This is part 3 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link).
Jay Dyer says:
2) "[A consistent Calvinist must be] Manichaean, in that nature is inherently evil."
(Note, "Manichaean" and "Manichean" are both widely used spellings for this position.)
I answer:
a) The Calvinist Position (whether right doctrine or error let Scripture decide)
Men are, by nature, children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). Nevertheless, God originally created man good (Genesis 1:26-31) although fallible (Genesis 2:16-17). By Adam's fall, he and all those whom he represented died and came under bondage to sin (Romans 5:12). In regeneration, the old becomes new (Colosians 3:10 and Ephesians 4:24) as a result of the work of Christ (Ephesians 2:15). Thus, Christ is called the new Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). God has foreordained all things that come to pass (Acts 17:26), and has a purpose even in the evil acts of men (e.g. Genesis 50:20). Thus, as Proverbs 16:4 states, "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil," and as it is written in the Epistle to the Romans, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." (Romans 9:18)
b) The Accusation Disputed
The error of the Manicheans may be succinctly described as asserting that the physical world is intrinsicly evil, having been created by an evil opposite of God. Thus, the Manicheans deny that evil has a purpose in God's plan, view the body as contemptible, and deny God's omnipotence. Calvinism, however, teaches that God has a purpose even in the evil that happens, that the bodies of believers will be redeemed, and that God is omnipotent, even to the point of affirming that nothing can happen apart from the permission of God. Thus, no consistent Calvinist could be a Manichean.
c) The Accusation Redirected
On the other hand, Manichean errors - particularly the dualism of viewing the body as intrinsically evil - have had a perceptible impact on the theology of Roman Catholicism. Thus, for example, we seen in modern Roman Catholicism things like a view that abstinence from sexual relations is more holy than normal marital relations and an exaltation of asceticism.
Furthermore, Catholicism does not have a clear answer to the question of the purpose of evil. That is to say, Catholicism cannot consistently account for the existence of evil in the Creation. This can be seen from the widespread denial of predestination in Catholicism. To be sure, there are some Thomistic folks within Catholicism who would have a similar view to Calvinists (which in itself should cause Mr. Dyer to pause), but the Roman magisterium has not clearly sided with either Thomists or the Molinists (in fact, folks like Jimmy Akin (a popular lay apologist for Catholicism) claim that the Roman magisterium has adopted the essentially relativistic position that Thomism, Molinism, and at least one other view are all acceptable, and none can call the others heretics (source)). Nevertheless, Molinism or a form/variant of it, is the most widely promoted view in Catholicism today. This position ultimately denies God's omnipotence, by asserting that man's "free-will" decisions are something that God cannot control.
-TurretinFan
Continue to Part 4
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Response to Jay Dyer on Calvinism (Part 2 of 13)
This is part 2 of the thirteen part series in response to Jay Dyer. The previous part may be found here (link).
Jay Dyer says:
1) "[A consistent Calvinist must be] Nestorian, in that the Logos cannot assume a fallen human nature."
I answer:
a) The Calvinist Position (whether right doctrine or error let Scripture decide)
Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). Christ, however, (and only Christ) was immaculately conceived. He was like the sinful flesh of Mary from whom he (after the flesh) came, but his flesh was not itself sinful. He was a true human, but he was the second Adam. He was not under Adam's federal headship and he did not inherit Adam's fallen and depraved nature. This is, of course, not only the Calvinist position but also the position of at least most of the major early church fathers who addressed the subject.
b) The Accusation Disputed
The Nestorian error is (to put it concisely) to deny the hypostatic union. Nestorianism, as it is classically defined, argues that Christ was not one person with two natures, but two persons. The existence of the hypostatic union is critical to the Calvinistic view of the atonement. The fact that the person of Christ was of infinite dignity on account of His divine nature makes the atonement of infinite intrinsic worth. The fact that the person of Christ had a truly human nature made the atoning death of Christ possible, as well as making the form of the sacrifice (death of man) a proper suffering of the penalty due. Without one or the other, the atonement would be impossible. Consequently, it would be impossible for a consistent Calvinist to embrace Nestorianism.
Furthermore, this alleged Nestorian error has been disputed. As A.A. Hodge explains in his Outlines of Theology:
c) The Accusation Redirected
The Nestorians (those associated with the historical Nestorius) never went away, and (ironically) Rome now accepts the Nestorian communion under certain qualified circumstances (link), which (as the linked document cautions) should not be confused with the idea there is full communion between them.
On the other hand, Rome has proven Nestorius' apparent concerns over the term "theotokos" (literally "God-bearer" but often translated "mother of God") to be well founded. In the years since "theotokos" became accepted terminology, Mary grew to have an increasing role in the worship of Rome, until today we have apologists for Catholicism insisting that devotion to Mary is a mandatory part of religious life. Now, an official document from the Vatican from the 1970's states: "With his mind raised to heaven ... the priest should very often turn to Mary, the Mother of God, ... and daily ask her for the grace of conforming himself to her Son." (source) If Nestorius were still around today, he'd feel vindicated in opposing the term "theotokos" on the ground that it can lead to what amounts to Mary-worship (though modern Catholicism is careful not to call this sort of veneration of Mary "worship").
Continue to Part 3
-TurretinFan
Jay Dyer says:
1) "[A consistent Calvinist must be] Nestorian, in that the Logos cannot assume a fallen human nature."
I answer:
a) The Calvinist Position (whether right doctrine or error let Scripture decide)
Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). Christ, however, (and only Christ) was immaculately conceived. He was like the sinful flesh of Mary from whom he (after the flesh) came, but his flesh was not itself sinful. He was a true human, but he was the second Adam. He was not under Adam's federal headship and he did not inherit Adam's fallen and depraved nature. This is, of course, not only the Calvinist position but also the position of at least most of the major early church fathers who addressed the subject.
b) The Accusation Disputed
The Nestorian error is (to put it concisely) to deny the hypostatic union. Nestorianism, as it is classically defined, argues that Christ was not one person with two natures, but two persons. The existence of the hypostatic union is critical to the Calvinistic view of the atonement. The fact that the person of Christ was of infinite dignity on account of His divine nature makes the atonement of infinite intrinsic worth. The fact that the person of Christ had a truly human nature made the atoning death of Christ possible, as well as making the form of the sacrifice (death of man) a proper suffering of the penalty due. Without one or the other, the atonement would be impossible. Consequently, it would be impossible for a consistent Calvinist to embrace Nestorianism.
Furthermore, this alleged Nestorian error has been disputed. As A.A. Hodge explains in his Outlines of Theology:
The Nestorian heresy charged upon Nestorius, a Syrian by birth, and bishop of Constantinople, during the fifth century, by his enemy, Cyril, the arrogant bishop of Alexandria. Cyril obtained a judgment against Nestorius in the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, to the effect that he separated the two natures of Christ so far as to teach the coexistence in him of two distinct persons, a God and a man, intimately united. But it is now, however, judged most probable by Protestant historians that Nestorius was personally a brave defender of the true faith, and that the misrepresentations of his enemies were founded only upon his uncompromising opposition to the dangerous habit then prominently introduced of calling the Virgin Mary the mother of God because she was the mother of the human nature of Christ.
c) The Accusation Redirected
The Nestorians (those associated with the historical Nestorius) never went away, and (ironically) Rome now accepts the Nestorian communion under certain qualified circumstances (link), which (as the linked document cautions) should not be confused with the idea there is full communion between them.
On the other hand, Rome has proven Nestorius' apparent concerns over the term "theotokos" (literally "God-bearer" but often translated "mother of God") to be well founded. In the years since "theotokos" became accepted terminology, Mary grew to have an increasing role in the worship of Rome, until today we have apologists for Catholicism insisting that devotion to Mary is a mandatory part of religious life. Now, an official document from the Vatican from the 1970's states: "With his mind raised to heaven ... the priest should very often turn to Mary, the Mother of God, ... and daily ask her for the grace of conforming himself to her Son." (source) If Nestorius were still around today, he'd feel vindicated in opposing the term "theotokos" on the ground that it can lead to what amounts to Mary-worship (though modern Catholicism is careful not to call this sort of veneration of Mary "worship").
Continue to Part 3
-TurretinFan
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Church Discipline and Holiness
Criticism of "Protestant" church discipline, with a positive example illustrated in this video by Dr. James White (just under 15 minutes long):
This is partly to provide balance to my criticism of Rome in these two recent posts (first post) (second post). Notice that Rome is not alone in failing to do proper church discipline. The fact that I've pointed out Rome's mistake in this error doesn't let those "Protestant" churches that do the same thing off the hook.
-TurretinFan
This is partly to provide balance to my criticism of Rome in these two recent posts (first post) (second post). Notice that Rome is not alone in failing to do proper church discipline. The fact that I've pointed out Rome's mistake in this error doesn't let those "Protestant" churches that do the same thing off the hook.
-TurretinFan
SSPX is Back - JP2 heading out? Implications for Unity
The so-called Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is back. Their excommunication has been lifted by Rome. This is an interesting development on several levels.
1) SSPX seems to teach that Vatican II was not infallible
From their website (link):
Before the excommunication was lifted, people scoffed at the idea that the SSPX points had any merit. As far as I know, their re-union with the Roman communion was not conditioned on their denunciation of the points above, and those points are currently (as of 24 January 2009) on their web site.
I found this comment, attributed (here) to Cardinal Ratzinger (now pope):
That raises the question: should we be considering those positions stated in the documents of Vatican II to be "the" Roman position, "a" Roman position, or simply the work of private theologians?
It also raises the question of whether Benedict XVI is trying to undermine the changes his former mentor John Paul II put into place. The SSPX viewed JP2 as a neo-modernist, and JP2 excommunicated them. Benedict XVI doesn't seem to be as concerned about SSPX, which makes it appear that he at least partly agrees with their criticism of JP2.
Either way, we have an interesting paradox: there is unity of communion now between SSPX and folks they view as modernist or neo-modernist heretics. There is unity of communion between the most traditionalist of the SSPX bishops and Joseph ("Joe the Vice-President") Biden - one of the highest-ranking pro-murder politicians in the world. There is organizational unity - but there is obvious lack of unity of belief (or practice) on vast number of issues.
Question for Romanist readers: do you think that it is hypothetically possible that JP2 could turn out to be, in the judgment of Rome in 100 years, an anti-pope?
-TurretinFan
1) SSPX seems to teach that Vatican II was not infallible
From their website (link):
-
Not by reason of the extraordinary magisterium, for it refused to define anything. Pope Paul VI himself, in an audience on January 12, 1966, said that it “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility” (Cf. the declaration of the Theological Commission of Mar. 6, 1964, and repeated by the Council's General Secretary on Nov. 16, 1964: "In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so." It never did.).
-
Nor by reason of the ordinary universal magisterium, because this is not a defining power, but one of passing on what was always believed. The “universality” in question is not just one of place (all bishops) but also of time (always) (cf., Vatican I and PRINCIPLE 6).
-
Nor even by reason of the simply authentic magisterium, because the object of all magisterium is the deposit of faith to be guarded sacredly and expounded faithfully (Vatican I, Dz 1836), and not to adopt as Catholic doctrine the “best expressed values of two centuries of ‘liberal culture,’” even if they are “purified” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Gesu, Nov. 1984, p. 72. Cf. Gaudium et Spes, §§11, 44).
Before the excommunication was lifted, people scoffed at the idea that the SSPX points had any merit. As far as I know, their re-union with the Roman communion was not conditioned on their denunciation of the points above, and those points are currently (as of 24 January 2009) on their web site.
I found this comment, attributed (here) to Cardinal Ratzinger (now pope):
The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.
That raises the question: should we be considering those positions stated in the documents of Vatican II to be "the" Roman position, "a" Roman position, or simply the work of private theologians?
