Further Response to FreeGrace - Exegesis Defended Against Assertion

FreeGrace has provided some further comments, which I will respond to below.

FreeGrace: "Your comment that the "all" fits perfectly with "all kinds" surprises me. I thought you had more academic training than to think that. If you want the "all" to mean only "all kinds of", then Paul isn't really saying that everyone in the human race is under sin, only "all kinds of humans". That, of course, would be a ridiculous understanding. Unless you really don't think that everyone in the human race is under sin. Maybe I presume too much of you. :)"

I supported my comment in the original post (link). We get the definitive universality of sinfulness from the "there is none righteous, no not one." The "all" unmistakably refers to "both Jews and Gentiles" in context. If that doesn't fit with your theory, revise your theory. As for "academic training" and "presume too much," they would be relevant if you had some sort of merit to your contentions: merit that you could demonstrate with exegesis, not assertion. On the other hand, I don't rest on academic laurels, but simply on the Scriptures. If you presume that I would go along with your theory without holding it up to the light of Scriptures, you do presume too much.

FreeGrace: "Also, GMB fails to grasp what I've said, to be claiming that universal atonement leads to universalism. That is only an erroneous presupposition. His way of interpreting to be "that those who have sinned and those who are justified are one and the same" suggests the same thing you seem to be proposing. That not everyone in the human race has sinned, which is a ridiculous proposal."

GMB, of course, stands for Gene M. Bridges, who commented on the original post (link). It seems you are having trouble understanding the verses, or simply want to promote your theory regardless of what the verses say.

Here, again, is the text:

22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

You seem to want to imagine that "all have sinned" is the same group as "being justified" AND that "all have sinned" is a reference to the entirety of humanity. If that were so, then the result would be that the entirety of humanity is justified. If that were so, then the entirety of humanity would be saved. There's no escape from that conclusion.

FreeGrace: "Since Paul has noted in 3:9 that everyone is under sin, not just "all kinds of men", it is ridiculous to presuppose that 3:23 is referring only to believers, which is what you have done. 3:23 is clearly a re-iteration of 3:9. You may deny it, but that's what Paul has done."

If you go back and read the original post (link), you will see that "presuppos[ing]" it is not what I did. Instead, I derived the sense of verse 23 from the context, something you seem incapable of following. I hope this explanation will help. The interpretation of verse 23 does not depend on whether the "all" in verse 9 extends (in context) to all of the members of both sets (in context, it does - because of the "none is righteous, no not one"). In fact the way to logically arrange the discussion is to see Paul making a general statement about humanity in verses 9-10, and then a specific statement about the elect in verses 22-24.

FreeGrace: "For you to say "All have sinned, both Jew and Gentile--consequently all who believed have sinned" is silly. When Paul stated that all are under sin, he wasn't saying that only all kinds of people have sinned. He was stating the fact that everyone in the human race has sinned. Do you disagree? So 3:23 is simply re-iterating his point from 3:9. After saying everyone in the human race is under sin, and then to say "all believers have sinned" is absurd."

It's actually quite a simple, syllogistic way of discussing things:

1. All men are sinners.
2. Believers are men.
3. Believers are sinners.

(3) is proved by (1), not made ridiculous by it (or "silly" or any other name you may wish to tar it with), whatever you may think.

Furthermore, Paul presented the entire argument from verse 9 to verse 20 to deal with the issue of the possibility of works righteousness. Paul denies that we are better than the unbelievers, affirming the universality of sinfulness both categorically ("both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin") and individually ("There is none righteous, no, not one: there is noen that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable, there is none that doeth good, no, not one ... there is no fear of God before their eyes.")

Verse 23 serves as a reapplication of that general principle to the believers, "all them that believe" (verse 22) namely those who are "justified freely by his grace." After all, that's the reason for Paul's argument ... referring back to verse 9, "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise ..."

The "we" and "they" in verse 9 is not Jews and Gentiles (for Paul is a Jew writing to Gentiles) but believers and unbelievers. We are not saved because we are saved because we are better. Instead, we are saved by the free and sovereign grace of God.

FreeGrace: "Further, GMB's comment that there are "not 2 ways of salvation" is absurd. Where does he get that from? Where does he think I've said anything close to that? His first point completely misses what I've said. The condition for justification is believing, but he seems oblivious to that fact. And his second point is simply his opinion. On what basis does he claim that statements about universal atonement cannot be differentiated from statements about universal salvation. That is just reformed presupposition."

I assume by "absurd" that you mean that you did not intend to say that there are two ways of salvation. I think, though, that you need to go back to the original post and reread his comment to see the point of what he's saying. I'll let him clarify again, though, if he so chooses.

As for the issue of claims about universal atonement being non-differentiable from statements about universal salvation is not "reformed presupposition," but extensive experience speaking. We look for advocates of the former to try to differentiate their statements from those of the latter, and it comes up empty. This case is no different: rather than differentiate, you have simply sold the house.

What do I mean by saying that you have sold the house? You have acknowledged that, to use your words, "The condition for justification is believing." If that is so, then there are only three options:

1. The "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" refers (as, in fact, it does) only to believers in the context of verse 23;

2. It refers to "each and every person" and "each and every person" fulfills the condition and is justified (leading to universal salvation); or

3. It refers to "each and every person" but not all of them fulfill the condition which contradicts your original statement that "all have sinned" refers to the same group as "being justified."

So, you have (1) our position, (2) universal salvation, or (3) self-contradiction. Take your pick.

FreeGrace: "Here is an example of how Christ could purchase (agarazo) salvation for everyone, yet not everyone receive it."

A. The Whole Foundation of this Argument is Contra-Biblical
1. Christ purchased (peripoieomai) the church with his blood (Acts 20:28).
2. That's why we can be refered to as the purchased possession (peripoiēsis) (Ephesians 1:14).
3. We, believers, are bought (agorazō) with a price (timē). (1 Corinthians 6:20 and 7:23).
4. Indeed, the elect was redeemed (agorazō) out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation (Revelation 5:9) and redeemed (agorazō) from the earth (Revelation 14:3) and redeemed (agorazō) from among men (Revelation 14:4).

But Scripture never ever refers to salvation being purchased (agorazō) by Christ's blood, it speaks of people, namely the elect, being purchased by Christ's blood.

B. Even if it were Biblical, it is not germane to Romans 3.

Romans 3 refers to believe who are justified, not who might possibly some day be justified, if they choose to be justified. In short, there's no reason, linguistic or contextual to jump from "being justified" to "potentially being justified."

FreeGrace: "A man living in an apartment building wants everyone in his building to have a Bible. So he goes out and purchases a Bible for every resident in the building. Then he goes to every apartment and offers a Bible to each resident. Those that want one receive one, and those who do not want one, don't receive one."

The great over-spender analogy. Counter query. If the man knows in advance that only 1/2 of the people will want one, would he be wiser to buy the right amount, or wiser to overpurchase? (as he does in your analogy) In fact, wouldn't the man in your analogy be wiser to go around and find out how many people want a Bible before making his purchase?

Surely, in this example, a Bible has been purchased for each and every person, but to what end? It is simply to make Bible ownership a possibility for each person. If that's your analogy to salvation, come out and say that you think Christ died on the cross simply to make salvation possible for his people, not - as Scripture says - to save his people from their sins.

FreeGrace: "Now, how can you or GMB claim that statements about "universal Bible purchases" cannot be differentiated from statement about "universal Bible ownership"? Please explain. My example demonstrates that while a Bible was purchased (agarazo) for everyone, not everyone received one."

No, those can be differentiated. But the atonement reconciles God to man. It does not merely make reconciliation possible. The analogy to creating a stockpile of Bibles falls apart, because the Atonement actually accomplishes something. It also falls apart because it is not a stockpile of salvation that is purchased by Christ, but people: the elect.

