to address Communism rather a lot).

A fourth consideration is the book's documentation. In many cases, it would be nice to have more documentation of Boettner's claims. While I believe that much (perhaps the overwhelming majority) of the book is accurate, it is difficult to verify its accuracy without the aid of footnotes, endnotes, or similar citations. In other cases, a simple typographical error in Boettner can make tracking down his source even more difficult. For example, if he gets the wrong Roman numeral for a pope, it can make tracking down the original for an alleged statement by the pope, quite difficult, to say the least.

-TurretinFan

The Law Justified Christ

Someone going by "Todd" (profile not available) wrote:

Your first counterargument is that "Christ fulfilled the law. The law didn't condemn Christ, it justified Him." I'm going to ignore the bizarre phrasing that the Law justified Christ, which hints at all sorts of problems. But more to the point, you seem to completely miss who the Law is for. Is it for God? Or did God give it to us sinners? You'd think the answer would be obvious, and yet you feels the need to point out that Christ was not a sinner. Duh. When Lutherans say "the Law always accuses", we are not talking to Jesus, we are talking to fellow sinners.

I answer:

It's a pity Todd ignored it. It's an important point, something that Todd may not understand. Justification is a declaration of righteousness. As to those who are under the law, the law declares all (except Christ) to be sinners. The law accuses them.

This is why works righteousness as means of salvation is not just wrong, it's stupid. Scripture puts it this way:

Romans 3:19-20

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The way that law could, in theory, justify someone is by the person perfectly obeying the law.

Romans 2:13

(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Christ was justified in this way: he obeyed the law perfectly. This use of the term justify is found not only in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament:

Deuteronomy 25:1

If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.

That is the role of judges: to declare the righteous and the innocent.

Moreover, the idea of justifying God is similarly to be found in the Old Testament:

Job 32:2

Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God.

Notice that what Elihu wanted was for Job to declare God righteous and for Job to declare himself to be a sinner. But Elihu felt as if Job had declared himself to be righteous.

David provides us with a positive example:

Psalm 51:4

Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

See this similar New Testament example:

Luke 7:29

And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

So, you see, if one gets too immersed in justification by faith, one may miss the broader context of justification as a declaration of righteousness.

We actually see the idea of an imputed righteousness (negatively) in the Old Testament:

Isaiah 5:23

Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!

What is remarkable here is that unjust judges are being blamed for accepting a bribe to declare a guilty person as not being guilty.

Later in Isaiah, however, we see that something similar (though proper and legitimate) is going to take place in Christ:

Isaiah 45:25

In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.

Isaiah 53:11

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

This gospel message is later explained by the apostles:

Acts 13:39

And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

This is, indeed, the critical point that struck home with Luther as it should also with you:

Galatians 2:16-17

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Roman apologists (and not just them) love to try to tell folks that the law here means simply circumcision and the ceremonial laws. But Paul goes on to explain the imputation of Christ's righteousness rather than our personal righteousness, explaining it this way:

Galatians 2:18-21

For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

In short, therefore, recall that we are justified by faith. We trust in Christ for our righteousness - not in our own works or in the works of some other creature, whether Mary, a martyr, or a saint. In Christ we die to the law. In that dread transaction, our sins are laid to his account, and though the law justified him, we are declared righteous, he is declared unrighteous, and he is crucified for us. We take his death for our sins, and we therefore live. Thus, our righteousness does not come by the law, but by the grace of God in Christ. The law no longer accuses us (as I explained in my previous post), because we are no longer under the law.

Paul beautifully explains it this way (by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit):

Galatians 4:3-5

Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

-TurretinFan

Paedo-Communion and the Federal Vision

Those who signed the Federal Vision Joint Statement hold to paedo-communion. Paedo-communion is contrary to the Reformed confessions. One might think that would be enough of a reason to have the signers removed. It is not, for whatever reasons. Perhaps if they hold to baptismal regeneration, that will be deemed to be enough? Test case.

William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris Debate "Does Good Come From God?"

William Lane Craig recently handily defeated Sam Harris in a debate titled, "Does Good Come From God?" (link to debate) Mr. Harris provided a very limited attempt to ground an atheistic morality in his opening speech. After that, virtually all of his arguments were simply either anti-theistic or simply anti-Christian. Those arguments were pretty clearly off the topic. In fact, they were demonstrated to be off topic in Sam Harris' own response to the very first audience question.

Mr. Harris' defeat was partly due to his approach of being unable to present any grounding for atheistic morality. Partly Mr. Harris' defeat was ensured by Prof. Craig's avoidance of reliance on the premise "God exists."

Mr. Harris' defeat was also partly due to the fact that his attempt to ground morality involved a significant and obvious category error. Mr. Harris argued that the worst possible world would be one in which all sentient beings suffered a maximum amount for a maximum duration. He argued that this "worst case" provides an objective reference point from which morality can be judged. However, that is not a maximally immoral universe, just a maximally unpleasant (for sentient beings) universe.

Prof. Craig pointed out this problem and Mr. Harris' response was extremely weak. He tried to argue that Prof. Craig has to grant Mr. Harris' premise because hell (the realm of the immoral) involves suffering and consequently the aim of mankind is to seek the pleasure of heaven as opposed to the misery of hell. However, this simply confuses the reward/punishment in a particular system with the means by which it is accomplished.

Moreover, for the atheist, this life does not provide heaven/hell-like reward/punishment. Often a person who causes great suffering receives little suffering himself in this life. Moreover, there is no obvious correlation (in this life) between reducing overall suffering and obtaining reward.

Therefore, as Prof. Craig pointed out repeatedly, while an atheist may have morals, he has no foundation for them. He cannot give a reasoned account of his morals. He may think that the Holocaust is dreadful, but he cannot give you an authoritative answer to the question, "Says who!" in response to his moral condemnation.

Mr. Harris didn't do himself any favors by essentially accusing Christians of being psychopaths (and then saying he wasn't doing that -- and then doing it again). However, Mr. Harris delivered his speech in a very calm and measured tone, and maintained his cool despite some fairly solid hits he was taking from Prof. Craig.

-TurretinFan

Who Sets the Agenda?

"Zrim" has responded to my earlier post with a new post of his own. One comment of his stood out to me:

Contrary to [TurretinFan's] assertion, the fact that something has become highly politicized is precisely why more caution is called for, not for the amplitude to be turned up. This actually sounds like the sort of reasoning that compelled Protestant liberalism to suggest that the world sets the church’s agenda: the bigger the worldly deal the more the church should get involved.

There are two problems with this comment. First, the question is not simply whether the world generally makes a big deal about something. The attention that the world gives to something shows what is on the minds of the people. Sometimes that is a relatively significant issue (like abortion), sometimes it is a relatively insignificant issue (like who happens to be topping this week's Top 40 chart, or which sports team is winning). The world may actually think more about the latter topics than the former, but the church will spend more time on the former than the latter, because of the greater moral concerns.

