I've prepared responses to the comments submitted on the Atonement debate through yesterday. I'm planning that later today I'll tidy those up and present them, together with any necessary further comments regarding SDM's "rebuttal to rebuttal," and/or any further comments that I see on Contend Earnestly in the meantime. After that, I'm pretty much going to be moving on to the next verse in the series, rather than go potentially endless rounds of comments in the comboxes there. Presumably some of the same comments will come up in reference to the next few verses that get presented, so perhaps there will be some useful overlap.
-Turretinfan
Monday, November 26, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
God a Narcissist? No, for God truly is Worthy of All Praise.
Ben Wirthington recently published a post suggesting that the traditional Reformed view of God would tend to make God a Narcissist (link).
I'll line-by-line it:
BW: "I was recently reading through the proofs of a new book on New Testament Theology, and it was stated that the most basic theme or thesis of NT theology is --'God magnifying himself through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit'."
I answer: That is an excellent summary.
BW: There were various nuances and amplifications to the discussion, but the more one read, the more it appeared clear that God was being presented as a self-centered, self-referential being, whose basic motivation for what he does, including his motivation for saving people, is so that he might receive more glory. Even the sending of the Son and the work of the Spirit is said to be but a means to an end of God's self-adulation and praise.
I answer: Sounds correct.
BW: What's wrong with this picture? How about the basic understanding of God's essential and moral character?
I answer: Well, framed that way, BW has a lot to lose. If he's wrong, it turns out he doesn't even understand God's essential and moral character.
BW: For instance, suppose this thesis stated above is true-- would we not expect John 3.16 to read "for God so loved himself that he gave his only begotten Son..."?
I answer: The fact that a theme is the dominant theme does not mean that it is the only theme. Even so, when we look at John 3:16 we see immediately that God's expression of love of the world is salvation of those who believe on Him. God loves his creation, and consequently the creation loves God. Mission accomplished.
BW: Or again if this thesis is true, would we not expect Phil. 2.5-11 to read differently when it speaks about Christ emptying himself? If the Son is the very image and has the same character as the Father, wouldn't we expect this text to say--'who being in very nature God, devised a plan to glorify himself through his incarnation' if God really is so self-referential? In other words I am arguing Christ, the perfect image of God's character, reveals that God's character is essentially other directed self-sacrificial love. God loves people, not merely as means to his own ends, but as ends in themselves.
I answer: Actually, BW's answer betrays a lack of understanding of Trinitarian Christology. Christ does what the Father tells him to do. Christ is obedient to the Father. The Father the loves and commands the Son and the Son loves and obeys the Father. Yet, Christ is "about [his] Father's business," even in the Incarnation.
BW: Or take Heb. 12.2-- we are told that Jesus died for our sins, not 'for the glory set before him', and in view of how this would improve his honor rating but rather 'for the joy set before him'. That is, he despised the shame of dying on the cross, which death was the least self-glorifying thing he could do, because he knew of how it would benefit his people thereafter, and he took joy in that fact.
I answer: See above.
BW: Or re-read Hosea 11 where God explains that his love for his people is not at all like the fickle, self-seeking love of mere human beings. But rather God keeps loving his children, whether they praise or love or worship him or not.
I answer: God's not-fickle love is worthy of adulation, and consequently reinforces (rather than detracts) the theme that God's glorifies himself in Christ.
BW: Let me be clear that of course the Bible says it is our obligation to love, praise, and worship God, but this is a very different matter from the suggestion that God worships himself, is deeply worried about whether he has enough glory or not, and his deepest motivation for doing anything on earth is so that he can up his own glory quotient, or magnify and praise himself.
I answer: God knows that God is God. God could have no higher form of worship than that. Furthermore, just look at how heaven is arranged: the four beasts proclaiming the holiness of God, and the 24 elders repeating the same back to God.
BW: If we go back to the Garden of Eden story, one immediately notices that it is the Fall and sin which turned Adam and Eve into self-aware, self-centered, self-protecting beings. This is not how God had created them. Rather, he had created them in the divine image, and that divine image involves other directed, other centered love and relating. It follows from this that not the fallen narcissistic tendencies we manifest reflect what God is really like, but rather other directed, self-giving loving tendency.
I answer: The image of God has to do with ruling over creation, not being naked. But man was created to love his wife how? as he loves himself. The one command to man was a command for whose good besides man's own?
BW: I like the remark of Victor Furnish that God's love is not like a heat-seeking missile attracted to something inherently attractive in this or that person. Rather God's other-directed love bestows worth, honor, even glory. Notice exactly what Psalm 8.5 says--God has made us but a little less than God (or another reading would be, 'than the angels') and crowned human beings with glory and honor. Apparently this does not subtract from God's glory (see vs. 1) but simply adds to it. God it would appear is not merely a glory grabber, but rather a glory giver.
I answer: The penultimate line is the answer to the ultimate line. God does give others glory, and in doing so adds to His own. God does not only glorify himself, but that is the principal theme.
BW: I suppose we should not be surprised that in a culture and age of narcissism, we would recreate God in our own self-centered image, but it is surprising when we find orthodox Christians, and even careful scholars doing this.
I answer: There being no one higher to swear by, God swore by himself. It is narcissistic when folks swear by themselves, because they are not the highest. It is a psychological ailment when a man thinks himself to be a god, but it is perfect rationality for God to recognize His own Divine Supremacy.
Those of Westminster were right, hence, I will continue to affirm that man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: See also here and here. Also, this nice post by Centuri0n.
I'll line-by-line it:
BW: "I was recently reading through the proofs of a new book on New Testament Theology, and it was stated that the most basic theme or thesis of NT theology is --'God magnifying himself through Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit'."
I answer: That is an excellent summary.
BW: There were various nuances and amplifications to the discussion, but the more one read, the more it appeared clear that God was being presented as a self-centered, self-referential being, whose basic motivation for what he does, including his motivation for saving people, is so that he might receive more glory. Even the sending of the Son and the work of the Spirit is said to be but a means to an end of God's self-adulation and praise.
I answer: Sounds correct.
BW: What's wrong with this picture? How about the basic understanding of God's essential and moral character?
I answer: Well, framed that way, BW has a lot to lose. If he's wrong, it turns out he doesn't even understand God's essential and moral character.
BW: For instance, suppose this thesis stated above is true-- would we not expect John 3.16 to read "for God so loved himself that he gave his only begotten Son..."?
I answer: The fact that a theme is the dominant theme does not mean that it is the only theme. Even so, when we look at John 3:16 we see immediately that God's expression of love of the world is salvation of those who believe on Him. God loves his creation, and consequently the creation loves God. Mission accomplished.
BW: Or again if this thesis is true, would we not expect Phil. 2.5-11 to read differently when it speaks about Christ emptying himself? If the Son is the very image and has the same character as the Father, wouldn't we expect this text to say--'who being in very nature God, devised a plan to glorify himself through his incarnation' if God really is so self-referential? In other words I am arguing Christ, the perfect image of God's character, reveals that God's character is essentially other directed self-sacrificial love. God loves people, not merely as means to his own ends, but as ends in themselves.
I answer: Actually, BW's answer betrays a lack of understanding of Trinitarian Christology. Christ does what the Father tells him to do. Christ is obedient to the Father. The Father the loves and commands the Son and the Son loves and obeys the Father. Yet, Christ is "about [his] Father's business," even in the Incarnation.
BW: Or take Heb. 12.2-- we are told that Jesus died for our sins, not 'for the glory set before him', and in view of how this would improve his honor rating but rather 'for the joy set before him'. That is, he despised the shame of dying on the cross, which death was the least self-glorifying thing he could do, because he knew of how it would benefit his people thereafter, and he took joy in that fact.
I answer: See above.
BW: Or re-read Hosea 11 where God explains that his love for his people is not at all like the fickle, self-seeking love of mere human beings. But rather God keeps loving his children, whether they praise or love or worship him or not.
I answer: God's not-fickle love is worthy of adulation, and consequently reinforces (rather than detracts) the theme that God's glorifies himself in Christ.
BW: Let me be clear that of course the Bible says it is our obligation to love, praise, and worship God, but this is a very different matter from the suggestion that God worships himself, is deeply worried about whether he has enough glory or not, and his deepest motivation for doing anything on earth is so that he can up his own glory quotient, or magnify and praise himself.