FreeGrace: "Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. You have in no way provided me any support for your pov on this passage, as I'm sure you have already figured."

I'm willing to let the reader judge for himself.

FreeGrace: "I thought it was interesting how you wanted to emphasize the passage, when you put in very small print the last part of v.22 and v.23. Seems you want to "minimize" it. Here is a way to read the passage with only the prepositional phrase in v.25 moved to the beginning of the verse:

Through faith in His blood (v.25)...all (who) have sinned (entire human race) (v.23)...are justified freely (v.24). I added the "who" to smooth the sentence. The key remains: justification is through faith. Paul has included the entire human race in a statement about how to be justified."

Your problem is clearly seen here. The verse says "are justified," whether you ignore that or not. It does not say "can be justified" or "should be justified" or "ought to be justified" or "may be justified" or "might be justified" or "would be justified" or "could be justified" or anything else but "are justified" (or "being justified").

The point of the passage is only partly to talk about justification by grace through faith - you're missing the other half: the other half of the point is to show that gracious justification is the great equalizer: it is because justification is not based on us distinguishing ourselves from others, but instead is based on grace, that there is no difference between us and the unbeliever except the grace of God.

FreeGrace: "In other words, Paul didn't limit from the human race who can be justified. He noted the condition, that is, faith. That is the only "limit" on justification. I think your attempt to render "all" in v.23 to refer only to believers reveals your defense of your pov at the expense of what the text says."

Yes, Paul does implicitly limit who can be justified, by making by grace. If justification were by works, those who wanted to be justified would simply work hard, distinguishing themselves from others.

But instead, all mankind universally is under sin - there is none that seeks after God. God graciously converts some, bringing them to faith in Christ, justifying them by grace. All of these were sinners, none were righteous, for everyone is a sinner. Thus, there is no room for pride to those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, because this was not of themselves - they were saved by grace, not obedience to God's law.

Nevertheless, the limitation on who can be justified is not the main point of the passage, it's simply implicit in gracious salvation (see above for the main point). If other parts of Scripture were ignored, we could accept universal salvation as being consistent with this text, because God could (again, ignoring other things we know about God from other Scriptures) show the same grace to all, if he so desired, because his grace is freely bestowed, not earned, merited, or procured.

-Turretinfan

Jonathan Edwards Resources

Hopefully, many of you will be as excited as I was to see this helpful catalog of Jonathan Edwards Resources, provided by Ryan Martin at the blog Immoderate. (link) I cannot emphasize his disclaimer enough: "Google should not be used as a substitute for your careful reading and study of these materials in their complete form." That said, using Google Books current interfaces you can, in many instances, download the complete form of the books, and read and study them carefully.

-TurretinFan

Response to FreeGrace - Unlimited Atonement in Romans?

A Non-Calvinist who uses the screen name FreeGrace recently resent me a question he had sent a while back, and which I had hoped to answer more quickly.

FreeGrace: "I recently discovered a phrase by Paul that I believe is clearly indicative of unlimited atonement, though not specifically mentioning it. It is Rom 3:32-25."

Here is the text, Romans 3:22-25
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

FreeGrace: "But first, Paul makes the clear point in 3:9 that "all are under sin", obviously meaning everyone in humanity, not just "all kinds of", as the reformed like to say.:) "

Actually, the "all" refers to "both Jews and Gentiles," ("we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin") which fits perfectly with "all kinds." In fact, what rules out a barely general (as opposed to universal) reading is the "none righteous, no not one" in the next verse. Anyhow, the sinfulness of man is universal.

FreeGrace: "Then, he repeats that point in 3:23 with "for all have sinned"."

Actually, it is roughly repeating the same point, which is a little different from what FreeGrace seems to think. The text is:

Romans 3:22-23
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

The point of "for all have sinned" is in reference to the fact that there is no difference between Jewish and Gentile believers: all have sinned - all are saved by grace, not works.

FreeGrace:"One of the C campers on CW wants to believe the "all" of v.23 is the same "all" found in v.22 in the phrase "all who believe", but that makes Paul's statement in v.23 rather silly in light of what he has just said about all of humanity in 3:9."

That depends on the point of Paul's argument. It looks like a syllogism. All have sinned, both Jews and Gentiles -- consequently all who believe have sinned - there is no difference between Jewish and Gentile believers - they have to be saved the same way: freely by grace through the redemption that is in Christ.

FreeGrace:"iow, why would Paul state that "all believers have sinned" when he has just made the point that everyone in humanity is under sin, a point that the reformed do not argue."

He would do that to emphasize that it is not the case that some come to salvation by works, and others by faith. All come by faith, since works are unavailing.

FreeGrace: "Anyway, here is the connected thought found in that passage, with only the pertinent words included: "for all have sinned...(v.23) and are justified freely...(v.24) through faith in His blood...(v.25)."

I would respectfully submit to you that the correct way to read the passage is this way:
"22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: (for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;) 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

That is to say, I would view the "for there is no difference ... glory of God" phrase as a parenthetical - explaining the "all" in the "all them that believe."

FreeGrace: "By including the entire human race in v.23, and saying "being justified" per KJV or "and are justified" per ESV (a favorite among reformed I learned recently), Paul is saying that the entire human race is justified through faith. That can only be possible if Christ died for everyone, which I think this verse demonstrates."

Men are justified when they believe. Even if there were some sense in which we could say that men are justified from eternity (not admitted), justification, properly speaking, occurs when a man believes. Not all men (i.e. each and every member of humanity) believe, therefore not all men (in that sense) are justified.

Thus, you have two options:

1) You can deny that not every man believes, which leads to a sort of "Evangelical Universalism," or

2) You can recognize that the "being justified" just refers back to the part of the passage immediately before the parenthetical, namely to the "all them that believe" the same group upon whom the righteousness of God, which is by faith in Jesus Christ, has been manifested.

I would respectfully submit to you that the latter interpretation is the better one.

FreeGrace: "When Paul penned Rom 5:8, based on his comments in 3:9 and 3:23, I believe he was speaking as a member of the human race, rather than as a believer."

This seems like a strange jump, and a wrong jump. It is strange because the only connection seems to be the fact that we were sinners. It is wrong, because we can clearly pick out who the "we" is in the context.

Here's the text of Romans 5:8

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Here's the context:

Romans 5:1-9
1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. 6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

The "we" is the justified, the ones who have access, who have the Holy Ghost, and who shall be saved.

-Turretinfan

Team Apologian

As many of my blog readers already know, I've been inducted as a member of the Team Apologian at the blog of Alpha & Omega Ministries. I look forward to doing my best to try to contribute to that blog. At the same time, I think it worthwhile to provide a couple of caveats.

a) Dr. White, the leader of the team, does not endorse everything I write here (he may not even endorse everything in every article I write at the A&O Ministries blog).

b) Conversely, I don't agree with Dr. White (or other members of the team) on everything.

Given all that disagreement, how can we be on one blogging team?

The answer is simple: we agree that Scripture is the rule of faith and that the Gospel message is one of faith in Christ alone for salvation. We are divided in some ways, but we can have Christian fellowship and unity that bridges the denominational and lesser doctrinal differences among us. We worship one God, and defend faith in Him against all those who question our sure hope of Salvation from the wrath which is to come.

In the essentials: Unity
In the non-essentials: Liberty
In all things: Prudence and Charity

-TurretinFan

New Pictet Book Available (French Only)

Google Books has recently (as far as I know) added Histoire de l'Eglise et du monde (History of the Church and of the World) by Benedict Pictet to their collection of books. Those who are Reformed and read French will presumably be thankful to be able to add it to their collections.

