The Other Thing Francis of Rome Said ... about Killing in the Name of God

Francis of Rome recently made some comments about atheists that got a lot of attention, but in the process people missed a bigger point. Francis stated:

Instead, this ‘closing off’ that imagines that those outside, everyone, cannot do good is a wall that leads to war and also to what some people throughout history have conceived of: killing in the name of God. That we can kill in the name of God. And that, simply, is blasphemy. To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy.

(source)

But Urban II stated (1095):

On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor. Behold! on this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses; and as soon as winter is over and spring comes, let hem eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide."

(As reported by Fulcher of Chartres)

And Eugene III stated (1154):

We exhort therefore all of you in God, we ask and command, and, for the remission of sins enjoin: that those who are of God, and, above all, the greater men and the nobles do manfully gird themselves; and that you strive so to oppose the multitude of the infidels, who rejoice at the time in a victory gained over us, and so to defend the oriental church -freed from their tyranny by so great an outpouring of the blood of your fathers, as we have said, - and to snatch many thousands of your captive brothers from their hands,- that the dignity of the Christian name may be increased in your time, and that your valour which is praised throughout the whole world, may remain intact and unshaken. May that good Matthias be an example to you, who, to preserve the laws of his fathers, did not in the least doubt to expose himself with his sons and relations to death, and to leave whatever he possessed in the world; and who at length, by the help of the divine aid, after many labours however, did, as well as his progeny, manfully triumph over his enemies.

We, moreover, providing with paternal solicitude for your tranquillity and for the destitution of that same church, do grant and confirm by the authority conceded to us of God, to those who by the promptings of devotion do decide to undertake and to carry through so holy and so necessary a work and labour, that remission of sins which our aforesaid predecessor pope Urban did institute; and do decree that their wives and sons, their goods also and possessions shall remain under the protection of our selves and of the archbishops, bishops and other prelates of the church of God.

(source)

Moreover, Innocent III stated (1215):

Aspiring with ardent desire to liberate the Holy Land from the hands of the ungodly, by the counssel of prudent men Who fully know he circumstances of times and places the holy council approving: we decree that the crusaders shall so prepare themselves that, at the Calends of the June following the next one, all who have arranged to cross by sea shall come together in the kingdom of Sicily; some, as shall be convenient and fitting, at Brindisi, and others at Messina and the places adjoining on both sides where we also have arranged then to be present in person if God wills it, in order that by our counsel and aid the Christian army may be healthfully arranged, about to start with the divine and apostolic benediction.

1. Against the same term, also, those who have decided to go by land shall endeavour to make themselves ready; announcing to us, in the meantime, this determination, so that we may grant them, for counsel and aid, a suitable legate from our side.

2. Priests, moreover, and other clergy who shall be in the Christian army, subordinates as well as prelates, shall diligently insist with prayer and exhortation, reaching the crusaders by word and example alike that they should always have the divine fear and love before their eves, and that they should not say or do anything which might offend the divine majesty. Although at times they may lapse into sin, through true penitence they shall soon arise again; showing humility of heart and body, and observing moderation as well in their living as in their apparel; altogether avoiding dissensions and emulations; rancour and spleen being entirely removed from them. So that, thus armed with spiritual and material weapons, they may fight the more securely against the enemies of the faith; not presuming in their own power, but hoping in the divine virtue.

(source)

So, are popes Urban II, Eugene III, and Innocent III all blasphemers, or is Francis out of step with the tradition of Rome?

But it gets worse. Recall the instructions to Jehu:

2 Kings 9:6-10
And he arose, and went into the house; and he poured the oil on his head, and said unto him, "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, 'I have anointed thee king over the people of the Lord, even over Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master, that I may avenge the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the Lord, at the hand of Jezebel. For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel: and I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah: and the dogs shall eat Jezebel in the portion of Jezreel, and there shall be none to bury her.'" And he opened the door, and fled.

Was that prophet a blasphemer?

What about this prophet:

Deuteronomy 20:16-18
But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.

Is Moses a blasphemer? But the cruelest irony of all:

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.

The words of Francis of Rome do not just contradict a trio of his predecessors, they contradict the law and the prophets. They contradict the Word of God.

In the next post, Lord Willing, we'll encounter Francis' comments about atheists, but it seems worthwhile pointing out the modernist context that surrounds Francis' comments about atheists and atheism.

-TurretinFan

What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur'an, by James White - a Review

With great pleasure, I recently read my friend James White's book, "What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Qur'an," published by Bethany House Publishers. It may be helpful to begin by clarifying what the book is not, then identifying what I liked about the book.

The book is not "what every Christian needs to know about Islam." While understanding the Qur'an is probably the central part of understanding Islam, this book is narrowly focused on the Qur'an. You won't find extensive discussion of all the different schools of Islamic thought, all the different sects and sub-sects of Islam, or discussion of the behavior of Muslims in various countries, except to the extent it is relevant to the topic at hand.

The book is not "what every Muslim needs to know about the Qur'an." While there are some sections that will be particularly helpful for a Muslim seeker who is trying to understand why he should be Jesus' disciple, rather than Mohammad's, this book is not written primarily to Muslims but to Christians.

