No Food or Water for 70 Years / Only the Eucharistic Host for Decades

That's the claim that the man described in this article (link to article) makes. Of course, it's false. What is interesting, though, is that his claims are being taken seriously and investigated.

Roman Catholic priest, Dwight Longenecker, pointed out an interesting coincidence, namely that he noticed a related article on the feast day of Catherine of Sienna, a woman who is allegedly a saint within the Roman Catholic pantheon of saints (link to article).

Longenecker notes that Catherine of Sienna is alleged to have lived for decades on nothing except the Eucharistic host. There are many parallels between Indian mystical claims and those associated with ascetic sects and branches. As Longenecker points out: "He's a sadhu-- a Hindu holy man. The sadhus are well known for their extreme asceticism and amazing supernatural powers--levitation, painless body piercings, being impervious to extreme cold, fire walking etc."

Asceticism, whether it be Hindu or Roman Catholic, is a surprisingly attractive error. The good things that God has given are to be received with thanks by believers, not treated with contempt. The alleged miracles of ascetics, however persuasive they may seem, are no match for the teachings of Scripture. Even if it could be demonstrated that this sadhu is honestly not consuming food or water, we will simply pity the man for his intentional self-abuse.

-TurretinFan

Tom Chantry on Stephen Ambrose, Ergun Caner, and the Credibility of the Gospel

Tom Chantry has a very thoughtful article on the Credibility of the Gospel with a comparison and contrast between the situation that befell historian Stephen Ambrose and the situation that is occurring with respect to Dean Ergun Caner:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

A Note of Thanks to John Martin

John Martin (Roman Catholic) has been taking the time to provide long responses to a number of my posts in the comment box. I want to express my appreciation to him for providing these comments. I've been kept busy trying to answer his comments, and I hope that I will be able eventually to answer all of them, although he seems to be outwriting me at present - something like two comments to one.

Resources: Adferit

Adferit is a news feed on Twitter (link to feed). The guy who runs it, Matthew Lankford (who also runs my unofficial Facebook fanpage), provides a variety of interesting news items in any easy to digest and access format.

Scriptural Doctrine of the Atonement Defended - against John Martin

John Martin has also responded to another of my previous posts (link to post, his comments are in the comment box there).

I had written: “The Christian position is that Christ is our substitute.”

JM responded: "If Christ is our substitute and we are impute a legal righteousness, even though the Father knows we are sinners, means"

Christ is our substitute, and we are imputed the righteousness of Christ ... let's examine the supposed implications:

"1 – Jesus has deceived the father and therefore the Father and Jesus are not God because God cannot be deceived, or sin."

No. The Father has graciously permitted the substitution.

"2 – The Father sent the son to do a sinful act to deceive the father into believing we are righteous even though we are not."

No. It's absurd to say that Father sent the Son to deceive the Father - how could that even be possible? More to the point, the Father sent the Son to die in the place of the elect, so it was known to the Father all along.

"3 – There is no need for faith, because a substitute is a substitute for all our sins. Yet the scriptures say we need faith to be justified."

Faith is the instrumental means of justification, not a meritorious cause of justification. Thus, faith does not satisfy divine justice, only Christ's work does that.

"4 – Nobody can go to hell, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin as a substitute."

None of the elect can go to hell (or the Romanist fiction of purgatory), because that would imply double payment.

"5 – The scriptures nowhere say Jesus was a substitute for our sins."

a) You've lost track of supposed implications. That isn't an implication of the doctrine.

b) It's also not a true allegation. The Scriptures do teach that Jesus was a substitute for the sins of his people. I can provide a more extensive discussion on this, if needed.

"6 – The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, after the Son has deceived the Father into thinking we are righteous, even though we are sinners. Therefore the Holy Spirit has been sent on a mission by a deceiver and the deceived, to guide the church into the truth of forensic imputation of righteousness, which is itself a deception. Evidently the Holy Spirit is also a deceiver and has been deceived."

This blasphemy is built in the previous false claim that forensic imputation is deception.

"7 – There is no precedent in the OT for a substitute atoning for a sinner and the sinner having the substitutes righteousness imputed to the sinner, therefore if penal substitution is correct, it is not base upon the OT, so Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he didn’t fulfill the OT."

This simply shows JM's unfamilarity with the OT sacrificial system. Practically the whole system was one of substitution and imputation. Of course, it was in shadows and types, but Hebrews helps us to see the connection between the shadow and substance.

"8 – There is no need for repentance because the substitute has been made and the Father sees all men as righteous."

Repentance is not a meritorious cause of justification. See discussion of faith above.

"9 – According to Calvinism, the substitute only has limited value because it’s not applied to all men, even though it’s a perfect substitute. Somehow the father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute. So the Father has been deceived in sending the Son as a substitute because the substitute didn’t work for some men even though Jesus was the perfect substitute. What’s a God got to do to be a substitute and perfect savior when not even an imputed exchange that is external to the sinner cannot cover all men’s sins?"

a) This misrepresentation of Calvinism is possibly the result of reading Dave Armstrong on Calvinism rather than reading Calvinists on Calvinism.

b) "the substitute only has limited value" That's not the Calvinist position. The Calvinist position is that the value of the substitute is limitless - sufficient for all.

c) "Somehow the father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute."

The Son, as Priest, only offers himself (as sacrifice) for many (not all). That many is the elect.

"10 – The scriptures have deceived us into thinking we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God, even though according to Calvinism, man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God. Therefore we are told on one had to have faith and this is enough to be justified by a legal process, yet we are also told men cannot do an act pleasing to God, so God justifies man, even though He is not pleased with men’s acts. What’s a man to do to be justified after all? Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? (Yep!) If not, then why does man have to do any act at all to receive justification, when the perfect sacrificial substitute has already been made?"

a) "we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God"

Scripture's message is clear that we cannot do anything to be justified and pleasing to God. Justification is by grace, through the instrumental means of faith in Christ and His work.

b) "man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God."

Until God's Holy Spirit regenerates him, right. As Jesus said, "Except a man be born again ... ."

c) "What’s a man to do to be justified after all?"

There is nothing a man can do to be justified. "In thy sight shall no flesh be justified."

Instead, man must place his hope in the works of another so that he may be vicariously justified.

d) "Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? (Yep!)"

That is the alternative to the Christian view of the atonement. The alternative is that man merits justification by an act that is pleasing to God.

"11 – If God sends anyone to hell then He is being unjust, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin."

If God received Christ's payment for the sins of anyone and still punished them for those sins, there would be a double punishment. Thus, none of those for whom Christ was offered will go to hell.

