For those who are interested, I have posted my rebuttal in the on-going Sola Scriptura Debate (link). My papist colleague's rebuttal is due August 1, 2008. I hope that the debate will edify and educate the readers.
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Thomas Ridgley on the Sixth Commandment
The following in Thomas Ridgeley's commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism's Questions relating to the Sixth Commandment. I have omitted the footnotes and a rather lengthy editors note that appeared in the 1855 edition. Hopefully this commentary will prove to supplement Dr. White's timely response to John Piper's apparent denial of the Christians right and duty of defense of self and family. (link to Dr. White's article).
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT.
QUESTION CXXXIV. Which is the sixth commandment?
ANSWER. The sixth commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill."
QUESTION CXXXV. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
ANSWER. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavours to preserve the life of ourselves, and others, by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defence thereof against violence, patient hearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit, a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labour, and recreations, by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness, peaceable, mild, and courteous speeches and behaviour, forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil, comforting and succouring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.
QUESTION CXXXVI. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
ANSWER. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge, all excessive passions, distracting cares, immoderate use of meat, drink, labour, and recreations; provoking words, oppressing, quarrelling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.
The Duties Enjoined in the Sixth Commandment.
IN explaining this commandment, we shall first consider the positive part of it, or the duties required in it. We should use all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, and the life of others; and consequently we should avoid all those passions, and other things, which may afford an occasion to take it away, and live in the constant exercise of the duties of temperance and sobriety, as to what respects ourselves, and of meekness, gentleness, and forgiveness of injuries, as to what concerns others. In this commandment it is supposed that life is the most valuable blessing of nature. Hence, to take it away, is to do the utmost injury which can be attempted against us. The valuableness of the life of man appears in four things. First, it is the result of the union of the soul with the body; which is the principle of those actions that are put forth by us as intelligent creatures. Hence, life is to be esteemed in proportion to the excellency of the soul; which is the noblest part of the creation, angels excepted. Again, nothing can compensate or satisfy for the taking away of the life of man, how much satisfaction soever may be given for the loss of other things. Further, man is the subject of the divine image; which supposes us to have a more excellent life than any other creatures in this lower world, and is assigned as a reason of our obligation to preserve life. Finally life is given and continued to us, in order that the most valuable ends may be attained, conducive to the glory of God, the advancement of religion in the world, and the promoting of our everlasting happiness. We may hence take an estimate of its excellency; and it contains the highest motive to us, to yield obedience to this commandment.
This leads us to consider the means which we are to use, to preserve our own lives, and the lives of others. As to the preservation of our own lives, we are not to rush presumptuously into danger of death, without a divine warrant; for to do so is to be prodigal of life. We are also to exercise sobriety and temperance, avoiding gluttony, drunkenness, lust, and all exorbitant passions; which tend to impair the health, as well as defile the conscience. Moreover, when occasion requires it, we are to have recourse to the skill of physicians, and make use of those medicines which may conduce to repair the weakness and decays of nature. As to our endeavours to preserve the lives of others, we are to caution them against those things which would tend to destroy their health, and, by degrees, their lives. We must also discover and detect all secret plots and contrivances which may be directed against them; and we are to support and relieve those who are ready to perish by extreme poverty, yea, though they were our enemies. We are also to defend those who are in imminent danger of death. Nevertheless, we must not use unwarrantable means, though it were to save our own lives. In times of persecution, for example, we are not to renounce the truths of God, or give occasion to the common enemy to revile them, or speak evil of them, by avoiding to suffer for the cause of Christ. Preferring a profession of the truth to the preservation of life, was that noble principle by which the martyrs whom the apostle speaks of were actuated. 'They were tortured, not accepting deliverance;' that is, when they were exposed to the most exquisite torments, and their lives offered them if they would deny Christ, they would not accept of deliverance on so dishonourable terms. Neither are we, at any time, to tell a lie, or do that which is contrary to truth, though it were to save our lives.
The Sins Forbidden in the Sixth Commandment.
We shall now consider the sins forbidden in this commandment. These are either the taking away of life, or the doing of that which has a tendency to take it away.
1. It is unlawful to take away the life of another. But this is to be considered with some exceptions or limitations. Life may be taken away in lawful wars. Thus we read of many wars begun and carried on, and much blood shed in them, by God's direction, and with his approbation and blessing; on which account, it is said that 'the war was of God.' Yet, when wars are proclaimed merely to satisfy the pride and avarice of princes, as in Benhadad's war against Ahab, or in the war of the Romans on the countries round about them, merely to enlarge their own dominions by ruining others, or in those which the devil excites and antichrist carries on against the church, for their faithfulness to the truth; the law of God is broken, and all the blood shed in them is a breach of this commandment. Again, it is no violation of this commandment, to take away the life of offenders, guilty of capital crimes, by the hand of the civil magistrate; for the doing of this is elsewhere commanded, and magistrates are appointed for that end. Further, it is no breach of this commandment, when a person kills another without design, or the least degree of premeditated malice. Yet the utmost caution ought to be used, that persons may not lose their lives through the carelessness and inadvertency of others. Moreover, in some instances, a person may kill another in his own defence, without being guilty of the breach of this commandment. But this is to be considered with certain limitations. If there be only a design or conspiracy against our lives, but no immediate attempt made to take them away; we are to defend ourselves, by endeavouring to put him who designed the execrable act out of a capacity of hurting us; and we are to do this by having recourse to the protection of the law, whereby he may be restrained, or we secured. This was the method which Paul took, when the Jews had bound themselves with an oath to slay him. He informed the chief captain of their conspiracy, and had recourse to the law for his safety. If, again, there be a present attempt made against our lives, we should rather choose to disarm the enemy, or flee from him, than take away his life. But if this cannot be done, so that we must either lose our own life or take away his, we do not incur the least guilt, or break this commandment, if we take away his life to preserve our own; especially if we were not first in the quarrel, nor gave occasion to it by any injurious or unlawful practices.
Here it may be inquired whether it be lawful for two persons to fight a duel, upon a set challenge or provocation given. Now, when a war between two armies may be terminated, and the shedding of much blood prevented by a duel, it is not unlawful; provided it be by mutual consent, and with the approbation of those on both sides who have a right of making war and peace; and if the matter in controversy may be thus decided, without tempting providence. We have a remarkable instance of this, in the duel fought between David and Goliah. It is unlawful, however, for two persons, each seeming too prodigal of his life, to give and accept a challenge, and in prosecution of it to endeavour to put an end to each other's life, merely to gratify their own passion or pride. This, though falsely called honour, will, in reality, render them vile in the eyes of God, and notoriously guilty of the breach of this commandment.
Here we may consider the wicked practice of those who have obliged the poor wretches, who were under their command, to murder one another for their diversion. This Joab and Abner did, when they said, 'Let the young men arise and play before us; and every one thrust his sword in his fellow's side.' There is also an unlawful diversion, which, though not altogether so barbarous and cruel, is, in some respects, a breach of this commandment, namely, when persons fight with and wound one another, without design of killing, merely to get a little money, while entertaining a number of unthinking persons with their folly. In this case they that fight, and they that look on, are equally guilty. Thus concerning the sin of killing one another.
