View from the Mountain Crag

The air was clear, and I could hear the bleating of sheep beneath me. On this particular day, I had sought solace for my reading on the crag of a mountain, high enough up the side that I could enjoy a cool mountain breeze. Since it was the south face of the mountain, there was also plenty of light for my reading, and stretching out below me was a burbling brook fed (I suppose) by a mountain spring or by the melting of snow from cap of the mountain towering behind me.

I had climbed to this perch, and figured no one would interrupt my scholastic pursuits, but the air's clarity had an unexpected side effect. I could hear not only the birds chirping, but also the words of the shepherds tending their flocks of sheep on a plateau below me.

How or why they brought their flocks up to that mountain plateau, I will never know. Perhaps it was the clarity of the water, perhaps it was the greenness of the plateau pasture, or perhaps it was the convenience of a mountain-side cave into which they could herd their flocks at night. Whatever the cause, my outpost gave me a full view both of the shepherds and their flocks.

I could hear the mother sheep calling to their lambs, and the lambs bleating back. But amidst the sheep, I could hear the shepherds talking: sometimes to themselves, sometimes to each other, but often to the sheep.

In fact, it was the call "Here sheep!" (in the shepherd's native tongue) that first caught my ear. What a marvelous sight it was to see. For what appeared to be a single mass of sheep coming from the distance shortly split into the two flocks, each following their shepherd - as the shepherds moved away from the book and into the meadow.

Of course, it was not only a call that the shepherds used, but occasionally a sturdy staff (was it oak? I could not quite make out its composition) was called to bear to the rumps and ribs of wayward animals.

I could see that the shepherds were friends, for they were not fighting for the sheep amongst themselves. Thus, I was somewhat puzzled over the division. My first theory was that they simply want to split up the sheep into two flocks to better distribute the sheep throughout the meadow. Soon, however, I recognized that this was not the case. Each shepherd viewed the flock as his own.

From my vantage point I could hear the shepherds as they went around throughout their flocks, calling each sheep by name, tending to their injuries, checking their health, and assisting the ewes in giving birth. I realized that the shepherds considered the sheep their own. They took a personal interest in their sheep.

The broad meadow was itself mostly flat. But at the edges of the meadow furthest from me, there was a dreadful precipice, extending a hundred or more feet to some more gentle slopes below. I had noticed this precipice first when viewing the mountain from afar, for it served turn the brook on the plateau into a sparkling ribbon of a waterfall that seemed perpetually graced by a rainbow in the daylight hours, and into a strand of soft silver in the moonlight.

But this beauty was best admired from the foot of the mountain. From the plateau, this cliff was a danger: an accident waiting to happen for any sheep that trotted off on its own.

The shepherds naturally appreciated this danger to their flocks. From time to time I would hear them shouting out warnings to their sheep to stay away from the edge, for it was dangerous. Once in a while, I would see the shepherds tan the hides of a sheep that started walking too close to the edge.

Mindful of my purpose in climbing to my lonely perch, I turned my nose back to my books. It was not long, however, till I heard the unmistakable bleat of a falling sheep - the sound of its "baa"-ing rapidly disappearing in the distance, followed by the muffled but audible "thump" of sheep making an impact.

I saw from my vantage point one of the shepherds holding his head in hands, weeping for the sheep that had fallen. After a while, he seemed to regain his composure. Then, I saw another sheep approaching the cliff edge. This time I saw the shepherd call to that sheep by name - warn him of the danger - and even strike a few blows with his staff to try to scare him back to the flock. But this stubborn sheep refused to hear. Instead it kept going as it was going.

Soon, I was sad to hear a recap of yet another unsuccessful experiment in the field of ovine aviation. More grieving from the shepherd followed. I admit I was astonished to see it. Looking across to the other side, I noticed a similar pattern with the other shepherd. A wandering sheep would leave the herd and make its way toward the edge.

The other shepherd likewise would call to his sheep, warn it of the danger, and smack it with the stick. There was a difference, though. If it seemed that the sheep was two stubborn to heed the warning and the beatings, the second shepherd would use the crook of his stick, to grab the sheep, and turn its neck back to the flock, thus saving the sheep from a gruesome demise.

I knew that the grieving shepherd could see how the other shepherd was preserving his flock, and finally my curiosity got the best of me. I shouted down to the grieving shepherd to ask why he did not do as the second shepherd did.

It was difficult to communicate because of my own lack of familiarity with the dialect of the shepherds, but eventually I came to understand the situation. The grieving shepherd explained that it was love of the sheep that prevented him from turning their heads back to the flock. "For you see," he told me, "I cannot force them to love life. I love them too much to do that to them. If they wish to destroy themselves, I must be content with the choices they freely make."

Then, I asked the other shepherd why he did not do as the first shepherd did. He also replied that love was behind his actions. He told me, "I love my sheep so much that I would die for them myself. I realize that they may not be as free as they like, but I truly believe that at the end of the day, they are happier for it. If I am willing to sacrifice myself for the lives of my sheep, is it so bad if I occasionally force them back from the cliff face?"

These reasons made me wonder, which shepherd really loved his sheep more? The shepherd who did everything in his power to preserve the sheep, or the shepherd who held back, because he was more concerned with the sheep's freedom than the sheep's life.

And you, dear reader, as you have read this fictional account: what say you? Which shepherd loved his sheep more? Why then will some claim that our loving Shepherd, who calls his sheep by name, might let some perish so that they can have something they view as freedom? Aren't we a little shocked by a shepherd who lets his sheep plunge to their deaths over an issue of "free will"? I trust we are.

Moreover, God can work more powerfully than any earthly shepherd. He has the ability to change the heart: to replace a desire to try to fly with a desire to be among the herd eating the green grass.

As the Apostle Paul explained it, "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"

Now, we don't believe that the supposed "freedom" (some sort of self-deterministic autonomy from God) even exists. No, there is nothing that happens apart from the will of God - there is nothing that is "free" from divine predetermination. But suppose such freedom did exist! Suppose that man's autonomy were similar to the wooly-headedness of the sheep on the plateau pasture. Would not a loving Shepherd make every effort to save the sheep, not only appealing to its head with tender words, to its hide with the blows of a disciplining staff, but also to its neck?

Can we believe that a sheep's neck can be too stiff for a shepherd to turn it? Perhaps. But too stiff for God to soften it? God forbid! For God is the Almighty one. He does whatsoever he pleases and no one can stop him.

So then, let us recognize the love of God, which is able to overcome every obstacle and save those whom the Father has given to the son.

With Paul, "I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39) So then, repent of your sins, and trust in the Good Shepherd. Hear His voice, and enter into His love, dear reader.

Praise be to the Lord!

-Turretinfan

New Look for Debate Blog

In advance of the upcoming Sola Scriptura debate, Carrie (of "These are Written" & "Beggars All Reformation") has provided a new banner to improve the look of the debate blog. You'll see that it is similar in look to the banner of the blog you're reading right now. The reason: Carrie also graciously provided the banner for the "Thoughts of Francis Turretin" blog.

Carrie's taking a break from blogging for a bit, but she was kind enough to take the time to design a a banner for the blog. And I understand I'm not the first (and second) blog to receive such a boon from her. Thanks very much to Carrie for her quality graphics work!

-TurretinFan

1 John 3:16 "love of God" or just "love"?

As Dr. White mentioned in his radio program yesterday, the Authorized version (KJV) has "love of God," in 1 John 3:16, where most other versions do not, and where (apparently) few Greek texts have the words. The most popular versions of the KJV place the words "of God" in italics, which is usually used to indicate that the words have been added without explicit support in a sufficient number of Greek manuscripts.

Dr. White raised the interesting question: how did it get in there? I need to investigate the Textus Receptus. My electronic copy has the words, but sets them off (as though not in the "original" textus receptus). Scrivener's transcription of the Textus Receptus identifies the words as not appearing in the Textus Receptus, but as being found in "B" (i.e. Bezae, which appears to refer to a printed edition of the Greek New Testament by Calvin's successor made in 1565).