-TurretinFan

Resources: Aomin.org

My friend Dr. White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and an elder (Reformed Baptists apparently don't distinguish between teaching and ruling elders) at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. His website, AOMin.org, is full of a variety of resources. There is of course the blog, where I am a contributor (link). There is also a page of apologetic helps (link to page) on specific topics, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Roman Catholicism. There is also information about how to visit Dr. White's Internet Relay Chat (IRC) text chat channel (link to information). Furthermore, there is information on his twice weekly webcast, the Dividing Line (link to information), which can be heard live in streaming format and is normally uploaded shortly afterward in a podcast format.

R. Scott Clark Responds to Molinism

I am glad to report that R. Scott Clark provided a fairly concise response to Molinism on his blog (link to response). Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

UPDATE/ADDENDUM:

RSC is getting some heat for characterizing MK this way:

According to MK, God knows all the contingencies which could be actualized in the world by persons with free will but he doesn’t know which one will be actualized in the world because he has determined to allow humans to exercise their free will to choose these contingencies.

I understand the basis for the criticism. The criticism is that now, at the present time, Molinism (notice that I say “Molinism” not “middle knowledge”) does claim that God knows what world the free agents will choose. Unless I’ve missed RSC’s point, the criticism misses the mark.

Middle Knowledge isn’t relevant at the present time. Middle Knowledge is only relevant prior to God’s decree, and prior to God’s decree God does not know which possible world his free creatures *will* actualize, though God does know (within the framework of Molinism) what worlds the free creatures *would* contingently actualize under various imagined (by God) conditions.

Now, I agree with RSC that he could have been more precise – and furthermore I’ve seen that RSC has conceded that WLC’s definition of Molinism is a reasonable one. However, if folks are going to police him for precision, they need to be precise themselves.

More to the point, the substance of the criticism of Molinism remains untouched. Notwithstanding a little imprecision (and the fact that not enough Turretin and too much Voetius were used :grin:), I thought the post was a concise capsule of the issues.

-TurretinFan

Compare and Contrast

Dr. Ergun Caner (actual quotation): "All Christian ministers have critics. Some mean well; Others are just corrosive. U can't shut them up, but U CAN SHUT THEM OUT." (source)

Paul the Apostle (actual quotation): "I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews:" (Source: Acts 26:2)

Same Apostle: "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this ..." (I Corinthians 9:3)

Same Apostle: "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)

I'll conclude by quoting from the inspired writings of another apostle:

1 Peter 3:8-17
Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

- TurretinFan

Resources: Triablogue

Triablogue has a wealth of information thanks to its high quality contributers (link to Triablogue). Back in 2007 they kindly featured one of my posts on Molinism (link to the post). Molinism, Arminianism, Romanism, Atheism, and many other -isms are addressed by the erudite blogging team.

Immaculate Conception and Pelagianism - Response to John Martin

In an earlier post, I wrote:

On the other hand, sometimes (much more rarely) the RCC adds some new requirement to the list of things that must be believed. For example, about four years before the Lourdes event, the RCC defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception - requiring people to believe the unbiblical (and frankly Pelagian) doctrine of the Immaculate conception.

(source)
In the comment box, John Martin (Roman Catholic) responded:

“and frankly Pelagian” are you for real? The Immaculate Conception is the very opposite of Pelagianism. It indicates Mary was saved completely by God through His grace from conception. This is the Gospel of salvation by grace and not by Pelagian works. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for making such a wild claim.

There are at least two reasons to view the Immaculate Conception as Pelagian:

1) It denies the universality of Original Sin.

While Pelagianism would deny that anyone has Original Sin, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception asserts that Mary did not have Original Sin. Thus, it is Pelagianism as applied to Mary, though obviously my comment above should not be taken as suggesting that Roman Catholicism has the full breadth of Pelagianism. Indeed, Roman Catholicism (in Trent) sought to condemn full Pelagianism on the issue of original sin, even while making an explicit exception for Mary:

This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God; but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., of happy memory, are to be observed, under the pains contained in the said constitutions, which it renews.

(Interpretive Note for Session 5 on Original Sin)

Trent was wrong to make Mary an exception. It was a Pelagian error to do so, even if making that exception does not mean embracing all of Pelagianism.

Saying that Mary was "saved completely by God through His grace" is not a way of differentiating the Roman position on Mary from the Pelagian view on Mary. When God's gift of a pure nature to Mary is called "grace" and "salvation" - the Pelagian believed the same thing about Mary and people in general. In any event, the need to make an exception for Mary in Trent's Fifth Session should be an adequate answer to sophistical attempts to make Mary's condition consistent with orthodoxy. In other words, the fact that the Tridentine bishops felt the need to say that the doctrines of original sin they had just taught shouldn't be applied to Mary shows that they were not teaching the same thing about Mary that they were teaching against the Pelagian error.

2) As a minor, almost trivial point, the Pelagians are the first group we can document in church history who claim that Mary was born without original sin. Obviously, that doesn't make the doctrine in itself "Pelagian" in the normal sense, but it may make it "Pelagian" in a very loose sense.

So, I'm not sure what else to tell John Martin. His comment was long on shaming and assertion, but rather short on documentation and analysis. That may simply be a byproduct of the fact that he left his comment in the comment box, but perhaps this post will help him to think more deeply about the subject.

-TurretinFan

Immaculate Conception Errata

In my previous post, I had erroneously asserted that Bernadette's purported revelation was in French ("Je suis l'Immaculée conception"). Although that formula can be found on dozens of French-language pages at the Vatican site, it appears that I had overlooked the fact that "Je suis l'Immaculée conception" is itself a translation of Bernadette's Basque Bigourdan dialect: "Que soy era Immaculada Councepciou." It was my mistake, and I've fixed it on the original page with an "Update" but wanted to give credit to Paul Hoffer for pointing this out to me (link to Mr. Hoffer's post). Mr. Hoffer adds an acute accent to the e in que, for reasons unknown to me. The point of the post remains (the original language involved wasn't really a significant aspect of the post), but this inaccuracy of mine needed to be, and now has been, corrected.

There are some other issues in Mr. Hoffer's post that may need to be addressed from a more critical standpoint, but I wanted to take the opportunity separately and promptly to thank him for his correction and to note that I am making the necessary correction to my prior post. If he can point me to some sort of authoritative source that acutely accents the e in que, I'll be happy to make that change as well. Neither the accent nor even the original language of the quotation from Bernadette should be thought to be considered significant, however.

