Mormon Theology from a Mormon

When the two young men show up at your door, most will not make a presentation like the one that follows. Nevertheless, for someone wanting to see some of the differences between Christianity and Mormonism (particularly with respect to the Gospel and the afterlife), the following blog entry from Mormon Matters provides some succinct distinctions.

Obviously, I do not endorse Mormonism. Nevertheless, the article may be eye-opening if the only thing you know about Mormonism is that they wear special underwear. (link)

It is key to be aware of the fact that we teach a very different gospel from Mormonism. We teach the pure gospel taught by Jesus and the apostles.

-TurretinFan

Gems of Calvinism from the Early Church: Ignatius

CAVEAT: "Calvinistic" is an anachronism. Calvin wasn't born yet. The proper chronological way to describe the situation is to say that Calvin was being Ignatian -- or (better yet) that both Calvin and Ignatius were being Scriptural.

In my reading of the Apostolic Fathers, another gem from the Apostolic Fathers caught my eye, this one from the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (opening sentence):

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus in Asia, deservedly thought happy, blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, predestinated before the worlds to be for ever for a glory abiding, not to be overturned, united and elect in the true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God, much joy in Jesus Christ and in blameless grace.

(source)

-Turretinfan

Anti-Spanking Propoganda

I have previously noted that corporal punishment of children by their parents, especially their fathers, is a Scriptural mandate. Liberalism does not approve. Liberalism views spanking a form of child abuse, and seeks to outlaw it. In some places, such as Sweden, Liberalism has succeeded in that objective. In other places, parents continue to have the right to raise their children in love.

The Apostle Paul explains:


Nevertheless, modern liberalism opposes spanking out of a false sense of love, and a false concept of what love is. Most amusing in this opposition to love was an article posted at MSN Health. The article attempted to demonize spanking by trying to link it to bad behavior.

The article made various allegations. Perhaps they are even true. Although I have provided a link, I don't suggest that anyone read it (link). Nevertheless, if one reads it one will find a curious, seemingly anachronistic reference to sexual deviancy.

You see, in general liberalism doesn't like to speak of sexual behaviors as "deviant." After all, liberalism is the largest voice for the sexual deviancy of fornication and especially homosexual fornication. The only reason to use that kind of terminology is to try to confuse non-Liberals.

Why would that be done? Because the piece is essentially an apologetic aimed at drumming up opposition to spanking from social conservatives.

Don't get me wrong: spanking can be abused. We must discipline our children (corporeally when necessary), but we must do so in love, not in rage. Furthermore, we must teach our children what is right and wrong when it comes to sexual behaviors. We cannot oppose liberalism on child discipline but swallow the camel of sexual deviance endorsed by liberalism in the various forms of extramarital sexual relations.

We should not buy the anti-spanking propoganda, but we must learn from the cautions it provides. We must teach our young men how they should behave themselves. Furthermore, we must be cautious to implement spanking and other forms of corporeal discipline for the benefit of our children.

-Turretinfan

Semi-Pelagianism According to Schaff

Occasionally people will complain that the term "semi-pelagianism" gets thrown around too freely. As an antidote, here are some comments from noted historian Philip Schaff:

Semi-Pelagianism is a somewhat vague and indefinite attempt at reconciliation, hovering midway between the sharply marked systems of Pelagius and Augustine, taking off the edge of each, and inclining now to the one, now to the other. The name was introduced during the scholastic age, but the system of doctrine, in all essential points, was formed in Southern France in the fifth century, during the latter years of Augustine’s life and soon after his death. It proceeded from the combined influence of the pre-Augustinian synergism and monastic legalism. Its leading idea is, that divine grace and the human will jointly accomplish the work of conversion and sanctification, and that ordinarily man must take the first step. It rejects the Pelagian doctrine of the moral roundness of man, but rejects also the Augustinian doctrine of the entire corruption and bondage of the natural man, and substitutes the idea of a diseased or crippled state of the voluntary power. It disowns the Pelagian conception of grace as a mere external auxiliary; but also, quite as decidedly, the Augustinian doctrines of the sovereignty, irresistibleness, and limitation of grace; and affirms the necessity and the internal operation of grace with and through human agency, a general atonement through Christ, and a predestination to salvation conditioned by the foreknowledge of faith. The union of the Pelagian and Augustinian elements thus attempted is not, however, an inward organic coalescence, but rather a mechanical and arbitrary combination, which really satisfies neither the one interest nor the other, but commonly leans to the Pelagian side.

For this reason it admirably suited the legalistic and ascetic piety of the middle age, and indeed always remained within the pale of the Catholic church, and never produced a separate sect.
We glance now at the main features of the origin and progress of this school.

The Pelagian system had been vanquished by Augustine, and rejected and condemned as heresy by the church. This result, however, did not in itself necessarily imply the complete approval of the Augustinian system. Many, even opponents of Pelagius, recoiled from a position so wide of the older fathers as Augustine’s doctrines of the bondage of man and the absolute election of grace, and preferred a middle ground.

First the monks of the convent of Adrumetum in North Africa differed among themselves over the doctrine of predestination; some perverting it to carnal security, others plunging from it into anguish and desperation, and yet others feeling compelled to lay more stress than Augustine upon human freedom and responsibility. Augustine endeavored to allay the scruples of these monks by his two treatises, De gratia et libero arbitrio, and De correptione et gratia. The abbot Valentinus answered these in the name of the monks in a reverent and submissive tone.

But simultaneously a more dangerous opposition to the doctrine of predestination arose in Southern Gaul, in the form of a regular theological school within the Catholic church. The members of this school were first called “remnants of the Pelagians,” but commonly Massilians, from Massilia (Marseilles), their chief centre, and afterwards Semi-Pelagians. Augustine received an account of this from two learned and pious lay friends, Prosper, and Hilarius, who begged that he himself would take the pen against it. This was the occasion of his two works, De praedestinatione sanctorum, and De dono perseverentiae, with which he worthily closed his labors as an author. He deals with these disputants more gently than with the Pelagians, and addresses them as brethren. After his death (430) the discussion was continued principally in Gaul; for then North Africa was disquieted by the victorious invasion of the Vandals, which for several decades shut it out from the circle of theological and ecclesiastical activity.

At the head of the Semi-Pelagian party stood John Cassian, the founder and abbot of the monastery at Massilia, a man of thorough cultivation, rich experience, and unquestioned orthodoxy.He was a grateful disciple of Chrysostom, who ordained him deacon, and apparently also presbyter. His Greek training and his predilection for monasticism were a favorable soil for his Semi-Pelagian theory. He labored awhile in Rome with Pelagius, and afterwards in Southern France, in the cause of monastic piety, which he efficiently promoted by exhortation and example. Monasticism sought in cloistered retreats a protection against the allurements of sin, the desolating incursions of the barbarians, and the wretchedness of an age of tumult and confusion. But the enthusiasm for the monastic life tended strongly to over-value external acts and ascetic discipline, and resisted the free evangelical bent of the Augustinian theology. Cassian wrote twelve books De coenobiorum institutis, in which be first describes the outward life of the monks, and then their inward conflicts and victories over the eight capital vices: intemperance, unchastity, avarice, anger, sadness, dulness, ambition, and pride. More important are his fourteen Collationes Patrum, conversations which Cassian and his friend Germanus had had with the most experienced ascetics in Egypt, during a seven years’ sojourn there.

In this work, especially in the thirteenth Colloquy, he rejects decidedly the errors of Pelagius, and affirms the universal sinfulness of men, the introduction of it by the fall of Adam, and the necessity, of divine grace to every individual act. But, with evident reference to Augustine, though without naming him, he combats the doctrines of election and of the irresistible and particular operation of grace, which were in conflict with the church tradition, especially, with the Oriental theology, and with his own earnest ascetic legalism.

In opposition to both systems he taught that the divine image and human freedom were not annihilated, but only weakened, by the fall; in other words, that man is sick, but not dead, that he cannot indeed help himself, but that he can desire the help of a physician, and either accept or refuse it when offered, and that he must cooperate with the grace of God in his salvation. The question, which of the two factors has the initiative, he answers, altogether empirically, to this effect: that sometimes, and indeed usually, the human will, as in the cases of the Prodigal Son, Zacchaeus, the Penitent Thief, and Cornelius, determines itself to conversion; sometimes grace anticipates it, and, as with Matthew and Paul, draws the resisting will—yet, even in this case, without constraint—to God. Here, therefore, the gratia praeveniens is manifestly overlooked.

