"Why You Should Read This Book" Section of "The God of Calvinism"

Moving on in our review of Louis Ruggiero's "The God of Calvinism," we come to a prefatory section entitled, "Why You Should Read This Book" (pp. IX-XI). Part of this section also appears as the reverse cover material.

The section starts out by alleging that Calvinism "maligns God's character," but then goes on to malign the character of Calvinists, suggesting that Calvinism will "leave you simply a dead husk built of theory, academic argument, and self-righteousness, held together by the glue of pride in and dependence on one's own understanding." This malevolent characterization of Calvinists is then illustrated by alleging that Calvinism has a deleterious effect on evangelism and preaching.

It is falsely alleged, for example, that if a Calvinist were asked by someone, "What must I do to be saved," the Calvinist would not tell him, "Repent of your sins and trust in Christ." Yet, I can testify that I have told people this, and I know many other Calvinists who have as well.

A.W. Pink, one of the Calvinists cited in Mr. Ruggiero's book wrote: "Christ merited and obtained the reconciliation of both sides, yet God is not reconciled to us nor are we to Him until we repent and believe. " (The Doctrine of Reconciliation: Conclusion)

James White, another one of the Calvinists cited in Mr. Ruggiero's book wrote: "Hence, I can freely and properly proclaim the duty to repent and believe to all, knowing that those who do so will be those God has drawn to Himself." (David Allen's False Accusation)

R.C. Sproul, another Calvinist cited in Mr. Ruggiero's book wrote: "The requirement for entrance into the kingdom of God is to repent and believe in Christ." (Now That's A Good Question)

John Piper (also cited with respect to the Calvinist position in Mr. Ruggiero's book) wrote: "This means that in times of relativism (like our own), when people do not cherish objective, unchanging truth, followers of Jesus will be accused of arrogance. They will proclaim that Jesus has all authority -- because it is true -- and that everyone should repent and believe in him and become his disciple." (What Jesus Demands From the World)

And we could go on and on. Mr. Ruggiero's accusations against Calvinists simply aren't true. In fact Calvinists have read the Bible and are willing to follow the example of Paul who told the Philippian jailer that he must repent and believe, when the jailer asked what he ought to do to be saved.

Mr. Ruggiero also makes another curious accusation. He claims that Reformed theology "rejects the power of the gospel in that it teaches that a person cannot accept it unless they are born again first." What a strange accusation. How is the gospel's power any greater under Mr. Ruggiero's system in which a person can accept the gospel without being born again? It appears that Mr. Ruggiero's system of thought might make man more powerful, but how does it make the gospel more powerful? It's not clear.

Moreover Scripture clearly teaches:

Romans 8:7-8

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

And again:

John 3:3-8

Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Nicodemus saith unto him, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?"
Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, 'Ye must be born again.' The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. "

And further:

John 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

So, I must respectfully say that it seems Mr. Ruggiero's assertion is hollow. Scripture does not ascribe to everyone the ability to please God, but indeed Scripture makes it quite apparent that in order to see the kingdom of God, one must be born again.

Mr. Ruggiero concludes the section by suggesting that the ultimate measure of any doctrine is this:

No -- a doctrine's truth is fully proven only if its adherents are seen to clearly demonstrate, in their lives and in their character and in their relationships with those around them, the sweet, joyful, abiding love of Christ.

Actually, a doctrine's truth is proven from Scripture, not from the behavior of its adherents. Imagine making a claim like that about a doctrine like "the existence of God," or "the doctrine of the Trinity." Surely, Mr. Ruggiero would not make such a claim in that situation, since he knows that there are many people who claim to hold to such a view and yet who do not exhibit the love of God in their lives.

None of this, of course, should lead one to suppose that I think that love for our neighbor (and especially the brethren) is unimportant. It is vitally important. If you do not love your brother whom you see, how can you say you love God who you do not see? (Sorry my idolatrous readers, you too cannot see God).

Nevertheless, the proof a doctrine is not the personality or holiness of its adherents. Proof of doctrine is determined by the one measure of doctrine, Holy Scriptures, as Mr. Ruggiero himself seems to admit in his "Introduction" section, which we will address next time, if the Lord wills.

-TurretinFan

Ergun Caner's Introduction to Louis Ruggiero's Book

Continuing my review of Mr. Louis Ruggiero's book, The God of Calvinism, I come to the foreword by Ergun Caner. I had previously analyzed the auto-biographical aspects of that forward (here) so let me continue on to discuss the substance of Ergun's statements.

Ergun writes:

Though this seems like quite a simple doctrine, in our overwhelming impetus for world evangelization, a new movement has arisen. This new form of Calvinism teaches that God created some (if not most) people for damnation. In short, God only loves a few.

Certainly this movement's leaders have attempted to state this in a more loving way, but their favorite texts, such as Romans 9:13, buttress their belief that God desires to create people to specifically go to hell.

Obviously, sending the reprobate to hell is not the only purpose of the reprobate. There were many unbelievers who are the ancestors of believers. What non-Jewish person can claim that their ancestors from the time of Abraham to Jesus were all believers? So, God has more use for the reprobate than simply in sending them to hell.

Nevertheless, God does sometimes have as one of his purposes in creating a person the destruction of that person. This is plainly taught by Paul:

Romans 9:17

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Notice that the destruction of Pharaoh was not an end in itself. As a result of the destruction of Pharaoh, God's name was widely declared and God's glory and power were manifested.

But even more, I'd go on a few verses more to this:

Romans 9:21-24

Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Is God the potter? Does he have the power to make a vessel (a person) to dishonour - to build "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction"?

Caner goes on to describe what he thinks the thesis to Louis' book is:

His thesis is simple: in proclaiming that God's love is conditional, these new preachers have changed the nature of God Himself. They have changed His attributes. This is a vital distinction, and a pressing issue.

Now is as good a place as any to note that there is nothing particularly new about Calvinism. Perhaps Dr. Caner only recently became aware of it, but if he did even a modicum of research into the subject, he'd be aware of Baptists like Charles Spurgeon and John Gill teaching this many generations ago, not to mention the many non-Baptist Calvinists. It's hardly a new issue or position, either in Baptist circles (Caner is a Baptist) or outside them.

Moreover, who is making God's love conditional? Calvinists teach that God's election is unconditional and they take heat for it. Calvinists do not teach that God's love is conditional.

In contrast, folks like Caner teach people that "Jesus loves you, but ..." with the "but ..." being that God will still send you to hell if you don't do what he says. What love is this? A love that is conditional on man's obedience does look like a conditional love. On the other hand, a particular love for God's peculiar people (Deuteronomy 14:2 and 26:18; Titus 2:14; and 1 Peter 2:9) is unconditional.

God is the shepherd - he is the author and finisher of our salvation (Hebrews 12:2), saving us despite our demerit, not because we fulfill some conditions. The God of Calvinism is the God of the Bible and His love is unconditional.

Praise be to the Lord, the Almighty!

-TurretinFan

Louis Ruggiero's "The God of Calvinism"

Louis Ruggiero (aka LouRugg) has written the dangerously-titled book, "The God of Calvinism: a Rebuttal of Reformed Theology."

Ironically, the book has as front-matter before the (first) dedication "A Prayer at West Point Chapel." The prayer reads:

Make us choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be contented with a half truth when the whole truth can we won. Endow us with courage that is born of loyalty to all that is noble and worthy, that scorns to compromise with vice and injustice and knows no fear when right and truth are in jeopardy.

Mr. Ruggiero does not make any commentary on the prayer, so it is hard to know whether he appreciates the significance of a prayer to God that God "Make us choose" something. Does Mr. Ruggiero believe that God can make someone choose something? If he does, then he's a compatabilist: someone who thinks that God's directing of men's choices does not take away the character of "choice." In other words, if the prayer is answerable in the affirmative, it means that a choice can be a choice without being a "free" choice.

The prayer is a very Calvinist prayer in that sense. It recognizes that God can make us choose things, while it remaining true that we choose those things. Once a person realizes that, a lot of false objections to Calvinism fade away.