-TurretinFan

Further update: At least one website calls her tongue a "Bigourdan dialect" rather than Basque, although many seem to call it Basque. Thanks to Michael Gray for pointing this out to me. Based on some samples of Basque, I would agree that the sentence above doesn't sound like Basque link to examples.

Resources: Iron Sharpens Iron

Iron Sharpens Iron is a radio program, but it has an Internet presence. You can visit the blog here (link) and you can listen live daily from 6-7 pm local time (NY) here (link). The Iron Sharpens Iron program is hosted by dynamic host Chris Arnzen. He was gracious enough to invite me on to discuss Harold Camping's erroneous views of Scripture and the end times (link to episode).

Of Predestination - by Franciscus Gomarus (1563-1641)

Of God's Predestination
(by Franciscus Gomarus, extracted in various parts from Arminius' answer to this treatise, in the Works of Arminius, volume 3, pages 521-658, 1875 edition)

I. Since the difference between those who are to be saved and those who are to be damned, and God's Predestination, is set forth by Prophets (Exodus 33:19; Malachi 1:2; Isaiah 10:22), Christ (Matthew 25:34, 41; John 6:43), and by Apostles (Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1; 1 Peter 1; Jude 4),for the instruction and consolation of the Church; and since it is a principal part, as it were, of Divine Providence, and subject-matter of the Gospel; we affirm that it may usefully be taught in Schools and Churches, and ought so to be, with reverence, truth, [and] prudence.

II. With reverence; that we may handle sacred mysteries with a sacred mind and tongue religiously and with constancy, nor carp at what we do not understand; but, as if about to ascend the mount of God, with Moses, let us put off the impure shoes of prejudice and affections. (Exodus 3:5) With truth; that we may sincerely follow the canon of Scripture and the measure of faith (Deuteronomy 4:2; Galatians 6:16); in order that we may be able "not to think more highly than we ought to think, but to think soberly." (Romans 12:3) With prudence; that - regard being had to the edification of the hearers - synthetically, for the more advanced, more solid and generous food, as it were, may be provided; but for the more tender, analytically, by leading up little up little by little from the lowest and middle grades to the highest, more sparing diet, and such as excels, as it were, in perspicuity. Being about to rehearse this doctrine from the beginning, under the guidance of God, for the understanding and glory of His predestination, we will begin with the words.

III. Ὁριζειν properly notes to "limit, define": whence the metaphor derived from it, ἀπὸ τῆς ὁροθεσίας, "from fixing limits or boundaries," (Acts 17:26) sometimes in Sacred Scripture signifies to "declare." (Romans 1:4; and Chrysostom on the same place) More often, however, it is transferred to a purpose of the mind, a destination and decree (Acts 11:29) - just as by similar transfer τιθέναι, "to lay down" (in the mind), (1 Thessalonians 5:9; 1 Peter 2:8) and τάττειν, "to ordain," (Acts 13:48 & 15:2) ἑτοιμάζειν, "to prepare." (Matthew 25:34, 41) And as both the place of a thing is said to be "determined" by an agent, and a thing to be "bounded" by the place containing it, so both the decreed and destined purpose of God, and the thing decreed and destined, is said to be ὡρισμένον, "determined," but in a a quite different degree. (Luke 22:22; Acts 15:42) For the former is determined by the will, and therefore ὡρισμένη Βουλή, "determinate counsel;" (Acts 2:23) but the latter, by the action and decree of the former, which therefore is commonly accustomed to be called ὁρισμός, "limitation" or "appointment."

IV. Hence is deduced, in the same sense, but with expression of the circumstances of the relative time, προορίζειν, "to determine beforehand," "to prescribe," or "limit" "to foreknow" "to predestinate" (Acts 4:28; 1 Corinthians 2:7) - to which agrees προτιθέναι, "to propose" or "purpose" (Romans 1:13; Ephesians 1:19), and προτάττειν, "to preordain" (Acts 17:16), προετοιμάζειν, "to prepare" (Romans 9:23; 1 Corinthians 2:9 and 7) - from which the ancients, for the sake of teaching, formed the word προορισμόν, "predestination;" to which answers πρόθεσις τῆς καρδίας, "purpose of heart" (Acts 9:23).

V. But as, by virtue of the diversity of the efficient will, there is one destination and predestination which belongs to the Creator, and another which belongs to the rational creature (Acts 11:29); the former, on account of its infinite excellence, is deservedly sometimes denoted synechdochically by the general word. (Luke 22:22)

VI. Then again, as all predestination is distinguished by its object and its subject, so also that of God; which either regards generally any things whatever, and signifies universally God's eternal decree (Acts 2:23, 4:28, 17:26; 1 Corinthians 2:7); or regards specially rational creatures solely, and their supernatural ends, and the means thereto belonging, and is related to part of God's decree and providence.

VII. And this in some measure we define as the purpose of God (Romans 9:11; Ephesians 1:11; 2 Timothy 1:9), whereby out of rational creatures indefinitely foreknown, He preordained certain ones, of His own right and good pleasure (Romans 9:15, 18; Ephesians 1:5, 11; Matthew 11:26), to their own supernatural ends, and to creation in the upright state of original righteousness (Genesis 1:27, 31) and His other means; to the glory of His saving grace, wisdom, and most free power. (Romans 9:21-23)

VIII. The purpose of God is as it were the remote genus, indicating at once the efficient and the perfecting cause: whence these general attributes of predestination necessarily follow. First, eternity (Matthew 25:34; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9); because it is an internal action of God, in which there is nothing temporal, nay, and, on account of its supreme simplicity, nothing which is not Himself. "Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world." (Acts 15:18) Then again, immutability, which flows forth from eternity (in which there is no change), and which belongs to Him by His simple and unchangeable nature and counsel. (Numbers 23:9; Malachi 3:6; Proverbs 19:21; Isaiah 14:27, 46:10; James 1:17) From the certain supposition of which, and of the destined end, arises the certainty of the predestinated, and the necessity ἐξ ὑποθέσεως, "from hypothesis," and of the consequence (which, according to the correct and perpetual consent of philosophers and divines, can come with absolute contingency and with that of the contingent).

IX. But in order that this remote genus may become proximate, we restrict according to the matter, as they say, both the objects and the subjects by this common difference - "whereby, out of rational creatures indefinitely foreknown, [He foreordained] certain ones." (Revelation 17:8) They differ in order and number.