It also raises the question of whether Benedict XVI is trying to undermine the changes his former mentor John Paul II put into place. The SSPX viewed JP2 as a neo-modernist, and JP2 excommunicated them. Benedict XVI doesn't seem to be as concerned about SSPX, which makes it appear that he at least partly agrees with their criticism of JP2.
Either way, we have an interesting paradox: there is unity of communion now between SSPX and folks they view as modernist or neo-modernist heretics. There is unity of communion between the most traditionalist of the SSPX bishops and Joseph ("Joe the Vice-President") Biden - one of the highest-ranking pro-murder politicians in the world. There is organizational unity - but there is obvious lack of unity of belief (or practice) on vast number of issues.
Question for Romanist readers: do you think that it is hypothetically possible that JP2 could turn out to be, in the judgment of Rome in 100 years, an anti-pope?
-TurretinFan
Friday, January 23, 2009
Response to Jay Dyer on Calvinism (Part 1 of 13)
I had never heard of Jay Dyer before, but he is a non-Calvinist, ex-Protestant. He has eleven claims (source) with respect to what a consistent Calvinist must be.
At first, I thought I'd give a quick answer to each and make this a single blog post. However, the more I looked at the issues, the more I realized that there are, for most of the criticisms, three issues to be addressed: (1) What is the actual error (or conversely, doctrine) at stake? (2) How does or doesn't Calvinism correspond to the error (or doctrine)? and (3) Does this criticism fit Catholicism better? (Jay is apparently now a part of that religion, having turned away, practically at the last minute, from joining Eastern Orthodoxy last June, if my understanding is correct.) I'll address each in order, in separate (hopefully brief) posts, in the upcoming days.
Obviously, Jay's post is largely simply meant to mock and poke fun at Calvinism, rather than being a serious critique. Nevertheless, it provides an interesting platform for discussing the issues. The plan is to make this a thirteen part series in which I will consider each of his points in a separate post and then wrap up with some concluding thoughts.
To the glory of God,
-TurretinFan
Continue to Part 2
At first, I thought I'd give a quick answer to each and make this a single blog post. However, the more I looked at the issues, the more I realized that there are, for most of the criticisms, three issues to be addressed: (1) What is the actual error (or conversely, doctrine) at stake? (2) How does or doesn't Calvinism correspond to the error (or doctrine)? and (3) Does this criticism fit Catholicism better? (Jay is apparently now a part of that religion, having turned away, practically at the last minute, from joining Eastern Orthodoxy last June, if my understanding is correct.) I'll address each in order, in separate (hopefully brief) posts, in the upcoming days.
Obviously, Jay's post is largely simply meant to mock and poke fun at Calvinism, rather than being a serious critique. Nevertheless, it provides an interesting platform for discussing the issues. The plan is to make this a thirteen part series in which I will consider each of his points in a separate post and then wrap up with some concluding thoughts.
To the glory of God,
-TurretinFan
Continue to Part 2
Rick Warren's Prayer
At Obama's inauguration, Rick Warren gave a prayer. I've heard a few Christians up in arms about the prayer, and they generally focus on three things:
1) It was pretty empty.
This is a legitimate criticism. There wasn't much substance to the prayer, and some of the time was spent on "preaching to the choir." On the other hand, one shouldn't expect a prayer to be a sermon. I'm not trying to defend Rick Warren, but I think that some people's expectations would not have been met unless Warren had given a 30 minute prayer-homily.
2) Warren referred to God using this sentence: "And you are the compassionate and merciful one."
The criticism is that this sounds like it is taken from the Koran. It does sound like that. On the other hand, the true God is merciful and compassionate. Scriptures say so. It is not wrong for us to describe God that way, and it may be valuable for Muslims to see that the true God is merciful and compassionate - that such a teaching is not uniquely Koranic, but is borrowed from Christianity.
Psalm 145:8 The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy.
Psalm 86:15 But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.
3) Warren referred to Jesus as "Isa."
The criticism is, again, that this sounds like it is taken from the Koran. It does sound like that, and if context is not provided, it sounds very suspicious, particularly when coupled with (2) above. In context, however, Warren's sentence was:
"I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus, who taught us to pray: [full length version of Lord's Prayer]."
In context, Warren was simply giving the Arabic name for Jesus in a list among the Hebrew name, the Spanish name, and the English name. In context, Warren is positively affirming that Jesus taught his disciples to pray like Christians, not like Muslims - although he is using the name for Jesus that is familiar to Muslims.
I am not a fan of Rick Warren, and I am not praising his prayer. The fact that he prayed in Jesus' name is great, but that's sort of a minimal bar. There are many ways his prayer could have been improved. On the other hand, I don't think that the claims that Warren was trying to be "ecumenical with Muslims" is valid - or at least cannot be shown from his prayer.
Now, I am not familiar with a large body of what Warren has said elsewhere. So, perhaps, viewed in light of the remainder of what he has said, these seemingly reasonable references could be viewed as inappropriate concessions. No one that I have seen criticize Warren, however, has brought forth that kind of evidence.
-TurretinFan
1) It was pretty empty.
This is a legitimate criticism. There wasn't much substance to the prayer, and some of the time was spent on "preaching to the choir." On the other hand, one shouldn't expect a prayer to be a sermon. I'm not trying to defend Rick Warren, but I think that some people's expectations would not have been met unless Warren had given a 30 minute prayer-homily.
2) Warren referred to God using this sentence: "And you are the compassionate and merciful one."
The criticism is that this sounds like it is taken from the Koran. It does sound like that. On the other hand, the true God is merciful and compassionate. Scriptures say so. It is not wrong for us to describe God that way, and it may be valuable for Muslims to see that the true God is merciful and compassionate - that such a teaching is not uniquely Koranic, but is borrowed from Christianity.
Psalm 145:8 The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy.
Psalm 86:15 But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.
3) Warren referred to Jesus as "Isa."
The criticism is, again, that this sounds like it is taken from the Koran. It does sound like that, and if context is not provided, it sounds very suspicious, particularly when coupled with (2) above. In context, however, Warren's sentence was:
"I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus, who taught us to pray: [full length version of Lord's Prayer]."
In context, Warren was simply giving the Arabic name for Jesus in a list among the Hebrew name, the Spanish name, and the English name. In context, Warren is positively affirming that Jesus taught his disciples to pray like Christians, not like Muslims - although he is using the name for Jesus that is familiar to Muslims.
I am not a fan of Rick Warren, and I am not praising his prayer. The fact that he prayed in Jesus' name is great, but that's sort of a minimal bar. There are many ways his prayer could have been improved. On the other hand, I don't think that the claims that Warren was trying to be "ecumenical with Muslims" is valid - or at least cannot be shown from his prayer.
Now, I am not familiar with a large body of what Warren has said elsewhere. So, perhaps, viewed in light of the remainder of what he has said, these seemingly reasonable references could be viewed as inappropriate concessions. No one that I have seen criticize Warren, however, has brought forth that kind of evidence.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Pharisees and Jesus - A Study in "Arminian" Logic
First Caveat: I'm using "Arminian" here to refer to a broad range of non-Calvinists - and specifically to refer to those representative of the population of non-Calvinists that regularly criticize Calvinism. I realize that there are Arminians out there who take a very different approach. This is not directed to them.
Spurred on by Triablogue's amusing posts "Prominent Arminian Blogger Denies that Jesus is Human" (link); "Why Freewill Theism makes God the author of Evil" (link); and "Why Jesus was a Sinner" (link), I thought I'd throw my own variant of their theme onto the stack.
Did you know that all the Pharisees followed Jesus? Yes, it is a little known fact.
1) World means World (This is an important tenet of "Arminianism.")
2) John 12:19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him. (Bold added to assist one's vision.)
3) Therefore, by "Arminian" logic, it follows that the Pharisees were saying that they themselves followed Jesus!
Remarkable, eh? And totally bogus.
Second Caveat: Yes, it is totally bogus. This post is satire (as were the Triablogue posts), trying to humorously show how the argument that "World means World" like the argument that "All means All" is easily abused. The "world" in John's gospel doesn't necessarily mean (and perhaps rarely if ever means) "each and every person on the face of the earth considered as individuals."
-TurretinFan
Spurred on by Triablogue's amusing posts "Prominent Arminian Blogger Denies that Jesus is Human" (link); "Why Freewill Theism makes God the author of Evil" (link); and "Why Jesus was a Sinner" (link), I thought I'd throw my own variant of their theme onto the stack.
Did you know that all the Pharisees followed Jesus? Yes, it is a little known fact.
1) World means World (This is an important tenet of "Arminianism.")
2) John 12:19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him. (Bold added to assist one's vision.)
3) Therefore, by "Arminian" logic, it follows that the Pharisees were saying that they themselves followed Jesus!
Remarkable, eh? And totally bogus.
Second Caveat: Yes, it is totally bogus. This post is satire (as were the Triablogue posts), trying to humorously show how the argument that "World means World" like the argument that "All means All" is easily abused. The "world" in John's gospel doesn't necessarily mean (and perhaps rarely if ever means) "each and every person on the face of the earth considered as individuals."
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Catholicism's Double Standard
Officially, Rome is opposed to abortion. Unofficially, prominent pro-abortion politicians are permitted to continue to commune with Rome. Case in point, America's first papist vice-president, who not only takes communion but receives a standing ovation (link). Nota Bene: he is now the VP, but the communion-taking and standing-ovation-receiving were 2 days before, when he was only a senator and the VP-elect.
One of the marks of a true church is whether godly discipline is being handed out.
-TurretinFan
One of the marks of a true church is whether godly discipline is being handed out.
-TurretinFan
Response to Scoffer
I am glad to see that at least one scoffer has found my blog. He provided the following comments, which I have redacted and edited to either omit or restrain the blasphemy and to standardize the syntax/spelling/etc.:
I answer:
The general objection here is that if every sin deserves eternal punishment, there is no distinction between sins and consequently God is unjust. This argument assumes something, though, namely that every person in hell for eternity receives the same punishment there.
Although the duration is the same (unending), there is no necessity that the degree of suffering be the same. Dante Alighieri (in the 14th century) proposed a view of Hell in which there are many levels, ranging from the most severe (specifically reserved for Satan) to the least severe, for those with relatively less heinous sins. This view of Hell demonstrates that it is possible for all sinners to receive eternal punishment, even while some receive a more severe punishment than others.
Jesus himself endorsed the idea that there is differentiation in hell. He stated:
Matthew 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Matthew 11:22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
Matthew 11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Luke 10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
Luke 10:14 But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you.
There's also a minor objection: "If you really get and eternity in hell for each sin, no matter how mild, then why not just commit them all and often?"
a) Me personally? I don't like sinning. It doesn't please me. I prefer to honor my God.
b) There is a bit of a false dichotomy here: the two paths are not "sin a little and go to hell forever" vs. "sin a lot and go to hell forever" but rather between "go on in sin" and "repent of your sin and trust in Christ for salvation."
c) There seems to be a hidden view behind the words that maybe God punishes sins, but there's just no way he could punish them forever.
But, Jesus clearly declared that the punishment for those don't follow Him is everlasting fire:
Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mark 9:43-48
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Hell is a fearsome reality. I can appreciate that it is not a pleasant prospect: it is not supposed to be. God is not some omni-benevolent Santa Claus that will be patient with your sins forever. He has given you time to repent and believe. If you see your sins, and seek mercy rather than justice, pray to God the Father, asking Him for mercy for the sake of Christ.
-TurretinFan
Unless he punishes all sin in the individual who actually commits it, and does so in proportion to the sin, then who cares about this unjust [god]?
Unless everyone burns in hell for each of their sins in proportion to its magnitude, then la-di-da.
If you really get and eternity in hell for each sin, no matter how mild, then why not just commit them all and often?
