An Internet poster named Guardian wrote this post (link) in response to which Dr. White asked him to call into the Dividing Line radio program. Guardian did so, and was much more respectful and reasonable than the brief post linked above would suggest.
When Guardian called in on July 17, 2007, and suggested that he would have a list of Dr. White's scholarly failures within three months or so. Three months will have elapsed on October 17, 2007. Hopefully Guardian has not forgotten. I know that many of us are waiting to see what the allegations will be.
Guardian seemed very reasonable on the phone, and I hope that he will have the time and interest to follow through on his planned documentation. It will be very instructive as to what are perceived to be the weak links in Dr. White's exposés of Catholicism.
-Turretinfan
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Communications to the Departed
From time to time, one hears folks claim that they hold to their views because they found them in the Bible. For example, one hears claims from Roman Catholic apologists that they figured out that Roman Catholic theology was scriptural, and consequently became Roman Catholics.
One area where such a claim cannot be true (and there are doubtless many such areas) is in the area of prayers/communications/call them what you like, to departed Christians. The source of such doctrines is not the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.
Here are some questions to demonstrate:
1. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person who did not know your language during life, what makes you think that the person will understand your language now?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people gain knowledge of new human languages.
2. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person whose body is far away from you, what makes you think that the person will hear you?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people can hear people who are talking far away from their corpses.
3. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person who is very popular - such as Jude or Seraphim of Saratov, what makes you think that the person has the ability or availability to hear you?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people can hear many communications that are made at the same time, or that can be available to hear communications in general.
4. If you are trying to communicate with someone who you believe is bodily in heaven, other than Christ, what makes you think that such communication is possible?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that anyone in heaven beside Christ can hear our communications.
Let's see how one Roman Catholic apologist (a lay apologist named Dave Armstrong) responded on similar issues:
Similar to (1) & (4):
Dave writes: "If it is objected that the dead saints cannot hear us, we reply that God is fully able to give them that power ...."(source) The problem with this response is that it is special pleading. There is no question that God can give the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues, and even that he has done so. Likewise, there is no question that God can enable communication between the living and the dead. The question is whether there is a reason to suppose that God does give dead saints (or those who are bodily in heaven) such an ability. It should be clear that the answer to that question remains "not the Bible."
Similar to (2):
DA writes cites the "Cloud of Witnesses" of Hebrews 12:1 (source). The problem with DA's citation is that "witnesses" in that verse does not mean spectators, but testifiers. In other words, DA's citation is based on misconstruing an ambiguity that is present in English but not present in Greek or Latin. In English, a witness can be an observer or the one who is observed. In fact, the first sense has slightly predominated our usage. Nevertheless, the cloud of witnesses of Hebrews 12:1 are a cloud of the latter kind of witness - the kind we see (not in graven images, but in the pages of Scripture) and who testify to us (not by voices in our heads, but from the pages of Scripture). Of course, while the principle witnesses were taken from Scripture, we could add additional ones not listed in Scripture, to the same effect. We are surrounded by their testimony and it should encourage us. They stand as a memorial, not as judges.
DA, however, cites a contrary opinion: DA cites Marvin Vincent (calling his work "a famous, standard Protestant reference work") who acknowledges that witnesses do not mean observers, but who asserts that the idea that they are spectators is implied. This is the classic "argument from authority" fallacy. DA cites a broad reference work that is supposedly "standard" and uses that in place of a reasoned exegesis of the text. There's a reason why such an approach is taken: whether it is Vincent or DA making the claim, the claim cannot stand on the text of Scripture, because it fundamentally relies on the English ambiguity. DA (by Vincent) asserts that the idea of spectators is "the principal idea," but that assertion is not correct. The idea of encouragement is the main idea - and that encouragement is gained by the footprints of those who have run before, not by their observation from the stands, as DA/Vincent portrays the matter.
Similar to (3): How can Mary, as a human being, hear millions of daily prayers simultaneously, much less process millions of daily prayers?
DA's Response: "Very simple: the saints, being with God in heaven, are outside of time. That being the case, they simply have no problem of number and sequence as we do, since we are temporal creatures, and hence, severely limited in that sense." (source)
There are several important problems with the response, but the point to be made here is that the only aspect of the response that is derived from Scripture is that the saints are with God in heaven. The other aspect, that they are outside of time, is contrary to Scripture. Recall that the martyrs in heaven will ask the question: "How long ... before... ?" (Revelation 6:9-10) Such a question presumes both time and the martyrs' subjection to it.
It should be clear from the examples above that those who try to communicate with the departed do so without Biblical warrant. The practice of attempting to communicate with the departed is both futile and sinful, even though it is doubtless done with excellent intentions by many Christians who so practice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It should be noted that a rebuttal to DA's multi-part argument for prayer to the saints has already been rebutted here (link).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May God be glorified by those whom He has made holy!
-Turretinfan
One area where such a claim cannot be true (and there are doubtless many such areas) is in the area of prayers/communications/call them what you like, to departed Christians. The source of such doctrines is not the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture.
Here are some questions to demonstrate:
1. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person who did not know your language during life, what makes you think that the person will understand your language now?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people gain knowledge of new human languages.
2. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person whose body is far away from you, what makes you think that the person will hear you?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people can hear people who are talking far away from their corpses.
3. If you are trying to communicate with a dead person who is very popular - such as Jude or Seraphim of Saratov, what makes you think that the person has the ability or availability to hear you?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that dead people can hear many communications that are made at the same time, or that can be available to hear communications in general.
4. If you are trying to communicate with someone who you believe is bodily in heaven, other than Christ, what makes you think that such communication is possible?
Answer: Not the Bible. The Bible provides no reason to suppose that anyone in heaven beside Christ can hear our communications.
Let's see how one Roman Catholic apologist (a lay apologist named Dave Armstrong) responded on similar issues:
Similar to (1) & (4):
Dave writes: "If it is objected that the dead saints cannot hear us, we reply that God is fully able to give them that power ...."(source) The problem with this response is that it is special pleading. There is no question that God can give the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues, and even that he has done so. Likewise, there is no question that God can enable communication between the living and the dead. The question is whether there is a reason to suppose that God does give dead saints (or those who are bodily in heaven) such an ability. It should be clear that the answer to that question remains "not the Bible."
Similar to (2):
DA writes cites the "Cloud of Witnesses" of Hebrews 12:1 (source). The problem with DA's citation is that "witnesses" in that verse does not mean spectators, but testifiers. In other words, DA's citation is based on misconstruing an ambiguity that is present in English but not present in Greek or Latin. In English, a witness can be an observer or the one who is observed. In fact, the first sense has slightly predominated our usage. Nevertheless, the cloud of witnesses of Hebrews 12:1 are a cloud of the latter kind of witness - the kind we see (not in graven images, but in the pages of Scripture) and who testify to us (not by voices in our heads, but from the pages of Scripture). Of course, while the principle witnesses were taken from Scripture, we could add additional ones not listed in Scripture, to the same effect. We are surrounded by their testimony and it should encourage us. They stand as a memorial, not as judges.
DA, however, cites a contrary opinion: DA cites Marvin Vincent (calling his work "a famous, standard Protestant reference work") who acknowledges that witnesses do not mean observers, but who asserts that the idea that they are spectators is implied. This is the classic "argument from authority" fallacy. DA cites a broad reference work that is supposedly "standard" and uses that in place of a reasoned exegesis of the text. There's a reason why such an approach is taken: whether it is Vincent or DA making the claim, the claim cannot stand on the text of Scripture, because it fundamentally relies on the English ambiguity. DA (by Vincent) asserts that the idea of spectators is "the principal idea," but that assertion is not correct. The idea of encouragement is the main idea - and that encouragement is gained by the footprints of those who have run before, not by their observation from the stands, as DA/Vincent portrays the matter.
Similar to (3): How can Mary, as a human being, hear millions of daily prayers simultaneously, much less process millions of daily prayers?
DA's Response: "Very simple: the saints, being with God in heaven, are outside of time. That being the case, they simply have no problem of number and sequence as we do, since we are temporal creatures, and hence, severely limited in that sense." (source)
There are several important problems with the response, but the point to be made here is that the only aspect of the response that is derived from Scripture is that the saints are with God in heaven. The other aspect, that they are outside of time, is contrary to Scripture. Recall that the martyrs in heaven will ask the question: "How long ... before... ?" (Revelation 6:9-10) Such a question presumes both time and the martyrs' subjection to it.
It should be clear from the examples above that those who try to communicate with the departed do so without Biblical warrant. The practice of attempting to communicate with the departed is both futile and sinful, even though it is doubtless done with excellent intentions by many Christians who so practice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It should be noted that a rebuttal to DA's multi-part argument for prayer to the saints has already been rebutted here (link).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May God be glorified by those whom He has made holy!
-Turretinfan
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Mutual Exclusivity
This popular Internet poster (link) recently realized that one cannot please both Roman Catholicism and Reformed Theology (iMonk writes: "If the answer to my blogging is Olson’s “Why I’m Not A Protestant,” I think my answer to Olson is…….completely irrelevant. If I call him my brother, I’m a damnable heretic with the truly reformed, and if I call myself a “Not a Catholic”, then the best I can be is just one more deficient, defective Protestant, outside of the true church with no authority to say anything anyway and never getting the real Jesus because I refuse to recognize transubstantiation."). Sadly, this was disheartening for the writer when it should have been an encouragement: there is absolute truth. Either Rome is right or the Reformation was right. Both cannot be right.
-Turretinfan
P.S. again, Jonathan, not the one I had mind...
-Turretinfan
P.S. again, Jonathan, not the one I had mind...