I have not done an exhaustive search. Nevertheless, I found the following general attestations:

Latin / Greek
Pope Sixtus V version of the Vulgate, as approved by Clement VIII (link) has the "dei."
Complutensian Polyglot has "ton theon" in Greek and "dei" in Latin. (not readily linkable, thus partial text shown below)




English
Rheims (from the Vulgate) (link) has "of God."
Wycliffe (from Vulgate) (link) has "of God."
Lamsa (from Aramaic) (link) has "his."
Murdock (from Aramaic) (link) has "his."

All other major English versions (aside from the Authorized version) and Latin versions seem to lack the "of God." Other English versions that have it include the "Literal Translation of the Holy Bible," the so-called "Modern King James Version," and Webster's Bible - all of which appear to be sourced at least partly in the KJV.

Other versions that have it are the Biblia Gdanska (if my reading of the Polish is correct) "Przez tośmy poznali miłość Bożą, iż on duszę swoję za nas położył; i myśmy powinni kłaść duszę za braci. " also has it. Although this version appears to have been revised in the 19th century, I would be suprised if it were simply harmonized with the KJV, although it does appear to have been based on "the Textus Receptus." It should be noted that there was a long-lasting Latin influence in Poland (note that they use Roman letters unlike most of their other Slavic brethren), and perhaps we can blame the Vulgate for this appearance in the Polish Bible. It does not appear in the Old Slavonic, as far as I can tell.

The Spanish version known as Las Sagradas Escrituras Version Antiguaalso also has it, in italics, and I think we would discover that the LSEVA is more or less simply a translation into Spanish of the KJV.

It seems highly unlikely that the KJV translation team had the Aramaic version of 1 John available. The KJV translators may have had a copy of the Complutensian Polyglot - I'm not sure. If they did, I'd be ready to blame the insertion on that source, which they would have trusted to at least some degree.

Regardless, it appears possible that ultimately the word was derived from the Latin of the Vulgate, rather than from any Greek manuscript. My suspicion in this regard is enhanced by my belief that the Vulgate played a large role in the acceptance of the Johanine Comma in chapter 5 of 1 John, which was naturally translated by the same translation team as chapter 3.

My best guess then is acceptance of the testimony of the contempory Vulgate (as with Wycliff, Rheims, and possibly the Complutensian Greek, via a reverse translation). There's another possibility, which is conjectural emandation. The word translated "love" has an article. As certain modern Greek scholars are wont to point out, the proper translation of the article is one of the most widespread issues that modern scholarship has with the KJV. It may be that the KJV translators believed that because "love" had a definite article (την αγαπην), the words "of God" were conveyed via the article, through antecedent reference to verse 1.

Another way that the emandation could occur is simply as an aid to the reader. Although the KJV is mostly a literal translation, there are a few instances where what would today be called "dynamic equivalents" are used. Perhaps this is such a case.

I suppose it is even possible that Beza and one or more "Vulgate" translators (though apparently, according to Dr. White's comments on the radio program yesterday, not Jerome himself) made a similar emendation.

Ultimately, the sense is the same (I believe) whether we accept the words "of God" as genunine or not. I suspect that most of the major textual critics agree, which is why this particular variant is not discussed (as far as I can see) in most of the major critical editions of the Greek testament. For example, neither my NA27 nor my UBS4 has any mention of this variant, and Scrivener.

-TurretinFan

P.S. While we are speculating - there is also another way that "theos" could have crept into the text. The word immediately after "love" is a conjunction that begins with an Omicron. In the uncial manuscripts (especially those on payprus) it would be possible to mistake an Omicron for for a Theta (they differ by a single horizontal line). Furthermore, a horizontal line in the paper (whether due to the lined characteristics of papyri, or lines written to assist in writing straight, or simply a stray mark) over a Theta is an abbreviation that was widely used to denote the word for "God." There were no commas in the original, so it would be remotely possibly that a sleepy scribe could mistake hoti for the abreviation for theos plus the indefinite pronoun ti (τι).

UPDATE: My original post made reference to B as referring to Bezae, which I took to refer to "Codex Bezae," an early manuscript - and one carefully transcribed for publication by Scrivener. On further consideration, though, I think Scrivener more likely meant the 1565 printed Greek Testament published by Theodore Beza.

Gregory Thaumaturgus - The First Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary - Pseudographic?

In a previous post we investigated the possibility that a widely used quotation attributed to Athanasius may be spurious. (link) Now, at the request of my debate opponent in the upcoming Sola Scriptura debate, Mr. Bellisario, I have turned my attention to another alleged quotation about Mary. This one is by someone my average reader probably has not heard of, Gregory Thaumaturgus. The quotation is taken from a work titled: "The First Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary." Unlike the "Homily of the Papyrus of Turin," the "First Homily," has been around for a while.

And it has been identified as spurious for a while. Indeed, it is included in the list of dubious or spurious works in this edition of the Ante-Nicean Fathers (link), and is specifically identified as spurious work (see page 58, footnote 1).

At least the following Catholic encyclopedia explains that the feast of the Annunciation of the Holy Virgin is thought to have emerged in the late 5th century (link), which tends to confirm the fact that a Homily on such an occasion is demonstrably anachronistic. Furthermore, the footnote referenced above notes that indeed the homily was previously set forth to try to prove an earlier date for the origin of the feast day, but that theory has evidently been discarded.

For example, EWTN states: "Both eastern and western churches celebrate it on this day, and have done so at least ever since the fifth century. This festival is mentioned by Pope Gelasius I, in 492. " (link)

As to the alleged author in general, the "New Advent" Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It is to be noted here that our sources of information as to the life, teaching, and actions of Gregory Thaumaturgus are all more or less open to criticism." (link) Likewise, Luigi Gambero states: "Tradition incorrectly attributes numerous pseudo-epigraphic Marian homilies to Gregory the Wonderworker." (link) Gregory the Wonderworker is another name for Gregory Thaumaturgus. (those interested will note that Gambero, at page 106, provides an English-language version of the (pseudo?) Athanasius quotation we discussed previously.

Again, I'm not sure whether any has tried to set forth a positive case for authenticity of this quotation, as truly being the work of Gregory Thaumaturgus. If they have, I'd be interested to see it - and particularly interested to see how the apparently settled date of origin of the feast day (March 25) is overcome.

I don't see this being used as widely as the Athanasius quotation, but since I was asked I've provided. Although Mr. Hoffer used it, I trust he did so with the most sincere believe that it was genuine - and I think he was simply mistaken.

-TurretinFan

Athanasius - "Homily of the Papyrus of Turin" - Pseudographic?

I've noticed that several Roman Catholic apologists have relied on a writing identified by them as "Homily of the Papyrus of Turin" and attributed to Athanasius. I wonder whether this is spuria or genuine. The name of the document is not itself frightfully reassuring. It suggests attribution to Athanasius based on a single copy (probably in Coptic-Sahaddic not Greek) from the 6th century or so. As far as I can tell, it was unknown to the Western church as part of the Athanasian corpus and has become known via the journal Le Muséon in 1958:

Le Muséon année 1958 LXXI 3-4 Revue d'études orientales (A Louvain Chez l'Association Le Muséon, fondé en 1881 par Charles De Harlez 1958, brochée grand in 8 de 190.)

Sommaire: L'homélie de S. Athanase des papyrus de Turin. Un nouveau manuscrit de la Narratio de rebus Armeniae. La vision de S. Sabak en grec. Les questions-réponses du ms. Vat. arabe. Das studium der altgeorgischen sprache in georgien. Les catéchèses de S. Theodore studite. Pseudo-Shenoute ou Christian-Behaviour. Nécrologie de Mgr Joseph Lebon et de Michel tarchnisvili. Bibliographie.

and subsequent citation by popular Roman Catholic apologists (particularly English-speaking apologists), especially because of its discussion of Mary. I'm not sure whether there is any reason to consider it be anything more than the writings of yet another Pseudo-Athanasius.