The book is not "everything there is to know about the Qur'an." While there is in-depth analysis of a number of passages of the Qur'an, and there is a variety of overview material, much of the Qur'an is not discussed in detail.

The book is not "what every Christian needs to know about the Hadith/Sunnah." While a number of important ahadith are discussed in the book, the various collections of hadith cover numerous topics besides the Qur'an and are the basis for the Sunnah, which includes plenty of things that are extra-quarranic.

The book is not "what every Christian needs to know about Arabic." While a number of Arabic words are used, with the exception of one illustration, I believe they are all given in a Romanized form. Moreover, the number of Arabic words is really dictated by the fact that the words tend to have a technical meaning in connection with Islam, and are not necessarily considered translatable by Muslims. There is a helpful glossary at the back of the book for some important terms and phrases, and other terms and phrases are explained in the text itself.

The book is not "the Qur'an for dummies," "Qur'an 101," "what most people already know about the Qur'an" or the like. While there is some overview material, the book aims to educate Christians and elevate their knowledge of the subject.

The book is not "The most sensational and shocking aspects of Islam or the life of Mohammad." While such books may have their place, this book is not in that category. If there are materials that will shock or offend Muslims in this book, they are not being presented simply for that shock value.

From my standpoint, the high point of the book was chapter 4, which deals with the Qur'an and the Trinity. In my view, the Qur'an's treatment of the Trinity is one of the fatal flaws of Islam. Dr. White does a masterful job of proving from the Qur'an and other early Islamic sources that the author of the Qur'an did not correctly understand the Trinity, which demonstrates that the purported authorship of the Qur'an cannot be the true authorship.

Two other chapters I expect Christians will find useful are chapter 10, which deals with the sources and parallel passages in the Qur'an and chapter 11, which deals with the textual transmission of the Qur'an. Chapter 10 could have been two chapters - one on the sources that the Qur'an draws on, and one on the parallel passages in the Qur'an. The section on the sources illuminates the fact that Qur'an draws on a variety of pre-Islamic sources that are unreliable Jewish or heretical legend.

The other section of chapter 10 deals with parallel passages in the Qur'an. This section is not just interesting from the standpoint of highlighting some of the inconsistencies in the Qur'an, but is also interesting from the standpoint of providing rebuttal material when dealing with Muslim criticisms of the Gospels. After all, while there may be differences between Matthew's account and Mark's account of a given event, the Qur'an (in a single work) has differing accounts of the same events.

Chapter 11 is similarly useful in terms of providing rebuttal material to the oft-repeated allegation that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved. The chapter illustrates that such a claim is undermined by the historical evidence we have, much of it from an Islamic perspective, but also from the earliest major Christian interactions with Islam.

I did scour the book to see if there were things in it with which I would disagree. The few things with which I would disagree are basically trivial points that don't deal with the substance. Let me address the biggest point of disagreement, to illustrate how small the disagreement is. I agree with Dr. White that one possible basis for Muhammad's misconceptions regarding the Trinity are the idols that were growing in acceptance in the churches in Mohammad's region during his lifetime. In particular, he probably saw professed Christians who carried images of Mary and Jesus with them, or saw such images installed in churches. However, I would not expect that the images would be statuary in 7th century middle-eastern churches (more likely paintings, tapestries, or similar flat portrayals), nor do I expect that there were any crucifixes (crosses, yes, but not crucifixes), and I think it is unlikely any of them would have any purported likeness of the Father creating world (presumably Dr. White has in mind the atrocity found on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel). (Cf. p. 87 of the book.) Keep in mind that all of this discussion is about a point on which Dr. White is not dogmatic (he phrases the matter in terms of speculation and as a mere possibility) and does not really matter for Dr. White's argument (after all, Christian iconography probably did contribute to Mohammad's errors). My other points of question or disagreement are even more trivial than this minor point and are definitely not worth mentioning. I would, however, hope that if any Muslim readers spot errors in the book they will bring them to my attention.

In conclusion, the book is a resource that I would recommend to anyone who plans to discuss things theological with their Muslim friends, relatives, or neighbors. The book is not "what every Muslim knows about the Qur'an," and I think it is likely that your Muslim friends, relatives, or neighbors are unlikely to know all the material that is in this book. The book responds to a number of widely-held myths about or based on the Qur'an, and it is likely that Muslims you meet will have heard those misconceptions. Being prepared to talk with them may help you open the door to discussion of why they ought to be Jesus' disciples, rather than (not "in addition to") being the followers of Mohammad. This book is a valuable asset for such preparation.

-TurretinFan

In the interest of disclosure, I blog at Dr. White's blog, in addition to being his friend.

Does God Hate?

"Anyone who teaches that a god hates, that's not the God of the Bible ... ." (Ergun Caner at 16:57-17:03 in "The Priority of Sharing the Gospel of Muslim Women" on the John Ankerberg Show)

Hosea 9:15
All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.

Malachi 1:3
And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Romans 9:13
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

-TurretinFan

If that's Exoneration ...