We shall now explain two or three difficulties which occur in scripture, relating to the actions of some good men, who seem to have been guilty of the breach of this commandment, but really were not so. It is inquired, whether Elijah was chargeable with the breach of it in destroying Baal's prophets, when 'he ordered that none of them should escape; and he brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.' Now, it may be observed that it was not a small inoffensive error which these prophets of Baal were punished for; but apostacy from God. That the persons deserved the punishment they received appears from various considerations. They were the advisers and ringleaders of all Israel's idolatry, and the abettors and principal occasion of the violent persecution which then raged against the Lord's prophets and true worshippers. Again, had they only been false prophets, and not persecutors, they were, according to the law of God, to be put to death. Further, their punishment was inflicted after a solemn appeal to God, and an answer from heaven by fire, which determined, not only who was the true God, but who were his prophets, and consequently whether Elijah deserved death as an impostor, or Baal's prophets. Moreover, Ahab himself was present, and all his ministers of state, who had a right to execute justice on false prophets; and, it is highly probable, that they consented to their death, and that many of them had an immediate hand in it. Their acting thus might be occasioned by a sudden conviction in their consciences, proceeding from the miracle which they had just before observed, or from the universal cry of the people against the false prophets. The occurrence, therefore, was plainly of the Lord, to whom Elijah brought a great deal of honour, and was far from being chargeable with the breach of this commandment.
It is farther inquired whether Abraham's offering Isaac was a breach of this commandment. This is proposed as a difficulty by those who do not pay that deference to divine revelation which they ought, nor consider that God cannot command any thing which is contrary to his perfections, and that his people do not sin in obeying any command which is given by him. However, that this matter may be set in a just light, let it be considered that God, who is the sovereign Lord of life, may take it away when and by whom he pleases. Hence, Isaac had no more reason to complain of any wrong or injury done him by God, in ordering his father to sacrifice him, than any one else has who dies by his immediate hand, in the common course of providence. Again, Abraham could not be said to act with the temper and disposition of a murderer; which those have who are guilty of the breach of this commandment, who kill persons in a passion or out of envy or malice, being void of all natural affection and brotherly love. Abraham acted plainly in obedience to God's command. His hand was lifted up against one whom he loved as well as his own life, and it may be better; and, doubtless, he would rather have been, had God so ordered it, the sacrifice than the offerer. Further, he acted, as is more than probable, with Isaac's full consent. Hence some think that Isaac's faith was no less remarkable in the affair than that of Abraham. His willingness to be offered, evidently appears, from the fact that Abraham was in his feeble and declining age, and Isaac in his full strength; for it was not a little strength which was sufficient to carry wood enough to answer this occasion, which we read Isaac did. Besides, if Isaac had resisted, none was at hand to assist Abraham against him; and, doubtless, he would have striven in this matter as one who desired to be overcome. We must suppose, therefore, that the transaction was so far from being a breach of this commandment, that it was one of the most remarkable instances of faith in scripture; and that God's design in ordering it was, that it might be a type whereby he would lead Abraham into the glorious mystery of his not sparing his own Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and of Christ's willingness to lay down his life a ransom for his people.
Some charge Moses with having been guilty of the breach of this commandment, in killing the Egyptian. But to vindicate him from this charge, let it be considered that the Egyptian whom he slew, not only smote an Hebrew, but did so wrongfully. As is observed in Acts vii. 24, there was no offence given or just reason for this injurious treatment; and to oppress or abuse one who is in a miserable condition, as the Hebrews were at that time, is an heinous crime in God's account. Moreover, to 'smite,' in scripture, is often taken for to 'slay;' so that it is not improbable, that the Egyptian slew the Hebrew; or if he did not, the injury he inflicted might be such as deserved death. Now, this punishment would have been executed in another manner, had not Israel been denied, at that time, the protection of the law. Again, Moses was, at this time, raised up and called by God, to be a ruler and a judge, to defend the cause of his oppressed people; and in this action he first began to fulfil his commission. The people, indeed, refused to own him, and seemed to join with those who designed him evil for his interference; but for this reason their deliverance was put off forty years longer, while he was an exile in the land of Midian. Now, to slay a public enemy and oppressor, and, as is probable, one who had forfeited his life, and to do this with a commission from God to act as a ruler and a judge over his people, cannot be reckoned a breach of this commandment. Thus concerning the violation of this commandment, as including the murdering of our neighbour.
2. This commandment is notoriously broken by those who lay violent hands on themselves. We have in scripture an account of no good man who was ever suffered to do this, but only of men of the most infamous character, such as Saul, Ahithophel, Judas, and others. This is a sin which is attended with many aggravations. It is to act as though our lives were at our own disposal. But they are to be considered as a talent which we are intrusted with by God to improve for his glory; and he alone has a right to dispose of them at his pleasure. Again, self-murder argues, and arises from, the highest discontent and impatience under the hand of God; which is contrary to that temper which we ought to exercise as Christians, who profess subjection to him. Further, it is contrary to nature and that principle of self-preservation which God has implanted in us. Indeed, he who does it, not only acts below the reason of a man, but does that which even brutes themselves are not inclined to. Moreover, it is a giving place to and a gratifying of the devil, who acts agreeably to his character, as a murderer from the beginning, when he tempts men to destroy both soul and body at once. Again, it is a presumptuous and bold resolving that, whatever measure of duty God has prescribed for us to fill up in this world, we will serve him no longer. If martial law punishes deserters with death, is there not a severe punishment due to those who do, as it were, desert the service of God by self-murder? Nothing is more certain than this, that if duty be enjoined by God, the time in which it is to be performed is also fixed by him, and not left to our own determination. Further, self-murder is a rushing hastily into eternity, not considering the consequence, nor the awful tribunal of Christ, before which they must immediately appear, and give an account of this, as well as other sinful actions of life. Finally, self-murder is done with such a frame of spirit, that a person cannot by faith commit his soul into the hands of Jesus Christ; for to do so requires a better temper of mind than any one can be supposed to have who murders himself.
Here it may be inquired, since, as was before observed, no good man was ever guilty of this crime, whether Samson did not break this commandment in pulling down the house upon his own head, as well as upon the Philistines. Now, Samson's life, at this time, was a burden to himself, useless to his brethren, a scorn to the open enemy, and an occasion of their ascribing their deliverance to their idol, and probably would soon have been taken away by them. These circumstances, though they would not, in themselves, have been sufficient to justify this action; yet might justify his desire that God would put an end to his life, and release him out of this miserable world; especially if the event would redound more to his glory than anything he could do for the future, or had done in the former part of his life. Besides, it plainly appears that God, in answer to his prayer, not only gave him leave to take away his own life, together with the lives of his enemies, but also wrought a miracle to enable him to do it. It was therefore a justifiable action, and no breach of this commandment.