X. In order: because the object is antecedent, but the subject proceeds from its predestination. In number: because the former is the whole, the latter part of it. For the object presented to the predestining will by the boundless foreknowledge of the Divine intellect - which is the knowledge of things possible and not yet defined, whether they are future, or not to be - is, all rational creatures that can be saved and created: but the subject of predestination is, certain ones out of them. For as God was able to destine innumerable other creatures also and otherwise, and to create them, by virtue of His omnipotence (1 Timothy 6:15), and offered that as an object to His will, by virtue of His infinite and unbounded knowledge (1 Timothy 1:17), so He predestinated only a certain number of them, and certain persons, by the purpose of His will, by virtue of His liberty. (Matthew 20:15)

XI. The mystery of which number, and of the particular persons in it, He alone knows who predestinated them without counselors. (Romans 11:34; 2 Timothy 2:19) Wherefore the Gospel may be styled the Revelation and Book of Predestination, not absolutely, but only relatively (Romans 16:25; Ephesians 1:9, 3:9); since it denotes absolutely neither the matter nor the form of the number: that is, it does not declare whom severally He would predestinate, (with the exception of a very few, John 17:12) nor how many, but only in general of what sort. (Romans 8 and 9; Ephesians 1)

XII. The form of the predestination of rational creatures consists in preordination to their supernatural ends, and eternal state, and the creation thereto belonging, and other means. (Acts 13:48; Matthew 20:23; Matthew 25:34, 41; Jude 4) To which since God leads them in time, it is evident from the event, the Divine wisdom, constancy, and eternity, that He has predestinated them to the same from everlasting. (Matthew 25:34, 41) Whence there is a twofold predestination, as is evident: one, to supernatural ends (Revelation 21:27; Romans 9:21-22) (which, although it be coincident with duration of eternity, yet precedes in the order of nature; since the end on account of which a thing is, is first in the intention of the wise man); the other, to the creation in the upright state of original righteousness, and other means. (Genesis 17:31 [? 1:27, 31]; Proverbs 16:4; Romans 8:29; 1 Peter 2:8) And therefore predestination cannot be called "conditional" without a contradiction in terms. Inasmuch as the end has been ordained before the means, so the means are certainly subordinate to it.

XIII. Therefore, also, the object of predestination to its own ends - to speak accurately and without prolepsis (which, when used in this argument, begets obscurity) - are rational creatures, not as actually about to be saved or lost, to be created, about to fall or stand fast, or about to be restored; but, so far as remote and indefinite ability goes, savable, damnable, creable [creatable], liable to fall, restorable. And that is proved, beyond controversy, by the nature and order of the object and of the cause both efficient and final. For the object, in the order of nature, precedes the operation of the power attached to it and occupied about it, and therefore also the object of predestination precedes predestination itself; nay, and exceeds it in extent also, as we have shown (in Thesis X): but being about to be saved, to be created, to fall, to be restored, does not exceed nor precede predestination, but follows it: Therefore it is not the object of it. For, as the creable depends on the indeterminate and absolute omnipotence of God, so what is to be created depends on that omnipotence determined to creation by predestination of the will; and therefore cannot come before predestination, which is its efficient cause.

XIV. From which it is necessarily proved that, since those who are to be created are not the object of this predestination to their own ends, the efficient impulsive cause also is not external - that is, one that will follow the worthiness of those to be created, or the condition of obedience or disobedience - but internal - the antecedent, and on no condition suspended, good-pleasure of God about creables (Romans 9:11-13, 15-16, 18; Ephesians 1:5; 2 Timothy 1:9): which, although it has not in the object a cause beyond God, yet is not without a right reason, because the supremely and solely Wise Author of reason cannot act without reason. (James 1:5, 17; 1 Timothy 1:17; Romans 11:33, 16:27) But the cause of predestination to the means is also their end, by whose favor they exist.

XV. The end of the predestination of rational creatures is the glory of Divine and saving power, and (in the destined diversity of vessels belonging to this great house of the world) wisdom, and grace (Romans 9:21-23, 11:36; 2 Timothy 2:20; Proverbs 16:4); not internal glory, for the perfection of God - because he is in need of none (Acts 17:25), שַׁדַּ֔י "the Almighty" (Genesis 17:1), "the blessed and only Potentate" (1 Timothy 1:11; 6:15) - but external, for the due manifestation of it amongst the creatures. (Proverbs 16:4; Romans 11:36)

XVI. The effect of predestinated things in God is definite prescience: not as prescience, but as definite. For God's prescience is as it were a book, on which God's will for predestinating has inscribed the things predestinated. (Revelation 17:8; Jude 4) For God foreknows definitely future things, because He has fore-ordained them by decree.

XVII. Moreover, there are two species of predestination, on account of the opposition both of its special form and of its contrary terms. The one is to eternal life and glory, and the means thereto (Matthew 25:34, 41; Romans 9:22-23; 2 Timothy 2:20; Augustine Enchiridion, Chapter 100; Fulgentius, Book I, Chapter 27); which, as being prior in order of nature and κατʹ ἐξοχήν, "by pre-eminence," is called predestination (Romans 8:30): the other is to eternal death and ignominy. As, also, is clear a posteriori and from the event: because God does nothing in time which He has not decreed from eternity. The former predestination is named election - which noting adoption and separation relatively, according to the proper nature and use of the word, has reference partly to God's purpose, partly to its opposite, the residue and the rejected (Romans 11:7); and therefore cannot be called absolute and universal - the latter, casting away and reprobation (Romans 11:2); and in both way by synechdoche.

XIII. For, since the one election of God is internal and eternal and of design, the other external, temporal, and actual; and both again are either to the offices and benefits, civil or ecclesiastical, of this life - as Saul and David were called to the kingdom (1 Samuel 16 & 10:24); Judas, with the Eleven, to the Apostolate (John 6:70); the Israelitish people to the visible society of the Church for a time, by the formula and symbol of a covenant (Deuteronomy 7:6; Psalm 105:6; Romans 11:5, 20) - or to the inheritance of eternal life, which is called election "to salvation" (2 Timothy 2:13); it is this latter, indeed, and not the temporal and actual, which is efficacious calling (1 Peter 1:2; John 15:19), but the eternal and of design (Ephesians 1:4), which is understood, whose subject is called metonymically by the same name. (Romans 11:7) Similar is the ratio of reprobation opposed to election. (1 Peter 2:4; Isaiah 7:15)