(link)

-Turretinfan

Justice and Mercy Compared

It is sometimes stated that permitting a criminal to go unpunished is wrong, and is actually worse than the crime the criminal did.

I distinguish.

a) It is worse when done by a judge.
b) It is not worse when done by a victim.

We can see this by considering that it is mercy not to drag everyone who has wronged us before a judge. On the other hand, it is injustice for a judge to fail to apply the law to the guilty.

We can also see this in the work of God. Christ shows us mercy. The Father shows Christ justice. Thus, God as victim shows mercy, while God as judge shows justice.
Furthermore, God as king shows mercy by permitting a substitute, but that mercy in no way diminishes justice, because he still demands satisfaction.

-Turretinfan

Instructions to a Minister - An Ancient Voice Speaks

V. A bishop must be no accepter of persons; neither revering nor flattering a rich man contrary to what is right, nor overlooking nor domineering over a poor man. For, says God to Moses, "Thou shalt not accept the person of the rich, nor shalt thou pity a poor man in his cause: for the judgment is the Lord's." [Leviticus 19:15 and Exodus 23:3] And again: "Thou shalt with exact justice follow that which is right." [Deuteronomy 1:17 and 16:20]

Let a bishop be frugal, and contented with a little in his meat and drink, that he may be ever in a sober frame, and disposed to instruct and admonish the ignorant; and let him not be costly in his diet, a pamperer of himself, given to pleasure, or fond of delicacies.

Let him be patient and gentle in his admonitions, well instructed himself, meditating in and diligently studying the Lord's books, and reading them frequently, that so he may be able carefully to interpret the Scriptures, expounding the gospel in correspondence with the prophets and with the law; and let the expositions from the law and the prophets correspond to the gospel. For the Lord Jesus says: "Search the Scriptures; for they are those which testify of me." [John 5:39] And again: "For Moses wrote of me." [John 4:46] But, above all, let him carefully distinguish between the original law and the additional precepts, and show which are the laws for believers, and which the bonds for the unbelievers, lest any should fall under those bonds. Be careful, therefore, O bishop, to study the word, that thou mayest be able to explain everything exactly, and that thou mayest copiously nourish thy people with much doctrine, and enlighten them with the light of the law; for God says: "Enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge, while we have yet opportunity." [Hosea 10:12]

The above ancient advice is part of the so-called "Apostolic Constitutions," Book II, Section II, Paragraph V. Translation taken from Donaldson et al. (Edinburgh, 1870) "Ante-Nicene Christian Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325," Volume XVII, page 29. Book II was actually translated by Rev. Thomas Smith, D.D. It's tough to date these "Constitutions," but the best guess would seem to be third or fourth century.

It is interesting to note the primary method for minister (bishop) to be taught is from studying the Bible.

-TurretinFan

Grudem On-Line

I'll confess that I greatly prefer Hodge, Shedd, Calvin, Turretin, Dabney, Ames, Ridgley, and Reymond to Grudem, and even prefer Berkhof to Grudem, nevertheless many of my Reformed Baptist brethren seem to enjoy Grudem's Systematic Theology. That volume is now freely available on-line.

-TurretinFan

I've decided to remove the link, after reading the following article (link), which I cannot verify, and which contains certain misrepresentations upon which I won't elaborate.

Responding to Churchfellaway

Churchfellaway (CFA) has provided a video responding to Dr. White's response to a Muslim fellow. (link) CFA begins badly, having to ensure the audience that he is not defending the Muslim.

He wants to respond to the fact that Thomas called Jesus "God." His first argument is that Thomas didn't speak English (ok ...) and didn't speak Greek (how in the world does he conclude that? he does not say). He claims Thomas never would have said "theos."

As reported by the Apostle John, however, that's just what Thomas said:

John 20:28 και απεκριθη ο θωμας και ειπεν αυτω ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου

θεος = Theos = God

He claims that he calls Jesus "Elohim."

He says we know that it was translated from Elohim, because we see Jesus making a reference in John 10 where Jesus is accused of making himself God. Jesus responds by quoting Psalm 82:6 to them, which states: "I have said, ye are gods ..." the word being used in the Hebrew original of Psalm 82 being Elohim.

It's a little irritating for him to keep calling Psalm 82, "Psalms 82."

There's an obvious problem with his argument: John 10 is not the context of John 20:28, and there's no real reason to suppose that Thomas spoke these words to Jesus in anything other than Greek.

Furthermore, there is an underlying problem with CFA's view of the significance of Jesus' reference to Psalm 82:6. Jesus was not suggesting that he was merely a Psalm 82:6 Elohim: merely a judge or ruler. Instead, he was convicting them using Scripture. They could not answer him. He started from Psalm 82:6, and said if it was lawful to use the name of God to describe the judges ordained by God, how much more lawful it was for Jesus who was sent into this world by the Father to use that title. Psalm 82:6 was provided for contrast, not for explanation of his own title.

In fact, CFA is so bold as to call this an "English and Greek farce." Of course, CFA has no good reason to suppose that the gospel of John was originally written in some other language than Greek. Greek fragments of the Gospel of John are among the earliest fragments of the New Testament in our possession. By calling John's account a "farce," CFA is actually opposing not Dr. White, but Scripture.

-Turretinfan

Dr. White Explains Textual Transmission to Kent Hovind

Dr. White has provided a series of three video responses to some rather uninformed comments by Kent Hovind on Bible versions. Hovind's comments appear to be gleaned from the book he recommends, a book by Gail Riplinger, one of the prominent promoters of KJV-Onlyism.

The problems in Hovind's presentation are numerous, and even Dr. White's presentation is unable to snag all of them.

Part I



Part II



Part III



Ultimately, the video series demonstrates that one has to be careful in who one listens to. Hovind probably sounds like he knows what he is talking about to someone who doesn't understand the history of the transmission of the text of Scripture. In fact, however, he's wildly off the mark.

Some of his points may ring true (for example, a manuscript in constant use is less likely to survive for more than a millennium while a manuscript in disuse will last a long time). On the other hand he makes such egregious errors as to identify the Textus Receptus with the Majority Text and to imagine that the Textus Receptus was based on 5,000 or so Greek manuscripts (when, in fact, more realistic estimates are at least a couple of orders of magnitude less), as well as to confuse the manner of transmission of the Hebrew text by the Jews with the manner of transmission of the Greek text by the Christians.

All in all, I found the video series enjoyable and educational. I hope that if the transmission of the text of the New Testament interests you, you'll also find the series profitable.

-TurretinFan

P.S. As an aside, I would be very cautious about relying on Hovind's work. That's not to say that everything he says is wrong - for example he has many right things to say in other areas than the areas noted in the video series above. The problem is that Hovind doesn't appear to have a good idea of the limits of his own knowledge, as demonstrated in this video series.

Rocks Ahead!

Those of us who live inland are sometimes blissful unaware of the dangers of coastal navigation in boats. In old times, it would be routine for some sailors to make their living guiding out-of-town boats through the waters even of a harbor out to the ocean, assisting them in avoiding submerged rocks, and sandy shoals that could sink a ship, or cause it to become stuck. When such a pilot was not available, those operating the ship would have to keep their eyes peeled for clues as to the dangers at hand, and proceed cautiously. Thus, "Rocks Ahead" would be a call of alarm, much like the call "Iceberg Dead Ahead" became a chilling warning of impending doom in the cinematic portrayal of the Titanic's demise.

So to, I'd like to try to help a bit in this regard. There are a few rocks that I've noticed, that I'd like to draw to your attention - rocks that are especially dangerous to young or new Christians, rocks that are especially dangerous to developing Christians, and rocks that are dangerous to mature Christians.