Apparently You Still Can Get Excommunicated ...
Although it is the first time it happened in Little Rock in 165 years, a few nuns have been excommunicated (according to the journalists it was for heresy ...) (source).
One of the nuns' comments:
"We are at peace and we know that for us we are doing the right thing. We pray that the church will open their eyes before it is too late. This is God's work through Mary, the blessed mother, and we're doing what we're asked to do. She [the founder of the group] is doing only what God and Mary tells her to do."
What was their heresy? Allegedly they believe that an 86 year old nun in their midst is a reincarnation of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and that God speaks directly through her.
That would seem to give her authority independent of the church, which - of course - cannot be tolerated by Rome. If there is one lesson to be learned from Rome's opposition to Sola Scriptura, that is the lesson.
An affilliated group, the "Sons of Mary," was apparently not excommunicated for heresy, though its spokesman said: "The Virgin Mary took possession of her soul. I would rather say it that way."
Bizarre stuff, but Mary speaking would not be God speaking, and consequently would not be divine revelation. Thus, apparently, such a view is tolerable within Roman Catholicism (however odd it may be).
I would not be the least surprised if the woman was possessed, but it is shame that the blessed Mother of Christ would be accused of possessing her.
-Turretinfan
P.S. No, Jonathan, this is not the post I was referring to.
One of the nuns' comments:
"We are at peace and we know that for us we are doing the right thing. We pray that the church will open their eyes before it is too late. This is God's work through Mary, the blessed mother, and we're doing what we're asked to do. She [the founder of the group] is doing only what God and Mary tells her to do."
What was their heresy? Allegedly they believe that an 86 year old nun in their midst is a reincarnation of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and that God speaks directly through her.
That would seem to give her authority independent of the church, which - of course - cannot be tolerated by Rome. If there is one lesson to be learned from Rome's opposition to Sola Scriptura, that is the lesson.
An affilliated group, the "Sons of Mary," was apparently not excommunicated for heresy, though its spokesman said: "The Virgin Mary took possession of her soul. I would rather say it that way."
Bizarre stuff, but Mary speaking would not be God speaking, and consequently would not be divine revelation. Thus, apparently, such a view is tolerable within Roman Catholicism (however odd it may be).
I would not be the least surprised if the woman was possessed, but it is shame that the blessed Mother of Christ would be accused of possessing her.
-Turretinfan
P.S. No, Jonathan, this is not the post I was referring to.
Poor Gen. Pace
General pace recently made headline news for stating that homosexual behavior is sinful, and that he will not condone it (link). He immediately got labelled a "bigot" by those who either don't recognize that homosexual behavior is sinful or who do not care.
The reason that I use the adjective "poor," though is not so much because Gen. Pace is the target of name-calling - but because Gen. Pace seems to have been so battered by it that he is ready to compromise.
Currently, U.S. military law prohibits both adultery and homosexual relations. These are excellent rules that are enforced, and should continue to be enforced. The U.S. military is one of the last places in America where the 7th commandment's prohibition on adultery and homosexual activity is enforced, largely because of action's taken by America's Supreme Court and by the apathy towards sexual immorality felt by most Americans.
Let's be clear: Adultery and homosexual acts are both sinful, and both deserve severe criminal consequences. God justly authorized Moses to use capital punishment for both offenses, and it would be just for any modern government to do the same. I'm not taking this opportunity to say that a lesser punishment would necessarily be wrong, just pointing out that capital punishment would be just.
There are a lot of folks who don't like that view: they hate the truth that sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful, and for them it is headline news when a General stands up and says (even heavily qualified, the way poor Gen. Pace put it) that such actions are wrong.
Gen. Pace, in the unlikely event that you read this, be strong! Don't be afraid to state without qualification as to your upbringing that sex outside of marriage is wrong, is sinful, and is immoral. Don't feel compelled to compromise just because many people who were guilty of such sins have contributed much (in other regards) to America. Surely they have, and so have many others who do immoral acts.
I can tell from your comments that you will not, but I wish to exhort you, sir, not to compromise on moral issues. Ever, sir.
-Turretinfan
The reason that I use the adjective "poor," though is not so much because Gen. Pace is the target of name-calling - but because Gen. Pace seems to have been so battered by it that he is ready to compromise.
Currently, U.S. military law prohibits both adultery and homosexual relations. These are excellent rules that are enforced, and should continue to be enforced. The U.S. military is one of the last places in America where the 7th commandment's prohibition on adultery and homosexual activity is enforced, largely because of action's taken by America's Supreme Court and by the apathy towards sexual immorality felt by most Americans.
Let's be clear: Adultery and homosexual acts are both sinful, and both deserve severe criminal consequences. God justly authorized Moses to use capital punishment for both offenses, and it would be just for any modern government to do the same. I'm not taking this opportunity to say that a lesser punishment would necessarily be wrong, just pointing out that capital punishment would be just.
There are a lot of folks who don't like that view: they hate the truth that sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful, and for them it is headline news when a General stands up and says (even heavily qualified, the way poor Gen. Pace put it) that such actions are wrong.
Gen. Pace, in the unlikely event that you read this, be strong! Don't be afraid to state without qualification as to your upbringing that sex outside of marriage is wrong, is sinful, and is immoral. Don't feel compelled to compromise just because many people who were guilty of such sins have contributed much (in other regards) to America. Surely they have, and so have many others who do immoral acts.
I can tell from your comments that you will not, but I wish to exhort you, sir, not to compromise on moral issues. Ever, sir.
-Turretinfan
An Example from the Religion of Science
Apparently, now it is necessary, not only to quote an expert, but to quote an expert who cites more than one study for this proposition:
"Studies have shown people fall asleep," Docknevich said.
(source)
See, now you MUST believe it - an expert citing an unspecified study - no - studies (plural) have said so.
The point of this post is to illustrate that it has been commonplace in the secular world to think that science as gravitas to virtually anything.
The point above is a fairly extreme example - but it makes the point. If you don't have "studies," but instead are asking people to believe what God said about something - don't expect an immediate positive response. Why? Because to the Greeks, such things are foolishness.
It was the same in Paul's day, as it is becoming in ours.
May God provide Pauline imitators to illumine the understanding of those who worship the creature rather than the creator,
-Turretinfan
"Studies have shown people fall asleep," Docknevich said.
(source)
See, now you MUST believe it - an expert citing an unspecified study - no - studies (plural) have said so.
The point of this post is to illustrate that it has been commonplace in the secular world to think that science as gravitas to virtually anything.
The point above is a fairly extreme example - but it makes the point. If you don't have "studies," but instead are asking people to believe what God said about something - don't expect an immediate positive response. Why? Because to the Greeks, such things are foolishness.
It was the same in Paul's day, as it is becoming in ours.
May God provide Pauline imitators to illumine the understanding of those who worship the creature rather than the creator,
-Turretinfan
What does it mean to "Propitiate"?
Let's start by reviewing the verses where that English word is used:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Paul (in Romans) uses the noun ιλαστηριον, and John uses the noun (in two different declensions) ιλασμος (1 John 2:2) and ιλασμον (1 John 4:10). They are all related Greek words, and both are ordinarily translated by some form of the verb propitiate.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines propitiate:
PROPI''TIATE, v.t. [L. propitio; pio. Eng. pity.]
To conciliate; to appease one offended and render him favorable; to make propitious.
Let fierce Achilles, dreadful in his rage,
The god propitiate and the pest assuage.
Now, let's go back to the verses. In the verses, John and Paul are saying that Jesus is the one who appeases the offense that our sins cause to God and render us favorable in God's sight.
Now, in the verse Romans 3, I don't think anyone is going to have heartburn about what the verse says: it says that the Father put the Son in the role of being an appeaser of wrath by means of his blood to all those who believe: namely by a declaration of Christ's righteousness to remit the previous state of sinfulness, and, of course, through God's forbearance.
1 John 4:10 similarly does not cause heartburn, because John is writing from the apostles to believers, so whether "our" means the apostles or "our" means the apostles and the believers to whom he is writing, it is Jesus who assuaged God's wrath against us on account of our sins.
I John 2:2 is the verse that may cause Arminians some chest pains. It says that Jesus is not just the propitiation for "our" sins but for the sins of the "whole world." The problem for some Arminians is that they have adopted an exhaustive, universalistic sense (instead of a generic, expansive sense) to the term "world" in other passages, and feel obliged to understand the word similarly here, especially when accompanied by the word "whole."
Thus, Arminians are faced either with universal propitiation (and consequently universal salvation), or universal hypothetical propitiation. The problem with the former interpretation is that it is abundantly clear from Scripture that some will not be saved. The problem with latter interpretation is that there is nothing in the context to suggest that John or Paul believes that the propitiation of our sins is hypothetical or potential, as opposed to actual. Another option would be to suggest that the propitiation does not save, i.e. that propitiation is just an intermediate position between lost and saved. This, however, is clearly inconsistent with Paul's use, and there is - again - no reason in context to suggest this alternative.
There is, however, another solution to the dilemma:
The phrase translated "whole world" could be used in the generic, expansive sense - such that John is contrasting himself together with the apostles and/or his readers ("our") with other people generally. There is some support for this sense, because John uses the phrase in 1 John 5:19:
1 John 5:18-19
18We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
Of course, here the "whole world" cannot be used in an exhaustive, universalistic sense - for John has just contrasted the "we" with it.
Furthermore, there are other passages where the term is used simply to convey a large amount (e.g. Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25) or a broad expansive geographic area (Matthew 26: 13, Mark 14:9, Romans 1:8). In fact, in terms of Scriptural usage, those are all of the other (i.e. except for the two uses in 1 John) uses of the phrase. In other words, the phrase never in Scripture clearly conveys the sense of "each and every person who has or will live on the planet Earth," as Arminians are prone to think.