XIX. [Definition of Election] But this election is God's predestination; by which He has fore-ordained, from among rational creatures indefinitely foreknown, certain individuals, in virtue of His own right, good-pleasure, and gratuitous love (Matthew 20:15; Romans 9:23, 11:35-36; Ephesians 1:5-6 & 11), to life and eternal glory (Romans 8:30, 9:23), and the way thereto (Ephesians 1:4; Hebrews 1:14; Psalm 103:21), as well as creation in an upright state of original righteousness, as the obedience of holiness; to the glory of His power, wisdom, and saving grace. (Romans 9:21, 23; Ephesians 1:6, 3:10)

XX. The impulsive cause is the good-pleasure of God's will, and His gratuitous love. (Ephesians 1:4-5, 11; Romans 9:16) Wherefore the election is said to be "of grace" (Romans 11:5-6, 9:11), that is, gratuitous; and is opposed to the consideration of works; nay, it is ordained as the fountain of good things (Ephesians 1:4, 2:10); and is called "love." (Malachi 1:2) For men choose, or elect, those whom they deservedly love - whence a "chosen" man, by metonymy, for "a good man, worthy of choice" (2 Corinthians 13:7); as opposed to ἀδόκιμος, "a bad man, deserving rejection" (ibid.; and Jeremiah 6:40; Hebrews 6:8; 1 Corinthians 9:27) - God, on the contrary, loves from eternity those whom He choose without merit. For to love is to wish good to any one, and, in this instance, to will eternal salvation and its means; but to elect is to will this good in preference to others. Therefore the good-pleasure here is twofold - towards the thing and the person; because God approves of both: and therefore the elect are called ὄντες αὐτοῦ, "they that are His." (2 Timothy 2:19; John 17:9) Which love is, by metonymy, designated "foreknowledge" (Romans 8:29, 11:2; Psalm 1:6) - whence the Sophists, incorrectly, oppose the foreknown to the predestinated and elect, contrary to the usage of Scripture - and, by synecdoche, "purpose" (Romans 8:28; 2 Timothy 1:9), namely, the gratuitous purpose of blessing; and, in like manner, is opposed to the worthiness and consideration of works in effecting salvation. (2 Timothy 1:9)

XXI. The form consists in preordination and separation to eternal life - on which account it is called "ordaining to eternal life" (Acts 13:48), "preparation of the kingdom" (Matthew 20:23; 25:34), "good pleasure of giving the kingdom" (Luke 12:32), "inscription in the book of life" (Philippians 4:3; Revelation 21:27), "appointing to the obtainment of salvation" (1 Thessalonians 5:9); and the elect are termed "blessed of God" (Matthew 25:34), "prepared unto glory," and "vessels to honor" (Romans 9:21, 23) - and to its way; as well creation in an upright state of original righteousness, as the obedience of holiness due to God (Ephesians 1:4); whence, according to Augustine, it is commonly named "the predestination of the saints." From which form, and from the immutability of the Divine counsel, it follows, that these elect never become reprobates and perish. (Matthew 24:24; Romans 8:28-30, 35; John 10:28; 2 Peter 3:9)

XXII. The end, indeed, of election to life is the glory of saving power, wisdom, and grace (Romans 9:22-23; Ephesians 1:6): but the end of election to the means is holiness (Ephesians 1:4, 2:10): just as the end of this, the terminus of election, is life. (1 Corinthians 9:24-25)

XXIII. But casting away, or reprobation, is God's predestination by which He has foreordained certain from among rational creatures indefinitely foreknown, in virtue of His own right and good-pleasure, from eternity rejected from eternal life (Revelation 17:8; Matthew 7:23), to death and eternal ignominy (Romans 9:21-22), and to its way (Proverbs 16:4; Romans 9:21-22) - creation in an upright state of original righteousness, permission of falling into sin and loss of original righteousness (Matthew 10:29); being forsaken therein - to the glory of His power, wrath, dominion over the reprobate, and of His saving grace towards the elect. (Romans 9: 18, 21-23)

XXIV. The termini of reprobation are two: the first, from which its beginning is taken, eternal life; the last, to which it tends, eternal death. Whence arise two - not species, but as it were - parts and degrees; destination of rejection, first from life eternal, and then to death. Of which the former is commonly accustomed to be called negative reprobation; the latter, affirmative and positive: the former is properly non-election, contradictorily to election; but the latter, including the former - whence it is also by synecdoche called by its name (Revelation 17:8, 20:15) - is opposed contrarily [to election], and ought to be understood in this place. Because non-election, since it is a simple negation, appertains also to those not to be created, not predestinated: and then, on the other side, reprobation, since it is predestination, necessarily puts forth and marks out a certain scope.

XXV. [The Form of Reprobation] The form of reprobation consists in the pre-ordination of rejection from life to eternal death, and the way thereto - creation in an upright state of original righteousness, permission of lapsing into sin, loss of original righteousness, the being left therein. Hence it is called non-inscription in the book of life from the beginning of the world (Revelation 17:8), designation to damnation (Jude 4), preparation of eternal fire (Matthew 25:41 with 33), appointing to wrath (1 Thessalonians 5:9); and the reprobate are styled "vessels of wrath," and "unto dishonor," "fitted to destruction." (Romans 9:21-22) Wherefrom it is also concluded that the reprobate never can become elect, and partakers of righteousness and life.

XXVI. The impulsive cause is God's good-pleasure toward the thing, which He approves (Matthew 11:25-26); not towards the person, whom He reprobates. Wherefore reprobation is also called hatred (Romans 9:13); and the reprobated are named "never known" and "cursed." (Matthew 7:23, 25:41) The justice of which depends on the right and wisdom of God, the heavenly Potter, and supreme Lord of all, and debtor to none. (Romans 9:20, 11:35-36; Matthew 20:15) Right: because (as it is said in a most apposite allegory about God), "Hath not the potter power over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" (Romans 9:21) Wisdom: as well because a variety of vessels, to honor and dishonor, appertains to the ornament of the world, as if it were the house of the Lord (2 Timothy 2:20; Ephesians 3:10); as because He does not lead them down to their destined destruction, except by permitting the desert of the reprobated, as a subordinate means. For "willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, He endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." (Romans 9:22) So that the cause and matter of perdition, efficient and sufficient, may be found in the reprobate.

