The Pope's Alleged Heresies

This website (link) catalogues 101 alleged heresies of Benedict XVI. Now, obviously, the RCC does not teach that popes are perfect. I wonder, though, whether any supporter of Ben16 has taken the time to debunk the list above, which - at first glance - appears to be documented with evidence from various sources.

The list is something of a catch 22.

-If the list is true and accurate, Ben16 is more of a liberal protestant than one might think.

-If the list is accurate as the left column (Ben16's views) but inaccurate as to the right column (RCC dogma) and if Ben16's views are the view of the RCC, then all sorts of new issues are raised.

-If the list is accurate as to the right column but not the left column, and if Ben16's views are the view of the RCC, then a different set of new issues are raised.

In any event, regardless of the answers, it would handy to have a continuationalist (as opposed to a sedavacantist) RCer "debunk" or confirm the list. I don't think it's been done, but I admit my fallibility.

-Turretinfan

The World Religions Guessing Game ...

Try to guess the religion of this assassin (link). There is one group that thinks it will benefit from killing the opposition leaders in Pakistan (and particularly, killing a woman), and that is not the ruling party, but the purist Muslims.

But there is one group that will actually benefit, even from these horrific crimes, and that is the elect. All things work together for the good of them that are the called. I don't pretend to know how this works to the good of the elect, but I'm sure it does. Even though they mean it for evil, good will come from it.

I'm not encouraging Al-Quaeda, I'm discouraging them. All their work to promote Islam will ultimately fail. God will prevail, He always does. We may grieve with the prophets of old, at the cruelty of the wicked, but we know that God's will will be done. As their own words testify, God is Great!

There is no God but the Triune, and the false prophet of Islam, the father of murderers, is no prophet of God,

-Turretinfan

Now I get why Osteen says Mormons are Christians ...

It is, as they say, all about the Benjamins* (link).

That just confirms to me that Osteen is not a Christian teacher at all, no matter what he may call himself. If someone can locate a copy of Turretin's Institutes in their local Mormon bookstore, I'll eat my hat (figuratively speaking).

-Turretinfan


* For those unfamiliar with urban lingo, Benjamins = money

UPDATE: JohnMark at Beggars All Reformation is less suspicious of Osteen - and simply sees this as confirming the vacuity of Osteen's writing (link).

Is Christimas a Catholic Holiday?

In a recent discussion with Centuri0n (the wise Turk), he noted with apparent surprise my curious insistence, as a Puritan, that Christmas is a vestige of Catholicism, and is primarily objectionable for that reason, not for its more ancient connection with paganism.

Let's be clear about one thing: just because one celebrates the birth of Christ does not make one a crypto-Catholic, and Centuri0n has the honor of having his photo posted in a popular Catholic apologist's "Anti-Catholics" web page. Indeed, the Bible gives us the freedom, individually, to celebrate holy days according to our choosing.

Furthermore, let's be clear that giving gifts, spending time with family, eating figgy pudding and honey-glazed ham, and drinking spiced cider, eggnog, or (if your conscience permits) a little brandy, is perfectly fine - whether the occasion is the birthday of Her Majesty, Elizabeth II (may God save the Queen!), Independence Day, Bastille Day, International Women's Day, or a day you have set aside to remember Christ's incarnation. Those things are not religious activities. For most folks, even etymologically questionable things like mistletoe and a conifer have lost their original druidic connotation, and are essentially just winter seasonal decorations. Bereft of original pagan significance, these two can be enjoyed as God's gifts.

But Christmas was a Catholic holiday. While misguided modern evangelicals are busy trying to put the "Christ" back in "Christmas," they are joined in that task by Catholics who are anxious to put not only the "Christ" back in, but the "mass" back in as well. Why? Because it was their holiday first.

One perfectly acceptable reason for an evangelical not to celebrate the Birth of Christ on December 25 each year is to say to the world: "My religion is not Catholicism. I do not honor their holy days, and I do not follow their traditions. The Scripture alone is my rule of faith and life."

Now, I realize there is a counter-argument that we can Evangelical-ize Christmas, just as Catholics Christianized Christmas away from the pagans in the first place. I hate to be a sourpuss on this, but It's not going to work. Too many false gospels with their false Christs are willing to be a part of almost every American child's favorite holiday, and Catholicism is right there, leading the way, and pointing out that they came up with the idea of celebrating a mass to honor Christ's birth.