Since you're getting the exact same punishment whether you steal a candy bar at 2 years old or rape a 2 year old at 50?
Your God is [something bad], Turretinfan. He's not just at all.
I answer:
The general objection here is that if every sin deserves eternal punishment, there is no distinction between sins and consequently God is unjust. This argument assumes something, though, namely that every person in hell for eternity receives the same punishment there.
Although the duration is the same (unending), there is no necessity that the degree of suffering be the same. Dante Alighieri (in the 14th century) proposed a view of Hell in which there are many levels, ranging from the most severe (specifically reserved for Satan) to the least severe, for those with relatively less heinous sins. This view of Hell demonstrates that it is possible for all sinners to receive eternal punishment, even while some receive a more severe punishment than others.
Jesus himself endorsed the idea that there is differentiation in hell. He stated:
Matthew 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Matthew 11:22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
Matthew 11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Luke 10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
Luke 10:14 But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you.
There's also a minor objection: "If you really get and eternity in hell for each sin, no matter how mild, then why not just commit them all and often?"
a) Me personally? I don't like sinning. It doesn't please me. I prefer to honor my God.
b) There is a bit of a false dichotomy here: the two paths are not "sin a little and go to hell forever" vs. "sin a lot and go to hell forever" but rather between "go on in sin" and "repent of your sin and trust in Christ for salvation."
c) There seems to be a hidden view behind the words that maybe God punishes sins, but there's just no way he could punish them forever.
But, Jesus clearly declared that the punishment for those don't follow Him is everlasting fire:
Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mark 9:43-48
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
Hell is a fearsome reality. I can appreciate that it is not a pleasant prospect: it is not supposed to be. God is not some omni-benevolent Santa Claus that will be patient with your sins forever. He has given you time to repent and believe. If you see your sins, and seek mercy rather than justice, pray to God the Father, asking Him for mercy for the sake of Christ.
-TurretinFan
Does God Punish Sin?
Wes White provides an excellent and thorough answer to the question, "Does God Punish Sin?" in this recent post (link). The answer, of course, is yes.
God punishes every sin. Either he punishes you, or he punishes Christ. Put your trust in Christ and He will bear the burden of your sins for you.
-TurretinFan
God punishes every sin. Either he punishes you, or he punishes Christ. Put your trust in Christ and He will bear the burden of your sins for you.
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Parowan Prophet = False Prophet
The so-called Parowan Prophet predicted that Obama would not take office, due to some disaster. As of about 2 hours ago, this prediction was proved false. Therefore, we can know that this so-called prophet is a false prophet, and not a prophet of God. (link to report regarding supposed prophecy) See, something good has already come of President Obama's presidency - one false prophet exposed.
-TurretinFan
Hat Tip to Kim Riddlebarger for reminding me about this false prophet (link).
-TurretinFan
Hat Tip to Kim Riddlebarger for reminding me about this false prophet (link).
The real Turretin on: The Self-Authentication of Scripture
Mark Koller at Daily Reformation, has provided a concise but meaty quotation from the real Francis Turretin on the self-authenticating property of Holy Scripture (link). Every world view has some presupposition - ours is Scripture.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Sunday, January 18, 2009
New Debate Begun!
I have begun a new debate on the atonement. I think a few folks will be surprised, though, to see that it is not with an Amyraldian or quasi-Amyraldian, but with someone loyal to the Roman bishop. Here's what's up so far:
1. Debate Introduction
2. Affirmative Opening Essay
3. Negative Opening Essay
(generic link for all posts for this debate)
-TurretinFan
1. Debate Introduction
2. Affirmative Opening Essay
3. Negative Opening Essay
(generic link for all posts for this debate)
-TurretinFan
The New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses
I happened to come across some recordings of Dr. James White being interviewed on the program Issues, Etc. regarding witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses. This discussion may be very handy for those of us who wish to try to share the gospel with the followers of this particular group.
The New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses Part 1, with James White on Issues, Etc. (The segment from Dr. White starts aroudn 40 minutes into the file.)
The New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses Part 2, with James White on Issues, Etc. (The segment from Dr. White ends around 24 minutes into the file.)
To the glory of God,
TurretinFan
The New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses Part 1, with James White on Issues, Etc. (The segment from Dr. White starts aroudn 40 minutes into the file.)
The New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses Part 2, with James White on Issues, Etc. (The segment from Dr. White ends around 24 minutes into the file.)
To the glory of God,
TurretinFan
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Latria/Dulia Debate with GNRHead
Mr. Lane Chaplin, who moderated the Latria/Dulia Debate that I had with GNRHead has very kindly hosted it as a full-length video.
In case you would like to follow along by reading the debate, Matthew Lankford has kindly provided a transcript, to which I have made a few minor edits. If anyone sees ways that the transcript can be improved, please let me know.
*** TRANSCRIPT BEGINS ***
Lane Chaplin: Welcome to the Latria-Dulia Debate. Our debate today will attempt to answer the following:
Can dulia and proskuneo be used in a Religious context without being worship?
Our debaters today are William Albrecht taking the affirmative position and TurretinFan taking the negative.
William Albrecht is currently a Catholic Apologist and the webmaster of the Catholic Legate apologetics organization. William was raised into a non-religious practicing household and eventually became a Protestant. After much studying and the undertaking of a religious career William converted to the Catholic faith close to seven years ago. His contact information is Youtube.com/GNRhead or GNRhead@gmail.com.
TurretinFan is a Reformed apologist who operates the blog Thoughts of Francis Turretin. His only relevant qualifications is that he is a believer with a Bible. He makes no claims of being anyone particularly important and he debates pseudonymously in hopes of drawing the attention away form himself. His contact information is turretinfan.blogspot.com and he occasionally posts on AOMin.org.
My name is Lane Chaplin and I will be moderating this debate. The debate will last about an hour in length and will follow the following format:
There will be a first Affirmative Constructive by Albrecht, which will be seven minutes.
A Cross Ex[amination] of the Affirmative by the Negative position, which is three minutes.
One Negative Constructive by Turretin[Fan] which will be eight minutes.
A Cross Ex[amination] of the Negative by the Affermative, which will be three minutes.
One Affirmative Rebuttal, which will be four minutes.
Negative Rebuttal, which will be seven minutes.
And a Second Affirmative Rebuttal, which will be four [minutes].
We do ask each debater to please refrain from making any comments or audible gestures during the opponents allotted time. This will not only show respect for your opponent during this endeavor, it will also allow for there to be meaningful discussion on both ends of this debate. And, as always, if your favorite debater makes a point you agree with audience please hold your applause until the end of his allotted time (heh).
Now we begin with the first Affirmative Construction by Mister Albrecht. Mister Albrecht you have seven minutes; I'll begin the clock when you begin.
[≈ 2.40]
William Albrecht: Alright from the get go, I'd like to say God bless both to Lane and to Turretin[Fan] for making this happen. And let's get down to the issues now.
The contention that I've been hearing from my Protestant brethren is that there simply is no Biblical distinction between latria and dulia in the terms of religious context. Well, the fact of the matter is, what I'm asserting is that dulia and latria are two distinct words -- used differently at times. Sure dulia is and should always be rendered to God, but it's also shown as being rendered elsewhere in references that are not directed towards God. Latria is never shown as proper towards anyone other than God -- and that is clear. But dulia is different. Of course, it should be rendered to God, of course, its service and we are to obey and serve our God -- that is clear. To me, it seems like a silly qualifier to claim that dulia can be given to mankind, but it's never shown as given to mankind in a religious context. This entails our Protestant brethren to begin to claim that since Catholics do give dulia to the Saints, that it is in a religious manner, this then leads them to say that we offer them worship, since this form of dulia is in the religious form. To me, it seems like a game of words that can be confusing to some that don't know the real issues. The reason I believe that AOMin. has to set up this task to set up this false interpretation of Biblical words is because it then allows them to say that dulia is, indeed, [a word?] used toward mankind, but never in a religious context. What AOMin. means to say is that dulia is never used toward mankind in a worship context as it is of God in the Old Testament. We would not argue with that, we do not contend, that we give the religious dulia to Mary -- that amounts to worship -- or to any Saint for that matter. These word games could confuse some, but once examined they seem anything but serious. They are silly little word games that attempt to confuse the mind of the individual. It is also contended that proskuneo, when used in a religious context, is always worship. Therefore, according to AOMin. this all amounts to Catholics worshiping Mary and the other Saints. We'll examine a bit more to see how these claims simply do not hold water. Upon the examination of the Friberg Lexicon, the the Barclay-Newman Greek Dictionary, [inaudible] Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon we see that dulia can be given to mankind and never do we have the qualifier that AOMin. has seemingly adopted from John Calvin. Moving forward, the one Lexicon that Mister White of AOMin. did bring up, the BDA&G, to support his position of not mentioning a distinction, surely does. In fact the BDA&G tells us that dulia is used in many aspects of the Christian life including aspects that are tied in with the religious. Moving forward, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines latria as such:
"As contrasted with dulia, that fullness of Divine worship which may be paid to God alone."
A Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott tells us "The veneration of the Saints is called absolute dulia. The Council of Trent declared in connection with the veneration of Saints, that through images we honor the Saints which they represent."
[this section could be continued as part of the quote] As regards to invocation of the Saints, the council declared:
[this section could be continued as part of the quote too] "It is good and profitable to appeal to help from them."
This can be found on page three hundred and nineteen of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma from Ott.
The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia defines dulia as such:
"[...]a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone[...]" [link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm]
Then we move on and we've got The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia which tells us of latria [link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm] that it is worship called forth by God and given exclusively to Him as God, which is designated by the Greek term latreuo.
So, everywhere you turn you see the clear distinction to the two terms and never the qualifier that we see certain Protestant individuals injecting. And in order to pretty much lay the ground work I've mentioned a couple of lexicons, Greek dictionaries, and I've also defined the terms as put forth by the Catholic encyclopedias.
Okay, that will be it for my opening statement.
[≈ 6:55]
Lane Chaplin: Okay, Turretin[Fan] you have three minutes for cross-examining William.
TurretinFan: Mister Albrecht, do you see any Biblical passage in which latria and dulia are distinguished?
William Albrecht: In which latria and dulia are distinguished? Absolutely. Are you asking me passages in which they both appear?
TurretinFan: No, I guess what I'm asking is this: Is there some passage out there where Scripture says it's okay to give latria to God, but it's not okay to give latria to men?
William Albrecht: Are you referring to the fact that... I'm not quite understanding... Are you trying to ask me to approach this from a theological perspective? Or do you want me to pull out a Biblical passage, which uses both terms and distinguishes between them? I don't quite understand the question.
TurretinFan: Well, the question, I guess, is getting to whether or not the theological position that your advocating is a theological position derived from Scripture. My contention is that it is not... But I'd like to know if you believe there is some Scripture passage, which, in effect, says it's okay to give dulia to men. [question]
William Albrecht: Oh, okay. I understand it a little bit clearer now. Absolutely. I believe that you are of the persuasion... You do believe it is alright to give dulia to man, right? You just don't believe it is right to give dulia in the form of a religious context. Am I correct?
TurretinFan: Well, yes, of course, I'm not saying that it's improper for servants to give service to their masters. What I'm... What I'm asking for is somewhere where the Bibles making the theological distinction that your making.
William Albrecht: You mean that dulia can be... can be used toward mankind in a religious context? Would you like me to show you an example?
TurretinFan: Sure, yeah, please provide an example.
William Albrecht: Well, it's not my cross-examination and I can't ask you a question. I'll simply (pose/post) Galatians, chapter five, verses thirteen to fourteen [Galatians 5:13-14] and I will assert that the Greek term douleuo is used in a religious context in this verse and it is indeed used toward mankind.
TurretinFan: In Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen [Galatians 5:13-14], the verse states:
"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another."