I answer: God knows that God is God. God could have no higher form of worship than that. Furthermore, just look at how heaven is arranged: the four beasts proclaiming the holiness of God, and the 24 elders repeating the same back to God.
BW: If we go back to the Garden of Eden story, one immediately notices that it is the Fall and sin which turned Adam and Eve into self-aware, self-centered, self-protecting beings. This is not how God had created them. Rather, he had created them in the divine image, and that divine image involves other directed, other centered love and relating. It follows from this that not the fallen narcissistic tendencies we manifest reflect what God is really like, but rather other directed, self-giving loving tendency.
I answer: The image of God has to do with ruling over creation, not being naked. But man was created to love his wife how? as he loves himself. The one command to man was a command for whose good besides man's own?
BW: I like the remark of Victor Furnish that God's love is not like a heat-seeking missile attracted to something inherently attractive in this or that person. Rather God's other-directed love bestows worth, honor, even glory. Notice exactly what Psalm 8.5 says--God has made us but a little less than God (or another reading would be, 'than the angels') and crowned human beings with glory and honor. Apparently this does not subtract from God's glory (see vs. 1) but simply adds to it. God it would appear is not merely a glory grabber, but rather a glory giver.
I answer: The penultimate line is the answer to the ultimate line. God does give others glory, and in doing so adds to His own. God does not only glorify himself, but that is the principal theme.
BW: I suppose we should not be surprised that in a culture and age of narcissism, we would recreate God in our own self-centered image, but it is surprising when we find orthodox Christians, and even careful scholars doing this.
I answer: There being no one higher to swear by, God swore by himself. It is narcissistic when folks swear by themselves, because they are not the highest. It is a psychological ailment when a man thinks himself to be a god, but it is perfect rationality for God to recognize His own Divine Supremacy.
Those of Westminster were right, hence, I will continue to affirm that man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: See also here and here. Also, this nice post by Centuri0n.
The Atonement and God's Love of Himself
Two timely topics, one great quotation from John Murray, to be found here (link).
All praise be to God,
-Turretinfan
All praise be to God,
-Turretinfan
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Bloggers Who Love Talking to Themselves
One unhappy reader provided the title critique of the present blog (link):
Let's quickly investigate, expose, and discard his ad hominem.
1) "Francis Turretin's blog joins the many not worth reading with his recent performance,"
Notice the suggestion that it previously was worth reading. Interesting, eh?
2) "which is not publishing a single Orthodox response to his misapprehensions about what Orthodox believe."
a) The underlying problem with this criticism is that, even if there were some legitimate Orthodox response, the present author is under no obligation to permit his blog to be a soapbox for the other side. In other words, Orthodox's complaint here is not that the blog is really not worth reading, but that the blog does not provide comments from the "other side."
b) There is a second problem with this criticism, namely that it's not as though there was any significant amount of "Orthodox" response. It's not as though the present blog had to shut down the torrent of inflowing Orthodox comments, or something.
c) The third problem is that "Orthodox"'s real complaint is that his own comments were not posted. Of course, they were eventually posted (though not all of the endless tirade of ignorance that began "Arrghh. Bring some facts to the table before accusing us of not understanding" in response to a fact-filled post).
d) A fourth problem is that not only were "Orthodox"'s own comments posted (in part) but another Orthodox poster's comments (or perhaps "Orthodox"'s own comments posting anonymously) were also posted and responded to.
In short, Orthodox's claim is not true (unless "not ... a single" includes at "two"), not significant (because what was not published was rude and/or useless to the discussion), and egotistical.
3) "To add insult to injury, he's criticizing those who won't let people clarify their own position."
I invite people to read the post Orthodox links to (a post on a blog Orthodox says is not worth reading), and see what it actually says. Let the post speak for itself.
But notice the implicit confusion on Orthodox's part: he seems to have conflated himself with "Orthodoxy" at large. If he's not allowed to speak, I'm refusing to let "Orthodoxy" clarify itself. The idea that he, apparently a lay (and fairly new) member of the Orthodox church speaks for Orthodoxy generally would be laughable, if Orthodox were not so serious about it. The egotism of the claim is startling! The contradiction of classic Orthodoxy entailed in it is amusing. The reinforcement of the claim in the original post (that "Orthodox" and many others in modern "Orthodoxy" do not actually know what the "Orthodox" church historically taught) is ironic.
4) "This is hyper-hypocrisy at work."
I'll let the reader judge for himself. It is exactly this sort of comment that is the reason that "Orthodox"'s comments have tended not to get published in full.
5) "All the while he's starting on some brand new debate without bothering to conclude our debate. I can only conclude that Francis is in love with talking to himself in monologue, and presumably has conceded defeat on the debate front."
The conclusion will eventually be posted. How my not posting a conclusion (which will be the last post of the debate) is proof that I love talking to myself, or how engaging in a debate (with an opponent, and several of his commenters in his comboxes) is evidence of the same is certainly odd.
Is it just me, or this just more of the same nonsense as evidenced in numbers 1-4 above?
Well, "Orthodox" does not leave us wondering. He points out that he has been banned by the folks over at Triablogue.
He has not been banned from this blog, yet. Perhaps that's a moot point, as "Orthodox" has indicated that this blog is not worth reading, and we cannot believe that he'd waste his own time after going to such lengths to demonstrate just how worthless this blog is.
Incidentally, God willing, my conclusion (which is presently about 30% complete) will be ready by the end of the year, though I had hoped to finish it by American Thanksgiving Day.
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: More of the same from "Orthodox" (link). Orthodox doesn't salvage his position in any meaningful way in his attempted comeback, basically repeats his same points, and fails to apologize for his previous misrepresentations.
Let's quickly investigate, expose, and discard his ad hominem.
1) "Francis Turretin's blog joins the many not worth reading with his recent performance,"
Notice the suggestion that it previously was worth reading. Interesting, eh?
2) "which is not publishing a single Orthodox response to his misapprehensions about what Orthodox believe."
a) The underlying problem with this criticism is that, even if there were some legitimate Orthodox response, the present author is under no obligation to permit his blog to be a soapbox for the other side. In other words, Orthodox's complaint here is not that the blog is really not worth reading, but that the blog does not provide comments from the "other side."
b) There is a second problem with this criticism, namely that it's not as though there was any significant amount of "Orthodox" response. It's not as though the present blog had to shut down the torrent of inflowing Orthodox comments, or something.
c) The third problem is that "Orthodox"'s real complaint is that his own comments were not posted. Of course, they were eventually posted (though not all of the endless tirade of ignorance that began "Arrghh. Bring some facts to the table before accusing us of not understanding" in response to a fact-filled post).
d) A fourth problem is that not only were "Orthodox"'s own comments posted (in part) but another Orthodox poster's comments (or perhaps "Orthodox"'s own comments posting anonymously) were also posted and responded to.
In short, Orthodox's claim is not true (unless "not ... a single" includes at "two"), not significant (because what was not published was rude and/or useless to the discussion), and egotistical.
3) "To add insult to injury, he's criticizing those who won't let people clarify their own position."
I invite people to read the post Orthodox links to (a post on a blog Orthodox says is not worth reading), and see what it actually says. Let the post speak for itself.
But notice the implicit confusion on Orthodox's part: he seems to have conflated himself with "Orthodoxy" at large. If he's not allowed to speak, I'm refusing to let "Orthodoxy" clarify itself. The idea that he, apparently a lay (and fairly new) member of the Orthodox church speaks for Orthodoxy generally would be laughable, if Orthodox were not so serious about it. The egotism of the claim is startling! The contradiction of classic Orthodoxy entailed in it is amusing. The reinforcement of the claim in the original post (that "Orthodox" and many others in modern "Orthodoxy" do not actually know what the "Orthodox" church historically taught) is ironic.
4) "This is hyper-hypocrisy at work."
I'll let the reader judge for himself. It is exactly this sort of comment that is the reason that "Orthodox"'s comments have tended not to get published in full.
5) "All the while he's starting on some brand new debate without bothering to conclude our debate. I can only conclude that Francis is in love with talking to himself in monologue, and presumably has conceded defeat on the debate front."