If we view John's comment as magnifying the greatness of the scope of God's love (i.e. that he propitiated for the sins not just of first century believers, but for the huge multitude of the elect), then the dilemma evaporates. There is no longer any need to eisegetically invent a hypothetical propitiation or a non-saving assuagement of wrath as one of the works of Christ.
And do you know what is really interesting?
The same Greek word ιλαστηριον is used by Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) to refer to the mercy seat, the cover of the ark of the testimony, the place where God communed with Moses, the places where God appeared in a cloud to Moses, and the place where blood was offered to God. It is the place where blood was offered to obtain mercy, and the author of Hebrews indicates that this blood sacrifice pictured the blood sacrifice of Christ.
May God who is Love, cause us to be thankful for the propitiation accomplished by our High Priest,
-Turretinfan
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Paul (in Romans) uses the noun ιλαστηριον, and John uses the noun (in two different declensions) ιλασμος (1 John 2:2) and ιλασμον (1 John 4:10). They are all related Greek words, and both are ordinarily translated by some form of the verb propitiate.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines propitiate:
PROPI''TIATE, v.t. [L. propitio; pio. Eng. pity.]
To conciliate; to appease one offended and render him favorable; to make propitious.
Let fierce Achilles, dreadful in his rage,
The god propitiate and the pest assuage.
Now, let's go back to the verses. In the verses, John and Paul are saying that Jesus is the one who appeases the offense that our sins cause to God and render us favorable in God's sight.
Now, in the verse Romans 3, I don't think anyone is going to have heartburn about what the verse says: it says that the Father put the Son in the role of being an appeaser of wrath by means of his blood to all those who believe: namely by a declaration of Christ's righteousness to remit the previous state of sinfulness, and, of course, through God's forbearance.
1 John 4:10 similarly does not cause heartburn, because John is writing from the apostles to believers, so whether "our" means the apostles or "our" means the apostles and the believers to whom he is writing, it is Jesus who assuaged God's wrath against us on account of our sins.
I John 2:2 is the verse that may cause Arminians some chest pains. It says that Jesus is not just the propitiation for "our" sins but for the sins of the "whole world." The problem for some Arminians is that they have adopted an exhaustive, universalistic sense (instead of a generic, expansive sense) to the term "world" in other passages, and feel obliged to understand the word similarly here, especially when accompanied by the word "whole."
Thus, Arminians are faced either with universal propitiation (and consequently universal salvation), or universal hypothetical propitiation. The problem with the former interpretation is that it is abundantly clear from Scripture that some will not be saved. The problem with latter interpretation is that there is nothing in the context to suggest that John or Paul believes that the propitiation of our sins is hypothetical or potential, as opposed to actual. Another option would be to suggest that the propitiation does not save, i.e. that propitiation is just an intermediate position between lost and saved. This, however, is clearly inconsistent with Paul's use, and there is - again - no reason in context to suggest this alternative.
There is, however, another solution to the dilemma:
The phrase translated "whole world" could be used in the generic, expansive sense - such that John is contrasting himself together with the apostles and/or his readers ("our") with other people generally. There is some support for this sense, because John uses the phrase in 1 John 5:19:
1 John 5:18-19
18We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
Of course, here the "whole world" cannot be used in an exhaustive, universalistic sense - for John has just contrasted the "we" with it.
Furthermore, there are other passages where the term is used simply to convey a large amount (e.g. Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25) or a broad expansive geographic area (Matthew 26: 13, Mark 14:9, Romans 1:8). In fact, in terms of Scriptural usage, those are all of the other (i.e. except for the two uses in 1 John) uses of the phrase. In other words, the phrase never in Scripture clearly conveys the sense of "each and every person who has or will live on the planet Earth," as Arminians are prone to think.
If we view John's comment as magnifying the greatness of the scope of God's love (i.e. that he propitiated for the sins not just of first century believers, but for the huge multitude of the elect), then the dilemma evaporates. There is no longer any need to eisegetically invent a hypothetical propitiation or a non-saving assuagement of wrath as one of the works of Christ.
And do you know what is really interesting?
The same Greek word ιλαστηριον is used by Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) to refer to the mercy seat, the cover of the ark of the testimony, the place where God communed with Moses, the places where God appeared in a cloud to Moses, and the place where blood was offered to God. It is the place where blood was offered to obtain mercy, and the author of Hebrews indicates that this blood sacrifice pictured the blood sacrifice of Christ.
May God who is Love, cause us to be thankful for the propitiation accomplished by our High Priest,
-Turretinfan
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Who would have thought ...
... that Dave Armstrong, the man who is too busy to reply to my posts dealing with his doctrinal errors, would have time to challenge my recollection about whether Dr. White has ever posted a response to Armstrong that was purely a personal attack on Armstrong (link)?
And who would have that Armstrong's best example was Dr. White's response to a reading list that Armstrong posted. I wonder how Dr. White ought to have rebutted that reading list? Surely, White is guilty here of substituting rhetoric for reason in his rebuttal of that list! Read for yourself! Look at that shallow reply to the reading list! And to think, this author had let such a shocking display of non-responsiveness slip out of his mind! Shame on me. How could I do that? No, Dave, you're right. Dr. White's response in no way rebutted your reading list.
And of course, those comments Dr. White made (specifically that Armstrong by listing books can no longer claim that his misrepresentations are based on ignorance) would make it "hypocrisy" for me to point out that Dave's comment that follows:
If I were to speculate that Dave's multi-page illustrated rebuttal to my single-phrase comment was actually a pretext to throw a pity party about Dr. White's allegedly harsh words in the past, I suppose I'd be challenged to prove which of the many negative things Dr. White has said about Dave (mostly reflecting on Dave's demonstrated misuse of sources) are true, and which are false, et cetera ad nauseum.
Which is why I will gladly concede that if it makes you happy, Dave, I gladly concede that my recollection is imperfect - which is the only thing that proving what you set out to prove would accomplish as a response to me. Now, I suppose you can add this edifying exchange to your list of published written debates.
I hope it will be a while before we have a similar "dialogue" and "exchange of ideas."
-Turretinfan
P.S. Apparently Dave is at least as unaware of my not-nearly-as-lengthy history with Dr. White, because he seems to have overlooked this post (link) in which the present author (gasp) disagreed with Dr. White publicly. But, of course, perhaps that does not count because I don't begin my post by making personal insults, fill my article with name-calling, or ask for pity because Dr. White ignored it(according to my - as Dave has tried to prove, and I have not rebutted - faulty recollection).
And who would have that Armstrong's best example was Dr. White's response to a reading list that Armstrong posted. I wonder how Dr. White ought to have rebutted that reading list? Surely, White is guilty here of substituting rhetoric for reason in his rebuttal of that list! Read for yourself! Look at that shallow reply to the reading list! And to think, this author had let such a shocking display of non-responsiveness slip out of his mind! Shame on me. How could I do that? No, Dave, you're right. Dr. White's response in no way rebutted your reading list.
And of course, those comments Dr. White made (specifically that Armstrong by listing books can no longer claim that his misrepresentations are based on ignorance) would make it "hypocrisy" for me to point out that Dave's comment that follows:
TF wants to kiss up to White and not openly criticize him, because he is the Grand Poobah and Big Cheese: the King of the Anti-Catholics. And so it is a naughty no-no to publicly call him on his blatant, wanton, ongoing hypocrisies. That would make TF mighty unpopular in know-nothing anti-Catholic circles.is not true (and to complain about its tone, my - that application of a cruel "double standard" would add years to Anti-Catholic purgatory).
If I were to speculate that Dave's multi-page illustrated rebuttal to my single-phrase comment was actually a pretext to throw a pity party about Dr. White's allegedly harsh words in the past, I suppose I'd be challenged to prove which of the many negative things Dr. White has said about Dave (mostly reflecting on Dave's demonstrated misuse of sources) are true, and which are false, et cetera ad nauseum.
Which is why I will gladly concede that if it makes you happy, Dave, I gladly concede that my recollection is imperfect - which is the only thing that proving what you set out to prove would accomplish as a response to me. Now, I suppose you can add this edifying exchange to your list of published written debates.
I hope it will be a while before we have a similar "dialogue" and "exchange of ideas."
-Turretinfan
P.S. Apparently Dave is at least as unaware of my not-nearly-as-lengthy history with Dr. White, because he seems to have overlooked this post (link) in which the present author (gasp) disagreed with Dr. White publicly. But, of course, perhaps that does not count because I don't begin my post by making personal insults, fill my article with name-calling, or ask for pity because Dr. White ignored it(according to my - as Dave has tried to prove, and I have not rebutted - faulty recollection).
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Reginald Suggests that Roman Catholics Deny the Subjective Sinfulness of Involuntary Sin
Reginald (a Roman Catholic blogger) in a recent comment on his own blog suggested that Roman Catholics do not believe that involuntary sin is subjectively sinful (although they would agree that it is objectively sinful).
In this regard they are clearly contrary to the Orthodox who routinely pray for God to forgive both their voluntary and involuntary sins, and contrary to Augustine as well.
Query for the Roman Catholic readers of this blog, is Reginald right?
The Compendium of the CCC (I guess that would make it the CCCC) seems to suggest so.
Is that right? Do Catholics seek remittance of their involuntary sins or not? If so, why?
-Turretinfan
In this regard they are clearly contrary to the Orthodox who routinely pray for God to forgive both their voluntary and involuntary sins, and contrary to Augustine as well.
Query for the Roman Catholic readers of this blog, is Reginald right?