Are you suggesting that this says we can serve one another in this lifetime using douleuo?
William Albrecht: Absolutely.
[≈ 10:00]
Lane Chaplin: Ok, that's the end of the first cross examination. Now we'll have a negative construct by Turretin[Fan], which consists of eight minutes.
[≈ 10:14]
TurretinFan: The debate today is about whether the distinction that modern Catholicism presents between latria and dulia is Biblical or medieval in origin. Where does it come from? I would respectfully submit to you that it is not Biblical. It is a philosophical innovation designed to defend a pagan practice that was introduced into churches [?] after the time of the Apostles.
What I'll do in this speech is:
First, state the position of the Vatican.
Second, contrast that with the Biblical position.
And third, answer Mister Albrecht's arguments.
Catholicism's Position Stated
Although Mister Albrecht provided some definitions of Rome's position [?], allow me to provide what I think is a little clearer explanation. Rome's position is well summarized by philosopher, theologian, Thomas Aquinas, who wrote:
"Since "latria" is due to God alone, it is not due to a creature so far as we venerate a creature for its own sake. For though insensible creatures are not capable of being venerated for their own sake, yet the rational creature is capable of being venerated for its own sake. Consequently the worship of "latria" is not due to any mere rational creature for its own sake. Since, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is a mere rational creature, the worship of "latria" is not due to her, but only that of "dulia": but in a higher degree than to other creatures, inasmuch as she is the Mother of God. For this reason we say that not any kind of "dulia" is due to her, but "hyperdulia.""
This quotation provides the framework: "Latria" which is for God alone. "Hyper-dulia" which is for Mary alone. And "dulia" which is for the Saints. Of course, dulia can also be offered to God, but for the purposes of this discussion, we're focusing on the fact that it is offered to the Saints.
In English this distinction is sometimes expressed in the difference between worship or adoration and veneration. Adoration and worship corresponding to latria and veneration corresponding to dulia. Moving on to the second point.
The Biblical Testimony
This threefold framework is not taught in Scripture. Scripture generally teaches that all religious adoration and veneration is due to God alone. Thus, we, Reformed Christians, do not religiously venerate one another or anyone but God alone. Both the Old and New Testaments agree. Deuteronomy five (Deuteronomy 5) states:
"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments."
Someone might point out that the word "alone" is not in the text. Fair enough. Scripture also gets more specific and more clear. Matthew four (Matthew 4) states:
"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
The same account may be found in Luke's Gospel. But this was not new to the New Testament.
Christ is referencing the Bible to establish this doctrinal position -- that only God should receive religious adoration or veneration. Notice that Jesus doesn't rely on his own authority in rebuking Satan, but says "for it is written[...]" These same themes can be seen in the Old Testament.
First, first Samuel states, in chapter seven (1 Samuel 7):
"And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the LORD, and serve him only: and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines."
Scripture provides no exceptions for men to adore or venerate religiously someone or something other than God with a lesser form of religious adoration.
Having seen these two positions let us, in the third place, examine Mister Albrecht's case.
Mister Albrecht argues that latria and dulia are two different words. Well, not of course the Latin words, but the corresponding Greek words. We agree. We agree that they are different words. Latria is generally used of worship. And dulia can refer not only to worship, but also to a very high degree of service, such as slavery. The question is not whether the Greek words have different definitions in the Greek lexicons, but whether Scripture provides a basis for Rome's claims. It does not. Mister Albrecht also makes reference to [BDA&G] lexicon in support of his position, but again that lexicon and the other lexicons that were mentioned don't state that the latria-dulia distinction -- the philosophical distinction-- the question we're arguing about -- is inherent in the Greek. And, in fact, it isn't inherent in the Greek, as noted above, it's a medieval innovation -- this drawing a distinction between latria and dulia, as far as dulia being acceptable form of veneration for humans is something that didn't exist in Biblical times -- it's not a classical Greek concept that imported it in. Instead, it's a philosophical device to justify what's been done.
Additionally, during cross examination, Mister Albrecht cited to Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen (Galatians 5:13-14) Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen (Galatians 5:13-14) states,
"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Now, seeing in context what's stated there we can see the fulfillment of Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen, has nothing at all to do with the idea of kneeling down before icons or statues, lighting incense and candles; it has to do with showing practical love to the brethren. It has... An example would be the Good Samaritan, he's someone who loved his neighbor. This is the kind of thing [?] Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen talks about. It's not talking about the religious context of dulia that's used in the Vatican's theology. Consequently Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen, can't provide support for the distinction that's been presented. Accordingly, we are left with the, just the, Scriptural position, already stated, which is 'that we can serve God only'. Religious veneration, religious adoration, these things are for God only.
[≈ 18:00]
TurretinFan: And when we give them to anyone except for God we are in violation of the word of God and therefore in sin.
I'm not ready for cross examination.
Lane Chaplin: Okay, thank you for that Turretin[Fan] we will now have a cross examination with Mister Albrecht cross examining TurretinFan. You have three minutes you may begin when you are ready.
William Albrecht: Okay. My contention is that latria and dulia are two distinct words. I'm aware that you also agree with such, but you place a qualifier that dulia can never be used in a religious context towards mankind. Now, as such is the case,can you please explain to me why Galatians chapter five, verses thirteen or [?] fourteen, tells us to serve one another in love (using the the second person, plural form of douleuo). I believe love being the chief religious context of the whole New Testament; and this simply doesn't get more religious than this, Tur, being used in a religious context.
TurretinFan: Well, yes, I think the answer is that the 'loving our neighbor as our self' is fulfillment of the second table of the Law. And the example I gave in my last speech about the Good Samaritan with the example how someone could serve another person without it being in a religious context. Of course, if you make all of life, which should all be about obedience, if we should make all of life a religious context, means that the word 'religious' has lost its sense.
William Albrecht: I would agree with you, but it's clearly being used in a religious context in Galatians five verse thirteen, fourteen, at least that is what I would contend. I would... I would like to ask you another question. Your contention is also is that the word proskuneo cannot be used in a religious context towards mankind, because each time it is worship. Is that your contention?
TurretinFan: Well, with my contention with regard to proskuneo is that Jesus Himself said that we should only serve God, so that's the basis for my contention.
William Albrecht: So you would...
TurretinFan: But
William Albrecht: Ok, excuse me, excuse me...
TurretinFan: But, yes, I do understand the word, that word has a broad semantic range. So, for example it can mean to stoop, or to duck down, and to bow before someone. So you see some people bowing before kings, for example. And in Acts seven, seven (Acts 7:7), with which you're familiar, you see someone bowing before a centurion, to provide another example. It's possible for people to do this without it being involved in a religious context.
William Albrecht: Okay, well, how would you interpret one Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty [1 Chronicles 29:20)]? Which reads:
"[...]they bowed low and fell prostrate before the LORD and the king."
Is not the third person form of proskuneo used here?
And would you contend that that is not in a religious context?
TurretinFan: Well, there were a lot of "not"s in there, but the word proskuneo is used, the appropriate form of the word, as you described. But the, the question, the interesting thing, is that it is used equally of God and of the King. So, the first question I would want to know is whether God and the king there are two different people or if God is being described both as the LORD and as the King.
[≈ 21:30]
Lane Chaplin: Okay, this ends our second cross examination session. Mr. Albrecht you'll now have a four minute affirmative rebuttal. You may begin when you are ready.
[≈ 21:45]
William Albrecht: Alright, I think what we find here is, we find TurretinFan's, as well as anybody else who uses the arguments, in a bit of a bind here, because they've got to try to read away the plain meaning of Scripture. I've used Galatians chapter five verse thirteen to fourteen, [Galatians 5:13-14] which uses douleuo in a religious context. It shows us that we can serve one another in love; love being the chief religious context of the whole New Testament. It simply doesn't get any more religious than this. I would imagine love to be the most important Biblical concept of the Bible. We read in Matthew chapter twenty-two, verses thirty-six to forty [Matthew 22:36-40], that love is what encompasses the greatest commandments. And in Romans thirteen, nine to ten, [Romans 13:9-10], love is the fulfillment of the whole Law. So, it is a theme that cannot be escaped. It doesn't get any more religious than this. Even Galatians chapter five, verse six, [Galatians 5:6] tells us that the only thing that matters is faith working through love.
Moving on, I then posed one Chronicles chapter twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20] to TurretinFan, which, indeed, does use proskuneo here in a religious context. And what is most interesting about this passage is the clear evidence that the whole assembly falls to bow and worship God, but they also bow in (reverence/reference?) to the king. I'm not sure if TurretinFan actually read the passage, I'm sure he's read it before, he probably, maybe, didn't read it at this moment, because he erroneously, I don't know if he asserted or was questioning, whether the bowing down and the proskuneo was given to the LORD and the LORD was the King as well. Well, the fact of the matter is, the direct reading is in reference to the LORD and to the king. Therefore the proskuneo that is used here is used in a religious context towards a man.
Moving fourth I would simply disagree with lexicons and dictionaries that Turretin[Fan] basically asserts that they do not use the distinction that I am speaking of and I would suggest that he read those lexicons and dictionaries again, because they do speak (on/of/about) all of the different usages. So, I would disagree with him there and I would suggest that he read those that I had mentioned.
Turretin[Fan] also argues 'this distinction which I have shown is not Biblical, because of the fact that Catholics kneel before statues and light incense and candles' -- it is simply a caricature of the Catholic position to basically say that we have reduced all of these terms and the meanings to this kneeling down and lighting incense and candles -- it's simply much more than that. And those words that he said were nearly exactly the words that I've heard from other people use. It's an argument that's used over and over. The simple fact of the matter is douleuo is used in a religious context toward mankind and proskuneo is used in a religious context toward mankind as well. This is Biblical it can be shown in the Greek. And I, I believe if Turretin[Fan] cannot find a way to answer Galatians chapter five, verse thirteen to fourteen, [Galatians 5:13-14] away, or one Chronicles chapter twenty-nine, verse twenty, he is in a bit of a bind. There are, indeed, more passages that do use these terms and I believe that I can find more passages that use these terms in a religious context, but I'm particularly, I'm holding myself to use these terms at this moment. And I think if he can't... I truly believe Galatians chapter five, verse thirteen to fourteen, [Galatians 5:13-14] is a clear religious context. Therefore, I believe the definitions the Catholic church gives these two terms are, indeed, Biblical and I believe they are sound with the Christian faith.
[≈ 25:15]
Lane Chaplin: Okay, thank you Mister Albrecht. TurretinFan you now have seven minutes for a rebuttal.
[≈ 25.22]
[≈ 25.26]
TurretinFan: Alright, I will now try to sum up this debate and explain why I continue to believe that religious adoration and religious veneration should be given to God only. Albrecht keeps seeming to try to push the burden on me to prove that Scriptural point, which I've already made, that as Jesus has said that we should serve and worship God only. He seems to be pushing it back on me to show that there isn't a distinction. Of course, my position here is the negative; he is the affirmative and the initial burden of proof for the case, for this distinction, is on him. If he wants to use Scripture to prove his point -- and he relied on a few Scriptural verses in his last speech -- then its on him to show that those verses that he's relying on actually demonstrate the point he's trying to make.
Let's address the contentions he made. First, the contention from Galatians. He states: 'It doesn't get any more' ... 'that something doesn't get any more religious than love'. And that's interesting, but love should mark our whole life. I don't think Mister Albrecht disagrees. And, in fact, because love if the fulfillment of the Law, and our whole live must be a life of obedience to God, this would mean that our whole life was a religious context, and in short, the qualification that its a religious context is simply a meaningless qualification. But if Mister Albrecht is saying that, then it becomes clear why he doesn't see the Reformed position yet. The Reformed position is that the religious context has to do with, you know, things like church. It's maybe a little hard to put our fingers on it, if someones trying to tell us our whole life is a religious context, but I think that Mister Albrecht sees the difference between what he does in church and what he does at his work -- (or) at his office. In any event, we can move on from that, because his contention has just been very general. There's nothing in Galatians, the verse that he cited, that set out dulia in a religious context; it just sets it out in the context of life.