These are essentially Semi-Pelagian principles, though capable of various modifications and applications. The church, even the Roman church, has rightly emphasized the necessity of prevenient grace, but has not impeached Cassian, who is properly the father of the Semi-Pelagian theory. Leo the Great even commissioned him to write a work against Nestorianism, in which he found an excellent opportunity to establish his orthodoxy, and to clear himself of all connection with the kindred heresies of Pelagianism and Nestorianism, which were condemned together at Ephesus in 431. He died after 432, at an advanced age, and though not formally canonized, is honored as a saint by some dioceses. His works are very extensively read for practical edification.

Against the thirteenth Colloquy of Cassian, Prosper Aquitanus, an Augustinian divine and poet, who, probably on account of the desolations of the Vandals, had left his native Aquitania for the South of Gaul, and found comfort and repose in the doctrines of election amid the wars of his age, wrote a book upon grace and freedom, about 432, in which he criticises twelve propositions of Cassian, and declares them all heretical, except the first. He also composed a long poem in defence of Augustine and his system, and refuted the “Gallic slanders and Vincentian imputations,” which placed the doctrine of predestination in the most odious light.

But the Semi-Pelagian doctrine was the more popular, and made great progress in France. Its principal advocates after Cassian are the following: the presbyter-monk Vicentius of Lerinum, author of the Commonitorium, in which he developed the true catholic test of doctrine, the threefold consensus, in covert antagonism to the novel doctrines of Augustinianism (about 434); Faustus, bishop of Rhegium (Riez), who at the council of Arles (475) refuted the hyper-Augustinian presbyter Lucidus, and was commissioned by the council to write a work upon the grace of God and human freedom; ennadius, presbyter at Marseilles (died after 495), who continued the biographical work of Jerome, De viris illustribus, down to 495, and attributed Augustine’s doctrine of predestination to his itch for writing; Arnobius the younger; and the much discussed anonymous tract Praedestinatus (about 460), which, by gross exaggeration, and by an unwarranted imputation of logical results which Augustine had expressly forestalled, placed the doctrine of predestination in an odious light, and then refuted it.

The author of the Praedestinatus says, that a treatise had fallen into his hands, which fraudulently bore upon its face the name of the Orthodox teacher Augustine, in order to smuggle in, under a Catholic name, a blasphemous dogma, pernicious to the faith. On this account he had undertaken to transcribe and to refute this work. The treatise itself consists of three books; the first, following Augustine’s book, De haeresibus, gives a description of ninety heresies from Simon Magus down to the time of the author, and brings up, as the last of them, the doctrine of a double predestination, as a doctrine which makes God the author of evil, and renders all the moral endeavors of men fruitless; the second book is the pseudo-Augustinian treatise upon this ninetieth heresy, but is apparently merely a Semi-Pelagian caricature by the same author; the third book contains the refutation of the thus travestied pseudo-Augustinian doctrine of predestination, employing the usual Semi-Pelagian arguments.

A counterpart to this treatise is found in the also anonymous work, De vocatione omnium gentium, which endeavors to commend Augustinianism by mitigation, in the same degree that the Praedestinatus endeavors to stultify it by exaggeration. It has been ascribed to pope Leo I. († 461), of whom it would not be unworthy; but it cannot be supposed that the work of so distinguished a man could have remained anonymous. The author avoids even the term praedestinatio, and teaches expressly, that Christ died for all men and would have all to be saved; thus rejecting the Augustinian particularism. But, on the other hand, he also rejects the Semi-Pelagian principles, and asserts the utter inability of the natural man to do good. He unhesitatingly sets grace above the human will, and represents the whole life of faith, from beginning to end, as a work of unmerited grace. He develops the three thoughts, that God desires the salvation of all men; that no one is saved by his own merits, but by grace; and that the human understanding cannot fathom the depths of divine wisdom. We must trust in the righteousness of God. Every one of the damned suffers only the righteous punishment of his sins; while no saint can boast himself in his merits, since it is only of pure grace that he is saved. But how is it with the great multitude of infants that die every year without baptism, and without opportunity of coming to the knowledge of salvation? The author feels this difficulty, without, however, being able to solve it. He calls to his help the representative character of parents, and dilutes the Augustinian doctrine of original sin to the negative conception of a mere defect of good, which, of course, also reduces the idea of hereditary guilt and the damnation of unbaptized children. He distinguishes between a general grace which comes to man through the external revelation in nature, law, and gospel, and a special grace, which effects conversion and regeneration by an inward impartation of saving power, and which is only bestowed on those that are saved.

Semi-Pelagianism prevailed in Gaul for several decades. Under the lead of Faustus of Rhegium it gained the victory in two synods, at Arles in 472 and at Lyons in 475, where Augustine’s doctrine of predestination was condemned, though without mention of his name.

(source) (emphasis added)

That provides a very lengthy explanation, but you will find that at other places Schaff simply uses Semi-Pelagian as a synonym for synergistic. For example, "in reference to the freedom of the will and predestination he adopted synergistic or Semi-Pelagian views," (source) (emphasis added) or "The position of the Greek church upon this question is only negative; she has in name condemned Pelagianism, but has never received the positive doctrines of Augustine. She continued to teach synergistic or Semi-Pelagian views, without, however, entering into a deeper investigation of the relation of human freedom to divine grace." (source) (emphasis added) "And yet we must say that the Reformers, following the lead of the great saint of Hippo, went to a one-sided extreme. Melanchthon felt this, and proposed the system of synergism, which is akin to the semi-Pelagian and Arminian theories. Oecolampadius kept within the limits of Christian experience and expressed it in the sound sentence, "Salus nostra ex Deo, perditio nostra ex nobis." We must always keep in mind both the divine and the human, the speculative and the practical aspects of this problem of ages; in other words, we must combine divine sovereignty and human responsibility as complemental truths. There is a moral as well as an intellectual logic,—a logic of the heart and conscience as well as a logic of the head. The former must keep the latter in check and save it from running into supralapsarianism and at last into fatalism and pantheism, which is just as bad as Pelagianism." (source) (emphasis added)

-TurretinFan

Misconceptions about Roman Catholicism: Works Salvation

This post is intended to be part of series on misconceptions about Roman Catholicism. In this post, we address the issue of works salvation. Roman Catholicism, according to the Reformation, teaches works salvation.


What we do not mean:


1) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism teaches that man unassisted by grace merits salvation.
2) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism denies the necessity of grace.
3) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism is fully Pelagian.
4) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism denies a role for grace at every stage of salvation.
5) We do not mean that Roman Catholicism denies any role for Christ's sacrifice in salvation.


We admit:


1) We admit that Roman Catholicism teaches that grace is necessary for salvation.
2) We admit that Roman Catholicism teaches that grace is involved at every point in salvation.
3) We admit that Roman Catholicism ascribes great importance to grace.
4) We admit that Roman Catholicism condemns Pelagianism.
5) We admit that Roman Catholicism views good works as the product of grace.
6) We admit that Roman Catholicism has a role for the sacrifice of Christ in salvation.


Nevertheless,


We criticize the Roman Catholic position as teaching works-salvation, because of a semi-Peligian error: the ascription of a role for human cooperation in salvation. We view Roman Catholicism as teaching works-salvation because:


1) Roman Catholicism teaches that cooperation with grace is also necessary for salvation. ("by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace" - Trent, Session 6, Chapter 5, see also Canons IV and IX on Justification)

2) Roman Catholicism teaches that cooperation with grace is necessary at many points in salvation. (Ibid, chapters 7 ("the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation") and 10 ("they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified"),

3) Roman Catholicism condemns monergism ("CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema." - "CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.").

4) Roman Catholicism teaches the meritorious value of good works performed by mere men ("CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.").

5) Roman Catholicism teaches final justification based on actual (infused) righteousness ("For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God" ... "Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own as from ourselves; nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated: for that justice which is called ours, because that we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because that it is infused into us of God, through the merit of Christ. ").

6) Roman Catholicism teaches that it is possible for human beings to expiate sin through acts of contrition. (Trent, Fourteenth Session, Chapter 5, "For venial sins, whereby we are not excluded from the grace of God, and into which we fall more frequently, although they be rightly and profitably, and without any presumption declared in confession, as the custom of pious persons demonstrates, yet may they be omitted without guilt, and be expiated by many other remedies.")

7) Roman Catholicism teaches that Purgatory removes the guilt of sin (Trent, Twenty-Fifth Session, Decree Concerning Purgatory: "there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar;" "CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.").

Therefore, for these reasons, we hold that Rome teaches salvation by works, in contravention of the Scriptural doctirnes of sola gratia and sola fide. We criticize the Roman Catholic position as teaching works-salvation, because of a semi-Peligian error: the ascription of a role for human cooperation in salvation. We, of course, do not conflate that particular semi-Pelagian error with historic Semi-Pelagianism in all its minutiae, nor is the label the point. The point is that works salvation is not the gospel and will not save.