I. New Christians - Zeal and Love without Knowledge

Many who come to faith in Christ, whether young or old, come with great zeal and love of God. Usually, however, they have a rather minimal understanding of theology and the Bible. They are eager to serve God who they love, but they don't always know how. This can pose a danger because their lack of knowledge can lead to gullibility or to misdirected zeal.

The solution, the way to avoid these rocks, is to study Scripture. Learn what God has to say in the Word. That is not to say that one must only study Scripture unassisted by human aids. When one uses human aids, even the aids of excellent commentators like Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, or John Gill, one needs to be cautious carefully comparing what the commentator said to the Word of God, remembering that the commentator is a man, and that men sometimes make mistakes: even Godly men.

II. Developing Christians - Inadequate Methodology

Christians who have started studying sometimes seem to forget the rock summarized by the adage: "A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing." These are Christians who have found some useful tool or other for studying Scripture, have been delighted by the influx of knowledge they have gleaned from it, and have overlooked their own lack of experience in using it or (perhaps) lack of gifts in applying it.

The most frequent example of this sort of behavior that I have seen is the misuse of lexicons. These days one can find on-line dictionaries and, for Greek, parsing software, that can enable a person with very little training or actual linguistic or even grammatical skill to unearth some of the nuances of the Bible.

This sort of thing can have its place, certainly. Strong's lexicon and concordance are an invaluable (that means "of enormous value") resource. It is helpful to be able to learn sometimes that the Greek word for "suffer" in the verse "suffer the little children to come" means to permit, not to torture. Another example, is to look up the Greek word underlying "whosoever" in John 3:16 to discover that the Greek word means "all."

A lexicon, though, has to be used carefully. Languages, especially ancient languages, are full of traps for the unwary. One typical example of such a trap is the use of paraphrastic constructions: ways of saying something in a roundabout or indirect manner. We sometimes do this in English, though much more rarely. For example, one might consider the expression "I am going to sell my house," to be an example of an English paraphrastic way of saying, "I will sell my house." Someone who did not know English, and who only had a lexicon and/or some parsing software might conclude, by looking up each word individually, that the person was trying to say that he was presently ("am") moving ("going") to a closing on the sale of a house. In fact, the person simply means that he will sell his house, and "am going to sell" is a round-about way to express that.

Another example of this sort of error can be found in the use of "word studies." I have met many Christians who seem to live and die by word studies. Typically, these people will do the word studies in English in some English version (such as the KJV), but a few will do the same in Greek. Again, these studies can have value. For example, one might want to know the semantic range of a particular Biblical word, such as "Lord." A word study is a way to discover (in English) that the word "Lord" is used of a variety of different referents, and not only about our Lord God.

On the other hand, these word studies can (especially when performed only in English) be misleading and dangerous. For example, while it may be helpful to find out that some particular word is used 99% of the time in the context of judgment, that statistical analysis (at best) provides a default position for understanding the term in the context you are considering. Assuming that the Bible always uses words the same way is a sure way to lead to absurd results. Consider, for example, the problem with assuming that the words in "For God so loved the world," and "If any man love the world," are supposed to have precisely the same meaning.

Finally, a third example combines the last two techniques, in a way. In the third example, the person uses Strong's number for the word (translated "X" in English) in question in verse A and finds out that the same word has been translated with meaning "Y" in one or several other verses. The person then concludes that since the word can mean "Y" in those other verses, it can mean "Y" in verse A. This sort of analysis overlooks the complexity of translation, and the importance of understanding a word's semantic range as limited by the context in which the word is used. What one has to be especially cautious of, is finding a word in a verse that does not fit one's theology, running to a lexicon, and finding a definition within the general semantic range of that word that does fit one's theology, and then insisting that the word has been either poorly translated or mistranslated by others (especially when this means claiming that the verse has been wrongly translated by virtually all the previous translators).

The solution for each of these errors is to be cautious and cognizant of one's own academic, linguistic, and grammatical abilities. Don't assume that Strong's Concordance makes you a Greek scholar, and be cautious about standing opposed to Greek scholars when it comes to translating Greek (or Hebrew for that matter, though fewer people seem to get hooked on trying to re-translate the Hebrew). If your translation of a verse doesn't jive with either the traditional translation (KJV or the like) or the newer translations (ESV or NASB), consider whether perhaps you may have made a mistake, and try to learn why the other translators translated it the way they did. They may know something you do not. In fact, they may know plenty that you do not.

III. Mature Christians - Pride

Knowledge truly can puff up. It's easy for mature Christians, having studied the Bible extensively, having learned theology in many nuances to become proud and think that have arrived at a full understanding or a methodology that does not need external correction. This is sometimes seen in the "Not Invented Here" (NIH) syndrome. NIH rejects ideas that one did not think of oneself. If someone tries to provide new light on an issue, a person suffering from NIH simply rejects it out of hand, "I never heard of that."

This kind of stubbornness can be helpful in keeping the mature Christian from being buffeted by every wind of doctrine. On the other hand, this can stop the growth of the mature Christian. It is always important for the mature Christian to be ready to go back and reconsider his views in light of Scripture. That does not mean we hold views that have been demonstrated from Scripture without tenacity. Instead, it means that we are careful to remember that we two are merely men, and in need of the sharpening iron of our fellow Christians.

This kind of stubbornness can also lead to another problem: disrespect for God-given spiritual authorities. That is to say, Christian men can (aware of their own well-developed knowledge) become scornful of the elders that God has given them for their spiritual edification. It's fairly common knowledge that in many households one of the main items at Sunday lunch is Roast Sermon, in which problems (real or perceived) in the sermon are dissected and amplified as though under a microscope. That is not to say that there is not a place for sermon criticism, simply that it is easy for people to forget that their elders have an important and God-ordained rule in providing teaching and spiritual rule. We can disagree Scripturally with them, but we must not allow ourselves to become disdainful of their gifts, while pretending to be under their leadership.

This problem extends beyond the man-elder relationship to the wife-husband relation and the child-parent relationship. While children normally would fall into one of the two previous categories, should a child by God's grace develop a mature understanding of Scripture while still a child, he must still remember the place and purpose not only of his elders, but of his parents as well. Likewise, wives need to remember that their primary human authority in spiritual matters is their husband. This can be especially difficult for wives who are more well read in theological matters than their husbands. The solution there is partly for the wives to learn humility, but also for the husbands to study harder: study the Word so that your wife will not have to ask for your help, but will be eager to ask for your help when it comes to understanding what was preached in church, or what is taught in Scripture.

With these cautions, let us do our best to navigate (with the help of our brethren and that Pilot of our souls, the Holy Spirit) the sometimes rocky harbor of this life, until we reach at last the open sea of heaven, a sea where there will be no icebergs - but we will have the Light of the Lamb to guide and teach us.

Praise be to the Lord!

-Turretinfan

Clear Example of False Prophet

Here is a clear example of a false prophet: (link). He has now twice predicted a nuclear doomsday. That his prophecies have failed to come to pass is self-evident. The just and appropriate punishment for this crime against God is death:

Deuteronomy 18:20-22

20But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. 21And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? 22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Although Texas does not punish false prophecy with death, it does punish fraud - and should use that mechanism to punish this con artist. I have no idea whether it will.

I wonder what other mechanism than the law is available to bring this group, and particularly its false prophet to a recognition of their sin, repentance of it, and faith in Christ.

Lest you think that I am relying solely on the secular media in this regard consider this, taken from the group's own web site (here):
"By June 12, 2007 the nine-month nuclear baby will have been born, causing a third part of man to be killed over a fourth part of the earth in and around the great River Euphrates with nuclear wars."

