Calvinist Free Will at Work

This interesting video, which I found thanks to the JollyBlogger, provides an excellent illustration of the fact that man's will chooses according to reasons, which call "causes."

We would not say that the men in this video were forced to choose the advertising scheme they selected, nevertheless, their choices were clearly not free in a "Libertarian Free Will" sense, but rather in a Calvinist sense.

Enjoy!

Vengeance Belongs to Our God

As my friend TheoJunkie points out, (link), vengeance belongs to our God. That's why, even though we may view the pope as a leading enemy of the gospel, nevertheless we do not threaten his life, or encourage others to do so.

There is, of course, no more precarious state than to be an open enemy of the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.. The Bible states:
Matthew 18:6-7
6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 7Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Luke 17:1-2
1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! 2It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

-TurretinFan

Turretin Resources

I recently came across an interesting, French-language web site called Calvinisme, that has some helpful resources.

(link to index page for Turretin)

Gerrit Keizer biography of Turretin, "François Turrettini, Sa Vie et Ses Oeuvres, et la Consensus"

Sermon 1 by Turretin, "Le Bonheur du Peuple de Dieu"

Sermon 111 by Turretin, "Le Réveil et la Résurrection du Pécheur"

I hope that perhaps the owner of the web site may scan some additional sermons of Turretin into PDF form, so that the world may benefit.

-Turretinfan

Passage of Laurus

Archbishop Laurus, who was (until his death) the head of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, has passed from life to death. I did not know the man, nor whether he had faith in Christ alone for salvation. May God bless the flock he left behind, with greater knowledge of the truth, and with salvation if they are trusting in something other than Christ alone for salvation. (link)

Objections Regarding Original Sin Answered

An anonymous poster provided some comments regarding this earlier post on the natural depravity of children (link). The comments by the anonymous commenter are in italics, with all the typos being as submitted.

"I think some thoughts are being omitted from your interpretation of Psalms 58. First off, they go astray after they are born. They were not born lost."

No. They are already estranged in the womb, and they stray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

"Secondly the whole point of the Psalm, describing the eickedness of certain people, is to contrast them with the righteous, those that did not stray but remained faithful. They will be avenged when God judges men according to their deeds (Matt 12:36-37, Rom 2:6, 2 Cor 5:10, Rev 20:12, 1 Peter 1:17). "

The whole point of the of the Psalm is actually to call for judgment on the wicked. The "righteous" (as such) is not even mentioned until the next-to-last verse. There's nothing about a comparison between the righteous and wicked. In short, your claim about the verse is plainly incorrect. The righteous (singular) may even here be a reference to Christ. Regardless of whether it is Christ himself, or someone to whom Christ's rigteousness has been imputed, the string citation of other passages doesn't solve the anonymous commenter's problem.

"Ezek 18:1-4 The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? “As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel. “Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die.

Ez 18:14-17 “If, however, he begets a son who sees all the sins which his father has done, and considers but does not do likewise ... but has executed My judgments and walked in My statutes— He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; He shall surely live!"

This appears as if no matter how evil the father is, the son does not bear the iniquity of the father. Adam's sons would not bear the quilt of their fathers. "

They would not bear the guilt of their fathers IF they repent of their fathers' sins. The error that the prophet is correcting is the sense of hopelessness. There is hope for those who repent, regardless both of their own prior sins and the sins of their fathers. That is the gospel message: Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. It was the same message preached by Ezekiel, and it is the same message we preach.

"Ezek 18:19-20 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

Presumably this is intended to be grouped with the Ezekiel passages above. It is already answered.

"The gospel requires action a baby can't do:
"Unless you repent you will perish": Lk 13:3
"Repent and be baptized ... for forgiveness of sins": Acts 2:38
"Work out our own salvation": Phil 2:12"

The gospel requires repentance from sin and faith in Christ. That faith and repentance is evidenced in baptism, confession of the Lord (not listed above), and progressive sanctification. That a child can have faith in Christ seems to appear from John the Baptists miraculous reaction to the voice of Mary, the greatly blessed mother of our Lord.