In fact, David Frankfurter appears to identify it as Pseudo-Athanasius in footnote 82 at page 35 of Pilgrimage and Holy Space in Late Anitique Egypt. (link)

I wonder whether any of the Catholic apologists who have been citing this work (e.g. Steve Ray, Dave Armstrong, Jimmy Akin, and [most recently] Paul Hoffer) have any defense of its authenticity. I'm guessing that each of them got the citation from some secondary source or other (perhaps even tertiary, as Lefort appears to have provided his translation in French), and did not perform any research as to the authenticity of the quotation.

Nevertheless, my guess could be wrong, and I'd be delighted to be mistaken. I don't mean this article to suggest that I've definitively proved the spurious nature of the quotation, but simply given the reader good reason to question its authenticity. If there is another side to the argument, I'd love to hear it.

-TurretinFan

Response to Armstrong's Historical Revisionism

In a post today, Dave Armstrong claims: "And Protestants continue to argue that folks can disagree on the “secondary” issues and still have unity. Nuh-uh. That ain’t a biblical view. The original Protestants didn’t argue this way at all. They felt that they had spiritual and theological truth and fought for it. It’s only when liberalism came in and continuing Protestant sectarianism, that this other worldview of acceptance of the necessary presence of contradiction and error somewhere, started being accepted." (source)

I'm not going to sit here and correct his grammar or logic. I am simply going to demonstrate from Calvin (one of the Reformers - and someone indisputably entitled to be one of "the original Protestants" by any typical Roman Catholic Standard - which normally places the start of the Reformation with Luther) that - in fact - the Reformers did believe in liberty in the non-essentials (See as well this earlier post):

Calvin, John - Institutes of the Christian Religion (presented here in Beveridge's 1599 translation), Book IV, Chapter 1, Section 12.

Heeding the marks guards against capricious separation

When we say that the pure ministry of the word and pure celebration of the sacraments is a fit pledge and earnest, so that we may safely recognise a church in every society in which both exists our meaning is that we are never to discard it so-long as these remain, though it may otherwise teem with numerous faults.

Nay, even in the administration of word and Sacraments defects may creep in which ought not to alienate us from its communion. For all the heads of true doctrine are not in the same position. Some are so necessary to be known, that all must hold them to be fixed and undoubted as the proper essentials of religion: for instance, that God is one, that Christ is God, and the Son of God, that our salvation depends on the mercy of God, and the like. Others, again, which are the subject of controversy among the churches, do not destroy the unity of the faith ; for why should it be regarded as a ground of dissension between churches, if one, without any spirit of contention or perverseness in dogmatising, hold that the soul on quitting the body flies to heaven, and another, without venturing to speak positively as to the abode, holds it for certain that it lives with the Lord? The words of the apostle are, "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you," (Phil. 3: 15.) Does he not sufficiently intimate that a difference of opinion as to these matters which are not absolutely necessary, ought not to be a ground of dissension among Christians? The best thing, indeed, is to be perfectly agreed, but seeing there is no man who is not involved in some mist of ignorance, we must either have no church at all or pardon delusion in those things of which one may be ignorant, without violating the substance of religion and forfeiting salvation.

Here, however, I have no wish to patronise even the minutest errors, as if I thought it right to foster them by flattery or connivance; what I say is, that we are not on account of every minute difference to abandon a church, provided it retain sound and unimpaired that doctrine in which the safety of piety consists, and keep the use of the sacraments instituted by the Lord. Meanwhile, if we strive to reform what is offensive, we act in the discharge of duty. To this effect are the words of Paul, "If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace," (1 Cor. 14: 30.) From this it is evident that to each member of the Church, according to his measure of grace, the study of public edification has been assigned, provided it be done decently and in order. In other words, we must neither renounce the communion of the Church, nor, continuing in it, disturb peace and discipline when duly arranged.

(link)

-TurretinFan

After-Splash - Paul Hoffer Responds to Holy Water Debate

Some time ago, PhatCatholic and I concluded a debate on the alleged efficacy of Holy Water (link to debate). Now, Paul Hoffer has taken up the cause in support of PhatCatholic's position.

His initial post is here (link), though I understand he plans a series of additional posts on the subject.

A few quick thoughts in response.

Mr. Hoffer describes my role in the debate as "defending the negative" and lists a few of the many arguments I presented. Mr. Hoffer appears to have overlooked that I actually took the negative position by presenting rebuttal arguments that took out the attempted arguments presented by PhatCatholic.

Interestingly, Mr. Hoffer fails to provide the arguments that PhatCatholic presented. Of course, in the absence of those arguments, the counter-arguments in rebuttal may not seem to make such sense. Mr. Hoffer, however, seems to be under the impression that I needed to prove "Holy Water," to be ineffecacious. This is consistent with his presentation of only (a few of) my rebuttal arguments, and not of PhatCatholic's attempted defense of the resolution.

Mr. Hoffer mistakenly asserted "it became clear that Turretinfan ... have no real understanding of what Holy Water is or the manner in which the Catholic Church teaches it could possibly be effective against demonic forces." In fact, I do know what it is and what the Roman Catholics teach about it. Regardless, though, whether or not I knew "Holy Water" from dishwater, PhatCatholic had the burden of establishing the actual efficacy (not "could possibly be effective") of whatever-it-is that he calls "Holy Water." In other words, my supposed ignorance was something that could only have helped PhatCatholic. I think that the objective reader can judge for himself whether any of PhatCatholic's positions and/or fallback positions had merit.

Mr. Hoffer goes on to explain that he would like to spend some time explaining Sacramentals. I have no problem with him doing so, of course. I think, though, that if he wishes to revive PhatCatholic's position that Holy Water is actually effective at stopping demonic forces, he is going to have a long creek to paddle - and that he will not get to his destination simply by explaining what they are.

At the end of the day, I think we will find that the notion of using "Holy Water" to try to ward off demons is not Biblical, but rather that such use of "Holy Water" is nothing more than a superstitious medieval invention. In fact, that it is simply a superstition that evolved over time is something that seems rather immediately apparent when an investigation into the alleged basis for the practice is made.

So, I look forward to Mr. Hoffer's series on the so-called Sacramentals. I appreciate his systematic way of thinking and his pleasing way of presenting his position. On the other hand, I do not have high expectations that the arguments in favor of the alleged efficacy will be any less leaky than those of PhatCatholic. Still, Mr. Hoffer's posts with their calm and well-planned presentation may provide benefit both for Roman Catholics and others in analyzing the issues and simplifying the differences between us. Additionally, Mr. Hoffer may provide a new position (for example that "Holy Water" is merely possibly efficacious) that will somewhat moderate the position taken by PhatCatholic in the debate.

-TurretinFan

N.B. Two items:

a) Mr. Hoffer at one point refers to me as "he/she." Just for the record, it is "he," as can be seen, for example, in my Blogger profile.

b) I note that Mr. Hoffer views this discussion of Sacramentals as more important than debating the Corban rule. I don't know whether this should be viewed as his announcement that such a debate is off the table, or only that it is to follow the discussion of the so-called Sacramentals. Since I believe that such a debate would be instructive, I hope that the latter case is what Mr. Hoffer intended.

Grinding the Grain: Responding to the Substance of Trey Austin's Arguments

Having disposed of the chaff in an earlier post (link), we may now turn to the grain portion of Trey's recent post responding to questions I had posed as to the view of my theological opponents (or are they?) regarding the atonement.

I was a little disappointed to see that Trey decided to answer only the questions upon which I had noted agreement to an affirmative answer, and not to answer those questions that I thought might possibly highlight differences between us, the series of questions beginning "Or do you mean more that" here. Those were, in essence, the softball questions to which I hoped both sides of the matter could find harmony and agreement, and (to be clear) Trey affirmed each of those unifying questions.

Trey, however, provided some further commentary on the questions which thankfully provides some basis for highlighting the distinctions between the theology he is presenting and the theology that I am presenting.