Furthermore, in order to outnumber those who make Christmas a holy day of obligation, we'd practically have to make it obligatory on the people of our churches as well. Doing so would violate God's law by unlawfully binding the consciences of men to a human invention.

Sorry, Centuri0n - it is a Catholic holiday, it is associated with Catholicism, and its only the influence of secularism/paganism that is likely to decatholicize it. We see that happening in America today, where the holiday is largely "secular" and humanist, despite Congressional attempts to declare it a Christian holiday (which, as you may have heard, got a surprising 9 votes against!). Feel free to celebrate it if you like, but don't insist that we join you.

I have freedom in Christ to treat the day, for religious purposes, like any other, and I plan to exercise that freedom, without stepping on your freedom to set it aside as a holy day for yourself.

May God Incarnate be glorified,

-Turretinfan

A Purtian's Mind - in Portuguese

I'd encourage those who read my blog but are more comfortable with Portuguese, to check it out (link). Thanks to Albert for correcting me from Spanish to Portuguese.

Boar's Head Tavern Quotes TurretinFan without Attribution

John Halton, over at BHT, has quoted a comment of mine without providing attribution (here). So does Michael Spencer as well (here). Comments on the posts are closed, but I hope this post will spark Halton and Spencer to at least identify the person they quote.

-Turretinfan

Field on RCC Baptism

I found this short note by David Field on the validity of Roman Catholic baptism interesting (link). I suspect that he is omitting from the Reformed camp the "Reformed Baptists" who would presumably have rejected most RCC baptisms as invalid. If I'm wrong about that, I'd be delighted to see the evidence of an early "Reformed Baptist" that accepted RCC baptism as valid.

-Turretinfan

Tell-Tale Signs of False Teachers

1. Joel Osteen endorses Mormonism as Christianity, thereby demonstrating that he is at best unfamiliar with Mormonism (link). I suspect the problem is a bit deeper, given his rationale for accepting Mormonism as Christian. UPDATE: Jame White has more in-depth response here (link).
2. Doug Pagitt says that the way that God is going to interact with all of humanity in the same way, regardless of what you believe, and denying the existence of hell (link) (link). Pagitt even goes so far as to accuse Todd Friel of Platonism. For shame!

-Turretinfan

Why the ARP Sings Psalms Only

The Virginia Hugenot alerted me to this article, originally published 107 years ago, explaining why the ARP at that time only sang Psalms. Much of what was written then would still apply today. I'd encourage folks to consider whether it might make sense to adopt the reasoning set forth in the article. Yes, you'd have to give up singing "Joy to the World," and "God bless ye Merry Gentlemen," but then we're not commanded (not by Scripture, anyhow) to celebrate Christ's birth ever, let alone annually. (link)

Hebrews 10:14 - Is "them that are sanctified" the entire group?

A few folks objected to my argument from Hebrews 10 (in the Atonement debate over at Contend Earnestly), on the basis that “them that are sanctified” in Hebrews 10:14, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,” might (according to the objectors) refer to something less than the entire intended beneficiaries of the sacrifice.

1. That it means all for whom the sacrifice was made, can be seen first from the parallel to verse 1.

In verse 1, it is written, Hebrews 10:1, “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.”

This verse provides the basis of comparison against which Christ’s sacrifice is observed to be better. But it appears that προσερχομενους (the comers) is the entire group for whom sacrifices were offered. As you will recall, the person for whom the priest offers the sacrifice is the person who came to the priest and brought the victim to be sacrificed.

Consider, for example:

Leviticus 15:14-15

14And on the eighth day he shall take to him two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, and come before the LORD unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and give them unto the priest: 15And the priest shall offer them, the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD for his issue.

It is the comers to the animal sacrifices that were the group for whom the animal sacrifices were made, but they were not made perfect by those sacrifices. In contrast, those for whom the sacrifice of Christ is made are made perfect by that sacrifice. Furthermore, this perfection is already once for all accomplished. The elect will be (and have been) justified in time, but the judicial reconciliation was accomplished on the cross.

2. We also see it in the parallels to other passages:

A. Hebrews 5:7-9

7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Christ was made perfect as a priest so that he might perfect the intended beneficiaries of his sacrifice: namely those that obey him (aka the elect). This reemphasizes the point above that the single purpose of Christ’s sacrificial work was to save the elect.

B. Hebrews 7:19

19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

It is here written that the law (that is, the animal sacrifice system) did not make anyone perfect, which is contrasted with the sacrifice of Christ, which did, and by which we can approach God. This reemphasizes that the difference between the old and new sacrifice is that the former did not make its intended beneficiaries perfect, whereas the new does.