Does this point render the rest of Louis' book moot? With God's assistance, we will explore this shortly, Lord Willing.

-TurretinFan

Two Ninety-Nines in the Hadith Literature

My friend Dr. White recently (September 28, 2010) mentioned two stories from the hadith that have a similar theme and use the number ninety-nine. These stories also came up, as I recall, in a recent lecture that Dr. White provided in his polemics class. Since one of the listeners was asking about the stories, I thought I would provide them here (not to endorse them in any way, but simply for easy references).

The Murderer of Ninety-Nine Men:

Sahih Al-Bukhari 4:56:676

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

The Prophet said, "Amongst the men of Bani Israel there was a man who had murdered ninety-nine persons. Then he set out asking (whether his repentance could be accepted or not). He came upon a monk and asked him if his repentance could be accepted. The monk replied in the negative and so the man killed him. He kept on asking till a man advised to go to such and such village. (So he left for it) but death overtook him on the way. While dying, he turned his chest towards that village (where he had hoped his repentance would be accepted), and so the angels of mercy and the angels of punishment quarrelled amongst themselves regarding him. Allah ordered the village (towards which he was going) to come closer to him, and ordered the village (whence he had come), to go far away, and then He ordered the angels to measure the distances between his body and the two villages. So he was found to be one span closer to the village (he was going to). So he was forgiven."

---

Sahih Al-Muslim 37:6662

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There was a person before you who had killed ninety-nine persons and then made an inquiry about the learned persons of the world (who could show him the way to salvation). He was directed to a monk. He came to him and told him that he had killed ninety-nine persons and asked him whether there was any scope for his repentance to be accepted. He said: No. He killed him also and thus completed one hundred. He then asked about the learned persons of the earth and he was directed to a scholar, and he told him that he had killed one hundred persons and asked him whether there was any scope for his repentance to be accepted. He said: Yes; what stands between you and the repentance? You better go to such and such land; there are people devoted to prayer and worship and you also worship along with them and do not come to the land of yours since it was an evil land (for you). So he went away and he had hardly covered half the distance when death came to him and there was a dispute between the angels of mercy and the angels of punishment. The angels of mercy said: This man has come as a penitant and remorseful to Allah and the angels of punishment said: He has done no good at all. Then there came another angel in the form of a human being in order to decide between them. He said: You measure the land to which he has drawn near. They measured it and found him nearer to the land where he intended to go (the land of piety), and so the angels of mercy took possession of it. Qatada said that Hasan told him that it was said to them that as death approached him, he crawled upon his chest (and managed) to slip in the land of mercy.

Sahih Al-Muslim 37:6663

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying that a man killed ninety-nine persons and then he began to make an inquiry whether there was any way left for him for repentance. He came to a monk and asked him about that, and he said: There is no chance for repentance for you. He killed the monk also and then began to make an inquiry and moved from one village to another village where there lived pious persons, and as he had covered some distance, he was overtaken by death, but he managed to crawl upon his chest (to the side nearer to the place where the pious men lived). He died and then there was a dispute between the angels of mercy and the angels of punishment and (when it was measured) he was found to be nearer to the village where pious persons were living equal to the Space of a span and he was thus included among them.

---

The Man with Ninety-Nine Huge Scrolls of Bad Deeds:

(Saheeh Sunan al-Tirmaidhi, 2127 - source of translation below)

Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas reported that the Messenger of Allah said: A man from my ummah will be summoned in front of everyone (at the scales) on the Day of Resurrection, and there will be brought out and unfurled for him ninety-nine scrolls, each scroll extending as far as the eye can see. Then Allah 'Aza wa jal will say: Do you deny any of this [i.e. your bad deeds]? So the man will reply: No, O Rubb (Lord) Then it will be said: Do you have any excuse or any good deed (to compensate)? The man, in a state of terror, will answer: No. It will then be said: No, indeed you do have good deeds and no injustice will befall you this day. So a parchment will be taken out for him, upon which there will be the Testimony of Faith: (Shahadah) There is no deity but Allah and that Muhammad (SAW) is the Slave and Messenger of Allah. The man will say: 0h Rubb (Lord), what is this parchment in comparison to those scrolls! It will be said to him: No injustice shall befall you. The scrolls will then be placed in one of the scales and the parchment in the other; the scrolls will be light in weight, whereas the parchment will be heavy."

Quasi-Interview with Carl Trueman on Rome as "Default"

Someone recently quoted Dr. Carl Trueman to me in this way:

“Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination… in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic.” -Dr. Carl Trueman

The ultimate source for this quotation is a Reformation21 article from Dr. Trueman (link). Rather than trying to parse the quotation myself, since Dr. Trueman is still around, I asked him for his comments, which he kindly provided by email and gave me his permission to publish. The bold questions below are the questions that I posed to Dr. Trueman, but otherwise the material below the line is Dr. Trueman's response to my inquiry.

---

The argument I am making is essentially rhetorical at this point, aimed at evangelicals who have given up on justification by faith and the clarity of scripture. As these the reasons why Protestants could ultimately not be accommodated within the Catholic Church so, my argument goes, those who abandon these points have no real reason for continued separation. What then is left? Nothing but institutional continuity and the creeds of the early church. So these people should be honest, do the decent thing, and return to Rome, as Frank Beckwith did. And students in my class should understand that justification and clarity are vital, not just side issues. Yes -- we need good reasons not to be Catholic; and I have them.

Of course, it should be obvious that the fact I have not returned to Rome (or, for me, gone there for the first time) means that institutional/historical continuity a la Rome are of much less significance than justification and clarity. To use my arguments, as some have done, to imply the superiority of Rome to Protestantism tout court is nonsense; my argument is simply that Rome is superior to liberal Protestantism and the kind of woolly evangelicalism of those who think that scripture and justification are areas where we can agree to differ within the evangelical camp. Not so.

Now, to your questions:

Question 1: When you say "Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination" do you mean to embrace the idea that institutional unity and historical continuity are the marks of a true church?

Not for a Protestant. The word is central. But, if you don't think the word is clear, or that justification by faith is crucial, what's left of Protestantism?

Question 2: If we consider institutional unity as a standard, given that there were multiple apostolic sees on the Eastern side of the East-West Schism of 1054, and only Rome on the Western side of that schism, doesn't that mean that Eastern Orthodoxy is the "default position"? Likewise, since the Eastern Orthodox have not formally innovated beyond the 7th ecumenical council (contrast with the additional 14 alleged ecumenical councils of the Romans), doesn't the Eastern Orthodox church have the greater claim to historical continuity on a global scale?

Sure. But 99.99% of my students are either Western, or (as with Koreans) from a church situation determined by the Western categories of Roman or Protestant.

Question 3: Is the subject matter of Question/Answer 2 the reason that you limited yourself to "at least in the West" in the comment? If so, couldn't it similarly be said that in England the Anglican church similarly has the greatest claim to historical continuity and institutional unity?

No. Because Anglicanism breaks with Rome, theologically at least on the issue of authority, word and sacraments. So I see Anglicanism as Protestant and subject to the same strictures above.

Question 4: Is institutional unity more important than orthodoxy? If yes, then were councils like Nicaea and Chalcedon a mistake, in that they led to disunity?

Not at all. Unity is a function of orthodoxy (see Rom. 16 -- the divisive have wandered from the truth). But see my preliminary comments on the nature of my argument.

Question 5: When you speak of historical continuity, what do you mean? Do you simply mean that the differences between Rome's doctrines and the once-for-all-delivered apostolic doctrines have come to be gradually, and that the Reformation was a sudden move back to the apostolic doctrines?

I am using a virtual hendiadys, where one thing -- the Roman succession and the institutional unity it represents -- is described using two phrases, institutional and historical. Not primarily a doctrinal point.

Question 6: Do you agree that in discussing any doctrinal distinctive, the advocate for the distinctive bears the burden of establishing the truth of the distinctive? In other words, would you agree that it would be wrong to say that a dogma like the Bodily Assumption of Mary is the default position unless one can give sound reasons to reject it?