3. We shall now consider the heinous aggravation of the sin of taking away the life of another unjustly, and the terrible judgments which those who are guilty of it have ground to expect. According to the divine law, this sin is to be punished with death, by the hand of the civil magistrate. Thus Joab, who had deserved to die for murders formerly committed, was slain according to David's order by Solomon; though he sought protection by taking hold of the horns of the altar. Many other crimes might be expiated by sacrifices, which God ordained should be offered for that end; but no satisfaction was to be accepted for this sin but the blood of the murderer. And it is a matter of dispute with some whether kings, who may pardon many crimes by virtue of their prerogative, can, according to the laws of God, pardon murder, without being supposed to extend their clemency beyond its due bounds? Again, God often gives up those who are guilty of the sin of murder to the terrors of a guilty conscience, which is a kind of hell upon earth; as in the instances of Cain, Lamech, and others. Further, such are followed with many remarkable instances of divine vengeance; so that the blast of providence attends all their undertakings. Thus David, after he had killed Uriah, was followed with such rebukes of providence, that the latter part of his life was rendered very uneasy; and what the prophet foretold was fulfilled, that 'the sword should never depart from his house,' that is, as long as he lived. Again, the judgments of God for this sin are often transmitted to posterity. Thus Simeon and Levi's murder of the Shechemites was punished in the tribes that descended from them; who, according to the patriarch's prediction, were 'divided in Jacob, and scattered in Israel.' Saul's slaying the Gibeonites was punished in David's time by a famine which it occasioned. "And the murders which the Jews had committed on the prophets in former ages, were punished in the destruction of their state and nation; when 'all the righteous blood that had been shed upon the earth, came upon them.' Further, the lives of murderers are often shortened, and they brought to the grave with blood. Thus Absalom perished by the just judgment of God, for the murder of his brother, as well as his other crimes. And in this the psalmist's observation holds true, that 'bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days.'
4. This commandment may be broken otherwise than by the taking away of the life of our neighbour. A breach of it may be committed by a person in his heart, when he has not an opportunity to execute his malicious designs, or is afraid to execute them on account of the punishment from men which will follow. Thus the apostle says, 'Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.' Of this we have an instance in wicked Ahab, who 'hated Micaiah, because he prophesied not good concerning him, but evil.' It is more than probable that his hatred would have broken forth into murder, could he have laid hold on the least shadow of pretence which might have put a colour on so vile an action. Jezebel also was guilty of this sin, who threatened to murder the prophet Elijah. The Jews, likewise, were guilty of it who were filled with malice against our Saviour; for which reason, they would have put him to death at that time, but they feared the people.
Moreover, while this sin reigns in wicked men, there are some instances of it even in good men. Thus David carried his resentment too far against Nabal, though a churlish and ungrateful man, when he resolved in his passion, not only to take away his life, which was an unjustifiable action, but to destroy the whole family, the innocent with the guilty. He was afterwards sensible of his sin in this passionate resolution; and blessed God for his preventing it, by Abigail's prudent management. There is another instance of sinful and unaccountable passion which cannot be excused from a degree of heart-murder, in Jonah; who was very angry because God was gracious, and spared Nineveh, on their repentance. In this fit of passion he desires that God would take away his life, justifies his anger, and, as it were, dares him to cut him off; which was as bad a frame as ever any good man was in. All this, too, took its rise from pride, lest some should think him a false prophet, who did not rightly distinguish between what God might do and would have done had they not repented, and what he determined to do, namely, to give them repentance, and so to spare them: I say, rather than be counted a false prophet, which it may be was a groundless surmise, he was angry with God for sparing it.
Here it will be inquired whether all anger is sinful, or a breach of this commandment ? Now, as the apostle says, 'Be angry and sin not;' the words imply that there may be anger which is not sinful, but which, on the other hand, may rather be styled a zeal for God. Of this kind was that anger which our Saviour expressed against the Scribes and Pharisees, when he calls them 'serpents, a generation of vipers;' and when he whipped the buyers and sellers out of the temple, on which occasion it is said, 'The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.' The apostle also reproved Elymas the sorcerer, who endeavoured to 'turn away the deputy from the faith,' with words that seemed full of anger, when he addressed himself to him in this manner, 'full of all subtilty, and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?' And Peter could not reprove that vile hypocrite, Simon Magus, when he offered to purchase the conferring of the Holy Ghost, without expressing some anger and resentment, as the cause required, when he said, 'Thy money perish with thee,' &c. Yet, that he might let him know that it was only zeal for God that provoked his anger, he gave him friendly advice to repent of his wickedness.
We may hence take occasion to inquire what the difference is between sinful anger or passion, and an holy zeal for God. Now, an holy zeal for God leads us rightly to distinguish between the person reproved, and his actions which give us occasion for reproof; so that we hate the sin, but not the person who commits it. Thus the psalmist says, 'I hate the work of them that turn aside.' But sinful anger is principally directed against the person with whom we are offended. Again, the honour of God is the only motive which excites holy zeal; but pride or evil surmise is generally the occasion of sinful anger. Thus Jehu's executing the vengeance of God in cutting off Ahab's wicked family, was right, as to the matter of it; yet it had a great mixture of ambition, pride, and private hatred of them, as those who he thought would stand in competition with him for the crown. Besides, he desired the applause and esteem of the people for the action, and therefore said to Jonadab, 'Come with me, and see my zeal for the Lord.' Hence, true zeal for God is attended with many other graces; and sinful anger with many sins. Further, holy zeal for God inclines us to express anger against his enemies with sorrow and reluctance, being grieved for their sin, and at the same time desiring their reformation and salvation; but sinful anger meditates revenge, is restless till it has accomplished it, and is pleased with having opportunities of executing it. Moreover, holy zeal sets aside or is not much concerned about injuries, as directed against ourselves; but considers them as they reflect dishonour on the name of God, or are prejudicial to his interest in the world. Thus David said concerning Edom, 'Happy shall he be that dasheth thy little ones against the stones;' when, at the same time, he professed that it was for Jerusalem's sake that he desired the ruin of his enemies, and not his own; for he says, that he 'preferred Jerusalem above his chief joy.' Sinful anger, however, designs or wishes evil to others, to promote our own interest and advantage.
We shall now consider the aggravations of sinful passion. It unfits a soul for holy duties. Accordingly, our Saviour advises his people, first to 'be reconciled to their brethren, and then come and offer their gift.' If we attempt to reprove sin, or persuade to duty, in a passion, it will tend to take away the force and hinder the success of the arguments we use. Sinful anger will occasion sorrow and shame, when reflected on in our most serious thoughts. It will expose us to Satan's temptations, and occasion a multitude of sins; and accordingly is called by the apostle, a 'giving place to the devil.' It magnifies the smallest injuries, and excites our resentments beyond their due bounds. We do not consider, as we ought to do, that the injuries done against us are very small when compared with the sins we commit, whereby we dishonour God. Further, sinful anger is opposite to a Christian temper, very much unlike that frame of spirit which our Saviour has recommended concerning loving our enemies, and is also contrary to his example, 'who when he was reviled, reviled not again,' Finally, as it is a stirring up of our own corruptions; so it tends to stir up the corruptions of others, and provoke them to sin, as one flame kindleth another, and so increaseth itself.
We shall further inquire how we are to deal with those whom we converse with, who are addicted to passion or anger. We are to exercise a calm, meek, and humble disposition, bearing reflections with patience, and replying to them with gentleness; especially when it is more immediately our own cause, and not the cause of God, which is concerned. 'A soft answer turneth away wrath.' 'He that is slow to wrath, is of great understanding.' Let us take heed, also, that we do nothing which tends to stir up the passions of any. If a superior is disposed to be angry, let us prudently withdraw from him. If it be an inferior, let us reprove him with faithfulness. If it be an equal, let us take away the edge of his anger, by meekness, love, and tenderness towards him, having compassion on his weakness. Let us bear injuries without revenging them, and 'overcome evil with good.'
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT.
QUESTION CXXXIV. Which is the sixth commandment?
ANSWER. The sixth commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill."