C. Hebrews 9:7-12

7But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: 8The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

Here again we see the glorious perfection of Christ compared and contrasted to the impotent animal sacrifices. Christ did not have to offer for his own sins, and when he came into the holy place he came with his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption for us. This reemphasizes the point above that the reconciliation is already bought – already paid for – and that the execution of that reconciliation is now a matter of justice as between Christ as advocate and the godhead. That is to say, Christ has obtained eternal redemption for the elect, and consequently the elect will not perish.

3. The opposite hypothesis (i.e. that “them which are sanctified” is a subgroup of the intended beneficiaries of the sacrifice) is without support in the text.

That is to say, the text gives no hint that there is some other group that is intended to benefit, but that is not perfected by the sacrifice. Furthermore, if such were the case, it would break down the parallel to the Old Testament above. For the old sacrifices contain no parallel to such a bifurcation in the intent of the sacrifice’s benefits.

4. The warning passage in verses 26-29 cannot resuscitate a multiple intention view – instead, it fully undermines it.

Hebrews 10:26-29

26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

The reason it cannot help the multiple intention view is that in order to press this warning into service, they must state that Christ was sacrificed (vs. 26) for this hypothetical man who was judged, and that consequently he was “sanctified” (vs. 29). This, of course, reinforces the point above, that those for whom the sacrifice was made are equivalent to the sanctified group. The same word for “sanctified” is even used in both cases. Yet, we learn from verse 14 that Christ perfected them that are sanctified. Accordingly, we see that any objection from verses 26-29 just reinforces the original point.

Well, that concludes the short form of the argument. Seth, I've posted this here since I realize that you may be busy over the holiday weekend. If you want to repost it to your blog to keep things in one place, that's fine by me.

May our perfect High Priest be praised!

-Turretinfan

The Real Turretin on the Will of God in Salvation

Here are comments from the real Turretin on the Will of God in Salvation, graciously provided by Ismael Hilerio (link to first syndication) (link to second syndication). Comments such as those provided on Mr. Hilerio's blog demonstrate that, of course, the real Turretin and I agree on the atonement.

-Turretinfan

Qayaq Traveler - A New Fan of Turretin?

I have enjoyed reading the past series of articles from Qayaq Traveler, most of which have had something to do with the real Francis Turretin. (link) I think he's probably actually posted more about Turretin than I have! He also seems to have an interest in Clark. I'll have to remind myself that this isn't a competition.

Keep up the good work, fellow traveler!

-Turretinfan

What Would the Apostle John Say?

This statue of Artemis

And This statue of Hera

are totally unlike

This statue:

So, while it is fair game to say that Greeks worshipped statues, do not suggest that the same is true of Catholics.

Got it?

Of course, I speak tongue in cheek.

The Apostle John had simple instructions: Little children, keep yourselves from idols.

Moses had simple instructions: Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image.

Has the point been made? Do you see where this use of idols came from? Do you see that it's wrong? Does my pointing this out, make you angry with me? I'm not that concerned about whether you will be angry with me or not, if you will turn from your idols to worship the living and true God in spirit and in truth.

We preach to you a gospel different from that which is preached by the man in third picture above. He labels his message "Christ Our Hope" - but he preaches a different Christ than the Christ that the Apostle Paul and we preach. The message of the man pictured above is dangerous for it encourages many souls to trust in religion and religiosity for salvation, rather than in Christ.

If there is a difference between the gospel of Rome and the gospel of the Reformation, to whom will you turn to resolve the matter? To your bishops? To our elders?

The only answer can be that we must turn to the Scriptures to see which group of men have the same gospel that Paul preached. Anyone can use the label "Christ our hope" (taken from 1 Timothy 1:1), but it is important to know the true Christ.

You may realize that simply reading the Scriptures will not be enough to ensure you get it right, for many before you have read the Scriptures and arrived at differing conclusions. What's missing, then, from my advice? Prayer. Pray to God to send His Holy Spirit upon you to give you wisdom to understand whether the religion of Rome or of the Reformation is true. Seek wisdom earnestly, for only a fool thinks he already knows all.

Many will say, "Lord, Lord," but will not enter into the kingdom. Do not be one of them. Take heed to your souls!

-Turretinfan

What the other Hodge and I believe about the Atonement

In a previous post (link), I identified what Charles Hodge and I believe about the atonement, as taken from Hodge's Systematic Theology. There's a great deal more that Hodge said that is relevant to the issue: the relevant chapters of his Systematic Theology stretch over 100 pages.