"Man is capable of making choices himself:
- Gentiles do by nature the good things of the law: Rom 2:14-16
- Cornelius was devout, feared God, righteous, Acts 10:1-4, 22 yet unsaved: 11:14
- Man has a freewill and can choose to do good or evil: Josh 24:15 "Choose this day...""

Doing those things "by nature" refers to the light of nature, not to the nature of the Gentiles. The obedience of the Gentiles is still not righteousness, because it is not motivated by love for God.

Cornelius was already a worshiper of Jehovah. He simply had not yet heard that the Messiah had come. Like others in a similar position, when he heard of Christ, he (and all his house) believed on him immediately. This is dramatically different from the Jews who had an outward show of worshiping God, but who did not believe on Christ.

Man certainly does have a "free will," in the sense that he makes decisions and moral choices. The choice by Israel to serve God (mentioned in Joshua 24:15) was a moral choice. The fact that men do make choices, and that some of those decisions are free, does not mean that they are free in the sense required by Arminian, Molinist, or Open Theist interpreters.

"God said that the king of Tyrus was "blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." (Ezek 28:15) This would not be possible if he was born in sin. "

One might think that. Nevertheless:

a) That verse is frequently referred to Satan, who was created innocent and fell.
b) If that verse refers to man who was the king of Tyrus, it also says (in the immediately preceding verse): "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire." If that doesn't clue you in to the fact that the verse is speaking poetically (assuming it is speaking of a mere man), then I'm not sure what would. The use of "blameless" or "perfect" as relative terms in the Old Testament is not rare.

"Sin is committed by individually breaking God's law. (1 Jn 3:4) Infants have done nothing. Isa 59:1-2, "Your sins have separated you from your God", not Adams. In Exodus 32:31­33 this passage, Moses wanted to receive the punishment for someone else's sin. In verse 33, the one who sinned is removed from the book, not the one whose parents have sinned."

a) All mankind (and the whole creation) is punished for Adam's sin.
b) God visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto multiple generations of those that hate Him.
c) Infants are themselves sometimes punished for the sins of their father, recall the death of David's first son by Bathsheba.

"Newborns do not know the difference between good and evil. God allowed the children to enter Canaan but not the parents: "your little ones who...have no knowledge of good and evil shall enter". (Deut 1:34-39)"

Newborns don't have a developed understanding of the moral law. I don't think many people would suggest otherwise.

-TurretinFan

Premature Exultation - Semi-Augustinianism

David Waltz seems excited by a quotation from R.C. Sproul regarding labeling Roman Catholic doctrine.

Waltz writes: "The fact that the Catholic Church maintains that it is impossible to accept the gospel without grace (gratia praeveniens), this separates Her teaching from “all forms of semi-Pelagianism”; instead, embracing “moderate-Augustinianism, or of what might be called Semi-Augustinianism, in distinction from Semi-Pelagianism.”" (first quotation is from Sproul, second quotation is from Schaff, and the emphasis was provided by Waltz) (source)

Waltz's exultation at being distinguished from "all forms of semi-Pelagianism," is a bit premature. You see, Sproul - like the others we've examined (link) (link) - is careful to distinguish between Augustine's correct position and Rome's incorrect position - although I do not think that Sproul was necessarily thinking of Rome in the discussion he was conducting.

What one wishes to call the position is the wrapper: Semi-Augustinian with Sproul or Schaff (in his narrowest sense, see here, for example); Semi-Semi-Pelagian with Warfield; or Semi-Pelagian with Schaff (in the broadest sense in which he uses the term). The content inside the wrapper is the problem: the erroneous position of Rome. It's not wrong because it disagrees with Augustine, of course. It's not wrong because it leans toward Peliagius, either. It's wrong because it disagrees with Scripture, as noted here (link).

-TurretinFan

The Real Turretin on: the Fall

The Reformed Reader has some very brief excerpts from the real Turretin on the faith of Adam before compared to after the Fall (link).

-Turretinfan

In Praise of Slavery and Piracy

Joseph's brethren famously sold Joseph into slavery:

Genesis 37:28 Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.