Second, even if your reaction is "more caution is called for," you are still involved in a situation in which "the world sets the church’s agenda: the bigger the worldly deal the [less] the church should get involved." The fact that you swap "less" for "more" doesn't change the fact that the world is setting the agenda.

The church is in the world but not of the world. Churches in rural Alabama may have a very different "world" to contend with than those in Amsterdam. Nevertheless, they do need both to react and to transform the world in which they find themselves, by preaching the gospel of repentance and faith.

"Zrim" also asks: "since every aspect of life has moral dimension then wouldn’t the church also have to take on everything in terms of its moral primacy?" The fact that everything has a moral dimension does not mean that everything deserves the same amount of attention. Some sins are in themselves and by reason of several aggravations more heinous in the sight of God than others. The slaughter of the unborn falls into that "more heinous" category, and consequently when it is prevalent calls for more vocal opposition.

- TurretinFan

Lex Semper Accusat? Does the law always accuse?

Some folks like to throw around the mantra "lex semper accusat" (the law always accuses). This mantra may have value, and may even serve a didactic purpose in certain contexts. It is, however, theologically inaccurate.

A First Exception: Christ
Christ fulfilled the law. The law didn't condemn Christ, it justified Him. Pilate testified to this:

Luke 23:4 Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

Luke 23:14 Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:

John 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

John 19:4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.

John 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

A General Condemnation
Aside from Christ, the law condemns everyone, for all have sinned.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

And consequently (Christ excluded) the law cannot justify anyone:

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Law's Condemnatory Power Destroyed
But for those who are in Christ, the law has lost its condemnatory power.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Indeed, it is impossible for those who are justified to be condemned by the law any longer.

Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Law's Other Uses
Moreover, both before and after we are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone, the law has other uses. For example, the law has an evangelical use - it brings us to Christ:

Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Moreover, the law enables us to express our love to God:

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

And I could go on and on. The law has a thousand uses, many of which are celebrated in Psalm 119.

-TurretinFan

Don't Mention God's Law, Because It's About the Gospel!

True antinomians would simply deny that God's law has any force. Homiletic antinomians would make a comment like the title of this post. Those who have been influenced by a Lutheran division between "Law" and "Gospel" may even go so far as to suggest that preaching God's law is actually detrimental to preaching the gospel.

At least, that's the sense I got from a recent post at the Confessional Outhouse. According to the author, "Zrim," preaching a sermon against abortion (a rather heinous violation of the sixth of God's ten commandments) "goes a fair distance to alienate people from the gospel" (emphasis mine).

Yes, Zrim, people may not want to follow a God who has a law like God's law. People may be turned off by God's commandments. They don't love God's law, they hate it. Preaching repentance and faith is harder than just preaching faith. We get it.

But the gospel that Christ preached was a gospel of repentance and faith. If we want to preach the gospel Christ preached, we are going to have to preach against sin, even if that alienates people. Sorry if that bothers you, but that's how it is.

I know, I know. I've dealt with Zrim before. His response is that he just meant that we shouldn't bring politics into church. But Zrim has it backwards. We shouldn't identify something like abortion primarily as political, but as moral. It is first moral and afterwards political. In America today (unlike America 100 years ago) it is a matter that has become politicized. But just because something has become politicized doesn't mean preachers can't or shouldn't preach about it.

Indeed, the politicization of an issue may coincide with an increased need to preach on that very issue! The fact that people may be unhappy to hear the preaching is simply the cost of standing up for what is right. The Bible never tells us to avoid preaching about sins that are well-loved in a community or society. Quite the contrary: in the midst of a society full of fornication, John preached that fornicators have their place in the lake of fire.

And moreover if a particular political party chooses to support what the Bible teaches, and another particular political party chooses to reject what the Bible teaches, that does not make the Bible's teachings fundamentally "political." If one political party caters to evangelicals, that doesn't make evangelicalism fundamentally "political," even though it may make it a political issue.

The issue of abortion is fundamentally a moral issue. It's not like the difference between a Chevy or a Ford or the Yankees and the rest of major league baseball (I realize that some people may disagree with me about whether the New York Yankees are a moral issue). It's not simply a popularity contest. Political candidates may appeal to that issue, but fundamentally the issue is a moral issue. It is right for ministers to preach about it, and frankly in a society full of that abomination, it is hard to understand how ministers could properly perform their role without preaching about it (they will have to answer to God, not me, about that).

I would agree with Zrim if his point is that a church shouldn't hang banners supporting the New York Yankees up in a church in Boston, because it will alienate people without a good reason. One's sports allegiance is less important than the Truth. But preaching God's law regarding abortion isn't like rooting for the Yankees in Boston. Preaching God's law is a duty of Gospel ministers. Men, like the Bayly brothers, who preach against abortion should be praised, not criticized, for doing so.

-TurretinFan

The Cursing(s) of the Fig Tree(s) or the Cleansing(s) of the Temple?

Dean Dough has provided a kind and thoughtful response to my on-going series discussing the multiple-event phenomenon and similar issues in 1 Samuel that should illuminate our discussion of alleged Biblical contradictions.

Mr. Dough specifically pointed out that not all of the alleged contradictions in the gospels can be addressed through the possibility of multiple events. Mr. Dough pointed to the issue of two passages in the gospels in which Jesus curses a fig tree and it dies.

Here are the two passages.

Account 1

Mark 11:11-26

And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve. And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, "No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever." And his disciples heard it.
And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; and would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught, saying unto them, "Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves." And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine. And when even was come, he went out of the city.
And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, "Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away."
And Jesus answering saith unto them, "Have faith in God. For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

Account 2

Matthew 21:12-22

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them, "It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David;" they were sore displeased,
And said unto him, "Hearest thou what these say?"
And Jesus saith unto them, "Yea; have ye never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise'?"
And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there. Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, "Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever." And presently the fig tree withered away.
And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, "How soon is the fig tree withered away!"
Jesus answered and said unto them, "Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."

There are some undeniable similarities between the accounts. In both cases, Jesus is coming out of Bethany, he curses a fig tree and it dies. The disciples notice the dead fig tree and marvel. Jesus uses the occasion to teach them a lesson that includes reference to the idea that whatever you pray for in faith you will receive.

How about the alleged contradictions?
Mr. Dough kindly provides us with a table of alleged contradictions or, as he expresses it, "salient differences." The following is based on his table:

	Matthew	Mark
(1) Chronological Order	1. Temple cleansing 2. Overnight in Bethany 3. Cursing of fig tree 4. Disciples comment on the withered fig tree	1. Overnight in Bethany 2. Cursing of fig tree 3. Temple cleansing 4. Overnight in outside of Jerusalem 5. Disciples comment on the withered fig tree
(2) Time the tree withered	Immediately after Jesus cursed it	Unspecified but within a day
(3) When the disciples heard the cursing	On the morning after the temple cleansing	On the morning before the temple cleansing
(4) Who commented on the withering	disciples	Peter
(5) When the disciples saw the withered tree for the first time	By implication of their comment, immediately after Jesus cursed it.	About a day after Jesus cursed it.
(6) Comment on disciples' frame of mind	They were amazed	Peter remembered
(7) What they said about it	"How did the fig tree wither immediately?"	"Look, the fig tree you cursed has withered."