I thought I'd switch over, for a post, to his son, Archibald Alexander Hodge. Neither Hodge requires any introduction in Reformed circles, so I'll get right to the meat, with these quotations from his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith:

*******
Chapter 8, Section 6, Numbered Paragraph 2:

Christ thus has, in strict rigor, fully satisfied all the demands of divine justice upon those whom he represents. Jesus Christ has met the divine demand that the original covenant of works be fulfilled through the sorrow of His life and death, and he has met the divine demand for essential justice in the punishment of sin through the obedience unto death. Christ suffered as the representative of sinners. Our sins were laid upon him. He, "hath redeemed us from the curse of the law by being made a curse for us." He died, "the just for the unjust." "He is the propitiation (expiation) for our sins." He "gave his life a ransom for many." We are "bought with a price." (Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:2; Matt. 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:20.) Christ suffered only in his single human soul and body, and only for a time. Nevertheless, his person was the infinite and transcendently glorious person of the eternal Son of God. Consequently his sufferings were precisely, both in kind and in degree, what the infinitely righteous wisdom of God saw to be in strict rigor a full equivalent, in respect to the demands of legal justice, for the eternal sufferings of all for whom he suffered. This is the doctrine of the whole Christian Church. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, say, Art. 31: "The offering of Christ, once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual."

*******
Chapter 8, Section 6, Numbered Paragraph 3:

This proves, therefore-(1) That Christ did not die simply to make the salvation of those for whom he died possible-i.e., to remove legal obstructions to their salvation-but that he died with the design and effect of actually securing their salvation and of endowing them gratuitously with an inalienable title to heaven. (2) It proves, in the second place, that the vicarious sufferings of Christ must have been, in design and effect, personal and definite as to their object. Salvation must be applied to all those for whom it was purchased. Since not the possibility or opportunity for reconciliation, but actual reconciliation itself was purchased; since not only reconciliation, but a title to an eternal inheritance was purchased, it follows (a) That "to all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same." (Conf. Faith, ch. 8. s. 8.) And (b) That he who never receives the inheritance, and to whom the purchased grace is never applied, is not one of the persons for whom it was purchased.

*******
Chapter 8, Section 8, Numbered Paragraph 3:

Our Standards, it will be observed, very explicitly teach that Christ, as mediatorial Priest, made expiation and purchased salvation for certain definite persons. Thus, in chap. 3. s. 6, it is said: "As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has he by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ. . . . Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, . . . but the elect only." Here it is expressly affirmed (1) That Christ died upon the cross on purpose to carry out the eternal purpose of God in the election of certain individuals to eternal life. (2) That Christ died for the purpose of saving no other than the elect.

*******

(source) (for all quotations above)

This is, of course, the same thing being said by Hodge's father, and by Shedd and many other Reformed authors as well. Compare, for example, the similar remarks by Robert Shaw (link).

May God be praised,

-Turretinfan

What Hodge and I Believe about the Atonement

From Hodge's Systematic Theology, Volume II, Chapter 7, Section "Argument from Related Doctrines," numbered paragraph 1 (pp. 520-21) (the following has been edited by being broken into smaller paragraphs):

********

No doctrine of the Bible, relating to the plan of salvation, is more plainly taught or more wide reaching than that which concerns the union between Christ and his people. That union in one aspect, was from eternity, we were in Him before the foundation of the world; given to Him of the Father, to redeem from the estate of sin and misery, into which it was foreseen our race would by transgression fall. It was for the accomplishment of this purpose of mercy that He assumed our nature, was born of a woman, and did and suffered all that He was called upon to do and to endure in working out our salvation.

He did not, therefore, come into the world for Himself. It was not to work out a righteousness of his own to entitle Him to the exaltation and power which in our nature He now enjoys. In virtue of the Godhead of his personality, He was of necessity infinitely exalted above all creatures. He came for us. He came as a representative. He came in the same relation to his people, which Adam, in the original covenant, bore to the whole race. He came to take their place; to be their substitute, to do for them, and in their name, what they could not do for themselves.

All He did, therefore, was vicarious; his obedience and his sufferings. The parallel between Adam and Christ, the two great representatives of man, the two federal heads, the one of all his natural descendants, the other of all given Him by the Father, is carried out into its details in Romans v. 12-21. It is assumed or implied, however, everywhere else in the sacred volume. What Adam did, in his federal capacity, was in law and justice regarded as done by all whom he represented. And so all that Christ did and suffered as a federal head, was in law and justice done or suffered by his people.