As reported (here):

Ergun Mehmet Caner @erguncaner
@kylelaporte @Brutangel22 // No need to prove anything. Certainly not u. Again, 3 schools looked at it all. Finding? Exonerated

As reported here:

Four members of Liberty’s Board of Trustees who conducted the investigation found that “Dr. Caner has made factual statements that are self-contradictory,” the university said.

If that's exoneration, I wonder what conviction would look like.

Carl Trueman on the Dangers of the Free Press

Professor Carl Trueman has some less than positive comments on the expanded freedom of the press that has occurred in the Internet age. Per Trueman:

Yet even as this increasing freedom is to be welcomed, it is not without inherent problems. In the past, if I wanted to tell you my views on subatomic physics, the best an idiot like myself could have done was to self-publish a book on the subject; and as soon as bookstore managers and journal editors noticed that the book was published by the `Carl R Trueman Center for Really Very Complicated Scientific Inquiry', no mainstream bookshop would stock it and no reputable organ would review it. These days, however, I could simply start my own webpage or blog, and somebody out there - probably a bunch of my own besotted but unqualified and incompetent disciples - would take it seriously, flag up my works, surround my blogs and articles with praise, and make me look like a credible player in the internet world of subatomic research . Credible, that is, to anyone who took the web at face value and did not know anything about the subject or my own lack of any qualifications in the relevant field.

Of course, a similar problem occurred with the introduction of paper (reducing the cost of hand-copying manuscripts) and especially the introduction of the printing press (reducing the cost of reproducing text).

Trueman's nostalgia of the golden days before the Internet are mistaken, however. First, there was plenty of tripe that was carried by bookstores and published by publishers (obviously, in the opposite order). Why was it published and carried? Because the owners thought they would profit from it.

Second, the firehose of the Internet has its own mechanism for sorting out the tripe. There are reasons that certain sites get more traffic than others. Sometimes the mechanism is as simple as the economic mechanisms that drove bookstores in the pre-Internet era. It costs time and/or money to run a good website, and it costs time and/or money to drive visitors to one's website.

Sometimes the mechanism is the vox populi. The reason that certain blogs are popular is because people know writing that they like when they see it. Doug Wilson is a prime beneficiary of this effect. Likewise, a few blogs appeal on the basis of their substance, such as specialty blogs on niche topics.

There can be other effects as well, but the bottom line is that not all the millions of blogs get the same amount of shelf space in the Internet supermarket of ideas. Big, well-funded and well-filled sites get lots of space, and poorly funded and poorly managed sites get hardly any space.

So, having read my fair share of worthless e-pologetics (and perhaps my critics will say I've contributed more than my fair share), I still think that Trueman's concerns overlook the credibility signaling that does exist within the Internet. The same problems that existed before the Internet still exist - the additional problems are just a result of having more quantity of material now than ever before.

It's as though your favorite bookstore moved into a large warehouse, and now can stock even the most obscure self-published books. Actually, it's rather like what places like Amazon.com and BN.com have become.

-TurretinFan

How to Answer the Fool - Sye Ten Bruggencate

American Vision and Sye Ten Bruggencate have collaborated to provide "How to Answer the Fool." I had the pleasure of listening to the presentation for free, courtesy of Crown Rights Media, who were also involved. The presentation was about 85 minutes long, and is focused on the apologetic method. I did not see the study guide.

The video provides a presentation of the apologetics approach in which the revelation of Scripture has preeminence (often called the "presuppositional" approach). The analysis is critical of the evidentialist approaches, using examples from folks like Lee Strobel, John Lennox, Frank Turek, and William Lane Craig. There is also criticism of Rick Warren and his "give Jesus a try" approach as well as a brief criticism of Pascal's wager.

It is not just a lecture on apologetic methodology. There are some examples of open air apologetics applying this approach. Still, there is an explanation of the methodology and with the problems with rejecting the methodology.

One of the most interesting parts of the video come from an interview that began as a discussion with atheists, but had a surprising twist, which pointed out how the methodology does not need to be limited to those who call themselves atheists.

I really loved the video. As Sye emphasizes in the video, the methodology's big advantage is that it drives you back to Scripture. Certain distinctive aspects of the methodology are emphasized (precisely because they are distinctive), so people may come away with the idea that all of the discussion is just asking one or two easy to ask questions. Still, he takes care to point out that it is more than that.

Cinematically, the presentation is developed with an intentionally "gritty" feel. While those techniques are not my personal favorite, they convey the point that this presentation is intended to be for the streets, even though it is skillfully produced. The elements of the presentation flow well, and even the rap in the credits time of the video is on point.

At one point in the video, one might come away with the idea that Sye does not consider himself accountable to anyone but God. I suspect that this point was not clarified because of a desire to focus on the topic at hand. There are subordinate authorities, of course, including the overseers in the church, family authority, and the civil authorities.

-TurretinFan

Disclaimer: as noted above, I did not pay to see this video, but was instead permitted to view the video without charge.

Calvin as Tyrant?

R. Scott Clark has some antidote to the oft-repeated slander of Calvin as Tyrant (link).

-TurretinFan

The Real Francis Turretin on Faith and Reason

The question is not whether reason is the instrument by which or the medium through which we can be drawn to faith. For we acknowledge that reason can be both: the former indeed always and everywhere; the later with regard to presupposed articles. Rather the question is whether it is the first principle from which the doctrines of faith are proved; or the foundation upon which they are built, so that we must hold to be false in things of faith what the nature light or human reason cannot comprehend. This we deny.