There are really two categories of differences between the events: those unrelated to the timing of the event and those related to the timing of the event. Those unrelated to the timing (4, 6, and 7) are relatively easily resolved. Peter can remember and say one thing while the other disciples are amazed and say something similar. In fact, Peter (speaking for the rest) could say both things. These are differences, yes, but relatively trivial and easily resolved.

The remaining items relate to the timing of events. In dealing with that, perhaps it makes sense to point out here that the area "outside Jerusalem" mentioned in Mark's account could be Bethany. Bethany is an area outside but near Jerusalem, about "fifteen furlongs" from the city (John 11:18), home to Simon the Leper (Matthew 26:6; Mark 14:3) as well as Lazarus (John 11:1; 12:1).

With that in mind, the following harmony is one possibility:

Matthew	Mark
1. Temple cleansing
2. Overnight in Bethany	1. Overnight in Bethany
3. Cursing of fig tree	2. Cursing of fig tree
	3. Temple cleansing
	4. Overnight in outside of Jerusalem
4. Disciples comment on the withered fig tree	5. Disciples comment on the withered fig tree

If we follow this resolution, there is a single cursing of a single fig tree and a single time that the disciples comment on it. There are two overnight stays near Jerusalem (as explicitly indicated in Mark). The only thing not explicitly stated in the texts that would be necessary for this harmonization to work would be that Jesus would have to cast the money changers out of the temple twice. Of course, it is entirely possible that Jesus twice (or more - see Luke 19:45-46 and John 2:13-15) cleansed the temple of the money changers. After all, are the money changers going to leave and never come back because someone drove them out one day?

And moreover while it did not make it into Mr. Dough's chronology, Mark does indicate that Jesus was in the temple on the previous day:

Mark 11:11 And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.

That passage mentions him observing what was happening there, but (we must admit) it does not mention him disrupting the moneychangers. Still, there is certainly nothing in the text that would render it impossible that Matthew's account refers to a first day, particularly since the Mark 11:11 mention of Jesus in the temple appears to come right after Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem (as also does Matthew's account).

There are still two or three remaining objections to this harmony. The first objection (item 2 in Mr. Dough's list of seven) is that Mark says that the fig tree withered immediately. Of course, the fig tree withering by the next day is "immediately" in horticultural terms. Is the Greek word "παραχρῆμα" capable of such a meaning? It seems to be.

The second objection (item 3 in Mr. Dough's list of seven) is the relation between the temple cleansing and when the disciples heard the cursing. However, this objection is resolved if there are two temple cleansings.

The third objection (item 5 in Mr. Dough's list of seven) is the relation of the cursing and the disciples hearing it. Mr. Dough alleges that it is implied in Matthew's account that they saw it immediately. However, Matthew merely says "And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!" without specifying whether the disciples saw it immediately or the next day.

Hopefully this illustrates how a relatively simple explanation (namely that Christ twice - at least - cleansed the temple of moneychangers) can resolve the apparent contradiction with respect to the chronological order.

As Mr. Dough pointed out there are other ways in which the two accounts can be harmonized. For example, these could be entirely separate events a year apart or Jesus could have cursed the fig tree once and then again, with the fig tree withering immediately the second time. The two years solution is easy, but Jesus' triumphal entry seems like a one-time event. It's not intuitively pleasing to us to think it happened twice. Likewise, two cursings would make Peter's reaction of "remembering" an odd result, as also it would make Jesus' seeking fruit on the already-cursed tree an odd action.

Incidentally, for what it's worth, while I carefully examined the Scripture to come to the conclusions I present above, after doing so I sought out the counsel of one of the greatest Scriptural commentators, John Gill (died 1771). Had I done so in the first place I would have arrived at the same conclusion (see Gill's commentary on these passages). It is remarkable that Gill's 200 year old solution to the problem was unknown to Mr. Dough, but I blame the modern skeptics who are promoting these alleged contradictions, not my friend Mr. Dough (who could expect him to exhaustively survey all the Reformed scholarship on the subject?).

-TurretinFan

Carl Trueman's "Reasons ... For Moving Romeward"

No, Carl Trueman isn't moving Romeward, but he has post listing reasons that he thinks people give for leaving (link to post). But the reasons given for leaving was not exactly the question posed to him. The question posed to him was the reasons that people leave for Rome. Trueman listed a lot of salient items, but I think he overlooked a few, and so I offer this as a supplement to his post.

1. Love of Idolatry
Men love idols. We can see this throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. It's especially clear in the Old Testament, in which not only are idols to be found in Lot's possession (and stolen by Rachel)[FN1], but an idol is made by the Israelites as soon as Moses seems to have disappeared [FN2]. The Israelites are repeatedly warned against the dangers of idolatry [FN3], and yet they return to it time and time again [FN4]. This is the case even despite a number of purges of idols, such as under Asa [FN5].

The New Testament likewise describes the pagan fondness for idolatry [FN6]. John's last words in his first catholic epistle are to warn his readers to avoid idolatry [FN7]. Likewise, arguing from the evil example of Israel, Paul exhorts the Corinthians to avoid idolatry [FN8].

It's a huge temptation, and the religion of Rome is rife with it. For example, the bread and wine are worshiped as though they are God [FN9]. The practice of praying before images and presenting gifts during such worship is also viewed as normal [FN10]. Moreover, Rome has endorsed the so-called Seventh Ecumenical Council, which mandated the use of images of Jesus Christ, Mary, angels, and the saints in churches [FN11].

It seems reasonable to conclude that people who join Rome, join it because they love its idolatry. They are not filled with a righteous indignation at this abominable practice, but instead find it alluring.

2. Love of Certainty
I cannot document or prove this item as thoroughly as the first. One thing that I have noticed, however, is that a number of Roman converts point to the issue of certainty. They seem to think that the only way one can have certainty about doctrine is if one has an infallible church. Their typical rationale is that there are thousands of different opinions about Scripture, and consequently they conclude that one cannot be certain about one's conclusions from Scripture, since there are so many who disagree. Two obvious flaws in their thinking are that there is no good reason to suppose that any infallible church exists and that although there may be thousands of opinions about what Scripture teaches, remarkably none of the groups that hold to Scripture alone as their authority arrive at something approximating Roman doctrines.