But this man is brazen ... he now claims: "It’s plain to see that all these Prophecies of this nuclear war that will kill a third part of man over a fourth part of the earth in and around the great River Euphrates would have been fulfilled already had it not been for another Prophecy showing the Plan of Yahweh."

It should be pointed out that the Texas authorities have been after this guy on other grounds, alleging that he is a polygamist and has been violating child labor laws. Ultimately, those are unsatisfying conclusions to the matter, though perhaps it is all we can hope for.

-TurretinFan

Deflating Assumptions Regarding Free Will - A Response to Ben Witherington

Ben Witherington has written an interesting post on the freedom of God. It actually meshes somewhat with my ongoing discussing with Godismyjudge (Dan) in other posts, and so it is fitting that I respond to some of the issues Ben raises in his article (link to article).

Ben writes: "I take it that the primary attribute of God is not God's will but rather God's love, which is a holy love."

I respond:

The primary attribute of God is being. God is the I AM. All other attributes of God are predicated (logically) on his being. Foremost among God's attributes are his primary attributes. Among God's primary attributes are his wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Love is not properly a primary attribute of God. God is Love, Scripture tells us, but Love is God acting. Love is transitive, it requires an object. Therefore, Love cannot be a primary attribute of God, with (perhaps) one exception. In God's wisdom, God loves Himself with a perfect, eternal love. The persons of the Trinity love one another, and have always loved one another. God's love can be viewed as a secondary attribute of God, proceeding from his wisdom, holiness, goodness, justice, and truth. God deserves His own love, and He properly loves Himself.

Ben states: "I say this because God's will has primarily to do with his doing, but what is prior to that is God's being or character, and in my view God's willing is dependent on his character."

I don't have any particular problem with God's will being viewed as subservient to his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. We can even say that, at least in some instances, God's love logically precedes an act of God's will. Thus, for example, our election is motivated by God's love.

Ben states: "There are certain things which, while theoretically God might be able to do, God would never do because it would be 'out of character'. For example God is light, and in God is no darkness at all. This I take to mean that God would never do evil nor commit sin. "

Again, this is not particularly objectionable, except for the underlying idea that "theoretically God might be able" to act out of character. I'm not sure what Ben's trying to do there ... perhaps he's just trying to speak loosely.

Ben continues: "There is supposed to be a reflection of the divine character in us, and indeed in all of creation. This in turn means that God, having set up the universe in a particular way, is not free to be capricious and redefine the meaning of holy in the middle of the game."

I think this is intended to simply be supporting proof for the idea that God's nature is holy in a fixed way, and not in a "whatever I happen to do is holy" way. As such, it would not be objectionable. If Ben is trying to suggest that God is stuck with a free choice to create, and that he cannot change the rules of the created order mid-game, then Ben would seem to have a problem with special miracles.

Ben continues: "God has chosen to express the divine nature in a particular way and has chosen to limit himself such that God as well as all of his creation is subject to certain standards of truth, holiness, love, and so on."

This claim seems to suggest that Ben believes God's standard of truth, holiness, love, and so on is not intrinsic but voluntary. God chose to define "truth" this way, and now he is stuck with it. This is out of accord with conventional Christian thought on the matter. God's primary attributes are intrinsic, not voluntary. God is true, because he is God, not because He chooses to be true, or because He has defined truth a certain way. That is not to suggest that there is a category of "truth" that is logically precedent to God, but rather that our very idea of truth comes from God's own character.

Ben states: "This is a complicated matter, but the bottom line is that once God set up a universe with other free agents other than himself, God is not free to do just anything without violating his revealed character and will."

Here Ben seems to assume that created agents are "free" in some similar sense to that in which God is free. There is no particular basis for that assumption. Man is (and angels and the animal creation are) "free" in some sense, but calling them "other free agents" raises a number of serious problems, foremost among them being: God is other. God is not a man. God is not part of creation, and although man bears the image of God, God is infinite where man is finite.

Ben states: "This is not an absolute limitation. I am assume God could set up a definition of sin and could violate it, but if God did, he would cease to be the good God of the Bible."

Unless God's character is voluntary, or God's character is not holy, it is an absolute limitation. God cannot sin. That's intrinsic to God. God would cease to exist if he sinned - therefore God absolutely cannot sin. Also, a just and truthful God cannot call sin good

Ben continues: "[I]t is terribly false to predicate of God sins that he prohibits us from doing, say for example destroying innocent human lives for no good or appropriate reason."

Our relationship to other humans is necessarily different from God's relationship to human beings. Thus, it is incorrect to make the comparison between God doing something to His creation and us doing something to God's creation. God has an owner-chattel relationship to the world (the cattle on a thousand hills are his), whereas we have more of a fraternal relationship - our fellow man is not our creation, but God's creation: he does not bear our image but God's image (I am of course leaving out certain human relationships like father-son, master-slave, husband-wife, or king-subject).

Ben continues: "I assume that when human beings were created in the image of God this meant, among other things that Adam had libertarian freedom to either obey God or not."

This assumption cannot be justified exegetically. Exegetically, the primary characteristic of man that is God's image is dominion over God's creation. One might argue that a will is necessary to that end, or even that a free will was part of the package (included with rational thought) that God's image entails. There is, however, no Scriptural reason to step beyond that and make it a libertarian free will rather than a compatible free will.

Ben states: "It is not appropriate to judge this matter on the basis of the attributes of fallen human beings who indeed in various ways can be said to be in bondage to sin or addicted to sinful behaviors. No the question is, how did God make us in the first place, and how in Christ does God restore us in Christ as we are renewed in the image of Christ? Does grace restore the power of contrary choice in redemption or not?"

Ben here seems to be confused about his categories. The distinction between the will bound by sin and the will freed by grace is not the difference between no free will and free will. It is, instead, a change in the character of the man. A fallen man sins constantly, but freely. He sins in accordance with his fallen nature. A regenerate man does good freely.

Suggesting that the ability to do both good and evil is what characterizes free will creates some serious problems. First, it creates the problem that fallen man would not have a free will. This would tend to wreak havoc on libertarian views of the responsibility of fallen man. If man has no free will, he would seem to be unable to sin (if, as it is claimed, sin requires a free will). On the other hand, and secondly, God is unable to sin. Thus, if free will requires the ability both to sin and to do good, God does not have free will, in which case the "image of God " assumption (made without warrant by Ben above) is logically inconsistent.

Ben: "Of course much depends on one's view of grace. Some people think grace works rather like an escalator-- it does all the heavy lifting and we are just along for the ride. I disagree with this. Grace is not irresistible, it is rather a form of enablement from a gracious God which gives us a further chance to freely love and obey God. In other words, we must indeed work out our salvation with fear and trembling, God's grace does not do it all for us and in spite of us."

Of course, we would reject the elevator analogy in favor of the Lazarus analogy. Grace is irresistible because, well, how is a dead man going to fight resuscitation? It's irresistible because it circumvents man's will - not because it drags man kicking and screaming up to heaven.

Ben: "Another of the major issues which affects this discussion is the nature of love. Now I understand love to be something that is the most personal act of either God or human beings."

It is interesting that Hen here seems to acknowledge love is action. As such, it is not a primary attribute of God, just as "willing" (being an action) is not a primary attribute of God. I, of course, would not limit love to God and man, but extend it to other creatures at least including angels, and more than likely including animals. Numerous dog owners can testify to the apparent love of their pets. Furthermore, mother birds and bears are notorious for their love for their offspring and their zeal in sacrificing themselves for them. But that is tangential.

Calling something the "most personal act" is a bit vacuous. How does one compare the personality of actions? The words seem to be designed to laud love (and who but the strongest cynics among us could oppose the praise of love), but the words don't seem to convey anything particular.