Therefore, as we were condemned for the disobedience of Adam, so we are justified for the obedience of Christ. As in Adam all died, so in Christ are all made alive. Hence Christ’s death is said to be our death, and we are said to rise with Him, to live with Him, and to be exalted, in our measure, in his exaltation. He is the head and we are the body. The acts of the head, are the acts of the whole mystical person.

The ideas, therefore, of legal substitution, of vicarious obedience and punishment, of the satisfaction of justice by one for all, underlie and pervade the whole scheme of redemption. They can no more be separated from that scheme than the warp can be separated from the woof without destroying the whole texture.

********

You can imagine how someone could read "the satisfaction by one for all" and think that Hodge held to a view that Christ died for the reprobate. Hopefully the remainder of the paragraph makes it clear that he and I do not think that, but instead hold that Christ came, died, and rose again for the purpose of saving his people (those for whom he is the federal head - those whom he represented on the cross) from their sins.

May God be Glorified!

-Turretinfan

P.S. Incidentally, this week has been a bit hectic. I hope to provide for the atonement debate a brief argument (my original draft got quite long and ungainly) as to why Hebrews 10 is talking about the same group Hodge is talking about in the paragraphs above.

Finally, a Free Ethiopic Grammar!

I doubt very much that many of my readers had been waiting eagerly for the announcement, but Google Books has an apparently mostly complete (perhaps totally complete, I haven't scanned thoroughly enough to be sure) copy of Dillman's "Ethiopic Grammar" (1907) (link). For those who like something bound, I think this was recently reprinted in 2003.

For those interested in textual criticism, who are really interested in tracking down the attestation of the Ethiopic/Aetheopic (or other spellings) translation of the Bible (which was apparently fairly early, and which apparently had little contact with Rome over the years), this is an essential resource. If there is a better work on the subject in any language (even in Amharic), I'm unaware of it.

For most everyone else, they will probably just chuckle at my excitement.

May God be glorified, and His people (whatever language they speak) be edified.

-Turretinfan

Fictional Dialog with Arthur Legalist

is Gnu Believer interviews Arthur Legalist in this recent dialog:

G. Believer: Welcome, Arthur. Why have you agreed to come on the show?
A. Legalist: Well, I want to talk to you about a real problem I've noticed.
GB: What's that?
AL: It's really the worst sin of our time. It has destroyed many lives.
GB: What's that? Non-Christianity, Murder, Idolatry, Adultery, Profanity/Blasphemy, Covetousness, Theft, Disobedience to Parents, Sabbath-breaking, or Lying?
AL: No, not exactly.
GB: Failure to Love God or our neighbor?
AL: No.
GB: What then?
AL: It's the scourge of [omitted].
GB: Interesting. The folks who led me to Christ taught me that our rule of faith and life is Scripture - but I don't know Scripture that well.
AL: (nodding)
GB: So, pardon my ignorance, but where does the Bible condemn [omitted].
AL: Well, it doesn't explicitly do so, at least not in so many words. The Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not [omitted]." But the only biblical position that Christians today can have is one of total avoidance of [omitted].
GB: Didn't Paul sort of encourage [omitted]?
AL: Yes. That's true, but it's been abused.
GB: I'm not that sage, but does the Bible say that if something is abused it must be prohibited?
AL: Not in so many words.
GB: So, whose rule is this?
AL: Well, it's mine - but its the only sensible and proper thing. We Christians are called to be wise, and this is the wise thing to do.
GB: Again, I'm not such a seasoned Christian as you are, but perhaps a better solution would be to curb the abuse of [omitted].
AL: NO! WE MUST STOP [omitted] NOW! And if you don't agree, I'm going to see to it that trouble comes your way.

Now, consider for yourself what was omitted from that dialog.

Done?

It's a very dangerous thing to start accreting rules of life that are not Scriptural.

May God be thanked for all that He gives,

-Turretinfan

Keywords: Cosmetics, Jewelry, Meat, Caffeine, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Carbs, Fat, Sugar, Sugar-Substitutes, Motorcycling, Slavery, Tatoos, Rational Thought, Time at Work, Time with your Family

Cheerful Stroll Down the Broad Road

It was disappointing to read this recent blog post (link) by Alvin Kimel (a Roman Catholic priest) who had led us to believe that he had given up blogging (link and link). He presents the post as though he is not afraid of death and hell, as though he is whistling along the path, and yet the fact remains that he is on the broad road that leads to destruction - and unless he turns, destruction will find him, no matter how unafraid he may claim to be.