Moving on to the first Chronicles (1 Chronicles) passage. Mister Albrecht had cited first Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20], but this verse doesn't help him much. Why not? Because, for one thing, there's no distinction made between latria and dulia there. It's not as though they give latria to God and dulia to the king. Even worse, for Mister Albrecht's position, the verse just reports that the people did this -- it doesn't condemn it -- it doesn't condone it -- it just reports it. So, even assuming that the verse said that the -- that king David was the king here -- that was being referenced -- and that they did bow down to king David, they did exactly the same thing they did to king David as they did to the LORD, which wouldn't support the idea of a distinction at all. It would simply point out that they were doing the same thing to both. The, of course, it is possible the people recognized the distinction and that the people were doing one thing to the king and another thing to God. It's very interesting that the Greek here uses a construction such that both the LORD and the king can be the same person; there's an article used before the LORD and there's and article used before the king, but it doesn't specify king David and it doesn't force it to be a reference to king David, so there's some ambiguity there -- it's not a black and white case. Look, this same construction using an article before both is, is found in John twenty, twenty-eight [John 20:28] where Thomas, where Thomas answers and says 'My LORD and my God' -- in that case, there's... it's not expressed in English, but the article is there before both "LORD" and "God." And so, although, of course, Thomas is talking about just one person. So, the fact that the word "and" is used there isn't inclusive. What's very interesting is the Vulgate -- of course, the Vulgate takes the position that they are two different people -- but the Vulgate adds in a word and (says/said) 'they bowed to God and then to the king' which suggests they were engaging in two different activities. But, nevertheless, as I already mentioned in my cross examination, bowing down before a king is one kind of respect that we can show that's different from respect in a religious context. It's unclear how Mister Albrecht believes that this religious context is applied to king David. As far as I know, there isn't any teaching in Aquinas that we are to give religious dulia to living, or excuse me, to non-glorified human beings. In fact, it's sort of unclear to me why either Galatians or first Chronicles [1 Chronicles] is being cited as an example of why would we, why we would give dulia to Mary or the Saints, because, of course, these are both examples of what were [?] being given to living people -- people in this life -- before they're glorified. David, in fact, is a sinful man and God wouldn't allow David to build the temple, but, apparently, if we understood the argument that's made from first Chronicles verse twenty-nine, twenty [1 Chronicles 29:20] -- it's being suggested that religious dulia is appropriate for such a sinful man. This doesn't seem to be fully consistent with the doctrines of Catholicism. It leaves me somewhat confused, but the bottom line is this: we haven't seen from Scripture a distinction where Scripture approves, or condones, the religious veneration of departed believers. It doesn't approve, or condone, the religious veneration of Mary. In fact, it doesn't provide even one example, in the whole of Scripture, of anyone giving religious veneration to Mary. It doesn't give even one example in all of Scripture of religious veneration being given to the Saints -- once they're departed from this life. Even if we would grant that Galatians permits religious veneration in this life, which is, which is not [inaudible] something [inaudible] say that all of our life, or to say that love is very important and it doesn't get an more religious than love, then we've shown that love is a requirement for all of our life. But, in any event, based on these illustrations from the verses that have been cited, I would respectfully submit that no case for a distinction between latria and dulia, in a religious context, has been established.
[≈ 32:37]
Lane Chaplin: Okay, thank you TurretinFan. Mister Albrecht you'll have the last rebuttal session and this will be four minutes you may begin when you're ready.
[≈ 32:47]
[≈ 32:49]
William Albrecht: Alright. In conclusion, we find that the Catholic claims are once again vindicated by Scripture. I wish we would have been able to delve into the early church, where I believe the Catholic ever so powerful also. But it was important that we were able to stick mainly to the Scriptures. We see that latria and dulia are two distinct words. What we also see that the usage of dulia in a religious context does not equal that of worship. The cold hard facts are there. The Bible distinguishes between latria and between dulia. Dulia can and is and always should be used in a worship context when referring to God. Latria, no doubt, is to be directed to God and to God alone. But dulia is also shown to be proper [?] towards mankind. Even if one sets up the false parameters of a religious context -- dulia is still offered to men. The same can be said of proskuneo as well. And to briefly touch upon something I, some comments that Turretin[Fan] made -- he says that Jesus does say that we should serve and worship God only. And that is also the Catholic position, which I have already shown in the Bible. Douleuo in Galatians chapter five, verse thirteen to fourteen, [Galatians 5:13-14] is used toward mankind -- it is in a religious context. And as far as me not understanding the Reformed position as Turretin[Fan] claims, I'd rather stick to the Biblical position, which is as I have already shown several times proskuneo and dulia are used toward mankind in a religious context. In one Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20] TurretinFan briefly attempted to deal with it. He... He said this was intended -- that this did not deal with latria and dulia. Well, I was specifically dealing with the Greek term proskuneo, which is used in the Septuagint rendering of one Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20] and I, indeed, showed how this term is used in a religious context. I would contend that Turretin[Fan] is incorrect about the Greek being clear -- clearly referencing somebody else; I think that the whole context is clear that this is in reference to the king. The passage in... [?] the passage is also mentioned in the Matthew Henry commentary -- pointed out that this is in reference to the God and to the king -- and the Matthew Henry commentary is far from a Catholic commentary. And I believe the passage that [?] TurretinFan brought up in John chapter twenty, verse twenty-eight, [John 20:28] where Thomas calls Christ his LORD and his God -- in the Greek we literally read and we are able to tell that he is calling Him his LORD and his God -- the LORD of him and the God of him. The Greek construct is completely different as I, I just looked at it right now -- and the passage in John is clear that this is in reference to Christ being his LORD and his God. Therefore, Turretin[fan] has shown that in order to try and answer away a religious context, as I have shown, he must try and answer away a passage or try to claim the passage has some ambiguity. But I believe clearly that one Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20] is in clear reference to a religious context given to, to mankind as well. Someone would not be able to contend that proskuneo is never offered to anyone in a religious context. We would agree that proskuneo is never given to mankind in a worship sense -- ever -- it is not acceptable. But to claim that all religious context in the Bible deal with worship is simply plain silly. This is a religious context and the people are not worshiping the king in any sense whatsoever. They bow down before God and offer respect to the king. To me, it doesn't get any more of a religious context than this -- context-wise of course. So, it's important to understand the way a Catholic worships God and God alone and gives honor and respect to the Saints. No Saint usurps the role of God in the Catholic faith. And I believe this debate is very important, because it, if anything helps us understand our positions in a clearer fashion. And [?] any debate is profitable. And I would like to end by saying God bless and I really appreciate this debate and I think its been very helpful.
[≈ 36:38]
[≈ 36:40]
Lane Chaplin: Thank you for that Mister Albrecht. This now concludes the Latria-Dulia debate with Mister William Albrecht and TurretinFan of AOMin.org. Thank you Mister Albrecht and TurretinFan for taking the time to debate the issues today. My name is Lane Chaplin, thank you for listening.
[end @ 37:08]
*** TRANSCRIPT ENDS ***
Thanks very much to Lane and Matthew for their assistance, and to Mr. Albrecht for debating this important issue.
Enjoy! And may God be glorified!
-TurretinFan
In case you would like to follow along by reading the debate, Matthew Lankford has kindly provided a transcript, to which I have made a few minor edits. If anyone sees ways that the transcript can be improved, please let me know.
*** TRANSCRIPT BEGINS ***
Lane Chaplin: Welcome to the Latria-Dulia Debate. Our debate today will attempt to answer the following:
Can dulia and proskuneo be used in a Religious context without being worship?
Our debaters today are William Albrecht taking the affirmative position and TurretinFan taking the negative.
William Albrecht is currently a Catholic Apologist and the webmaster of the Catholic Legate apologetics organization. William was raised into a non-religious practicing household and eventually became a Protestant. After much studying and the undertaking of a religious career William converted to the Catholic faith close to seven years ago. His contact information is Youtube.com/GNRhead or GNRhead@gmail.com.
TurretinFan is a Reformed apologist who operates the blog Thoughts of Francis Turretin. His only relevant qualifications is that he is a believer with a Bible. He makes no claims of being anyone particularly important and he debates pseudonymously in hopes of drawing the attention away form himself. His contact information is turretinfan.blogspot.com and he occasionally posts on AOMin.org.
My name is Lane Chaplin and I will be moderating this debate. The debate will last about an hour in length and will follow the following format:
There will be a first Affirmative Constructive by Albrecht, which will be seven minutes.
A Cross Ex[amination] of the Affirmative by the Negative position, which is three minutes.
One Negative Constructive by Turretin[Fan] which will be eight minutes.
A Cross Ex[amination] of the Negative by the Affermative, which will be three minutes.
One Affirmative Rebuttal, which will be four minutes.
Negative Rebuttal, which will be seven minutes.
And a Second Affirmative Rebuttal, which will be four [minutes].
We do ask each debater to please refrain from making any comments or audible gestures during the opponents allotted time. This will not only show respect for your opponent during this endeavor, it will also allow for there to be meaningful discussion on both ends of this debate. And, as always, if your favorite debater makes a point you agree with audience please hold your applause until the end of his allotted time (heh).
Now we begin with the first Affirmative Construction by Mister Albrecht. Mister Albrecht you have seven minutes; I'll begin the clock when you begin.
[≈ 2.40]
William Albrecht: Alright from the get go, I'd like to say God bless both to Lane and to Turretin[Fan] for making this happen. And let's get down to the issues now.
The contention that I've been hearing from my Protestant brethren is that there simply is no Biblical distinction between latria and dulia in the terms of religious context. Well, the fact of the matter is, what I'm asserting is that dulia and latria are two distinct words -- used differently at times. Sure dulia is and should always be rendered to God, but it's also shown as being rendered elsewhere in references that are not directed towards God. Latria is never shown as proper towards anyone other than God -- and that is clear. But dulia is different. Of course, it should be rendered to God, of course, its service and we are to obey and serve our God -- that is clear. To me, it seems like a silly qualifier to claim that dulia can be given to mankind, but it's never shown as given to mankind in a religious context. This entails our Protestant brethren to begin to claim that since Catholics do give dulia to the Saints, that it is in a religious manner, this then leads them to say that we offer them worship, since this form of dulia is in the religious form. To me, it seems like a game of words that can be confusing to some that don't know the real issues. The reason I believe that AOMin. has to set up this task to set up this false interpretation of Biblical words is because it then allows them to say that dulia is, indeed, [a word?] used toward mankind, but never in a religious context. What AOMin. means to say is that dulia is never used toward mankind in a worship context as it is of God in the Old Testament. We would not argue with that, we do not contend, that we give the religious dulia to Mary -- that amounts to worship -- or to any Saint for that matter. These word games could confuse some, but once examined they seem anything but serious. They are silly little word games that attempt to confuse the mind of the individual. It is also contended that proskuneo, when used in a religious context, is always worship. Therefore, according to AOMin. this all amounts to Catholics worshiping Mary and the other Saints. We'll examine a bit more to see how these claims simply do not hold water. Upon the examination of the Friberg Lexicon, the the Barclay-Newman Greek Dictionary, [inaudible] Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon we see that dulia can be given to mankind and never do we have the qualifier that AOMin. has seemingly adopted from John Calvin. Moving forward, the one Lexicon that Mister White of AOMin. did bring up, the BDA&G, to support his position of not mentioning a distinction, surely does. In fact the BDA&G tells us that dulia is used in many aspects of the Christian life including aspects that are tied in with the religious. Moving forward, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church defines latria as such:
"As contrasted with dulia, that fullness of Divine worship which may be paid to God alone."
A Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott tells us "The veneration of the Saints is called absolute dulia. The Council of Trent declared in connection with the veneration of Saints, that through images we honor the Saints which they represent."
[this section could be continued as part of the quote] As regards to invocation of the Saints, the council declared:
[this section could be continued as part of the quote too] "It is good and profitable to appeal to help from them."
This can be found on page three hundred and nineteen of Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma from Ott.
The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia defines dulia as such:
"[...]a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone[...]" [link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm]
Then we move on and we've got The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia which tells us of latria [link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09036a.htm] that it is worship called forth by God and given exclusively to Him as God, which is designated by the Greek term latreuo.
So, everywhere you turn you see the clear distinction to the two terms and never the qualifier that we see certain Protestant individuals injecting. And in order to pretty much lay the ground work I've mentioned a couple of lexicons, Greek dictionaries, and I've also defined the terms as put forth by the Catholic encyclopedias.
Okay, that will be it for my opening statement.
[≈ 6:55]
Lane Chaplin: Okay, Turretin[Fan] you have three minutes for cross-examining William.
TurretinFan: Mister Albrecht, do you see any Biblical passage in which latria and dulia are distinguished?
William Albrecht: In which latria and dulia are distinguished? Absolutely. Are you asking me passages in which they both appear?
TurretinFan: No, I guess what I'm asking is this: Is there some passage out there where Scripture says it's okay to give latria to God, but it's not okay to give latria to men?
William Albrecht: Are you referring to the fact that... I'm not quite understanding... Are you trying to ask me to approach this from a theological perspective? Or do you want me to pull out a Biblical passage, which uses both terms and distinguishes between them? I don't quite understand the question.
TurretinFan: Well, the question, I guess, is getting to whether or not the theological position that your advocating is a theological position derived from Scripture. My contention is that it is not... But I'd like to know if you believe there is some Scripture passage, which, in effect, says it's okay to give dulia to men. [question]
William Albrecht: Oh, okay. I understand it a little bit clearer now. Absolutely. I believe that you are of the persuasion... You do believe it is alright to give dulia to man, right? You just don't believe it is right to give dulia in the form of a religious context. Am I correct?
TurretinFan: Well, yes, of course, I'm not saying that it's improper for servants to give service to their masters. What I'm... What I'm asking for is somewhere where the Bibles making the theological distinction that your making.
William Albrecht: You mean that dulia can be... can be used toward mankind in a religious context? Would you like me to show you an example?
TurretinFan: Sure, yeah, please provide an example.
William Albrecht: Well, it's not my cross-examination and I can't ask you a question. I'll simply (pose/post) Galatians, chapter five, verses thirteen to fourteen [Galatians 5:13-14] and I will assert that the Greek term douleuo is used in a religious context in this verse and it is indeed used toward mankind.
TurretinFan: In Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen [Galatians 5:13-14], the verse states:
"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another."
Are you suggesting that this says we can serve one another in this lifetime using douleuo?
William Albrecht: Absolutely.
[≈ 10:00]
Lane Chaplin: Ok, that's the end of the first cross examination. Now we'll have a negative construct by Turretin[Fan], which consists of eight minutes.
[≈ 10:14]
TurretinFan: The debate today is about whether the distinction that modern Catholicism presents between latria and dulia is Biblical or medieval in origin. Where does it come from? I would respectfully submit to you that it is not Biblical. It is a philosophical innovation designed to defend a pagan practice that was introduced into churches [?] after the time of the Apostles.
What I'll do in this speech is:
First, state the position of the Vatican.
Second, contrast that with the Biblical position.
And third, answer Mister Albrecht's arguments.
Catholicism's Position Stated
Although Mister Albrecht provided some definitions of Rome's position [?], allow me to provide what I think is a little clearer explanation. Rome's position is well summarized by philosopher, theologian, Thomas Aquinas, who wrote:
"Since "latria" is due to God alone, it is not due to a creature so far as we venerate a creature for its own sake. For though insensible creatures are not capable of being venerated for their own sake, yet the rational creature is capable of being venerated for its own sake. Consequently the worship of "latria" is not due to any mere rational creature for its own sake. Since, therefore, the Blessed Virgin is a mere rational creature, the worship of "latria" is not due to her, but only that of "dulia": but in a higher degree than to other creatures, inasmuch as she is the Mother of God. For this reason we say that not any kind of "dulia" is due to her, but "hyperdulia.""
This quotation provides the framework: "Latria" which is for God alone. "Hyper-dulia" which is for Mary alone. And "dulia" which is for the Saints. Of course, dulia can also be offered to God, but for the purposes of this discussion, we're focusing on the fact that it is offered to the Saints.
In English this distinction is sometimes expressed in the difference between worship or adoration and veneration. Adoration and worship corresponding to latria and veneration corresponding to dulia. Moving on to the second point.
The Biblical Testimony
This threefold framework is not taught in Scripture. Scripture generally teaches that all religious adoration and veneration is due to God alone. Thus, we, Reformed Christians, do not religiously venerate one another or anyone but God alone. Both the Old and New Testaments agree. Deuteronomy five (Deuteronomy 5) states:
"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments."
Someone might point out that the word "alone" is not in the text. Fair enough. Scripture also gets more specific and more clear. Matthew four (Matthew 4) states:
"Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
The same account may be found in Luke's Gospel. But this was not new to the New Testament.
Christ is referencing the Bible to establish this doctrinal position -- that only God should receive religious adoration or veneration. Notice that Jesus doesn't rely on his own authority in rebuking Satan, but says "for it is written[...]" These same themes can be seen in the Old Testament.
First, first Samuel states, in chapter seven (1 Samuel 7):
"And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the LORD with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the LORD, and serve him only: and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines."
Scripture provides no exceptions for men to adore or venerate religiously someone or something other than God with a lesser form of religious adoration.
Having seen these two positions let us, in the third place, examine Mister Albrecht's case.
Mister Albrecht argues that latria and dulia are two different words. Well, not of course the Latin words, but the corresponding Greek words. We agree. We agree that they are different words. Latria is generally used of worship. And dulia can refer not only to worship, but also to a very high degree of service, such as slavery. The question is not whether the Greek words have different definitions in the Greek lexicons, but whether Scripture provides a basis for Rome's claims. It does not. Mister Albrecht also makes reference to [BDA&G] lexicon in support of his position, but again that lexicon and the other lexicons that were mentioned don't state that the latria-dulia distinction -- the philosophical distinction-- the question we're arguing about -- is inherent in the Greek. And, in fact, it isn't inherent in the Greek, as noted above, it's a medieval innovation -- this drawing a distinction between latria and dulia, as far as dulia being acceptable form of veneration for humans is something that didn't exist in Biblical times -- it's not a classical Greek concept that imported it in. Instead, it's a philosophical device to justify what's been done.
Additionally, during cross examination, Mister Albrecht cited to Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen (Galatians 5:13-14) Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen (Galatians 5:13-14) states,
"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Now, seeing in context what's stated there we can see the fulfillment of Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen, has nothing at all to do with the idea of kneeling down before icons or statues, lighting incense and candles; it has to do with showing practical love to the brethren. It has... An example would be the Good Samaritan, he's someone who loved his neighbor. This is the kind of thing [?] Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen talks about. It's not talking about the religious context of dulia that's used in the Vatican's theology. Consequently Galatians five, thirteen to fourteen, can't provide support for the distinction that's been presented. Accordingly, we are left with the, just the, Scriptural position, already stated, which is 'that we can serve God only'. Religious veneration, religious adoration, these things are for God only.
[≈ 18:00]
TurretinFan: And when we give them to anyone except for God we are in violation of the word of God and therefore in sin.
I'm not ready for cross examination.
Lane Chaplin: Okay, thank you for that Turretin[Fan] we will now have a cross examination with Mister Albrecht cross examining TurretinFan. You have three minutes you may begin when you are ready.
William Albrecht: Okay. My contention is that latria and dulia are two distinct words. I'm aware that you also agree with such, but you place a qualifier that dulia can never be used in a religious context towards mankind. Now, as such is the case,can you please explain to me why Galatians chapter five, verses thirteen or [?] fourteen, tells us to serve one another in love (using the the second person, plural form of douleuo). I believe love being the chief religious context of the whole New Testament; and this simply doesn't get more religious than this, Tur, being used in a religious context.
TurretinFan: Well, yes, I think the answer is that the 'loving our neighbor as our self' is fulfillment of the second table of the Law. And the example I gave in my last speech about the Good Samaritan with the example how someone could serve another person without it being in a religious context. Of course, if you make all of life, which should all be about obedience, if we should make all of life a religious context, means that the word 'religious' has lost its sense.
William Albrecht: I would agree with you, but it's clearly being used in a religious context in Galatians five verse thirteen, fourteen, at least that is what I would contend. I would... I would like to ask you another question. Your contention is also is that the word proskuneo cannot be used in a religious context towards mankind, because each time it is worship. Is that your contention?
TurretinFan: Well, with my contention with regard to proskuneo is that Jesus Himself said that we should only serve God, so that's the basis for my contention.
William Albrecht: So you would...
TurretinFan: But
William Albrecht: Ok, excuse me, excuse me...
TurretinFan: But, yes, I do understand the word, that word has a broad semantic range. So, for example it can mean to stoop, or to duck down, and to bow before someone. So you see some people bowing before kings, for example. And in Acts seven, seven (Acts 7:7), with which you're familiar, you see someone bowing before a centurion, to provide another example. It's possible for people to do this without it being involved in a religious context.
William Albrecht: Okay, well, how would you interpret one Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty [1 Chronicles 29:20)]? Which reads:
"[...]they bowed low and fell prostrate before the LORD and the king."
Is not the third person form of proskuneo used here?
And would you contend that that is not in a religious context?
TurretinFan: Well, there were a lot of "not"s in there, but the word proskuneo is used, the appropriate form of the word, as you described. But the, the question, the interesting thing, is that it is used equally of God and of the King. So, the first question I would want to know is whether God and the king there are two different people or if God is being described both as the LORD and as the King.
[≈ 21:30]
Lane Chaplin: Okay, this ends our second cross examination session. Mr. Albrecht you'll now have a four minute affirmative rebuttal. You may begin when you are ready.
[≈ 21:45]
William Albrecht: Alright, I think what we find here is, we find TurretinFan's, as well as anybody else who uses the arguments, in a bit of a bind here, because they've got to try to read away the plain meaning of Scripture. I've used Galatians chapter five verse thirteen to fourteen, [Galatians 5:13-14] which uses douleuo in a religious context. It shows us that we can serve one another in love; love being the chief religious context of the whole New Testament. It simply doesn't get any more religious than this. I would imagine love to be the most important Biblical concept of the Bible. We read in Matthew chapter twenty-two, verses thirty-six to forty [Matthew 22:36-40], that love is what encompasses the greatest commandments. And in Romans thirteen, nine to ten, [Romans 13:9-10], love is the fulfillment of the whole Law. So, it is a theme that cannot be escaped. It doesn't get any more religious than this. Even Galatians chapter five, verse six, [Galatians 5:6] tells us that the only thing that matters is faith working through love.
Moving on, I then posed one Chronicles chapter twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20] to TurretinFan, which, indeed, does use proskuneo here in a religious context. And what is most interesting about this passage is the clear evidence that the whole assembly falls to bow and worship God, but they also bow in (reverence/reference?) to the king. I'm not sure if TurretinFan actually read the passage, I'm sure he's read it before, he probably, maybe, didn't read it at this moment, because he erroneously, I don't know if he asserted or was questioning, whether the bowing down and the proskuneo was given to the LORD and the LORD was the King as well. Well, the fact of the matter is, the direct reading is in reference to the LORD and to the king. Therefore the proskuneo that is used here is used in a religious context towards a man.