Later Joseph explained that this was intended as evil by the brothers of Joseph, but was intended by God for good.

Genesis 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

It's not the only time God has used slavery to achieve His ends for the good of a nation.

Around the turn of the 5th century, a man named Maewyn Succat was taken prisoner by Irish raiders: pirates/slavers. God worked in this providence to make of that man a missionary to the Irish nation, leading ultimately to the Christianizing of the island of Ireland.

God's Providence is mysterious. It is said that Mawyn, or Patrick as he came to be called, believed that his enslavement was a punishment for a particular sin that he had committed. Perhaps, in part, that was true. But in hindsight, God's greater purpose in the event was to save Irish souls by the voice of a Welsh preacher.

There are still today many Irish souls in need of salvation, and there are no more Irish pirates to import Christian slaves. In some ways, the Irish condition today is more dangeous now than it was then, for there are many lost who call themselves Christians, whereas then there were few if any. Any modern-day Patrick has an enormous challenge, to shed the light of the gospel in place that thinks it knows what Christianity is, and yet is trusting not in Christ alone for salvation, but in some human system.

While much of Ireland, and much of America as well, celebrates the day with drinking large quantities of green beer, perphaps a sober prayer to God for renewed missionaries to the Irish people is in order. Whether they are brought as slaves (which seems doubtful), or however God chooses to send them, let us be eager that God's flock be gathered unto Him.

May God's will be done on earth, as it is in heaven,

-TurretinFan

The Real Turretin on: The Covenant at Sinai

The Reformed Reader provides some helpful comments from the real Turretin on the covenant given at Sinai, which was actually a new administration of the one and only covenant of grace (link).

The Real Turretin on: Saving Grace

Standing Solus Christus has provided another transcription from the writings of the real Turretin, this time on saving grace: a grace that operates monergistically to save man, including man's free will. (link)

Misleading Information from "Calvin and Calvinism"

I was disappointed to see more misleading information appear over at "Calvin and Calvinism," this time on Hodge.

Hodge was a firm believer in 5 point Calvinism. This web page (link - not recommended in any way, shape, or form) tries to present a slightly different view. The problem seems to be that the person posting the article is unable to grasp the relevant theological terminology, and is unwilling to accept correction of his ignorance from actual Calvinists.

For example, the page states:

With Hodge, there are essentially three questions to be asked with reference to the nature and extent of the death of Christ:
I) Q. For whom did Christ engage as surety in order to effectually save?A. The elect
alone.
II) Q. For whom did Christ die?A. For all men generally, but for the elect especially.
III) Q. For whose sins did Christ suffer and bear punishment?A. Christ suffered and bore the punishment for the sins due to every man, that is all men, even the sins of the whole world.

This is - at best - misleading. I should note that the post author goes on in a comment to claim, "To me it would be true if I tried only to represent C Hodge as affirming unlimited sin-bearing. But I have not. I have included samples from the other side of the coin too." (Interestingly, the post author claims to have done the same thing in his recent post of selections from Calvin.)

Nevertheless, what Hodge has to say about the matter has already been previously identified by this blog, and it is opposed to the post-author's quasi-Amyraldian position (link to Hodge on Atonement).

Let's look, though, at the questions:

1. For whom did Christ engage as surety in order to effectually save?

Here the author gives the correct answer: the elect.

2. For whom did Christ die?

Here the author gives the wrong answer, or - at least - a misleading answer. Hodge does sometimes speak about Christ's death in a universal sense - but he does so as as to the nature and sufficiency of Christ's death: enough for or sufficient for all mankind.

3. For whose sins did Christ suffer and bear punishment?

Again, the author gives the wrong answer, or - at least - a misleading answer. Hodge does sometimes speak about Christ's death in relation to sins generally: but he does so as to propriety. Christ's suffering and death was an appropriate punishment for all the sins of mankind. Christ's death was suitable universally.