We preach a different gospel: a gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and

To the glory of God alone,

-Turretinfan

Miscellaneous Responses to Orthodox

A while back (this post has been three months, thirteen days in the making), Orthodox offered a set of comments that I never fully responded to. I take this opportunity to do so.

Legend: MP (Me, i.e. TurretinFan, Previously); O (Orthodox); G (Gene Bridges) and TF (TurretinFan)
MP: A command is not an offer. The imperative command to repent and believe is consequently neither false, nor an offer.
O: Repent, believe and you will be saved is an offer by any reasonable definition thereof.
TF: It can be viewed as an offer, it can be viewed as a warning, and it can even be viewed as a threat. It can even be viewed as an opportunity. Just about any command can be viewed those various ways, especially commands with promise (compare, for example, the fifth commandment: Honor thy father ... that thy days may be long ...).

MP: Furthermore, no one is able to be sinless, and yet the law does command that. The law is not a "false offer" because it commands what man cannot do.
O: Where is the evidence that man cannot be sinless? Man chooses not to be sinless, I don't see the evidence that man cannot be sinless. Christ commands "be perfect". It remains the aim. That nobody has done it doesn't prove that man cannot do it. Men would find it very difficult to do it, but not impossible.
TF: The fact that nobody has done it is strong evidence that man cannot do it. But the proof is in Scripture. Scripture explains that the natural man is at emnity with God.

MP: An affirmation of man's ability to obey the commands is an affirmation of Pelagianism.
O: No, Pelagianism says that man can do it without the assistance of grace. Since God promises grace to those who ask, clearly this has nothing to do with Pelagianism.
TF: It is has "nothing to do with" Pelagianism in the same way that semi-Pelagianism has nothing to do with Pelagianism. But, of course, that's not a defense of man's ability. If you are saying that grace is required, you are affirming man's natural inability.

MP:. If one recognizes that grace is necessary for man to obey, then one must realize that man's ability to obey commands has nothing to do with whether the commands are fair, reasonable, or the like.
O: Not so, because God freely gives grace to those who ask. God is not asking for anything for which he doesn't provide the means.
TF: That's a bit different position. Nevertheless, if the question is whether God provides the means, then the question is whether God must provide such means, given the command. If so, then he does not provide the means freely, and consequently it is not properly called grace, since man would have a right to demand such means.

MP: a) Men are condemned for their sins. It would be no excuse if salvation were not offered, just as it is no excuse that not all have the gospel preached to them
O: Paul says that God's qualities are made manifest so that men are without excuse. According to you it is unnecessary because men are without excuse anyway. Well, go argue with the apostle.
TF: God's qualities are not the gospel. Thus, this is a fallacy of equivocation. It is also fallacy of denying the antecedent: as a logical matter, simply because they are without excuse because God has manifested Himself to them, does not imply (as a matter of logic) that they would have been with excuse if God had not revealed Himself to them.

MP: b) Men are condemned for their sins. Lack of atonement is simply the fact of the matter for those who are not "at one" with God.
O; Again, go argue with the apostle. Apparently he thinks that knowing the basics about God is a prerequisite to not having an excuse.
TF: Same fallacies here as in the previous paragraph: and perhaps even more aggravated. The apostle doesn't address the issue of the atonement, and does not deny that men are condemned for their sins.

MP: I answer: That's not an accurate picture of Reformed theology. If anyone truly repents and believes, they will be saved. End of story.
O: You have to [add] that "truly" [] in order to exclude a whole lot of people who sincerely believe that they repented and believe but later fall away. You are forced to make "truly" to have a special meaning []. Except that the bible never lists such a group.
TF: The apostle James in his catholic epistle discusses that group: the group with a "dead" faith.

MP: I answer: That's a misrepresentation of the Reformed position as well as of Scripture.
a) The categories of hypocrites, self-deceived, and wolves-in-sheep's-clothing are Biblical categories; and
O: Hypocrites are not the categories under discussion. Don't distract from the topic by bringing in something else. What was under discussion was people who were sincere but then fell away.
TF: It seems O wants to discuss only the self-deceived.

O: As for "self-deceived", since repentance and belief are something that the self does within oneself, it's not a sensical object of self-deception. By putting that in there you open the floodgates to everything and everyone potentially being self-deceived.
TF: First of all, to deny self-deception generally would be foolish.

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Since sin is something that one does within oneself, any categorical barrier as proposed would necessarily conflict with the apostle's teaching.

To argue that this is a slippery slope, one must establish not only that there is a slope, but that it is steep and slippery. This argument can be defeated if there are fences in places to prevent the slope from being considered steep and slippery. In this case there are several fences: one is the various testimonies adduced in John's first catholic epistle, another related one is the discussion in James' catholic epistle.

O: And again, you introduce this wholly unbiblical category of people who think they believe but don't. A scary category to have in a theological system indeed.
TF: James addresses people in that category in his epistle. Those with "dead" faith. Also, we see that category in the parable of the sower.

MP: b) The parable of the sower provides a great lesson in the distinction between false and true faith.
O: In the parable of the sower, seeds grow up and then are choked and die. There's no suggestion they weren't valid seeds to begin with.
TF: You don't seem very familiar with the parable. In the parable, the seed is the Word of God. The various hearts are the various grounds. The good ground is one, but there are several types of bad ground.

MP: I answer: It's really not dependent on any Reformed order of salvation
O: Yes it is, because your claim is that since the ice-cream man controls who steps into his shop he can put out the sign offering to all. But if that ordering is challenged, your argument ceases.
TF: I honestly don't understand this objection - perhaps it is because the context is missing.

MP: but even if it were, that would be fair game, given the nature of the counter-objection.
O: When you are trying to prove a doctrine not explicitely taught in scripture, it doesn't look good when you use as justification another doctrine not explicitely taught in scripture. That's why I say you've got so many precepts built upon precepts you can't see the bottom any more.
TF: That remark is not accurate or handy. The hidden assumption that every doctrine has to be found explicitly in Scripture is not a tenant of either yours or mine. And - as well - it seems you are mistaking rebuttal for proof.

G: This is a classic case of Orthodox utterly ignoring what he has been told in the past
O: No, it's a case of you having an incomprehensibly complicated system that isn't taught in the bible.
TF: Sometimes incomprehensibility is in the mind of the beholder. I think this is such a case, because I know plenty of people who comprehend the system. As for it not being taught in Scripture, we both know that arguments have presented showing that it is taught in Scripture. Simply stating to the contrary is a dispute, but not argument.

-Turretinfan

Endorsement of the Real Turretin

I was pleased to read this succinct uniequivocal endorsement of the real Francis Turretin (link). May God grant us more men like him. The blog hosting the endorsement is called "Daniel and the Lion's Den," and seems to be hosted by Danny Patterson.

-Turretinfan

Redundancy in James?

In the King James Version, the James 5:16 seems to contain a little redundancy and/or truism:

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

The redundancy is "effectual" and "availeth much." If it is effectual (in modern usage) then it means it works.

The apparent redundancy is a result of a slight semantic shift and an attempt to convey a Greek word in English.

The underlying Greek is:

Jas 5:16 εξομολογεισθε αλληλοις τα παραπτωματα και ευχεσθε υπερ αλληλων οπως ιαθητε πολυ ισχυει δεησις δικαιου ενεργουμενη

In this, the phrase in question is: "πολυ ισχυει δεησις δικαιου ενεργουμενη"

πολυ => greatly
ισχυει => enables/has force
δεησις => (a / the) prayer
δικαιου => righteous
ενεργουμενη => [(the thing that) is (itself) empowering]

The tricky word, as you can guess, is the last one - it is a present middle participle, which is a bit challenging to express in English. The KJV translators tried to express its meaning using the phrase "effectual fervent." The point of the passage is that we should pray for one another, and that we should have confidence to pray for one another on the basis that an empowered prayer by a righteous man can accomplish great things, both as to physical healing and also conversion: with Elias' prayers for and against rain provided as an example.

Pray to God and pray boldly, for if God gives your prayer power, you may save a soul by prayer!

-Turretinfan

Heart and Ear Circumcision

I happened to be reading and came across this gem:

*****

He saith also again concerning our ears how he hath circumcised our heart. The Lord saith in the prophet, They have hearkened unto me with the hearing of their ears; and again, he saith, They that are afar off shall hear with their ears; they shall know what I have done; and be ye circumcised, saith the Lord, in your heart; and again, Hear, O Israel, for thus saith the Lord thy God; and again the Spirit of the Lord prophesied, Who is he that wisheth to live for ever? let him hearken unto the voice of my Son.