Furthermore, love can be totally impersonal. In fact, sadly, the love of God as portrayed in the popular media these days is mostly impersonal: "God loves you," we read, and maybe even, "You are special to God," but the same is true (according to these sources) of each and every person. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this converts to "God loves everybody," and "you are as special to God as the next person." This sort of promiscuous love is the kind of love we often have to our neighbors in the next country. We do not know any of them personally, but we love them all and wish them well.

Ben states: "And furthermore it is the most free and freeing act of all beings."

If it is free in the sense of voluntary, then the will takes logical precedence over love, which seems contrary to Ben's thesis. If it is free in some other sense, then the connection to the rest of the post doesn't seem very clear.

Furthermore, we can say from experience and Scripture that human love is not free, in the sense of voluntary. Men and women fall in love - often without any apparent control over their love. Furthermore, trying to make oneself love something one detests is, at least for most, a hopeless task. Finally, getting back to Scripture, we find that human love has causes: for example, we love God because He first loved us.

Calling love "freeing" is also somewhat odd. Love unites. It united David and Jonathon. It united John and Jesus. Love unites us to Christ. It is binding. A man's love for his wife binds him to a life of her service. A woman's love for her husband binds her to a life of obedience. A dog's love of his master binds him to the household more tightly than any chain.

Ben continues: "It must be freely given and freely received."

As to "received" this is plainly wrong. We can love our enemies, and they will receive our love either passively or with hostility. If one imagines the non-Calvinist view of salvation, God's love for mankind is likewise not always freely received, but received either passively or hostilely.

To suggest that love must be "freely" given is a bit misleading. One cannot coerce love - because that is not how love works. On the other hand, love can be obtained: it can be caused. Heroes like David earn the love of the nation. Young men attempt to perform their own heroics, whether it be flowers, poetry, or athletic feats of prowess to win the love of their heart's desire.

Love has to come from the heart to be love, but the heart can be changed. God himself declares:

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

Ben states: "It cannot be coerced, co-opted, manipulated, and it most certainly does not work in an impersonal manner, like say the way iron filings are attracted to a magnet."

Ah, but - in some senses - love does work that way. One need only look to Holywood for examples. Physical beauty (found so abundantly there) is one of the principle causes for people falling in love. The number of beloved stars in Hollywood, drawing adorers like so many iron filings is numerous. That is not to say that it is mechanical - surely not. Each person reacts differently to different stars - and some are hardly influenced at all by a pretty face or well-developed musculature.

Now, again, love must come from the heart. Man has little ability to influence the heart. Nevertheless, the common wisdom: "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" applies to love as well. That is one reason you see so many followers of preachers of joviality: preachers who do not present the uncomfortable truth of sin and coming judgment to their hearers. People have itching ears: scratch them and you will win their hearts.

Advertisers are well aware of this. Look at so many ad campaigns. Normally they will not tell you directly that men who refuse to wear their perfume du jour are simpleminded losers, but rather that those who use their products are sophisticated chick-magnets. They do not wish to offend but woo their listenres.

Those who love the products because of the advertising have been successfully manipulated, perhaps for their own good - but certainly for the financial benefit of the company who paid for the advertising.

Successful advertising, however, knows its limitations. It cannot directly change man's hearts: it can only act on what exists there. Thus, knowledge of human nature is key to the success of advertising.

God is not limited to these crude tricks and external manipulations. God is able to change the heart. In regeneration, by grace God changes the character of man, from one who loves sin to one who loves God. This fundamental change in man's nature produces his love of God and trust in Christ.

Ben: "God is not a magnet, and he does not treat his creatures in an impersonal way that makes their behavior inevitable, and if he did, it would cease to be personal and loving behavior on our part for sure."

First, such a picture is a non-Calvinist picture we frequently see. We hear the verse about Jesus drawing all men to himself portrayed as though he drew each and every man to himself impersonally. We reject this as clearly improper.

Second, nevertheless God does draw men to himself. They are actually drawn. God draws certain men (by the work of Christ on the cross and the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts) from all nations to himself. These surely come. That's deeply personal: it's targeted, individual, and done with the eternal good of the person in mind.

The idea that it ceases to be personal and loving behavior on our part "for sure" seems simply to be Ben's own view, motivated by his philosophical assumptions. It would not be loving behavior if it did not come from the heart: but it does. It comes from a changed heart. Thus, we reject Ben's criticism as unfounded.

Ben finally concludes with a point that is, intellectually speaking, suicide to his position:

Ethics in the Bible are largely what are called virtue ethics. ... Now virtue ethics require that a person has the capacity to be virtuous, by which I mean, the person has the capacity to either freely behave in this way or not. Otherwise there is nothing virtuous about the behavior. The flight or flight pure instinct of a deer, for example, is not an example of making a conscious choice to "do the right thing". I am utterly convinced that the Bible calls us to be virtuous beings, or as Paul suggests in Phil. 4 to be creatures who can not merely reflect on what is noble and excellent, but seek and attempt to do it. The commands to love as we are loved, to forgive as we are forgiven, and so on, presuppose that grace actually enables us to freely attempt to imitate Christ and do what he commands us to do, at least approximately. God is an ethical being and he wants Christians to reflect the highest and best behavior a human being can muster. Indeed, he commands us to do it, but as Augustine says, God gives what he commands, he enables us to believe and behave as we ought to do.

The intellectually suicidal aspect of this argument may not be immediately apparent. The problem is that if "virtue" required the ability to do the unvirtuous, then God's sinless perfection is not virtuous, because it is impossible for God to lie, impossible for him to sin, and so forth. Furthermore, likewise assuming that Ben acknowledges that there will naturally be no sin in heaven, such sinless perfection again would not be "virtuous" because there would no longer be the ability to sin. This is enough to sink the "virtue ethics" battleship.

But not only is this absurd as to its consequence with respect to God, it is absurd in application. We view God as more virtuous than any of his creation, and he is the least able to sin. We view those in whose hearts God has greatly worked, who strongly hate sin, and yet who may nevertheless occasionally sin to be more virtuous than those who are relatively indifferent to God's law, but do the same sins. Therefore, our intuition and common sense weigh in against the idea of "virtue" ethics as framed by the libertarian free will advocate. So, along with the battleship, a libertarian free will advocate loses his entire armada when he seeks to argue for "virtue ethics."

The issue of whether a "conscious choice" is made to do right or wrong is certainly an aggravating factor, but perhaps it is not the only factor. Recall that Jesus said that lusting after a woman is sinful, and yet many will confess that such lust springs forth unconsciously.

Ben states: "I[n] short, the discussion of the freedom of human beings should never be undertaken in isolation from the discussion of the freedom of God, and the ways God has chosen to limit himself in order to allow us to be beings with a limited measure of freedom, and so a small reflection of the divine character."

But recall above, that the idea that libertarian free will is a "reflection of the divine character" was simply Ben's assumption above. One does not get that from the Creation account or from the banishment of Cain. One simply does not get that from Scripture. One brings it in eisegetically from one's philosophical attachment to the idea.

It then displays a most turgescent attitude to demand that such an idea be constantly brought into the discussion of the freedom of human beings. Surely we would agree that man's freedom must be understood in the context of God's freedom, but we must not confuse the Potter with the clay. He does whatsoever He pleases: we must do as He pleases. We serve Him and exist at his whim, as it were. If God did not will our continued existence, we would vanish.

Ben claims: "Here we must return at the end of this discussion to the matter of God's will and knowledge. Notice how in Rom. 9-11 God foreknows things that he did not will, for example the apostasy of Israel and the rejection of its savior by most early Jews. God not only did not will this, it breaks his heart in the same way it breaks Paul."