…If reason is the principle of faith, then first it would follow that all religion is natural and demonstrable by natural reason and natural light. Thus nature and grace, natural and supernatural revelation would be confounded.
…A ministerial and organic relation is quite different from a principial and despotic.
…We must observe the distinction between an instrument of faith and the foundation of faith.
…The Lutherans falsely object to us that we hold reason to be the principle and rule of demonstration in controversies because we sometimes draw arguments from reason, and argue from reason against the ubiquity of Christ’s body. For we assign to reason only a ministerial and instrumental, not a principal office. And if, in compound questions, we use reason for the purpose of proof, it bears the relation not of a principle but of means from which the theologian argues; and the are not with us primary arguments, but only secondary and auxiliary forces. Besides, while the theologian uses arguments drawn from reason, he does it rather as a philosopher rather than as a theologian. As to the ubiquity of the body of Christ, we reject this doctrine both philosophically and theologically, because it is absurd and contradicts the first principles of theology and philosophy.

(cited as Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.8.4, 5, 6, 24 at this link)

Paradigm Puzzle for Jason Stellman

Jason Stellman has claimed that one of his attractions to the Roman religion was that allegedly the Biblical authors said things that someone with a Reformed paradigm would not say. Actually, he's being anachronistic. There are certain things Reformed pastors wouldn't say, because of heresies that have arisen since the time of the apostles (such as papalism) and because of misinterpretations of Biblical passages, such as those related to perseverance.

I'm persuaded that Stellman will perceive particular passages to be puzzling for his present paradigm.  For example, I'm sure Stellman realizes that in Roman Catholicism the Eucharist is central. For example:

Eucharist and Priests: The Eucharist is central to the ministry of priests and it is by means of the Eucharist that “they are in communion with Christ the head, and leading others into this communion” (Ad Gentes, 39). The missionary activity of the Church is about the extension of communion through the building up, day by day of the body of Christ.

(source)

This should be obvious as well from the title of the blog of Stellman's pals, "Called to Communion." But what is the central aspect of the ministry of Christian elders? Check out the description in Acts:

Acts 6:2-4
Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

The word and prayer are the central aspects.

And again, in 1 Timothy:

1 Timothy 5:17
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Here the emphasis is on word and doctrine, as well as on administrative ability.

And again, in Titus 1:

Titus 1:1-9
Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; in hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; but hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour; to Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: if any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Notice again the emphasis on the word and doctrine, as well as the emphasis on moral rectitude.

And again in 1 Timothy:

1 Timothy 3:1-7
This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Again, teaching aptitude and administrative ability (together with exemplary moral status) are the focus.

In fact, while the Lord's supper (and Baptism) are important, they are not closely linked with the roles of bishops/elders in Scripture. While typically these sacraments are administered by elders in Reformed churches, this is not because the Scriptures require it. It is a matter of order in the church, rather than a matter of absolute necessity. For example, Philip (one of the proto-deacons) baptized the Ethiopian eunuch.

In Roman Catholicism, the priests/bishops must administer the Eucharist, because they are priests. That is not the paradigm of the New Testament. The elders/bishops are never referred to as priests. Indeed, in the New Testament properly the only priest is the Lord Jesus Christ. In a sense, we are all priests, but properly it is only the Lord. He is the only mediator between God and man, which necessarily excludes a priestly class.

But Stellman claims that the Roman Catholic paradigm better explains the New Testament. I'm not persuaded.

-TurretinFan

The Real Francis Turretin on the Church in Relation to the Trinity

The church is the primary work of the holy Trinity, the object of Christ’s mediation and the subject of the application of his benefits.

(cited as Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T Dennison (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub., 1992), 3:1, at this link)

"It is not Possible to find Jesus Outside the Church"

Pope Francis in today's homily stated (Vatican Radio translation):

And so the Church was a Mother, the Mother of more children, of many children. It became more and more of a Mother. A Mother who gives us the faith, a Mother who gives us an identity. But the Christian identity is not an identity card: Christian identity is belonging to the Church, because all of these belonged to the Church, the Mother Church. Because it is not possible to find Jesus outside the Church. The great Paul VI said: "Wanting to live with Jesus without the Church, following Jesus outside of the Church, loving Jesus without the Church is an absurd dichotomy." And the Mother Church that gives us Jesus gives us our identity that is not only a seal, it is a belonging. Identity means belonging. This belonging to the Church is beautiful.

I want you to note that line, "it is not possible to find Jesus outside the Church." There we have an exclusivistic note that we have not noticed in the past few pontiffs.

I can't predict whether this statement will be qualified to death, or not. However, taking the statement as stated, how can there be "separated brethren"? Are they "brethren" who are separated from Jesus? If so, in what sense are they brethren? Likewise, if people are potentially saved "outside the church," then are they not saved through Jesus?