Yes. Though here you get into the differences over authority which devolve from rejection or acceptance of scriptural clarity. Reject it, you get the Pope, you get the later developments with no basis for rejecting it. Look at Newman -- he writes `Development' while a Prot, converts before it is published, and then is able to pretty much swallow everything Rome teaches and changes. He is consistent -- but thinks in a way far different to a Protestant.

Question 7: Is it fair to say that your comment to your class is intentionally provocative - aiming to be didactic in the sense of spurring the students to develop their thinking, as opposed to an attempt to strictly define a theological "default" position?

Yes. See my preliminary comment. It is designed to get people to sit up and think, to catch attention (while still, I believe, being true -- for all the reasons above). The fact that I am answering your questions indicates that I have succeeded beyond my wildest dreams!

Question 8: Do you have anything else that you'd like to say about this comment or its use by Roman apologists?

If I didn't have good reasons to be a Protestant, I would be a Catholic. But I am not. That gives some idea of how I rate the two systems. Having said that, I'd rather spend time talking to Catholic friends who think God knows the future than Socinians who call themselves evangelicals but reject the biblical understanding of God.

Compare and Contrast

Jesse Morrell: "If it were up to God, everybody would repent and be saved." (Facebook status on 11 January 2011)

Jesus: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." (Matthew 28:18)

Nebuchadnezzar: "all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Daniel 4:35)

It is truly remarkable to contrast the powerlessness of God in the synergistic system to the power of God in the monergistic and Biblical description.

Conflicting Gospel Narratives!

Steve Hays recently posted a similar item to his blog, and so I thought I would post something to my blog in a similar vein. What we have here is two accounts of Israel getting a king.

The first account is the judgment account, in this account having a king a judgment brought down upon the people as a curse for their rejection of God.

1 Samuel 8:4-22

Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him, "Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations." But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, "Give us a king to judge us."
And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, "Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them."
And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, "This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day."
Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, "Nay; but we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles."
And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD.
And the LORD said to Samuel, "Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king."
And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, "Go ye every man unto his city."

The second account is what I would call the mercy account. In this account, God is giving the king as mercy upon Israel:

1 Samuel 9:15-16

Now the LORD had told Samuel in his ear a day before Saul came, saying, "To morrow about this time I will send thee a man out of the land of Benjamin, and thou shalt anoint him to be captain over my people Israel, that he may save my people out of the hand of the Philistines: for I have looked upon my people, because their cry is come unto me."

In this second account, the king appears to be a great blessing for the people of Israel, whereas in the first account, the king appears to be a curse. I guarantee you that if these two accounts were in two different books, we would be told that this was a Biblical contradiction. But the fact of the matter is that both aspects are true. The king was a blessing and a curse. The king brought judgment and mercy.

There is a third account as well, one that is almost neutral, although it tends toward the critical side:

1 Samuel 10:17-25

And Samuel called the people together unto the LORD to Mizpeh; and said unto the children of Israel, "Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I brought up Israel out of Egypt, and delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all kingdoms, and of them that oppressed you: and ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and ye have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us."
Now therefore present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes, and by your thousands. And when Samuel had caused all the tribes of Israel to come near, the tribe of Benjamin was taken. When he had caused the tribe of Benjamin to come near by their families, the family of Matri was taken, and Saul the son of Kish was taken: and when they sought him, he could not be found.
Therefore they enquired of the LORD further, if the man should yet come thither. And the LORD answered, "Behold, he hath hid himself among the stuff."
And they ran and fetched him thence: and when he stood among the people, he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward.
And Samuel said to all the people, "See ye him whom the LORD hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the people?"
And all the people shouted, and said, "God save the king."
Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the LORD. And Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house.

And if this third account were in a third book, we'd probably be told that this third account was a later account that smoothed some of the harshness of the first account. But, of course, it's all one book.

There is actually a reference to this event in another book. That book is Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 17:14-20

When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, "I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;" thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, "Ye shall henceforth return no more that way."
Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

Isn't it remarkable that this book, written long before Samuel (notwithstanding the notions of the higher critics who deny Mosaic authorship) predicted that the people would demand a king and set regulations for that king, even without approving their rejection of God! This is a great example of one of the prophecies fulfilled in Scripture, even before the New Testament era.

And how was that King to be educated? He was assigned the prefect of the congregation of the doctrine of the faith and two bishops. Haha! No, that's not it. He was given the Torah - the Scriptures. He was supposed read from them, and learn to fear God from them. That's because the Scriptures are powerful and instructive. Simply by reading them, one can learn the fear of the Lord. They are true and convey the Truth to the reader.

God inspired that great prophet Samuel (who had a house, and sons - sorry ascetics) to write at least the first ten chapters of the book of 1 Samuel (or so it appears from 1 Samuel 10:25). And regardless of who wrote the powerful words of 1 Samuel, it should be clear that there is no contradiction amongst the narratives. The Israelites rejected God and got what they asked for - a king who was a burden to them. Nevertheless, at the same time the king was a savior to them, to save them out of the hand of the Philistines. And both the salvation and the judgment were intended by God in the one act of giving the people the king.

So when we read "conflicting" accounts in the gospels, we should be careful to realize that even seemingly conflicting accounts can sometimes be reconciled. Consequently, we should not be eager to find contradiction, but eager to find the harmony.

-TurretinFan

P.S. I wouldn't be the least surprised to discover that some higher critic has already tried to suggest that chapter 9 is from a different author than chapters 8 and 10. Of course, criticism of 1 Samuel tends to take a back burner compared with criticism of the Torah itself, but surely some skeptical scholar has taken aim at some of the other books.

Compare Bios - Caner Bros.

Compare the Biographies of the Caner Brothers

Emir Caner bio:

Born on August 25, 1970, Emir Fethi Caner grew up in the Columbus, Ohio, area in a Sunni Muslim family, the son of an Islamic leader. As a young teenager, he came to faith in Jesus Christ at a revival service at the Stelzer Road Baptist Church.

Ergun Caner bio:

Ergun Mehmet Caner (B.A., M.A., M.Div., Th.M., Th.D.) is president of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School at the Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Raised as the son of a Muslim leader in Turkey, Caner became a Christian shortly before entering college. Serving under his Chancellor and President, Jerry Falwell Jr., Caner led the Seminary to triple in growth since his installation in 2005. A public speaker and apologist, Caner has debated Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and other religious leaders in thirteen countries and thirty-five states. The author of seventeen books, Caner lives in Lynchburg with his wife Jill and two sons, Braxton and Drake.

(source for both bios)

By the way, Emir Caner's book says he was born again November 4, 1982 (he would be 12 at that time, according to my calculations). See Unveiling Islam, p. 19.

Also, the evidence seems to suggest that Emir was mostly raised by his grandmother in a household that was separate from his Islamic father, but that is perhaps not so important.

More significantly, Ergun Caner was not "raised ... in Turkey" (according to what we know of his life from other sources) he was raised with Emir, and there is no evidence that Caner's father was a "leader in Turkey."

There is also no evidence that we can find that Ergun Caner has "debated" in any meaningful sense anyone, much less "Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and other religious leaders in thirteen countries and thirty-five states."

I suspect what has happened here is that the conference organizers found a bio of Ergun Caner somewhere on the net and used it. I don't have any reason to think that Ergun Caner is still making these claims for himself, and the conference organizers are probably unaware of the scandal that came to light last year.

Still, very sad to see that more active steps have not been taken to remove the old information.

- TurretinFan

The Cosmological Argument

One common formulation of the cosmological argument begins, "everything that exists requires a cause." (example) Smart people sometimes formulate the argument this way, but it is actually not correct.

A better (let's call it "the correct") formulation is, "Everything that comes into existence has a cause."

Under the incorrect formulation you either have contradiction or infinite regress.

Under the correct formulation you have a singularity. A first cause who is uncaused. As a result, that uncaused cause must never have come into being: he must always have been. This is because if that cause had come into existence, there would have to be a still earlier cause. On the other hand, if that cause did not exist at all, and consequently never came into existence in that sense, nothing could exist.

This causeless first Cause, without whom nothing would exist, is God.

-TurretinFan

God is not Santa Claus

Hear the word of LORD:

1 Samuel 2:22-25
Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And he said unto them, "Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the LORD'S people to transgress. If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him?" Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them.