QUESTION CXXXV. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
ANSWER. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavours to preserve the life of ourselves, and others, by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defence thereof against violence, patient hearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit, a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labour, and recreations, by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness, peaceable, mild, and courteous speeches and behaviour, forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil, comforting and succouring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.
QUESTION CXXXVI. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
ANSWER. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defence; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge, all excessive passions, distracting cares, immoderate use of meat, drink, labour, and recreations; provoking words, oppressing, quarrelling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.
The Duties Enjoined in the Sixth Commandment.
IN explaining this commandment, we shall first consider the positive part of it, or the duties required in it. We should use all lawful endeavours to preserve our own life, and the life of others; and consequently we should avoid all those passions, and other things, which may afford an occasion to take it away, and live in the constant exercise of the duties of temperance and sobriety, as to what respects ourselves, and of meekness, gentleness, and forgiveness of injuries, as to what concerns others. In this commandment it is supposed that life is the most valuable blessing of nature. Hence, to take it away, is to do the utmost injury which can be attempted against us. The valuableness of the life of man appears in four things. First, it is the result of the union of the soul with the body; which is the principle of those actions that are put forth by us as intelligent creatures. Hence, life is to be esteemed in proportion to the excellency of the soul; which is the noblest part of the creation, angels excepted. Again, nothing can compensate or satisfy for the taking away of the life of man, how much satisfaction soever may be given for the loss of other things. Further, man is the subject of the divine image; which supposes us to have a more excellent life than any other creatures in this lower world, and is assigned as a reason of our obligation to preserve life. Finally life is given and continued to us, in order that the most valuable ends may be attained, conducive to the glory of God, the advancement of religion in the world, and the promoting of our everlasting happiness. We may hence take an estimate of its excellency; and it contains the highest motive to us, to yield obedience to this commandment.
This leads us to consider the means which we are to use, to preserve our own lives, and the lives of others. As to the preservation of our own lives, we are not to rush presumptuously into danger of death, without a divine warrant; for to do so is to be prodigal of life. We are also to exercise sobriety and temperance, avoiding gluttony, drunkenness, lust, and all exorbitant passions; which tend to impair the health, as well as defile the conscience. Moreover, when occasion requires it, we are to have recourse to the skill of physicians, and make use of those medicines which may conduce to repair the weakness and decays of nature. As to our endeavours to preserve the lives of others, we are to caution them against those things which would tend to destroy their health, and, by degrees, their lives. We must also discover and detect all secret plots and contrivances which may be directed against them; and we are to support and relieve those who are ready to perish by extreme poverty, yea, though they were our enemies. We are also to defend those who are in imminent danger of death. Nevertheless, we must not use unwarrantable means, though it were to save our own lives. In times of persecution, for example, we are not to renounce the truths of God, or give occasion to the common enemy to revile them, or speak evil of them, by avoiding to suffer for the cause of Christ. Preferring a profession of the truth to the preservation of life, was that noble principle by which the martyrs whom the apostle speaks of were actuated. 'They were tortured, not accepting deliverance;' that is, when they were exposed to the most exquisite torments, and their lives offered them if they would deny Christ, they would not accept of deliverance on so dishonourable terms. Neither are we, at any time, to tell a lie, or do that which is contrary to truth, though it were to save our lives.
The Sins Forbidden in the Sixth Commandment.
We shall now consider the sins forbidden in this commandment. These are either the taking away of life, or the doing of that which has a tendency to take it away.
1. It is unlawful to take away the life of another. But this is to be considered with some exceptions or limitations. Life may be taken away in lawful wars. Thus we read of many wars begun and carried on, and much blood shed in them, by God's direction, and with his approbation and blessing; on which account, it is said that 'the war was of God.' Yet, when wars are proclaimed merely to satisfy the pride and avarice of princes, as in Benhadad's war against Ahab, or in the war of the Romans on the countries round about them, merely to enlarge their own dominions by ruining others, or in those which the devil excites and antichrist carries on against the church, for their faithfulness to the truth; the law of God is broken, and all the blood shed in them is a breach of this commandment. Again, it is no violation of this commandment, to take away the life of offenders, guilty of capital crimes, by the hand of the civil magistrate; for the doing of this is elsewhere commanded, and magistrates are appointed for that end. Further, it is no breach of this commandment, when a person kills another without design, or the least degree of premeditated malice. Yet the utmost caution ought to be used, that persons may not lose their lives through the carelessness and inadvertency of others. Moreover, in some instances, a person may kill another in his own defence, without being guilty of the breach of this commandment. But this is to be considered with certain limitations. If there be only a design or conspiracy against our lives, but no immediate attempt made to take them away; we are to defend ourselves, by endeavouring to put him who designed the execrable act out of a capacity of hurting us; and we are to do this by having recourse to the protection of the law, whereby he may be restrained, or we secured. This was the method which Paul took, when the Jews had bound themselves with an oath to slay him. He informed the chief captain of their conspiracy, and had recourse to the law for his safety. If, again, there be a present attempt made against our lives, we should rather choose to disarm the enemy, or flee from him, than take away his life. But if this cannot be done, so that we must either lose our own life or take away his, we do not incur the least guilt, or break this commandment, if we take away his life to preserve our own; especially if we were not first in the quarrel, nor gave occasion to it by any injurious or unlawful practices.
Here it may be inquired whether it be lawful for two persons to fight a duel, upon a set challenge or provocation given. Now, when a war between two armies may be terminated, and the shedding of much blood prevented by a duel, it is not unlawful; provided it be by mutual consent, and with the approbation of those on both sides who have a right of making war and peace; and if the matter in controversy may be thus decided, without tempting providence. We have a remarkable instance of this, in the duel fought between David and Goliah. It is unlawful, however, for two persons, each seeming too prodigal of his life, to give and accept a challenge, and in prosecution of it to endeavour to put an end to each other's life, merely to gratify their own passion or pride. This, though falsely called honour, will, in reality, render them vile in the eyes of God, and notoriously guilty of the breach of this commandment.
Here we may consider the wicked practice of those who have obliged the poor wretches, who were under their command, to murder one another for their diversion. This Joab and Abner did, when they said, 'Let the young men arise and play before us; and every one thrust his sword in his fellow's side.' There is also an unlawful diversion, which, though not altogether so barbarous and cruel, is, in some respects, a breach of this commandment, namely, when persons fight with and wound one another, without design of killing, merely to get a little money, while entertaining a number of unthinking persons with their folly. In this case they that fight, and they that look on, are equally guilty. Thus concerning the sin of killing one another.
We shall now explain two or three difficulties which occur in scripture, relating to the actions of some good men, who seem to have been guilty of the breach of this commandment, but really were not so. It is inquired, whether Elijah was chargeable with the breach of it in destroying Baal's prophets, when 'he ordered that none of them should escape; and he brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.' Now, it may be observed that it was not a small inoffensive error which these prophets of Baal were punished for; but apostacy from God. That the persons deserved the punishment they received appears from various considerations. They were the advisers and ringleaders of all Israel's idolatry, and the abettors and principal occasion of the violent persecution which then raged against the Lord's prophets and true worshippers. Again, had they only been false prophets, and not persecutors, they were, according to the law of God, to be put to death. Further, their punishment was inflicted after a solemn appeal to God, and an answer from heaven by fire, which determined, not only who was the true God, but who were his prophets, and consequently whether Elijah deserved death as an impostor, or Baal's prophets. Moreover, Ahab himself was present, and all his ministers of state, who had a right to execute justice on false prophets; and, it is highly probable, that they consented to their death, and that many of them had an immediate hand in it. Their acting thus might be occasioned by a sudden conviction in their consciences, proceeding from the miracle which they had just before observed, or from the universal cry of the people against the false prophets. The occurrence, therefore, was plainly of the Lord, to whom Elijah brought a great deal of honour, and was far from being chargeable with the breach of this commandment.