Francis' statement seems to fit better with traditional thought than with the modern inclusivisitic statements we've heard from a variety of cardinals. Recall Cardinal George talking about how Mormonism and Roman Catholicism have a "common ground" in Jesus (link). Likewise, recall Cardinal Pell suggesting that hell may be empty or nearly empty (link). Neither of these ideas fits well with what Francis is saying.

I will say this, Francis and Paul VI would be right on the point where he is quoted, if "church" were properly understood as the visible church (composed of all gospel-preaching churches) and if this were described as the general rule. In other words, our love of Christ should lead us to unity with the brethren in the churches. However, except those of us who grow up in the church, we come to faith in Christ outside the church and therefore join ourselves with the churches.

Moreover, Jesus is found in Scripture. The church ought faithfully to proclaim the Scripture and particularly the Gospel, but Jesus can be found and has been found by many outside the visible church, through the work of the Spirit opening their eyes, ears, and heart to the proclamation of the Gospel.

-TurretinFan

Binding and Loosing - a "Matter of Interpretation"?

Roman Catholics have the burden of establishing that there is some rule of faith outside Scripture.  One typical appeal (and one I recently heard) is an appeal to the binding and loosing mentioned in Matthew 16 and 18.  The problem with such an appeal is that "binding" and "loosing," do not refer to defining dogma.

There are at least two main ways of looking at them.  One way is looking at them in terms of church discipline.  Another way of looking at them is in terms of the proclamation of the gospel.  But the Roman Catholic apologist's way of looking at the text as supposedly conferring a power of infallibly defining dogma is different from either of those.

At this point, the RC apologist said, "... now we’re down to a matter of interpretation."  Yes, it's a matter of interpretation as opposed to say a matter of one person just blatantly saying, "because my church says so."  Yet matters of interpretation are often still resolvable based on the text, context, and so forth.  So, just labeling something a "matter of interpretation" is not really an out for our friend.

The problem for this particular RC apologist (and others like him) is that his own church, in her official teachings, interprets "binding and loosing" as related to discipline (all quotations from the official Catechism of the Catholic Church):

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

1444 In imparting to his apostles his own power to forgive sins the Lord also gives them the authority to reconcile sinners with the Church. This ecclesial dimension of their task is expressed most notably in Christ's solemn words to Simon Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head."

1445 The words bind and loose mean: whomever you exclude from your communion, will be excluded from communion with God; whomever you receive anew into your communion, God will welcome back into his. Reconciliation with the Church is inseparable from reconciliation with God.

1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

979 In this battle against our inclination towards evil, who could be brave and watchful enough to escape every wound of sin? "If the Church has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ. The Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives."

980 It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church:

Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers "a laborious kind of baptism." This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn.

981 After his Resurrection, Christ sent his apostles "so that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations." The apostles and their successors carry out this "ministry of reconciliation," not only by announcing to men God's forgiveness merited for us by Christ, and calling them to conversion and faith; but also by communicating to them the forgiveness of sins in Baptism, and reconciling them with God and with the Church through the power of the keys, received from Christ:

[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit's action. In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us.

982 There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. "There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest. Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin.

Now, my Roman Catholic friends know very well that disciplinary decisions are not accorded the charism of infallibility in Roman Catholic theology. Yet they argue as though the verse teaches that the power to bind and loose implies infallibility. There's a third way between between their church's view and their view, as mentioned above.

As William Webster has explained, the keys of the kingdom of heaven were entrusted to the apostles in the form of entrusting them with the gospel message to proclaim.  Thus, the binding and loosing there refers to the proclamation of the true gospel.

Isaiah 61:1The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 

Luke 4:18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

After all, the gospels are the keys that unlock the gates of hell, allowing the church (all believers - all those who confess that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God) to be resurrected unto eternal life. Those who do not follow the true gospel will not enter into heaven - those who do, will.

The apostles have handed down (traditioned) that gospel to us in the writings of the New Testament.  It was once delivered and remains the same today as it was when the apostles delivered it.

- TurretinFan

The Real Francis Turretin on Faith and Reason

He does not therefore mean to take away reason entirely because grace does not destroy, but perfects nature. He only wishes it to serve and be a handmaid to faith and as such to obey, not to govern its mistress; that it may be in subjection and not entirely discarded, that it may be not the foundation, but the defender of faith and embrace, contend for and adorn the faith already established.

(cited as Turretin 1.1.9.15 at this link)

C.S. Lewis on the Vatican Website - Priestesses and a Fourth Trinitarian Person?

C.S. Lewis, in an article at the Vatican website, states:

The Middle Ages carried their reverence for one Woman to a point at which the charge could plausibly made that the Blessed Virgin became in their eyes almost 'a fourth Person of the Trinity.'

(source)

Wondering why an article by C.S. Lewis is being posted on the Vatican website? The topic of the article is "Priestesses in the Church?" It was written in opposition to the introduction of priestesses into the Anglican church.