XXVII. Wherefore, if God has destined and created any to destruction, He cannot be accused of injustice, on a twofold account and right: first, absolute, that of dominion: next, subordinate and related (as it regards sins), that of judgment. Wherefrom a twin sufficiency of justice shines forth; whose splendor is so great that its rays are reflected with luster in the confession of Papal adversaries and Lutheran Doctors; who, though they contend with our Churches about the will and the deed, yet acknowledge the justice of the free power. For so Dr. Chrys. Javellus (Tome 2, Question: Of the Cause of Predestination): "As the potter does not err not act unjustly in willing that this vessel be made to honor, but that to disgrace; so God would not sin, if He should will to save all, or to damn all; or to save this man according to his merits, and to damn that one absolutely." Dr. Viguerius (Institutes, Chapter 20, Section 5, 8, vers. 2): "'Shall the thing formed,' &c. By these words the Apostle wished to intimate, that if God, of His own power, predestinated any one to glory, and reprobated any one to torments, He would not have regard to punishment, without previous guilt, but only to penality [cupability]; nor could the man complain of God." The same sentiments are taught by the Lutherans, Dr. Jacobus Andreas (In the Mompelgart Conference, p. 508), Dr. David Rungius (On the Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 9, p. 196), and Dr. Georgius Major (On the Epistles to the Romans, Chapter 9, p. 76).

XXVIII. The subordinate and proximate end of destination to death is, the glory of the Divine power, wrath, and dominion over the reprobate (Romans 9:22; Proverbs 16:4): the preordained and ultimate end is, the glory of grace, bringing salvation to the elect, and immeasurable, reflected back with the greater lustre from comparison with the reprobate. (Romans 9:23) Of which so great is the dignity, that the elect, being seized with it in a holy contemplation, have desired to redeem the salvation of the reprobates of the Jewish people even by their own destruction and condemnation (Romans 9:3; Exodus 32:32), if that that might have been (Exodus 32:33; Romans 8:28, 35, 39): and so much the more ought the reprobate to acquiesce in it. (Romans 9:20-21)

XXIX. And so we have explained the nature of predestination, and of its species: which, on account of the diversity of the object and subject - the rational creature - is properly no further divided into species, because they are not of contrary form; but is distinguished into its circumstances. For the predestination of incorporeal creatures, or angels, is one kind; that of corporeal creatures, or men, is another kind: and both are distinguished by election and reprobation.

XXX. The difference between the election of angels and men is in regard of the means - that the former have regard to the perpetual obedience of holiness; the latter, to obedience begun and to be renewed: and therefore, in the former there is grace preserving in the upright state of original righteousness; in the latter, permission of the fall, and grace liberating from misery, by the communion of Christ (by the Spirit of the covenant in some persons, and in the adult by faith), and by justification, adoption, sanctification, flowing forth therefrom - begun in this life, in which we cannot keep the law perfectly (Catechisis Belgica, Question 114; Proverbs 20:9; Psalm 143:2; 1 John 1:8; Matthew 6:12); perfected after this life - and by conformity with Christ. By reason of which means (which distinguish the end), the elect are called "vessels of mercy" (Romans 9:23); and we are said to be "elect" in Christ to holiness (Ephesians 1:4), and "predestinated to adoption by Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 1:5), "predestinated that we might be conformed to the image of the Son of God" (Romans 8:29); just as Christ also was "foreknown" (as Mediator, and as the destined subordinate cause for salvation) "before the foundations of the world were laid." (1 Peter 1:20)

XXXI. The difference between the reprobation of angels and that of men is that Christ was to be offered to the former never, but to many of the latter more often - outwardly by the word (Matthew 20:16), or inwardly also, in the mind, by the Spirit (Hebrews 6:4-5; Matthew 13:21) - in order that, when convicted of unbelief and stubbornness of heart, they might be thereby rendered the more inexcusable. (Luke 12:47; 2 Corinthians 3:16; Hebrews 6:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:10, 12)

XXXII. The particular election becomes known ordinarily to the elect when grown up, in these lands, from a twofold revelation of God: partly external, by the Gospel; partly internal, by faith and the Holy Spirit. For the Gospel teaches, from the proper effects, what kind of men God has chosen to life, to wit, believers and penitents: (Romans 8:28-29): the sense of faith and repentance (2 Corinthians 13:5; John 6:39-40), and the consent of the Spirit (Romans 8:14, 16; Ephesians 1:13), sealing our hearts with His witness, confirm us that we are believers and penitents. From which, as from the antecedent proposition and assumption of a practical syllogism, by far the most certain, this conclusion is put together in our minds by the Holy Spirit, that we have been elected to life. Whence the Holy Spirit, "the earnest of our inheritance," (Ephesians 1:14) and good works, are said to confirm our election. (2 Peter 1:10) Reprobation, however, ordinarily [becomes known] only to those who are reprobated on account of the sin against the Holy Ghost - because that cannot be remitted (Matthew 12:31) - and on account of unbelief and impiety lasting to the end of life; because the reprobate cannot believe; because faith does not belong to all, but to the elect. (2 Thessalonians 3:2; Titus 1:1; John 6:44, 39, 10:26)

Corollary: Inquiry is made, whether that blasphemy follows from this doctrine - that God is the author of sin. For so indeed Castellio (Dialog regarding Election), and his follower Cornhart (Dialog regarding Predestination), and the the Lutherans (Jacob, Andreas, Colloquio Mompelgart; Aegidius Hunnius, &c.), are accustomed to object to our Churches, especially to Calvin and Beza (who have deserved very well of the Church and of the truth of predestination against the Pelagians), in order that, having brought those illustrious restorers of the Churches into odium, they may wound the truth through their sides, and the more easily sow tares of their own errors in the minds of men. We, however, with the Reformed Churches, with justice deny that; and do not in the least doubt that the truth and sanctity of this opinion will endure, in spite of the gates of hell.

Lourdes and other "Worthy of Belief" Fictions

Louis asked:

But does your church believe this story [the story of "St. Philomena"] is true? Or are they saying that even if this vision [revelation that Maria Luisa di Gesù, a Roman Catholic nun, claimed she received] is a delusional lie (a false sign or wonder), then it is still "not contrary to the Catholic faith", and may still be used to express devotion to this saint?

(source)
Paul Hoffer (Roman Catholic) responded:

Hi louis, The Church does not offer an opinion as to whether it is true or not because we, as individual Catholics, are not required to accept as true a private revelation made to a private individual as true as such do not belong to the deposit of faith. What the Church has said is that a person may accept the revelation as true if they wish without danger to their soul. [CCC 67] We recognize that such revelations are devotional in nature, not doctrinal.

(source)
I answer:

The RCC is a little unusual in this regard. In some cases, things are written off as frauds. In other cases, things are indicated as being, in essence, believable or "worthy of belief." For example, people are permitted to believe that something miraculous happened at Lourdes, but a person is not required to believe that.