To highlight those points, let me comment on a few (I hope, representative) things Trey says:

"This [i.e. "that Christ’s death was really and actually sufficient here and now not only for the elect but also for many more and anyone else"] can’t be true if, as some people explain, God put on the crucified Christ the particular sins of particular people and no others. "

This is a point where we differ. The intrinsic infinite value of Christ's death is dependent on its nature: i.e. the fact that Christ was the God-man, the fact that Christ was innocent, and the fact that Christ's death was voluntary. We can derive this knowledge from the Old Testament sacrificial system, in which animals were selected based on certain intrinsic attributes. Christ is the "lamb without blemish" and so forth, that has - by virtue of his nature as victim - infinite sufficiency.

Imputation is an application of that sufficiency.

To provide an analogy, suppose that you have a priceless Monet painting and you are in a bazaar seeking to buy food. There are a few corndog stands, a few cabbage vendors, and some folks selling rice by the bag. Whether you apply the value of painting to purchase a single corn dog, or whether you apply the value of the painting to buy all the food for sale in the bazaar, the painting has the same intrinsic value.

It would be improper to judge the entire value of the painting by that for which it was traded, just as it would be improper to evaluate the entire sufficiency of Christ's death by the sins of the particular people for whom Christ died. The bartered-for item sets a lower bound on the value, but not an upper bound. Christ's death is super-sufficient: it is intrinsically sufficient not only for those whose sins were imputed to Christ, but as well for those whose sins were not imputed to Christ.

"Note: you can hold to limited atonement without holding to limited imputation; and that’s the heart of this debate"

Part of the debate certainly is whether it is proper to call a view "limited atonement," if the view encompasses unlimited imputation. Trey, however, does not set forth what he fully intends by this statement (in fact, it appears as a parenthetical), and consequently there's little space to rebut its underlying unexpressed contentions.

"how could Christ’s work be really and truly sufficient for any person who is not elect, if their sins were never “paid for” in any sense, even provisionally"

I've omitted the question mark, because Trey seems to think this is a rhetorical question. The problem is that, as illustrated by the painting above, the sufficiency of the ransom is not determined by the thing ransomed. Christ's death is sufficient to set all mankind free, though it was not applied to that end.

To ask, "how could Christ's work ... be sufficient ... if their sins were never paid for," is to ask "how could the painting be sufficient if it were not used to buy that bag of rice of there but only the corn dog?"

To add the qualification "even provisionally," causes one's eyebrows to arch, but Trey doesn't trey to explain how something can be "provisionally" paid for, and so we need not explore that odd avenue at this time. Who knows but that we might find it not odd at all, if he explained it.

"And thus, as the one who is offering Christ sincerely, he [God] must have a real substance by which to say, “If you come, you will be saved.” If there were nothing in Christ for the non-elect, nothing of his work applicable to them, then when God offers salvation to the non-elect through his ministers, he would be lying. "

I've left of Trey's rhetorical negation. Nevertheless, Trey seems to insist that God ground the conditional offer of salvation one way (by over-imputation, as it were) rather than another (by grace). The statement, "If you come, you will be saved," is a true statement if everyone who comes is saved. That is so, quite regardless of whether Christ's work is applicable in any way to people who don't come.

This is rather elementary: what makes the statement, "If you come, you will be saved," is a sincere intent on God's part to save everyone who comes. It has really nothing whatsoever to do with the way that God accomplishes that salvation.

What Trey seems to have overlooked is the "grace" side of the picture. No one comes, unless Father draws him. The gospel offer is not a statement that everyone has the ability to come, or that Christ has provided salvation for the reprobate. The gospel offer is a conditional statement, and is true if God intends to honor his promise.

"had there been nothing in Christ or what he did for them or that was applicable to them, then they rejected nothing"

They rejected the command of God. The refused to turn from their sins. They refused to come to Christ. The rejected the way of salvation.

"I think we both agree that God has decreed to apply Christ’s redemptive work to the elect alone and to no others; that is not in disbute [sic] at all." (italics carefully preserved)

Well, perhaps that is the case. Nevertheless, there seem to be suggestions from Trey's side (perhaps not from Trey himself) that God decreed to "provisionally" apply Christ's work - or that God decreed to actually apply Christ's work in such a way so as to impute the sins of both elect and non-elect to Christ. That looming question-mark was the reason for the unanswered questions I posed in my original post. (incidentally, not every question-mark means that there is heresy lurking behind - it just means something is unclear)

"Take dogs, for instance. Dogs aren’t answerable for failing to come to Christ, and they accrue no guilt for rejecting him. That’s ridiculous example, you might say. I know; it is—not only because dogs aren’t rational beings, but also becasue [sic] they’re not willful sinners. But the point still remains that Christ died in *NO* sense for dogs. "

That's certainly Trey's point, but it is not the relevant point. Dogs are not commanded to repent and seek salvation. No one is commanded (as such) to be saved by Christ's blood. Instead, men are commanded to avail themselves of repentance and faith - and without the grace of God, they refuse, thereby increasing their condemnation as rebels.

"If the strict particularists are correct (i.e., like those whom Dabney opposed, who said that, had God elected more, Christ would have had to suffer more for those in particular; their scheme being a “so much for so many” kind of commercialism), "

I'm not convinced that "strict particularists" is necessarily an adequate description of those whom Dabney opposed by opposing "so much for so many." While certainly some few strict particularists would hold such a view, the view is more common among inconsistent universalists, who make arguments such as that Christ must have "paid for" each and every actual sin or the atonement was not sufficient for such sins. In fact, it is a "commercial" mentality "so much for so many" that seemingly underwrites the objection that if certain sins were not imputed to Christ, that Christ's death was not sufficient to purchase forgiveness of those sins.

Regardless, though, of whether Dabney stands on my side of the aisle (for the time being), we do reject the "so much for so many" formulation. I reject it, and I know that Dr. White rejects it. In fact, even Dave Hunt rejects such a formulation. Apparently, Trey rejects it as well - which is good, and I'm glad of that.

Nevertheless, though it was not a "so much for so many," Christ's work was a payment, and a particular payment for particular people. It was (and is) a sufficient price for more than was purchased - and for more than could have been purchased (since its intrinsic sufficiency is much greater than the combined sinfulness of all humanity). Nevertheless, it is a ransom: Scripture says so.

"Clearly Paul makes a distinction between Christ being savior of all men and being savior for all who believe, but even while he makes that distinction, there is obviously some overlap in the core of his meaning, which is to say that it is a difference in degree of salvation (i.e., available as savior as opposed to being an effectual savior), not a difference in kind of salvation (i.e., temporal “salvation” vs. eternal salvation)."

I don't think Trey could make out an exegetical case for the idea that it is a difference in "degree of salvation," as opposed to a difference in "kind of salvation." The idea of someone being saved from hell to some "degree" and not to the uttermost is a puzzling concept on its own. Trey, however, has not attempted to provide an exegetical explanation, and perhaps he really meant something other than "degree" in such a sense as 50% is a degree half way between "not at all" and "fully." I've addressed this verse elsewhere, such as at item (23) on this list. For now that brief explanation should suffice.

Trey notes that another view of the same verse is "they ["many" early Reformers] in fact favor of interpreting it as an affirmation that Christ is the only Savior available to men through whom they might be saved"

This interpretation is not so entirely implausible that we would want to break fellowship over the difference. Indeed, it is a true statement that Christ is the only Savior available to men through they might be saved. Nevertheless, considering the verse within the context, and more carefully analyzing the Scriptural use of the terms involved, we have come to realize with (as Trey seems to admit) many of the Puritan scholars that the view of the verse as distinguishing between salvation merely of the body, and salvation of both the body and soul is what is best understood to be under discussion.

As I best understood, from the discussion in the chaff portion of Trey's post, we should not expect to see any follow-up from him on this. Nevertheless, I hope he will thing again of his position of non-interaction, in favor of constructive dialog, debate, and explanation.