The Compendium of the CCC (I guess that would make it the CCCC) seems to suggest so.
Is that right? Do Catholics seek remittance of their involuntary sins or not? If so, why?
-Turretinfan
The Image of God - Short Exegetical Version
We (mankind) were created in the image of God.
We were created in a position of authority, enjoyment, and responsibility over the physical world.
God is ruler over all, but we were made rulers over the Earth. It is ours to enjoy, ours to subjugate, and ours to rehabilitate.
God made us garderners not so that we would be enslaved by the land, but so that we would enjoy the good things of creation, with his blessing. It is only because of Adam's sin that fulfilling this creation mandate has become laborious.
You'll hear a lot of other explanations for the "image of God," but the bottom line is that the only exegetical explanation is: dominion.
Genesis 1:26-31
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
In the original reference, the immediate context is authority/dominion, enjoyment, and responsibility. Man was to subdue the earth, enjoy the garden, and care for it.
1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
And again, the "image of God" is about authority, dominion, right of enjoyment, and responsibility for care. The woman was created for the man, and, thus, the husband/wife relationship is itself an image of the God/man relationship.
I note there are two other passages that mention the phrase, "image of God," but they are not especially relevant to this particular discussion:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
-Turretinfan
We were created in a position of authority, enjoyment, and responsibility over the physical world.
God is ruler over all, but we were made rulers over the Earth. It is ours to enjoy, ours to subjugate, and ours to rehabilitate.
God made us garderners not so that we would be enslaved by the land, but so that we would enjoy the good things of creation, with his blessing. It is only because of Adam's sin that fulfilling this creation mandate has become laborious.
You'll hear a lot of other explanations for the "image of God," but the bottom line is that the only exegetical explanation is: dominion.
Genesis 1:26-31
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
In the original reference, the immediate context is authority/dominion, enjoyment, and responsibility. Man was to subdue the earth, enjoy the garden, and care for it.
1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
And again, the "image of God" is about authority, dominion, right of enjoyment, and responsibility for care. The woman was created for the man, and, thus, the husband/wife relationship is itself an image of the God/man relationship.
I note there are two other passages that mention the phrase, "image of God," but they are not especially relevant to this particular discussion:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
-Turretinfan
Monday, September 24, 2007
Getting the Contrast Wrong
In a recent post, Doug Wilson wrote:
"Islamic law has its own ways of dealing with adultery. Jesus had another." (with a photo apparently showing a Muslim woman about to be stoned for adultery, and a quotation of the pericope adulterae)
The problem is, DW has drawn the wrong contrast - at least in the minds of many of those commenting on his thread - through his inclusion of the term "Islamic."
It is not merely Islamic law, but the Law of Moses that deals with adultery by stoning. Stoning for adultery is perfectly just, though severe. Jesus did not come to redefine justice, and His first coming was not as a judge. Christianity does not call for governments to punish crimes differently than Moses appointed, and Christianity should commend, not condemn, Muslim governments in cases where they adminster justice - there are so many areas where they do not.
Nevertheless, there is a contrast between the law and the gospel. The law condemns sinners, but Jesus forgives sinners. The law punishes sinners, but Jesus bears the punishment for sinners. That is the contrast: Jesus is our advocate, our sacrifice, our mediator, the one in whom we trust for salvation. He did not come into the world to condemn the world, but to save His people from their sins.
Jesus will come again as a judge, and on that day He will not hesitate to condemn sinners who have not turned to God. For the (apparently) Muslim woman shown in the picture on DW's blog, the situation is doubly grim. Such a woman has very little time to turn from her sin and cast herself on the mercy of the one Triune God. And you, dear reader, may have even less time - for life is short.
If you are reading this and have not begged Almighty God to accept you, do so today. Pray to the Father, trusting in the finished work of Christ on the cross and you will be saved. Put it off, and you may be lost forever. That should be a far more terrifying prospect than to be struck about the head with stones for a few minutes by an angry mob of men. All have sinned, and no one will escape the punishment for sin, but those who trust in Christ for salvation.
May God's light shine more and more unto the perfect day!
-Turretinfan
"Islamic law has its own ways of dealing with adultery. Jesus had another." (with a photo apparently showing a Muslim woman about to be stoned for adultery, and a quotation of the pericope adulterae)
The problem is, DW has drawn the wrong contrast - at least in the minds of many of those commenting on his thread - through his inclusion of the term "Islamic."
It is not merely Islamic law, but the Law of Moses that deals with adultery by stoning. Stoning for adultery is perfectly just, though severe. Jesus did not come to redefine justice, and His first coming was not as a judge. Christianity does not call for governments to punish crimes differently than Moses appointed, and Christianity should commend, not condemn, Muslim governments in cases where they adminster justice - there are so many areas where they do not.
Nevertheless, there is a contrast between the law and the gospel. The law condemns sinners, but Jesus forgives sinners. The law punishes sinners, but Jesus bears the punishment for sinners. That is the contrast: Jesus is our advocate, our sacrifice, our mediator, the one in whom we trust for salvation. He did not come into the world to condemn the world, but to save His people from their sins.
Jesus will come again as a judge, and on that day He will not hesitate to condemn sinners who have not turned to God. For the (apparently) Muslim woman shown in the picture on DW's blog, the situation is doubly grim. Such a woman has very little time to turn from her sin and cast herself on the mercy of the one Triune God. And you, dear reader, may have even less time - for life is short.
If you are reading this and have not begged Almighty God to accept you, do so today. Pray to the Father, trusting in the finished work of Christ on the cross and you will be saved. Put it off, and you may be lost forever. That should be a far more terrifying prospect than to be struck about the head with stones for a few minutes by an angry mob of men. All have sinned, and no one will escape the punishment for sin, but those who trust in Christ for salvation.
May God's light shine more and more unto the perfect day!
-Turretinfan
Steve Ray - Double Minded? You decide
Example (1)
Steve Ray wrote this blog post:
Example (2)
Then, in the combox, Steve Ray wrote:
Notice that Steve Ray has taken the "label 'anti-Catholic' rather than debate sensibly" page from Dave Armstrong's book.
But look at the lack of positional stability:
In (1), James White is not to be taken seriously.
In (2), James White should be taken seriously or "others might think [he] cannot be refuted."
In (1), "If I had nine lives I might waste some time refuting his latest rantings, but this time his preaching is not worth responding to. Let him prattle on."
In (2), "there are some innocent folks who might be influenced by such nonsense," and consequently James White should not be ignored.
In (1), James White is a nobody: "I have better things to do that to respond to every pontificating anti-Catholic that sets up a blog."
In (2), James White is a significant Roman Catholic apologetic tool: "I know many people that have become more convinced of the Catholic Church by listening to arrogant folks like him," and "James White does more for good for the Catholic Church right where he is!"
In (1), it would take a lot of time to refute James White, "If I had nine lives I might waste some time refuting his latest rantings."
In (2), it would be easy to refute James White, "guys like White and his kind are very easy to refute."
About the only commonality between the two is the vitriol exuded against Dr. White:
(1) "He's really just a little man full of himself — an angry know-it-all who's really just a tempest in a teapot."
(2) "Such petty, self-important know-it-alls need to be refuted" and "arrogant folks like him"
Yes, Steve Ray hates James White - that's easy enough to see. It's also easy to see why Steve Ray hates James White, and that is because Dr. White preaches the Truth and exposes the errors and delusions of Rome.
May we all be labelled and despised by those who hate the truth, but
May God be praised whose servants we are, for whose sake we endure these things,
To God be the Glory!
-Turretinfan
Steve Ray wrote this blog post:
Someone informed me that James White the Baptist was continuing his rant concerning my blog on the Assumption of Mary. The guy continues to take me far more seriously than I have ever taken him. He's really just a little man full of himself — an angry know-it-all who's really just a tempest in a teapot. The only reason I have ever responded to him in the past is for the sake of others reading the material. If I had nine lives I might waste some time refuting his latest rantings, but this time his preaching is not worth responding to. Let him prattle on. I have better things to do that to respond to every pontificating anti-Catholic that sets up a blog.
Example (2)
Then, in the combox, Steve Ray wrote:
Steve Ray here: I agree with you completely, but there are some innocent folks who might be influenced by such nonsense and it is good for them to see that guys like White and his kind are very easy to refute. If someone does not refute them, like saints have refuted heretics in the past, then others might think they cannot be refuted. Such petty, self-important know-it-alls need to be refuted so others don't fall prey to them.
Actually James White does more for good for the Catholic Church right where he is! I know many people that have become more convinced of the Catholic Church by listening to arrogant folks like him.
Notice that Steve Ray has taken the "label 'anti-Catholic' rather than debate sensibly" page from Dave Armstrong's book.
But look at the lack of positional stability:
In (1), James White is not to be taken seriously.
In (2), James White should be taken seriously or "others might think [he] cannot be refuted."
In (1), "If I had nine lives I might waste some time refuting his latest rantings, but this time his preaching is not worth responding to. Let him prattle on."
In (2), "there are some innocent folks who might be influenced by such nonsense," and consequently James White should not be ignored.
In (1), James White is a nobody: "I have better things to do that to respond to every pontificating anti-Catholic that sets up a blog."
In (2), James White is a significant Roman Catholic apologetic tool: "I know many people that have become more convinced of the Catholic Church by listening to arrogant folks like him," and "James White does more for good for the Catholic Church right where he is!"
In (1), it would take a lot of time to refute James White, "If I had nine lives I might waste some time refuting his latest rantings."
In (2), it would be easy to refute James White, "guys like White and his kind are very easy to refute."