But this claim is not exegetically supported. In that very passage God affirms that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. There is no mention of God being broken hearted, and not the least reason to suppose that the apostasy of Israel and rejection of the savior was not in God's will. Indeed, to the contrary, Scripture explains that it was God's will:

Romans 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.

Ben concludes: "What this tells me is that Calvin was wrong about the relationship between God's will and God's knowledge. God does not merely know it because he wills it."

Ben really hasn't made a connection in his post to support that conclusion.

Ben continues: "There is some other relationship between knowing and willing in God and they are not inexorably linked."

Again, Ben has not made the necessary connection to support this claim.

Ben states: "At the end of the day I believe whole heartedly in what John 3.16-17 says, God loves the whole fallen world, and Jesus died for the sins of all human beings as 1 Tim. 2 also says."

Neither of those is actually what the verses say. John 3:16-17 displays God's love for "the world" by pointing to his action for "all the believers" (John 3:16). In the unrelated passage of 1 Timothy 2, Paul exhorts Timothy to pray for "all men" (listing various categories of men) because this is agreeable with God's will, which we understand to mean that men of all sorts (even politicians) will be saved.

Ben claims: "This in turn means there are other agents in play in the matter of redemption, human agents who can either positively or negatively respond to the Gospel, and the eternal lostness of some is in no way willed or destined by God."

Ben's argument, however, is contradicted by the plain assertion of God's monergistic role in Scripture. God claims that salvation is of the Lord, and that those whom the Father has given to the Son will come to him. Furthermore, God declares that he will both have mercy on whom he will, but also that God will harden whom he will. God does not have to wait at man's beck and call. Rather, the Shepherd calls his sheep, and the sheep hear his voice.

Furthermore, it should be plain that is only by converting the personal love of God into an impersonal love (by misapplication of John 3:16-17 and 1 Timothy 2) and by forcing his assumption of libertarian free will into the discussion that Ben arrives at this conclusion in the first place. Since he's not obtained his conclusions from Scripture but by imposition on Scripture, we don't have any reason to accept his conclusions. They are warrantless, and do not commend themselves to our belief.

Ben continues: "Were the matter otherwise, our God cease to be a good God, by God's own definition of goodness."

Ben makes that claim, but he has not given any reason for us to accept that claim. In fact, Scripture contradicts it. Doesn't the potter have power over the clay to make of the lump a vessel for destruction? Can we really try to claim that a potter has that power, but God (our creator) does not have a similar power over us? If we do, we simply find ourselves arguing with Scripture: which is never a good place to be.

Ben wraps up with two parting sentences: "One final reminder-- as the prophets told us God requires of us that we reflect the divine character-- to do justice to love kindness and to walk humbly with our God."

This, of course, is a red herring. The verse says:

Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

We all accept this to be true. Furthermore, we acknowledge that in doing so we are being good, and goodness is a primary attribute of God. From none of that do the conclusions claimed above by Ben follow.

Ben finally states: "What God requires of us, he enables us to do, so that in small measure we may reflect the virtuous and free character of our God."

It's unclear whether Ben here refers to regenerated man or unregenerate man. Regardless, it is not a general proposition that God enables man to do as God requires of man. In fact, there is a clear and indisputable testimony to the contrary: Pharaoh. God commanded Pharaoh to let the people go, and God hardened Pharaoh's heart

Exodus 7:13 And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

That should give us pause. God is just and God is merciful. God is not only just, and God is not only merciful. God is the Most Exalted, He is the Almighty.

As Scripture says:

But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. (Psalm 115:3)

Let us praise him saying, "But we will bless the LORD from this time forth and for evermore. Praise the LORD." (Psalm 115:18)

-TurretinFan

Evangelical Manifesto Reviewed

B.J. Buracker at Stupid Scholar has provided an interesting and insightful review of the so-called "Evangelical Manifesto." (link) His conclusion is about right, which is why I do not anticipate myself providing a more detailed critique of this document.

Psalm 50 - John Brown's Notes

John Brown of Haddington writes regarding Psalm 50 (on which I blogged moments ago):

This psalm may be considered as a rebuke to the carnal Jews who rested in, and boasted of their external ceremonies in worship, to the neglect of the weightier matters of the law mercy, judgment, and faith; or as a prediction of the coming of Christ, to abolish the ceremonial worship, eject the Jews from his church, and establish a more pure and spiritual form of worship under the gospel: or, in fine, as a representation of the last judgment; in which Christ shall come, to render to every man according to his deeds.

Observe,

• (1.) The awful appearance of God our Redeemer, in the flesh, in power, or in the clouds; with the gathering of the people to him, ver. 1-6.


• (2.) An engaging admonition to improve God's new-covenant grant of himself to be our God, as an excitement to exchange legal ceremonies into prayer, thanksgiving and holy obedience; or, at least, to give a remarkable preference to the latter, ver. 7-15.


• (3.) A terrible charge of hypocrisy, slander, contempt of God's word, and of atheistical imaginations concerning God, laid against the wicked, with a fearful sentence of condemnation founded thereon, ver. 16-22.


• (4.) An alarming warning of danger to the forgetters of God, and an encouraging promise to such as study to glorify him by a holy conversation, ver. 22-23.

John Brown also provides the following advice for singing this particular psalm (that's a primary reason why Asaph wrote the psalm after all, to be sung):

Sing this, my soul, with solemn awe, assisted before the great Searcher of hearts, and as by faith beholding Jesus in my nature, sitting on his great white throne, gathering the nations to his bar, opening the books, and judging mankind out of the things found written therein.

Praise be to our Awesome and Majestic God!

-TurretinFan

The Mighty God Will Not Remain Silent Forever

Psalm 50 - Metrical Version (Scottish Metrical Psalter)

(Meter: SMD and the words are well set to the tune Diademata, which I promise you sounds much better sung in 4 parts than midi'd, though that's the only "instrumental" form I could find)

1    The mighty God, the Lord,
       hath spoken, and did call
  The earth, from rising of the sun,
       to where he hath his fall.

2    From out of Sion hill,
       which of excellency
  And beauty the perfection is,
       God shined gloriously.

3    Our God shall surely come,
       keep silence shall not he:
  Before him fire shall waste, great storms
       shall round about him be.

4    Unto the heavens clear
       he from above shall call,
  And to the earth likewise, that he
       may judge his people all.

5    Together let my saints
       unto me gather'd be,
  Those that by sacrifice have made
       a covenant with me.

6    And then the heavens shall
       his righteousness declare:
  Because the Lord himself is he
       by whom men judged are.

7    My people Isr'el hear,
       speak will I from on high,
  Against thee I will testify;
       God, ev'n thy God, am I.

8    I for thy sacrifice
       no blame will on thee lay,
  Nor for burnt-off 'rings, which to me
       thou offer'dst ev'ry day.

9    I'll take no calf nor goats
       from house or fold of thine:
10   For beasts of forests, cattle all
       on thousand hills, are mine.

11   The fowls on mountains high
       are all to me well known;
  Wild beasts which in the fields do lie,
       ev'n they are all mine own.

12   Then, if I hungry were,
       I would not tell it thee;
  Because the world, and fulness all
       thereof, belongs to me.

13   Will I eat flesh of bulls?
       or goats' blood drink will I?
14   Thanks offer thou to God, and pay
       thy vows to the most High.

15   And call upon me when
       in trouble thou shalt be;
  I will deliver thee, and thou
       my name shalt glorify.

16   But to the wicked man
       God saith, My laws and truth
  Should'st thou declare? how dar'st thou take
       my cov'nant in thy mouth?

17   Sith thou instruction hat'st,
       which should thy ways direct;
  And sith my words behind thy back
       thou cast'st, and dost reject.

18   When thou a thief didst see,
       with him thou didst consent;
  And with the vile adulterers
       partaker on thou went.