Are his arguments sound or usable by Roman Catholics? I think they are not:

That this reaction does not spring from any contempt for women is, I think, plain from history. The Middle Ages carried their reverence for one Woman to a point at which the charge could plausibly made that the Blessed Virgin became in their eyes almost 'a fourth Person of the Trinity.' But never, so far as I know, in all those ages was anything remotely resembling a sacerdotal office attributed to her. All salvation depends on the decision which she made in the words Ecce ancilla [Behold the handmaid of the Lord]; she is united in nine months' inconceivable intimacy with the eternal Word; she stands at the foot of the cross. But she is absent both from the Last Supper and from the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost. Such is the record of Scripture. Nor can you daff it aside by saying that local and temporary conditions condemned women to silence and private life. There were female preachers. One man had four daughters who all 'prophesied,' i.e. preached. There were prophetesses even in the old Testament times. Prophetesses, not priestesses.

a) There has been a big push within Roman Catholicism to describe Mary in terms of being a mediatrix or "co-mediatrix," which places her in a priestly role.
b) Mary was absent from the Lord's Supper, but only the Lord is the Priest of the Supper, the apostles were beneficiaries not priests.
c) Moreover, women are free to participate as beneficiaries even though Mary was not at the supper.
d) There doesn't appear to be anything particularly priestly about the distribution of extraordinary gifts at Pentecost. After all, the sign gift of prophecy also came to Philip's four daughters.
e) Prophecy doesn't necessarily involve preaching. We're not given any details about what kind of prophecy the daughters of Philip had. It may have been simple seeing, as with Agabus, who foretold Paul's bonds. On the other hand, it may have been like Huldah's prophecy:

2 Chronicles 34:23-28
And she answered them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell ye the man that sent you to me, thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah: because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be poured out upon this place, and shall not be quenched.
And as for the king of Judah, who sent you to enquire of the Lord, so shall ye say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel concerning the words which thou hast heard; because thine heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before God, when thou heardest his words against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, and humbledst thyself before me, and didst rend thy clothes, and weep before me; I have even heard thee also, saith the Lord. Behold, I will gather thee to thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace, neither shall thine eyes see all the evil that I will bring upon this place, and upon the inhabitants of the same.

That communicates a lot more information, and comes closer to preaching, although it is obviously not preaching in the sense of expounding or exhorting in a derivative way.

-TurretinFan

2 Kingdoms in 2 Chronicles

Some of the advocates of the so-called Escondido view of the two kingdoms (as distinct from the traditional view held by Calvin and Turretin and set forth in the Westminster Confession, 39 Articles, and Belgic Confession) seem to have the idea that "two kingdoms" (i.e. a distinction between civil and religious) is a novel idea in the New Testament era. They are wrong.

There were two kingdoms in the Old Testament era as well, even if they sometimes got a bit blurred, as they did under Moses. Uzziah provides a poignant example of the distinction:

2 Chronicles 26:16-21
But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction: for he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense. And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, that were valiant men: and they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God.
Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, from beside the incense altar. And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the Lord had smitten him. And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the Lord: and Jotham his son was over the king's house, judging the people of the land.

The point is that the king - the civil head of the country was not the high priest, the religious head of the country. Rather, there was a distinction between the two kingdoms.
Under the new covenant, we are a nation of priests. We have direct access to God through prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, and consequently we have no use either for priests or for incense. We do not need a merely human mediator, because Jesus Christ, the God-man, is our mediator and high priest, and the Spirit communicates on our behalf.
The passage is also a good reminder of the second commandment, the commandment that teaches us that God must be worshiped as He wills, not as we will. Here, Uzziah was not proposing to offer incense to Baal or to any false God, but rather to YHWH. Nevertheless, he overstepped his bounds and did not follow the way of worship that God had appointed, and so God judged with leprosy.

-TurretinFan

One Bad Argument Against Roman Catholicism (with a good side point)

In the linked article, there are two points (link). One point is the quite silly and worthless ad hominem argument that Benedict XVI was (in his youth) a part of Hitler's Nazi Youth organization. There is no doubt that he was, he admits it himself. However, it was also compulsory. Furthermore, while someone might argue he ought to have sought martyrdom rather than be a part of the Nazi movement, nevertheless that was a long time before he became pope (see this more balanced article).

In short, standing alone, Ratzinger's participation in that particular evil organization (I mean the Nazi Youth organization) is not an argument against Catholicism. It's really only something that can become relevant to a discussion on Catholicism under very special circumstances, such as when someone in Catholicism complains that a particular minister was previously a drug addict or a member of a violent gang, as though that mattered to the truth of the gospel he now proclaims.

Such a claim is absolutely silly, after all. Not only might one respond to such a claim by pointing out Benedict XVI's past life, one might point to true Christians who had serious sin. One cannot forget David and Solomon who both fell into serious and scandalous sin. Furthermore, we could add Moses and Paul: Moses was a murderer and Paul consented to Stephen's death.

But there is another point that the article raises. Sometimes those in Catholicism are so anxious to defend "the Church" that they do not bother to deal truthfully and honestly. An example is Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican's chief spokesman, who (according to the article) "felt compelled to declare that the pope, growing up as Joseph Ratzinger in Bavaria, 'never, never, never' belonged to the Hitler Youth."  (He later backtracked on that.)