These are really not an excusable mistakes, because the author, one David Ponter, has been previously placed on notice regarding Hodge's plain teachings regarding the extent of Christ's work. Hodge is unambiguous in affirming the normal Calvinistic position, that Christ died for the elect alone. There are certainly incidental benefits (if we may call them such) to the non-elect, but Christ did not atone for their sins. Had he done so, they would be saved.

There are certainly isolated quotations from Hodge that might sound to the contrary, and someone who has an "unlimited atonement" ax to grind can find those isolated quotations. The problem is, at the end of the day, that's not what Hodge held, and that's not - even more importantly - what Scripture teaches.

Hopefully, soon (which may mean several or many months), I will provide something from Turretin that will address these and other errors. As Ponter knows, Turretin was opposed to the Limited/Unlimited view (see here) and (compare here).

May the Savior of all men and especially the elect be praised,

-Turretinfan

Calvinistic Prayer and Combined Bets

I enjoy reading philosophical articles, and this one (link) about combining bets happened to crosspolinate with some thoughts I had been having regarding prayer. There are certainly differences, but there are some interesting similarities.

You see, before something occurs, we - like David when his son was dying - may pray passionately for a particular outcome to occur. Nevertheless, after the event, we accept God's Providence as being for the best, despite the fact that it may that our prayers were answered (as David's was) in the negative.

One nice thing about Calvinist prayers is that we qualify our prayers (either explicitly, or - oftentimes - implicitly) as being "if it by Thy will." In other words, we do not pray for a particular outcome in the abstract. Furthermore, trusting in God, we are cognizant that the outcome God selects is the best outcome.

In a sense, therefore, we combine our bets. In the combining bets example, a person is given favorable odds of an event happening and favorable odds that it doesn't from another guy. In such a situation, the "rational" choice is to take both bets (leaving other factors out of the equation), because you are sure to lose one, and sure to win the other one, yielding you a net gain. Professional gamblers look for these sorts of situations, and leap on them, which is why one does not normally see bookmakers with dramatically different odds from one another.

A Calvinists prayer is somewhat similar: we are guaranteed a win. The professional gambler may have a favorite dog in the race, but he realizes that by combining his bets, he's assured himself of a good outcome. Likewise, by properly submitting ourselves and our perceptions to God's sovereignty, we are assured of a good outcome.

You prayed that your dog would live, and yet God took him? You are still a winner, for God works all things together for the good of the elect. If you trust in Him, you are a winner, even when you are a loser. With immense faith evidencing enormous grace from God, you can even submit to God's will to the extent that Job did, such that when:

- your enormous riches are reduced to ruin;
- your body is smitten with a horribly irritating and painful disease;
- your children all die at once; and
- your wife turns against God,

You can incredibly recognize that it is for the best, and praise God saying, the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away, blessed be the Name of the Lord!

As with the combined bet, we don't need to know what the outcome of our prayer will be, to pray in faith, nothing wavering, because we pray that God's will will be done, while expressing our ofttimes-passionate preference for a particular outcome.

Blessed indeed be His name, whether He gives riches or poverty,

-Turretinfan

Book Sale - Lane's Blog

Lane Chaplin is selling some of his book collection, as highlighted at his own blog here (link). It looks like a chance for someone looking to flesh out their paper library to sieze the day.

-Turretinfan

Discussion on Justification

I stumbled across this interesting sampler on Justification, including a citationless quotation allegedly from the real Francis Turretin (link). I couldn't deduce from the post whether it was a Vox Populi original amalgamation, or whether it was a repost of something Steve Camp made.