And again he saith, Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken these things for a testimony. And again he saith, Hearken unto the voice of the Lord, ye rulers of this people. And again he saith, Hearken ye children unto the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

To this end, therefore, hath he circumcised our hearing, that when we hear his word, we should believe; for the circumcision in which they trust is done away with.

For he hath said that circumcision is not that which was made in the flesh; but they have transgressed, for an evil angel hath deluded them. He saith unto them, These things saith the Lord your God, —here I find a new commandment—Sow not among thorns, but be ye circumcised unto your Lord. And what saith he? Circumcise the hardness of your hearts, and harden not your neck. And again, Behold, saith the Lord, all the Gentiles are uncircumcised in their foreskin, but this people is uncircumcised in their hearts.

*****

Who is this Calvinistic writer? Who is it that believes that God circumcised our hearing, that when we hear his word, we should believe? The answer is the author of the Epistle of Barnabas (usually thought not actually to be written by the companion of Paul).

Our knowledge of the content of the book is largely thanks to its inclusion in the Codex Sinaiticus, and has been dated to the first or second century (generally between A.D. 70 - 150).

The translation above is Charles Hoole's (I have not verified its accuracy against the Greek) and is available via Google Books here (link).

Praise be to God for the Irresistable grace of Circumcision of heart, mind, eyes, and ears,

-Turretinfan

Remember this guy?

Do you remember Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf? He was the Iraqi official who reported on the very brief Iraq invasion in terms that were extremely favorable to the Iraqi ruling regime.

One example of his lines:

"Now even the American command is under siege. We are hitting it from the north, east, south and west. We chase them here and they chase us there. But at the end we are the people who are laying siege to them. And it is not them who are besieging us."

Many more here (link). In a somewhat macabre pun he was labelled "Comical Ali."

Then I read this similarly comical balderdash:

"Protestants run from or mock Catholic presentations, rather than interact with them; let alone try to refute them. There appears to be a crisis of confidence in Protestant circles."

Meanwhile, when asked by one of his Catholic supporters to address a Protestant article, he turns tail:

"I'm trying to get away from replying to anti-Catholics. "

I had to laugh out loud. His position has been crushed from every side, and is cut off more and more each day, but he announces that the matter is just the oppsite. He fails to respond to critique after critique of his own work, but the bluster comes hard and thick.

This guy actually is so brazen as to claim: "But these guys are all petrified of discussing it with me "live", with everyone watching."

Not even his Catholic supporters buy it any more. I would be surprised if even one of the people whom he "challenged" was even the slightest bit worried, much less afraid, and certainly none were petrified of discussing the matter with him "live" with people watching.

As one of the people falsely charged, I can testify that this guy's fear-sensing ability is as good as his exegetical abilities.

One can almost hear the immortal words of Comical Ali:

"They fled. The American louts fled. Indeed, concerning the fighting waged by the heroes of the Arab Socialist Baath Party yesterday, one amazing thing really is the cowardice of the American soldiers. we had not anticipated this."

May God pour out his mercy on those in the Catholic church, and particular on her propagandists,

-Turretinfan

UPDATE: Reginald has noted that I did not ask his opinion before posting this. (link) Specifically, he found the line: "Not even his Catholic supporters buy it any more," overstretched, I think. Obviously, I guess I should add that perhaps some of his supporters may actually think that the people Dave "challenged" are quaking in their boots with fear of Dave. From comments I've seen by Catholics on this, though, I believe that many realize that Dave's imagination has gotten the better of him.

Samuel Miller on Fasting

One of my readers recently pointed out that Samuel Miller's work on fasting is apparently available in reprint. Here's a link to a very readable web version (link). Even more significantly, here is a link to an older (and one would think, copyright free) copy of Miller's Sermons (there are two back-to-back) beginning at page 145 (the first page of the link) of an edition of the National Preacher and continuing to page 160 (link to article from the National Preacher).

Note that since the journal is available as a Google Book, you can download the book in PDF form or page by page in text form, for reading off-line or printing.

-Turretinfan

Numerology is Silly And Self-Defeating

Go here (link) and try e-Calculator. I mean in the e-Calculator they provide, enter the letters: "E" "C" "A" "L" "C" "U" "L" "A" "T" "O" "R". There's your proof.

Revelation 14:1 - How Many Greek Texts Match the TR?

I recently heard a radio interview in which the person advocating the position against the KJV-only position, asserted that none of the Greek manuscripts match the Textus Receptus in omitting "his name and" in Revelation 14:1. The KJV, however, follows the Textus Receptus precisely in this place and omits the "his name and" from the text.

I thought this was interesting, so I checked the UBS4 and the NA27. Neither even makes reference to the variant reading. Perhaps that is the reason that the person on the radio assumed that there was no Greek manuscript support for the omission.

However, Tischendorf's 8th Edition identifies at least two manuscripts (P and 1) that omit the phrase. It also appears that the Slavonic version omits the phrase.

Using standard modern textual critical techniques, one would expect that the shorter reading would be preferred, and the longer reading would be dismissed as interpolation. Surprisingly, that's not the case. Instead, the longer reading is preferred by the critical text.

I'm inclined to favor the longer reading myself, because it is easier for me to imagine how the phrase could be omitted than inserted. I find the internal evidence uncompelling. The phrase doesn't have any immediate connection to the remainder of the text.

Revelation 3:12 seems to slightly support the longer reading. Some of the later parts of Revelation also seem to support the longer reading, in that God and the Lamb are clearly united (Revelation 22:1-2). Furthermore, I reject the conventional view that scribes are more likely to add than omit, in fact I tend to believe scribes more likely to accidentally omit. Here there is a reasonable explanation for how P and 1 (and others?) could have omitted the phrase, the Greek phrase is:

τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ
the name his and the name the father his

Notice how the two phrases begin with the same two words, and even end with the same word (although that last word may be the subject for another time). This kind of scenario would make it very easy for a scribe to accidentally lose his place and pick up from the wrong spot in copying out the text, thereby inadvertently omitting the phrase from the copy. This would seem to be a relatively easy explanation for manuscripts P and 1 that would account for the presence of the phrase in the major version (Latin) and the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

Incidentally, one does not find the omitted phrase in any of the TR Bibles, starting with the Tyndale Bible. One does, however, find the phrase in the older Wycliffe Bibles, which were translated from the Vulgate.

What is the bottom line? The person making the claim on the radio was probably wrong. A few Greek manuscripts do contain the variant reading. Nevertheless, the point that the person was trying to make, namely that the support for the variant is weak (miniscule, we'd say, if we were trying to amuse), is correct. Revelation 14:1 represents a verse at which it seems that the KJV might be capable of improvement, which was the guy's point.

-Turretinfan

Public Solemn Fasting according to the Directory for Public Worship

Concerning Public Solemn Fasting.
WHEN some great and notable judgments are either inflicted upon a people, or apparently imminent, or by some extraordinary provocations notoriously deserved; as also when some special blessing is to be sought and obtained, public solemn fasting (which is to continue the whole day) is a duty that God expects from that nation or people.

A religious fast requires total abstinence, not only from all food, (unless bodily weakness do manifestly disable from holding out till the fast be ended, in which case somewhat may be taken, yet very sparingly, to support nature, when ready to faint,) but also from all worldly labor, discourses, and thoughts, and from all bodily delights, and such like, (although at other times lawful,) rich apparel, ornaments, and such like, during the fast; and much more from whatever is in the nature or use scandalous and offensive, as gaudy attire, lascivious habits and gestures, and other vanities of either sex; which we recommend to all ministers, in their places, diligently and zealously to reprove, as at other times, so especially at a fast, without respect of persons, as there shall be occasion.

Before the public meeting, each family and person apart are privately to use all religious care to prepare their hearts to such a solemn work, and to be early at the congregation.
So large a portion of the day as conveniently may be, is to be spent in public reading and preaching of the word, with singing of psalms, fit to quicken affections suitable to such a duty: but especially in prayer, to this or the like effect:

"Giving glory to the great Majesty of God, the Creator, Preserver, and supreme Ruler of all the world, the better to affect us thereby with an holy reverence and awe of him; acknowledging his manifold, great, and tender mercies, especially to the church and nation, the more effectually to soften and abase our hearts before him; humbly confessing of sins of all sorts, with their several aggravations; justifying God's righteous judgments, as being far less than our sins do deserve; yet humbly and earnestly imploring his mercy and grace for ourselves, the church and nation, for our king, and all in authority, and for all others for whom we are bound to pray, (according as the present exigent requires,) with more special importunity and enlargement than at other times; applying by faith the promises and goodness of God for pardon, help, and deliverance from the evils felt, feared, or deserved; and for obtaining the blessings which we need and expect; together with a giving up of ourselves wholly and for ever unto the Lord."