Why didn't they listen to their father? Well, of course, they are to blame. Yet God takes credit for it too. God says that their heedlessness had a purpose - and the purpose to kill them.

People like to say that when it is said that Joseph was sold into slavery in order that many lives would be saved, it simply means that God made the best of a bad situation. That's not the case here. God didn't make the best of a bad situation - God let a bad situation become (humanly speaking) worse.

1 Samuel 3:10-15
And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other times, "Samuel, Samuel."
Then Samuel answered, "Speak; for thy servant heareth."
And the LORD said to Samuel, "Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle. In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end. For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not. And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever."
And Samuel lay until the morning, and opened the doors of the house of the LORD. And Samuel feared to shew Eli the vision.

Well might Samuel fear to share this dreadful vision! God is coming in vengeance on the house of Eli, and God has said that this iniquity will not be purged with sacrifice nor offering forever! For every sin that a man might sin there was an offering appointed - but for the sin of Eli and his sons, there was no sin offering available. God extended no explicit offer of mercy to Eli.

And listen in sad silence to Eli's reaction:

1 Samuel 3:16-18
Then Eli called Samuel, and said, "Samuel, my son."
And he answered, "Here am I."
And he said, "What is the thing that the LORD hath said unto thee? I pray thee hide it not from me: God do so to thee, and more also, if thou hide any thing from me of all the things that he said unto thee."
And Samuel told him every whit, and hid nothing from him.
And he said, "It is the LORD: let him do what seemeth him good."

What a disappointing answer! Let the LORD do what seems good to him? Of course the Lord will - but hie to the altar with sacrifice and offering! Rip your clothes in sorrow! Put dust and ashes on your head! Fast and pray to God for mercy! Though God has pronounced judgment, yet if a man will turn to Him in true repentance, he will find mercy.

As David would later be inspired to write:

Psalm 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Dear reader, do not be like the sons of Eli and refuse to hear good counsel. Do not be like Eli and simply nod your head at the pronounced judgment of God against you and your sins. Flee to God for mercy.

As it written:

Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Response to Joe Heschmeyer

Joe Heschmeyer wrote a response (link to response) to my previous post (link to my post) regarding Bishop Olmsted.

He raises a number of objections to my post, and I'll try to deal with them in turn.

1. The "God Hath Joined Together" Objection

Mr. Heschmeyer objects that I'm trying to separate Christ and His church. This (like most of the post) is an emotional argument, not a rational one. I didn't suggest that Christ's church should be separated from Christ. What I said was:

I was also struck by the fact that the bishop's stated identity was not Christ alone, but "Christ and the Church." What he considers to be faithfulness to Christ is faithfulness to the rules of his church. However, in following the rules of his church, he's not following God's law.

The point that Mr. Heschmeyer has missed is that for the bishop his stated identity in Christ, because it is not in Christ alone, ends up being in his (the bishop's) church. But the bishop's church is not Christ's church, and the rules of his church are not the rules of God. What the bishop identifies with is a false christ, not the true Christ.

2. The Father Abraham Objection

Mr. Heschmeyer objects that I (like Aquinas) refer to hyper-dulia as a species of worship (cf. Summa 3.25.5 "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.'"). That's because it is worship. Mr. Heschmeyer claims that the worship of Mary is more like "honoring Father Abraham, which Scripture clearly does." Suffice that there were no first century side altars with Father Abraham's likeness in the Temple or synagogues, there were no candles burnt before statues of Father Abraham, and no one is taught to pray to Father Abraham.

Ironically, Abraham is mentioned by name in 70 verses in the New Testament contrasted with 46 verses that use the name "Mary" (at least 10 of which are references to Mary Magdalene). For those wondering, the name "Jesus" occurs in 942 verses, "Lord" is in 670 verses, and "Christ" is in 532 verses, while "Paul" gets mentioned in 159 verses, "Peter" in 156 verses, "John" (includes both the baptizer and the beloved disciple) in 130 verses, "David" in 54 verses, "James" in 38 verses, "Silas" in 13 verses, "Andrew" in 12 verses, and "Timothy" in 9 verses. (statistics based on the KJV)

Mary's a relatively minor (but important) character in the New Testament, but she's the "Queen of Heaven" in Roman theology (cf. Jeremiah 7:18).

3. The Universal Apostasy Objection

Mr. Heschmeyer takes the position that my objection to Roman latria worship of the bread of the Eucharist requires me to say that there were no Christians from the first century to the eleventh century. This remarkable claim is flawed for several reasons.

a) There is no evidence that those who called themselves "Christians" were giving the bread the worship that belongs to Christ alone from the 1st century until around the 9th or 10th century (perhaps as late as the 11th or 12th century). I should obviously point out that if Mr. Heschmeyer disagrees, he's welcome to point me to someone before then who taught that the bread should be worshiped with the worship of latria.

b) We (Reformed) don't require moral or theological perfection of Christians. In fact, we try to judge by a very lenient standard. So, we're willing to accept as Christians even those who do engage in some sin, and those who do have some theological errors. Universal apostasy would not be the logical conclusion from mere widespread error of practice.

c) Mr. Heschmeyer seems to be unaware of the debunking of Roman claims regarding the views of the church about the Eucharist. He ought to be. Cosin provided an excellent debunking in the 17th century (link to book), not to cast aspersions on the many before him (such as Ridley in the 16th century - link to work or Wycliffe in the 14th century - link to work) and after him. That debunking is not merely a debunking of Rome's eisegesis of the key Scriptural texts, but also includes a debunking of Rome's historical claims. Suffice that Mr. Heschmeyer cannot locate a single father from the 1st to the 9th centuries that taught that the bread becomes not just the body but the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. In fact, Mr. Heschmeyer would have trouble finding any father that says that the bread is no longer truly bread after the consecration.

4. The Faith/Faithfulness Objection

Mr. Heschmeyer claims that I distinguish between faith and faithfulness, but "apparently not in the way that Scripture does." Mr. Heschmeyer's support for his objection seems to take him off on a variety of tangents. It's unclear whether Mr. Heschmeyer understands the difference between trust and obedience. Proper obedience (faithfulness) flows from a true and living faith (trust) in God. Perhaps he understands that, perhaps not. His rambling objection doesn't seem to address the distinction I was making. The bishop is (according to his own testimony) faithful in his duties, but this flows from his faith in his church.

5. The Murder is Never Self-Defense Objection

Mr. Heschmeyer's label "Murder is Never Self-Defense" shows either a penchant for the rhetorical or a fundamental misunderstanding of the moral categories. I'd rather not pick, so I'll just explain the principles that apply.

a. All murder (properly speaking, as distinct from hatred which is a species of murder broadly defined) involves killing (killing of a human being, but we'll just refer to it as "killing" to keep things concise).

b. Not all killing is murder.

c. Killing is murder, unless there is either an excuse or a justification.

d. We will leave aside the issue of "excuse," since - in any event - there does not appear to be an excuse available here.

e. Various justifications are permitted for killing. For example, soldiers can justly kill enemy soldiers in a just war, and the civil government has the power of the sword to execute those who are guilty of capital crimes.

f. One justification for killing is self-defense. Thomas Aquinas recognized this as a legitimate justification (Summa 2-2.64.7). Hopefully, Mr. Heschmeyer does not think that Aquinas was ill informed about moral theology.

g. Double-effect always exists in the case of true self-defense. In other words, one's intent in self-defense is not to kill the other person, the intent is to save one's own life.

h. The killing, in true self-defense, must be killing the person who is going to kill you.

i. The killing, in true self-defense, must be proportional to the need. In other words, when one can save one's life very easily another way, one cannot resort to using lethal force. However, the proportionality need not be scientifically exact. Thomas Aquinas explains this at the link I've provided above.

Mr. Heschmeyer poses a series of four examples in which he says it is obvious that one cannot take another's life. In each of his examples, there is a man who is facing death (we'll call him "the victim" just as shorthand) and this victim has the opportunity to save his own life by killing someone else. However, in each case, the person who the victim is contemplating killing is not the person who is killing the victim.