-Turretinfan

Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and Semi-semi-Pelagianism

B. B. Warfield described the infiltration of Pelagian error in partial form this way:

But, as we have been told that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, so the Church soon found that religion itself can be retained only at the cost of perpetual struggle. Pelagianism died hard; or rather it did not die at all, but only retired more or less out of sight and bided its time; meanwhile vexing the Church with modified forms of itself, modified just enough to escape the letter of the Church's condemnation. Into the place of Pelagianism there stepped at once Semi-pelagianism; and when the controversy with Semi-pelagianism had been fought and won, into the place of Semi-pelagianism there stepped that semi-semi-pelagianism which the Council of Orange betrayed the Church into, the genius of an Aquinas systematized for her, and the Council of Trent finally fastened with rivets of iron upon that portion of the Church which obeyed it. The necessity of grace had been acknowledged as the result of the Pelagian controversy: its preveniency, as the result of the Semi-pelagian controversy: but its certain efficacy, its "irresistibility" men call it, was by the fatal compromise of Orange denied, and thus the conquering march of Augustinianism was checked and the pure confession of salvation by grace alone made forever impossible within that section of the Church whose proud boast is that it is semper eadem. It was no longer legally possible, indeed, within the limits of the Church to ascribe to man, with the Pelagian, the whole of salvation; nor even, with the Semi-pelagian, the initiation of salvation. But neither was it any longer legally possible to ascribe salvation so entirely to the grace of God that it could complete itself without the aid of the discredited human will—its aid only as empowered and moved by prevenient grace indeed, but not effectually moved, so that it could not hold back and defeat the operations of saving grace.

The Plan of Salvation, Autosoterism, pp. 41-42

(source)

In a previous post, I provided a broad and reasonable definition of Semi-pelagianism from someone who cannot be considered an historical slouch. Nevertheless, in fairness to those who would prefer to define things a bit differently, I provide this alternative explanation. Under this explanation, obviously, the error described in this earlier post as "semi-Pelagian" would be described by Warfield as semi-semi-Pelagian. However, as I mentioned in that post, the point was not the label.

To summarize, in the set of definitions by Warfield:

Pelagianism Denies:

1. The sufficiency of grace;
2. The necessity of initial grace; and
3. The general necessity of grace.

Semi-Pelagianism Denies:

1. The sufficiency of grace; and
2. The necessity of initial grace.

Semi-semi-Pelagianism Denies:

1. The sufficiency of grace.

In contrast,

We (the Reformed) view each of these positions as deficient. By affirming sola gratia, we affirm the general necessity of grace, the necessity of initial grace, and the sufficiency of grace.

-TurretinFan

P.S. For more on the broader definition of Synergism generally as a species of Semi-Pelagianism broadly defined, see here: (link).

Eutychian Errata, thanks to Waltz's Rejoinder

Please note, this post has a high chance of getting date bumped into oblivion, because it is not a high priority.

David Waltz has responded to my previous post via his own blog.

He alleges two errors:

Error #1 – Alexandria was in full control of the Fatimids, NOT the Sunnis, during the period that Eutychius was Patriarch.

Quite right. That was my mistake. I have updated the original post to correct that error.

Error #2 – “your position” has NOTHING to do at all with the Nicene period that Eutychius was commenting on. He was merely supplying historical information on some of the diverse sects that attended the council. (Nice try though.)

This sword has two edges, if it has nothing to do with my position, the question everyone should be asking is: "why did you bring it up?" But I gladly agree that it has very little do with my position. I don't think I claimed it does have much to do with the position I presented, and on reviewing my original post, I don't see any contrary evidence.

Speaking of evidence, I gather that we will not be seeing any further or supporting evidence for the supposed existence of FSM-trinitarians at the time of Mohamed, to provide an excuse for Muslim scholars who do not wish to admit that their prophet erred, and that the Koran is not inspired.

-Turretinfan

Were there ever FSM-Trinitarians?

In a previous post, we have demonstrated that Surah 5 of the Koran was directed at Christianity (and Judaism) generally, but with some errors regarding the discussion of the Trinity.


Some folks (most Muslim, but now one Roman Catholic) would like to imagine that Mohamed was not addressing Christianity, but rather some sect that held to a Trinity of Allah, Jesus, and Mary, which we refer to (for convenience) as FSM-trinitarianism.

Leaving aside the internal evidence of Surah 5 (which defeats that argument), there is a dearth of external evidence to substantiate the existence of such a sect.