In all these, the ministers, who are the mouths of the people unto God, ought so to speak from their hearts, upon serious and thorough premeditation of them, that both themselves and their people may be much affected, and even melted thereby, especially with sorrow for their sins; that it may be indeed a day of deep humiliation and afflicting of the soul.

Special choice is to be made of such scriptures to be read, and of such tests for preaching, as may best work the hearts of the hearers to the special business of the day, and most dispose them to humiliation and repentance: insisting most on those particulars which each minister's observation and experience tells him are most conducing to the edification and reformation of that congregation to which he preaches.

Before the close of the public duties, the minister is, in his own and the people's name, to engage his and their hearts to be the Lord's, with professed purpose and resolution to reform whatever is amiss among them, and more particularly such sins as they have been more remarkably guilty of; and to draw near unto God, and to walk more closely and faithfully with him in new obedience, than ever before.

He is also to admonish the people, with all importunity, that the work of that day doth not end with the public duties of it, but that they are so to improve the remainder of the day, and of their whole life, in reinforcing upon themselves and their families in private all those godly affections and resolutions which they professed in public, as that they may be settled in their hearts for ever, and themselves may more sensibly find that God hath smelt a sweet savor in Christ from their performances, and is pacified towards them, by answers of grace, in pardoning of sin, in removing of judgments, in averting or preventing of plagues, and in conferring of blessings, suitable to the conditions and prayers of his people, by Jesus Christ.

Besides solemn and general fasts enjoined by authority, we judge that, at other times, congregations may keep days of fasting, as divine providence shall administer unto them special occasion; and also that families may do the same, so it be not on days wherein the congregation to which they do belong is to meet for fasting, or other public duties of worship.

(spelling modernized by TurretinFan - original by the Westminster Assembly)
___________________________

Note what set forth in the second paragraph as to how a fast is to be observed. No eating, except for medical necessity. No "bodily delights." No jewels, no fancy clothes. No working, and no thoughts about work. The whole day is to be consumed with worship and especially prayer. Yet this is not something to be done according to a calendar, but when a special cause arises that provokes the people of God to publicly entreat his mercy and grace.

-Turretinfan

Federal Vision Joint Statement - Critique

The first "item" of the Federal Vision Joint Statement is:

Our Triune God We affirm that the triune God is the archetype of all covenantal relations. All faithful theology and life is conducted in union with and imitation of the way God eternally is, and so we seek to understand all that the Bible teaches—on covenant, on law, on gospel, on predestination, on sacraments, on the Church—in the light of an explicit Trinitarian understanding. We deny that a mere formal adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity is sufficient to keep the very common polytheistic and unitarian temptations of unbelieving thought at bay.
I respond:
The Trinity (the triune God) is not the archtype of all covenantal relations. This is something close to the Eastern Orthodox error of theosis ("God became man, so that man could become god(s)"). The relation between God and man is other and unlike the relation among the persons of the trinity. It is not an analogy, it is simply other. Marriage, slavery, monarchy, and the like are typical of the relation of the church and Christ. Adoption is typical of the relation of the church and the Father.

The idea that "all faithful theology and life is conducted in union with and imitation of the way God eternally is," is both vague and imprecise. Knowledge of God is a logical prerequisite for a faithful life and (obviously) of theology, but to mention "union and imitation" is simply to invite imprecise thinking.

Keeping the nature of God (as Trinity, but also as Infinite, Eternal, and Unchangeable in his Being, Wisdom, Power, Holiness, Justice, Goodness, and Truth) in mind is important when understanding theology (especially theology proper).

Obviously mere formal subscription to Trinitarianism is insufficient to ensure proper thinking in theology. Unless there is something behind the denial presented, it is simply trivial.

The second item is:

As the Waters Cover the Sea We affirm that God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but rather so that the world through Him would be saved. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world—He is the Savior of the world. All the nations shall stream to Him, and His resting place shall be glorious. We affirm that prior to the second coming of our Lord Jesus, the earth will be as full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

We deny that eschatological views are to be a test of fellowship between orthodox believers, but at the same time we hold that an orientation of faith with regard to the gospel’s triumph in history is extremely important. We deny that it is wise to imitate Abraham in his exercise of faith while declining to believe the content of what he believed—that through him all the nations of the world would be blessed, and that his descendants would be like the stars in number.
The title of this section is based on:

Habakkuk 2:14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Isaiah 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

The claim that the prophecy of Isaiah 11:9 precedes the second coming would seem to contradict the context of the verse:

Isaiah 11:4-8
4But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. 5And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. 6The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Smiting the earth with a rod of iron and slaying the wicked with the breath of his lips would seem to be a reference to the final judgment at the second coming. What follows would seem to be a description of heaven.

The context of Habakkuk 2:14 is slightly less clear, yet:

Habakkuk 2:2-20
2And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. 3For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. 4Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. 5Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, he is a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and is as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people: 6Shall not all these take up a parable against him, and a taunting proverb against him, and say, Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! how long? and to him that ladeth himself with thick clay! 7Shall they not rise up suddenly that shall bite thee, and awake that shall vex thee, and thou shalt be for booties unto them? 8Because thou hast spoiled many nations, all the remnant of the people shall spoil thee; because of men's blood, and for the violence of the land, of the city, and of all that dwell therein. 9Woe to him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house, that he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the power of evil! 10Thou hast consulted shame to thy house by cutting off many people, and hast sinned against thy soul. 11For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it. 12Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity! 13Behold, is it not of the LORD of hosts that the people shall labour in the very fire, and the people shall weary themselves for very vanity? 14For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. 15Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness! 16Thou art filled with shame for glory: drink thou also, and let thy foreskin be uncovered: the cup of the LORD'S right hand shall be turned unto thee, and shameful spewing shall be on thy glory. 17For the violence of Lebanon shall cover thee, and the spoil of beasts, which made them afraid, because of men's blood, and for the violence of the land, of the city, and of all that dwell therein. 18What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols? 19Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it. 20But the LORD is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him.

This as well would seem primarily to point forward to heaven.

It's good that they do not make their eschatological view (presumably post-millenial?) a test of orthodoxy, but their assertion that "we hold that an orientation of faith with regard to the gospel’s triumph in history is extremely important" coupled with the fact that they included an eschatological position in their joint statement seems to betray a different position. Furthermore, I'm not sure that the statement "extremely important" can be substantiated exegetically.

"We deny that it is wise to ... declin[e] to believe the content of what he believed—that through him all the nations of the world would be blessed, and that his descendants would be like the stars in number."

The thing of which Abraham believed that was of greater significance was the Messiah. The "all nations being blessed" was fulfilled principally in Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. We will not bear Messiahs. Abraham is the father of the faithful, we are not. There are some similes between us and Abraham, but we should not believe the "full content" of what he believed, because not all the promises made to him are made to us.

The Next Christendom We affirm that Jesus Christ is the King of kings, and the Lord of lords. We believe that the Church cannot be a faithful witness to His authority without calling all nations to submit themselves to Him through baptism, accepting their responsibility to obediently learn all that He has commanded us. We affirm therefore that the Christian faith is a public faith, encompassing every realm of human endeavor. The fulfillment of the Great Commission therefore requires the establishment of a global Christendom.
We deny that neutrality is possible in any realm, and this includes the realm of “secular” politics. We believe that the lordship of Jesus Christ has authoritative ramifications for every aspect of human existence, and that growth up into a godly maturity requires us to discover what those ramifications are in order to implement them. Jesus Christ has established a new way of being human, and it is our responsibility to grow up into it.

The main point of this section (that it is impossible to be neutral with respect to Christianity in virtually any sphere of endeavor: politics included) is correct, but it is also important to remember Christ's own words, that his kingdom is not of this world, for if it were, he would not be crucified. Also, "Jesus Christ has established a new of being human," is just wrong. There's no basis for that claim. Furthermore, the emphasis on baptism is odd. They are chiefly called to submission in the form of repentance and faith: baptism is primarily a sign.

Scripture Cannot Be Broken We affirm that the Bible in its entirety, from Genesis to Revelation, is the infallible Word of God, and is our only ultimate rule for faith and practice. Scripture alone is the infallible and ultimate standard for Christians. We affirm further that Scripture is to be our guide in learning how to interpret Scripture, and this means we must imitate the apostolic handling of the Old Testament, paying close attention to language, syntax, context, narrative flow, literary styles, and typology—all of it integrated in Jesus Christ Himself. We deny that the Bible can be rightly understood by any hermeneutical grid not derived from the Scriptures themselves.