The conclusion will eventually be posted. How my not posting a conclusion (which will be the last post of the debate) is proof that I love talking to myself, or how engaging in a debate (with an opponent, and several of his commenters in his comboxes) is evidence of the same is certainly odd.
Is it just me, or this just more of the same nonsense as evidenced in numbers 1-4 above?
Well, "Orthodox" does not leave us wondering. He points out that he has been banned by the folks over at Triablogue.
He has not been banned from this blog, yet. Perhaps that's a moot point, as "Orthodox" has indicated that this blog is not worth reading, and we cannot believe that he'd waste his own time after going to such lengths to demonstrate just how worthless this blog is.
Incidentally, God willing, my conclusion (which is presently about 30% complete) will be ready by the end of the year, though I had hoped to finish it by American Thanksgiving Day.
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: More of the same from "Orthodox" (link). Orthodox doesn't salvage his position in any meaningful way in his attempted comeback, basically repeats his same points, and fails to apologize for his previous misrepresentations.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Episcopal Bishop Makes Massively Enormous Jump to ...
... Roman Catholicism.
(link)
He states: "I believe God is now calling us to continue our ministry to serve in the healing of the visible Body of Christ in the world. I am convinced our Lord’s deepest desire is for the unity of the Church."
His way of healing the visible Body is - leaving his post.
His way of enhancing unity is - changing sects.
Odd, don't you think?
Yet, I suppose his "conversion" will be far less noted than Prof. Beckwith's - if only because Epispoleanism and Roman Catholicism are so close to begin with.
-Turretinfan
(link)
He states: "I believe God is now calling us to continue our ministry to serve in the healing of the visible Body of Christ in the world. I am convinced our Lord’s deepest desire is for the unity of the Church."
His way of healing the visible Body is - leaving his post.
His way of enhancing unity is - changing sects.
Odd, don't you think?
Yet, I suppose his "conversion" will be far less noted than Prof. Beckwith's - if only because Epispoleanism and Roman Catholicism are so close to begin with.
-Turretinfan
Helpful Template for Response to a Weak Ad Hominem
Suppose that someone points out that your otherwise very upright pastor watches too many violent movies, or the deacons overspent on the paint that they bought when painting the church, or some other minor quibble regarding something otherwise excellent, you can now use as your response:
"That's like the title of this post (link) compared to the video linked therein."
And hats off to the lass in the video.
-Turretinfan
"That's like the title of this post (link) compared to the video linked therein."
And hats off to the lass in the video.
-Turretinfan
Letting the Author Clarify Himself
I think more than a few folks can relate to the situation illustrated here (link).
If people around you both misinterpret what you write, and refuse to accept your clarifications of what you write, what chance is there that such people are going to understand what you wrote?
A similar phenomenon happens in the reading of Scripture.
Folks read it, see what they want to see, and refuse to let the rest of Scripture correct their misunderstanding. This is a personal, subjective problem. It's not a problem with Scripture; it's not an objective problem. That's where the church (meaning the saints around us, whether our spirtual brethren, our spiritual fathers/mothers, or even sometimes our spiritual children) can help. The church helps fallibly, but it can help.
If, however, one decides that one's own reading ability (whether because it is one's own, or that of the sect to which one belongs) is infallible, then one can end up to an observer looking as ridiculous as the reader in the cartoon linked above.
-Turretinfan
If people around you both misinterpret what you write, and refuse to accept your clarifications of what you write, what chance is there that such people are going to understand what you wrote?
A similar phenomenon happens in the reading of Scripture.
Folks read it, see what they want to see, and refuse to let the rest of Scripture correct their misunderstanding. This is a personal, subjective problem. It's not a problem with Scripture; it's not an objective problem. That's where the church (meaning the saints around us, whether our spirtual brethren, our spiritual fathers/mothers, or even sometimes our spiritual children) can help. The church helps fallibly, but it can help.
If, however, one decides that one's own reading ability (whether because it is one's own, or that of the sect to which one belongs) is infallible, then one can end up to an observer looking as ridiculous as the reader in the cartoon linked above.
-Turretinfan
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Does Doug Wilson Get it?
In two recent posts, Doug Wilson seems to express frustration that (his friend?) Steve Wilkins is the focal point of charges brought against the Lousaiana Presbytery of the PCA. (link) (link)
In essence, the way the situation is this:
1. the LA presbytery has a duty to exercise godly discipline;
2. Wilkins' promotion of heretical views has become notorious or at least the allegations that Wilkins has heretical views have become widely known;
3. the LA presbytery's way of addressing the situation has been (in essence) to exonerate Wilkins, or at least not to prosecute him; and
4. so the charge is that the LA presbytery is tolerating serious heresy.
Doug Wilson doesn't seem to get it. He hears:
Doug, for example, asks:
Would Doug Wilson still not understand both why the presbytery could be charged, even though Wilkins' theology had not yet been judged wrong in church court, and why Wilkins' theology would feature prominently in that trial?
I cannot believe that Doug would not get it in that situation. But one will object that this situation is not that situation. The problem is that one could not tell that from Doug's principle objections.
I respectfully submit that Doug's judgment is colored by two salient facts:
1) Wilkins seems to be a friend of Doug's; and
2) Wilkins' errant theology is at least tied in the public eye with Doug's theology, which Doug insists is not errant.
-Turretinfan
In essence, the way the situation is this:
1. the LA presbytery has a duty to exercise godly discipline;
2. Wilkins' promotion of heretical views has become notorious or at least the allegations that Wilkins has heretical views have become widely known;
3. the LA presbytery's way of addressing the situation has been (in essence) to exonerate Wilkins, or at least not to prosecute him; and
4. so the charge is that the LA presbytery is tolerating serious heresy.
Doug Wilson doesn't seem to get it. He hears:
Wilkins wasn't and isn't on trial. Now LAP is technically on trial for violating the BCO. That said, Wilkins' errant theology does figure prominently in the case. You can read that clearly in the SJC's decisions.And then Doug Wilson objects that Wilkins has never been judged guilty of errant theology! Seriously!
Doug, for example, asks:
How can Wilkins' errant theology figure prominently in the case when Wilkins' "errant" theology has never been established in a trial?I ask myself, does Doug get it? The whole point is that the LA presbytery, as a court, has failed to properly address the Wilkins' situation. Suppose that rather than the issue that really exists, suppose that Wilkins publicly claimed to have ghost-written Cristopher Hitchens' latest book (Mr. Hitchens is a prominent atheist). Suppose that in the same public claim, in writing, Mr. Wilkins had said, "We all know God really doesn't exist, and the Bible is a bunch of baloney." Suppose further that the LA presbytery, prompted by the PCA general assembly, did some kind of investigation and reported back that they concluded that Wilkins' theology is "sound as a pound."
Would Doug Wilson still not understand both why the presbytery could be charged, even though Wilkins' theology had not yet been judged wrong in church court, and why Wilkins' theology would feature prominently in that trial?
I cannot believe that Doug would not get it in that situation. But one will object that this situation is not that situation. The problem is that one could not tell that from Doug's principle objections.
I respectfully submit that Doug's judgment is colored by two salient facts:
1) Wilkins seems to be a friend of Doug's; and
2) Wilkins' errant theology is at least tied in the public eye with Doug's theology, which Doug insists is not errant.
-Turretinfan
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Does Religion Matter?
Is it underhanded to point out that a political candidate is member of a cult? According to the candidate, yes (link). Oh, and apparently we need to be able to figure out who has been pointing that out, and make the stop. Apparently, his "freedom of religion" should be bigger than their "freedom of speech."
Religion matters.
The Gospel matters.
There is no God besides the Triune God, and J. Smith was no prophet of God.
-Turretinfan
Religion matters.
The Gospel matters.
There is no God besides the Triune God, and J. Smith was no prophet of God.
-Turretinfan
Excellent and Brief Response on a Textual Critical Issue
Here's a link to an article that may of interest to folks who are worried that no one is answering the higher critics and their ... what's the best word ... ridiculous opinions (link).
To summarize: yes, Matthew knows how to count to fourteen - so, no, he didn't mess up, and there still is no "Q".
-Turretinfan
To summarize: yes, Matthew knows how to count to fourteen - so, no, he didn't mess up, and there still is no "Q".