About the only commonality between the two is the vitriol exuded against Dr. White:
(1) "He's really just a little man full of himself — an angry know-it-all who's really just a tempest in a teapot."
(2) "Such petty, self-important know-it-alls need to be refuted" and "arrogant folks like him"
Yes, Steve Ray hates James White - that's easy enough to see. It's also easy to see why Steve Ray hates James White, and that is because Dr. White preaches the Truth and exposes the errors and delusions of Rome.
May we all be labelled and despised by those who hate the truth, but
May God be praised whose servants we are, for whose sake we endure these things,
To God be the Glory!
-Turretinfan
Miscellaneous Web Site
In an attempt to find some texts on the Internet, I stumbled across a web site that is rich in Reformation writings, as well as writings of church fathers, and oddly a few of the Arminian notables (such as Arminius and Wesley).
I was about to recommend the web site as a resource for downloads, when I came across two things that gave me pause:
1) The first was a very mild eye-brow arching over a critique of Codex Vaticanus - and particular the marginal notes therein. The critique made the claim that the marginal notes show the ancient character of the Textus Receptus, because the marginal notes (at least sometimes, and/or in important places) follow the TR. As a TR-preferred writer, I found these comments disturbing, because I have also read the work of palaeographers, who provide some instruction on how to date such marginal notes, and who would not necessarily reach the same conclusion as the web site owner/editor did. The website cited "research beginning in 1995," which again reinforced a worry that this author has that the author/owner/editor of the web site may not be fully equipped in the arena of textual criticism. What was especially interesting were some claims that the TR (apparently Stephanus' 1550 edition) represents the pure original autograph text! If this were the only issue, I would just issue a mild caveat.
2) The more serious concern was raised (in my mind) over the disclaimer provided one of the web pages:
Wow! I had no idea that there were still followers of that alleged prophet. At least for now, I don't plan to directly link to the site. Perhaps some other time, or for some of the specific books (including Calvin's Institutes and the Works of Arminius) that can be found there.
-Turretinfan
I was about to recommend the web site as a resource for downloads, when I came across two things that gave me pause:
1) The first was a very mild eye-brow arching over a critique of Codex Vaticanus - and particular the marginal notes therein. The critique made the claim that the marginal notes show the ancient character of the Textus Receptus, because the marginal notes (at least sometimes, and/or in important places) follow the TR. As a TR-preferred writer, I found these comments disturbing, because I have also read the work of palaeographers, who provide some instruction on how to date such marginal notes, and who would not necessarily reach the same conclusion as the web site owner/editor did. The website cited "research beginning in 1995," which again reinforced a worry that this author has that the author/owner/editor of the web site may not be fully equipped in the arena of textual criticism. What was especially interesting were some claims that the TR (apparently Stephanus' 1550 edition) represents the pure original autograph text! If this were the only issue, I would just issue a mild caveat.
2) The more serious concern was raised (in my mind) over the disclaimer provided one of the web pages:
Inclusion of a work on this Archives page does not imply any endorsement of particular views and doctrines contained in that work, except in the case of the inspired teaching of Brother William M. Branham, which is endorsed by the Lord Jesus Himself, and recommended to every soul who hungers and thirsts after righteousness.
Wow! I had no idea that there were still followers of that alleged prophet. At least for now, I don't plan to directly link to the site. Perhaps some other time, or for some of the specific books (including Calvin's Institutes and the Works of Arminius) that can be found there.
-Turretinfan
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Thought-Provoking Questions for "Orthodox" Readers
Query:
Surely you are aware that the Orthodox church has a "one bishop, one city" rule that has been in place for centuries.
Do you think that this rule:
a) is only to prevent peer competition between bishops in a single city;
b) suggests that the flock in a single city has only a single (earthly) shepherd;
c) is irrelevant today; or
d) something else (please explain).
(You can pick more than one, if you like.)
If you agree with (b), doesn't that suggest that - for example - the Patriarch of Moscow does not have spiritual authority (or spiritual responsibility) for any Orthodox person outside the city of Moscow, although he may have some administrative authority. I've heard Orthodox folks who would say so.
If that is so, then is that also true of the "Ecumenical Patriarch" (namely that he has no spiritual authority outside of Constantinople) and the "pope" (namely that he has no spiritual authority outside of Rome).
Finally, given that other cities than Constinople and Rome have become dominant in the new order of things, shouldn't those other city's metropolitans/patriarchs be accorded greater administrative authority.
-Turretinfan
Surely you are aware that the Orthodox church has a "one bishop, one city" rule that has been in place for centuries.
Do you think that this rule:
a) is only to prevent peer competition between bishops in a single city;
b) suggests that the flock in a single city has only a single (earthly) shepherd;
c) is irrelevant today; or
d) something else (please explain).
(You can pick more than one, if you like.)
If you agree with (b), doesn't that suggest that - for example - the Patriarch of Moscow does not have spiritual authority (or spiritual responsibility) for any Orthodox person outside the city of Moscow, although he may have some administrative authority. I've heard Orthodox folks who would say so.
If that is so, then is that also true of the "Ecumenical Patriarch" (namely that he has no spiritual authority outside of Constantinople) and the "pope" (namely that he has no spiritual authority outside of Rome).
Finally, given that other cities than Constinople and Rome have become dominant in the new order of things, shouldn't those other city's metropolitans/patriarchs be accorded greater administrative authority.
-Turretinfan
No, He Did Not
According to this article (link), a man followed every rule in the Bible for a year.
No. He did not.
Only Christ ever followed every rule in the Bible for a year. What the man in the article did is mock every rule in the Bible for a year.
While a few men have been scrupulous in their observence of the ceremonial law of the Old Testament (Saul of Tarsus being the prime example), ALL have sinned (including Christ's mother) and come short of the glory of God. Christ alone is sinlessly perfect.
-Turretinfan
No. He did not.
Only Christ ever followed every rule in the Bible for a year. What the man in the article did is mock every rule in the Bible for a year.
While a few men have been scrupulous in their observence of the ceremonial law of the Old Testament (Saul of Tarsus being the prime example), ALL have sinned (including Christ's mother) and come short of the glory of God. Christ alone is sinlessly perfect.
-Turretinfan
Friday, September 21, 2007
Robot Theology / Puppet Theology
When one engages in Reformed Apologetics in the blogosphere (or in the Internet in general) one is bound to encounter the objection: Reformed Theology/Calvinism/Predestination/etc. "makes men into robots/puppets/etc."
These unoriginal (by now) objections have been rebutted many times. Nevertheless, this post will present a very brief rebuttal.
1) Rebuttal 1 - When the objection is just a saying: Where's the problem? (not a rhetorical question)
Suppose the claim is true. Why is that a bad thing? Most people who make the objection have no idea. They just heard someone else claim that about Calvinism, and it sounded catchy. If someone cannot explain why that's a bad thing, then they haven't stated an objection, they've used a catch-phrase or chanted a mantra.
If, perchance, some objector is able to explain why that is bad thing, at least the discussion has employed some reasoned, articulated explanation, as opposed to name-calling. Then, you can decide whether the "bad thing" really is a bad thing, whether "bad thing" really inheres to Calvinism/Reformed Theology/etc., or whether you need to rethink your theology.
Otherwise, it is the same as an objection that "Calvinism treats people as though they were pottery," to which the response is "because the Apostle Paul - speaking by inspiration - does."
2) Rebuttal 2 - When the explanation is that Calvinism denies free will/human responsibility/something similar: Perhaps the objector is simply unaware of Reformed doctrine.
Calvinism asserts that man has a (compatible - not libertarian) free will and that men are responsible for their deeds. Thus, either the objector is unfamiliar with Calvinism, is insisting on a particular kind of definition of free will, or is attempting to make an implicit objection to somethinig deeper.
3) Rebuttal 3 - When the explanation is that if God is in control, then implicitly man is lacking in any real free will, repsonsibility, etc.
This objection is more nuanced. If the objector has gotten to this point, he's presented a more detailed objection than 90% of what one finds on the web. That said, the objection is still not correct.
The rebuttal can proceed several ways:
Scripturally, one can point out that:
- God says all things work together for good to them that are the called. In order for everything to work together God has to be behind the scenes, and we see that He is in - for example - the Book of Esther. So, God really must be in control. Furthermore, Scripture clearly teaches that we make choices and that we are responsible for the things we do, including the choices we make. The Bible does not contradict itself, therefore God's totality of control must not be in contradiction to man's having a real will, and man's having moral responsibility.
Philosophical, one can point out that:
There is no logical contradiction between God being in control, and man having a will, more responsibility, and the like. Thus, there is no reason from philosophy to make the objection.
4) Rebuttal 4A - When the explanation is that in order for a will to be real, it must be "libertarian" or "autonomous" - Says who?
Ultimately the objections above - if they move from surface treatments to core objections, typically lead to claims as to what the will must be in order to be a will. At this point, one could simply hand the objector a copy of Jonathan Edwards' Freedom of the Will; but perhaps there is a simpler solution. Simply ask them to justify their claim.
Who says that is the only kind of will that there can be? Scripture certainly does not state or imply any such thing. Where did they get that idea from? This author has yet to see a significant, meaningful answer to that question.
5) Rebuttal 4B - Same explanation as above - On the contrary, a real will must NOT be libertarian, and no created will can be autonomous.
There is no need to burden the objector with the rebuttal in 4A. Taking a page or two from Edwards, we can simply point out that a will that acts contingently (a "libertarian" will) cannot be a will that is determined. Yet, wills in Scripture are determined, as are choices. A will whose acts are not determined by the person whose will it is, is a monstrosity that would destroy our intuition of what is required for moral responsibility. Finally, we can see evidence in Sociology, Psychology, and the like that people's wills are determined. The advertising industry is built on the fact that people are largely predictable in their behavior. Scripture confirms that man's acts are determined - comparing man's acts to the fruit of a tree.