3. Escondido Movement
Under the topic of flawed ecclesiologies, Trueman rightly points a finger at "Emergent Christianity" and the "Federal Vision" but Trueman omits to address the Escondido movement. This movement reacts strongly to the Emergent phenomenon and to the Federal Vision, but often on quite weak terms (such as an over-reliance on the amended Westminster Confession). It tries to set itself forth as the official voice of "Reformed" even while departing from the Reformers on a number of significant points. There needs to be a response to Rome's flawed ecclesiology, but that response cannot take the form of trying to provide a Reformed "Rome lite" where excommunication is viewed as being an exercise of power rather than a recognition of apostasy, where our amended (!) confessions become a rule of faith, and where Scriptural exegesis in debates over issues that the confession addresses are rare or secondary to the issue.

We need to recover the grammatical-historical hermeneutic more than we need to recover the Reformed confessions. We need to understand the importance of church discipline, and make sure it is properly applied. We need to make sure that the fundamentals of the faith are defended, Scripture is explained from the pulpit, and charity is extended in as many of the non-essentials as we can.

Of course, none of the failures of the Escondido movement would justify a departure to Rome. Rome's ecclesiological problems dwarf anything one can find in any other church. An earthly head of the church who claims to be Christ's vicar? Come on! A church that claims to have the gift of infallibility, and yet can't tell itself which (if either!) of Molinism or Thomism is correct. A move from an Escondido-style church to Rome is not a jump from the frying pan into the fire, it's a move from a cat with slight halitosis to a rabid lion.

Do I echo many of Trueman's concerns? Absolutely. I haven't spent this post repeating his points or patting him on the back. I hope he gets plenty of that already. I'm simply writing to emphasize a few points that he may have overlooked.

-TurretinFan

---

Footnotes:

1) Genesis 31:19 And Laban went to shear his sheep: and Rachel had stolen the images that were her father's.

2) Exodus 32:23-24 For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.

3) Leviticus 19:4 Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God. | Leviticus 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

4) Isaiah 57:5 Enflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the clifts of the rocks?

5) 1 Kings 15:11-13 And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. And also Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron.

6) Acts 17:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.

7) 1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

8) 1 Corinthians 10:1-14
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play [Exodus 32:6]. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear ihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gift. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

9) CCC 1378 "Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. 'The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.'"

10) "I am pleased to have the opportunity to pray before her image, brhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifought here specially from Gozo for this occasion. I am also delighted to present a Golden Rose to her, as a sign of our shared filial affection for the Mother of God." (source)

11) "We define the rule with all accuracy and diligence, in a manner not unlike that befitting the shape of the precious and vivifying Cross, that the venerable and holy icons, painted or mosaic, or made of any other suitable material, be placed in the holy churches of God upon sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, houses and streets, both of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, and of our intemerate Lady the holy Theotoke, and also of the precious Angels, and of all Saints." (source)

Living god? Or soon to face the Living God?!

The headline reads: "Indian 'living god' in critical condition: hospital" (source). The story tells the tale of an Indian guru who has achieved a widespread following through purportedly performing miracles, yet who is now desperately attempting to cling to life as God has removed his lung and kidney function.

There is a living God. Scripture tells us:

Jeremiah 10:10

But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

And again:

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10
For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

That living and true God, as the verse tells us, has a Son. That Son was raised from dead. That Son delivered us from the wrath of God that is coming. That Son of God, namely Jesus, is the only way that we may escape the wrath of God.

Psalm 2:12
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

For the Son is Lord!

1 Timothy 6:13-16
I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; that thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Jude 4
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

So we answer to this guru:

1 Corinthians 8:5-6
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Dear Satya Sai Baba, be aware that you will soon come before the Living and True God. Prepare yourself now. Even at this advanced age, if you will humble yourself, repent of your sins, and turn to Christ, you may find forgiveness and salvation from the wrath to come. It is the only way that you will escape from the wrath of God.

-TurretinFan

Just as Expected ...

I wish this were only a April 1st hoax, but sadly Muslims have killed completely innocent men in retaliation for the burning of a Koran on another continent (link). And, of course, Muslims were the first to burn the Koran (apparently), as explained in the following video which, though a little tongue-in-cheek, also has a serious point:



-TurretinFan

Thanks to My Two Hundred "Followers"

I noticed that the number of folks who have "Followed" this blog using the Google "Follow" option has finally hit 200. Thanks very much to my readers! I hope that the blog serves your edification.

May God receive all the glory.

-TurretinFan

Ken Ham Refuses to Compromise ...

... and suffers the consequences for standing up for his convictions (link to story). Hats off to Ken Ham for opposing Peter Enns and Enns' agenda. You can visit the Answers in Genesis website for more information. Specifically, here is the post that got Ken Ham in trouble (link to post).

-TurretinFan

The Door Was Shut, Rob Bell

Rob Bell (Love Wins, p. 66):

Could God say to someone truly humbled, broken, and desperate for reconciliation, "Sorry, too late"? Many have refused to accept the scenario in which somebody is pounding on the door, apologizing, repenting, and asking God to be let in, only to hear God say through the keyhole: "Door's locked. Sorry. If you had been here earlier, I could have done something. But now, it's too late."

Jesus Christ (Matthew 25:1-13):

Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

And at midnight there was a cry made, "Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him."

Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, "Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out."

But the wise answered, saying, "Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves."

And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, "Lord, Lord, open to us."

But he answered and said, "Verily I say unto you, I know you not."

Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

Am I saying that those in Hell will come "truly humbled, broken, and desperate for reconciliation" - no, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that when the door shuts, it's too late. So, since you don't know when Christ will return, or when you yourself will die, take hold of the kingdom of heaven now. Be prepared.

Bell's dream of an always-open heaven is nothing more than a delusion.

- TurretinFan

Biblical "Contradictions" - Does God Repent?

Skeptics love to allege that there are contradictions between the gospels when the gospels say different things. If one gospel describes God one way, and another gospel describe him another way, this is sometimes alleged to illustrate a contradiction.

One way to handle these claims is, of course, to address the particular alleged contradiction. Another approach - the approach that I have been adopting in this series - is to point out that the methodology of refusing to let the text speak harmoniously is the problem.

In the example I have selected for this post, there is a question of whether God repents or not. There are three verses found in the course of a single passage in 1 Samuel that relate to the issue. The first is at verse 11, then at 29, and finally at 35.

1 Samuel 15:9-35

But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.
Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying, "It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments."

And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night. And when Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning, it was told Samuel, saying, "Saul came to Carmel, and, behold, he set him up a place, and is gone about, and passed on, and gone down to Gilgal."

And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, "Blessed be thou of the LORD: I have performed the commandment of the LORD."

And Samuel said, "What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?"

And Saul said, "They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed."

Then Samuel said unto Saul, "Stay, and I will tell thee what the LORD hath said to me this night."

And he said unto him, "Say on."

And Samuel said, "When thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the LORD anointed thee king over Israel? And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, 'Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.' Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the LORD, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the LORD?"

And Saul said unto Samuel, "Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal."

And Samuel said, "Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king."

And Saul said unto Samuel, "I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice. Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD."

And Samuel said unto Saul, "I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel." And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent. And Samuel said unto him, "The LORD hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou. And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent."