That issue is one that is much more germane to the distinctions between Rome and Geneva. The Bible never lies to us, but "the Church" through her spokesmen certainly sometimes does. Now, you can say that Lombardi was simply unaware of the Pope's biography - or perhaps he is simply an incompetent spokesman. The point is, however, that he passionately conveyed a message that wasn't true in attempt to defend Rome and his master, the pope. The Bible does not suffer from that weakness: it is the inspired and consequently infallible Word of God.

-TurretinFan

N.B. Rome's teaching on infallibility does not state that Vatican spokesmen are infallible.  In fact, it hardly teaches that anything Rome sets forth is infallible.  But you can trust everything the Bible teaches.

Pope John XX as the Test of Papal Infallibility and Apostolic Succession

In the late 1950's and early 1960's there was a pope who took the name "John XXIII."  I get the sense that John XXIII is popular among the less traditionalist segment of Roman Catholicism.  For example, Joseph Biden is quoted as saying (source):

I was raised as a Catholic, I’m a practicing Catholic, and I’m totally at home with the Catholicism that I was raised in and this whole culture of social responsibility, reaction to abuse of power, the whole notion that there is collective civic responsibility. It’s the Catholic consciousness that I’m totally comfortable with. … To sum it up, as a Catholic, I’m a John XXIII guy, I’m not a Pope John Paul guy.

Likewise, Garry Wills explains (Why Priests?, p. 57): 

After Humani Generis, directives for punishment were issued from Rome -- silencing not only Lubac, but Jean Daniélou, Yves Congar, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Karl Rahner, Teilhard de Chardin, John Courtney Murray, and other leading liberal thinkers. Under Pope John XXIII these men emerged from the shadows to bask in the warmth of the Second Vatican Council, where they became leading lights.

My point about infallibility is not to contrast Pope Pius XII's repression of the "liberals" with John XXIII's elevation of the same liberals.  If that were so, I'd call this post "Pope John XXIII as the test of papal infallibility."  The point is not just one pope praising what another pope has condemned.  Rather my point goes deeper - to the supposed chain of apostolic succession.

Start going back the chain of apostolic succession through all twenty-three pope Johns.  If you try this, you'll notice a few odd things.

First, there was already a "Pope John XXIII" from 1410 to 1415, also known as Baldassare Cossa.  The 20th century "Pope John XXIII" was Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli.  By styling himself as John XXIII, Roncalli was identifying Cossa as an anti-pope.

This highlights a period of time in the late 1300's and the early 1400's when there were competing claims to the papal throne.  

Thus, for example, one "list of popes" provides the following:

202. Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
203. Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
204. Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
205. Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
206. Martin V (1417-31)
207. Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)

Even though this sort of thing would seem to wreak havoc on people trying to figure out religion by following the right human being (instead of by following the Word of God) during that period, perhaps it is not so significant now.  And, indeed, this is not even the point of bringing up John XXIII (namely to highlight that he's not the first John XXIII).

Stepping back one more step, we come to John XXII.  In the same list quoted above, he's listed as:

196. John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)

Noting this interesting problem of competing popes, let's step back to John XXI:

187. John XXI (1276-77)

Nothing so remarkable there.  But what about John XX?  If you keep scanning back through that same list, you'll find John XIX:

144. John XIX (1024-32)

But between John XIX and John XXI you won't find a John XX.  Why not?  Because John XXI made a mistake.  He thought that several of his predecessors had been off by one in their count of the number of pope Johns.  He thought that there was a pope John between John XIV and John XV, who had not been properly identified.  So, he was trying to correct it.  Yet he was mistaken.

In fact, not only is there no pope between John XIV and John XV, the only "John XVI" was an anti-pope.  Using the same list:

136. John XIV (983-84)

137. John XV (985-96)

138. Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)

139. Sylvester II (999-1003)

140. John XVII (1003)

Now, I'm certainly not claiming that traditionalist Roman Catholics hold to the idea that the ordinal number next to the pope's name has the charism of infallibility.

My point is broader.  If the pope cannot figure out which pope John he is, do you really think he can define dogma infallibly?  Likewise, if the popes John themselves cannot figure out the chain of succession, so as to know which ordinal number goes with their name, what makes you think that this chain of succession is historically reliable and has any real meaning?

When people tell me about supposed "apostolic succession" or "papal infallibility" good old non-existent Pope John XX is in the back of my mind, and perhaps should be in yours as well.  Instead of following errant men, follow Scripture, the infallible Word of God.

-TurretinFan

Response to "Christmas Wars"

Steve Hays has a post called "Christmas Wars," about objections to Christmas (link to post). As a non-celebrant of the day, I thought it would be interesting to review his identified objections and his responses to the objections.

1. Constitutional Objection

As far as I know, Steve's right about this.

2. Genetic Objection

Steve has two responses here. The first isn't really argued, so I'll pass over it. The second is that the meaning of the holiday is properly defined other ways than by its origins. That's certainly true, at least to a degree.

Yet I think that the response misses the objection. The objection is, in essence, that Christmas is tainted by its pagan roots. Thus, partaking in the celebration is partaking in paganism. The reasoning would be from the issue of meat offered to idols. We are not to partake in the ceremonies of the heathen. If pagan origin of the holiday means that those participating in it are participating to some degree in a pagan religious celebration, they should not.