Mr. Heschmeyer, however, has failed to consider that in this case (according to the evidence we have) the baby was killing the mother. If the baby was not stopped from doing what it was doing, the mother would die. No one is saying that the baby intends to kill the mother, or that the baby's actions were themselves culpable.

Mr. Heschmeyer concludes:

This wasn't a case where the hospital found itself in a morally gray area, made the wrong decision, and was immediately and mercilessly thrown out. This is the culmination of years of open rebellion, where a hospital refusing to be Catholic was finally told, in effect, "You win. You're not Catholic." It's no more offensive than my telling Turretin Fan: you're not a Catholic. He knows. And by their conduct, it's clear St. Joseph's knows, too.

Actually, what happened is that the hospital didn't cave in to the following demands from the bishop:

• Acknowledge he was right and the hospital was wrong in its interpretation of a church health-care directive regarding so-called indirect abortions.

• Submit itself to a diocesan review and certification "to ensure full compliance" with Catholic moral teachings. Olmsted wrote that the certification would be similar to other accreditations that hospitals seek.

• Agree to give its medical staff ongoing training on the Ethical and Religious Directives, a document from the national bishops council that explains Catholic moral teachings for health-care providers.

Notice that the reason was not actually the killing of an innocent child. The issue was the challenge to the bishop's ego. The bishop disagreed with the nun, Sister Margaret McBride, who authorized the killing of the child, over the interpretation of Rome's rules related to when taking the life of a child is permitted. As summarized in an article just prior to to the bishop's de-labeling of the hospital:

St. Joseph's has since argued that the case was more akin to removing a pregnant woman's cancerous uterus, which is permissible under church doctrine, than to a standard abortion. McBride remains a nun on the hospital staff.

Two months of discussions followed but, according to Olmsted, did not resolve the question of whether the procedure was allowable. In the November letter, Olmsted said that he did not believe CHW intended to change its policies.

(source)

So, no, I don't think Mr. Heschmeyer's characterization of the situation is correct. As for the "Catholic," label - it better fits me than it fits him, since my church (a reformed and presbyterian church) doesn't practice the sectarianism that his church practices, and since my church holds to the once delivered Catholic and Apostolic faith that his church has abandoned.

-TurretinFan

Wondering What Happened in Dearborn Michigan?

Here's a link to a story that provides a detailed account of the events that transpired in Dearborn, Michigan from 2008-2010, courtesy of David Wood (link to story). Interested to find out if it was persecution of Christians, harassment of Muslims, or something entirely different? Click the link and read the account.

- TurretinFan

Critique of Bishop Olmsted's Response

Bishop Olmsted, responding to blogger criticism of his decision to remove the "Catholic" designation from St. Joseph's hospital because it took the life of a child in defense of the life of the child's mother, stated:

I really don't read the blogospheres. I try to pray each day to find my identity in Jesus Christ. I start my day, every day, with an hour of adoration. I celebrate the Eucharist. I pray morning prayer, mid-day prayer, evening prayer, and night prayer. My identity comes from Christ. Christ is present in his living body, the Church. That's my identity - it comes from that. If I'm unfaithful to that -- then whether I'm looked at one way, or another - if I'm given praise or whether I'm given ridicule - it doesn't matter. What I'm called to be is faithful to Jesus Christ and his Church.

(source)

A few responses:

1) He's not going to win any bonus points from me for blowing off the blogosphere. Obviously, though, he's under no moral duty to read what people write on the Internet or in the newspaper, or what they say on TV or over the radio. Whether the media is old or new, he's not under a moral duty to take any interest in what other human beings have to say about things.

2) For someone who really thinks it doesn't matter, he looked rather nervous and he sounded quite defensive. Perhaps, however, the nervousness had some other source, such as what his fellow bishops will be saying about his decision.

3) His mention of his adoration, Eucharist, and daily prayers is a reference to the fact that he is required under the canon law of his church:

Can. 663 §1. The first and foremost duty of all religious is to be the contemplation of divine things and assiduous union with God in prayer.

§2. Members are to make every effort to participate in the eucharistic sacrifice daily, to receive the most sacred Body of Christ, and to adore the Lord himself present in the sacrament.

§3. They are to devote themselves to the reading of sacred scripture and mental prayer, to celebrate worthily the liturgy of the hours according to the prescripts of proper law, without prejudice to the obligation for clerics mentioned in ⇒ can. 276, §2, n. 3, and to perform other exercises of piety.

§4. With special veneration, they are to honor the Virgin Mother of God, the example and protector of all consecrated life, also through the marian rosary.

§5. They are to observe faithfully an annual period of sacred retreat.

And again:

Can. 276 §1. In leading their lives, clerics are bound in a special way to pursue holiness since, having been consecrated to God by a new title in the reception of orders, they are dispensers of the mysteries of God in the service of His people.

§2. In order to be able to pursue this perfection:

1/ they are first of all to fulfill faithfully and tirelessly the duties of the pastoral ministry;

2/ they are to nourish their spiritual life from the two-fold table of sacred scripture and the Eucharist; therefore, priests are earnestly invited to offer the eucharistic sacrifice daily and deacons to participate in its offering daily;

3/ priests and deacons aspiring to the presbyterate are obliged to carry out the liturgy of the hours daily according to the proper and approved liturgical books; permanent deacons, however, are to carry out the same to the extent defined by the conference of bishops;

4/ they are equally bound to make time for spiritual retreats according to the prescripts of particular law;

5/ they are urged to engage in mental prayer regularly, to approach the sacrament of penance frequently, to honor the Virgin Mother of God with particular veneration, and to use other common and particular means of sanctification.

I bring this up simply to note that what he says he is doing is simply what canon law requires him to do.

4) These requirements are not as rigorous as the requirements for those in monastic life, but they do impose a significant daily burden on a person. The various hours require not just a quick "Hail Mary," but reference to the books that dictate the particular prayers, hymns, and readings for that particular day and hour (there's a great deal more discussion here, for those interested).

5) It's easy to believe that the bishop has found his identity in this, which he has (exceedingly sadly) confused with Christ. A life of daily attendance on these requirements is a disciplined life that adheres to rules. Those who have been in the military may have seen men like this who found a sense of identity in the rules and regimes associated with that life. The prayers at regular intervals from a book that requires simply obedience, not thought, provide a regime that can be followed and give one a sense of belonging.

6) Such discipline is (in itself and without consideration of the end to which it is being put) a good thing. God has created men to obey. Indeed, it is even good to be regular in praying to God - not so that it will become a rote chore, but to be in the habit of turning to God to seek His aid, thank Him for His gifts, confess our sins, and praise Him for His greatness. Rome further perverts the matter by including all sorts of mariolatry into the regime, but that's neither here nor there.

7) Rome, however, uses this as a yoke to place on the shoulders of their priests (bishops are priests too). It becomes a duty that they must do to please the Church and (it is implied) God. But God has not asked for this - God has not said that this is what will please Him.

8) I have to admit that when I heard this short speech, many verses flooded into my mind. The first passage was this:

Luke 18:9-14

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: "two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.' And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, "God be merciful to me a sinner.' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

When questioned about his decision, this bishop put down his critics and exalted himself, based on his rituals. But he's missing the point, what God desires is not the rituals, but the contrite heart:

Psalm 51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

What this attitude of following the rules of religious life in the Roman religion misses is what Jesus himself taught:

Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

9) A final passage also came to mind as fitting the situation.

Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Here's a bishop talking about going through his rote prayers - the minimal requirements of his clerical office, and yet he has just condemned a hospital that made the very difficult decision to use lethal force to defend the life of a woman from her child. Was that decision right? Ultimately God will judge, but normally lethal force is permitted in defense of life. If, in fact, the situation is as it has been reported, it appears that the woman had the right to defend herself.

10) I was also struck by the fact that the bishop's stated identity was not Christ alone, but "Christ and the Church." What he considers to be faithfulness to Christ is faithfulness to the rules of his church. However, in following the rules of his church, he's not following God's law. I'm not simply talking about his failure to allow self-defense to be a justification for killing in this case, but about the fact that he offers worship (hyper-dulia) to Mary, engages in idolatry (in the latria of what is truly bread), and seeks to be right with God (evidently) through faithfulness rather than by faith.