Then he said, "I have sinned: yet honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people, and before Israel, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD thy God."

So Samuel turned again after Saul; and Saul worshipped the LORD. Then said Samuel, "Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites."
And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, "Surely the bitterness of death is past."

And Samuel said, "As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women." And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

Then Samuel went to Ramah; and Saul went up to his house to Gibeah of Saul. And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Notice that at the beginning and end of the passage it is written that the Lord repented. In the middle it says that the Lord will not repent. If the first and last descriptions of God were in two gospels, and the middle description was in a third, it would doubtless be alleged that the two gospels represent one position and the third gospel represents a different, conflicting, opinion.

In this case, though, the two "Lord repented" verses sandwich the "Lord will not repent" verse. Thus, it is natural to look for a harmonious explanation. And harmonious explanations are readily available.

For example, the expression "the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent" may be viewed as contrasting the permanence of the removal of Saul with the transience of Saul's appointment as king. In addition, or alternatively, the expression, "the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent," can be seen as referring to the fact that God speaks the truth, even about the future. The expression "the Lord repented," by contrast refers to a change in God's attitude toward Saul. Prior to this, God's attitude toward Saul was favorable, but after this it was favorable. Nevertheless, throughout the events, God kept His word. We can trust God, even though He cannot trust us.

-TurretinFan

Cross an Object Lesson? (UPDATED)

As reported here, Michael Horton wrote: "Third, Christ’s work on the cross was not an object lesson." Horton is wrong. Horton would have been right if Horton had said, "The cross was not just an object lesson," but that's not what he wrote.

It is an object lesson here:

1 John 3:16-17
Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

Notice that Christ's willingness to sacrifice himself in love for us is given as a moral example here for us to be willing to lay down our own lives for the brethren. It is plainly stated and virtually undeniable.

And Christ's work (though not the cross itself) is an object lesson here:

2 Corinthians 8:3-15
For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves; praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God. Insomuch that we desired Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also finish in you the same grace also. Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also. I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love. For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich. And herein I give my advice: for this is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago. Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have. For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality: as it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack.

The lesson here is similar the previous lesson.

It's perfectly fine for people to say that Christ's earthly ministry (and particularly the cross) are not merely an object lesson. But it is contrary to Scripture to deny that the cross is an object lesson. Horton ought to affirm the truths that he does affirm about the cross (that it was a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice) without denying the other truths as well.

UPDATE:

Some more examples of the cross an object lesson or moral example:

Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mark 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

- TurretinFan

Response to "Why One Should Read Before Writing" by R. Scott Clark

R. Scott Clark kindly responded to my previous post (link) with a post of his own (link). I write to correct a few errors in his post.

1. My State of Mind as to Understanding

After a brief tangent about my pseudonymity, Prof. Clark characterizes my comments as being that I didn't "understand how [Prof. Clark] could have raised questions about possible plans by federal officials to force teachers/schools to monitor Facebook for “bullying.”" That characterization is not correct. I understand how he could raise questions about such plans.

2. My Recognition of the Status of Prof. Clark's Blog

While Prof. Clark leads with this:

First, since rotting fish stink, let’s clear away the red herrings from this discussion.

1. The Heidelblog is not the church. It’s a personal blog devoted to Recovering the Reformed Confession (theology, piety, and practice). I discuss things here that, as a minister, I would not discuss from the pulpit.

I myself had written this in the original article:

I think most of the Escondido folks would say it is ok for a minister to comment on political things on his personal blog. Perhaps some would not, but I think most are ok with that - as long as he doesn't use the pulpit for those political comments.

But imagine if Prof. Clark had raised the same point from the pulpit. I think that some of the Escondido folk would have a problem with that, in that it would seem to involve the church getting involved in political matters.

It's hard to say whether Prof. Clark missed this important caveat. His response does not reflect that he saw it.

3. Quotations Seemingly Attributed to Me

Prof. Clark provides a number of items in quotation marks. For example, Prof. Clark wrote:

3. If we’re going to discuss this like gentleman and ladies it would go some distance toward restoring civility to this conversation if the critics would not use Jim Dennison’s grossly misleading nomenclature, “The Escondido Hermeneutic.” This phrase begs the question (i.e., it assumes what it has yet to prove, that there is some distinctive, unique biblical hermeneutic being practiced at Westminster Seminary California). This claim is demonstrably false.

Yet I did not use such a term. I used "Escondido position" and "Escondido folks," but not "Escondido Hermeneutic."

Likewise, Prof. Clark wrote:

5. There is no such thing as “the two-kingdoms view.” Distinguishing between two kingdoms is nothing more than applying Calvin’s categorical distinction to contemporary questions. Different folks will do it differently.

Yet I didn't write "the two-kingdoms view." I wrote "the Escondido position on the two kingdoms" and "as extreme a view of the two kingdoms as Darryl Hart or others who are associated with Westminster West."

I acknowledge, of course, that Prof. Clark uses quotation marks in a variety of ways in his post.

4. What I Said/Suggested About The Escondido View of the Two Kingdoms

Prof. Clark wrote:

It seems to me a significant misunderstanding of a two-kingdoms analysis to say suggest [sic] that one who distinguishes between Christ’s general, sovereign providence over all things and his saving work through the visible church may think about or comment on only one sphere.

Yet I did not write or suggest such a thing. Quite the contrary -- as noted above -- I indicated that I believed that those holding the Escondido position on this subject not only would say that people can think about the other sphere but also would say that they could comment on it on their blogs.

6. Reformed Theologians Holding to Perpetual Virginity and Geocentrism

Prof. Clark wrote:

The 16th and 17th-century Reformed theologians held several views that most of us would not want to hold today (e.g., theocracy, perpetual virginity of the BVM, geocentrism).

This comment is true but a little misleading. While Reformed theologians did express opinions about the latter two subjects, they didn't place those topics in their confessions (at least not any of the confessions of which I'm aware). On the other hand "theocracy" (broadly understood to mean a system of government in which the first table is enforced to some degree or other) they did put in their confessions.

Moreover, we reject the perpetual virginity position on the strength of the Scriptural testimony, confirmed by a more thorough examination of the historical testimony. Even though I suppose few Reformed Theologians today would argue for geocentrism, few would think it important to argue about it. It's not simply a matter of wanting to.

Finally, of course, the standard of what "most of us" "want" is not the way we should conduct ourselves.

Prof. Clark goes on to state:

We’re not bound to the mistakes of the past but to the degree the tradition helps us to understand what we confess, we should learn from them. The distinction between the two kingdoms is one of those valuable resources we need to recover but before folk start commenting on these questions they do need to do some basic reading.

It's true that we're not bound to the mistakes of the past, but the use of the Reformed theologians is not just to help us to understand what we confess - the fact that they held to things should be something that helps to persuade us as a fallible guide.