Moving fourth I would simply disagree with lexicons and dictionaries that Turretin[Fan] basically asserts that they do not use the distinction that I am speaking of and I would suggest that he read those lexicons and dictionaries again, because they do speak (on/of/about) all of the different usages. So, I would disagree with him there and I would suggest that he read those that I had mentioned.
Turretin[Fan] also argues 'this distinction which I have shown is not Biblical, because of the fact that Catholics kneel before statues and light incense and candles' -- it is simply a caricature of the Catholic position to basically say that we have reduced all of these terms and the meanings to this kneeling down and lighting incense and candles -- it's simply much more than that. And those words that he said were nearly exactly the words that I've heard from other people use. It's an argument that's used over and over. The simple fact of the matter is douleuo is used in a religious context toward mankind and proskuneo is used in a religious context toward mankind as well. This is Biblical it can be shown in the Greek. And I, I believe if Turretin[Fan] cannot find a way to answer Galatians chapter five, verse thirteen to fourteen, [Galatians 5:13-14] away, or one Chronicles chapter twenty-nine, verse twenty, he is in a bit of a bind. There are, indeed, more passages that do use these terms and I believe that I can find more passages that use these terms in a religious context, but I'm particularly, I'm holding myself to use these terms at this moment. And I think if he can't... I truly believe Galatians chapter five, verse thirteen to fourteen, [Galatians 5:13-14] is a clear religious context. Therefore, I believe the definitions the Catholic church gives these two terms are, indeed, Biblical and I believe they are sound with the Christian faith.
[≈ 25:15]
Lane Chaplin: Okay, thank you Mister Albrecht. TurretinFan you now have seven minutes for a rebuttal.
[≈ 25.22]
[≈ 25.26]
TurretinFan: Alright, I will now try to sum up this debate and explain why I continue to believe that religious adoration and religious veneration should be given to God only. Albrecht keeps seeming to try to push the burden on me to prove that Scriptural point, which I've already made, that as Jesus has said that we should serve and worship God only. He seems to be pushing it back on me to show that there isn't a distinction. Of course, my position here is the negative; he is the affirmative and the initial burden of proof for the case, for this distinction, is on him. If he wants to use Scripture to prove his point -- and he relied on a few Scriptural verses in his last speech -- then its on him to show that those verses that he's relying on actually demonstrate the point he's trying to make.
Let's address the contentions he made. First, the contention from Galatians. He states: 'It doesn't get any more' ... 'that something doesn't get any more religious than love'. And that's interesting, but love should mark our whole life. I don't think Mister Albrecht disagrees. And, in fact, because love if the fulfillment of the Law, and our whole live must be a life of obedience to God, this would mean that our whole life was a religious context, and in short, the qualification that its a religious context is simply a meaningless qualification. But if Mister Albrecht is saying that, then it becomes clear why he doesn't see the Reformed position yet. The Reformed position is that the religious context has to do with, you know, things like church. It's maybe a little hard to put our fingers on it, if someones trying to tell us our whole life is a religious context, but I think that Mister Albrecht sees the difference between what he does in church and what he does at his work -- (or) at his office. In any event, we can move on from that, because his contention has just been very general. There's nothing in Galatians, the verse that he cited, that set out dulia in a religious context; it just sets it out in the context of life.
Moving on to the first Chronicles (1 Chronicles) passage. Mister Albrecht had cited first Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20], but this verse doesn't help him much. Why not? Because, for one thing, there's no distinction made between latria and dulia there. It's not as though they give latria to God and dulia to the king. Even worse, for Mister Albrecht's position, the verse just reports that the people did this -- it doesn't condemn it -- it doesn't condone it -- it just reports it. So, even assuming that the verse said that the -- that king David was the king here -- that was being referenced -- and that they did bow down to king David, they did exactly the same thing they did to king David as they did to the LORD, which wouldn't support the idea of a distinction at all. It would simply point out that they were doing the same thing to both. The, of course, it is possible the people recognized the distinction and that the people were doing one thing to the king and another thing to God. It's very interesting that the Greek here uses a construction such that both the LORD and the king can be the same person; there's an article used before the LORD and there's and article used before the king, but it doesn't specify king David and it doesn't force it to be a reference to king David, so there's some ambiguity there -- it's not a black and white case. Look, this same construction using an article before both is, is found in John twenty, twenty-eight [John 20:28] where Thomas, where Thomas answers and says 'My LORD and my God' -- in that case, there's... it's not expressed in English, but the article is there before both "LORD" and "God." And so, although, of course, Thomas is talking about just one person. So, the fact that the word "and" is used there isn't inclusive. What's very interesting is the Vulgate -- of course, the Vulgate takes the position that they are two different people -- but the Vulgate adds in a word and (says/said) 'they bowed to God and then to the king' which suggests they were engaging in two different activities. But, nevertheless, as I already mentioned in my cross examination, bowing down before a king is one kind of respect that we can show that's different from respect in a religious context. It's unclear how Mister Albrecht believes that this religious context is applied to king David. As far as I know, there isn't any teaching in Aquinas that we are to give religious dulia to living, or excuse me, to non-glorified human beings. In fact, it's sort of unclear to me why either Galatians or first Chronicles [1 Chronicles] is being cited as an example of why would we, why we would give dulia to Mary or the Saints, because, of course, these are both examples of what were [?] being given to living people -- people in this life -- before they're glorified. David, in fact, is a sinful man and God wouldn't allow David to build the temple, but, apparently, if we understood the argument that's made from first Chronicles verse twenty-nine, twenty [1 Chronicles 29:20] -- it's being suggested that religious dulia is appropriate for such a sinful man. This doesn't seem to be fully consistent with the doctrines of Catholicism. It leaves me somewhat confused, but the bottom line is this: we haven't seen from Scripture a distinction where Scripture approves, or condones, the religious veneration of departed believers. It doesn't approve, or condone, the religious veneration of Mary. In fact, it doesn't provide even one example, in the whole of Scripture, of anyone giving religious veneration to Mary. It doesn't give even one example in all of Scripture of religious veneration being given to the Saints -- once they're departed from this life. Even if we would grant that Galatians permits religious veneration in this life, which is, which is not [inaudible] something [inaudible] say that all of our life, or to say that love is very important and it doesn't get an more religious than love, then we've shown that love is a requirement for all of our life. But, in any event, based on these illustrations from the verses that have been cited, I would respectfully submit that no case for a distinction between latria and dulia, in a religious context, has been established.
[≈ 32:37]
Lane Chaplin: Okay, thank you TurretinFan. Mister Albrecht you'll have the last rebuttal session and this will be four minutes you may begin when you're ready.
[≈ 32:47]
[≈ 32:49]
William Albrecht: Alright. In conclusion, we find that the Catholic claims are once again vindicated by Scripture. I wish we would have been able to delve into the early church, where I believe the Catholic ever so powerful also. But it was important that we were able to stick mainly to the Scriptures. We see that latria and dulia are two distinct words. What we also see that the usage of dulia in a religious context does not equal that of worship. The cold hard facts are there. The Bible distinguishes between latria and between dulia. Dulia can and is and always should be used in a worship context when referring to God. Latria, no doubt, is to be directed to God and to God alone. But dulia is also shown to be proper [?] towards mankind. Even if one sets up the false parameters of a religious context -- dulia is still offered to men. The same can be said of proskuneo as well. And to briefly touch upon something I, some comments that Turretin[Fan] made -- he says that Jesus does say that we should serve and worship God only. And that is also the Catholic position, which I have already shown in the Bible. Douleuo in Galatians chapter five, verse thirteen to fourteen, [Galatians 5:13-14] is used toward mankind -- it is in a religious context. And as far as me not understanding the Reformed position as Turretin[Fan] claims, I'd rather stick to the Biblical position, which is as I have already shown several times proskuneo and dulia are used toward mankind in a religious context. In one Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20] TurretinFan briefly attempted to deal with it. He... He said this was intended -- that this did not deal with latria and dulia. Well, I was specifically dealing with the Greek term proskuneo, which is used in the Septuagint rendering of one Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20] and I, indeed, showed how this term is used in a religious context. I would contend that Turretin[Fan] is incorrect about the Greek being clear -- clearly referencing somebody else; I think that the whole context is clear that this is in reference to the king. The passage in... [?] the passage is also mentioned in the Matthew Henry commentary -- pointed out that this is in reference to the God and to the king -- and the Matthew Henry commentary is far from a Catholic commentary. And I believe the passage that [?] TurretinFan brought up in John chapter twenty, verse twenty-eight, [John 20:28] where Thomas calls Christ his LORD and his God -- in the Greek we literally read and we are able to tell that he is calling Him his LORD and his God -- the LORD of him and the God of him. The Greek construct is completely different as I, I just looked at it right now -- and the passage in John is clear that this is in reference to Christ being his LORD and his God. Therefore, Turretin[fan] has shown that in order to try and answer away a religious context, as I have shown, he must try and answer away a passage or try to claim the passage has some ambiguity. But I believe clearly that one Chronicles twenty-nine, twenty, [1 Chronicles 29:20] is in clear reference to a religious context given to, to mankind as well. Someone would not be able to contend that proskuneo is never offered to anyone in a religious context. We would agree that proskuneo is never given to mankind in a worship sense -- ever -- it is not acceptable. But to claim that all religious context in the Bible deal with worship is simply plain silly. This is a religious context and the people are not worshiping the king in any sense whatsoever. They bow down before God and offer respect to the king. To me, it doesn't get any more of a religious context than this -- context-wise of course. So, it's important to understand the way a Catholic worships God and God alone and gives honor and respect to the Saints. No Saint usurps the role of God in the Catholic faith. And I believe this debate is very important, because it, if anything helps us understand our positions in a clearer fashion. And [?] any debate is profitable. And I would like to end by saying God bless and I really appreciate this debate and I think its been very helpful.
[≈ 36:38]
[≈ 36:40]
Lane Chaplin: Thank you for that Mister Albrecht. This now concludes the Latria-Dulia debate with Mister William Albrecht and TurretinFan of AOMin.org. Thank you Mister Albrecht and TurretinFan for taking the time to debate the issues today. My name is Lane Chaplin, thank you for listening.
[end @ 37:08]
*** TRANSCRIPT ENDS ***
Thanks very much to Lane and Matthew for their assistance, and to Mr. Albrecht for debating this important issue.
Enjoy! And may God be glorified!
-TurretinFan
Friday, January 16, 2009
Child Discipline Conversation
Recently, in a computer chatroom, I had a conversation about child discipline. Someone started the topic by asking what a "rod" should be in terms of giving the "rod of correction" to a 16 month old child. I started providing some of the caveats that really need to be given, such as that (1) it must be for the child's good, not to satisfy one's own anger; (2) the severity of the chastisement must be tailored to the child's age / personality and the offense; (3) the discipline provided must be consistent; and (4) the punishment must follow as soon as practical upon the infraction. Those things said, the "rod" is the general term for any means of measured, reasonable physical correction: aka corporal discipline.
About this time in the conversation, someone jumped in who had fairly strong opinions on the topic. He (I say, "he" because I don't know whether this person was a man, woman, or child) jumped in to argue against using the rod.
His first argument was, "My parents didn't use the rod on me, and I turned out fine." (I am paraphrasing throughout this discussion)
I tried to steer the conversation back to Scripture, but I was surprised (it was a Christian chatroom after all) to find that the person wasn't much interested in what Scripture had to say about the topic. Instead, the person seemed to think the idea of spanking children was barbaric, and the Scriptural testimony was largely irrelevant.
I say "seemed to think" because he wouldn't really say what he thought about the Bible, even after being asked about a dozen times. Instead, he got increasingly hostile, eventually telling folks in the chatroom that they shouldn't reproduce and that if they'd give him their addresses he'd come over and neuter them!