Incidentally, I think the weakness of the objection lies in the argument that the co-opting taints the holiday. Isn't that rather like saying that Reformation Day is tainted by Halloween? I don't really buy that.

3. Calendrical Objection

I don't buy Steve's first response here, which is that it is "dubious" that Jesus was not born on December 25. We really have no good reason for thinking that December 25 is the day of Jesus' birth. The best Steve can do here is to say that there is not iron-clad proof that December 25 was not the actual day. Based solely on the fact that the Bible does not tell us the date, there's about a 99.7% chance that it was not December 25. That's hardly "dubious."

Steve's second response is that the objection is irrelevant. In other words, who cares if it is really Jesus' birthday? This is a stronger objection, but of course the holiday is sold (by ditties like "God Bless Ye Merry Gentlemen") as being important because it is Jesus' birthday.

4. The So-Called Puritan Objection

I don't think Steve accurately represents the Puritans' views here. The objection he identifies is the objection that it is "wrong to observe any (religious) holiday that isn’t commanded in Scripture." I'm not sure he could find any Puritan actually saying that.

Steve's first response is to allege that this is a false dichotomy. Perhaps it is, at least as stated - but I don't think the Puritans would state it that way.

Steve's second response is to allege that the observation of the Lord's Day would also fall prey to this objection. A full response would require a lot of detail, but suffice that the Puritans did believe that the Lord's Day is a religious holy day commanded by Scripture.

5. The "Baptist" Objection

I agree with Steve's responses.

6. The Commercialization Objection

I agree with Steve's responses.

7. The Politically Correct Objection

I agree with Steve's responses.

8. The Ethical Objection

I agree with Steve's first response, to wit that Christians can adopt less than the full package of "Christmas" customs. As to his second and third responses, I disagree. You shouldn't lie to your kids - and while kids may be upset that they were not lied to, one should not lie in order to avoid alienating one's kids, since a good end cannot justify an evil means.

- TurretinFan

Churchless Evangelicals

R. Scott Clark has some serious and sobering words to "churchless evangelicals" (part 1) (part 2).  I actually wouldn't agree with everything he says (or at least not as he says it) - I think some of his comments could be taken as suggesting that the ministers themselves are the means of grace, instead of the Word, Sacraments, and Prayer.  They are not the means of grace, nor are they the mediators of grace.  They are not priests and the congregants are not laity.  Yet I suspect that this is just an infelicitous wording on Prof. Clark's part - I'm sure he'd agree with me that ministers are not priests and that there is no priest but Christ in Christianity.

-TurretinFan

All Forms of Slavery?

Thabiti Anyabwile and Doug Wilson have concluded their discussion, but in the conclusion section, Thabiti posted an item claiming it was a point of common agreement between the men:

3. The logic of the gospel is jubilee logic. This means that the messianic promises all looked forward to the day when the liberation of the world from every form of slavery would begin, and the arrival of Christ was the inauguration of God’s kingdom. This liberation from slavery begins with liberating men from their slavery to sin, but it necessarily and inexorably includes all other forms of slavery as well—whether the forms of slavery as they existed in the ancient world, or the more recent forms in our country.

Sorry, guys, but minimally we're still slaves of our Lord.  We're more than that, but we are that.  That metaphor for our relationship to God remains.  We are not slaves to sin, we're slaves to God.

The gospel does not demand the liberation of human slaves.  The command to masters is not "free your slaves," but rather masters are commanded to treat their slaves equitably, with the very reason being that they themselves have a master in heaven.

Ephesians 6:9
And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. 

Colossians 4:1
Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

This is very similar to the commands to husbands to love their wives:

Ephesians 5:24-25
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

In both cases, the metaphor between the master-slave relationship or the husband-wife relationship is not subversive of the relationship, it reinforces it.  These superior-inferior relationships are not intrinsically evil - they are actually pictures of our relationship with God.

Moreover, Paul presumes that there will be believing slave owners.  He writes:

1 Timothy 6:2
And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

In other words, even though the Gospel does make all Christians brethren, that does not mean that believing slaves should stop serving believing masters.

I realize that modern American culture (and more broadly Western European culture) is highly anti-slavery.  We, as Christians, need to rise above the culture and stand on God's revelation, rather than the changing morals of human society.  That means that we can be critical of systems in which there is abuse of slaves by masters, but we don't have to declare our Lord sinful for having us as his slaves.  We don't need to conform the gospel to our culture, we need to acknowledge the places where the gospel opposes the culture.

We call Jesus, Lord, not just because he is our King but also because he is our Master, recall that Colossians 4:1 (quoted above) states: "Οἱ κύριοι (kurioi - masters), τὸ δίκαιον καὶ τὴν ἰσότητα τοῖς δούλοις (doulois - slaves) παρέχεσθε, εἰδότες ὅτι καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔχετε κύριον (kurion - Lord/Master) ἐν οὐρανῷ."  If you really think that "all other forms of slavery" are wrong, then how can you claim to be a "δοῦλον δὲ κυρίου" (doulon de kuriou - Slave of the Master or Servant of the Lord, 2 Timothy 2:24).

-TurretinFan