Scripture, of course, cannot be broken: meaning that prophecy cannot fail to be fulfilled. Furthermore, the positive statement of Sola Scriptura is generally accurate. The denial is a bit of an overstatement: after all, even a blind squirrel can occasionally find a nut. The fact that a hermeneutic is erroneous does not ensure error, at least not uniformly so.

The Proclamation of the Word We affirm that God's Spirit has chosen the best ways to express the revelation of God and reality, and that the divine rhetoric found in Holy Scripture is designed to strike the richest of all chords in the hearers of the Word of God. For this reason, we believe that it is pastorally best to use biblical language and phrasing in the preaching and teaching of the Bible in the Church.
We deny that it necessarily unprofitable to “translate” biblical language into more “philosophical” or “scholastic” languages in order to deal with certain problems and issues that arise in the history of the Church. At the same time, we do deny that such translations are superior to or equal to the rhetoric employed by the Spirit in the text, and we believe that the employment of such hyper-specialized terminology in the regular teaching and preaching of the Church has the unfortunate effect of confusing the saints and of estranging them from contact with the biblical use of the same language. For this reason we reject the tendency to privilege the confessional and/or scholastic use of words and phrases over the way the same words and phrases are used in the Bible itself.
This condemnation of specialized language is a bit silly, particularly when the writers have already employed such scholastic terms as triune and hermenuetic(al) in their statement. Preachers have the duty, according to Scripture, of explaining the sense. It is lawful, and it may be expedient, to use "hyper-specialized" terminology to do so. From time to time Scripture itself employs specialized terminology, such as when it makes reference to difficult issues such as God's love of the elect before their existence ("foreknowledge") and the like.

The Scriptures were not written in English, and the Old Testament Scriptures were not written in Hebrew. While a faithful translation (note the lack of quotation marks) is important, it is less important to maintain the precise expressions than to convey the sense. A skilled pastor having provided the precise expressions in the reading of the Word, will also provide the sense, which may involve words and phrases that are not used in the Bible itself: including words like "triune" and "hermeneutic" and even "grid."

Creeds and Confessions We affirm that all who subscribe to creeds and confessions should do so with a clean conscience and honest interpretation, in accordance with the plain meaning of words and the original intent of the authors, as can best be determined.
We deny that confessional commitments in any way require us to avoid using the categories and terms of Scripture, even when the confessional use of such words is necessarily more narrow and circumscribed. We deny that creedal or systematic understandings of scriptural truth can ever be given a place of parity with Scripture, or primacy over Scripture. In line with this, we continue to honor and hold to the creeds of the ancient Church and the confessions of the reformational Church.

The term "reformational" is clearly wrong; whether intentionally wrong or not, I'm unsure. The word should be "Reformed." Other than that, the statement itself is innocuous, although (in view of the previous item) the reason for its inclusion begins to be suspect.

The Divine Decrees We affirm that the triune God is exhaustively sovereign over all things, working out all things according to the counsel of His will. Because this necessarily includes our redemption in Christ, God alone receives all the glory for our salvation. Before all worlds, God the Father chose a great host of those who would be saved, and the number of those so chosen cannot be increased or diminished. In due time, Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross, and in that sacrifice He secured the salvation of all those chosen for salvation by the Father. And at some time in the earthly life of each person so chosen, the Holy Spirit brings that person to life, and enables him to persevere in holiness to the end. Those covenant members who are not elect in the decretal sense enjoy the common operations of the Spirit in varying degrees, but not in the same way that those who are elect do.
We deny that the unchangeable nature of these decrees prevents us from using the same language in covenantal ways as we describe our salvation from within that covenant. We further deny this covenantal usage is “pretend” language, even where the language and terminology sometimes overlaps with the language of the decrees. The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children, that we may keep the words of this law. We affirm the reality of the decrees, but deny that the decrees “trump” the covenant. We do not set them against each other, but expect them to harmonize perfectly as God works out all things in accordance with His will.
The comment "Those covenant members who are not elect in the decretal sense enjoy the common operations of the Spirit in varying degrees, but not in the same way that those who are elect do," is the odd comment. It is simply unclear what the FVists mean by "common operations of the Spirit." The non-elect members of the covenant do not receive any different inward working of the Spirit than those outside the covenant. The proof is the Pharisees.

The denial is pejorative. Outward membership in the covenant is not "pretend" and the decrees do not "trump" the covenant in the conventional sense. Thus, it's not clear what precisely the FVists are trying to say here.

We suspect something because of the comments of the FVists in other places in the statement, but we'll address those things in their proper places.

The Church We affirm that membership in the one true Christian Church is visible and objective, and is the possession of everyone who has been baptized in the triune name and who has not been excommunicated by a lawful disciplinary action of the Church. We affirm one holy, catholic and apostolic church, the house and family of God, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. In establishing the Church, God has fulfilled His promise to Abraham and established the Regeneration of all things. God has established this Regeneration through Christ—in Him we have the renewal of life in the fulness of life in the new age of the kingdom of God.
We deny that membership in the Christian Church in history is an infallible indicator or guarantee of final salvation. Those who are faithless to their baptismal obligations incur a stricter judgment because of it.

There are a number of oddities to this statement. The baptism need not be "lawful," but the disciplinary action must be. There is no room for post-excommunication reconciliation in the poorly-worded statement.

"The Regeneration of all things," is also a bit of an odd statement. It's not clear what the FVists mean by it, or how it connects with conventional regeneration. The "new age of the kingdom of God" seems to be based on a misunderstanding (possibly eschatological) about what the kingdom of God is. The kingdom of God is salvation from sins. There is a sense in which the New Testament era is a "new age," but it is not the primary "age" to which we look forward: that is heaven.

Those who apostatize after sitting under the preaching of the word, the sacraments, and so forth receive a greater punishment, because they were given more outward blessings.

Membership, however, in the one true Christian Church is invisible and spiritual. Union with visible church is necessarily union with unbelievers, because there are and will be unbelievers amidst the believers in the visible church.

The Visible and Invisible Church We affirm that there is only one true Church, and that this Church can legitimately be considered under various descriptions, including the aspects of visible and invisible. We further affirm that the visible Church is the true Church of Christ, and not an “approximate” Church.
We deny that such a distinction excludes other helpful distinctions, such as the historical church and eschatological church. The historical Church generally corresponds to the visible Church—all those who profess the true religion, together with their children—and the eschatological Church should be understood as the full number of God’s chosen as they will be seen on the day of resurrection.

This is a very odd way of expressing the matter. The visible church is an approximation of the invisible church. Thus, while the visible church is a church of Christ, it is only approximate to the true, spiritual church of Christ: the church redeemed by the blood of Christ.

Unless the FVists mean something non-traditional by "invisible church," then "invisible church" and "eschatalogical church" are one and the same thing. I suppose we might make one exception. That is to say, the eschatological church includes the elect that do not known exist, whereas - one might argue - the invisible church only (so far) includes the elect that exist and have been justified already.

Likewise, the historical church (unless the FVists are using the term "visible church" non-traditionally) is essentially equivalent to the visible church. Again, one exception may be permitted. That is to say, the historical church might be said to include those who have now died, and who died professing the faith, or as children of those professing the faith.

But the truly strange part of the statement is the assertion that there is "only one true Church" as the lead-in to the discussion. The one true Church is the Catholic, invisible church - which will be complete on the day of judgment.

Reformed Catholicity We affirm that justification is through faith in Jesus Christ, and not through works of the law, whether those works were revealed to us by God, or manufactured by man. Because we are justified through faith in Jesus alone, we believe that we have an obligation to be in fellowship with everyone that God has received into fellowship with Himself. We deny that correct formulations of the doctrine of sola fide can be substituted for genuine faith in Jesus, or that such correct formulations can be taken as infallible indicators of a true faith in Jesus.

The first sentence of this statement is orthodox. The second sentence is disjoint and borderline incoherent. It is disjoint because our manner of justification (to wit, by faith alone) does not directly relate to our duty of fellowship to the brethren. Thus, the "because" seems to be misplaced.

The statement is borderline incoherent, because we do not know the number of the elect: we do not know "everyone that God has received into fellowship with Himself." Thus, we cannot do as the FVists ask. Now, we may presume (from the context) that the FVists mean to suggest that all members of the visible church are those "that God has received into fellowship with Himself." Now, it is generally the case that we ought to have fellowship with the brethren, the members of the visible church. If that is all that the sentence means, then it conveys an orthodox sentiment.