Moreover, the "distinction between the two kingdoms" was something that they held and held consistently with what Prof. Clark refers to as "theocracy." It's remarkable to see Calvin cluelessly quoted on the issue of two kingdoms, as though he would have supported the Escondido position. In point of fact, Clark in this very post quoted Calvin thus:

Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone, let us first consider that there is a twofold government in man (duplex esse in homine regimen): one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the “spiritual” and the “temporal” jurisdiction (not improper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life—not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority (Institutes 3.19.15.

So why didn't he quote Calvin's consistent comments here:

This consideration ought to be constantly present to the minds of magistrates since it is fitted to furnish a strong stimulus to the discharge of duty, and also afford singular consolation, smoothing the difficulties of their office, which are certainly numerous and weighty. What zeal for integrity, prudence, meekness, continence, and innocence ought to sway those who know that they have been appointed ministers of the divine justice! How will they dare to admit iniquity to their tribunal, when they are told that it is the throne of the living God? How will they venture to pronounce an unjust sentence with that mouth which they understand to be an ordained organ of divine truth? With what conscience will they subscribe impious decrees with that hand which they know has been appointed to write the acts of God? In a word, if they remember that they are the vicegerents of God, it behaves them to watch with all care, diligences and industry, that they may in themselves exhibit a kind of image of the Divine Providence, guardianship, goodness, benevolence, and justice. And let them constantly keep the additional thought in view, that if a curse is pronounced on him that "does the work of the Lord deceitfully" a much heavier curse must lie on him who deals deceitfully in a righteous calling. Therefore, when Moses and Jehoshaphat would urge their judges to the discharge of duty, they had nothing by which they could more powerfully stimulate their minds than the consideration to which we have already referred, - "Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgement. Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons nor taking of gifts," (2 Chron. 19: 6, 7, compared with Deut. 1: 16, &c.) And in another passage it is said, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods," (Psalm 82: 1; Isaiah 3: 14,) that they may be animated to duty when they hear that they are the ambassadors of God, to whom they must one day render an account of the province committed to them. This admonition ought justly to have the greatest effect upon them; for if they sin in any respect, not only is injury done to the men whom they wickedly torment, but they also insult God himself, whose sacred tribunals they pollute. On the other hand, they have an admirable source of comfort when they reflect that they are not engaged in profane occupations, unbefitting a servant of God, but in a most sacred office, inasmuch as they are the ambassadors of God (Institutes 4.20.6.)

Is it simply because Prof. Clark doesn't confess that? Perhaps so, yet it is strange for him to quote Calvin so selectively while suggesting that some of his readers haven't done basic reading on the subject. If his readers haven't done basic reading, he should be more careful to provide them with a complete picture.

7. What Does VanDrunen's Book Suggest?

Prof. Clark wrote:

4. I say “demonstrably” because anyone who has bothered to read David VanDrunen’s book (see above) on the question of the history of the two-kingdoms ethic could see that there’s nothing novel about this way of analyzing the relations between church and civil life or between Christ and culture more broadly.

I'm not sure whether there's nothing novel in what Kline did with Vos' groundwork, but we don't really need to go there. Certainly the Escondido view of the two kingdoms is in fundamental disagreement with Calvin's Institutes (4:20), the Westminster Confession of Faith (23:3), Belgic Confession (Art. 36), 39 Articles (Art. 37), and the Second Helvetic Confession (Ch. 30). This is not something like geocentrism, but is rather something that the Reformed creeds generally taught.

8. What's So Extreme?

Prof. Clark wrote:

I have no idea what TF means when he says “extreme.” It seems like more question begging. It’s true that VanDrunen and others are seeking to apply the two-kingdoms distinction in a post-theocratic setting but it’s hard to see how that’s radical unless one wants to go back to a pre-1789 status. In such a case, who is the radical here, those seeking to work within the status quo or those seeking a theocracy?

At least here Prof. Clark acknowledged that he had no idea what I meant. He then went on to suggest that the comment was question-begging, but at least he started from acknowledging that he did not know.

I provided some clue as to what I meant by extreme: "as extreme a view of the two kingdoms as Darryl Hart or others who are associated with Westminster West" (emphasis added). Darryl Hart (author of Secular Faith) has indicated that he does not believe that the Bible norms the civil magistrate. He specifically wrote:

If the Bible reveals a set of standards that are required of the government, and if Christians believe the Bible, then they have an obligation to make sure that their state follows the Bible.

...

I don’t understand how the Bible functions as the norm for both civil society and the church and yet you can have women barred from office in the latter but not the former. Is not the state bound to conform to biblical norms? f not, why not. Just because the state applies biblical law with the sword, doesn’t mean that the law is not in effect. Remember John Knox? On biblical grounds he was not real pleased with queens running affairs in England or Scotland. Ever heard of the Baylys who regularly claim, on biblical grounds, that women should not hold public office?

In which case, you have your own fancy footwork for separating the norms of the church and the state but it is riddled with a major inconsistency — namely, that the Bible is the norm for the state but it is not really the norm for the state, or only the norm on the matters on which you say it counts. Please tell me how I too may become pope.

...

if the Bible requires rule by elders, why doesn’t the state have elders? You simply keep peeling off another layer of the onion.

The reason why this is important is because 2k is constantly criticized for not advocating biblical morality or biblical norms in public. Well, now you, who are not 2k, tell me that it is okay for the state not to be ruled by elders. But that means that the state doesn’t have to follow Scripture. So it’s okay if you say the state doesn’t have to follow the Bible, but not if I do it. Huh?

...

But again, if you think the Bible is the norm for the state on murder, why isn’t the Bible the norm for the state on worship (i.e. religious freedom or lack thereof), or on which sex gets to rule. I am baffled at a hermeneutic that allows you to pick and choose from Scripture which norms apply to the state, unless, of course, that hermeneutic is convenience.

(source - comment box here)

I consider that extreme or radical in at least two ways. The first way is that it takes the principle of the two kingdoms and extends it too far. There is a difference between church and state, but Hart's approach takes that difference and extends it to an extreme. The second way is that it is outside the bounds of even the revised Westminster standards. The denial that the Bible norms the civil magistrate logically involves a denial that the Scriptures teach what the revised Westminster standards say are the duties of the magistrate.

9. Missing the Point

The point of my post was two-fold: (1) to point out to my reader (who had the question) the easy resolution of the matter; and (2) to highlight the fact that on the other hand such material would seemingly be unwelcome in the pulpit. I think that Prof. Clark actually accepted these. His comment, "I discuss things here that, as a minister, I would not discuss from the pulpit," suggests he agrees (violently) with my comment: "I think most are ok with that - as long as he doesn't use the pulpit for those political comments."

There was also an additional point or two lurking in the shadows. Is the Escondido position that the Bible teaches that the Civil Magistrate ought to give people religious liberty or not? If so, it looks like (according to that position) the Bible norms the Civil Magistrate at least that far. Moreover, if the Bible teaches it, it is hard to see why it would not be proper subject matter for the pulpit. Or is it the Escondido position that the Bible does not teach that the Civil Magistrate ought to give people religious liberty, but that the light of nature does teach it?