- TurretinFan

P.S. I was also a little surprised he didn't mention Mary. But don't worry, there's an image of Mary based on the Guadalupe idol behind him.

Further Response to Mr. Albrecht Regarding Debate on Veneration of Images

In a new video (audio + slideshow only), Mr. Albrecht has responded to the comments in my post (link to post) regarding the debate. This is in addition to the comments he submitted to me by email, and which are already addressed in the original post via an update to that post. I've provided the following written response and a largely-overlapping video response (just audio), below.

Mr. Albrecht responded to the comments on my blog by way of video. He stated that I didn’t heavily emphasize the Old Testament prohibition on the veneration of images – his justification for this claim was simply his assertion that the Old Testament doesn’t prohibit the veneration of images. This assertion is patently false. I highlighted many passages which specifically prohibit the veneration of images, such as Exodus 20:5, which states: “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.”

Or Leviticus 26:1, which states: “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.”

In point of fact, Mr. Albrecht barely engaged the text of Scripture. Instead he focused his time in other areas.

One of his main arguments to attempt to distinguish away the Old Testament texts was to assert that “There is, however, a clear distinction between idolatry and veneration.”

Can Mr. Albrecht show us this distinction in the Bible? No, he cannot.
Can Mr. Albrecht show us this distinction from the fathers of the first century? No, they don’t make that distinction.
What about the fathers of the second century? No, they too say nothing helpful to him.
He basically has to jump forward in time many hundreds of years to find anything like this distinction being brought out.

He refers to the latria/dulia distinction that Rome is fond of making. He and I debated that topic some time ago. He could not find the distinction in Scripture then – and he still cannot find it now. Even if he could find that distinction eventually enunciated in some father or other after some time, as we brought out in the debate the 2nd Council of Nicaea did not make the distinction that he would like to see.

Mr. Albrecht again appeals to Dura Europos. He states: “There was much stronger evidence to prove the early Christian church venerated images, statues. The Dura Europos is a clear-cut example of this.” During the debate we exposed this error. Nobody knows what sect worshiped in that church. Nobody knows how the images were used – whether just for decoration, for teaching, or for (as Mr. Albrecht claims) veneration. In fact, no one knows even whether the church was ever used.

He claims it is a Christian church from earlier than the mid-200’s. His assertion is empty and untrue.

He claims that I “have to fall back on the assertion that this church is not typical.” Listen to the debate. First he asked me whether I knew of Dura Europos, then he asked me whether it was typical. I told him it was not. That’s hardly me “falling back” on that position.

He then asks who am I to make an assertion that Dura Europos is not typical. Well, he asked me – so I told him. Why would anybody think that Dura Europos was typical? Mr. Albrecht does not give us any good reasons to think so.

He then states that he’s not aware of any scholars who say that unorthodox people worshiped there. I’m not sure what his ignorance of the subject is supposed to prove. Are there any scholars who claim orthodox Christians worship there? If so, who are these scholars? What is there basis for the claim? Mr. Albrecht can’t tell us, because Mr. Albrecht doesn’t know.

Mr. Albrecht claims that he showed that not a single father interpreted the key Biblical texts in the same way in which I interpreted them. There was not time for Mr. Albrecht to show anything remotely resembling that. All Mr. Albrecht did was assert such a thing. He did quote a small handful of fathers who neither explicitly supported nor explicitly condemned the position I took.

Then Mr. Albrecht tries to explain why his unproven assertion is true. His proposed reason why is “the fathers knew the difference between idolatry and true religious veneration.” But, of course, Scripture does not make that distinction and Mr. Albrecht cannot identify any church fathers that make that distinction. It’s another assertion on Mr. Albrecht’s part, but not one he can support with facts.

Mr. Albrecht tried to argue that Ancient Judaism is not on my side. This was another one of his blunders. He quotes Jacob Milgrim who indicates that in the mid-third century there starts to appear in Judaism a “grudging recognition of Jewish art” and that people began to paint pictures on the walls in that time. This just proves my very point. (Read the article for yourself!)

Mr. Albrecht then cites to a pseudographic Jewish Targum that specifically permits for carved stone columns as long as they are not worshiped. This Targum, however, dates to somewhere between the eighth century and the 15th century. It’s hardly representative of ancient Judaism.

And even if it were, it is simply distinguishing between having the images and venerating them.

Mr. Albrecht claims that his quotation from Basil is a “contested quotation.” That’s not true. It’s a spurious quotation. The consensus of scholarship agrees – both among Roman Catholic scholars and non-Roman Catholic scholars.

I pointed out that Mr. Albrecht was relying on a secondary source. I probably should have mentioned that his comments about Judaism were similarly drawn from a secondary source, which is probably why he didn’t realize the pseudographic Targum he quoted was so late.

Mr. Albrecht asserted that he relied on as secondary source “just as everything else Turretinfan relies on in scholarly works on the Biblical or patristic texts are secondary sources.” I’m not sure why this is particularly relevant. There’s no scholarly source that Mr. Albrecht has turned to that says anything other than what I’ve said – his quotation from Basil is spurious.

Mr. Albrecht goes on to argue with one of the patristic scholars who notes that the term “theotokos” became popular later than Basil. Mr. Albrecht misunderstands what the scholar wrote and goes off on a diatribe about how the term theotokos was used early.

Mr. Albrecht makes a serious blunder by alleging that the term theotokos was used “close to two centuries before Basil’s time” by citing a prayer found in a papyrus that was “dated by papyrologists to the mid-200’s.” The mid-200’s would be about 100 years before Basil (330-379). And frankly, given Mr. Albrecht’s numerous mistakes about dates and so forth, I would want to see what his source was regarding this prayer as well rather than just accepting it (though it may be correct).

Mr. Albrecht points out that work was probably not written by the Greek iconoclasts. One of the works that I quoted from does say “It has been attributed to the Greek Iconoclasts,” which is clearly wrong. So, Mr. Albrecht is quite right to point out the editor’s mistake in using the word “Iconoclast” instead of “Iconodule.” I’m not sure if Mr. Albrecht read the other notes, which indicated what this quotation obviously meant, which was that the work had been created during the Iconoclastic controversy. Nevertheless, I fully agree with Mr. Albrecht that it was not the iconoclasts, but the iconodules, who forged this particular letter.

Mr. Albrecht also suggests that many more “m s s” (as he calls them) have been discovered at a later date. I don’t know of any scholarly support for Mr. Albrecht’s assertion, and he does not provide any.

Mr. Albrecht then tries to bolster his position regarding Basil by quoting Basil’s statement that the honor paid to the image passes on to the prototype. This is very interesting, of course, because Basil is talking about worship of Jesus passing on to the Father. I’m not sure if Mr. Albrecht grasps the impact of his seizing on this phrase from Basil. Is his worship of Jesus the same as his worship of images? Does he really want to compare his worship of man-made images to his worship of the true image of the Father?

Basil certainly did not make that comparison. Basil was simply pointing out that by worshiping Jesus was are not becoming tritheists – we remain monotheists, because the worship given to Jesus is not only given to Jesus but to the Father. Basil did not compare the worship of Jesus to the worship of painted boards or statues.

Mr. Albrecht speaks with great emphasis on the word “Image” but he doesn’t seem to realize that Basil is speaking of the Son of God, not some carved stone column or other lifeless idol. I will grant him this – the veneration of Jesus is perfectly acceptable. There is no problem worshiping Jesus. It is man-made images that are the problem. Remember that Scriptures “thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven image or any likeness,” it does not prohibit us from worshiping the image of God in the person of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Albrecht says that in the authentic Basil quotation, the use of “icon” in its proper Christian usage is shown. I heartily agree. The one icon we can worship is Jesus himself. Not a picture of Jesus, but Jesus himself, the image of the Father. That’s the proper Christian worship of an icon – and it is the only worship of an icon supported by Basil.