Furthermore, Scripture is clear that creation is dependent for everything - even its very existence - on the Creator. Accordingly, to assert that something could come to be without its ultimate source being God is contrary to Scripture. In Him we live and move and have our being, as even the pagans recognized.
So far, this author has not seen any further responses that address the combined rebuttals 4A and 4B - if some come up, this author will either provide further rebuttals, admit his mistake, or adopt some third position as-yet-unimagined.
To our Sovereign Lord be the glory,
-Turretinfan
These unoriginal (by now) objections have been rebutted many times. Nevertheless, this post will present a very brief rebuttal.
1) Rebuttal 1 - When the objection is just a saying: Where's the problem? (not a rhetorical question)
Suppose the claim is true. Why is that a bad thing? Most people who make the objection have no idea. They just heard someone else claim that about Calvinism, and it sounded catchy. If someone cannot explain why that's a bad thing, then they haven't stated an objection, they've used a catch-phrase or chanted a mantra.
If, perchance, some objector is able to explain why that is bad thing, at least the discussion has employed some reasoned, articulated explanation, as opposed to name-calling. Then, you can decide whether the "bad thing" really is a bad thing, whether "bad thing" really inheres to Calvinism/Reformed Theology/etc., or whether you need to rethink your theology.
Otherwise, it is the same as an objection that "Calvinism treats people as though they were pottery," to which the response is "because the Apostle Paul - speaking by inspiration - does."
2) Rebuttal 2 - When the explanation is that Calvinism denies free will/human responsibility/something similar: Perhaps the objector is simply unaware of Reformed doctrine.
Calvinism asserts that man has a (compatible - not libertarian) free will and that men are responsible for their deeds. Thus, either the objector is unfamiliar with Calvinism, is insisting on a particular kind of definition of free will, or is attempting to make an implicit objection to somethinig deeper.
3) Rebuttal 3 - When the explanation is that if God is in control, then implicitly man is lacking in any real free will, repsonsibility, etc.
This objection is more nuanced. If the objector has gotten to this point, he's presented a more detailed objection than 90% of what one finds on the web. That said, the objection is still not correct.
The rebuttal can proceed several ways:
Scripturally, one can point out that:
- God says all things work together for good to them that are the called. In order for everything to work together God has to be behind the scenes, and we see that He is in - for example - the Book of Esther. So, God really must be in control. Furthermore, Scripture clearly teaches that we make choices and that we are responsible for the things we do, including the choices we make. The Bible does not contradict itself, therefore God's totality of control must not be in contradiction to man's having a real will, and man's having moral responsibility.
Philosophical, one can point out that:
There is no logical contradiction between God being in control, and man having a will, more responsibility, and the like. Thus, there is no reason from philosophy to make the objection.
4) Rebuttal 4A - When the explanation is that in order for a will to be real, it must be "libertarian" or "autonomous" - Says who?
Ultimately the objections above - if they move from surface treatments to core objections, typically lead to claims as to what the will must be in order to be a will. At this point, one could simply hand the objector a copy of Jonathan Edwards' Freedom of the Will; but perhaps there is a simpler solution. Simply ask them to justify their claim.
Who says that is the only kind of will that there can be? Scripture certainly does not state or imply any such thing. Where did they get that idea from? This author has yet to see a significant, meaningful answer to that question.
5) Rebuttal 4B - Same explanation as above - On the contrary, a real will must NOT be libertarian, and no created will can be autonomous.
There is no need to burden the objector with the rebuttal in 4A. Taking a page or two from Edwards, we can simply point out that a will that acts contingently (a "libertarian" will) cannot be a will that is determined. Yet, wills in Scripture are determined, as are choices. A will whose acts are not determined by the person whose will it is, is a monstrosity that would destroy our intuition of what is required for moral responsibility. Finally, we can see evidence in Sociology, Psychology, and the like that people's wills are determined. The advertising industry is built on the fact that people are largely predictable in their behavior. Scripture confirms that man's acts are determined - comparing man's acts to the fruit of a tree.
Furthermore, Scripture is clear that creation is dependent for everything - even its very existence - on the Creator. Accordingly, to assert that something could come to be without its ultimate source being God is contrary to Scripture. In Him we live and move and have our being, as even the pagans recognized.
So far, this author has not seen any further responses that address the combined rebuttals 4A and 4B - if some come up, this author will either provide further rebuttals, admit his mistake, or adopt some third position as-yet-unimagined.
To our Sovereign Lord be the glory,
-Turretinfan
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Word Use / Selective Quotation / Other Fun
In this recent post (link), lay Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armtrong spends a significant amount of time and space defending his action in labeling someone using a term that once meant "donkey" but has become mild vulgarity.
Rather than just say that "I meant "donkey," not the other thing," Dave devotes a post to providing literary examples of a non-vulgar use of the term as an insult.
1) Dave quoting Luther and Calvin when he thinks it is useful for him is exactly like Dave quoting Scripture when he thinks it is useful for him. This author respectfully submits that this particular posts illustrates how Dave quotes each of those sources: selectively.
2) Luther and Calvin obviously did not write in English. Thus, the corresponding vulgarity should not be read into their works.
3) Dickens wrote long before the term in question become a popular vulgarity.
4) Shakespeare's use of double entendre (including quite vulgar double-entendre) is well known to those who have actually studied the writings of Shakespeare. Thus, the selection by Dave of Shakespeare is deeply ironic: especially when one considers that comparing oneself to a literary great like Shakespeare is exactly what a pompous fellow would do (although, obviously, it is also what another person might do, if the shoe fit).
5) Bottom line (ha!) - enough time has been wasted pointing out that Dave insults people.
-Turretinfan
Rather than just say that "I meant "donkey," not the other thing," Dave devotes a post to providing literary examples of a non-vulgar use of the term as an insult.
1) Dave quoting Luther and Calvin when he thinks it is useful for him is exactly like Dave quoting Scripture when he thinks it is useful for him. This author respectfully submits that this particular posts illustrates how Dave quotes each of those sources: selectively.
2) Luther and Calvin obviously did not write in English. Thus, the corresponding vulgarity should not be read into their works.
3) Dickens wrote long before the term in question become a popular vulgarity.
4) Shakespeare's use of double entendre (including quite vulgar double-entendre) is well known to those who have actually studied the writings of Shakespeare. Thus, the selection by Dave of Shakespeare is deeply ironic: especially when one considers that comparing oneself to a literary great like Shakespeare is exactly what a pompous fellow would do (although, obviously, it is also what another person might do, if the shoe fit).
5) Bottom line (ha!) - enough time has been wasted pointing out that Dave insults people.
-Turretinfan
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Why I am not an Evidentialist/Romanist
Here's a great example of why I am not an Evidentialist, Quasi-Evidentialist, or - for that matter - Romanist:
(link).
The portion of the post of interest is the account of the people who were tricked into thinking that they had been legally married when, in fact, they had not.
Our senses are generally reliable, but they do not always provide true information.
-Turretinfan
Post Script - A special note to Roman Catholic readers:
While this "priest" apparently "eventually" told the people that they were not married, it is certainly at least conceivable that there is at least one psychopathic person out there impersonating a Roman Catholic priest or even bishop on a daily basis, with no plan to reveal the truth. That priest may even be the one who married (maybe I should put "married") you and your spouse, who hears your confessions, and who will perform last rites for you.
If it turns out that the priest is a fraud, then none of the bread you ate was the body of Christ (nor was the wine his body), you have lived in unconfessed and unrepetant adultery (in fact all of your sins are unconfessed), and you will have died (without intending to do so) in a state of final impenitance. There is, one supposes, even a real question about whether you were ever baptized, since baptism by a non-believer has not traditionally been considered a valid baptism. [One dear reader has noted some ambiguity here: to be clear, Rome has not traditionally considered baptisms by non-Christians to be valid baptisms. Most protestants do not concen themselves with the question of baptismal validity.]
The point is this, if you think that participation in the sacraments is a necessary part of salvation, and if you agree that sacraments performed by a faux priest are not valid, you can have only a tenuous assurance of salvation.
And that is not Christianity. Salvation does not depend on human merit, human activity, or the faithfulness of the men who administer sacraments. Salvation depends on the action of God alone.
Think about it. If you trust in Christ alone for salvation, you have only the risk that Christ is a fraud, and God has revealed to us that Christ is the Way, the Life, and most importantly (in this context) the Truth. Confess your sins to God, not to someone who claims to be his vicar, whose claim you can never be sure about. Of course, we still confess our faults to one another, but do not place your reliance for salvation on the faithfulness of any man except Christ the one who is both God and Man in two distinct natures and one person. Only He can save you from your sins, and confidence in Him alone is sure.
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: Chinese Catholics can breathe a sigh of relief that this bishop bears the Vatican seal of approval (link). Some folks, however, will focus on the fact that the mitre that the bishop is wearing has six boxes, six vertical line segments, and six horizontal line segments (depending on how you count them). Even if that were intended to mean what it most likely is not intended to mean, that would be a very minor point contrasted with trust folks have in the man that wears the mitre.
(link).
The portion of the post of interest is the account of the people who were tricked into thinking that they had been legally married when, in fact, they had not.
Our senses are generally reliable, but they do not always provide true information.
-Turretinfan
Post Script - A special note to Roman Catholic readers:
While this "priest" apparently "eventually" told the people that they were not married, it is certainly at least conceivable that there is at least one psychopathic person out there impersonating a Roman Catholic priest or even bishop on a daily basis, with no plan to reveal the truth. That priest may even be the one who married (maybe I should put "married") you and your spouse, who hears your confessions, and who will perform last rites for you.