10. Unanswered Questions

And it seems, after reading Prof. Clark's reply, that he has left the important questions of the original article unanswered. Those questions were these:

This, however, would create an odd tension. Why? Because the Westminster Standards (in the American revision) as well as the Belgic Confession (in the American Revision) call for the civil magistrate to protect God's church. Yet, the duties of the civil magistrate are always a political matter.

So, can the church speak to political issues or not? Or is there an exception for certain political matters and not others? If there are exceptions, it starts to look like the prohibition on political speech by the church is ad hoc. And if the church can speak to political issues, then why are the Escondido folks so upset when people like the Bayly brothers preach sermons on highly politicized topics like abortion?

-TurretinFan

P.S. If Prof. Clark should desire to hold me accountable to the appropriate elders for my words, I'm more than happy to provide him with their names and contact information - I believe I've already previously offered to give him my name, so long as he keeps it confidential.

David's Two Visits to Achish

Skeptics love to try to find fault with the gospels because there are sometimes accounts that seem to be similar in some ways, but have differences. They are fond of suggesting that these differences are contradictions. In this post, I examine two accounts that have some similarities, but enough differences that if they were in two different gospels, the skeptics would tell us that they are contradictory accounts.

The two accounts I have in mind are of David's visits to Achish. The two accounts are very different. In the first account, David comes to Achish and pretends to be insane. In the second account, David comes to Achish and pretends to be a traitor to Saul. In both cases, Achish is taken in by the act, and in both cases the song that the women sang, "Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands," comes up in the discussion.

1. Madman Encounter

1 Samuel 21:10-15
And David arose, and fled that day for fear of Saul, and went to Achish the king of Gath. And the servants of Achish said unto him, "Is not this David the king of the land? did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, 'Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands'?"
And David laid up these words in his heart, and was sore afraid of Achish the king of Gath. And he changed his behaviour before them, and feigned himself mad in their hands, and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard.
Then said Achish unto his servants, "Lo, ye see the man is mad: wherefore then have ye brought him to me? Have I need of mad men, that ye have brought this fellow to play the mad man in my presence? shall this fellow come into my house?"

2. Traitor Encounter

1 Samuel 27:1-12 (Whole Chapter); 28:1-2; and 29:1-11 (Whole Chapter)
And David said in his heart, "I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul: there is nothing better for me than that I should speedily escape into the land of the Philistines; and Saul shall despair of me, to seek me any more in any coast of Israel: so shall I escape out of his hand." And David arose, and he passed over with the six hundred men that were with him unto Achish, the son of Maoch, king of Gath. And David dwelt with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his household, even David with his two wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the Carmelitess, Nabal's wife. And it was told Saul that David was fled to Gath: and he sought no more again for him.
And David said unto Achish, "If I have now found grace in thine eyes, let them give me a place in some town in the country, that I may dwell there: for why should thy servant dwell in the royal city with thee?"
Then Achish gave him Ziklag that day: wherefore Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah unto this day. And the time that David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was a full year and four months.
And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites: for those nations were of old the inhabitants of the land, as thou goest to Shur, even unto the land of Egypt. And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive, and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel, and returned, and came to Achish.
And Achish said, "Whither have ye made a road to day?"
And David said, "Against the south of Judah, and against the south of the Jerahmeelites, and against the south of the Kenites."
And David saved neither man nor woman alive, to bring tidings to Gath, saying, "Lest they should tell on us, saying, 'So did David, and so will be his manner all the while he dwelleth in the country of the Philistines.'"
And Achish believed David, saying, "He hath made his people Israel utterly to abhor him; therefore he shall be my servant for ever."
And it came to pass in those days, that the Philistines gathered their armies together for warfare, to fight with Israel. And Achish said unto David, "Know thou assuredly, that thou shalt go out with me to battle, thou and thy men."
And David said to Achish, "Surely thou shalt know what thy servant can do."
And Achish said to David, "Therefore will I make thee keeper of mine head for ever."
...
Now the Philistines gathered together all their armies to Aphek: and the Israelites pitched by a fountain which is in Jezreel. And the lords of the Philistines passed on by hundreds, and by thousands: but David and his men passed on in the rereward with Achish. Then said the princes of the Philistines, "What do these Hebrews here?"
And Achish said unto the princes of the Philistines, "Is not this David, the servant of Saul the king of Israel, which hath been with me these days, or these years, and I have found no fault in him since he fell unto me unto this day?"
And the princes of the Philistines were wroth with him; and the princes of the Philistines said unto him, "Make this fellow return, that he may go again to his place which thou hast appointed him, and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us: for wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his master? should it not be with the heads of these men? Is not this David, of whom they sang one to another in dances, saying, 'Saul slew his thousands, and David his ten thousands'?"
Then Achish called David, and said unto him, "Surely, as the LORD liveth, thou hast been upright, and thy going out and thy coming in with me in the host is good in my sight: for I have not found evil in thee since the day of thy coming unto me unto this day: nevertheless the lords favour thee not. Wherefore now return, and go in peace, that thou displease not the lords of the Philistines."
And David said unto Achish, "But what have I done? and what hast thou found in thy servant so long as I have been with thee unto this day, that I may not go fight against the enemies of my lord the king?"
And Achish answered and said to David, "I know that thou art good in my sight, as an angel of God: notwithstanding the princes of the Philistines have said, 'He shall not go up with us to the battle.' Wherefore now rise up early in the morning with thy master's servants that are come with thee: and as soon as ye be up early in the morning, and have light, depart."
So David and his men rose up early to depart in the morning, to return into the land of the Philistines. And the Philistines went up to Jezreel.

- TurretinFan

R. Scott Clark, Religious Freedom, and Two Kingdoms

Reformed pastor and professor R. Scott Clark recently posted an article on his blog ("Religious Freedom Watch: Feds to Force Schools to Monitor Facebook?"). A reader asked me how Prof. Clark can do this while holding to the Escondido position on the two kingdoms.

I should preface my response by saying that I don't know whether R. Scott Clark takes as extreme a view of the two kingdoms as Darryl Hart or others who are associated with Westminster West. So, I hope no one will take this article as representing R. Scott Clark's views. Instead, the article takes Prof. Clark's post as an opportunity to comment on an important issue.

The Escondido position on the two kingdoms seems to be that the church generally should not be involved in political affairs. This issue looks like a political affair, therefore (one might think) the church should not be involved in it.

I think most of the Escondido folks would say it is ok for a minister to comment on political things on his personal blog. Perhaps some would not, but I think most are ok with that - as long as he doesn't use the pulpit for those political comments.

But imagine if Prof. Clark had raised the same point from the pulpit. I think that some of the Escondido folk would have a problem with that, in that it would seem to involve the church getting involved in political matters.