19   Thou giv'st thy mouth to ill,
       thy tongue deceit doth frame;
20   Thou sitt'st, and 'gainst thy brother speak'st,
       thy mother's son dost shame.

21   Because I silence kept,
       while thou these things hast wrought;
  That I was altogether like
       thyself, hath been thy thought;

  Yet I will thee reprove,
       and set before thine eyes,
  In order ranked, thy misdeeds
       and thine iniquities.

22   Now, ye that God forget,
       this carefully consider;
  Lest I in pieces tear you all,
       and none can you deliver.

23   Whoso doth offer praise
       me glorifies; and I
  Will shew him God's salvation,
       that orders right his way.

The whole psalm is rich with gospel call, but today, as I read through, verse 21 especially struck me.

Verse 21 is talking about mankind's tendency to confuse longsuffering with apathy. God endures the heinous sins of men, not because he doesn't care about sinfulness, but for his own higher reasons. But we, like any two year old, imagine that if God doesn't punish us immediately for our sins, it means he doesn't really care: he's not really offended by them or perhaps they don't bother him that much.

How wrong we are to think that way.

Judgment is delayed, but it is coming.

You can liken our life of sin as taking items off a grocery shelf and eating them, thinking that the grocer doesn't see us. But guess what: the checkout line is coming, and there is going to be a tally of everything that was taken off the shelf. A mere grocer might miss kumquat here or there, but God will have a full list of everything we have done wrong.

Moreover, as a dear Christian brother pointed out to me, while I was discussing this with him, we can turn to verse 22 to see what happens next.

Punishment

There will be punishment for those who sin, and yet that we may not be the recipients of the punishment due our sins. Now, while you have time, repent of your sins and trust in Christ. As 14-15 exhort, call on God in this, your time of trouble, and beg him for mercy. For there is no one more merciful than God. Thus, be one of those in verse 23 who praise and glorify God, to whom God grants salvation.

-TurretinFan

Internet Anonymity Series

David Anderson at More than Words has provided an interesting series on Internet anonymity. While I don't fully agree with him (otherwise I wouldn't post pseudonymously) he has a number of thought-provoking posts on the issue:

• Introduction
  
• Post 1: In which he notes that some attempts at anonymity are attempts to avoid the consequences of one's words
• Post 2: In which he raises the issue of accountability
• Post 3: In which he suggests that the persona of the messenger is important, even if it is not as important as the messsage
• Post 4: In which he reminds the readers that their Internet posts are not anonymous in God's eyes
  
• Post 5: In which he commends speaking boldly by Paul's example
• Conclusion: In which he wraps up
  

Ultimately, my own commentary on this issue is as follows: if you are posting anonymously, pseudonymously, or even simply un-disciplinably, consider your motivations. I believe that there can be proper motivations for doing so, but there can also be very improper motivations for doing so.

A few critical observations:

* Paul's example is all very well, but Paul was also - at another time - let down by a basket from the city walls.

* I strongly object to the claim, "Anonymity removes the messenger from the message, which is a move without any Biblical approval." There are plenty of anonymous books of the Bible. While it is clear there that the underlying author is God, a properly motivated anonymous or pseudonymous Christian seeks to point the reader to the Word of God, not the message of man.

* People can be pseudonymous and still be accountable to their family, friends, and elders.

* Anonymous and Pseudonymous dialog has an important purpose, especially in a society in which Christian behaviors such as proselytizing, spanking one's children, and denouncing sin are prohibited, restricted, or at risk of being prohibited or restricted.

* Anonymity/Pseudonymity can provide a layer of prudential protection to Christian evangelists. I cannot think of any good reason, for example, to insist that a Chinese evangelist would have to give everyone his full name and the name of his elders, and their mailing address, in order to satisfy any kind of Christian obligation.

Thus, on the whole, I believe that Mr. Anderson's posts are interesting and thought-provoking, but ultimately not persuasive (at least not for this pseudonymous blogger).

-TurretinFan

Sad Books News

I regret to inform my readers that Live Search Books (and Microsoft's digitization project that went with it) has been aborted. This is a huge loss, as it was the closest competitor to Google Books. It had a better interface than its competitor and sometimes had content available that was not available via Google Books. It is really a loss for everyone who uses the Internet.

Let's hope that Google doesn't similarly pull the plug on Google Books.

-TurretinFan

Sola Scriptura Debate - Errata

I seem to have conflated Wycliffe and Tyndale in my opening post. (Image of Wycliffe's Bible shown at right.)

I wrote: "The first English Bible was not published until the time of Wycliffe in the 14th century. Wycliffe received martyrdom for his troubles, and the papist authorities sought to destroy the copies of the Bible that he printed."

The Wycliffe Bible was hunted by authorities, but while the papists dug up Wycliffe's bones and burnt them, it was technically Wycliffe's assistant Purvey (who completed the work) who ended up being martyred, Wycliffe himself dying apparently of natural causes (1384). Printed is also not be quite the right word. For, you see, the Wycliffe Bible had to be published by handwriting. Printed suggests mechanical reproduction.

Tyndale, on the other hand, provided the first truly printed English Bible. He was martyred in 1536 by strangling. His body was then, like that of Wycliffe his predecessor, burnt (in the case of Tyndale it was burnt at a stake).

The followers of Wycliffe, known as the Lollards, are a fascinating case study for those who vainly imagine that reformation of the Western church started in 1517 with a German monk complaining about abuse of indulgences.

Nevertheless, I somehow managed mentally to conflate Wycliffe and Tyndale in my opening post, much to my shame, and so I hereby publicly retract that erroneous passage in favor of:

"The first English Bible was not published until the time of Wycliffe/Purvey in the 14th century. WycliffePurvey received martyrdom for his troubles, and the papist authorities sought to destroy the copies of the Bible that he printedpublished."

I'm not sure whether Mr. Bellisario will permit correction of my opening post, the deadline having past. Nevertheless, I hope he will, for I have no interest in spreading further the unsubstantiated claim that Wycliffe was martyred or the misleading claim that the Wycliffe Bible was mechanically printed (when, in fact, it was copied by hand).

One reader also noted that I had made the following simpler typo (shown corrected):

Usually the objection is more practical, though: how can we convince someone of hethe canonicity of Esther (for example)?

Mr. Bellisario has approved correction of that error, and so I have updated the post accordingly. These things go to show that, even with the aid of a computer, I am fallible. Thus, no one should trust what I have to say. The Scriptures, on the other hand, being the Word of God are infallible and inerrant. Therefore, we properly use them as our rule (canon).

-TurretinFan

First Post of the First Round of Sola Scriptura Debate Posted

The post may be found here (link). I have titled the debate “Sola Scriptura vs. Roman Catholicism,” not because I am unaware of the different rites that exist within what calls itself “Catholicism,” but because I must deny (with all non-“Roman Catholic” Christians) that the church headed by the Pope is the universal church. Thus, without animosity or without intent to disparage, you may find reference in the debate to the church that confesses, as its earthly head, Benedict XVI, variously as the “Roman Catholic” (RC) church, the Romanist church, or the papists. I don’t mean to use those terms jeeringly, and I hope no unnecessary offense will be taken at them. I recognize that papists prefer the term “Catholic,” but that term is misleading and inaccurate – and putting it in quotation marks in every instance would seem to be at least as much a distraction as using the descriptive term “papist” to describe those who hold to the supposed infallibility of the Roman pontiff, or “Romanist” to describe those who view Rome as being the seat of government of the entire Church of God. In any event, I trust that the learned reader who is himself a Roman Catholic, whether of Latin rite, Byzantine rite, or Chaldean rite, will look past the labels involved and search the Scriptures to see whether their church is in error. (link to first round affirmative post)

-Turretinfan