-Turretinfan
Response to McBee on John 3:16
Introduction
With respect, I think that Mr. McBee (aka “SDM”) seems to have misidentified the point I was trying to make. Perhaps this is because I was too brief. I certainly do not believe, and do not wish to suggest, that Mr. McBee intentionally misrepresented me. On the other hand, each time Mr. McBee wrote “Turretinfan’s position is,” I think he missed the position. Allow me to elaborate.
The Point Restated
Christ died for the express purpose of saving the elect. The point of citing John 3:16 was to point out the third phrase, “ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται,” that is in Latin “ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat” fairly literally rendered “so-that-would all the believing-ones (in him) not perish,” more casually “so that all who believe in him would not perish” or as the KJV so memorably translates it “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish.”
The rest, the question of what does the word kosmos mean, and so forth is all secondary. It is important, but it is secondary. The first thing to understand from the phrase is that God is explaining purpose. The phrase is a so-called “hina” phrase, called because it is introduced by “ινα” (typically pronounced “hina”) as can be seen above.
In this case, the hina phrase is connected to and is explained by the preceding phrase. The preceding phrase is “ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν” in Latin “ut Filium suum unigenitum daret” fairly literally rendered “so (the-[one-who-is]) son his (the-[one-who-is]) onlybegotton he-gave” or more casually “so he gave up his onlybegotten son,” or as the KJV so memorably translates it “that he gave his only begotten Son.”
In other words, grammatically, the feature of all the believers being saved is linked to the feature of God giving His only begotten Son. From the structure of the sentence we can see that the reason why God gave his Son, was to save all the believers.
Finally, of course, the “hoste” (ωστε) similarly connects to the phrase that goes before it. The phrase before it is “ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον” which in Latin is “sic enim dilexit Deus mundum” and can be fairly literally translated “in-this-way for he-loved (the) God (the) world” or more casually “for God loved the world thus” or as the KJV so memorably translates it “For God so loved the world.”
This starts the thought, while showing that the thought is providing an illustration of the thought that precedes it. The “For … God loved the world” connects to the preceding thought, while the “thus” tells us that an explanation follows. As seen above, this explanation is two-fold. First, God gave his onlybegotten Son. And Second, God gave him for the purpose of saving all the believers.
It’s not particularly important to my argument to define the word “world.” Does it mean “the world of the elect” as some have said, or just “men” or perhaps “the natural/created order”? It doesn’t particularly matter for the argument that I’m making positively.
The point is that the verse makes the gift’s purpose clear: to save believers. My point is that this verse is evidence of the fact that such was Christ’s purpose. His purpose always to save the believers, all of the believers, and – while the verse does not say so explicitly – only the believers.
If we had only John 3:17’s comment: “but that the world through him might be saved,” the question would be open, and we’d have to really dig in to figure out what “world” means. Not so with verse 16. Verse 16 is specific. And we have verse 18 as well, which explains that the “believers-in-him” are not condemned, whereas the “unbelievers-in-him” are already condemned.
Now, I would not take the position “God so loved the world, that is, the elect of the world, that He sent His Son.” Why not? There are two reasons: (1) it uses the word “world” equivocally, and (2) the point of the verse is simply: God so loved the kosmos, that He sent His Son to save the elect.
Ok, but what does “Kosmos” mean?
SDM noted that kosmos has a variety of meaning. I would respectfully disagree with one of his claims. He cited Mark 16:15 as being a case of when kosmos means “all of humanity.” Mark 16:15 uses kosmos to mean the actual earth (geo-politically). In fact, with respect, I think SDM would be hard pressed in any of the about 150 verses (or about 180 uses) that use the word kosmos in the New Testament to come up with even one that clearly uses the word to mean all humanity, and not simply the actual world, or the natural/created (sometimes considered as fallen) order generally. Even if SDM could come up with a few such examples, I think SDM would have to admit that the dominant usage in the New Testament and in other ancient philosophical material is of the actual world or the created/natural order.
In other words, I would respectfully submit that using the word as SDM does is mostly based on a philosophical presupposition that SDM brings with him to the text, not based on something in the word itself.
I would expand on what SDM said. In Scripture, kosmos ordinarily is a broad term that conveys a sense of expansiveness. It ordinarily does not carry an exhaustive sense. We use “all” this way frequently (and “world” sometimes) in common parlance. It’s a form of hyperbole. The statement: “He has traveled through the whole world (or all over the world),” means he is a globe-trotter, not that there is no stone his soles have not touched. This too will be significant as we proceed.
SDM, however, wrote: “Turretinfan’s position is that this term, world or “kosmos”, means “elect”.” That’s not quite an accurate representation. I don’t take the position that the word means that, but I think that the word – in context – does refer primarily to the elect as a global group. In other words, the “world” contrasted with just the Jews like Nicodemeus the Pharisee to whom Jesus was speaking. We’ll see how this is true, as we proceed. But this misunderstanding (I assume it is not an intentional straw man), leads to most of SDM’s counter-arguments being irrelevant.
Unraveling SDM’s Counter-Presentation
SDM’s position is fairly clear: to SDM “the world” is composed of two groups: those who will believe and those who won’t. SDM states this position, but I think if we examine his explanation closely we’ll see he hasn’t actually establish this position with exegesis.
SDM indicates that in his view the verse starts by treating one group, each and every person, in the phrase “God so loved the world.” SDM claims that John then turns to another group “those believing will not perish.” SDM correctly notes that this term is implies that there is another group, the unbelievers who will perish. SDM then asserts that those two groups make up the original group of the world.
Based on those premises, SDM concludes that to make “the world” = “the elect” would create a problem, because some of the elect would be unbelievers that perish. The problem, of course, is not in the logic, but in the premises. Specifically, the problem is in assuming that “the believing ones who will not perish” i.e. the elect, is intended to be a sub-category of “world.”
From the grammatical/exegetical analysis we saw above, there is no particular need to make the believing ones a sub-category of the “world.” In fact, it would be more natural to assume that “the believing ones” is a more precise way of expressing the same thing as what is intended by “the world.” Alternatively, we may simply conclude that “world” is a reference to the Creation generally (the natural/created order), and that the phrase about God’s love for what he made is to be understood specifically by his expression of that love: giving his Son for the elect.
To borrow SDM’s Texas analogy, it would be a bit like saying: “I love Texas; so, I moved to Texas and married a lass from Galveston.” Such a comment would not suggest that the speaker plans to play the field with other Texan women, or that his love for Texan women generally is equal to that of his bride. Furthermore, if the same man said that “I didn’t come to Texas to visit, but to live there,” no one would suppose that the speaker meant that he was going to live in every town in Texas, or that he might not visit Dallas or Houston from time to time, but would understand that he lives in Texas by living in a particular town in Texas, and is wed to Texas by his marriage to the particular Galveston gal, not to every woman who lives there. We also wouldn’t assume from his “I love Texas,” that he necessarily likes the desert, the beach, the Rio Grande river, Dallas Fort-Worth airport, or Dr. Pepper, whether or not those are a part of Texas. We let people speak in general terms, and we should give Scripture the same flexibility.
Yes, but what about John 12:47?
SDM appeals to John 12:47, which – of course – is not part of the immediate context. Nevertheless, it uses some similar terms, so we should examine it, as well as the other corresponding Johanine passages.
John 12:47 has its own context, which I’ll show below:
John 12:46-50
46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
It seems to me that if “the world” just means the created order generally, and not all men exhaustively, then the passage makes more sense. Specifically, verse 46 would seem to be a bit odd, for it appears to refer to Christ’s incarnation: his coming into the world, not his coming into the hearts of each and every person.
On the other hand, if we view the word “world” the same way in verse 46 and verse 47, then Christ’s statement is easily understood: he’s here to save the created order not to judge it. That is to say, He’s here as a Savior, not a Judge. He immediately points out, though, that his words do judge those who reject them, because he speaks the words of the Father who sent him, namely the commandments of eternal life.
And John 12:47/John 3:17 is not the only place to find this concept. The same concept also can be found in the fist chapter of John:
John 1:9-14
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Now, unlike John 12, John 1 is the preceding context (even if somewhat removed) of John 3. A reader who is reading John’s gospel (or hearing it read) will have heard this by the time he gets to John 3. How does John 1 use the term “world.” It uses it in the sense of the created order, but it also uses it as a broader term to another group: “his own,” which the reader will soon discover are the Jews.