David Waltz, the Roman Catholic mentioned above, quoted the following:


"The three gods in the Koran (c. 4, p. 81, c. 5, p. 92) are obviously directed against our Catholic mystery: but the Arabic commentators understand them of the Father, the Son, and the Virgin Mary, an heretical Trinity, maintained, as it is said, by some Barbarians at the Council of Nice, (Eutych. Annal. tom. i. p. 440.) But the existence of the Marianites is denied by the candid Beausobre, (Hist. de Manicheisme, tom. i. p. 532;) and he derives the mistake from the word Roxah, the Holy Ghost, which in some Oriental tongues is of the feminine gender, and is figuratively styled the mother of Christ in the Gospel of the Nazarenes." (Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. 50, The Modern Library edition (n.d.), pp. 81, 82.)

Before we get to the rest of the analysis, it's important to note:

1. That Gibbon, the historian providing the discussion, confirms the opinion set forth in my previous post, namely that Mohamed is attempting to interact with the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, he goes so far as to say that it is obvious.

2. Gibbon notes that there is a dissent by the "Arabic commentators," and identifies their source, but does not endorse that dissent.

3. Gibbon, in fact, cites evidence that undermines the dissent, and provides an explanation as to how Mohamed may have been confused by feminine reference to the Holy Ghost.

Incidentally, one can read the matter in context here: (link).

David wrote:


Until I read the above, I had never heard of attendees of the Councial of Nicea maintaining of a view of the Trinity that consisted of “the Father, the Son, and the Virgin Mary”. (any errors in original)

That's not surprising of course. Gibbon mentions such evidence, but dismisses it. It's interesting to note what David seems to observe and what he seems to overlook. Nevertheless, while we could simply dismiss the matter with Gibbon, let's dig deeper into the matter.

David continued:


"Gibbon’s reference is to Eutychius’ (10th century Patriarch of Alexandria, and noted historian) Annals. This work is found in volume 111 of Migne’s Patrologiæ Græca, a volume, which until this morning, I did not have access to. I wanted to check Migne’s before mentioning Gibbon. " (any errors in original)

Eutychius was a 10th century Melkite Patriarch in Alexandria. He reigned in the Coptic church in Egypt during a time when he was surrounded by the ruling majority of Fatamid Muslims. To maintain the position I presented on the previous page would have been dangerous to his health. As an interesting aside, he was also a Young Earth Creationist (placing Creation 5,500 years years before Christ).

There are several salient facts:

1) Eutychius lived more than 500 years after the council of Nicea.

2) Eutychius did not cite any evidence to support his claim, or explain in any way how he obtained this supposed information regarding Nicean attendees.

3) Eutychius' claim was only that there were some who showed up at the Nicean council with such views. Eutychius, for example, did not even claim that they left with those views. Furthermore, Eutychius does not suggest that these folks left spiritual descendants that survived for centuries until the time of Mohamed.

4) Eutychius is criticized for his weakness as an historian, by historians such as E. W. Kemp and C. Wilfrid Griggs (adopting Kemp's position) (link). Likewise David Cook indicated (and Gary W. Kronk adopted) that the Annales are "riddled with errors." (link) See also, for similar comments (Philip Rousseau) (William Smith et al.) (William Scott et al.) (cf. response of Eutychian supporter)


Dave continued by providing a quotation:

Here is the quote from Migne’s: Mittens ergo Constantius rex in omnes passim regiones, patriarchas et episcopos convocavit, adeo ut post annum et duos menses Niceæ convenirent his mille quadraginta octo episcopi, sententiis et religionibus inter se discrepantes. Erant ex illia qui affirmarent Christum et Matrem ipsius duos esse deus præter Deuni [summon :] errant hi Barbari, et Marianitæ audierunt. (Patrologiæ Græca, Tomus CXI, col. 1005, sec. 439-440.) (errors in Waltz's transcription are his own)

The correct quotation in key part is actually, "Erant ex illia qui affirmarent Christum et Matrem ipsius duos esse deos praeter Deum [summum:] erant hi Barbari, et Marianitae audierunt." which being roughly translated is: "There were among them those that affirmed Christ and his Mother to be two gods besides God [the most high:] there were here Barbarians and Marianites heard."