On the other hand, sometimes (much more rarely) the RCC adds some new requirement to the list of things that must be believed. For example, about four years before the Lourdes event, the RCC defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception - requiring people to believe the unbiblical (and frankly Pelagian) doctrine of the Immaculate conception.

Interestingly, at Lourdes, a 14-year-old local girl named Bernadette Soubirous (who is the central figure in the event) claimed that the apparition of a beautiful woman told her, "I am the Immaculate Conception." This oddly ungrammatical claim (original French: "Je suis l'Immaculée conception" UPDATE: the French is not original ... apparently, the original is the Basque Bigourdan dialect: "Que soy era Immaculada Councepciou.") is probably best explained by the fact that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception had recently been defined, and Bernadette, while aware of the definition, didn't fully understand it. Mary calling herself the "Immaculate Conception" would be like Jesus saying, "I am the virgin birth." Of course, an alternative is that since Mary was a Palestinian Jewess, perhaps her French (UPDATE: Basque Bigourdan dialect) just isn't that good. But this seems unlikely, because other things that Bernadette reportedly heard from the apparition were more well constructed grammatically - even to the point of being formal.

In any event, Rome views the Immaculate Conception itself as a dogma that must be believed (despite the fact that we can't find it in Scripture or among the extant writings of orthodox Christians for the first few centuries of church history). In contrast, the fraud at Lourdes is viewed as being "worthy of belief." Rome won't say that it is true, and won't say that it is false.

Lourdes, as a result, is one of the most popular Marian shrines (probably the most popular in Europe, and perhaps in the world). There are dozens of miracles that are attributed to visits to Lourdes and use of the water there. Furthermore, while there may not be an official pronouncement that the Lourdes' apparitions were genuine, we see Benedict XVI acting as though he thinks they were:

Lourdes is one of the places chosen by God for his beauty to be reflected with particular brightness, hence the importance here of the symbol of light. From the fourth apparition onwards, on arriving at the grotto, Bernadette would light a votive candle each morning and hold it in her left hand for as long as the Virgin was visible to her. Soon, people would give Bernadette a candle to plant in the ground inside the grotto. Very soon, too, people would place their own candles in this place of light and peace. The Mother of God herself let it be known that she liked the touching homage of these thousands of torches, which since that time have continued to shine upon the rock of the apparition and give her glory. From that day, before the grotto, night and day, summer and winter, a burning bush shines out, aflame with the prayers of pilgrims and the sick, who bring their concerns and their needs, but above all their faith and their hope.

(13 September 2008 - Emphasis added to one of the most outrageous comments.)

Sean Patrick of the Roman Catholic blog "Called to Communion" has suggested that I should point out worship to Mary in each post I do on Roman Catholicism. I don't really think that is necessary, but I've included the paragraph above as an example to help satisfy his request. I'm sure that there will be those who deny that paying religious homage and giving Mary "glory" are worship, but I trust that there are those who will see it for what it is.

Nevertheless, to return to the point of the post, the answer is to Louis' question is that if something is designated as "worthy of belief," the RCC is not saying that it is true, but rather that you are safe believing it (i.e. doing so won't harm your faith or morals), even if it is false. Where these apparitions (and the like) tend to get into trouble is when they start to try to speak authoritatively on things (Rome doesn't like competition). So, while "I am the Immaculate Conception" should be seen to be a clumsy fraud, Rome approves of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and consequently sees no harm in letting people believe that the events of Lourdes are true.

- TurretinFan

Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 7/25

Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 7/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.

Armstrong's Argument

7. The U.S. Constitution might be regarded as true and wonderful and sufficient, etc. But the fact remains that this abstract belief only lasts undisturbed as long as the first instance of case law in which two parties claim divergent interpretations of the Constitution. It's the same with Protestants.

Short Rebuttal

The major error in this argument is that it assumes a bogus standard for sufficiency. The minor error is that the analogy to the U.S. Constitution is false.

Longer Rebuttal

For the Scriptures to be wonderful and sufficient, there is no requirement that they eliminate every disagreement about themselves. Such a false standard for sufficiency is strange - Dave's own church includes plenty of internal disagreement over their own standards. We don't claim that the Scripture prevents people from disagreeing - and surely disagreement is an invalid standard of measurement of the sufficiency of any standard.

As for the U.S. Constitution - it is not divinely inspired. The Holy Spirit doesn't promise to lead Americans into a proper understanding of the Constitution, but does promise to lead believers into the truth:

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Likewise there is no American spirit that provides as fruit the analogous equivalent of "goodness and righteousness and truth."

Ephesians 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Thus, while the U.S. Constitution may be as clear as men can make it, the Scriptures are a divine production - they are inspired.

- TurretinFan

Ray Comfort Tells it Like it Is!

I think it is straight-shooting like this: "Response of a Jerk" that makes me really appreciate the work that Ray Comfort does. I don't know all of his theology, but what I've seen I like.

-TurretinFan

Possum Kill, North Carolina

Ergun Caner: "My wife's Dad is from Possum Kill, North Carolina." (link to clip from start of show)

One of the readers of this blog (a guy named "Dan") alerted me to the fact that he tried to track down "Possum Kill, NC" on the map, and couldn't do it. I tried to do the same, and couldn't do it either. I also didn't find it mentioned on any websites or in any books.

There are two exceptions:

I. The first exception is that Ergun Caner himself uses the place as an illustration in his contribution to the Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, p. 327, left hand column, first full paragraph.

With some sad irony, Ergun Caner ends that entry with the following paragraph:

It is essential that the Christian diligently attempt not to use logical fallacies. The Bible implores the Christian to speak truthfully and without deception. Indeed, Jesus said "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32).

(p. 328)

Dr. Caner is right about that. It is one of many good things that Dr. Caner has to say. People may get the wrong idea from my posting articles that are critical of Dr. Caner, but I do not consider the man's work worthless. I do hope God will bring him to repentance on the issue of autobiographical embellishment.

II. The second exception is another blog also trying to track down the same point (link to blog). As of when I published this, no one had found an answer there either.

Conclusion

I think Caner is just trying to speak generically about a rural town. I've heard others use statements like "Smalltown, USA" or "Podunk, [state]", and things like that. I would interpret Caner's words here the same way. I think his usage of it in the encyclopedia entry backs up my understanding. I don't think Dr. Caner meant for people to take the name of the town of his father-in-law literally as being "Possum Kill." It may technically not be true, but I wouldn't classify it in the arena of a lie or an embellishment.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: In the testimony at the following link, Dr. Caner insists that the name of the town is "not a joke" (link). That's slightly disturbing, although arguably it was supposed to be for comedic effect.