Indeed, we see this same theme in John 3:10-11, repeated just before the verses we are discussing:
John 3:10-11
10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Notice the switch in address from simply Nicodemus (thou … knowest not) to Israel generally or especially the Jewish leaders (ye receive not). “Thou” is singular, but “ye” is plural. Thus, as promised above, we can see that the use of the word “world” as a broad term to indicate more-than-just-Jewish-people is both supported by the precedent set in chapter 1, and the confirming context in verses 10-11.
It’s worth pointing out that Jesus makes similar claims to be the light of the world and the Savior of those who follow him (the light), several times before John 12:
John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
(the precipitates an argument with the Pharisees over whether this is just Jesus’ say-so, which Jesus denies, saying that the Father bears witness to the truth of his testimony, but then turns the tables on them, explaining why they do not understand and follow him, that is to say, why they do not see the light, compare Paul’s comments in 2 Corinthians 4:4)
Or again:
John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
(this context is pretty interesting, because Jesus demonstrates how people see the light by curing the blindness of the man born blind, which is a picture of our spiritual blindness before regeneration)
And again:
John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
(this context is interesting too, because Jesus immediately goes and raises Lazarus from the dead, which is another picture of our spiritual deadness before regeneration)
So also, even if we simply go beyond John 3:18, and get the further explanation in the subsequent verses, we see:
John 3:19-21
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
In other words, the light shining in the world condemns (demonstrates the guilt of) those who hide, but justifies (demonstrates the righteousness of) those who come. It’s an amazing light: first we see our sin, then we see our Savior, and then we come to God in our Savior’s righteousness.
Christ is that light. He came to open the eyes of the spiritually blind, to raise the spiritually dead, and to save them from their sins through faith in himself. He came to save them, he did not come to save the reprobate.
Yes, but what about the Brass Serpent?
The serpent is not quite the analogy that SDM was looking for. Let’s look quickly at the entire original account, since it is short:
Numbers 21:4-9
4And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way. 5And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. 6And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. 7Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. 8And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. 9And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
SDM claims that this is “a direct parallel … [if] you looked, you were saved, if you didn’t look, you died.” Actually, though, the original passage doesn’t make any mention of anyone not looking and dying. That’s not really the parallel at all.
The parallel is two-fold. First, like the serpent, Jesus will be crucified (“as Moses lifted up the serpent … so must the Son of man be lifted up” – see also John 8:28 and John 12:32-33). Second, the point is that in crucifixion, Christ will save those he is intended to save.
I think SDM misreads Numbers 21:8. That verse says: “every one that is bitten, when he looks on it, shall live.” And then the next verse explains, “If a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.” Now, there clearly are some translational differences between SDM’s and mine, but the point of the passage is actually that God is providing salvation to the people who repented of their grumbling against God and prayed to Him. The sense is “everyone who is bitten will live, when he sees the brass serpent,” and “when anyone got bit by a serpent, he looked to the brass serpent, and lived.” There’s really nothing here about a foolish group of Israelites that refused to look at the brass serpent, and consequently died.
Instead, the point is that for those upon whom God had mercy, he provided a serpent, and they looked (everyone and “any man” “if a serpent had bitten” him) and lived.
There’s also no discussion about the serpent being a provision for anyone’s idolatry (after all, they were being punished for grumbling not idolatry), nor being a provision either generally for a particular category of sin, or for the specific sins of the people. Instead, the serpent pictured the punishment, not the crime. Even so, Christ died for our sins, on the cross. On the cross he was punished in our place. Our sins were nailed to the cross, and taken away. We can see from the rest of the law, that atonement was not simply made for categories of sins, but I fear that such a discussion will get us away from the text we are currently debating, and this post is long enough as it is.
Yes, but what about Calvin, Davenport, Ryle, and Dabney?
For now, I’m going to stick with what the text of Scripture says, not the meta-debate about whether Calvin (or the others) was a Calvinist as defined by Article 21 of Belgic Confession; the Second Main Pint of Doctrine of the Canons of Dordt; or Chapter 8, paragraph 8, of both the London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646.
The point is that God provided salvation for his people: that is the gem of his love for the Creation. Thus, Christ is the savior of Creation, or to put it more specifically, the elect. That’s what Scripture says, and that’s what we believe.
With respect, I think that Mr. McBee (aka “SDM”) seems to have misidentified the point I was trying to make. Perhaps this is because I was too brief. I certainly do not believe, and do not wish to suggest, that Mr. McBee intentionally misrepresented me. On the other hand, each time Mr. McBee wrote “Turretinfan’s position is,” I think he missed the position. Allow me to elaborate.
The Point Restated
Christ died for the express purpose of saving the elect. The point of citing John 3:16 was to point out the third phrase, “ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται,” that is in Latin “ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat” fairly literally rendered “so-that-would all the believing-ones (in him) not perish,” more casually “so that all who believe in him would not perish” or as the KJV so memorably translates it “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish.”
The rest, the question of what does the word kosmos mean, and so forth is all secondary. It is important, but it is secondary. The first thing to understand from the phrase is that God is explaining purpose. The phrase is a so-called “hina” phrase, called because it is introduced by “ινα” (typically pronounced “hina”) as can be seen above.
In this case, the hina phrase is connected to and is explained by the preceding phrase. The preceding phrase is “ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν” in Latin “ut Filium suum unigenitum daret” fairly literally rendered “so (the-[one-who-is]) son his (the-[one-who-is]) onlybegotton he-gave” or more casually “so he gave up his onlybegotten son,” or as the KJV so memorably translates it “that he gave his only begotten Son.”
In other words, grammatically, the feature of all the believers being saved is linked to the feature of God giving His only begotten Son. From the structure of the sentence we can see that the reason why God gave his Son, was to save all the believers.
Finally, of course, the “hoste” (ωστε) similarly connects to the phrase that goes before it. The phrase before it is “ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον” which in Latin is “sic enim dilexit Deus mundum” and can be fairly literally translated “in-this-way for he-loved (the) God (the) world” or more casually “for God loved the world thus” or as the KJV so memorably translates it “For God so loved the world.”
This starts the thought, while showing that the thought is providing an illustration of the thought that precedes it. The “For … God loved the world” connects to the preceding thought, while the “thus” tells us that an explanation follows. As seen above, this explanation is two-fold. First, God gave his onlybegotten Son. And Second, God gave him for the purpose of saving all the believers.
It’s not particularly important to my argument to define the word “world.” Does it mean “the world of the elect” as some have said, or just “men” or perhaps “the natural/created order”? It doesn’t particularly matter for the argument that I’m making positively.
The point is that the verse makes the gift’s purpose clear: to save believers. My point is that this verse is evidence of the fact that such was Christ’s purpose. His purpose always to save the believers, all of the believers, and – while the verse does not say so explicitly – only the believers.
If we had only John 3:17’s comment: “but that the world through him might be saved,” the question would be open, and we’d have to really dig in to figure out what “world” means. Not so with verse 16. Verse 16 is specific. And we have verse 18 as well, which explains that the “believers-in-him” are not condemned, whereas the “unbelievers-in-him” are already condemned.
Now, I would not take the position “God so loved the world, that is, the elect of the world, that He sent His Son.” Why not? There are two reasons: (1) it uses the word “world” equivocally, and (2) the point of the verse is simply: God so loved the kosmos, that He sent His Son to save the elect.
Ok, but what does “Kosmos” mean?
SDM noted that kosmos has a variety of meaning. I would respectfully disagree with one of his claims. He cited Mark 16:15 as being a case of when kosmos means “all of humanity.” Mark 16:15 uses kosmos to mean the actual earth (geo-politically). In fact, with respect, I think SDM would be hard pressed in any of the about 150 verses (or about 180 uses) that use the word kosmos in the New Testament to come up with even one that clearly uses the word to mean all humanity, and not simply the actual world, or the natural/created (sometimes considered as fallen) order generally. Even if SDM could come up with a few such examples, I think SDM would have to admit that the dominant usage in the New Testament and in other ancient philosophical material is of the actual world or the created/natural order.
In other words, I would respectfully submit that using the word as SDM does is mostly based on a philosophical presupposition that SDM brings with him to the text, not based on something in the word itself.