If it turns out that the priest is a fraud, then none of the bread you ate was the body of Christ (nor was the wine his body), you have lived in unconfessed and unrepetant adultery (in fact all of your sins are unconfessed), and you will have died (without intending to do so) in a state of final impenitance. There is, one supposes, even a real question about whether you were ever baptized, since baptism by a non-believer has not traditionally been considered a valid baptism. [One dear reader has noted some ambiguity here: to be clear, Rome has not traditionally considered baptisms by non-Christians to be valid baptisms. Most protestants do not concen themselves with the question of baptismal validity.]
The point is this, if you think that participation in the sacraments is a necessary part of salvation, and if you agree that sacraments performed by a faux priest are not valid, you can have only a tenuous assurance of salvation.
And that is not Christianity. Salvation does not depend on human merit, human activity, or the faithfulness of the men who administer sacraments. Salvation depends on the action of God alone.
Think about it. If you trust in Christ alone for salvation, you have only the risk that Christ is a fraud, and God has revealed to us that Christ is the Way, the Life, and most importantly (in this context) the Truth. Confess your sins to God, not to someone who claims to be his vicar, whose claim you can never be sure about. Of course, we still confess our faults to one another, but do not place your reliance for salvation on the faithfulness of any man except Christ the one who is both God and Man in two distinct natures and one person. Only He can save you from your sins, and confidence in Him alone is sure.
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: Chinese Catholics can breathe a sigh of relief that this bishop bears the Vatican seal of approval (link). Some folks, however, will focus on the fact that the mitre that the bishop is wearing has six boxes, six vertical line segments, and six horizontal line segments (depending on how you count them). Even if that were intended to mean what it most likely is not intended to mean, that would be a very minor point contrasted with trust folks have in the man that wears the mitre.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Martyrdom Follow-Up
Avid readers of the news may recall the kidnap of many, and martyrdom of a few, South Korean professing Christians. This news report (link) suggests that the primary criminal responsible must now come before the Father to answer for the deaths of his children. I would not want to be in his place, and I thank God that he has mercifully restrained me from committing such sin (for which restraint I can take no credit), and mercifully provided an Advocate against that day of judgment.
Yet there are many others who have killed Christians, and yet have been so-far spared by God who permits them still to live. If anyone reading falls in that category, you should be in fear of God's judgment in the life to come, for God's longsuffering in permitting you to live only adds to the seriousness of your rebellion if you do not humbly turn to Him.
Repent, and beg God for mercy while there is time, for He has promised that all kinds of sin will be forgiven, and the most famous Christian apostle, Paul, was himself the most notorious persecuter of Christians before God turned His heart. If God has made you recognize His sovereignty, turn from your persecution of His bride, His children, His church, and cast yourself on His bounteous mercy.
Worship Him with me in Fear and Trembling, for He is an Holy God,
-Turretinfan
Yet there are many others who have killed Christians, and yet have been so-far spared by God who permits them still to live. If anyone reading falls in that category, you should be in fear of God's judgment in the life to come, for God's longsuffering in permitting you to live only adds to the seriousness of your rebellion if you do not humbly turn to Him.
Repent, and beg God for mercy while there is time, for He has promised that all kinds of sin will be forgiven, and the most famous Christian apostle, Paul, was himself the most notorious persecuter of Christians before God turned His heart. If God has made you recognize His sovereignty, turn from your persecution of His bride, His children, His church, and cast yourself on His bounteous mercy.
Worship Him with me in Fear and Trembling, for He is an Holy God,
-Turretinfan
William Lane Craig's Middle Knowledge
William Lane Craig's
"Middle Knowledge, Truth-Makers, and the 'Grounding Objection'"
A Reformed Critique
The present author is in the process of responding to William Lane Craig's (WLC's) book, "The Only Wise God." In the process, however, it seems as though it would be useful to focus on the topic of the final chapter of that book, Middle Knowledge, and particularly on another of WLC's writings on the subject, specifically his article, "Middle knowledge, Truth Makers, and the 'Grounding Objection.'" This topic is doubly timely due to the present author's on-going discussion in the comments section of a treatment of another of WLC's related articles, on Newcomb's Paradox, in which the topic of truth-makers came up.
Presently, a copy of WLC's article is available here (link).
WLC's article purports to address a critical problem for any theory of Middle Knowledge, which he phrases as there being no true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, because there is nothing to make them true, but which might more aptly be described as there being no way for God to have "free" knowledge (including knowledge based on the (actual or hypothetical) exercise of creaturely freedom) prior to the divine decree.
As WLC admits, the objection is not an undercutting, but a rebutting rejection of Molinism, because if God does not have "middle knowledge," there can be no Molinism, and one must accept either Thomism/Calvinism (which states that God has "free knowledge" posterior to the divine decree) or Open Theism (which denies that God has "free knowledge" at least with respect to creatures).
It is worthwhile to point out, before we begin a detailed analysis of WLC's article, what middle knowledge is alleged to be. It is alleged to be God's knowledge of what "would" happen if a free creature were in a particular circumstance. Thus, it is God's knowledge of what state of affairs "would" result from the exercise of man's (or other free creature's) "free will" in a particular circumstance. Accordingly, this knowledge is a special kind of "free" knowledge, namely knowledge that depends on the creature's exercise of "free will," as constrasted with what Molinists (and most philosophers) refer to as God's "free knowledge," namely the knowledge that God has as a result of the exercise of his own free will.
WLC begins by setting forth the alleged warrant for the Molinist assumption (WLC himself calls it an "assumption").
The first alleged warrant is that "we ourselves often appear to know such counterfactuals." This warrant, however, can be readily dismissed. Our knowledge of "counterfactuals" generally falls into one of two categories, neither of which is consistent with the Molinistic assumption. The first category are counterfactuals that are true by virtue of the law of the excluded middle (i.e. we know that it is true that if President Fox were held by terrorists, the US government either would or would not intervene. The second category are counterfactuals for which our ground is causal inference, which negates freedom. An example in this category would include your knowledge that if you showed up late for work for a week and then insulted your boss to his face, your boss would react by firing you. There is not some third category of counterfactuals that we know to be true by some other mechansim. Thus, this alleged warrant falls flat on its face.
The second alleged warrant is that "it is plausable that the Law of the Conditional Excluded Middle (LCEM) holds for counterfactuals of a certain special form." As noted above, however, this is simply an example of the first category of counterfactuals that are true because they are just restatements of the law of the excluded middle. They do not assist Molinism in any way, because they do not depend at all on the exercise of a free will, and do not correspond to anything more than the application of a logical rule to a hypothetical scenario. Thus, this alleged warrant is also insufficient.
The third alleged warrant is that Scriptures are "replete with counterfactual statements." Scriptures, however, do not identify any creaturely acts as "free" in the Molinist (Libertarian) sense, and Scriptures also include counterfactual statements describing God's own actions. Finally, all such Scriptural statements are made posterior to the divine decree. Thus, such statements cannot possibly be a warrant for the Molinist assumption.
WLC implicitly notes at least some of these objections and suggests that "anti-Molinists" retreat to asserting that counterfactuals have no ground prior to the divine decree. WLC's only two responses are that "there seems to be no more ground now for many counterfactuals about creaturely free acts than there is logically prior to God's decree," and if "it is God who decrees which counterfactuals about creaturely free acts are true" then this seems to "make God the author of sin and obliterate human freedom."
The former of these objections ignores the obvious: posterior to the divine decree we have reality - the world that exists and operates according to the laws of Ordinary Providence. Thus, counterfactuals become grounded in reality.
The latter of these objections is wrong for enough reasons to occupy a major treatise (and Jonathan Edwards has written one that fully rebuts it). To briefly summarize, God is not the "author" of sin because he does not do sin: he is not a voluntary agent that performs a sinful act. Furthermore, God is not the "author" of sin because no one who sins is coerced into sin contrary to their will by God. If WLC means something else by "author of sin" we can respond with Vincent Cheung that we will simply grant the objection, and ask why that should be a problem. Used outside the first two items listed above, it is simply pejorative rhetoric, not a meaningful objection. Additionally, it is "libertarian" (not compatible) freedom that obliterates human responsibility, because it necessarily denies that man determines what man does. Or, to take a hint from WLC, we could simply deny the charge of obliteration of human responsibility and ask WLC to provide evidence. Nevertheless, as noted above Jonathan Edwards' "Freedom of the Will," has already thoroughly disabused any serious reader of the truth of either of the charges above, though (of course) WLC neither recognizes nor responds to Edwards' detailed and famous rebuttals.
Although we have seen that the Molinist assumption is philosophically warrantless, let us proceed to see what kind of response WLC is able to provide to the grounding objection.
WLC begins by explaining an alleged relationship between the grounding objection and a theory of "truth-makers." Theory, in essence, states that in addition to truth bearers (sentences, thoughts, or propositions) there are entities by virtue of which the truth bearers are true. Someimtes these truth-makers are labelled as "facts" or "states of affairs."
WLC recognizes what is intuitively obvious that the term "truth maker" suggests a causal relationship between the truth-maker and the truth of the truth bearer. (This same problem for the Molinist position had been observed by Dan in the comments section of the post linked-to above.) WLC's response is bafflingly off-base:
First, WLC responds that the truth-maker is usually conceived to be "such abstract entities as facts or states of affairs" and asserts that consequently a causal relation is not at issue here. This objection is bizarre, to say the least. While the terms "facts" and "states of affairs" are abstract, "facts" and "states of affairs" are categories of things that (mostly) have (or had or will have) tangible existence. Individual facts are not "abstract."