When he got too insulting, he got kicked from the room (not by me), but it was an interesting experience.
The most painful irony was the fact that the guy tried to argue from his experience at the beginning, but at the end I think the crowd probably was thinking to themselves that this guy was someone who would have benefited from having his hide tanned when he was younger.
I don't mean to make it personally about this guy. It really shouldn't be that way. There are much more gracious and temperate anti-rod folk out there. Ultimately, though, they cannot make a Biblical case for their position. That's because in Scripture, corporal discipline (spanking one's children) is the norm.
That doesn't mean we have resort to the rod as the very first resort in every case, while trying to inflict a maximum amount of pain. That's a caricature. On the other hand, what the Bible tells us is that a loving father physically disciplines his son, while a foolish father coddles his son.
There are some people that try to interpret the "rod" as being things like "time outs" and revoking privileges - but believers have consistently interpreted Scripture to mean actually, you know, giving your son a few whacks with a wooden stick. Here's what one ancient commentator wrote:
Sirach 30:1-13
1 He that loveth his son causeth him oft to feel the rod, that he may have joy of him in the end. 2 He that chastiseth his son shall have joy in him, and shall rejoice of him among his acquaintance. 3 He that teacheth his son grieveth the enemy: and before his friends he shall rejoice of him. 4 Though his father die, yet he is as though he were not dead: for he hath left one behind him that is like himself. 5 While he lived, he saw and rejoiced in him: and when he died, he was not sorrowful. 6 He left behind him an avenger against his enemies, and one that shall requite kindness to his friends. 7 He that maketh too much of his son shall bind up his wounds; and his bowels will be troubled at every cry.
8 An horse not broken becometh headstrong: and a child left to himself will be wilful. 9 Cocker thy child, and he shall make thee afraid: play with him, and he will bring thee to heaviness. 10 Laugh not with him, lest thou have sorrow with him, and lest thou gnash thy teeth in the end. 11 Give him no liberty in his youth, and wink not at his follies. 12 Bow down his neck while he is young, and beat him on the sides while he is a child, lest he wax stubborn, and be disobedient unto thee, and so bring sorrow to thine heart. 13 Chastise thy son, and hold him to labour, lest his lewd behaviour be an offence unto thee.
This may be a little extreme: "no liberty" seems to be excessive. The point is that this ancient (perhaps 2nd or 3rd century before Christ) commentary clearly understood the Scriptural teaching regarding how children are to be raised as implying physically training them, noting that this is for the child's good, for the parents' good, and against the interest of one's enemies.
This last observation, "He that teacheth his son grieveth the enemy" (vs. 3 above) is quite good. The enemy absolutely hates to see us properly training our children - he loves lax discipline, because it makes his job of turning them from the right way easier.
Grieve the devil, use the rod of correction diligently.
-TurretinFan
About this time in the conversation, someone jumped in who had fairly strong opinions on the topic. He (I say, "he" because I don't know whether this person was a man, woman, or child) jumped in to argue against using the rod.
His first argument was, "My parents didn't use the rod on me, and I turned out fine." (I am paraphrasing throughout this discussion)
I tried to steer the conversation back to Scripture, but I was surprised (it was a Christian chatroom after all) to find that the person wasn't much interested in what Scripture had to say about the topic. Instead, the person seemed to think the idea of spanking children was barbaric, and the Scriptural testimony was largely irrelevant.
I say "seemed to think" because he wouldn't really say what he thought about the Bible, even after being asked about a dozen times. Instead, he got increasingly hostile, eventually telling folks in the chatroom that they shouldn't reproduce and that if they'd give him their addresses he'd come over and neuter them!
When he got too insulting, he got kicked from the room (not by me), but it was an interesting experience.
The most painful irony was the fact that the guy tried to argue from his experience at the beginning, but at the end I think the crowd probably was thinking to themselves that this guy was someone who would have benefited from having his hide tanned when he was younger.
I don't mean to make it personally about this guy. It really shouldn't be that way. There are much more gracious and temperate anti-rod folk out there. Ultimately, though, they cannot make a Biblical case for their position. That's because in Scripture, corporal discipline (spanking one's children) is the norm.
That doesn't mean we have resort to the rod as the very first resort in every case, while trying to inflict a maximum amount of pain. That's a caricature. On the other hand, what the Bible tells us is that a loving father physically disciplines his son, while a foolish father coddles his son.
There are some people that try to interpret the "rod" as being things like "time outs" and revoking privileges - but believers have consistently interpreted Scripture to mean actually, you know, giving your son a few whacks with a wooden stick. Here's what one ancient commentator wrote:
Sirach 30:1-13
1 He that loveth his son causeth him oft to feel the rod, that he may have joy of him in the end. 2 He that chastiseth his son shall have joy in him, and shall rejoice of him among his acquaintance. 3 He that teacheth his son grieveth the enemy: and before his friends he shall rejoice of him. 4 Though his father die, yet he is as though he were not dead: for he hath left one behind him that is like himself. 5 While he lived, he saw and rejoiced in him: and when he died, he was not sorrowful. 6 He left behind him an avenger against his enemies, and one that shall requite kindness to his friends. 7 He that maketh too much of his son shall bind up his wounds; and his bowels will be troubled at every cry.
8 An horse not broken becometh headstrong: and a child left to himself will be wilful. 9 Cocker thy child, and he shall make thee afraid: play with him, and he will bring thee to heaviness. 10 Laugh not with him, lest thou have sorrow with him, and lest thou gnash thy teeth in the end. 11 Give him no liberty in his youth, and wink not at his follies. 12 Bow down his neck while he is young, and beat him on the sides while he is a child, lest he wax stubborn, and be disobedient unto thee, and so bring sorrow to thine heart. 13 Chastise thy son, and hold him to labour, lest his lewd behaviour be an offence unto thee.
This may be a little extreme: "no liberty" seems to be excessive. The point is that this ancient (perhaps 2nd or 3rd century before Christ) commentary clearly understood the Scriptural teaching regarding how children are to be raised as implying physically training them, noting that this is for the child's good, for the parents' good, and against the interest of one's enemies.
This last observation, "He that teacheth his son grieveth the enemy" (vs. 3 above) is quite good. The enemy absolutely hates to see us properly training our children - he loves lax discipline, because it makes his job of turning them from the right way easier.
Grieve the devil, use the rod of correction diligently.
-TurretinFan
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Pink on Care in Reading Material
A friend of mine brought to my attention an interesting article by A.W. Pink on the importance of being careful what we read (link). In the busy and bustling blogosphere, these important points should not be forgotten!
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Christianity and Politics
I don't usually listen to the White Horse Inn. I happened to come across this episode regarding Christianity and politics (link).
Charles Hodge apparently said that having an American flag in one's church is the equivalent of singing the Star Spangled Banner at the administration of the Lord's Supper!
I enjoyed the presentation, but I found a theme that seemed odd. It seemed that the participants were suggesting that preachers cannot speak to issues of sin with respect to the political sphere. It almost sounds as though they are saying that the church can only talk about the gospel, and not the law.
On the other hand, Scripture seems to be chock full of admonitions to kings and those in authority. So, while I appreciate their concern for a clear demarcation of the roles of church and state, I think it's not quite as clear-cut as they may like.
One example I typically use is this: very often churches own property. When this is the case, they tend to get advised (more or less authoritatively) by the state with respect to temporal things, such as whether they have to pay taxes on the property, how they can use their property (zoning laws and the like), and who owns the property (if there is a dispute). It's very rare to hear that this is not proper.
If so, why shouldn't it be proper for the church to be advising the state in things moral? Why should the church-state relation be one in which the state tells the church what to do, but the church doesn't tell the state what to do?
-TurretinFan
Charles Hodge apparently said that having an American flag in one's church is the equivalent of singing the Star Spangled Banner at the administration of the Lord's Supper!
I enjoyed the presentation, but I found a theme that seemed odd. It seemed that the participants were suggesting that preachers cannot speak to issues of sin with respect to the political sphere. It almost sounds as though they are saying that the church can only talk about the gospel, and not the law.
On the other hand, Scripture seems to be chock full of admonitions to kings and those in authority. So, while I appreciate their concern for a clear demarcation of the roles of church and state, I think it's not quite as clear-cut as they may like.
One example I typically use is this: very often churches own property. When this is the case, they tend to get advised (more or less authoritatively) by the state with respect to temporal things, such as whether they have to pay taxes on the property, how they can use their property (zoning laws and the like), and who owns the property (if there is a dispute). It's very rare to hear that this is not proper.
If so, why shouldn't it be proper for the church to be advising the state in things moral? Why should the church-state relation be one in which the state tells the church what to do, but the church doesn't tell the state what to do?
-TurretinFan
Is Mormonism Christian?
In this short (less than 15 minutes) clip, Dr. White explains clearly some important distinctions between Mormonism and Christianity.
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Sur-Response Regarding Paul the Apostle
The anonymous critic of Paul has provided a new attack on the apostle. The new attack is this:
1) "so why does he say it doesn't matter to him what Peter James and John are?"
He doesn't say precisely that. Instead, he indicates that his commission is a divine one, not an apostolic one. Paul is not under Peter or James or John as a head (either any one of them or all of them together), but is instead an apostle of Jesus Christ by virtue of a special commission from God.
2) "and why does he false accuse Peter of compelling Gentiles to live as Jews when Peter did not such thing but only accommodated the weaker brothers who came from James by not eating meat that would offend them, in good keeping with Paul's own doctrine?"
The idea that Peter was not guilty of what Paul accused him is simply without any evidence. There is no reason to deny that Paul's accusation was true. Indeed, the formulation of this particular challenge is especially odd, since (as the objector notes) it would require Paul not only to challenge Peter (and indirectly, James) but also for Paul to contradict his own expressed views. This objection cannot stand.
3) "is the Paul of Galatians ignorant of Paul's own doctrine from Romans 14?"
No. Indeed, Paul is consistent in Galatians and Romans. The only supposed inconsistency is introduced by the critic who supposes both that Peter wasn't guilty as charged, and that Paul somehow forgot what he wrote in one epistle or the other. No, the same Paul was inspired to write both epistles.
-TurretinFan
so why does he say it doesn't matter to him what Peter James and John are? and why does he false accuse Peter of compelling Gentiles to live as Jews when Peter did not such thing but only accommodated the weaker brothers who came from James by not eating meat that would offend them, in good keeping with Paul's own doctrine? is the Paul of Galatians ignorant of Paul's own doctrine from Romans 14?
1) "so why does he say it doesn't matter to him what Peter James and John are?"
He doesn't say precisely that. Instead, he indicates that his commission is a divine one, not an apostolic one. Paul is not under Peter or James or John as a head (either any one of them or all of them together), but is instead an apostle of Jesus Christ by virtue of a special commission from God.
2) "and why does he false accuse Peter of compelling Gentiles to live as Jews when Peter did not such thing but only accommodated the weaker brothers who came from James by not eating meat that would offend them, in good keeping with Paul's own doctrine?"
The idea that Peter was not guilty of what Paul accused him is simply without any evidence. There is no reason to deny that Paul's accusation was true. Indeed, the formulation of this particular challenge is especially odd, since (as the objector notes) it would require Paul not only to challenge Peter (and indirectly, James) but also for Paul to contradict his own expressed views. This objection cannot stand.
3) "is the Paul of Galatians ignorant of Paul's own doctrine from Romans 14?"
No. Indeed, Paul is consistent in Galatians and Romans. The only supposed inconsistency is introduced by the critic who supposes both that Peter wasn't guilty as charged, and that Paul somehow forgot what he wrote in one epistle or the other. No, the same Paul was inspired to write both epistles.
-TurretinFan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