I would expand on what SDM said. In Scripture, kosmos ordinarily is a broad term that conveys a sense of expansiveness. It ordinarily does not carry an exhaustive sense. We use “all” this way frequently (and “world” sometimes) in common parlance. It’s a form of hyperbole. The statement: “He has traveled through the whole world (or all over the world),” means he is a globe-trotter, not that there is no stone his soles have not touched. This too will be significant as we proceed.
SDM, however, wrote: “Turretinfan’s position is that this term, world or “kosmos”, means “elect”.” That’s not quite an accurate representation. I don’t take the position that the word means that, but I think that the word – in context – does refer primarily to the elect as a global group. In other words, the “world” contrasted with just the Jews like Nicodemeus the Pharisee to whom Jesus was speaking. We’ll see how this is true, as we proceed. But this misunderstanding (I assume it is not an intentional straw man), leads to most of SDM’s counter-arguments being irrelevant.
Unraveling SDM’s Counter-Presentation
SDM’s position is fairly clear: to SDM “the world” is composed of two groups: those who will believe and those who won’t. SDM states this position, but I think if we examine his explanation closely we’ll see he hasn’t actually establish this position with exegesis.
SDM indicates that in his view the verse starts by treating one group, each and every person, in the phrase “God so loved the world.” SDM claims that John then turns to another group “those believing will not perish.” SDM correctly notes that this term is implies that there is another group, the unbelievers who will perish. SDM then asserts that those two groups make up the original group of the world.
Based on those premises, SDM concludes that to make “the world” = “the elect” would create a problem, because some of the elect would be unbelievers that perish. The problem, of course, is not in the logic, but in the premises. Specifically, the problem is in assuming that “the believing ones who will not perish” i.e. the elect, is intended to be a sub-category of “world.”
From the grammatical/exegetical analysis we saw above, there is no particular need to make the believing ones a sub-category of the “world.” In fact, it would be more natural to assume that “the believing ones” is a more precise way of expressing the same thing as what is intended by “the world.” Alternatively, we may simply conclude that “world” is a reference to the Creation generally (the natural/created order), and that the phrase about God’s love for what he made is to be understood specifically by his expression of that love: giving his Son for the elect.
To borrow SDM’s Texas analogy, it would be a bit like saying: “I love Texas; so, I moved to Texas and married a lass from Galveston.” Such a comment would not suggest that the speaker plans to play the field with other Texan women, or that his love for Texan women generally is equal to that of his bride. Furthermore, if the same man said that “I didn’t come to Texas to visit, but to live there,” no one would suppose that the speaker meant that he was going to live in every town in Texas, or that he might not visit Dallas or Houston from time to time, but would understand that he lives in Texas by living in a particular town in Texas, and is wed to Texas by his marriage to the particular Galveston gal, not to every woman who lives there. We also wouldn’t assume from his “I love Texas,” that he necessarily likes the desert, the beach, the Rio Grande river, Dallas Fort-Worth airport, or Dr. Pepper, whether or not those are a part of Texas. We let people speak in general terms, and we should give Scripture the same flexibility.
Yes, but what about John 12:47?
SDM appeals to John 12:47, which – of course – is not part of the immediate context. Nevertheless, it uses some similar terms, so we should examine it, as well as the other corresponding Johanine passages.
John 12:47 has its own context, which I’ll show below:
John 12:46-50
46I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. 47And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
It seems to me that if “the world” just means the created order generally, and not all men exhaustively, then the passage makes more sense. Specifically, verse 46 would seem to be a bit odd, for it appears to refer to Christ’s incarnation: his coming into the world, not his coming into the hearts of each and every person.
On the other hand, if we view the word “world” the same way in verse 46 and verse 47, then Christ’s statement is easily understood: he’s here to save the created order not to judge it. That is to say, He’s here as a Savior, not a Judge. He immediately points out, though, that his words do judge those who reject them, because he speaks the words of the Father who sent him, namely the commandments of eternal life.
And John 12:47/John 3:17 is not the only place to find this concept. The same concept also can be found in the fist chapter of John:
John 1:9-14
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Now, unlike John 12, John 1 is the preceding context (even if somewhat removed) of John 3. A reader who is reading John’s gospel (or hearing it read) will have heard this by the time he gets to John 3. How does John 1 use the term “world.” It uses it in the sense of the created order, but it also uses it as a broader term to another group: “his own,” which the reader will soon discover are the Jews.
Indeed, we see this same theme in John 3:10-11, repeated just before the verses we are discussing:
John 3:10-11
10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Notice the switch in address from simply Nicodemus (thou … knowest not) to Israel generally or especially the Jewish leaders (ye receive not). “Thou” is singular, but “ye” is plural. Thus, as promised above, we can see that the use of the word “world” as a broad term to indicate more-than-just-Jewish-people is both supported by the precedent set in chapter 1, and the confirming context in verses 10-11.
It’s worth pointing out that Jesus makes similar claims to be the light of the world and the Savior of those who follow him (the light), several times before John 12:
John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
(the precipitates an argument with the Pharisees over whether this is just Jesus’ say-so, which Jesus denies, saying that the Father bears witness to the truth of his testimony, but then turns the tables on them, explaining why they do not understand and follow him, that is to say, why they do not see the light, compare Paul’s comments in 2 Corinthians 4:4)
Or again:
John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
(this context is pretty interesting, because Jesus demonstrates how people see the light by curing the blindness of the man born blind, which is a picture of our spiritual blindness before regeneration)
And again:
John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
(this context is interesting too, because Jesus immediately goes and raises Lazarus from the dead, which is another picture of our spiritual deadness before regeneration)
So also, even if we simply go beyond John 3:18, and get the further explanation in the subsequent verses, we see:
John 3:19-21
19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
In other words, the light shining in the world condemns (demonstrates the guilt of) those who hide, but justifies (demonstrates the righteousness of) those who come. It’s an amazing light: first we see our sin, then we see our Savior, and then we come to God in our Savior’s righteousness.
Christ is that light. He came to open the eyes of the spiritually blind, to raise the spiritually dead, and to save them from their sins through faith in himself. He came to save them, he did not come to save the reprobate.
Yes, but what about the Brass Serpent?
The serpent is not quite the analogy that SDM was looking for. Let’s look quickly at the entire original account, since it is short:
Numbers 21:4-9
4And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way. 5And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. 6And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. 7Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. 8And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. 9And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
SDM claims that this is “a direct parallel … [if] you looked, you were saved, if you didn’t look, you died.” Actually, though, the original passage doesn’t make any mention of anyone not looking and dying. That’s not really the parallel at all.
The parallel is two-fold. First, like the serpent, Jesus will be crucified (“as Moses lifted up the serpent … so must the Son of man be lifted up” – see also John 8:28 and John 12:32-33). Second, the point is that in crucifixion, Christ will save those he is intended to save.
I think SDM misreads Numbers 21:8. That verse says: “every one that is bitten, when he looks on it, shall live.” And then the next verse explains, “If a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.” Now, there clearly are some translational differences between SDM’s and mine, but the point of the passage is actually that God is providing salvation to the people who repented of their grumbling against God and prayed to Him. The sense is “everyone who is bitten will live, when he sees the brass serpent,” and “when anyone got bit by a serpent, he looked to the brass serpent, and lived.” There’s really nothing here about a foolish group of Israelites that refused to look at the brass serpent, and consequently died.
Instead, the point is that for those upon whom God had mercy, he provided a serpent, and they looked (everyone and “any man” “if a serpent had bitten” him) and lived.
There’s also no discussion about the serpent being a provision for anyone’s idolatry (after all, they were being punished for grumbling not idolatry), nor being a provision either generally for a particular category of sin, or for the specific sins of the people. Instead, the serpent pictured the punishment, not the crime. Even so, Christ died for our sins, on the cross. On the cross he was punished in our place. Our sins were nailed to the cross, and taken away. We can see from the rest of the law, that atonement was not simply made for categories of sins, but I fear that such a discussion will get us away from the text we are currently debating, and this post is long enough as it is.
Yes, but what about Calvin, Davenport, Ryle, and Dabney?
For now, I’m going to stick with what the text of Scripture says, not the meta-debate about whether Calvin (or the others) was a Calvinist as defined by Article 21 of Belgic Confession; the Second Main Pint of Doctrine of the Canons of Dordt; or Chapter 8, paragraph 8, of both the London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646.