FURTHER UPDATE: Caner mentions "Nostril, Texas" and "Earlobe, Arkansas" in this clip (link). "Possum Kill" would just be a similar fake place name.

ADDITIONAL UPDATE: When speaking to the Ohio Free Will Baptists, Caner said "this is not a joke, this is the truth, anybody from North Carolina will know this city, her father is from Possum Kill, NC, right near Smithfield." (link).

Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 6/25

Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 6/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.

Armstrong's Argument

6. Is every Christian in the world able to find enough time, and become educated enough and familiar enough with Scripture to be his own theologian? And if he consults other ones, wise enough to always get it right when he chooses?

Short Rebuttal

The most necessary things of Scripture are simple enough not to require someone to be a "theologian" per se, and the right approach is test others' teachings by Scripture rather than relying on one's own wisdom.

Longer Rebuttal

The way to avoid relying on one's own wisdom is to rely on the Scriptures:

Proverbs 3:1-7
My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: for length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee. Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: so shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

Furthermore, the Scriptures assist even the simple:

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

That's one of the reasons that the Proverbs were written:

Proverbs 1:1-4
The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; to know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; to receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity; to give subtilty to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.

So one does not have to be wise to nevertheless receive wisdom from Scripture. Scripture is prepared and even specifically provided to help give light to those who are not professional theologians.

- TurretinFan

Scripture's Clarity Confirmed Against Smudges - 5/25

Dave Armstrong has posted a series of "25 Short Arguments on the Difficulties of Perspicuity (Clearness of Scripture for Salvation)" (link) from his book "501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority?" I can see that his list of arguments has received nearly a thousand views, so perhaps it makes sense to provide a response to each of these. The arguments themselves are not long - individually they are no more than smudges that aim to obscure Scripture's clarity. This is number 5/25 of my wiping away of the smudges.

Armstrong's Argument

5. Since Protestants can't agree in their interpretation of Scripture, of what practical use is an infallible Bible? If the interpretation is fallible and contradictory, then -- practically speaking -- the Bible in effect is no more infallible than its differing interpretations.

Short Rebuttal

The practical use of the Bible is explained below:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Longer Rebuttal

The argument, if we can call this question an argument, seems to be trying to suggest that the appropriate test of the sufficiency of a rule of faith is if everyone agrees about it. But there is no rule of faith about which everyone agrees. To take the alternative for which Armstrong is trying to argue by tearing down Scripture, Roman Catholicism provides a rule of faith in the form her allegedly infallible teachings. Nevertheless, there are differences of opinion among Roman Catholics regarding how to interpret their rule of faith. Thus, if we accept the extremely skeptical premise of this argument, the result is agnosticism: we wouldn't be able to have any rule of faith at all, because people have differences of opinion over any given rule of faith.

- TurretinFan

Ergun Caner, Rick and Bubba, and Daisy Duke: How LBTS Does Apologetics

Ergun Caner was on the nationally broadcast "Rick and Bubba Show." The name may sound a little backwoods to my urban readers, but Ergun Caner's own web page makes a big deal about this show (link to discussion). This is touted on that link as being an example of how LU does apologetics: "As you can see at LBTS, we don't just talk apologetics, we do apologetics."

You can imagine our disappointment then at listening to the show, particularly the linked five and a half minute segment (the entire show apparently stretched to 90 minutes, this appears to be the first segment of the show) and finding the following comments (link to clip from start of show):

1) "I was raised in - I'm Turkish - 21 generations"

This may be technically true, because he changed his sentence halfway through, but he is giving the false impression he came from Turkey. Instead, he came from Sweden.

2) "Came to America when I was 13 years old."

As far as we can tell he was 4 years old, or so, when he came to America from Sweden.

3) "My father wasn't the imam but he was the 'ulema' one of the scholars in the mosque."

Elsewhere in Caner's discussion of his father, his father takes on various roles in the mosque. As best we can gather from the conflicting evidence, his father occasionally served as a "مؤذن mu’aḏḏin" which is not a kind of scholar, but rather someone who leads the prayers (something like a worship leader).

4) "This was the 70's, '78."

Caner was born in 1966, so Caner wasn't 13 until 1979. Moreover, Caner came to America around 1970. (UPDATE: I say "around 1970" because all we know for sure is that it was between 1968 when Ergun's brother Erdem was born and 1970 when Ergun's brother Emir was born.)

5) "Lost my family, lost everything"

He was disowned by his non-custodial father. It is a sad loss to be disowned by one's father, but it is not quite the same as being disowned by one's entire family and losing everything.

6) "That's the only television I saw - the only American television, the only American television in Turkey, was whatever got approved, and so we got the Dukes of Hazzard ... "

a) Ergun didn't live in Turkey.

b) We're supposed to believe that Islamic Turkish censors approved the Dukes of Hazzard?

c) The Dukes of Hazzard didn't start until January 26, 1979

You might think that "Dukes of Hazzard" was just a slip of the tongue. But on another occasion, Ergun Caner made the same claim and further embellished it: "The second television we received was a thing called, 'The Dukes of Hazzard.' Man- whew - I know we in church and everything, but I wanted to marry Daisy. I wanted to go to the Boar's Nest - I wanted to drive a car like this ..." (link to clip).

7) "... every two weeks we would get out of Georgia, from TBS, Gordon Solie Georgia Championship Wrestling."

TBS was launched December 17, 1976, which is also when the show (with TBS as a station) hit satellite. As noted above, Caner came to America with his family from Sweden in 1970. (UPDATE: as noted above, 1970 is the latest date, based on the fact that Emir was born in the U.S.)

Was the remainder of the 90 minutes better than the first five? I hope so. I'm sure Dr. Caner has a lot of good things to say. I've heard him say some pretty intelligent things. Nevertheless, may I suggest that this is not what LBTS wants to list as being an example of how LBTS does apologetics.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: I found a second segment (here).  In the second segment he claims he was raised in a madrasa in Istanbul, Turkey - and he says that twice and claims that it was a Sunni madrasa.  He claims that his high school friend evangelized him for four years.  He claims he does debates.

And a third segment (here).  Ergun uses a fake foreign language while purporting to provide an original language for a message on a wall in a mosque in Kabul, allegedly translated as: "Do not teach the women to read and write." 

And a fourth segment (here).  Ergun claims to have been debating a woman in Chicago when the topic of Surah 4:34, and the question of whether the Koran means that men should beat their wives.