It is farther inquired whether Abraham's offering Isaac was a breach of this commandment. This is proposed as a difficulty by those who do not pay that deference to divine revelation which they ought, nor consider that God cannot command any thing which is contrary to his perfections, and that his people do not sin in obeying any command which is given by him. However, that this matter may be set in a just light, let it be considered that God, who is the sovereign Lord of life, may take it away when and by whom he pleases. Hence, Isaac had no more reason to complain of any wrong or injury done him by God, in ordering his father to sacrifice him, than any one else has who dies by his immediate hand, in the common course of providence. Again, Abraham could not be said to act with the temper and disposition of a murderer; which those have who are guilty of the breach of this commandment, who kill persons in a passion or out of envy or malice, being void of all natural affection and brotherly love. Abraham acted plainly in obedience to God's command. His hand was lifted up against one whom he loved as well as his own life, and it may be better; and, doubtless, he would rather have been, had God so ordered it, the sacrifice than the offerer. Further, he acted, as is more than probable, with Isaac's full consent. Hence some think that Isaac's faith was no less remarkable in the affair than that of Abraham. His willingness to be offered, evidently appears, from the fact that Abraham was in his feeble and declining age, and Isaac in his full strength; for it was not a little strength which was sufficient to carry wood enough to answer this occasion, which we read Isaac did. Besides, if Isaac had resisted, none was at hand to assist Abraham against him; and, doubtless, he would have striven in this matter as one who desired to be overcome. We must suppose, therefore, that the transaction was so far from being a breach of this commandment, that it was one of the most remarkable instances of faith in scripture; and that God's design in ordering it was, that it might be a type whereby he would lead Abraham into the glorious mystery of his not sparing his own Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and of Christ's willingness to lay down his life a ransom for his people.
Some charge Moses with having been guilty of the breach of this commandment, in killing the Egyptian. But to vindicate him from this charge, let it be considered that the Egyptian whom he slew, not only smote an Hebrew, but did so wrongfully. As is observed in Acts vii. 24, there was no offence given or just reason for this injurious treatment; and to oppress or abuse one who is in a miserable condition, as the Hebrews were at that time, is an heinous crime in God's account. Moreover, to 'smite,' in scripture, is often taken for to 'slay;' so that it is not improbable, that the Egyptian slew the Hebrew; or if he did not, the injury he inflicted might be such as deserved death. Now, this punishment would have been executed in another manner, had not Israel been denied, at that time, the protection of the law. Again, Moses was, at this time, raised up and called by God, to be a ruler and a judge, to defend the cause of his oppressed people; and in this action he first began to fulfil his commission. The people, indeed, refused to own him, and seemed to join with those who designed him evil for his interference; but for this reason their deliverance was put off forty years longer, while he was an exile in the land of Midian. Now, to slay a public enemy and oppressor, and, as is probable, one who had forfeited his life, and to do this with a commission from God to act as a ruler and a judge over his people, cannot be reckoned a breach of this commandment. Thus concerning the violation of this commandment, as including the murdering of our neighbour.
2. This commandment is notoriously broken by those who lay violent hands on themselves. We have in scripture an account of no good man who was ever suffered to do this, but only of men of the most infamous character, such as Saul, Ahithophel, Judas, and others. This is a sin which is attended with many aggravations. It is to act as though our lives were at our own disposal. But they are to be considered as a talent which we are intrusted with by God to improve for his glory; and he alone has a right to dispose of them at his pleasure. Again, self-murder argues, and arises from, the highest discontent and impatience under the hand of God; which is contrary to that temper which we ought to exercise as Christians, who profess subjection to him. Further, it is contrary to nature and that principle of self-preservation which God has implanted in us. Indeed, he who does it, not only acts below the reason of a man, but does that which even brutes themselves are not inclined to. Moreover, it is a giving place to and a gratifying of the devil, who acts agreeably to his character, as a murderer from the beginning, when he tempts men to destroy both soul and body at once. Again, it is a presumptuous and bold resolving that, whatever measure of duty God has prescribed for us to fill up in this world, we will serve him no longer. If martial law punishes deserters with death, is there not a severe punishment due to those who do, as it were, desert the service of God by self-murder? Nothing is more certain than this, that if duty be enjoined by God, the time in which it is to be performed is also fixed by him, and not left to our own determination. Further, self-murder is a rushing hastily into eternity, not considering the consequence, nor the awful tribunal of Christ, before which they must immediately appear, and give an account of this, as well as other sinful actions of life. Finally, self-murder is done with such a frame of spirit, that a person cannot by faith commit his soul into the hands of Jesus Christ; for to do so requires a better temper of mind than any one can be supposed to have who murders himself.
Here it may be inquired, since, as was before observed, no good man was ever guilty of this crime, whether Samson did not break this commandment in pulling down the house upon his own head, as well as upon the Philistines. Now, Samson's life, at this time, was a burden to himself, useless to his brethren, a scorn to the open enemy, and an occasion of their ascribing their deliverance to their idol, and probably would soon have been taken away by them. These circumstances, though they would not, in themselves, have been sufficient to justify this action; yet might justify his desire that God would put an end to his life, and release him out of this miserable world; especially if the event would redound more to his glory than anything he could do for the future, or had done in the former part of his life. Besides, it plainly appears that God, in answer to his prayer, not only gave him leave to take away his own life, together with the lives of his enemies, but also wrought a miracle to enable him to do it. It was therefore a justifiable action, and no breach of this commandment.
3. We shall now consider the heinous aggravation of the sin of taking away the life of another unjustly, and the terrible judgments which those who are guilty of it have ground to expect. According to the divine law, this sin is to be punished with death, by the hand of the civil magistrate. Thus Joab, who had deserved to die for murders formerly committed, was slain according to David's order by Solomon; though he sought protection by taking hold of the horns of the altar. Many other crimes might be expiated by sacrifices, which God ordained should be offered for that end; but no satisfaction was to be accepted for this sin but the blood of the murderer. And it is a matter of dispute with some whether kings, who may pardon many crimes by virtue of their prerogative, can, according to the laws of God, pardon murder, without being supposed to extend their clemency beyond its due bounds? Again, God often gives up those who are guilty of the sin of murder to the terrors of a guilty conscience, which is a kind of hell upon earth; as in the instances of Cain, Lamech, and others. Further, such are followed with many remarkable instances of divine vengeance; so that the blast of providence attends all their undertakings. Thus David, after he had killed Uriah, was followed with such rebukes of providence, that the latter part of his life was rendered very uneasy; and what the prophet foretold was fulfilled, that 'the sword should never depart from his house,' that is, as long as he lived. Again, the judgments of God for this sin are often transmitted to posterity. Thus Simeon and Levi's murder of the Shechemites was punished in the tribes that descended from them; who, according to the patriarch's prediction, were 'divided in Jacob, and scattered in Israel.' Saul's slaying the Gibeonites was punished in David's time by a famine which it occasioned. "And the murders which the Jews had committed on the prophets in former ages, were punished in the destruction of their state and nation; when 'all the righteous blood that had been shed upon the earth, came upon them.' Further, the lives of murderers are often shortened, and they brought to the grave with blood. Thus Absalom perished by the just judgment of God, for the murder of his brother, as well as his other crimes. And in this the psalmist's observation holds true, that 'bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days.'