The point is that God provided salvation for his people: that is the gem of his love for the Creation. Thus, Christ is the savior of Creation, or to put it more specifically, the elect. That’s what Scripture says, and that’s what we believe.
N.B. I believe this post has already been published elsewhere as part of a debate that was, at the time, on-going with SDM. I have republished it here, simply for convenience.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Original Sin / Baptism / Free Will / Orthodoxy
The earliest, clearest statement (there also some less clear, earlier statements) on Original Sin among the patristics, as I hinted to Gene in the combox of another thread, naturally relates to the symbolism of baptism (addressed in this case, by the corresponding OT symbol circumcision):
Augustine, "City of God," Book XVI, Chapter 26
While many "Orthodox" folks may deny the doctrine of original sin, most - if not all - baptize their infants, maintaining the doctrine cloaked in liturgy whose meaning they do not completely understand.
Furthermore, not all "Orthodox" folks deny the doctrine of original sin (link - not recommended for its doctrinal content, just provided as an example: especially this particular link confuses guilt ipse with the feeling or awareness of guilt), and the same "Orthodox" folks note that baptism (including infant baptism) is intended to remit sin, including original sin (link - again, not recommended for its doctrinal content, just provided as an example).
Finally, the underlying concept is locked into the traditional liturgical post-baptismal/chrismal prayer:
(source - similar caveats to the forgoing)
But, as I noted to Gene, although many doctrines may have been locked into the liturgy in various ways, some were locked in more openly or more obscurely than others. For example, note that the prayer asks for forgiveness of "involuntary" sins. Yet talking to a typical lay Orthodox person, especially a "convert" from an Arminian (and KoD will probably whack me over the head with a rubber mallet for using this term too broadly, so I add:) or quasi-Arminian background, you will likely hear the typical "free will" rhetoric as it relates to the nature of sin, and so forth. You especially see this in comments that object to inherited guilt of Adam's sin, which cannot possibly be said to be directly voluntary by any of his seed.
This post is not intended to endorse the sect of Orthodoxy, nor its particular Baptismal liturgy, nor to mock Orthodoxy or its liturgy either. The point is simply to note that there is a legitimate argument from tradition that parallels the argument from Scripture on the issue of Original Sin, as well as on the issue of free will. We could even go to the issue of Baptism, but we won't.
-Turretinfan
P.S. Lucian, as a self-professed "Orthodox" I realize you will be tempted to jump in immediately. Resist the urge. Wait 'till the end of the week, and then - if you like - explain the errors you believe my presentation has. If you do so respectfully and cogently, many may learn something!
Augustine, "City of God," Book XVI, Chapter 26
And thus, because circumcision was the sign of regeneration, and the infant, on account of the original sin by which God’s covenant was first broken, was not undeservedly to lose his generation unless delivered by regeneration, these divine words are to be understood as if it had been said, Whoever is not born again, that soul shall perish from his people, because he hath broken my covenant, since he also has sinned in Adam with all others. For had He said, Because he hath broken this my covenant, He would have compelled us to understand by it only this of circumcision; but since He has not expressly said what covenant the infant has broken, we are free to understand Him as speaking of that covenant of which the breach can be ascribed to an infant. Yet if any one contends that it is said of nothing else than circumcision, that in it the infant has broken the covenant of God because, he is not circumcised, he must seek some method of explanation by which it may be understood without absurdity (such as this) that he has broken the covenant, because it has been broken in him although not by him. Yet in this case also it is to be observed that the soul of the infant, being guilty of no sin of neglect against itself, would perish unjustly, unless original sin rendered it obnoxious to punishment.
While many "Orthodox" folks may deny the doctrine of original sin, most - if not all - baptize their infants, maintaining the doctrine cloaked in liturgy whose meaning they do not completely understand.
Furthermore, not all "Orthodox" folks deny the doctrine of original sin (link - not recommended for its doctrinal content, just provided as an example: especially this particular link confuses guilt ipse with the feeling or awareness of guilt), and the same "Orthodox" folks note that baptism (including infant baptism) is intended to remit sin, including original sin (link - again, not recommended for its doctrinal content, just provided as an example).
Finally, the underlying concept is locked into the traditional liturgical post-baptismal/chrismal prayer:
Blessed are You, O Lord God Almighty, Source of all good things, Sun of Righteousness, who did shed forth upon them that were in darkness the light of salvation, through the revelation of Your Only-begotten Son and our God; and who have given to us, unworthy though we be, blessed purification through hallowed water, and divine sanctification through life-creating Chrismation; who now, also have been graciously pleased to regenerate Your servant that has newly received Illumination, by water and the Spirit, and do grant unto him/her remission of sins, whether voluntary or involuntary. Do You, the same Master, compassionate King of kings, grant also unto him/her the seal of the gift of Your holy, and almighty, and adorable Spirit, and participation in the holy Body and precious Blood of Your Christ.
(source - similar caveats to the forgoing)
But, as I noted to Gene, although many doctrines may have been locked into the liturgy in various ways, some were locked in more openly or more obscurely than others. For example, note that the prayer asks for forgiveness of "involuntary" sins. Yet talking to a typical lay Orthodox person, especially a "convert" from an Arminian (and KoD will probably whack me over the head with a rubber mallet for using this term too broadly, so I add:) or quasi-Arminian background, you will likely hear the typical "free will" rhetoric as it relates to the nature of sin, and so forth. You especially see this in comments that object to inherited guilt of Adam's sin, which cannot possibly be said to be directly voluntary by any of his seed.
This post is not intended to endorse the sect of Orthodoxy, nor its particular Baptismal liturgy, nor to mock Orthodoxy or its liturgy either. The point is simply to note that there is a legitimate argument from tradition that parallels the argument from Scripture on the issue of Original Sin, as well as on the issue of free will. We could even go to the issue of Baptism, but we won't.
-Turretinfan
P.S. Lucian, as a self-professed "Orthodox" I realize you will be tempted to jump in immediately. Resist the urge. Wait 'till the end of the week, and then - if you like - explain the errors you believe my presentation has. If you do so respectfully and cogently, many may learn something!
Lucian - Temporary Ban
Lucian or whoever is posting in Lucian's name,
I'm tired of hitting "reject" on your invective-laced comments, and I'm not planning to turn off comment moderation.
Please take a break at least until the end of this week. If you want to make it a longer break, I'll be sorry you didn't come back.
While you are on a break, if you are looking for other ways to occupy your time, let me suggest reading Scripture, especially the major prophets.
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: I have now had to hit "reject" once more. In case the above was not clear, Lucian, "please take a break," means "don't comment on this blog until the end of the week." I appreciate the many positive and helpful comments that you have made, and I hope that the break will restore your previous tone.
I'm tired of hitting "reject" on your invective-laced comments, and I'm not planning to turn off comment moderation.
Please take a break at least until the end of this week. If you want to make it a longer break, I'll be sorry you didn't come back.
While you are on a break, if you are looking for other ways to occupy your time, let me suggest reading Scripture, especially the major prophets.
-Turretinfan
UPDATE: I have now had to hit "reject" once more. In case the above was not clear, Lucian, "please take a break," means "don't comment on this blog until the end of the week." I appreciate the many positive and helpful comments that you have made, and I hope that the break will restore your previous tone.
Wait a Tick ... Pope head of Orthodoxy too?
According to this article, Orthodoxy is willing to conceded that the pope is its head (link).
Oh, and for certain naive folks, the following quotation from the article should be enlightening:
"The meeting was marred at the start when delegates from the Russian Orthodox Church walked out over a territorial dispute with a rival Orthodox church."
Meanwhile, Reformation theology continues to deny that the pope is the head of Christianity, and to question whether the pope's profession of faith is credible.
-Turretinfan
Oh, and for certain naive folks, the following quotation from the article should be enlightening:
"The meeting was marred at the start when delegates from the Russian Orthodox Church walked out over a territorial dispute with a rival Orthodox church."
Meanwhile, Reformation theology continues to deny that the pope is the head of Christianity, and to question whether the pope's profession of faith is credible.