Second, WLC attempts to show that "negative existential statements" do not have truth-makers. If this were not presented as an attempted rebuttal, we would assume it were a poor play on words, for "do not have" with respect to statements of "negative existence" is fully consistent with a theory of truth-makers. The fact is that negative existential statements can be rephrased quasi-positively. Thus, "Baal does not exist" can be rephrased as "Everything that exists is a non-Baal," or more simply "All gods are non-Baals," since it is alleged that Baal is a god. Negative existential statements, therefore, can be converted to quasi-positive statements, for which there is an obvious truth-maker.
WLC then asserts that the various phrasing of the grounding objection are "crude construal[s]" of the problem. We have demonstrated, however, that WLC does not have an answer to the question variously phrased, but which amounts to:
Counterfactuals are supposedly true but not caused to be true by God, who then causes them to be true?
(A similar general question remains unanswered in the discussion thread identified above.)
The result of WLC's failure to answer this question is that WLC cannot provide an explanation for the truth of counterfactuals, and consequently can provide only an incomplete epistonomy.
Instead of identifying a cause, WLC simply calls the call for a cause (the request for grounding) "inept" and states that the objector must set forth some kind of "very special causal theory of truth-makers" in order to counter the "customary truth-maker theories." As we noted above, however, WLC has failed properly to analyze the customary truth-maker theories. Furthermore, no special theory of causality is required: everything external to God cannot be self-existent, and therefore requires a cause. The truth of counterfactuals is alleged to be external to God. Therefore, the Molinist should identify the cause, or acknowledge that the truth of counterfactuals is simply special pleading for Molinists.
WLC then identifies seven proposition that allegedly do not have "truth-makers." These include:
1) No physical objects exist.
(Which is not true, but if it were true the truth maker would be readily seen from the fact that "all things that exist are non-phsical things" has the truth-maker "all things that exist."
2) Dinosaurs are exitinct today.
(Which may be true, and if it is true today then the truth maker is a combination of the dinosaurs that once were (as to the implication of previous non-extinct status for the class of dinosaurs) and the status of all things as being members of the class "not-dinosaurs."
3) All ravens are black.
(If this were true, the truth-maker would be the color of all ravens.)
4) Torturing a child is wrong.
(If this is true, then the truth-maker is the standard of wrong, the moral law.)
5) Napolean lost the battle of Waterloo.
(The truth maker here could variously be ascribed to historians, Napolean's blunder, British genius, or God's providence.)
6) The president of the U.S. in 2070 will be a woman.
(If this is true, the truth-maker is inter alia God's decree.)
7) If a rigid rod were placed in uniform motion through the aether, it would suffer a FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction.
(Which has as its truth-maker the definitions of certain theories of 19th century mechanics and/or causal inference therefrom.)
In short, WLC presents seven propositions that he believes there is no truth-maker to be found for, and implicitly asserts that consequently there is no problem if no truth-maker can be found for counterfactual statements. But WLC, fortunately, does not rest on that idea (which has been demonstrated wrong above by provision of relevant truthmakers).
Instead, WLC continues with a section entitled "Do Counterfactuals of Creaturely Freedom Need Truth-Makers?" Of course, if WLC can answer this question negatively, then the problem would appear to be solved - regardless of the merit of any of the seven examples identified above.
WLC's contention appears to revolve around first, asserting that truth-maker theory is a minority philosophical position; second, some truth-maker philosophers permit some true statements to lack a truth-maker; and third, WLC has not found an explanation as to why counterfactuals should not be permitted to be without a truth-maker. None of these, of course, provide an excuse for counterfactuals to avoid the need for a truth-maker.
WLC's next question is whether such counterfactuals have truth-makers. WLC notes that Fredodoso has attempted to provide a truth-maker, namely the state of affairs that the propisition will have a truth-maker or that the proposition would have a truth-maker under the relevant condition. WLC recognizes that this alleged truth-maker creates the obvious, immediate, and insoluable problem of infinite regress, but seems to think that it is not so. WLC asserts that facts do not have to have truth-makers. That assertion may be true generally, to wit that ordinarily facts do not require truth-makers. This particular alleged fact, however, makes reference to another truth-maker, and thus creates the self-referential problem.
The problem is that WLC is taking shelter in the use of a similar technique to that used by philosphers who deny present grounding of future tense statements. Thus, WLC takes comfort in the fact that some explanatiosn of the grounding of future tense statements also suffer from infinite regress. WLC, however, seems to have overlooked the fact that many future tense statements can have other forms of grounding.
For example, the statement "tomorrow will be another day" is grounded in causal inference from the succession of time (and/or the definition of the word "tomorrow"), and "tomorrow will be rainy or not" is grounded in the law of the excluded middle. Finally, with respect to human perspective future tense statements that are not based on laws of logic or causal inference, such statements very rarely have grounding, and consequently are not "true" if, for a statement to be true, it must have grounds of truth. Note that what is being implied (but not stated) is that the statement must have grounds of truth for the speaker. In other words, the speaker must have a basis for the statement. The statement "a woman will be president of the U.S. in 2070" may turn out to be a correct statement of the state of affairs that transpires in 2070, but an ordinary human cannot have grounds for that statement - and, thus, while we might label the statement "true" after the fact, at the time the statement was made it was simply a guess.
This is not so with respect to divine omniprescience. God knows the future with the positive grounding of the divine decree. Thus, God's beliefs about the future are not guesses, but instead have the ground of the divine decree. Furthermore, God's beliefs about the hypothetical future are most readily grounded in causal inference, just as are ours - but God knows all the factors and thus has perfect knowledge of all hypotheticals posterior to the divine decree.
In contrast, for the Molinist, there is nothing that could ground God's knowledge of "counterfactuals" prior to the divine decree. Thus, God could not "know" such counterfactuals, and if God could not know such counterfactuals, then Molinism is dead.
WLC suggests that the ground of truth for a conditional "if A were in C, A would do S" is the hypothetical state of affairs described in the statement. This is somewhat similar to the non-predestinarian alleged grounding of future tense statements. The problem with that assertion, however, is that the hypothetical state of affairs does not exist, and (if it is really a counterfactual) will never exist. In other words, unlike future tense statements, there will never have been a corresponding state of affairs in which A is in C and does S, and the fact there will never have been a corresponding state of affairs in which A is in C and does S would "falsify" the future tense statement. Thus, WLC is relying for truth grounding on the very thing that would falsify a future tense statement, and a conditional statement does not purport to convey negative, but positive, information. Accordingly, even under a non-predestinarian analysis, WLC's basis for grounding is all wet.
Elsewhere, such as in "The Only Wise God," WLC has proposed an alternative basis for grounding. That basis is the fact that God knows all true counterfactuals. The problem with this attempted grounding should be immediately obvious. First, there is no reason to suppose that God knows all true counterfactuals prior to the divine decree, and perhaps even more plainly, it itself cannot have adequate grounding, unless we are to suggest that it is in God's nature to know all true counterfactuals. But if so, then true counterfactuals are part of God's natural knowledge, which both creates a paradox with respect to God himself, imposes necessity on counterfactuals, and takes out the "middle" from "middle knowledge." In short, an assertion that God's natural knowledge encompasses counterfactuals as much destroys Molinism as an assertion that God's free knowledge encompasses counterfactuals. Both scenarios destroy Molinism utterly.
WLC recognizes that the way that we treat normal hypotheticals (if I fire a shotgun at a pane of ordinary glass from a distance of 5 feet, the glass will break) is by identifying the causal inference. WLC, however, does not want to apply this to creaturely free acts, because he recognizes that doing so would destroy their libertarian freedom.
WLC even goes so far as to state that asking the question, "Why is F a fact?" or "What makes F a fact?" is to deny libertarian freedom, if F is a libertarian free act. The result is that WLC is unable to provide an account for the existence of F, and WLC is unable to handle Scriptural assertions that there are reasons why F is a fact (for example, there is a reason why Thomas believed). In short, WLC's philosophy falls prey to all the objections raised at great length and depth by Jonathan Edwards centuries ago.
Thus, when we arrive at WLC's conclusion that "anti-Molinists have not even begun to do the necessary homework," we are left with precisely the opposite impression. Specifically, we left with the impression that there is no warrant for accepting the Molinist assumptions, we are left with the impression that Molinism's assumption ends up contradicting Molinism, and we are left with the impression that Molinism fails to provide a complete epistemology: Molinism asserts that there are true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom and that they were known by God prior to the divine decree, but cannot give any account of them.
Finally, we may simply point out that the primary criticism raised against the Reformed view is essentially transitive to the Molinist viewpoint (in debate terms it is a "non-unique" criticism). That is to say, that while Molinists may deny that God makes the true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom true, nevertheless, God's selection of a particular world from all possible worlds (in Molinism) makes God in essence as much the cause of the evil that will be, as does God's selection of a particular world from all possible worlds in Calvinism or Thomism, because God recognizes that the consequence "If A is in C, A will do S," attaches just as certainly to C whether the link between C and S is causal (Calvinism/Thomism) or mysterious/unexplainable/impenetrable (Molinism/Arminianism). Thus, either way, C => S, and God's selection of C implies God's selection of S. In short, it is only the obviously mistaken position of Open Theism that an escape the charge that WLC attempts to level.
Thus, we may safely conclude that WLC has been unable to withstand the grounding objection proposed against Molinism, and the reader has no reason to believe in such a philosophical position. Instead, the reader should believe in the God who knows all hypotheticals on the basis of His infinite wisdom in combination with the Divine decree.
-Turretinfan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