After all, since we are both writing in public, even if the other of us is not edified, perhaps those who read will be edified. Perhaps also, Trey might considering answering the more difficult questions that were posed in the original post, the series of questions beginning "Or do you mean more that" here, questions where we may (or perhaps not?) part ways. The object is not to divide, but to explain. After all, it would be a shame for merely semantic difference to divide Christian brethren.

To God be the glory,

-TurretinFan

Chaff Removal

Trey Austin begins his latest post with more personal antipathies - not against Dr. White, this time - but against this present anonymous author.

Trey writes:

"It has taken me a while to post this, primarily because i [sic] have decided not to pursue further interaction with TurretinFan."

The fact that this purported resolution of Trey's is the lead-in to a lengthy response to questions I posed is odd. Nevertheless, this sort of parting-shot mentality is something I'd steer my readers clear of. It has gotten other e-poligists in trouble in the past, especially when they post their next round of response to the folks they are supposedly ignoring.

"His anonymity is very problematic."

My anonymity, of course, is problematic for people who want to make the debate personal. It is problematic for people who want to debate the other person, rather than the other argument. All that they can do is latch on to the anonymity itself as some sort of excuse for not addressing the issues. It is also problematic for those who think that there is justifiable jihad, or who simply want to take debate to the level of fisticuffs.

It is also somewhat problematic, one might argue, for the anoymous person. It limits the ability of the anonymous person to attach his personal positives to his arguments. Instead, it forces the arguments to stand on their own strength. It makes the writings speak for themselves.

"He can say or so [sic - perhaps "do" was intended?] anything he desires, and there is no way for anyone wronged to see [sic - perhaps "seek" was intended?] recourse and correct his behavior other than trying to contact him through his blog."

Several responses here:

a) This isn't really a problem for someone interested in dialogue, discussion, or even debate. It is a problem for someone who gets somehow personally injured by something that is said. Notice, however, that Trey doesn't make any claims to falling into such a category. If he does think that something I've said somehow injures him, he really ought to contact me.

b) Which brings us to the second part of the issue, namely that not only can one contact the present author through the blog (such as by leaving a comment); but also by email (my email is available through my Blogger profile). In fact, many people have contacted the present author by email, though (at least in my memory) none has contacted the present author about a matter of personal injury, without receiving satisfaction. If there are any out there who feel they have been injured by something I wrote, I encourage them to please hurry to take advantage of the opportunity to resolve this with me privately, if possible.

c) Finally, of course, there is a further way for the matter to be remedied, namely publicly. If, for example, I were to say, "Trey believes in sacrificing goats in the New Testament era," on my blog, Trey could set the matter straight by denying that on his own blog. Now, one would hope that I wouldn't make things up about people, but if I did do so, and in public, there's a public way to respond to those sorts of things.

As a continuation of (c), I encourage all my critics to use public fora like their own blogs to address what they perceive to be my public errors. More than one person has tried to sieze the opportunity to do so, and I am willing to let the record speak for itself. Put your response somewhere where the search engines like "Google" can see it, and anyone who is wondering can find the answer. On top of that, I normally do not delete links to the posts that I make, though I suppose I could, which makes it even easier for people to find your rebuttal.

"My personaly [sic] view is that this kind of hiding behind false names does not lend itself to open debate and discussion."

"Hiding behind" false names (or behind no name at all) has a very long history of promoting open debate and discussion. Surely Trey is aware of that fact. In fact, I recently posted a discussion on the maxim "in the essentials, unity - in the non-essentials, liberty - in all things, charity." As I noted there, the maxim first appeared in what is believed to have been a pseudonymous work.

And of course, in this day of 6+ billion people, simply a name (whether true or false) is almost equivalent to anonymity, until more details are provided. The Chinese are starting to really feel the burden of this problem as a small handful of family names dominate their population. Similar problems exist in the "Smith" and "Jones" clans in the English-speaking world.

Apparently, in the imagination of my theological opponent (or is he? more on that when we get to the grain of his post) open debate and discussion must be between people who have some way of tracking the other person down. If that kind of mentality bothers you, you and I are not alone.

"Children of light not not seek the darkness as a place to hide while they discuss the things of God."

I wonder whether this was first penned by a pope who was unaware of a certain former monk's whereabouts, or by Saul when he sought David's life. I wonder if it was penned against those in the catacombs. Regardless of who penned it, it is absurd.

I present arguments in the light of the Internet. As far as I know, my arguments are more open to the light than arguments have ever been before in the history of mankind. I write in English, a language comprehensible to the vast majority of the Internet-equipped world, even where it is not their primary language - and a language from which many machines can translate into other languages for those who do not read English.

The arguments are open to the light. I don't whisper heresy in secret: I proclaim the truth openly. If my arguments are bad, there errors are evident to the world. Indeed, given the media I use I cannot speak out of two sides of my mouth to two different people: instead I have to be consistent, using the same arguments defending the faith against Muslims as against Mormons and Papists.

"It also does not seem to me that TurretinFan is at all interested in learning anything at all, but only with “proclaiming” his view, cursorily “refuting” the other person’s (with whom he disagrees), and claiming that he has summarily answered it and done battle for the Kingdom of God."

This sort of motive-questioning doesn't deserve a detailed response. The short response is that the very post to which Trey goes on to respond is a post full of questions. Perhaps Trey which is to impugn my motives, but he could have placed his false claims in a more persuasive context!

"Well, that’s not what i [sic] call doing work for the Kingdom of God."

No further comment.

"Bludgeoning people with your views is not what any Christian is called to do—and it would be ridiculous to call that 'standing for the truth.'"

While that word "bludgeoning" is quite colorful, one sees the metaphor start breaking down when it comes out that my instrument of spiritual warfare is not the cudgel of "[my] views" but the sword of the Spirit, namely the Word of God: Scriptures.

"Thus saith TurretinFan," would be an absurd cudgel. It's shadowy weight would damage no heresy, nor leave the slightest scratch in the anti-Christian messages that exist. Throwing the force of the fact that I believe something to be true is like adding the most infintessimal antenna of the tiniest species of ant at the gates of the castle.

I suppose I could try to add some weight to my views by setting forth my name, credentials, etc. - but that would take away from the point of my presence here, which is to proclaim the Word of God, and the true doctrines of the church of the Living God.

To which end, may God give me grace,

-Turretinfan

P.S. I hope to turn shortly to the "grain" portion of Trey's post.

Response to Muslim Apologist

I recently came across the following Muslim apologetic video, which I do not endorse (obviously), but to which I have prepared a response. (link)

A quick personal note. This is one of the calmest, kindest, and most reasonable Muslim apologists I've seen on-line. He's also one of the most well-dressed. The gold-bordered robe and turban are very nice. I also appreciated his kindness toward the Christian apologist (DrOakley1689) to whom he was responding.

The person in the video (mujtahid2006) uses three main arguments:

1) According to the man in the video, Mohamed taught caution toward the Bible. "Do not believe anything in the Bible and don't disbelieve anything that is in the Bible."

a) This doesn't seem to be a fully accurate translation. There are two seemingly relevant alleged sayings in the Hadith, and the person in the video seems to be relying on the following one:

Narrated Abu Huraira: "The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Apostle said (to the Muslims). 'Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' " (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 460)

Notice that this translation indicates that it is the people (not the books) that are not be believed or disbelieved. But to answer the man in the video, we do are not persuaded that this account in the Hadith is genuine - i.e. original. The bottom line is that it is not in the Koran. It is not an account that claims to be handed down from Allah, and to be unchanged.

b) But there is also another saying in the Hadith, which seems to be at variance with a portrayal of Muslim attitude toward the Bible as merely "caution." Here is that second saying:

Narrated Ubaidullah: "Ibn 'Abbas said, 'Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!' " (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461)

Notice in this account the accusation of change and manipulation. Here Mohamed is described as saying that Muslims should not investigate the Bible, because they have newer revelation. Again, of course, this is not taken from Koran, but from the Hadith. Thus, it is not part of the supposedly "pure, undistorted, and unchanged" book that Allah supposedly gave to Mohamed.