The denial in this section is a rhetorical truism.
The Covenant of Life We affirm that Adam was in a covenant of life with the triune God in the Garden of Eden, in which arrangement Adam was required to obey God completely, from the heart. We hold further that all such obedience, had it occurred, would have been rendered from a heart of faith alone, in a spirit of loving trust. Adam was created to progress from immature glory to mature glory, but that glorification too would have been a gift of grace, received by faith alone. We deny that continuance in this covenant in the Garden was in any way a payment for work rendered. Adam could forfeit or demerit the gift of glorification by disobedience, but the gift or continued possession of that gift was not offered by God to Adam conditioned upon Adam’s moral exertions or achievements. In line with this, we affirm that until the expulsion from the Garden, Adam was free to eat from the tree of life. We deny that Adam had to earn or merit righteousness, life, glorification, or anything else.

The first two sentences of the statement are unobjectionable. The next sentence is clearly mistaken: "Adam was created to progress from immature glory to mature glory, but that glorification too would have been a gift of grace, received by faith alone." Adam was created to fall. That was always God's plan. If Adam had eaten of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, even after the fall. Thus, he was cast out of the garden, and the garden was guarded by an angel bearing a flaming sword.

The next sentence is just strange: "We deny that continuance in this covenant in the Garden was in any way a payment for work rendered." The covenant was: do this and live. Thus, the wage of obedience was life. Of course, perhaps the reference is not to mere life but to some completely speculative "glorification" that the FVists appear to have added into Scripture.

The following sentence is similarly strange: "Adam could forfeit or demerit the gift of glorification by disobedience, but the gift or continued possession of that gift was not offered by God to Adam conditioned upon Adam’s moral exertions or achievements." Again, the covenant was simple: do this and live. No gift of glorification is mentioned, nor was any such glorification planned (since God had decreed the fall). Adam's continued life in the garden was based on Adam's obedience via moral exertion/achievement.

The strangeness continues in the next sentence: "In line with this, we affirm that until the expulsion from the Garden, Adam was free to eat from the tree of life." Adam could have eaten from the tree of life at any time and lived forever. Before the fall, God permitted man to eat from that tree, if man liked. However, after the fall, God prevented many from eating from that tree.

The final sentence is erroneous: "We deny that Adam had to earn or merit righteousness, life, glorification, or anything else." Adam initially received life as a gift from God. Adam, however, was placed under the covenant of life, in which Adam had to obey in order to merit continued life. If Adam had obeyed the command not to eat the forbidden fruit, God would not have been just in punishing Adam with death.
The Sacrament of Baptism We affirm that God formally unites a person to Christ and to His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name, and that this baptism obligates such a one to lifelong covenant loyalty to the triune God, each baptized person repenting of his sins and trusting in Christ alone for his salvation. Baptism formally engrafts a person into the Church, which means that baptism is into the Regeneration, that time when the Son of Man sits upon His glorious throne (Matt. 19:28). We deny that baptism automatically guarantees that the baptized will share in the eschatological Church. We deny the common misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration—i.e. that an “effectual call” rebirth is automatically wrought in the one baptized. Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning. But we deny that trusting God's promise through baptism elevates baptism to a human work. God gives baptism as assurance of His grace to us personally, as our names are spoken when we are baptized.

The first few sentences of the section are orthodox. Then comes the sentence: "Baptism formally engrafts a person into the Church, which means that baptism is into the Regeneration, that time when the Son of Man sits upon His glorious throne (Matt. 19:28)." The first phrase of this sentence is accurate (if "the Church" is understood as the visible church). The explanation is bizarre. Baptism is a symbol of regeneration.

It's unclear what the FVists are trying to assert here. They speak of Regeneration as though it were an event in the life of Christ, but (oddly) not to Christ's resurrection (a regenerative event). Christ is now seated on the right hand of God the Father, but baptism is not "into" a time. The explanation is not really coherent.

Aside from the obviously FVist nomenclature employed (e.g. eschatological church), the paragraph of denials seems generally sound. There is one quite odd turn of phrase: "we deny that trusting ... elevates Baptism to a human work." Baptism is a human work. It is something a minister of the gospel performs, and a person (either a believer or a child of a believer) receives. I'm not sure how something being a human work "elevates" it in any sense. How can it be something less than a human work? It is not an accident.

The final statement is also odd: "God gives baptism as assurance of His grace to us personally, as our names are spoken when we are baptized." Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. There is no Biblical reason a person's name has to be spoken during the baptismal rite. Presbyterian churches name the person's name because that is in the book of church order, not because of a Scriptural requirement. Although it is traditional to name the person, the important name is the triune name of God. Furthermore, many people are baptized as infants, and consequently ought not to have "assurance of grace" (in the sense of assurance of saving grace) simply on account of being baptized. Of course, it is not even clear whether the FVists are speaking of saving grace, common grace, or some other category of grace of their own making.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper We affirm that by faithful use of the humble but glorious elements of bread and wine (remaining such), we are being grown up into a perfect unity with our Head, the Lord Jesus. Unless there has been lawful disciplinary action by the Church, we affirm that any baptized person, children included, should be welcome at the Table. We deny that the Supper is merely symbolic, but we also deny that any metaphysical changes are wrought in the bread or wine. We believe in the real presence of Christ with His people in the Supper, but we deny the local presence of Christ in the elements.
This section does not start out well. There is an eternal union between Christ and the elect. Furthermore, the forensic union between Christ and the elect occurs at justification. There is nothing imperfect about either of those unions. What believers grow in is in sanctification: in imitation of Christ.

This section also does not continue well: children who cannot discern the Lord's body ought not to be welcome at the Table. Likewise, those people who are rebels, outside any body of discipline ought not to be welcomed to the table. Furthermore, those who are members in good standing of bodies that notoriously do not exercise Godly discipline (or who are faultlessly not currently under Godly discipline) ought not to be unconditionally welcomed to the table. Ministers of the word have a duty to the fence the table.

The second paragraph is poorly worded, though it seems to be headed in the right direction. The sacrament is not merely symbolic, and yet the elements are physically unchanged (both as to their essence and substance). Christ is really, spiritually present. Christ's body, however, is in heaven. I don't think the FVists are trying to affirm (via denial) anything other than that.

Union with Christ and Imputation We affirm Christ is all in all for us, and that His perfect sinless life, His suffering on the cross, and His glorious resurrection are all credited to us. Christ is the new Adam, obeying God where the first Adam did not obey God. And Christ as the new Israel was baptized as the old Israel was, was tempted for 40 days as Israel was for 40 years, and as the greater Joshua He conquered the land of Canaan in the course of His ministry. This means that through Jesus, on our behalf, Israel has finally obeyed God and has been accepted by Him. We affirm not only that Christ is our full obedience, but also that through our union with Him we partake of the benefits of His death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and enthronement at the right hand of God the Father. We deny that faithfulness to the gospel message requires any particular doctrinal formulation of the “imputation of the active obedience of Christ.” What matters is that we confess that our salvation is all of Christ, and not from us.

The positive side of this section seems mostly correct. One error exists: Christ's resurrection is not credited to us. It was not act of Christ, but of the Father. The Father raised Christ.

The negative side of this section appears to be essentially aimed at anti-intellectualism. However, the cynical person might argue that this denial section is aimed adopting the errors of Norman Shepherd with respect to denial of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active obedience. (Compare this defense of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active imputation.) Indeed, sometimes Norman Shepherd is blamed for the FVist heresy (FVist leader James Jordan, for example, apparently studied under Norman Shepherd).

Law and Gospel We affirm that those in rebellion against God are condemned both by His law, which they disobey, and His gospel, which they also disobey. When they have been brought to the point of repentance by the Holy Spirit, we affirm that the gracious nature of all God’s words becomes evident to them. At the same time, we affirm that it is appropriate to speak of law and gospel as having a redemptive and historical thrust, with the time of the law being the old covenant era and the time of the gospel being the time when we enter our maturity as God’s people. We further affirm that those who are first coming to faith in Christ frequently experience the law as an adversary and the gospel as deliverance from that adversary, meaning that traditional evangelistic applications of law and gospel are certainly scriptural and appropriate.
We deny that law and gospel should be considered as a hermeneutics, or treated as such. We believe that any passage, whether indicative or imperative, can be heard by the faithful as good news, and that any passage, whether containing gospel promises or not, will be heard by the rebellious as intolerable demand. The fundamental division is not in the text, but rather in the human heart.