This, however, would create an odd tension. Why? Because the Westminster Standards (in the American revision) as well as the Belgic Confession (in the American Revision) call for the civil magistrate to protect God's church. Yet, the duties of the civil magistrate are always a political matter.

So, can the church speak to political issues or not? Or is there an exception for certain political matters and not others? If there are exceptions, it starts to look like the prohibition on political speech by the church is ad hoc. And if the church can speak to political issues, then why are the Escondido folks so upset when people like the Bayly brothers preach sermons on highly politicized topics like abortion?

-TurretinFan

David's Two Escapes from Saul

Skeptics who wish to allege contradictions between the gospels love to claim that if there are differences between two similar accounts, this means that the two accounts contradict each other. In this post, I'll examine a pair of accounts that are similar enough that one might think they were contradictory accounts of the same event, if they were not in the same book inside a larger narrative.

The two accounts I mention here are the two accounts of David's close calls with Saul. In both cases, Saul is hunting David, someone tells Saul where to find David, David has the chance to kill Saul, but David passes (and commands his men to do the same) and then convicts Saul with respectful and self-deprecating words in which he calls himself a "flea." In both cases, Saul is convicted and lets David go, while Saul himself goes back to his own place.

1. Cave Account

1 Samuel 24:1-22 (whole chapter)
And it came to pass, when Saul was returned from following the Philistines, that it was told him, saying, "Behold, David is in the wilderness of Engedi."
Then Saul took three thousand chosen men out of all Israel, and went to seek David and his men upon the rocks of the wild goats. And he came to the sheepcotes by the way, where was a cave; and Saul went in to cover his feet: and David and his men remained in the sides of the cave.
And the men of David said unto him, "Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, 'Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand,' that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee."
Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul's robe privily. And it came to pass afterward, that David's heart smote him, because he had cut off Saul's skirt. And he said unto his men, "The LORD forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the LORD'S anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the LORD."
So David stayed his servants with these words, and suffered them not to rise against Saul. But Saul rose up out of the cave, and went on his way. David also arose afterward, and went out of the cave, and cried after Saul, saying, "My lord the king." And when Saul looked behind him, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed himself. And David said to Saul, "Wherefore hearest thou men's words, saying, 'Behold, David seeketh thy hurt'? Behold, this day thine eyes have seen how that the LORD had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I said, 'I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the LORD'S anointed.' Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest my soul to take it. The LORD judge between me and thee, and the LORD avenge me of thee: but mine hand shall not be upon thee. As saith the proverb of the ancients, 'Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked:' but mine hand shall not be upon thee. After whom is the king of Israel come out? after whom dost thou pursue? after a dead dog, after a flea. The LORD therefore be judge, and judge between me and thee, and see, and plead my cause, and deliver me out of thine hand."
And it came to pass, when David had made an end of speaking these words unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this thy voice, my son David? And Saul lifted up his voice, and wept.
And he said to David, "Thou art more righteous than I: for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil. And thou hast shewed this day how that thou hast dealt well with me: forasmuch as when the LORD had delivered me into thine hand, thou killedst me not. For if a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away? wherefore the LORD reward thee good for that thou hast done unto me this day. And now, behold, I know well that thou shalt surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel shall be established in thine hand. Swear now therefore unto me by the LORD, that thou wilt not cut off my seed after me, and that thou wilt not destroy my name out of my father's house."
And David sware unto Saul. And Saul went home; but David and his men gat them up unto the hold.

2. Two Hills Account

1 Samuel 26:1-25 (whole chapter)
And the Ziphites came unto Saul to Gibeah, saying, "Doth not David hide himself in the hill of Hachilah, which is before Jeshimon?"
Then Saul arose, and went down to the wilderness of Ziph, having three thousand chosen men of Israel with him, to seek David in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul pitched in the hill of Hachilah, which is before Jeshimon, by the way. But David abode in the wilderness, and he saw that Saul came after him into the wilderness. David therefore sent out spies, and understood that Saul was come in very deed. And David arose, and came to the place where Saul had pitched: and David beheld the place where Saul lay, and Abner the son of Ner, the captain of his host: and Saul lay in the trench, and the people pitched round about him.
Then answered David and said to Ahimelech the Hittite, and to Abishai the son of Zeruiah, brother to Joab, saying, "Who will go down with me to Saul to the camp?"
And Abishai said, "I will go down with thee."
So David and Abishai came to the people by night: and, behold, Saul lay sleeping within the trench, and his spear stuck in the ground at his bolster: but Abner and the people lay round about him. Then said Abishai to David, "God hath delivered thine enemy into thine hand this day: now therefore let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear even to the earth at once, and I will not smite him the second time."
And David said to Abishai, "Destroy him not: for who can stretch forth his hand against the LORD'S anointed, and be guiltless?" David said furthermore, "As the LORD liveth, the LORD shall smite him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend into battle, and perish. The LORD forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the LORD'S anointed: but, I pray thee, take thou now the spear that is at his bolster, and the cruse of water, and let us go."
So David took the spear and the cruse of water from Saul's bolster; and they gat them away, and no man saw it, nor knew it, neither awaked: for they were all asleep; because a deep sleep from the LORD was fallen upon them.
Then David went over to the other side, and stood on the top of an hill afar off; a great space being between them: and David cried to the people, and to Abner the son of Ner, saying, "Answerest thou not, Abner?"
Then Abner answered and said, "Who art thou that criest to the king?"
And David said to Abner, "Art not thou a valiant man? and who is like to thee in Israel? wherefore then hast thou not kept thy lord the king? for there came one of the people in to destroy the king thy lord. This thing is not good that thou hast done. As the LORD liveth, ye are worthy to die, because ye have not kept your master, the LORD'S anointed. And now see where the king's spear is, and the cruse of water that was at his bolster."
And Saul knew David's voice, and said, "Is this thy voice, my son David?"
And David said, "It is my voice, my lord, O king."
And he said, "Wherefore doth my lord thus pursue after his servant? for what have I done? or what evil is in mine hand? Now therefore, I pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If the LORD have stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering: but if they be the children of men, cursed be they before the LORD; for they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the LORD, saying, Go, serve other gods. Now therefore, let not my blood fall to the earth before the face of the LORD: for the king of Israel is come out to seek a flea, as when one doth hunt a partridge in the mountains."
Then said Saul, "I have sinned: return, my son David: for I will no more do thee harm, because my soul was precious in thine eyes this day: behold, I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly."
And David answered and said, "Behold the king's spear! and let one of the young men come over and fetch it. The LORD render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness: for the LORD delivered thee into my hand to day, but I would not stretch forth mine hand against the LORD'S anointed. And, behold, as thy life was much set by this day in mine eyes, so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the LORD, and let him deliver me out of all tribulation."
Then Saul said to David, "Blessed be thou, my son David: thou shalt both do great things, and also shalt still prevail."
So David went on his way, and Saul returned to his place.