It seems that this would, however, be the better quotation to provide to rebut the fact that early Muslims did not allege corruption of the Bible. Nevertheless, DrOakley1689's view seems to be that this Hadith is a later addition - i.e. that it is not a genuine teaching of Mohamed.

2) There is support for the Islamic accounts of Jesus in other gospels.

The person in the video cites to a lot of works that he seems to believe provide support for an Islamic image of Jesus. One significant problem with this claim is that he cites to works that have no historical connection to Jesus. They are typically from books that are well recognized as having been written (at the earliest) about a century after Jesus' resurrection.

3) Jesus was less than the Father - and therefore finite - and not God

The person in the video argues that Jesus says, that "The Father is greater than I." The person then assumes that this is a reference to the infinite-ness of God. That's not the case. The case is that Jesus is subordinate to the Father. The Father/Son metaphor is itself designed (at least in part) to convey that subordination within the Trinity, although that subordination does not imply inequality. Recall, that when Jesus indicated that he was the "Son of God," the unbelieving Jews considered it blasphemy, because such a title indicated his equality with God.

Of course, the underlying danger is that the apologist using this verse does not believe it to be a true statement of Jesus. The "Jesus" (Isa) of the Koran could not possibly have said that "The Father is greater than I," in reference to God, because the Koran claims that God does not beget. Thus, the Muslim cannot really use this verse to say that Jesus claimed to be less than the Father. Instead, the Muslim can really only try to use this verse to claim that the Bible is somehow inconsistent, as the person in the video appears ready and willing to admit. However, this alleged inconsistency is easily answered, as demonstrated above. Thus, the purity and consistency of the Bible is maintained.

I should note that, while I was writing this, DrOakley1689 himself had begun to provide a response in several parts, and I have now updated this post to include all four parts. Dr. White (DrOakley1689), in his videos, provides some response to other arguments that are presented in video.

Part I


Part II


Part III


Part IV


-Turretinfan

The Real Francis Turretin on: the Resurrection

Turretin on the Resurrection

Here, first of all, we ought to distinguish between the foundation on which the faith of the resurrection rests, and the arguments by which that faith is confirmed. The only foundation is the omnipotent will of God, revealed in His word. But the arguments are manifold, and are drawn partly from Scripture, and partly from reason. Some are primary and demonstrative, others secondary and probable; some which prove the resurrection in general, both of good and bad; others which prove only the resurrection of the righteous, but which necessarily imply that of the wicked. The first reason is from passages of Scripture, both in the Old and New Testaments. The second from the resurrection of Christ. Because, the resurrection of Christ being granted, ours, which is inseparable from it, follows as a matter of course, 2 Cor. iv. 14; 1 Thess. iv. 14; Rom. viii. 11; 1 Cor. xv. 22. Hence, the ancients call the resurrection of Christ the example of our faith; the key of our sepulchres, and the pledge of our resurrection. Manifold reasons of this connexion may be given : 1. In respect of merit, Christ is our Redeemer, not of our souls only, but of our bodies also; therefore He ought to raise up the body that along with the soul it may be gifted with the life purchased by Him; whence the resurrection of the body is expected by the faithful, Rom. viii. 23. Otherwise He could neither be said to have redeemed our bodies, nor to have swallowed up death in victory. 2. In respect of efficacy, from the connexion of the Head and members; Christ rose as the Head of the Church, Eph. i. 20. If, therefore, the Head rose, why should He not draw after Him His own members? For of what kind were that body whose head were living but its members dead ? Yea, because I live, saith He, John xiv. 19, ye shall live also, because He is the resurrection and the life, that is, its foundation and principle. As in Adam all die, that is, derive the cause of death from him, so in Christ shall all be made alive, both meritoriously and effectively. Here belongs the type of the first-fruits, by which the whole harvest was sanctified ; whence, Paul says, "Christ by His resurrection became the first-fruits of them that sleep," because He rose first by His own proper power, and brings it about that we also rise. 3. In respect of dominion, because Christ so rose that He might be the Lord and King of His Church, Rom. xiv. 9, of the dead and living. But what kind of a dominion were that whose subjects should remain in death? This relation of Lord may be viewed in a twofold aspect, either with respect to the faithful, of whom He is so the Lord that He is also their Father; or with respect to the wicked, of whom He is the Lord and Judge; whence the necessity of the resurrection of both depends, — of believers indeed upon Christ, as Redeemer and Head, in so far as He ought to be the Saviour of His body; but of the wicked upon Christ the Judge, who ought to render to every one what is his own. Hence Paul, Acts xvii. 31; 2 Cor. v. 10. 4. In respect of the mutual communion subsisting between Christ and us, which requires that there should be a conformity between both. That what has taken place in the Head should be effected, after His example, also in the members, and what is denied of the members be denied of the Head also. Hence it happens that the apostle, not only from the affirmation of Christ's resurrection deduces ours, but also from the negation of ours infers the negation of His, 1 Cor. xv. 13, because the Head cannot be without the members. Third, from the covenant of God, which, since it necessarily imports perfect felicity and eternal life, cannot be fulfilled in us, unless with the immortality of the soul there be given also the resurrection of the body, that the whole man may partake of the benefits of the covenant for ever. Whither belongs the very formula of the covenant, "I am thy God," from which Christ reasons against the Sadducees, Matt. xxii. 32, as most efficacious for stopping their mouths. Fourth, from the justice of God which enjoins that rewards be rendered to the good, and punishment to the wicked, even in the body that sinned. But since actions are of the whole suppositum and the organic body hath its own part in either kind of actions, it is equitable that the whole man, not a part of him only, should be rewarded or punished. And since this does not always happen in this life, where the lots of good and bad are often confounded, it must of necessity be effected after this life, in bodies raised from the dead, 2 Cor. v. 10 ; 2 Thess. i. 6, 7. Fifth, from the condition of our bodies. Because, since our bodies have been made temples of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 91, and have already begun to be glorified by the resurrection and ascension of Christ, it cannot be that they should perish and vanish into thin air, but is necessary that they remain forever sanctuaries of the Holy Spirit. To which also they are consecrated by the use of the sacraments; while in baptism is given the symbol of our burial and resurrection with Christ; and in the supper we are fed with heavenly meat, which perisheth not, but remaineth unto life eternal, John vi. 54. Sixth, from the examples of those who were raised in the Old and New Testaments, which were illustrious preludes of the last resurrection. Seventh, from the absurdities, urged by Paul, which oppress the contrary opinion, 1 Cor. xv. 13, 14, 15, 19, 30, 32, &c. So sinners might securely indulge in carnal lusts, since no punishments are to be feared after this life. Since all which are most absurd, that from whence they are deduced is also absurd. In a word, the negation of the resurrection is the overthrow of the whole of Christianity, of all faith, piety, and hope.

(Loc. xx., Quaest. I.)

(source – The Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, Vol. XX, 1868, pp. 345-347)

One Month to First Post in new Sola Scriptura Debate

I have accepted a challenge from Mr. Matthew Bellisario to debate Sola Scriptura. The announcement post is up on my debate blog (link). This debate is rather spaced out (the first post is not for one month) and is not expected to interfere with the Romans 9 debate that I have planned with GodisMyJudge.

-TurretinFan

The Rock Christ - A Sermon by Francis Turretin

THE ROCK CHRIST
1 Cor. 10:4, “And that Rock was Christ.”
(Translated from Turrettin for the Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter.)
(Originally appeared in the Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter September 1868)

In the whole history of the Israelites wandering through the desert, there occurs scarcely anything more illustrious and wonderful, certainly nothing more mysterious, and which shadows forth Christ and his saving benefits more significantly, than the remarkable miracle of the Rock and the waters flowing from it, which God gave his chosen people to drink.