4. This commandment may be broken otherwise than by the taking away of the life of our neighbour. A breach of it may be committed by a person in his heart, when he has not an opportunity to execute his malicious designs, or is afraid to execute them on account of the punishment from men which will follow. Thus the apostle says, 'Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.' Of this we have an instance in wicked Ahab, who 'hated Micaiah, because he prophesied not good concerning him, but evil.' It is more than probable that his hatred would have broken forth into murder, could he have laid hold on the least shadow of pretence which might have put a colour on so vile an action. Jezebel also was guilty of this sin, who threatened to murder the prophet Elijah. The Jews, likewise, were guilty of it who were filled with malice against our Saviour; for which reason, they would have put him to death at that time, but they feared the people.
Moreover, while this sin reigns in wicked men, there are some instances of it even in good men. Thus David carried his resentment too far against Nabal, though a churlish and ungrateful man, when he resolved in his passion, not only to take away his life, which was an unjustifiable action, but to destroy the whole family, the innocent with the guilty. He was afterwards sensible of his sin in this passionate resolution; and blessed God for his preventing it, by Abigail's prudent management. There is another instance of sinful and unaccountable passion which cannot be excused from a degree of heart-murder, in Jonah; who was very angry because God was gracious, and spared Nineveh, on their repentance. In this fit of passion he desires that God would take away his life, justifies his anger, and, as it were, dares him to cut him off; which was as bad a frame as ever any good man was in. All this, too, took its rise from pride, lest some should think him a false prophet, who did not rightly distinguish between what God might do and would have done had they not repented, and what he determined to do, namely, to give them repentance, and so to spare them: I say, rather than be counted a false prophet, which it may be was a groundless surmise, he was angry with God for sparing it.
Here it will be inquired whether all anger is sinful, or a breach of this commandment ? Now, as the apostle says, 'Be angry and sin not;' the words imply that there may be anger which is not sinful, but which, on the other hand, may rather be styled a zeal for God. Of this kind was that anger which our Saviour expressed against the Scribes and Pharisees, when he calls them 'serpents, a generation of vipers;' and when he whipped the buyers and sellers out of the temple, on which occasion it is said, 'The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.' The apostle also reproved Elymas the sorcerer, who endeavoured to 'turn away the deputy from the faith,' with words that seemed full of anger, when he addressed himself to him in this manner, 'full of all subtilty, and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?' And Peter could not reprove that vile hypocrite, Simon Magus, when he offered to purchase the conferring of the Holy Ghost, without expressing some anger and resentment, as the cause required, when he said, 'Thy money perish with thee,' &c. Yet, that he might let him know that it was only zeal for God that provoked his anger, he gave him friendly advice to repent of his wickedness.
We may hence take occasion to inquire what the difference is between sinful anger or passion, and an holy zeal for God. Now, an holy zeal for God leads us rightly to distinguish between the person reproved, and his actions which give us occasion for reproof; so that we hate the sin, but not the person who commits it. Thus the psalmist says, 'I hate the work of them that turn aside.' But sinful anger is principally directed against the person with whom we are offended. Again, the honour of God is the only motive which excites holy zeal; but pride or evil surmise is generally the occasion of sinful anger. Thus Jehu's executing the vengeance of God in cutting off Ahab's wicked family, was right, as to the matter of it; yet it had a great mixture of ambition, pride, and private hatred of them, as those who he thought would stand in competition with him for the crown. Besides, he desired the applause and esteem of the people for the action, and therefore said to Jonadab, 'Come with me, and see my zeal for the Lord.' Hence, true zeal for God is attended with many other graces; and sinful anger with many sins. Further, holy zeal for God inclines us to express anger against his enemies with sorrow and reluctance, being grieved for their sin, and at the same time desiring their reformation and salvation; but sinful anger meditates revenge, is restless till it has accomplished it, and is pleased with having opportunities of executing it. Moreover, holy zeal sets aside or is not much concerned about injuries, as directed against ourselves; but considers them as they reflect dishonour on the name of God, or are prejudicial to his interest in the world. Thus David said concerning Edom, 'Happy shall he be that dasheth thy little ones against the stones;' when, at the same time, he professed that it was for Jerusalem's sake that he desired the ruin of his enemies, and not his own; for he says, that he 'preferred Jerusalem above his chief joy.' Sinful anger, however, designs or wishes evil to others, to promote our own interest and advantage.
We shall now consider the aggravations of sinful passion. It unfits a soul for holy duties. Accordingly, our Saviour advises his people, first to 'be reconciled to their brethren, and then come and offer their gift.' If we attempt to reprove sin, or persuade to duty, in a passion, it will tend to take away the force and hinder the success of the arguments we use. Sinful anger will occasion sorrow and shame, when reflected on in our most serious thoughts. It will expose us to Satan's temptations, and occasion a multitude of sins; and accordingly is called by the apostle, a 'giving place to the devil.' It magnifies the smallest injuries, and excites our resentments beyond their due bounds. We do not consider, as we ought to do, that the injuries done against us are very small when compared with the sins we commit, whereby we dishonour God. Further, sinful anger is opposite to a Christian temper, very much unlike that frame of spirit which our Saviour has recommended concerning loving our enemies, and is also contrary to his example, 'who when he was reviled, reviled not again,' Finally, as it is a stirring up of our own corruptions; so it tends to stir up the corruptions of others, and provoke them to sin, as one flame kindleth another, and so increaseth itself.
We shall further inquire how we are to deal with those whom we converse with, who are addicted to passion or anger. We are to exercise a calm, meek, and humble disposition, bearing reflections with patience, and replying to them with gentleness; especially when it is more immediately our own cause, and not the cause of God, which is concerned. 'A soft answer turneth away wrath.' 'He that is slow to wrath, is of great understanding.' Let us take heed, also, that we do nothing which tends to stir up the passions of any. If a superior is disposed to be angry, let us prudently withdraw from him. If it be an inferior, let us reprove him with faithfulness. If it be an equal, let us take away the edge of his anger, by meekness, love, and tenderness towards him, having compassion on his weakness. Let us bear injuries without revenging them, and 'overcome evil with good.'
Child Abuse?
Dr. White has posted some observations on the problem of "same-sex" couples raising children, in this recent post on the Team Apologian blog (link). He says some things that need to be said, and which few folks seem to have the guts to say these days.
May God give California repentance and forgiveness for the path down which it has headed,
-TurretinFan
May God give California repentance and forgiveness for the path down which it has headed,
-TurretinFan
Monday, June 30, 2008
Bibles.org.uk
I recently came across a an interesting web site that appears to have as its primary focus the propagation of the Bible. One of the most interesting aspects of the web site is that it has a number of resources available both via its own website but also via the self-publishing website LuLu. According to the information on the website, the LuLu publications are at the cost set by LuLu, which entails no royalties for Bibles.org.uk. Obviously, there is no way for me to verify this, but the costs are very low in most cases.