Here is a man who will openly state that "I do not believe God to be the absolute predestinarian of Augustine, Calvin, Beza, and Bañez." Amidst various blasphemies Kimel writes: "The God and Father of Jesus Christ intends the eternal salvation of every human being he has made and will make, without exception."

There are only two ways to go from there:

1) Universalism; and

2) Calling God a failure.

If Kimel's claim is true, God either will save all mankind or God is unable to achieve what he intends. The former is an utterly useless doctrine. If it is true, we do not need it, and if it is false, we do not want it. The latter denies God's essential attribute of omnipotence.

Kimel's condemnation, as things stand, is just. He even admits: "I know that I traduce the vast theological work of St Augustine."

He states: "I do not fear the God who is Holy Trinity. I fear my own freedom to turn from this God, to hide myself in an impenetrable egotism and despair which will forever close me to the roar of his love." Kimel's position is the consistent position of the semi-Pelagian who elevates himself to the determinative cause of his own salvation. He lacks fear of the Judge, he fears himself. He ought to fear God and God's judgment, and that ought to push him to renounce his own freedom as the source of his salvation. If you fear yourself, it would seem that you are trusting in yourself.

Kimel states that "to this Jesus I entrust my future; to his Father I commend my spirit" but he does so without knowing who Jesus is. He does not know the Logos, the Word made flesh, the omnipotent God the Son. The problem with Kimel's confession of faith is not that he got the names wrong. It is in the Holy Trinity that we must trust.

The problem with Kimel's confession of faith is the disclaimer, the fact that Kimel still fails to know the love of God. It is not his faith in Christ that assures him of God's love, but a sub-omnipotent view of divine omnicordiality. But for the Christian, this is not so.

Our love for God demonstrates to us that he loved us first. Our awareness of our transformation from God-haters and blasphemers to lovers of God makes us aware that God has begun a good work in us. Our knowledge that God is omnipotent to finish what he started gives us assurance that we will be saved from judgment.

There is still time for Kimel, that he will repent and turn to Christ. Many have done so before him, from Augustine to Luther, and so on. But he must turn to the Christ of the Gospel, not to the myth of Christ presented by the Vatican. He must turn to Christ and trust in Christ alone for salvation: not to the mediatorial work of the Mother of Christ or passed-on saints, not to a treasury of merit, not merely on a belief in the general mercy of God (though God is merciful).

Kimel has the law, he knows he is a sinner, and he confesses the same. He is aware of his sins, and he is afraid of judgment, no matter how stiff an upper lip he may put on. Kimel needs a savior: someone to take his place. There is only one available: Christ Jesus, God Almighty made man. He is the one mediator - the one advocate. If anyone believes on him for salvation, they will not be ashamed on judgment day. Let us pray that Kimel will be blessed with God's grace, to embrace the God who has mercy on whom He will have mercy and hardens whom He will.

May God be Magnified!

-Turretinfan

Mormons are not Christians

One would think that the title of this post would be wholly unnecessary. It's more or less what 90% of the Mormon "missionaries" that have approached me over the years have acknowledged. It's clear that they deny they doctrine of the Trinity, whereas it is clear that the Trinity is accepted by all Christians.

Mormons have a new and different gospel, and a new and different prophet. They are no more Christians than Muslims are Christians.

Yet, for some reasons, perhaps for political reasons - they now wish to be called "Christians." Some misguided person has even started a blog (one post so far) called "Mormons are Christian" (link - not recommended).

Their distinctiveness from Christianity is even to be seen in the self-title that they prefer for themselves, the "Church of Jesus Christ of the the Latter-Day Saints" in contradistinction from the historical Church of our (Christians) Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

They refuse to accept the truth of this verse:

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Others, such as James White, have done much more thorough responses to Mormonism, and I'm not going to reduplicate their efforts here. Here's a link to the Alpha & Omega Ministries Articles on Mormonism, for more detailed reading. If all you've seen is "The Godmakers," your knowledge of Mormonism is probably out of date. There's a lot of material to be read. If you're interested, get started (link).

-Turretinfan

Did Calvin Hold to the Doctrine of Limited Atonement?

Dr. Roger Nicole (link to theopedia entry) explains that Calvin did in this interesting article (link). He's a visiting professor Reformed Theological Seminary. He's identified as an expert (and his work recommend) on Amyraut by Prof. John Frame (link).

-Turretinfan