Paul's words in 1 Cor. 10:4 are, “And they did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ.” The aim of the apostle is to show the identity of the sacraments under the Old Testament with those under the New, if not in the sign, yet at least in the thing signified; lest the Corinthians, by supposing that they possessed more excellent sacraments, might promise themselves impunity in their sins, especially in the sin of idolatry, of which he was anxious to cure them. Hence he shows that the fathers were not in this respect inferior to us, but had the same sacraments as we, or analogous sacraments, which would correspond with baptism and the Lord's Supper. The type of baptism he proves in the pillar of the cloud, and in the passage of the sea. But the type of the supper he proves in both its symbols, the bread in the manna, the drink in the rock, and in the waters that gushed out of it.

But that we may proceed to the mystery, to which the Holy Spirit in this connection evidently designs to call our attention, we must now endeavor to penetrate beneath the surface, and discover what lies hidden there. For that here there is a mystery, even though Paul had given us no express intimation of it, the very nature of the thing and the accompanying circumstances clearly evince. For if God had proposed to himself nothing more than to refresh his people with wholesome drink, could he not have sent water from heaven, or have brought them into some place that abounded in fountains of water? What necessity was there for him either to select a rock for this purpose, or to use a rod in smiting it that water might issue from it? The very fact, that to Moses he promised to stand upon the rock until the miracle would be performed, indicates with sufficient clearness that none other than the Son of God, who was the leader of the people, accomplished this whole work, and that everything connected with it related to none other than to him.

Since, then, there is something peculiar in the apostle's selecting that rock from which the waters flowed, the ground of the analogy which it furnishes is deserving of careful consideration. For as God to supply his people with water chose in preference to everything else a rock, which not only contains no water in itself, but than which to yield water nothing in nature is more unlikely; so to the flesh nothing appears more absurd than to receive salvation from the crucified One, to obtain life from death, happiness from misery, the blessing from the curse. With reference to this, Christ is said to be a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks, but the wisdom and power of God to them who are the called. Again, as water flowed out of this rock, so Christ becomes to his people a fountain springing up to eternal life, and most copiously pouring out his waters of grace and salvation. Hence the prophets and the other inspired writers so frequently shadow forth under the symbol of water the saving benefits of Christ, and the gifts of his Spirit. But as the rock yielded no water until it was smitten, and when smitten, water gushed out of it in abundance, by which the Israelites were refreshed; so from the side of Christ there flowed blood and water, by which believers, hastening forward to the heavenly land of promise, are refreshed in the desert of the world. For since God could grant no favor to the sinner, unless appeased by the death of his Son, it behooved him to be stricken and afflicted, that the chastisement of our peace might be laid upon him, and that by his stripes we might obtain salvation. But as the rock was smitten by the rod of Moses, so Christ was smitten not only by the Jews, of whom Moses was a figure, but also by the rod of the law, of which Moses was the minister, that is, by the curse and penalty denounced in the law. Isa. 53:4 and 5; Gal. 3:13. As the rock, when smitten, gave forth copious streams of water which abundantly supplied all the people, so Christ, who is the inexhaustible fountain of salvation, in whom there is a fulness of all grace, pours out most copiously those healthful waters, the gifts of the Spirit, which supply abundantly, not this or that believer in particular, but the whole church. Hence he is said to be made to us by the Father, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, and to be all in all. As nothing was more delightful to the Israelites while they remained in the dry and scorching desert, than fountains at whose streams of sweet purling water they could slake their thirst; so to believers, journeying through the parched and hot desert of the world, there is nothing more pleasant, nothing more grateful than to have belonging to. them a fountain, at which they may refresh themselves in their heat.

As the rock poured out its waters not for a moment, and then became dry, but perpetually, so long as the people were journeying in the desert, for it followed them, its streams flowing after them wherever they went; so the blood of Christ and the gifts of his grace continue through all times and in all places. Not only is he present to his children by the gifts which he so freely bestows upon them, but he himself dignifies them with his presence, yea, he does not follow them so much as he accompanies them, and goes before them, lest anything should fail them in the way in which they must walk. Hence two distinguishing privileges of believers are here brought to view, perseverance in grace, and the presence of Christ himself, according to which he has promised to be with us even to the end of the world. And although for the purpose of chastising our ingratitude, or exercising our faith, he sometimes suffers those refreshing waters to be withdrawn for a little, as in the desert, yet he never absolutely denies them to us, but intends that we harassing him, as it were, by our prayers, shall draw them out in the practice of faith and repentance.

Furthermore, in this comparison, many points of dissimilarity are to be observed. The rock of Moses was destitute of life and reason; but Christ is the living, life-giving and rational rock. It had no water in its bosom; but Christ is the fountain of life, from whose fulness we all receive grace for grace. It could satisfy bodily thirst for the time, but not for ever; but Christ makes us so to drink of his health-giving water, that when we have once drank from him, we thirst no more, but he becomes in us a fountain springing up to eternal life. The rock could not follow the Israelites, but Christ accompanies them perpetually as the author and finisher of their faith, who after having redeemed them from the spiritual Egypt, and led them through the red sea of his own blood, conducts them in the desert of the world by the lamp of his word, nourishes them with celestial manna, quenches their thirst and refreshes them with healthful waters, until they come to the heavenly Canaan, where “he who is on the throne, will shade them, and they shall hunger no more, neither shall they thirst any more, nor shall the sun light on them, for the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them,” not to streams, “but to living fountains of waters, and 'shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” So let it be.

Unity, Liberty, and Charity - Who said it first?

Introduction

I happened to be reading LP Cruz's blog today, and noticed an article in which he ascribed to "a 17th century Lutheran pastor" the famous saying, "In the essentials, unity, in the non-essentials, liberty, and in all things, Charity," or something to that effect.

It seems like sound-thinking and appeals to our softer side; but who said it first? LP Cruz's post sparked my interest to dig deeper into the subject.

Melancthon

Ramage's "Beautiful thoughts from Latin Authors," ascribes the maxim to Melancthon, and notes that it has been carved in stone above his garden gate. (link) Cox too seems to maintain Melancthon as the originator, posting that quotation prominently on the title page of his biography of that reformer (link). Matthes likewise seems to be of the same view in his life and works of Melancthon (link), though my German and ability to read the older scripts is not good enough for me to be definitive. Hoefer also seems to be willing to attribute the saying to Melancthon (link).

Unknown

Belton thinks that the origin of the phrase is "really unknown," though he seems to have found it in a few 17th century writers (link). This is perhaps the most honest and direct conclusion we could give, but it is our part as scholars to dig, guess, and delve. To that end, we cannot be satisfied with Belton's willing agnosticism on the matter.

Witsius

Remarkably, the earliest I was able to find a reference (published 1719) to this famous maxim was in the works of the unworthy son of Francis Turretin, Jean Alphonse, who provides the saying with the addition of Prudence to the final line of the saying (link). J.A. Turretin appears to ascribe the phrase to Witsius. Cunningham (and others) agree that Witsius adopted this as his favorite motto (link).

Meldenius - not Augustine
Stanley ascribes the quotation to Rupertus Meldenius, and notes that it had for a time been falsely ascribed to Augustine (link). Jones notes the dubious ascription to Augustine here as well (link). Hamerton appears to have bought the Augustine line (link).

Narrowing it down Further

Hoyt lists both Meldenius (his preference) and Melancthon (link) (much the same thought here, as well).

Conclusion

Augustine was a rather obvious misattribution, his weighty name getting the credit for anything good in Latin among many Protestants. Ironically, the saying eventually came to be approved by a pope, as this thoughtful web page noted (link) and seems to have become taken essentially as dogma in other Catholic writings (e.g.). This may perhaps have been due to its misattribution to Augustine, though the pope seemed to have been aware of the dubious origin of the maxim.

Witsius probably did help popularize the expression, but does not seem to have taken credit for its origin. Furthermore, the 1626 date of Meldenius' publication is slightly before Witsius' birth, which naturally seals Witsius off from further consideration.