Those on an even more limited budget will find interesting the free resources available not only from the Bible.org.uk website, but also via LuLu. I've provided an index of those resources, below, for my readers' convenience.
I have linked only to the "free" items. There are other items available as well. There are also some more questionable items. For example, the web site contains a Russian translation of one of Ellen G. White's works, which is disappointing to see.
Enjoy!
-TurretinFan
Those on an even more limited budget will find interesting the free resources available not only from the Bible.org.uk website, but also via LuLu. I've provided an index of those resources, below, for my readers' convenience.
Bible Versions
Bulgarian
Bulgarian Bible based on 1940 edition, revised by Bibliata.com
Dutch
English
KJV 1613 Bible (Facsimile Edition w/Apocrypha)
French
French Bible Louis Segond Version
Gothic
Greek NT
Erasmus Greek-Latin New Testament 1522
The New Testament in the Original Greek Byzantine Textform 2005
Greek NT (Critical Editions)
Bibles.org.uk "4 in 1" Greek NT
Novum Testamentum Graece, Editio Octava Critica Maior (Vol I)
Novum Testamentum Graece, Editio Octava Critica Maior (Vol II)
Hebrew
Westminster Leningrad Codex v4.5
Westminster Leningrad Codex v4.5 (LARGE TYPE)
Salkinson-Ginsburg's Hebrew New Testament
Latin
Latin Vulgate Bible (Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam)
Polyglot
Complutensian Polyglot, Vol I: OLD TESTAMENT
Complutensian Polyglot, Vol II: NEW TESTAMENT
Septuagint
Cambridge Septuagint Vol I: Genesis - IV Kings
Cambridge Septuagint Vol II: I Chronicles – Tobit
Cambridge Septuagint Vol III: Hosea - IV Maccabees
Slavonic
Ostrozhskaya Biblia 1581, Volume I
Ostrozhskaya Biblia 1581, Volume II
Swedish
Russian
Bibles.org.uk Fifth Edition of Russian Synodal Bible
Spanish
Spanish Reina-Valera 1909 Bible
Syriac
Bible: Young's Literal Translation.
Ukrainian
Yiddish
Massoretic Materials
The Massorah compiled from Manuscripts (volume I)
The Massorah compiled from Manuscripts (volume II)
The Massorah compiled from Manuscripts (volume III)
The Massorah compiled from Manuscripts (volume IV)
Apocryphal / Patristic Materials
The Book of Enoch (Greek-English-Russian)
I have linked only to the "free" items. There are other items available as well. There are also some more questionable items. For example, the web site contains a Russian translation of one of Ellen G. White's works, which is disappointing to see.
Enjoy!
-TurretinFan
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Covenanters Reject NPP and FV
The American Covenanters (RPCNA) have joined the growing list of conservative presbyterian and reformed churches that have rejected the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) and Federal Vision (FV) theological departures from orthodoxy. R. Scott Clark at Heidelblog reports (link).
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
TheoJunkie on Death
My friend, TheoJunkie, has posted an interesting blog article on the subject of death, including a few personal anecdotes that are quite touching. Caution - this article may bring you to tears. (link)
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Particular Redemption - Quotation from Reymond's Systematic Theology
Monergism.com has provided a lengthy excerpt from Robert Reymond's A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. on the subject of Ten Lines of Evidence for Particular Redemption (link to excerpt).
Reymond's Ten Lines:
1) The Particularistic Vocabulary of Scripture
2) God’s Redemptive Love Not Inclusive of Fallen Angels
3) The Irreversible Condition of Lost Men Already in Hell When Christ Died
4) The Limited Number of People, by Divine Arrangement, Who Actually Hear the Gospel
5) Christ’s High-Priestly Work Restricted to the Elect
6) The Father’s Particularistic Salvific Will and Work
7) The Death to Sin and Resurrection to Newness of Life of All Those for Whom Christ Died
8) The Implication in the Particularity of the Gift of Faith, a “Purchased” Blessing, For Christ’s Cross Work, the “Procuring” Act
9) The Intrinsic Efficacy of Christ’s Cross Work (Necessarily Exclusivistic)
10) An Atonement of High Value Necessarily Exclusive of an Atonement of Universal Extension
I encourage those who are considering the issue of Limited Atonement/ Particular Redemption to consider what Reymond has to say on the subject.
-TurretinFan
Reymond's Ten Lines:
1) The Particularistic Vocabulary of Scripture
2) God’s Redemptive Love Not Inclusive of Fallen Angels
3) The Irreversible Condition of Lost Men Already in Hell When Christ Died
4) The Limited Number of People, by Divine Arrangement, Who Actually Hear the Gospel
5) Christ’s High-Priestly Work Restricted to the Elect
6) The Father’s Particularistic Salvific Will and Work
7) The Death to Sin and Resurrection to Newness of Life of All Those for Whom Christ Died
8) The Implication in the Particularity of the Gift of Faith, a “Purchased” Blessing, For Christ’s Cross Work, the “Procuring” Act
9) The Intrinsic Efficacy of Christ’s Cross Work (Necessarily Exclusivistic)
10) An Atonement of High Value Necessarily Exclusive of an Atonement of Universal Extension
I encourage those who are considering the issue of Limited Atonement/ Particular Redemption to consider what Reymond has to say on the subject.
-TurretinFan
The Real Francis Turretin on: God's Knowledge of the Future
Glenn H. at Pot and Torch has an interesting post on the topic of Unconditional Election. (link) I especially enjoyed the introductory quotations he provided from Ames and Turretin, two of the great systematic theologians.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Islam's Number One Enemy? Hardly.
Recently, a popular Catholic blogger (Mark Shea) described Coptic priest Zakaria Botros as Islam's Public Enemy #1 (link to description). Among the reasons given were nine demands that Botros has made of the Islamic world. The demands appear to me to be purely polemical. I've rewritten them in my own words based on the presentation provided at Crossword Bebop (link).
Here are his demands, with my comments:
1. Revise Koran so that it does not deny Jesus' divinity, nor the "revelation of God in him."
It would be helpful to the reader of Botros would specify the particular portions of the particular Surrahs he has in mind. The Koran clearly does deny Jesus' divinity, but it does also seem to claim that Jesus was a prophet.
2. Admit that they believe Jesus is the spirit and word of God.
This is a very odd demand. I don't know any mainstream Muslims that would agree with such a statement, and I don't see any reason for Botros to claim that the Muslims really do believe that Jesus is the "spirit and word" of God.
3. Revise Koran and Hadith literature to remove verses that suggest Christians should be killed.
Some examples are provided.
4. Revise Koran and Hadith literature to remove portions that incite terrorism and oppression.
Some examples are provided.
5. Stopping the attacks on Jesus and the Bible in mosques and media.
The blogger linked above provides an alleged example.
6. Granting people in general and Muslims in particular freedom of speech/association.
Essentially the claim here is that Muslims (and people in Islamic countries) are nor free to express their beliefs.
7. Terminate the punishment of "apostasy" as well as stopping the torture, imprisonment, and killing of those who convert to Christianity.
No example was provided.
8. Formally apologize for the murder of Christians in countries invaded by Islam.
The apology is to come from the leaders throughout the "Arab world."
9. Formally apologize for the insults to Christianity throughout Islamic history.
The apology is to come from the leaders throughout the "Arab world."