Mr. Albrecht again repeats his statement that “Christianity has always been able to distinguish between proper religious veneration and idolatry.” Yet, as we’ve noted each time – Mr. Albrecht’s assertion is just not supported by any evidence.

Mr. Albrecht next turned to the issue of the Vienna Genesis. He admitted he made a mistake in saying that the Vienna Genesis was dated to the 300’s, and asserted that it was dated to the 400’s. Actually, while some people have placed it in the late 400’s, it appears that the consensus is for the early 500’s.

Mr. Albrecht then claims that he really meant to refer to the “Cotton Genesis.” But Bruce Metzger (who Mr. Albrecht cited during the debate) also tells us that the “Cotton Genesis” is from the 500’s and John Lowden tells us that some scholars (citing Weitzmann and Kessler) date this to the late 400’s (John Lowden, “The Beginnings of Biblical Illustration” in “Imaging the Early Medieval Bible,” John Williams editor), p. 15. The same work indicates the sixth century for the Vienna Genesis (p. 17).

Mr. Albrecht tries to argue that he has provided positive evidence for the veneration of images in the early church, but he has not. The most he has done is to point out that in some instances some of the ancient churches had images in the churches.

Follow-Up With Scott Windsor

Mr. Windsor has a brand new post (link to post) in which he attempts to respond to my post of yesterday (link to my post). There's not much new.

In my response to my point that he is committing a fallacy of emphasis, he insisted that his position is not novel and quoted (he claimed) from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here's what he said:

I'll begin with #6 - My explanation is not new. The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia says: "But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam (aka Original Sin) — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death." The article actually dates back to 1910 - before even my parents were born.

I trust this will silence the false allegation that this was somehow my "novel interpretation." I have also posted this part of my response to TF's blog.

Except that's not actually what the entry says. The "(aka Original Sin)" is Mr. Windsor's insertion. What it actually says is this:

The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin, the state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

(bold is mine, italics are original)

After that, he claims he doesn't need to give a supporting argument for his assertion ("It is not up to me to point out what the supporting argument should be"). In the world of reason, of course, people can't just make assertions.

He goes on to address two arguments I did not make, to wit:

1) He points out that Luther didn't write in Greek. Who said he did? I certainly didn't say so.

2) He alleges that, in context, Luther can't be referring to Jesus' brethren. I'm quite sure Luther isn't talking about the conception of any of Jesus' brethren, and I certainly wasn't suggesting otherwise.

He then claims I've abandoned my Greek argument. What argument exactly? Presumably it is one of those two arguments I didn't make.

He clarifies that his use of "ACCURATE" to describe a translation here "refers to the misplaced insertion of Greek into this discussion as if to confuse the reader." While I grant that Mr. Windsor was one of my readers, and that he was quite confused, I think he has only himself to blame for that. I didn't suggest in the least that the Greek word was a translation of anything that Luther wrote.

Mr. Windsor then basically admits that he had no basis for his claim regarding "every translator" but argues that if there were at least two translators, then he was correct. Of course, the only thing he would appear to be correct about is in his defeat of the straw man position that the Greek word is supposed to appear in the English text.

Mr. Windsor identifies the perpetual virginity as a side topic, as it indeed it is. That was, of course, why the point was raised inside parenthesis in my original comment. It was an aside - a point of interest for the reader.

He then makes the untrue assertion: "TF is alleging Luther used Greek in his writings." Now, don't get me wrong. Luther probably did use Greek words in his writings at certain points, but that has not been my argument here. Mr. Windsor simply hasn't followed what I have said.

After quoting my demonstration of my position and over twenty quotations from Ineffabilis Deus, Mr. Windsor boldly alleges: "First off, TF has misrepresented Catholic teaching here." That is a bold allegation because I've just presented numerous quotations from an official papal document, and indeed from the very document that defines the dogma of the immaculate conception.

Mr. Windsor continues: "The whole document, Ineffabilis Deus, does not define the Immaculate Conception - only one paragraph in it does and here it is for the reader". One supposes that Mr. Windsor thinks this contradicts my characterization of Ineffabilis Deus as "the document that defined the dogma." If he does think that, it's simply because of some weakness of his own. The document defines the dogma, whether it does so in one of its many paragraphs or all of its many paragraphs - the same way that Pope Pius IX defined the dogma, although that does not mean that every word that ever came out of Pope Pius IX's mouth (or pen) was the definition of the dogma. This is really just elementary English, in my opinion, but pointing this kind of thing out brings complaints of ad hominem from Mr. Windsor. In point of fact, my characterization is pretty much exactly the same characterization that one will find at EWTN, which describes Ineffabilis Deus as "Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX solemnly defining the dogma of the Immaulate Conception, 8 December 1854."

Mr. Windsor then quoted the formal definition of the dogma. Ironically, this formal definition is actually not a whole paragraph, or even a whole sentence. It is part of one sentence of one paragraph of one section of the document. Nevertheless, I think in fairness to Mr. Windsor we should point out that the portion he quoted is the formal definition, could stand alone as a sentence, and is long enough to be a paragraph.

Mr. Windsor then stated: "That's it - the rest of the document is Pope Pius IX's explanations - but the only part which can be called 'infallible' is the definition itself." Again, who said otherwise? I certainly didn't.

Mr. Windsor then states:

Secondly, the definition makes no mention of the temporal punishments due to Original Sin, and we believe she did suffer and die - which are part of these temporal punishments. Some may maintain that she didn't die - and was taken up just prior to her death - THAT definition only specifies "having completed the course of earthly life..."

Yes, those who follow Rome cannot decide amongst themselves whether or not Mary died. And yes, Roman theology, even though it teaches that Mary was preserved from original sin, irrationally permits her to suffer the punishments due to sin. We will gladly grant Mr. Windsor those points - particularly since we have never said otherwise.

Of course, none of that supports Mr. Windsor's claim that Mary had original sin, just not its stain (as though the two were separable). And furthermore, if Mr. Windsor believes that the meaning of the words of the paragraph defining the dogma can be considered in a vacuum, without considering the usage of the words throughout the document, he is mistaken. Even though the rest of the document is not considered "infallible," it still provides the context in which the defining paragraph is to be understood.

Mr. Windsor's attempt to isolate the part of the sentence from its context is noted but futile. We all know that it has to be understood within context in order to be properly understood. Even Mr. Windsor knows that, whether he wants to admit it or not.

Moreover, while the rest of document may not be "infallible," it is still official. It is still papal. Mr. Windsor cannot simply ignore it because it contradicts his position. As between what Pope Pius IX thinks Roman theology is and what layman Windsor thinks Roman theology is, I think it is not "ludicrous" to think that it is Mr. Windsor who has a deficient understanding of Roman teaching.

-TurretinFan

Apology Accepted, Mr. Shea

In which Mr. Shea apologizes for his previous claims (link)(link to more recent previous claims)(and original previous claims). Although he doesn't specifically name me, since his original post was obviously aimed at what I wrote, I'm happy to grant his apology and forgive him for his misstatements.

Ergun Caner Update

Ergun Caner recently preached twice at Clough Pike Baptist Church (as reported here). Ergun preached with, apparently, both of his brothers in attendance. There were a couple of things that struck me as I listened to his messages, but most of all I noticed that most of his criticized material was gone, and he had some new material in his presentation. He did not make claims to know Arabic, or to have been raised in Istanbul, or anything else of that kind (that I noticed). I hope this shows a change in Dr. Caner's approach, and that he will stick to this kind of presentation going forward. It would be nice if he would set the record straight on the points on which Dr. Geisler attempted to defend him, but perhaps he still plans to do so. (A.M. message)(P.M. message)

-TurretinFan

Quick Response to Windsor on Luther and Mary

One of my comments has been addressed by Scott Windsor (of the Roman communion) in a post that is mostly addressed to my friend, James Swan (link to SW's post). I'm just responding to the portion of Mr. Windsor's post that relates to what I said.