Melancthon (1497-1560) is old enough to antedate Meldenius' publication, and would even be old enough to cast Meldenius' originality into question, but it seems that the garden gate of Melancthon's garden may simply not date to Melancthon's time (which would hardly be surprising), and there appears to be no other record of Melancthon having heard of the saying.

At the end of the day, Meldenius has the edge on the others, given that his usage was the first to appear in print - that we have been able to recover (though I have not even been able to recover that). Here's an interesting brief discussion of Meldenius for those who may be interested (link). In short, L.P. Cruz appears to be justified in attributing the famous phrase to "Peter Medeirlin, a Lutheran pastor of the 17th Century." If you explore the final link above, you will find some reasonable speculation that Meldenius is a pseudonym (yes folks, people did publish pseudonymously before the Internet) for Medeirlin, based on a rearrangement of letters.

Regardless of who originated the saying let us follow the modified form published by J.A. Turretin, in which we maintain unity among Christians on the essentials (the gospel), liberty among Christians on the non-essentials (other doctrines), and both charity and prudence in all things.

-TurretinFan

P.S. Thanks to Albert for catching an error in the original version of this post.

Dabney Recommends for Sermon Preparation ...

[After deducing the question from the text to be preached upon,] I proceed to study authorities, as time allows: first the Holy Scriptures, and then the soundest treatises, such as those of Turrettin and Owen. As I read I keep pencil and paper by me, and jot down everything which strikes me as possibly a point for the argument. I read on until I find from the recurrence of ideas already gathered, that I have apparently explored the whole field of discussion, at least in all its important outlines.

R. L. Dabney, Sacred Rhetoric, p. 226 (source)

Dabney's advice to young preachers may surprise some of our opponents on Atonement-related issues. Of course, the fact that Dabney thinks Turretin and Owen to be the soundest of the treatises, does not mean that agrees with them 100% on every point, and no one should draw such an improper inference. In fact, on the Atonement, Dabney does not seem to find all of Turretin's argument persuasive, as we hope to explore in another post at a later date.

-TurretinFan

The Real Turretin on: The Definition of "Catholic"

Catholicity, in the absolute sense of the word, as Turrettin remarks, can be predicated only of that society that includes the Church triumphant in heaven, as well as militant on earth, that society that comprehends all the elect, reaching back to the days of Abel, and onward to the last trumpet.

Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, Francisco Turrettino, vol. iii. quest, vi.; Genevae, 1688.

(source, Wylie, The Papacy, pp. 206-07)

-TurretinFan

The Real Turretin on: The Church of Rome (in his day)

To the same effect Turrettin denies that the modern Church of Rome can, without qualification, be called a true Church of Christ; but to explain his position he says: "The Church of Rome may be viewed under a two-fold aspect, as Christian in reference to the profession of Christianity, and of the evangelical truths which it retains; and as it is papal, in reference to its subjection to the Pope, and to its corruptions, as well in manners as in doctrine, which it has mixed up with those truths and built upon them, contrary to the word of God. In the former aspect, we do not deny that there is some truth in that Church; but in the latter, under which she is contemplated when we deny her to be a true Church, we deny that she is Christian and apostolical, but affirm her to be antichristian and apostate. In this view, impropriè et secundum quid, we admit the Church of Rome to be a Christian Church in three respects. 1. In respect to the people of God, the elect, still remaining in it, who are commanded to come out. 2. In respect to the external form, in which we discover some of the elements of a Church, in respect as well to the word of God and its preaching, which though corrupted, still remain, and as to the administration of the sacraments, especially baptism, which, as to the substance, still remains entire. 3. As to Christian and evangelical doctrines, as concerning the Trinity, Christ as mediator, his incarnation, death and resurrection, and others by which she is distinguished from pagans and infidels." vol. iii. p. 135.

(source - C. Hodge, The Church and Its Polity - p. 211)

-TurretinFan

The Real Turretin on: Validity of Baptisms by Heretics

Turrettin, vol. iii. p. 442. "Some heretics," he says, "corrupt the very substance of baptism, as the ancient Arians, modern Socinians, rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity others, retaining the essentials of the ordinance and the true doctrine of the Trinity, err as to other doctrines, as formerly the Novatians and Donatists, and now the Papists and Arminians. The baptisms of the former class are to be rejected; those of the latter are retained, although they err as to many doctrines, and their baptisms, in circumstantials, are polluted by various ceremonies." See also Pictet, La Theologie Chretienne, Lib. xv. c. 13.

(source - C. Hodge, The Church and Its Polity - p. 194)

-Turretinfan

The Real Turretin on: The Relation of Church and State

According to the Reformed Church of Geneva, Germany, France, Holland, and Scotland, the relation of the state and Church is taught in the following propositions as given and sustained by Turrettin. Lec. 28, Ques. 34.

1. Various rights belong to the Christian magistrate in reference to the Church.

This authority is confined within certain limits, and is essentially different from that of pastors. These limits are thus determined, a. The magistrate cannot introduce new articles of faith, or new rites or modes of worship. b. He cannot administer the word and sacraments. c. He does not possess the power of the keys. d. He cannot prescribe to pastors the form of preaching or administration of the sacraments. e. He cannot decide on ecclesiastical affairs, or on controversies of faith, without consulting the pastors.

On the other hand, a. He ought to establish the true religion, and when established, faithfully uphold it, and if corrupted, restore and reform it. b. He should, to the utmost, protect the Church by restraining heretics and disturbers of its peace, by propagating and defending the true religion, and hindering the confession of false religions, c. Provide proper ministers, and sustain them in the administration of the word and sacraments, according to the word of God, and found schools as well for the Church as the state, d. See that ministers do their duty faithfully according to the canons of the Church and the laws of the land. e. Cause that confessions of faith and ecclesiastical constitutions, agreeable to the Scriptures, be sanctioned, and when sanctioned adhered to. f. To call ordinary and extraordinary synods, to moderate in them, and to sanction their decisions with his authority.

The question, "whether the state can rightfully force its subjects to profess the faith," is answered in the negative. The question, "whether heretics should be capitally punished," is answered in the affirmative, provided their heresy is gross and dangerous to the Church and state, and provided they are contumacious and malignant in the defense and propagation of it.

(source - C. Hodge, The Church and Its Polity - p. 114)

-TurretinFan

The Real Turretin on: Imputation

Turrettin (Theol. Elench. Quaest. IX., p. 678) says, "Imputation is either of something foreign to us, or of something properly our own. Sometimes that is imputed to us which is personally ours; in which sense God imputes to sinners their transgressions. Some times that is imputed which is without us, and not performed by ourselves; thus the righteousness of Christ is said to be imputed to us, and our sins are imputed to him, although he has neither sin in himself, nor we righteousness. Here we speak of the latter kind of imputation, not of the former, because we are treating of a sin committed by Adam, not by us." The ground of this imputation is the union between Adam and his posterity. This union is not a mysterious identity of person, but, 1. "Natural, as he is the father, and we are the children. 2. Political and forensic, as he was the representative head and chief of the whole human race. The foundation, therefore, of imputation is not only the natural connection which exists between us and Adam, since in that case all his sins might be imputed to us, but mainly the moral and federal, in virtue of which God entered into covenant with him as our head." Again, "We are constituted sinners in Adam in the same way in which we are constituted righteous in Christ."

Again, (Vol. II., p. 707,) to impute, he says, "is a forensic term, which is not to be understood physically of the infusion of righteousness, but judicially and relatively." Imputation does not alter the moral character; hence the same individual may, in different respects, be called both just and unjust: "For when reference is had to the inherent quality, he is called a sinner and ungodly; but when the external and forensic relation to Christ is regarded, he is pronounced just in Christ." "When God justifies us on account of the righteousness of Christ, his judgment is still according to truth; because he does not pronounce us just in ourselves subjectively, which would be false, but in another putatively and relatively."

(source, C. Hodge's Commentary on Romans - pp. 280-281)

-TurretinFan