This is an interesting section. The key potential source of controversy is the statement: "We deny that law and gospel should be considered as a hermeneutics, or treated as such." Hermeneutic means:
HERMENEU'TICS, n. The art of finding the meaning of an author's words and phrases, and of explaining it to others. (source)

Paul pretty clearly explains that the law is a schoolmaster. It is hard to see how the law and the gospel could not be used in hermeneutics. Of course, what they may mean to say is something else, such as that the law and the gospel should not be used to rigidly carve up the text into verses in red highlighting (law verses) and blue highlighting (gospel verses) or the dispensational error of throwing out the Old Testament as "law" in favor of the New Testament "gospel." Who knows what they meant ... they don't manage to communicate themselves clearly.

The phrase, "The fundamental division is not in the text, but rather in the human heart," is a nice sentiment, but doesn't really convey any useful information. We assume the FVists do not mean that the law/gospel distinction is entirely subjective, although that is one possible understanding of this phrase. If they did mean that, then we would reject it as erroneous.

Justification by Faith Alone We affirm we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone. Faith alone is the hand which is given to us by God so that we may receive the offered grace of God. Justification is God’s forensic declaration that we are counted as righteous, with our sins forgiven, for the sake of Jesus Christ alone.
We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of faith which God gives, which is to say, a living, active and personally loyal faith. Justifying faith encompasses the elements of assent, knowledge, and living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer. We deny that faith is ever alone, even at the moment of the effectual call.

The first sentence is clearly orthodox. The second sentence is generally orthodox, and appears to be borrowed from Cyril Lucar or a similar theologian (ironically, the "faith is a hand" metaphor is not a Biblical metaphor). The third sentence is also clearly orthodox.
The remaining sentences are mostly orthodox. The idea that "faith is [not] ever alone, even at the moment of the effectual call" is a bit odd. It is not necessarily the case that at that moment there will already be works to testify to the faith, which is the normal sense in which we speak of faith that is not alone. Nevertheless, since the effectual call is a work of the Spirit, therefore, inherently faith at the time of the effectual call is not alone, in the sense that it is accompanied by God's grace.

Assurance of Salvation We affirm that those who have been justified by God’s grace through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ are saved to the uttermost and will spend eternity with Christ and his saints in glory forever. We affirm also that though salvation is granted through the instrument of faith alone, those who have been justified will live progressively more and more sanctified lives until they go to be with God. Those believers for whom this is true look to Christ for their assurance—in the Word, in the sacraments, in their fellow believers, and in their own participation in that life by faith.
We deny that anyone who claims to have faith but who lives in open rebellion against God and against his Christ has any reason to believe that he will be saved on the last day.

This section appears to be generally orthodox.

Apostasy We affirm that apostasy is a terrifying reality for many baptized Christians. All who are baptized into the triune Name are united with Christ in His covenantal life, and so those who fall from that position of grace are indeed falling from grace. The branches that are cut away from Christ are genuinely cut away from someone, cut out of a living covenant body. The connection that an apostate has to Christ is not merely external.
We deny that any person who is chosen by God for final salvation before the foundation of the world can fall away and be finally lost. The decretally elect cannot apostatize.

This statement is erroneous and objectionable for several reasons:

A) "Final Salvation"

Salvation is binary. There are different kinds of salvation to be sure, but salvation from hell is an either/or proposition. Christ saves "to the uttermost" not just for a time. To distinguish the salvation of one's soul into "final" and "something else" is to confuse salvation. Salvation is deliverance. There remains no condemnation to anyone who is justified, who has put on Christ's righteousness.

B) "The connection that an apostate has to Christ is not merely external."

1) Yes, it is merely external. The church is an external body. Union with the body of Christ via baptism provides external union: baptism of the Spirit (regeneration) is necessary for more than merely external union. They went out from us, because they were not of us. The apostate were only ever part of Christ outwardly and formally, not inwardly and really. Thus, apostacy is demonstration of a lack of real union with Christ.

2) Additionally, the verb tense is surely wrong. It should state "had."

In other words, surely the writers of the FV JS made a typographic error in stating that apostates presently have a connection to Christ. Even according only to the remainder of the paragraph, it should be clear that the connection that they had was cut off.

C) "Indeed falling from grace"

This terminology "fallen from grace" appears to be taken from:

Galatians 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

There it is used to convey the effect that those who seek justification from works are out of God's favor (grace), and Christ is of no use to such a person:

Galatians 5:2-3
2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

It seems, however, that the FVists have misunderstood Galatians 5:4 as suggesting some sort of fall from a state of saving (or perhaps prevenient?) grace.

D) "Apostasy is a terrifying reality for many baptized Christians"

The term "baptized Christians" is one loaded with potential for error. A Christian is one that is one inwardly, and the baptism that matters is of the heart. Apostasy may be a legitimate concern for a weak Christian struggling with sin, but it is not a "terrifying reality." Christians (true Christians) do not apostatize, and just because someone is baptized does not make him a Christian.

The present author has been enjoying Hoeksema's "Righteous by Faith Alone" (link). His commentary on Romans 2 applies marvellously to defeat the FV error with respect to the effect of baptism.

To paraphrase Romans 2:

Romans 2:26-29 (modified to substitute baptism for circumcision)
26Therefore if the [unbaptized man] keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his [lack of baptism] be counted for [baptism]? 27And shall not [lack of baptism] which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and [baptism] dost transgress the law? 28For he is not a [Christian], which is one outwardly; neither is that [baptism], which is outward in the flesh: 29But he is a [Christian], which is one inwardly; and [baptism] is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant. My Baptist brethren err by denying that sign to unregenerate children of believers, while my FV brethren err by asserting that the sign ipse actually provides grace to the children (though whether that is alleged to be the grace of regeneration, I cannot discern from the FV's joint statement).

(see my original post on this particular section - here)

Some Points of Intramural Disagreement The “Federal Vision” is not a monolithic movement. It has been variously described as a conversation, a broad school of thought, a series of similar questions, and so on. As the statements above would indicate, there are a number of common themes held by those who signed this statement.
But there are also important areas of disagreement or ongoing discussion among those who are identified as “Federal Vision” advocates. Some of these areas would include, but not be limited to whether or not the imputation of the active obedience of Christ (as traditionally understood) is to be affirmed in its classic form. Some of us affirm this and some do not. Another difference is whether or not personal regeneration represents a change of nature in the person so regenerated. Some of us say yes while others question whether we actually have such an “essence” that can be changed. All of us would affirm that we should have a high view of covenant renewal liturgy, but this does not necessarily mean that we all agree on how “high” the liturgy should actually be. Some of us are comfortable using the language of justification to describe the “deliverdict” of the last day, while others would prefer to describe it in other ways. That said, we are all agreed that no one is justified at any time because they personally have earned or merited anything. Some of us robustly affirm Christ's unique merit in His person and work as the answer to our demerit. Others think there are better words to describe the value and worthiness of Christ's sacrifice without recourse to the term "merit" because it is not biblical language and its use in the history of the church and currently shows that it can cause confusion.
Any doctrine mentioned in the sections before this one can be fairly represented as part of the Federal Vision. Issues in this last section cannot be fairly represented as the view of the whole. Our prayer is that this statement will help to bring clarity to a subject that been confused because of the noise of controversy. “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace . . .” (Eph. 4:3).

The last line is the most offensive aspect of the document, precisely because the FV movement is not endeavoring to keep unity, but is actually dividing.

Leaving that aside, the disclaimer is useful. Some FVists are further from the truth than others. Having this statement, as poorly worded and - in places - as vague as it is, is helpful. It helps to provide a basis to decide whether something is or is not "Federal Vision" per se. It also makes it possible to identify some of the critical errors in FVism, although we suspect that there may still be FV distinctives lurking behind the statement.

For those concerned about the accuracy of the quotations from the statement, here's a link (link to fvstatement (pdf)). The men who signed this statement were originally:

John Barach (minister, CREC)
Randy Booth (minister, CREC)
Tim Gallant (minister, CREC)
Rich Lusk (minister, CREC)
Ralph Smith (minister, CREC)
Douglas Wilson (minister, CREC)
Jim Jordan (member CREC)
Peter Leithart (minister, PCA - serving in a CREC church now)(Pacific Northwest Presbytery)
Steve Wilkins (minister, was PCA when he signed, now CREC)
Mark Horne (minister, PCA) (Missouri Presbytery)
Jeff Meyers (minister, PCA) (Missouri Presbytery)

One really wonders whether the PCA will turn next to the Missouri Presbytery to address Ministers Horne and Meyers. The Missouri Presbytery's report seems generally sound, but it does not seem to really address the Federal Vision problem, or the issues identified above (here is a link to the MO Presbytery report on Federal Vision in (pdf)).

-Turretinfan