Mr. Windsor's comments are as follows (his block quotations are, I believe, from Mr. Swan):

Notice the ambiguity as to which conception is being referred to is no longer... an ambiguity! TurretinFan has rightly commented on this:

"As you can see, context is key. "Mary's conception," or "the conception of Mary" (or replace "Mary" with "Virgin") can refer to two very different things: it can refer to the conception of Mary in the womb of her mother, and it can refer to the conception of Jesus (or any of his ἀδελφοὶ - look up its etymology). In the latter case, Mary is doing the conceiving, in the former case she is receiving the conceiving. The difference in meaning is significant and - in English - the difference can only be determined by looking at the context." [source]

So now Mr. Swan, via the pseudonymic “TurretinFan” (TF) delves into the etymological fallacy. IF the word in question were intended to mean what they say, then an ACCURATE translation would have been, “in the moment of the Virgin’s conception of the Son...” - so if Swan and TF are correct here, then every translator of this passage to English has it wrong. Now, before continuing, let us also consider the fact that this word TF throws at us is a GREEK word... I am unaware of Luther’s Works being in Greek as he primarily wrote in German or Latin, not Greek. Why the Greek here?

Now, the word he cites here is transliterated “adelphos” which is literally “a” (from) “delphus” (the womb) - and further means “a brother.” [source] It is simply illogical that we’re talking about a “brother” here in “the Virgin’s conception.” TF even states it COULD mean the conception of the Virgin - so we’ll take that argument and leave the irrational one behind.

Now add to the fact that the later Luther states, "Every man is corrupted by original sin, with the exception of Christ" (1540). "Christ alone is a son of the flesh without the sin of the flesh" (1544).

Again, this statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the definition of the Immaculate Conception. The definition does not say that the Blessed Virgin did not inherit the “sin of the flesh,” only that she was preserved from the STAIN of that sin in the moment of her conception. Will Mr. Swan admit to this fact?

I answer:

1) Mr. Windsor's allegation of fallacy of etymology is unsupported. In fact, the argument that Mr. Windsor offers doesn't begin to address what a supporting argument for such an assertion would need to address. Mr. Windsor doesn't, for example, identify a word that has had its meaning determined etymologically and then explain what the correct meaning should be.

2) Mr. Windsor's allegation about what an "ACCURATE" (his caps) translation would be just reflect his apparently weak knowledge of the English language. The expression, in English, "the virgin's conception" can (standing by itself) refer to one of two things: (1) the action of the virgin (a virgin shall conceive) or (2) the action on the virgin (Mary's mother's conception of Mary). It's perfectly accurate to say "the virgin's conception" with respect to either of those two meanings.

3) Mr. Windsor's claim "if Swan and TF are correct here, then every translator of this passage to English has it wrong" is based on his apparently inadequate grasp of English, as explained above. It is also somewhat strange, because it is not like there are hundreds or even dozens of English translators of this particular passage of Luther's works. Mr. Windsor doesn't even identify two such translators (at least not anywhere near this discussion), though perhaps there are two.

4) The comment about Jesus ἀδελφοὶ also whizzes over Mr. Windsor's head. There was a primary point and a secondary point to the comment. The primary point was that an expression like "Mary's conception" (standing alone) could refer to her conception of any of the children she brought forth. Of course, in this instance it refers to Jesus' conception, not James' or any of the Lord's other ἀδελφοὶ. The second point was that Jesus, according to Scripture, had ἀδελφοὶ - those who were from the same womb as him - that includes brothers and what Scripture refers to as "αδελφαι" which refers to sisters. That secondary point is not really relevant to the issue of what Luther's talking about, at all. It's just a point that needs to be made against those who mistakenly hold to the idea that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth.

5) Mr. Windsor's attempt to separate the "STAIN" (his bold and caps) from the sin is not something he can support from the official teachings of his church. Read the document that defined the dogma, and you'll see that the "stain" and the "sin" are used essentially interchangeably.

Notice, in the following series how "taint," "stain," and "sin" are used interchangeably and how it is repeatedly affirmed that Mary was free from original sin (in order of appearance, numbers just for ease of reference, in case you should wish to check/correct me)

1. "absolutely free of all stain of sin"
2. "free from all taint of original sin"
3. "conceived without the stain of original sin"
4. "preserved free from all stain of original sin"
5. "preserved from original sin"
6. "preserved from original sin"
7. "was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint,"
8. "all men are born infected by original sin; nevertheless, it solemnly declared that it had no intention of including the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, in this decree and in the general extension of its definition."
9. "free from the original stain"
10. "the Virgin's supreme sanctity, dignity, and immunity from all stain of sin"
11. "her most excellent innocence, purity, holiness and freedom from every stain of sin"
12. "free from all contagion of sin"
13. "the worm of sin had never corrupted"
14. "when one treats of sin, the holy Virgin Mary is not even to be mentioned"
15. "to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely"
16. "entirely free from every stain of sin"
17. "she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin"
18. "holy and removed from every stain of sin"
19. "conceived without original stain"
20. "preserved free from all stain of original sin"
21. "conceived without original sin"

So, unless Mr. Windsor has more than simply his own say-so, we must respectfully insist that it is he, not us, who is unfamiliar with Roman dogma on the subject. He is committing the fallacy of emphasis by assuming that "stain of original sin" is supposed to be different in its sense than "original sin."

6) I was aware of Mr. Windsor's novel interpretation of Ineffabilis Deus, and I had asked him previously to tell me where he got his ideas from - whether from some official source or from his own creativity. He didn't respond then (that I'm aware of), and I don't suppose he'll respond now, although he has the opportunity to respond in the comment box.

-TurretinFan

Severus of Antioch on Scripture

Severus is a 6th century patriarch of Antioch, but one who seems to have viewed the Council of Chalcedon as embracing Nestorianism. Thus, he would not typically be considered a church father by the Eastern Orthodox or Romans, although the Syriac Orthodox Church would presumably consider him to be one of their fathers.

I think you'll find that, whatever the merits or demerits of his Christology may have been, his view of Scripture was similar to that of the fifth century fathers that preceded him (link to discussion of fifth century fathers).

Severus of Antioch (465-538)(patriarch of Antioch from 512–518 - Non-Chalcedonian):

How therefore is it anything but ridiculous and impious for us to say that the Trinity was united in hypostasis to the race of mankind, when the holy Scriptures say more plainly than a trumpet, «The Word became flesh and dwelt in us», that is that one of the three hypostases who was rationally and hypostatically united to soul-possessing flesh?

E. W. Brooks (editor and translator), Severus of Antioch: A collection of letters from numerous Syriac manuscripts, Letter 2 (Second Letter to Oecumenius) (1915), p. 20.

Severus of Antioch (465-538)(patriarch of Antioch from 512–518 - Non-Chalcedonian):

To those who are not wise in their mind or are otherwise without intelligence, and are lacking in true instruction, the holy Scripture gives the proper rule and place, in order that their emptiness of mind and lack of instruction may be turned to wisdom: for indeed it commands those who are such both to learn and to ask, or to be silent altogether; for the holy book of Proverbs somewhere said: «To the fool who asketh wisdom shall be reckoned: but, when a man maketh himself silent, he is thought to be wise». But the man who keeps this rule it raises and advances, and incites to learn things that are of use and profit, and it says, «Give thine heart to wisdom, and prepare thine ears for words of understanding».

E. W. Brooks (editor and translator), Severus of Antioch: A collection of letters from numerous Syriac manuscripts, Letter 25 (to the Emesenes) (1915), pp. 50-51.

Severus of Antioch (465-538)(patriarch of Antioch from 512–518 - Non-Chalcedonian):

But, if we in some place hear Scripture say 'the Lord's eyes', we understand God's activity, which is signified through the term 'eyes'. And, when again we hear of ears, we understand the propensity and inclination that he has toward us, and that he has the attribute of mercifulness, and that he brings our service to completion; for Scripture speaks to our weakness in human and condescending fashion. And, because it is said that God has wings also, yet we do not understand that he has wings, but that his sheltering power is signified through these; for, since we are Christians, we must understand the divine Scriptures spiritually, not according to the letter.

E. W. Brooks (editor and translator), Severus of Antioch: A collection of letters from numerous Syriac manuscripts, Letter 28 (1915), pp. 87-88.