Some Comments/Observations
These 9 points are mostly polemical/rhetorical. It would not be reasonable to expect the Islamic world to meet all 9 demands and continue to be Islamic. The demands generally seek to encourage Islam to moderate itself toward Christianity in a way that most (if not all) Muslims would find inconsistent with their form of Islam.
Certainly, some points could be accommodated. Undoubtedly, there are some Muslims who reject the severe punishments for apostasy, or who think that murders of Christians is reprehensible.
On the other hand, the idea of revising the Koran (and, among some, the Hadith literature)
is fundamentally opposed to the rudimentary principles of Islam. It is like asking Christians to revise the Bible! Making such a request is not likely to be taken seriously, except by the most liberal of Muslim scholars.
In the end, the 9 demands are essentially about pluralism not the gospel. The Muslim that grants all 9 demands does not thereby become a Christian, though he may cease to be a true Muslim. The campaign may get Muslims talking, but it's hard for this author to imagine that the message of these 9 demands is really a significant threat to Islam.
There is a number one threat to Islam, and that is not a man, but the Gospel. The Gospel of salvation from the guilt of sin, through faith in Christ alone. A Gospel of God's grace - of the mercy of God shown through the person of Christ. It is the Gospel of Christ crucified, buried, and risen again from the dead: Christ who will come again to judge the world at the last day.
-TurretinFan
Here are his demands, with my comments:
1. Revise Koran so that it does not deny Jesus' divinity, nor the "revelation of God in him."
It would be helpful to the reader of Botros would specify the particular portions of the particular Surrahs he has in mind. The Koran clearly does deny Jesus' divinity, but it does also seem to claim that Jesus was a prophet.
2. Admit that they believe Jesus is the spirit and word of God.
This is a very odd demand. I don't know any mainstream Muslims that would agree with such a statement, and I don't see any reason for Botros to claim that the Muslims really do believe that Jesus is the "spirit and word" of God.
3. Revise Koran and Hadith literature to remove verses that suggest Christians should be killed.
Some examples are provided.
4. Revise Koran and Hadith literature to remove portions that incite terrorism and oppression.
Some examples are provided.
5. Stopping the attacks on Jesus and the Bible in mosques and media.
The blogger linked above provides an alleged example.
6. Granting people in general and Muslims in particular freedom of speech/association.
Essentially the claim here is that Muslims (and people in Islamic countries) are nor free to express their beliefs.
7. Terminate the punishment of "apostasy" as well as stopping the torture, imprisonment, and killing of those who convert to Christianity.
No example was provided.
8. Formally apologize for the murder of Christians in countries invaded by Islam.
The apology is to come from the leaders throughout the "Arab world."
9. Formally apologize for the insults to Christianity throughout Islamic history.
The apology is to come from the leaders throughout the "Arab world."
Some Comments/Observations
These 9 points are mostly polemical/rhetorical. It would not be reasonable to expect the Islamic world to meet all 9 demands and continue to be Islamic. The demands generally seek to encourage Islam to moderate itself toward Christianity in a way that most (if not all) Muslims would find inconsistent with their form of Islam.
Certainly, some points could be accommodated. Undoubtedly, there are some Muslims who reject the severe punishments for apostasy, or who think that murders of Christians is reprehensible.
On the other hand, the idea of revising the Koran (and, among some, the Hadith literature)
is fundamentally opposed to the rudimentary principles of Islam. It is like asking Christians to revise the Bible! Making such a request is not likely to be taken seriously, except by the most liberal of Muslim scholars.
In the end, the 9 demands are essentially about pluralism not the gospel. The Muslim that grants all 9 demands does not thereby become a Christian, though he may cease to be a true Muslim. The campaign may get Muslims talking, but it's hard for this author to imagine that the message of these 9 demands is really a significant threat to Islam.
There is a number one threat to Islam, and that is not a man, but the Gospel. The Gospel of salvation from the guilt of sin, through faith in Christ alone. A Gospel of God's grace - of the mercy of God shown through the person of Christ. It is the Gospel of Christ crucified, buried, and risen again from the dead: Christ who will come again to judge the world at the last day.
-TurretinFan
Exclusive Psalmody Resources
Jonathan Mattul at Presbyterian Pastures has republished a letter from Pastor Rob McCurley that provides a useful guide to some excellent resources on the issue of Exclusive Psalmody. (link)
Friday, June 27, 2008
He Descended Into Hell
Recently, an article by Pastor Hyde, published as: "In Defense of the Descendit: A Confessional Response to Contemporary Critics of Christ’s Descent into Hell" (The Confessional Presbyterian 3 (2007) 104–117) has come to my attention. (link to article)
I enjoyed the article, which provides a Reformed rebuttal both to criticisms (from well-meaning but ill-informed Reformed and other Evangelical folks) and abuses (from Romanists and others). It's a great example of taking back the so-called Apostle's Creed from historical revisionism.
Although, of course, we do not consider the Apostle's Creed to be itself apostolic, nor to be authoritative, it is still encouraging to see that it is not something that must be rejected as heterodox.
-TurretinFan
I enjoyed the article, which provides a Reformed rebuttal both to criticisms (from well-meaning but ill-informed Reformed and other Evangelical folks) and abuses (from Romanists and others). It's a great example of taking back the so-called Apostle's Creed from historical revisionism.
Although, of course, we do not consider the Apostle's Creed to be itself apostolic, nor to be authoritative, it is still encouraging to see that it is not something that must be rejected as heterodox.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Genuine Christian Apostasy Debate
I'm pleased to announce that a debate between J.C. Thibodaux and myself on the topic of the Perseverance of the Saints. JCT will be the affirmative in the debate, affirming a resolution that denies that the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints is consistent with Scripture. I will be the negative, defending PotS as consistent with Scripture.
Here's a link to the debate in general (link).
Here's a link to JCT's opening (link) (and the mirror at his own website).
Here's a link to my opening (link).
May this examination of God's word be edifying both to the debaters and the readers,
-TurretinFan
Here's a link to the debate in general (link).
Here's a link to JCT's opening (link) (and the mirror at his own website).
Here's a link to my opening (link).
May this examination of God's word be edifying both to the debaters and the readers,
-TurretinFan
Apologetics in the Information Age - a Response to Mark Shea
I've posted a new article at the Team Apologian blog. The general topic is the relevance and importance of apologetics. In some sense it is meta-apologetics - a defense of a defense of the faith.
Here's the first paragraph:
The printing press revolutionized apologetics. Suddenly it became possible for books to be widely disseminated with a relatively small expense. Today, the Internet has reduced that expense even further. As with the printing press, the blessings are mixed. The technological advances make defending the faith easier, but they also making attacking the faith easier. Apologetics remains important – and the defenders of the faith have an important role to play.
(read more)
Here's the first paragraph:
The printing press revolutionized apologetics. Suddenly it became possible for books to be widely disseminated with a relatively small expense. Today, the Internet has reduced that expense even further. As with the printing press, the blessings are mixed. The technological advances make defending the faith easier, but they also making attacking the faith easier. Apologetics remains important – and the defenders of the faith have an important role to play.
(read more)
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Further Response to FreeGrace - Exegesis Defended Against Assertion
FreeGrace has provided some further comments, which I will respond to below.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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:
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
-TurretinFan
Friday, June 20, 2008
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
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
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
Thursday, June 19, 2008
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
(link)
-Turretinfan
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
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
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
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