-Turretinfan
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Christology 101
Since, apparently, at least one reader has become hopelessly confused by posts on Christ's headship, here's a little primer on some of the very basic Christological doctrines, drawn from the WLC:
Q. 36. Who is the mediator of the covenant of grace?
A. The only mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, of one substance and equal with the Father, in the fullness of time became man, and so was and continues to be God and man, in two entire distinct natures, and one person, forever.
Q. 37. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
A. Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance, and born of her, yet without sin.
Scripture says that (not in those words) and I believe that.
-Turretinfan
Q. 36. Who is the mediator of the covenant of grace?
A. The only mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, of one substance and equal with the Father, in the fullness of time became man, and so was and continues to be God and man, in two entire distinct natures, and one person, forever.
Q. 37. How did Christ, being the Son of God, become man?
A. Christ the Son of God became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance, and born of her, yet without sin.
Scripture says that (not in those words) and I believe that.
-Turretinfan
TJP - Calvinists Denounce Public Professions of Faith?
TJP has asserted that Calvinists refuse to let people publicly profess faith in Christ.
On the other hand, however, Calvinist churches publicly receive members, and - for communicant members - either have the person themselves publicly profess faith, or publicly announce a profession of faith previously made to the session. For previously unbaptized communicant members, the profession of faith is ordinarily accompanied by a public baptism.
So, I was somewhat puzzled to see TJP's comment, and I really wonder whether TJP is actually unaware of the practice of Calvinist churches, or whether TJP has some agenda.
-Turretinfan
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Resources on the Atonement
Monergism.com has recently updated its page on the Atonement (link), which would seem to be providential coincidence rather than having any connection to the ongoing debate at Contend Earnestly.
May our Savior be praised,
-Turretinfan
May our Savior be praised,
-Turretinfan
All in Christ will be Quickened (a sur-response to Anonymous)
Apparently the same Anonymous commenter pointed out that the verse says "all" and stated:
"you don't beleive that "in Christ shall all be made alive" spiritually ... ."
Actually I do. Re-read the post, particularly the part that explains who "in Adam" and "in Christ" modify two different "all"s.
The "all in Adam" is the human race descending from him naturally, and the "all in Christ" are the elect.
You would understand that "all" was being modified if I said "all who have Christ as their savior," wouldn't you? or if I said "all in the Lamb's Book of Life"? I wonder why you have trouble understanding that here.
It's a simple Scriptural concept: if you died with Christ (i.e. if He represented you on the cross) then you will be raised with Christ.
-Turretinfan
"you don't beleive that "in Christ shall all be made alive" spiritually ... ."
Actually I do. Re-read the post, particularly the part that explains who "in Adam" and "in Christ" modify two different "all"s.
The "all in Adam" is the human race descending from him naturally, and the "all in Christ" are the elect.
You would understand that "all" was being modified if I said "all who have Christ as their savior," wouldn't you? or if I said "all in the Lamb's Book of Life"? I wonder why you have trouble understanding that here.
It's a simple Scriptural concept: if you died with Christ (i.e. if He represented you on the cross) then you will be raised with Christ.
-Turretinfan
Did Jesus Die in Adam? (A response to Anonymous)
Anonymous wrote:
In Adam all died, Jesus included. Thus you would have to admit ... to go along with your [position] of everyone dying in Adam. The fact is that Scripture does not teach that anyone died in Adam, not spiritually. Physically all die (future and present tense) in Adam per 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Spiritually, however, all may say with Paul "I was alive apart from the Law once, but when the commandment came sin sprang to life and I died" per Romans 7:9. All are born spiritually alive, yet only Jesus lived an entire adult life that way and died sinless.
I answer:
Let me go through this one line-by-line.
A: "In Adam all died, Jesus included."
I answer: No, Jesus was not "In Adam," and consequently Jesus did not die "in Adam." This is actually important to recognize, because it is Adam's sin that placed the entire human race in need of a Savior.
Because Jesus did not die in Adam, Jesus could die FOR Adam.
Moreover, just as surely as all those in Adam died in Adam, so also surely all those in Jesus (those for whom Jesus died) will be quickened in Jesus. This, of course, is important and relates back to the original atonement post.
A: "Thus you would have to admit ... to go along with your [position] of everyone dying in Adam."
I answer: "In Adam" qualifies "all," just as "in Christ" modifies the other "all." So, of course, no one would "have to admit" such a thing.
A: "The fact is that Scripture does not teach that anyone died in Adam, not spiritually."
I answer: Sure it does, as has already been established.
A: "Physically all die (future and present tense) in Adam per 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.""
I answer: I Corinthians is speaking of both spiritual and physical death, but the primary emphasis is on spiritual death.
A: "Spiritually, however, all may say with Paul "I was alive apart from the Law once, but when the commandment came sin sprang to life and I died" per Romans 7:9."
I answer: Paul's comment is about his self-perception. When he did not understand the law, he thought he was alive. When he realized what the law required, he realized he was dead. The law did not "come" into existence in Paul's lifetime, but rather came into Paul's awareness in his lifetime. Thus Paul writes:
Romans 7:10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
A: "All are born spiritually alive, yet only Jesus lived an entire adult life that way and died sinless."
I answer: No, only Christ was born spiritually alive. See John 3.
-Turretinfan
In Adam all died, Jesus included. Thus you would have to admit ... to go along with your [position] of everyone dying in Adam. The fact is that Scripture does not teach that anyone died in Adam, not spiritually. Physically all die (future and present tense) in Adam per 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Spiritually, however, all may say with Paul "I was alive apart from the Law once, but when the commandment came sin sprang to life and I died" per Romans 7:9. All are born spiritually alive, yet only Jesus lived an entire adult life that way and died sinless.
I answer:
Let me go through this one line-by-line.
A: "In Adam all died, Jesus included."
I answer: No, Jesus was not "In Adam," and consequently Jesus did not die "in Adam." This is actually important to recognize, because it is Adam's sin that placed the entire human race in need of a Savior.
Because Jesus did not die in Adam, Jesus could die FOR Adam.
Moreover, just as surely as all those in Adam died in Adam, so also surely all those in Jesus (those for whom Jesus died) will be quickened in Jesus. This, of course, is important and relates back to the original atonement post.
A: "Thus you would have to admit ... to go along with your [position] of everyone dying in Adam."
I answer: "In Adam" qualifies "all," just as "in Christ" modifies the other "all." So, of course, no one would "have to admit" such a thing.
A: "The fact is that Scripture does not teach that anyone died in Adam, not spiritually."
I answer: Sure it does, as has already been established.
A: "Physically all die (future and present tense) in Adam per 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.""
I answer: I Corinthians is speaking of both spiritual and physical death, but the primary emphasis is on spiritual death.
A: "Spiritually, however, all may say with Paul "I was alive apart from the Law once, but when the commandment came sin sprang to life and I died" per Romans 7:9."
I answer: Paul's comment is about his self-perception. When he did not understand the law, he thought he was alive. When he realized what the law required, he realized he was dead. The law did not "come" into existence in Paul's lifetime, but rather came into Paul's awareness in his lifetime. Thus Paul writes:
Romans 7:10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
A: "All are born spiritually alive, yet only Jesus lived an entire adult life that way and died sinless."
I answer: No, only Christ was born spiritually alive. See John 3.
-Turretinfan
Election Based on What?
Manuel Cullwell wrote:
Your position is directly contrary to Scripture.
Scripture says that, for example, Jacob was chosen over Esau without regard to works.
Thus, God does elect men based on nothing in the men themselves, but rather based on something (fore-love - His purpose - etc.) in God.
Men are elected before the foundation of the world, but are called through (outwardly) the preaching of the gospel and (inwardly) the effectual working in the heart, by the Holy Spirit.
-Turretinfan
Now for my answer... God does not elect men based on "nothing"but rather, he elects men based on their faith and obedience,yes he gives faith How through the preaching of the word and that is how they are electedI answer:
Your position is directly contrary to Scripture.
Scripture says that, for example, Jacob was chosen over Esau without regard to works.
Thus, God does elect men based on nothing in the men themselves, but rather based on something (fore-love - His purpose - etc.) in God.
Men are elected before the foundation of the world, but are called through (outwardly) the preaching of the gospel and (inwardly) the effectual working in the heart, by the Holy Spirit.
-Turretinfan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