Furthermore, of course, this is only the Latin translation of what was presumably an Arabic original.

The full page can be read here (right hand column, clustered around the 440). A partial reproduction is shown below, click to expand the image for easier reading.


David concluded: "So, as you can now see for yourself, we now have Christian source for the existence of at least two Christian groups/sects that held to FSM (God [the Father], Christ, and Mother "in one"), backing up the testimony from the Qur'an."

a) Leaving aside the question of the interaction between the Melkites and the Copts (on the one hand) and the Muslims (on the other hand), the fact that Eutychius was not Muslim is not very strong evidence against bias.
b) Eutychius suggests that the group came to Nicea, but does not call them Christians: in fact, he calls them Barbarians and Marianites.
c) Eutychius' comment "Barbarians and Marianites" should probably be understood as heaped insults, rather than as a listing of two separate groups that held the same thing.

Conclusion

This is the best evidence that has been presented to try to rescue Mohamed's claim about FSM Trinitarians, but it is more or less strawy. It's a single witness who comes half a millenium after the alleged event took place. Furthermore, it's an event that predates Mohamed's claim by two centuries. Moreover, it is an event that is not described as having any geographical proximity to Mecca/Medina or even Arabia. It is an event alleged by a man living among Muslims. It is an event for which the man does not cite his sources. It is an event that is included in a book that has been repeatedly criticized for historical mistakes. It is an event that has (so far) only been conveyed to us in a Latin translation of an Arabic original.

In short, we can easily overcome the best evidence to support the existence of FSM-trinitarians, which was presented in order to provide an out for Mohamed under a hypothesis that Mohamed was (in some parts of Surah 5) addressing an heretical sect that has since disappeared. In short, the previously presented theory that Mohamed simply did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity has survived the challenge, and we may continue to safely assume that there were no FSM-trinitarians running around at the time Mohamed lived.

UPDATE: corrected Sunni to Fatamid, above, thanks to David Waltz.

This is Catholic Internet Apologetics and a Reasonable Response thereto

GNRHead posted a two-part diatribe broadsiding Dr. White with a significant number of accusations, even taking time to wave his finger at the camera and insist that Dr. White should be ashamed of himself.

Dr. White posted the video that I have embedded below that makes short work of the bulk of GNRHead's argument. There is certainly more that could be said, and there are unaswered (though not unanswerable) allegations.

The main point, though, is a good one. It is important for apologists to have a reasonably broad knowledge of church history, because there are all sorts of absurd claims that float about on the Internet.

Here is the video:



I hope you enjoy.

Sola Deo Gloria,

-TurretinFan

From the Complutensian Polyglot

Biblical Institution of Patriarchy - Objections Answered

In response to an earlier post on the Biblical institution of the patriarchy, Ken asks (in comments here):

1) How does a Christian respond to the claim that such bible passages are sexist? That word is so full of loaded meaning that trying to defend against its imputation is like saying you support Neo-Nazis.

Of course, that's just a label. It is a pejorative label, but the question we need to ask is why the person considers it sexist. Is it simply because it treats the sexes differently? Usually the answer is vapid. The answer is that the label was applied simply because the issue was sex-related, and the opinion was contrary to the opinion of the name-caller.

2) What is the ideal way to respond to a professed liberal Christian who would say that they have a deep personal faith but disdain to honestly interact with passages like these (that challenge modern and post-modern sentiments)?

Q1: A deep personal in faith in whom or what? The answer typically is Jesus/God.
Q2: Do you realize that Scripture is the word of God? The answer is usually yes.
Q3: Do you love Jesus/God? It's hard to find one who will say "no" at this point.
Q4: So, do you care what this person you love has to say? Naturally, they must affirm or we are back to Q3 and perhaps Q2 or Q1.
Q5: Here's what He says here ... do you agree with what is written?

and so forth.

The problem is, they usually try to change the subject as one is walking through. They would rather their faith be "personal" or perhaps they don't want to hear "preaching," or something like that.

-Turretinfan

N.B. Note that Ken is not objecting to the matter, he's just pointing out an objection we sometimes hear.